WPC4 2MB'RK Z3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Italic6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4M (PCL) (Additional)HL4MPCAD.PRSXN\  P\$VXP2EDKH<Z#XN\  P9XP#!Aӊ-  -@Њ#&a\  P6G;&P##Xj\  P6G;XP#"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\Times New RomanTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold2a=5,&a\  P6G;&Pk(N1+,N\  P6G;P2a=5,&a\  P6G;&PXXN\  PXP2 Dw0 #XN\  PXP#AӊЫXN\  PXP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularXXN\  PXP(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX&G\  P&P\ `&3|x2K KC /yK"i~'^+2;II{r222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII))RRRAjaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[2)2CI2AIAIA2II))I)rIIII28)IIjIIAFFO2&OC222&22222222I)jAjAjAjAjA_aA[A[A[A[A2)2)2)2)jIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjIjAjIjHjIjIjIRIjAjAjAaAaAaOaAj\[A[A[A[AjIjIjIjOjIjOjI2)2I222IgROOjI[)[;[2[2[)jIWjIjIjIjIja2a2a2R8R8R8RO[>[)[CjIjIjIjIjIjIjjO[A[A[AjI[2jIR8[2jI\&II11WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5CI2AIIIII)/ooI,/ooIo,22AAI22XIIZo5XX5WzzRR2AI{,"aaaaooIoXUOIRXXI"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>jaaj[Rjj28j[jjRjaR[jjjj[X%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\2K KeK"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^+2RII{222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII22RRRIjajja[rr8Irajr[rjRajjjja2)2UI2IRARA2IR)2R){RIRRA82RIjIIA; ;L2&LU222&222222I2R)jIjIjIjIjIjjAaAaAaAaA6)6)6)6)jRrIrIrIrIjRjRjRjRjIjIjRqIrIjIjIYRjIjIjIjAjAjLjAjmaAaAaAaArIrIrIrLrIrRrU8)8R828RwRLLrRa)aBa2a;a)jRjjRjRrIrIjjAjAjAR8R8R8RLaKa2aUjRjRjRjRjRjRjjLaAaAaAjRa2jRR8a2jIk&II1(1WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5NI2IIIIII,2ooI,2mmIo,22III22XIIZo5XX5\zzRR2II{,"aaaaooIoXWOIRXXI2!K- KxV K"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>jajja[rr8Irajr[rjRajjjjaI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd2e=5,'&e4  pG;&P:% ,J:\  P6G;JPt,U5.,YU\  P6G;P"i~'^.6@PP}666PZ*6*-PPPPPPPPPP--ZZZFsjjscZss6=scssZsjZcssssc6-6JP6FPFPF6PP--P-}PPPP6=-PPsPPFM MV6*VJ666*66666666P-sFsFsFsFsFhjFcFcFcFcF6-6-6-6-sPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsFsPsNsPsPsPZPsFsFsFjFjFjVjFsecFcFcFcFsPsPsPsVsPsVsP6-6P666PpZVVsPc-c@c6c6c-sP^sPsPsPsPsj6j6j6Z=Z=Z=ZVcCc-cJsPsPsPsPsPsPssVcFcFcFsPc6sPZ=c6sPe*PP55WppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN:``:JP6FPPPPP-3zzP03zzPz066FFP77`PPby:``:_ZZ6FP0"jjjjzzPz`]VPZ``P2E* KQ!K# K'"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDsjjscZss6=scssZsjZcssssc`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDsjssjc}}=P}js}c}sZjssssjP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd3 W interest." Id. at 19734 (quoting 47 U.S.C.  201(a) (1994)). Finally, the Commission found good  W reason why it should defer final resolution of the issue to a later proceeding, given the complexity  W of the issues and cellular resellers' continuing "opportunity to file fact-specific complaints  X3 W %concerning CMRStoCMRS interconnection disputes, should such disputes arise." Id. at 19734 W 35. The Commission saw no need, at this point, to provide the "interim relief" of "recognizing  X3 W explicitly the right of cellular resellers to inter$M- connect with licensed cellular carriers." Id. at 1973536.  X37 II. ă  pJpCSI, ComTech, and TRA petition for review of the Commission's order of December 20,  W Z1996, which reaffirmed its earlier decision to examine cellular resellers' interconnection rights  W in a separate proceeding. The court reviews orders of the Commission under the  X3 W Harbitrary-or-capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C.  706(2)(A)  X3 W (1994); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983),  W Hand the Commission has broad discretion to manage its docket as it sees fit under this standard:  W "Absent some unreasonable delay or significant prejudice to the parties, the Commission cannot  W be said to abuse its discretion merely by adopting procedures and time-tables which it considers  X"3 W 7necessary to effective treatment of complex and difficult problems." GTE Serv. Corp. v. FCC,  X#3 W 782 F.2d 263, 27374 (D.C. Cir. 1986); see also 47 U.S.C.  154(j) (1994). Although the  W Commission's delay in considering the substantive issue has been significant and troubling, it has"$b0*0*0*'"  W 7not been so unreasonable that the court could take the drastic step of directing the Commission as to matters of docket management.  ppPetitioners make three basic arguments in an attempt to show that the Commission's delay  W was arbitrary and capricious. First, petitioners contend that the Commission's explanation of its  W 7decision to postpone resolution of the interconnection issue was inadequate because it failed to  W &reconcile that decision with its own and this court's precedents that address when a request for  X_3 W interconnection is "reasonable." See, e.g., Public Util. Comm'n of Tex. v. FCC, 886 F.2d 1325,  XJ3 W 133031, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1989); HushAPhone Corp. v. United States, 238 F.2d 266, 269 (D.C.  X53 W Cir. 1956); AT&T, 60 F.C.C.2d 939, 943 (1976). The Commission, however, did not decide that  W it would deviate from these precedents, just that it needed to develop a more thorough record and  W analysis before resolving the issue. In the order under review, the Commission only had to  W 6justify its decision to defer resolution of the interconnection issue; thus, it had no need to address the substantive precedents stressed by petitioners.  ppSecond, petitioners contend that the substantive issue was so clear that the Commission  W 'had no legal basis upon which to delay resolution, and thus that the delay was arbitrary and  W capricious. To the contrary, the merits of the issue are not nearly clear enough to warrant  W &substantive intervention by the court. Petitioners' contention hinges on the language of section  W {332 of the Communications Act, as amended by the Budget Act. Section 332 provides: "Upon  W |reasonable request of any person providing commercial mobile service, the Commission shall  W order a common carrier to establish physical connections with such service pursuant to the  W kprovisions of section 201 of [the Communications Act]." 47 U.S.C.A.  332(c)(1)(B) (West  W zSupp. 1998). Thus, petitioners claim, any such "reasonable request" must be honored. Petitioners  W discount the import of the phrase "pursuant to the provisions of section 201 of [the  W JCommunications Act]," but this language is the key to the analysis. Section 201 requires  W interconnection only "in accordance with the orders of the Commission, in cases where the  W Commission, after opportunity for hearing, finds such action necessary or desirable in the public  W interest." 47 U.S.C.  201(a). The Commission has the authority to issue general rules on when  W interconnection will be "in the public interest" under section 201, and hence when it will be  W required under section 332. Although the Commission may ultimately agree with petitioners on  W the nature of their interconnection rights, the relevant statutory provisions do not represent a  W kdirective to do so clear enough for the court to intercede while the Commission considers the  X3 W issue in an ongoing proceeding. See Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750  X3 W F.2d 70, 79 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 740 F.2d 21, 2833 (D.C. Cir. 1984).  plpThird, petitioners contend that the Commission's delay in settling the issue is contrary to  W Glaw, because section 6002(d)(3)(C) of the Budget Act directs the Commission to "issue such other  W regulations as are necessary to implement the amendments made by [section 6002(b)(2)]" within  W one year of its enactment. Budget Act  6002(d)(3)(C). Under the Commission's reading, this  W &language provides no deadline for issuing rules regarding the interconnection issue because such  W krules were not "necessary" to implement the amendments to the Communications Act. This  X-'3 W |reading is reasonable. See Implementation of Sections 3(n) & 332 of the Communications Act,"-'0*0*0**"  W 11 F.C.C.R. at 19733. There is nothing in section 6002(d)(3)(C) or elsewhere that would give  X3the court a basis upon which to grant the petition for review.S Xb3ԍ We also find unpersuasive petitioners' related contention that the Commission's position that regulations on the interconnection issue were not "necessary" under section 6002(d)(3)(C) is undercut by its decision to begin a rulemaking proceeding on that issue. It is consistent for the Commission in its discretion to begin such a rulemaking proceeding, even though section 6002(b) may not require it.  X3`4 III. ă  ppAfter oral argument, the court requested the Commission to submit a timetable of when  W it expected to finish the proceeding, and also to show cause why the court should not allow  W ipetitioners to amend their complaint to request a writ of mandamus. In response, the Commission  W 8represented that "[l]itigation counsel anticipate that the Commission will adopt a final order  W 7before the end of the calendar year." The Commission would not (or could not) commit to any  W Jfirm deadline, however, emphasizing the competing demands on the Commission's scarce  W }resources. As petitioners suggest in their response, the Commission's response is doubly  W troubling, for the Commission not only fails to establish a firm deadline, but also fails to make  X 3 W any predictions in its own name: whether "[l]itigation counsel anticipate" an imminent end to the proceedings has at best indirect bearing on what the Commission will actually do.  ppBy October of this year, five years will have passed since the Commission issued its  W original notice of proposed rulemaking on the interconnection issue. This delay is already  Xd3 W &dismaying, cf. Midwest Gas Users Ass'n v. FERC, 833 F.2d 341, 359 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and the  W Commission's assurances inspire limited confidence that the end is near. The court denied CSI  W jand ComTech's petition for mandamus because the Commission indicated it would resolve their  X!3 W petition for reconsideration "during or promptly after August 1996." In re Cellular Serv. Inc.,  W No. 961110 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 28, 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Commission  W indeed resolved the petition for reconsideration, but it still has not resolved the substantive issue  W %of primary concern to petitioners. Petitioners assert that their businesses are suffering as a result;  W Hin particular, without interconnection rights, they lose the benefit of the hundreds of thousands  W 8of dollars they have spent to develop a specialized switch to interconnect with both cellular carriers and LECs. The Commission does  $M. not suggest to the contrary.  ppThe petition for review, however, asks only that the court review the Commission's order  W reaffirming its earlier decision to consider the interconnection issue in a separate proceeding, and  X=3 W that order was not arbitrary or capricious. See supra Part II. Our denial of the petition for  W review should not be interpreted to suggest how the court would address a future petition for mandamus and is without prejudice to petitioners' ability to file another petition for mandamus.