WPC2 2BRT 3|C)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Times New Roman (TT)pt_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSx  @,, @[X@2@ ZP33|cHP LaserJet 4/4MScript_230_1HPLAS4.WRSSC\  P6Q,, @[PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)es Italic (Scalable) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)2*@@X @z"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSd<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddCCCCŐz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC2'@\@ Z@l""5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd7y.C8*XC\  P6QP.8y.G8*XG4  pQ:7PC2X DXP\  P6QXP.97UC2XxXU4  pQX;W!0(X h0\  P6QhP<I(!XI,(\  P6Q,P={,C8*X3,C*f9 xQX5PC2X3EXP*f9 xQXX       yO- X   )ޚ X-x  #XP\  P6Q DXP#Federal Communications Commission`*(# DA 961467 ă  yxdddy )v3 Before the Federal Communications Commission  yO Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X -R#XP\  P6Q DXP#) In the Matter ofR) R)  X-Implementation of the NonAccountingR)hppCC Docket No. 96149 Safeguards of Sections 271 and 272 of theR) Communications Act of 1934, as amended:R) R) andR) R) Regulatory Treatment of LEC ProvisionR) of Interexchange Services Originating in the R) LEC's Local Exchange AreaR) R) R)  X-; ORDER TP  Xk-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:1934 and Regulatory Treatment of LEC Provision of Interexchange Services Originating in the LEC's Local  zP-Exchange Area, Order, DA 961281, CC Docket No. 94149 (rel. Aug. 9, 1996) (USTA Extension Order). The USTA Extension Order specified that it had no effect on the comment  Y-deadlines for other issues raised in the Notice, which remained the same.@# zPZ-ԍxId. at 2.@  Y- ` x3.` ` On August 27, 1996, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) filed  Yz- xYa request to extend the deadline for receipt of reply comments on all issues raised in the Notice  Ye- xuntil September 13.e~# xP -  lԍxTelecommunications Industry Association's Motion for Extension of Time (filed August 27, 1996). We  zP\-note that TIA timely filed initial comments in response to the Notice. TIA indicates that, to respond to the Commission's inquiries in the Notice,  x-it must collect and coordinate input from its members. TIA states that the compressed reply  Y9- xperiod established by the Notice, together with the volume of initial comments received in the  xproceeding, have made it difficult to obtain and coordinate member input necessary to file reply  xcomments addressing the full range of issues of concern to TIA's members within the prescribed  Y - xtimeframe. In addition, TIA notes that many of the issues raised in the Notice are interrelated,  x that there is no statutory deadline applicable to the completion of the instant proceeding, and that  x;the 15day reply period for this proceeding is shorter than the 30day period provided in many other Commission proceedings.  Y- ` !x4.` ` The Commission's policy is that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.Z# xP-  @ԍx47 C.F.R.  1.46(a). Further, as a general rule, motions for extension of time in which to file reply  zP- xcomments in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking, inter alia, are required to be filed at least 7 days before the filing date. 47 C.F.R.  1.46(b). TIA's motion was not filed within the required timeframe.  xMoreover, we believe that it is particularly important to complete the instant proceeding in a  x,timely manner, because it raises implications for other proceedings subject to explicit statutory  xdeadlines. For these reasons, we believe the public interest is best served by maintaining the  Y)- xoriginal reply comment deadline of August 30, 1996, for all issues raised in the Notice that were  Y-not affected by our USTA Extension Order. Therefore, we deny TIA's request for extension.  Y- ` x5.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time filed by TIA is DENIED. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhRichard K. Welch x` `  hhChief, Policy and Program Planning Division x` `  hhCommon Carrier Bureau