FCC Web Documents citing 1.229

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2365A1.txt
  • for unicom stations. If a party wishes to submit evidence demonstrating that Great Western had an unusually good or unusually poor record during the prior license term, or that Great Western violated the Commission's Rules during the prior license term, that party must first file a motion to enlarge issues with the Presiding Administrative Law Judge. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.229. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.254. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2365 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2365 � / t � / t � F �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1550A1.txt
  • a renewal expectancy). If a party wishes to submit evidence demonstrating that Resort Aviation had an unusually good or unusually poor record during the prior license term, or that Resort Aviation violated the Commission's Rules during the prior license term, that party must first file a motion to enlarge issues with the presiding administrative law judge. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.229. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.254. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1104. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1114(f). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1550 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1550 $ � � $ � � F �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-53A1.txt
  • Expanded basic service 78 72.3 1.002 67 73.3 1.240 Wireless MVPD subgroup Basic cable service 33 23.7 0.947 32 23.3 0.788 Cable programming service 33 50.2 0.975 32 50.3 0.969 Expanded basic service 33 73.9 0.787 32 73.6 0.620 Low penetration test subgroup Basic cable service 68 23.1 1.104 66 23.0 1.120 Cable programming service 68 47.8 1.186 66 47.8 1.229 Expanded basic service 68 70.8 0.919 66 70.8 0.910 Source: 2007/2008 cable price survey. Attachment 10 Other Programming Channels January 1, 2006 Sample Group Local Broadcast Stations in HD Format (1) Most Highly Subscribed Digital Tier (2) N Mean S.E. N Mean S.E. Sample groups overall 754 4.3 0.08 725 40.6 0.81 Noncompetitive Communities 434 4.3 0.08 416 41.0 0.91
• 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
  • Subpart B of the Commission's rules, is changed to 1.201, which is the next rule after 1.120 and is also the first rule in Part 1, Subpart B. Part 1, Subpart B, Hearing Proceedings. This Order amends the following rules in Part 1, Subpart B, Hearing Proceedings, to delete obsolete rules and references and make other corrections: Sections 1.227(b)(6) and 1.229(b)(2) are without current legal effect and are deleted as obsolete. These sections pertain to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license renewal applicants. Section 1.229(b)(3), which establishes procedures for the filing of motions to modify the issues designated for hearing, is re-designated as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-169A1.txt
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit February 8, 2012 NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROGRAM CARRIAGE COMPLAINT RULES: 47 C.F.R. �� 1.221(h); 1.229(b)(3), (b)(4); 1.248(a), (b); 76.7(g)(2); 76.1302(c)(1), (d), (e)(1), (k) MB Docket No. 07-42 On July 29, 2011, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order in MB Docket No. 07-42, which promulgated rules to improve the Commission's procedures for addressing program carriage complaints. These rules became effective on October 31, 2011, except for the following rules which contain new information collection
• 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
  • our rules, minimizing potential confusion for interested parties and Commission staff alike. The revisions and the specific reasons we are adopting each change are set forth below. On July 29, 2011, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order in MB Docket No. 07-42 to improve the procedures for addressing program carriage complaints. Among other things, the Commission redesignated Section 1.229(b)(3) as Section 1.229(b)(4) and added a new Section 1.229(b)(3) pertaining to the deadline for filing a motion to enlarge, change, or delete issues in a program carriage complaint proceeding that the Chief, Media Bureau refers to an administrative law judge for an initial decision. These amendments to Section 1.229(b) contained new or modified information collection requirements that required approval by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-739A1.txt
  • Distribution and Carriage, 76 FR 60652 (Sept. 29, 2011) (announcing effective date of October 31, 2011 for rules adopted in the 2011 Program Carriage Order that do not require approval from the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'')); Notice of Effective Date of Program Carriage Complaint Rules: 47 C.F.R. �� 1.221(h); 1.229(b)(3), (b)(4); 1.248(a), (b); 76.7(g)(2); 76.1302(c)(1), (d), (e)(1), (k), Public Notice, DA 12-169 (MB, Feb. 8, 2012) (announcing effective date of February 8, 2012 for rules adopted in the 2011 Program Carriage Order requiring approval from OMB pursuant to the PRA). 47 U.S.C. � 536(a)(3). See 47 C.F.R. � 76.1301(c). Section 76.1301(c) of the Commission's Rules provides: No multichannel video programming
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • the Commission's former "protest" process. By its express terms, it does not apply to applications filed on or after December 12, 1960. 1.120 Adopted 9/30/11 pending FR publication These sections pertain to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license renewal applicants. 1.227 (b)(6) 1.229(b)(2) Adopted 9/30/11 pending FR publication Pertains to comparative hearings involving applicants for new commercial broadcast facilities and calls for the production of a Standardized Integration Statement and other information pertaining to the Commission's former integration standard and other broadcast comparative hearing criteria. Under �309(j), the Commission no longer has authority to conduct comparative hearings for new commercial broadcast facilities and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.txt
  • 10/13/11 Eliminated rule describing the Commission's former ``protest'' process, which by its express terms does not apply to applications filed on or after December 12, 1960. 1.120 11/16/11 Eliminated rule sections pertaining to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license renewal applicants. 1.227(b)(6) 1.229(b)(2) 11/16/11 Eliminated rule sections pertaining to comparative hearings involving applicants for new commercial broadcast facilities and calling for the production of a Standardized Integration Statement and other information pertaining to the Commission's former integration standard and other broadcast comparative hearing criteria. Under �309(j), the Commission no longer has authority to conduct comparative hearings for new commercial broadcast facilities and instead
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-129A1.txt
  • equity contributions of Liberty's sole limited partner (David T. Murray). On this basis Willsyr seeks an issue to determine whether Liberty has misrepresented its ownership structure. (These representations relate to Liberty's certification that Murray's media interest is not attributable for purposes of the New Entrant Bidding Credit.) In this respect, the motion, filed December 13, 1999 is untimely. See Section 1.229(b)(3), 47 C.F.R. � 1.229(b)(3), specifying that motions to enlarge issues based on newly discovered facts must be filed within fifteen days after the discovery of such facts. 30. Even assuming that the motion had been timely filed, it is without merit. It does not raise a substantial and material question of fact as to whether Liberty has misrepresented Murray as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-150A1.txt
  • NA Antigua Wireless 85 Bermuda NA Telecommunications Limited 60 Dominica NA Wireless Ventures 100 St. Lucia NA Wireless Ventures 69 St. Vincent & Grenadines NA Wireless Ventures 100 Verizon Italy 19 million Omnitel Pronto Italia 23.1 Slovakia 1.298 million EuroTel Bratislava 24.5 Greece 2.514 million STET Hellas 17.5 Indonesia 1.823 million Excelcomindo 23.1 Japan 3.849 million Tu-Ka 2.7-5 New Zealand 1.229 million Telecom New Zealand 21.5 Philippines NA (Extelcom) BayanTel (owns 46.6% stake in wireless provider Extelcom) 19.4 Argentina 1.006 million (CTI Movil) CTI Holdings 65.3 Canada 2.996 million TELUS Corporation 23.7 Venezuela 2.561million CANTV 28.5 Taiwan 6.24 million Taiwan Cellular Corporation 13 Dominican Republic 550,000 CODETEL 100 Western Wireless International Ireland 145,000 Meteor 81 Austria 318,000 tele.ring 99.5 Slovenia NA
• 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
  • beyond such deadline, its opportunity to present evidence at hearing will be deemed to have been waived. If the hearing is so waived, the Chief ALJ will terminate the proceeding and certify to the Commission the complaint for resolution based on the existing record. Second, we revise the deadline for filing a motion to enlarge, change, or delete issues. Section 1.229(a) provides that a motion to enlarge, change, or delete issues shall be filed within 15 days after the HDO is published in the Federal Register. We amend this rule to provide that, in a program carriage complaint proceeding that the Media Bureau refers to an ALJ, a motion to enlarge, change, or delete issues shall be filed within 15 calendar
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-94A1.txt
  • 2. Motion at i. Id. at 1-2. See ``Opposition To Motion To Reopen The Record For Further Hearing'' (March 15, 2010). ledges that it became aware of the facts that form the basis for its motion at least by January 26, 2010. The motion, however, was not filed until March 3, 2010, more than 5 weeks later. 47 C.F.R. � 1.229(c). Omaha TV 15, Inc., 4 FCC Rcd 730 �6 (1988), citing American Int'l Development, Inc., 86 F.C.C.2d 808, 811 �5 (1981); Southeast Arkansas Radio, Inc., 61 F.C.C.2d 72, 73-74 �4 (1976). See also Advanced Communications Corp., 18 FCC Rcd 2926, 2930 n.20 (2003); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., v. FCC, 180 F.3d 307, 312 (D.C. Cir. 1999). See Herring Decl. at
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992355.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992355.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da992355.txt
  • the Commission's routine adjudicatory procedures. Second, although any necessary minor amendments to Liberty's long-form application should be filed by 7:00 p.m. et, November 12, 1999, it is clarified that there will be no further opportunity for the filing of petitions to deny, and that the filing of any new petitions to enlarge issues will be governed by 47 C.F.R. � 1.229 of the Commission's rules. Liberty Productions, 14 FCC Rcd. 7637, 7640 � 6 (OGC 1999). See Implementation of 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Services (First Report and Order), 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 15955 � 97 (1998). Id. at 15956 � 98. ��PNG �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ��� %�o� ��
• 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
  • the winning bidder. As tentatively proposed in the Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 22377 (� 34), we will accord the winning bidder 30 days for any amendments necessary to report changes in its long-form application and 15 days to respond to any new petitions to enlarge. The filing of new petitions to enlarge will be governed by 47 C.F.R. � 1.229 of the Commission's rules. Given the small number of cases in which the hearing proceeding is likely to resume, we deem it inappropriate to restrict the time for filing new motions to enlarge issues, and no commenters have urged that we do so. We clarify, however, that there will be no new opportunity for the filing of petitions to deny
• 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
  • the winning bidder. As tentatively proposed in the Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 22377 (� 34), we will accord the winning bidder 30 days for any amendments necessary to report changes in its long-form application and 15 days to respond to any new petitions to enlarge. The filing of new petitions to enlarge will be governed by 47 C.F.R. � 1.229 of the Commission's rules. Given the small number of cases in which the hearing proceeding is likely to resume, we deem it inappropriate to restrict the time for filing new motions to enlarge issues, and no commenters have urged that we do so. We clarify, however, that there will be no new opportunity for the filing of petitions to deny
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-98.pdf
  • Mariana Islands $11,349,696 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $2,851,031 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $0 17,440,614 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 Palmyra Atoll $0 $0 $0 0 Wake Island $0 $0 $0 0 Carriers serving Misc. U.S. points $13,172,506 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $5,217,897 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 $15 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 32,479,906 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 Total for Foreign Points $14,366,675,94953.5 1.229.8 9.8 5.7 $2,241,428,60847.7 0.033.513.3 5.4 $401,117,24568.5 8.313.3 4.3 5.5 34,475,344,62844.4 2.029.613.710.3 Total for U.S. Points $45,792,34128.3 0.023.826.421.4 $7,953,41630.8 0.049.6 7.012.6 $1,387,66668.0 0.024.6 0.2 7.2 232,016,39525.4 0.023.429.421.7 WORLD TOTAL $14,412,468,29053.4 1.229.8 9.9 5.7 $2,249,382,02447.7 0.033.613.2 5.5 $402,504,91168.5 8.313.4 4.3 5.5 34,707,361,02344.3 2.029.613.810.3 - Switched Service Market Shares 6 - 1998 SECTION 43.61 International Traffic Data for ALL U.S. POINTS: Facilities-Based Service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr03-3.pdf
  • 461,194 397.64 44,758,378 4.249 American Samoa 3,437,359 10,325 332.92 172,462 0.016 Arizona 1,007,140,779 3,095,149 325.39 26,278,802 2.495 Arkansas 599,796,487 1,509,333 397.39 57,601,471 5.468 California 4,386,197,848 23,385,691 187.56 33,220,122 3.154 Colorado 996,447,388 2,948,466 337.95 31,588,976 2.999 Connecticut 598,209,461 2,406,704 248.56 0 0.000 Delaware 132,047,164 589,979 223.82 0 0.000 District Of Columbia 87,254,075 919,587 94.88 0 0.000 Florida 3,215,786,447 11,317,933 284.13 12,945,459 1.229 Georgia 1,732,778,175 5,148,317 336.57 52,427,837 4.977 Guam 19,108,115 74,006 258.20 0 0.000 Hawaii 179,585,200 721,233 249.00 2,545,071 0.242 Idaho 235,082,520 762,986 308.11 20,778,307 1.973 Illinois 1,533,063,655 8,012,870 191.33 14,095,507 1.338 Indiana 831,910,533 3,803,634 218.71 7,751,734 0.736 Iowa 379,840,670 1,704,785 222.81 11,448,023 1.087 Kansas 550,287,687 1,666,630 330.18 56,255,084 5.340 Kentucky 696,956,618 2,206,741 315.83 20,339,117 1.931 Louisiana 798,970,585 2,575,040 310.28 50,149,101 4.761
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2012/dd120209.html
  • * * * * * ADDENDA: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS, RELEASED FEBRUARY 8, 2012, DID NOT APPEAR IN DIGEST NO. 26: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- SUNSHINE NOTICE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- FCC TO HOLD OPEN COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 [13]DOC-312362A1.doc [14]DOC-312362A1.pdf [15]DOC-312362A1.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- PUBLIC NOTICES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Released: 02/08/2012. NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROGRAM CARRIAGE COMPLAINT RULES: 47 C.F.R. SECTIONS 1.221(H); 1.229(B)(3), (B)(4); 1.248(A), (B); 76.7(G)(2); 76.1302(C)(1), (D), (E)(1), (K). (DA No. 12-169). (Dkt No 07-42 ). MB . Contact: David Konczal at (202) 418-2228, email: David.Konczal@fcc.gov. News Media Contact: Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165, email: Janice.Wise@fcc.gov [16]DA-12-169A1.doc [17]DA-12-169A1.pdf [18]DA-12-169A1.txt Released: 02/08/2012. COMMENT SOUGHT ON A PETITION FILED BY EASTEX TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC. FOR WAIVER CONCERNING THE COMMISSION'S PART 36 JURISDICTIONAL SEPARATIONS
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/91-3.pdf
  • signal.Inotherwords,RITOIE"issimi- larinitseffectstoblanketingbutdifferentinorigin."FM Blanketingat127,para.7.Giventhisdifferenceinorigin, theCommission'sdecisionnottoincludeRITOIEunder thescopeoftheblanketingRuleMakingwasanacknowledgment onlythatnoticehadnotbeengivenwithregard toRITOIE.Itdidnot,however,precludesimilartreat- mentofRITOIEwheresimilartreatmentiswarranted.9 TheCommissionhasthediscretiontoproceedbyadju- dicationratherthanRuleMakinghere,seeSECv. CheneryCorp.,332U.S.194(1947),andnothinginthe APAorelsewhereprecludesusfromusingtheprinciples setforthinaRuleMakingdecisiontodecideanadjudication onasimilarissuenotpreciselycoveredbytheRule Making.Withrespecttomobilereceivers,thebasisfor theirexclusionfromblanketingconsiderationsistheir "inherenttransientnature."FMBlanketingat130,para. 25.ThisfactorisequallysalientwithrespecttoRITOIE because,asisthecasewithFMblanketing,amobile receivermovingthroughthepotentialinterferencearea willencounterconstantlyvaryingpropagationpathsand signalstrengthsfromthepertinentstations;resultingina continuouslyvaryingpotentialforinterference(ranging fromahighlikelihoodtononeatall)dependingonthe particularreceiver'ssusceptibilitytoRITOIE.Accordingly, similartreatmentofmobilereceiverswithrespectto bothblanketingandRITOIEiswarranted.Further,bat- tery-poweredreceiversarealsocharacterizedbyan"in- herenttransientnature."Accordingly,excludingthem fromthescopeofbothblanketingandRITOIEresolution effortsisequallyjustified.Thus.weupholdtheBureau's exclusionofbothmobileandbattery-poweredreceivers fromRITOIEresolutionrequirements. 18.Misrepresentation.StoneralsoarguesthatWKLX,in itsJuly1987amendmenttoitspendingmodificationapplication (BMPH-860714IB),"misrepresentedtotheCom- missionbyitsanswerto[ltem14.SectionV-B.FCC Form301(October1986)10],thattherewerenotany authorizedFMtransmitterswithin10kilometersofthe proposedantennawhichmayproducereceiverinduced intermodulationinterference."Stonerchargesthat:(1) thismisrepresentationwas"reckless,ifnotintentional"; (2)WKLX"musthaveknownofthepossibility"of RITOIE,yetnevertheless"gaveamisleadinglyincomplete answer[toitem14],withnomentionofreceiverinduced interference";(3)WKLX"knew,oroughttohave known"thatcollocationwas"likelytocauseinterfer- ence";(4)the"possibilityofRITOIEinterferencewould beapparenttoanyresponsibleengineer"andismath- ematicallycalculable;(5)WKLX"didnotdisclose"the problempriortoconstruction;(6)WKLX"concealed"the interferenceproblem;and(7)the"principalsofWKLX havepubliclyadmittedthatthey'anticipated'interference problems." FCC91-3 19.WKLXclaimsthatStoner'schargesareprocedurally defectivebecausetheyarenotsupportedbyanydeclara- tionoraffidavitbysomeonewithpersonalknowledgeof thefactsinviolationofthegeneralpleadingrequirements ofSection309(d)oftheCommunicationsActandSection 1.229(d)oftheCommission'sRulesfordesignationof hearingissues.WKLXalsochargesthatStoner'sallega- tionsare"plainlyincorrectasamatteroffactandlaw" because:(1)WKLX'sJuly1987applicationamendment, whichfirstproposedcollocationwithWRMM(FM),an- swered"Yes"toItem14'sinquiryregardingtheexistence of"transmitterswhichmayproducereceiver-induced intermodulationinterference";(2)ExhibitE-1ofthe amendmentreferenced(withoutcallsigns)tenFMand fiveTVstationsthatwerelocatedwithin10kilometersof theproposedsite;(3)"neitherWKLXnoritsconsulting engineershadanyactualknowledgethattherewouldbe anyinterferenceatanytimethroughoutthefilingand applicationprocessingperiodleadingtograntofthecon- structionpermit";and(4)WKLX"hadnoreasonto specificallyanticipateaRITOIEproblem"inthiscase because"asofJuly7,1987,therehadonlybeenthree RITOIEcasesknowntohavebeenreportedtotheCom- missionoutofthehundredsofcollocatedfacilitiesinthe UnitedStates."WKLXarguesthat,"[i]nlightofthese indisputablefacts[,]...itprovidedasmuchinterference 'notice'initsfilingsastheengineeringstate-of-the-artand therequirementsofCommissionKrulesandpoliciesdic- tatedandwarranted." 20.Inresponse,Stonercontendsthat:(1)itsmisrepre- sentationclaimisprocedurallyproperbecausethe evidenceonwhichitisbasedisallamatterofpublic recordforwhichnoaffidavitisrequired;and(2)notwithstanding theanswerof"Yes"toItem14,WKLXdidnot complywithItem14'sinstructionstoprovide"adescrip- tionofanyexpected,undesiredeffectsofoperationsand remedialstepstobepursuedifnecessary,andastatement acceptingfullresponsibilityfortheeliminationofany objectionableinterference(includingthatcausedbyre- ceiverinducedorothertypesofmodulation)."Stoner arguesthatWKLX:(1)"madenotasinglementionof receiver-inducedor'RITOIE'interference"initsamend- mentapplication;(2)didnotdescribeanyremedialsteps tobepursued;and(3)promisedonlytorectifyallcom- plaintsofinterferencepursuanttoSection73.318which dealssolelywithblanketinginterference. 21.Withrespecttotheproceduralaspectofthisissue, wewillconsiderStoner'sallegationsonlytotheextent thattheyarebasedonfactsofwhichofficialnoticemay betaken.Asfortheargumentsonthemerits,wedisagree withStoner'sclaimthatWKLX'sanswertoItem14in- dicatesthat"therewerenotanyauthorizedFMtransmit- terswithin10kilometersoftheproposedantennawhich mayproducereceiverinducedintermodulationinterfer- ence."WKLXcompliedwiththeCommission'sreporting requirementsthroughitsaffirmativeanswertoItem14, whichputothersonnoticeofthepossibilityofinterfer- ence,includingservicedisruptioncausedbyreceiver-in- ducedintermodulation.AstoWKLX'sfailuretoprovidea descriptionofanyexpectedinterferenceandremedial stepsitwouldtake,Stonerhasprovidednofactualbasis tosuggestthatatthetimeWKLXfileditsapplicationit "expected"anysuchinterferenceandthereforeinsome wayintendedtodeceivetheCommissionbyitssilence, whichtraditionallyhasbeenthesinequanonofamisrepresentation issue.CBS,Inc..49FCC2d1214,1223