********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

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
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                )
                                )
Implementation of the Pay Telephone)
  Reclassification and Compensation )CC Docket No. 96-128
Provisions of the Telecommunications )
Act of 1996                     )


                              ORDER

       Adopted:July 14, 1997Released:July 14, 1997

By the Chief, Policy and Program Planning Division:

      1.On July 10, 1977, the American Public Communications Council ("APCC") and the
Inmate Calling Service Providers Coalition ("ICSPC") filed a motion seeking leave to file
consolidated replies to oppositions to their applications for review of the Common Carrier Bureau's
April 15, 1997, orders approving comparably efficient interconnection ("CEI") plans for basic
payphone services filed by Bell Atlantic Telephone Companies, BellSouth Corporation, NYNEX
Telephone Companies, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and
US WEST, Inc., (collectively, Bell Operating Companies or the BOCs).  APCC and ICSPC also
seek to extend the page limit for each consolidated reply to a maximum of 15 pages.  APCC and
ICSPC filed their motion pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules.

      2.On May 14, 1997, we issued an Order granting a prior APCC and ICSPC motion
requesting leave to file consolidated applications for review addressing all seven CEI Orders. 
APCC and ICSPC filed such applications for review on May 15, 1997.  The BOCs filed oppositions
to those applications for review.  In their instant motion, APCC and ICSPC propose that they each
file a single reply addressing those oppositions.  APCC and ICSPC state that our May 14 Order
found that the CEI Orders raise common legal issues that would most efficiently be addressed in a
consolidated fashion and that factual variations among those Orders warranted an extension of the
page limit for applications for review from 25 to 50 pages.  APCC and ICSPC also state that,
because of those factual variations, they cannot adequately address the oppositions to their
applications for review if their respective consolidated replies are limited to five pages.  APCC and
ICSPC state further that "[i]n no event will either party require more than 15 pages for its individual
reply supporting its application for review of the CEI Orders."

      3.As our May 14 Order found, the CEI Orders raise common legal issues that would
most efficiently be addressed in a consolidated fashion.  Thus, granting APCC and ICSP leave to
file consolidated applications for review of the CEI Orders will eliminate the need for duplicative
pleadings, and conserve Commission resources.  Although we do not routinely grant extensions of
the page limits for pleadings filed with the Commission, the factual variations among the seven
CEI Orders that we recognized in our May 14 Order may make it impossible for the parties to
address adequately the factual issues related to each of the seven CEI plans if their consolidated
replies are limited to five pages.  Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate to grant APPC's and
ISSPC's request to extend the page limit for each parties' consolidated reply to a maximum of 15
pages.

      4.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Section 1.3 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 
1.3, that the motion of the American Public Communications Council and the Inmate Calling
Services Providers Coalition to consolidate replies and to extend the page limit for consolidated
replies IS GRANTED.


     Federal Communications Commission



     Richard K. Welch
     Chief
     Policy and Program Planning Division
     Common Carrier Bureau