FCC Web Documents citing 1.223

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1731A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1731A1.pdf
  • are known as `traffic pumping' LECs to collect what they claim are tariffed access charges.'' We construe Qwest's request as being tantamount to a petition to intervene. The Commission's rules make no provision for filing of petitions to intervene in adjudicatory non-hearing proceedings. In past complaint proceedings, however, the Commission has looked for guidance to the standard contained in rule 1.223(b), which requires a petition for leave to intervene as a party in a hearing to show, among other things, the ``interest of petitioner in the proceedings'' and ``how such petitioner's participation will assist the Commission in the determination of the issues in question.'' The Qwest Petition to Accept Filing fails to satisfy the requirements for intervention. Specifically, even if Qwest
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3173A1.txt
  • in the DBS service in two instances: new and major/minor change, comparative construction permit hearings, and comparative license renewal hearings. Neither applies here. Further, in establishing the fee program, the Commission stated that with respect to fees for hearings, ``we will not assess a fee in the following situations: individuals or organizations named parties (47 C.F.R. §1.221); intervenors (47 C.F.R. §1.223); non-parties who wish to appear and give evidence (47 C.F.R. §1.225) . . . .'' Establishment of a Fee Collection Program to Implement the Provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 947, 966 ¶ 143, 971 ¶ 191, 985 n.134 (1987). Accordingly, even if Section 1.1107 specified a fee, it would
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2146A1.txt
  • reallotment of Station KONY(FM), Marathon proposes to allot Channel 262C at Escalante, UT (pop. 818) and states that it will apply for and construct the facility. The counterproposal is mutually exclusive with the NPRM's proposal because Channel 291C1 at Amargosa is short-spaced to Channel 291C2 at Caliente, NV. Hodson petitions for leave to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to Section 1.223(c) of the Commission's Rules. Hodson contends that it is a party in interest because it intends to apply for vacant Channel 291A at Tecopa, CA, when a filing window is opened and because Marathon's counterproposal would affect this allotment. Hodson also complains that it was not served with a copy of Marathon's counterproposal and that service was required because Hodson
• 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
  • such motions shall be filed within 30 days of the release of the designation order, except that persons not named as parties to the proceeding in the designation order may file such motions with their petitions to intervene up to 30 days after publication of the full text or a summary of the designation order in the Federal Register. (See §1.223 of this part). (2) Any person desiring to file a motion to modify the issues after the expiration of periods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this section shall set forth the reason why it was not possible to file the motion within the prescribed period. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the motion will be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1731A1.txt
  • are known as `traffic pumping' LECs to collect what they claim are tariffed access charges.'' We construe Qwest's request as being tantamount to a petition to intervene. The Commission's rules make no provision for filing of petitions to intervene in adjudicatory non-hearing proceedings. In past complaint proceedings, however, the Commission has looked for guidance to the standard contained in rule 1.223(b), which requires a petition for leave to intervene as a party in a hearing to show, among other things, the ``interest of petitioner in the proceedings'' and ``how such petitioner's participation will assist the Commission in the determination of the issues in question.'' The Qwest Petition to Accept Filing fails to satisfy the requirements for intervention. Specifically, even if Qwest
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1846A1.txt
  • separated by less than 1 MHz from the lower edge of the ESMR band. Oakland submits, therefore, that it meets the ``aggrieved/adversely affected'' test for standing. Oakland asserts that it is entitled to intervention because ``[t]he Commission has a long history of granting intervention requests when a third party is adversely affected by a Commission decision.'' discussion We disagree. Section 1.223 of the Commission's rules provides for petitions to intervene only in cases that have been designated for hearing. Of the four cases cited by Oakland for the proposition that the Commission has a ``long history'' of granting intervention requests, only one - the staff level decision in RCN - addresses a request to intervene in a non-hearing proceeding. That staff
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-473A1.txt
  • such motions shall be filed within 30 days of the release of the designation order, except that persons not named as parties to the proceeding in the designation order may file such motions with their petitions to intervene up to 30 days after publication of the full text or a summary of the designation order in the Federal Register. (See §1.223 of this part). (2) For program carriage complaints filed pursuant to § 76.1302 of this part that the Chief, Media Bureau refers to an administrative law judge for an initial decision, such motions shall be filed within 15 calendar days after the deadline for submitting written appearances pursuant to § 1.221(h) of this part, except that persons not named as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-251A1.txt
  • president and director of RBI, that his stock interests had been placed in a voting trust or otherwise transferred, and that a management agreement between Parker and RBI had been terminated. 3. Parker seeks to intervene in order to file exceptions to the ALJ's initial decision. He contends that he has shown good cause to intervene under 47 C.F.R. § 1.223(c), which states that: Any person desiring to file a petition for leave to intervene later than 30 days after the publication in the Federal Register of the full text or a summary of the order designating an application for hearing or any substantial amendment thereto shall set forth the interest of petitioner in the proceeding, show how such petitioner's participation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-284A1.txt
  • fee specified in Section 1.1107 of the Commission's Rules or be accompanied by a deferral request pursuant to Section 1.1117 of the Commission's Rules. If any of these parties fails to file an appearance within the time specified, it shall, unless good cause for such failure is shown, forfeit its hearing rights. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, pursuant to Section 1.223 of the Commission's Rules, any person seeking to participate as a party in the hearing may file a petition to intervene. Such petition shall be filed within 30 days of the full text or a summary of this Order being published in the Federal Register. Such petition to intervene must either establish, under oath, that a person is a party
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-94A1.txt
  • of general applicability to the industry because such decisions are treated as precedent in future adjudication and rulemaking proceedings. Applicant argues that notions of due process and fundamental fairness as well as the Commission's decision in Heritage Cablevision dictate this result. Applicant asserts first that the Bureau's decision is in conflict with the Commission's rule on intervention, 47 C.F.R. § 1.223, and Section 555 (b) of the Administrative Procedures Act. Second, Applicant argues that pole attachment complaint decisions create de facto rules because they are relied upon as precedent in future proceedings. Third, Applicant posits that this widespread reliance on pole attachment complaint decisions as precedent gives Applicant a direct financial and adversarial interest in every pole attachment decision and Applicant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-13A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-13A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-13A1.txt
  • an opposition and JNE filed a reply. KALI(AM) is constructed and operating. Multicultural's modification application, originally filed on August 29, 2003, had been dismissed for engineering defects on March 31, 2004. Multicultural filed a timely petition for reconsideration and amendments, which are pending and awaiting the outcome of this proceeding. See Motion to Intervene at 2. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.223 (governing petitions to intervene in proceedings designated for hearing). See also Texas Cable and Telecommunications Assoc. v. GTE Southwest, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 6261, 6264 (2002) (finding the Commission's rule on intervention, 47 C.F.R. § 1.223, is not directly applicable in a complaint proceeding because the rule applies to cases designated for hearing). See Teleconnect Co. v. Bell Telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-119A1.txt
  • after the deadline for submitting written appearances pursuant to § 1.221(h) of this part, except that persons not named as parties to the proceeding in the designation order may file such motions with their petitions to intervene up to 30 days after publication of the full text or a summary of the designation order in the Federal Register. (See § 1.223 of this part). (4) Any person desiring to file a motion to modify the issues after the expiration of periods specified in paragraphs (a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section, shall set forth the reason why it was not possible to file the motion within the prescribed period. * * * * * * * * 5. Section 1.248
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1731A1.html
  • known as `traffic pumping' LECs to collect what they claim are tariffed access charges." We construe Qwest's request as being tantamount to a petition to intervene. 9. The Commission's rules make no provision for filing of petitions to intervene in adjudicatory non-hearing proceedings. In past complaint proceedings, however, the Commission has looked for guidance to the standard contained in rule 1.223(b), which requires a petition for leave to intervene as a party in a hearing to show, among other things, the "interest of petitioner in the proceedings" and "how such petitioner's participation will assist the Commission in the determination of the issues in question." 10. The Qwest Petition to Accept Filing fails to satisfy the requirements for intervention. Specifically, even if
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f02.pdf
  • 8.2 1.552.213.0 Oman $4,698,08345.841.4 0.3 9.9 2.6 $59,89937.251.0 0.011.8 0.0 $111,18733.8 6.3 0.159.8 0.0 15,286,24020.446.6 0.429.6 3.0 Qatar $2,498,467 0.145.9 1.237.215.5 $79,005 0.062.4 0.024.413.2 $358,926 0.0 5.2 4.413.477.0 17,048,735 0.123.1 0.764.811.3 Saudi Arabia $43,267,88066.814.8 0.9 7.8 9.7 $711,30923.942.7 0.030.2 3.2 $825,39589.2 0.1 1.7 9.0 0.0 151,299,62621.014.1 1.645.717.6 Syria $6,953,25433.618.3 1.015.831.4 $1,645,01731.2 0.0 0.068.8 0.0 $12,247 6.5 2.389.9 1.3 0.0 20,661,65018.417.9 1.223.639.0 United Arab Emirates $37,304,49558.217.4 0.813.310.2 $853,80421.245.2 0.133.5 0.0 $588,88145.515.8 0.138.6 0.0 149,991,32645.614.2 1.124.115.1 Yemen $23,431,59046.639.1 0.412.1 1.8 $409,02525.314.9 0.059.8 0.0 $108,19753.5 3.5 1.741.3 0.0 41,935,06625.839.3 0.730.5 3.7 Middle East $302,026,98260.415.8 0.816.0 7.0 $11,675,43241.221.2 0.033.9 3.7 $4,314,01958.2 4.2 3.624.5 9.5 1,276,174,99637.320.2 1.927.912.7 - Switched Services Market Shares Page 2 - 2002 Annual Section 43.61 International Traffic Data for All U.S. Points:
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2011/DA-11-1731A1.html
  • known as `traffic pumping' LECs to collect what they claim are tariffed access charges." We construe Qwest's request as being tantamount to a petition to intervene. 9. The Commission's rules make no provision for filing of petitions to intervene in adjudicatory non-hearing proceedings. In past complaint proceedings, however, the Commission has looked for guidance to the standard contained in rule 1.223(b), which requires a petition for leave to intervene as a party in a hearing to show, among other things, the "interest of petitioner in the proceedings" and "how such petitioner's participation will assist the Commission in the determination of the issues in question." 10. The Qwest Petition to Accept Filing fails to satisfy the requirements for intervention. Specifically, even if
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-13A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-13A1.pdf
  • an opposition and JNE filed a reply. KALI(AM) is constructed and operating. Multicultural's modification application, originally filed on August 29, 2003, had been dismissed for engineering defects on March 31, 2004. Multicultural filed a timely petition for reconsideration and amendments, which are pending and awaiting the outcome of this proceeding. See Motion to Intervene at 2. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.223 (governing petitions to intervene in proceedings designated for hearing). See also Texas Cable and Telecommunications Assoc. v. GTE Southwest, Inc., Order, 17 FCC Rcd 6261, 6264 (2002) (finding the Commission's rule on intervention, 47 C.F.R. § 1.223, is not directly applicable in a complaint proceeding because the rule applies to cases designated for hearing). See Teleconnect Co. v. Bell Telephone