WPC: 2BJZ Courier3|j >x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 1919M RM 500HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\#]X@26 ZF K3|j HP LaserJet 5Si 1919M RM 500HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\#]X@"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNvt0a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 p   f a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2} M    a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2|ma2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   243a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\29 K/ K92`4FZ"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\<?xxx,x6X@`7X@y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P y.\80,>\4  pG;7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP 7nC:,4 xVNotice. Beehive petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review this order,  X)4 xand included in this petition its claims based on the alleged ex parte improprieties.)! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Beehive Brief at 2831.#x6X@KX@#і Because the  X4 xex parte issue had been initially raised before the Commission, but had not been addressed in the  X4order under review, the Commission requested and was granted a remand.x ! O(!4ԍ#]\  PCɒP#` ` Remand Order.#x6X@KX@#ђ " 0*%%JJ1"  X' B.` ` The Commission's Ex Parte Rules  X4 e  9. ` ` The primary purpose of the Commission's ex parte rules is to assure that the  xcagency's decisions are based upon a publicly available record, rather than influenced by offthe X4 xIrecord communications between decisionmakers and outside persons.j! M4 e N Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See Amendment of Subpart H, Part 1 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations Concerning Ex  {O' x^ Parte Communications and Presentations in Commission Proceedings, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 3011, 3012  {O'(1987) ("1987 Ex Parte Order").  As stated in the rules,  X4 xthe ex parte requirements serve an important role in ensuring that the Commission's decision Xz4 xpmaking processes are fair, impartial, and otherwise comport with the concepts of due process.z! O% 4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.1200.#x6X@KX@#ѕ  xWe have also explained that "[a]n equally important objective is to establish procedures that allow  xthe Commission sufficient flexibility to obtain information and evidence necessary for reasoned  X54 xdecisionmaking. Thus, the ex parte rules not only set forth guidelines that are intended to  xcomport with elementary principles of 'fairness' and 'due process,' but they are also designed  xto facilitate a full exchange of information so that informed and reasoned agency decision making  X 4may result."j ! M=4 e  Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Amendment of Subpart H, Part 1 of the Commissions Rules and Regulations Concerning Ex Parte  {O' x Communications and Presentations in Commission Proceedings, Gen. Docket No. 86225, Notice of Proposed  {O'Rulemaking, 104 FCC 2d 1323 (1986) ("1986 Ex Parte NPRM").#x6X@KX@#  X 4 e  10. ` ` In the 1987 Ex Parte Order, the Commission significantly revamped the existing  X 4 xcrules by clarifying the scope of ex parte presentations, establishing three broad categories of ex  X4 xparte rules exempt, nonrestricted and restricted and identifying the various Commission  X4 xpproceedings to which these rules apply.]! O4 e  Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#1987 Ex Parte Order, supra. Although we have recently issued an order amending the  {O' x Commission's ex parte rules, these rules did not become effective until June 2, 1997. See Amendment of 47 C.F.R.  {O' xH  1.1200 et seq. Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings, GC Docket No. 9521, Report and  {On' x Order, FCC 9792 (Mar. 19, 1997) ("1997 Ex Parte Report and Order"). Accordingly, our consideration of this  x matter is governed by the 1987 rules and any amendments to those rules which may have existed at the time of  O4Beehive's complaint. #x6X@KX@# ] Under these rules, an ex parte presentation generally  xencompasses any communication with Commission decisionmaking personnel directed at the  x~merits or outcome of a proceeding that (i) if written, is not served on the parties to the  xproceeding, or (ii) if oral, is made without advance notice to the parties to the proceeding and  X+4 xwithout opportunity for them to be present.+j! OF#4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.1202(a)(b).#x6X@KX@#ќ The first category of proceedings established by  X4 xthe 1987 Ex Parte Order are those for which there are no ex parte restrictions. In these "exempt"" 0*%%JJ"  x<proceedings, parties and Commission decisionmakers may communicate freely, without regard  X4 x_to the prohibitions and disclosure requirements in the rules.! Ob4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at  1.1204.#x6X@KX@#ј The second category are those  xproceedings classified as "nonrestricted" or "permit but disclose." In nonrestricted proceedings,  X4 xparties and Commission decisionmakers are permitted to engage in ex parte communications but  X4 x8certain disclosure requirements must be met. h! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at  1.1206.#x6X@KX@#ј In general, the rules require persons making  X4 x@written ex parte presentations in nonrestricted proceedings to submit copies of such presentations  Xz4 xfor inclusion in the record, while those making oral ex parte presentations are required to submit  Xe4 xwritten summaries of such communications for inclusion in the record.!e! O 4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at  1.1206(a).#x6X@KX@#ћ The final category of  XN4 xproceedings established by the rules is "restricted," in which ex parte presentations are generally  X94prohibited."9! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at  1.1208.#x6X@KX@#ј  X 4 e  11. ` ` As stated above, the tariff investigation was designated a nonrestricted, or "permit  X 4 xbut disclose" proceeding, pursuant to Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.~# H! O4Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at  1.1206(b).~ Pursuant  x/to these rules, Commission staff were allowed to receive both oral and written presentations so  xlong as they were included in the record. Also pursuant to the rules, Beehive's formal complaint,  X 4 x/filed under Section 208 of the Act, was initially designated a restricted proceeding.$ ! OH4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.1208(c)(1)(ii)(B).#x6X@KX@#Ѣ While the  xuCommission may still receive communications on the merits of proceedings designated as  xrestricted, written presentations must be served on all parties to the proceeding and oral  xpresentations must be preceded by advance notice to all parties with the opportunity for all parties  XS4to be present.%S ! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at  1.1202(b).#x6X@KX@#ћ  X%'  III. CONTENTIONS AND DISCUSSION   X4 e \  12. ` ` Beehive raises several arguments in support of its position that the decision to  X4 xcmodify the ex parte procedures applicable to its complaint violated the Commission's own rules,  X4and thereby tainted that proceeding. We will address these arguments seriatim.  X' "( %0*%%JJ"  X'A. Did Commission Staff Have Authority to Modify the Ex Parte Rules?  X'` ` 1. Staff Authority to Modify the Rules.  X4 e  13. ` ` In its Application, Beehive challenges the Bureau's authority to issue a public  X4 x/notice setting forth modified ex parte procedures.y&! O4Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 510. y Beehive argues that because the ex parte  xrules were properly promulgated, Commission staff were obligated to obey those rules and had  Xa4 xno authority to engage in its own "balancing" of interests.'ah! Mz 4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id.#x6X@KX@#Ĉ Beehive concludes that  XJ4 x"[Commission] staff had no more authority than Beehive to adopt 'modified' ex parte procedures  X54to govern its own conduct."(5! O 4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at 8.#x6X@KX@#ю  X 4 e i 14. ` ` Beehive's challenge is without merit. The Commission has general authority to  X 4 xsuspend, waive, or amend its rules, on its own motion, for good cause.) ! OG4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.3.#x6X@KX@# #]\  PCɒP#Ѻ As the D.C. Circuit has  xIconfirmed, good cause exists where "particular facts would make strict compliance inconsistent  X 4 xwith the public interest."d* F! O4 e  Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (upholding Commission's authority  yO'to waive rules providing parties right to file reply comments in rulemaking proceeding).#x6X@KX@#d Moreover, our ex parte rules specifically provide that "[w]here the  xypublic interest so requires in a particular proceeding, the Commission retains the discretion to  X4 xissue public notices setting forth modified or more stringent ex parte procedures."+ ! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.1200(a).#x6X@KX@#ј Accordingly,  X4 xlthe Commission has retained authority to alter the standard ex parte procedures where such  Xl4modification is in the public interest.,6lN ! Ok4 e 0 Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See, e.g., East River Electric Cooperative, DA 97205 (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,  {OC' xD released Jan. 28, 1997); Application of Comsat Corp., DA 961972 (International Bureau, released Nov. 23, 1996);  {O ' x United Artists Cable of Baltimore, DA 951366 (Cable Services Bureau, released June 19, 1995); Telephone  {O'Electronics Corp., 11 FCC Rcd 4457 (Wireless Tel. Bur. and Office of General Counsel, 1995). #x6X@KX@#ѓ  X>4 e `15. ` ` Furthermore, the Common Carrier Bureau is authorized to act for the Commission  xunder delegated authority, and to carry out the common carrierrelated functions of the  X4 xCommission under the Act.-L! O %4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  0.91(a), (f); 47 C.F.R.  0.291.#x6X@KX@#ѱ Pursuant to this authority, the Bureau is authorized to take such"-0*%%JJ"  xaction as is appropriate for the performance of its functions, with certain enumerated exceptions  X4 xnot relevant here..! Ob4ԍ` ` #X\  P6G;ɒP#See 47 U.S.C.  0.291.#x6X@`7X@#ў These functions include advising the Commission, or acting for the  xCommission under delegated authority, in both adjudicatory and rulemaking proceedings  X4 x+pertaining to the regulation and licensing of communications common carriers./h! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP##]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  0.91(a).#]\  PCɒP# Therefore,  xwhere appropriate for the effective resolution of such proceedings, and to the extent not  xinconsistent with other applicable law, Bureau staff is necessarily delegated the authority to  Xv4 xmodify the ex parte rules.06v! O/ 4 e = Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See, e.g., Comsat Corp., supra (order issued by International Bureau modifying ex parte rules  {O ' x2 applicable to an application proceeding from "restricted" to "nonrestricted"); United Artists Cable of Baltimore, supra  {O ' x (public notice issued by Cable Services Bureau modifying ex parte rules in an rate appeal proceeding from  {O '"restricted" to "nonrestricted"); Telephone Electronics Corp., supra (modifying ex parte rules for waiver application).#x6X@KX@# Indeed, as we recognized in our recent order amending the ex parte  Xa4rules, the staff's conduct in this matter was consistent with existing Commission practice.14a! O4 e S Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#1997 Ex Parte Report and Order at para. 13. The new rules amended Section 1.1200(a) by  xx specifically delegating to the staff the "discretion to modify the applicable ex parte rules by order, letter, or public  {O' x3 notice." 47 C.F.R.  1.1200(a), as amended. As we emphasized in the order, however, that amendment merely  {O'codified current Commission practice in this regard. 1997 Ex Parte Report and Order at para. 13.#x6X@KX@#ю   XJ4  X34 e 16. ` ` For the above reasons, we also disagree with Beehive's argument that the  X 4 xCommission's rules require any modifications to the ex parte procedures to be directed  xexclusively by the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) rather than by the bureau responsible  X 4 xfor handling the applicable proceeding.2  ! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 15 & n.21.#x6X@KX@#ј Although Commission rules identify the Managing  X 4 x/Director as the principal operating official on ex parte matters involving restricted proceedings,  X 4 xthe rules do not restrict to OMD the authority to modify the ex parte procedures.3 ! O4Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See 47 C.F.R.  1.1212, 1.1216. Rather, as  xexplained above, the Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau is delegated broad authority to  x"perform all common carrierrelated functions of the Commission, subject to specific exceptions  xEand limitations not relevant here, and staff involved in specific proceedings are typically best  Xj4 xsituated to evaluate the need for ex parte modifications.Y4jB! O]!4 e   Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See 47 C.F.R.  0.91(a), 0.291. And, as previously noted, past Commission practice has been for  {O5"' x the appropriate bureau staff to issue notices effecting such changes. See, e.g., East River Electric Cooperative, supra  {O"' x@ (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau); Comsat Corp., supra (International Bureau); United Artists Cable of  {O#' x Baltimore, supra (Cable Services Bureau); Telephone Electronics Corp., supra (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau  yO$'and Office of General Counsel).#X\  P6G;ɒP# Other examples abound.#x6X@`7X@#Y Finally, we note that the delegation"j 40*%%JJ&"  x8of authority rules are a matter between the Commission and its staff and do not give private  xIparties rights. In this regard, our decision to affirm the staff's decision effectively renders moot Beehive's delegated authority argument.  X4  X'` ` 2. Recusal Arguments.  Xv4 e 17. ` ` Beehive also asserts that Bureau staff involved in the investigation and complaint  X_4 x proceedings were obligated to recuse themselves from consideration of the ex parte  XJ4 xmodification.5J! O 4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 1416.#x6X@KX@#є Beehive argues that any staff who participated in ex parte communications  xbetween the date Beehive's complaint was filed and the date the Public Notice was issued were  X 4 xsubject to sanctions for violating the ex parte rules, and therefore such staff had a personal  X 4 xinterest in modifying those rules.6 h! O"4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id.#x6X@KX@#ш Beehive concludes that in order to avoid the appearance of  X 4 xbias, any determination to modify the ex parte procedures should not have been made by the staff  X 4involved in the tariff investigation or complaint proceeding.7 ! O4ԍ#]\  PCɒP#` ` Id. at 15.#x6X@KX@#я  X 4 e 18. ` ` We disagree. As detailed below, as to any ex parte presentation that may have  X4 xoccurred prior to the issuance of the Public Notice,8! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See paras. 2830, infra.#x6X@KX@#ѣ Beehive has shown neither prejudice from  X4 xsuch ex parte presentations nor evidence of bad faith on the part of Commission staff. Although  xIBeehive's Application contains numerous innuendo and suggestions of malfeasance by the staff  XY4 xin issuing the Public Notice, Beehive fails to offer any support for such accusations. In sum,  XD4 xthere is no basis for finding that the decision to issue the Public Notice was tainted by staff bias.  X'` ` 3. Timing of Modification.  X4 e 19. ` ` Finally, we note that in its appellate brief (but not in its Application), Beehive  X4 x seeks to draw a distinction between modifications made to the ex parte rules "before the case got  x/underway, so that the procedural change would operate prospectively," and those modifications  X4 xqmade "after the decisionmaking process was underway."9H! O!4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Brief of Petitioners at 30, n.35.#]\  PCɒP# Ĩ Beehive suggests that no  X4modifications could be adopted after its complaint was filed.:! M)$4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. #x6X@KX@#щ " :0*%%JJ"Ԍ X4 e ԙ20.` ` The distinction Beehive seeks to draw is inconsistent with the language of the  X4 xrules, which grant the Commission the authority to modify the ex parte procedures wherever the  X4 xpublic interest so requires.;! OM4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.1200(a); see also 47 C.F.R.  1.3.#x6X@KX@#ѻ Indeed, such a restriction would not be in the public interest because  x8it would severely limit the Commission's flexibility to modify its rules to respond to particular  xRsituations as they arise. For example, in this proceeding, it was not until May 2, 1994, nearly  X4 xtwo months after it filed its complaint, that Beehive notified the Commission of the potential ex  Xz4 xparte conflict.<zh! O 4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 2.#x6X@KX@#ѐ Shortly thereafter, on June 2, 1994, the Public Notice was issued in a timely  xfashion to address this potential conflict in a manner deemed best suited to serve the public  XN4 x+interest.=N! M 4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Public Notice, supra.#x6X@KX@#њ Furthermore, and contrary to Beehive's assertion, the modification adopted in the  X74 xPublic Notice applied only prospectively.>j7! O4 e m Ѝ#]\  PCɒP#` ` Public Notice, 9 FCC Rcd at 2751. As stated therein, parties who filed presentations in the  {Of' x investigation in the period between Beehive's filing of the complaint and the publication of the Public Notice were  yO0'allowed, at their option, to include those presentations in the complaint record.#x6X@KX@# We address below whether Beehive may have been  X" 4 xunfairly prejudiced by any ex parte communications which may have occurred between the filing  X 4of its complaint and issuance of the Public Notice.? ! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See paras. 2830, infra.#x6X@KX@#ѣ  X ' B. Was the Modification Adopted Within the Scope Authorized?   X 4 e 21. ` ` Beehive next argues that even if Bureau staff were authorized to modify the ex  X4 xyparte rules in appropriate circumstances, the redesignation of the complaint proceeding from  X4 xrestricted to nonrestricted was a fundamental change beyond the scope envisioned by the rules.@x ! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 810.#x6X@KX@#ѓ  Xp4 x&According to Beehive, the changes to the ex parte procedures adopted in the Public Notice were  X[4 xpoutside the scope of a "modification" as that term has been interpreted by the courts.NA[ ! O$4 e  Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 810 (citing MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph  {O'Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994) (hereinafter "MCI v. AT&T")).#x6X@KX@#N Beehive  XD4 xfurther asserts that the amended ex parte procedures unreasonably and improperly infringed upon  X/4its Constitutional due process rights.B/! Ob#4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at 1014.#x6X@KX@#ђ " "B0*%%JJ"Ԍ X4 e  22. ` ` We find that the Bureau acted within the scope of the Commission's rules. The  X4 xex parte rules provide that the Commission may "issue public notices setting forth modified or  X4 xmore stringent ex parte procedures."C! OM4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.1200(a) (emphasis added).#x6X@KX@#ѩ Further, to the extent the MCI v. AT&T decision may be  X4 xcapplicable to the current dispute,Dh! O4 e  Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP# The MCI v. AT&T case involved the construction of statutory language giving the agency the  x discretion to alter the tariff filing requirement set forth in Section 203, whereas the current proceeding involves the  {Ox' x agency's interpretation of its own rules. See 512 U.S. at 23132. At the time the staff issued the Public Notice, the  x Commission lacked the power to forebear from applying Section 203, but did have explicit authority to waive its  {O 'ex parte rules for good cause. See 47 C.F.R.  1.3. we find the staff's amended procedures to be consistent with  X4 xVthe Court's concept of "modify." In MCI v. AT&T, the Supreme Court reviewed a Commission  X4 x<order making tariff filing optional for all nondominant long distance carriers.E,! Op 4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#MCI v. AT&T, 512 U.S. at 22021.#]\  PCɒP#Ѧ The Commission  xissued this order in reliance on the authority of Section 203 of the Act, which provided that the  Xe4 xCommission could "modify" any requirement in that section.Fe! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id.#x6X@KX@#ш After an extensive lexicological  x_analysis, the Court explained that "modify" connotes "moderate change," and accordingly the  xCommission policy could be justified only if it made "a less than radical or fundamental change  X 4 x+in the Act's tarifffiling requirements."G l ! O=4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at 22729.#x6X@KX@#ѓ In striking down the Commission's order, the Court  x"emphasized that the tarifffiling requirements were "the heart of the commoncarrier section of  xthe Communications Act," and were "utterly central" to the administration of the Act. Noting  xthat the order eliminated a crucial provision of the statute for 40 percent of a major sector of the  xtelecommunications industry, the Court found that such a change was a "fundamental revision of  X 4 x8the statute," contrary to the regulatory requirements mandated by Congress.H ! Oj4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at 23132.#x6X@KX@#ѓ Significantly, however, the Court concluded its discussion by recognizing as follows:  FXWe do not mean to suggest that the tarifffiling requirement is so inviolate that the  (Commission's existing modification authority does not reach it at all. Certainly  Bthe Commission can modify the form, contents, and location of required filings,  and can defer filing or perhaps even waive it altogether in limited circumstances.  But what we have here goes well beyond that. It is effectively the introduction  of a whole new regime of regulation . . . which may be a better regime but is not" H0*%%JJw"  X4the one that Congress established.I! Oy4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Id. at 234.#x6X@KX@#ѐ   X4 e e23. ` ` The current circumstances appear to be within the scope of what the Court  X4 xcontemplated as a modification under the Commission's authority to amend and even waive   xԩ rules where deemed desirable to address specific circumstances. Unlike the rules struck down  X4 xin MCI v. AT&T, the Public Notice clearly did not establish a new regulatory "regime," but  xinstead applied the amended procedures to a "particular instance," specifically the single  Xc4 xcomplaint proceeding.jJch! O| 4 e  Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See Id. at 23132 (drawing a distinction under Section 203(b)(2) of the Act between actions which  yOT 'have general application and those where the Commission acts "in particular instances"). #x6X@KX@#j Moreover, and contrary to Beehive's assertion, the staff did not "waive"  XL4 xthe ex parte rules for this proceeding or grant parties "carte blanche" to make contacts with  X74 xpCommission decisionmakers.K7! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 10, 13 n.18.#x6X@KX@#њ Rather, quite distinct from designating the proceeding "exempt"  x(the equivalent of waiving the rules since no restrictions or disclosure requirements apply), the  xstaff redesignated the complaint proceeding as nonrestricted, thereby ensuring that all  X 4 xcommunications were disclosed in the record.%Ll p! O4 e q Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See 47 C.F.R.  1.1206. As Beehive itself describes the distinction between restricted and non {O' x restricted ex parte rules, the rules in the restricted proceeding "merely mean that another party must be served with  {O'filings or invited to meetings." Application at 12 (quoting Rainbow Broadcasting Co., 75 RR 2d 316, 322 (1994)).#x6X@KX@#% We find that the adopted change was reasonably  X 4 xtailored to resolve the specific public interest concerns enunciated in the Public Notice, while  xsimultaneously protecting the interests of the parties. In any event, the Commission has authority  X 4to waive any of its rules on its own motion for good cause.M ! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.3.#x6X@KX@#ђ  X4 e  24. ` ` We also find that the modified procedures did not improperly infringe upon  Xj4 xpBeehive's due process rights.NjD ! O_4 e d Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#It is also clear that the modified procedures do not violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 5  {O7' x/ U.S.C.  557(d), which imposes restrictions on ex parte communications only in formal adjudications and  x rulemakings required to be determined "ontherecord" after evidentiary hearing. 5 U.S.C.  557(a). Formal  xx complaint proceedings under Section 208 of the Act are not encompassed by this provision because they are not  {O 'required by statute to be determined pursuant to a formal hearing. See 47 U.S.C.  208.#x6X@KX@# As noted above, the essential distinction between restricted and  xnonrestricted proceedings is that, under the rules for nonrestricted proceedings, all parties need  x&not be served with written presentations or notified in advance of oral presentations. Nonetheless,  x@the substance of each such presentation must be included in the record for the proceeding. Courts  X4 xreviewing ex parte issues have been most concerned with undisclosed contacts, and whether" N0*%%JJ"  xcommunications contain factual matter or other information outside of the record, which all  X4 xparties did not have the opportunity to rebut.+O2! Ob4 e  Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#See, e.g., Power Authority of the State of New York v. FERC, 743 F.2d 93, 110 (2d Cir. 1984);  {O:' x PATCO v. FLRA, 685 F.2d 547, 56465 (D.C.Cir. 1982) (in making a fairness determination, it is relevant "whether  xt the contents of the communications were unknown to opposing parties, who therefore had no opportunity to  yO'respond").#x6X@KX@#+ Under the modified ex parte procedures adopted  xby the staff in this complaint proceeding, all communications were subject to timely disclosure  xVand scrutiny by Beehive or a reviewing court. While it may be true that Beehive would have to  x"traipse over to the Commission" to find out what is in the public record, as argued in its  X4Application, we do not believe this rises to the level of an unconstitutional burden.4P! O 4 e = Ѝ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 17. In any event, we note that the Commission's rules require it to publish on a  {O 'weekly basis a list of all ex parte filings. 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(a)(4). 4  Xa4 C. Was the Staff's Decision to Modify the Ex Parte Rules Appropriate?   X44 e 525. ` ` Having found that the ex parte modification was procedurally proper, we next  xconsider whether that action was appropriate or whether it unreasonably prejudiced Beehive.  x<Beehive argues that the modifications adopted were unnecessary, because the staff could have  X 4achieved their stated objectives without altering the ex parte rules.Q ,! O4ԍ` ` #]\  PCɒP#Application at 1014.#x6X@KX@#є  X 4 e ,X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: