Case Name: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES, Petitioner, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Intervenor-Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent, AT&T Corporation, Cingular Wireless, Inc., Leap Wireless International, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc., Sprint Corporation, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Verizon, Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, Intervenors-Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-03
Citations: 468 F.3d 1272
Docket Number: No. 05-11682
Parties: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES, Petitioner, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Intervenor-Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent, AT&T Corporation, Cingular Wireless, Inc., Leap Wireless International, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc., Sprint Corporation, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Verizon, Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, Intervenors-Respondents.
Judges: Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 468
Pages: 1272–1273

Head Matter:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES, Petitioner, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Intervenor-Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent, AT&T Corporation, Cingular Wireless, Inc., Leap Wireless International, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc., Sprint Corporation, T-Mobile USA, Inc., Verizon, Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, Intervenors-Respondents.
No. 05-11682.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 3, 2006.
Matthew J. Hardy, Consumer’s Util. Counsel, Clare A. McGuire, Governor’s Office of Consumer Affairs, Atlanta, GA, Patrick W. Pearlman, Consumer Advocate Div. of WV Pub. Serv. Com’n, Charleston, WV, for Petitioner.
Laurel Bergold, Laurence N. Bourne, FCC, Robert B. Nicholson, James J. Fre-dricks, U.S. Dept, of Justice/Antitrust Div., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Maureen A. Scott, AZ Corp. Com’n, Phoenix, AZ, Stacy J. Canan, Michael Robert Schuster, AARP Foundation Lit., Washington, DC, Seth E. Mermin, Cal. Atty. Gen. Office, San Francisco, CA, for Amici Curiae.
David L. Lawson, Washington, DC, Janies Bradford Ramsay, Natl Assoc, of Reg. Util. Com’rs, L. Andrew Tollin, Wilkinson, Barker & Knauer, LLP, James Henry Barker, III, Latham & Watkins, Christopher J. Wright, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP, Helgi C. Walker, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, LLP, Sara F. Leibman, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Po-peo, PC, Washington, DC, Joshua E. Swift, Arlington, VA, William H. Johnson, Verizon, Arlington, VA, for Intervenors.
Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Upon consideration of the petitions for panel rehearing filed by the Federal Communications Commission and the Interve-nors-Respondents, the opinion filed in this case on July 31, 2006, and published at 457 F.3d 1238, is modified in one respect. The final sentence of the opinion is deleted, and in its place the following is inserted:
Because the Communications Act allows the states to regulate line item billing for wireless services, we GRANT the petitions for review filed by the State Consumer Advocates and the State Utility Regulators, VACATE the preemption ruling set forth in the Declaratory Ruling in the Second Report and Order, and REMAND the case to the Commission.
In all other respects, the petitions for panel rehearing are DENIED.