FCC Web Documents citing 1.277

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1855A1.txt
  • specify whether parties are entitled to file exceptions to the ALJ's recommended decision. We issue this order, sua sponte, to remove uncertainty surrounding this issue and clarify that parties are entitled to file exceptions to the ALJ's recommended decision. We direct parties that choose to file exceptions to comply with the procedures and deadlines set forth in Sections 1.276 and 1.277 of the Commission's rules. As applied here, these rules allow parties to file exceptions to or briefs in support of the ALJ's recommended decision within 30 days after public release of the full text of the recommended decision. These rules also provide that parties may file reply briefs within ten days after the time for filing exceptions has expired. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1918A1.txt
  • C.F.R. § 1.115(e)(3). Despite our prima facie determination, the Presiding Judge will conduct a de novo examination of all relevant evidence after developing a full and complete record. Pursuant to Section 76.10(c)(2) of the Commission's Rules, a party aggrieved by the ALJ's decision on the merits may appeal such decision directly to the Commission in accordance with Sections 1.276(a) and 1.277(a) through (c) of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. § 76.10(c)(2). Unless the Commission grants a stay of the ALJ's decision, such decision will become effective upon release and will remain in effect pending appeal. Id. However, if the ALJ's decision would require a defendant MVPD to delete existing programming from its system to accommodate carriage, the order for carriage will
• 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
  • § 0.341(f). While this rule does not apply to this complaint (see supra n.7), we encourage the ALJ to make all reasonable efforts to comply with this deadline. Pursuant to Section 76.10(c)(2) of the Commission's Rules, a party aggrieved by the ALJ's decision on the merits may appeal such decision directly to the Commission in accordance with Sections 1.276(a) and 1.277(a) through (c) of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. § 76.10(c)(2). See supra ¶ 37. In the 2011 Program Carriage Order, the Commission adopted a specific deadline for filing written appearances in a program carriage complaint proceeding referred to an ALJ for an initial decision. See 2011 Program Carriage Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 11510-11, ¶ 22; see also 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-341A1.txt
  • Broadcasting, Inc. , 88 FCC 2d 1132, 1136 n.9 (Rev. Bd. 1982). Citizens for Jazz on WRVR, Inc. v. FCC, 775 F.2d 392, 395 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1985), cited by Kay, does not hold to the contrary. 12. Second, Kay argues that the Bureau's exceptions and brief should be stricken as violating the provisions of 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.276 and 1.277. According to Kay, the Bureau's pleading lacks a separate statement of the questions of law presented as required by 47 C.F.R. § 1.276(a)(2). Moreover, Kay submits that the pleading exceeds the limit of 30 pages because, in addition to 29 pages of text, the pleading has seven pages of attachments. 47 C.F.R. § 1.277(c). The Bureau's pleading does not exceed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.txt
  • the staff pursuant to delegated authority may file an application for review by the Commission in accordance with § 1.115 of this chapter. (2) Any party to a part 8 proceeding aggrieved by any decision on the merits by an administrative law judge may file an appeal of the decision directly with the Commission, in accordance with §§ 1.276(a) and 1.277(a) through (c) of this chapter. APPENDIX C List of Commenters NPRM Comments orrow Leadership East Kentucky Leadership East Kentucky Leap Wireless International, Inc. and Cricket Communications, Inc. Leap Level 3 Communications LLC Level 3 Links Technology Solutions, Inc. Links Lisa Marie Hanlon, TelTech Communications LLC Lisa Marie Hanlon Maneesh Pangasa Maneesh Pangasa Mary-Anne Wolf Mary-Anne Wolf Matthew J. Cybulski Matthew
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf
  • the staff pursuant to delegated authority may file an application for review by the Commission in accordance with § 1.115 of this chapter. (2) Any party to a part 8 proceeding aggrieved by any decision on the merits by an administrative law judge may file an appeal of the decision directly with the Commission, in accordance with §§ 1.276(a) and 1.277(a) through (c) of this chapter. 18000 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-201 APPENDIX C List of Commenters NPRM Comments501 Commenter Abbreviation 100 Black Men of America et al. (filed by Sylvia Aguilera) 100 Black Men of America et al. 2Wire, Inc. (filed by Jonathan Symonds) 2Wire 4Info, Inc. 4Info ACT 1 Group et al. (filed as World WideTechnology, Inc) ACT 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-44A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-44A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-44A1.txt
  • the same position monetarily as it would have occupied if the Cable Operators' attachments did not exist. Because Gulf Power failed to adduce any evidence identifying a specific lost opportunity caused by the Cable Operators' attachments, it failed to meet its burden of proof. Instead of ``point[ing] out with particularity alleged material errors in the decision,'' as required by Rule 1.277(a), Gulf Power in its Exceptions claims generally that the ALJ ``erred by not adopting Gulf Power's Proposed Findings,'' as well as its Reply Findings. Although our rules do not provide for incorporation by reference, we have closely examined the referenced material and find no error. The record demonstrates that, through a combination of the Cable Rate and contractual provisions covering
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-3.pdf
  • 4,725,707 0.442 270430 C R ELIZABETH TEL CO Cameron Telephone Company 4,205,196 3,508 1,198.74 2,276,575 0.213 270431 C R CENTURYTEL-NW LA CenturyTel, Inc. 6,958,873 10,262 678.12 2,652,744 0.248 270432 C R KAPLAN TEL CO 3,675,411 5,917 621.16 1,276,780 0.120 270433 C R LAFOURCHE TEL CO 8,769,237 16,734 524.04 2,391,985 0.224 270434 C R CENTURYTEL-EVANGELIN CenturyTel, Inc. 30,593,014 37,195 822.50 13,642,629 1.277 270435 C R NORTHEAST LOUISIANA 1,189,504 1,104 1,077.45 616,031 0.058 270436 C R CENTURY NORTH LA CenturyTel, Inc. 5,735,915 8,012 715.92 2,298,255 0.215 270438 C R RESERVE TEL CO CEA Capital 2,330,737 6,305 369.66 201,685 0.019 270439 C R CENTURYTEL-RINGGOLD CenturyTel, Inc. 1,179,938 1,987 593.83 388,030 0.036 270440 C R CENTURYTEL - EAST LA CenturyTel, Inc. 2,459,598 3,205 767.43 1,043,177
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/76print.html
  • issued by the staff pursuant to delegated authority may file an application for review by the Commission in accordance with 1.115 of this chapter. (2) Any party to a part 76 proceeding aggrieved by any decision on the merits by an administrative law judge may file an appeal of the decision directly with the Commission, in accordance with 1.276(a) and 1.277(a) through (c) of this chapter, except that in proceedings brought pursuant to 76.1003, 76.1302, and 76.1513 of this part, unless a stay is granted by the Commission, the decision by the administrative law judge will become effective upon release and will remain in effect pending appeal. [64 FR 6571, Feb. 10, 1999] [237][TOP] 76.11 Lockbox enforcement. Any party aggrieved by
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/engineering/part76.pdf
  • issued by the staff pursuant to delegated authority may file an application for review by the Commission in accordance with §1.115 of this chapter. (2) Any party to a part 76 proceeding aggrieved by any decision on the merits by an administrative law judge may file an appeal of the decision directly with the Commission, in accordance with §§1.276(a) and 1.277(a) through (c) of this chapter, except that in proceedings brought pursuant to §§76.1003, 76.1302, and 76.1513 of this part, unless a stay is granted by the Commission, the decision by the administrative law judge will become effective upon release and will remain in effect pending appeal. [64 FR 6571, Feb. 10, 1999] § 76.11 Lockbox enforcement. top Any party aggrieved
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/mission.html http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1997/mission.wp
  • request to amend its certification. B. Mission Mission first argues that the Commission was barred from considering its financial qualifications in 1992 because no party had excepted to the ALJ's determination in 1985 that Mission was financially qualified. Mission relies upon an agency rule that "[a]ny objection not saved by exception filed pursuant to this section is waived." 47 C.F.R. 1.277(a). As the Commission points out, however, that rule is a limitation upon parties, not upon the agency itself, which is authorized but not required (in 1.279) "to limit its review of those issues raised in exceptions." See Marlin Broadcasting of Central Florida, Inc. v. FCC, 952 F.2d 507, 514 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (although party waives objection not raised in exceptions,
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/echostar-directv/nab2_petition020402.pdf
  • of Harmonic MV50 Encoders by Year's End (May 7, 2001) ("'Harmonic's technology has played an integral role in our ability to provide the widest offering of channels possible to more than 9.8 million DIRECTV customers across the U.S.,' said Dave Baylor, executive vice president, DIRECTV, Inc."). 87 it has sold to DIRECTV, the compression ratio is actually between 12:1 and 14:1.277 There is no reason to doubt that EchoStar could purchase the same equipment (if it has not already done so). And if the manufacturer of the compression equipment is right that a compression ratio of 14:1 is in fact achievable, that single change (as compared to the low 10:1 ratio that EchoStar and DIRECTV assume in their Engineering Statement) would