HomeMy WebLinkAbout19991101.docDECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER HANSEN
COMMISSIONER SMITH
COMMISSIONER KJELLANDER
MYRNA WALTERS
STEPHANIE MILLER
TONYA CLARK
RON LAW
JOE CUSICK
WAYNE HART
BEV BARKER
WORKING FILE
FROM:
DATE: November 1, 1999
RE: U S WEST’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
COMMENTS IN CASE NO. USW-T-99-21
On October 26, 1999, U S WEST Communications filed a Motion requesting that the Commission grant an extension in which to file initial comments in the above referenced case. In Order No. 28144, the Commission requested interested parties to file comments no later than November 4, 1999, regarding the consolidation of telephone prefixes and rate centers in U S WEST’s southern Idaho service area. In its Motion, U S WEST requests that the Commission extend the initial comment period by 14 days or to November 18, 1999. The Motion recited that the Commission Staff did not oppose the Motion.
The Commission’s Procedural Rule 256 prescribes the procedures for ruling on Motions. Motions requesting procedural relief on fewer than 14 days’ notice usually requires that all parties receive actual notice of the Motion. IDAPA 31.01.01.256. In addition, the Commission will allow two days after actual receipt of the Motion for parties to inform the Commission Secretary whether they support or oppose the Motion. IDAPA 31.01.01.256.02 and .03. In this instance, the Company seeks relief on less than 14 days’ notice. Although the service list for the Company’s Motion indicates that all parties were served, the Motion does not indicate whether U S WEST contacted the other parties (Idaho Telephone Association; GTE Northwest; AT&T Communications; and the collective group of Century Telephone, Potlatch Telephone and Troy Telephone) to determine whether they oppose or support the Motion. However, as of today (four business days after service of the Motion) none of the other parties have contacted the Commission Secretary to voice a position on the Motion. Rule 256.03 does provide that the Commission may act on Motions for Procedural Relief “without waiting for responses of other parties.” IDAPA 31.01.01.256.03. Consequently, it appears that this matter is ripe for Commission review.
In its Notice of Modified Procedure, the Commission established initial and reply comment cycles. In its Motion, U S WEST requested that the initial reply comment period be postponed by 14 days but did not mention postponing the due date for reply comments. In the Commission’s Notice, reply comments are to be submitted no later than November 24, 1999. If the Commission were inclined to grant U S WEST’s Motion, then initial comments would be due on November 18 and reply comments would continue to be due less than a week later on November 24. Consequently, the Staff recommends that if the Commission grants U S WEST’s Motion, the deadline for reply comments also be extended to provide the parties with an opportunity to review the initial comments.
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission desire to grant U S WEST’s Motion to Extend the Initial Comment Period in this proceeding from November 4 to November 18?
2. Does the Commission wish to extend the due date for reply comments to December 9?
vld/M:USW-T-99-21_dh
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2