In
a speech before the Free State Foundation’s June
28, 2018 Policy Seminar, FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly spoke
about the FCC’s recent process reforms
and next steps. He noted that process reform has been a mission of his since
soon after he joined the Commission in 2013 and that he spoke about FCC process
reform three years ago at another Free State Foundation conference.
The most groundbreaking
reform recently adopted by the FCC, according to Commissioner O’Rielly, has
been the online posting of items three weeks before their consideration at
monthly Commission meetings:
When I first
proposed the idea, I knew that providing information to all, instead of to the
few with pricey D.C. representation, would enhance the transparency and
legitimacy of the agency. But, the response from many was that it would bring
the FCC’s work to a halt, Commissioners would be hesitant to negotiate, and
some sort of regulatory chaos would ensue. None of this has come to pass.
Instead, the Commission’s process has become far more efficient. Meetings are
targeted to specific issues, unnecessary discussions of non-existent issues
have been eliminated, conversations are more productive, Commissioners are
still speaking their minds, and work product has greatly improved.
Commissioner O’Rielly also discussed the
progress being made in establishing the FCC’s Office of Economics and Analytics
“to ensure that the new office has the ability and power to institute drastic
and long-lasting change to how we consider the economic impact of the rules we
adopt.” As a result, future cost-benefit analyses performed by the FCC will
require “a rigorous, economically-grounded analysis for any rulemaking that
will have an annual cost to the economy of $100 million or more.”
As for next steps, Commission O’Rielly
noted, “At last count, I have approximately 50 ideas – both old and new – that
I plan to discuss with the Chairman. No need for anyone here to run for the
doors; I am only going to highlight some of these ideas today.” He then
described five of these ideas.
1. Codify Commission Procedures. According
to the commissioner: “Most of you would probably be shocked to learn that few
of our internal workings are written down anywhere. They are merely passed down
through the years under the guise of ‘how we’ve always done it.’ How does one
disagree with a current practice when the practice doesn’t technically exist?”
His solution is to direct FCC staff to start putting the Commission’s working
practices down in written word and publishing them in the Code of Federal
Regulations for the entire world to see.
2. Formalize Timeframes and Timelines.
After noting that too often FCC proceedings “can get stuck in regulatory
quicksand,” Commissioner O’Rielly said: “The Commission should take the
necessary steps to ensure that all work is concluded expeditiously, and that
the public has an opportunity to challenge a decision promptly. Appropriate
timeframes should be placed on all FCC proceedings, the 180-day merger shot
clock should not be aspirational, and clear deadlines need to be placed on Team
Telecom’s review of the foreign ownership implications of certain applications
before the FCC.”
3. Eliminate the Administrative Law
Judge Process. Commission O’Rielly said “We should not continue the
practice of prolonged proceedings to determine that a hearing is needed, to
then transfer the issue to an ALJ for a drawn-out hearing, just for the matter
to come back to be fully considered yet again and voted on by the Commission.
What a waste of time and resources.” He noted that despite the thousands of
proceedings and applications that come before the FCC, only six active cases
designated for hearing.
4. Deregulatory Presumption. For
this recommendation, Commissioner O’Rielly endorsed a
proposal made by Free State Foundation President Randy May in 2011
that the FCC start with “a presumption that regulation is not necessary due to
the presence of meaningful competition,” which “could only be overcome by clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary.” He added: there is no reason why the Commission, on
its own accord, could not use such an approach when considering forbearance
petitions or reviewing rules. And, if for some reason regulation is found to be
necessary, the Commission should impose sunset provisions or require periodic
reviews for any new or retained rules.”
5. Fixing Enforcement. His last
recommendation focused on the forfeiture collection process, noting that the
FCC’s policies in this area are too inconsistent in terms of how penalties are
calculated, transparency, how well the collection process is enforced, and when
the statute of limitation expires. He added: “Enforcement proceedings should
never be used to set policy or precedent that will apply to multiple parties
without the opportunity for basic notice and comment.”
As Commissioner O’Rielly acknowledged, FCC
process reform is not always splashy and does not necessarily generate
headlines. But it is nonetheless very important for the Commission to succeed
in its substantive goals: “For the agency to accomplish the big-ticket items,
it must have a process that is efficient and one that is respected internally
and externally. Otherwise, the Commission leaves itself open for both process
complaints and substantive objections.” He concluded that at least some of
these proposals could be implemented first on a trial basis to see how they
work in practice. He added that trialing may not be necessary, but it could be
used to advance the reform agenda. In any event, Commissioner O’Rielly
explained, such trialing “must be a good idea because Randy May wrote
a blog on this very idea back in January 2017.”
Posts
