FCC Web Documents citing 1.101

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-507A1.txt
  • DA 00-2349 (rel. Oct. 18, 2000)(Qwest/Acquiring Companies Public Notice). See Electronic Filing of Beehive Telephone, Inc., CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Nov. 2, 2000) (Beehive Comments). Beehive incorrectly styled its filing as a petition for reconsideration. Under the Commission's rules, petitions for reconsideration are entertained after a final decision has been issued by the Commission. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.101, 1.102, 1.103, 1.104 and 1.106. The Commission has not issued a decision regarding the waivers at issue here and, therefore, Beehive's petition for reconsideration is premature. We nevertheless will treat Beehive's filing as comments and will address below Beehive's objections to the waiver requests. We note that except for Beehive's petition for reconsideration, which we are treating as comments, all
• 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
  • 1960. As a result, this section is without current legal effect and is obsolete. In addition, this Order deletes references to section 1.120 from other rules. Specifically, in section 1.4(h), the reference to section 1.120(d) is deleted. The references to section 1.120 are replaced in the following rules with references to section 1.117, the rule that immediately precedes section 1.120: 1.101, 1.207(c), 1.1317(a), 73.1010(a)(1), and 74.5(a)(1). The reference to section 1.120 in section 74.5(a)(2), which is listed as the first rule in 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
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-1A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-1A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-1A1.txt
  • information contained in the workpapers under certain circumstances (e.g., the need to facilitate enforcement action). See Qwest Communications, 229 F.3d at 1180. See Confidential Treatment Order at para. 55 (stating that audit data in ``aggregate form'' is generally not protected from disclosure). American Inst. of Certified Pub. Accountants, Working Papers, AU § 339.03; see also AICPA Attestation Standards at § 1.101. The AICPA standards provide several examples, including audit programs, analyses, memoranda, letters of representation, schedules, and commentaries. Id. A standard audit textbook states that workpapers ``contain virtually everything involved in the audit.'' Arens, Alvin A. and Loebbecke, James K., Auditing: An Integrated Approach (7th ed. 1997). See VZ Section 272(d) Audit Report at App. A, 5, 7, 9, 12, 25,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.txt
  • concerns might include foreign ownership or competition concerns, or other concerns requiring further review, such as those raised by petitions to deny (where such petitions are permitted under Section 309(d) of the Act). See Report and Order at ¶¶ 151-152; 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(b)-(d). Report and Order at ¶ 181. See id. at ¶ 152; see generally 47 C.F.R. § 1.101 et seq. (rules pertaining to petitions for reconsideration of actions taken on delegated authority). 47 U.S.C. § 160(a). As we noted in the Further Notice, our forbearance authority under Section 10 of the Communications Act applies to de facto transfer spectrum leases involving licensees that are telecommunications carriers, or that otherwise provide commercial mobile radio service and common carrier-based services.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da002228.doc
  • of a refund amount that differs from the calculation prescribed in the Refund Order. Operator did not file a petition for reconsideration or an application for review of the Refund Order. Consequently, Operator is attempting to raise in its refund plan an issue that it failed to properly place before the Commission in accordance with the Commission's rules. See Sections 1.101 - 1.120 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.101 - 1.120. A refund plan is not a substitute for the reconsideration and review process and issues raised in refund plans will not be considered. See also, In the Matter of Marcus Cable Associates, L.P., 12 FCC Rcd 19526 (1997). Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2228 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2228
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/2000/da002388.doc
  • overcharges to cable programming service tier ("CPST") subscribers for the period stated in the Refund Order and file a report with the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, stating the cumulative refund amount determined (including franchise fees and interest), describing the calculation thereof, and describing its plan to implement the refund within 60 days of Commission approval of the plan. See Sections 1.101 - 1.120 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.101 - 1.120. See also, In the Matter of Marcus Cable Associates, L.P., 12 FCC Rcd 19526 (1997). See In the Matter of Cencom Cable Income Partners II, LP, 12 FCC Rcd 7948 (1997). 8 FCC Rcd 5631 (1993). Cencom at ¶ 22 (footnote omitted). We calculated a principal amount of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010507.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2001/da010507.txt
  • DA 00-2349 (rel. Oct. 18, 2000)(Qwest/Acquiring Companies Public Notice). See Electronic Filing of Beehive Telephone, Inc., CC Docket No. 96-45 (filed Nov. 2, 2000) (Beehive Comments). Beehive incorrectly styled its filing as a petition for reconsideration. Under the Commission's rules, petitions for reconsideration are entertained after a final decision has been issued by the Commission. See generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.101, 1.102, 1.103, 1.104 and 1.106. The Commission has not issued a decision regarding the waivers at issue here and, therefore, Beehive's petition for reconsideration is premature. We nevertheless will treat Beehive's filing as comments and will address below Beehive's objections to the waiver requests. We note that except for Beehive's petition for reconsideration, which we are treating as comments, all