Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                      Washington, DC  20554


Metrocall, Inc.,                 )
                                )
         Complainant,           )
                                )
         v.                     )    File No.  EB-01-MD-008
                                )
Concord Telephone Co.,           )
                                )
         Defendant.             )

                              ORDER

   Adopted:  April 16, 2002             Released:  April 17, 2002

By the Deputy Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, 
Enforcement Bureau:

     1.   On February 8, 2002, the Enforcement Bureau released a 
Memorandum Opinion and Order resolving liability issues in this 
proceeding.1  Defendant Concord Telephone Company (``Concord'') 
filed an Application for Review of the Liability Order on March 
11, 2002.2  Under the Commission's rules, complainant Metrocall, 
Inc.'s (``Metrocall'') opposition to Concord's Application for 
Review was due March 26, 2002.3  

     2.   On March 26, 2002, Metrocall filed its first Consent 
Motion for Extension of Time.4  Metrocall requested a brief 
extension of time, up to and including April 5, 2002, to file its 
opposition to Concord's Application for Review.  Metrocall 
represented that the parties were involved in settlement 
discussions and that the possibility of settlement would be 
reduced if Metrocall were required to file its opposition at that 
time.5  Further, Metrocall represented that Concord had consented 
to Metrocall's requested extension.6  Accordingly, for the 
reasons stated in the consent motion, we granted the requested 
extension.

     3.   On April 5, 2002, Metrocall filed a second Consent 
Motion for Extension of Time.7  Metrocall requested a brief 
extension, up to and including April 12, 2002, to file its 
opposition to Concord's Application for Review.8  Metrocall again 
represented that the extension would help facilitate ongoing 
settlement discussions and that Concord had consented to the 
requested extension.9  

     4.   On April 9, 2002, Metrocall filed a Consent Motion for 
Extension of Time,10 requesting a brief extension of time, up to 
and including April 22, 2002, to file a supplemental complaint 
for damages.  Pursuant to section 1.722(e) of the Commission's 
rules,11 Metrocall's supplemental complaint for damages was due 
sixty days after release of the Liability Order, or April 9, 
2002.  Metrocall reported in its consent motion that the parties 
had reached a tentative agreement to settle their dispute and, 
thus, the extension would conserve the parties' and the 
Commission's resources and would help facilitate conclusion of 
the settlement.12  Further, Metrocall represented that Concord 
consented to the requested extension.13

     5.   On April 12, 2002, Metrocall filed another Consent 
Motion for Extension of Time.14  Metrocall requested another 
brief extension of time, up to and including April 22, 2002, to 
file its opposition to Concord's Application for Review.  
Metrocall noted that the Commission had not yet ruled on its 
April 12 Consent Motion for Extension of Time.15  Metrocall 
further reported on the parties' progress towards settlement and 
that Concord had consented to its latest requested extension of 
time.16  

     6.   Thus, currently pending are Metrocall's April 5 and 
April 12 Consent Motions for Extension of Time to file 
oppositions to Concord's Application for Review and Metrocall's 
April 9 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to file its 
supplemental complaint for damages.  We are satisfied that 
granting Metrocall's three pending consent motions will serve the 
public interest by promoting the private resolution of disputes 
and by postponing the need for further litigation and expenditure 
of further time and resources of the parties and of this 
Commission until such time as may actually be necessary.

     7.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 
4(j), and 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), and 208, and sections 1.115 and 1.722 
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115, 1.722, 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 Metrocall's 
Consent Motions for Extension of Time, filed on April 5, April 9, 
and April 12, 2002, ARE GRANTED.

     8.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise extended 
by order, the deadlines for Metrocall to file its opposition to 
Concord's Application for Review under section 1.115 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115, and to file a supplemental 
complaint for damages under section 1.722 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.722, are extended to April 22, 2002.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


                              Radhika V. Karmarkar
                              Deputy Chief, Market Disputes 
                         Resolution Division
                              Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1    Metrocall, Inc. v. Concord Telephone Co., DA 02-301 (Enf. 
Bur., rel. Feb. 8, 2002) (``Liability Order'').
2    Concord Telephone Co. Application for Review, File No. EB-
01-MD-008 (filed Mar. 11, 2002).
3    See 47 C.F.R.  1.115(d).
4    Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File 
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Mar. 26, 2002).  
5    Id. at 2.
6    Id.
7    Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File 
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Apr. 5, 2002).
8    Id. at 2.
9    Id.
10   Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File 
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Apr. 9, 2002) (``April 9 Motion'').
11   47 C.F.R.  1.722(e).
12   April 9 Motion at 2.
13   Id. 
14   Metrocall, Inc. Consent Motion for Extension of Time, File 
No. EB-01-MD-008 (filed Apr. 15, 2002).
15   Id. at 2.
16   Id.