Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 66321

1See Amendment of Rules Governing Procedures

To Be Followed When Formal Complaints Are Filed

Against Common Carriers, Report & Order, CC

Docket No. 96–238, FCC 97–396 (rel. Nov. 25, 1997)

(the ‘‘Complaint R&O’’).

award of educational assistance when

the veteran has established eligibility

under § 21.7045(c) is as follows:

(1) If the veteran is not entitled to

receive educational assistance under 38

U.S.C. ch. 32 on the date he or she made

a valid election to receive educational

assistance under 38 U.S.C. ch. 30, the

effective date of the award of

educational assistance will be the latest

of the following.

(i) The commencing date as

determined by paragraphs (a) through

(c) and (f) through (j) of this section; or

(ii) October 23, 1992, provided that

VA received the $1,200 required to be

collected pursuant to § 21.7045(c)(2)

and any other evidence necessary to

establish that the election is valid before

the later of:

(A) October 23, 1993; or

(B) One year from the date VA

requested the $1,200 or the evidence

necessary to establish a valid election;

or

(iii) The date VA received the $1,200

required to be collected pursuant to

§ 21.7045(c)(2) and all other evidence

needed to establish that the election is

valid, if the provisions of paragraph

(n)(1)(ii) of this section are not met.

(2) If the veteran is entitled to receive

educational assistance under 38 U.S.C.

ch. 32 on the date he or she made a

valid election to receive educational

assistance under 38 U.S.C. ch. 30, the

effective date of the award of

educational assistance will be the latest

of the following:

(i) The commencing date as

determined by paragraphs (a) through

(c) and (f) through (j) of this section; or

(ii) The date on which the veteran

made a valid election to receive

educational assistance under 38 U.S.C.

chapter 30 provided that VA received

the $1,200 required to be collected

pursuant to § 21.7045(c)(2) and any

other evidence necessary to establish

that the election is valid before the later

of:

(A) One year from the date VA

received the valid election; or

(B) One year from the date VA

requested the $1,200 or the evidence

necessary to establish a valid election;

or

(iii) The date VA received the $1,200

required to be collected pursuant to

§ 21.7045(c)(2) and all other evidence

needed to establish that the election is

valid, if the provisions of paragraph

(n)(2)(ii) of this section are not met.

(Authority 38 U.S.C. 3018B)

[FR Doc. 97–32989 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[CC Docket No. 96–238; DA 97–2178]

Accelerated Docket Procedures for

Formal Complaints Filed Against

Common Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On November 25, 1997, the

Commission adopted its Report and

Order in this docket promulgating new,

streamlined rules for handling formal

complaints filed with the Commission

(the ‘‘Complaint R&O’’). In the

Complaint R&O, the Commission

encouraged its staff to explore and use

alternative approaches to complaint

adjudication designed to ensure the

prompt discovery of relevant

information and the full and fair

resolution of disputes in the most

expeditious manner possible. By this

Public Notice, additional comment is

sought on issues relating to the possible

alternative forms of complaint

adjudication that, complementing the

rules recently announced in the

Complaint R&O, ultimately should

redound to the benefit of

telecommunications consumers by

enhancing competition in the relevant

markets. Specifically, comment is

invited regarding the feasibility of

creating an ‘‘Accelerated Docket’’ that

would provide for a 60-day complaint

adjudication process.

DATES: Written comments are due on or

before January 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Office of Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., suite 222, Washington,

D.C. 20554. In addition, parties are

asked to submit two copies each of their

comments directly to: (1) The

Enforcement Task Force, Office of

General Counsel, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

650–L, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554 and (2)

Enforcement Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 6120, 2025 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties

should also file one copy of any

documents filed in response to this

notice with the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey H. Dygert, Common Carrier

Bureau, Enforcement Division, (202)

418–0960, or Glenn T. Reynolds,

Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–

1500.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Common Carrier

Bureau’s Public Notice in CC Docket No.

96–238, adopted on December 12, 1997

and released December 12, 1997. The

full text of the Public Notice is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

The complete text of the Public Notice

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s duplicating contractor,

International Transcription Services,

1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036 (202) 857–3800.

Summary of the Public Notice

1. On November 25, 1997, the

Commission adopted its Report and

Order in this docket promulgating new,

streamlined rules for handling formal

complaints filed with the Commission

(the ‘‘Complaint R&O’’).1 By this Public

Notice, the Competition Enforcement

Task Force (the ‘‘Task Force’’) and the

Common Carrier Bureau (the ‘‘Bureau’’)

seek additional comment on issues

relating to the possible alternative,

accelerated forms of complaint

adjudication that would supplement or

provide an alternative to the procedures

set out in the Complaint R&O.

2. Specifically, the Task Force and the

Bureau currently are evaluating whether

the needs of some industry participants

better could be met by an ‘‘Accelerated

Docket’’ for complaint adjudication that

would (1) provide for the presentation

of live evidence and argument in a

hearing-type proceeding and (2) operate

on a 60-day time frame, or on some

other schedule that is more compressed

than that applicable more generally to

complaint proceedings under the new

procedures set out in the Complaint

R&O.

3. The Accelerated Docket would

serve as a hearing-style alternative to the

normal process for resolution of formal

complaints, administered by the

Bureau’s Enforcement Division, which

relies primarily on the parties’

presentation of arguments on paper. To

the extent possible, Accelerated Docket

proceedings would be governed by the

requirements announced in the

Complaint R&O. In accordance with the

Commission’s authority under sections

1, 4, 201–205, 208, 215, 218 and 220 of
66322 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

the Communications Act, interested

parties are invited to submit comments

and recommendations as to how such a

hearing-based process could be

designed to ensure speedy, consistent

and fair adjudication of complaints.

Specifically, commenters should

address the extent to which the rules set

forth in the Complaint R&O could be

applied to the Accelerated Docket.

Additionally, where appropriate,

comments should identify specialized

procedures or requirements that may be

necessary in the context of the

alternative, hearing-style process under

consideration. Commenters should

restrict themselves to addressing the

feasibility of using the below-discussed

rules and requirements promulgated in

the Complaint R&O and the extent to

which different requirements may be

necessary for the alternative docket.

Comments should not attempt to revisit

issues previously decided in this

proceeding.

4. With reference to the Accelerated

Docket discussed above, comment is

invited on the following issues:

(i) Need for Accelerated Docket.

Commenters are invited generally to

discuss factors that may support the

creation of a hearing-type, accelerated

complaint process like that discussed

herein. Thus, commenters should

provide information about specific

events, general industry trends or

particular categories of disputes that

might benefit from treatment under the

Accelerated Docket. Additionally,

comment is sought on whether the

Accelerated Docket initially should be

limited to issues of competition in the

provision of telecommunications

services. In particular, comments should

offer suggestions and recommendations

as to how the Commission can work

cooperatively with state utility

commissions on such enforcement

matters to ensure that the respective

interests of the Commission and the

states are protected.

(ii) Minitrials. The Bureau and the

Task Force are considering whether the

requirements of speed and fairness

would be served by conducting

minitrials of complaints accepted onto

the Accelerated Docket. Such a hearingtype proceeding would permit the

parties to present evidence and

argument to the fact-finder and would

likely permit closer inquiry into factual

issues and more effective credibility

determinations than are possible on a

paper record. As currently envisioned,

these minitrials would cover a broader

range of issues than those hearings

likely to arise from the Bureau’s newly

expanded authority to designate issues

for hearing before an ALJ. As with other

complaints brought under Sections 206

through 209 of the Communications

Act, these minitrials would not be

subject to the on-the-record hearing

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act. See Amendment of Rules

Governing Procedures To Be Followed

When Formal Complaints Are Filed

Against Common Carriers. Report and

Order, CC Dkt No. 92–26, 58 FR 25569

(April 27, 1993). Under the 60-day

process currently under consideration,

such a hearing would need to be

conducted no later than 45 days after

the filing of the complaint. During the

hearing, each side would be permitted

to present evidence in support of their

respective positions. Given the need for

dispatch, one approach under

consideration is to allot each side an

equal amount of time within which to

present its case and to cross-examine its

opponent’s witnesses. Comment is

sought as to the feasibility and

desirability of adjudicating complaints

using this or a similar process.

(iii) Discovery. One of the key

elements to streamlining the

enforcement process is to maximize staff

control over the discovery process. For

the Accelerated Docket to be successful,

discovery must be as targeted and

focused as possible. As the Accelerated

Docket is currently envisioned, its

proceedings would be governed by the

recently announced discovery rules

unless otherwise noted. In this regard,

comment is invited on how best to

conduct discovery in connection with

the 60-day complaint process currently

under contemplation. Given the

compressed time frame for Accelerated

Docket proceedings, commenters should

address whether parties should submit

all discovery requests and disputes to

the Task Force in advance of the initial

status conference so that the Task Force

may issue its decision on these issues at

that conference. Should the parties

exchange all documents relevant to the

issues raised in the complaint and

answer either when they file their initial

pleadings, or at some other point before

the initial status conference discussed

below? If not all relevant documents,

should the parties be required to

exchange all documents that bear some

closer relationship to the claims and

defenses in the proceeding? Finally,

given the short time frame available for

discovery, what sanctions would be

appropriate when a party fails to

provide discovery as ordered by the

Task Force, including the production of

witnesses for depositions?

(iv) Pre-filing Procedures. Under the

recently announced rules, a complaint

must certify that it has discussed, or

attempted to discuss, the possibility of

a good faith settlement with the

defendant carrier’s representative(s)

before filing the complaint. Comment is

sought on whether a complainant

seeking acceptance onto the Accelerated

Docket should, as a precondition of

such acceptance, have attempted to

undertake informal settlement

discussions under the auspices of the

Task Force. Should adequate advance

notice to the prospective defendant of

the issues to be covered in these

informal settlement discussions be one

of the criteria considered in determining

acceptance onto the Accelerated

Docket? What other criteria should be

applied by the Task Force and the

Bureau in determining what complaints

should be accepted onto the Accelerated

Docket? To what extent, if any, would

the Commission’s ex parte rules be

implicated by the Task Force’s

involvement in such pre-filing

discussions between prospective parties

to a potential complainant proceeding?

If a complaint does not request

expedited treatment, might an action be

included on the Accelerated Docket at

the defendant’s request? Comment is

also sought on whether, or in what

circumstances, previously filed

complaints should be designated for

inclusion on the Accelerated Docket.

What steps would be necessary to

provide adequate protection to the

confidential or propriety information of

the parties engaged in such informal,

pre-filing discussions?

(v) Pleading Requirements. The

Commission’s recently announced

pleading requirements require greater

diligence by complainants and

defendants in presenting and defending

against claims of misconduct. Pleadings

submitted in Accelerated Docket

proceedings would be required to meet

these same standards. In light of these

recently heightened requirements for

pleading content, comment is invited on

the reasonableness of requiring the

answer to be filed within seven calendar

days of a complaint, as likely would be

necessary in the 60-day complaint

process currently under contemplation.

(iv) Status Conferences. Under a

hearing-type, 60-day process, an initial

status conference would seem necessary

no later than 15 calendar days after the

filing of the complaint. Comment is

sought as to the feasibility of holding a

status conference at that time. The

Bureau and the Task Force contemplate

that the initial status conference for

Accelerated Docket proceedings would

proceed under the newly announced

rules in the Complaint R&O. Thus,

before the status conference, the parties

would meet and confer about the

following issues: (1) Settlement
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 66323

prospects, (2) discovery, (3) issues in

dispute, (4) a schedule for the remainder

of the proceeding. The parties would be

required to reduce to a joint, written

statement their agreements and

remaining disputes regarding these

matters, and submit it to the

Commission two days in advance of the

status conference. The parties also

would be required to agree to a joint

statement of stipulated facts, disputed

facts and key legal issues, which also

would be submitted to the Commission

two days before the status conference.

Comment is invited on imposing these

requirements for the initial status

conference in a 60-day process.

Additionally, comment is invited on the

nature of the briefing schedule, if any,

that the Task Force should set at the

initial status conference.

(vii) Damages. Given the fact that

adjudications of damages would be

extremely difficult to complete within a

60-day time frame, commenters should

address whether the Accelerated Docket

should be restricted to bifurcated,

liability claims, with damages claims to

be handled separately under the

procedures set out in the Complaint

R&O.

(viii) Other Issues. Commenters are

invited to address whether any other

rules should be specifically tailored to

accommodate a 60-day, hearing-type

adjudication process.

(ix) Review by the Commission. To

satisfy statutory requirements for the

disposition of certain categories of

complaints, it likely would be necessary

in Accelerated Docket proceedings, for

all briefing on any petition seeking

review of an initial decision by the Task

Force to be completed between 20 and

30 days of the decision’s release. Also

under consideration is the possibility of

en banc oral argument before the

Commission for Accelerated Docket

proceedings in which the Commission

does not summarily adopt the initial

Task Force decision. Comment is sought

on issues relating to this type of review

process for initial decisions in the

Accelerated Docket.

5. Comments should be filed on or

before January 12, 1998. There will be

no reply comments. Commenters should

organize their comments under the

numbered paragraph headings set out

above. Interested parties must file an

original and four copies of their

comments with the Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 222, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Additionally, commenters are asked to

submit two copies each directly to: (1)

The Enforcement Task Force, Office of

General Counsel, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

650–L, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554 and (2) The

Enforcement Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 6120, 2025 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

6. Comments should be clearly

labeled with CC Docket No. 96–238.

Parties also should send comments to

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036. Comments will be available

for public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

7. Parties are also asked to submit

comments on diskette. Such diskette

submissions will be in addition to, and

not a substitute for, the formal filing

requirements set out above. Parties

submitting diskettes, should submit

them to Jeffrey H. Dygert, Common

Carrier Bureau, Enforcement Division,

Room 6120, 2025 M Street, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20554. Comments on

diskette should be submitted in ‘‘read

only’’ mode in WordPerfect 5.1 for

Windows. The diskette should be

clearly labelled with the party’s name,

proceeding and date of submission. The

diskette should be accompanied by a

cover letter.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Communications common

carriers, Investigations, Penalties.

Federal Communications Commission.

A. Richard Metzger, Jr.,

Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–33183 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–239, RM–9195]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Otter

Creek, FL

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition filed by Tony

Downes proposing the allotment of

Channel 240A to Otter Creek, Florida, as

that community’s first local broadcast

service. There is a site restriction 9.8

kilometeres (6.1 miles) south west of the

community. The coordinates for

Channel 240A are 29–16–52 and 82–51–

42.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before February 2, 1998, and reply

comments on or before February 17,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC. 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Tony Downes,

3092 SW Harbor Hills Road, Dunnellon,

Florida 34431.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–239, adopted November 26, 1997,

and released December 12, 1997. The

full text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

Commission’s Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC. The complete text of this decision

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contact.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–33050 Filed 12–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P