Commercial Mobile Radio Services; California State Petition To Retain Regulatory Authority Over Intrastate Cellular Service Rates

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[PR Docket No. 94-105; DA 94-1054]

Commercial Mobile Radio Services; California State Petition To

Retain Regulatory Authority Over Intrastate Cellular Service Rates

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice; extension of time and permitting replies to revised

petitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The amendments to the Communications Act in the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 preempted state rate and entry regulation of

commercial mobile radio services. States were given the opportunity to

file petitions for the authority to continue regulating these

intrastate rates. California filed such a petition and subsequently

filed revisions to that petition. This Order extends the deadlines for

reply comments in partial response to a request filed by the People of

the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the

State of California and allows additional time to comment on the

revised petition. This extension will provide interested parties enough

time to complete their review and submit meaningful replies and

additional comments on the issues we raised in this proceeding.

DATES: Reply comments must be filed on or before October 19, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send reply comments to the Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina Harrison, Private Radio Bureau, Land Mobile and Microwave

Division, (202) 632-7125.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Matter of Petition of People of the State of California

and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California To

Retain Regulatory Authority Over Intrastate Cellular Service Rates.

Order Extending Time and Permitting Replies to Revised Petition

Adopted: September 26, 1994; Released: September 26, 1994.

By the Chief, Private Radio Bureau:

1. Petitioners, People of the State of California and the Public

Utilities Commission of the State of California (collectively

California) have filed an emergency motion for a 45-day extension of

time from the October 4, 1994 deadline for filing reply comments.\1\

For the reasons given below, we grant California some, but not all,

of the relief requested.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\Emergency Motion of the People of the State of California and

the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California for a 45-

Day Extension of Time To File Reply Comments (dated Sept. 19, 1994)

(Motion).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The amendments to the Communications Act in the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 preempted state rate and entry

regulation of commercial mobile radio services. A state could,

however, obtain intrastate rate regulatory authority by fling a

properly supported petition with the FCC.\2\ States with existing

rate regulation could petition by August 10, 1994 to continue

regulating, and would obtain a stay of statutory preemption until

the FCC acted. The Commission has one year in which to rule on the

petition and to decide any reconsideration. California filed such a

petition on August 9, 1994. Pursuant to the Commission's rules,\3\

interested parties had 30 days in which to comment and then 15 days

for replies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Public Law 103-66,

Title VI, Sec. 6002(b)(2), 107 Stat. 312, 392 (1993), amending

Section 332(c)(3) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(3).

\3\Second Report and Order, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and

332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile

Services, 9 FCC Rcd 1411, 1522-23 (1994), 59 Fed. Reg. 18493 (Apr.

19, 1994) (to be codified at 47 CFR 20.13).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Petitioners' motion is dated the date comments were due. They

stated that they had already received two lengthy pleadings and

expected a substantial number of additional comments.\4\ In fact,

over 1,400 pages of comments and associated pleadings were filed on

the California petition. By the time copies of the pleadings have

been obtained, California states that it will have only six or seven

business days in which to review and analyze the record, finalize

its comments, and respond to a party's motion addressing

confidentiality issues raised by the petition. Petitioners state

that the issues involved are complex and that the proceeding

concerns fundamental state interests. They claim that no party will

be prejudiced, and the FCC's ability to meet the one-year statutory

deadline not detrimentally affected, by the requested extension.

They believe that the FCC will be well served by a complete record

and careful analysis on the part of California. Petitioners allege

that they have shown good cause for the requested extension.\5\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\Motion at 4.

\5\Motion at 3-4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Although it does not object to ``some appropriately brief''

extension, Air Touch Communications argues that the 45-day extension

requested by California is excessive and needlessly delays

resolution of this proceeding. It states that rate regulation costs

California consumers $250 million per year, contrary to California's

claim that no party will be prejudiced. It states that the pleading

cycle in this proceeding was crafted to balance the rights of all

parties, especially the public's right to be relieved of needless

regulation.\6\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\Comments of AirTouch Communications on the CPUC's Emergency

Motion at 1-2 (dated Sept. 23, 1994). AirTouch Communications adds

that California, by virtue of a 1994 investigation into the wireless

industry, is well-prepared to respond to the comments in a timely

fashion. Id. at 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. We agree with California that some measure of relief is

required. The record in this proceeding is voluminous, and the

issues, including the state of competition and reasonableness of

cellular rates in the state, are intricate. Moreover, California

field revisions to its petition on September 13, 1994, which, at our

request, included previously redacted information subsequently

determined to be a matter of public record.\7\ Interested parties

may wish to comment on any new material. For these reasons, we

conclude that an extension of time would serve the public interest.

On the other hand, the Commission is faced with stringent statutory

deadlines in a complex and massive proceeding. Granting an extension

as long as California requests could impair the Commission's ability

to comply with the statutory deadlines. For these reasons, we find

that good cause has been shown for a extension of 15 days. This

doubles the reply period permitted to a total of 30 days. We also

put all parties on notice that those who wish to address the revised

portions of California's petition should do so in these replies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\Ex Parte Letter from Ellen S. Levine, Principal Counsel,

California Public Utilities Commission, to Hon. William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary, FCC (dated Sept. 13, 1994).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Pursuant to Section 1.46 of the Commission's Rules, \8\ we

GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART the Emergency Motion of the People of

the State of California for a 45day Extension of Time to File Reply

Comments TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN, and HEREBY EXTEND the time

for filing reply comments UNTIL October 19, 1994. Interest parties

ARE PERMITTED to include any comments on the revised petition filed

by California on September 13, 1994 in their reply comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\47 CFR 1.46.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ralph A. Haller,

Chief, Private Radio Bureau.

[FR Doc. 94-24829 Filed 10-6-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M