FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
June 6, 2011
JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Fred Upton
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Upton:
As I stated at my confirmation hearing and on numerous subsequent occasions, I oppose
the Fairness Doctrine, which has been a dead letter at the Commission for more than two
decades. In my view, the Fairness Doctrine holds the potential to chill free speech and the free
flow of ideas and, accordingly, was properly abandoned. The General Counsel has advised me
that the FCC's abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine had the legal effect that the Commission
intended, and that the Fairness Doctrine is unenforceable without an affirmative rulemaking
proceeding and vote of the Commission to revive it. I have publicly stated many times that I
would not initiate any effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
As your note indicates, I have initiated a significant effort within the Agency to identify
and eliminate antiquated and outmoded rules that unnecessarily burden business, stifle
investment and innovation, or confuse consumers and licensees. To this end, as I testified
during the Subcommittee's May 13
th
hearing, the Commission already has eliminated 49
outdated regulations. We also have targeted 25 sets of unnecessary data collections for
elimination.
These review effOlts are ongoing and include a directive to the Commission's staff to
conduct a full analysis of current regulations within their areas of responsibility. To date, this
undertaking has focused on rules that still actively govern licensees and thus have a practical
affect. I expect that staff will also recommend the deletion of 47 C.P.R. §§ 73.1910, 76.209,
76.1612 and 76.1613, pertaining to the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions. I fully support
deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so
that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead. I look forward to
effectuating this change when acting on the staff's recommendations and anticipate that the
process can be completed in the near future.
As part of our work to eliminate unnecessary rules and regulations, the Commission's
Office of General Counsel reviewed existing statutory provisions to determine if any appear
appropriate for repeal or revision. For your consideration, I have attached a list of possible
445 12TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 • 202-4 I 8-1000
Page 2-The Honorable Fred Upton
amendments to the Communications Act that would remove these statutory mandates, which
appear unnecessary.
Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions or concerns.
Enclosure
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
June 6,2011
.JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Greg Walden
Chairman
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Walden:
As I stated at my confirmation hearing and on numerous subsequent occasions, I oppose
the Fairness Doctrine, which has been a dead letter at the Commission for more than two
decades. In my view, the Fairness Doctrine holds the potential to chill free speech and the free
flow of ideas and, accordingly, was properly abandoned. The General Counsel has advised me
that the FCC's abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine had the legal effect that the Commission
intended, and that the Fairness Doctrine is unenforceable without an affirmative rulemaking
proceeding and vote of the Commission to revive it. I have publicly stated many times that I
would not initiate any effOlt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
As your note indicates, I have initiated a significant effort within the Agency to identify
and eliminate antiquated and outmoded rules that unnecessarily burden business, stifle
investment and innovation, or confuse consumers and licensees. To this end, as I testified
during the Subcommittee's May 13
th
hearing, the Commission already has eliminated 49
outdated regulations. We also have targeted 25 sets of unnecessary data collections for
elimination.
These review efforts are ongoing and include a directive to the Commission's staff to
conduct a full analysis of current regulations within their areas of responsibility. To date, this
undertaking has focused on rules that still actively govern licensees and thus have a practical
affect. I expect that staff will also recommend the deletion of 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1910, 76.209,
76.1612 and 76.1613, pertaining to the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions. I fully support
deleting the Fairness Doctrine and related provisions from the Code of Federal Regulations, so
that there can be no mistake that what has been a dead letter is truly dead. t look forward to
effectuating this change when acting on the staff's recommendations and anticipate that the
process can be completed in the near future.
As part of our work to eliminate unnecessary rules and regulations, the Commission's
Office of General Counsel reviewed existing statutory provisions to determine if any appear
appropriate for repeal or revision. For your consideration, I have attached a list of possible
445 12n-i STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 • 202-4 I 8-1000
Page 4-The Honorable Greg Walden
amendments to the Communications Act that would remove these statutory mandates, which
appear unnecessary.
Please feel free to contact me if you have additional questions or concerns.
Enclosure
Potential Conforming and Updating Amendments to Communications Act
(Compiled as of June 3, 2011)
1. 47 V.S.c. § 154(g)(2) - The provisions of this paragraph expired in 1994.
2. 47 V.S.c. § 156(a)-(c) - Obsolete funding authorization.
3. 47 V.S.c. § 158(g) - Outdated application fee schedule. Proposed Amendment would
bring this section into conformity with section 9 regulatory fee process, under which the
Commission proposes fees yearly and adopts rules reflecting those fees. Failure to
update the schedule since 1991 has resulted in the inequitable collection of fees. Services
not in existence in 1991 are not obligated to pay for their application processing, while
other services must bear an unfair share of the burden.
4. 47 V.S.C. § 159(b)(l)(A) - Outdated language refers to nonexistent bureaus and should
be updated to provide flexibility during Commission reorganizations. Suggested
language amendment would delete specific bureaus from text and instead refer to "the
Commission's Bureaus and Offices."
5. 47 V.S.C. § 204(a)(2)(B) - This section refers to action taken within a specified time of
enactment (November 3, 1988) and is no longer relevant.
6. 47 V.S.c. § 208(b)(2) - This section refers to action taken within a specified time of
enactment (November 3, 1988) and is no longer relevant.
7. 47 V.S.c. § 275(a)(l) - This provision restricted Bell companies and their affiliates from
providing alarm monitoring services before a date five years after February 8, 1996. This
section is no longer relevant..
8. 47 V.S.c. § 309(j)(8)(E)(iii) - This provision required a one-time transfer of funds on
September 30,2009. This section is no longer relevant.
9. 47 U.S.c. § 35l(a)(2), 352(d), 354, 354(h), and 354(i) - References to radio direction
finding apparatus (RDFA) should be removed. RDFA is an obsolete technology that has
been replaced by the Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS). RDFA
equipment is no longer available.
10. 47 U.S.c. § 391 - Obsolete funding authorization referencing fiscal years 1992, 1993 and
1994.
11. 47 U.S.C. § 394(h) - Obsolete funding authorization referencing fiscal years 1992, 1993
and 1994.
12.
13. 47 V.S.c. § 395(k) - Obsolete funding authorization referencing fiscal years 1979, 1980
and 1981.
14. 47 U.S.c. § 396(k)(l)(B) - Obsolete funding authorization referencing fiscal years 1979,
1980 and 1981.
15. 47 U.S.c. § 561 - In United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group. Inc.. 529 U.S. 803
(2000), the Supreme Court struck down this section as violating of the First Amendment.
2