Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 00-21          |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Application of Nevadacom for     | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Review of Order                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Denying Nevadacom's Petition for | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Expedited Declaratory Ruling     | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER ON REVIEW**

**Adopted: June 27, 2002 Released: July 2, 2002**

By the Commission:

1.  In this Order, we deny the application of Nevadacom, Inc.
    (Nevadacom) [^1] for review of a Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau)
    Order addressing telegraphic money order services. On April 26,
    2000, the Bureau declined to issue a declaratory ruling sought by
    Nevadacom that telegraphic money order service is an enhanced
    service or an information service under the Commission's precedent
    and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and declined to
    preempt any state requirement regulating the provision of such
    service.[^2] We affirm the Bureau's denial of Nevadacom's petition
    for the reasons discussed below.

2.  As an initial matter, Nevadacom argues in its application that the
    Commission must act to remove uncertainty associated with attempts
    by the states to regulate Nevadacom's services "by affirming the
    status of telegraphic money order service as an enhanced or
    information service under federal communications law."[^3] While
    Nevadacom pointed out in its initial petition that the Bureau has
    already referred to money order service as an enhanced service
    pursuant to the definition contained in the *Computer II Order*,[^4]
    it has otherwise offered no new information that the Commission
    could use to further classify this service.[^5] We therefore take no
    further action on this issue.[^6]

3.  Nevadacom also claims that the Bureau should have affirmed on the
    record before it that states may not impose any requirement that
    bars or inhibits the provision of money transfer service, and should
    have found that to the extent a state enacts such a requirement, it
    is preempted.[^7] We disagree. Nevadacom admits that it did not
    allege that any state had adopted the draft uniform act addressing
    money services businesses by the National Conference of
    Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.[^8] Nevadacom also did not
    present any evidence that any state adopted a final version of the
    uniform act. The Commission has clearly stated that it will review
    state requirements that could thwart or impede the nonstructural
    safeguards it has established for the provision of information
    services on a "case-by-case basis."[^9] It has also found that
    preemption is justified only where a sufficient record exists to
    show that a specific state requirement could thwart federal
    objectives, and that a decision to preempt would not be based on
    \"hypothetical factors."[^10] The Bureau did not have sufficient
    evidence of any specific state requirement that impeded the
    provision of telegraphic money order service, and reasonably
    concluded that it could not issue a preemption ruling based on a
    draft version of a model law that may or may not be adopted in its
    original form by any state.[^11] Accordingly, we affirm the Bureau's
    actions, especially in light of its finding that if any state or
    states subsequently adopt a

    regulation that Nevadacom believes erects a barrier to entry for the
    provision of its services, it is\
    free to file a petition to preempt that state law or regulation at
    that time.[^12]

4.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the application for review filed by
    Nevadacom, Inc. IS DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

[^1]: *Application of Nevadacom for Review of Order Adopted Pursuant to
    Delegated Authority Denying Nevadacom's Petition for Expedited
    Declaratory Ruling*, filed May 26, 2000 (Application).

[^2]: *Petition of Nevadacom for Expedited Declaratory Ruling That
    Telegraphic Money Order Service Is An Information (Enhanced) Service
    And Not Subject to State Regulation,* CC Docket No. 00-21, Order, 15
    FCC Rcd 7567, 7568, para. 2 (Com. Car. Bur. 2000) (*Nevadacom Bureau
    Order*). The Bureau (now named the Wireline Competition Bureau)
    denied the petition for declaratory ruling without prejudice and
    also terminated the proceeding. *Id.* at 7567. The Bureau
    subsequently issued a public notice requesting comments on
    Nevadacom's application in CC Docket No. 00-21, thereby maintaining
    it as an open docket. No comments were filed in response to the
    public notice. *Pleading Cycle Established for Comments for
    Application of Nevadacom for Review*, CC Docket No. 00-21, Public
    Notice, DA 00-2626 (rel. Nov. 21, 2000). We accordingly issue this
    order in the same docket.

[^3]: Application at 7.

[^4]: Nevadacom Petition at 5-6 (*citing* *Western Union Telegraph
    Company Revisions to Tariff F.C.C. Nos. 229 and 263, Transmittal No.
    7485*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, para. 6 (Com. Car. Bur. 1980)
    (*Western Union Order*); *Amendment of Part 64.702 of the
    Commission's Rules and Regulations (Second Computer Inquiry)*, Final
    Decision, 77 F.C.C.2d 384 (1980) (*Computer II Order*).

[^5]: For example, the Commission determined that Internet access
    services are information services by analyzing the features and
    functions of the services and how they are used by certain entities.
    *See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal* Service, CC Docket No.
    96-45, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd 11501,11529-40, paras. 56-82
    (rel. Apr. 10, 1998). It has also asked extensive questions
    regarding whether wireline broadband Internet access service should
    be classified as an information service. *Appropriate Framework for
    Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities; Universal
    Service Obligations of Broadband Providers; Computer III Further
    Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company Provision of Enhanced
    Services; 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III
    and ONA Safeguards and Requirements*, 17 FCC Rcd 3019, 3029-35,
    paras. 17-29 (2002). Nevadacom explained the Commission's historical
    treatment of money order services and, in a footnote, described how
    customers can reach Nevadacom in order to send a telegram, but did
    not provide other details about its service offerings. Nevadacom
    Petition at 3-5 and n.2.

[^6]: We also do not take any action that would change the Bureau's
    findings in the *Western Union Order*.

[^7]: Application at 7-12.

[^8]: *Id.* at 9.

[^9]: *Computer III Remand Proceedings: Bell Operating Company
    Safeguards and Tier I Local Exchange Company Safeguards*, CC Docket
    No. 90-263, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 7571, 7631, para. 121
    (1991).

[^10]: *Id.* at 7631, para. 121.

[^11]: We also note that it is well-established that the Commission, and
    in this case, the Bureau, has wide discretion in determining whether
    to grant a petition for declaratory ruling. *Yale Broadcasting
    Company et al. v. FCC*, 478 F.2d 594, 602 (D.C. Cir. 1973). *See
    also* 47 U.S.C. § 5(c)(5).

[^12]: *Nevadacom Bureau Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 7568, para. 2.