FCC Web Documents citing 73.3523

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260626A1.pdf
  • of (1) new CP for Fac. ID 91347 and (2) renewal for Fac. ID 52686, and also to expand the issue designated for the ALJ (Steinberg), by ORDER, DA 05-2000 - MB Docket #04-144, adopted and released 7/13/05. Application for Review filed 7/18/05 by Piscataway Board of Education. Motion for Leave to Withdraw Application filed 7/26/05 by King's Temple. Section 73.3523 Submission of Piscataway Board of Education filed 7/29/05 ALJ's Order, FCC 05M-36, released 8/4/05 Withdrawal of Application for Review filed 8/10/05 by Piscataway re: DA 05-2000 Application for Review dismissed 8/18/05 per applicant's request. No letter sent. Page 10 of 22 Broadcast Applications 8/22/2005 PUBLIC NOTICEFederal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 Recorded listing of releases and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.txt
  • Trustee under the settlement, $1 million, is the amount previously approved by the Bankruptcy Court for the sale of WHCT-TV's assets. The Bureau notes that there are arguable public interest detriments to the settlement because Shurberg would receive compensation of more than $7 million for dismissing its construction permit application, contrary to the payment restrictions contained in 47 C.F.R. § 73.3523, and the license would be awarded to Holdings, contrary to Commission policy generally disfavoring settlements involving ``white knights,'' i.e., non-applicant third parties. In this case, the Bureau maintains, countervailing public interest benefits outweigh the detriments and warrant waiver of the respective policies. Finally, because the assignment application is subject to the provisions of 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.3580 and 73.3584, which
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-31A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-31A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-31A1.txt
  • intention of terminating its operations on the translators. Consequently, we issued the NAL. II. DISCUSSION 5. In responding to the NAL, Peninsula acknowledges that it continued to operate the FM translators following its receipt of the May 2001 MO&O. Peninsula seeks to justify its continued operation by claiming that its renewal applications are still ``pending'' pursuant to sections 1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.62 and 73.3523, and that those rules therefore permit Peninsula to continue operation. We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we note that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful. As the Act specifically provides:
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-32A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-32A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-32A1.txt
  • stations. It is undisputed that Peninsula has not complied with our order. Peninsula has indicated that it intends to continue to operate despite the Commission's order until the D.C. Circuit rules on its appeal of the May 2001 MO&O. 3. Peninsula has argued that it is justified in continuing to operate despite the Commission's order pursuant to sections 1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.62 and 73.3523, because its renewal applications are still ``pending.'' We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we note that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful. As the Act specifically provides: All such orders
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03D-01A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03D-01A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03D-01A1.txt
  • pending by virtue of the appeal to the D.C. Circuit. (Id.) PCI continued to assert that the pendency of renewal applications allowed PCI to continue operating the FM translators until the D.C. Circuit decided the appeal. (EB Exh. 27 at 2-3.) PCI was relying on two non-applicable Commission rules: § 1.62(a)(1) (operation authorized pending action on renewal applications) and § 73.3523(d)(a) (application deemed pending until order becomes not subject to further review by courts). (EB Exh. 27 at 2-3.) Mr. Becker also asserted that continuation of broadcasting over the translator stations was needed to avoid automatic license termination. Section 312(g) of the Act provides: If a broadcasting station fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive 12-month period, then the station
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-31A1.html
  • intention of terminating its operations on the translators. Consequently, we issued the NAL. II. DISCUSSION 5. In responding to the NAL, Peninsula acknowledges that it continued to operate the FM translators following its receipt of the May 2001 MO&O. Peninsula seeks to justify its continued operation by claiming that its renewal applications are still ``pending'' pursuant to sections 1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.62 and 73.3523, and that those rules therefore permit Peninsula to continue operation. We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we note that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful. As the Act specifically provides: All
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-32A1.html
  • stations. It is undisputed that Peninsula has not complied with our order. Peninsula has indicated that it intends to continue to operate despite the Commission's order until the D.C. Circuit rules on its appeal of the May 2001 MO&O.6 3. Peninsula has argued that it is justified in continuing to operate despite the Commission's order pursuant to sections 1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.62 and 73.3523, because its renewal applications are still ``pending.'' We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we note that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful. As the Act specifically provides: All such orders shall
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/amfmrule.html
  • of applications. [598]TEXT [599]PDF 73.3514 Content of applications. [600]TEXT [601]PDF 73.3516 Specification of facilities. [602]TEXT [603]PDF 73.3517 Contingent applications. [604]TEXT [605]PDF 73.3518 Inconsistent or conflicting applications. [606]TEXT [607]PDF 73.3519 Repetitious applications. [608]TEXT [609]PDF 73.3520 Multiple applications. [610]TEXT [611]PDF 73.3521 Mutually exclusive applications for low power television, television translators and television booster stations. [612]TEXT [613]PDF 73.3522 Amendment of applications. [614]TEXT [615]PDF 73.3523 Dismissal of applications in renewal proceedings. [616]TEXT [617]PDF 73.3525 Agreements for removing application conflicts. [618]TEXT [619]PDF 73.3526 Local public inspection file of commercial stations. [620]TEXT [621]PDF 73.3527 Local public inspection file of noncommercial educational stations. [622]TEXT [623]PDF 73.3533 Application for construction permit or modification of construction permit. [624]TEXT [625]PDF 73.3536 Application for license to cover construction permit. [626]TEXT [627]PDF 73.3537
• 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
  • educational use, without prejudice, after it has been designated for hearing, will be considered only upon written petition properly served upon all parties of record. Such requests shall be granted only upon a showing that the request is based on circumstances wholly beyond the applicant's control which preclude further prosecution of his application. (c) Subject to the provisions of §§ 73.3523 and 73.3525, any application for minor modification of facilities may, upon request of the applicant, be dismissed without prejudice as a matter of right. (d) An applicant's request for the return of an application that has been accepted for filing will be regarded as a request for dismissal. Section 73.3571 is amended to read as follows: § 73.3571 Processing of
• 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
  • educational use, without prejudice, after it has been designated for hearing, will be considered only upon written petition properly served upon all parties of record. Such requests shall be granted only upon a showing that the request is based on circumstances wholly beyond the applicant's control which preclude further prosecution of his application. (c) Subject to the provisions of §§ 73.3523 and 73.3525, any application for minor modification of facilities may, upon request of the applicant, be dismissed without prejudice as a matter of right. (d) An applicant's request for the return of an application that has been accepted for filing will be regarded as a request for dismissal. Section 73.3571 is amended to read as follows: § 73.3571 Processing of
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-31A1.html
  • intention of terminating its operations on the translators. Consequently, we issued the NAL. II. DISCUSSION 5. In responding to the NAL, Peninsula acknowledges that it continued to operate the FM translators following its receipt of the May 2001 MO&O. Peninsula seeks to justify its continued operation by claiming that its renewal applications are still ``pending'' pursuant to sections 1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.62 and 73.3523, and that those rules therefore permit Peninsula to continue operation. We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we note that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful. As the Act specifically provides: All
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-32A1.html
  • stations. It is undisputed that Peninsula has not complied with our order. Peninsula has indicated that it intends to continue to operate despite the Commission's order until the D.C. Circuit rules on its appeal of the May 2001 MO&O.6 3. Peninsula has argued that it is justified in continuing to operate despite the Commission's order pursuant to sections 1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.62 and 73.3523, because its renewal applications are still ``pending.'' We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we note that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful. As the Act specifically provides: All such orders shall
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-31A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-31A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-31A1.txt
  • intention of terminating its operations on the translators. Consequently, we issued the NAL. II. DISCUSSION 5. In responding to the NAL, Peninsula acknowledges that it continued to operate the FM translators following its receipt of the May 2001 MO&O. Peninsula seeks to justify its continued operation by claiming that its renewal applications are still ``pending'' pursuant to sections 1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.62 and 73.3523, and that those rules therefore permit Peninsula to continue operation. We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we note that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful. As the Act specifically provides:
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-32A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-32A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-02-32A1.txt
  • stations. It is undisputed that Peninsula has not complied with our order. Peninsula has indicated that it intends to continue to operate despite the Commission's order until the D.C. Circuit rules on its appeal of the May 2001 MO&O. 3. Peninsula has argued that it is justified in continuing to operate despite the Commission's order pursuant to sections 1.62 and 73.3523 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.62 and 73.3523, because its renewal applications are still ``pending.'' We disagree. As a preliminary matter, we note that even if the rules did permit Peninsula to continue operation, a licensee cannot ignore a Commission order simply because it believes such order to be unlawful. As the Act specifically provides: All such orders
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html
  • of applications. [598]TEXT [599]PDF 73.3514 Content of applications. [600]TEXT [601]PDF 73.3516 Specification of facilities. [602]TEXT [603]PDF 73.3517 Contingent applications. [604]TEXT [605]PDF 73.3518 Inconsistent or conflicting applications. [606]TEXT [607]PDF 73.3519 Repetitious applications. [608]TEXT [609]PDF 73.3520 Multiple applications. [610]TEXT [611]PDF 73.3521 Mutually exclusive applications for low power television, television translators and television booster stations. [612]TEXT [613]PDF 73.3522 Amendment of applications. [614]TEXT [615]PDF 73.3523 Dismissal of applications in renewal proceedings. [616]TEXT [617]PDF 73.3525 Agreements for removing application conflicts. [618]TEXT [619]PDF 73.3526 Local public inspection file of commercial stations. [620]TEXT [621]PDF 73.3527 Local public inspection file of noncommercial educational stations. [622]TEXT [623]PDF 73.3533 Application for construction permit or modification of construction permit. [624]TEXT [625]PDF 73.3536 Application for license to cover construction permit. [626]TEXT [627]PDF 73.3537
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/63-amfmrule.htm
  • of applications. [551]TEXT [552]PDF 73.3514 Content of applications. [553]TEXT [554]PDF 73.3516 Specification of facilities. [555]TEXT [556]PDF 73.3517 Contingent applications. [557]TEXT [558]PDF 73.3518 Inconsistent or conflicting applications. [559]TEXT [560]PDF 73.3519 Repetitious applications. [561]TEXT [562]PDF 73.3520 Multiple applications. [563]TEXT [564]PDF 73.3521 Mutually exclusive applications for low power television, television translators and television booster stations. [565]TEXT [566]PDF 73.3522 Amendment of applications. [567]TEXT [568]PDF 73.3523 Dismissal of applications in renewal proceedings. [569]TEXT [570]PDF 73.3525 Agreements for removing application conflicts. [571]TEXT [572]PDF 73.3526 Local public inspection file of commercial stations. [573]TEXT [574]PDF 73.3527 Local public inspection file of noncommercial educational stations. [575]TEXT [576]PDF 73.3533 Application for construction permit or modification of construction permit. [577]TEXT [578]PDF 73.3536 Application for license to cover construction permit. [579]TEXT [580]PDF 73.3537
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2002/0135965.pdf
  • there is pending before the Commission at the time of expiration of license any proper and timely application for renewal of license . . . such license shall continue in effect . . . until such time as the Com- mission shall make a final determination with respect to the renewal application." Then, Peninsula notes that under 47 C.F.R. § 73.3523(d)(2), "[a]n application shall be deemed to be pending before the Commission . . . until an order of the Commission granting or denying the application is no longer subject to reconsideration by the Commission or to review by any court." According to Peninsula, its licenses "continue in effect" under 47 C.F.R. § 1.62(a)(1) because its application is still "pending" under