Opinion ID: 732303
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ex parte Contact Claims

Text: 50 QUALCOMM maintains that the Commission relied on an improper ex parte contact by Omnipoint in deciding to reject QUALCOMM's pioneer's preference request. A written ex parte contact is defined by the FCC as [a]ny communication directed to the merits or outcome of a proceeding that is made to decision-making personnel but ... not served on the parties to the proceeding. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(a), (b) (emphasis in original). Under FCC rules as interpreted by the Commission, pioneer's preference proceedings are restricted proceedings in which ex parte contacts are not permitted. Pioneer's Preference Order, 6 F.C.C.R. at 3493 p 42. Nonetheless, in August 1993, Omnipoint filed with the Commission a report (the August Report) that was critical of QUALCOMM's pioneer's preference proposal. Omnipoint did not serve the August Report on QUALCOMM or any other party to the pioneer's preference proceeding. 51 We note at the outset that there has been no finding by the Commission that the August Report violated the ex parte contact rules. The Commission refused to address the issue on reconsideration despite repeated requests from QUALCOMM that it do so and assurances from the FCC's Managing Director and General Counsel that the matter would be addressed. While the Commission concedes that the August Report was filed with the Commission but not served on the other parties to the pioneer's preference proceeding, we do not know whether the Report reached decision-making personnel. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(b) (defining ex parte contacts as those made to decision-making personnel); see also Press Broad. Co. v. FCC, 59 F.3d 1365, 1369 (D.C.Cir.1995) (noting that an improper attempt to influence an adjudication is not a concern if it does not reach the ultimate decision maker). Because the Commission failed to make the requisite findings, we must assume for purposes of considering QUALCOMM's claim that the August Report constituted an improper ex parte contact. 52 When reviewing allegations of ex parte contacts, we ask whether the contacts  'irrevocably tainted'  the agency's decision-making process so as to make the  'ultimate judgment of the agency unfair.'  Press Broad., 59 F.3d at 1369. Several factors should inform this analysis, including 53 the gravity of the ex parte communications; whether the contacts may have influenced the agency's ultimate decision; whether the party making the improper contacts benefited from the agency's ultimate decision; whether the contents of the communications were unknown to opposing parties, who therefore had no opportunity to respond; and whether vacation of the agency's decision and remand for new proceedings would serve a useful purpose. 54 Professional Air Traffic Controllers Org. v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 685 F.2d 547, 565 (D.C.Cir.1982). 55 In this case, the ex parte contact was quite serious in that the August Report contained a direct attack on the feasibility of QUALCOMM's proposed technology. See August Report at 8. Moreover, the Commission cited the August Report in the Third R&O. 9 F.C.C.R. at 1346 p 56 & n. 68. Further, the August Report was not served on opposing parties, thus denying QUALCOMM and the other preference applicants an opportunity to respond to Omnipoint's criticisms. Still further, the party making the ex parte contact, Omnipoint, benefited from the agency's ultimate decision in that it received a pioneer's preference. These facts all tend to indicate that the ex parte contact tainted the Commission's decision. 56 There is, however, one other fact that forces us to conclude that the ex parte contact was harmless. The August Report argued that QUALCOMM's proposed technology was not feasible. In its Third R&O, the Commission reached the exact opposite conclusion, explicitly finding that QUALCOMM's equipment appears viable for the provision of PCS services. 9 F.C.C.R. at 1370 p 266. As a result, we conclude that the Report did not taint these proceedings. 57 [322 U.S.App.D.C. 279] 2. ACT 58 Finally, ACT alleges that the Commission's pioneer's preference application process was tainted by numerous ex parte contacts occurring throughout the proceedings. The Commission contends that we should not reach ACT's ex parte claim because it was not raised before the Commission. We agree with the Commission. As discussed above, ACT failed to file a timely petition for reconsideration raising this ex parte contact claim. Nor was the claim raised in ACT's comments filed in response the Commission's Tentative Decision. Section 405 of the Communications Act requires that claims be presented to the Commission before they are brought in this court. Because ACT's ex parte contact claim was never raised before the FCC, we are barred from considering it.