Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60387

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please address your

comments to the EPA contact below.

You may inspect and copy the

rulemaking docket for this notice at the

following location during normal

business hours. We may charge you a

reasonable fee for copying parts of the

docket.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning,

Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the addresses

listed below:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, CA 92123–1095

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San

Diego, CA 92123–1096

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office (AIR–

2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901. Telephone: (415) 744–

1288. E-mail: jesson.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule published in the rules section

of this Federal Register.

Dated: September 12, 2000.

Keith A. Takata,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–25927 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 76

[MM Docket No. 83–484: FCC 00–360]

Repeal or Modification of the Personal

Attack and Political Editorial Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rules: Request for

Supplemental Information.

SUMMARY: This document concerns a 60-

day suspension of the political editorial

and personal attack rules and asks

parties to submit evidence on the effects

of the suspension 60 days after the

suspension period ends. The

Commission adopted the Order and

Request to Update Record in response to

the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’

decision in Radio-Television News

Directors Ass’n v. FCC, 184 F.3d 872

(1999). The intended effect of this action

is to enable the Commission to obtain a

better record on which to review the

rules.

DATES: Parties may submit evidence on

the effect of the suspension of the rules

on or before January 31, 2001, and

replies may be submitted on or before

February 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address all evidence

concerning this suspension to the

Commission’s Secretary,

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington DC

20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cyndi Thomas, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau, at (202)

418–2130.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Order and Request to

Update in MM Docket No. 83–484, FCC

00–360, adopted on October 3, 2000,

and released on October 4, 2000. The

full text of this decision is available for

inspection and copying during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room

CY–A257, Washington DC, and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 445 Twelfth Street, SW,

Room CY–B402, Washington DC. The

complete text is also available under the

file name fcc00360.pdf on the

Commission’s Internet site at

www.fcc.gov.

Electronic Access and Filing Addresses

1. Information may be filed using the

Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System or by filing paper copies

via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/efile/ecfs.html. Parties may also submit

an electronic copy by Internet e-mail. To

get filing instructions for e-mail

information, parties should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov,, and should

include the following words in the body

of the message, ‘‘get form, <your e-mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

2. The actions taken in this Order and

Request to Update Record have been

analyzed with respect to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), and found

to request new or modified reporting or

recordkeeping by the public. It will be

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget for emergency review under

Section 3507 of the PRA.

Summary of Order and Request To

Update Record

3. The Commission adopts an Order

and Request to Update Record (Order)

in response to the D.C. Circuit Court of

Appeals’ (D.C. Circuit) decision in

Radio-Television News Directors Ass’n

v. FCC, 184 F.3d 872 (1999) (RTNDA).

In the Order, the Commission suspends

the political editorial and personal

attack rules, 47 CFR 73.1920 and

73.1930, for 60 days to enable the

Commission to obtain a better record on

which to review the rules. These rules

as they apply to cable television system

operators, 47 CFR 76.209(b), (c), and (d),

are also within the scope of this

proceeding. The court recognized that

the Commission considered the record

previously before it to be ‘‘old and

possibly flawed’’ and encouraged the

Commission to ‘‘consider modern

factual and legal developments.’’ This

brief suspension, which the

Commission hopes will provide useful

data on the effect of the rules, will allow

it ‘‘to work from a relatively clean

procedural slate,’’ as the court

suggested. In addition, the Commission

takes this opportunity to make clear that

much of the discussion in Syracuse

Peace Council, 2 FCC Rcd 5043 (1987),

recon. denied, 3 FCC Rcd 2035 (1988),

aff’d sub nom. Syracuse Peace Council

v. FCC, 867 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1989),

cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1019 (1990),

accompanying the Commission’s repeal

of the fairness doctrine has been

repudiated. The Commission also asks

those parties to this proceeding who

believe that it is not possible to

‘‘distinguish[] political editorials and

personal attacks * * * from subjects

formerly covered by the fairness

doctrine’’ to consider whether the rules

at issue should be extended to cover

matters that previously were subject to

the fairness doctrine.

4. The lengthy history of this

proceeding was summarized by the D.C.

Circuit last year in its opinion in

RTNDA. In 1983, after the National

Association of Broadcasters (NAB) filed

a petition asking the Commission to

repeal the political editorial and

personal attack rules, the Commission

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(‘‘NPRM’’) proposing to repeal or modify

the rules (48 FR 28295, June 21,1983).

Because the NPRM also sought comment

on these rules as they apply to cable

television system operators, the

suspension adopted herein will apply to

the cable as well as the broadcast rules

and the Commission welcomes

comments on the rules as they apply to

cable operators as well as broadcasters.

The Commission subsequently stopped

60388 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

enforcing the related fairness doctrine in

1987, in Syracuse Peace Council. For

nearly a decade after the repeal of the

fairness doctrine, the Radio-Television

News Directors Association (RTNDA)

and the NAB (‘‘the Broadcasters’’) did

not vigorously press their attack on the

political editorial and personal attack

rules, but they renewed their challenge

in 1996. Since then, the Commission

has spent a considerable amount of time

on this proceeding, but has twice

deadlocked, despite significant changes

in membership.

5. After the second deadlock, the D.C.

Circuit considered the Broadcasters’

arguments concerning the validity of the

rules. As a threshold matter, the court

rejected the Broadcasters’ contention

that the Joint Statement of

Commissioners Susan Ness and Gloria

Tristani favoring retention of the rules,

13 FCC Rcd 21901 (1998) (Joint

Statement), should not be accorded

deference as the decision of the

Commission. To the contrary, the court

held that ‘‘a deadlocked vote on a

proposal to repeal a rule constitutes

reviewable, final agency action in

support of the status quo,’’ and that it

was appropriate to ‘‘accord the Joint

Statement the same respect normally

accorded agency decisions in

rulemaking proceedings.’’ The D.C.

Circuit also rejected the Broadcasters’

principal argument on the merits, which

was that ‘‘the Syracuse order of its own

force drags the political editorial and

personal attack rules down with the

fairness doctrine to which they were

moored.’’ Rather, the court explained, in

agreement with the Joint Statement,

‘‘there is nothing inherently

inconsistent about preserving the two

challenged rules despite abrogation of

the fairness doctrine.’’ The court also

declined to review the Broadcasters’

contention that the rules unlawfully

‘‘chill protected expression, impose

undue administrative burdens on

broadcasters, and have been rendered

obsolete by the proliferation of new

media technologies and outlets.’’ At the

same time, the court assumed that the

rules ‘‘interfere with editorial

judgment’’ to some extent, even though

the record was not entirely clear on the

extent of that interference.

6. After rejecting the Broadcasters’

principal argument, the court remanded

the matter to the Commission,

explaining that the Joint Statement had

failed to square the rationale underlying

the Commission’s decision to repeal the

fairness doctrine with the retention of

the rules at issue. Generally, the court

said that, ‘‘[a]fter 1987, the instant

rulemaking should have involved

distinguishing political editorials and

personal attacks, which are regulated,

from subjects formerly covered by the

fairness doctrine but that have been

deregulated, such as non-editorial

political commentary, editorials on

political issues aside from candidate

endorsements, and non-personal

attacks.’’ The court found, however, that

the Joint Statement was ‘‘mostly silent

on this salient question, choosing

instead to rebut specific attacks against

the rules.’’ More specifically, the court

noted that ‘‘the Joint Statement

recognizes that the current rules are

broader than their rationales suggest,’’

explaining, for example, that ‘‘the fact

that a national news network rarely

covers local state assembly races may

explain why a right of reply is necessary

on a local network affiliate for a state

assembly candidate maligned by that

affiliate, but it does not follow that the

local affiliate must also be the venue for

a right of reply involving a presidential

candidate.’’

7. In addition, the court noted that,

although the Joint Statement criticized

the Broadcasters for relying on ‘‘old and

possibly flawed data to show a chilling

effect on editorializing, the FCC offered

no updated or more credible

information to the contrary.’’

Recognizing the staleness of the record,

the court encouraged the Commission

‘‘to work from a relatively clean

procedural slate, consider modern

factual and legal developments, and

obtain comments on specific proposals

to modify the rules.’’ The court thus

urged the Commission ‘‘to supplement

its analysis’’ with evidence superior to

that which had previously been

supplied. The court closed its opinion

by directing the Commission to ‘‘act

expeditiously.’’

8. In the Order, the Commission states

that it has been struggling to implement

the court’s decision. The Commission

explains that this has been difficult

because, as the court recognized, the

Chairman had recused himself from this

proceeding, two commissioners would

repeal the rules, and the two remaining

commissioners have authority to defend

‘‘the status quo’’ but questionable

authority to take affirmative steps such

as initiating a new rulemaking

proceeding or proposing modifications

of the rules. In response to a petition

filed by the Broadcasters seeking recall

of the mandate or the issuance of a writ

of mandamus, the D.C. Circuit on July

24, 2000, ordered that the petition be

held in abeyance until September 29,

2000, while inviting the Broadcasters to

‘‘supplement their requests and seek

whatever action they deem appropriate

from the court’’ if the Commission has

not acted by that date. The Commission

states in the Order that it understands,

and shares, the court’s apparent

frustration with the Commission’s

inability to resolve this matter.

9. On account of the continuing

deadlock, the Chairman decided, after

the court’s order of July 24, to

participate in this matter for the purpose

of initiating a proceeding to update the

record. The existing record is stale and

devoid of empirical evidence, except for

the 1982 survey criticized in the Joint

Statement. In fairness to the

Broadcasters, it is difficult to see how

they could present evidence that is not

susceptible to criticism that it is biased

and self-serving, while the rules are in

effect, concerning what they would do

if the rules were not in effect. To

develop a better record, therefore, the

Commission has decided to suspend the

rules for 60 days following the adoption

of this Order to create a better record

upon which to review the rules at issue.

Of course, elections will be held during

the 60-day period, making it an ideal

time to determine how broadcasters are

affected by the political editorial rule.

While less obvious, it is also an ideal

time to obtain evidence regarding the

effect of the personal attack rule, which

was established in a series of cases in

the early 1960s involving personal

attacks on candidates and elected

officials.

10. If the Broadcasters intend to

continue to challenge the rules, the

Order requests they present evidence 60

days after the suspension ends reporting

on their actions while the rules were

suspended, addressing how that

evidence supports their contention.

Parties will also have an opportunity to

submit replies 15 days later. For

example, the Broadcasters have

contended that elimination of the

political editorial rule would lead to a

dramatic increase in the number of

editorials broadcasters present, on

account of the alleged chilling effect of

the rules. Suspension of the rule will

permit the Commission to test that

prediction, and the Order requests the

Broadcasters to supply it with the

information necessary to do so. More

specifically, the Commission will want

information on the number of political

editorials run during the suspension of

the rules and comparative information

concerning the number of editorials run

during prior election cycles. To respond

to the court’s concerns, the Commission

also will need information concerning

the nature of the elections on which

licensees editorialize: are they, for

example, state assembly races or the

presidential election? Whether other

media outlets editorialized on these

races would also be useful in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60389

determining whether the rules should

be modified rather than eliminated or

retained in full. For example, using the

D.C. Circuit’s example, it is possible that

a right of reply may be warranted in

state assembly races but not in

presidential elections because the

relative merits of the presidential

candidates will be thoroughly aired by

the media in any event but the relative

merits of state assembly candidates will

not be discussed by the media in any

detail.

11. The Order asks the Broadcasters to

present evidence relevant to the court’s

other concerns as well. For example,

with respect to the political editorial

rule, the court stated that ‘‘[i]f

broadcasters want to use public

resources overtly to push a private

agenda by advocating a result in an

election, a right of reply might be a

minimally intrusive means of

countering a licensee’s governmentgranted monopoly on access to the

resource,’’ but questioned whether the

same could not be said concerning

‘‘editorial[s] about tax policy,’’ and

directed the Commission ‘‘to explain

why editorials about candidates are

particularly appropriate subjects for

regulation.’’ To respond to the court’s

concerns, the Commission needs

information concerning broadcasters’

editorial practices more generally.

Among other things, the Commission is

interested in whether and the extent to

which broadcasters editorialize on

topics unrelated to political campaigns

and whether the rate of such editorials

is increasing or decreasing. The Order

also seeks information regarding the

factors relevant to a broadcaster’s

decision to editorialize. The

Broadcasters are in the best position to

provide such information and the

Commission expects them to do so.

12. In addition to providing

information responsive to the court’s

concerns, the Order asks the

Broadcasters to provide information

relevant to issues raised in the

Commission’s prior decisions. For

example, in their Joint Statement,

Commissioners Ness and Tristani

indicated their willingness to consider

modifying the political editorial rule

such that it might shift the burden to the

candidates to request time from the

station or ‘‘would only trigger an

obligation to furnish time to major

candidates or major party supporters.’’

A modification to include only major

candidates or major party supporters

would be consistent with the Supreme

Court’s recognition in Arkansas

Educational Television Ass’n v. Forbes,

523 U.S. 666 (1998), that broadcasters

may in good faith decide that in some

cases the inclusion of third-party

candidates in debates detracts from their

usefulness. These modifications also

would be responsive to the

Broadcasters’ claims that the rule is

burdensome, because it would reduce

the burden. In any event, the Order asks

the Broadcasters to report whether those

licensees who editorialize while the

rules are suspended decide to offer

response time to some candidates but

not others. The Commission hopes that

parties will provide as objective and

useful information as possible.

13. With respect to the personal attack

rule, the Broadcasters similarly should

attempt to obtain information that will

be useful in evaluating the effect of the

rule. However, the Order asks

broadcasters to collect information

regarding complaints concerning

personal attacks that are received while

the rule is suspended, and to compare

the number and nature of the

complaints made during those 60 days

to a comparable period while the rule

was in effect. The Order seeks comment

on ways that any undue burdens caused

by the rule could be reduced. To assist

the Commission in evaluating whether

the personal attack rule is overly

burdensome, as argued by the

Broadcasters, the Order seeks

information on what steps broadcasters

take to comply with the notification

requirements. For example, in their

Joint Statement, Commissioners Ness

and Tristani indicated their willingness

to consider modifying the personal

attack rule to eliminate the existing

notification requirements and make the

rule request-driven.

14. The Order encourages those

groups that have advocated retention of

the rule to do the same—that is, to

collect evidence relating to personal

attacks that they would have challenged

had the rule not been suspended. In that

connection, the Commission notes that

some parties have argued that the rule

should be expanded to cover situations

to which it does not currently apply,

and it would welcome any information

regarding personal attacks made, for

example, during ‘‘bona fide news

interviews,’’ which currently are not

subject to the rule. In addition, the

Commission would be particularly

interested in learning of personal attacks

made in connection with the upcoming

elections.

15. In responding to this Order, the

Commission encourages parties to

present the sort of careful analysis the

D.C. Circuit expects. Although it cannot

rule out the possibility that the rules

will be retained exactly as written or

eliminated entirely, the Commission

believes it would profit most at this

point from hearing arguments directed

to how the rules should be modified to

achieve their fundamental purposes

with minimal burden, consistent with

the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in this case

and our decisions in other cases.

16. Some parties, however, may

contend that it is not possible to

‘‘distinguish[ ] political editorials and

personal attacks * * * from subjects

formerly covered by the fairness

doctrine.’’ For that reason, the Order

asks the Broadcasters, at the time they

file their report on their actions while

the rules were suspended, to report also

on the effects of the repeal of the

fairness doctrine, and the Commission

will invite the other parties to respond

to that report. In last year’s opinion, the

D.C. Circuit described Syracuse Peace

Council as ‘‘agency precedent for

declining to use the FCC’s power to

redress a market failure in provision of

balanced coverage of important issues,’’

and directed the Commission to provide

‘‘clear, cogent explanations’’ for

requiring a right of reply in some

situations but not others. Previously, on

account of its deadlock, the Commission

has been constrained to consider how to

reconcile the political editorial and

personal attack rules with its decision in

Syracuse Peace Council. In that

connection, those parties who believe

that Section 315 of the Communications

Act, as amended, requires the

Commission to enforce some obligation

on broadcasters ‘‘to operate in the

public interest and to afford reasonable

opportunity for the discussion of

conflicting views on issues of public

importance’’ should comment on how

their reading of the statute bears on the

issues before us.

17. The Order therefore invites the

Broadcasters, and the other parties as

well, to consider the court’s various

statements to the effect that it is difficult

to distinguish political editorials and

personal attacks from ‘‘many issues of

public concern,’’ and to address

whether it would be appropriate to

extend the reach of the rules at issue.

For example, the court noted that ‘‘a

network has more freedom to endorse a

ballot initiative than to endorse a

candidate championing such an

initiative,’’ and concluded that ‘‘[t]he

FCC has not articulated a basis for the

distinction.’’ If those issues may not be

distinguished on a principled basis, it

may be that a right of reply is warranted

in both cases. In addition, the

Commission encourages the parties to

consider whether the D.C. Circuit has

identified a distinction between local

and national issues that the Commission

ought to examine in more detail. That is,

as explained in the Joint Statement, the

60390 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

explosion in media outlets relied upon

in Syracuse Peace Council, and

particularly its reliance on cable

channels, may be relevant to national

issues but not to local issues.

18. The Commission does not intend

to prejudge that or any other issue.

Rather, while suspending the political

editorial and personal attack rules, the

Commission asks the Broadcasters to

report to the Commission on the various

matters discussed in this Order. With a

fresh record, the Commission will

consider how to reconcile its decision in

Syracuse Peace Council with the rules at

issue. It is possible that the Commission

will decide to modify the rules at issue,

or to modify its decision in Syracuse

Peace Council, or both.

19. In that regard, it is appropriate to

make clear that the dicta in Syracuse

Peace Council regarding the appropriate

level of First Amendment scrutiny has

been rejected by Congress, this

Commission, and the courts. Although

the Commission based its decision in

Syracuse Peace Council largely on its

view that the standard of Red Lion

Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367

(1969), should be abandoned, the D.C.

Circuit did not affirm on that basis.

Subsequently, in enacting the Children’s

Television Act of 1990 (CTA), Congress

made clear that broadcasters should be

subject to public interest obligations

reviewed under the Red Lion standard,

and Congress’s views on that matter are

entitled to ‘‘great weight.’’ The

Commission agreed that Red Lion sets

the appropriate standard of review, as it

made clear in its Order implementing

the CTA, which expressly repudiated

the dicta from Syracuse Peace Council.

Moreover, the D.C. Circuit not only

applied but extended Red Lion in 1996

in Time Warner Entertainment Co. v.

FCC, 93 F.3d 957 (1996). In that case,

the court upheld under the Red Lion

standard the constitutionality of Section

335 of the Communications Act, as

amended, which requires operators of

direct broadcast satellite (DBS) systems

to set aside at least four percent of their

channels for noncommercial

educational programming.

20. The fundamental error of the

Commission’s decision in the portion of

Syracuse Peace Council that has been

repudiated was its confusion of the

rationale underlying the fairness

doctrine with the basis for public

interest regulation of the broadcast

spectrum. The fairness doctrine

originated at a time when there were

only three major television networks,

and the proliferation of television

stations and the development of cable

television reasonably led the

Commission to reevaluate the need for

the fairness doctrine. The standard of

Red Lion, however, was not based on

the absolute number of media outlets,

but on the fact that the spectrum is a

public resource and ‘‘there are

substantially more individuals who

want to broadcast than there are

frequencies to allocate.’’ As both the

U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit

have explained, ‘‘[a] licensed

broadcaster is ‘granted the free and

exclusive use of a valuable part of the

public domain; when he accepts that

franchise it is burdened by enforceable

public obligations.’ ’’ The D.C. Circuit

explained in remanding the political

editorial and personal attack rules that

application of the Red Lion standard

does not mean that any particular

obligation is therefore warranted.

Rather, the Commission must provide a

reasonable explanation as to why it

chooses to impose certain public

interest obligations and not others. But

the long-standing basis for the

regulation of broadcasting is that ‘‘the

radio spectrum simply is not large

enough to accommodate everybody.’’

Under our Nation’s system for allocating

spectrum, some are granted the

‘‘exclusive use’’ of a portion of this

‘‘public domain,’’ even though others

would use it if they could. That is why

‘‘it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First

Amendment right to broadcast

comparable to the right of every

individual to speak, write or publish.’’

21. Congress has directed the

Commission to ensure that broadcasters

granted the exclusive use of a particular

frequency serve the public interest. Or,

as the D.C. Circuit put it in this case, a

broadcaster holds a ‘‘governmentgranted monopoly,’’ and the

Commission is required by statute to

ensure that the public receives a fair

return from each broadcaster for its use

of that public resource. Unlike the DBS

operator in Time Warner, who was

required both to pay millions of dollars

for the spectrum it won at auction and

to set aside at least four percent of its

capacity for noncommercial educational

programming, broadcasters have

obtained their spectrum for free and are

not subject to such a set-aside

requirement. The Commission therefore

requests the parties to address this

difference in treatment.

22. Under the relevant constitutional

standard, a key factor in deciding

whether to retain the rules at issue here

or impose any other requirement is the

extent to which the requirement

interferes with the editorial judgment of

broadcasters. As the U.S. Supreme Court

has repeatedly recognized, the

Commission has long ‘‘ ‘walk[ed] a

tightrope’ ’’ designed to permit

broadcasters ‘‘to exercise ‘the widest

journalistic freedom consistent with’ ’’

the principle that it is ‘‘the right of the

viewers and listeners, not the right of

the broadcasters which is paramount.’’

In this case, as explained above, the D.C.

Circuit assumed that the rules at issue

burden broadcasters to some extent,

recognized that the Joint Statement had

criticized the evidence previously

presented on that point by the

Broadcasters, but noted that the

Commission had ‘‘offered no updated or

more credible information.’’ A

temporary suspension of the rules at

issue, coupled with a proceeding that

considers the other issues raised in this

Order, should help the Commission to

respond to the court’s concerns.

Administrative Matters

23. Request to Update Record. Parties

submitting evidence on the effect of the

suspension of the rules as discussed

above should submit such evidence 60

days after the suspension ends, and

replies should be submitted 75 days

after the suspension ends. Information

may be filed using the Commission’s

Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See

Electronic Filing of Documents in

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,

May 1, 1998.

24. Information filed through the

ECFS can be sent as an electronic file

via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/efile/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy

of an electronic submission must be

filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking

numbers appear in the caption of this

proceeding, however, parties must

transmit one electronic copy of the

evidence to each docket or rulemaking

number referenced in the caption. In

completing the transmittal screen,

parties should include their full name,

postal service mailing address, and the

applicable docket or rulemaking

number. Parties may also submit an

electronic comment by Internet e-mail.

To get filing instructions for e-mail

information, parties should send e-mail

to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the

following words in the body of the

message, ‘‘get form, <your e-mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

25. Parties who choose to file by

paper should also submit information

on diskette. These diskettes should be

submitted to: Wanda Hardy, 445

Twelfth Street, SW., Room 2–C221,

Washington DC 20554. Such a

submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible

format using WORD 97 or compatible

software. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60391

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the party’s name,

proceeding (including the docket

number (MM Docket No. 83–484), type

of pleading, date of submission, and the

name of the electronic file on the

diskette. The label should also include

the following phrase: ‘‘Disk Copy—Not

an Original.’’ Each diskette should

contain only one party’s pleadings,

preferably in a single electronic file. In

addition, parties must send diskette

copies to the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Room CY–B402, Washington, D.C.

20554.

26. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding

will be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding, subject to the

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules, 47

CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte

presentations are permissible if

disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are

generally prohibited. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description or the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Additional rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set

forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the

Commission’s rules.

27. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis. The actions taken in this

Order and Request to Update Record

have been analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), and found to request new or

modified reporting or recordkeeping by

the public. It will be submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget for

emergency review under Section 3507

of the PRA.

Ordering Clauses

28. Authority for issuance of this

Order and Request to Update Record is

contained in sections 4(i), 303 and 315

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 315.

29. Sections 73.1920 and 73.1930 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

73.1920, 73.1930 (broadcast personal

attack and political editorial rules), and

§ 76.209(b), (c), and (d) of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 76.209(b),

(c), (d), (cable personal attack and

political editorial rules) are suspended

upon the adoption date of this Order

and Request to Update Record through

December 2, 2000. This action is taken

pursuant to sections 4(i), 303 and 315 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 315.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting, television

broadcasting.

47 CFR Part 76

Cable television service.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–26014 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a

Petition To List the Columbian SharpTailed Grouse as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month

finding for a petition to list Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus

phasianellus columbianus) throughout

its known historic range in the 48

contiguous United States under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. We have reviewed the

petition, information available in our

files, other published and unpublished

information submitted to us during the

public comment period following the

90-day petition finding, consulted with

recognized prairie grouse experts, and

coordinated with other Federal, State,

and tribal resource agencies within the

historic range of the subspecies. On the

basis of the best scientific and

commercial information available, we

find that listing the Columbian sharptailed grouse as a threatened species

throughout its historic range in the

contiguous United States is not

warranted at this time.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made September 27,

2000. Comments and information may

be submitted until further notice is

given by a document published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments, and material concerning the

petition finding may be submitted to the

Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia River

Basin Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 11103 East

Montgomery Drive, Spokane,

Washington, 99206. The 12-month

petition finding, supporting data, and

comments are available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Warren at the above address or

telephone (509) 893–8020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the

maximum extent practicable, that we

make a finding within 12 months of the

date of receipt of a petition containing

substantial information on whether the

petitioned action is: (a) not warranted,

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted but

precluded from an immediate proposal

by other pending proposals of higher

priority. Upon making a 12-month

finding, we must promptly publish such

notice in the Federal Register.

On March 16, 1995, we received a

petition from the Biodiversity Legal

Foundation, Boulder, Colorado, dated

March 14, 1995. The petitioner

requested that the Columbian sharptailed grouse be listed as a threatened

species throughout its known historic

range in the 48 contiguous United States

and that critical habitat be designated

for the species as soon as its biological

needs are sufficiently well known. The

petition also recommended a review of

the species’ status in British Columbia,

Canada.

We added the Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse to our candidate species list on

January 6, 1989, as a Category 2 species

(54 FR 560). Category 2 species were

those for which we possessed

information indicating that a proposal to

list as endangered or threatened was

possibly appropriate, but for which

conclusive data on biological

vulnerability and threats were not

available to support a proposed rule. On

February 28, 1996, we discontinued the

designation of Category 2 species as

candidates for listing under the Act (61

FR 7596).

Due to a backlog of listing actions and

funding constraints in our listing

program, we have implemented our

Listing Priority Guidance during the

course of listing actions for the subject

petition. The guidance, first adopted on