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 94-1115]

Commercial Mobile Radio Services; California State Petition To

Retain Regulatory Authority Over Intrastate Cellular Service Rates

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; order waiving certain pleading rules and denying

deferral of filing dates, and dismissing a request for issuance of

public notice.

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

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. Under Commission rules, this proceeding contemplates

only the filing of comments and replies on the state's petition. This

Order waives the prohibition on additional pleadings found in

Sec. 20.13(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules and permits additional

pleadings to be filed, pursuant to the terms of Sec. 1.45 of the

Commission's Rules. The Order also denies a motion filed by Cellular

Resellers Association, Inc., Cellular Service, Inc. and ComTech Mobile

Telephone Company to defer filing dates for the filing of replies for

reasons of efficient administration and docket management. This Order

also dismisses as moot a Request for Issuance of a public notice filed

by National Cellular Resellers Association.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regina Harrison, Private Radio Bureau, Land Mobile and Microwave

Division, (202) 632-7125.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order Waiving Certain Pleading Rules and Denying Deferral of Filing

Dates

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.

Adopted: October 7, 1994;

Released: October 7, 1994

By the Chief, Private Radio Bureau:

1. The Commission's rule governing the filing of pleadings in this

proceeding contemplates only the filing of comments and replies on the

state's petition to retain authority over intrastate cellular rates. It

thus excludes Section 1.45,\1\ which governs the general filing periods

for motions, from the procedural rules which may apply.\2\ This

proceeding, however, raises confidentiality issues that have generated

the filing of several motions and requests.\3\

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

\1\47 CFR 1.45.

\2\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 (1994), 59 Fed. Reg. 18493 (Apr. 19,

1994) (to be codified at 47 CFR 20.13 (a)(5)).

\3\See, e.g., Motion of the Cellular Carriers Association of

California to Reject Petition or, Alternatively, Reject Redacted

Information (Sept. 19, 1994); Request for Access to California

Petition for State Regulatory Authority Pursuant to the Terms of a

Protective Order, filed by the National Cellular Resellers

Association (Sept. 19, 1994); Emergency Motion to Compel Production

to the California Public Utilities Commission of Information

Contained in Oppositions to California's Petition to Retain State

Regulatory Authority over Intrastate Cellular Service Rates (dated

Sept. 29, 1994).

We have also received PR Docket No. 94-105 Notice of Ex Parte

Contact and Request for Issuance of a Public Notice (Sept. 23,

1994), filed by the National Cellular Resellers Association (NCRA),

asking that the Commission issue a Public Notice permitting any

interested party to participate by telephone or in person in a

September 30, 1994 meeting on confidentiality issues. All parties to

the proceeding were given actual notice of the meeting and permitted

to participate either in person or by telephone. Moreover, on

September 30, 1994, the Commission issued a Public Notice of Comment

Sought on Draft Protective Order, DA 94-1083, announcing that all

interested parties could comment by October 7, 1994 on a draft

protective agreement that had been distributed to all parties of

record. We believe that these actions have rendered the NCRA request

moot and we dismiss it on that ground.

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

2. We believe that equity requires that we permit interested

parties to file nonfrivolous pleadings on confidentiality and related

issues. We thus waive the prohibition of Sec. 20.13 on additional

pleadings, and permit necessary additional pleadings to be filed

pursuant to the terms of Sec. 1.45 of the Commission's Rules.

3. We have also received a Motion to Defer Filing Dates.\4\ Movants

ask that we defer the filing of replies, due October 19, 1994, to

either (1) two weeks after opposing parties file any supplemental

comments based on the disclosure of confidential information or (2) two

weeks after the Commission issues a decision denying access to such

confidential information. Movants contend that if additional

information is disclosed, this will require supplemental pleadings that

will duplicate the October 19 replies and ``needlessly expand the

number of pleadings (and the time involved) for consideration by the

Commission.''\5\ They argue that a grant of the Motion will expedite

review by permitting the filing of a consolidated reply. They add that

if additional disclosure is not made, and the Commission moves quickly

in reaching that decision, the proposed procedure will result in only

minimal delay.\6\

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

\4\Motion to Defer Filing Dates (Motion) of Cellular Resellers

Association, Cellular Service, Inc. and Com Tech Mobile Telephone

Co. (Oct. 4, 1994) (collectively Movants).

\5\Motion at 3.

\6\Motion at 3-4.

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

4. We deny the Motion. As we explained in a recent order granting

the parties a 15-day extension to file replies, the Commission must

meet a one-year statutory deadline for ruling on the state's petition

and deciding any reconsideration. We stressed that, ``The Commission is

faced with stringent statutory deadlines in a complex and massive

proceeding.''\7\ Although we agree with Movants that disclosure of

additional information may require that we permit the parties to

supplement their comments, we cannot now predict whether such

additional disclosure will be necessary. We believe that efficient

administration and docket management requires adherence to the October

19, 1994 deadline for filing replies in this proceeding. For the

foregoing reasons, we do not believe that good cause has been shown for

the requested deferral.

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

\7\Order Extending Time and Permitting Replies to Revised

Petition, DA 94-1054 (Sept. 26, 1994) at 1-2.

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

5. Pursuant to Sec. 0.331 of the Commission's Rules,\8\ the

provisions of Sec. 20.13(a)(5) are waived to the extent indicated

herein, the Motion to Defer Filing Dates filed by Cellular Resellers

Association, Inc., Cellular Service, Inc., and ComTech Mobile Telephone

Company is denied, and PR Docket No. 94-105 Notice of Ex Parte Contact

and Request for Issuance of a Public Notice is dismissed as moot to the

extent indicated herein.

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

\8\47 CFR 0.331.

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

Gerald P. Vaughan,

Deputy Chief, Private Radio Bureau.

[FR Doc. 94-25865 Filed 10-18-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M