I support adoption of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. To my mind, any reduction in paperwork obligations or simplification of our procedural rules for regulated entities -- 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.

First of all, section 11 requires a review of all regulations that govern the operations of "any provider of telecommunications service." 47 U.S.C section 161. It does not by its terms apply to regulations governing broadcast and cable companies. I therefore understand this cable item to be premised not on section 11 (notwithstanding the caption, which might suggest otherwise) but on our general authority to change our rules when appropriate under section 4(i) and related provisions of the Communications Act.

Second, this item focuses, as do some pure section 11 items that we have issued,⁽¹⁾ on procedural rules governing filings at the Commission as opposed to substantive rules that limit what companies can do in the marketplace, e.g., regulations that restrict market entry or limit market share. As stated above, it is certainly important that in the course of the Biennial Review we evaluate our procedural rules and modify or eliminate them if necessary. But section 11 requires us to look at both procedural and substantive rules and make an affirmative finding of their continued necessity.

If all we do is "streamline" certain procedures at the Commission, without also examining all pertinent substantive rules and making the statutorily-required determinations of necessity, we will fail to meet the express directive of 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, __ FCC Rcd __ (1998) (released Jan. 30, 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 only on procedural matters, or any other limited Commission analysis be mistaken for full compliance with Section 11.

* * * * * * *