Telecommunications: FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access 
to Rulemaking Information (06-SEP-07, GAO-07-1046).		 
                                                                 
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with	 
regulating interstate and international communications by radio, 
television, wire, satellite, and cable. The Telecommunications	 
Act of 1996 established that FCC should promote competition and  
reduce regulation to secure lower prices and higher-quality	 
services for American consumers. FCC implements its policy aims  
through rulemaking, whereby the agency notifies the public of a  
proposed rule and provides an opportunity for the public to	 
participate in the rule's development. These rulemakings are	 
documented within a public docket that contains the rulemaking	 
record. In response to a congressional request on FCC rulemaking,
GAO (1) described FCC's rulemaking process; (2) determined, for  
specific rulemakings, the extent to which FCC followed its	 
process; and (3) identified factors that contributed to some	 
dockets and rulemakings remaining open. GAO reviewed recent FCC  
rules, interviewed FCC officials and stakeholders, and conducted 
case studies of rulemakings.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1046					        
    ACCNO:   A75727						        
  TITLE:     Telecommunications: FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal
Access to Rulemaking Information				 
     DATE:   09/06/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Federal regulations				 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Independent regulatory commissions 		 
	     Information disclosure				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Public records					 
	     Regulatory agencies				 
	     Telecommunication policy				 
	     Telecommunications 				 
	     Telecommunications industry			 
	     Communications regulation				 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-1046

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background

          * [3]Purpose and Organization of FCC
          * [4]Laws Governing FCC Rulemaking

               * [5]Administrative Procedure Act of 1946
               * [6]Communications Act of 1934
               * [7]Other Laws

          * [8]Ex parte and Nonpublic Information Rules

     * [9]FCC's Rulemaking Process Includes Multiple Steps with Opport

          * [10]Initiation
          * [11]Rule Development
          * [12]Reconsideration and Appeal

     * [13]FCC Generally Followed the Rulemaking Process for Selected R

          * [14]In the Rulemakings We Reviewed, FCC Generally Followed the R
          * [15]Multiple Stakeholders May Have an Advantage Because They Are

     * [16]Several Factors May Contribute to Dockets and Rulemakings Re
     * [17]Conclusions
     * [18]Recommendation for Executive Action
     * [19]Agency Comments
     * [20]Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
     * [21]Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

          * [22]GAO Contact
          * [23]Staff Acknowledgments

               * [24]Order by Mail or Phone

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

September 2007

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information

GAO-07-1046

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3
Background 5
FCC's Rulemaking Process Includes Multiple Steps with Opportunities for
Public Participation 12
FCC Generally Followed the Rulemaking Process for Selected Rules, but
Unequal Access to Nonpublic Information May Give Some Stakeholders an
Advantage 18
Several Factors May Contribute to Dockets and Rulemakings Remaining Open
25
Conclusions 28
Recommendation for Executive Action 28
Agency Comments 29
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 30
Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 34

Tables

Table 1: Overview of Completed FCC Rules Selected as Case Studies 19
Table 2: Overview of Open FCC Dockets Selected for Case Study 26
Table 3: Industry and Public Interest Groups Interviewed in Our Study 30

Figures

Figure 1: Examples of Communications Services Affected by FCC Rulemaking 6
Figure 2: FCC Organization 7

Abbreviations

APA Administrative Procedure Act of 1946
DTS distributed transmission systems
ECFS Electronic Comment Filing System
FCC Federal Communications Commission
ILEC Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
R&O report and order

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other
material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you
wish to reproduce this material separately.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

September 6, 2007

The Honorable Edward J. Markey
Chairman
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations potentially affect the
daily lives of every American, from rules governing who may own the
morning newspaper to the networks connecting the last long-distance
telephone call at night. These regulations have a direct influence on how
consumers and businesses access telecommunications and media services by,
for example, providing the regulatory framework for the digital
broadcasting transition, facilitating the deployment of broadband
services, and fostering competition to achieve a wider range of
communications services. FCC-regulated industries provide Americans with
daily access to local and long-distance communications services, mobile
telephone services, broadband Internet services, and free over-the-air
radio and television broadcasts. FCC also serves other important public
interests, working to ensure that Americans have access to 911 services,
that emergency responders can communicate effectively to provide for
public safety, and that underserved (typically, rural or low-income) areas
have access to reasonably priced communications services.

The Communications Act of 1934 (Communications Act) established FCC as an
independent regulatory agency responsible to Congress. The Communications
Act, which the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Telecommunications Act)
substantially revised, tasks FCC with regulating methods of electronic
communication to foster a competitive environment, with an emphasis on the
public interest. To implement the intent of these and other laws, FCC
makes regulations (or rules) through a process that is largely defined in
law. This process requires FCC to provide the public with notice of its
proposed and final rules and with an opportunity to comment as the rules
are developed. All comments and information gathered by FCC constitute the
public record to support rulemakings and are electronically maintained in
a docket. A docket may address a number of issues, and, as a result, there
may be several rulemakings within one docket.

Seeking information about FCC's efforts to maintain transparency and
opportunities for public participation, you asked us to review FCC's
rulemaking process. Accordingly, this report (1) describes FCC's
rulemaking process; (2) determines, for specific rulemakings, the extent
to which FCC followed its process; and (3) identifies factors that
contributed to some dockets and rulemakings remaining open.

To describe FCC's rulemaking process, we reviewed FCC documents and
applicable laws and interviewed FCC officials and representatives from
industry and public interest organizations that have participated in FCC
rulemaking proceedings. These proceedings are known as "informal" or
"notice and comment" rulemakings. We also (1) gathered and analyzed
available data on FCC rulemaking orders published in the Federal Register
over the 5-year period from 2002 through 2006--we refer to these rules
throughout this report as "recent rules"--and (2) reviewed selected U.S.
Courts of Appeals opinions that addressed challenges to these orders.^1 To
determine the extent to which FCC followed its process for specific rules,
we selected four of FCC's rules published between 2002 and 2006 as case
studies.^2 Each of these rules originated in a different bureau--Media,
Wireless Telecommunications, or Wireline Competition--or in FCC's Office
of Engineering and Technology. These bureaus and office had the most
rulemakings during the period of our analysis. We also based our selection
of rules on why the rules were initiated, how long they took to complete,
and whether they were challenged in court. To help identify factors that
may contribute to dockets and rulemakings remaining open, we selected four
rulemakings for case studies from a list of ongoing rulemakings that FCC
publishes in the Federal Register every 6 months. We selected these cases
from the three bureaus and one office that conducted the most rulemakings
during the 5-year period from 2002 through 2006.^3 We also selected these
rules to include rules that were initiated in different ways and had been
open for different lengths of time. For all case studies, we reviewed and
analyzed the rulemaking records and interviewed FCC officials and
stakeholders involved in the rulemakings. The findings in our case studies
cannot be generalized to all FCC rulemakings. We determined that these
data were sufficiently reliable for our review. We conducted our review
from October 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. A detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology appears in appendix I.

^1Throughout this report, we refer to each of these rulemaking orders as a
"rule."

^2While these rulemakings are not generalizable, the case studies provide
context for understanding the rulemaking process.

^3We selected cases from FCC's Media, Wireless Telecommunications, and
Wireline Competition Bureaus and from the Office of Engineering and
Technology; we excluded the International Bureau from the scope of this
review. See appendix I for additional information on our scope and
methodology.

Results in Brief

FCC's rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by the
Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) and other laws, with several
opportunities for public participation. FCC initiates rulemaking in
response to a statute, a petition for rulemaking, or its own initiative.
Any person may petition FCC to amend rules or create new rules. FCC
generally begins a rulemaking by releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), and then gathers and analyzes information submitted by public
participants or developed within FCC to support a rule, leading to a final
rule for the commission to adopt. The public may participate in the
development of the rulemaking record by filing comments on FCC's notices,
filing replies to other parties' comments, and meeting with FCC officials.
Outside parties that discuss rulemakings with FCC must file a disclosure
in the public record, called an ex parte filing, including any new data or
arguments presented during the meeting. The FCC chairman controls the
commission's agenda and decides when and how to adopt rules. The
commission may adopt final rules either by vote at a monthly public
meeting or by circulating the proposed final rules to each commissioner
for approval. Stakeholders unsatisfied with an FCC rule may file a
petition for reconsideration with the commission or petition for review in
the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Twenty-five of the 240 substantive FCC rules
published in the Federal Register from 2002 to 2006 were challenged in
court and had published court opinions; 19 of these challenges were
denied; and 6 rules, either wholly or in part, were determined to be
unlawful or sent back to FCC for further consideration. In addition,
according to FCC data, challenges to 12 of the 240 recent rules are
pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

FCC generally followed its rulemaking process in the four case studies of
completed rulemakings we reviewed, but we found that some stakeholders had
access to nonpublic information that could give them an advantage in the
rulemaking process. Specifically, each of the four rulemakings included
items that are required by law and FCC regulations and provided
opportunities for public participation. Within our case studies, we found
that most--but not all--ex parte filings complied with FCC's ex parte
rules, and there was no evidence that FCC violated its rule prohibiting
outside contact about items scheduled for a vote after the agenda for a
public meeting was released. However, we also were told by 9 of 12
stakeholders--both those involved with our case studies and stakeholders
who regularly participated in FCC rulemakings--that they knew when
proposed rules were scheduled for an upcoming vote well before FCC
released the agenda to the public because they hear this information from
FCC bureau staff and commissioner staff. This advance information is not
supposed to be disclosed outside of FCC. Three stakeholders with whom we
spoke told us that they cannot learn when rules are scheduled for a vote
until the agenda is publicly available. Once the agenda is public, FCC
rules generally prohibit stakeholders from lobbying FCC. As a result,
stakeholders with advance information about which rules are scheduled for
a vote would know when it may be most effective to present their arguments
to FCC, while stakeholders without access to this information may not. We
are recommending that FCC take steps to ensure equal access to information
by making sure that nonpublic information is safeguarded from disclosure,
and to determine what actions FCC should take if a prohibited disclosure
is made, so that all stakeholders have the same information to inform
their participation in the rulemaking process. FCC took no position on our
recommendation.

The complexity and number of rulemakings within a docket and the priority
the commission places on a rulemaking may all contribute to dockets and
rulemakings remaining open. FCC tracks open dockets, which may contain one
or more rulemakings. FCC has 133 open dockets, as reported in the Federal
Register in December 2006. The commission determines when to open and
close a docket and which rulemakings are a priority; therefore, the
commission determines how a docket and rulemaking progress. Through our
analysis of the four open dockets we selected as case studies, we found
several factors that may contribute to these dockets, and the rulemakings
within these dockets, remaining open. Specifically, some dockets may
remain open because they are broad dockets intended to include multiple
rulemakings or because the commission has not voted to close the docket,
even though the docket includes only completed rulemakings that have
addressed all of the issues in the docket. Within dockets, some
rulemakings may remain open because they involve complex, technical
issues, such as worldwide coordination of satellite systems, or because
competing priorities can force FCC officials to work on one rulemaking as
opposed to another. Stakeholders generally told us that they are not
concerned about the number of open dockets and are satisfied with the
rulemaking process.

Background

Purpose and Organization of FCC

Established by the Communications Act, FCC is charged with regulating
interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire,
satellite, and cable.^4 The Telecommunications Act, which substantially
revised the Communications Act, established that FCC should promote
competition and reduce regulation to secure lower prices and
higher-quality services for American telecommunications consumers and
should encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies.^5 The law grants FCC broad authority to execute its
functions. FCC implements its policy initiatives through a process known
as rulemaking, which is the agency process for implementing, interpreting,
or prescribing law or policy.^6 Figure 1 shows some common communications
services affected by FCC rulemaking.

^447 U.S.C. S 151.

^5Preamble, Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat.
56 (1996).

^65 U.S.C. S 551(4) & (5).

Figure 1: Examples of Communications Services Affected by FCC Rulemaking

FCC is an independent regulatory agency that must follow many, but not
all, federal laws related to rulemaking.^7 Under the Communications Act,
the commission is composed of five commissioners appointed by the
President with Senate confirmation. The President designates one of the
commissioners as chairman.^8 The chairman derives authority from
provisions in the act and FCC's rules, which define the chairman's duties
to include (1) presiding at all meetings and sessions of the commission,
(2) representing the commission in all matters relating to legislation and
before other government offices, and (3) generally coordinating and
organizing the work of the commission. The commissioners delegate many of
FCC's day-to-day responsibilities to the agency's 7 bureaus and 10 offices
(see fig. 2). While this report focuses on the rulemaking process, FCC
also makes decisions on many other issues, such as enforcement actions and
issuing licenses for communications devices. Between 2002 and 2006, FCC
data show that the agency made 1,835 decisions by FCC commissioners and
17,406 decisions within FCC bureaus and offices.

^7As used in this report, the term "independent regulatory agency" refers
to an agency, such as FCC, established to be more independent of the
President and identified as such in the Paperwork Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C.
S 3502(5).

^847 U.S.C. S 154.

Figure 2: FCC Organization

Laws Governing FCC Rulemaking

  Administrative Procedure Act of 1946

APA is the principal law governing how agencies make rules.^9 The law
prescribes uniform standards for rulemaking, requires agencies to inform
the public about their rules, and provides opportunities for public
participation in the rulemaking process. Most federal rules are
promulgated using the APA-established informal rulemaking process, also
known as "notice and comment" rulemaking.^10 APA outlines a multistep
process to initiate and develop rules and includes provisions for parties
to challenge them, which FCC must follow. Many steps require agencies to
provide public notice of proposed or final actions as well as provide a
period for interested parties to comment on the notices--hence the "notice
and comment" label.^11 APA does not generally address time frames for
informal rulemaking actions, limits on contacts between agency officials
and stakeholders, or requirements for "closing" dockets.

  Communications Act of 1934

The Communications Act outlines procedures for addressing petitions for
reconsideration by FCC and appeals to federal court for FCC rules.^12 The
act states that a petition for reconsideration may be filed within 30 days
of the date of public notice. The U.S. Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction
to review all final FCC rules.^13

  Other Laws

Other laws and orders also apply to FCC rulemakings, including but not
limited to the following:

^95 U.S.C. S 551, et seq.

^10In contrast, "formal" rulemaking is a trial-type procedure for making a
rule on the record following an agency hearing. Formal rulemaking is used
less often than informal rulemaking.

^11APA provides exceptions to notice and comment, including when the
agency finds for good cause that those procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. 5 U.S.C. S 553(b)(3)(B).

^1247 U.S.C. SS 405 and 402, respectively.

^13In certain cases, appeals to FCC rules must be made only to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 47 U.S.C. S 402(b).

           o Regulatory Flexibility Act.^14 This act requires federal
           agencies to assess the impact of their forthcoming regulations on
           small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and certain
           small not-for-profit organizations. The act also requires
           rulemaking agencies to publish a "regulatory flexibility agenda"
           in the Federal Register each October and April, listing
           regulations that the agency expects to propose or promote and that
           are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
           number of small entities.^15 This requirement, as well as a
           similar requirement in Executive Order 12866, is generally met
           with entries in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
           Deregulatory Actions. The Unified Agenda is published twice a year
           in the Federal Register and provides uniform reporting of data on
           regulatory activities under development throughout the federal
           government.
           o Congressional Review Act.^16 This act requires agencies to
           submit final rules to Congress and GAO before they can take
           effect. We compile and make available on our Web site basic
           information about the rules we receive through an on-line
           database, including the rule's priority, listed as either
           "significant/substantive" or "routine/info/other" as indicated by
           the agency's submission.^17 According to the GAO database, 240
           significant/substantive FCC rules were published in the Federal
           Register between January 2002 and December 2006.^18 
           o The Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (Sunshine Act).^19
           This act requires federal agencies headed by a collegial body
           composed of two or more individual members, such as FCC, to hold
           regular public meetings with sufficient public notice that the
           meeting will take place.^20 The agency must release the meeting's
           agenda, known as the Sunshine Agenda, no later than 1 week before
           the meeting. In addition, the act prohibits more than two of the
           five FCC commissioners from deliberating with one another to
           conduct agency business outside the context of the public meeting.
           o E-Government Act of 2002.^21 This act requires agencies, to the
           extent practicable, to accept public comments on proposed rules by
           electronic means and to ensure that a publicly accessible Web site
           contains electronic dockets for their proposed rules.
           o Paperwork Reduction Act.^22 This act seeks to minimize the
           paperwork burden imposed by government on the public and requires
           an agency to seek clearance from the Office of Management and
           Budget if it proposes to collect information from 10 or more
           people on a particular matter. For example, this requirement would
           apply to an agency's proposed rule that might seek information
           from the public.

^145 U.S.C. SS 601-612.

^155 U.S.C. SS 601-612.

^165 U.S.C. SS 801-808.

^17Substantive rules, which are generally subject to APA's notice and
comment requirements and have the force and effect of law, are issued by
an agency to implement statutory policy. They are essentially any rule
that is not a one-time ruling, an interpretive rule, or a rule relating to
agency policy or procedure. When reporting rules to GAO, agencies may also
categorize rules by priority, such as "economically significant,"
"significant," or "substantive, nonsignificant." Lower-priority rules,
identified as "routine and frequent," are those rules resulting from a
multiple recurring application of a regulatory program that does not alter
the body of the regulation. For FCC, such routine rulemakings generally
constitute the allotment of broadcast channels, which require revision of
the tables of allotment, which are part of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Certain rules designated as "major" by the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget may have their effective date delayed by 60 days
after the date of publication in the Federal Register or submission to
Congress or GAO, whichever is later. The term "major rule" does not
include any rule promulgated under the Telecommunications Act and
amendments made by that act. 5 U.S.C. S 804(2).

^18This information was reflected in the GAO Web database of rules as of
February 1, 2007.

           Ex parte and Nonpublic Information Rules

           APA places no restriction on "off-the record" or "ex parte"
           communication between agency decision makers and other persons
           during informal rulemaking.^23 However, FCC has rules about such
           contacts to protect the fairness of its proceedings by providing
           an assurance that FCC decisions are not influenced by
           off-the-record communications between decision makers and others.
           The rules also give FCC the flexibility to obtain the information
           it needs for making decisions. Under its ex parte rules, FCC
           generally classifies its rulemaking proceedings as
           "permit-but-disclose," meaning that outside parties are allowed to
           present information to FCC either in writing or in person, but are
           required to disclose such communications in the public record.^24
           The rules require a person making an oral ex parte presentation
           that includes data or arguments not already reflected in that
           person's other filings to submit a disclosure to the record
           summarizing the new data and arguments.^25 The rules state that
           the summary should generally be "more than a one or two sentence
           description" and not just a listing of the subjects discussed.^26
           When there is ambiguity about whether data or arguments are
           already in the public record, FCC encourages parties to briefly
           summarize the matters discussed at a meeting. FCC's ex parte rules
           also establish the Sunshine Period, which begins when FCC releases
           the Sunshine Agenda of items scheduled for a vote at a public
           meeting and ends when those items are released to the public after
           the vote or are removed from the agenda before the meeting. During
           the Sunshine Period, the public may not contact the agency to
           discuss any matters that appear on the Sunshine Agenda unless
           there is a specific exemption.^27 The Sunshine Period does not
           apply to items that are voted on by circulation.

^195 U.S.C. S 552(b).

^20The Communications Act specifies that FCC's meetings are to be held at
least monthly. 47 U.S.C. S 155(d).

^21E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, Section 206, 116 Stat.
2899, Dec. 17, 2002.

^2244 U.S.C. SS 3501-3520.

^23APA does prohibit ex parte comments on formal rulemakings and
adjudications. 5 U.S.C. S 557(d)(1).

           FCC rules state that staff must not directly or indirectly
           disclose nonpublic information outside the agency without
           authorization by the chairman.^28 Nonpublic information includes
           the content of public meeting agenda items, except for as required
           to comply with the Sunshine Act, and actions or decisions made by
           the commission at closed meetings or by circulation prior to the
           public release of such information.^29

^2447 CFR S 1.1206(a)(1).

^25Parties are not required to give advance notice of ex parte
communications to other parties.

^2647 CFR S 1.1206(b)(2).

^27For example, there is an exemption for other federal agencies, Members
of Congress, or congressional staff under certain conditions. 47 CFR S
1.1203(a).

^28Federal regulations define nonpublic information as information that an
employee gains by reason of federal employment that has not been made
available to the general public, including information that is
confidential, is exempt from disclosure, or is not authorized to be made
available to the public on request. It includes information that the
employee knows, or reasonably should know, has not been made available to
the general public. 5 CFR S 2635.703(b).

^2947 CFR S 19.735-203(a).

           FCC's Rulemaking Process Includes Multiple Steps with Opportunities
			  for Public Participation

           FCC's rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by
           law with opportunities for the public to participate during each
           step. FCC initiates rulemaking in response to statutes, petitions
           for rulemaking, or its own initiative. Any person may petition FCC
           to amend or create new rules. After FCC releases an NPRM, it
           develops and analyzes the public record to support a rule, leading
           to a final rule for the commission to adopt. Anyone may
           participate in the development of the public record through
           electronic filings and meetings with FCC officials. The FCC
           chairman has the flexibility to decide what proposed and final
           rules the commission will consider for adoption. At the chairman's
           discretion, the commission may adopt final rules either at a
           monthly public meeting or by circulating written items to each
           commissioner. Stakeholders unsatisfied with an FCC rule may file a
           petition for reconsideration with the commission or seek federal
           judicial review.
			  
			  Initiation

           FCC initiates rulemaking in response to statutes, petitions for
           rulemaking, or its own initiative.^30 FCC may propose rules under
           its broad regulatory authority granted by the Communications Act
           or in response to a specific statutory requirement. Congress may
           also impose a time frame or conditions for rulemaking.^31 FCC may
           also propose rules in response to petitions for rulemaking filed
           by outside parties. FCC puts petitions for rulemaking out for
           public comment and, after reviewing any comments, may initiate
           rulemaking on the issue or deny the petition. FCC does not have to
           respond to a rulemaking petition within a set time frame, so a
           petition for rulemaking can remain open indefinitely.

           When initiating a new rulemaking, FCC has the flexibility to
           organize the public record in the manner that it deems most
           appropriate. FCC may establish a new docket to house the rule's
           supporting documents or initiate the proceeding in an existing
           docket, particularly if the filings already in that docket would
           be germane to the new proceeding. As we have previously discussed,
           there were 240 significant/substantive rules in our database
           published in the Federal Register between 2002 and 2006. Among
           these recent rules, 47 were initiated in response to a petition
           for rulemaking, 172 were initiated on FCC's own authority or in
           response to a specific legal requirement, and 21 were initiated
           for a combination of these reasons.^32
			  
^30Sometimes FCC may release a notice of inquiry to gather information on
an issue without formally initiating rulemaking.

^31For example, in the Telecommunications Act, Congress specified that
within 1 month after the date of the act's enactment, the commission
convene a Federal Joint Board on Universal Service, and that it initiate a
single proceeding to implement the board's recommendation. This proceeding
was to be completed within 15 months of the act's enactment. 47 U.S.C. S
254.

^32For example, a rulemaking initiated in 2002 to examine commercial use
of the so-called "millimeter wave" spectrum was initiated in response to
an internal FCC initiative, sections 7(a) and 303(g) of the Communications
Act, and a petition for rulemaking from an outside party.

           Rule Development

           The commission's release of an NPRM signals the beginning of a
           rulemaking; the NPRM may or may not contain the text of the
           proposed new or revised rules. The NPRM provides an opportunity
           for comment on the proposal and indicates the length of the
           comment and reply comment periods, which stakeholders can use to
           submit comments and reply to other comments. These periods begin
           once the NPRM is published in the Federal Register. The NPRM also
           indicates the ex parte rules for contact under the rulemaking,
           which are generally "permit-but-disclose." After FCC releases an
           NPRM, it begins developing and analyzing the public record to
           support a rule, leading to proposed final rules for the
           commission's adoption.

           FCC provides multiple avenues for public participation during rule
           development, including opportunities to submit filings
           electronically and to meet with FCC officials. Outside parties
           provide FCC with written comments, reply comments, and other types
           of data to support their positions on a rulemaking. Outside
           parties are permitted to discuss rulemakings with FCC officials,
           including commissioners, at any time except during the Sunshine
           Period. FCC officials said they make every effort to meet with any
           outside party that requests a meeting. For these meetings, FCC
           rules require the outside party to submit an ex parte disclosure
           for each meeting, indicating what new data or arguments were
           presented during the meeting. This disclosure, like any other
           filing in the docket, becomes part of the public record available
           electronically to the public through FCC's Electronic Comment
           Filing System (ECFS), a searchable Web-based depository of
           rulemaking notices and filings. Each document filed as part of the
           public record is associated with one or more dockets. FCC provides
           guidance to the public on its Web site for how to use ECFS and
           file comments.

           FCC officials said that they do not usually conduct their own
           studies in support of rulemaking issues.^33 Instead, they rely
           mostly on external stakeholders to submit this information into
           the public record, and FCC staff analyze the information. In
           addition, stakeholders can critique each other's data that are in
           the public record. On more technical issues, FCC's Office of
           Engineering and Technology may conduct analyses for the public
           record, and information FCC routinely collects, such as data on
           broadband use, may be placed in a docket if it is relevant to a
           rulemaking. Also, while FCC officials said that they do not
           typically identify and reach out to parties to participate in
           rulemakings, they may contact a particular stakeholder and request
           additional information for the public record or use publicly
           available data, such as data from the U.S. Census, to augment the
           public record. For example, officials from the Wireline
           Competition Bureau told us they contact rulemaking participants if
           they need an additional level of detail in the public record to
           adequately support a rule. In some cases, FCC also holds field
           hearings, such as the current series of hearings on media
           ownership, to solicit comment for the public record on specific
           rulemaking issues.

           Using information contained in the public record as support,
           bureau staff draft proposed final rules for the commission to vote
           on. FCC officials must consider all timely filed comments and
           reply comments when developing a rule and have the flexibility to
           also consider information from ex parte filings. FCC officials
           said that they consider all types of comments filed in ECFS to
           support rulemakings; however, they said that specific comments on
           contentious rulemaking issues are more helpful than general
           comments that express support or opposition to a rule. FCC
           officials told us that they may also consider comments from
           stakeholders with a vested interest in an issue more seriously
           than those from other parties. FCC's Office of General Counsel and
           Office of Managing Director provide rulemaking guidance to bureaus
           and review rules to determine whether the bureaus followed the
           steps required by various rulemaking laws. FCC uses an electronic
           system, known as the Electronic Management Tracking System to
           track rulemakings and manage associated staff workload.

^33In 2006, Members of Congress contacted FCC Chairman Kevin Martin after
learning that FCC had, under a previous chairman, conducted studies
related to media ownership but had not released them publicly. In
response, FCC made the studies available on its Web site, and Chairman
Martin told Congress he had asked the FCC Inspector General to investigate
the matter of the availability of the draft reports. We are also currently
conducting a review on the subject of media ownership issues, but not the
issue of the availability of the draft reports.

           The chairman decides when the commission will vote on final rules
           and whether the vote will occur during a public meeting or by
           circulation, which involves electronically circulating written
           items to each of the commissioners for approval. According to FCC
           officials, while it is not possible to vote on every rulemaking at
           a public meeting, items that are controversial or have a broad
           impact on the industry are more likely to be voted on during a
           public meeting. Of the 240 recent rules, 101 were adopted on the
           day the commission held a public meeting, indicating they may have
           been voted on at the meeting, while the other 139 appear to have
           been adopted by circulation.^34

           Three weeks before the commission considers an item at a public
           meeting, the chairman's office releases to FCC officials the draft
           version of the proposed rules the commission expects to vote on at
           the public meeting. These drafts are internal, nonpublic
           documents. FCC officials told us they do not release information
           to the public about what items the commission is planning to vote
           on at public meetings or items being circulated by the commission
           for adoption. FCC's written rulemaking guidance states that such
           information is nonpublic and may not be disclosed in any format,
           including via paper, electronic, or oral means, unless the
           chairman authorizes its disclosure.

           For items to be voted on during a public meeting, the Office of
           Managing Director releases the Sunshine Agenda no later than 1
           week before the meeting. The agenda includes a list of items the
           commission intends to vote on at the meeting and notifies the
           public that it may not contact the commission about those items
           during the week before the vote, the period known as the Sunshine
           Period. Items voted on through circulation do not usually appear
           on the Sunshine Agenda and, therefore, are not subject to the
           contact prohibition. According to FCC officials, at the chairman's
           discretion, the commission could adopt items included on the
           Sunshine Agenda by circulation in advance of the public meeting.
           No more than two commissioners may meet to deliberate on
           rulemaking matters outside of an official public meeting,
           according to a requirement of the Sunshine Act. Some FCC
           commissioners have said that this requirement should be changed
           because it creates logistical complications and transfers the
           daily discussion of rules down from the commissioners to their
           staff. We did not evaluate these claims.^35

^34FCC rules do not indicate whether rules were adopted at a public
meeting or by circulation.

^35See the Letter to Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman, Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation from Chairman Michael Powell and
Commissioner Michael Copps (Feb. 2, 2005).

           Once the commission adopts a rule, the originating bureau often
           makes technical corrections to it and may also make substantive
           changes. Each commissioner is given the final rule before it is
           released and can decide if the rule has undergone substantive
           changes. Any substantive changes are approved by the
           commissioners, and the rule goes through a final internal review
           before FCC releases the rule and submits it to the Federal
           Register for publication.^36 FCC may adopt and release some rules
           on the same day, while other rules may require months of revision
           because the commission may vote on a particular issue or policy
           position and not the precise wording of the rule. When this
           occurs, the final wording of the rule is approved by all
           commissioners before the order is released.

           It is difficult to determine time frames for FCC rules because FCC
           tracks which dockets are open, and many rules are in dockets that
           have been open for a long time. These dockets may include other
           rules or may have remaining issues to address. For example, one
           docket that has been open since 1980 includes several NPRMs and
           rules. A recent rule in this docket, issued in 2006, was attached
           to a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and was published in
           the Federal Register as an "interim rule," indicating the issue is
           ongoing even though FCC has released several rules in the docket.
           Documents that are both an NPRM and a rule can be difficult to
           find in FCC's database because the database allows a document to
           have only one document-type label, even if the document serves
           multiple purposes. As a result, if a document is filed as a rule
           and it also includes an NPRM, when searching for NPRMs this
           document would not be found.

           FCC may also develop rules on the basis of comments solicited from
           notices other than a docket's first NPRM. For example, a 2005 rule
           from a docket that began in 1997 was supported by an analysis of
           comments solicited in 2000 and 2003. FCC officials told us that
           some dockets--particularly those that address complex
           issues--contain multiple rulemakings. Specifically, a docket may
           contain different NPRMs and rules that are issued at different
           times. Therefore, a rule may be made in a docket to address a
           long-standing issue, but relate specifically to an NPRM that was
           not released until years after the docket was established.^37
           Consequently, some rules could be considered to have shorter time
           frames because they address issues primarily raised in subsequent
           NPRMs released in the same docket. FCC officials told us that they
           do not track the time it takes to complete a rulemaking and
           generally are not required by statute to complete rules within
           certain time frames.^38 The time it takes to complete rules may
           vary because of the unique nature of each rulemaking. Certain
           factors, such as the technical complexity of the issue being
           address and the priority of the rulemaking in comparison to other
           issues, can also affect rulemaking time frames. We also reviewed
           rulemaking at the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal
           Trade Commission, but we could not compare their time frames with
           FCC's because of differences in their rulemaking processes.

^36FCC refers to a final rule document it releases as a "report and
order."

^37Analysis to determine the unique NPRM(s) on which each of the 240 rules
was based was beyond the scope of this review.

^38An exception to this is the Telecommunications Act, which did require
FCC to complete rulemakings on certain issues within prescribed time
frames.
    
	        Reconsideration and Appeal

           Stakeholders unsatisfied with an FCC rule may file a petition for
           reconsideration with the commission or petition for federal
           judicial review. Stakeholders are allowed 30 days after a rule is
           published in the Federal Register to file a petition for
           reconsideration, although FCC usually has no required time frame
           for acting on such a petition.^39 FCC officials said they give
           priority consideration to petitions identifying problems with the
           rules they should correct quickly.

           Parties may also petition the U.S. Courts of Appeals for review of
           an FCC rule, typically after the commission has already considered
           the issue, such as after FCC has denied a party's reconsideration
           petition. An appeals court may uphold, vacate (hold unlawful or
           set aside), or remand an FCC rule (send it back to the agency for
           further consideration) entirely or in part, which may lead the
           commission to take additional action on the rulemaking, such as
           issuing a new version of the rule to address the court's concerns.
           Twenty-five of the 240 recent rules had published opinions from
           the U.S. Courts of Appeals resulting from challenges. According to
           these opinions, the court denied or dismissed the challenges to 19
           rules, and 6 rules, either wholly or in part, were determined to
           be unlawful or sent back to FCC for further consideration.^40 In
           addition, according to FCC data, challenges to 12 of the 240
           recent rules were pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals as of June
           2007.

^39A petitioner may file a petition for writ of mandamus to compel FCC
action.

^40Of the 19 rules with published opinions where the court denied the
challenge, 17 had been subject to petitions for review while 2 others were
subject to petitions to stay the rules' effective dates.

           FCC Generally Followed the Rulemaking Process for Selected Rules,
			  but Unequal Access to Nonpublic Information May Give Some Stakeholders
			  an Advantage

           FCC generally followed the rulemaking process in the four case
           studies we reviewed. Specifically, each rulemaking included an
           NPRM and a notice and comment period. In reviewing the docket for
           each case study, we found that most--but not all--ex parte filings
           complied with the ex parte rules, and there was no evidence that
           FCC violated its Sunshine Period rule. However, we found that
           multiple stakeholders--both those involved in our case studies and
           other stakeholders who often file comments in FCC
           rulemakings--often knew when proposed rules were scheduled for a
           vote well before FCC released the agenda to the public and before
           the Sunshine Period began. This advance information is not
           supposed to be released outside of FCC. Other stakeholders with
           whom we spoke told us that they cannot learn when rules are
           scheduled for a vote until the agenda is publicly available. At
           that time, FCC rules prohibit stakeholders from lobbying, or
           making presentations to, FCC. This unequal access to information
           could create an unfair advantage for FCC stakeholders who know
           when FCC is about to vote on a rulemaking and, therefore, would
           know when it is most effective to present their arguments to FCC
           officials.
			  
			  In the Rulemakings We Reviewed, FCC Generally Followed the
			  Rulemaking Process

           We reviewed four case studies of rules that were released from
           2002 through 2006. Each of these rules originated in a different
           bureau--Media, Wireless Telecommunications, or Wireline
           Competition--or in FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology.
           These bureaus and office had the most rulemakings during the
           period of our analysis. Table 1 describes each of our case
           studies.

Table 1: Overview of Completed FCC Rules Selected as Case Studies

                                         Bureau or office
Case study       Wireline        Wireless                           Engineering    
characteristics  Competition     Telecommunications Media           and Technology 
Issue            Incumbent Local Public safety      Cable boxes -   Amateur radio  
                 Exchange        interference       development of  service -      
                 Carrier         -potential         retail market   allotment of   
                 unbundling -    remedies for       for set-top     radio          
                 competitors'    interference in    cable boxes.    frequencies    
                 access to       the public safety                  for amateur    
                 incumbent       communications                     radio.         
                 telephone       band.                                             
                 service                                                           
                 infrastructure.                                                   
Subject          Congress        Responding to      Congress        Responding to  
                 required FCC to increased harmful  required FCC to petitions for  
                 foster          interference       foster a retail rulemaking     
                 competition in  between cellular   market for the  from an        
                 local telephone telephone services set-top boxes   association    
                 service by      and public safety  used to access  representing   
                 requiring       communications     cable           amateur radio  
                 incumbent       sharing the same   television      service users, 
                 telephone       band of            services.       FCC adopted    
                 companies to    frequencies, FCC   Finding that    rules          
                 provide         adopted rules to   efforts by      modifying the  
                 competitors     reconfigure the    cable and       classification 
                 with access to  band to reduce     electronics     of certain     
                 telephone       interference.      interests had   amateur radio  
                 network                            not achieved    channels and   
                 elements. This                     this, FCC       providing some 
                 2003 rule was                      adopted rules   additional     
                 FCC's third                        to spur the     channels for   
                 attempt to meet                    market's        this purpose.  
                 this                               development.                   
                 requirement.                                                      
Date of first    December 20,    March 15, 2002     February 20,    May 15, 2002   
NPRM in related  2001                               1997                           
docket                                                                             
Date(s) of       December 20,    March 15, 2002     September 18,   May 15, 2002   
NPRM(s)          2001                               2000, and April                
directly                                            25, 2003                       
related to case                                                                    
study rule                                                                         
Date case study  August 21, 2003 August 6, 2004     March 17, 2005  May 14, 2003   
rule was                                                                           
released                                                                           
Court opinion    The Court of    The Court of       The Court of    No published   
                 Appeals for the Appeals for the    Appeals for the opinions on    
                 D.C. Circuit    D.C. Circuit       D.C. Circuit    this rule      
                 vacated and     denied a petition  denied a        exist.         
                 remanded the    for review of this petition for                   
                 rule in part,   rule, deciding     review of this                 
                 resulting in    that FCC did not   order, finding                 
                 FCC's issuing   act in an          that the court                 
                 another order   arbitrary and      was barred from                
                 in February     capricious manner  considering the                
                 2005.           in reconfiguring   issue because                  
                                 the band.          the time frame                 
                                                    during which                   
                                                    parties could                  
                                                    petition FCC                   
                                                    for                            
                                                    reconsideration                
                                                    had not passed.                
                                                    The court also                 
                                                    found nothing                  
                                                    unreasonable                   
                                                    about FCC's                    
                                                    decision.                      

Source: GAO analysis of FCC and U.S. Courts of Appeals data.

Among our four case studies, three rules were initiated by FCC in response
to specific statutory requirements or on its own initiative, and one
rule--amateur radio service--was initiated in response to petitions for
rulemaking. Each of our case studies began with an NPRM, which, among
other things, included either the language of the proposed rule or a
description of the subjects and issues involved. The NPRM also described
the notice and comment period during which stakeholders could file
comments that FCC must consider. One NPRM--amateur radio service--included
a specific proposal for the rule, while the other NPRMs included only the
subject of the rulemaking. For example, in the public safety interference
rulemaking, the NPRM discussed various methods to minimize interference
and asked for comments on these proposals. Some stakeholders told us that
it is much easier to comment on an NPRM that includes a proposed rule.
According to these stakeholders, it is easier to comment on a specific
proposal instead of trying to comment on an entire subject or a range of
proposals. However, there is no requirement that an NPRM include a
proposed rule.

One NPRM that we reviewed contained an error, but that error did not
appear to substantially affect the rulemaking. Specifically, the NPRM for
the rulemaking on cable boxes incorrectly stated that the rulemaking was
not bound by ex parte rules. FCC officials told us that this error
occurred because language was inadvertently carried over from an earlier
drafting of a notice of inquiry on cable boxes. FCC later decided to issue
an NPRM instead of a notice of inquiry, but accidentally left in the
language that the proceeding was not bound by ex parte rules. FCC
officials told us that this mistake had no bearing on the rulemaking
because stakeholders submitted ex parte filings anyway. Our review of the
docket confirmed that stakeholders submitted ex parte filings in this
rulemaking.

In each case study, numerous stakeholders participated in rule
development, both during and after the comment period. Specifically, the
case studies had between 42 comments (for the cable boxes rule) and 273
comments (for the public safety interference rule) filed during the
comment period. In addition, FCC received between 8 (for the amateur radio
service rule) and 2,237 (for the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC)
unbundling rule) ex parte filings and comments in the docket after the
formal comment period ended. These filings and comments, which were filed
through FCC's Web site, either reflect a meeting between FCC officials and
stakeholders or are written comments that stakeholders submitted after the
formal comment period had ended. The comments range from lengthy studies
to one-page, mass-produced e-mails. In formulating a rule, FCC must
consider all comments that are filed during the comment period and may
consider comments that are filed after the comment period. Each filed
comment is placed in a docket that is publicly accessible through FCC's
Web site. Generally, FCC does not produce its own studies to develop a
rule. Rather, FCC relies on stakeholders to submit information and
analysis that is then placed in the docket so that FCC and other
stakeholders can critique the information. According to FCC officials,
this results in both transparency and quality information because each
stakeholder has had an opportunity to review and comment on all of the
information in the docket.

In addition to submitting comments, stakeholders often meet with FCC staff
to discuss issues. Stakeholders involved in our studies told us that they
were able to meet with FCC officials when they requested meetings. Other
stakeholders with whom we spoke who were not involved in these case
studies but regularly comment on FCC rulemakings also told us that they
were able to meet with FCC officials. A few of these stakeholders told us
that, while FCC officials were always willing to meet with them, they were
sometimes unsure if FCC officials were currently focused on the rulemaking
that was being discussed. FCC officials told us that they meet with
stakeholders who request a meeting, even if the stakeholders have no new
information to present.

We found that most of the hundreds of ex parte filings in the four case
studies appeared to meet the requirements, but several did not appear to
be sufficient. These filings, which publicly document when stakeholders
meet with FCC officials, generally detailed who attended the meeting or
what arguments were raised. However, in the cable boxes rulemaking, one
filing did not reveal which organization was represented at the meeting or
what was discussed. Another filing discussed new information that was
supported by a research report, but the report was not included with the
ex parte filing. If the information is not filed in the public record with
the ex parte filing, then it cannot be used to support a rulemaking.
Therefore, stakeholders have an incentive to file complete ex parte
disclosures. We also found some ex parte comments in three of the four
case studies that do not describe the discussion at the meeting, but refer
to comments already in the docket. While such filings may comply with ex
parte rules, the effect of this type of filing is mixed. Since the ex
parte filing did not explain those positions, it may not be very helpful
to other stakeholders because other stakeholders would have to go to the
docket and look up the party's filed comments. Some stakeholders told us
that there is nothing wrong with these kinds of ex parte filings.
According to these stakeholders, they already know the other stakeholders
and what their arguments are. As a result, these stakeholders are not
concerned about the adequacy of ex parte filings. In contrast, a few
stakeholders told us that they do not have the time or the resources to
monitor each docket and, therefore, such ex parte filings are not helpful.
FCC officials told us that, generally, bureau staff both remind
stakeholders to submit ex parte filings and review them for accuracy. If a
filing is not accurate or complete, the staff member asks the stakeholder
to resubmit the filing. Stakeholders may file a complaint with FCC if they
believe that other stakeholders have not provided complete ex parte
filings. However, according to FCC officials, very few complaints have
been filed.

We found that FCC followed its Sunshine Period rule that prohibits
unauthorized contact with FCC. In reviewing dockets and meeting with
stakeholders and FCC officials, we found no evidence of any prohibited
contact during the Sunshine Period. According to FCC officials and
numerous stakeholders, the rules are well known and stakeholders do not
generally request meetings or submit comments during this time. FCC
officials told us that, if stakeholders do try to contact FCC or submit
comments during the Sunshine Period, then FCC takes steps to ensure that
the comments are not seen by the FCC staff working on the rulemaking. In
the ILEC unbundling rulemaking, we found that several stakeholders
submitted comments to FCC during the Sunshine Period. We also found that
those comments were prominently marked in FCC's ECFS as comments that were
submitted during the Sunshine Period and were not to be viewed by FCC
staff working on the rulemaking.

The ILEC unbundling case study took a number of months to be released
after the commission voted to approve it. The rule was adopted at a public
meeting in February 2003, but was not released until August 2003.
According to FCC officials, this delay was necessary because the final
order was approximately 800 pages and the actual wording of the order was
not voted on during the public meeting. Rather, the meeting included votes
on the policy positions and issues associated with the order but not on
the actual language. After the rule was adopted by the commission,
Wireline Competition Bureau staff worked with relevant offices to draft
the precise wording of the order, and then there were multiple
discussions, comments, and revisions as the order went through each
commissioner's office and each substantive change was approved by the
commissioners.

The rules in our four case studies took between 1.0 and 4.5 years to
complete from the time the related NPRM was issued. Generally, however,
stakeholders told us that they are not concerned about the time it takes
to conduct a rulemaking. Stakeholders told us that, if they support a
rulemaking, they would like it to be completed more quickly. However,
these same stakeholders said they may oppose another rulemaking and would
like that rulemaking to proceed slowly or not be completed at all. In
contrast, another stakeholder told us that they always support quick
rulemakings because the businesses they represent prefer a stable
regulatory market, and ongoing rulemakings create uncertainty for some
businesses and their investors.

Three of the four rulemakings we reviewed were challenged in court. Both
the public safety interference and the cable boxes rules were upheld by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.^41 In the ILEC unbundling
rulemaking, the D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the rule in part, which
means that part of the rule was struck down, part of the rule was returned
to FCC for reconsideration, and part of the rule was upheld.^42 In
response to the court's ruling, in August 2004, FCC issued another rule
and NPRM soliciting comment on alternatives that would be consistent with
the court's ruling, as well as a rule implementing a 12-month plan to
stabilize the telecommunications market while the new rules were being
written.^43 Six months later, FCC issued a rule that the commission said
was consistent with the court's guidance.^44 This rule was also challenged
and upheld by the D.C. Circuit.^45

Multiple Stakeholders May Have an Advantage Because They Are Given Nonpublic
Information

Several stakeholders told us that they learn which items FCC is about to
vote on even though that information is not supposed to be released
outside of FCC. FCC circulates information internally approximately 3
weeks before a public meeting to inform FCC staff of what is scheduled to
be voted on at the public meeting. FCC rules prohibit the disclosure of
this information to anyone outside of FCC. Specifically, the information
is considered nonpublic information and cannot be released by any FCC
employee without authorization from the FCC chairman. FCC officials in the
units responsible for the case study rules and FCC officials in the units
that conducted most of the rulemakings between 2002 and 2006 all told us
that this is nonpublic information, and that they do not release it
outside of FCC.

^41457 F.3d. 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 460 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

^42359 F.3d (D.C. Cir. 2004).

^43Unbundled Access to Network Elements, WC Docket No. 04-313, Order and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 04-179), 19 FCC Rcd. 16783 (Released
Aug. 20, 2004).

^44Unbundled Access to Network Elements, WC Docket No. 04-313, Order on
Remand (FCC 04-290), 20 FCC Rcd. 2533 (Released Feb. 4, 2005).

^45450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

However, nine stakeholders--both those involved in the case studies we
reviewed and other stakeholders with whom we spoke who regularly
participate in FCC rulemakings--told us that they hear this information
from both FCC bureau staff and commissioner staff. One
stakeholder--representing a large organization that is involved in
numerous rulemakings--told us that FCC staff call them and tell them what
items are scheduled for a vote.

In contrast, a number of other stakeholders told us that they do not learn
this information and do not know which items are scheduled for a vote.
These stakeholders, who generally represent consumer and public-interest
groups, told us that they do not know when FCC is about to vote on a
rulemaking or when it would be best to meet with FCC staff to make their
arguments. In contrast, stakeholders who know which items have been
scheduled for a vote know when to schedule a meeting with FCC
commissioners and staff because they know when FCC is about to vote on a
rulemaking.

FCC officials told us that, for stakeholders to successfully make their
case before FCC, "timing is everything." Specifically, if a stakeholder
knows that a proposed rule has been scheduled for a vote and may be voted
on in 3 weeks, that stakeholder can schedule a meeting with FCC officials
before the rule is voted on. In contrast, a stakeholder who does not know
that the rule is scheduled for a vote may not learn that the rule will be
voted on until the agenda is announced 1 week before the public meeting.
However, once the agenda has been announced, the Sunshine Period begins,
and no one can lobby FCC officials about the proposed rule. As a result,
the stakeholder who learns that a rule has been scheduled for a vote 3
weeks before the vote can have a distinct advantage over a stakeholder who
learns about an upcoming vote through the public agenda. Our case study
reviews and discussions with multiple stakeholders showed that some
stakeholders know this nonpublic information and, as a result, these
stakeholders may have an advantage in the rulemaking process.

Even though advance knowledge that a rule is scheduled for a vote is
nonpublic information, it has been reported by news agencies in the past.
Specifically, in the cable boxes rulemaking, an industry newspaper
published a story stating that the proposed rule would likely be
circulated among the commissioners for a vote within the next few weeks.
The newspaper attributed this information to unnamed "FCC sources."^46

Several Factors May Contribute to Dockets and Rulemakings Remaining Open

The complexity and number of issues within a docket and the priority the
commission places on an issue may all factor into how long dockets, and
the rulemakings within these dockets, remain open. FCC tracks open
dockets, which may contain one or more rulemakings. The commission
determines which rulemakings are a priority and when to open and close a
docket; therefore, the commission determines how a rulemaking and a docket
progress. Specifically, a docket may remain open because it is broad and
is intended to include multiple rulemakings or because the commission has
not voted to close the docket even though the docket includes completed
rulemakings. Some rulemakings may remain open because they involve
complex, technical issues or because competing priorities can force FCC
officials to work on one rulemaking as opposed to another.

As of December 2006, FCC had 133 open dockets on the Unified Agenda,^47 99
of which originated from three bureaus--Media, Wireless
Telecommunications, or Wireline Competition--and one office--Engineering
and Technology.^48 These four units had the most dockets during the period
of our analysis. These dockets remain open for a variety of reasons.
According to FCC officials, rulemakings may be completed within a docket
even if the docket remains open. As we have previously discussed, one
docket that has remained open since 1980 includes a number of NPRMs and
rulemakings that were issued.

We selected four open dockets as case studies, each of which originated in
a different FCC unit and had been open for a different length of time.
Table 2 provides an overview of these dockets.

^46Anne Veigle, Communications Daily, February 22, 2005, Cable Section.

^47The Unified Agenda is a public document, published every 6 months, that
lists regulations that the government is considering or reviewing. FCC is
required to submit a regulatory agenda that becomes part of the Unified
Agenda.

^48Thirty-four of the 133 dockets were scattered among several offices
that were outside the scope of this review. Of the 99 dockets, 1 began in
2006. As a result, we analyzed 98 dockets.

Table 2: Overview of Open FCC Dockets Selected for Case Study

                                         Bureau or office
                                                                   Engineering   
  Case study       Wireline      Wireless                          and           
  characteristics  Competition   Telecommunications Media          Technology    
  Issue            Internet      Airport terminal   Distributed    Satellite     
                   protocol (IP) use (ATU)          transmission   coordination  
                   services      -revision of       systems (DTS)  -             
                   -examination  communication      -              coordinating  
                   of issues     frequencies at     implementation between       
                   relating to   airports.          of a new       terrestrial   
                   services and                     digital        fixed         
                   applications                     television     stations and  
                   making use of                    technology.    orbiting      
                   IP, including                                   satellites in 
                   voice-over-IP                                   three         
                   services.                                       different     
                                                                   bands.        
  Subject          Seeks         Responds to a      Examines       Responds to a 
                   comments on   petition for       issues related petition for  
                   what FCC's    rulemaking to      to the use of  rulemaking to 
                   role should   remove any         DTS and        adopt a       
                   be in         limitation on the  proposes rules growth zone   
                   regulating IP output power       for future DTS proposal for  
                   services.     requirements for   operation.     satellites    
                                 ATU frequencies.                  and protect   
                                                                   satellites    
                                                                   from          
                                                                   interference. 
  Date of first    March 10,     October 10, 2002   November 4,    December 15,  
  NPRM             2004                             2005^a         2003          
  Date(s) of       June 3, 2005  Not applicable     Not applicable Not           
  other NPRM(s)    June 27, 2006                                   applicable    
  in docket        April 2, 2007                                                 
  Date rule(s)     June 3, 2005  January 24, 2005   November 4,    Not           
  released         June 27, 2006                    2005^a         applicable    
                   April 2, 2007                                                 
                   June 15, 2007                                                 

Source: GAO analysis of FCC documents.

aThe rule was a clarification of an interim rule that was released in
another docket.

According to FCC officials, there is no way to determine exactly why a
docket or a rulemaking remains open. While the chairman sets the FCC's
agenda, the commission decides when to open and close dockets and when
action will be taken on specific rulemakings, so whether or not a docket
and rulemaking remain open is ultimately a commission decision. However,
certain factors may contribute to dockets and rulemakings remaining open,
including the following:

           o Broad dockets. Some dockets may remain open because FCC designed
           them to be broad with multiple rulemakings. For example, FCC
           officials involved in the Internet protocol services case study
           told us that this docket was created to encompass a variety of
           issues related to this topic. Specifically, the commission wanted
           to initiate a rulemaking that looked at a number of issues related
           to Internet protocol services and anticipated that the docket
           would be open for years and would include a broad NPRM followed by
           a number of rules. FCC has already completed four rules within
           this open docket, including rules related to 911 service and
           voice-over-Internet-protocol service.
           o Housekeeping. Some dockets may remain open even though the
           issue(s) within the docket has been addressed by a rulemaking. For
           example, in the airport terminal use case study, the docket
           remains open even though the issue raised in the NPRM has been
           addressed with a rule. FCC officials told us that the commission
           must vote to formally close a docket, and the commission will
           generally wait until after stakeholders have had a chance to file
           a petition for reconsideration or challenge the rulemaking in
           court. As a result, dockets often remain open for a time after a
           rule has been issued. FCC officials also told us that an open
           docket is a "housekeeping" issue, and that there is no harm in
           having dockets remain open. Stakeholders generally agreed that
           having dockets remain open is not an issue.
           o Complex/Technical issues. Within open dockets, some rulemakings
           may remain open for many years because they involve complex,
           technical issues. For example, the satellite coordination case
           study involves the technical properties of different types of
           satellites and involves worldwide coordination and complex
           decisions about a satellite's potential interference with another
           satellite. FCC officials also told us that satellite issues take a
           long time to resolve in part because of the nature of satellites,
           which require a worldwide frequency, a number of different
           applications, and millions of dollars. In the distributed
           transmission systems (DTS) case study, FCC officials and
           stakeholders told us that the issue involves complex new
           technology. Specifically, DTS technology would allow broadcasters
           to place towers around urban areas to more easily transmit digital
           programming. Within the rulemaking, stakeholders have submitted
           items such as proposed geographic locations for siting the towers
           to implement DTS, proposed criteria for determining if the towers
           are interfering with other broadcasts, and procedures to allow for
           potential additional transmitters without interference with
           adjacent channels.
           o Competing priorities. Some rulemakings may remain open because
           other rulemakings take precedence and the number of staff
           available to work on rulemakings is limited. For example, FCC
           officials told us that they worked on some rulemakings that are
           more important to the transition to digital television instead of
           the DTS rulemaking because Congress has set a deadline for the end
           of the digital television transition. FCC officials decided to
           focus their staff resources on more important rulemakings,
           especially since only a few companies have applied to use DTS
           since FCC adopted the interim DTS policy. All of the stakeholders
           involved in the DTS rulemaking with whom we spoke agreed with FCC
           officials and told us that other issues related to digital
           television are more important than establishing permanent DTS
           rules. FCC officials also told us that the issues in the DTS case
           study are similar to other rulemakings on the transition to
           digital television. Since the staff with expertise in digital
           television cannot work on every rulemaking, FCC officials have to
           prioritize the rulemakings on which they work. As a result, some
           rulemakings, such as DTS, remain open.

           Stakeholders generally told us that they are not concerned about
           the number of open dockets. According to these stakeholders, an
           open docket is not important; what matters is whether the
           rulemaking has been addressed. However, as we have previously
           discussed, stakeholders also told us that their views on the
           length of the rulemaking process could change depending on whether
           or not they favor the proposed rule. Specifically, supporters of
           an issue generally prefer a quick rulemaking, while opponents are
           likely to favor a lengthy rulemaking process.
			  
			  Conclusions	

           As a regulatory agency, FCC is routinely lobbied by stakeholders
           with a vested interest in the issues FCC regulates. It is critical
           that FCC maintain an environment in which all stakeholders have an
           equal opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process and
           that the process is perceived as fair and transparent. Situations
           where some, but not all, stakeholders know what FCC is considering
           for an upcoming vote undermine the fairness and transparency of
           the process and constitute a violation of FCC's rules. Since the
           success of lobbying for a particular issue can be highly dependent
           on whether an issue is being actively considered, FCC staff who
           disclose nonpublic information about when an issue will be
           considered could be providing an advantage to some stakeholders,
           allowing them to time their lobbying efforts to maximize their
           impact. As a result, FCC may not hear from all sides of the issue
           during an important part of the rulemaking process. This imbalance
           of information is not the intended result of the Communications
           Act, and it runs contrary to the principles of transparency and
           equal opportunity for participation established by law and to
           FCC's own rules that govern rulemaking.
			  
			  Recommendation for Executive Action

           To ensure a fair and transparent rulemaking process, we recommend
           that the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission:

           o Take steps to ensure equal access to information, particularly
           in regard to the disclosure of information about proposed rules
           that are scheduled to be considered by the commission, by
           developing and maintaining (1) procedures to ensure that nonpublic
           information will not be disclosed and (2) a series of actions that
           will occur if the information is disclosed, such as referral to
           the Inspector General and providing the information to all
           stakeholders.
			  
			  Agency Comments

           We provided FCC with a draft of this report for their review and
           comment. FCC had no comment on the draft report and took no
           position on our recommendation.

           As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the
           contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
           of it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we
           will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees and
           the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. We will
           also make copies available to others on request. In addition, the
           report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
           [25]http://www.gao.gov .

           If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me on
           (202) 512-2834 or at [26][email protected] . Contact points for
           our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
           found on the last page of this report. See appendix II for a list
           of major contributors to this report.

           Sincerely yours,

           Mark L. Goldstein
			  Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
			  
			  Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

           To describe the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC)
           rulemaking process, we reviewed agency documents available on
           FCC's Web site that describe its rulemaking process. We also
           reviewed FCC's internal rulemaking guidance documents and
           applicable laws, such as the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946
           (APA) and the Communications Act of 1934. We interviewed FCC
           officials from the Offices of General Counsel, Managing Director,
           and Engineering and Technology and the Wireline Competition,
           Wireless Telecommunications, Media, and Public Safety and Homeland
           Security Bureaus to determine how FCC generally conducts
           rulemaking. Because we wanted to focus our review on FCC
           rulemaking as it applies to regulating telecommunications and
           media in the United States, we excluded rulemaking by FCC's
           International Bureau from the scope of this study. We also
           interviewed organizations that represent a number of industries
           regulated by FCC as well as public-interest organizations to
           determine how these organizations participate in FCC rulemaking.
           Table 3 is a list of the organizations we interviewed and the
           principal sectors they represent.

           Table 3: Industry and Public Interest Groups Interviewed in Our
           Study
			  
Name of organization                   Principal sector(s) represented     
American Cable Association             Smaller cable television            
Association for Maximum Service        Television broadcasting technology  
Television                                                                 
Association of Public-Safety           Public safety                       
Communications Officials                                                   
Cable Television Laboratories          Cable industry research and         
                                          development                         
Comptel                                Competitive telecommunications      
                                          services                            
Consumer Electronics Association       Consumer electronics                
Consumer Electronics Retailers         Electronics retailers               
Coalition                                                                  
Consumer Federation of America         Consumers                           
Consumers Union                        Consumers                           
CTIA - The Wireless Association        Cellular telephone, other wireless  
Media Access Project                   Public-interest media and           
                                          telecommunications                  
National Association of Broadcasters   Television and radio broadcasters   
National Cable and Telecommunications  Cable television                    
Association                                                                
National Telecommunications            Small, rural telephone              
Cooperative Association                                                    
New America Foundation                 Public-interest research            
Personal Communications Industry       Wireless infrastructure             
Association                                                                
Satellite Industry Association         Satellite                           
Skybridge^a                            Satellite company                   
United States Telecom Association      Telecommunications                  
Verizon                                Telecommunications company          
Vonage^a                               Internet-protocol telephone company 

           Source: GAO interviews.

           ^aWe met with counsel that had represented Skybridge and Vonage in
           rulemakings.

           We also gathered and analyzed available data on FCC rulemaking
           orders published in the Federal Register between 2002 and 2006.
           While each rulemaking order may contain one or more rules, each
           order is generally referred to as a rule. Therefore, throughout
           the report, we referred to each rulemaking order as a rule. We
           used the GAO online rules database to identify FCC rules published
           in the Federal Register between January 1, 2002, and December 31,
           2006, and compiled a list of those rules contained in the database
           as of February 1, 2007, which we refer to as "recent rules." We
           compiled only those rules FCC had identified as
           "significant/substantive" and excluded rules labeled as
           "routine/info./other." We then used the Federal Register to
           identify each rule's FCC document number and the number of its
           associated docket.^1 With those numbers, we were able to use FCC's
           Web-based document databases--the Electronic Comment Filing System
           and the Electronic Document Management System--to retrieve FCC
           rulemaking documents, such as Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
           (NPRM), reports and orders (R&O), and comments and ex parte
           filings from public participants. NPRMs and R&Os include the dates
           they were adopted and released. Using these sources, for each
           recent rule, we were generally able to determine the rule's
           docket; the originating bureau; the dates the rule was adopted,
           released, and published in the Federal Register; and the dates the
           first NPRM was released in the rule's associated docket. Although
           some dockets contain multiple NPRMs, we did not analyze each rule
           to attempt to determine which specific NPRM(s) the rule was
           associated with, as it was not always clearly stated in the rules
           and a content comparison between each rule and each NPRM could not
           have been completed within the time frame for this study. We
           analyzed these NPRMs to determine generally why FCC initiated
           rulemaking.

^1FCC documents, such as reports and orders and Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking, are coded using the following unique number scheme: "FCC
YY-ZZZ," where "YY" represents the year the document was adopted and "ZZZ"
represents a unique number from that year, such as "FCC 03-105," the
report and order for the Amateur Radio Service rule. FCC dockets use a
similar unique numbering scheme, as follows: "XX Docket No. YY-ZZZ," where
"XX" stands for the bureau the rule originated in, "YY" represents the
calendar year the docket was established, and "ZZZ" represents a unique
number from that year, such as "ET Docket No. 02-98," the docket for the
Amateur Radio Service proceeding, which indicates the docket is from the
Office of Engineering and Technology and was established in 2002.

           We reviewed selected U.S. Courts of Appeals opinions that
           addressed challenges to these rules. We identified appeals court
           opinions published between January 1, 2002, and June 1, 2007,
           using legal research databases, FCC's Web site, and the Web site
           for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Using
           citations in these cases, we identified which cases were related
           to the "recent rules" we have previously identified. We then
           gathered and analyzed the published opinions related to those
           recent rules and identified the court's decision in each case. We
           also obtained from FCC a list of ongoing court challenges to their
           rules.

           To determine the extent to which FCC followed its rulemaking
           process, we selected for case study four rules that were completed
           between 2002 and 2006. Of the 240 rules FCC completed during that
           time, 190 rules originated in the Media, Wireless
           Telecommunications, or Wireline Competition Bureaus or in the
           Office of Engineering and Technology. We selected one rule from
           each of these units. We also based our selection of rules on why
           the rules were initiated, how long they took to complete, and
           whether they were challenged in court. For each rule, we reviewed
           and analyzed the rulemaking records and interviewed FCC officials
           and stakeholders involved in the rulemakings. We used information
           from these case studies to illustrate examples of FCC rulemaking;
           however, the findings in our case studies cannot be generalized to
           all FCC rulemakings. In addition to these case studies, we
           interviewed stakeholders who represented different sectors of the
           telecommunications field, including wireless providers, satellite
           providers, and public safety and consumer groups. We also
           interviewed FCC officials in each of the four units to obtain
           information on general experiences with the FCC rulemaking
           process.

           To identify the factors that contributed to dockets and
           rulemakings remaining open, we reviewed FCC's list of dockets in
           the December 2006 Federal Register's Unified Agenda of Federal
           Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The Unified Agenda is
           published every 6 months and includes a list of dockets that FCC
           considers to be open. As of December 2006, FCC had 133 open
           dockets, 99 of which originated from 3 bureaus--Media, Wireless
           Telecommunications, or Wireline Competition--or FCC's Office of
           Engineering and Technology. Of these 99 open dockets, 1 began in
           2006--making it too recent to include in our analysis. As a
           result, we analyzed 98 dockets. From those 98 dockets, we selected
           4 dockets for case study. We selected dockets that originated in
           different FCC bureaus or offices, were initiated for different
           reasons, and had been open for various lengths of time. Each
           docket may contain one or more rulemakings, and we analyzed each
           docket and the rulemakings within each docket. We reviewed and
           analyzed the rulemaking records and interviewed FCC officials and
           stakeholders involved in the rulemakings to determine why the
           dockets and rulemakings remained open. We used information from
           these case studies to illustrate examples of FCC rulemaking;
           however, the findings in our case studies cannot be generalized to
           all FCC rulemakings.

           We determined that the data used in this report were sufficiently
           reliable for the purposes of our review. We conducted our review
           from October 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally
           accepted government auditing standards.
			  
			  Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
			  
			  GAO Contact

           Mark L. Goldstein (202) 512-2834

           In addition to the contact named above, individuals making key
           contributions to this report include Tim Bober, Lauren Calhoun,
           Maria Edelstein, Bess Eisenstadt, Edda Emmanuelli-Perez, Andrew
           Huddleston, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Josh Ormond, John W. Shumann,
           Tristan T. To, and Mindi Weisenbloom.
			  
			  Staff Acknowledgments

           The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.
			  
			  GAO's Mission

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [27]www.gao.gov ). Each
           weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
           correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
           newly posted products every afternoon, go to [28]www.gao.gov and
           select "Subscribe to Updates."
			  
			  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

           The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
           are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
           Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
           Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
           discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

           U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
           Washington, D.C. 20548
			  
			  Order by Mail or Phone

           To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
           (202) 512-6061
			  
			  To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: [29]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [30][email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [31][email protected] (202)
           512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
			  
           Public Affairs

           Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [32][email protected] (202) 512-4800
           U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
           Washington, D.C. 20548

(543181)

[33]www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1046 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [34]GAO-07-1046 , a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives

September 2007

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

FCC Should Take Steps to Ensure Equal Access to Rulemaking Information

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with regulating
interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire,
satellite, and cable. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 established that
FCC should promote competition and reduce regulation to secure lower
prices and higher-quality services for American consumers. FCC implements
its policy aims through rulemaking, whereby the agency notifies the public
of a proposed rule and provides an opportunity for the public to
participate in the rule's development. These rulemakings are documented
within a public docket that contains the rulemaking record.

In response to a congressional request on FCC rulemaking, GAO (1)
described FCC's rulemaking process; (2) determined, for specific
rulemakings, the extent to which FCC followed its process; and (3)
identified factors that contributed to some dockets and rulemakings
remaining open. GAO reviewed recent FCC rules, interviewed FCC officials
and stakeholders, and conducted case studies of rulemakings.

[35]What GAO Recommends

To ensure transparency in the rulemaking process, GAO recommends that the
FCC Chairman take steps to ensure equal access to rulemaking information.
FCC took no position on GAO's recommendation.

FCC's rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by law, with
several opportunities for public participation. FCC generally begins the
process by releasing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and establishing a
docket to gather information submitted by the public or developed within
FCC to support the proposed rule. Outside parties may meet with FCC
officials but must file a disclosure in the docket, called an ex parte
filing, that includes any new data or arguments presented at the meeting.
FCC analyzes information in the docket and drafts a final rule for the
commission to adopt. The FCC chairman decides which rules the commission
will consider and whether to adopt them by vote at a public meeting or by
circulating them to each commissioner for approval. Stakeholders
unsatisfied with a rule may file a petition for reconsideration with the
commission or petition for review in federal court.

FCC generally followed the rulemaking process in the four case studies of
completed rulemakings that GAO reviewed, but several stakeholders had
access to nonpublic information. Specifically, each of the four
rulemakings included steps as required by law and opportunities for public
participation. Within the case studies, most ex parte filings complied
with FCC rules. However, in the case studies and in discussions with other
stakeholders that regularly participate in FCC rulemakings, multiple
stakeholders generally knew when the commission scheduled votes on
proposed rules well before FCC notified the public. FCC rules prohibit
disclosing this information outside of FCC. Other stakeholders said that
they cannot learn when rules are scheduled for a vote until FCC releases
the public meeting agenda, at which time FCC rules prohibit stakeholders
from lobbying FCC. As a result, stakeholders with advance information
about which rules are scheduled for a vote would know when it is most
effective to lobby FCC, while stakeholders without this information would
not.

The complexity and number of rulemakings within a docket and the priority
the commission places on a rulemaking contribute to dockets and
rulemakings remaining open. The commission determines when to open and
close a docket and which rulemakings are a priority; therefore, the
commission determines how a docket and rulemaking progress. Dockets and
the rulemakings within them may remain open because the dockets are broad
and include multiple rulemakings, or because the commission has not yet
voted to close the dockets even though they include completed rules.
Within dockets, some rulemakings may remain open because they involve
complex, technical issues or because competing priorities can force FCC
officials to work on one rulemaking as opposed to another. Stakeholders
generally said they are not concerned about the number of open dockets.

References

Visible links
  25. http://www.gao.gov/
  26. mailto:[email protected]
  27. http://www.gao.gov/
  28. http://www.gao.gov/
  29. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  30. mailto:[email protected]
  31. mailto:[email protected]
  32. mailto:[email protected]
  33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1046
  34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1046
*** End of document. ***