Telcos, others, reiterated their opposition to a “further guidance” notice...

for reconsideration, non-tribal entities elaborated on their earlier concerns (CD Sept 28 p6) that the new rules violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and the First Amendment. U.S. Cellular, C Spire Wireless, and Pioneer Cellular argued the further guidance was not accompanied by “any comparative analysis” of the costs and benefits of the requirements, and has “numerous procedural and legal deficiencies” (http://xrl.us/bntu9p). Blooston Rural Carriers disputed comments by Gila River Telecommunications that the rules requiring engagement with tribes do not implicate the PRA (http://xrl.us/bntu99). Tribal entities continued to oppose USTelecom’s petition. Gila River maintained that the further guidance was “not only procedurally and constitutionally proper,” but also offered the opportunity for better coordination and increased deployment of telecom services on tribal lands (http://xrl.us/bntvaf). The National Tribal Telecommunications Association said those who support USTelecom’s petition fail to grasp the concept that tribal governments are “sovereign” on tribal lands, and “serve the role of regulator, legislature, judicial, and other executive branches of non-Tribal state governments. It is difficult to imagine USTelecom members refusing to engage with their state commission or local government in providing current services or in planning future broadband, voice, or other services,” NTTA said (http://xrl.us/bntvaq).