7. Preliminary Scoping Memo

This rulemaking will be conducted in accordance with Article 6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. As required by Rule 7.3, this order includes a preliminary scoping memo as set forth below.

The issues to be considered in this proceeding for Certification applicants and Wireless reseller registrants are, as more fully described earlier in this order:

1. Should a performance bond requirement be established for CPCN certificate holders and/or for WIR registration holders and, if so, what size of bond should be required and what should be the terms and conditions? Are there alternatives to a performance bond that provide the same level of protection?

2. Should a standardized applicant fitness checklist be devised for new CPCN applicants seeking certification and Wireless Carriers seeking registration? If so, what should the requirements be for each?

3. Should the application fee for CPCN authority be increased from the current fee of $75? If so, by how much should the fee be increased? Should the same fee be charged to Wireless Carriers seeking WIR registration authority? Should a filing fee be required for the sale, assignment or transfer of an existing certificate/registration to another company? Should a separate filing fee be required for requests for expansions of authority or just for the initial filing? If so, what should the amounts be?

4. Should the terms of payment of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Reimbursement Fee (User Fee) as required for CPCN holders, pursuant to Pub. Util. Code §431, and for Wireless Registrants, be modified so that certificated and registered providers pay a minimum annual assessment, or a percentage of gross intrastate revenues, whichever is greater?

5. Should other changes be made in the requirements for processing CPCN applications or wireless registrations as proposed in Attachment A to this OIR? Should we require CPCN holders or wireless registrants, including prepaid wireless providers, to pay an annual licensing fee? If so, what should the requirements and the amount be? Should there be a fee to withdraw operating authority? Should we add terms and conditions to the existing wireless registration process, such as providing proof of registration with the California Secretary of State and a copy of the resale agreement with an underlying facilities based wireless carrier?

Pursuant to Rule 7.1(d), we preliminarily determine the category of this rulemaking proceeding to be quasi-legislative as the term is defined in Rule 1.3(d).

We do not anticipate that evidentiary hearings will be required. We do not intend to hold public participation hearings to gather input from the general public. If a party believes either is necessary, it should so indicate in its comments, describing specifically the reasons evidentiary and/or public participation hearings would be necessary and, in the case of evidentiary hearings, describing the facts the party would present.

For purposes of meeting the scoping memo requirements and to expedite the proceeding, we establish the following schedule:

The assigned Commissioner through their ruling on the scoping memo and subsequent rulings, and the assigned ALJ by ruling with the assigned Commissioner's concurrence, may modify the schedule as necessary during the course of the proceeding. In no event do we anticipate this proceeding to require longer than 18 months from the issuance of the scoping memo to complete.

The assigned Commissioner will issue a ruling which determines the category, need for hearing, and schedule for this rulemaking, and designates the principal hearing officer (Rule 13.2). The ruling, only as to category, may be appealed under the procedures in Rule 7.6.

Any person filing comments on an order instituting rulemaking shall state any objections to the preliminary scoping memo regarding the category, need for hearing, issues to be considered or schedule. (Rule 6.2.)