Judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeared skeptical that antidumping duty petitioner Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee could overcome the Court of International Trade's discretionary finding that the petitioner failed to adequately argue that third country sales must be "for consumption" in the third country market when determining normal value (Z.A. Sea Foods v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1469).

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission should pause a rulemaking on incarcerated people’s communications services (IPCS) until the FCC completes its rulemaking that will implement the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act, said ViaPath in comments Friday at the PUC. Due to the 2022 law, "regulation of all IPCS -- intrastate, interstate, and international -- is now within the jurisdiction of the FCC,” the IPCS provider said in docket 24R-0184T. With the FCC required to finish the rulemaking by January, it “would be administratively inefficient for the [PUC] to proceed without having the benefit of the final FCC ruling on the scope of state commission jurisdiction over IPCS," ViaPath said. Separately, Securus raised concerns with the PUC possibly expanding reporting requirements beyond data on phone calls and video service complaints. “Expanding the scope of the reporting … would result in the publication of information beyond that contemplated by [law] and which [IPCS] providers have legitimate interests in maintaining as confidential and proprietary," the company said.

A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service (see 2405310074). The coalition asked the FCC to stay the effective date of its order and declaratory ruling pending judicial review. Coalition members included USTelecom, NCTA, CTIA, ACA Connects and several state broadband associations.

A coalition of industry groups on Friday challenged the FCC's net neutrality order and declaratory ruling reclassifying broadband as a Communications Act Title II telecom service (see 2405310074). The coalition asked the FCC to stay the effective date of its order and declaratory ruling pending judicial review. Coalition members included USTelecom, NCTA, CTIA, ACA Connects and several state broadband associations.

AT&T raised legal and constitutional concerns as it protested a California Public Utilities Commission proposed decision that denies it relief of carrier of last resort (COLR) obligations. But in other comments the agency received Thursday, some local representatives strongly supported the plan to dismiss AT&T’s application. “Upholding this decision is vital to ensure residents across California … continue to have access to basic telephone service,” said San Mateo County in docket R.23-03-003.

The Senate Commerce Committee is eyeing additional changes to the Spectrum and National Security Act (S-4207) in hopes of jump-starting its prospects as a viable vehicle for resurrecting the FCC’s expired affordable connectivity program, lobbyists said in interviews. Committee leaders are hoping further revisions will allow them to raise S-4207 during a potential mid-June meeting, lobbyists told us. Senate Commerce pulled S-4207 from consideration twice last month, including fully postponing a May 16 executive meeting (see 2405160066). The Biden administration and FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel made a final call Friday for Congress to keep ACP running as the program’s time expired.

The Court of International Trade on May 28 rejected the government's motion for partial reconsideration of the court's decision finding that the government violated the "implied contractual term" of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment from surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. on a customs bond.

Reject T-Mobile’s request to make it optional for California Lifeline providers to accept applications for low-income support from people who lack social security numbers, said consumer and low-income advocates in replies Friday at the California Public Utilities Commission. In comments earlier this month (see 2405130044), T-Mobile’s Assurance Wireless raised concerns about “requiring companies to process, review and collect a fluid set of unfamiliar and unverifiable ‘identity documents’ without any safe harbor.” Legal Services of Los Angeles County, the Legal Aid Association of California and other low-income advocates disagreed. "While providers may assist with collecting additional identity documents, the [third-party administrator] will make eligibility determinations based on identity documents, so the alleged basis for the need for providers to discriminate against individuals without SSNs is specious.” The Utility Reform Network and the Greenlining Institute “oppose any call for California LifeLine to discriminate against people without SSNs.” The consumer groups noted that people lacking SSNs include "some of the most vulnerable members of our communities: survivors of domestic violence, refugees, and people facing housing insecurity.” Meanwhile, AT&T urged the CPUC to slow down. That every commenter suggested revisions to the staff's proposal shows that the CPUC should take additional time to develop a plan, said the carrier: Require staff to submit a revised, more-detailed proposal and seek more comments. But the low-income advocates said it’s time to act. “Despite any lingering questions or disagreements … the Commission should immediately change the application and expand the list of acceptable identification documents ... without further undue delay,” they said. “Any other feedback on the staff proposal can be resolved later."

The Court of International Trade on May 28 rejected the government's motion for partial reconsideration of the court's decision finding that the government violated the "implied contractual term" of reasonableness in waiting eight years to demand payment from surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. on a customs bond.

World Shipping Council CEO Joe Kramek said that his trade group doesn't take a position on whether Chinese practices to support its commercial shipbuilding industry are actionable under Section 301, but it "strongly opposes" the petitioners' proposal that a $1 million fee be levied on Chinese-built ships docking in U.S. ports.