59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 114–305 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PROCESS 

REFORM ACT OF 2015 

OCTOBER 22, 2015.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. UPTON, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2583] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the bill (H.R. 2583) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to 

provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures 

followed by the Federal Communications Commission, and for 

other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended 

do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 7 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 8 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 10 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 11 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 11 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 16 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 16 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 16 

Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits ............................. 16 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 16 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 16 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 19 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 19 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 19 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 19 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 20 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 20 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 29 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 40 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015’’. 

SEC. 2. FCC PROCESS REFORM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et 

seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 13. TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCY. 

‘‘(a) INITIAL RULEMAKING AND INQUIRY.— ‘‘(1) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 

the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015, the Commission shall complete a rulemaking proceeding and adopt procedural changes 

to its rules to maximize opportunities for public participation and efficient decisionmaking. 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR RULEMAKING.—The rules adopted under paragraph 

(1) shall— 

‘‘(A) set minimum comment periods for comment and reply comment, subject to a determination by the Commission that good cause exists for departing from such minimum comment periods, for— 

‘‘(i) significant regulatory actions, as defined in Executive Order No. 

12866; and 

‘‘(ii) all other rulemaking proceedings; 

‘‘(B) establish policies concerning the submission of extensive new comments, data, or reports towards the end of the comment period; 

‘‘(C) establish policies regarding treatment of comments, ex parte communications, and data or reports (including statistical reports and reports to 

Congress) submitted after the comment period to ensure that the public has 

adequate notice of and opportunity to respond to such submissions before 

the Commission relies on such submissions in any order, decision, report, 

or action; 

‘‘(D) establish procedures for, not later than 14 days after the end of each 

quarter of a calendar year (or more frequently, as the Commission considers 

appropriate), publishing on the Internet website of the Commission and 

submitting to Congress a report that contains— 

‘‘(i) the status of open rulemaking proceedings and proposed orders, 

decisions, reports, or actions on circulation for review by the Commissioners, including which Commissioners have not cast a vote on an 

order, decision, report, or action that has been on circulation for more 

than 60 days; 

‘‘(ii) for the petitions, applications, complaints, and other requests for 

action by the Commission that were pending at the Commission on the 

last day of such quarter (or more frequent period, as the case may be)— 

‘‘(I) the number of such requests, broken down by the bureau primarily responsible for action and, for each bureau, the type of request (such as a petition, application, or complaint); and 

‘‘(II) information regarding the amount of time for which such requests have been pending, broken down as described in subclause 

(I); and 

‘‘(iii) a list of the congressional investigations of the Commission that 

were pending on the last day of such quarter (or more frequent period, 

as the case may be) and the cost of such investigations, individually 

and in the aggregate; 

‘‘(E) establish deadlines (relative to the date of filing) for— 

‘‘(i) in the case of a petition for a declaratory ruling under section 1.2 

of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, issuing a public notice of such 

petition; 

‘‘(ii) in the case of a petition for rulemaking under section 1.401 of 

such title, issuing a public notice of such petition; and 

‘‘(iii) in the case of a petition for reconsideration under section 1.106 

or 1.429 of such title or an application for review under section 1.115 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

of such title, issuing a public notice of a decision on the petition or application by the Commission or under delegated authority (as the case 

may be); 

‘‘(F) establish guidelines (relative to the date of filing) for the disposition 

of petitions filed under section 1.2 of such title; 

‘‘(G) establish procedures for the inclusion of the specific language of the 

proposed rule or the proposed amendment of an existing rule in a notice 

of proposed rulemaking; and 

‘‘(H) require notices of proposed rulemaking and orders adopting a rule 

or amending an existing rule that— 

‘‘(i) create (or propose to create) a program activity to contain performance measures for evaluating the effectiveness of the program activity; and 

‘‘(ii) substantially change (or propose to substantially change) a program activity to contain— 

‘‘(I) performance measures for evaluating the effectiveness of the 

program activity as changed (or proposed to be changed); or 

‘‘(II) a finding that existing performance measures will effectively 

evaluate the program activity as changed (or proposed to be 

changed). 

‘‘(3) INQUIRY.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 

Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015, the Commission shall complete an inquiry to seek public comment on whether and how the 

Commission should— 

‘‘(A) establish procedures for allowing a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to place an order, decision, report, or action on the agenda of an 

open meeting; 

‘‘(B) establish procedures for informing all Commissioners of a reasonable 

number of options available to the Commission for resolving a petition, 

complaint, application, rulemaking, or other proceeding; 

‘‘(C) establish procedures for ensuring that all Commissioners have adequate time, prior to being required to decide a petition, complaint, application, rulemaking, or other proceeding (including at a meeting held pursuant 

to section 5(d)), to review the proposed Commission decision document, including the specific language of any proposed rule or any proposed amendment of an existing rule; 

‘‘(D) establish deadlines (relative to the date of filing) for disposition of 

applications for a license under section 1.913 of title 47, Code of Federal 

Regulations; 

‘‘(E) assign resources needed in order to meet the deadlines described in 

subparagraph (D), including whether the Commission’s ability to meet such 

deadlines would be enhanced by assessing a fee from applicants for such 

a license; and 

‘‘(F) publish each order, decision, report, or action not later than 30 days 

after the date of the adoption of such order, decision, report, or action. 

‘‘(4) DATA FOR PERFORMANCE MEASURES.—The Commission shall develop a 

performance measure or proposed performance measure required by this subsection to rely, where possible, on data already collected by the Commission. 

‘‘(5) GAO AUDIT.—Not less frequently than every 6 months, the Comptroller 

General of the United States shall audit the cost estimates provided by the 

Commission under paragraph (2)(D)(iii) during the preceding 6-month period. 

‘‘(b) PERIODIC REVIEW.—On the date that is 5 years after the completion of the 

rulemaking proceeding under subsection (a)(1), and every 5 years thereafter, the 

Commission shall initiate a new rulemaking proceeding to continue to consider such 

procedural changes to its rules as may be in the public interest to maximize opportunities for public participation and efficient decisionmaking. 

‘‘(c) NONPUBLIC COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSIONS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 552b of title 5, United States 

Code, a bipartisan majority of Commissioners may hold a meeting that is closed 

to the public to discuss official business if— 

‘‘(A) a vote or any other agency action is not taken at such meeting; 

‘‘(B) each person present at such meeting is a Commissioner, an employee 

of the Commission, a member of a joint board or conference established 

under section 410, or a person on the staff of such a joint board or conference or of a member of such a joint board or conference; and 

‘‘(C) an attorney from the Office of General Counsel of the Commission 

is present at such meeting. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

‘‘(2) DISCLOSURE OF NONPUBLIC COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSIONS.—Not later than 

2 business days after the conclusion of a meeting held under paragraph (1), the 

Commission shall publish a disclosure of such meeting, including— 

‘‘(A) a list of the persons who attended such meeting; and 

‘‘(B) a summary of the matters discussed at such meeting, except for such 

matters as the Commission determines may be withheld under section 

552b(c) of title 5, United States Code. 

‘‘(3) PRESERVATION OF OPEN MEETINGS REQUIREMENTS FOR AGENCY ACTION.— Nothing in this subsection shall limit the applicability of section 552b of title 

5, United States Code, with respect to a meeting of Commissioners other than 

that described in paragraph (1). 

‘‘(d) PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADVANCE OF FCC VOTING.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may not adopt any order, decision, report, 

or action by vote of the Commission, unless the Chairman causes the Commission to publish on the Internet website of the Commission the text of such 

order, decision, report, or action— 

‘‘(A) not later than 24 hours after the time such text is placed on circulation for review by the Commissioners; or 

‘‘(B) not later than 21 days before the date on which the vote is to occur. 

‘‘(2) TEXT TO BE PUBLISHED; EFFECT.—The text published pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be the text intended at the time of the publishing to be subject 

to a vote. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to prevent the Commission from making changes to the text after the publishing. 

‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.—This subsection shall not apply to a portion of any order, decision, report, or action if the publishing of such portion is likely to lead to a 

result described in a paragraph of section 552b(c) of title 5, United States Code. 

‘‘(4) NOT AGENCY ACTION.—Publication pursuant to this subsection shall not 

constitute ‘agency action’ as defined in section 551 of title 5, United States 

Code. 

‘‘(e) TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF CHANGES TO RULES OF THE COMMISSION.—Not later 

than 24 hours after adopting a provision that will appear in the Code of Federal 

Regulations, or an amendment to or repeal of a provision that appears in the Code 

of Federal Regulations, the Commission shall publish on the Internet website of the 

Commission the text of the provision adopted or repealed, or the text indicating how 

the provision is being amended, as the case may be. 

‘‘(f) ACCESS TO CERTAIN INFORMATION ON COMMISSION’S WEBSITE.—The Commission shall provide direct access from the homepage of its website to— 

‘‘(1) detailed information regarding— 

‘‘(A) the budget of the Commission for the current fiscal year; 

‘‘(B) the appropriations for the Commission for such fiscal year; and 

‘‘(C) the total number of full-time equivalent employees of the Commission; and 

‘‘(2) the performance plan most recently made available by the Commission 

under section 1115(b) of title 31, United States Code. 

‘‘(g) INTERNET PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN FCC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.—The 

chairman of the Commission shall— 

‘‘(1) publish on the Internet website of the Commission any policies or procedures of the Commission that— 

‘‘(A) are established by the chairman; and 

‘‘(B) relate to the functioning of the Commission or the handling of the 

agenda of the Commission; and 

‘‘(2) update such publication not later than 48 hours after the chairman 

makes changes to any such policies or procedures. 

‘‘(h) FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any document adopted by the Commission 

that the Commission is required, under any provision of law, to publish in the 

Federal Register, the Commission shall, not later than the date described in 

paragraph (2), complete all Commission actions necessary for such document to 

be so published. 

‘‘(2) DATE DESCRIBED.—The date described in this paragraph is the earlier 

of— 

‘‘(A) the day that is 45 days after the date of the release of the document; 

or 

‘‘(B) the day by which such actions must be completed to comply with any 

deadline under any other provision of law. 

‘‘(3) NO EFFECT ON DEADLINES FOR PUBLICATION IN OTHER FORM.—In the case 

of a deadline that does not specify that the form of publication is publication 

in the Federal Register, the Commission may comply with such deadline by 

publishing the document in another form. Such other form of publication does 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

not relieve the Commission of any Federal Register publication requirement applicable to such document, including the requirement of paragraph (1). 

‘‘(i) CONSUMER COMPLAINT DATABASE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating and processing consumer complaints, the 

Commission shall present information about such complaints in a publicly available, searchable database on its website that— 

‘‘(A) facilitates easy use by consumers; and 

‘‘(B) to the extent practicable, is sortable and accessible by— 

‘‘(i) the date of the filing of the complaint; 

‘‘(ii) the topic of the complaint; 

‘‘(iii) the party complained of; and 

‘‘(iv) other elements that the Commission considers in the public interest. 

‘‘(2) DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS.—In the case of multiple complaints arising 

from the same alleged misconduct, the Commission shall be required to include 

only information concerning one such complaint in the database described in 

paragraph (1). 

‘‘(j) FORM OF PUBLICATION.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In complying with a requirement of this section to publish 

a document, the Commission shall publish such document on its website, in addition to publishing such document in any other form that the Commission is 

required to use or is permitted to and chooses to use. 

‘‘(2) EXCEPTION.—The Commission shall by rule establish procedures for redacting documents required to be published by this section so that the published versions of such documents do not contain— 

‘‘(A) information the publication of which would be detrimental to national security, homeland security, law enforcement, or public safety; or 

‘‘(B) information that is proprietary or confidential. 

‘‘(k) TRANSPARENCY RELATING TO PERFORMANCE IN MEETING FOIA REQUIREMENTS.—The Commission shall take additional steps to inform the public about its 

performance and efficiency in meeting the disclosure and other requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), including by doing the following: 

‘‘(1) Publishing on the Commission’s website the Commission’s logs for tracking, responding to, and managing requests submitted under such section, including the Commission’s fee estimates, fee categories, and fee request determinations. 

‘‘(2) Releasing to the public all decisions made by the Commission (including 

decisions made by the Commission’s Bureaus and Offices) granting or denying 

requests filed under such section, including any such decisions pertaining to the 

estimate and application of fees assessed under such section. 

‘‘(3) Publishing on the Commission’s website electronic copies of documents released under such section. 

‘‘(4) Presenting information about the Commission’s handling of requests 

under such section in the Commission’s annual budget estimates submitted to 

Congress and the Commission’s annual performance and financial reports. Such 

information shall include the number of requests under such section the Commission received in the most recent fiscal year, the number of such requests 

granted and denied, a comparison of the Commission’s processing of such requests over at least the previous 3 fiscal years, and a comparison of the Commission’s results with the most recent average for the United States Government as published on www.foia.gov. 

‘‘(l) PROMPT RELEASE OF STATISTICAL REPORTS AND REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not 

later than January 15th of each year, the Commission shall identify, catalog, and 

publish an anticipated release schedule for all statistical reports and reports to Congress that are regularly or intermittently released by the Commission and will be 

released during such year. 

‘‘(m) ANNUAL SCORECARD REPORTS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For the 1-year period beginning on January 1st of each 

year, the Commission shall prepare a report on the performance of the Commission in conducting its proceedings and meeting the deadlines established under 

subsection (a)(2)(E) and the guidelines established under subsection (a)(2)(F). 

‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—Each report required by paragraph (1) shall contain detailed 

statistics on such performance, including, with respect to each Bureau of the 

Commission— 

‘‘(A) with respect to each type of filing specified in subsection (a)(2)(E) or 

(a)(2)(F)— 

‘‘(i) the number of filings that were pending on the last day of the 

period covered by such report; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

‘‘(ii) the number of filings described in clause (i) for which each applicable deadline or guideline established under such subsection was not 

met and the average length of time such filings have been pending; and 

‘‘(iii) for filings that were resolved during such period, the average 

time between initiation and resolution and the percentage for which 

each applicable deadline or guideline established under such subsection 

was met; 

‘‘(B) with respect to proceedings before an administrative law judge— 

‘‘(i) the number of such proceedings completed during such period; 

and 

‘‘(ii) the number of such proceedings pending on the last day of such 

period; and 

‘‘(C) the number of independent studies or analyses published by the 

Commission during such period. 

‘‘(3) PUBLICATION AND SUBMISSION.—The Commission shall publish and submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate 

each report required by paragraph (1) not later than the date that is 30 days 

after the last day of the period covered by such report. 

‘‘(n) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

‘‘(1) AMENDMENT.—The term ‘amendment’ includes, when used with respect 

to an existing rule, the deletion of such rule. 

‘‘(2) BIPARTISAN MAJORITY.—The term ‘bipartisan majority’ means, when used 

with respect to a group of Commissioners, that such group— 

‘‘(A) is a group of 3 or more Commissioners; and 

‘‘(B) includes, for each political party of which any Commissioner is a 

member, at least 1 Commissioner who is a member of such political party, 

and, if any Commissioner has no political party affiliation, at least one unaffiliated Commissioner. 

‘‘(3) PERFORMANCE MEASURE.—The term ‘performance measure’ means an objective and quantifiable outcome measure or output measure (as such terms are 

defined in section 1115 of title 31, United States Code). 

‘‘(4) PROGRAM ACTIVITY.—The term ‘program activity’ has the meaning given 

such term in section 1115 of title 31, United States Code, except that such term 

also includes any annual collection or distribution or related series of collections 

or distributions by the Commission of an amount that is greater than or equal 

to $100,000,000. 

‘‘(5) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—The terms ‘agency action’, ‘ex parte communication’, and ‘rule’ have the meanings given such terms in section 551 of title 5, 

United States Code.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATES AND IMPLEMENTING RULES.— 

(1) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(A) NONPUBLIC COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSIONS.—Subsection (c) of section 13 

of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by subsection (a), shall apply 

beginning on the first date on which all of the procedural changes to the 

rules of the Federal Communications Commission required by subsection 

(a)(1) of such section have taken effect. 

(B) PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADVANCE OF FCC VOTING.—Subsection 

(d) of such section 13 shall apply with respect to an order, decision, report, 

or action the text of which is placed on circulation after the date that is 

90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(C) TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF CHANGES TO RULES OF THE COMMISSION.— 

Subsection (e) of such section 13 shall apply with respect to a provision, or 

an amendment to or repeal of a provision, that is adopted after the date 

that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(D) INTERNET PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN FCC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.— 

Subsection (g) of such section 13 shall apply beginning on the date that is 

30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(E) REPORT RELEASE SCHEDULES.—Subsection (l) of such section 13 shall 

apply with respect to 2016 and any year thereafter. 

(F) ANNUAL SCORECARD REPORTS.—Subsection (m) of such section 13 shall 

apply with respect to 2015 and any year thereafter. 

(2) RULES.—Except as otherwise provided in such section 13, the Federal 

Communications Commission shall promulgate any rules necessary to carry out 

such section not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 3. CATEGORIZATION OF TCPA INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS IN QUARTERLY REPORT. 

In compiling its quarterly report with respect to informal consumer inquiries and 

complaints, the Federal Communications Commission may not categorize an inquiry 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

or complaint with respect to section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

U.S.C. 227) as being a wireline inquiry or complaint or a wireless inquiry or complaint unless the party whose conduct is the subject of the inquiry or complaint is 

a wireline carrier or a wireless carrier, respectively. 

SEC. 4. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS. 

Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall relieve the Federal 

Communications Commission from any obligations under title 5, United States 

Code, except where otherwise expressly provided. 

SEC. 5. APPLICATION OF ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT TO UNIVERSAL SERVICE PROGRAM. 

Section 302 of Public Law 108 494 (118 Stat. 3998) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2016’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2020’’. 

SEC. 6. REPORT ON IMPROVING SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION IN FCC PROCEEDINGS. 

Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 

Communications Commission, in consultation with the Administrator of the Small 

Business Administration, shall submit to Congress a report on— 

(1) actions that the Commission will take to improve the participation of 

small businesses in the proceedings of the Commission; and 

(2) recommendations for any legislation that the Commission considers appropriate to improve such participation. 

SEC. 7. IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS TO BE DECIDED ON AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE COMMISSION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

155(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(10) Not later than 48 hours before the time when an order, decision, report, or 

action is made or taken pursuant to delegation under paragraph (1), such order, decision, report, or action shall be identified and briefly described on the Internet 

website of the Commission, unless the authority to which the delegation is made 

for good cause finds that such identification and description are likely to lead to a 

result described in a paragraph of section 552b(c) of title 5, United States Code. 

Identification and description pursuant to this paragraph shall not constitute ‘agency action’ as defined in section 551 of title 5, United States Code. This paragraph 

shall not apply with respect to an order, decision, report, or action that— 

‘‘(A) does not receive a delegated authority number pursuant to the procedures of the Commission; 

‘‘(B) is made or taken on authority delegated to an administrative law judge; 

or 

‘‘(C) is made or taken to address an immediate threat to health or safety that 

constitutes an emergency requiring an expedited response from the Commission.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to an order, decision, report, or action made or taken after the date that is 

90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 2583, Federal Communications Process Reform Act of 2015 

(FCC Process Reform Act) amends the Communications Act of 1934 

to provide for greater transparency and efficiency in the procedures 

followed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, the 

Commission, or the Agency) and for other purposes. Among other 

things, the legislation requires the Commission to conduct a rulemaking and adopt procedural changes to its rules to maximize opportunities for public participation and efficient decision-making. 

The legislation also requires the Commission to inject much-needed 

visibility into its decision-making procedures. 

The legislation also provides for a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to meet in non-public collaborative discussions, despite the 

Government in Sunshine Act, once the rulemaking has been implemented. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

1 158 Cong. Rec. H1609–H1629 (Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 

2012 on March 27, 2012). 2 159 Cong. Reg. H2280–H2284 (Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 

2014 on March 11, 2014). 3See Section by Section analysis below for a more detailed discussion of various process failures at the FCC. 4See House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Deception and Distrust: The Federal Communications Commission under Chairman Kevin J. Martin, 110th Cong. (2008). 5See Opening Statement of Chairman Jay Rockefeller, Nomination Hearing, June 16, 2009 

at http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=bca080f3- 

15a0-4d05-8abd-77f5327a2cb7&Statement_id=ac4a336c-ed40-4f57-9600- 

6d30f4c11c3f&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39afe033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=6&YearDisplay=2009. 6See Government Accountability Office Report 10–249, ‘‘Information Collection and Management at the Federal Communications Commission,’’ Mar. 2010 at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-249; Government Accountability Office Report 10–79, ‘‘FCC Management: Improvements Needed in Communication, Decision-Making Processes, and Workforce Planning,’’ 

Jan. 2010 at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-79; Government Accountability Office Report 08-125,‘‘FCC Has Made Some Progress in the Management of Its Enforcement Program but 

Faces Limitations, and Additional Actions Are Needed,’’ Mar. 2008 at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-125; Government Accountability Office Report 07–1046, ‘‘FCC Should Take Steps 

to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information,’’ Sept. 2007 at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1046. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 2583 is the evolution of a bill that began in the 112th Congress, H.R. 3309, which ultimately passed the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 247–174.1 During the 113th Congress, 

as a result of discussion among the Members, the Committee substantially revised the bill, resulting in a bipartisan bill that passed 

the House of Representatives unanimously.2 H.R. 2583, as introduced, is substantially similar to H.R. 3675 from the 113th Congress, with changes in effective dates. At the full Committee markup, the bill was amended several times, resulting in the current 

version discussed in this report. 

This brief synopsis of the legislation’s history demonstrates the 

Committee’s ongoing commitment to reforming process at the Commission. This legislation is necessary to remedy the numerous process failings at the FCC during the tenures of both Republican and 

Democratic chairmen.3

Over the past several years, this Committee, under Republican 

and Democrat leadership, has expressed many concerns that the 

FCC has fallen short in both transparency and efficiency. In the 

110th Congress, the Committee and its Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations investigated the FCC’s procedures, and the 

Committee ultimately released a report documenting abuses at the 

agency.4 Senator Rockefeller, then Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, also instructed Chairman Genachowski during 

his nomination hearing, ‘‘Fix this agency, or we will fix it for you. 

Prove to us that the FCC is not battered beyond repair.’’ 5 In the 

111th Congress, Rep. Barton introduced H.R. 2183, a bill to improve public participation and overall decision-making at the FCC. 

In the 112th Congress, Chairman Walden and Rep. Kinzinger introduced H.R. 3309 to reform the FCC’s procedures, and in the 

113th, Chairman Walden, Rep. Kinzinger, and Ranking Member 

Anna Eshoo together introduced H.R. 3675 to reform the FCC’s 

process. These bills were based on multiple Congressional hearings 

and investigations, as well as multiple reports from the Government Accountability Office, assessing the transparency and fairness of FCC procedures.6


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

7See Letter from Frederick Butler, President, NARUC, to Susan Crawford, Visiting Professor, 

Yale Law School, Obama-Biden Transition Team on the FCC (Dec. 12, 2008), available at 

http://www.naruc.org/Testimony/08%201212%20RV%20FCC%20Transition%20letter.pdf. 8Philip J. Weiser, ‘‘Institutional Design, FCC Reform, and the Hidden Side of the Administrative State,’’ 61 ADMIN. L. REV. 675 (2009) at 677. 9Michael Weinberg and Gigi B. Sohn, An FCC for the Internet Age: Recommendations for Reforming the Federal Communications Commission (Mar. 5, 2010), available at http:// 

go.usa.gov/PyH. 10 Id. 11See Letter from Commissioner Robert M. McDowell to Chairman Julius Genachowski (Jul. 

20, 2009) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292122A1.pdf; Letter from 

Commissioner Robert M. McDowell to Acting Chairman Michael J. Copps (Jan. 27, 2009) at 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-288104A1.pdf. 12Statement from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on the Executive Order on Regulatory 

Reform and Independent Agencies (Jul. 11, 2011) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ 

attachmatch/DOC-308340A1.pdf. 13Letter from Chairman Julius Genachowski to Commissioner Robert M. McDowell (Jul. 21, 

2009) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-292121A1.pdf. Note that Mary 

Beth Richards was appointed to serve as Special Counsel on FCC Reform not once but twice. 

The first appointment came under Chairman Michael K. Powell. Press Release, ‘‘FCC Chairman 

Michael Powell Designates Special Counsel to Spearhead Internal FCC Reform Efforts’’ (Feb. 

26, 2001) at https://transition.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/Statements/2001/stmkp108.html. 14Press Release, ‘‘FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler Announces Staff Appointments’’ (Nov. 4, 2013) 

at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-323962A1.pdf. 15See Statement of Commissioner Michael O’Rielly on FCC Process Reform Task Force (rel. 

Mar. 19, 2015) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-332610A1.pdf (in response to Chairman Wheeler’s announcement). The FCC has not released an official press release on the task force, but Chairman Wheeler stated in the Subcommittee’s March 19, 2015 

oversight hearing that ‘‘I am going to be asking each Commissioner to appoint one staff person 

to work on a task force to be headed by Diane Cornell, who ran our process reform task force.’’ 

See Transcript of the Hearing of the Subcommittee on Communications & Technology, entitled 

‘‘FCC Reauthorization: Oversight of the Commission,’’ p. 33 at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ 

IF/IF16/20150319/103182/HHRG-114-IF16-20150319-SD003.pdf. 

Criticism of the FCC has come from off of the Hill as well. In 

2008, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners 

wrote an open letter to President Obama’s transition team, highlighting the need for structural and procedural reforms at the FCC 

and suggesting thirteen separate reforms to consider.7 In 2009, 

then Professor Philip Weiser wrote that ‘‘the great weight of opinion is that the FCC has always operated in a suboptimal fashion 

and is in dire need of institutional reform.’’ 8 And in a 2010 Public 

Knowledge paper, that organization called for a ‘‘shock to the system’’ and ‘‘a surrender of discretion by FCC leadership and a move 

away from unpredictable and ad hoc decisionmaking.’’ 9 The paper 

details a number of reforms similar to those effected by this bill, 

including additional transparency in editorial privileges after a 

Commission vote or identification of items delegated to bureaus for 

decision; self-imposed deadlines for Commission action on petitions 

and other matters; increased empowerment of Commission staff; 

and effective communication with the public regarding its internal 

processes.10

The most telling criticism comes from within the agency itself. In 

2009, Commissioner Robert McDowell called twice for financial and 

ethics audits of the agency, as well as a review of the external communications from the agency.11 Chairman Julius Genachowski 

billed regulatory reform a ‘‘top priority’’ of his Chairmanship 12 and 

appointed a Special Counsel for FCC Reform ‘‘to ensure high-level 

attention to this vitally important issue.’’ 13 Chairman Tom Wheeler also appointed a special counsel to review and institute procedural reforms 14 and more recently convened yet another task force 

to assess the decision-making procedures at the agency.15 CommisVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:51 Oct 25, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR305.XXX HR305

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

16See, e.g., Statement of Commission Ajit Pai on the Release of Misleading Incentive Auction 

Data (May 20, 2015) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-333581A1.pdf; 

FCC Blog Post by Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, ‘‘Fixing Flawed and Non-Existent ‘Editorial 

Privileges’ ’’ (Mar. 9, 2015) at https://www.fcc.gov/blog/fixing-flawed-and-non-existent-editorialprivileges; FCC Blog Post by Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, ‘‘Delegated Authority: Serious Objections and Solutions’’ (Feb. 2, 2015) at https://www.fcc.gov/blog/delegated-authority-seriousobjections-and-solutions; FCC Blog Post by Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, ‘‘Update on Advance 

Posting of Commission Meeting Items’’ (Jan. 16, 2015) at https://www.fcc.gov/blog/update-advance-posting-commission-meeting-items; Statement of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on Calls for 

the FCC to Preempt State Laws Governing Municipalities (Jan. 14, 2015) at https:// 

www.fcc.gov/document/statement-commissioner-pai-government-run-broadband; Joint Statement 

of Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly on the Abandonment of Consensus-Based Decision-Making at the FCC (Dec. 18, 2014) at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ 

DOC-331140A1.pdf. 17See Letter from John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, to the 

Honorable Alfred C. Sikes, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (May 21, 1991), 

quoted in FCC Process Reform: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 112th Cong., at 79–81 (May 13, 2011). 

sioners Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly also have called for multiple 

reforms to improve the transparency and process of the agency.16

Internal efforts at reform have yielded some laudable changes, 

but they have not been enough. The same issues raised by then 

Chairman John Dingell in 1991 continue to plague the agency 

today.17 The Committee believes that FCC process can be improved 

only with legislative action. 

HEARINGS

The Energy and Commerce Committee has held a number of 

hearings in recent Congresses. As noted above, H.R. 2583 was preceded by similar bills in the 112th and 113th Congresses. 

In the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee on Communications 

and Technology held a hearing on December 12, 2013, shortly after 

Chairman Wheeler was confirmed as Chairman of the agency. 

Chairman Tom Wheeler, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, Commissioner Ajit Pai, and Commissioner Michael O’Rielly all provided testimony. The Subcommittee 

held a second hearing, with Chairman Wheeler as the sole witness, 

on May 20, 2014. On September 17, 2014, the Subcommittee also 

held a third hearing focused on the Commission’s process and 

budget with testimony from the FCC’s Managing Director, Jon Wilkins, and the agency’s Inspector General, David L. Hunt. 

During the 113th Congress, the Subcommittee also held a hearing on H.R. 3675, the predecessor bill to H.R. 2583. On July 11, 

2013, at a hearing entitled ‘‘Improving FCC Process,’’ the Subcommittee received testimony from Stuart M. Benjamin, Douglas 

B. Maggs Chair in Law and Associate Dean for Research at Duke 

Law; Larry Downes, Internet industry analyst and author; Robert 

M. McDowell, Former FCC Commissioner and Visiting Fellow at 

Hudson Institute; Randolph J. May, President of Free State Foundation; Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law at 

George Washington University Law School; and James Bradford 

Ramsay, General Counsel of the National Association of Regulatory 

Utility Commissioners. 

The 114th Congress continued the efforts of the 113th in oversight of the Commission. On March 4, 2015, the Subcommittee reviewed the FCC’s budget and considered reauthorization during a 

hearing entitled, ‘‘Reauthorization of the Federal Communications 

Commission: The FCC’s FY 2016 Budget Request.’’ At the hearing, 

the Subcommittee heard testimony from Managing Director Jon 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

Wilkins. The Subcommittee held a hearing with testimony from all 

five Commissioners on March 19, 2015, entitled ‘‘FCC Reauthorization: Oversight of the Commission.’’ 

The Subcommittee considered a discussion draft of H.R. 2583 on 

April 30, 2015, at a hearing entitled ‘‘FCC Reauthorization: Improving Commission Transparency.’’ The Subcommittee also considered the discussion drafts of H.R. 2589, sponsored by Rep. Ellmers, 

which required the FCC to publish on its Internet website changes 

to the rules of the Commission not later than 24 hours after adoption; H.R. 2592, sponsored by Rep. Kinzinger, which required the 

FCC to publish on the website of the Commission documents to be 

voted on by the Commission; and H.R. 2593, sponsored by Rep. 

Latta, which required identification and description on the FCC 

website of items to be decided on delegated authority. FCC Chairman Wheeler and Commissioner O’Rielly testified. 

On May 15, 2015, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘FCC Reauthorization: Improving Commission Transparency, Part 

II’’ with testimony from Stuart M. Benjamin, Douglas B. Maggs 

Chair in Law and Associate Dean for Research, Duke Law; Robert 

M. McDowell, former FCC Commissioner, Senior Fellow, Hudson 

Institute; and, Randolph J. May, President, Free State Foundation. 

The Subcommittee considered several bills, including offered discussion draft sponsored by Rep. Matsui, which would require the 

FCC to submit to Congress a report on improving the participation 

of small businesses in the proceedings of the Commission; a discussion draft sponsored by Rep. Clarke, which would require the FCC 

to publish a quarterly report on pending requests for action and 

pending congressional investigations of the agency; and a discussion draft sponsored by Rep. Loebsack, which would require the 

FCC to publish its internal rules and procedures on the agency’s 

website. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 20, 2015, the Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology met in open markup session and forwarded a discussion draft entitled ‘‘Federal Communications Commission Process 

Reform Act of 2015,’’ without amendment, to the full Committee by 

a voice vote. 

Chairman Walden, together with Rep. Kinzinger, introduced 

H.R. 2583 on May 29, 2015. H.R. 2853 was identical to the discussion draft forwarded by the Subcommittee. 

On June 2 and 3, 2015, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2583 reported to the 

House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report legislation and amendments thereto. A motion by Mr. 

Upton to order H.R. 2583 reported to the House, as amended, was 

agreed to by a voice vote. The following reflects the record votes 

taken during the Committee consideration: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here HR305.001
13 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here HR305.002
14 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here HR305.003
15 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here HR305.004
16 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee held hearings and made findings that are reflected in this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal and objective of H.R. 2583 is to provide for greater 

transparency and efficiency in the decision-making processes followed by the FCC. This legislation accomplishes this by requiring 

the Commission to complete a rulemaking no later than one year 

after the date of enactment, establishing schedules and procedures 

for processing matters before the Commission. The legislation also 

provides for a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to meet in nonpublic collaborative discussions despite the Government in Sunshine Act, once the rulemaking has been completed. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.R. 2583 

would result in no new or increased budget authority, entitlement 

authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that 

H.R. 2583 contains no earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 

tariff benefits. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate provided by 

the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 14, 2015. 

Hon. FRED UPTON, Chairman, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2583, the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

H.R. 2583—Federal Communications Commission Process Reform 

Act of 2015 

Summary: H.R. 2583 would make a number of changes to procedures that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) follows 

in its rulemaking processes. The bill also would require the FCC 

to create a public database of information about complaints made 

by consumers of telecommunications services. Finally, the bill 

would exempt the Universal Service Fund (USF) from provisions of 

the Antideficiency Act through December 31, 2020. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2583 would change the timing 

of spending from the USF, which would affect direct spending over 

the 2016–2025 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 

We estimate, however, that the timing changes would net to zero 

over the ten-year period. Enacting H.R. 2583 would not affect revenues. 

Further, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2583 to amend the FCC’s operating procedures would cost $10 million over the 

next five years; such spending would be subject to the availability 

of appropriated funds. Under current law, the FCC is authorized 

to collect fees sufficient to offset the cost of its regulatory activities 

each year. Therefore, CBO estimates that the net cost to implement 

those provisions of H.R. 2583 would not be significant, assuming 

annual appropriation actions consistent with the agency’s authorities. 

H.R. 2583 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect 

the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

If the FCC increases annual fee collections to offset the costs of 

implementing its additional regulatory activities, the bill would impose a private-sector mandate on some commercial entities regulated by the FCC. Based on information from the FCC, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate would be small, and fall well 

below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector 

mandates ($154 million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2583 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation falls within budget function 370 (commerce and 

housing credit). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016– 

2020 

2016– 

2025 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING a

Estimated Budget 

Authority .............. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ... 0 0 151 115 26 6 ¥158 ¥118 ¥22 0 292 0 

a CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 2583 also would have an insignificant net effect on spending subject to appropriation. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill 

will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2016. 

Direct spending 

H.R. 2583 would exempt the USF from provisions of the 

Antideficiency Act through December 31, 2020. Created by the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, the USF redistributes income 

from interstate telecommunications carriers to other carriers that 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

provide services to high-cost areas, low-income households, schools, 

libraries, and nonprofit health care providers in rural areas. The 

cash flows from the USF appear in the budget as revenues (for 

fund collections) and direct spending (for amounts distributed from 

the fund). 

Under current law, the USF has a temporary exemption from the 

Antideficiency Act that will expire at the end of calendar year 

2016. Spending for one of the fund’s initiatives, the Schools and Libraries program is affected by that exemption. When the USF receives and approves an application for funding from the Schools 

and Libraries program, it obligates funds to be paid to the recipient 

pending compliance with certain grant conditions. While the exemption is in place, the USF is able to obligate funds for schools 

and libraries without having sufficient amounts available to meet 

those obligations. Without the exemption, the Schools and Libraries 

program would be unable to obligate funds until sufficient resources to meet those obligations became available. This program, 

which distributes funds to eligible institutions to provide affordable 

Internet and telecommunications services, spent $2.3 billion for 

those purposes in fiscal year 2014. By extending the exemption 

through 2020, H.R. 2583 would continue to allow the program to 

obligate and spend funds faster than it would without the exemption. 

CBO does not expect that the USF would collect or spend more 

as a result of the exemption; rather, we estimate that the timing 

of the spending would change. Specifically, CBO estimates that 

under the exemption, spending patterns would shift so that funds 

would be spent more quickly relative to the current-law baseline 

estimates during the period the proposed exemption would be in 

force. However, spending in the years immediately after the expiration of the proposed exemption would decrease, relative to the baseline, because of that shift. Thus, CBO estimates that under the bill 

direct spending would increase by $292 million over the 2016–2020 

period; but over the 2016–2025 period there would be no change in 

direct spending. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

H.R. 2583 would require the FCC to adopt new rules related to 

the agency’s decision-making processes and to present certain information in greater detail on the agency’s website. Based on information from the FCC, CBO estimates that implementing those provisions would cost about $10 million over the 2016–2020 period for 

additional administrative and information technology costs. However, the FCC is authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset its 

regulatory costs each year; therefore, CBO estimates that the net 

cost to implement H.R. 2583 would not be significant over the tenyear period, assuming appropriation actions consistent with that 

authority. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 2583, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE ON JUNE 3, 2015 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016– 

2020 

2016– 

2025 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact 0 0 151 115 26 6 ¥158 ¥118 ¥22 0 292 0 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

2583 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: If the FCC increases annual fee collections to offset the costs of implementing its additional regulatory activities, the bill would increase the cost of an 

existing mandate to pay those fees by some commercial entities 

regulated by the agency. The FCC is authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset its regulatory costs each year, subject to its annual 

appropriation. Based on information from the FCC, CBO estimates 

that the cost of the mandate would be small—no more than about 

$10 million over the next five years—and fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates 

($154 million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susan Willie; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the 

private sector: Marin Burnett. 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 2583 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 2583 specifically directs to be completed one rule making within the meaning of 5 

U.S.C. 551, as specified in Section 2(a). 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

18See, e.g., in re Fifty-five Unopposed Petitions for Determination of Effective Competition, 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 3140 (2014) (closing out unopposed petitions for 

determination of effective competition, some of which had been filed in early December of 2011). 19See 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 

1996, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4371 (2014). 

The Commission did not complete the 2010 Quadrennial Review, as statutorily required. Instead, it decided that it would incorporate the 2010 Review into the 2014 Quadrennial Review 

without producing a separate report. Similarly, the Commission failed to complete Video Competition Reports. See also Special Access for Price Cap Exchange Carriers, WC Docket No. 05– 

25 (which has been fully briefed several times and also is based on a petition for rulemaking, 

which was opened in 2002 and related to special access rates). 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides that the Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal 

Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2015.’’ 

Section 2. FCC process reform 

Section 2(a). Section 2(a) inserts after section 12 of the Communications Act of 1934 a new section, section 13, Transparency and 

Efficiency. 

Section 13(a) Initial rulemaking and inquiry 

This subsection requires the FCC to conduct a notice and comment rulemaking and adopt rules to (1) set minimum comment and 

reply comment periods for rulemaking proceedings; (2) establish 

policies concerning extensive comments toward the end of a comment period; (3) establish policies to ensure that the public has 

time to review material submitted in a proceeding after the comment cycle has closed; (4) publish the status of open rulemakings 

as well as list the draft items the Commissioners are currently considering; (5) establish deadlines for action on certain filings to the 

Commission and its bureaus; (6) establish guidelines for the disposition of petitions for declaratory ruling; (7) establish procedures 

for including the specific text of proposed rules in Commission Notice of Proposed Rule Makings (NPRM); and (8) to require the development of performance measures for FCC program activities, defined as each FCC program listed in the Federal budget or each 

program through which the FCC collects or distributes $100 million 

or more. 

New Section 13(a) is intended to ensure that the Commission 

provides a more predictable framework for making decisions as 

well as adequate opportunity for public participation. Too often, the 

members of the public will file petitions for declaratory ruling, rulemaking, or reconsideration of an FCC decision only to find that 

their petitions languish at the agency for an extended and often indeterminate length of time.18 The Commission also has begun 

rulemakings and failed to conclude them in a timely fashion or 

simply to close the docket.19


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

20See ACUS, improving the Environment for Agency Rulemaking, Recommendation No. 93– 

4. 21See Executive Order No. 13563, 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011). 22See, e.g., Comments of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, FCC 

GN Docket No. 14–25 (filed Mar. 31, 2014) at 13. 23This is not a theoretical concern. Just seven days before the Commissioners were due to 

vote on the reform of the intercarrier compensation and universal service regimes, the Wireline 

Competition Bureau of the FCC inundated the record with thousands of pages of lists of academic reports and published articles, studies, position papers, analyses, statistics, newspaper articles, white papers, publications, handbooks, State laws, State regulatory pleadings and decisions, reference works, industry surveys, treatises, congressional reports, and correspondence to 

the FCC. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) urged the 

FCC to ‘‘establish some sort of a procedure . . . to assure this sort of thing does not happen 

again.’’ See Comments of NARUC, GN Docket No. 14–25 (filed Mar. 31, 2014) at 14. 

With specific regard to new section 13(a)(2)(A), the bill requires 

the Commission to set minimum comment periods to set expectations for the public on the timeframe for the impending Commission actions. The Commission retains the flexibility to depart from 

such comment periods for significant regulatory actions as defined 

in Executive Order No. 12866 and rulemakings. This is a practice 

supported by the Administrative Conference of the United States 

(ACUS).20 The President also issued guidance to executive agencies 

that sixty days should be the minimum comment period to ‘‘afford 

the public a meaningful opportunity to comment.’’ 21

Section 13(a)(2)(B) is intended to remedy a chronic problem with 

the FCC’s notice and comment procedures. Currently, parties can 

wait until near the end of the comment period to submit massive 

amounts of new evidence in the docket to support their positions. 

The last-minute inclusion deprives other stakeholders of the opportunity to adequately analyze the submission and respond.22 Section 

13(a)(2)(C) is intended to remedy a similar situation, in which the 

agency submits documents very late in the process and substantially relies on those submissions to justify the regulation.23

Section 13(a)(2)(D) was included in H.R. 3675 in the 113th Congress and requires the FCC to report on the status of its open proceedings and to provide the public with clear information on the efficiency of the agency. During the full Committee mark-up, the section was amended to include a proposal offered by Rep. Clarke (D– 

NY), which would require the Commission also to report on the status of requests for action from the public as well as on the cost of 

Congressional investigations. The analysis of the cost of Congressional investigations will be subject to audit per section 13(a)(5). 

Section 13(a) also requires the Commission to seek public comment on a notice of inquiry into whether and how the Commission 

should (1) allow a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to add an 

item to the Commission’s agenda; (2) inform Commissioners of all 

options available on a given Commission item; (3) ensure that Commissioners have adequate time to review the text of Commission 

items; (4) publish the text of items for Commission consideration 

prior to Commission vote; (5) establish deadlines for the processing 

of applications for licenses; (6) generate additional resources for the 

processing of applications; and (7) publish Commission decisions 

within thirty days of adoption. 

Section 13(a)(2)(G) requires the Commission to establish procedures for including the specific language of a proposed rule in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking. In the past decade, the Commission 

has fallen into the habit of delineating only a general summary of 

potential action in Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, without includVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:01 Oct 25, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR305.XXX HR305

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

24See, e.g., Letter from Frederick Butler, President, NARUC, to Susan Crawford, Visiting Professor, Yale Law School, Obama-Biden Transition Team on the FCC (Dec. 12, 2008), available 

at http://www.naruc.org/Testimony/08%201212%20RV%20FCC%20Transition%20letter.pdf. 

(‘‘The FCC frequently releases vague Notices of Proposed Rulemaking that fail to articulate proposed rules and read more like Notices of Inquiry by posing countless open-ended questions.’’) 25Michael Weinberg and Gigi B. Sohn, An FCC for the Internet Age: Recommendations for 

Reforming the Federal Communications Commission, at 4 (Mar. 5, 2010), available at http:// 

go.usa.gov/PyH. 26Philip J. Weiser, FCC Reform and the Future of Telecommunications Policy at 16–17 (Jan. 

5, 2009), available at http://fcc-reform.org/ paper/fcc-reform-and-future-telecommunications-policy. 27Letter from Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, to the 

Honorable Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (Dec. 3, 2007). 28See 5 U.S.C. § 1115 et al. 29See, e.g., GAO Report No. 11–11, Improved Management Can Enhance FCC Decision Making for the Universal Service Fund Low-Income Program (Oct. 2010); GAO Report No. 09–253, 

Long-Term Strategic Vision Would Help Ensure Targeting of E-Rate Funds to Highest-Priority 

Uses (Mar. 2009); GAO Report No. 08–633, FCC Needs To Improve Performance Management 

and Strengthen Oversight of the High-Cost Program (June 2008); GAO Report No. 05–151, 

Greater Involvement Needed by FCC in the Management and Oversight of the E-Rate Program 

(Feb. 2005). 30See OIRA, Inventory of Currently Approved Information Collections, http:// 

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain (search for ‘‘Federal Communications Commission’’); see 

also GAO Report No. 10–249, Information Collection and Management at the Federal Communications Commission (Jan. 2010). 

ing the specific language of proposed rules.24 The inclusion of the 

specific text of proposed rules is ‘‘a critical step in facilitating 

meaningful discussion.’’ Without the text of the proposed rules,25

the public is left ‘‘with the challenge of guessing what issues are 

really important,’’ which ‘‘undermines the opportunity for meaningful participation and effective deliberation.’’ 26 The public deserves 

a Commission that can commit to ‘‘publishing the text of proposed 

rules sufficiently in advance of Commission meetings for both (i) 

the public to have a meaningful opportunity to comment and (ii) 

the Commissioners to have a meaningful opportunity to review 

such comments.’’ 27

Section 13(a)(2)(H) attempts to increase the transparency of the 

Commission’s largest programs, such as the Universal Service 

Fund and the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service Fund. 

The Government Performance Results Act of 1993 already requires 

the FCC and other agencies to identify yearly performance goals 

for all items on the Federal budget.28 Despite this requirement, the 

Government Accountability Office has repeatedly cited the FCC for 

failing to establish objective, quantifiable performance measures for 

the various programs within the Universal Service Fund.29 To remedy this situation, this subsection requires the Commission to develop performance measures for its program activities, defined as 

each program listed in the Federal budget, as well as each program 

through which the Commission collects or distributes $100 million 

or more, relying on data it already collects when possible. To reduce the administrative burden, this subsection does not require 

the FCC to adopt performance measures immediately, but instead 

to adopt them as it moves forward with reforms of the Universal 

Service Fund, the Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service 

Fund, and its other program activities. The Committee expects that 

the Commission will include performance measures that address 

both the collection and distribution of funds. 

Given that the FCC already has 417 separate information collections approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,30 the Committee does not expect the FCC will need to create 

new information collections in order to establish meaningful perVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:01 Oct 25, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR305.XXX HR305

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

31See, e.g., Testimony of Stuart Minor Benajamin, Douglas M. Maggas Professor of Law, Duke 

Law School, before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology (May 15, 2015). See 

also Randolph J. May, Reforming the Sunshine Act, 49 AD. LAW REV. 415 (1997). 32Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, 90 Stat. 1241 (1976), codified at 5. U.S.C. 

§ 552b. 33See 47 C.F.R. § 19.735–203 (which begins ‘‘Except as authorized in writing by the Chairman 

pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, or otherwise as authorized by the Commission or its 

rules, nonpublic information shall not be disclosed, directly or indirectly, to any person outside 

the Commission.’’). 34See Government Accountability Office Report 07–1046, ‘‘FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure 

Equal Access to Rulemaking Information’’ (Sept. 2007). 

formance measures. If the FCC determines otherwise, the Committee expects that the Commission will first look to consolidate 

and reduce the burden of existing collections before imposing new 

burdens. 

Section 13(b) Periodic review 

This subsection requires the FCC to conduct a rulemaking to review the rules established in subsection 13(a) every five years. 

Section 13(c) Nonpublic collaborative discussions 

This subsection allows a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to 

meet for collaborative discussions if they disclose such meetings 

within two business days and comply with Office of General Counsel oversight. This subsection also applies to meetings of FederalState Joint Boards. The testimonies of multiple administrative law 

experts recommend the exception as a means of increasing the efficiency of Commissioner negotiations for policymaking.31 However, 

the Committee recognizes that this subsection creates an exception 

to the Government in the Sunshine Act.32 As such, the Committee 

does not grant this privilege lightly; the permission to engage in 

non-public collaborations takes effect only when the procedural 

safeguards required in the rulemaking as directed in section 

13(a)(1) have been implemented. See Section 1(b) of the bill. This 

section does not otherwise change the applicability of the Government in Sunshine Act to the Commission’s Open Meetings. 

Section 13(d) Publication of documents in advance of FCC 

voting 

This subsection requires the FCC Chairman to make documents 

to be voted on by the Commission available within twenty-four 

hours of circulation to the Commissioners for vote. This applies to 

both documents to be voted at Open Meetings and documents to be 

voted on circulation. Under the current rules, the Chairman is the 

sole arbiter of when information on a draft order reaches the public.33 As such, stakeholders are uncertain as to whether their concerns are addressed, how the changed or new rules will modify 

their obligations, or whether the Commission’s actions will produce 

the results desired, among other things. More problematically, 

those with special access to members of the agency have greater 

knowledge of the Commission’s actions, which, as the Government 

Accountability Office has found, gives those stakeholders an advantage in lobbying the FCC.34 Moreover, other Commissioners are 

prevented from fully discussing the issues in the document with potentially impacted parties before a vote, because they are prohibited from discovering the specifics of a proposal. This does not promote informed policymaking. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

35See ACUS Recommendation 2014–2 available at https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/ 

government-sunshine-act. 36FERC, which operates at an almost identical size, composition, budget, and statutory basis 

as the FCC, releases orders the day of the vote. The FTC releases the actual text of rules before 

proceeding to a final decision, pursuant to Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USC Section 57 

a(b)(1)(A). 37See Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, ‘‘FCC’s Pre-Adoption Process Also Needs Work,’’ FCC 

Blog, Apr. 1, 2015 at http://www.fcc.gov/blog/fcc-s-pre-adoption-process-also-needs-work. Commissioner O’Rielly sums up the issue by stating, ‘‘It is patently unfair to expect Commissioners 

to promptly read and provide feedback on an item when staff is working on a substantially different document to be provided later—sometimes not until late the night before a vote.’’ 38See, e.g., Sprint Corp. v. FCC, 331 F.3d 952 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (stating that Commission need 

not address every possible comment but need only ‘‘respond in a reasoned manner to those [comments] that raise significant problems’’). 39See, e.g., Bennett v. Spear, 520 US 154 (1997). 

This subsection establishes a practice of publishing the documents to be voted on by the Commission before an actual vote, allowing access to the public. This also is a practice endorsed by 

ACUS.35 Other Federal agencies already practice this type of transparency either by providing the proposed text of rules from the outset of the comment period or releasing the final text of the rules 

before the final decision.36

Critics have argued that this subsection would hamper the deliberative process at the FCC. This subsection explicitly recognizes in 

subparagraph (2) that the draft to be published is a document, subject to revision; the only requirement is that the document reflects 

the intent of the Commission at the time of circulation. It is important to note that the Committee expects the Chairman to publish 

a bona fide representation of the decision at the time and not to 

post an ersatz proposal to be completely replaced at a later date.37

This subsection, however, does allow the Commission to withhold 

certain information in keeping with the exceptions permitted in the 

Government in Sunshine Act. Failure to post other documents 

within the twenty-four-hour window, however, would result in a 

twenty-one-day delay—the standard circulation period for an item 

to be considered at an open meeting of the Commission—before the 

document may be voted on, so that the FCC may remedy its error 

and provide the document for publication. 

Critics also have argued that posting a draft decision before the 

vote could lead to a fresh round of comments from stakeholders, 

forcing the Commission to delay its vote until the comments are incorporated. The Committee notes that current practice at the Commission permits lobbying during circulation of a document, less the 

sunshine period for open meeting items. There is a significant body 

of caselaw addressing the issue of the public’s right to comment 38

and the doctrine of ripeness, which governs the availability of judicial review.39 Moreover, should comments arise that require significant response, the Commission should delay resolution of the item 

until a meaningful review of any new issues has been completed. 

Nonetheless, to foreclose any questions of whether the posted draft 

should be considered actionable, this subsection includes subparagraph (4), which clearly states that the publication of the draft 

itself does not constitute final agency action, available for judicial 

review. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

40The concept of ‘‘editorial privileges’’ is itself controversial as there does not appear to be 

any support for the practice in the laws governing the Commission’s process. See e.g. Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, ‘‘Fixing Flawed and Non-Existent ‘Editorial Privileges,’ ’’ FCC Blog, 

Mar. 9, 2015 at http://www.fcc.gov/blog/fixing-flawed-and-non-existent-editorial-privileges. 41 Associated Press, ‘‘Voted Items at FCC may be Secret till Final, Agency Says,’’ Jun. 19, 2008 

available at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/voted-items-at-fcc-may-be-secret-till-finalagency-says. 

Section 13(e) Timely availability of changes to rules of the 

Commission 

This subsection requires the Commission to post the text of its 

rules (i.e., the actual modifications to the Code of Federal Regulations) on its Internet website within 24 hours of adoption. 

Once the Commissioners have voted to adopt an item, the document often remains unreleased to the public, preventing the public 

from fully understanding the Commission’s action. Part of the reason for this delay is the routine practice of granting the Commission staff ‘‘editorial privileges,’’ which range from proofreading and 

cleaning up the document, to making changes to the text of the 

item to address arguments raised by dissenting Commissioners.40

However, a significant lag between the vote and the publication of 

the voted item could indicate substantive changes buried in the 

‘‘editorial privileges’’ process. In fact, the FCC has maintained the 

confidentiality of the as-voted document as exempt from disclosure 

under FOIA’s ‘‘deliberative process privilege,’’ despite the fact that 

the vote had occurred already and deliberation had ended.41 Substantive post-decision revisions could undermine the legitimacy of 

the Commission’s decision and the integrity of the rulemaking. 

This subsection would require the Commission to promulgate the 

text of the rules, which should not require further editing, if these 

rules were the basis for the Commissioners’ votes. 

Section 13(f) Access to certain information on the Commission’s website. 

This subsection requires the FCC to provide links on the Commission’s home page to the current budget, appropriations, number 

of full-time equivalent employees, and the Commission’s performance plan. This practice is followed by most other administrative 

agencies, and availability of this information would provide valuable insight into the operations of the Commission. 

While this subsection requires only that the Commission publish 

information for the current fiscal year, the Committee hopes the 

Commission will provide such information on a historical basis, as 

is common practice at other agencies. The cost and operation of the 

Commission is a matter of public record, and the Committee does 

not believe it will constitute a burden to require the agency to 

make such historical information easily accessible to the public. 

Section 13(g) Internet publication of certain FCC policies and 

procedures. 

This subsection is based on a draft bill proposed by Rep. 

Loebsack and requires the FCC to publish policies and procedures 

that govern the Commission’s decisionmaking process. The Chairman of the Commission is considered the ‘‘CEO’’ of the Commission 

and may dictate procedures for carrying out Commission busiVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:01 Oct 25, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR305.XXX HR305

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

42See 47 U.S.C. § 155(a) (stating ‘‘The member of the Commission designed by the President 

as chairman shall be the chief executive officer of the Commission’’). 43See GAO Report 10–79, ‘‘FCC Management: Improvements Needed in Communications, Decision-Making Processes, and Workforce Planning’’ (December 2009) at 2. 44See, e.g., NRC Procedures http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/internal.html; FTC 

Procedures https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/foia/foia-resources/ftc-administrative-staff-manuals. 

ness.42 As a result, the Chairman manages the staff of the entire 

agency (other than those in the offices of the other Commissioners), 

including the General Counsel and the Inspector General, determines which policy matters will be considered and when they will 

be considered, and controls the availability of information to the 

public and to other Commissioners. 

It does not appear that the FCC maintains standard operating 

manuals for basic Commission decision-making functions, such as 

procedures for providing information to the offices of other Commissioners for agenda items, as recommended by the GAO.43 Limited information on agency procedures impedes the public’s ability 

to determine whether the agency is functioning effectively. Other 

independent agencies have posted these materials on their websites 

and make them available to the public.44

Section 13(h) Federal Register publication. 

This subsection requires the FCC to publish the documents specified in the Federal Register no later than forty-five days after release of the document or the day specified under any other provision of law. 

Section 13(i) Consumer complaint database. 

This subsection requires the FCC to put consumer complaint information in a publicly available, searchable database on its 

website. 

Section 13(j) Form of publication. 

This subsection requires the FCC to publish documents specified 

in this section on its website. 

Section 13(k) Transparency relating to performance in meeting FOIA requirements. 

This subsection requires the FCC to take additional steps to inform the public about its performance in meeting the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Section 13(l) Prompt release of statistical reports and reports 

to Congress. 

This subsection requires the FCC to establish a schedule for the 

release of its required reports. 

Section 13(m) Annual scorecard. 

This subsection requires the FCC to report annually regarding 

its performance in meeting the deadlines and guidelines established in subsection (a), as well as how the Commission has used 

administrative law judges and independent studies. 

Section 13(n) Definitions 

This subsection defines several terms used in the Act, including 

‘‘performance measure’’ and ‘‘program activity.’’ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

Section 2(b). Section 2(b) sets the effective dates for the changes 

required in section 2(a). It also sets the schedule of the reports to 

be submitted under new section 13. 

Specifically, Commission is required to complete its rulemaking 

on new section 13 no later than one year after the date of enactment and delays the implementation of the non-public collaborative 

discussion provisions until all rules required by section 13 have 

taken effect. 

The implementation of subsection 13(d) on publishing FCC documents in advance of voting must be completed no later than ninety 

days after the date of enactment. 

The implementation of subsection 13(e) on the timely availability 

of the newly voted rules must be completed no later than thirty 

days after the date of enactment. 

The implementation of subsection 13(g) on the availability of 

Commission decisionmaking procedures must be completed no later 

than 30 days after the date of enactment. 

Section 3. Categorization of TCPA inquiries and complaints in 

quarterly report 

Section 3 prohibits the FCC from categorizing inquiries or complaints under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as wireline 

or wireless inquiries or complaints unless the complaint or inquiry 

originated from the conduct of a wireline or wireless carrier. 

Section 4. Effect on other laws 

Section 4 specifies that the Act does not alter the general framework established by the Administrative Procedures Act and related 

laws, except where it does so explicitly (i.e., allowing deliberative 

collaboration among Commissioners and on the Federal-State Joint 

Boards). 

Section 5. Application of Antideficiency Act to Universal Service 

Program 

Section 5 creates a waiver of the Antideficiency Act for the Federal Universal Service Fund through December 31, 2020. The Universal Service Fund has been subject to a series of temporary waivers since 2004. 

Section 6. Report on improving Small Business participation in 

FCC proceedings. 

Section 6 requires the Commission to consult with the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) to produce a report recommending 

actions and legislation that would improve the participation of 

small businesses in Commission proceedings. This section was 

based on a draft bill proposed by Rep. Matsui to remedy concerns 

that the small business community has not been able to engage in 

proceedings at the Commission. As the Commission considers how 

it may engage small businesses, it must carefully consider the definition of ‘‘small business.’’ Since Congress has designated the SBA 

as the expert entity on small businesses, the Committee strongly 

recommends that the Commission defer to the SBA’s existing size 

standard definition. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

45 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(1). 46See 47 C.F.R. Part 0, Subpart B. 47 In March 2014, the Media Bureau, using delegated authority, changed longstanding FCC 

policy with regard to the approval of broadcast television transactions involving sharing agreements. This policy change was neither routine nor non-controversial. Yet, this change in Commission policy was not debated among the Commissioners, and it was not subject to a vote of 

any kind. Rather, it was announced by the Chief of the Media Bureau in a Public Notice. See 

FCC Public Notice, ‘‘Process of Broadcast Television Applications Proposing Sharing Arrangements and Contingent Interests,’’ DA 14–330 (rel. Mar. 12, 2014); In July 2014, a Public Notice 

related to the then upcoming AWS–3 auction was placed on circulation, beginning the process 

by which Commissioners and their staffs may request edits and ultimately vote on the item. 

However, subsequent action by the Chairman’s office removed the item from circulation and directed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to issue the Public Notice on delegated authority—depriving the public of essential process and the members of the Commission an opportunity to vote on the matter. According to the media reports, one of the Commissioners sought 

information related to the substance of the Public Notice and was told he would be briefed after 

the item was adopted. See FCC Press Release, Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai on the Pulling of the AWS–3 Coordination Item From Commission Consideration, Jul. 18, 2014, at https:// 

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-328339A1.pdf. Other instances have been documented in a variety of trade press. 48See Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, ‘‘Delegated Authority: Serious Objections and Solutions,’’ FCC Blog, Feb. 2, 2015 at http://www.fcc.gov/blog/delegated-authority-serious-objections-and-solutions. 49See Testimony of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology (Apr. 30, 2015). 50See John Eggerton, ‘‘CC Source: Both Walden, Eshoo DA Figures Are Correct,’’ 

Broadcasting&Cable (May 20, 2015) at http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/ 

fcc-source-both-walden-eshoo-da-figures-are-correct/141061. 51The 1,845 figure was submitted by the Commission in response to a letter sent to the FCC 

Chairman from Full Committee Chairman Fred Upton, Subcommittee Chairman Tim Murphy, 

and Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden on February 15, 2015. 

Section 7. Identification and description of items to be decided on 

authority delegated by the Commission 

Section 7 requires the Commission to describe and list items to 

be adopted on delegated authority on its website forty-eight hours 

before the action becomes effective. This change must be made no 

later than ninety days after the date of enactment. 

Not all work at the FCC is done at the Commission level. By 

statute, the Commission is permitted to delegate certain routine 

matters to staff in order to ensure that the FCC runs smoothly and 

stakeholder needs are met in a timely fashion.45 The FCC’s rules, 

however, prohibit staff from resolving new or novel questions of law 

or policy that cannot be resolved under outstanding Commission 

precedents or guidelines.46 That responsibility falls to the Commission, which is tasked with interpreting policy under the statute. 

Without safeguards, however, there is the danger that items on 

delegated authority may address new and novel questions of law or 

policy.47

It is unwritten policy at the FCC to provide Commissioners with 

some notice—varying from forty-eight hours to no time at all–when 

an action is decided at the Bureau or Office level on delegated authority.48 This bill seeks to codify a good policy already loosely in 

practice at the Commission to prevent abuse of the delegated authority. 

Critics have argued that requiring advance notice of items to be 

issued on delegated authority would slow the Commission’s operations to a crawl. Chairman Wheeler testified that over 950,000 

items were decided on delegated authority in 2014.49 However, Bureau Chiefs at the Commission may adopt certain delegated items 

and assign a ‘‘DA’’ number, if the Bureau Chief considers that the 

decision may have precedential value in the future and may resolve 

an ‘‘issue of broad public attention.’’ 50 Of the 950,000 items, only 

1,845 items received a DA number in 2014.51 In order to avoid 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

slowing the agency’s most routine operations, the subsection requires only that those items receiving a DA number be listed and 

described forty-eight hours before adoption. Accordingly, the Committee hopes to ensure that the Commission’s use of delegated authority remains above reproach. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 

TITLE I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMISSION. 

(a) The member of the Commission designated by the President 

as chairman shall be the chief executive officer of the Commission. 

It shall be his duty to preside at all meetings and sessions of the 

Commission, to represent the Commission in all matters relating to 

legislation and legislative reports, except that any commissioner 

may present his own or minority views or supplemental reports, to 

represent the Commission in all matters requiring conferences or 

communications with other governmental officers, departments or 

agencies, and generally to coordinate and organize the work of the 

Commission in such manner as to promote prompt and efficient 

disposition of all matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

In the case of a vacancy in the office of the chairman of the Commission, or the absence or inability of the chairman to serve, the 

Commission may temporarily designate one of its members to act 

as chairman until the cause or circumstance requiring such designation shall have been eliminated or corrected. 

(b) From time to time as the Commission may find necessary, the 

Commission shall organize its staff into (1) integrated bureaus, to 

function on the basis of the Commission’s principal workload operations, and (2) such other divisional organizations as the Commission may deem necessary. Each such integrated bureau shall include such legal, engineering, accounting, administrative, clerical, 

and other personnel as the Commission may determine to be necessary to perform its functions. 

(c)(1) When necessary to the proper functioning of the Commission and the prompt and orderly conduct of its business, the Commission may, by published rule or by order, delegate any of its 

functions (except functions granted to the Commission by this paragraph and by paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of this subsection and except any action referred to in sections 204(a)(2), 208(b), and 405(b)) 

to a panel of commissioners, an individual commissioner, an employee board, or an individual employee, including functions with 

respect to hearing, determining, ordering, certifying, reporting, or 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

otherwise acting as to any work, business, or matter; except that 

in delegating review functions to employees in cases of adjudication 

(as defined in the Administrative Procedure Act), the delegation in 

any such case may be made only to an employee board consisting 

of two or more employees referred to in paragraph (8). Any such 

rule or order may be adopted, amended, or rescinded only by a vote 

of a majority of the members of the Commission then holding office. 

Except for cases involving the authorization of service in the instructional television fixed service, or as otherwise provided in this 

Act, nothing in this paragraph shall authorize the Commission to 

provide for the conduct, by any person or persons other than persons referred to in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 556(b) of title 5, 

United States Code, of any hearing to which such section applies. 

(2) As used in this subsection (d) the term ‘‘order, decision, report, or action’’ does not include an initial, tentative, or recommended decision to which exceptions may be filed as provided in 

section 409(b). 

(3) Any order, decision, report, or action made or taken pursuant 

to any such delegation, unless reviewed as provided in paragraph 

(4), shall have the same force and effect, and shall be made, evidenced, and enforced in the same manner, as orders, decisions, reports, or other actions of the Commission. 

(4) Any person aggrieved by any such order, decision, report or 

action may file an application for review by the Commission within 

such time and in such manner as the Commission shall prescribe, 

and every such application shall be passed upon by the Commission. The Commission, on its own initiative, may review in whole 

or in part, at such time and in such manner as it shall determine, 

any order, decision, report, or action made or taken pursuant to 

any delegation under paragraph (1). 

(5) In passing upon applications for review, the Commission may 

grant, in whole or in part, or deny such applications without specifying any reasons therefore. No such application for review shall 

rely on questions of fact or law upon which the panel of commissioners, individual commissioner, employee board, or individual 

employee has been afforded no opportunity to pass. 

(6) If the Commission grants the application for review, it may 

affirm, modify, or set aside the order, decision, report, or action, or 

it may order a rehearing upon such order, decision, report, or action in accordance with section 405. 

(7) The filing of an application for review under this subsection 

shall be a condition precedent to judicial review of any order, decision, report, or action made or taken pursuant to a delegation 

under paragraph (1). The time within which a petition for review 

must be filed in a proceeding to which section 402(a) applies, or 

within which an appeal must be taken under section 402(b), shall 

be computed from the date upon which public notice is given of orders disposing of all applications for review filed in any case. 

(8) The employees to whom the Commission may delegate review 

functions in any case of adjudication (as defined in the Administrative Procedure Act) shall be qualified, by reason of their training, 

experience, and competence, to perform such review functions, and 

shall perform no duties inconsistent with such review functions. 

Such employees shall be in a grade classification or salary level 

commensurate with their important duties, and in no event less 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

than the grade classification or salary level of the employee or employees whose actions are to be reviewed. In the performance of 

such review functions such employees shall be assigned to cases in 

rotation so far as practicable and shall not be responsible to or subject to the supervision or direction of any officer, employee, or 

agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting 

functions for any agency. 

(9) The secretary and seal of the Commission shall be the secretary and seal of each panel of the Commission, each individual 

commissioner, and each employee board or individual employee exercising functions delegated pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection. 

(10) Not later than 48 hours before the time when an order, decision, report, or action is made or taken pursuant to delegation 

under paragraph (1), such order, decision, report, or action shall be 

identified and briefly described on the Internet website of the Commission, unless the authority to which the delegation is made for 

good cause finds that such identification and description are likely 

to lead to a result described in a paragraph of section 552b(c) of 

title 5, United States Code. Identification and description pursuant 

to this paragraph shall not constitute ‘‘agency action’’ as defined in 

section 551 of title 5, United States Code. This paragraph shall not 

apply with respect to an order, decision, report, or action that— 

(A) does not receive a delegated authority number pursuant 

to the procedures of the Commission; 

(B) is made or taken on authority delegated to an administrative law judge; or 

(C) is made or taken to address an immediate threat to 

health or safety that constitutes an emergency requiring an expedited response from the Commission. 

(d) Meetings of the Commission shall be held at regular intervals, not less frequently than once each calendar month, at which 

times the functioning of the Commission and the handling of its 

work load shall be reviewed and such orders shall be entered and 

other action taken as may be necessary or appropriate to expedite 

the prompt and orderly conduct of the business of the Commission 

with the objective of rendering a final decision (1) within three 

months from the date of filing in all original application, renewal, 

and transfer cases in which it will not be necessary to hold a hearing, and (2) within six months from the final date of the hearing 

in all hearing cases. 

(e) The Commission shall have a Managing Director who shall be 

appointed by the Chairman subject to the approval of the Commission. The Managing Director, under the supervision and direction 

of the Chairman, shall perform such administrative and executive 

functions as the Chairman shall delegate. The Managing Director 

shall be paid at a rate equal to the rate then payable for level V 

of the Executive Schedule. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 13. TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCY. 

(a) INITIAL RULEMAKING AND INQUIRY.— (1) RULEMAKING.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the 

enactment of the Federal Communications Commission Process 

Reform Act of 2015, the Commission shall complete a ruleVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:01 Oct 25, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR305.XXX HR305

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

making proceeding and adopt procedural changes to its rules to 

maximize opportunities for public participation and efficient decisionmaking. 

(2) REQUIREMENTS FOR RULEMAKING.—The rules adopted 

under paragraph (1) shall— 

(A) set minimum comment periods for comment and reply 

comment, subject to a determination by the Commission 

that good cause exists for departing from such minimum 

comment periods, for— 

(i) significant regulatory actions, as defined in Executive Order No. 12866; and 

(ii) all other rulemaking proceedings; 

(B) establish policies concerning the submission of extensive new comments, data, or reports towards the end of the 

comment period; 

(C) establish policies regarding treatment of comments, 

ex parte communications, and data or reports (including 

statistical reports and reports to Congress) submitted after 

the comment period to ensure that the public has adequate 

notice of and opportunity to respond to such submissions 

before the Commission relies on such submissions in any 

order, decision, report, or action; 

(D) establish procedures for, not later than 14 days after 

the end of each quarter of a calendar year (or more frequently, as the Commission considers appropriate), publishing on the Internet website of the Commission and submitting to Congress a report that contains— 

(i) the status of open rulemaking proceedings and 

proposed orders, decisions, reports, or actions on circulation for review by the Commissioners, including 

which Commissioners have not cast a vote on an order, 

decision, report, or action that has been on circulation 

for more than 60 days; 

(ii) for the petitions, applications, complaints, and 

other requests for action by the Commission that were 

pending at the Commission on the last day of such 

quarter (or more frequent period, as the case may be)— 

(I) the number of such requests, broken down by 

the bureau primarily responsible for action and, 

for each bureau, the type of request (such as a petition, application, or complaint); and 

(II) information regarding the amount of time 

for which such requests have been pending, broken 

down as described in subclause (I); and 

(iii) a list of the congressional investigations of the 

Commission that were pending on the last day of such 

quarter (or more frequent period, as the case may be) 

and the cost of such investigations, individually and in 

the aggregate; 

(E) establish deadlines (relative to the date of filing) for— 

(i) in the case of a petition for a declaratory ruling 

under section 1.2 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, issuing a public notice of such petition; 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

(ii) in the case of a petition for rulemaking under section 1.401 of such title, issuing a public notice of such 

petition; and 

(iii) in the case of a petition for reconsideration 

under section 1.106 or 1.429 of such title or an application for review under section 1.115 of such title, issuing 

a public notice of a decision on the petition or application by the Commission or under delegated authority 

(as the case may be); 

(F) establish guidelines (relative to the date of filing) for 

the disposition of petitions filed under section 1.2 of such 

title; 

(G) establish procedures for the inclusion of the specific 

language of the proposed rule or the proposed amendment 

of an existing rule in a notice of proposed rulemaking; and 

(H) require notices of proposed rulemaking and orders 

adopting a rule or amending an existing rule that— 

(i) create (or propose to create) a program activity to 

contain performance measures for evaluating the effectiveness of the program activity; and 

(ii) substantially change (or propose to substantially 

change) a program activity to contain— 

(I) performance measures for evaluating the effectiveness of the program activity as changed (or 

proposed to be changed); or 

(II) a finding that existing performance measures will effectively evaluate the program activity 

as changed (or proposed to be changed). 

(3) INQUIRY.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Federal Communications Commission Process 

Reform Act of 2015, the Commission shall complete an inquiry 

to seek public comment on whether and how the Commission 

should— 

(A) establish procedures for allowing a bipartisan majority of Commissioners to place an order, decision, report, or 

action on the agenda of an open meeting; 

(B) establish procedures for informing all Commissioners 

of a reasonable number of options available to the Commission for resolving a petition, complaint, application, rulemaking, or other proceeding; 

(C) establish procedures for ensuring that all Commissioners have adequate time, prior to being required to decide a petition, complaint, application, rulemaking, or other 

proceeding (including at a meeting held pursuant to section 

5(d)), to review the proposed Commission decision document, including the specific language of any proposed rule 

or any proposed amendment of an existing rule; 

(D) establish deadlines (relative to the date of filing) for 

disposition of applications for a license under section 1.913 

of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations; 

(E) assign resources needed in order to meet the deadlines described in subparagraph (D), including whether the 

Commission’s ability to meet such deadlines would be enhanced by assessing a fee from applicants for such a license; and 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

(F) publish each order, decision, report, or action not 

later than 30 days after the date of the adoption of such 

order, decision, report, or action. 

(4) DATA FOR PERFORMANCE MEASURES.—The Commission 

shall develop a performance measure or proposed performance 

measure required by this subsection to rely, where possible, on 

data already collected by the Commission. 

(5) GAO AUDIT.—Not less frequently than every 6 months, the 

Comptroller General of the United States shall audit the cost 

estimates provided by the Commission under paragraph 

(2)(D)(iii) during the preceding 6-month period. 

(b) PERIODIC REVIEW.—On the date that is 5 years after the completion of the rulemaking proceeding under subsection (a)(1), and 

every 5 years thereafter, the Commission shall initiate a new rulemaking proceeding to continue to consider such procedural changes 

to its rules as may be in the public interest to maximize opportunities for public participation and efficient decisionmaking. 

(c) NONPUBLIC COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSIONS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 552b of title 5, 

United States Code, a bipartisan majority of Commissioners 

may hold a meeting that is closed to the public to discuss official business if— 

(A) a vote or any other agency action is not taken at such 

meeting; 

(B) each person present at such meeting is a Commissioner, an employee of the Commission, a member of a joint 

board or conference established under section 410, or a person on the staff of such a joint board or conference or of a 

member of such a joint board or conference; and 

(C) an attorney from the Office of General Counsel of the 

Commission is present at such meeting. 

(2) DISCLOSURE OF NONPUBLIC COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSIONS.—Not later than 2 business days after the conclusion of 

a meeting held under paragraph (1), the Commission shall publish a disclosure of such meeting, including— 

(A) a list of the persons who attended such meeting; and 

(B) a summary of the matters discussed at such meeting, 

except for such matters as the Commission determines may 

be withheld under section 552b(c) of title 5, United States 

Code. 

(3) PRESERVATION OF OPEN MEETINGS REQUIREMENTS FOR

AGENCY ACTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall limit the applicability of section 552b of title 5, United States Code, with 

respect to a meeting of Commissioners other than that described 

in paragraph (1). 

(d) PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADVANCE OF FCC VOTING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may not adopt any order, 

decision, report, or action by vote of the Commission, unless the 

Chairman causes the Commission to publish on the Internet 

website of the Commission the text of such order, decision, report, or action— 

(A) not later than 24 hours after the time such text is 

placed on circulation for review by the Commissioners; or 

(B) not later than 21 days before the date on which the 

vote is to occur. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

(2) TEXT TO BE PUBLISHED; EFFECT.—The text published pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be the text intended at the time of 

the publishing to be subject to a vote. Nothing in this subsection 

may be construed to prevent the Commission from making 

changes to the text after the publishing. 

(3) EXCEPTION.—This subsection shall not apply to a portion 

of any order, decision, report, or action if the publishing of such 

portion is likely to lead to a result described in a paragraph of 

section 552b(c) of title 5, United States Code. 

(4) NOT AGENCY ACTION.—Publication pursuant to this subsection shall not constitute ‘‘agency action’’ as defined in section 

551 of title 5, United States Code. 

(e) TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF CHANGES TO RULES OF THE COMMISSION.—Not later than 24 hours after adopting a provision that will 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, or an amendment to or 

repeal of a provision that appears in the Code of Federal Regulations, the Commission shall publish on the Internet website of the 

Commission the text of the provision adopted or repealed, or the text 

indicating how the provision is being amended, as the case may be. 

(f) ACCESS TO CERTAIN INFORMATION ON COMMISSION’S

WEBSITE.—The Commission shall provide direct access from the 

homepage of its website to— 

(1) detailed information regarding— 

(A) the budget of the Commission for the current fiscal 

year; 

(B) the appropriations for the Commission for such fiscal 

year; and 

(C) the total number of full-time equivalent employees of 

the Commission; and 

(2) the performance plan most recently made available by the 

Commission under section 1115(b) of title 31, United States 

Code. 

(g) INTERNET PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN FCC POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.—The chairman of the Commission shall— 

(1) publish on the Internet website of the Commission any 

policies or procedures of the Commission that— 

(A) are established by the chairman; and 

(B) relate to the functioning of the Commission or the 

handling of the agenda of the Commission; and 

(2) update such publication not later than 48 hours after the 

chairman makes changes to any such policies or procedures. 

(h) FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any document adopted by the 

Commission that the Commission is required, under any provision of law, to publish in the Federal Register, the Commission 

shall, not later than the date described in paragraph (2), complete all Commission actions necessary for such document to be 

so published. 

(2) DATE DESCRIBED.—The date described in this paragraph 

is the earlier of— 

(A) the day that is 45 days after the date of the release 

of the document; or 

(B) the day by which such actions must be completed to 

comply with any deadline under any other provision of law. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

(3) NO EFFECT ON DEADLINES FOR PUBLICATION IN OTHER

FORM.—In the case of a deadline that does not specify that the 

form of publication is publication in the Federal Register, the 

Commission may comply with such deadline by publishing the 

document in another form. Such other form of publication does 

not relieve the Commission of any Federal Register publication 

requirement applicable to such document, including the requirement of paragraph (1). 

(i) CONSUMER COMPLAINT DATABASE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating and processing consumer 

complaints, the Commission shall present information about 

such complaints in a publicly available, searchable database on 

its website that— 

(A) facilitates easy use by consumers; and 

(B) to the extent practicable, is sortable and accessible 

by— 

(i) the date of the filing of the complaint; 

(ii) the topic of the complaint; 

(iii) the party complained of; and 

(iv) other elements that the Commission considers in 

the public interest. 

(2) DUPLICATIVE COMPLAINTS.—In the case of multiple complaints arising from the same alleged misconduct, the Commission shall be required to include only information concerning 

one such complaint in the database described in paragraph (1). 

(j) FORM OF PUBLICATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In complying with a requirement of this 

section to publish a document, the Commission shall publish 

such document on its website, in addition to publishing such 

document in any other form that the Commission is required to 

use or is permitted to and chooses to use. 

(2) EXCEPTION.—The Commission shall by rule establish procedures for redacting documents required to be published by 

this section so that the published versions of such documents do 

not contain— 

(A) information the publication of which would be detrimental to national security, homeland security, law enforcement, or public safety; or 

(B) information that is proprietary or confidential. 

(k) TRANSPARENCY RELATING TO PERFORMANCE IN MEETING

FOIA REQUIREMENTS.—The Commission shall take additional steps 

to inform the public about its performance and efficiency in meeting 

the disclosure and other requirements of section 552 of title 5, 

United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), including by doing the following: 

(1) Publishing on the Commission’s website the Commission’s 

logs for tracking, responding to, and managing requests submitted under such section, including the Commission’s fee estimates, fee categories, and fee request determinations. 

(2) Releasing to the public all decisions made by the Commission (including decisions made by the Commission’s Bureaus 

and Offices) granting or denying requests filed under such section, including any such decisions pertaining to the estimate 

and application of fees assessed under such section. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

(3) Publishing on the Commission’s website electronic copies 

of documents released under such section. 

(4) Presenting information about the Commission’s handling 

of requests under such section in the Commission’s annual 

budget estimates submitted to Congress and the Commission’s 

annual performance and financial reports. Such information 

shall include the number of requests under such section the 

Commission received in the most recent fiscal year, the number 

of such requests granted and denied, a comparison of the Commission’s processing of such requests over at least the previous 

3 fiscal years, and a comparison of the Commission’s results 

with the most recent average for the United States Government 

as published on www.foia.gov. 

(l) PROMPT RELEASE OF STATISTICAL REPORTS AND REPORTS TO

CONGRESS.—Not later than January 15th of each year, the Commission shall identify, catalog, and publish an anticipated release 

schedule for all statistical reports and reports to Congress that are 

regularly or intermittently released by the Commission and will be 

released during such year. 

(m) ANNUAL SCORECARD REPORTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For the 1-year period beginning on January 

1st of each year, the Commission shall prepare a report on the 

performance of the Commission in conducting its proceedings 

and meeting the deadlines established under subsection 

(a)(2)(E) and the guidelines established under subsection 

(a)(2)(F). 

(2) CONTENTS.—Each report required by paragraph (1) shall 

contain detailed statistics on such performance, including, with 

respect to each Bureau of the Commission— 

(A) with respect to each type of filing specified in subsection (a)(2)(E) or (a)(2)(F)— 

(i) the number of filings that were pending on the 

last day of the period covered by such report; 

(ii) the number of filings described in clause (i) for 

which each applicable deadline or guideline established under such subsection was not met and the average length of time such filings have been pending; and 

(iii) for filings that were resolved during such period, 

the average time between initiation and resolution and 

the percentage for which each applicable deadline or 

guideline established under such subsection was met; 

(B) with respect to proceedings before an administrative 

law judge— 

(i) the number of such proceedings completed during 

such period; and 

(ii) the number of such proceedings pending on the 

last day of such period; and 

(C) the number of independent studies or analyses published by the Commission during such period. 

(3) PUBLICATION AND SUBMISSION.—The Commission shall 

publish and submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate each report required by paragraph (1) not later than the date that is 30 days 

after the last day of the period covered by such report. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

(n) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) AMENDMENT.—The term ‘‘amendment’’ includes, when 

used with respect to an existing rule, the deletion of such rule. 

(2) BIPARTISAN MAJORITY.—The term ‘‘bipartisan majority’’ 

means, when used with respect to a group of Commissioners, 

that such group— 

(A) is a group of 3 or more Commissioners; and 

(B) includes, for each political party of which any Commissioner is a member, at least 1 Commissioner who is a 

member of such political party, and, if any Commissioner 

has no political party affiliation, at least one unaffiliated 

Commissioner. 

(3) PERFORMANCE MEASURE.—The term ‘‘performance measure’’ means an objective and quantifiable outcome measure or 

output measure (as such terms are defined in section 1115 of 

title 31, United States Code). 

(4) PROGRAM ACTIVITY.—The term ‘‘program activity’’ has the 

meaning given such term in section 1115 of title 31, United 

States Code, except that such term also includes any annual 

collection or distribution or related series of collections or distributions by the Commission of an amount that is greater than 

or equal to $100,000,000. 

(5) OTHER DEFINITIONS.—The terms ‘‘agency action’’, ‘‘ex parte 

communication’’, and ‘‘rule’’ have the meanings given such 

terms in section 551 of title 5, United States Code. 

* * * * * * * 

PUBLIC LAW 108-494 

AN ACT To amend the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to facilitate the reallocation of spectrum from governmental 

to commercial users; to improve, enhance, and promote the Nation’s homeland security, public safety, and citizen activated emergency response capabilities 

through the use of enhanced 911 services, to further upgrade Public Safety Answering Point capabilities and related functions in receiving E–911 calls, and to 

support in the construction and operation of a ubiquitous and reliable citizen activated system; and to provide that funds received as universal service contributions under section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 and the universal 

service support programs established pursuant thereto are not subject to certain 

provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known as the Antideficiency 

Act, for a period of time. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE III—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 302. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN TITLE 31 PROVISIONS TO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—During the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on øDecember 31, 2016¿ December 

31, 2020, section 1341 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, 

United States Code, do not apply— 

(1) to any amount collected or received as Federal universal 

service contributions required by section 254 of the CommuVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:01 Oct 25, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR305.XXX HR305

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

nications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254), including any interest 

earned on such contributions; nor 

(2) to the expenditure or obligation of amounts attributable 

to such contributions for universal service support programs 

established pursuant to that section. 

(b) POST-2005 FULFILLMENT OF PROTECTED OBLIGATIONS.—Section 1341 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States 

Code, do not apply after øDecember 31, 2016¿ December 31, 2020, to an expenditure or obligation described in subsection (a)(2) made 

or authorized during the period described in subsection (a). 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(40) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

Dissenting Views on H.R. 2583, the ‘‘Federal Communications 

Commission Process Reform Act of 2015’’ 

Congress and the House Energy and Commerce Committee have 

had a long-standing interest in process reform at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Our efforts in the last Congress 

were bipartisan in nature, with Members on both sides thoughtfully examining concerns and developing appropriate solutions. 

A different approach, however, was taken this Congress. Rather 

than work from the carefully negotiated, bipartisan language addressing FCC process reform that passed the House in 2014, the 

Republicans deliberately decided to release several discussion draft 

bills at the opening of the 114th Congress to retaliate against and 

effectively punish the Commission for adopting an order titled and 

widely known as Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet (docketed at the FCC under GN Docket No. 14–28). 

Our Committee’s Republicans have vehemently opposed the 

Open Internet Order and made it one of their highest-priority targets. Republicans returned to negotiate in good faith on bipartisan 

principles and language addressing process reform only after Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats offered our alternatives 

to the three Republican proposals, which are described briefly 

below and in greater detail later on in these views. Much of the 

platform for bipartisan agreement came from understandings and 

legislative text we had agreed to as we neared the end of the 113th 

Congress. 

While we appreciate that Committee Republicans have adopted 

some Democratic suggestions to improve on H.R. 2583, we cannot 

support this bill, as it continues to include other very ill-advised 

provisions. Specifically, we object to those amendments that would 

require the FCC to publish (1) rules (but not explanatory text) 

within 24 hours after adoption by the Commission, (2) draft Commission items, and (3) a list of items taken up by FCC staff under 

delegated authority, 48 hours before action. 

These provisions are designed to slow the work of the FCC, potentially cause conflicts in law, and create confusion for stakeholders. We believe that rather than punitively slowing the FCC 

down, FCC process reform should make the FCC faster, more efficient, and more transparent. 

BACKGROUND

The FCC is an independent federal agency established by the 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). The FCC 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

1Federal Communications Commission, Report on FCC Process Reform (Feb. 14, 2014) (online 

at: www.fcc.gov/article/da-14-199a2). 2Letter from Chairman Wheeler to Chairman Walden (Apr. 16, 2015). 

3 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on ‘‘Improving FCC Process,’’ Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 113th Cong. (July 11, 2013). 

issues rules consistent with the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). 

The APA applies to all federal executive departments and independent federal agencies. Congress enacted the APA to establish 

consistency and predictability and to provide an opportunity for the 

public to participate in agency decision-making across the federal 

government. 

A. FCC progress in reforming Agency process 

FCC Chairman Wheeler has made it a priority, since the beginning of his tenure in November 2013, to improve the efficiency and 

transparency of the FCC’s processes. Immediately upon taking office, Chairman Wheeler directed a top advisor to develop process 

reform recommendations. Initial recommendations included 

streamlining agency processes and data collections; eliminating or 

streamlining outdated rules; improving interactions with external 

stakeholders; and improving the internal management of the agency.1 The Commission sought comment from stakeholders on the 

proposed recommendations, and the FCC is actively working toward implementing reforms. 

The FCC also has made measurable progress in significantly reducing its backlog of pending petitions, applications, complaints, 

and requests. Since May 2014, the volume of items pending before 

the agency for more than six months has been reduced by over 44 

percent.2 In addition, the FCC has prioritized releasing its decisions to the public as quickly as possible; 85 percent of items are 

publicly released within two business days of adoption. Building on 

these efforts, Chairman Wheeler announced a new Process Reform 

Task Force in April 2015 that will consider additional reform proposals and include staff from the other Commissioners’ offices. 

B. FCC Process Reform Legislation in the 113th Congress 

H.R. 3675, introduced in the 113th Congress, would have removed the FCC from the predictability of existing APA rules. Administrative Law experts testified that by removing the FCC from 

the standards of the APA, the bill, as introduced, could have created significant uncertainty, litigation risk, and higher transaction 

costs.3 As a result of bipartisan negotiations in Committee, Democrats were able to address several areas of concern in the bill as 

introduced. The final bill required the FCC to examine a number 

of potential process reforms and was reported out of the Energy 

and Commerce Committee, and passed by the House in March 

2014. 

ANALYSIS OF H.R. 2583, THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PROCESS REFORM ACT OF 2015

The following is a brief summary and analysis of the legislation. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

4 House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on ‘‘Improving FCC Transparency, 

Part II,’’ Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 114th Cong. (May 15, 2015). 

A. Summary of H.R. 2583, as introduced 

H.R. 2583 was introduced on May 29, 2015, and reported favorably from the Energy and Commerce Committee, as amended, on 

June 3, 2015. The major provisions of the introduced bill would require the FCC to: 

(1) Complete a rulemaking proceeding to adopt procedural 

rule changes to maximize opportunities for public participation; 

(2) Complete an inquiry on whether and how the FCC should 

establish procedures where a bipartisan majority of commissioners can place an item on an agenda, as well as other procedural changes including establishing deadlines for application 

processing; 

(3) Provide information on the FCC webpage regarding budget; 

(4) Create a consumer complaint database; 

(5) Modify FOIA performance; and (6) Release annual performance reports. 

The bill included a 4-year extension of the Universal Service 

Fund’s exemption from the Anti-deficiency, and the bill included 

the text of the FCC Collaboration Act (H.R. 1396), which was introduced by Representative Eshoo. H.R. 1396 would allow two or more 

commissioners to discuss FCC business outside of an FCC open 

meeting, but also provides sufficient safeguards to protect against 

abuse. 

H.R. 1396 was one of the specific Democratic process reform proposals discussed during the Communications and Technology Subcommittee’s hearing on April 30, 2015. The origin of the bill dates 

back to December 2009, and has had bipartisan support since the 

112th Congress. It previously has been included as part of the 

broader FCC Process Reform bill. Unfortunately, the reported bill 

language delays the effectiveness of this important provision until 

after the other reforms are implemented without any substantive 

reason for such delay. In fact, the FCC Process Reform bill from 

2012 did not include a delay in the implementation of the FCC Collaboration Act provisions. Such a delay appears to be arbitrary and 

contrary to the witness testimony from the May 15, 2015, Subcommittee hearing supporting immediate implementation of the 

FCC Collaboration Act.4

B. Democratic provisions added at Full Committee Markup. 

At the April 30, 2015 Communications and Technology Subcommittee hearing on FCC transparency, Democratic members suggested several reforms to FCC process designed to ensure that the 

FCC remain fast, efficient, and transparent without creating an 

unnecessary risk of litigation for the agency. The Republicans recognized the value of the Democratic suggestions, agreeing to offer 

an amendment that incorporated the ideas of Representatives 

Clarke, Loebsack, and Matsui. 

The Democratic amendment requires the FCC to report quarterly 

to Congress and to post, on its website, data on the total number 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

5See New Section 13(a)(2)(D) which would amend the Communications Act (contained in Section 2(a) of H.R. 2583). 6See Section 6 of H.R. 2583. 7See New Section 13(g) (contained in Section 2(a) of H.R. 2583). 8See New Section 13(d) (contained in Section 2(a) of H.R. 2583). 9Letter from Rep. Fred Upton. Rep. Greg Walden, and Senator John Thune to FCC Chairman 

Tom Wheeler (Jan. 22, 2015). 

of decisions pending, categorized by bureau, the type of request, the 

length of time pending, as well as a list of pending Congressional 

investigations and their costs to the agency.5 Notwithstanding the 

impressive progress the FCC has made toward issuing rules and 

closing pending matters in a more timely fashion, the best way to 

ensure that future commissions continue this trend is by holding 

the agency accountable to the public. The public deserves timely responses from the FCC and information as to whether the FCC is 

acting on an application or a request for new rules. The Democratic 

amendment would seek to do that. 

The amendment also requires the FCC to coordinate with the 

Small Business Administration to develop recommendations to improve small business participation in FCC proceedings.6 Small 

business inclusion is critical, as the FCC oversees industries that 

account for one sixth of the economy, including countless small 

businesses. Small businesses in every community throughout the 

country are impacted by many of the decisions and rules that the 

FCC adopts, and the voices of small businesses should be heard 

with greater consistency and regularity at the FCC. 

Finally, the amendment requires the FCC chairman, as the head 

of the agency, to post the Commission’s internal policies and procedures on the FCC website and to disclose any modifications to 

those procedures within 48 hours.7 Public participation at the FCC 

is at an all-time high with millions of Americans reaching out to 

the FCC. Consumers should have as much visibility into the operations of the FCC as large corporate interests and their well-compensated legal and other professional services firms. 

The amendment, which was agreed to by voice vote, will enhance 

the process reforms included in H.R. 2583 without compromising 

existing FCC processes or penalizing the FCC. Unfortunately, the 

same cannot be said for other Republican amendments that were 

added at the Full Committee markup and are treated below in 

greater detail. 

C. Republican provisions added at Full Committee Markup 

Republican members of the Committee also offered several 

amendments that defeat the purported intent of the FCC process 

reform bill—to make the FCC a more efficient agency. 

1. Rep. Kinzinger Amendment 

The Kinzinger amendment requires that the FCC publish on its 

website any action the Commission plans to vote on three weeks 

prior to that vote.8 This proposal echoes a letter the Republicans 

sent to FCC Chairman Wheeler in January 2015, asking him to release his draft network neutrality order before the other Commissioners had an opportunity to review it.9

A requirement that the FCC release pre-decisional drafts runs 

counter to the policy underlying the exemption to the Freedom of 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

10See Department of Justice Guide to Freedom of Information Act, 366 available at http:// 

www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/exemption5_1.pdf (explaining that 

the Freedom of Information Act protects inter-agency work product to ‘‘(1) to encourage open, 

frank discussions on matters of policy between subordinates and superiors; (2) to protect against 

premature disclosure of proposed policies before they are actually adopted; and (3) to protect 

against public confusion that might result from disclosure of reasons and rationales that were 

not in fact ultimately the grounds for an agency’s action.’’). 11See New Section 13(e) (contained in Section 2(a) of H.R. 2583). 12 5 U.S.C. 553(c) (requiring agencies to ‘‘incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general 

statement of their basis and purpose’’); see also Federal Register Guidance at https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf (instructing agencies to 

include a number of explanatory sections along with new rules). 13See Section 7 of H.R. 2583. 

Information Act (FOIA) for internal deliberative processes of an 

agency.10 By creating a potential conflict of law with FOIA, this bill 

could increase the risk of litigation for many FCC actions. 

Posting draft documents could also spark an unending cycle of 

lobbying on successive draft items. Specifically, any new arguments 

raised in the record in response to the draft text could force the 

agency to trigger a new round of notice and comment. These lobbying cycles could undermine the ability of minority Commissioners 

to negotiate changes in a draft once the draft has been made public. Democrats believe this amendment would impose an inappropriate policy on the FCC that would significantly affect the Commission’s ability to make final decisions. 

2. Rep. Ellmers Amendment 

The Ellmers amendment requires that the FCC publish, on its 

website, any changes to the Commission’s rules within 24 hours of 

adoption.11 This requirement could potentially conflict with the 

APA, which requires an agency to release explanatory text along 

with any new rules.12 For each provision that appears in the Code 

of Federal Regulations, the explanatory text is vital to understanding the actual rules. This bill would separate the two, creating confusion and uncertainty for stakeholders. Again, Democrats 

believe that any FCC process reforms should enhance the public’s 

ability to understand the actions of the FCC, and the Ellmers 

amendment would do the opposite. 

3. Rep. Latta Amendment 

The Latta amendment requires that the FCC publish information 

on its website 48 hours before making a decision on ‘‘delegated authority.’’ 13 Delegated authority allows the heads of FCC Bureaus 

and Offices to make decisions so long as new legal issues are not 

presented. As a practical matter, delegated authority is overwhelmingly used to conduct the routine business of the FCC, such as 

processing applications and issuing public notices. Thousands of actions are taken on delegated authority on a yearly basis. These actions are not final until they are released by the FCC, and the FCC 

can decide not to take an action at any time before it releases the 

item. 

Requiring the Commission to post a description of potential actions before those actions are finalized could create confusion and 

may cause unwarranted administrative burdens on the FCC. 

Under its informal procedures, Commissioners are notified 48 

hours before Bureaus take action on items that the Chairman’s office believes may be of interest to the Commissioners. This proceVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:01 Oct 25, 2015 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR305.XXX HR305

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

dure is designed to balance the need to keep Commissioners informed while not overwhelming them with notice about each of the 

thousands of routine actions taken by the bureaus. 

The actions contemplated in the Latta amendment go far beyond 

the informal policies in place at the Commission. Adding the new 

notice requirement contemplated by the amendment could have the 

perverse effect of slowing down the work of the FCC. Stakeholders 

could face uncertainty and longer wait times for previously routine 

decisions. Democrats believe that such a requirement defeats the 

purported intent of the FCC process reform bill—to make the FCC 

a more efficient agency. 

D. Keeping Our Campaigns Honest (KOCH) Act Amendment 

An integral part of the Democratic alternative to promoting process reform and increasing transparency, known as the KOCH Act 

(H.R. 2125), was introduced by Rep. Yarmuth on April 30, 2015. Although it was discussed at the legislative hearings, it was not considered at all for action at either the Subcommittee or full Committee markups of H.R. 2583. 

The KOCH Act would increase transparency for TV viewers and 

radio listeners by requiring the FCC to modify its sponsorship identification rules to mandate the disclosure of significant donors to 

entities or persons purchasing issue advertisements. Transparency 

is an important issue, and it should not stop at the doors of the 

FCC. The public deserves to know who is paying for the advertisements they see on TV and hear on the radio, and the KOCH Act’s 

simple direction to the FCC would make such transparency a reality. 

We appreciate that the Majority attempted to work in a bipartisan manner and included some of the Democratic proposals within the reported bill. But due to the adoption of Republican amendments offered by Representatives Kinzinger, Ellmers, and Latta, 

and the adverse and severe impacts such provisions would have on 

the FCC’s ability to operate quickly, efficiently, with integrity, and 

in a transparent manner, we strongly dissent from the majority 

views that are expressed in the Committee report. 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

ANNA G. ESHOO, 

Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING