Federal Communications Commission DA 07-636
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
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
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CC Docket No. 96-128
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 
  
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).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-636 
2
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
  
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id.   
6 Id.
7 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a).
8 See Public Notice at 1-2.