FCC Web Documents citing 0.445

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.pdf
  • 8, and para 9, n.18. See also Pilot Travel Centers, 19 FCC Rcd at 23119; TravelCenters of America, 21 FCC Rcd at 6981. Response at 2 - 3. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record, and therefore ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner.'' 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). See TravelCenters of America, 21 FCC Rcd at 6981. See also, HighTech CB Shop, 20 FCC Rcd 19269, 192671 (EB 2005). Texas Media Group, Inc. 5 FCC Rcd 2851, 2852 (1990) aff'd sub nom Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Hinton Telephone Company, 10 FCC Rcd 11625, 11637 (1995). See also, Malkan FM Associates v.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.pdf
  • OGC Letter, which was issued subsequent to the 1997 email, clarified that ARS transmitters that have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be altered to do so fall within the definition of a ``CB transmitter'' and require certification prior to marketing or importation. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any matter. Furthermore, the 2001 Citation put Ramko on actual notice of the OGC Letter and also notified Ramko that 41 devices that it was marketing as amateur
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.pdf
  • the same reason, we reject the ABC Affiliates' assertion that the Commission has created a per se prohibition of nudity. We need not address Respondents' reliance on unpublished staff letters denying indecency complaints against broadcasts of the film Catch-22 and other programs that contained nudity. See ABC Response at 18-19, 25-27; ABC Affiliates Response at 58-60. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished opinions and orders of the Commission or its staff ``may not be relied upon, used or cited as precedent, except against persons who have actual notice of the document in question or by such persons against the Commission''); Pathfinder Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 9272, 9279 � 13 & n.47 (2003); see also Indep. Ins.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-141A1.txt
  • at WQOP. Plainly, Queen of Peace's staffing situation, which left the WQOP main studio unattended at various times during normal business hours, was not the meaningful management and staff presence required by the Commission. 9. Finally, we reject the contention that we cannot rely on the Jones Eastern decisions because they have not been published in the Federal Register. Section 0.445(e) of the Commission's Rules provides that Commission decisions, which are published in the FCC Record and which contain substantive interpretations, ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner.'' 10. Having considered all relevant information available, we conclude that the proposed forfeiture of $7,000 should be paid. In this regard, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-983A1.txt
  • of a separate order and consolidated the cases from both proceedings for purposes of the remand proceeding. See C.F. Communications Corporation v. FCC, 128 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1997). C.F. Communications, et al. v. Century Telephone of Wisconsin, Inc., et al., FCC 00-133 (rel. Apr. 13, 2000) (``Remand Order''). SCPPC Petition at 2; Total Petition at 2. See 47 C.F.R. �0.445(a). SCPPC Petition at 9-16; Total Petition at 9-16. SCPPC Brief at 2-3. Total filed a letter on May 28, 1999 indicating that it was adopting all of the arguments contained in the SCPPC brief. SCPPC Brief at 3. Given this admission, Commission staff directed the parties to brief two specific issues: first, whether SCPPC and Total had actual notice of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1554A1.txt
  • meaning of Section 1.4(b)(5) of the Commission's Rules because Jonach was required either to demonstrate that its interference contour would not overlap with the service area contour of the Petitioners' Station WNVG529 or to obtain the Petitioners' consent. The pertinent notice provision, however, states that only parties to an adjudicatory proceeding are entitled to receive copies of rulings. Specifically, Section 0.445(a) of the Commission's Rules provides: ``Adjudicatory opinions and orders of the Commission, or its staff acting on delegated authority, are mailed to the parties, and as part of the record, are available for inspection in accordance with �� 0.453 and 0.455.'' In this case, because there was no separate letter or order granting Jonach's application, the pertinent document was the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.txt
  • for Reconsideration (filed Dec. 14, 2001). NSTN filed a reply to MRA's Opposition on January 9, 2002. NSTN Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jan. 9, 2002). NSTN Petition at 3. Jonach Electronics, Order on Further Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 13094 (WTB PSPWD 2001). Id. � 9. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1202(d)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(a). See Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086 (DC Cir. 1976). PLMR applications are not subject to the formal procedures associated with petitions to deny as set forth in Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. Rather, objections to such applications are governed by the Commission's informal request rules set forth in Section 1.41. 47 C.F.R. � 1.41.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2046A1.txt
  • this contention. CSU cites 47 C.F.R. �� 74.1231(h) and 74.1232(f). Amendment of Part 74 of the FM Commission Rules Concerning Translator Stations, 5 FCC Rcd 7212, 7224-25 (1990) (``Translator Report and Order''), recon. denied, 8 FCC Rcd 5093 (1993). Id. 6 FCC Rcd 422 (1991). Since this decision is of general applicability, we will publish the letter pursuant to Section 0.445(d) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(d). BPFT-19971219TC has an ``A'' cut-off date of April 17, 1998. 47 C.F.R. � 0.283. � � � gd/ h/ h/ h/ h/ h/ h/ gd/ � � � � �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3125A1.txt
  • clear that a device manufactured to operate on ARS frequencies and labeled an ARS transmitter may nevertheless be a CB transmitter. The Commission also provided a clear example of what it meant by easily alterable, i.e., moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire. Moreover, the OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. Although the Commission has clarified that a transmitter intended to operate in the CB band includes ARS transmitters that can be easily modified to operate on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3206A1.txt
  • rules. Sincerely, Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau cc: Press Communications, LLC See File No. BLH-19980521KB. Although the June 18, 2005, and September 26, 2005, amendments were not electronically filed, we will consider these filings as Press's official response to the January 3, 2005, letter. West Wind Broadcasting, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 4101 (1996). See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished decisions may not be relied on or cited as precedent except against persons who have actual notice of the document in question or by such persons against the Commission). 47 C.F.R. � 73.213(c). West Wind Broadcasting, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd at 4103. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3564. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 December 16,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-729A1.txt
  • community activities, help them identify community needs and interests and thereby meet their community service requirements. Consequently, the rules, as clarified, do contain a staffing component, i.e., maintenance of a meaningful management and staff presence. In addition, despite Farmworker's assertion that it need not follow the interpretations of the ``various Reports & Orders'' concerning Section 73.1125, we note that Section 0.445 of the Rules states that Commission decisions, which are published in the FCC Record and which contain substantive interpretations, "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner." Consequently, we find Farmworker's argument to be meritless. Section 73.1125(e) requires every broadcast station to maintain a local or a toll-free telephone number
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1334A1.txt
  • 7797 (OGC 1999) (``OGC Letter''). Pilot Travel Centers, 19 FCC Rcd at 23119. 14 FCC Rcd 7797. NAL at para. 8, and para 9, n.18. Response at 4. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record, and therefore ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner.'' 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). See HighTech CB Shop, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 05-3125, 2005 WL 3274371 (rel. December 2, 2005). Texas Media Group, Inc. 5 FCC Rcd 2851, 2852 (1990) aff'd sub nom Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 14 FCC Rcd 7797. TravelCenters states in its Response that after the follow-up notice from the Portland Office, it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1550A1.txt
  • other hand, cites KCAA and WQBQ, arguing that if CCBL's hypothesis is correct and if completion of physical construction was all that was necessary to meet the requirements of Section 73.3598, tolling or waiver would not have been necessary in the KCAA and WQBQ cases. These decisions are unpublished and therefore not binding on the staff, see 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Moreover, and of equal importance, they are inapposite here, as both are premised on circumstances beyond the permittee's control which prevented timely completion of construction and filing of a license application. There is no evidence in the record here of circumstances beyond CCBL's control; rather, CCBL simply did not submit a license application prior to the expiration of the WRKH(FM)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1936A1.txt
  • The Commission also provided a clear example of what it meant by easily alterable, i.e., moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire. This example does not require extensive technical knowledge and could be accomplished by an average non-technical person if given simple instructions. Moreover, the OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. Although the Commission has clarified that a transmitter intended to operate in the CB band includes ARS transmitters that can be easily modified to operate on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2549A1.txt
  • we relied on the OGC Letter and its interpretation of Section 95.603(c), as well as OET's specific determination concerning the Galaxy models at issue here; we did not rely on the public notice cited by Gambler. It is entirely appropriate to rely on the interpretation of Section 95.603(c) in the OGC Letter, which was published in the FCC Record. Section 0.445(e) of the Rules provides that interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. We therefore find no merit to Gambler's request for cancellation of the forfeiture on this basis. We likewise find no merit in Gambler's claim,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-803A1.txt
  • Request at 2. See Mississippi Authority for Educational Television, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 7172, 7175 (WTB PSPWD 1999). Universal Cable Communications, Inc., Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18614 (WTB 2000). Pacific Microwave Joint Venture at 11706. See n. 12, supra. Kidd Communications, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 13584, 13588 n.30 (2004); 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Federal Communications Commission DA 06-803 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-XX � � z � '' � �... � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1210A1.txt
  • Extension of Time is granted. The remaining motions that were not ruled on are considered moot and are dismissed. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f). Petition for Reconsideration at 1. Id. Id. Petition for Reconsideration, Exhibit A. Id. at 1-2, citing Stale or Moot Docketed Proceedings, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 2527, 2533 (2004). Id. at 3. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(a). The Bureau failed to provide Fairhope with a copy of the Initial Order because, as discussed above, Bureau staff was not aware that Fairhope was a party to the proceeding. Petition for Reconsideration at 3. Id. 530 F.2d 1086, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Petition for Reconsideration at 4. Id. Id. at 2. Mediacom Opposition to the Request to Modify Ex
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1475A1.txt
  • FCC Rcd 14849, 14858 (1998), noting that, the Commission considered, but did not adopt, a proposal whereby, inter alia, licensees could accept interference despite contour overlap). Greater Media, 15 FCC Rcd at 7095-7096. Although the staff subsequently authorized the Greater Media licensee to operate on a ``short spaced'' basis, that unpublished action is without precedential weight. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). See Opposition at 2. See Reply at 2. See Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Short-Spaced FM Station Assignments by Using Directional Antennas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5256, 5358-59 n.12. (``The FM rules have contained provisions for this [terrain roughness] factor for many years . . . but the effective date of these
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-597A1.txt
  • 8, and para 9, n.18. See also Pilot Travel Centers, 19 FCC Rcd at 23119; TravelCenters of America, 21 FCC Rcd at 6981. Response at 2 - 3. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record, and therefore ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner.'' 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). See TravelCenters of America, 21 FCC Rcd at 6981. See also, HighTech CB Shop, 20 FCC Rcd 19269, 192671 (EB 2005). Texas Media Group, Inc. 5 FCC Rcd 2851, 2852 (1990) aff'd sub nom Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Hinton Telephone Company, 10 FCC Rcd 11625, 11637 (1995). See also, Malkan FM Associates v.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-405A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. � 0.283. See also R&S Media, Memorandum, Opinion and Order and Order to Show Cause, 19 FCC Rcd 6300 (2004) (holding that the Bureau did not need to refer a matter to the Commission en banc where there was existing Commission-level precedent for the Bureau to follow). See 47 C.F.R. � 74.1231 See BSTA-20061206AFZ. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 February 19, 2009 DA 09-405 In Reply Refer to: 1800B3-ATS Released: February 19, 2009 S T � ������~�S� tmN���r���2� LZ%��+J0�8(R)E��[", `�M_Z��� �{d"��E���0��-�� t��7, �(c)y/�4 M ���(c) ...`x/J{/J�F��%#� �D�7�R�a����ޤ�Cո�k�@``�n�6෶;� �h���-T����\Gsh5�` �̯� 0ơ� F�� '�n�[:n��|8d�I�贝�kf��5J��� �''����ݝ˾��[ ��...�~� �� ��a#�. @DYl�� $~� ��-Z�� 0�^P-``�� p(R)s�-�@-``�����L``�RP hE�s�"�i�M59n=� �A �l�kg����l@E8b�...���HD|�c 0l�k�>9�ryC�8' �8h< b��� _�X�=|�F|q �pߎ] �L� 7 ~�T(R)��-��Hx�Z;2,2�� -/��"�>�k�ХL
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.txt
  • regulation 1/1/06 318 43.5% 49.3% 311 $13.05 0.232 309 $50.03 0.312 1/1/05 280 39.9% 45.3% 311 $12.85 0.234 Second cable operator subgroup (overall) 1/1/06 106 43.3% 47.5% 103 $13.91 0.354 101 $44.86 0.643 1/1/05 111 39.8% 44.3% 103 $13.52 0.374 Second cable operator (incumbents) 1/1/06 54 46.8% 51.6% 53 $13.18 0.414 53 $44.84 0.819 1/1/05 56 40.8% 45.7% 53 $12.69 0.445 Second cable operator (rivals) (4) 1/1/06 52 32.8% 35.2% 50 $16.18 0.676 48 $44.91 0.633 1/1/05 55 37.0% 40.2% 50 $16.12 0.671 DBS subgroup 1/1/06 125 42.6% 49.6% 125 $13.26 0.367 125 $52.29 0.455 1/1/05 124 39.6% 46.9% 125 $13.12 0.366 Wireless MVPD subgroup 1/1/06 31 46.3% 51.4% 31 $11.13 0.347 31 $50.75 0.426 1/1/05 27 38.6% 52.5% 31 $11.05
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-609A1.txt
  • Capstar TX Limited Partnership(WJJX-FM), Letter, 19 FCC Rcd 2329 (MB 2004); Capstar TX Limited Partnership (WROV-FM), Letter, 19 FCC Rcd 2337 (MB 2004); and Capstar Limited Partnership (WMJA-FM), Letter, 19 FCC Rcd 2341 (MB 2004) (collectively, the ``Capstar Cases''). We note that Bison Media, Inc. is an unpublished decision and is therefore neither binding nor precedent. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Request at 5, citing Oakland Media Group, Inc., Letter, 18 FCC Rcd 20219 (MB 2003) (issuing a $3,000 forfeiture for public file violations that continued for an ``indiscernible amount of time''). Licensee argues that these violations could arguably have been far greater than those in the instant case. Request at 3 (citing Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC, 345 F.2d 730,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-776A1.txt
  • 4, citing, Broadcast Actions, Public Notice Report No. 46586, at 13 (October 5, 2007) (referencing North Fork Valley Public Radio, Inc). Specifically, SFX asserts that grant of its application will (1) further the goal of spectrum efficiency, and (2) facilitate ``the availability of more diverse programming in the greater Wenatchee area.'' See Petition at 3, 4. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). NCE Comparative MO&O, 16 FCC Rcd at 5104. Id. at 5105 (``. . . after the best qualified applicant is selected, it is possible that remaining applicants that are not mutually exclusive with this primary selectee and thus potentially secondary selectees, may also be significantly inferior to other applicants that are eliminated because they are mutually exclusive with the primary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1009A1.txt
  • a Forfeiture Order or any other written disposition. Faith Trinity is also correct that Covenant Life Ministries, through counsel, agreed to pay and did in fact pay a forfeiture of five hundred dollars ($500) pursuant to this effort. However, no Forfeiture Order or any other decision showing this reduction was prepared or sent to the stations in question. Under Section 0.445 of the Rules, such an unrecorded disposition lacks precedential value.. Thus, Faith Trinity's reference to Covenant Life Ministries is not probative. Moreover, even if the reduction in Covenant Life Ministries had been recorded in a written decision, Faith Trinity's reference to it would be inapposite. The licensee there operated a Low Power FM (``LPFM'') Station, and the Bureau routinely reduces
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-308A1.txt
  • (3d Cir. 2008) in questioning the validity of the Commission's consistent interpretations of the statutory ``willfulness'' standard in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, vacated CBS Corp. on May 4, 2009, and remanded the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The opinion, therefore, carries no persuasive value. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-397A1.txt
  • we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an initial matter, we disagree with BBN that our reliance on Commission precedent undermines our decision regarding the Station. Section 0.445 of the Rules specifically contemplates the citation of published Commission and staff-level decisions as precedent. We find BBN's argument characterizing Commission decisions as mere administrative precedent unpersuasive and without support. We disagree with BBN's contention that we should have waived Section 73.3539 of the Rules when we accepted BBN's late-filed renewal application. ``[W]aiver is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-398A1.txt
  • we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an initial matter, we disagree with BBN that our reliance on Commission precedent undermines our decisions regarding the Stations. Section 0.445 of the Rules specifically contemplates the citation of published Commission and staff-level decisions as precedent. We find BBN's argument characterizing Commission decisions as mere administrative precedent unpersuasive and without support. Additionally, we disagree with BBN's contention that its violations of Section 73.3539 the Rules were not repeated as contemplated by Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Section 312(f)(2) defines repeated as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-399A1.txt
  • we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an initial matter, we disagree with BBN that our reliance on Commission precedent undermines our decision regarding the Station. Section 0.445 of the Rules specifically contemplates the citation of published Commission and staff-level decisions as precedent. We find BBN's argument characterizing Commission decisions as mere administrative precedent unpersuasive and without support. Additionally, we disagree with BBN's contention that we should have waived Section 73.3539 of the Rules when we accepted BBN's late-filed renewal application. ``[W]aiver is appropriate only if special circumstances
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-691A1.txt
  • (3d Cir. 2008) in questioning the validity of the Commission's consistent interpretations of the statutory ``willfulness'' standard in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, vacated CBS Corp. on May 4, 2009, and remanded the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The opinion, therefore, carries no persuasive value. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-692A1.txt
  • F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2008) in questioning the validity of the Commission's consistent interpretations of the statutory ``willfulness'' standard in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, vacated CBS Corp. on May 4, 2009, and remanded to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The case, therefore, carries no persuasive value. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-693A1.txt
  • F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2008) in questioning the validity of the Commission's consistent interpretations of the statutory ``willfulness'' standard in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, vacated CBS Corp. on May 4, 2009, and remanded to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The case, therefore, carries no persuasive value. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-264309A1.txt
  • 18,357 57,184 10,475 0.000 South Carolina, Inc 5,566 21,927 8,314 0.000 Vermont, Inc. 88,342 289,824 61,228 0.001 Virginia, LLC 33,627 99,930 18,350 0.000 Operations, Inc. 380,140 1,173,052 186,043 0.004 Eastern Pennsylvania 129,772 453,031 105,669 0.002 Susquehanna Adelphi Business Solutions 1,031 2,538 697 0.000 Telecom Argentina USA, Inc. 15,188,347 102,808,935 3,122,157 0.059 Telecom Italia of North America, Inc. 69,933,847 364,346,961 23,342,650 0.445 Teledata Solutions, Inc. 1,676,043 7,618,378 362,607 0.007 TeleDirect Telecommunications Group, LLC 78,066,565 285,834,570 26,875,822 0.512 Telefonica Larga Distancia, Inc. (TLD) 1,190,354 4,235,826 1,725,863 0.033 Telekenex C F Communications, LLC 47,080 268,942 54,761 0.001 Telenational Communications, Inc. 503,426 5,034,261 629,283 0.012 - Pure Resale Services Page 14 - Table D: 2003 Annual Section 43.61 International Pure Resale Traffic Data for All
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289834A1.txt
  • - General Information Public Information and Inspection of Records The authority citation continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended: 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted. Sections 0.441 through 0.470 are revised to read as follows: Sec. 0.441 General. 0.442 Disclosure to other Federal government agencies of information submitted to the Commission in confidence. 0.445 Publication availability and use of opinions, orders, policy statements, interpretations, administrative manuals and staff instructions. 0.451 Inspection of records: Generally. 0.453 Public reference rooms. 0.455 Other locations at which records may be inspected. 0.457 Records not routinely available for public inspection. 0.458 Nonpublic information. 0.459 Requests that materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection. 0.460
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A1.txt
  • Data Systems, Inc. 1,512,809 1,539 982.98 501,494 0.052 240535 A R NORWAY TEL CO Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. 383,090 660 580.44 22,877 0.002 240536 A R PALMETTO RURAL COOP 5,908,024 12,517 472.00 0 0.000 240538 C R PIEDMONT RURAL COOP 10,521,630 11,121 946.10 3,316,248 0.347 240539 C R PBT TELECOM, INC. Rock Hill Telephone Company 13,037,401 13,407 972.43 4,262,681 0.445 240541 A R RIDGEWAY TEL CO Chester Tel. Co. 974,049 2,055 473.99 0 0.000 240542 C R ROCK HILL TEL CO Rock Hill Telephone Company 14,497,397 42,452 341.50 0 0.000 240544 C R ST STEPHEN TEL CO Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. 2,408,340 4,075 591.00 169,218 0.018 240546 A R SANDHILL TEL COOP 7,094,410 15,211 466.40 0 0.000 240550 C
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303886A5.txt
  • Data Systems, Inc. 1,512,809 1,539 982.98 501,494 0.052 240535 A R NORWAY TEL CO Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. 383,090 660 580.44 22,877 0.002 240536 A R PALMETTO RURAL COOP 5,908,024 12,517 472.00 0 0.000 240538 C R PIEDMONT RURAL COOP 10,521,630 11,121 946.10 3,316,248 0.347 240539 C R PBT TELECOM, INC. Rock Hill Telephone Company 13,037,401 13,407 972.43 4,262,681 0.445 240541 A R RIDGEWAY TEL CO Chester Tel. Co. 974,049 2,055 473.99 0 0.000 240542 C R ROCK HILL TEL CO Rock Hill Telephone Company 14,497,397 42,452 341.50 0 0.000 240544 C R ST STEPHEN TEL CO Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. 2,408,340 4,075 591.00 169,218 0.018 240546 A R SANDHILL TEL COOP 7,094,410 15,211 466.40 0 0.000 240550 C
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-216A1.txt
  • cause extensive delay and all but paralyze this agency. The Bureau correctly relied on adequate policy rationales in dismissing these earth station applications. 5. Reliance on Unpublished Documents In the Dismissal Order, the Bureau cited two letters as examples of earth station applications it had returned because the applicants sought authority to communicate with unlicensed satellites. TelQuest maintains that Section 0.445(e) precludes the Commission from relying on unpublished letters as precedent. We find that the Bureau did not cite the two letters as binding precedent, but instead cited the letters as examples of its general practice. This finding, however, does not require us to reverse the Dismissal Order or the Reconsideration Order. The Bureau's rationale in dismissing the earth station applications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-314A1.txt
  • 64; II-41, � 69; II-49, � 82; II-50, � 84. Id. at II-28, � 52; II-29, � 53; II-34, P 59; II-37, � 64; II-41, � 70; II-43, � 73. Sep. 14, 1988 Anita J. Thomas Letter. See also Apr. 4, 1989 Anita J. Thomas Letter; Bureau CFC Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 7336, �� 12-13. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e); Section 0.445(e) of the Commission's rule provides that an unpublished order may not be used as precedent against a third party. See also Malkan, 935 F.2d at 1319 (stating that staff level letters do not necessarily speak for or bind the Commission); Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8768-8769, � 28. CFC I Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9778-79, �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.txt
  • of its proposed r.f. carriers which it believes should be taken into account in this analysis. At a minimum, the applicant must include, for each type of r.f. carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis. (See, e.g., appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service (available at address in �0.445 of this chapter)). (c) [reserved]. (d) [reserved]. * * * * * � 25.141 [Amended]. 14. Amend � 25.141 by removing and reserving paragraph (b). 15. Amend � 25.142 by revising paragraph (a)(1), and by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: � 25.142 Licensing provisions for the non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite service. (a) Space station application requirements. (1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1_Erratum.doc
  • of its proposed r.f. carriers which it believes should be taken into account in this analysis. At a minimum, the applicant must include, for each type of r.f. carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis. (See, e.g., appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service (available at address in �0.445 of this chapter)). (c) [reserved]. (d) [reserved]. * * * * * � 25.141 [Amended]. 14. Amend � 25.141 by removing and reserving paragraph (b). 15. Amend � 25.142 by revising paragraph (a)(1), and by removing and reserving paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: � 25.142 Licensing provisions for the non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite service. (a) Space station application requirements. (1)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-104A1.txt
  • for Review at 6-7. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3571(f) (applications will be processed on a first come/first served basis). E.g., Roxanne Givens, 6 FCC Rcd 2961, 2961 (1991); Processing of FM and TV Broadcast Applications, Report and Order, FCC 85-125, 50 Fed. Reg. 19936, 19940 (1985) (adopting ``hard look'' processing policy for FM and TV broadcast applications). 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished documents may not be relied upon, used or cited as precedent). In addition to operation under program test authority, licensees have ample time to examine their technical facilities while they conduct equipment tests pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 73.1610. The Applicants' licensing posture is not unusual. The licensing of modified facilities generally extinguishes protection rights associated with the formerly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-154A1.txt
  • the information specified in �25.140; (8) Applications for authorizations in the Mobile-Satellite Service in the 1545-1559/1646.5-1660.5 MHz frequency bands shall also provide all information necessary to comply with the policies and procedures set forth in Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in a Land Mobile Satellite Service, 2 FCC Rcd 485 (1987) (Available at address in �0.445 of this chapter.); (9) Applications to license multiple space station systems in the non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite service under blanket operating authority shall also provide all information specified in �25.142; and (10) Applications for authorizations in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service shall also provide all information specified in �25.143. (11) In addition to a statement of whether the space station is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-154A1_Erratum.doc
  • the information specified in �25.140; (8) Applications for authorizations in the Mobile-Satellite Service in the 1545-1559/1646.5-1660.5 MHz frequency bands shall also provide all information necessary to comply with the policies and procedures set forth in Rules and Policies Pertaining to the Use of Radio Frequencies in a Land Mobile Satellite Service, 2 FCC Rcd 485 (1987) (Available at address in �0.445 of this chapter.); (9) Applications to license multiple space station systems in the non-voice, non-geostationary mobile-satellite service under blanket operating authority shall also provide all information specified in �25.142; and (10) Applications for authorizations in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service shall also provide all information specified in �25.143. (11) In addition to a statement of whether the space station is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-172A1.txt
  • introduces an unpublished staff decision that found a facial violation of Section 73.1150. See Letter to Veronica D. McLaughlin, Esq. and David L. Hill, Esq., Ref. No. 1800B3-MFW (MMB, Apr. 9, 1999). There also, however, the contract had been executed at consummation of the sale. Moreover, an unpublished decision has no precedential value for unrelated parties. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). 101 F.C.C.2d 545 (1985). Id. at 547. Id. at 549. Ultimately, the court ordered its Marshall to sign the application on behalf of the new shareholders who, like Kidd, had defied the court's order. Arecibo, 101 F.C.C.2d at 549. Id. at 550-51. Id. at 550 (citing Merkley, 94 F.C.C.2d at 829). Arecibo also demonstrates that, even without any particular default-remedy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-227A1.txt
  • initial permit). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3598(b)(ii). 47 U.S.C. � 319(b). The WLAW Letter, an unpublished staff decision without precedential value, does not in any event grant relief exceeding that given to KRI in the instant decision -- a December 21, 2000 expiration date which could be extended if pending litigation was not resolved by that date. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Further, KRI was not a party to the proceeding at issue in the WLAW Letter, nor did KRI cite the WLAW Letter in its initial tolling request. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3598(d). Accordingly, deletion of the call sign KZTY(AM) from the Commission's database was proper, as of 12:01 a.m. September 2, 2001. See Wendell & Associates, 17 FCC Rcd at 18579-80
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-175A1.txt
  • at 8766, para. 20; 8768, para. 26. Petition at 6. 2000 EUCL Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8768-69, para. 28 (general policy statements included in correspondence to individuals need not be published and ``may not be relied upon, used, or cited as precedent, except against persons who have actual notice of the document in question ....") (citing 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e)). The Commission found that there was no evidence that any of the petitioners had actual knowledge of the letters. AT&T Comments at 4-5. See 47 C.F.R. �� 69.152-54. See Petitioners Reply Comments at 6-7. Ratepayer Advocate Comments at 9-10; AT&T Comments at 3. IPSP Comments at 1-2. The Commission originally set September 9, 2005, as the deadline for converting informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-174A1.txt
  • its proposed r.f. carriers which it believes should be taken into account in this analysis. At a minimum, the applicant must include, for each type of r.f. carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis. (See, e.g., appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service (available at address in Sec. 0.445)). (3) Except as described in paragraph (b)(5) below, an applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that will be located precisely at one of the 17/24 GHz BSS orbital locations specified in Appendix F of the Report and Order, adopted May 2, 2007, IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, must provide an interference analysis of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-49A1.txt
  • OGC Letter, which was issued subsequent to the 1997 email, clarified that ARS transmitters that have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be altered to do so fall within the definition of a ``CB transmitter'' and require certification prior to marketing or importation. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any matter. Furthermore, the 2001 Citation put Ramko on actual notice of the OGC Letter and also notified Ramko that 41 devices that it was marketing as amateur
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-76A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-76A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-76A1.txt
  • its proposed r.f. carriers which it believes should be taken into account in this analysis. At a minimum, the applicant must include, for each type of r.f. carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis. (See, e.g., appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service (available at address in Sec. 0.445)). (3) Applicants for licenses for satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS must provide an interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph (b)(2) of this Section, except that the applicant must demonstrate the compatibility of its proposed system 4� from any current or future authorized space station in the 17/24 GHz BSS that complies with the technical rules in this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-10A1.txt
  • 5201 (CIB 1999). The Morradio decision indicates that the station first went silent on October 21, 1998. As of the date of the decision, released April 2, 1999, a 12-month period had not yet passed. There is no indication that the station did not resume authorized operations within one year, i.e., by October 21, 1999. See generally 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished actions may not be relied upon as precedent). 51 Fed. Appx. 23 (aff'g Carlos J. Lastras, 16 FCC Rcd 17268 (2001) and Letter to John A. Borsari, Esq. (MMB Nov. 14, 2000)). Id. at 24. OCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. FCC, 64 Fed. Appx. at 790. A-O's argument of renewal discretion is even weaker than those rejected in OCC Acquisitions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-55A1.txt
  • the same reason, we reject the ABC Affiliates' assertion that the Commission has created a per se prohibition of nudity. We need not address Respondents' reliance on unpublished staff letters denying indecency complaints against broadcasts of the film Catch-22 and other programs that contained nudity. See ABC Response at 18-19, 25-27; ABC Affiliates Response at 58-60. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished opinions and orders of the Commission or its staff ``may not be relied upon, used or cited as precedent, except against persons who have actual notice of the document in question or by such persons against the Commission''); Pathfinder Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 9272, 9279 � 13 & n.47 (2003); see also Indep. Ins.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-9A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-9A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-9A1.txt
  • 5201 (CIB 1999). The Morradio decision indicates that the station first went silent on October 21, 1998. As of the date of the decision, released April 2, 1999, a 12-month period had not yet passed. There is no indication that the station did not resume authorized operations within one year, i.e., by October 21, 1999. See generally 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished actions may not be relied upon as precedent). 51 Fed. Appx. 23 (D.C. Cir. 2002), aff'g Carlos J. Lastras, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 17268 (2001), aff'g Letter to John A. Borsari, Esq. (MMB Nov. 14, 2000). Id. OCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. FCC, 64 Fed. Appx. 790 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Eagle's position is even weaker than that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-79A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-79A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-79A1.txt
  • agency against a party other than an agency only if it has been indexed and either made available or published as provided in this paragraph . . .''). Materials such as opinions, orders, and policy statements are routinely available for public inspection on the Commission's website, and in the FCC Record and the Federal Register. See generally 47 C.F.R. � 0.445. Records routinely available for public inspection are listed in 47 C.F.R. �� 0.453 and 0.455, and are available at the places noted in those rules or through the procedures set forth in 47 C.F.R. � 0.460. Publicly available sources disclose a 1978 Public Notice that states that while ``Part 73, Subpart G and the EBS checklist do not specifically prohibit
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-1A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-1A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-1A1.txt
  • required by 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(d), we address the merits of the application because the Bureau, contrary to its customary practice of mailing adjudicatory orders to the parties, did not provide Leeds with personal notice of the Leeds Order until it provided notice to Leeds's counsel more than thirty days after public notice of that order. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(a). Leeds asserts he did not have actual notice of the Leeds Order within thirty days of public notice of the order and that he filed his application for review promptly after receiving personal notice of the Leeds Order. We find that a waiver of the thirty day time limit in 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(d) is justified and is in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-1A1_Rcd.pdf
  • as required by 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(d), we address the merits of the application because the Bureau, contrary to its customary practice of mailing adjudicatory orders to the parties, did not provide Leeds with personal notice of the Leeds Orderuntil it provided notice to Leeds's counsel more than thirty days after public notice of that order. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(a). Leeds asserts he did not have actual notice of the Leeds Orderwithin thirty days of public notice of the order and that he filed his application for review promptly after receiving personal notice of the Leeds Order.We find that a waiverof the thirty day time limit in 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(d) is justifiedand is in the public interest because Leeds's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-21A1.txt
  • * * 13. In � 25.140, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows: � 25.140 Qualifications of Fixed Satellite Service and 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service space station licensees. (a) License applications for new fixed-satellite space stations shall comply with the requirements established in Report and Order, CC Docket No. 81-704 (available at the address in � 0.445 of this chapter). Such applications must also meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section. The Commission may require additional or different information in the case of any individual application. Applications will be unacceptable for filing and will be returned to the applicant if they do not meet the requirements referred to in this paragraph. * * * *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-21A1_Rcd.pdf
  • * * 13. In � 25.140, revise the section heading and paragraph (a) to read as follows: � 25.140 Qualifications of Fixed Satellite Service and 17/24 GHz broadcasting-satellite service space station licensees. (a) License applications for new fixed-satellite space stations shall comply with the requirements established in Report and Order, CC Docket No. 81�704 (available at the address in � 0.445 of this chapter). Such applications must also meet the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section. The Commission may require additional or different information in the case of any individual application. Applications will be unacceptable for filing and will be returned to the applicant if they do not meet the requirements referred to in this paragraph. * * * *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-32A1.txt
  • files, and legislative histories concerning telecommunications dockets. Provides the public and Commission staff prompt access to manual and computerized records and filing systems. Periodically reviews the status of open docketed proceedings and, in consultation with the relevant bureau or office with responsibility for a particular proceeding, closes any docket in which no further action is required or contemplated. 3. Section 0.445 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: � 0.445 Publication, availability and use of opinions, orders, policy statements, interpretations, administrative manuals, and staff instructions. (a) Adjudicatory opinions and orders of the Commission, or its staff acting on delegated authority, are mailed or delivered by electronic means to the parties, and as part of the record, are available
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-3A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-3A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-3A1.txt
  • automatic cancellation of the Licenses was ineffective or that the Licenses should have been reinstated. Accordingly, the Bureau confirmed that Satellite Signals's entire outstanding debt obligation was subject to debt collection procedures, and denied the petitions and waiver requests. The 2007 Order was released to the public on January 31, 2007, and published in accordance with the requirements of sections 0.445(b), (d), and (e) of the rules. However, personal service of the 2007 Order was not provided to Satellite Signals as contemplated by section 0.445(a) of the Commission's rules, which states that adjudicatory orders, such as the 2007 Order, are to be mailed to the parties. Satellite Signals nonetheless concedes that its counsel obtained a copy of the 2007 Order ``shortly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-3A1_Rcd.pdf
  • that the automatic cancellation of the Licenses was ineffective or that the Licenses should have been reinstated.7 Accordingly, the Bureau confirmed that Satellite Signals's entire outstanding debt obligation was subject to debt collection procedures, and denied the petitions and waiver requests.8The 2007 Orderwas released to the public on January 31, 2007, and published in accordance with the requirements of sections 0.445(b), (d), and (e) of the rules.9However, personal service of the 2007 Orderwas not provided to Satellite Signals as contemplated by section 0.445(a) of the Commission's rules, which states that adjudicatory orders, such as the 2007 Order, are to be mailed to the parties.10Satellite Signals nonetheless concedes that its counsel obtained a copy of the 2007 Order "shortly afterit was issued."11It
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-16A1.txt
  • office with responsibility for a particular proceeding, (2) The issuance of a public notice listing proceedings under consideration for termination, and; (3) A reasonable period during which interested parties may comment, closes any docket in which no further action is required or contemplated (with termination constituting a final determination in any such proceeding). * * * * * 3. Section 0.445 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: � 0.445 Publication, availability and use of opinions, orders, policy statements, interpretations, administrative manuals, and staff instructions. (a) Adjudicatory opinions and orders of the Commission, or its staff acting on delegated authority, are mailed or delivered by electronic means to the parties, and as part of the record, are available
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • Complainants' Legal Analysis at II-30, 53; II-37, 64; II-41, 69; II-49, 82; II-50, 84. 153 Id. at II-28, 52; II-29, 53; II-34, P 59; II-37, 64; II-41, 70; II-43, 73. 154 Sep. 14, 1988 Anita J. Thomas Letter. See also Apr. 4, 1989 Anita J. Thomas Letter; Bureau CFC Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 7336, 12-13. 155 See 47 C.F.R. 0.445(e); Section 0.445(e) of the Commission's rule provides that an unpublished order may not be used as precedent against a third party. See also Malkan, 935 F.2d at 1319 (stating that staff level letters do not necessarily speak for or bind the Commission); Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8768-8769, 28. 156 CFC I Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9778-79, 16;
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3125A1.html
  • clear that a device manufactured to operate on ARS frequencies and labeled an ARS transmitter may nevertheless be a CB transmitter. The Commission also provided a clear example of what it meant by easily alterable, i.e., moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire. Moreover, the OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner.15 Although the Commission has clarified that a transmitter intended to operate in the CB band includes ARS transmitters that can be easily modified to operate on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1334A1.html
  • 7797 (OGC 1999) ("OGC Letter"). Pilot Travel Centers, 19 FCC Rcd at 23119. 14 FCC Rcd 7797. NAL at para. 8, and para 9, n.18. Response at 4. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record, and therefore "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner." 47 C.F.R. S 0.445(e). See HighTech CB Shop, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 05-3125, 2005 WL 3274371 (rel. December 2, 2005). Texas Media Group, Inc. 5 FCC Rcd 2851, 2852 (1990) aff'd sub nom Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 14 FCC Rcd 7797. TravelCenters states in its Response that after the follow-up notice from the Portland Office, it
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1936A1.html
  • The Commission also provided a clear example of what it meant by easily alterable, i.e., moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire. This example does not require extensive technical knowledge and could be accomplished by an average non-technical person if given simple instructions. Moreover, the OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission" in any manner. Although the Commission has clarified that a transmitter intended to operate in the CB band includes ARS transmitters that can be easily modified to operate on
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2549A1.html
  • we relied on the OGC Letter and its interpretation of Section 95.603(c), as well as OET's specific determination concerning the Galaxy models at issue here; we did not rely on the public notice cited by Gambler. It is entirely appropriate to rely on the interpretation of Section 95.603(c) in the OGC Letter, which was published in the FCC Record. Section 0.445(e) of the Rules provides that interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission" in any manner. We therefore find no merit to Gambler's request for cancellation of the forfeiture on this basis. 12. We likewise find no merit in Gambler's
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-49A1.html
  • OGC Letter, which was issued subsequent to the 1997 email, clarified that ARS transmitters that have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be altered to do so fall within the definition of a "CB transmitter" and require certification prior to marketing or importation. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission" in any matter. Furthermore, the 2001 Citation put Ramko on actual notice of the OGC Letter and also notified Ramko that 41 devices that it was marketing as amateur
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-597A1.html
  • 8, and para 9, n.18. See also Pilot Travel Centers, 19 FCC Rcd at 23119; TravelCenters of America, 21 FCC Rcd at 6981. Response at 2 - 3. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record, and therefore "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner." 47 C.F.R. S: 0.445(e). See TravelCenters of America, 21 FCC Rcd at 6981. See also, HighTech CB Shop, 20 FCC Rcd 19269, 192671 (EB 2005). Texas Media Group, Inc. 5 FCC Rcd 2851, 2852 (1990) aff'd sub nom Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Hinton Telephone Company, 10 FCC Rcd 11625, 11637 (1995). See also, Malkan FM Associates v.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-55A1.html
  • the same reason, we reject the ABC Affiliates' assertion that the Commission has created a per se prohibition of nudity. We need not address Respondents' reliance on unpublished staff letters denying indecency complaints against broadcasts of the film Catch-22 and other programs that contained nudity. See ABC Response at 18-19, 25-27; ABC Affiliates Response at 58-60. See 47 C.F.R. S: 0.445(e) (unpublished opinions and orders of the Commission or its staff "may not be relied upon, used or cited as precedent, except against persons who have actual notice of the document in question or by such persons against the Commission"); Pathfinder Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 9272, 9279 P: 13 & n.47 (2003); see also Indep. Ins.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/foia/cfr.html
  • [13]site map Search the FCC: _______________ Submit [14]Help | [15]Advanced | [16]Share [17]Skip the page navigation links [18]FOIA Home CFR Regulations FCC's Regulations Implementing the FOIA (47 C.F.R. 0.441 - 0.470) [19]47 C.F.R. 0.441 General. [20]47 C.F.R. 0.442 Disclosure to other Federal government agencies of information submitted to the Commission in confidence. 47 C.F.R. 0.443 General information office. [21]47 C.F.R. 0.445 Publication, availability and use of opinions, orders, policy statements, interpretations, administrative manuals, and staff instructions. [22]47 C.F.R. 0.451 Inspection of records: Generally. [23]47 C.F.R. 0.453 Public reference rooms. [24]47 C.F.R. 0.455 Other locations at which records may be inspected. [25]47 C.F.R. 0.457 Records not routinely available for public inspection. [26]47 C.F.R. 0.459 Requests that materials or information submitted to the
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992001.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992001.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992001.wp
  • Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1976), to support its argument that it was entitled to receive personal notice of the requirements for participation in Auction No. 25, that case is inapposite. In Gardner, the court found that personal notice of a Commission decision was required in the case Federal Communications Commission DA 99-2001 See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445. 17 5 U.S.C. �� 551 et seq. 18 5 U.S.C. � 553(b). 19 47 C.F.R. � 0.331. 20 5 of adjudicatory opinions and orders pursuant to Section 0.445 of the Commission's Rules. Establishment of a pre-auction 17 deadline is not an adjudicatory action under Section 0.445. Thus, the Bureau was not required by Commission rules to mail BHB notice of
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc990179.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc990179.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc990179.wp
  • Opinion and Order, 86 FCC 2d 121, 123 n.6 (1981) (calculating deadline for reconsideration petition from date order was "publicly released," which differed from date on face of document). United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (Courts presume that public officials 47 properly discharge their official duties). ELAR MO&O Petition at 7-8. 48 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). 49 See Kessler, 326 F.2d at 690 (filing freeze did not violate Section 3(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 50 U.S.C. � 1002(a), which states, "No person shall in any manner be required to resort to organization or procedure not [properly] published": "[T]he freeze order here did not require any procedural action on appellants' part. It was simply an
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00133.doc
  • from Anita J. Thomas, Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch, Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Bureau, to Lance Norris, Vice President, American Payphones, Inc. (Sept. 14, 1988); Letter from Anita J. Thomas to LeRoy A. Manke, Manager, Coon Valley Farmers Telephone Company (April 4, 1989)); see also Ameritech Ex Parte at 2-3 (characterizing these letters as "Commission decisions"). 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). See, e.g., GTE Brief at 6-7, 10. See 47 U.S.C. � 402(h). Arizona Grocery Co. v. Atchinson, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. et al., 284 U.S. 371 (1932) (Arizona Grocery). BellSouth Brief at 7-8; Bell Atlantic Brief at 3-4; Ameritech Ex Parte at 10. First Reconsideration Order, 97 FCC 2d at 705. Id. Appeals Court Decision, 128 F.3d at
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mrs02-0.pdf
  • 307.31 23,277 0.002 330944A R FRONTIER-ST. CROIX Frontier Corporation 2,712,430 10,410 260.56 0 0.000 330945A R SCANDINAVIA TEL CO Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. 1,006,564 3,088 325.96 55,799 0.006 330946A R SHARON TEL CO 491,427 1,348 364.56 58,179 0.006 330949A R SIREN TEL CO, INC 782,263 2,858 273.71 0 0.000 330950C R CENTURYTEL-NW WI CenturyTel, Inc. 11,644,670 18,890 616.45 4,337,950 0.445 330951A R SOMERSET TEL CO Amery Telcom, Inc. 729,513 2,638 276.54 0 0.000 330952C R SE TEL OF WISCONSIN Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. 2,909,383 10,637 273.52 0 0.000 330953C R SPRING VALLEY TEL CO 631,145 1,177 536.23 199,475 0.020 330954C R STOCKBRIDGE & SHERWD Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. 1,584,299 3,667 432.04 334,926 0.034 330955A R STATE LONG DISTANCE
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/SOCC/01socc.pdf
  • NA NA 0.001 0.001 NA Alabama 1,046.6 0.062 1,046.5 1,046.5 0.063 0.063 0.063 AL Arizona 1,025.7 1,025.7 1,025.7 AZ Arkansas 399.7 399.7 399.7 AR California 6,209.7 17.319 6,192.4 6,192.3 0.049 0.049 0.049 CA Colorado 1,086.4 1,086.4 1,086.4 CO Connecticut 732.4 732.4 732.4 CT Delaware 171.1 171.1 171.1 DE District of Columbia 277.4 277.4 276.8 0.534 0.534 0.534 DC Florida 3,952.1 (0.445) 3,952.6 3,952.5 0.033 0.033 0.033 FL Georgia 2,166.8 2,166.8 2,166.8 GA Hawaii 277.1 0.023 277.0 277.0 HI Idaho 246.1 0.014 246.1 246.1 ID Illinois 2,707.1 0.108 2,707.0 2,707.0 0.001 0.001 0.001 IL Indiana 1,182.0 0.127 1,181.9 1,181.9 0.001 0.001 0.001 IN Iowa 305.8 0.001 305.8 305.8 IA Kansas 461.5 461.5 461.5 KS Kentucky 858.9 0.316 858.6 858.6 0.002 0.002 0.002
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000141.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000141.txt
  • at WQOP. Plainly, Queen of Peace's staffing situation, which left the WQOP main studio unattended at various times during normal business hours, was not the meaningful management and staff presence required by the Commission. 9. Finally, we reject the contention that we cannot rely on the Jones Eastern decisions because they have not been published in the Federal Register. Section 0.445(e) of the Commission's Rules provides that Commission decisions, which are published in the FCC Record and which contain substantive interpretations, ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner.'' 10. Having considered all relevant information available, we conclude that the proposed forfeiture of $7,000 should be paid. In this regard, we
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000983.doc
  • of a separate order and consolidated the cases from both proceedings for purposes of the remand proceeding. See C.F. Communications Corporation v. FCC, 128 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1997). C.F. Communications, et al. v. Century Telephone of Wisconsin, Inc., et al., FCC 00-133 (rel. Apr. 13, 2000) (``Remand Order''). SCPPC Petition at 2; Total Petition at 2. See 47 C.F.R. �0.445(a). SCPPC Petition at 9-16; Total Petition at 9-16. SCPPC Brief at 2-3. Total filed a letter on May 28, 1999 indicating that it was adopting all of the arguments contained in the SCPPC brief. SCPPC Brief at 3. Given this admission, Commission staff directed the parties to brief two specific issues: first, whether SCPPC and Total had actual notice of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00038.doc
  • the Appendix to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding was not published in the Federal Register. In a 1987 action implementing Federal Register summaries, we addressed the concern of some parties that a Federal Register summary of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making may not provide adequate notice to the public. Amendment to Clarify Sections 0.411(b), 0.416, 0.445(b), 0.445(c), 0.445(d),0.412(a)(1), and 0.430 of the Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 1094,1096 ((1987). We concluded that a Federal Register summary which included all information required by Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act was sufficient to alert interested parties to request a full text of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The full text would include the Appendix. A Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/fcc99347.doc
  • date is rebuttable, this somewhat vague contention is insufficient to overcome it. Accordingly, we conclude that Commco has failed to demonstrate that the Freeze Order was not released on November 13, 1995. . Commco also appears to argue that the Freeze Order is not effective as to Commco until it received actual notice of the freeze. Commco argues that Section 0.445(e) of the Commission's Rules provides that no person is expected to comply with a requirement or policy of the Commission without actual notice. This argument is misplaced. As we held in the July 1999 MO&O with respect to the NPRM and Order, the Freeze Order was not a requirement or policy with which Commco was expected to "comply." Rather, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-314A1.html
  • Complainants' Legal Analysis at II-30, 53; II-37, 64; II-41, 69; II-49, 82; II-50, 84. 153 Id. at II-28, 52; II-29, 53; II-34, P 59; II-37, 64; II-41, 70; II-43, 73. 154 Sep. 14, 1988 Anita J. Thomas Letter. See also Apr. 4, 1989 Anita J. Thomas Letter; Bureau CFC Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 7336, 12-13. 155 See 47 C.F.R. 0.445(e); Section 0.445(e) of the Commission's rule provides that an unpublished order may not be used as precedent against a third party. See also Malkan, 935 F.2d at 1319 (stating that staff level letters do not necessarily speak for or bind the Commission); Liability Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8768-8769, 28. 156 CFC I Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 9778-79, 16;
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-3125A1.html
  • clear that a device manufactured to operate on ARS frequencies and labeled an ARS transmitter may nevertheless be a CB transmitter. The Commission also provided a clear example of what it meant by easily alterable, i.e., moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire. Moreover, the OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner.15 Although the Commission has clarified that a transmitter intended to operate in the CB band includes ARS transmitters that can be easily modified to operate on
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1334A1.html
  • 7797 (OGC 1999) ("OGC Letter"). Pilot Travel Centers, 19 FCC Rcd at 23119. 14 FCC Rcd 7797. NAL at para. 8, and para 9, n.18. Response at 4. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record, and therefore "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner." 47 C.F.R. S 0.445(e). See HighTech CB Shop, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 05-3125, 2005 WL 3274371 (rel. December 2, 2005). Texas Media Group, Inc. 5 FCC Rcd 2851, 2852 (1990) aff'd sub nom Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 14 FCC Rcd 7797. TravelCenters states in its Response that after the follow-up notice from the Portland Office, it
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-1936A1.html
  • The Commission also provided a clear example of what it meant by easily alterable, i.e., moving or removing a jumper plug or cutting a single wire. This example does not require extensive technical knowledge and could be accomplished by an average non-technical person if given simple instructions. Moreover, the OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission" in any manner. Although the Commission has clarified that a transmitter intended to operate in the CB band includes ARS transmitters that can be easily modified to operate on
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/DA-06-2549A1.html
  • we relied on the OGC Letter and its interpretation of Section 95.603(c), as well as OET's specific determination concerning the Galaxy models at issue here; we did not rely on the public notice cited by Gambler. It is entirely appropriate to rely on the interpretation of Section 95.603(c) in the OGC Letter, which was published in the FCC Record. Section 0.445(e) of the Rules provides that interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission" in any manner. We therefore find no merit to Gambler's request for cancellation of the forfeiture on this basis. 12. We likewise find no merit in Gambler's
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2007/FCC-07-49A1.html
  • OGC Letter, which was issued subsequent to the 1997 email, clarified that ARS transmitters that have a built-in capability to operate on CB frequencies and can easily be altered to do so fall within the definition of a "CB transmitter" and require certification prior to marketing or importation. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record. Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission" in any matter. Furthermore, the 2001 Citation put Ramko on actual notice of the OGC Letter and also notified Ramko that 41 devices that it was marketing as amateur
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-597A1.html
  • 8, and para 9, n.18. See also Pilot Travel Centers, 19 FCC Rcd at 23119; TravelCenters of America, 21 FCC Rcd at 6981. Response at 2 - 3. The OGC Letter was published in the FCC Record, and therefore "may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private parties in any manner." 47 C.F.R. S: 0.445(e). See TravelCenters of America, 21 FCC Rcd at 6981. See also, HighTech CB Shop, 20 FCC Rcd 19269, 192671 (EB 2005). Texas Media Group, Inc. 5 FCC Rcd 2851, 2852 (1990) aff'd sub nom Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Hinton Telephone Company, 10 FCC Rcd 11625, 11637 (1995). See also, Malkan FM Associates v.
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-2046A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-04-2046A1.pdf
  • this contention. CSU cites 47 C.F.R. �� 74.1231(h) and 74.1232(f). Amendment of Part 74 of the FM Commission Rules Concerning Translator Stations, 5 FCC Rcd 7212, 7224-25 (1990) (``Translator Report and Order''), recon. denied, 8 FCC Rcd 5093 (1993). Id. 6 FCC Rcd 422 (1991). Since this decision is of general applicability, we will publish the letter pursuant to Section 0.445(d) of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(d). BPFT-19971219TC has an ``A'' cut-off date of April 17, 1998. 47 C.F.R. � 0.283. � � � gd/ h/ h/ h/ h/ h/ h/ gd/ � � � � �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) �(R) � � �
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1550A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1550A1.pdf
  • other hand, cites KCAA and WQBQ, arguing that if CCBL's hypothesis is correct and if completion of physical construction was all that was necessary to meet the requirements of Section 73.3598, tolling or waiver would not have been necessary in the KCAA and WQBQ cases. These decisions are unpublished and therefore not binding on the staff, see 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Moreover, and of equal importance, they are inapposite here, as both are premised on circumstances beyond the permittee's control which prevented timely completion of construction and filing of a license application. There is no evidence in the record here of circumstances beyond CCBL's control; rather, CCBL simply did not submit a license application prior to the expiration of the WRKH(FM)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1475A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1475A1.pdf
  • FCC Rcd 14849, 14858 (1998), noting that, the Commission considered, but did not adopt, a proposal whereby, inter alia, licensees could accept interference despite contour overlap). Greater Media, 15 FCC Rcd at 7095-7096. Although the staff subsequently authorized the Greater Media licensee to operate on a ``short spaced'' basis, that unpublished action is without precedential weight. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). See Opposition at 2. See Reply at 2. See Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Short-Spaced FM Station Assignments by Using Directional Antennas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 5256, 5358-59 n.12. (``The FM rules have contained provisions for this [terrain roughness] factor for many years . . . but the effective date of these
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-405A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-405A1.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 0.283. See also R&S Media, Memorandum, Opinion and Order and Order to Show Cause, 19 FCC Rcd 6300 (2004) (holding that the Bureau did not need to refer a matter to the Commission en banc where there was existing Commission-level precedent for the Bureau to follow). See 47 C.F.R. � 74.1231 See BSTA-20061206AFZ. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 February 19, 2009 DA 09-405 In Reply Refer to: 1800B3-ATS Released: February 19, 2009 S T � ������~�S� tmN���r���2� LZ%��+J0�8(R)E��[", `�M_Z��� �{d"��E���0��-�� t��7, �(c)y/�4 M ���(c) ...`x/J{/J�F��%#� �D�7�R�a����ޤ�Cո�k�@``�n�6෶;� �h���-T����\Gsh5�` �̯� 0ơ� F�� '�n�[:n��|8d�I�贝�kf��5J��� �''����ݝ˾��[ ��...�~� �� ��a#�. @DYl�� $~� ��-Z�� 0�^P-``�� p(R)s�-�@-``�����L``�RP hE�s�"�i�M59n=� �A �l�kg����l@E8b�...���HD|�c 0l�k�>9�ryC�8' �8h< b��� _�X�=|�F|q �pߎ] �L� 7 ~�T(R)��-��Hx�Z;2,2�� -/��"�>�k�ХL
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-609A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-609A1.pdf
  • Capstar TX Limited Partnership(WJJX-FM), Letter, 19 FCC Rcd 2329 (MB 2004); Capstar TX Limited Partnership (WROV-FM), Letter, 19 FCC Rcd 2337 (MB 2004); and Capstar Limited Partnership (WMJA-FM), Letter, 19 FCC Rcd 2341 (MB 2004) (collectively, the ``Capstar Cases''). We note that Bison Media, Inc. is an unpublished decision and is therefore neither binding nor precedent. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Request at 5, citing Oakland Media Group, Inc., Letter, 18 FCC Rcd 20219 (MB 2003) (issuing a $3,000 forfeiture for public file violations that continued for an ``indiscernible amount of time''). Licensee argues that these violations could arguably have been far greater than those in the instant case. Request at 3 (citing Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC, 345 F.2d 730,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-776A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-776A1.pdf
  • 4, citing, Broadcast Actions, Public Notice Report No. 46586, at 13 (October 5, 2007) (referencing North Fork Valley Public Radio, Inc). Specifically, SFX asserts that grant of its application will (1) further the goal of spectrum efficiency, and (2) facilitate ``the availability of more diverse programming in the greater Wenatchee area.'' See Petition at 3, 4. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). NCE Comparative MO&O, 16 FCC Rcd at 5104. Id. at 5105 (``. . . after the best qualified applicant is selected, it is possible that remaining applicants that are not mutually exclusive with this primary selectee and thus potentially secondary selectees, may also be significantly inferior to other applicants that are eliminated because they are mutually exclusive with the primary
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-308A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-308A1.pdf
  • (3d Cir. 2008) in questioning the validity of the Commission's consistent interpretations of the statutory ``willfulness'' standard in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, vacated CBS Corp. on May 4, 2009, and remanded the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The opinion, therefore, carries no persuasive value. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-397A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-397A1.pdf
  • we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an initial matter, we disagree with BBN that our reliance on Commission precedent undermines our decision regarding the Station. Section 0.445 of the Rules specifically contemplates the citation of published Commission and staff-level decisions as precedent. We find BBN's argument characterizing Commission decisions as mere administrative precedent unpersuasive and without support. We disagree with BBN's contention that we should have waived Section 73.3539 of the Rules when we accepted BBN's late-filed renewal application. ``[W]aiver is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-398A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-398A1.pdf
  • we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an initial matter, we disagree with BBN that our reliance on Commission precedent undermines our decisions regarding the Stations. Section 0.445 of the Rules specifically contemplates the citation of published Commission and staff-level decisions as precedent. We find BBN's argument characterizing Commission decisions as mere administrative precedent unpersuasive and without support. Additionally, we disagree with BBN's contention that its violations of Section 73.3539 the Rules were not repeated as contemplated by Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act. Section 312(f)(2) defines repeated as
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-399A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-399A1.pdf
  • we take into account the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. As an initial matter, we disagree with BBN that our reliance on Commission precedent undermines our decision regarding the Station. Section 0.445 of the Rules specifically contemplates the citation of published Commission and staff-level decisions as precedent. We find BBN's argument characterizing Commission decisions as mere administrative precedent unpersuasive and without support. Additionally, we disagree with BBN's contention that we should have waived Section 73.3539 of the Rules when we accepted BBN's late-filed renewal application. ``[W]aiver is appropriate only if special circumstances
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-691A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-691A1.pdf
  • (3d Cir. 2008) in questioning the validity of the Commission's consistent interpretations of the statutory ``willfulness'' standard in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, vacated CBS Corp. on May 4, 2009, and remanded the case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The opinion, therefore, carries no persuasive value. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-692A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-692A1.pdf
  • F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2008) in questioning the validity of the Commission's consistent interpretations of the statutory ``willfulness'' standard in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, vacated CBS Corp. on May 4, 2009, and remanded to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The case, therefore, carries no persuasive value. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-693A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-693A1.pdf
  • F.3d 167 (3d Cir. 2008) in questioning the validity of the Commission's consistent interpretations of the statutory ``willfulness'' standard in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court, however, vacated CBS Corp. on May 4, 2009, and remanded to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 129 S. Ct. 2176 (2009). The case, therefore, carries no persuasive value. 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Pursuant to Section 0.445(e) of the Rules, interpretations designed to have general applicability and legal effect that are published in the FCC Record ``may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission'' in any manner. See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4387 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-03-104A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-03-104A1.pdf
  • for Review at 6-7. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3571(f) (applications will be processed on a first come/first served basis). E.g., Roxanne Givens, 6 FCC Rcd 2961, 2961 (1991); Processing of FM and TV Broadcast Applications, Report and Order, FCC 85-125, 50 Fed. Reg. 19936, 19940 (1985) (adopting ``hard look'' processing policy for FM and TV broadcast applications). 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished documents may not be relied upon, used or cited as precedent). In addition to operation under program test authority, licensees have ample time to examine their technical facilities while they conduct equipment tests pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 73.1610. The Applicants' licensing posture is not unusual. The licensing of modified facilities generally extinguishes protection rights associated with the formerly
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-04-227A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-04-227A1.pdf
  • initial permit). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3598(b)(ii). 47 U.S.C. � 319(b). The WLAW Letter, an unpublished staff decision without precedential value, does not in any event grant relief exceeding that given to KRI in the instant decision -- a December 21, 2000 expiration date which could be extended if pending litigation was not resolved by that date. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e). Further, KRI was not a party to the proceeding at issue in the WLAW Letter, nor did KRI cite the WLAW Letter in its initial tolling request. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3598(d). Accordingly, deletion of the call sign KZTY(AM) from the Commission's database was proper, as of 12:01 a.m. September 2, 2001. See Wendell & Associates, 17 FCC Rcd at 18579-80
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-10A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-10A1.pdf
  • 5201 (CIB 1999). The Morradio decision indicates that the station first went silent on October 21, 1998. As of the date of the decision, released April 2, 1999, a 12-month period had not yet passed. There is no indication that the station did not resume authorized operations within one year, i.e., by October 21, 1999. See generally 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished actions may not be relied upon as precedent). 51 Fed. Appx. 23 (aff'g Carlos J. Lastras, 16 FCC Rcd 17268 (2001) and Letter to John A. Borsari, Esq. (MMB Nov. 14, 2000)). Id. at 24. OCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. FCC, 64 Fed. Appx. at 790. A-O's argument of renewal discretion is even weaker than those rejected in OCC Acquisitions
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-9A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-9A1.pdf
  • 5201 (CIB 1999). The Morradio decision indicates that the station first went silent on October 21, 1998. As of the date of the decision, released April 2, 1999, a 12-month period had not yet passed. There is no indication that the station did not resume authorized operations within one year, i.e., by October 21, 1999. See generally 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(e) (unpublished actions may not be relied upon as precedent). 51 Fed. Appx. 23 (D.C. Cir. 2002), aff'g Carlos J. Lastras, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 17268 (2001), aff'g Letter to John A. Borsari, Esq. (MMB Nov. 14, 2000). Id. OCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. FCC, 64 Fed. Appx. 790 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Eagle's position is even weaker than that
• http://www.fcc.gov/foia/cfr.html
  • [13]site map Search the FCC: _______________ Submit [14]Help | [15]Advanced | [16]Share [17]Skip the page navigation links [18]FOIA Home CFR Regulations FCC's Regulations Implementing the FOIA (47 C.F.R. 0.441 - 0.470) [19]47 C.F.R. 0.441 General. [20]47 C.F.R. 0.442 Disclosure to other Federal government agencies of information submitted to the Commission in confidence. 47 C.F.R. 0.443 General information office. [21]47 C.F.R. 0.445 Publication, availability and use of opinions, orders, policy statements, interpretations, administrative manuals, and staff instructions. [22]47 C.F.R. 0.451 Inspection of records: Generally. [23]47 C.F.R. 0.453 Public reference rooms. [24]47 C.F.R. 0.455 Other locations at which records may be inspected. [25]47 C.F.R. 0.457 Records not routinely available for public inspection. [26]47 C.F.R. 0.459 Requests that materials or information submitted to the
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/98-1478.html
  • hearing is scheduled and the issues are set out. We conclude that the Commission's current rule on the hearing fee deadline reflects a reasonable interpretation of ' 8 of the Communications Act. B. The Notice Regulation Lakeshore also challenges the dismissal of its application as a violation of the Commission's regulation governing the use of unpublished materials, 47 C.F.R. ' 0.445(e), which provides: If [adjudicatory opinions and orders of the Commission, texts adopted by the Commission or a member of its staff, rulemaking documents, and certain formal policy statements and interpretations] are published in the Federal Register, the FCC Record, FCC Reports, or Pike and Fischer Radio Regulation, they may be relied upon, used or cited as precedent by the Commission