**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 96-128         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Implementation of the Pay        | ** |                              |
| telephone Reclassification and   |    |                              |
| Compensation Provisions of the   | *  |                              |
| Telecommunications Act of 1996   | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Petition of the Payphone         |    |                              |
| Association of Ohio to Pre-empt  | *  |                              |
| the Actions of the State of Ohio | *) |                              |
| Refusing to Implement the FCC's  | ** |                              |
| Payphone Orders, Including the   |    |                              |
| Refund of Overcharges to         | *  |                              |
| Payphone Providers in Ohio, and  | *) |                              |
| for a Declaratory Ruling         | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  | )\ |                              |
|                                  | )\ |                              |
|                                  | )\ |                              |
|                                  | )\ |                              |
|                                  | )\ |                              |
|                                  | )\ |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: February 9, 2007 Released: February 9, 2007**

**Revised Reply Comments Date**: **February 19, 2007**

By the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau:

1.  On December 28, 2006, the Payphone Association of Ohio (PAO) filed a
    petition for declaratory ruling and preemption asking the Commission
    to: establish the rights of PAO members to refunds of payphone
    access line rate overcharges dating back to April 15, 1997; preempt
    the actions of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO), which
    PAO alleges are inconsistent with this Commission's regulations and
    the new services test and; order SBC-Ohio to disgorge itself of
    dial-around compensation collected pursuant to section 276 of the
    Act and the FCC's rules and orders promulgated under it.[^1] On
    January 12, 2007, the Commission established a pleading cycle for
    comments on the Ohio Petition.[^2]

2.  On February 8, 2007, the PAO filed a Motion for Extension of Time
    requesting an extension of the reply comment cycle for the Ohio
    Petition.[^3] In support of its Motion, the PAO explains that AT&T
    filed its comments four days after the comment deadline, and did not
    serve the comments on the correct attorney, which further delayed
    PAO's receipt of the comments.[^4] In addition, PUCO filed comments
    electronically, but the comments contained language indicating that
    it was a draft document for staff discussion only, which caused
    considerable confusion as to whether the comments filed were the
    correct document.[^5] The Motion requests that the Commission extend
    the time for reply comments by 7 days to February 19, 2007.[^6] PAO
    states in its motion that it has contacted counsel to AT&T and PUCO
    and obtained their consent to the requested extension.

3.  We agree that providing additional time to file reply comments will
    facilitate the development of a more accurate and complete record in
    this proceeding. We note that it is the policy of the Commission
    that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.[^7] Given
    the delay in the filing of AT&T's initial comments and the failure
    in service of those comments, the confusion surrounding PUCO's
    initial comments, and the resulting abbreviated period within which
    to prepare responsive comments, however, we find that good cause
    exists to provide all parties an extension of time, from February
    12, 2007 to February 19, 2007 for filing reply comments in this
    proceeding.

4.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),
    and 5(c) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j),
    155(c), and sections 0.91, 0.291, and 1.46 of the Commission\'s
    rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, 1.46, the pleading cycle
    established in this matter shall be modified as follows:

    **Reply Comments Due: February 19, 2007**

    All other filing procedures remain unchanged from those previously
    established in this proceeding.[^8]

5.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion of the Payphone Association of
    Ohio for Extension of Time is GRANTED, as set forth herein.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Thomas J. Navin

    Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau

[^1]: Payphone Association of Ohio Petition to Preempt the Actions of
    the State of Ohio Refusing to Implement the FCC's Payphone Orders,
    Including the Refund of Overcharges to Payphone Providers in Ohio
    and for a Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96-128 (filed Dec. 28,
    2006) (Ohio Petition).

[^2]: *Comments Sought on Payphone Association of Ohio Petition to
    Pre-empt the Actions of the State of Ohio, and for a Declaratory
    Ruling; Pleading Cycle Established*, CC Docket No. 96-128, DA 07-70
    (WCB rel. Jan. 12, 2007) (Public Notice).

[^3]: Consent Motion of the Payphone Association of Ohio for Extension
    of Time to Reply to the Comments filed by Each of AT&T, Inc. and the
    Public Utility Commission of Ohio, CC Docket No. 96-128 (filed Feb.
    8, 2007) (Motion).

[^4]: *Id.* at 2.

[^5]: *Id*.

[^6]: *Id.*

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a).

[^8]: *See* Public Notice at 1-2.