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, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
APCC Services, Inc.,             )
Data Net Systems, LLC,           )
Davel Communications, Inc.,      )    File No. EB-03-MD-011
Jaroth, Inc. d/b/a Pacific       )
Telemanagement                   )
Services, and                    )
Intera Communications Corp.,     )
                                )
Complainants,                    )
                                )
              v.
                                )
Network IP, LLC, and            )
Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP,  )
                                )
Defendants.                     )                                 

                              ORDER

          Adopted:  October 26, 2005Released:  October 27, 2005

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION 

     1.   In this Order, pursuant to sections 1.3 and 1.727 of 
the Commission's rules,1 we grant in substantial part a motion2 
filed by Complainants (collectively, ``APCC'') for waiver of the 
six-month filing deadline set forth in section 1.718 of the 
Commission's rules.3  For statute of limitations purposes, rule 
1.718 allows the filing date of a formal complaint to ``relate 
back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint 
regarding the same claim, but only if, inter alia, the formal 
complaint is filed within six months of the defendant's response 
to the informal complaint.  Here, APCC's counsel attempted to 
file APCC's formal complaint on the very last day of the 
applicable six-month period.  The formal complaint was 
automatically rejected, however, because APCC's counsel 
submitted the wrong filing fee.  Consequently, absent a waiver 
and brief extension of the six-month filing deadline in rule 
1.718, the statute of limitations will bar a significant portion 
of APCC's damages claim, perhaps amounting to a potential loss 
of millions of dollars.  

     2.   For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the 
hardship APCC would suffer as a result of their counsel's 
administrative errors outweighs the need to enforce our 
procedural rules strictly, especially given that NET's and the 
Commission's interest in finality would not be materially 
undermined by a brief extension of the deadline. Thus, under the 
unique circumstances here, we find that the public interest is 
better served by granting the waiver to allow some small 
flexibility in the deadline established by rule 1.718.

II.  BACKGROUND

     3.   Complainants are, inter alia, billing and collection 
agents for numerous independent payphone service providers 
(``PSPs'').4  NET is a switch-based reseller.5  On behalf of 
Complainants' PSP principals, the Formal Damages Complaint seeks 
recovery of ``dial-around'' payphone compensation from 
Defendants under rule 64.1300,6 which implements (along with 
other rules) section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (the ``Act'').7

     4.   Under rule 1.718, for purposes of tolling the statute 
of limitations, the filing date of a formal complaint can 
``relate back'' to the filing date of a prior informal complaint 
involving the same parties and the same matter, but only if the 
formal complaint is filed within six months after the 
defendant's response to the informal complaint.8   Here, on 
September 30, 2002, APCC  filed an informal complaint against 
NET9 seeking recovery of payphone compensation from one quarter 
before the quarter ending on September 30, 200010 (two years 
before the filing date, the limitations period under section 415 
of the Act11) to November 23, 2001 (the regulatory cut-off date 
for the kind of compensation at issue12).  NET filed its 
response to APCC's informal complaint on November 19, 2002.13  
Therefore, pursuant to the six-month deadline under rule 1.718, 
May 19, 2003 was the last date on which APCC could file a formal 
complaint that would relate back to September 30, 2002 (the 
filing date of the informal complaint) and thereby retain the 
full potential recovery period of April 1, 2000 - November 23, 
2001.

     5.   On May 19, 2003, the filing deadline under rule 1.718, 
APCC's counsel attempted to file a formal complaint against NET.  
APCC's counsel submitted the wrong filing fee, however:  $165 
per defendant instead of the $170 required by Commission rules 
at that time.14  In addition, APCC's counsel submitted a single 
check rather than a check for each defendant.  Because APCC 
submitted an inadequate filing fee, Mellon Bank automatically 
rejected and returned the formal complaint.15  As a result, the 
formal complaint was not ``filed'' on May 19, 2003, and APCC 
missed the six-month deadline under rule 1.718.16

     6.   According to APCC, it submitted the wrong filing fee 
(and thus missed the six-month deadline under rule 1.718) 
because its counsel consulted only the hard-copy version of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR''), dated October 1, 2002, 
which contained a filing fee amount -- $165 per defendant -- 
that had been superseded by the time APCC filed its formal 
complaint in May 2003.  The new fee of $170 per defendant, 
although adopted in July 2002, did not become effective until 
after publication of the October 1, 2002 CFR, and so was not 
reflected therein.17

     7.   On June 3, 2003, APCC filed a revised version of the 
formal complaint, along with the correct filing fee.18  That 
same day, APCC also filed the instant motion for waiver and 
extension of rule 1.718's six-month relation-back deadline from 
May 19, 2003 to June 3, 2003.19  APCC argues that we should 
waive and extend the filing deadline because (i) APCC's counsel 
made a good faith effort to file on time; (ii) the fee error was 
de minimis and administrative; and (iii) denying a waiver would 
impose a severe and undue penalty on Complainants' small PSP 
clients.20 NET vehemently opposes the Motion, arguing, inter 
alia, that (i) APCC has not met its heavy burden of showing 
``special circumstances'' warranting a waiver of the 
Commission's filing deadline, and (ii) the errors of APCC's 
counsel here are precisely the kind of negligent acts that the 
Commission has repeatedly refused to excuse, despite the 
prospect of harsh consequences.21 

II.  DISCUSSION

     8.   Our resolution of APCC's Waiver Motion will affect the 
amount of payphone compensation damages to which Complainants' 
PSP clients may be entitled.22  Specifically, the potential 
recovery period will be about nine months shorter if we deny the 
Waiver Motion than if we grant the Waiver Motion.23  Although 
the record does not yet permit us to ascribe a precise dollar 
value to that time differential, that differential may well 
amount to millions of dollars.24

     9.   The standards governing our assessment of APCC's 
request to waive rule 1.718 are well established:

       Generally, the Commission may grant a waiver for 
       good cause shown.  The Commission may exercise its 
       discretion to waive a rule where the particular 
       facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the 
       public interest.  In addition, the Commission may 
       take into account considerations of hardship, 
       equity, or more effective implementation of overall 
       policy on an individual basis.  Waiver is therefore 
       appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a 
       deviation from the general rule, and such a 
       deviation will serve the public interest.25

Put differently, ``[w]hile an applicant for a waiver faces a 
heavy burden of persuasion, the Commission must give a `hard 
look' to meritorious waiver requests and may grant such requests 
where the waiver will not undermine the policy of the general 
rule and where public interest considerations require the 
waiver.''26     Applying those standards to the facts here, we 
largely grant but partially deny APCC's Waiver Motion, for the 
reasons described below.

     10.  APCC missed the six-month filing deadline under rule 
1.718 because its counsel made two easily avoidable mistakes:  
(i) consulting only the hard-copy version of the CFR to learn 
the filing fee, rather than also consulting readily available, 
and more frequently updated, on-line versions of the CFR (e.g., 
Westlaw, LEXIS); and (ii) waiting until the last day to file the 
formal complaint.  NET contends that we should not relieve 
Complainants of the consequences of their counsel's negligence, 
just as the Commission has refrained from doing so in numerous, 
allegedly analogous circumstances.27  For the following reasons, 
we disagree with NET.  

     11.  ``Considerations of hardship, equity, [and] more 
effective implementation of overall policy'' support waiver of 
rule 1.718 under the particular facts here.28   Denying a waiver 
could deprive APCC's principals - numerous independent payphone 
service providers -- of the right to millions of dollars in 
compensation.  That would cause APCC's principals to bear 
substantial hardship due to the lack of reasonable care taken by 
APPC's counsel.  Moreover, that would allow APCC's counsel's 
failures to impinge upon an overall policy of section 276 of the 
Act -- ``to ensure that all payphone service providers are 
fairly compensated for each and every completed intrastate and 
interstate call using their payphone....''29  Given these unique 
circumstances, this case is a situation where the ``Commission 
may exercise its discretion to waive a rule ... [because] the 
particular facts make strict compliance inconsistent with the 
public interest.''30  

     12.  We recognize that the errors by APCC's counsel are 
difficult to excuse,  given that they were easily avoidable, and 
APCC's law firm is highly experienced, resourceful, and 
knowledgeable in communications law, and therefore should be 
expected to know and closely adhere to Commission processes.  On 
the other hand, APCC's counsel did try to file the formal 
complaint on time, and they corrected their error and filed 
another formal complaint 15 days later.  There is no evidence of 
any attempt to ``game'' the system to obtain some undue 
advantage.  During the weeks leading up to the deadline, APCC 
was in frequent contact with NET, discussing the status of the 
dispute and the prospects for pre-complaint settlement.31  NET 
knew all along that, in the absence of a settlement, APCC 
planned to file a formal complaint; and APCC attempted in good 
faith to do just that, finally succeeding shortly after the 
deadline passed.  For all these reasons, waiving the filing 
deadline would not materially undermine a primary purpose of 
rule 1.718 at stake here, which is to ensure finality, 
certainty, and repose for prospective defendants.  

     13.  We cannot completely overlook, however, the fact that 
the efficient and effective functioning of the Commission's 
complaint processes, both informal and formal, requires close 
attention and adherence to the Commission's procedural rules, 
including filing fees and deadlines like that established in 
rule 1.718.  Thus, we will consider the carelessness of APCC's 
counsel in crafting the scope of our waiver.32  

     14.  In light of all of the specific facts previously 
described, we conclude that the public interest would best be 
served by waiving and extending rule 1.718's filing deadline - 
and thereby allowing the formal complaint's filing date of June 
3, 2003 to relate back to the informal complaint's filing date 
of September 30, 2002 - for all aspects of APCC's compensation 
claim, except for prejudgment interest accrued during the 15-day 
period between when APCC should have filed its formal complaint 
with the correct fee (May 19, 2003) and when APCC did file its 
formal complaint with the correct fee (June 3, 2003). 33  This 
substantial, but not complete, grant of APCC's Waiver Motion 
achieves an appropriate balance of the public interests in 
avoiding undue hardship, promoting the Act's substantive policy 
objectives, and discouraging disregard of the Commission's 
procedural requirements.34 

IV.  CONCLUSION

     15.  The Commission has discretion in granting or rejecting 
waiver requests, and in fashioning any grant of a waiver.  In 
the unique circumstances here, we find that the errors that 
APCC's counsel committed should not deprive Complainants' PSP 
principals of the chance to recover compensation for the period 
in question, especially because allowing the waiver does not 
materially detract from NET's and the Commission's interest in 
finality.  Further, APCC's counsel did make a good faith effort 
to comply with the filing deadline, and promptly corrected the 
failure to do so.  As described above, we have crafted a grant 
that serves the public interest in this case, while admonishing 
APCC's counsel to pay appropriate regard to the Commission's 
procedural rules.

V.   ORDERING CLAUSE

     16.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 
4(i), 4(j), 201(b), 208, and 276 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 201(b), 208, 
and 276, and sections 1.3, 1.711-1.736, and 64.1300-64.1320 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, 1.711-1.736, 64.1300-
64.1320, and the authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.111 
and 0.311 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 
that Complainants' motion for partial waiver of section 1.718 of 
the Commission's rules IS GRANTED to the extent set forth above, 
and is otherwise DENIED.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                         

                         

                         Kris A. Monteith 
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau
                         

_________________________

1 47 C.F.R.  1.3, 1.727.
2 APCC Services, et. al., v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced 
Telecom, LLP, Complainants' Motion for Partial Waiver of Section 
1.718 of the Commission's Rules, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed 
June 3, 2003) (``Waiver Motion'').  Defendants (collectively, 
``NET'') opposed the motion, and APCC replied.  See APCC 
Services, et. al., v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced 
Telecom, LLP, Opposition to Complainants' Motion for Partial 
Waiver of Section 1.718 of the Commission's Rules, File No. EB-
03-MD-011 (filed June 9, 2003) (``Opposition to Waiver Motion''); 
APCC Services, et. al., v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced 
Telecom, LLP, Complainants' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to 
Complainants' Motion for Partial Waiver of Section 1.718, File 
No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed June 17, 2003) (``Reply'').  Because rule 
1.727(h) precludes a reply to an opposition to a motion, 47 
C.F.R.  1.727(h), APCC filed a motion for leave to file a reply 
along with their Reply.  APCC Services, et. al., v. NetworkIP, 
LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Complainants' Conditional 
Motion for Leave to File a Reply, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed 
June 17, 2003).  NET opposed the motion.  APCC Services, et. al., 
v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Defendants' 
Opposition to Complainants' Conditional Motion for Leave to File 
a Reply, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed June 23, 2003).  Because we 
do not rely on any submission other than the Waiver Motion and 
the Opposition to Waiver Motion, we dismiss as moot APCC's motion 
for leave to file a reply.
3 47 C.F.R.  1.718.
4 See, e.g., APCC Services, et al., v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network 
Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Supplemental Complaint for Damages, File 
No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed Apr. 4, 2004) (``Formal Damages 
Complaint'') at 2.  Although the Formal Damages Complaint does 
not specify the number of PSPs represented by Complainants, it is 
clear that such PSPs are quite numerous.  See, e.g., Formal 
Damages Complaint at Attachments 16, 21, 25 and 29.  
5 Formal Damages Complaint at 2; APCC Services, et al., v. 
NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Answer to 
Damages Complaint, at 2, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed May 31, 
2005) (``Answer'').  
6 47 C.F.R.  64.1300.  See Formal Damages Complaint, supra.  
7 47 U.S.C.  276.
8 47 C.F.R.  1.718 (providing, in pertinent part, that a formal 
complaint ``will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of 
the informal complaint:  Provided, That the formal complaint: (a) 
Is filed within six months from the date of the carrier's [i.e., 
the defendant's] report . . . '').
9 APCC Services, et al., v. NetworkIP, LLC, Informal Complaint, 
File No. EB-02-MDIC-0071 (filed Sept. 30, 2002).  
10 Due to certain unique characteristics of payphone billing and 
payment cycles, payphone compensation claims can extend back a 
quarter of a year farther than most other kinds of claims.  Thus, 
an informal complaint filed on September 30, 2002 allows recovery 
back to April 1, 2000.  See generally Pay Telephone 
Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Third Report and Order, 14 FCC 
Rcd 2545, 2631 at paras. 187-190 (1999) (subsequent history 
omitted); see also, APCC Services et al. v. TS Interactive, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10456, 10459 at para. 18 
(Enf. Bur. 2004); APCC Services, et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and 
Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Letter from Commission Staff to 
Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. Oct. 6, 2005) (``ISC 
Order'').
11 47 U.S.C.  415.
12 See, e.g., Formal Damages Complaint at 6, n.8; 8-9, paras. 11-
12.  See generally Pay Telephone Reclassification and 
Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19975, 19983-86 at paras. 16-24 
(2003) (subsequent history omitted); Pay Telephone 
Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Second Order on Reconsideration, 
16 FCC Rcd 8098, 8105 at para. 16 (2001) (subsequent history 
omitted).
13 Answer at 3.
14 47 C.F.R.  1.1106.
15 See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1116(a).
16 47 C.F.R.  1.1116(a)(2).
17 Waiver Motion at 4-5, 7-9. 
18 APCC Services, et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced 
Telecom, LLP, Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed June 
3, 2003) (``Formal Liability Complaint'').  See APCC Services, et 
al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, 
Defendants' Answer to Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-011 
(filed July 28, 2003) (``Liability Answer''); APCC Services, et 
al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, 
Complainants' Reply to Defendants' Answer, File No. EB-03-MD-011 
(filed Sept. 24, 2003) (``Liability Reply''). 
19 Waiver Motion, supra.
20 Waiver Motion at 5, 7-9, 12, 15-17.
21 Opposition to Waiver Motion at 5-15.  NET also argues that 
APCC's Waiver Motion actually seeks dispositive rulings on three 
issues, thus bringing the Motion under rule 1.727(b), whose 
pleading requirements the Motion does not meet.  Id. at 15-18.  
We reject NET's assertion, because it is clear that the Waiver 
Motion seeks merely a waiver of the rule in question, 47 C.F.R.  
1.718, and the dispositive issues mentioned by NET are argued not 
in the Waiver Motion but in the Formal Liability Complaint.
22 In its formal complaint filed on June 3, 2003, APCC asked that 
the issue of liability be addressed first, and that the issue of 
damages be decided in a subsequent phase of the proceeding if 
APCC prevailed in the first phase.  Formal Liability Complaint at 
1-2.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.722 (providing for such ``bifurcation'' 
of liability and damages determinations).  During the liability 
phase of this proceeding, we deferred ruling on the instant 
Waiver Motion until the damages phase (if any), because the 
outcome of the Motion would affect only the amount of damages, 
not NET's liability.  APCC Services, et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and 
Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Notice of Formal Complaint, File 
No. EB-03-MD-011 (rel. July 8, 2003).  We then ruled in APCC's 
favor on liability on February 1, 2005, APCC Services, et al. v. 
NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (``Bureau 
Liability Order''), whereupon APCC filed a supplemental complaint 
for damages on April 4, 2005.   APCC's Waiver Motion is now ripe 
for decision, because such decision will determine the length of 
the potential damages recovery period.  We note further that NET 
filed an application for review of the Bureau Liability Order on 
March 1, 2005, which is pending.  APCC Services, et al., v.  
NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, Application for 
Review of Liability Order, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed March 1, 
2005).
23 With the waiver, the relevant period for damages is April 1, 
2000 to November 23, 2001; without the waiver, it is January 3, 
2001 to November 23, 2001.  See, e.g., ISC Order at 2; APCC 
Services, et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, 
LLP, Letter from Commission Staff to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-
011 (rel. June 21, 2005) (``June 21 Letter'') at 3; APCC 
Services, et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, 
LLP, Letter from Commission Staff to Counsel, File No. EB-03-MD-
011 (rel. Oct. 6, 2005).  See supra, n.10. 
24 See Formal Damages Complaint at Attachment 22; APCC Services, 
et al. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom, LLP, 
Defendants' Call Completion Data, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed 
Sept. 2, 2005); ISC Order at 4.
25 Application for Review by Information Technology Dept. of 
State of North Dakota, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 21521, 21524 at para. 9 
(2003) (``North Dakota Order'').  
26 Application of Winstar Broadcasting, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 6126, 6128 at para. 9 (2003) (``Winstar 
Order'').  See, e.g., Delta Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 387 F.3d 897, 
900-901 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Mountain Solutions, Ltd., Inc. v FCC, 
197 F.3d 512, 517-522 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Northeast Cellular 
Telephone v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
27 Opposition to Waiver Motion at 5-15.  See, e.g., North Dakota 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 21521(denying one-day waiver of USF filing 
deadline, even though mere administrative errors caused 
applicant's day-late postmark); Application for Review of Denial 
of Vista Communications, Inc.'s Request for Waiver, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 16957 (2003) (denying waiver of 
installment payment deadlines, because applicant's confusion and 
uncertainty over its installment payment schedule, and its lack 
of knowledge regarding the grace period provisions, did not 
amount to good cause), aff'd, Vista Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 
2004 WL 1171431 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Southern Communications 
Systems, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 25103 
(2000) (denying four-day waiver of payment deadline, because 
employee's illness, lack of internal coordination, and sloppy 
record-keeping did not amount to good cause) (Furchtgott-Roth 
dissenting), aff'd, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC 
Rcd 18357 (2001); Inforum Communications, Inc. Waiver Request for 
Late Acceptance of BTA Installment Payment, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 83 
(ASA Div., Wireless Tel. Bur. 2004) (denying 2-day waiver of 
payment deadline, because absence of officers authorized to make 
payment did not amount to good cause); Request for Review of the 
Decision of the Universal Service Administrator by School 
District of Durand, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 9697 (TAP Div., Wireline 
Comp. Bur. 2003) (denying waiver of USF filing deadline, because 
confusion about complicated requirements does not amount to good 
cause).  
28 North Dakota Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 21524, para. 9.
29 47 U.S.C.  276(b)(1)(A).
30 North Dakota Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 21524, para. 9.  See, e.g., 
Metricom, Inc. Request for Waiver of Section 27.208(A) of the 
Commission's Rules, Order, 13 FCC Rcd 890 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 
1998) (granting two-day waiver of payment deadline, because delay 
caused by applicant's bank's error in transmitting payment to 
Mellon Bank); Southern Communications Systems, Inc. Request for 
Waiver of Section 24.711(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules, Order, 
12 FCC Rcd 1532 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 1997) (granting one-day 
waiver of payment deadline, because of applicant's prior record 
of compliance, prompt remedial action, and good faith effort to 
pay on time); MFRI, Inc. Request for Waiver of Section 
24.711(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 1540 
(Wireless Tel. Bur. 1997) (granting one-day waiver of payment 
deadline, because applicant attempted to pay on time and failed 
only due to administrative errors); Longstreet Communications 
Int'l, Inc. Request for Waiver of Section 24.711(a)(2) of the 
Commission's Rules, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 1549 (Wireless Tel. Bur. 
1997) (granting nine-day waiver of payment deadline, because of 
applicant's prior record of compliance, prompt remedial action, 
and good faith effort to pay on time); Application of Fred Farley 
for Authority to Construct and Operate a Domestic Public Cellular 
Radio Telecommunications Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 
FCC Rcd 4670 (Com. Car. Bur. 1989) (granting three-day waiver of 
filing deadline, because improper filing on due-date caused by 
clerical error).
31 Waiver Motion at 4, n.5; Opposition to Waiver Motion at 4-5; 
Liability Answer at 17.
32  See n. 27, supra.
33 In other words, the calculation of prejudgment interest on 
APCC's award of payphone compensation in this damages proceeding 
will exclude the period from May 19, 2003 to June 3, 2003.
34 Cf., e.g., Metricom, supra; Southern Communications, supra; 
MFRI, supra; Longstreet Communications, supra (all four orders 
waiving deadlines, but denying movants a ``complete waiver'' and 
requiring movants to pay penalties for missing deadlines).  NET 
also argues that we should deny the Waiver Motion because, even 
had APCC made appropriate fee payments, the formal complaint 
would have been dismissed for failure to comply with the 
Commission's pleading requirements.  Opposition to Waiver at 10-
12.  We decline to engage in such post-hoc speculation here.  It 
is possible that supplementation rather than dismissal would have 
been ordered.  Thus, NET's argument does not counsel against 
waiver here.