**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Petition of Nevadacom for ) CC Docket No. 00-21

Expedited Declaratory Ruling That )

Telegraphic Money Order Service Is )

An Information (Enhanced) Service )

And Not Subject to State Regulation )

)

# ORDER

**Adopted: April 26, 2000 Released: April 27, 2000**

**By the Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:**

1.  On September 17, 1999, Nevadacom, Inc. filed a petition seeking an
    expedited declaratory ruling by the Commission that telegraphic
    money order service is an "information service" as that term is
    defined in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The
    Commission subsequently sought public comment on the Nevadacom
    petition.[^1] In its petition, Nevadacom asks the Commission to
    confirm that: (1) telegraphic money order service, or money transfer
    service, provided by record carriers is an information service and
    subject to the Commission's ancillary jurisdiction; (2) states may
    not impose any law, rule, or regulation that acts to bar or inhibit
    the provision of money transfer service by record carriers; and (3)
    to the extent a state imposes any law, rule, or regulation that
    attempts to regulate the entry into, or provision of, money transfer
    services by record carriers, that state law, rule, or regulation is
    preempted by federal law to the extent necessary to correct such
    inconsistency with federal policy.[^2] Nevadacom states that it
    requests this ruling due to the drafting of a model state law by the
    National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
    According to Nevadacom, that model law \-- the Uniform
    Money-Services Business Services Act \-- would govern, *inter alia*,
    money transfer services provided by record carriers and would, if
    adopted by the states, erect substantial entry barriers and impose
    onerous regulation.[^3]

2.  We decline to issue the declaratory ruling sought by Nevadacom. The
    petitioner does not argue that any state has adopted the draft model
    act about which it complains. For this reason, the Bureau believes
    it would be premature to address the concerns raised by Nevadacom at
    this time. Therefore, we will exercise our discretion under section
    1.2 of the Commission's rules[^4] and deny the Nevadacom petition,
    without prejudice. If any state or states subsequently adopt a money
    transfer law or regulation that Nevadacom believes erects a barrier
    to entry, Nevadacom is free to file a petition to preempt that state
    law or regulation at that time.

3.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for declaratory ruling
    filed by Nevadacom, Inc. IS DENIED, without prejudice, and the
    proceeding IS TERMINATED.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Robert C. Atkinson, Deputy Chief
>
> Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: *Pleading Cycle Established for Comments on Nevadacom, Inc.
    Petition for Declaratory Ruling that Telegraphic Money Order Service
    Is an Information (Enhanced) Service and Not Subject to State
    Regulation*, Public Notice, CC Docket No. 00-21, DA 00-229 (rel.
    Feb. 8, 2000). We received no comments addressing the Nevadacom
    petition. On March 24, 2000, Nevadacom filed a letter noting the
    lack of comments and asking the Commission to rule expeditiously on
    its petition.

[^2]: Nevadacom Petition at 12.

[^3]: *Id.* at 1, 9-11.

[^4]: Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, states
    that the Commission "may" issue a declaratory ruling terminating a
    controversy or removing uncertainty.