******************************************************** 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 ) ) Omnipoint Corporation ) ) PA 97-002 Complainant, ) ) v. ) ) PECO Energy Company, ) ) Respondent. ) ORDER Adopted: April 17, 1997 Released: April 18, 1997 By the Chief, Cable Services Division: 1. On April 1, 1997, Omnipoint Corporation ("Omnipoint") filed a Request for Expeditious Action ("Request") and a pole attachment Complaint ("Complaint") against PECO Energy Company ("PECO"). On April 10, 1997, PECO filed an Opposition to Omnipoint's Request for Expeditious Action ("Opposition"). In its Request, Omnipoint asks that the Commission deviate from the pleading cycle found in Section 1.1407(a) of the Commission's rules and establish an abbreviated pleading cycle specifically for the review of Omnipoint's Complaint. Omnipoint also raises issues designed to support the relief requested in its Complaint. Because those issues are more properly before us during our resolution of Omnipoint's Complaint, we do not reach the merits of those issues in this Order. We will, however, deny Omnipoint's Request. 2. The Commission's established pleading cycle for this type of complaint requires a response within 30 days followed by a reply within 20 days. Omnipoint's proposed expedited pleading schedule would require PECO to respond to its Complaint within 15 days, and then Omnipoint would file its reply 10 days thereafter. In its Request, Omnipoint argues that an expedited pleading schedule is warranted because of PECO's "outrageous" demand that Omnipoint pay $2,100 per month for access to each of its facilities. In its Opposition, PECO asserts that the Commission's rules relating to pole attachments do not provide for an expedited pleading cycle and that Section 1.1407(a) correctly establishes the proper time frames for pole attachment complaint proceedings. 3. Section 1.1407(a) specifically states that except as otherwise provided in Section 1.1403 of the Commission's rules (concerning access provision obligations), "no other filings and no motions other than for extension of time will be considered unless authorized by the Commission." Consequently, we consider Omnipoint's Request to be a request for temporary relief under Section 1.45(d) of the Commission's Rules. Absent a regulation requiring expedited treatment the Commission will grant requests for expedited action only if the party making the request has shown that expedited treatment is required to serve the public interest. Without such a showing, the Commission shall deny the request. We find that Omnipoint has failed to make a sufficient showing to require expedited treatment. The issues raised in its Request are designed to support the issues raised in its Complaint. Beyond an unsupported allegation that failure to expedite Omnipoint's Complaint may harm the telecommunications consumer in Philadelphia, Omnipoint has made no showing that the public interest shall be disserved if the Section 1.1407 pleading cycle is completed. 4. Further, Omnipoint notes that its Request "is generally consistent with the Commission's stated intent to expedite Section 224 [of the Communications Act] proceedings that threaten competitors' ability to enter the local telecommunications market" as found in Implementation for Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 First Report and Order, ("Interconnection Order"). In the Interconnection Order, the Commission agreed that "time is of the essence" and that "final decisions related to access will be resolved by the Commission expeditiously." The Commission concluded that because of the expeditious nature of the 45-day procedure created for denial of access complaints in the Interconnection Order, "stays or other equitable relief will [not] be granted in the absence of a specific showing, beyond the prima facie case that such relief is warranted." Omnipoint has failed to show that its Complaint requires a more expeditious proceeding than the 45-day denial of access process found in Section 1.1403(b) of the Commission's rules, or the 50-day pole attachment complaint process instituted under Section 1.1407. Consequently, Omnipoint's Request must be denied. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 0.101 and 0.321 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.101 and 0.321, that Omnipoint Corporation's Request for Expeditious Action IS DENIED. 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 1.1407(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1407(a), that PECO Energy has 30 days from the date of the complaint to file a Response and that Omnipoint Corporation has 20 days thereafter to file a Reply in the above- referenced pole attachment proceeding. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Meredith J. Jones Chief, Cable Services Bureau