FCC Web Documents citing 1.227

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1717A1.txt
  • the call sign KNKK276 (notifications filed May 13, 1999). CN Wan reconsideration at 3. Public Notice, Application Requirements for Stations in the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service (Mimeo 0125, Oct. 7, 1985). See generally 47 C.F.R. � 101.105. Id. Essentially, each day is a new filing ``window'' for Part 94 Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service stations. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.227(b)(4). See, e.g., Order, In the Matter of Applications of Samuel Ferguson To Operate a Two-Way Mobile System In the San Diego, California AREA On the Freqencies 861.3500/816.3500 MHz, and A to Z Enterprises, Inc. To Operate Operate a Two-Way Mobile System In the San Diego, California AREA On the Freqencies 861.3500/816.3500 MHz, 15 FCC Rcd 4363 (Chief, Public Safety and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1552A1.txt
  • 93 (1998). 47 C.F.R. � 1.929(a)(5). Petitions at 7-8. Id. at 8. 47 C.F.R. � 1.929(k) states that ``any change not specifically listed above as major is considered minor.'' Petitions at 8-9. We note that SDGE is correct in its assessment that the Branch did not cite the correct authority for its action. See Petitions at 12-13. 47 C.F.R. � 1.227 is not applicable in this instance and 47 C.F.R. � 1.958 no longer exists. 47 C.F.R. � 1.934 is the appropriate authority. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1552 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1552 � � � � �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0� � $ *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-66A1.txt
  • by SRP on Septemeber 14, 2000. GTECH filed FCC File No. 0000193645 on July 25, 2000. However, GTECH filed a major amendment to its application on November 21, 2000, which changed the proposed coordinates. The effect of the major amendment was to change the receipt date used in the cut-off determination from July 25, 2000 to November 21, 2000. Section 1.227 of the Commission's Rules provides that no application will be consolidated for hearing with a previously filed application unless such application is substantially complete and tendered for filing by the close of business of the same day. 47 C.F.R. � 1.227. Therefore, the amended application was received after the cut-off date established by SRP's application and dismissed by the Branch.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3653A1.txt
  • sought to recover refunds, finding that SPCA had failed to state a legal cause of action. Among other things, SPCA contended in its complaint that various decisions rendered by the MPSC are inconsistent with this Commission's payphone regulatory scheme to implement section 276 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Also on November 9, 2004, SPCA pursuant to section 1.227 of the Commission's rules filed a motion to consolidate its petition for declaratory ruling with the Commission's consideration of the Illinois Public Communications Association's July 30, 2004, petition for a declaratory ruling (IPTA Petition) in this docket. SPCA contends that its request for a declaratory ruling raises substantially the same issues presented by IPTA's petition for a declaratory ruling. IPTA's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-49A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-49A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-49A1.txt
  • the Commission's payphone orders. IPANY's petition also seeks a declaratory ruling that IPANY members are entitled to refunds of the tariffed payphone line rate charges they paid to Verizon from 1997 to date, to the extent those charges exceeded rates that comply with the Commission's new services test. Also on December 29, 2004, IPANY filed a motion pursuant to section 1.227 of the Commission's rules to consolidate its petition with the Commission's consideration of the Illinois Public Telecommunications Association's July 30, 2004, petition for a declaratory ruling (IPTA) and the Southern Public Communications Association (SPCA) petition for similar relief in this docket. IPANY contends that its petition raises substantially the same issues presented by IPTA's and SCPA's petitions for declaratory ruling.
• 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
  • ``Clear Channel.'' Specifically, YMC submitted the following petitions on October 28, 2005: KSJO(FM) Petition to Deny; KYLD/KMEL Petition to Deny, and KNEW(AM) Petition to Deny. YMC's Petitions, the Weeks Petition, and the informal objections raise substantially the same or overlapping issues. For administrative efficiency, we consolidate the pleadings on our own motion and address the issues accordingly. 47 C.F.R. � 1.227(a). Clear Channel filed an Opposition to Petition to Deny KSJO(FM)'s renewal application (``KSJO Opposition''), and a Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny the license renewals of KMEL(FM), KNEW(AM), and KYLD(FM) (the ``Consolidated Opposition'') on November 28, 2005. YMC filed replies to the KSJO Opposition and the Consolidated Opposition on December 23, 2005. YMC asserts that Clear Channel's Oppositions were untimely
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-871A1.txt
  • 24 GHz band. FlexCom now contends that its application for licenses in the 24 GHz band should have been governed by Commission rules for determining when competing applications for POFMS licenses are entitled to a comparative hearing if mutually exclusive. FlexCom claims that its purported POFMS application triggered a one-day window for the filing of competing applications pursuant to Sections 1.227(b)(4) and 101.45(d) of the Commission's rules. Those particular rules provide that a POFMS application must be filed within one day of a mutually exclusive application in order to be entitled to a comparative hearing with the other application. discussion We here deny FlexCom's Petition for Further Reconsideration. In the 24 GHz Report and Order, the Commission provided for the first
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-122A1.txt
  • Frequency Allocations and Radio Treaty Matters; General Rules and Regulations (47 C.F.R. Part 2), Tariffs (47 C.F.R. Part 61), Miscellaneous Rules Relating to Common Carriers (47 C.F.R. Part 64), Radio Broadcast Services (47 C.F.R. Part 73), and Stations in the Maritime Services (47 C.F.R. Part 80). Specifically, this Order corrects bank addresses in several provisions of Sections 0.401(b), 0.482, 1.80(h), 1.227(b), 1.907, 1.1102, 1.1103, 1.1104, 1.1105, 1.1106, 1.1107, 1.1152, 1.1153, 1.1154, 1.1155, 1.1156, 1.1166(d), 1.10001, 1.10009, 2.913(b), 61.14(b), 61.17(b), 61.20(b), 61.32(b), 61.153(b), 64.709(d), and 80.59(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.401(b), 0.482, 1.80(h), 1.227(b), 1.907, 1.1102, 1.1103, 1.1104, 1.1105, 1.1106, 1.1107, 1.1152, 1.1153, 1.1154, 1.1155, 1.1156, 1.1166(d), 1.10001, 1.10009, 2.913(b), 61.14, 61.17, 61.20, 61.32, 61.153, 64.709, and 80.59(c). This
• 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
  • Part 1, Subpart B of the Commission's rules, is changed to 1.201, which is the next rule after 1.120 and is also the first rule in Part 1, Subpart B. Part 1, Subpart B, Hearing Proceedings. This Order amends the following rules in Part 1, Subpart B, Hearing Proceedings, to delete obsolete rules and references and make other corrections: Sections 1.227(b)(6) and 1.229(b)(2) are without current legal effect and are deleted as obsolete. These sections pertain to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license renewal applicants. Section 1.229(b)(3), which establishes procedures for the filing of motions to modify the issues designated for hearing, is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A1_Rcd.pdf
  • have broadband access.226In December 2008, the government entered into a contract with Three (a Hutchison Whampoa company), to be the provider of services to unserved areas. Residential and business customers within those areas can access mobile wireless broadband services with a minimum download speed of 1.2 Mbps and a minimum upload speed of 200 Kbps with a contention ratio of 36:1.227In some areas where service will be very costly and difficult to reach, Three will be allowed to offer a satellite product of 1 Mbps download and 128 Kbps upload. As of the end of 2010, the NBS has provided broadband service to 1,028 areas where coverage was previously seen as insufficient.228Under the NBS, Ireland has met the EU target of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222218A1.txt
  • the Private Mobile Frequencies Below 800 MHz; Petition for Rule Making of the American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 99-87, RM-9332, RM-9405, RM-9705, 15 FCC Rcd 22709 (2000) (``R&O and FNPRM).'' APPENDIX B, PART 1 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, Paragraph 3 is corrected to read as follows: 3. Section 1.227 is amended by revising (b)(3)(ii) and (b)(4) to read as follows: � 1.227 Consolidations. * * * * * (b) * * * * * (3) * * * * * (ii) Domestic public fixed and public mobile. See Rule � 21.31 for the requirements as to mutually exclusive applications. See also Rule � 21.23 for the requirements as to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • 10/13/11 Describes the Commission's former "protest" process. By its express terms, it does not apply to applications filed on or after December 12, 1960. 1.120 Adopted 9/30/11 pending FR publication These sections pertain to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license renewal applicants. 1.227 (b)(6) 1.229(b)(2) Adopted 9/30/11 pending FR publication Pertains to comparative hearings involving applicants for new commercial broadcast facilities and calls for the production of a Standardized Integration Statement and other information pertaining to the Commission's former integration standard and other broadcast comparative hearing criteria. Under �309(j), the Commission no longer has authority to conduct comparative hearings for new commercial broadcast
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.txt
  • [Note] 10/13/11 Eliminated rule describing the Commission's former ``protest'' process, which by its express terms does not apply to applications filed on or after December 12, 1960. 1.120 11/16/11 Eliminated rule sections pertaining to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license renewal applicants. 1.227(b)(6) 1.229(b)(2) 11/16/11 Eliminated rule sections pertaining to comparative hearings involving applicants for new commercial broadcast facilities and calling for the production of a Standardized Integration Statement and other information pertaining to the Commission's former integration standard and other broadcast comparative hearing criteria. Under �309(j), the Commission no longer has authority to conduct comparative hearings for new commercial broadcast facilities and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-74A1.txt
  • 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 is amended as follows: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 80 is amended as follows: The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and 325(e). Section 1.227 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: � 1.227 Consolidations. * * * * * (b) * * * * * (4) This paragraph applies when mutually-exclusive applications subject to section 309(b) of the Communications Act are filed in the Private Radio Services or when there are more such applications for initial licenses than can be accommodated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-74A1_Erratum.doc
  • 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1 is amended as follows: Part 1 - Practice and Procedure Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 80 is amended as follows: The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and 325(e). Section 1.227 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows: � 1.227 Consolidations. * * * * * (b) * * * * * (4) This paragraph applies when mutually-exclusive applications subject to section 309(b) of the Communications Act are filed in the Private Radio Services or when there are more such applications for initial licenses than can be accommodated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-82A1.txt
  • to the amount of spectrum that will be made available for public safety radio services in the future, and will instead reserve that determination to specific proceedings. Therefore, we will continue to evaluate and consider the spectrum needs of all public safety radio services in future proceedings. Additionally, on our own motion, we will take this opportunity to modify Section 1.227 of our Rules to conform it with the Balanced Budget Act and the R&O. Section 1.227(b)(4) discusses resolving mutually exclusive applications received by the Commission for Private Wireless Services. Specifically, the provision currently states that such cases will be consolidated for hearing or designated for random selection. The Commission no longer utilizes random selection processes to resolve such conflicts and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/213340-1.pdf
  • at 14 (I'Only customers of a service provider or manufacturer . . . should have standing to initiate a fast-track inquiry or an informal or formal complaint under Section 255.") 26 For instance,the Commission has procedures regarding bona fide complaints, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.720, and has the right to consolidate complaints involving the same issue, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.227(a) (providing for the consolidation of cases involving the same applicant or substantially the same issues in formal hearing proceedings). The Commission should afford the same protections here. 13 IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons,CTIA respectfully requests that the Commission adopt rules governing Section 255 consistent with the proposals made herein and in CTIA's Comments. Respectfully submitted, CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOFIATION .
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • in the Local Multipoint Distribution Service, will be entitled to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications only if: (1) * * * * * * * * (d) Private operational fixed point-to-point microwave applications for authorization under this part will be entitled to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 1.227(b)(4) of this chapter. (e) * * * (f) * * * (1) * * * (2) The amendment resolves frequency conflicts with authorized stations or other pending applications which would otherwise require resolution by hearing or by comparative evaluation pursuant to Sec. 101.51 provided that the amendment does not create new or additional frequency conflicts; * * * * *
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc970391.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc970391.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/30/releases/fc970391.wp
  • are subject to competitive bidding procedures. �101.45 Mutually exclusive applications * * * (d) Except for applications in the 38.6-40.0 GHz band, private operational fixed point-to-point microwave applications for authorization under this Part will be entitled to be included in a random selection process or to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications in accordance with the provisions of �1.227.(b)(4) of this chapter. Applications in the 38.6-40.0 GHz band are subject to competitive bidding procedures in ��101.XXX-XXX. 6. In � 101.51(a), amend to include applications subject to competitive bidding. � 101.51 Comparative evaluation of mutually exclusive applications * * * (a) In order to expedite action on mutually exclusive applications in services under this rules part where neither competitive bidding
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-98.pdf
  • $2,543,94263.6 0.036.4 0.0 0.0 20,101,26055.6 0.029.3 0.314.8 Djibouti $3,920,50459.0 0.9 3.0 8.428.7 $96,63786.0 0.0 0.0 0.014.0 $126,35299.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5,003,28851.9 1.1 3.2 7.336.5 Egypt $109,635,26552.6 1.031.111.4 3.9 $7,156,34037.0 0.040.913.0 9.2 $7,273,62295.3 0.0 3.1 0.0 1.6 125,511,17841.7 1.637.512.1 7.1 Equatorial Guinea $398,035 9.2 1.320.011.857.7 $760 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $22,303100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 335,80311.8 2.012.4 5.768.2 Ethiopia $24,530,58854.7 1.227.413.8 2.9 $1,655,75242.7 0.041.911.9 3.4 $2,946,30691.4 0.0 6.6 0.0 2.0 23,814,54452.5 1.528.913.0 4.0 Gabon $3,837,08355.9 2.221.5 4.915.6 $355,04656.9 0.042.8 0.0 0.3 $993,24627.1 0.072.9 0.0 0.0 4,227,14039.7 3.327.8 5.323.9 Gambia, The $5,833,14749.0 2.331.0 8.9 8.9 $550,66053.4 0.018.415.912.2 $586,53493.4 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.2 8,800,53833.2 3.441.0 8.214.2 Ghana $33,198,99459.2 4.416.8 5.713.9 $3,929,11836.7 0.038.216.1 8.9 $360,57533.9 0.066.1 0.0 0.0 52,594,69641.1 7.720.3 6.524.4 Guinea $5,877,83348.6 1.935.3
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Comments/fcc98055/213340-1.pdf
  • at 14 (I'Only customers of a service provider or manufacturer . . . should have standing to initiate a fast-track inquiry or an informal or formal complaint under Section 255.") 26 For instance,the Commission has procedures regarding bona fide complaints, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.720, and has the right to consolidate complaints involving the same issue, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.227(a) (providing for the consolidation of cases involving the same applicant or substantially the same issues in formal hearing proceedings). The Commission should afford the same protections here. 13 IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons,CTIA respectfully requests that the Commission adopt rules governing Section 255 consistent with the proposals made herein and in CTIA's Comments. Respectfully submitted, CELLULAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOFIATION .
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • in the Local Multipoint Distribution Service, will be entitled to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications only if: (1) * * * * * * * * (d) Private operational fixed point-to-point microwave applications for authorization under this part will be entitled to comparative consideration with one or more conflicting applications in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 1.227(b)(4) of this chapter. (e) * * * (f) * * * (1) * * * (2) The amendment resolves frequency conflicts with authorized stations or other pending applications which would otherwise require resolution by hearing or by comparative evaluation pursuant to Sec. 101.51 provided that the amendment does not create new or additional frequency conflicts; * * * * *
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001717.doc
  • the call sign KNKK276 (notifications filed May 13, 1999). CN Wan reconsideration at 3. Public Notice, Application Requirements for Stations in the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service (Mimeo 0125, Oct. 7, 1985). See generally 47 C.F.R. � 101.105. Id. Essentially, each day is a new filing ``window'' for Part 94 Private Operational Fixed Microwave Service stations. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.227(b)(4). See, e.g., Order, In the Matter of Applications of Samuel Ferguson To Operate a Two-Way Mobile System In the San Diego, California AREA On the Freqencies 861.3500/816.3500 MHz, and A to Z Enterprises, Inc. To Operate Operate a Two-Way Mobile System In the San Diego, California AREA On the Freqencies 861.3500/816.3500 MHz, 15 FCC Rcd 4363 (Chief, Public Safety and
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4517A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4517A1.pdf
  • ``Clear Channel.'' Specifically, YMC submitted the following petitions on October 28, 2005: KSJO(FM) Petition to Deny; KYLD/KMEL Petition to Deny, and KNEW(AM) Petition to Deny. YMC's Petitions, the Weeks Petition, and the informal objections raise substantially the same or overlapping issues. For administrative efficiency, we consolidate the pleadings on our own motion and address the issues accordingly. 47 C.F.R. � 1.227(a). Clear Channel filed an Opposition to Petition to Deny KSJO(FM)'s renewal application (``KSJO Opposition''), and a Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny the license renewals of KMEL(FM), KNEW(AM), and KYLD(FM) (the ``Consolidated Opposition'') on November 28, 2005. YMC filed replies to the KSJO Opposition and the Consolidated Opposition on December 23, 2005. YMC asserts that Clear Channel's Oppositions were untimely