I support adoption of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. To my mind, any reduction of unnecessary regulatory burdens -- or "streamlining" -- is always a plus. To that extent, this item is good policy and I am all for it. This item should not, however, be mistaken for compliance with Section 11 of the Communications Act.

The issue here is better light bulbs, not broad regulatory reform.

First of all, in Section 11, Congress required the Commission to conduct, beginning in 1998, a biennial review of all regulations that govern the operations of "any provider of telecommunications service." 47 U.S.C. Section 161(a)(1). By its terms, Section 11 does not apply to regulations governing RF emissions from light bulbs. I therefore believe that this item is premised not on the biennial review requirement of Section 11 (notwithstanding the item's caption, which suggests otherwise) but on our general authority to modify or eliminate our rules when appropriate under, e.g., Section 4(i) Communications Act, id. Section 154(i).

Second, this item focuses mainly, as do some "pure" Section 11 items that we have issued,⁽¹⁾ on procedural or less significant substantive rules as opposed to extraordinarily burdensome regulations that, e.g., restrict market entry or limit market share. As stated above, it is certainly important that in the course of the 1998 biennial review we evaluate our rules and modify or eliminate them if necessary. But Section 11 requires us to look at all of our rules governing the operations of telecommunications service providers and make an affirmative finding of their continued necessity.

If all we do is "streamline" certain procedures and less important substantive rules at the Commission, without also examining key substantive rules and making the statutorily-required determinations of necessity, we will fail to meet the express directive of Congress in Section 11.

As I have previously explained, I question whether the FCC is prepared to meet its statutory obligation to review all of the regulations covered by Section 11 in 1998. See generally 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- Review of Computer III and ONA Safeguards and Requirements, 12 FCC Rcd __ (Jan. 29, 1998). To my knowledge, the FCC has no plans to review affirmatively all regulations applicable to the operations or activities of telecommunications providers and to make specific findings as to their continued necessity. Nor has the Commission issued general principles to guide our "public interest" analysis and decisionmaking process across the wide range of FCC regulations.

We should not let this item, which does not relate to telecommunications rules and focuses on a minor regulatory issue, or any other limited Commission analysis, be mistaken for full compliance with Section 11.

* * * * * * *

1. By this I mean items regarding rules applicable to telecommunications service providers.