Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8995

eventually global) communication

network. The new MSS industry also

promises to stimulate significant

economic growth both domestically and

abroad. The FCC’s proposals are

intended to facilitate the

implementation of competitive MSS

operations by easing international

technical and regulatory constraints and

providing additional spectrum

allocations.

3. In addition to seeking comment on

specific MSS proposals, the FCC seeks

input on other subjects raised in the first

Notice of Inquiry and relating to the

WRC–95 agenda including: space

service allocation issues; review of

Appendices 30 and 30A; availability of

high frequency broadcasting bands; the

Final Report of the Voluntary Group of

Experts on simplifying the international

Radio Regulations; and agendas for

future WRCs. The FCC also asks parties

to consider the long-range planning

aspects of the ITU’s new conference

cycle including the FCC’s conference

preparatory methods.

4. Upon review of the comments

received in response to the Second

Notice of Inquiry and a final report from

the WRC–95 Industry Advisory

Committee, the FCC will issue a Final

Report in this proceeding containing

recommended U.S. proposals for the

conference. The FCC will consult with

the Department of Commerce’s National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration and the Department of

State to develop final U.S. proposals for

WRC–95.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3830 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 1

[GC Docket No. 95–21; FCC 95–52]

Ex Parte Presentations in Commission

Proceedings

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to

amend its regulations concerning ex

parte presentations in Commission

proceedings. The proposed rules would

simplify the determination in particular

proceedings of whether ex parte

presentations are premissible and

whether they must be disclosed. The

proposed rules would also modify the

Commission’s ‘‘sunshine period

prohibition.’’ Additionally, the

proposed rules would modify in certain

respects the procedures for reporting

oral ex parte presentations and for

handling potential violations of the

rules. Certain other minor amendments

of the rules are proposed. The intended

effect of these proposals is to make the

rules simpler and easier with which to

comply, to enhance the fairness of the

Commission’s processes, and to

facilitate the public’s ability to

communicate with the Commission.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 16, 1995; reply comments

must be filed on or before March 31,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street NW,

Washington D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David S. Senzel, Office of General

Counsel (202) 418–1760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, GC Docket No.

95–21, adopted on February 7, 1995,

and released February 7, 1995. The full

text of the notice of proposed

rulemaking is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center

(Room 239), 1919 M Street NW,

Washington D.C. The complete text may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., Suite 140, 2100 M Street NW,

Washington, D.C. 20037, telephone

(202) 857–3800.

Summary of Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making

1. In this notice, the Commission

invites comment on proposals to revise

its rules governing ex parte

presentations in Commission

proceedings. The Commission believes

that the current rules continue to be

excessively complex, making

compliance difficult. Moreover, certain

specific problem areas have become

apparent.

2. The Commission proposes to revise

its system for specifying whether

proceedings are ‘‘restricted,’’ ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ or ‘‘exempt,’’ which

determine how ex parte presentations

are treated in that proceeding (with

certain exceptions). (An ex parte

presentation is a communication to a

Commission decisionmaker concerning

the outcome or merits of a proceeding

which–if written–is not served on all

parties and–if oral–is made without

notice and the opportunity for all

parties to be present.) In restricted

proceedings, ex parte presentations are

prohibited. In non-restricted

proceedings, ex parte presentations are

permitted but must be disclosed on the

record of the proceeding. In exempt

proceedings, ex parte presentations may

be made without limitation. The

Commission is proposing a simplified

system that would permit people to rely

on broad general rules to determine the

status of a proceeding.

3. Under the proposed system, all

proceedings not restricted or exempt

would be subject to permit-but-disclose

rules. The rules would generally classify

as restricted only those proceedings

required to be so classified by the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

This would include proceedings

designated for hearing. Consistent with

the APA, proceedings would also be

restricted with respect to any person

with knowledge that a designation order

was in preparation. Additionally,

proceedings involving mutually

exclusive applications not subject to

auction or lottery would be restricted.

The Commission or a Bureau or Office

after consultation with OGC could also

classify individual proceedings as

restricted on a case-by-case basis.

4. A few matters would continue to be

expressly classified as exempt. These

would include notice of inquiry

proceedings and proceedings involving

complaints which are not served on the

target of the complaint.

5. All other proceedings, including

informal adjudications (such as an

application, waiver request, other filings

seeking affirmative relief) and informal

rulemakings, would be subject to

permit-but-disclose rules when ex parte

presentations are made. For the

purposes of these ex parte rules,

‘‘parties’’ would be defined as those

making filings which initiate

adjudicatory-type proceedings and those

who make written submissions

regarding the filing party which are

served on the filer. Parties also include

other persons formally given party

status, such as the subject of an order to

show cause proceeding.

6. In addition, the proposed rules deal

specifically with complaints. They

provide that generally in complaint

proceedings where the complaint is

served on the target of the complaint,

both the complainant and the target are

parties. In formal section 208

proceedings, both the complainant and

the carrier would be parties. Comment

is requested on the treatment of

informal section 208 complaints.

7. Under this proposal, a sole

applicant or other uncontested filer

could freely make presentations to the

Commission about its filing. As long as

no other party appeared, these

presentations would not be ‘‘ex parte’’
8996 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 32 / Thursday, February 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

presentations, as defined in the rules,

and would therefore not be subject to

permit-but-disclose requirements. Once

another party appeared, both the

applicant or filer and the other party

would have to comply with the permitbut-disclose rules, because their

presentations would be ‘‘ex parte.’’

8. In rulemaking proceedings, the

public would, in effect, be treated as

parties. Thus, the rules would expressly

provide that permit-but-disclose

requirements would be triggered by the

filing of a petition for rulemaking, or the

issuance of a notice of proposed

rulemaking (or a rulemaking order done

without notice and comment) and

would apply to all persons.

9. The Commission also solicits

comments as to whether the sunshine

period prohibition should be modified.

Under the current rules, once a

proceeding has been placed on a

sunshine notice, no presentations,

whether ex parte or not, are permitted

until the Commission has released the

full text of the order in the proceeding

noticed in the sunshine notice, deleted

the item from the sunshine agenda, or

returned the item for further staff

consideration. The prohibition is

intended to give the Commission ‘‘a

period of repose’’ in which to make

decisions.

10. The Commission asks for

comments on whether there should be

a ‘‘sunshine period’’ once items are

adopted on circulation. The

Commission also proposes to exempt

from the prohibition the discussion of

recent Commission actions at public

meetings or symposia.

11. Additionally, the Commission

proposes certain specific provisions of

the ex parte rules. First, the Commission

proposes to give additional authority to

the Office of General Counsel to

evaluate alleged ex parte violations.

Second, the Commission proposes that

notices of oral ex parte presentations

should be more informative by requiring

that a full summary of the contents of

the presentation be filed with respect to

all oral presentations, whether or not

the arguments or data presented are

‘‘new.’’ Third, the Commission proposes

to require that persons with reason to

believe that a situation raises an ex parte

question must alert the Office of General

Counsel of this circumstance.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Reason for Action

The Commission has determined that

the rules governing ex parte

communications in Commission

proceedings should be made simpler,

clearer, and less restrictive. The

Commission finds it appropriate to

reexamine the public interest basis for

the limitations on ex parte

communications.

Objective

The Commission seeks to simplify

and clarify the rules governing ex parte

communications in Commission

proceedings and to make the rules more

consistent with the needs of

administrative practice.

Legal Basis

Action is being taken pursuant to 47

U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and (j),303(r), 403.

Reporting, Record Keeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

This proposal would modify the

requirement to report ex parte

presentations in order to increase the

usefulness and value of the reports and

to eliminate unnecessary restrictions on

ex parte presentations.

Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate

or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

None.

Description, Potential Impact, and

Number of Small Entities Affected

Small entities participating in

Commission proceedings would be

subject to limitations on ex parte

presentations.

Any Significant Alternative Minimizing

Impact on Small Entities and Consistent

with the Stated Objections

None.

List of Subjects for 47 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure, Radio, Telecommunications,

Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–3935 Filed 2–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

47 CFR Part 63

[CC Docket No. 87–266; FCC 95–20]

Telephone Company-Cable Television

Cross-Ownership Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted a

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in Common Carrier Docket

87–266, with the intent of soliciting

information and comment on the extent

to which Title II of the Communications

Act, Title VI, or both, apply to a

telephone company’s provision of video

programming directly to subscribers

within its telephone service area. The

Commission also requested comment on

what changes, if any, need to be made

to the video dialtone regulatory

framework if a telephone company

decides to become a video programmer

on its own video dialtone platform in its

telephone service area, and in

particular, whether telephone company

provision of video programming raises

new concerns about anticompetitive

behavior or cross-subsidy that the

Commission’s existing regulatory

framework may not sufficiently address.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before March 6, 1995. Reply

comments are due on March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and Reply

Comments may be mailed to the Office

of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street NW., Washington, DC 20554. A

copy of each filing should also be filed

with Peggy Reitzel of the Common

Carrier Bureau, and James Yancey of the

Cable Services Bureau.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jane Jackson (202) 418–1593, Common

Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program

Planning Division, and Larry Walke

(202) 416–0847, Cable Services Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Fourth Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in Common

Carrier Docket 87–266: Telephone

Company-Cable Television CrossOwnership Rules, Sections 63.54–63.58,

adopted January 12, 1995, and released

January 20. 1995. The complete text of

this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking is available for inspection

and copying, Monday through Friday,

9:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m., in the FCC

Reference Room (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. The

complete text of the Fourth Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857–3800.

Synopsis of Fourth Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

A. Governing Statutory Provisions.

1. Local exchange carrier (LEC)

provision of video programming raises

questions about whether Title II of the

Communications Act, Title VI of the

Communications Act, or both, would

govern particular LEC video offerings,

and how these provisions might apply

to a LEC’s provision of video