FCC Web Documents citing 1.1210

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.pdf
  • a preference for a particular party, states why timing is important to a particular party or indicates a view as to the date by which a proceeding should be resolved. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(a). Congressman Filner's letter both states why timing is important to North County and appears to express a view as to the merits. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1210 (providing that ``[n]o person shall solicit or encourage others to make any improper presentation ... ). '' For example, a North County e-mail states: ``As with all of our correspondence, I have copied Carl Northop, who represents MetroPCS in this proceeding.'' The subject line of the e-mail reads: ``North County v. MetroPCS, EB-06-MD-007 (RESTRICTED PROCEEDING).'' Senzel Letter, attaching E-mail from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2292A1.txt
  • sanctions. Saga asks the Commission to dismiss Northeast's petition for reconsideration and to assess a forfeiture against Northeast. Discussion 6. Northeast did not violate the rule against soliciting an improper ex parte presentation. The Commission's ex parte rules provide: ``No person shall solicit or encourage others to make any improper presentation under the provisions of this section.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.1210. The Senator's letter, which Northeast solicited, constituted a prohibited ex parte presentation in a restricted proceeding under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1208 because it was not served on Saga. However, Fisher's April 6, 2005 letter to the Senator demonstrates that, although Fisher did not explicitly cite the ex parte rules, he did not intend for the Senator to make an improper
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-92A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-92A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-92A1.txt
  • modified facilities specified in CUCB's above-referenced license application, thereby causing excessive interference to WNRN. Because the alleged interference related to the modified facilities specified in the pending application, complaints about such interference addressed the merits of the application and constituted presentations for purposes of the Commission's ex parte rules. 3. In the Petition, CUCB contends that Stu-Comm has violated section 1.1210 of the Commission's rules in an effort to pressure the Commission into taking action against CUCB. Section 1.1210 states: ``No person shall solicit or encourage others to make any improper presentation under the provisions of this section.'' CUCB observes that, on March 9, 2004, Congressman Virgil H. Goode, Jr. sent a letter to the Commission ``On behalf of WNRN (91.9
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1952A1.txt
  • Services Division, the staff official with the delegated authority to rule on the captioned applications, and the letter specifically addressed the merits of RB's time-share proposal. Regarding the letters written by MU on April 22, 2005, soliciting the assistance of Members of Congress with MU's renewal application and their subsequent impermissible ex parte letters, we find that MU violated Section 1.1210. Specifically, the record indicates that MU intended to solicit the improper ex parte presentations. In their letters to certain Members, officials of MU specifically requested such presentations: ``We are asking that your office intercede on our behalf and encourage the FCC to reject RB School's application . . . .'' As noted above, in response, two Members sent ex parte
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-719A1.txt
  • a preference for a particular party, states why timing is important to a particular party or indicates a view as to the date by which a proceeding should be resolved. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(a). Congressman Filner's letter both states why timing is important to North County and appears to express a view as to the merits. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1210 (providing that ``[n]o person shall solicit or encourage others to make any improper presentation ... ). '' For example, a North County e-mail states: ``As with all of our correspondence, I have copied Carl Northop, who represents MetroPCS in this proceeding.'' The subject line of the e-mail reads: ``North County v. MetroPCS, EB-06-MD-007 (RESTRICTED PROCEEDING).'' Senzel Letter, attaching E-mail from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-30A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-30A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-30A1.txt
  • are discussed in this Notice as well as the specific rules that are proposed in Appendix A and the reporting template that is proposed in Appendix B. See generally infra ¶¶ 58-61, concerning the filing of comments and reply comments in this proceeding, and the Commission's rules of procedure, which may be found at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1-1.120, 1.399-1.429, 1.1200-1.1206, 1.1210-1.1216. In this Notice, we are using the phrase ``public data network'' to refer to a network that provides data communications for a fee to one or more unaffiliated entities. We are not proposing, at this time, to adopt reporting requirements for public data networks. The Communications Act defines the United States to include Alaska, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.txt
  • with the 1996 dereservation proceeding that it was considering curtailing operations or simulcasting its two stations. In its May 12, 1999 reply to Alliance's comments on its March 31, 1999 supplement, Cornerstone contends that Alliance should be sanctioned because its webpage solicits and encourages website visitors to contact the Commission to oppose the sale of WQEX(TV), in violation of Section 1.1210 of the rules, which provides that "no person shall solicit or encourage others to make any presentation which he or she is prohibited from making under the provisions of this subpart." 47 C.F.R. § 1.1210 (1998). It appears, however, based upon the materials submitted by WQED, that Alliance's webpage is meant to inform interested persons of the proposed assignment of
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • a preference for a particular party, states why timing is important to a particular party or indicates a view as to the date by which a proceeding should be resolved. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1202(a). Congressman Filner's letter both states why timing is important to North County and appears to express a view as to the merits. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1210 (providing that "[n]o person shall solicit or encourage others to make any improper presentation ... ). " For example, a North County e-mail states: "As with all of our correspondence, I have copied Carl Northop, who represents MetroPCS in this proceeding." The subject line of the e-mail reads: "North County v. MetroPCS, EB-06-MD-007 (RESTRICTED PROCEEDING)." Senzel Letter, attaching E-mail from
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/anticollusion/releases/ocg00-1292.pdf
  • at § 1.1202(b). Thus, a written presentation comes within the prohibition of the rules only if it is both "directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding" and "not served on the parties." Responsibility for a violation of the ex parte rules extends to a party that "solicit[s] or encourage[s] others to make any improper presentation," id. at § 1.1210, as High Plains alleges Mercury did in this case. See Freeman Eng'g Assocs. v. FCC, 103 F.3d 169, 184 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (listing factors that inform the analysis whether a proceeding is "irrevocably tainted" by ex parte contacts and therefore void). High Plains does not identify a single written contact between a Member of Congress and the Commission that meets
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97317.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97317.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/1997/fcc97317.wp
  • lines of Lifeline customers electing toll-blocking services, Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-317 47 U.S.C. § 254(d) (stating that all telecommunications carriers that provide interstate telecommunications 13 services shall contribute to universal service). See 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. (requiring the Commission to consider the impact of its policies on small entities). 14 See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1206, 1.1210-1216. 15 See 5 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. The RFA was amended by the "Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 16 Act of 1996" (SBREFA), Title II of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). 4 although we are not aware of any. We recognize that non-IXCs might suggest that ILECs
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99393.txt
  • with the 1996 dereservation proceeding that it was considering curtailing operations or simulcasting its two stations. In its May 12, 1999 reply to Alliance's comments on its March 31, 1999 supplement, Cornerstone contends that Alliance should be sanctioned because its webpage solicits and encourages website visitors to contact the Commission to oppose the sale of WQEX(TV), in violation of Section 1.1210 of the rules, which provides that "no person shall solicit or encourage others to make any presentation which he or she is prohibited from making under the provisions of this subpart." 47 C.F.R. § 1.1210 (1998). It appears, however, based upon the materials submitted by WQED, that Alliance's webpage is meant to inform interested persons of the proposed assignment of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1999/fcc99322.doc
  • applied to informal rulemakings, since under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(d)(6), the general public is defined as a party in such proceedings. Our intent was not to exclude all informal rulemakings from the operation of the exemption but only those in which the relevant agency filed comments. We will amend the rule accordingly. 37. We also believe that 47 C.F.R. § 1.1210 should be clarified. That section now reads: No person shall solicit or encourage others to make any presentation which he or she is prohibited from making under the provisions of this subpart. Application of this language would have an effect that we did not intend in certain situations. For example, under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(3), members of Congress may make
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-719A1.html
  • a preference for a particular party, states why timing is important to a particular party or indicates a view as to the date by which a proceeding should be resolved. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1202(a). Congressman Filner's letter both states why timing is important to North County and appears to express a view as to the merits. 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1210 (providing that "[n]o person shall solicit or encourage others to make any improper presentation ... ). " For example, a North County e-mail states: "As with all of our correspondence, I have copied Carl Northop, who represents MetroPCS in this proceeding." The subject line of the e-mail reads: "North County v. MetroPCS, EB-06-MD-007 (RESTRICTED PROCEEDING)." Senzel Letter, attaching E-mail from
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1952A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1952A1.pdf
  • Services Division, the staff official with the delegated authority to rule on the captioned applications, and the letter specifically addressed the merits of RB's time-share proposal. Regarding the letters written by MU on April 22, 2005, soliciting the assistance of Members of Congress with MU's renewal application and their subsequent impermissible ex parte letters, we find that MU violated Section 1.1210. Specifically, the record indicates that MU intended to solicit the improper ex parte presentations. In their letters to certain Members, officials of MU specifically requested such presentations: ``We are asking that your office intercede on our behalf and encourage the FCC to reject RB School's application . . . .'' As noted above, in response, two Members sent ex parte
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-1516.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98-1516.html
  • presentations to the Commission without serving them on the other parties, and from making oral presentations without notice and an opportunity for the others to be present. }{\i\fs22\insrsid744098 See}{\fs22\insrsid744098 47 C.F.R. \'a7\'a7 1.1202, 1.1208. They also provide that "[n]o person shall solicit or encourage others to make any presentation which he or she is prohibited from making...." }{\i\fs22\insrsid744098 Id.}{\fs22\insrsid744098 \'a7 1.1210. \par \par \tab In a radio conversation with another amateur operator, Schoenbohm was tape recorded as saying: \par \par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\fs22\insrsid744098 I'm not allowed under ex\_parte rules to ask for assistance of ... people in political positions but other people if they feel that government is overbearing or I'm being treated unfairly, have every right to point this
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1292.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1292.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/00-1292.pdf
  • at § 1.1202(b). Thus, a written presentation comes within the prohibition of the rules only if it is both "directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding" and "not served on the parties." Responsibility for a violation of the ex parte rules extends to a party that "solicit[s] or encourage[s] others to make any improper presentation," id. at § 1.1210, as High Plains alleges Mercury did in this case. See Freeman Eng'g Assocs. v. FCC, 103 F.3d 169, 184 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (listing factors that inform the analysis whether a proceeding is "irrevocably tainted" by ex parte contacts and therefore void). High Plains does not identify a single written contact between a Member of Congress and the Commission that meets