Discussion

In their Protest, the Hoopa Valley Tribe seeks to (1) intervene in this proceeding, and (2) submit a late-filed protest. The Protest is procedurally improper, since requests to intervene and submit late-filed protests should be made by filing a motion or petition. However, because the Hoopa Valley Tribe is not familiar with the Commission's procedures, their Protest shall be treated as a petition for leave to intervene and submit a late-filed protest.

Protests are subject to Rule 44.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) which states that "unless otherwise provided by rule, decision or General Order, a protest or response must be filed within 30 days of the date the notice of the filing of the application first appears in the Daily Calendar." Notice of A.99-09-027 appeared in the Commission's Daily Calendar on September 17, 1999, and the 30-day period for filing a protest expired on October 17, 2000. Therefore, the Hoopa Valley Tribe Protest is untimely since it was filed on June 27, 2000.

Rule 87 provides that "[i]n special cases, and for good cause shown, the Commission may permit deviations from its rules." Therefore, the Commission could waive Rule 44.1 and accept the Hoopa Valley Tribe Protest. However, for the following reasons, the Hoopa Valley Tribe has not shown good cause to waive Rule 44.1 and accept their Protest at this late date.⁴

First, there is little merit to the Hoopa Valley Tribe's assertion that there is good cause to accept their late-filed Protest because the Applicants failed to provide timely notice of A.99-09-027. GTEC provided the Hoopa Valley Tribe with two notices of A.99-09-027. The first notice was sent to GTEC's customers in the Hoopa Exchange during GTEC's February 2000 billing cycle. This notice appeared on each bill as a bill imprint. The second notice was sent by direct mail (i.e., separate from the telephone bill) beginning on March 7, 2000. Therefore, since the Hoopa Valley Tribe had notice of A.99-09-027 in February and March of 2000, there does not appear to be good cause for the Hoopa Valley Tribe to have waited until June 27, 2000, to file their Protest.

Second, there is little merit to the Hoopa Valley Tribe's assertion that there is good cause to accept their late-filed Protest because the Applicants failed to provide adequate notice of A.99-09-027. As describe previously, GTEC sent two notices to the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The first notice was sent pursuant to FCC regulations. The second notice was sent at the direction of the assigned ALJ, and was reviewed and approved by the Commission's Public Advisor. Therefore, there is no basis to conclude that the two notices, either individually or collectively, were inadequate.

Third, the Hoopa Valley Tribe Protest is, for the most part, a word-for-word copy of the Del Norte County Protest filed on March 24, 2000. Thus, most of the issues raised by the Hoopa Valley Tribe were previously raised by Del Norte County.⁵ Therefore, to the extent the Hoopa Valley Tribe Protest raises no new issues, there is no compelling reason to accept the Protest at this late date.

Finally, there is no new issue in the Hoopa Valley Tribe Protest that is so tightly bound to this proceeding that it must be considered in this proceeding and no other. More specifically, the new issues involve allegations that the Hoopa Valley Tribe receives inadequate service and/or lacks access to modern telecommunications services.⁶ If the allegations are true, they can be addressed in other proceedings and forums.⁷

Therefore, IT IS RULED that the Hoopa Valley Tribe's petition for leave to intervene and submit a late-filed protest is denied.

Dated July 14, 2000, at San Francisco, California.

Timothy Kenney

Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Regarding the Late-Filed Protest Submitted by the Hoopa Valley Tribe on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.

Dated July 14, 2000, at San Francisco, California.

Evelyn P. Gonzales

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to insure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.

⁴ The Commission must conduct its proceedings in an orderly manner. This would be impossible if parties could intervene and submit protests during the late stages of Commission proceedings without good cause. ⁵ Some of the issues raised in the Hoopa Valley Tribe Protest also overlap with issues previously raised by ORA. ⁶ Some of the "new" issues raised in the Protest may not be relevant to this proceeding. For example, the Protest states that Citizens should be required to establish a POP in Hoopa. This issue may not be relevant to this proceeding since the establishment of POPs is generally the responsibility of interexchange carriers, and not local exchange carriers such as Citizens. ⁷ For example, if GTEC or Citizens provide the Hoopa Valley Tribe with inferior service compared to other customers, then the Hoopa Valley Tribe may have grounds to file a complaint with the Commission. Also, if the Hoopa Valley Tribe lacks access to modern telecommunications services, it may be possible for certain segments of the Hoopa community (e.g., schools, libraries, rural health care providers, and qualified community-based organizations) to obtain funding for modern telecommunications services from the California Teleconnect Fund and/or the federal e-rate program.