[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 57 (Thursday, March 25, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14401-14409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6502]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 1

[GC Docket No. 10-44; FCC 10-32]


Amendment of Certain of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure and Rules of Commission Organization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document seeks comment on proposed revisions to the 
Commission's procedural rules and 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. We seek comment on the proposed rule 
language, as well as the other proposals contained in this document.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by May 10, 2010 and reply comments 
must be submitted by June 8, 2010. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be 
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
other interested parties on or before May 24, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GC Docket No. 10-44, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Welch, Office of General 
Counsel, 202-418-1740. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, send an e-mail to [email protected] or contact Leslie 
Smith, OMD, 202-418-0217.

[[Page 14402]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 10-32, adopted on February 18, 2010, and 
released on February 22, 2010. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may 
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 
Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, 
May 1, 1998.
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     ECFS filers must transmit one electronic copy of the 
comments for GC Docket No. 10-44. In completing the transmittal screen, 
filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 
address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one 
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings 
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 
445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before 
entering the building.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
    Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via 
e-mail to [email protected]. Documents in GC Docket No. 10-43 will be 
available for public inspection and copying during business hours at 
the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased 
from BCPI, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, TTY 
(202) 488-5562, e-mail [email protected].
    In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any 
comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal 
Communications Commission via e-mail to [email protected] and to Nicholas A. 
Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via e-mail to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-5167.

I. Introduction

    1. This document 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. We propose specific 
draft revised rules. We seek comment on the proposed rule language, as 
well as the other proposals contained in this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking. (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.)
    2. 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.

II. Discussion

A. Reconsideration of Agency Decisions

1. Sections 1.106 and 1.429--Petitions for Reconsideration
    3. We have two procedural rules governing petitions for 
reconsideration of Commission orders. Section 1.429 addresses petitions 
for reconsideration of final orders issued in notice and comment 
rulemaking proceedings. Section 1.106 is a ``catch-all'' provision that 
governs petitions for reconsideration in all agency proceedings other 
than rulemaking proceedings, that is, all adjudications. 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.
    4. 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

[[Page 14403]]

do not warrant consideration by the full Commission, and we therefore 
propose to amend Sec. Sec.  1.429 and 1.106 to authorize the staff to 
dismiss or deny them on delegated authority. A non-exhaustive list of 
such cases might include, for example, petitions that:
     Omit information required by these rules to be included 
with a petition for reconsideration or otherwise fail to comply with 
procedural requirements set forth by the rules;
     Fail to identify any material error, omission, or reason 
warranting reconsideration or fail to state with particularity the 
respects in which petitioner believes the action taken should be 
changed;
     Rely on arguments that have been fully considered and 
rejected within the same proceeding;
     Relate to matters outside the scope of the order for which 
reconsideration has been requested;
     Rely on facts or arguments that could have been presented 
previously to the Commission or its staff but were not;
     Relate to an order for which reconsideration has been 
previously denied on similar grounds; or
     Are untimely.
    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. (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 CFR 1.115(a). In such 
circumstances, 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 CFR 1.115(k).)
    5. 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. 
(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.) We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    6. 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.
    7. Finally, we note that Sec.  1.429 does not by its express terms 
apply to rules adopted without notice and comment. We seek comment on 
whether we should amend Sec.  1.429 to make clear that this rule, 
rather than the ``catch-all'' reconsideration provision in Sec.  1.106, 
applies to petitions for reconsideration of Commission orders adopting 
rules without notice and comment.
2. Section 1.108--Reconsideration on the Commission's Own Motion
    8. 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 Sec.  1.4(b) of these rules.''
    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 Sec.  1.106(k)(1) 
of the Commission's rules, 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 Sec.  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. (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 Sec.  1.108).) 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 the fuller definition of 
``reconsider'' in Sec.  1.106(k)(1). We seek comment on this proposal.
Docketing of Proceedings, Electronic Filing of Pleadings, and 
Electronic Notification
3. Expanded Use of Docketed Proceedings
    9. 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. 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.
    10. 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

[[Page 14404]]

openness, transparency, and accuracy by utilizing the formal docket 
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. (Although we 
seek notice and comment here on the general approach of applying a 
formal docket process to additional Commission proceedings, we note 
that any subsequent determination that specific proceedings (or types 
of proceedings) should be docketed would not require the use of notice 
and comment procedures to the extent that those changes would involve 
matters of agency procedure and practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).) We 
recognize, however, that certain filings at the Commission by their 
nature may not be well suited for a docketed proceeding. 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.
4. Greater Use of Electronic Filing
    12. 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). (47 CFR 1.49(f); see 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, Report and 
Order, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998; 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).) 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. These new enhancements include, 
for example:
    For submitting comments:
     User-friendly forms used to upload and query
     All forms are compliant with section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act and the system is certified for use with screen 
readers for those visually handicapped persons who require screen 
readers
     Ability to submit a filing in multiple proceedings
     Ability to attach multiple files to one submission
     User-friendly Graphic User Interface using JAVA to permit 
easier navigation
     Ability to review and modify filings before submitting 
them
     Ability to send and process comments from international 
filers and U.S. Territories
    For performing queries:
     Check filing status by confirmation number
     Sort the result set
     Display results in a group of specified size
     Display results in tabular (condensed) or expanded 
(detailed) format
     Export search results to Excel or PDF
     As noted above, system is compliant with section 508 of 
the Rehabilitation Act and certified for use with screen readers
     Display search records with a link to the PDF version of 
the comment
     RSS Feed for updates
     View ECFS Daily Report (from a calendar) that lists the 
daily additions to ECFS
    13. Given the more robust electronic filing capability provided by 
ECFS, we seek comment on the efficacy of utilizing electronic filing of 
pleadings through ECFS in a broader array of Commission proceedings. 
The Commission receives paper-only filings in certain non-rulemaking 
matters that currently do not utilize ECFS or some other electronic 
filing mechanism such as ULS. In addition, in certain types of 
proceedings, the Commission's rules provide for the electronic filing 
of applications, but not of responsive pleadings. When filings are made 
in paper format only and are not included in an electronic system (such 
as ECFS) that permits search and query functions, interested persons 
may find it difficult to follow and participate in our proceedings. 
Public access and transparency are not well served in those 
circumstances. In general, we believe that electronic filing through 
our enhanced ECFS or other electronic filing systems such as ULS better 
serves the public interest than a paper-only filing process. We thus 
seek to maximize electronic filing to the extent possible and minimize 
paper submissions at the Commission.
    14. Accordingly, we propose an enhanced role for ECFS, and seek 
comment generally on issues raised by the increased use of electronic 
filing in Commission proceedings. In what types of non-rulemaking 
matters might it be appropriate to permit electronic filing of all 
pleadings through ECFS? Are there certain non-rulemaking proceedings 
that do not lend themselves to electronic filing of pleadings through 
ECFS? How should we amend Sec.  1.49 of our rules (and any other rules 
the revision of which may be necessary) to augment the number of 
proceedings in which parties may file all pleadings through ECFS? Are 
there statutory implications for enhanced electronic filing that we 
should take into account, such as the Privacy Act? (5 U.S.C. 552a.) If 
we permit more filings under ECFS, what are the implications for 
parties wishing to submit materials under a request for confidentiality 
under Sec.  0.459 of our rules?
    15. As noted, the Commission has electronic filing mechanisms other 
than ECFS. These include, for example, a number of electronic filing 
systems for applications in the various broadcast and wireless 
services, including ULS (see para. 6, above). How should such systems 
be harmonized with ECFS, or should they continue to operate 
independently of ECFS? For example, should filers using those systems 
be excluded from also filing through the ECFS system to avoid confusion 
or unnecessary duplication? Should they be permitted to file in either, 
or both, in the same proceeding?
    16. Finally, we seek comment on whether electronic filings through 
ECFS or our other electronic filing systems should be ``machine 
readable.'' Specifically, should text filings be in a searchable format 
(e.g., Microsoft Word ``.doc'' format or non-copy protected text-
searchable ``.pdf'' format)? Should submissions containing non-text 
information, particularly spreadsheets of data, be submitted in the 
format in which they were created, such as Microsoft Excel, Microsoft 
Word, or Microsoft PowerPoint (``native format'')? We seek comment on 
these questions, and any other issues parties care to raise in 
connection with an enhanced role for filing pleadings through ECFS. 
(Just as with docketed proceedings, we note that any subsequent 
determination that

[[Page 14405]]

parties should be permitted to file all pleadings in specific 
proceedings (or types of proceedings) through ECFS would not require 
the use of notice and comment procedures to the extent that those 
changes would involve matters of agency procedure and practice. See 5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(A).)
5. Electronic Notification in Certain Proceedings
    17. When required by statute or regulation, the Commission must 
serve copies of orders, pleadings, and other documents on parties to a 
proceeding. Typically in such circumstances, service is effectuated by 
mail. This process can be cumbersome and time consuming, for example 
when there are many parties to a particular proceeding, or when many 
documents in a particular docket must be served on the parties over the 
life of the proceeding. We seek to establish a more efficient approach. 
Accordingly, we propose to amend Sec.  1.47 of the Commission's rules 
to allow the agency to serve parties to a proceeding in electronic form 
(e.g., e-mail or an Internet-based notification system such as an RSS 
feed) following any change in the docket, to the extent the Commission 
is required to serve such parties. In a proceeding involving a large 
number of parties, we propose to satisfy the Commission's service 
obligation by issuing a public notice that identifies the documents 
required to be served and that explains how parties can obtain copies 
of the documents. If we adopt such an approach, what number of parties 
ordinarily should trigger this procedure? Are there other factors, in 
addition to the number of parties, that should be taken into account 
when deciding whether to use this procedure in a particular matter? We 
seek comment on these proposals and questions.
6. Management of Dockets
    18. When no further action in a docketed proceeding is required or 
contemplated, that proceeding should be terminated. Termination closes 
the docket to any new filings. A terminated docket remains part of the 
Commission's official records, however, and its contents (pleadings, 
orders, etc.) continue to be accessible to the public.
    19. The Commission currently has more than three thousand open 
dockets. Many of these dockets have seen little or no activity in 
years. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that some 
open dockets may be candidates for termination. To address the current 
situation and to prevent its recurrence in the future, we propose to 
amend Sec.  0.141 of our organizational rules to delegate authority to 
the Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), through its 
component Reference Information Center, to review all open dockets 
periodically. When the CGB Chief identifies an open docket that appears 
to be a candidate for termination, the CGB Chief should consult with 
the relevant bureau or office with responsibility for that docket and, 
if the relevant bureau or office concurs, the staff should take action 
to close that docket. As noted above, candidates for termination might 
include, for example, dockets in which no further action is required or 
contemplated. In addition, is there some minimum period of dormancy 
(i.e., when no pleadings have been filed) that might indicate a 
particular docket is a candidate for termination? What other criteria 
for termination might be appropriate? What procedures should we follow 
before terminating dockets? Should we first issue a public notice 
identifying particular dockets as candidates for termination before 
actually closing those dockets? We seek comment on these proposals and 
questions.
    20. Another docket management issue involves the handling of 
dockets that are so large that they have become unwieldy. In such 
circumstances, often a bureau or office will open a new docket to 
remove one or more issues from a large docket, in an effort to avoid 
further expansion of the oversize docket. Oftentimes in practice, 
however, filings in the new docket will continue to include the old 
docket in the caption, essentially defeating the docket management 
function of having created the new docket. In an effort to rectify this 
situation, we propose to amend Sec.  1.49 of our rules to specify that 
a filing should only be captioned with the docket number(s) particular 
to the issue(s) addressed in the filing. If the filing references 
superfluous or incorrect dockets, the Commission, through the Reference 
Information Center, would have the discretion to omit the filing from 
those dockets, and place it (only) in the correct docket(s). We seek 
comment on this proposal, including whether the benefits of erring on 
the side of over inclusiveness in dockets outweigh the administrative 
efficiencies and more narrowly tailored docket searchability that this 
proposal seeks to foster. We also solicit any other related suggestions 
to help the Commission manage its dockets and make them more user-
friendly to, and searchable by, consumers and other users.

Miscellaneous Part 1 Rules

    21. We also propose to amend certain other part 1 procedural rules 
to clarify and improve our practices. We propose these actions because 
our experience indicates that the current language of the rules has 
resulted in inconsistencies or uncertainties in the treatment of the 
matters in question.
7. Section 1.427--Effective Date of Rules
    22. Although Commission rulemaking orders typically specify the 
effective date of adopted rules, the omission of such a statement can 
create confusion. Section 1.427(a) of the Commission's rules, captioned 
``Effective date of rules,'' currently states: ``Any rule issued by the 
Commission will be made effective not less than 30 days from the time 
it is published in the Federal Register except as otherwise specified 
in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.''
    That rule contemplates that, in cases when the exceptions in 
subsections (b) and (c) do not apply, the order adopting the rule will 
contain a statement specifying that the rule becomes effective not less 
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The rule does 
not provide any guidance, however, in the case when the contemplated 
statement of effective date is omitted. Although it is desirable to 
include a specific statement of effective date in all cases, we find 
that it also is prudent to prescribe a default rule in the event an 
order omits such a statement. A default rule should help avoid 
confusion and undue disruption concerning the effective date of the 
rule. We therefore propose amending Sec.  1.427(a) of the rules to 
provide that in the event a Commission order adopting a rule does not 
specify an effective date and does not affirmatively defer the setting 
of an effective date (as in circumstances when the rule is awaiting 
Paperwork Reduction Act approval), the rule will become effective 30 
days after publication in the Federal Register unless a later effective 
date is required by statute. We seek comment on this proposal.
8. Section 1.4--Computation of Time
    23. Deadlines for Commission Action Established by Rule. 
Uncertainty can arise when the Commission's rules provide that required 
Commission action becomes due on a day when the agency is not open for 
business. A provision of the Commission's computation of time rule, 
Sec.  1.4(j) (47 CFR 1.4(j)), currently addresses that situation when 
the due date for a party's filing falls on such a date, stating: 
``Unless otherwise provided (e.g. Sec.

[[Page 14406]]

76.1502(e) of this chapter) if, after making all the computations 
provided for in this section, the filing date falls on a holiday, the 
document shall be filed on the next business day. See paragraph (e)(1) 
of this section.''
    Section 1.4(j) does not address, however, the parallel situation in 
which specified Commission action, rather than a party's filing, is by 
regulation due on a day when the agency is not open for business. In 
those circumstances, we tentatively conclude that the reasonable 
expectation is that, when the due date for Commission action would 
otherwise fall on a holiday, as defined by Sec.  1.4(e)(1) of the 
rules, the due date would be extended to the next business day. We seek 
comment on this proposal.
    24. Deadlines for Commission Action Established by Statute. Section 
1.4 by its terms ``applies to computation of time for seeking both 
reconsideration and judicial review of Commission decisions.'' The rule 
permits parties to make such filings on the next business day when the 
filing deadline otherwise would fall on a holiday. Each of those 
deadlines is established by statute rather than by Commission rule. 
(Petitions for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days from the 
date public notice is given of the Commission order. 47 U.S.C. 405(a). 
A Notice of Appeal of certain Commission licensing decisions must be 
filed within 30 days from the date public notice is given of the 
Commission's order. 47 U.S.C. 402(b), (c). A Petition for Review of 
most Commission decisions must be filed within 60 days from the date 
public notice is given of the Commission's order. 47 U.S.C. 402(a); 28 
U.S.C. 2344.) Through Sec.  1.4(a), we thus have announced in advance 
our construction of certain statutory filing deadlines applicable to 
parties to make clear that parties may invoke the ``next business day'' 
procedure when the filing date would otherwise fall on a holiday.
    25. We seek comment on whether we should follow the same approach 
to statutory deadlines applicable to the Commission. The Communications 
Act, in particular, establishes various deadlines for Commission 
action. May we, and if so should we, construe such deadlines to 
incorporate the ``next business day'' procedure, as we have for certain 
statutory deadlines applicable to parties? Specifically, if a statutory 
deadline for Commission action falls on a holiday (as defined in Sec.  
1.4(e)(1)), should we by rule announce our intention to construe the 
statute to require Commission action on the next business day? If so, 
what changes should we make to Sec.  1.4 to effectuate this approach?

III. Procedural Matters

    26. Ex Parte Presentations. The rulemaking this Notice initiates 
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance 
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte 
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations 
must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not 
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-
sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is 
required. Other requirements pertaining to oral and written 
presentations are set forth in Sec.  1.1206(b) of the Commission's 
rules.
    27. Accessible Formats: To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(tty).
    28. Regulatory Flexibility Act. Our action does not require notice 
and comment, and therefore falls outside of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act of 1980, as amended. We nonetheless note that we anticipate that 
the rules we propose today will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. As described above, in 
proposing to revise certain of our part 1 Rules of Practice and 
Procedure and our part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, we mainly 
propose to change our own internal procedures and organization and do 
not impose substantive new responsibilities on regulated entities. 
There is no reason to believe that operation of the proposed rules 
would impose significant costs on parties to Commission proceedings. We 
will send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Chief 
Counsel of Advocacy of the SBA.
    29. Paperwork Reduction Act. This proceeding may result in new 
information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant 
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific 
comment on how we might ``further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

IV. Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, It is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 
154(j), and 303(r), that notice is hereby given of the proposed 
regulatory changes described above, and that comment is sought on these 
proposals.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 0 and 1

    Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Government employees, Lawyers, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 0 and 1 to 
read as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

    1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 
225, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Section 0.141 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  0.141  Functions of the Bureau.

* * * * *
    (h) Serves as the official FCC records custodian for designated 
records, including intake processing, organization and file 
maintenance, reference services, and retirement and retrieval of 
records; manages the Electronic Comment Filing System and certifies 
records for adjudicatory and court proceedings. Maintains manual and 
computerized files that provide for the public inspection of public 
record materials concerning Broadcast Ownership, AM/FM/TV, TV 
translators, FM Translators, Cable TV, Wireless, Auction, Common 
Carrier Tariff matters, International space station files, earth 
station files, DBS files, and other miscellaneous international files. 
Also maintains for public inspection Time Brokerage and Affiliation 
Agreements, court citation files, and legislative histories concerning 
telecommunications dockets. Provides the public and Commission staff 
prompt access to manual and computerized records and filing systems. 
Periodically

[[Page 14407]]

reviews the status of open docketed proceedings and, in consultation 
with the relevant bureau or office with responsibility for a particular 
proceeding, closes any docket in which no further action is required or 
contemplated.
* * * * *
    3. Section 0.445 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  0.445  Publication, availability and use of opinions, orders, 
policy statements, interpretations, administrative manuals, and staff 
instructions.

    (a) Adjudicatory opinions and orders of the Commission, or its 
staff acting on delegated authority, are mailed or delivered by 
electronic means to the parties, and as part of the record, are 
available for inspection in accordance with Sec. Sec.  0.453 and 0.455.
* * * * *

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

    4. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
155, 157, 225, 303(r), and 309.

    5. Section 1.4 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (j) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1.4  Computation of time.

    (a) Purpose. The purpose of this rule section is to detail the 
method for computing the amount of time within which persons or 
entities must act in response to deadlines established by the 
Commission. It also applies to computation of time for seeking both 
reconsideration and judicial review of Commission decisions. In 
addition, this rule section prescribes the method for computing the 
amount of time within which the Commission must act in response to 
deadlines established by a Commission rule or order.
* * * * *
    (j) Unless otherwise provided (e.g. Sec.  76.1502(e) of this 
chapter) if, after making all the computations provided for in this 
section, the filing date falls on a holiday, the document shall be 
filed on the next business day. See paragraph (e)(1) of this section. 
If a rule or order of the Commission specifies that the Commission must 
act by a certain date and that date falls on a holiday, the Commission 
action must be taken by the next business day.
* * * * *
    6. Section 1.47 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.47  Service of documents and proof of service.

    (a) Where the Commission or any person is required by statute or by 
the provisions of this chapter to serve any document upon any person, 
service shall (in the absence of specific provisions in this chapter to 
the contrary) be made in accordance with the provisions of this 
section. Documents that are required to be served by the Commission may 
be served in electronic form. In proceedings involving a large number 
of parties, the Commission may satisfy its service obligation by 
issuing a public notice that identifies the documents required to be 
served and that explains how parties can obtain copies of the 
documents.
* * * * *
    7. Section 1.49 is amended by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.49  Specifications as to pleadings and documents.

* * * * *
    (g) The caption of a pleading or other document filed in a docketed 
proceeding should reference only the docket number(s) particular to the 
issue(s) addressed in the document. When the document references 
superfluous or incorrect dockets, the Commission may omit the document 
from such dockets and place it (only) in the correct docket(s).
    8. Section 1.106 is amended by revising the section heading, 
paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c), (d), (i), and (j), and by 
adding a new paragraph (p), to read as follows:


Sec.  1.106  Petitions for reconsideration in non-rulemaking 
proceedings.

    (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3) and (p) of this 
section, petitions requesting reconsideration of a final Commission 
action in non-rulemaking proceedings will be acted on by the 
Commission. Petitions requesting reconsideration of other final actions 
taken pursuant to delegated authority will be acted on by the 
designated authority or referred by such authority to the Commission. A 
petition for reconsideration of an order designating a case for hearing 
will be entertained if, and insofar as, the petition relates to an 
adverse ruling with respect to petitioner's participation in the 
proceeding. Petitions for reconsideration of other interlocutory 
actions will not be entertained. (For provisions governing 
reconsideration of Commission action in notice and comment rule making 
proceedings, see Sec.  1.429. This Sec.  1.106 does not govern 
reconsideration of such actions.)
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Where the Commission has denied an application for review, a 
petition for reconsideration will be entertained only if one or more of 
the following circumstances are present:
    (i) The petition relies on facts or arguments which relate to 
events which have occurred or circumstances which have changed since 
the last opportunity to present such matters to the Commission; or
    (ii) The petition relies on facts or arguments unknown to 
petitioner until after his last opportunity to present them to the 
Commission, and he could not through the exercise of ordinary diligence 
have learned of the facts or arguments in question prior to such 
opportunity.
    (3) A petition for reconsideration of an order denying an 
application for review which fails to rely on new facts or changed 
circumstances may be dismissed by the staff as repetitious.
    (c) In the case of any order other than an order denying an 
application for review, a petition for reconsideration which relies on 
facts or arguments not previously presented to the Commission or to the 
designated authority may be granted only under the following 
circumstances:
    (1) The facts or arguments fall within one or more of the 
categories set forth in Sec.  1.106(b)(2); or
    (2) The Commission or the designated authority determines that 
consideration of the facts or arguments relied on is required in the 
public interest.
    (d)(1) A petition for reconsideration shall state with 
particularity the respects in which petitioner believes the action 
taken by the Commission or the designated authority should be changed. 
The petition shall state specifically the form of relief sought and, 
subject to this requirement, may contain alternative requests.
    (2) A petition for reconsideration of a decision that sets forth 
formal findings of fact and conclusions of law shall also cite the 
findings and/or conclusions which petitioner believes to be erroneous, 
and shall state with particularity the respects in which he believes 
such findings and/or conclusions should be changed. The petition may 
request that additional findings of fact and/or conclusions of law be 
made.
* * * * *
    (i) Petitions for reconsideration, oppositions, and replies shall 
conform to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  1.49, 1.51, and

[[Page 14408]]

1.52 and shall be submitted to the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, Washington, DC, 20554, by mail, by commercial courier, by 
hand, or by electronic submission through the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System or other electronic filing system (such as ULS). 
Petitions submitted by electronic mail and petitions submitted directly 
to staff without submission to the Secretary shall not be considered to 
have been properly filed. Parties filing in electronic form need only 
submit one copy.
    (j) The Commission or designated authority may grant the petition 
for reconsideration in whole or in part or may deny or dismiss the 
petition. Its order will contain a concise statement of the reasons for 
the action taken. Where the petition for reconsideration relates to an 
instrument of authorization granted without hearing, the Commission or 
designated authority will take such action within 90 days after the 
petition is filed.
* * * * *
    (p) Petitions for reconsideration of a Commission action that 
plainly do not warrant consideration by the Commission may be dismissed 
or denied by the Chief(s) of the relevant bureau(s) or office(s). 
Examples include, but are not limited to, petitions that: (1) Fail to 
identify any material error, omission, or reason warranting 
reconsideration;
    (2) rely on facts or arguments which have not previously been 
presented to the Commission and which do not meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), or (c) of this section;
    (3) Rely on arguments that have been fully considered and rejected 
within the same proceeding;
    (4) Fail to state with particularity the respects in which 
petitioner believes the action taken should be changed as required by 
paragraph (d) of this section;
    (5) Relate to matters outside the scope of the order for which 
reconsideration is sought;
    (6) Omit information required by these rules to be included with a 
petition for reconsideration, such as the affidavit required by Sec.  
1.106(e) (relating to electrical interference);
    (7) Fail to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in 
paragraphs (f) and (i);
    (8) Relate to an order for which reconsideration has been 
previously denied on similar grounds, except for petitions which could 
be granted under Sec.  1.106(c); or
    (9) Are untimely.
    9. Section 1.108 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  1.108  Reconsideration on Commission's own motion.

    The Commission may, on its own motion, reconsider 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 Sec.  1.4(b) of these rules. When 
acting on its own motion under this section, the Commission may take 
any action it could take in acting on a petition for reconsideration, 
as set forth in Sec.  1.106(k) of this chapter.
    10. Section 1.427 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1.427  Effective date of rules.

    (a) Any rule issued by the Commission will be made effective not 
less than 30 days from the time it is published in the Federal Register 
except as otherwise specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section. If the report and order adopting the rule does not specify the 
date on which the rule becomes effective, the effective date shall be 
30 days after the date on which the rule is published in the Federal 
Register, unless the report and order affirmatively defers the setting 
of an effective date or a later effective date is required by statute.
* * * * *
    11. Section 1.429 is amended by revising the section heading, 
paragraphs (b), (h), and (i), and by adding a new paragraph (l), to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1.429  Petition for reconsideration of final orders in rulemaking 
proceedings.

* * * * *
    (b) A petition for reconsideration which relies on facts or 
arguments which have not previously been presented to the Commission 
will be granted only under the following circumstances:
    (1) The facts or arguments relied on relate to events which have 
occurred or circumstances which have changed since the last opportunity 
to present such matters to the Commission;
    (2) The facts or arguments relied on were unknown to petitioner 
until after his last opportunity to present them to the Commission, and 
he could not through the exercise of ordinary diligence have learned of 
the facts or arguments in question prior to such opportunity; or
    (3) The Commission determines that consideration of the facts or 
arguments relied on is required in the public interest.
* * * * *
    (h) Petitions for reconsideration, oppositions and replies shall 
conform to the requirements of Sec. Sec.  1.49 and 1.52, except that 
they need not be verified. Except as provided in Sec.  1.420(e), an 
original and 11 copies shall be submitted to the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, by mail, by commercial 
courier, by hand, or by electronic submission through the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System. Petitions submitted by electronic 
mail and petitions submitted directly to staff without submission to 
the Secretary shall not be considered to have been properly filed. 
Parties filing in electronic form need only submit one copy.
    (i) The Commission may grant the petition for reconsideration in 
whole or in part or may deny or dismiss the petition. Its order will 
contain a concise statement of the reasons for the action taken. Any 
order addressing a petition for reconsideration which modifies rules 
adopted by the original order is, to the extent of such modification, 
subject to reconsideration in the same manner as the original order. 
Except in such circumstance, a second petition for reconsideration may 
be dismissed by the staff as repetitious. In no event shall a ruling 
which denies a petition for reconsideration be considered a 
modification of the original order.
* * * * *
    (l) Petitions for reconsideration of a Commission action that 
plainly do not warrant consideration by the Commission may be dismissed 
or denied by the Chief(s) of the relevant bureau(s) or office(s). 
Examples include, but are not limited to, petitions that:
    (1) Fail to identify any material error, omission, or reason 
warranting reconsideration;
    (2) Rely on facts or arguments which have not previously been 
presented to the Commission and which do not meet the requirements of 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section;
    (3) Rely on arguments that have been fully considered and rejected 
within the same proceeding;
    (4) Fail to state with particularity the respects in which 
petitioner believes the action taken should be changed as required by 
paragraph (c) of this section;
    (5) Relate to matters outside the scope of the order for which 
reconsideration is sought;
    (6) Omit information required by these rules to be included with a 
petition for reconsideration;
    (7) Fail to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in 
paragraphs (d), (e), and (h) of this section;
    (8) Relate to an order for which reconsideration has been 
previously

[[Page 14409]]

denied on similar grounds, except for petitions which could be granted 
under Sec.  1.429(b); or
    (9) Are untimely.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-6502 Filed 3-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P