********************************************************    
                         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)  
     )
Request by ALTS for Clarification)     File No.
of the Commission's Rules Regarding    )     CCB/CPD 97-30
Reciprocal Compensation for      )
Information Service Provider Traffic   )

                                   ORDER

            Adopted:  July 22, 1997;  Released:  July 22, 1997

By the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau:

     This Order addresses Petitioners' motion for an extension of time to file comments
responding to our July 2, 1997 Public Notice requesting comments on the Association for
Local Telecommunications Services (ALTS) letter seeking expedited clarification of the
Commission's rules regarding the rights of a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) to
receive reciprocal compensation pursuant to section 251(b)(5) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act), for the transport and
termination of traffic to CLEC subscribers that are information service providers.  The notice
set deadlines of July 17, 1997 for initial comments and July 24, 1997 for replies.  For the
reasons below, we extend the deadline for reply comments to July 31, 1997.

     Petitioner argues that an extension of the reply comment deadline will allow all parties
to take into account the implications, if any, of the July 18, 1997 decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Iowa Utilities Board, et. al. v. FCC (Iowa
Utilities Board) with respect to issues raised in this proceeding.  Petitioner argues that the
brief extension requested would serve the public interest by affording the Commission a more
reliable and complete record upon which to render a decision in this matter and that it would
not unduly prejudice the interests of any party.

     The Commission may, on its own motion or on petition, waive any provision of its
rules or orders if good cause is shown.  Good cause requires findings that special
circumstances or hardships warrant deviation from the rules or orders and that such deviation
would be in the public interest.  

     We conclude that granting Petitioner's request for a one-week extension of the reply
comment deadline fulfills these conditions.  The Iowa Utilities Board decision vacated a
number of sections of the Commission's rules, including sections that were referenced in
ALTS's letter and several parties' initial comments.  We conclude that this event, taking place
less than one week before the reply comment deadline, constitutes a special circumstance. 
Furthermore, we conclude that the public interest would be served by allowing parties time to
consider at greater length the impact of the Iowa Utilities Board decision as it will allow for a
more reliable and complete record.  At the same time, we are mindful of the concerns
expressed in ALTS's letter and by parties in their initial comments regarding the need to
conclude this proceeding as rapidly as possible.  We conclude, however, that a one-week
extension of the reply comment deadline will not unduly prejudice any party because we
believe that allowing parties a brief period of time to consider in their reply comments the
potential effect of the Iowa Utilities Board decision will allow for more efficient Commission
consideration of the issues in this proceeding.

     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.91 and 0.291, the motion for extension of time filed by
Petitioner on July 21, 1997, in this proceeding IS GRANTED.
     
     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
     

     James D. Schlichting
     Chief, Competitive Pricing Division
     Common Carrier Bureau