FCC Web Documents citing 73.3513

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-690A1.txt
  • should be referred to Michelle Bennett or Gail Glasser at 202-418-1995. Amendment to Long-Form Application. By 7:00 p.m. ET on April 26, 2000, winning bidders must submit any necessary minor amendments to their previously filed long-form application(s) for markets in which they were the winning high bidder. Long-form amendments (in hard copies) must be filed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �73.3513, with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. Amendments must be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, TW B204, 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20554. Winning bidders filing amendments may also send a courtesy copy of the amendment to Shaun Maher, Room 2-A820, at the same street address. In accordance with Commission rules, winning
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1092A1.txt
  • the processing of the application. This requirement is to facilitate compliance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA). , by calling the FCC's Forms Distribution Center 800-418-FORM (3676), or from fax-on-demand by dialing (202) 418-0177. Applications, amendments thereto, and related statements of fact required by the Commission must be submitted with original signatures pursuant to 47 CFR � 73.3513(c) and 21.6(d) at the time of filing. Please address any questions concerning this Public Notice to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 888-CALLFCC (888-225-5322). $ ��PNG �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ��� %�o� �� � �a�% Tf(c) U~��Uy�Ӛ�o=�c� {�YAD ���Zv�}�YAD e/�,�-�%E9 ^1�J 2�� bʆPh=f 8H�]}��`��2@ ���'����X�t�p�O � ��$��>��� -�m�``�Q(q P� ���e D �_�� p�/]b|?�O� V��Jõ tXT���e� 2)�V``� (c)}�l�tmE...bϡ
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1969A1.txt
  • recognized by the appropriate state, the staff properly exercised its discretion in considering the evidence concerning BOL's apparent failure to incorporate prior to filing its application. We will therefore deny BOL's petition for reconsideration. BOL Informal Objection/Blue Lake Application. BOL argues that Blue Lake's application is defective and should be dismissed because it was not signed in accordance with Section 73.3513 of the Commission's rules. Section 73.3513(a)(3) of the Commission's rules clearly states that a filed application of a corporation, such as Blue Lake, ``must be signed . . . [by] a member who is an officer. . . .'' A review of the record indicates that Blue Lake's captioned application was signed by ``James R. Powers,'' who identifies himself as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1949A1.txt
  • have defaulted and will be subject to default payments under 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2104(g) and 1.2109(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2110(c)(3). Designated entities are defined as small businesses, businesses owned by members of minority groups and/or women, and rural telephone companies. 47 C.F.R. � 1.2110(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(b). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.65. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new entrant bidding credit, such information must be clearly stated in the bidder's amendment. See Liberty Productions, 16 FCC Rcd at 12078. Events occurring after the short-form filing deadline, such as the acquisition of attributable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2248A1.txt
  • �� 1.2104(g) and 1.2109(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2110(c)(3). Designated entities are defined as small businesses, businesses owned by members of minority groups and/or women, and rural telephone companies. 47 C.F.R. � 1.2110(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(b); see also NCE Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 6700. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. After the filing window has closed, the auction system will not permit applicants to make certain changes, such as legal classification or NCE identification. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.65. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new entrant bidding credit, such information must be clearly stated in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2291A1.txt
  • 74.703. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(j); 47 C.F.R. � 73.5005(d); Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15944 (1998) (``Broadcast Auction First Report and Order''). See 47 U.S.C. � 8; 47 C.F.R. �� 0.401(b), 1.1104, 1.1109, 1.1110, 73.5005(d), 73.3512, 73.3513, 73.3514. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5005. Non-mutually exclusive applicants filing long form applications may propose minor changes to the technical proposals specified in their previous filing. However, such non-mutually exclusive applicants may not specify in their application a change in the proposed facility that constitutes a major change from the facility specified during the earlier auction filing window, nor may
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1938A1.txt
  • have no applicability to Commission license renewal applications, which are not contracts. Second, the Commission has generally declined to consider issues of a licensee's compliance with the requirements of state corporate law where, as here, no challenge has been made before a state court. Third, Hoosier has not demonstrated why this information could not have been provided earlier. Fourth, Section 73.3513 of the Rules governs the signing of broadcast applications. Carmel/Clay has complied with these requirements. Accordingly, we reject this claim. Additionally, Hoosier presents no specific information concerning the ex parte and coercion allegations. It fails to provide us with such information as the dates of the alleged contacts, the parties, or the substance of the contacts. We find that further
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1939A1.txt
  • no reference to WEEM-FM or its license renewal; South Madison, through its attorney, may have engaged in ex parte contacts with the Commission; the Commission's employees have been coerced into renewing WEEM-FM's license by counsel for South Madison; the Commission's electronic filing system hindered Hoosier's ability to file its Time-Share Application; electronic filing does not allow for actual signatures; Section 73.3513 of the Rules required South Madison's application to have been signed by a person other than the individual who signed it; and South Madison engaged in ``many'' unauthorized transfers of control of WEEM-FM. Because Hoosier's untimely showing as to these matters is unsupported, unspecific and based upon speculation and surmise, we cannot conclude that consideration of these allegations would be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1940A1.txt
  • Sherman Antitrust Act - Market Allocation, Request for Review and Declaratory Ruling - Ex Parte Applicant Communications, Motion To Compel - Request For Discovery, Petition To Deny - Request for Moratorium,'' filed September 20, 2004. Public Notice of the Staff Decision was released on March 7, 2005 Public Notice, Broadcast Actions, Report No. 45935 (March 7, 2005). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3527. WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub. nom Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied 383 U.S. 967 (1966)(``WWIZ, Inc.''); see also National Association of Broadcasters, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 24414, 24415 (2003). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(c). 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1952A1.txt
  • applicant to attempt to negotiate an agreement with the incumbent licensee prior to filing a time-share application. The staff, of course, is bound by Commission precedent. WJMU(FM) Renewal Application. Signature Requirement. RB argues in its November 1, 2005, ``Petition to Dismiss'' that MU's renewal application is defective and should be dismissed because it was not signed in accordance with Section 73.3513 of the Rules. Section 73.3513(a)(4) of the Rules requires that an application of an unincorporated association, such as MU, ``must be signed . . . [by] a member who is an officer. . . .'' A review of the record indicates that MU's captioned application was signed by ``Christopher S. Bullock,'' who identifies himself as ``General Manager.'' Further review of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2382A1.txt
  • Petition with respect to the WEZG(FM) License Application, Hoosier and Hensley reiterate arguments previously made regarding John Robinson improperly signing the license renewal application and the unauthorized transfer of control of WEZG(FM) to Charles Anderson. It also argues that the WEZG(FM) public inspection file is deficient and that the station had not purchased any EAS equipment. Application Signature Requirement. Section 73.3513(a)(3) of the Rules requires that an application filed by a corporation must be signed an officer. Both of the Licensee's originally-filed Applications had the name of John Robinson in the space for the name of the individual certifying the application on behalf of the applicant, providing his title as ``General Manager.'' Mr. Robinson is not an officer of the Licensee.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2835A1.txt
  • The Station is licensed to M.J. Phillips Communications, Inc., Debtor-in-Possession (``DIP''). The first application (the ``DIP Application'') was signed by M. John Phillips, President of DIP. The second application (the ``Phillips Application'') was filed by Joann Nicola Lutz DiStefano Phillips (``Phillips''). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the Phillips Application and grant the DIP Application. Signature Requirement. Section 73.3513(a)(3) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') states that an application filed by a corporation, such as the Licensee, ``must be signed . . . [by] an officer. . . .'' The Phillips Application was signed by ``Joann Nicola Lutz DiStefano Phillips,'' who identifies herself as ``Owner'' in an FCC Form 323 Ownership Report filed concurrently with her WJJL(AM) license renewal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3087A1.txt
  • 2007). See 47 U.S.C. � 309(j); 47 C.F.R. � 73.5005(d); Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15944 (1998) (``Broadcast Auction First Report and Order''). See 47 U.S.C. � 8; 47 C.F.R. �� 0.401(b), 1.1104, 1.1109, 1.1110, 73.5005(d), 73.3512, 73.3513, 73.3514. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5005. Non-mutually exclusive applicants filing long form applications may propose minor changes to the technical proposals specified in their previous filing. However, such non-mutually exclusive applicants may not specify in their application a change in the proposed facility that constitutes a major change from the facility specified during the earlier auction filing window, nor may
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3515A1.txt
  • RB filed its ``Petition to Rescind Grant and Dismiss Application,'' arguing that the grant should be overturned and the Renewal Application dismissed because the application was filed 19 days after the WBFH(FM) license had expired and because the application was not signed by a ``duly elected or appointed official as may be competent to do so,'' as required by Section 73.3513 of the Rules. On February 12, 2007, the staff rescinded the grant of the Renewal Application and returned this application proceeding to pending status. III. DISCUSSION 6. Both petitions to deny and informal objections must, pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Act, provide properly supported allegations of fact that, if true, would establish a substantial and material question of fact
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3793A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3793A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3793A2.txt
  • controlling interest are in default on any payment for any Commission construction permit or license or are delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency as of the short-form application filing deadline, the applicant will not be eligible to participate in the auction. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(a)(2)(x). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(a)(2)(v). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105. An applicant must not submit application-specific material through the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 47 C.F.R. � 1.65. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new entrant bidding credit, such information must be clearly stated in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1944A1.txt
  • 14, 2008). . See 47 C.F.R. � 73.622. 47 C.F.R. Ch. 1, Subpart I. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1305-1.1319. See 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Appendix C. See infra Section IV.A.1. ``Simultaneous Multiple Round Auction.'' See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(b); see also NCE Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 6700. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.65. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new entrant bidding credit, such information must be clearly stated in the bidder's amendment. See Liberty Productions, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 12061, 12078 (2001). Events occurring after the short-form filing deadline, such
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-209A1.txt
  • hearing to determine the accuracy and truthfulness of New Bohemia's certifications. In the alternative, Plus seeks reconsideration of the selection of New Bohemia as a tentative selectee, arguing that the selection should be rescinded pending resolution of a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Plus seeking reinstatement of its defective application. Discussion. Certification by Corporate Officer. Plus is correct that Section 73.3513 of the Rules requires that an application filed by a corporation must be certified by a corporate officer, and that Michael Richards, who certified the Application, is a director of New Bohemia and not an officer. Plus, however, has cited no case in which the Commission has denied an application because it was certified by a corporate director. The two
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-810A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-810A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-810A2.txt
  • � 1.2110(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(b); see also NCE Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 6700. We reiterate that, even if an applicant's short-form application is dismissed, the applicant would remain subject to the anti-collusion rule until the down-payment deadline, which will be established after the auction closes. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of this confirmation page. 47 C.F.R. � 1.65. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new entrant bidding credit, such information must be clearly stated in the bidder's amendment. See Liberty Productions, 16 FCC Rcd at 12078.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-810A2_Rcd.pdf
  • 47 C.F.R. � 1.2110(a). 12147 C.F.R. � 1.2105(b); see also NCE Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 6700. 122We reiterate that, even if an applicant's short-form application is dismissed, the applicant would remain subject to the anti-collusion rule until the down-payment deadline, which will be established after the auction closes. 123See47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 4470 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-810 73.If an applicant wishes to make permissible minor changes to its short-form application, such changes should be made electronically to its short-formapplication using the FCC Auction System whenever possible. Applicants are reminded to click on the SUBMIT button in the FCC Auction System for the changes to be submitted and considered by the Commission.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1046A1.txt
  • Hampton's Application do not warrant denial of the Application. Defects in the Curative Amendment. Signature of Officer of the Corporation. Fountain also argues that the Amendment is defective because it is signed by Bobbie Fisher, who is identified as ``Assistant Secretary,'' but is not disclosed as an officer of the corporation in Section II, part 6.a. of the Amendment. Section 73.3513(a) of the Rules requires that an amendment to an application be signed by an officer if the applicant is a corporation. Fountain correctly notes that Bobbie Fisher is not properly identified as being a Hampton officer. However, Hampton has provided minutes for the meeting of its Board in which Ms. Fisher was elected as Assistant Secretary. We find these records
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-130A1.txt
  • on the agency by filing a series of unauthorized applications with the intent of taking control of the Station from BRPN. The fraud component of this case is exacerbated by several ministerial errors by the Commission staff, i.e., the inadvertent processing of applications signed only by an engineering consultant rather than a principal of the ``applicant,'' as required by Section 73.3513 of the Rules. The status quo in this proceeding, i.e., Ethics having gained control of the Station without prior Commission consent based on unauthorized filings, is manifestly unconscionable. On this basis, we review the grant of the Modification Applications and the License Application. Substantive Issues. Control of the Authorization. Section 310(d) of the Act, states: ``No construction permit or station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1958A1.txt
  • 730 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (holding that the Commission must explain its disparate treatment of contemporaneous cases with similar underlying facts). Plus also argues that Community Television, Inc., Hearing Designation Order, MM Docket No. 86-45, FR Doc. 86-3253, (MMB Feb. 7, 1986) (``Community Television''), supports its argument that the New Bohemia Application should be designated for hearing for compliance with Section 73.3513 of the Rules (47 C.F.R. � 73.3513). Regents of the University of California, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 12891, 12892 (WTB 2002) (dismissing petition for reconsideration as repetitious) citing Mandeville Broadcasting Corp. and Infinity Broadcasting of Los Angeles, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1667, 1667 (1988); M&M Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5100, 5100 (1987) (dismissing petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2008A1.txt
  • reiterate that, even if an applicant's short-form application is dismissed, the applicant would remain subject to the communication prohibitions of 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(c) until the down-payment deadline, which will be established after the auction closes. The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of this confirmation page. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.65, 1.2105(b). For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new entrant bidding credit, such information must be clearly stated in the bidder's amendment. See Liberty Productions, 16 FCC Rcd at 12078. Events occurring after the application filing deadline, such as the acquisition of attributable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2008A1_Rcd.pdf
  • that, even if an applicant's short-form application is dismissed, the applicant would remain subject to the communication prohibitions of 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(c) until the down-payment deadline, which will be established after the auction closes. 122 The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of this confirmation page. 123See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 14902 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-2008 amendment.124 Changes that cause a loss of or reduction in the percentage of bidding credit specified on the originally submitted application must be reported immediately.125 If an amendment reporting substantial changes is a "major amendment," as defined by section 1.2105, the major amendment will not be accepted and may result in the dismissal of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2253A1.txt
  • reiterate that, even if an applicant's short-form application is dismissed, the applicant would remain subject to the communication prohibitions of 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(c) until the down-payment deadline, which will be established after the auction closes. The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of this confirmation page. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.65, 1.2105(b). See also Part 1 Procedural Amendments Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 523 � 8. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5007 (a). See also Rural First Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 1611-1614 �� 57-63. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2253A1_Rcd.pdf
  • submit a letter, briefly summarizing the changes, by e-mail to auction91@fcc.gov. The e-mail summarizing the changes must include a subject or caption referring to Auction 91 and the name of the applicant. The Bureaus request that parties format any attachments to e-mail as Adobe� Acrobat� (pdf) or Microsoft� Word documents. 131See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 132 47 C.F.R. �� 1.65, 1.2105(b). See also Part 1 Procedural Amendments Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 523 � 8. 133See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5007 (a). See alsoRural First Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 1611-1614 �� 57-63. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-524A1.txt
  • 2010) (``Metro Comments''). See Revision of Procedures Governing Amendments to FM Table of Allotments and Changes of Community of License in the Radio Broadcast Services, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14218-19 (2006), recon. pending. The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of this confirmation page. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 47 C.F.R. � 1.65. For example, if ownership changes result in the attribution of new interest holders that affect the applicant's qualifications for a new entrant bidding credit, such information must be clearly stated in the bidder's amendment. See Liberty Productions, 16 FCC Rcd at 12078. Events occurring after the application filing deadline, such as the acquisition of attributable interests
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-702A1.txt
  • that in October 2008 Saga's local engineer Justin Gorodetzer verified the actual height of Saga's antennas to the tower manager; ``[t]hus, [Finger Lakes argues] the false certifications were made knowingly.'' Finally, Finger Lakes contends that Saga's willful false statements are subject to appropriate administrative sanctions, including revocation of the Station's license, pursuant to Section 312(a)(i) of the Act and Section 73.3513(d) of the Rules. 9. In Opposition, Saga acknowledges that the location of the lower antenna was listed inaccurately in the granted September 10, 2008, minor change application and the License Application. Saga states, however, that ``the error was corrected by dismissing the [License] [A]pplication and suspending operations'' of the Station. Specifically, Saga claims that the error in the License Application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1605A1.txt
  • a dramatic coup. We also note the special circumstances of this case. By virtue of the settlement agreement, KBOO's application is, procedurally, uniquely positioned for a grant because as a singleton it would not preclude grant of another application in the MX Group. Certification Defects. CVEF argues that the December 2010 Amendment suffers from certification defects, a violation of Section 73.3513 of the Rules, which requires corporations' applications to be signed by an officer. Specifically, CVEF alleges that the December 2010 Amendment was signed by Kurt Lauer, who does not appear in either the November or December Amendment as an officer of the corporation. KBOO avers that it did not violate Section 73.3513 because Mr. Lauer was an officer at the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1845A1.txt
  • reiterate that, even if an applicant's short-form application is dismissed, the applicant would remain subject to the communication prohibitions of 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(c) until the down-payment deadline, which will be established after the auction closes. The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of this confirmation page. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. We remind each applicant of its duty to continuously maintain the accuracy of information submitted in its auction application. See, e.g., Vermont Telephone Company, Inc., DA 11-1536, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (EB rel. Oct. 14, 2011) (finding Vermont Telephone Company was apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $34,000 for failing to submit accurate bidding credit information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1845A1_Rcd.pdf
  • deadline). 125We reiterate that, even if an applicant's short-form application is dismissed, the applicant would remain subject to the communication prohibitions of 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(c) until the down-payment deadline, which will be established after the auction closes. 126The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of this confirmation page. 127See47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 128We remind each applicant of its duty to continuously maintain the accuracy ofinformation submitted in its auction application. See, e.g., Vermont Telephone Company, Inc., DA 11-1536, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture(EB rel. Oct. 14, 2011) (finding Vermont Telephone Company was apparently liable for forfeiture in the (continued....) 15507 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-1845 becomes aware of the need for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-56A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-56A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-56A1.txt
  • such funds as are necessary to bring its total deposits up to twenty percent (20%) of its net high bid. If Unity Broadcasters needs to submit an amendment to its previously filed long-form application (File No. BPH-19930208MC), it must do so within 30 days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, in accordance with 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513 and with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. The amendment may not constitute a major change from either the technical or legal proposal specified in the previously filed long-form application. Any amendment shall include, to the extent not already provided by Unity, the exhibits mandated by 47 C.F.R. �� 73.5005(a), 1.2107(d), 1.2110(j), and 1.2112(a) and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-69A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-69A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-69A1.txt
  • DIRECTED to proceed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2104, 1.2109, and 73.5004, and paragraph 86 of the Broadcast First Report and Order. If Copeland needs to submit an amendment to its previously filed long-form application, it must do so within 30 days of the date of release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, in accordance with 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513 and with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. The amendment may not constitute a major change from either the technical or legal proposal specified in the previously filed long-form application. Any amendment shall include, to the extent not already provided by Copeland, the exhibits mandated by 47 C.F.R. �� 73.5005(a), 1.2107(d), 1.2110(j),and 1.2112(a) and (b).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A2.txt
  • for an unincorporated association, by a member who is an officer; if a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws of the particular jurisdiction. Counsel may sign the form for his or her client, but only in cases of the licensee's disability or absence from the United States. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. Because the form is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98- 43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23064 (1998). G. The licensee should provide all information requested by this form. Defective or incomplete forms will not be accepted. Inadvertently accepted forms are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A3.txt
  • for an unincorporated association, by a member who is an officer; if a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws of the particular jurisdiction. Counsel may sign the form for his or her client, but only in cases of the licensee's disability or absence from the United States. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. Because the form is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98- 43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23064 (1998). G. The licensee should provide all information requested by this form. Defective or incomplete forms will not be accepted. Inadvertently accepted forms are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A4.txt
  • for an unincorporated association, by a member who is an officer; if a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws of the particular jurisdiction. Counsel may sign the form for his or her client, but only in cases of the licensee's disability or absence from the United States. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. Because the form is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98- 43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23064 (1998). G. The licensee should provide all information requested by this form. Defective or incomplete forms will not be accepted. Inadvertently accepted forms are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A5.txt
  • for an unincorporated association, by a member who is an officer; if a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws of the particular jurisdiction. Counsel may sign the form for his or her client, but only in cases of the licensee's disability or absence from the United States. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. Because the form is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98- 43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23064 (1998). G. The licensee should provide all information requested by this form. Defective or incomplete forms will not be accepted. Inadvertently accepted forms are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A6.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A6.txt
  • for an unincorporated association, by a member who is an officer; if a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws of the particular jurisdiction. Counsel may sign the form for his or her client, but only in cases of the licensee's disability or absence from the United States. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. Because the form is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98- 43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23064 (1998). G. The licensee should provide all information requested by this form. Defective or incomplete forms will not be accepted. Inadvertently accepted forms are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A7.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-192A7.txt
  • for an unincorporated association, by a member who is an officer; if a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws of the particular jurisdiction. Counsel may sign the form for his or her client, but only in cases of the licensee's disability or absence from the United States. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. Because the form is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98- 43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056, 23064 (1998). G. The licensee should provide all information requested by this form. Defective or incomplete forms will not be accepted. Inadvertently accepted forms are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-35A1.txt
  • applications. For the following reasons, we grant the NTHR Petition to the extent indicated; we dismiss the WTL Objection as moot; and we grant the Radio and Iglesia applications and dismiss those of Sonido and NTHR. II. DISCUSSION 2. NTHR Petition to Deny. In its Petition, NTHR alleges that the captioned Sonido application is unsigned, and thus, pursuant to Section 73.3513 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), invalid. NTHR also argues that Sonido ``is not entitled to a point for established community presence because it has not submitted clear and concise documentation required to support its claim for the point.'' According to General Instruction J of the FCC Form 318, the LPFM application form, ``if the application is filed electronically, the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • the applicant's disability or absence from the United States. In such cases, counsel must separately set forth why the application is not signed by the client. In addition, as to any matter stated on the basis of belief instead of personal knowledge, counsel shall separately set forth the reasons for believing that such statements are true. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3513. M. The Commission has suspended the requirement to file a Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Model Program (Form 396-A) as part of this application. However, a Notice of Proposed Rule making is currently outstanding regarding the obligation of stations to make reasonable good-faith efforts to seek out qualified applicants regardless of race or gender for vacancies. This proceeding may result in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/amfmrule.html
  • candidates for public office. [579]TEXT [580]PDF 73.1941 Equal opportunities. [581]TEXT [582]PDF 73.1942 Candidate rates. [583]TEXT [584]PDF 73.1943 Political file. [585]TEXT [586]PDF 73.1944 Reasonable access. [587]TEXT [588]PDF 73.2080 Equal employment opportunities (EEO). [ [589]Media Bureau's EEO Page ] [590]TEXT [591]PDF 73.3500 Application and report forms. [592]TEXT [593]PDF 73.3511 Applications required. [594]TEXT [595]PDF 73.3512 Where to file; number of copies. [596]TEXT [597]PDF 73.3513 Signing of applications. [598]TEXT [599]PDF 73.3514 Content of applications. [600]TEXT [601]PDF 73.3516 Specification of facilities. [602]TEXT [603]PDF 73.3517 Contingent applications. [604]TEXT [605]PDF 73.3518 Inconsistent or conflicting applications. [606]TEXT [607]PDF 73.3519 Repetitious applications. [608]TEXT [609]PDF 73.3520 Multiple applications. [610]TEXT [611]PDF 73.3521 Mutually exclusive applications for low power television, television translators and television booster stations. [612]TEXT [613]PDF 73.3522 Amendment of applications. [614]TEXT
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992153.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992153.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992153.txt
  • bidders should be referred to Michelle Bennett or Gail Glasser at 202-418-1995. Amendment to Long-Form Application. By 7:00 p.m. ET on November 12, 1999, winning bidders must submit any necessary minor amendments to their previously-filed long-form application(s) for markets in which they were the winning high bidder. Long-form amendments (in hard copies) must be filed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �73.3513, with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. Amendments must be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, TW B204, 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20554. Winning bidders filing amendments to FM and FM translator long-form applications may also send a courtesy copy of the amendment to James Crutchfield, Room 2-B450, at the same street
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc980194.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc980194.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc980194.wp
  • inconsistency, a deficiency letter will be issued affording the applicant an opportunity to correct the defect, omission or inconsistency. Amendments may be filed pursuant to the deficiency letter curing any defect, omission or inconsistency identified by the Commission, or to make minor modifications to the application, or pursuant to � 1.65. Such amendments should be filed in accordance with � 73.3513. If a petition to deny has been filed, the amendment shall be served on the petitioner. (3) Subject to the provisions of �� 73.3571, 73.3572 and 73.3573, deficiencies, omissions or inconsistencies in long-form applications may not be cured by major amendment. The filing of major amendments to long-form applications is not permitted. An application will be considered to be newly
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/27/releases/da992154.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/27/releases/da992154.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/27/releases/da992154.txt
  • referred to Michelle Bennett or Gail Glasser at 202-418-1995. Amendment to Long-Form Application. By 7:00 p.m. ET on November 12, 1999, the winning bidder must submit any necessary minor amendments to their previously filed, long-form application for the market in which they were the winning high bidder. Long-form amendments (in hard copies) must be filed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �73.3513, with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. Amendments must be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, TW B204, 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554. If the winning bidder amends its FM application, it may also send a courtesy copy of the amendment to James Crutchfield, Room 2-B450, at the same street address. In
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/da000690.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/da000690.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/da000690.txt
  • should be referred to Michelle Bennett or Gail Glasser at 202-418-1995. Amendment to Long-Form Application. By 7:00 p.m. ET on April 26, 2000, winning bidders must submit any necessary minor amendments to their previously filed long-form application(s) for markets in which they were the winning high bidder. Long-form amendments (in hard copies) must be filed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �73.3513, with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. Amendments must be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, TW B204, 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20554. Winning bidders filing amendments may also send a courtesy copy of the amendment to Shaun Maher, Room 2-A820, at the same street address. In accordance with Commission rules, winning
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc980194.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc980194.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc980194.wp
  • inconsistency, a deficiency letter will be issued affording the applicant an opportunity to correct the defect, omission or inconsistency. Amendments may be filed pursuant to the deficiency letter curing any defect, omission or inconsistency identified by the Commission, or to make minor modifications to the application, or pursuant to � 1.65. Such amendments should be filed in accordance with � 73.3513. If a petition to deny has been filed, the amendment shall be served on the petitioner. (3) Subject to the provisions of �� 73.3571, 73.3572 and 73.3573, deficiencies, omissions or inconsistencies in long-form applications may not be cured by major amendment. The filing of major amendments to long-form applications is not permitted. An application will be considered to be newly
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • the applicant's disability or absence from the United States. In such cases, counsel must separately set forth why the application is not signed by the client. In addition, as to any matter stated on the basis of belief instead of personal knowledge, counsel shall separately set forth the reasons for believing that such statements are true. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3513. M. The Commission has suspended the requirement to file a Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Model Program (Form 396-A) as part of this application. However, a Notice of Proposed Rule making is currently outstanding regarding the obligation of stations to make reasonable good-faith efforts to seek out qualified applicants regardless of race or gender for vacancies. This proceeding may result in
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99226.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99226.txt
  • rather than on the basis of its more expansive, and therefore more preclusive, 54 dBu contour. 25. As a preliminary matter, Greater Media's filing, an exhibit submitted by Greater Media's counsel, is patently defective. Any "supplement" to its application must be in the form of an amendment and signed by an officer of the corporate applicant. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. Regardless of Greater Media's characterization of the filing, however, the supplement is, in fact, a further supplement to its application for review. It advances new legal arguments to show that the staff erred in denying Greater Media's Section 73.215 waiver requests, and therefore, that Commission review of the Bureau's decision is warranted. Thus, the filing continues Greater Media's pattern of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fc00019a.doc
  • Section 73.1650-International agreements. Section 73.1660-Acceptability of broadcast transmitters. Section 73.1665-Main transmitters. Section 73.1692-Broadcast station construction near or installation on an AM broadcast tower. Section 73.1745-Unauthorized operation. Section 73.1750-Discontinuance of operation. Section 73.1920-Personal attacks. Section 73.1940-Legally qualified candidates for public office. Section 73.1941-Equal opportunities. Section 73.1943-Political file. Section 73.1944-Reasonable access. Section 73.3511-Applications required. Section 73.3512-Where to file; number of copies. Section 73.3513-Signing of applications. Section 73.3514-Content of applications. Section 73.3516-Specification of facilities. Section 73.3517-Contingent applications. Section 73.3518-Inconsistent or conflicting applications. Section 73.3519-Repetitious applications. Section 73.3520-Multiple applications. Section 73.3525-Agreements for removing application conflicts. Section 73.3539-Application for renewal of license. Section 73.3542-Application for emergency authorization. Section 73.3545-Application for permit to deliver programs to foreign stations. Section 73.3550-Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1999/da992153.doc
  • bidders should be referred to Michelle Bennett or Gail Glasser at 202-418-1995. Amendment to Long-Form Application. By 7:00 p.m. ET on November 12, 1999, winning bidders must submit any necessary minor amendments to their previously-filed long-form application(s) for markets in which they were the winning high bidder. Long-form amendments (in hard copies) must be filed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �73.3513, with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. Amendments must be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, TW B204, 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20554. Winning bidders filing amendments to FM and FM translator long-form applications may also send a courtesy copy of the amendment to James Crutchfield, Room 2-B450, at the same street
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1999/da992154.doc
  • referred to Michelle Bennett or Gail Glasser at 202-418-1995. Amendment to Long-Form Application. By 7:00 p.m. ET on November 12, 1999, the winning bidder must submit any necessary minor amendments to their previously filed, long-form application for the market in which they were the winning high bidder. Long-form amendments (in hard copies) must be filed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �73.3513, with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. Amendments must be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, TW B204, 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554. If the winning bidder amends its FM application, it may also send a courtesy copy of the amendment to James Crutchfield, Room 2-B450, at the same street address. In
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da000690.doc
  • should be referred to Michelle Bennett or Gail Glasser at 202-418-1995. Amendment to Long-Form Application. By 7:00 p.m. ET on April 26, 2000, winning bidders must submit any necessary minor amendments to their previously filed long-form application(s) for markets in which they were the winning high bidder. Long-form amendments (in hard copies) must be filed in accordance with 47 C.F.R. �73.3513, with the same number of copies as the originally filed long-form application. Amendments must be submitted to the Office of the Secretary, TW B204, 445 12th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20554. Winning bidders filing amendments may also send a courtesy copy of the amendment to Shaun Maher, Room 2-A820, at the same street address. In accordance with Commission rules, winning
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form301/301.pdf
  • for an unincorporated association, by a member who is an officer; if a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws of the particular jurisdiction. Counsel may sign the application for his or her client, but only in cases of the applicant's disability or absence from the United States. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3513. If the application is filed electronically, the 3 signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-43, 13 FCC Rcd 23,056, 23,064 (1998). INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION A. Item 1: Applicant Name. The name of the applicant must be stated exactly in Item 1.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form302-FM/302fmjune02.pdf
  • the applicant's disability or absence from the United States. In such cases, counsel must separately set forth why the application is not signed by the client. In addition, as to any matter stated on the basis of belief instead of personal knowledge, counsel shall separately set forth the reasons for believing that such statements are true. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3513. If the application is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-43, 13 FCC Rcd 23,056, 23,064 (1998), � 17. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION A.Item 1: Applicant Name. Applicants should use only those state abbreviations approved by the U.S. Postal
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form316/316.pdf
  • Thus, a "No" response to any of the certification items will not cause the immediate dismissal of the application provided that an appropriate exhibit is submitted. L. In cases involving voluntary transfers and either multiple transferors or transferees, the signature of each transferor and/or transferee is required. Voluntary assignment applications require the signature of the assignor. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3513(a). Depending on the nature of the applicant, the application should be signed as follows: for a sole proprietor, personally; for a partnership, by a general partner; for a corporation, by an officer; for an unincorporated association, by a member who is an officer; for a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form319/319Fill.pdf
  • the United States of the applicant's legally authorized representative. In such cases, counsel must separately set forth why the application is not signed by such representative. In addition, as to any matter stated on the basis of belief instead of personal knowledge, counsel shall separately set forth the reasons for believing that such statements are true. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3513. If the application is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-43, 13 FCC Rcd 23,056, 23,064 (1998), � 17. SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION. A.Question 1: Legal Name of the Applicant. The name of the applicant must be stated exactly in Question
• http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form340/340.pdf
  • school superintendent, officer of the school board, or a university officer); if a governmental entity, by such duly elected or appointed official as is competent under the laws of the particular jurisdiction. Counsel may sign the application for his or her client, but only in cases of the applicant's disability or absence from the United States. See 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3513. If the application is filed electronically, the signature will consist of the electronic equivalent of the typed name of the individual. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 98-43, 13 FCC Rcd 23,056, 23,064 (1998). INSTRUCTIONS FOR SECTION I � GENERAL INFORMATION Question 1: Applicant Name, etc. The name of the applicant stated in Section I shall be the
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1938A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1938A1.pdf
  • have no applicability to Commission license renewal applications, which are not contracts. Second, the Commission has generally declined to consider issues of a licensee's compliance with the requirements of state corporate law where, as here, no challenge has been made before a state court. Third, Hoosier has not demonstrated why this information could not have been provided earlier. Fourth, Section 73.3513 of the Rules governs the signing of broadcast applications. Carmel/Clay has complied with these requirements. Accordingly, we reject this claim. Additionally, Hoosier presents no specific information concerning the ex parte and coercion allegations. It fails to provide us with such information as the dates of the alleged contacts, the parties, or the substance of the contacts. We find that further
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1939A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1939A1.pdf
  • no reference to WEEM-FM or its license renewal; South Madison, through its attorney, may have engaged in ex parte contacts with the Commission; the Commission's employees have been coerced into renewing WEEM-FM's license by counsel for South Madison; the Commission's electronic filing system hindered Hoosier's ability to file its Time-Share Application; electronic filing does not allow for actual signatures; Section 73.3513 of the Rules required South Madison's application to have been signed by a person other than the individual who signed it; and South Madison engaged in ``many'' unauthorized transfers of control of WEEM-FM. Because Hoosier's untimely showing as to these matters is unsupported, unspecific and based upon speculation and surmise, we cannot conclude that consideration of these allegations would be
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1940A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1940A1.pdf
  • Sherman Antitrust Act - Market Allocation, Request for Review and Declaratory Ruling - Ex Parte Applicant Communications, Motion To Compel - Request For Discovery, Petition To Deny - Request for Moratorium,'' filed September 20, 2004. Public Notice of the Staff Decision was released on March 7, 2005 Public Notice, Broadcast Actions, Report No. 45935 (March 7, 2005). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3527. WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub. nom Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied 383 U.S. 967 (1966)(``WWIZ, Inc.''); see also National Association of Broadcasters, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 24414, 24415 (2003). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(c). 47 C.F.R.
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1952A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1952A1.pdf
  • applicant to attempt to negotiate an agreement with the incumbent licensee prior to filing a time-share application. The staff, of course, is bound by Commission precedent. WJMU(FM) Renewal Application. Signature Requirement. RB argues in its November 1, 2005, ``Petition to Dismiss'' that MU's renewal application is defective and should be dismissed because it was not signed in accordance with Section 73.3513 of the Rules. Section 73.3513(a)(4) of the Rules requires that an application of an unincorporated association, such as MU, ``must be signed . . . [by] a member who is an officer. . . .'' A review of the record indicates that MU's captioned application was signed by ``Christopher S. Bullock,'' who identifies himself as ``General Manager.'' Further review of
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2382A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2382A1.pdf
  • Petition with respect to the WEZG(FM) License Application, Hoosier and Hensley reiterate arguments previously made regarding John Robinson improperly signing the license renewal application and the unauthorized transfer of control of WEZG(FM) to Charles Anderson. It also argues that the WEZG(FM) public inspection file is deficient and that the station had not purchased any EAS equipment. Application Signature Requirement. Section 73.3513(a)(3) of the Rules requires that an application filed by a corporation must be signed an officer. Both of the Licensee's originally-filed Applications had the name of John Robinson in the space for the name of the individual certifying the application on behalf of the applicant, providing his title as ``General Manager.'' Mr. Robinson is not an officer of the Licensee.
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2835A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2835A1.pdf
  • The Station is licensed to M.J. Phillips Communications, Inc., Debtor-in-Possession (``DIP''). The first application (the ``DIP Application'') was signed by M. John Phillips, President of DIP. The second application (the ``Phillips Application'') was filed by Joann Nicola Lutz DiStefano Phillips (``Phillips''). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the Phillips Application and grant the DIP Application. Signature Requirement. Section 73.3513(a)(3) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules'') states that an application filed by a corporation, such as the Licensee, ``must be signed . . . [by] an officer. . . .'' The Phillips Application was signed by ``Joann Nicola Lutz DiStefano Phillips,'' who identifies herself as ``Owner'' in an FCC Form 323 Ownership Report filed concurrently with her WJJL(AM) license renewal
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3515A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3515A1.pdf
  • RB filed its ``Petition to Rescind Grant and Dismiss Application,'' arguing that the grant should be overturned and the Renewal Application dismissed because the application was filed 19 days after the WBFH(FM) license had expired and because the application was not signed by a ``duly elected or appointed official as may be competent to do so,'' as required by Section 73.3513 of the Rules. On February 12, 2007, the staff rescinded the grant of the Renewal Application and returned this application proceeding to pending status. III. DISCUSSION 6. Both petitions to deny and informal objections must, pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Act, provide properly supported allegations of fact that, if true, would establish a substantial and material question of fact
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-209A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-209A1.pdf
  • hearing to determine the accuracy and truthfulness of New Bohemia's certifications. In the alternative, Plus seeks reconsideration of the selection of New Bohemia as a tentative selectee, arguing that the selection should be rescinded pending resolution of a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Plus seeking reinstatement of its defective application. Discussion. Certification by Corporate Officer. Plus is correct that Section 73.3513 of the Rules requires that an application filed by a corporation must be certified by a corporate officer, and that Michael Richards, who certified the Application, is a director of New Bohemia and not an officer. Plus, however, has cited no case in which the Commission has denied an application because it was certified by a corporate director. The two
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1046A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1046A1.pdf
  • Hampton's Application do not warrant denial of the Application. Defects in the Curative Amendment. Signature of Officer of the Corporation. Fountain also argues that the Amendment is defective because it is signed by Bobbie Fisher, who is identified as ``Assistant Secretary,'' but is not disclosed as an officer of the corporation in Section II, part 6.a. of the Amendment. Section 73.3513(a) of the Rules requires that an amendment to an application be signed by an officer if the applicant is a corporation. Fountain correctly notes that Bobbie Fisher is not properly identified as being a Hampton officer. However, Hampton has provided minutes for the meeting of its Board in which Ms. Fisher was elected as Assistant Secretary. We find these records
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-130A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-130A1.pdf
  • on the agency by filing a series of unauthorized applications with the intent of taking control of the Station from BRPN. The fraud component of this case is exacerbated by several ministerial errors by the Commission staff, i.e., the inadvertent processing of applications signed only by an engineering consultant rather than a principal of the ``applicant,'' as required by Section 73.3513 of the Rules. The status quo in this proceeding, i.e., Ethics having gained control of the Station without prior Commission consent based on unauthorized filings, is manifestly unconscionable. On this basis, we review the grant of the Modification Applications and the License Application. Substantive Issues. Control of the Authorization. Section 310(d) of the Act, states: ``No construction permit or station
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1958A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1958A1.pdf
  • 730 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (holding that the Commission must explain its disparate treatment of contemporaneous cases with similar underlying facts). Plus also argues that Community Television, Inc., Hearing Designation Order, MM Docket No. 86-45, FR Doc. 86-3253, (MMB Feb. 7, 1986) (``Community Television''), supports its argument that the New Bohemia Application should be designated for hearing for compliance with Section 73.3513 of the Rules (47 C.F.R. � 73.3513). Regents of the University of California, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 12891, 12892 (WTB 2002) (dismissing petition for reconsideration as repetitious) citing Mandeville Broadcasting Corp. and Infinity Broadcasting of Los Angeles, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1667, 1667 (1988); M&M Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5100, 5100 (1987) (dismissing petition for
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-702A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-702A1.pdf
  • that in October 2008 Saga's local engineer Justin Gorodetzer verified the actual height of Saga's antennas to the tower manager; ``[t]hus, [Finger Lakes argues] the false certifications were made knowingly.'' Finally, Finger Lakes contends that Saga's willful false statements are subject to appropriate administrative sanctions, including revocation of the Station's license, pursuant to Section 312(a)(i) of the Act and Section 73.3513(d) of the Rules. 9. In Opposition, Saga acknowledges that the location of the lower antenna was listed inaccurately in the granted September 10, 2008, minor change application and the License Application. Saga states, however, that ``the error was corrected by dismissing the [License] [A]pplication and suspending operations'' of the Station. Specifically, Saga claims that the error in the License Application
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1605A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1605A1.pdf
  • a dramatic coup. We also note the special circumstances of this case. By virtue of the settlement agreement, KBOO's application is, procedurally, uniquely positioned for a grant because as a singleton it would not preclude grant of another application in the MX Group. Certification Defects. CVEF argues that the December 2010 Amendment suffers from certification defects, a violation of Section 73.3513 of the Rules, which requires corporations' applications to be signed by an officer. Specifically, CVEF alleges that the December 2010 Amendment was signed by Kurt Lauer, who does not appear in either the November or December Amendment as an officer of the corporation. KBOO avers that it did not violate Section 73.3513 because Mr. Lauer was an officer at the
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1845A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1845A1.pdf
  • reiterate that, even if an applicant's short-form application is dismissed, the applicant would remain subject to the communication prohibitions of 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(c) until the down-payment deadline, which will be established after the auction closes. The Bureaus advise applicants to print and retain a copy of this confirmation page. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.917; see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3513. We remind each applicant of its duty to continuously maintain the accuracy of information submitted in its auction application. See, e.g., Vermont Telephone Company, Inc., DA 11-1536, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (EB rel. Oct. 14, 2011) (finding Vermont Telephone Company was apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of $34,000 for failing to submit accurate bidding credit information
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-35A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-35A1.pdf
  • applications. For the following reasons, we grant the NTHR Petition to the extent indicated; we dismiss the WTL Objection as moot; and we grant the Radio and Iglesia applications and dismiss those of Sonido and NTHR. II. DISCUSSION 2. NTHR Petition to Deny. In its Petition, NTHR alleges that the captioned Sonido application is unsigned, and thus, pursuant to Section 73.3513 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), invalid. NTHR also argues that Sonido ``is not entitled to a point for established community presence because it has not submitted clear and concise documentation required to support its claim for the point.'' According to General Instruction J of the FCC Form 318, the LPFM application form, ``if the application is filed electronically, the
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html
  • candidates for public office. [579]TEXT [580]PDF 73.1941 Equal opportunities. [581]TEXT [582]PDF 73.1942 Candidate rates. [583]TEXT [584]PDF 73.1943 Political file. [585]TEXT [586]PDF 73.1944 Reasonable access. [587]TEXT [588]PDF 73.2080 Equal employment opportunities (EEO). [ [589]Media Bureau's EEO Page ] [590]TEXT [591]PDF 73.3500 Application and report forms. [592]TEXT [593]PDF 73.3511 Applications required. [594]TEXT [595]PDF 73.3512 Where to file; number of copies. [596]TEXT [597]PDF 73.3513 Signing of applications. [598]TEXT [599]PDF 73.3514 Content of applications. [600]TEXT [601]PDF 73.3516 Specification of facilities. [602]TEXT [603]PDF 73.3517 Contingent applications. [604]TEXT [605]PDF 73.3518 Inconsistent or conflicting applications. [606]TEXT [607]PDF 73.3519 Repetitious applications. [608]TEXT [609]PDF 73.3520 Multiple applications. [610]TEXT [611]PDF 73.3521 Mutually exclusive applications for low power television, television translators and television booster stations. [612]TEXT [613]PDF 73.3522 Amendment of applications. [614]TEXT
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/63-amfmrule.htm
  • candidates for public office. [532]TEXT [533]PDF 73.1941 Equal opportunities. [534]TEXT [535]PDF 73.1942 Candidate rates. [536]TEXT [537]PDF 73.1943 Political file. [538]TEXT [539]PDF 73.1944 Reasonable access. [540]TEXT [541]PDF 73.2080 Equal employment opportunities (EEO). [ [542]Media Bureau's EEO Page ] [543]TEXT [544]PDF 73.3500 Application and report forms. [545]TEXT [546]PDF 73.3511 Applications required. [547]TEXT [548]PDF 73.3512 Where to file; number of copies. [549]TEXT [550]PDF 73.3513 Signing of applications. [551]TEXT [552]PDF 73.3514 Content of applications. [553]TEXT [554]PDF 73.3516 Specification of facilities. [555]TEXT [556]PDF 73.3517 Contingent applications. [557]TEXT [558]PDF 73.3518 Inconsistent or conflicting applications. [559]TEXT [560]PDF 73.3519 Repetitious applications. [561]TEXT [562]PDF 73.3520 Multiple applications. [563]TEXT [564]PDF 73.3521 Mutually exclusive applications for low power television, television translators and television booster stations. [565]TEXT [566]PDF 73.3522 Amendment of applications. [567]TEXT