lBO-Day Tinw Limit on Rulemaking Petition 403
Rule Making, Petition for, Denied
Rule Making, Review of
Petition for rule making seeking to require the Commission to act
on all petitions for rule making within 180 days denied. Petitioner's
time frame is a desirable goal but the complexity of issues, number
of comments, limited resources, etc. are reasons why this goal
cannot always be achieved.
FCC 80--507
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Petition for the Adoption of Procedures to
Limit the Time in which the Commission Must
Respond to a Petition for Rulemaking
RM-3539
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Adopted: September 10, 1980; Released: September 30, 1980)
By THE COMMISSION: COMMISSIONERS BROWN AND JONES DISSENTING
AND ISSUING A JOINT STATEMENT.
1. The Commission has before it a Petition for Rulemaking filed by
the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting (NCCB) on Decem 
ber 17, 1979. NCCB's petition proposes that the Commission amend
§1.407 of our rules to require the agency to act on a rulemaking
petition within 180 days of its receipt. Public Notice was given on
January 4, 1980. Comments were filed by only two parties, National
Public Radio (NPR) and the National Radio Broaocasteril ASsociation
(NRBA).
2. NCCB asserts that there is often an inordinate delay before the
Commission acts upon rulemaking petitions. In support of this claim,
petitioner cites congressional and other studies noting the excessive
delay associated with federal regulatory proceedings, including those
of this agency. In NCCB's view, such delay creates an impression of
Commission indifference to rulemaking petitions which deters public
involvement in the regulatory process. NCCB asserts that promulga 
tion of the proposed rule will dispel that impression by ensuring that
all petitions are quickly considered and acted upon. Moreover, petition 
er states, a fixed deadline for responding to rulemaking petitions will
improve this agency's internal efficiency.
3. NCCB notes that the Broadcast Bureau already has an informal
policy of acting upon petitions for rulemaking within six months; thus,
- _~F.C..c.2<L
404 Federal Communications Commission Reports
NCCB states, adoption of the proposed rule would simply transform an
existing policy into a legally binding regulation. As further evidence of
the feasibility of its proposal, petitioner observes that certain agencies
have adopted rules establishing deadlines for granting or denying
rulemaking petitions. . . .
4. Both commenters support the adoption of deadlines for action
on rulemaking petitions. NPR urges us to promulgate the rule as
proposed. It notes that NCCB's proposal would also eliminate substan 
tial duplication of efforts by petitioners and improve management of
communications resources. To illustrate the latter point, NPR describes
a case in which four years elapsed before the Commission granted a
rulemaking petition asking for coordination of noncommercial radio
development. Had the agency promptly acted upon thepe~ition,NPR
maintains, many of the problems now being considered in the
proceeding could have been avoided.
5. NRBA also agrees that adoption of time limits would be
desirable. NRBA observes, however, that in some instances there may
be legitimate reasons why a petition cannot be acted upon within 180
days. To allow for such cases, NRBA proposes that if, after 180 days,
the FCC is unable to grant or deny a petition, it may instead notify the
petitioner that action on the petition is being deferred and provide a
clear statement of reasons for deferral. Such deferrals could be
extended by further notice every 180 days. NRBA suggests that this
alternative preserves the deadline provision but recognizes that in
"exceptional cases" the Commission may need more than 180 days to
act upon a petition.
6. We agree with NCCB and the commenting parties that prompt
handling of Commission business, including the disposition of petitions
for rulemaking, provides substantial benefits to both the public and the
FCC. Toward this end, we have adopted various measures to expedite
consideration of rulemaking petitions. For example, the Commission
recently amended its rules to eliminate the notice and comment
procedure for petitions that are moot, repetitive, premature, frivolous,
patently without merit, or for some other reason do not warrant the
Commission's consideration. See In the Matter of Procedures Regarding
Petitions for Rulemaking, FCC 80-347, released June 19, 1980. As a
result, petitions which satisfy the above criteria can be acted upon
more quickly. In addition the time previously spent by the staff
analyzing comments on such petitions can instead be devoted to other
matters, including consideration of other pending meritorious rule 
making petitions. The Commission has also devised an internal
procedure, the Quarterly Status Report, to enable Commission mem 
bers and top management to monitor the status of outstanding
rulemaking petitions. The Report is compiled every three months and
includes for every pending petition, the date the petition was filed, a
82 F.C.C. 2d
180-D«y Time Limit on Rulemaking Petition 405
target completion date, and a description of the amount of work
completed each quarter.' This information allows the agency's manag 
ers to identify bottlenecks, require explanations of extended delays
and take corrective action as appropriate. '
7. The Commission will continue to explore ways to expedite the
handling of rulemaking petitions. We do not believe, however, that
either rule proposed in this proceeding would be a useful modification.
In many cases, rulemaking petitions can be and have been acted upon
within 180 days of their receipt. Therefore, we hereby adopt that time
frame as a goal to be achieved whenever possible. On the other hand,
there are legitimate reasons why that goal may not always be met. For
instance, the complexity of the issues raised, the number of comments
received, the need to solicit the views of more than one Bureau or
Office and to resolve resulting differences of opinion among the staff,
are all factors that can enlarge the amount of time necessary to rule on
a petition. In some instances, it may be more efficient to defer
consideration of a proposal until a related rulemaking proceeding or
Commission-initiated study is completed. Moreover, the resources the
Commission can devote to petitions for rulemaking are not unlimited.
To discharge its broad regulatory mandate most effectively, the
agency must at times grant priority to those petitions raising matters
of greatest public benefit. For all of these reasons, promulgation of
NCCB's proposed rule would be undesirable.
8. Nor would adoption of NRBA's suggested modification be in the
public interest. Under that proposal, the staff would be diverted from
analyzing petitions to preparing reasons explaining delay, thereby
compounding existing delay. Nevertheless, members of the public bho
have taken the time to prepare and submit petitions for rulemaking
have a legitimate interest in knowing the status of their petitions. The
Quarterly Status Reports referred to above contain such information.
They also list the name and telephone number of the person
responsible for preparing a draft response to the petition. Therefore,
we have determined to make these Reports available for public
inspection. Copies of the most recent report will be available in each
Field Office, in the Public Reference Room, the Library, as well as in
the Office of Public Affairs.
2
9. In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for
Rulemaking filed by the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting
IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,
WILLIAM J. TRICARICO, Secretary.
1 The Report contains similar infonnation for pending notices of inquiry. notices of
proposed rulemaking and internal staff studies.
2 The "Comments" section of individual status reports and information concerning
internal studies will be deleted from these public reference copies in order to
safeguard the Commission's deliberative process.
82 F.C.C. 2d