PUBLIC NOTICE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1919 M STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 DA 97-2171 News media information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov Released: October 8, 1997 EX PARTE PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED FOR FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED BY AIRTOUCH CELLULAR AGAINST PACIFIC BELL (FILE NO. E-97-46), AND FOR PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LOCAL COMPETITION PROVISIONS IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996, (CC DOCKET NOS. 96-98, 95-185) Airtouch Cellular ("Airtouch"), a commercial mobile radio service ("CMRS") provider, filed a formal complaint, File No. E-97-46, against Pacific Bell ("PacBell"), a local exchange carrier ("LEC"), on September 20, 1997. In the complaint, Airtouch alleges that PacBell violated the Commission's mutual compensation policy and Section 20.11(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules by refusing to pay mutual compensation to AirTouch for the termination of calls that originated on the PacBell network from September 20, 1995 through March 25, 1997. The formal complaint is restricted for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 C.F.R. 1.1208(c)(1)(i)(B). On August 8, 1996, the Commission released a report and order in which the Commission discussed, among other things, interconnection rights and obligations between LECs and CMRS providers. See Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, First Report and Order, CC Docket Nos. 96-98, 95-185, 11 FCC Rcd 15499 (1996) ("Local Competition Order"), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Competitive Telecommunications Ass'n v. FCC, 117 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1997), aff'd in part and vacated in part sub nom. Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC, No. 96-3321 et al., 1997 WL 403401 (8th Cir., July 18, 1997) (Iowa Utils. Bd.), Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 13042 (1996), Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 19738 (1996), Third Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 97-295 (rel. Aug. 18, 1997), further recon. pending. In particular, the Local Competition Order discussed mutual compensation rights and rate levels. Petitions for reconsideration in the Local Competition Order are still pending. (See, Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceedings, 61 Fed. Reg. 53,922 (1996).) Upon review, it appears that the petitions for reconsideration in the Local Competition Order and AirTouch's complaint raise the same fundamental issues. Both proceedings raise the issue of mutual compensation rights and rate levels between LECs and CMRS providers. The petitions for reconsideration in the Local Competition Order raise legal and policy issues that have widespread impact and importance. We believe that the public interest in fully and expeditiously resolving the significant issues raised by the petitions for reconsideration in the Local Competition Order would best be served by conducting such proceedings as "permit but disclose" proceedings, as contemplated by the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b)(5). Because the petitions for reconsideration in the Local Competition Order and the complaint proceeding raise the same issues, however, as a practical matter, we will be unable to do so if the complaint proceeding continues to be conducted as a restricted proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1200(a), we find, in this particular instance, that the public interest would be served by applying to both the petitions for reconsideration in the Local Competition Order and AirTouch's complaint proceeding the "permit but disclose" ex parte rules applicable to non-restricted proceedings. Accordingly, this Public Notice establishes that both the formal complaint and the petitions for reconsideration are "permit but disclose" proceedings for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules. See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1200-1.1216. Consistent with this Public Notice, all parties making ex parte presentations in any proceeding designated above shall file any written ex parte presentations and summaries of oral ex parte presentations in both the petitions for reconsideration in the Local Competition Order, CC Docket Nos. 96-98 and 95-185, and the formal complaint proceeding, File No. E- 97-18. Questions relating to the formal complaint may be directed to Deena Shetler of the Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-0960. The formal complaint materials are available for inspection and copying in the Enforcement Division, Formal Complaints and Investigations Branch, Room 6120, 2025 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554. Questions relating to the petitions for reconsideration in the Local Competition Order may be directed to Edward B. Krachmer, Competitive Pricing Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418- 0198. The reconsideration comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies can also be obtained from ITS at 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037, or by calling (202) 857-3800. -FCC-