********************************************************    
                                         NOTICE
    ********************************************************
                                
                This document was converted from
           WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
                                
   Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
             will not show up in this text version.
                                
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
    original document will not show up in this text version.
                                
        Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
           will not be preserved in the text version.
                                
        If you need the complete document, download the
  WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
                                
*****************************************************************
                                                           Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of

Roger M. Barnes,
Robin A. Barnes, and
Faasolo Tavai,

          Complainants,
     
     v.
     
LDDS/WorldCom,
Petroleum Communications, Inc., 
PetroCom License Corporation,
RVC Services, Inc., d/b/a Coastel
Communications Co., and 
Bachow/Coastel, LLC,

          Defendants.
          
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



File Nos.   WB-ENF-F-97-005
       WB-ENF-F-97-006
       WB-ENF-F-97-007
       WB-ENF-F-97-008
       WB-ENF-F-97-009
       

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


   Adopted:  February 28, 2000          Released:  February 29, 2000

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.INTRODUCTION
1.In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we deny the formal complaint jointly filed by
Roger M. Barnes, Robin A. Barnes, and Faasolo Tavai ("complainants") against Petroleum
Communications, Inc., PetroCom License Corporation, RVC Services, Inc. d/b/a Coastel
Communications Company, Bachow/Coastel, LLC (collectively, "the aggregator defendants") and
LDDS/WorldCom ("WorldCom").  Complainants allege that the aggregator defendants and
WorldCom violated the Telephone Operator Consumer Services Information Act ("TOCSIA"),
section 201(b) of the Communications Act, and our rules by blocking outgoing calls from being
made on the cellular pay telephones operated on oil and gas rigs by the aggregator defendants
when such calls were made using carriers other than WorldCom.  For the reasons stated below,
                     we deny the complaint.
                       II.BACKGROUND
3.To place telephone calls from oil and gas rigs at sea, workers often use wireless pay
telephones.  Like landline payphones, each wireless payphone is presubscribed to an operator
service provider ("OSP") that allows a person to make calls billed to his or her calling card. 
Under TOCSIA, however, the payphone owner (referred to as an "aggregator") may not
prevent a caller from reaching the long-distance carrier of his or her choice by dialing that
carrier's access code.  This practice is often referred to as "dial-around" access.  Among other
things, TOCSIA requires aggregators to ensure:  (1) that their telephones allow consumers to
perform this dial-around function; and (2) that consumers are not charged higher rates due to their
use of dial-around access.  In addition, OSPs must disclose their rates to consumers upon request
    and must oversee aggregator compliance with the statute.
4.During the time period relevant to this case, complainants Roger Barnes and Faasolo
Tavai have worked on oil and gas rigs in the Gulf of Mexico.  Complainant Robin Barnes is the
spouse of Roger Barnes.  Together, complainants allege that the aggregator defendants violated
TOCSIA between December 1993 and the date of the complaint by failing to program their
cellular payphones to accept dial-around access codes, thereby giving complainants no choice but
to use the long-distance service of the presubscribed OSP, WorldCom, at that carrier's rates. 
Complainants further assert that WorldCom violated TOCSIA by not disclosing its rates upon
request and by not adequately overseeing the aggregator defendants.  Complainants also argue
that these alleged actions by WorldCom and the aggregator defendants violated section 201(b) of
the Communications Act of 1934 ("Act"), which prohibits unjust or unreasonable practices by
telecommunications carriers.  Finally, complainants contend that their allegations demonstrate
that defendant PetroCom lied to the Commission in another proceeding when it claimed to be
 complying with TOCSIA.  Defendants deny all these allegations.
                       V.DISCUSSION
6.It is well established that a complainant has the burden of proof in a formal complaint
proceeding under section 208 of the Act.  Thus, the complainants in this case must present
affidavits or other relevant information establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
WorldCom and the aggregator defendants violated the Act or our rules.  We find that
complainants have not met their burden of proof and deny the complaint.
7.Beginning with their first formal complaint in early 1997, complainants have had more
than three years to prove their allegations against defendants.  Indeed, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau dismissed an earlier version of the complaint for failure to state a
claim and expressly warned complainants that any amended complaint should allege specific facts
in support of complainants' allegations.  Despite that warning, complainants' second amended
complaint is essentially identical to its predecessors, and complainants have come forward with
  virtually no substantive evidence supporting their claims.  
8.The Commission's general pleading and format requirements provide that a formal
complaint's allegations must be supported by affidavits or other relevant documentation. Instead
of such evidence, however, complainants generally rely upon the vague and unsupported
allegations in their complaint.  For example, the Second Amended Complaint asserts that Roger
Barnes attempted to obtain rate quotes from WorldCom, but complainants provide no
documents or affidavits with specifics about these attempts, such as the dates they occurred, with
whom Barnes spoke, or the substance of these alleged conversations.  Similarly, complainants
allege that they repeatedly attempted but failed to obtain dial-around access, but they provide no
              evidence in support of these claims.
9.The only evidence offered by complainants in support of their claims is a stack of
telephone bills purporting to show charges allegedly imposed by WorldCom and the aggregator
defendants.  These bills -- accompanied only by a brief summary and without any explanation or
affidavits -- list only two potentially relevant calls billed by WorldCom.  Moreover, the records
do not identify which aggregator defendants, if any, operated the cellular telephones used for
these calls.  Absent evidence that a specific aggregator defendant operated the telephones in
question, we cannot reasonably conclude that any of the aggregator defendants violated TOCSIA
or that WorldCom inadequately oversaw any of the aggregator defendants.  
10.In any event, even this evidence is irrelevant under the statute of limitations governing
this case.  Complainants generally may seek damages only for the two years before the date they
filed their complaint.  Under the Commission's rules, where a complaint has been dismissed for
failure to state a claim, as with complainants' First Amended Complaint here, the statute of
limitations period is not tolled.  Thus, since complainants did not file their Second Amended
Complaint until July 6, 1999, they cannot seek relief against defendants based solely on actions
that occurred more than two years beforehand.  Complainants have no evidence whatsoever
against WorldCom or any aggregator defendant for this period and have not demonstrated that
any potential violation prior to June 6, 1997, constituted part of a "continuing violation" that
extended beyond that date.  Accordingly, complainants' claims are barred by the statute of
                          limitations.
11.Complainants assert that they cannot tie individual defendants to specific charges
without additional discovery.  Complainants therefore have requested that the aggregator
defendants identify, by location and telephone number, all their cellular pay telephones located in
the Gulf of Mexico or aboard vessels that transit the Gulf.  We find, however, that complainants
have not provided sufficient evidence of violations of the Act or our rules to warrant such
extensive discovery.  As noted above, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are
extremely vague, and complainants have attached no affidavits and little documentary evidence to
support their claims.  Nor have complainants explained what steps they took to identify the
aggregators responsible for specific payphones or why such discovery is necessary to identify the
       defendants responsible for the alleged violations.
12.As the Commission has stated, "[f]ormal complaint proceedings, unlike court litigation
or administrative-trial type hearings, are often resolved solely on the written pleadings. These
pleadings must therefore stand on their own and provide the factual underpinnings for a decision
on the merits."  The Commission's rules place on complainants the burden of pleading and
documenting a violation of the Act.  We find that the record does not support a finding that the
defendants violated TOCSIA, section 201(b) of the Act, or the Commission's rules, and
                 therefore deny the complaint.
                      XIII.conclusion
14.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201(b), and 208 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), and 208, and the
authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111,
0.311, that the formal complaint, jointly filed by Roger M. Barnes, Robin A. Barnes, and Faasolo
Tavai against LDDS/WorldCom, Petroleum Communications, Inc., PetroCom License
Corporation, RVC Services, Inc. d/b/a Coastel Communications Company, and Bachow/Coastel,
                         LLC IS DENIED.
15.It is FURTHER ORDERED, all unresolved pleadings in this case ARE DISMISSED
                            as moot.
                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                              
                              
                              
                              
                              David H. Solomon
                              Chief, Enforcement Bureau