FCC Web Documents citing 1.104

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.pdf
  • 1.115 of the Commission's rules, but states that his filing is an application for review. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106 (petitions for reconsideration), 1.115 (applications for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority). Mr. Thompson was entitled to file a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of the Bureau Order, but not both. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). Consequently, we will treat Mr. Thompson's filing as an application for review. We also note that, on December 13, 2007, Mr. Thompson filed an e-mail supplementing his informal objections to the WQAM(AM) license renewal, and attached a letter dated December 12, 2007. See E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitted December 13, 2007, 1:53
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1334A1.txt
  • a petition for reconsideration); Burlington Cablevision, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd. 772, 772 � 1 (1998) (treating an application for review as a petition for reconsideration). Unocal Petition at 4 (citing 47 C.F.R. � 101.65(a) (1998)); see also 47 C.F.R. � 101.65(b) (1998). 47 C.F.R. � 101.105(c)(3)(i). 47 C.F.R. � 101.105(c)(3)(iii)(D). Unocal Petition at 5. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.4; 1.103; 1.104(b); 1.106(b)(2)(ii) (a petition for reconsideration may be entertained when it relies on facts unknown to the petitioner until its last opportunity to present such matters). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1334 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1334 � � � �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0� u
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1537A1.txt
  • closing schedules) with their banker several days before they plan to make a wire transfer, and allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. See Auction No. 25 Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 10645. See PVBI Petition at 5-12. See October 1, 1999 Public Notice at 1 n.3. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104, 1.106, 1.115. See PVBI Petition at 12-13. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1537 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1537 � � � � �@��� @& �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� ��� V
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1802A1.txt
  • return receipt requested, to William L. Leavell, 7807 46th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98118. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau Mr. Leavell states that his letter ``is a petition for reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules . . . or application[ ] for review pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Rules. . . .'' Section 1.104(b) of the Rules provides the choice of filing either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of a final action, but not both. 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). We will treat his letter as a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. William L. Leavell, 15 FCC Rcd 2718 (Enf. Bur., 2000).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2202A1.txt
  • not recoverable.'' CRC's petition makes no claim of fraud or mistake of fact that would allow CRC to recover its payment. Furthermore, CRC's payment was not made under duress because it could have simply withheld payment and filed for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order within 30 days of its release date, pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act and Sections 1.104 and 1.106 of the Rules. CRC is thus not entitled to a refund of its forfeiture payment. Moreover, CRC has not alleged facts that would demonstrate that it would have been entitled to a reduction of its forfeiture amount had it not voluntarily paid the forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, CRC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2252A1.txt
  • do not constitute a filing and will not be forwarded to the Office of the Secretary. See 47 C.F.R. � 0.401. In addition, all petitions for reconsideration must be filed within thirty days from the date of public notice of the final Commission action, as that date is determined pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(b). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.4(b), 1.104(b), 1.106(f). The 30-day filing deadline is statutory and is not routinely waived by the Commission. 47 U.S.C. � 405; see, e.g., Stephen E. Powell, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Red 11925,119261 5 (1966) (citing Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946,952 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau -FCC- 1 This Public Notice does not address petitions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2A1.txt
  • regarding Stations WNTW847 and WNTW845). See Letter from James Clower, Director, Department of Radio and Television, Troy State University to Barry Bixler, Federal Communications Commission, Private Operational Fixed Radio Services (dated Aug. 4, 1999). See Troy State Supplement at 2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. 1.106(f). Troy State Supplement at 2. Id. at 3-4. Id. Id. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.4, 1.104(b), 1.106(f). 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(b)(4); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f). Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Weekly Receipts and Disposals, Public Notice, Report No. 1860 (Aug. 9, 1996). The thirty-day period ended on September 8, 1996, a Sunday. Therefore, pursuant to the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(j), any petition for reconsideration had to be filed by the next business day, Monday,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2A1_Erratum.doc
  • regarding Stations WNTW847 and WNTW845). See Letter from James Clower, Director, Department of Radio and Television, Troy State University to Barry Bixler, Federal Communications Commission, Private Operational Fixed Radio Services (dated Aug. 4, 1999). See Troy State Supplement at 2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. 1.106(f). Troy State Supplement at 2. Id. at 3-4. Id. Id. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.4, 1.104(b), 1.106(f). 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(b)(4); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f). Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Weekly Receipts and Disposals, Public Notice, Report No. 1860 (Aug. 9, 1996). The thirty-day period ended on September 8, 1996, a Sunday. Therefore, pursuant to the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(j), any petition for reconsideration had to be filed by the next business day, Monday,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-379A1.txt
  • a different 39 GHz application to serve Bakersfield. Milliwave's application, rather than being withdrawn, was granted on September 18, 1997. Thus, we conclude that the Division properly dismissed DCT's Bakersfield application as late-filed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154 (i), 405, and Sections 1.104(b) and 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104(b), 1.106(f), the petition for reconsideration filed by DCT Transmissions, LLC, on May 28, 1999, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-381A1.txt
  • File No. 9606D042160. See Notice of Application Dismissal to Raymond Kowalski, counsel to A to Z Towing, from Linda Utz, Federal Communications Commission (dated January 5, 1999). See Letter to Raymond Kowalski, counsel to A to Z Towing, from Mary Shultz, Federal Communications Commission (dated January 22, 1999). FCC File No. 656123. See 47 U.S.C. � 405(a); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104(b), 1.106(f). See Stephen E. Powell, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 11925, 11926 (1996) (citing Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 952 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver, Dr. Robert Chan, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd. 21944, 21959 � 24. See Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-816A1.txt
  • Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, 37.0 GHz-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz, Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4930, 4988-89 �� 122-24 (1995). Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 2783 � 4. Id. at 2783 � 5. Id. Id. at 2783 � 6. Id. Order. Id. at 2784 �� 7-8 (citing 47 U.S.C. � 405(a); 47 C.F.R. ��1.4(b)(4), 1.104(b), 1.106(f)). Id. at 2784 � 9. Id. Further Petition at 2-4. Id. at 3. Id. Id. at 4. 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(b)(4); see also, e.g., Eight Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on the Channel 1 and 2, E, F and H Group Channels at Various Transmitter Sites, Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 7008,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-49A1.txt
  • FY 1999 regulatory fees as a nonprofit entity for Mayville Communications, Inc at Mayville, WI. Granted. (December 18, 2000). [See 47 C.F.R. 1.1161(c)]. Northeast Radio, Inc. - Request for reconsideration of our decision on October 26, 1999 denying you request to waive FY 1998 regulatory fees for Northeast Radio, Inc, at Lowell, MA. Dismissed. (November 21, 2000). [See 47 CFR 1.104(b) and 1.106(a)(1)]. Orca Radio, Inc. - Request for waiver of the filing fee in connection with an increase nighttime power for Station KSRB AM at Seattle, WA. Denied. (November 21, 2000). [See 47 U.S.C. 158(d)(2); Establishment of a Fee Collection Program to Implement the Provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, 2 FCC Rcd 947, 961 (1987);
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-507A1.txt
  • Oct. 18, 2000)(Qwest/Acquiring Companies Public Notice). See Electronic Filing of Beehive Telephone, Inc., CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Nov. 2, 2000) (Beehive Comments). Beehive incorrectly styled its filing as a petition for reconsideration. Under the Commission's rules, petitions for reconsideration are entertained after a final decision has been issued by the Commission. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.101, 1.102, 1.103, 1.104 and 1.106. The Commission has not issued a decision regarding the waivers at issue here and, therefore, Beehive's petition for reconsideration is premature. We nevertheless will treat Beehive's filing as comments and will address below Beehive's objections to the waiver requests. We note that except for Beehive's petition for reconsideration, which we are treating as comments, all of Beehive's filings
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-921A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DA 05-921 Released: April 1, 2005 MEDIA BUREAU ACTION REMINDER AS TO PROCEDURES FOR Filing CABLE TELEVISION effective competition PETITIONS Cable television system operators seeking a determination of effective competition must file a petition under the procedures set forth in Section 76.7 of the Commission's rules and pay a filing fee of $1,160 pursuant to Section 1.104(8)(g) of the rules. Although for the convenience of the filing parties multiple communities and multiple cable physical systems (``PSIDs'') may be combined in a single filing, each PSID must be separately identified and a separate fee must be paid for each PSID. In addition, each PSID receives a separate file number and file so that an original and two copies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1594A1.txt
  • at 14516). While Time Warner requests that we refer its Petition for Reconsideration directly to the Commission, it chose not to file an Application for Review with the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.115. Therefore, we have the discretion to either to rule on the Petition for Reconsideration ourselves or to refer it to the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104(b), 1.106(a)(1). In light of the time-sensitive nature of this dispute and Time Warner's request that the Bureau or the Commission act on its request by 10:00 AM on August 7, 2006, see Petition for Reconsideration at 2-3, we choose to dispose of the Petition for Reconsideration ourselves. See Time Warner Reinstates NFL Net Broadcasting & Cable (Aug. 4, 2006) (found
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-237A1.txt
  • complied with this requirement. In addition, no party to any of these proceedings has filed any opposition or comment in response to EchoStar's motion. The captioned proceedings are now moot and thus we terminate them. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 338 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ��154(i), 303(r), 338, and Sections 1.104, 1.106, and 76.66 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.104, 1.106, and 76.66, the Motion filed by EchoStar Satellite L.L.C. is granted with respect to the captioned proceedings and they are hereby terminated. This action is taken by the Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �0.283. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Monica
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.txt
  • the totality of the licensee's conduct when considering renewal of the Clear Channel stations under 47 USC � 309(k). YMC is precluded from arguing that the Consent Decree is unenforceable. Had YMC wished to protest the Consent Decree, it should have filed a petition for reconsideration within 30 days of the public notice of the Consent Decree pursuant to Section 1.104(b) of the Rules. Moreover, the Commission has recently considered similar arguments and has concluded that it has requisite authority to settle indecency enforcement actions by means of a Consent Decree. See In the Matter of Viacom Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 12223 (2006). Accordingly, we will not address the merits of these arguments any further. Id. See 18
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2217A1.txt
  • Rcd at 5303, � 11, 5305, � 13. See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7599-E at 2 n.1; Comments in CSR 7604-E at 2 n.1; Comments in CSR 7605-E at 1 n.1; Comments in CSR 7606-E at 1 n.1; Comments in CSR 6708-E & 7609-E at 1 n.1. Comments in CSR 7979-E, 7980-E, & 7981-E at 2 n.4. Id., citing ``Section 1.104(8)(g) of the FCC rules.'' 47 C.F.R. � 1.104 of the Commission's rules concerns ``Preserving the right of review; deferred consideration of application for review'' and has no subsection numbered 8 or g. Reminder as to Procedures for Filing Cable Television Effective Competition Petitions, Public Notice DA 05-921, 20 FCC Rcd 7294 (``Although for the convenience of the filing parties multiple
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2465A1.txt
  • and economy. The DRC, which opposes the parts of our New Jersey MO&O that favor Time Warner, also filed an Application for Review of those parts of the New Jersey MO&O. The DRC requests that that pleading and Time Warner's Petition for Reconsideration in CSR 7547-E be consolidated and decided by the full Commission. We deny the DRC's request. Section 1.104(c) of our rules specifically provides that ``If in any matter one party files a petition for reconsideration and a second party files an application for review, the Commission will withhold action on the application for review until final action has been taken on the petition for reconsideration.'' This allows all issues to be thoroughly considered by the staff and conserves
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-285A1.txt
  • 5-6; Comments in CSR 7865-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7566-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7867-E at 5-6. See, e.g., Comments in CSR 7801-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7869-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7870-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7872-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7877-E at 5-6; Comments in CSR 7885-E at 5-6. Id., citing ``Section 1.104(8)(g) of the FCC rules.'' 47 C.F.R. � 1.104 of the Commission's rules concerns ``Preserving the right of review; deferred consideration of application for review'' and has no subsection numbered 8 or g. Section 1.1104(9)(g) requires a fee with each Petition, but is silent about whether a fee is required for each system or each community. Reminder as to Procedures for
• 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
  • 67 25.8 1.062 Cable programming service 78 45.4 1.308 67 47.5 1.310 Expanded basic service 78 72.3 1.002 67 73.3 1.240 Wireless MVPD subgroup Basic cable service 33 23.7 0.947 32 23.3 0.788 Cable programming service 33 50.2 0.975 32 50.3 0.969 Expanded basic service 33 73.9 0.787 32 73.6 0.620 Low penetration test subgroup Basic cable service 68 23.1 1.104 66 23.0 1.120 Cable programming service 68 47.8 1.186 66 47.8 1.229 Expanded basic service 68 70.8 0.919 66 70.8 0.910 Source: 2007/2008 cable price survey. Attachment 10 Other Programming Channels January 1, 2006 Sample Group Local Broadcast Stations in HD Format (1) Most Highly Subscribed Digital Tier (2) N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E. Sample groups overall 754 4.3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 702Singapore 1.425 703Slovakia 18.493 705Slovenia 0.672 90Solomon Islands 4.421 710South Africa 4.826 724Spain 0.797 12017 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1348 144Sri Lanka 48.064 736Sudan 1.346 740Suriname 2.052 748Swaziland 752Sweden 9.363 756Switzerland 1.787 760Syrian Arab Republic 26.544 762Tajikistan 1.087 764Thailand 17.598 807The former Yugoslav Republic of Mac 22.848 626Timor-Leste 0.53 768Togo 274.38 776Tonga 1.393 780Trinidad and Tobago 5.079 788Tunisia 0.707 792Turkey 1.104 795Turkmenistan 800Uganda 794.308 804Ukraine 1.982 784United Arab Emirates 826United Kingdom 0.651 834United Republic of Tanzania 521.6 840United States 1 858Uruguay 16.588 860Uzbekistan 548Vanuatu 69.307 862Venezuela 1.59 704Viet Nam 6520.248 887Yemen 114.001 894Zambia 3216.006 Source United Nations Statistics Millennium Indicators. 12018 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1348 APPENDIX D: Demographics Dataset 12019 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1348 Community % Households with broadband
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1348A2.txt
  • 1608.418 702Singapore 1.425 703Slovakia 18.493 705Slovenia 0.672 90Solomon Islands 4.421 710South Africa 4.826 724Spain 0.797 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1348 144Sri Lanka 48.064 736Sudan 1.346 740Suriname 2.052 748Swaziland 752Sweden 9.363 756Switzerland 1.787 760Syrian Arab Republic 26.544 762Tajikistan 1.087 764Thailand 17.598 807The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 22.848 626Timor-Leste 0.53 768Togo 274.38 776Tonga 1.393 780Trinidad and Tobago 5.079 788Tunisia 0.707 792Turkey 1.104 795Turkmenistan 800Uganda 794.308 804Ukraine 1.982 784United Arab Emirates 826United Kingdom 0.651 834United Republic of Tanzania 521.6 840United States 1 858Uruguay 16.588 860Uzbekistan 548Vanuatu 69.307 862Venezuela 1.59 704Viet Nam 6520.248 887Yemen 114.001 894Zambia 3216.006 Source United Nations Statistics Millennium Indicators.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2151A1.txt
  • petition, only redacting certain confidential Sandwich Isles information. Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc., Petition for Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 09-133 (filed Nov. 3, 2010) (Sandwich Isles Petition). AT&T Application at 9. Id. at 12. Sandwich Isles Petition at 1. Id. at 2. See id at 12-21. We seek comment on AT&T's application and Sandwich Isles' petition, but we note that section 1.104(c) of the Commission's rules states that in any matter where both an application for review and a petition for reconsideration are filed, ``the Commission will withhold action on the application for review until final action has been taken on the petition for reconsideration.'' 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(c). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1200, 1.1206. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1206(b). See id.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2271A1.txt
  • �� 3711(g), 3716; 28 U.S.C. � 3001, et seq.; 47 C.F.R. � 1.1912. Transfer may be made without further notice at any time after the Due Date. 31 U.S.C. � 3717(e); 31 C.F.R. � 285.12 (j). 31 U.S.C. � 3716; 47 C.F.R. � 1.1912(b) (mandatory centralized administrative offset). 28 U.S.C. � 3011. Order on Reconsideration, supra; see 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104 and 1.106. TPS Utilicom, Inc. DA 10-2271 December 1, 2010 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 L M N O $ � �%���PNG �` �` b``D� 4 �&)�@�-�@�@�7 H >��O��� p j�� �2�=��k��� �"_� - J��, �Nt�Rb �7�P���U�ZS '��wp��ˈ jP�T{.|�87w]�g��yA�Ҩ-��=T#�O> �#W p����U�^S� �t�''�TxNt�l ۦ��X6`T{������:�r�� �A�R\ )]h]e�M8�I̟`�?K^��� ?C��A�UU �3ꡟ=��A � \�+�_ �e�P�g� �ك�� �_ą {�.� �"��{Z��HV9�iъ���� s+ �~ �p��,�� �tm�y� ݤ*>0�F��lŢ.|��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2271A1_Rcd.pdf
  • U.S.C. �� 3711(g), 3716; 28 U.S.C. � 3001, et seq.; 47 C.F.R. � 1.1912. Transfer may be made without further notice at any time after the Due Date. 2131 U.S.C. � 3717(e); 31 C.F.R. � 285.12 (j). 2231 U.S.C. �3716; 47 C.F.R. � 1.1912(b) (mandatory centralized administrative offset). 2328 U.S.C. � 3011. 24Order on Reconsideration, supra; see 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104 and 1.106. 16890 TPS Utilicom, Inc. DA 10-2271 December 1, 2010 ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1.2104 and 1.2106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2104 and 1.2106, TPS Utilicom Inc.'s interim payment or funds on deposit will be applied towards the final default payment. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that TPS Utilicom Inc.'s debt of $4,841,534.48is payable in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2275A1.txt
  • \par \par The }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \i\fs22 Orders}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 establishing Metro-Trak\rquote s default payments are final,}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs24\fs22\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s22\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l in0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs24\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \i Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-IA Order, supra; Sacramento-Yolo, CA Order, supra; see }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 47 C.F.R. \'a7\'a7 1.104 and 1.106. }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 so this Demand for Payment does not establish additional grounds to request review or reconsideration of Metro-Trak\rquote s default payment obligation. \par }\pard\plain \ltrpar\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l in0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs22\ul\expnd0\expndtw-2 \par }\pard \ltrpar\qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l in0\itap0 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \b\fs22\expnd0\expndtw-2 Ordering Clauses \par }\pard\plain \ltrpar\s25\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustrigh t\rin0\lin0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22\lang1033\langfe1033\kerning28\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2275A1_Rcd.pdf
  • U.S.C. � 3001, et seq.; 47 C.F.R. � 1.1912. Transfer may be made without further notice at any time after the Due Date. 2131 U.S.C. � 3717(e); 31C.F.R. � 285.12 (j). 2231 U.S.C. � 3716; 47 C.F.R. � 1.1912(b) (mandatory centralized administrative offset). 2328 U.S.C. � 3011. 24Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-IA Order, supra; Sacramento-Yolo, CA Order, supra; see 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104 and 1.106. 16920 Metro-Trak, LLC DA 10-2275 December 1, 2010 ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1.2104 and 1.2106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2104 and 1.2106, Metro-Trak, LLC's interim payment or funds on deposit will be applied towards the final default payment. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that Metro-Trak, LLC's debt of $140,978.50 is payable in full and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1658A1.txt
  • to the filing and disposition of interlocutory pleadings in hearing proceedings are set forth in �� 1.291 through 1.298 of this chapter. Procedures pertaining to appeals from rulings of the presiding officer are set forth in �� 1.301 and 1.302. Procedures pertaining to reconsideration and review of actions taken pursuant to delegated authority are set forth in �� 1.101, 1.102, 1.104, 1.106, 1.113, 1.115, and 1.117. Procedures pertaining to exceptions to initial decisions are set forth in �� 1.276 through 1.279. * * * * * Amend � 0.211 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: � 0.211 Chairman. * * * * * (e) Authority to act as ``Head of the Agency'' or ``Agency Head'' for administrative determinations required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.txt
  • the stations are being used as part of a system to provide interconnected service. Petitioners have therefore failed to plead an essential element of the definition of CMRS, and we decline to find any rule violation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 5(c) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.104 and 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104, 1.115, the Application for Review filed by Warren C. Havens, Environmental, LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, Verde Systems, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, and V2G, LLC on June 6, 2011 IS DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1_Rcd.pdf
  • (4) allegations that PSI and Touch Tel are "sham" entities under common control. See generallyAssignment Petition at 13-17, 19-26; see also Renewal Petition at 2-8. 20SeeAssignment Petition at 17-19. 21Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, Paging Systems, Inc. (filed Jul. 14, 2011) at 8. 22Renewal Petition at 4-7. 23Application for Review at 4; see also Renewal Petition at2-4. 24See47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b) ("Any person desiring Commission consideration of a final action taken pursuant to delegated authority shall file either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review (but not both) within 30 days from the date of public notice of such action...."); see alsoRegionet Wireless License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21263, 21265 n.26 (2002); Regionet Wireless License,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-21A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-21A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-21A1.txt
  • sworn affidavit. Opposition at n.2. We note that Kay's Second Petition bears the FCC Secretary's stamp dated December 14, 2000, and Kay alleged that the subject license grants violated the distance requirement set forth in Section 90.621(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 90.621(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(c). Id. at note citing 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). Kay AFR at 2 n.1. In the event that Kay also intended to seek reconsideration of the Branch Letter, we note that Section 1.104(b) of the Commission's Rules requires persons seeking consideration of a final action taken pursuant to delegated authority to file either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review (but not both) within 30 days from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-274A1.txt
  • arguments advanced by Kay for the first time in his AFR. Kay could have presented these questions of law and fact to the Bureau in a petition for reconsideration. Instead, Kay filed his AFR expressly pursuant to Section 1.115 of our Rules. Further, we reject Kay's argument that we should have treated the AFR as a petition for reconsideration. Section 1.104(b) provides that either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review may be filed within thirty days of Public Notice of the action being challenged. Because Kay unambiguously labeled his pleading as an application for review and, in the body of the document, expressly invoked Section 1.115 of the Rules, which governs applications for review, we continue to believe
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-288A1.txt
  • USA Incorporated, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17659, 17661 � 5 (WTB PSPWD 1999). The application for review purports to address both the Order on Reconsideration and the Order on Further Reconsideration. See Application for Review at 1. A person may file a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of a Commission action, but not both. 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). Because, as noted above, Havens already filed a petition for reconsideration of the Order on Reconsideration, he may not now file an application for review of the Order on Reconsideration. Consequently, we shall address only the Order on Further Reconsideration. (As a practical matter, this distinction is of little import, because Havens raises the same arguments with respect to both
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-289A1.txt
  • 155(c)(5), 303(r), and Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.115 (2001), the Application for Review filed by Warren C. Havens on December 3, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Havens filed an application for review and a petition for reconsideration in a single joint pleading directed to the Commission and the Bureau. Section 1.104(b) of the Commission's Rules permits the filing of ``either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review (but not both) ....'' 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b) (2001); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.44(a) (2001). Because this joint filing violates Section 1.104(b), and given that the arguments raised in the petition for reconsideration are similar in nature to the arguments raised
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-187A1.txt
  • 9-11. Id. at 10. WCJB Must Carry Opposition at 4. Id. See Diversified, 13 FCC Rcd at 22339-40. WTXL-TV Modification Application at 10. Whether or not the Bureau was mistaken in the assumption that the grant of must carry status to WCJB will not ``endanger'' WTXL-TV's carriage, that Bureau decision was not appealed and is now final. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104, 1.115. See 47 C.F.R. � 76.55(c). Id. at � 76.56(b). WTXL-TV Must Carry Application at 2. Id. Id. Complaint Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 4692. WTXL-TV Must Carry Application at 11-13. In its underlying must carry complaint, WTXL-TV sought ``a waiver of Section 76.65(b)(5) ... to exclude Live Oak from the Gainesville ADI for purposes of WTXL-TV's carriage.'' WTXL-TV Must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.txt
  • at 6119-6120. 11 FCC Rcd 6372 (MMB 1996) (``MO&O I''). 12 FCC Rcd 4987 (MMB 1997) (``MO&O II''). 17 FCC Rcd at 6125. 345 F. 2d 730, 733 (D.C. Cir. 1965). 8 FCC Rcd 3537 (MMB 1993). 3 FCC Rcd 5824 (MMB 1988). 47 FCC 2d 1067 (1974). 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(g)(1) and (2). Amendment of Sections 0.251, 0.281, 0.371, 1.104, 1.106, and 1.115 of the Commission's Rules of Practices and Procedures, 46 R.R. 2d 524, 526 (1979). See 17 FCC Rcd at 6122-23. Id. at 6123-24. Although Twenty-One Sound continues to rely upon Scottsboro, AL, 4 FCC Rcd 6473 (MMB 1989) to support its position, MO&O III acknowledged that a non-verified proposal had been granted by mistake in a mutually
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-251A1.txt
  • 1.115 of the Commission's rules, but states that his filing is an application for review. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106 (petitions for reconsideration), 1.115 (applications for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority). Mr. Thompson was entitled to file a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of the Bureau Order, but not both. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). Consequently, we will treat Mr. Thompson's filing as an application for review. We also note that, on December 13, 2007, Mr. Thompson filed an e-mail supplementing his informal objections to the WQAM(AM) license renewal, and attached a letter dated December 12, 2007. See E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitted December 13, 2007, 1:53
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.txt
  • person from participating in the proceeding, the ruling is reviewable as a matter of right. (b) Petitions for reconsideration. Petitions for reconsideration of interlocutory actions by the Commission's staff or by an administrative law judge will not be entertained. Petitions for reconsideration of a decision on the merits made by the Commission's staff should be filed in accordance with �� 1.104 through 1.106 of this chapter. (c) Application for review. (1) Any party to a part 8 proceeding aggrieved by any decision on the merits issued by the staff pursuant to delegated authority may file an application for review by the Commission in accordance with � 1.115 of this chapter. (2) Any party to a part 8 proceeding aggrieved by any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf
  • person from participating in the proceeding, the ruling is reviewable as a matter of right. (b) Petitions for reconsideration. Petitions for reconsideration of interlocutory actions by the Commission's staff or by an administrative law judge will not be entertained. Petitions for reconsideration of a decision on the merits made by the Commission's staff should be filed in accordance with �� 1.104 through 1.106 of this chapter. (c) Application for review. (1) Any party to a part 8 proceeding aggrieved by any decision on the merits issued by the staff pursuant to delegated authority may file an application for review by the Commission in accordance with � 1.115 of this chapter. (2) Any party to a part 8 proceeding aggrieved by any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-39A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-39A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-39A1.txt
  • See File No. 0002363519, 0002363520, and 0002363521 (filed Oct. 31, 2005); Petition to Deny (filed Dec. 9, 2005). See Carolina Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd at 1311-12 �� 2-4. Id. at 1312 � 5. We address THL's petition for reconsideration of the Great Lakes Order on Reconsideration before addressing the other parties' application for review. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(c) (``If in any matter one party files a petition for reconsideration and a second party files an application for review, the Commission will withhold action on the application for review until final action has been taken on the petition for reconsideration.''). Great Lakes PFR at 1. See id. at 2-5. See Paging Systems, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-39A1_Rcd.pdf
  • length because it was fully addressed by PSCID, and the petitions did not raise any new facts or circumstances warranting reconsideration;40and 32See Carolina Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd at 1311-12 �� 2-4. 33Id.at 1312 � 5. 34We address THL's petition for reconsideration of theGreat Lakes Order on Reconsiderationbefore addressing the other parties' application for review. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(c) ("If in any matter one party files a petition for reconsideration and a second party files an application for review, the Commission will withhold action on the application for review until final action has been taken on the petition for reconsideration."). 35Great Lakes PFR at 1. 36See id. at 2-5. 37See Paging Systems, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-54A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-54A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-54A1.txt
  • against the participation of commonly controlled entities in an auction. To credit Consortium and Telesaurus's argument that the Division Order was not reviewable because it did not represent the ``consummation'' of an ``agency decision making process'' would be to declare that no decision issued pursuant to delegated authority is subject to reconsideration, which would be an absurd result. Under Sections 1.104 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, actions taken under delegated authority clearly may be final actions subject to reconsideration, and we find that the Division Order was such a final action. c. Whether PSI's Application for Review Is an Untimely Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules Background. The Bureau noted that PSI had conceded in its Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-54A1_Rcd.pdf
  • no per seprohibition against the participation of commonlycontrolled entities in an auction.75To credit Consortium and Telesaurus's argument that the Division Order was not reviewable because it did not represent the "consummation" of an "agency decision making process" would be to declare that no decision issued pursuant to delegated authority is subject to reconsideration, which would be an absurd result.76Under Sections 1.104 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, actions taken under delegated authority clearly may be final actions subject to reconsideration, and we find that the Division Order was such a final action.77 c. Whether PSI's Application for Review Is an Untimely Petition for Reconsideration of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules 33.Background. The Bureau noted that PSI had conceded in its Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-68A1.txt
  • at 3; MC/LM Opposition at 5, we find that Petitioners have set forth the issues as required by Section 1.115(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(b). See Mobex Network Services, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 554, 557 n.33 (2010). We also reject MC/LM's suggestion, see MC/LM Opposition at 2, that the AFR conflicts with Section 1.104(b) of our Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b), which prohibits filing a petition for reconsideration and application for review of the same action. Petitioners do not seek both review and reconsideration; rather, they filed only an application for review, but requested that we treat it as a petition for reconsideration if we conclude that it sets forth new questions of fact
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-68A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Opposition at 3; MC/LM Opposition at 5, we find that Petitioners have set forth the issues as required by Section 1.115(b) ofthe Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(b). See Mobex Network Services, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 554, 557 n.33 (2010). We also reject MC/LM's suggestion, see MC/LM Opposition at 2, that the AFR conflicts with Section 1.104(b) of our Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b), which prohibits filing a petition for (continued....) 5010 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-68 5. Petitioners again challenge the Bureau's conclusion that the Havens and Mobex applications were mutually exclusive. We agree with the Division that such arguments are unsupported and, in any event, untimely. Petitioners again assert that the Bureau failed to employ
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-9A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-9A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-9A1.txt
  • the petition for reconsideration also would be subject to dismissal because Petitioners have not demonstrated that they could not have discovered the new facts earlier. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(c). We also remind petitioners that our rules prohibit the filing of a petition for reconsideration and application for review of the same action on delegated authority. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b); see also Regionet Wireless License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21263, 21265 n.26 (2002); Regionet Wireless License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21269, 21269 n.1 (2002). See 47 C.F.R. � 80.385(a)(2). AMTS stations provide automated ship-to-shore communications similar to a cellular phone system for tugs, barges, and other maritime vessels. See Amendment of Parts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-9A1_Rcd.pdf
  • pending.11Finally, the Commission stated that "[t]o force WATERCOM to redesign and engineer its system at this late date would be grossly inequitable."12 4. When the Commission later adopted a geographic licensing approach for AMTS stations, it agreed with all of the commenters, including Mobex and Havens, that an applicant should be able to (...continued from previous page) 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b); see also Regionet Wireless License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21263, 21265 n.26 (2002); Regionet Wireless License, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21269, 21269 n.1 (2002). 5See 47 C.F.R. � 80.385(a)(2). AMTS stations provide automated ship-to-shore communications similar to a cellular phone system for tugs, barges, and other maritime vessels. SeeAmendment of Parts 2
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-177A1.txt
  • 0 1 495.1 610.85 Tm /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (of the) Tj 1 0 0 1 77 598.6 Tm 99 Tz (Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �) Tj 1 0 0 1 332.4 598.399 Tm 94 Tz /OPBaseFont1 11 Tf (151-154) Tj 1 0 0 1 370.3 598.149 Tm 99 Tz /OPBaseFont2 11 Tf (and 254, and sections 1.104 and 1.106) Tj 1 0 0 1 77.25 585.399 Tm (of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � � 1.104 and 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration and) Tj 1 0 0 1 77 572.45 Tm 100 Tz (Supplement filed by Lazo Technologies, Inc., Hill Professional Services, and Advanced Technology) Tj 1 0 0 1 77 559.95 Tm 99 Tz (Solutions
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • period is over if the station has not been constructed, regardless of any Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-281 150 Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 11373-74 (�66); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3535 (a). 151 47 C.F.R. �� 1.103(b) (Commission action shall be deemed final, for purposes of seeking reconsideration at the Commission or judicial review, on the date of public notice) and 1.104 (any person desiring Commission consideration of a final action shall file a petition for reconsideration within 30 days from the date of public notice of such action). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f) and 47 U.S.C. � 405. 36 certification that may have been provided upon issuance of a grant. The analogous certification requirement for assignees and transferees will likewise
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/FCC-08-251A1.html
  • 1.115 of the Commission's rules, but states that his filing is an application for review. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.106 (petitions for reconsideration), 1.115 (applications for review of action taken pursuant to delegated authority). Mr. Thompson was entitled to file a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of the Bureau Order, but not both. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.104(b). Consequently, we will treat Mr. Thompson's filing as an application for review. We also note that, on December 13, 2007, Mr. Thompson filed an e-mail supplementing his informal objections to the WQAM(AM) license renewal, and attached a letter dated December 12, 2007. See E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitted December 13, 2007, 1:53
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.txt
  • return receipt requested, to William L. Leavell, 7807 46th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98118. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau Mr. Leavell states that his letter ``is a petition for reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules . . . or application[ ] for review pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Rules. . . .'' Section 1.104(b) of the Rules provides the choice of filing either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of a final action, but not both. 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). We will treat his letter as a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. William L. Leavell, 15 FCC Rcd 2718 (Enf. Bur., 2000).
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002202.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002202.txt
  • not recoverable.'' CRC's petition makes no claim of fraud or mistake of fact that would allow CRC to recover its payment. Furthermore, CRC's payment was not made under duress because it could have simply withheld payment and filed for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order within 30 days of its release date, pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act and Sections 1.104 and 1.106 of the Rules. CRC is thus not entitled to a refund of its forfeiture payment. Moreover, CRC has not alleged facts that would demonstrate that it would have been entitled to a reduction of its forfeiture amount had it not voluntarily paid the forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, CRC's
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/05/releases/da991166.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/05/releases/da991166.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/05/releases/da991166.wp
  • earlier conclusion that because those funds were applied toward the default payment assessed for license B347, CHPCS had been required to replenish the down payment funds to avoid dismissal of its applications. Thus, in the Dismissal Notice, the Bureau took the purely administrative step of formally dismissing the seven CHPCS long- Federal Communications Commission DA 99-1166 See 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). 15 4 form applications for failure to meet the down payment obligation. 7. Moreover, we conclude that CHPCS's down payment arguments relate to earlier rulings which have long since become final. The Commission's rules allow any party desiring reconsideration of final action taken by the Bureau to file a petition for reconsideration or application for review within 30 days from
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da001537.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da001537.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da001537.txt
  • closing schedules) with their banker several days before they plan to make a wire transfer, and allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. See Auction No. 25 Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 10645. See PVBI Petition at 5-12. See October 1, 1999 Public Notice at 1 n.3. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104, 1.106, 1.115. See PVBI Petition at 12-13. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1537 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1537 � � � � �@��� @& �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� ��� V
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010507.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010507.txt
  • Oct. 18, 2000)(Qwest/Acquiring Companies Public Notice). See Electronic Filing of Beehive Telephone, Inc., CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Nov. 2, 2000) (Beehive Comments). Beehive incorrectly styled its filing as a petition for reconsideration. Under the Commission's rules, petitions for reconsideration are entertained after a final decision has been issued by the Commission. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.101, 1.102, 1.103, 1.104 and 1.106. The Commission has not issued a decision regarding the waivers at issue here and, therefore, Beehive's petition for reconsideration is premature. We nevertheless will treat Beehive's filing as comments and will address below Beehive's objections to the waiver requests. We note that except for Beehive's petition for reconsideration, which we are treating as comments, all of Beehive's filings
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da001802.doc
  • return receipt requested, to William L. Leavell, 7807 46th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98118. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau Mr. Leavell states that his letter ``is a petition for reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules . . . or application[ ] for review pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Rules. . . .'' Section 1.104(b) of the Rules provides the choice of filing either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of a final action, but not both. 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). We will treat his letter as a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. William L. Leavell, 15 FCC Rcd 2718 (Enf. Bur., 2000).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da002202.doc
  • not recoverable.'' CRC's petition makes no claim of fraud or mistake of fact that would allow CRC to recover its payment. Furthermore, CRC's payment was not made under duress because it could have simply withheld payment and filed for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order within 30 days of its release date, pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act and Sections 1.104 and 1.106 of the Rules. CRC is thus not entitled to a refund of its forfeiture payment. Moreover, CRC has not alleged facts that would demonstrate that it would have been entitled to a reduction of its forfeiture amount had it not voluntarily paid the forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, CRC's
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • period is over if the station has not been constructed, regardless of any Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-281 150 Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 11373-74 (�66); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3535 (a). 151 47 C.F.R. �� 1.103(b) (Commission action shall be deemed final, for purposes of seeking reconsideration at the Commission or judicial review, on the date of public notice) and 1.104 (any person desiring Commission consideration of a final action shall file a petition for reconsideration within 30 days from the date of public notice of such action). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f) and 47 U.S.C. � 405. 36 certification that may have been provided upon issuance of a grant. The analogous certification requirement for assignees and transferees will likewise
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992467.doc
  • 1997. Accordingly, WinStar's Petition had to be filed by December 11, 1997 to be timely. Therefore, WinStar's request for reconsideration, which was filed on April 14, 1999, is untimely and may not be considered. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.104(b) and 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104(b), 1.106(f), the Petition for Reconsideration of WinStar Wireless Fiber Corporation, filed on April 14, 1999, IS DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992812.doc
  • were minor or inadvertent, and do not demonstrate a scheme to procure service for Illinois School Bus in violation of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, the request of KR&G will be denied. V. Ordering Clause ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.104(b) and 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104(b), 1.106, the Request for Set Aside of Grant or Revocation of Authorization of Station WPLF973 to CJW Transportation Specialists, filed by KR&G Excavating Partners, LLC, on June 5, 1998, is DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992819.doc
  • of the conflicting applications that is placed on public notice as "accepted for filing'' opens the sixty-day window for the filing competing applications, and establishes the cut-off period for all later filed competing applications. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.104(b) and 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104(b), 1.106(f), the Petition for Further Reconsideration filed by Plaincom, Inc., on March 18, 1999, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000002.doc
  • regarding Stations WNTW847 and WNTW845). See Letter from James Clower, Director, Department of Radio and Television, Troy State University to Barry Bixler, Federal Communications Commission, Private Operational Fixed Radio Services (dated Aug. 4, 1999). See Troy State Supplement at 2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. 1.106(f). Troy State Supplement at 2. Id. at 3-4. Id. Id. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.4, 1.104(b), 1.106(f). 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(b)(4); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f). Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Weekly Receipts and Disposals, Public Notice, Report No. 1860 (Aug. 9, 1996). The thirty-day period ended on September 8, 1996, a Sunday. Therefore, pursuant to the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(j), any petition for reconsideration had to be filed by the next business day, Monday,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000379.doc
  • a different 39 GHz application to serve Bakersfield. Milliwave's application, rather than being withdrawn, was granted on September 18, 1997. Thus, we conclude that the Division properly dismissed DCT's Bakersfield application as late-filed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154 (i), 405, and Sections 1.104(b) and 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104(b), 1.106(f), the petition for reconsideration filed by DCT Transmissions, LLC, on May 28, 1999, IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000381.doc
  • File No. 9606D042160. See Notice of Application Dismissal to Raymond Kowalski, counsel to A to Z Towing, from Linda Utz, Federal Communications Commission (dated January 5, 1999). See Letter to Raymond Kowalski, counsel to A to Z Towing, from Mary Shultz, Federal Communications Commission (dated January 22, 1999). FCC File No. 656123. See 47 U.S.C. � 405(a); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104(b), 1.106(f). See Stephen E. Powell, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 11925, 11926 (1996) (citing Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 952 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver, Dr. Robert Chan, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd. 21944, 21959 � 24. See Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000816.doc
  • Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, 37.0 GHz-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz, Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4930, 4988-89 �� 122-24 (1995). Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 2783 � 4. Id. at 2783 � 5. Id. Id. at 2783 � 6. Id. Order. Id. at 2784 �� 7-8 (citing 47 U.S.C. � 405(a); 47 C.F.R. ��1.4(b)(4), 1.104(b), 1.106(f)). Id. at 2784 � 9. Id. Further Petition at 2-4. Id. at 3. Id. Id. at 4. 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(b)(4); see also, e.g., Eight Applications for Authority to Construct and Operate Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on the Channel 1 and 2, E, F and H Group Channels at Various Transmitter Sites, Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 7008,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001537.doc
  • closing schedules) with their banker several days before they plan to make a wire transfer, and allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. See Auction No. 25 Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 10645. See PVBI Petition at 5-12. See October 1, 1999 Public Notice at 1 n.3. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.104, 1.106, 1.115. See PVBI Petition at 12-13. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1537 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1537 8 9 { | }  ~  � @& V
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da001802.txt
  • return receipt requested, to William L. Leavell, 7807 46th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98118. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David H. Solomon Chief, Enforcement Bureau Mr. Leavell states that his letter ``is a petition for reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules . . . or application[ ] for review pursuant to Section 1.115 of the Rules. . . .'' Section 1.104(b) of the Rules provides the choice of filing either a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of a final action, but not both. 47 C.F.R. � 1.104(b). We will treat his letter as a Petition for Reconsideration pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. William L. Leavell, 15 FCC Rcd 2718 (Enf. Bur., 2000).
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002202.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/da002202.txt
  • not recoverable.'' CRC's petition makes no claim of fraud or mistake of fact that would allow CRC to recover its payment. Furthermore, CRC's payment was not made under duress because it could have simply withheld payment and filed for reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order within 30 days of its release date, pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act and Sections 1.104 and 1.106 of the Rules. CRC is thus not entitled to a refund of its forfeiture payment. Moreover, CRC has not alleged facts that would demonstrate that it would have been entitled to a reduction of its forfeiture amount had it not voluntarily paid the forfeiture. 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Rules, CRC's
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4517A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4517A1.pdf
  • the totality of the licensee's conduct when considering renewal of the Clear Channel stations under 47 USC � 309(k). YMC is precluded from arguing that the Consent Decree is unenforceable. Had YMC wished to protest the Consent Decree, it should have filed a petition for reconsideration within 30 days of the public notice of the Consent Decree pursuant to Section 1.104(b) of the Rules. Moreover, the Commission has recently considered similar arguments and has concluded that it has requisite authority to settle indecency enforcement actions by means of a Consent Decree. See In the Matter of Viacom Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 12223 (2006). Accordingly, we will not address the merits of these arguments any further. Id. See 18
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • staff person from participating in the proceeding, the ruling is reviewable as a matter of right. (b) Petitions for reconsideration. Petitions for reconsideration of interlocutory actions by the Commission's staff or by an administrative law judge will not be entertained. Petitions for reconsideration of a decision on the merits made by the Commission's staff should be filed in accordance with 1.104 through 1.106 of this chapter. (c) Application for review. (1) Any party to a part 76 proceeding aggrieved by any decision on the merits issued by the staff pursuant to delegated authority may file an application for review by the Commission in accordance with 1.115 of this chapter. (2) Any party to a part 76 proceeding aggrieved by any decision
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • staff person from participating in the proceeding, the ruling is reviewable as a matter of right. (b) Petitions for reconsideration. Petitions for reconsideration of interlocutory actions by the Commission's staff or by an administrative law judge will not be entertained. Petitions for reconsideration of a decision on the merits made by the Commission's staff should be filed in accordance with ��1.104 through 1.106 of this chapter. (c) Application for review. (1) Any party to a part 76 proceeding aggrieved by any decision on the merits issued by the staff pursuant to delegated authority may file an application for review by the Commission in accordance with �1.115 of this chapter. (2) Any party to a part 76 proceeding aggrieved by any decision