Source: http://www.fcc.gov/document/amendment-certain-commissions-part-1-rules-practice-and-procedure-and-part-0-rules-commissi
Timestamp: 2014-03-10 19:54:08
Document Index: 239586512

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 0', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 0', 'art 1', 'art 0', 'art 1', 'art 0', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 0', '§ 553', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 155', '§ 1', '§ 155', '§ 1', '§ 553', '§ 553', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 0']

Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization | FCC.gov
Home / Business & Legal / Commission Documents / Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure...Commission Document	Print
Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization
Word DocumentPDF DocumentText Document	Released: February 22, 2010
Amendment of Certain of the Commission’s
Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and
Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization
Adopted: February 18, 2010 Released: February 22, 2010
By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps, McDowell and Clyburn issuing separate statements
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on proposed revisions to the Commission’s Part 1 procedural rules and Part 0 organizational rules. The proposals are intended to increase efficiency and modernize our procedures, enhance the openness and transparency of Commission proceedings, and clarify certain procedural rules. In an attached appendix, we propose specific draft revised rules. We seek comment on the proposed rule language contained in that appendix, as well as the other proposals contained in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.1
The proposed rule revisions fall into three general categories. First, we seek to improve and streamline our processes governing reconsideration of Commission decisions. Specifically, we propose to delegate authority to the staff to dismiss or deny defective or repetitive petitions filed with the Commission for reconsideration of Commission decisions. We also propose to amend the rule that authorizes the Commission to reconsider a decision on its own motion within 30 days to make clear that the Commission may modify a decision, not merely set it aside or vacate it. Second, we seek to increase the efficiency of our docket management and make it easier for interested persons to follow and participate in our proceedings. To achieve this goal, we propose to expand the use of docketed proceedings, increase electronic filing of comments, and delegate authority to the staff in certain circumstances to notify parties electronically of docket filings and close inactive dockets. Third, we seek to address uncertainties that have developed in the application of two Part 1 rules. We propose to set a default effective date for FCC rules in the event the Commission does not specify an effective date in its rulemaking order. In addition, we propose to revise our computation of time rule to adopt the “next business day” approach when a Commission rule or order specifies that Commission action shall occur on a day when the agency is not open for business. 1 We note that because the Part 1 and Part 0 rules are procedural and organizational in nature, notice and comment is not required under the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A) (notice and comment rulemaking requirements do not apply to rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice). Nonetheless, in the spirit of openness and transparency, and to assemble the best possible record to inform our decisions, we have elected voluntarily to utilize notice and comment procedures in this instance. See also nn.15, 23. Federal Communications Commission
Sections 1.106 and 1.429 – Petitions for Reconsideration
We have two procedural rules governing petitions for reconsideration of Commission orders. Section 1.4292 addresses petitions for reconsideration of final orders issued in notice and comment rulemaking proceedings. Section 1.1063 is a “catch-all” provision that governs petitions for reconsideration in all agency proceedings other than rulemaking proceedings, that is, all adjudications.4 The captions of the two rules, however, are generic and do not explicitly reflect the dichotomy between rulemaking and adjudication. We propose to change the captions of these two rules to reflect the categories of proceedings that each rule governs.
We also propose to amend these rules to allow the agency to resolve certain petitions for reconsideration more efficiently and expeditiously. The agency each year receives many petitions asking the full Commission to reconsider its decisions. Some of those petitions for reconsideration are procedurally defective or merely repeat arguments that the Commission previously has rejected. Such petitions do not warrant consideration by the full Commission, and we therefore propose to amend sections 1.429 and 1.106 to authorize the staff to dismiss or deny them on delegated authority.5 A non-exhaustive list of such cases might include, for example, petitions that:
We seek comment on these examples, as well as other categories of petitions for reconsideration that may not warrant action by the full Commission and might be appropriate for resolution by the staff on delegated authority. We propose to specify in our rules criteria governing petitions for reconsideration that would be subject to this approach. To that end, we propose draft rule revisions in the attached appendix.6
2 47 C.F.R. § 1.429.3 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.4 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(a)(1) (noting that the rule does not govern reconsideration of final rulemaking orders).5 For a similarly defective petition directed to a bureau or office (rather than the full Commission) seeking reconsideration of a staff-level decision, the relevant bureau or office chief also would have delegated authority to dismiss or deny the petition. 6 A petitioner whose reconsideration petition was dismissed or denied by the staff may file an application to have the full Commission review the staff’s action. See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(a). In such circumstances, (continued….)
In addition, we propose to amend our reconsideration rules to make clear that paper copies of petitions for reconsideration may be submitted to the Commission’s Secretary by mail, by commercial courier, or by hand. As discussed below, however, our goal is to increase the use of electronic filing of pleadings in the future. Thus, for those matters that are docketed on the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (“ECFS”), we strongly encourage persons to file any petitions for reconsideration of Commission action by electronic submission to ECFS.7 We seek comment on this proposal.
Certain licensing proceedings have different electronic filing systems and procedures that are distinct from those that apply to ECFS. Pleadings filed electronically through the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (“ULS”), for example, including petitions for reconsideration, are subject to separate procedures that we do not propose to amend at this time.8
Finally, we note that section 1.429 does not by its express terms apply to rules adopted without notice and comment.9 We seek comment on whether we should amend section 1.429 to make clear that this rule, rather than the “catch-all” reconsideration provision in section 1.106, applies to petitions for reconsideration of Commission orders adopting rules without notice and comment.
(Continued from previous page) the filing of an application for review to the full Commission is a legal prerequisite for judicial review of the staff’s action on reconsideration. See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(7); 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(k).
7 To ensure that parties wishing to seek reconsideration have clear notice of our filing requirements, the proposed rule changes would emphasize that petitions for reconsideration submitted by electronic means other than ECFS (for example, by electronic mail) and petitions submitted directly to staff shall not be considered to have been properly filed absent a rule specifically permitting the alternative means of electronic filing for the particular submission at issue. Although a reconsideration petition submitted by electronic mail does not satisfy proper filing requirements absent a rule specifically permitting such a submission, it is still helpful and good practice to also send a copy of a reconsideration petition by electronic mail to any staff persons that the filer knows are involved with the proceeding or tend to be involved with the issues.
8 For procedures governing electronic filing through ULS, see: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-125A1.pdf (announcing ULS can accept electronic pleadings); http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-45A1.pdf (announcing auto-termination procedures - see page 6 #5); http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-294680A1.pdf (weekly Wireless Telecommunications Bureau PN, including how to file electronically).
9 In certain circumstances, rules may be adopted without notice and comment. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1), (2); 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.412(b), (c).
Section 1.108 – Reconsideration on the Commission’s Own Motion
Section 1.108 of the Commission’s rules, captioned “Reconsideration on Commission’s own motion,” states:
The Commission may, on its own motion, set aside any action made or taken by it within 30 days from the date of public notice of such action, as that date is defined in § 1.4(b) of these rules.10
As the caption suggests, the purpose of the rule is to give the Commission, when acting on its own motion, the full panoply of powers implied by the term “reconsider.” As set forth in section 1.106(k)(1) of the Commission’s rules,11 which concerns petitions for reconsideration in non-rulemaking proceedings, these powers include the power to reverse or modify an action, to remand a matter for further proceedings, or to initiate other further proceedings. One court, however, has construed the text of section 1.108 more narrowly, limiting its scope to the power to “set aside” an action in the literal sense. Under that court’s interpretation, the scope of permissible reconsiderations excludes revising or modifying a rule.12 In order to clarify that section 1.108 does not limit the Commission’s flexibility to revisit its decisions on its own motion within 30 days, we propose revising that rule to conform with thefuller definition of “reconsider” in section 1.106(k)(1). We seek comment on this proposal.
Expanded Use of Docketed Proceedings
The Commission assigns a docket number to many of its proceedings. These include notice and comment rulemaking proceedings and certain adjudicatory proceedings so designated by the Commission or the staff, such as adjudicatory proceedings that may be expected to attract large numbers of commenters.13 For any proceeding that is assigned a formal docket number, the Commission’s Reference Information Center (a unit of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau) maintains the official administrative record in paper form, as well as the public files electronically on ECFS.14
Many proceedings before the Commission, however, are not docketed. These non-docketed proceedings include routine matters that may not be expected to involve large numbers of commenters or parties. In such circumstances, the individual bureau or office handling the matter may assign the proceeding a unique file number or other form of identifier instead of a formal docket number. In some types of matters, no numerical identifier is assigned. The relevant bureau or office also maintains the public files of the proceeding and assists the Office of General Counsel in preparing the certified list of items in the administrative record for purposes of judicial review. Often the record may be in paper format only, and thus is not susceptible to electronic search and query. In such cases, interested persons may find it difficult to follow and participate in non-docketed proceedings. 11.
Given the limitations and challenges noted above regarding certain non-docketed proceedings, we believe we can and should enhance openness, transparency, and accuracy by utilizing the formal docket 10 47 C.F.R. § 1.108.11 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(k)(1).12 See Sprint Corp. v. FCC, 315 F.3d 369, 374-75 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that a Commission action “revising and modifying” a rule was not “set[ting] aside” the rule within the scope of section 1.108).
13 In the past, docketed adjudicatory proceedings have included, for example, applications to transfer licenses and authorizations in conjunction with the merger of companies; requests by Bell Operating Companies for authority under 47 U.S.C. § 271 to provide “in-region” long distance service in a particular state; and certain declaratory ruling and waiver proceedings. 14 See 47 C.F.R. § 0.141(h).
process for a larger portion of Commission proceedings. The docket number, often in conjunction with enhanced electronic filing through ECFS as discussed below, should facilitate public access and participation in our proceedings. We seek comment on this general approach. In particular, are there specific types of proceedings that currently are not docketed that would be candidates to migrate to the formal docket system? In contrast, are there particular proceedings that do not lend themselves to the docket system and should continue to be handled in a non-docketed manner by the relevant bureau or office? In general, we believe it is in the public interest to utilize the formal docket system whenever it is technically feasible.15 We recognize, however, that certain filings at the Commission by their nature may not be well suited for a docketed proceeding.16 Thus, while we may be able to reduce the number and variety of non-docketed proceedings significantly, we may not be able to establish a system in which all proceedings are docketed. Filings made through electronic means other than ECFS, for example, such as in the licensing context through ULS, may be accessible to the public without the need for assigning the proceeding a docket number. We seek comment on these proposals and issues. 2.
Greater Use of Electronic Filing
In 1998, the Commission amended its rules to permit electronic filing via the Internet of all pleadings in informal notice and comment rulemaking proceedings (other than broadcast allotment proceedings), notice of inquiry proceedings, and petition for rulemaking proceedings (except broadcast allotment proceedings).17 The Commission also permits electronic filing through ECFS for certain adjudicatory proceedings on a case-by-case basis when so designated by the Commission or the staff. The Commission recently launched an enhanced and upgraded version of its ECFS that includes many new features and increased functionality.18 These new enhancements include, for example:
All forms are compliant with section 508 of the Rehabilit