(a) Purpose. To ensure the fairness and integrity of its decision-making, the Commission has prescribed rules to regulate ex parte presentations in Commission proceedings. These rules specify “exempt” proceedings, in which ex parte presentations may be made freely (§ 1.1204(b)), “permit-but-disclose” proceedings, in which ex parte presentations to Commission decision-making personnel are permissible but subject to certain disclosure requirements (§ 1.1206), and “restricted” proceedings in which ex parte presentations to and from Commission decision-making personnel are generally prohibited (§ 1.1208). In all proceedings, a certain period (”the Sunshine Agenda period”) is designated in which all presentations to Commission decision-making personnel are prohibited (§ 1.1203). The limitations on ex parte presentations described in this section are subject to certain general exceptions set forth in § 1.1204(a). Where the public interest so requires in a particular proceeding, the Commission and its staff retain the discretion to modify the applicable ex parte rules by order, letter, or public notice. Joint Boards may modify the ex parte rules in proceedings before them.
(b) Inquiries concerning the propriety of ex parte presentations should be directed to the Office of General Counsel.
[62 FR 15853, Apr. 3, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
United States Telecom Assoc. v. FCC [Order In Slip Opinion Format], 855 F.3d 381 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 5624–25 ¶ 181 (citing, inter alia, FCC’s ex parte rules, at 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq.). FCC Chairman Wheeler said the Commission would “incorporate the President’s submission into the record of the Open Internet Proceeding,” FCC Chairman Tom…”
Direct Commc'ns Cedar Valley, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “at 26-27 ¶ 65; see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 (a). In these proceedings, “ex parte presentations to Commission decision-making personnel are permissible but subject to certain disclosure requirements.”
Nat'l Lifeline Ass'n v. FCC, 921 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
“See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 . A week later, on November 16, 2017, the Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the draft 2017 Order with some modifications.”
Echostar Satellite L.L.C. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 457 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
“” See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 , 1.1206 (in “permit-but-disclose” proceedings, including informal rulemakings, “ex parte presentations to Commission decision-making personnel are permissible but subject to certain disclosure requirements” until “the proceeding is no longer subject to…”
Nat'l Lifeline Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 915 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
“See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 . A week later, on November 16, 2017, the Commission voted 3-2 in favor of the draft 2017 Order with some modifications.”
Verizon Tel. Companies v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
“On October 24, 2003, one business day before expiration of the 90-day extension of the time for the Commission to act upon Verizon’s July 2002 petition, Verizon submitted an ex parte letter to the Commission, as authorized by 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 , 1.1206. The letter stated:…”
Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 983 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
· cites it 2× “§ 557 (d); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 -.1216. 34 ARINC and Omninet argue that the prohibitions on ex parte contacts were violated as a result of AMSC’s participation in numerous meetings with foreign countries, during which AMSC apparently discussed with Commission officials certain…”
In Re: Fcc 11-161 (10th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “at 26-27 ¶ 65; see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 (a). In these proceedings, “ex parte presentations to Commission decision-making personnel are permissible but subject to certain disclosure requirements.”
EchoStar Satel v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2006).
“” See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 , 1.1206 (in “permit-but-disclose” proceedings, including informal rulemakings, “ex parte presentations to Commission decision-making personnel are permissible but subject to certain disclosure requirements” until “the proceeding is no longer subject to…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.