FCC Web Documents citing 1.301

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3355A1.txt
  • in Wave 1 began on June 27, 2005 and the three-month mandatory negotiation period for these licensees began on September 28, 2005. 800 MHz Report and Order, � 201. For the TA's ADR procedures, see http://800ta.org/content/PDF/policy/ADRPlan.pdf. 800 MHz Report and Order, � 201. Id. Id., � 194. Parties may also appeal any decisions of the ALJ. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.301. 800 MHz Report and Order, � 201 n.524. Id., � 201. Id. Id., � 194. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 - � " ; B J � � � " � � F F ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l!
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1370A1.txt
  • January 3, 2006, and the three month mandatory negotiation period for these licensees began April 3, 2006. See Wave 3 Starter PN. 800 MHz Report and Order, � 201. For the TA's ADR procedures, see http://800ta.org/content/PDF/policy/ADRPlan.pdf. 800 MHz Report and Order, � 201. Id. Id., � 194. Parties may also appeal any decisions of the ALJ. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.301. 800 MHz Report and Order, � 201 n.524. Id., � 201. Id. Id., � 194. We note that a petition for reconsideration addressing cost responsibility is pending before the Commission. See Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Schwaninger & Associates, P.C. on January 3, 2006. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1881A1.txt
  • this precedent, the staff recently dismissed a petition for reconsideration of an NCE Section 307(b) determination as a procedurally improper appeal of an interlocutory determination. State of Oregon, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 11576 (MB 2008). Under the comparative hearing system, in modifying its rules to strictly limit appeals from interlocutory rulings to those categories specifically authorized in 47 C.F.R. � 1.301(a), the Commission explained, ``[the new rules] will expedite the conduct of hearing proceedings, . . . by cutting down on hearing delays occasioned by appeals which should be deferred pending action on the merits, and by freeing the Review Board to spend its resources on the other matters coming before it.'' Practice and Procedure, 20 RR 2d 1613, 1615 (1970).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-610A1.txt
  • this precedent, the staff recently dismissed a petition for reconsideration of an NCE Section 307(b) determination as a procedurally improper appeal of an interlocutory determination. State of Oregon, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 11576 (MB 2008). Under the comparative hearing system, in modifying its rules to strictly limit appeals from interlocutory rulings to those categories specifically authorized in 47 C.F.R. � 1.301(a), the Commission explained, ``[the new rules] will expedite the conduct of hearing proceedings, . . . by cutting down on hearing delays occasioned by appeals which should be deferred pending action on the merits, and by freeing the Review Board to spend its resources on the other matters coming before it.'' Practice and Procedure, 20 RR 2d 1613, 1615 (1970).
• 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
  • reasons we are adopting each one are set forth below. Part 0, Subpart B, Delegations of Authority. This Order amends the following rules in Part 0, Subpart B, Delegations of Authority, to delete or update references that are obsolete: Section 0.201(c), which, among other things, pertains to appeals from presiding officers' rulings, is amended to change the reference to section 1.301 in the second sentence to sections 1.301 and 1.302. The referenced procedures for appeals from rulings of the presiding officer are now governed by both sections. The rule is further amended to delete the third sentence because it refers to section 1.303, which the Commission has eliminated. Section 0.211(e), which pertains to the Chairman's delegated authority, is amended to change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-45A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-45A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-45A1.txt
  • to object to the grant of a construction permit for that channel. Order, FCC 00-382 � 3. Alleging that the dismissal of its pleading ``terminate[d] Givens & Bell's right to participate as a party to the hearing proceeding in MM Docket No. 85-440,'' it has now filed its Appeal, purportedly as a matter of right, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 1.301, Section 1.301 of the Rules. 3. Further administrative review of the Commission's April 19, 2000 award of a construction permit and termination of the above captioned adjudicatory proceeding is not authorized by Section 1.301, or by any other provision of the Commission's Rules. Section 1.301 authorizes the filing of appeals seeking review of interlocutory rulings of an Administrative Law Judge
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-275A1.txt
  • � 1, citing Memorandum Opinion and Order and Hearing Designation Order, 17 FCC Rcd 6180, 6197 � 34 (2002). Section 1.203 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.203, specifies that ``[t]he transcript of testimony and exhibits, together with all papers and requests filed in the proceeding, shall constitute the exclusive record for decision.'' Family seeks a waiver of Section 1.301(c)(5) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.301(c)(5), specifying that such appeals may not exceed 5 double-spaced typewritten pages. To support its claim of bias Family relies on a series of incidents allegedly too numerous to describe in a 5-page pleading. We take very seriously a licensee's right to a fair hearing before an impartial administrative law judge. We waive
• 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
  • Judges. The Commission has a number of alternatives under such circumstances to ensure expedited review, but a brief tolling of deadlines may be required in pending hearing cases. To the extent an ALJ decides to toll the deadline, we emphasize that this interlocutory decision will not be appealable to the Commission as a matter of right. Rather, pursuant to Section 1.301(b) of the Commission's rules, an appeal to the Commission of an ALJ's decision to toll the deadline shall be filed only if allowed by the ALJ. To the extent the ALJ does not allow an appeal, or if no permission to file an appeal is requested, an objection to the ALJ's decision to toll the deadline may be raised on
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/41/releases/fc970140.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/41/releases/fc970140.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/41/releases/fc970140.wp
  • of this chapter, the applicant has notified the appropriate Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA Form 7460-1), filed a request for antenna height clearance and obstruction marking and lighting specifications (FCC Form 854) with the Commission; (4) The applicant has indicated in the application that the proposed facility would not have a significant environmental effect, in accordance with 1.301 et seq.; and, (5) Under applicable international agreements and rules in this part, individual coordination of the proposed channel assignment(s) with a foreign administration is not required. * * * * * Subpart D - Narrowband PCS 2. Section 24.103(d) is revised to read as follows: 24.103 Construction requirements. (a) * * * * * (b) * * * *
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1881A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1881A1.pdf
  • this precedent, the staff recently dismissed a petition for reconsideration of an NCE Section 307(b) determination as a procedurally improper appeal of an interlocutory determination. State of Oregon, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 11576 (MB 2008). Under the comparative hearing system, in modifying its rules to strictly limit appeals from interlocutory rulings to those categories specifically authorized in 47 C.F.R. � 1.301(a), the Commission explained, ``[the new rules] will expedite the conduct of hearing proceedings, . . . by cutting down on hearing delays occasioned by appeals which should be deferred pending action on the merits, and by freeing the Review Board to spend its resources on the other matters coming before it.'' Practice and Procedure, 20 RR 2d 1613, 1615 (1970).
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-610A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-610A1.pdf
  • this precedent, the staff recently dismissed a petition for reconsideration of an NCE Section 307(b) determination as a procedurally improper appeal of an interlocutory determination. State of Oregon, Letter, 23 FCC Rcd 11576 (MB 2008). Under the comparative hearing system, in modifying its rules to strictly limit appeals from interlocutory rulings to those categories specifically authorized in 47 C.F.R. � 1.301(a), the Commission explained, ``[the new rules] will expedite the conduct of hearing proceedings, . . . by cutting down on hearing delays occasioned by appeals which should be deferred pending action on the merits, and by freeing the Review Board to spend its resources on the other matters coming before it.'' Practice and Procedure, 20 RR 2d 1613, 1615 (1970).
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/qwest_exparte062102.pdf
  • inclusion in the public record of the above-referenced docket. Respectfully, /s/ Melissa E. Newman cc: Kenneth Ferree (via email: kferree@fcc.gov) Roger Holberg (via email: rholberg@fcc.gov) Royce Sherlock (via email: rsherloc@fcc.gov) David Sappington (via email: dsapping@fcc.gov) James Bird (via email: jbird@fcc.gov) Kimberly Reindl (via email: kreindl@fcc.gov) Patrick Webre (via email: pwebre@fcc.gov) 7979 OLD GEORGETOWN ROAD 7TH FLOOR BETHESDA, MARYLAND USA 20814-2429 +1.301.718.0111 FAX � +1.301.215.4033 EMAIL � spri-info@spri.com WEBSITE: www.spri.com THE AT&T/COMCAST MERGER: ALL PAIN AND NO GAIN The AT&T/Comcast merger will result in irreparable harm to the public interest. Merger of the 1st and 3rd largest MSOs into one entity will exacerbate the existing problem of excessive cable market power in the acquisition of program channels for distribution on cable systems.