[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60387-60391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26014]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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/e-file/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 e-mail to [email protected],, 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

[[Page 60388]]

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

[[Page 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 government-granted 
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

[[Page 60390]]

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 ``government-granted 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/e-file/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 [email protected], 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

[[Page 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-
but-disclose'' 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 Sec. 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