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



AT&T Corp. and                )
AT&T of the Virgin Islands              )
                              )
Complainants,                      )
                              )
     v.                       )    File No. EB-01-MDIC-0552
                              )
Virgin Islands Telephone           )
Corporation d/b/a/                 )
Innovative Telephone                    )
                              )
Defendant.                         )


                            ORDER
     

       Adopted:  January 6, 2004        Released:  January 
     7, 2004

By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, 
Enforcement Bureau:
     1.   On September 10, 2001, pursuant to section 1.716 
of the Commission's rules,1 AT&T Corp. and its wholly-owned 
subsidiary, AT&T of the Virgin Islands (``AT&T'' or 
``Complainants''), filed an informal complaint 
(``Complaint'') alleging that Virgin Islands Telephone 
Corporation d/b/a Innovative Telephone (``Vitelco'') had 
unlawful earnings during 1997 and 1998, and requesting that 
Vitelco be ordered to return a portion of the overearnings.2  
Vitelco replied to AT&T's Complaint on July 11, 2003.3  
Pursuant to section 1.718 of the Commission's rules,4 the 
Complainants are required to convert their informal 
complaint into a formal complaint within six months of the 
date that the Defendant replies to the informal complaint or 
such informal complaint will be deemed to be abandoned.  In 
this case, the Complainants are required to convert their 
informal complaint into a formal complaint by January 12, 
2004.5
     2.   Since the filing of Vitelco's Answer, the parties 
have engaged in negotiations to resolve this dispute.6  On 
December 22, 2003, AT&T and Vitelco further attempted to 
reach a negotiated settlement by participating in a 
mediation session conducted by the Enforcement Bureau.7  On 
December 30, 2003, the parties requested an extension of 
time for AT&T to file a formal complaint in this matter.8  
The parties seek a temporary waiver of section 1.718 of the 
Commission's rules, and, in particular, request an extension 
of the deadline for filing a formal complaint from January 
12, 2004 to January 30, 2004.9  The Motion explains that the 
parties are continuing to attempt to resolve this dispute 
without further litigation, and that an extension is 
necessary to continue negotiations and work toward settling 
this matter.10
     3.   We are satisfied that granting the Motion 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.
     4.        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 1.3 and 1.718 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 
§§ 1.3, 1.718, 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 Request for Extension of Time to File 
Complainants' Formal Complaint IS GRANTED.
     5.        IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise 
extended by order, the deadlines that would otherwise apply 
under section 1.718 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, are 
hereby waived, and the date that AT&T Corp. and AT&T of the 
Virgin Islands must convert their informal complaint against Virgin Islands Telephone Corporation d/b/a 
Innovative Telephone to a formal complaint pursuant to 
section 1.718 of our rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.718, is extended 
to January 30, 2004.

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         
                         Alexander P. Starr,
                         Chief, Market Disputes Resolution 
                    Division
                         Enforcement Bureau
_________________________

1         47 C.F.R. § 1.716.
2         Consent Motion of Complainants for Extension of 
Time in Which to Convert Informal Complaint and Toll 
Limitations Period, File No. EB-01-MDIC-0552 (December 30, 
2003) (``Motion'').  
3         Id. at 1.  The Enforcement Bureau previously 
directed Vitelco not to respond to AT&T's Complaint until 90 
days after issuance of a final decision on the merits in a 
case then under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia, the outcome of which was likely to 
affect the resolution of the Complaint.  Order, File No. EB-
01-MDIC-0552 (Enf. Bur. Nov. 21, 2001).  See ACS of 
Anchorage v. FCC, 290 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. May 21, 2002); 
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 12, 2002.  
4         47 C.F.R. § 1.718. 
5         Because January 11, 2004, is a Sunday, AT&T's 
formal complaint would have to be filed not later than 
Monday, January 12, 2004.  See Section 1.4 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.4. 
6          Motion at 2.
7         Id.
8         Id.; Letter from Rebekah P. Goodheart, attorney 
for Vitelco, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission (December 30, 2003) 
(``Concurrence'').  In its Concurrence, Vitelco emphasizes 
that its support for AT&T's Motion is limited to that 
Motion, and that Vitelco does not support a blanket 
extension of time for all interested parties.  Id. at 1.
9         Motion at 2.
10        Id.