[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24829]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 7, 1994]


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

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