FCC Web Documents citing 73.3525

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2416A1.txt
  • mutually exclusive applications that are not resolved by the parties. Mutually exclusive groups consisting of only new station applications will be resolved through auction procedures. Applicants who are permitted to resolve their mutual exclusivities through settlement, described supra, must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. � 311(c) and pertinent requirements of 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525, including, inter alia, reimbursement restrictions. In the interest of expediting new service to the public, conserving agency resources, and preserving the efficacy of the anti-collusion rules in general, only universal settlements will be considered. To facilitate processing, applicants who intend to settle should promptly notify the staff in writing that a pre-auction settlement is forthcoming. The prevailing party in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1223A1.doc
  • 1999, the applicants filed a joint request for approval of a settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the application of Marri will be granted. In addition, Fant has requested that the Commission dismiss his application with prejudice, and in exchange Marri will reimburse Fant for his legitimate and prudent expenses. The proposed settlement complies with the requirements of Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The applicants have submitted declarations stating that their applications were not filed for the purpose of reaching or carrying out this agreement, and that they have not received or promised any consideration or reimbursement of expenses in excess of applicants' legitimate and prudent expenses. Furthermore, Fant has documented legitimate and prudent expenses in the amount of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1289A1.txt
  • July 24, 2001, for parties with proposals in the mutually exclusive groups listed in Attachment A to enter into settlement agreements or otherwise resolve their mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solutions. Parties must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the pertinent requirements of Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules, including, inter alia, the reimbursement restrictions. The parties must submit the agreements and affidavits required by Section 73.3525 and/or any engineering submission by the July 24, 2001, deadline. The staff will request complete FCC Form 346's from the proposed permittee(s) upon approval of the settlement submission. Applicants resolving their mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solution
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2242A1.txt
  • groups identified in Attachment A to this Public Notice. Opening a window for universal settlements will provide an opportunity to resolve promptly these groups and permit the expeditious authorization of new broadcast service while the Commission formulates its response to the NPR decision. To facilitate this process the Commission directs the Bureau to waive the provisions of 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3) and accept universal settlements that involve payments to applicants that exceed their reasonable and prudent expenses. This approach has been used in similar circumstances. Section 73.3525(a) waivers were previously granted to expedite resolution of mutually exclusive applications that were frozen in response to Bechtel v, FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The same approach is codified in Section 309(l)(3)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-729A1.txt
  • The MO&O established actions that closed group applicants must take by a ``supplement date'', which we hereby announce will be June 4, 2001, approximately 45 days after the rule clarifications become effective. On or before June 4, 2001 pending closed group applicants must file either a settlement (which can exceed the monetary settlement caps set forth in 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3525(a)(3)) or a supplement claiming the points to which they are entitled under the new rules. Those filing neither a settlement agreement nor a supplement claiming points by June 4, 2001 will be dismissed. in the headlines section under the date ``02/28/2001''. Mutually exclusive applicants listed in Appendix D should contact each other to ascertain whether a settlement may now be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-461A1.txt
  • their MX status via engineering amendment and/or settlement. During this settlement period, applicants may submit unilateral engineering amendments (i.e., ones that do not involve negotiation or settlement with another other party) or settlements, including negotiated engineering solutions, to resolve their MX status. Pursuant to the Commission's directive in the DTV Report and Order, the reimbursement restrictions set forth in Section 73.3525(a)(3) of the Commission's Rules will not apply to settlements submitted during this window. Otherwise, parties must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the remaining provisions of Section 73.3525 of the Rules. Parties that have entered into settlement agreements must submit a written agreement and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2744A1.txt
  • Windows I, II, and III filers will end at the close of this settlement filing period. No other major change amendments will be accepted. Minor amendments also may be filed as part of a settlement. Applicants are encouraged to use time-share agreements and technical amendments to eliminate conflicts. To provide settling applicants with maximum flexibility, the Commission will waive Section 73.3525(a)(3) to permit the receipt of consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses. As a result, no applicant will be required to satisfy the related certification and disclosure requirements of Sections 73.3525(a)(3), (4) and (5). Settling applicants must comply with the Commission's general settlement rules in all other respects. Applicants must submit a joint request for approval of settlement and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3009A1.txt
  • waiver opportunity for Window IV filers will end at the close of this settlement filing period. No other major change amendments will be accepted. Minor amendments also may be filed as part of a settlement. Applicants are encouraged to use time-share agreements and technical amendments to eliminate conflicts. To provide settling applicants with maximum flexibility, the Commission will waive Section 73.3525(a)(3) to permit the receipt of consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses. As a result, no applicant will be required to satisfy the related certification and disclosure requirements of Sections 73.3525(a)(3), (4) and (5). Settling applicants must comply with the Commission's general settlement rules in all other respects. Applicants must submit a joint request for approval of settlement and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3739A1.txt
  • and licensees may have experienced difficulties in timely filing amendments, settlements, contracts, and applications for licenses. The Bureau will waive these requirements in appropriate circumstances. For further information, contact the Audio Division at 418-2700 or the Video Division at 418-1600. Adopted by Chief, Media Bureau - FCC - See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3516 (e) (1). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.65, 73.3525, 73.3615, and 73.3598. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) 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 h�! h� �@��� ��^��gd� gd� gd�! gd�! - ! � � � h�! h� h� ��^��gd� gd�! h�! ��PNG r v ��"r�9 I'6� �d�Y�͆aX ���; Wh� �X,�aX���y�]\\.W`h���va6l! �v"]�V�at�������-``````�"m(c)x<��G�<���={-N��J%t�<== �"""x ҍ�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3881A1.txt
  • have this final opportunity to discuss with other applicants possible settlements or technical solutions to resolve mutual exclusivities. Once this final settlement period is completed, the anti-collusion restrictions will again take effect. Parties must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the pertinent requirements of Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules, including, inter alia, the reimbursement restrictions. The parties must submit the agreements and affidavits required by Section 73.3525 and/or any engineering submission by the deadline. The staff will request complete FCC Form 346's from the proposed permittee(s) upon approval of the settlement submission. Applicants resolving their mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solution may do so
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1556A1.txt
  • 418-0500 445 12th STREET, S.W. Fax-On-Demand: (202) 418-2830 ftp.fcc.gov DA 04-1556 May 28, 2004 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: JULY 6, 2004 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement between competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application involves a settlement of applications that were mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with this application will be accepted for filing. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1653A1.txt
  • 12th STREET, S.W. Fax-On-Demand: (202) 418-2830 ftp.fcc.gov DA 04-1653 Released: June 9, 2004 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF DIGITAL TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: JULY 14, 2004 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement between competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application involves a settlement of applications that were mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with this application will be accepted for filing. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1692A1.txt
  • 11, 2004). The Attachment A applications are ready for processing under these standards. The Bureau has concluded, however, that it should provide this very large group of long-pending applications one additional and final settlement opportunity to resolve application conflicts prior to applying the new NCE selection rules. The NCE MO&O directed the staff to waive the reimbursement limitations of Section 73.3525(a) of the Commission's rules to facilitate settlements and the expeditious introduction of new NCE FM service. Accordingly, the Commission will waive the reimbursement limitations of Section 73.3525(a)(3) for settlement agreements received at the Commission's Office of the Secretary on or before August 13, 2004. This settlement window will provide a last opportunity for these applicants to enter into settlement agreements
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2481A1.txt
  • 445 12th STREET, S.W. Fax-On-Demand: (202) 418-2830 ftp.fcc.gov DA 04-2481 Released: August 6, 2004 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement between competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application involves a settlement of applications that were mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with this application will be accepted for filing. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2546A1.txt
  • 445 12th STREET, S.W. Fax-On-Demand: (202) 418-2830 ftp.fcc.gov DA 04-2546 Released: August 18, 2004 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application involves a settlement of applications that were mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with this application will be accepted for filing. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2896A1.txt
  • 12th STREET, S.W. Fax-On-Demand: (202) 418-2830 ftp.fcc.gov DA 04-2896 Released: September 8, 2004 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF NONCOMMERCIAL TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: OCTOBER 13, 2004 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. See Public Notice, DA 01-729, rel. March 22, 2001; DA 01-1245, rel. May 24, 2001. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was ``cut-off'' on April 5, 1996, no application which would be in conflict with this application will be accepted for filing. Petitions to deny the application listed below must be on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-55A1.txt
  • Information: (202) 418-0500 445 12th STREET, S.W. Fax-On-Demand: (202) 418-2830 ftp.fcc.gov DA 04-55 Released: January 14, 2004 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application involves a merger of applications that were mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with this application will be accepted for filing. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-903A1.txt
  • Some applicants, permittees and licensees may have experienced difficulties in timely filing amendments, settlements, and contracts. The Bureau will waive these requirements in appropriate circumstances. For further information, contact the Audio Division at 418-2700 or the Video Division at 418-1600. Adopted by Chief, Media Bureau - FCC - See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3516 (e) (1). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.65, 73.3525 and 73.3615. (...continued from previous page) (continued....) 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 h� �@��� �@��� �@��� ^ _ � ��^��gd� gd� gd�! gd�! � h�! h� h� h� h�! ] ^ � � � � � � � � h� h�! � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1604A1.txt
  • groups consisting of only new commercial AM station applications for the same community will proceed directly to auction. Applicants that are permitted to resolve their mutual exclusivities through settlement, described supra, must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``the Act''), and the pertinent requirements of Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules, including, inter alia, reimbursement restrictions. In the interest of expediting new AM service to the public, the Commission will accept both universal - in which all applicants in the particular MX group participate - and non-universal settlements. Universal settlements, however, are encouraged. Applicants must submit a joint request for approval of settlement and a copy of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1688A1.txt
  • well as to reduce current backlogs in proceedings to amend the Table. In the 2005 Allocations NPRM, the Commission directed the Bureau to announce by public notice the opening of a 90-day window in which universal settlements of certain pending proceedings to amend the Table would be accepted. The Commission specifically directed the Bureau to waive the provisions of Section 73.3525(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, which requires a settling party to certify that neither it nor its principals has received any money or other consideration in excess of its legitimate and prudent expenses. Accordingly, the Bureau will waive the reimbursement limitations of Section 73.3525(a)(3) for universal settlement agreements received at the Commission's Office of the Secretary on or before September 19,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1871A1.txt
  • 445 12th STREET, S.W. Fax-On-Demand: (202) 418-2830 ftp.fcc.gov DA 05-1871 Released: June 29, 2005 NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: AUGUST 1, 2005 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement between competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application involves a settlement of applications that were mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with this application will be accepted for filing. See Implementation of Section 309(j) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2020A1.txt
  • STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: AUGUST 22, 2005 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications filed in accordance with Section 3002(a)(3) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) and pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, and involves a ``white knight'' amendment, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. See First Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2852A1.txt
  • STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: December 9, 2005 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications filed in accordance with Section 3002(a)(3) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) and pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. See First Report and Order in MM Docket 97-234,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2034A1.txt
  • the Bureaus announce a 60-day period beginning with the release of this Public Notice and ending December 15, 2006, for parties with proposals in the mutually exclusive (MX) groups listed in Attachment A to enter into settlement agreements or otherwise resolve their mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solutions. The parties must submit the agreements and affidavits required by Section 73.3525 and/or any engineering submission by the deadline on December 15, 2006. After approval of a settlement and/or engineering submission, the proposed permittee(s) must submit an accurate and complete FCC Form 346 by the deadline subsequently specified by staff. Applicants must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-521A1.txt
  • STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE CUT-OFF DATE: May 3, 2006 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications filed in accordance with Section 3002(a)(3) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997) and pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, and involves a ``white knight'' amendment, the application is considered to be ``cut-off,'' and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. See First Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1935A1.txt
  • (``First Settlement''), pursuant to which Apache agreed to dismiss its application in return for receiving $25,000 from Konpnicki. Navajo tendered an ``Opposition to Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement'' on February 28, 1996, the same date on which it filed its Petition to Deny Konipnicki's application. Navajo argued that the applicants were ineligible to take advantage of the Section 73.3525 waiver policy set forth in the 1995 Settlement Public Notice allowing settlements among MX applicants for a limited period without a limit on the amount of consideration that could be paid a dismissing applicant because their November 1995 applications were not pending at the time the that Public Notice was released. In response, on April 5, 1996, Konopnicki and Apache
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1936A1.txt
  • the fact that, in Kimler, the Purchase Option Agreement was included as a fundamental component of the Joint Petition for Approval of Agreement and Dismissal of Applicants, filed on May 5, 1999, well after the Settlement Window had closed. Thus, the Bureau viewed the option as an attempt to circumvent both the general prohibition against ``white knight'' settlements and Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules, both of which were in effect at the time the parties filed the settlement. Here, as noted in the CBC Dismissal Letter, the option agreement between Cumulus and Signature, as reflected in the Signature MOU, was not a settlement agreement to remove an application conflict, nor was it part of such a settlement agreement. Thus, Signature
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-193A1.txt
  • Video Division announces a 60-day period beginning with the release of this Public Notice and ending April 23, 2007, for parties with proposals in the mutually exclusive (MX) groups listed in Attachment A to enter into settlement agreements or otherwise resolve their mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solutions. The parties must submit the agreements and affidavits required by Section 73.3525 and/or any engineering submission by the deadline on April 23, 2007. After approval of a settlement and/or engineering submission, the proposed permittee(s) must submit an accurate and complete FCC Form 346 by the deadline subsequently specified by staff. Applicants must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4571A1.txt
  • a competing applicant to withdraw from another proceeding, unless the proposed dismissals result in grantable singleton applications in each group. Universal settlements are encouraged but not required. Applicants entering into agreements to procure the removal of a conflict between applications by amendment or dismissal of an application must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the pertinent requirements of Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules, including the reimbursement restrictions. Specifically, parties must file with the FCC: 1. A copy of their settlement agreement and any ancillary agreement(s); 2. A joint request for approval of such agreement; and 3. An affidavit of each party to the agreement setting forth: (a) The reasons why it is considered that such agreement is in the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1681A1.txt
  • may be accommodated without disruption to the auction schedule. Such extension will permit additional parties to complete their documentation and will help to avoid incomplete filings. Therefore, the Auction 85 settlement period is extended to August 14, 2008 at 6:00 PM Eastern Time (ET). The parties must submit their requests for dismissal or settlement agreements (including affidavits required by Section 73.3525) and/or engineering submissions by the deadline on August 14, 2008, following the procedures described in the Auction 85 Comment Public Notice. Further instructions on the filings of settlements, dismissals and engineering submissions are contained in the Auction 85 Comment Public Notice at pages 4-6 and Appendix B. . TTY: (202) 418-0432. -- FCC -- See ``Auction of LPTV and TV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-460A1.txt
  • at 6:00 PM Eastern Time (ET) on Thursday, July 31, 2008, for parties with proposals in the mutually exclusive (MX) groups listed in Attachment A to dismiss their proposals, enter into settlement agreements or otherwise resolve their mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solutions. The parties must submit their requests for dismissal or settlement agreements (including affidavits required by Section 73.3525) and/or engineering submissions by the deadline on July 31, 2008. After approval of the settlement or engineering submission, the proposed permittee(s) must submit an accurate and complete FCC Form 346 by the deadline subsequently specified by staff. Applicants must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.txt
  • 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and to confirm that the Commission's rules prohibiting collusion applies to all broadcast services subject to competitive bidding. This section conforms the auction rules and procedures for broadcast construction permits with the Commission's Part 1 auction rules. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 309(j), 334 and 336. Section Number and Title: 73.3525(l) Agreements for removing application conflicts. Brief Description: This rule applies subsections (c) and (d) of Section 73.3597 to mutually exclusive noncommercial applications filed after the release of 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, Streamlining of Mass Media Applications, Rules, and Processes, MM Docket 98-43, 13 FCC Rcd 23056 (Nov. 25, 1998). Need: This section clarifies which applications are subject to subsections (c)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2196A1.txt
  • applicants. All four of the Supplemental 84 MX Applications listed in Attachment A are eligible for settlement under Section 73.5002(d). Settlement Agreements. Applicants permitted to resolve their mutual exclusivities through settlement must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and the pertinent requirements of Section 73.3525 of the Rules, including, inter alia, reimbursement restrictions. Applicants must submit a joint request for approval of settlement and a copy of the settlement agreement. Each party to the settlement must submit the affidavits required by 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a). Consistent with action taken on previously-filed AM Auction 84 mutually exclusive applications eligible for settlement, and in the interest of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1272A1.txt
  • order to consider the Settlement Agreement reached by these applicants. As discussed above, TIC and HIM have entered into a Settlement Agreement and filed a Joint Motion seeking our approval of the agreement. We have reviewed the Joint Motion and attached declarations, and the Settlement Agreement. We find that it complies fully with Section 311(c) of the Act and Section 73.3525 of the Rules, which govern settlement agreements among mutually exclusive broadcast applicants. Specifically, both TIC and HIM have certified that they did not file their applications for the purpose of reaching or carrying out a settlement. In addition, the Settlement Agreement specifies the exact nature of the consideration that HIM will receive from TIC, which both TIC and HIM have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1717A1.txt
  • objects to the grant of the Application, averring that: (1) Hammock is a ``sham applicant'' and therefore not qualified to hold an NCE license; (2) Hammock has misrepresented material facts in its Application, including its status as a Section 501(c)(3) organization and certification that it qualifies as an ``established local applicant''; and (3) the Settlements fail to comply with Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In its Opposition, Hammock asserts that the Cornerstone Petition is meritless, was filed solely for the destructive purpose of stopping a competitor, and thus constitutes a ``strike petition.'' Discussion. In assessing the merits of a petition to deny under Section 309(d) of the Communications of 1934, as amended, we first determine whether the petitioner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-208196A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 24880A RELEASED: DECEMBER 13, 2000 CUT-OFF DATE: JANUARY 23, 2001 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications, pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off'', and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. See First Report and Order in MM Docket 97-234,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-214773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-214773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-214773A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 25033A RELEASED: JULY 24, 2001 CUT-OFF DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off'', and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. In re Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-214822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-214822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-214822A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 25035A RELEASED: JULY 26, 2001 CUT-OFF DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off'', and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. In re Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-216392A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 25027A RELEASED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 CUT-OFF DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2001 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. Deadline for NCE Settlements and Supplements Extended to July 19, 2001 Public Notice, DA 01-1245, released May 24, 2001. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application is mutually exclusive with one or more applications which were previously accepted for filing and listed as subject to a cut-off date for conflicting applications, no application
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-218061A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 25122A RELEASED: NOVEMBER 30, 2001 CUT-OFF DATE: JANUARY 9, 2002 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be "cut-off", and no applications which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. See Mass Media Bureau Announces Window Filing Opportunity for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-220299A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 25180A RELEASED: February 27, 2002 CUT-OFF DATE: APRIL 7, 2002 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off'', and no applications which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. See Public Notice, ``Window Opened to Permit Settlements for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-221473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-221473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-221473A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE Report No: 25210A Released: APRIL 10, 2002 CUT-OFF DATE: MAY 17, 2002 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered to be ``cut-off'', and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. In re Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-221769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-221769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-221769A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE Report No: 25218A Released: April 22, 2002 CUT-OFF DATE: MAY 31, 2002 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was considered filed during a filing window, the application is ``cut-off'', and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. See Report and Order, Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants, MM Docket 95-31, 15 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-224308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-224308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-224308A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE Report No: 25276A Released: July 15, 2002 CUT-OFF DATE: AUGUST 23, 2002 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of April 5, 1996, the application is considered to be ``cut-off'', and no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted for filing. See ``Mass Media Bureau Announces Window Filing Opportunity for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-228505A1.txt
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE Report No. 25362A Released: November 15, 2002 CUT-OFF DATE: DECEMBER 23, 2002 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. See ``Mass Media Bureau Announces Window Filing Opportunity for Certain Pending Applications and Allotment Petitions for New Analog TV Stations'', Public Notice, DA 99-2605, released November 22, 1999 (extended, DA 00-536). The application is hereby accepted for filing. Since the application was mutually exclusive with other applications as of July 1, 1997, the application is considered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-24A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-24A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-24A1.txt
  • propose engineering solutions to resolve their mutual exclusivities, we will also permit applicants to enter into settlement agreements whereby one or more applicants may agree to change their proposed facilities or dismiss their expansion application altogether in exchange for compensation. In an effort to provide additional flexibility and to hasten the settlement process, we will waive the provisions of Section 73.3525(a)(3) of the Rules which limit the monetary settlement of pending applications to the legitimate and prudent expenses of the applicant. All other provisions of Section 73.3525 of the Rules will continue to be applied to these settlements. We find that the public interest will be served by waiving the monetary limitation because it will result in the resolution of more
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-64A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-64A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-64A1.txt
  • those settlement agreements, but have an affirmative obligation to submit a written statement to the staff by the supplement date referencing the pending settlement. Applicants with neither a settlement nor supplement on file by the supplement date will be dismissed. For settlements received by the supplement date, the Commission will waive any of its rules, such as 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3), that preclude the receipt of any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of an application, but due to the nature of the NCE service we will not waive our policy against ``white knight'' settlements involving non-applicant third parties. This is a one-time opportunity. We do not envision waiving our rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-6A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-6A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-6A1.txt
  • those settlement agreements, but have an affirmative obligation to submit a written statement to the staff by the supplement date referencing the pending settlement. Applicants with neither a settlement nor supplement on file by the supplement date will be dismissed. For settlements received by the supplement date, the Commission will waive any of its rules, such as 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3), that preclude the receipt of any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of an application, but due to the nature of the NCE service we will not waive our policy against ``white knight'' settlements involving non-applicant third parties. This is a one-time opportunity. We do not envision waiving our rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-206A1.txt
  • filing. See Radio Carrollton, 69 FCC 2d 1139, 1150-51 �� 24-26 (1978), recon. denied, 72 FCC 2d 264 (1979). See also Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 557 F.2d 866, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Thus, Adams' application would represent an abuse of process only if it was filed for the primary purpose of obtaining a settlement. See also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(b)(2). 14. We find that the record raises a substantial question as to whether Adams' primary interest was in owning and operating a station or whether the application was filed for other purposes with the ultimate expectation of settlement. Testimony by Adams' principal, Gilbert, suggests that the group's primary motivation was to influence Commission policy regarding home shopping stations generally, rather
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1.txt
  • NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3852-53 (paras. 12-14). Eliminating the anti-trafficking rule helps further that policy goal. Space Station Reform NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3885 (para. 115). It would undercut that goal to allow commenters to use our speculation concerns primarily for anti-competitive purposes to delay approval of other parties' transactions. Intelsat Comments at 17-18, citing 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3525, 73.3588. Intelsat Comments at 18-19. PanAmSat Comments at 18-19. See also Hughes Comments at 50-51 (retain rule but grant waivers in cases of "genuine cases of business transfers.") Teledesic Comments at 35-38; Teledesic Reply at 28-30. Space Station Reform NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3864-65 (para. 51). Space Station Reform NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3865 (para. 52). Space Station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-102A1_Erratum.doc
  • NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3852-53 (paras. 12-14). Eliminating the anti-trafficking rule helps further that policy goal. Space Station Reform NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3885 (para. 115). It would undercut that goal to allow commenters to use our speculation concerns primarily for anti-competitive purposes to delay approval of other parties' transactions. Intelsat Comments at 17-18, citing 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3525, 73.3588. Intelsat Comments at 18-19. PanAmSat Comments at 18-19. See also Hughes Comments at 50-51 (retain rule but grant waivers in cases of "genuine cases of business transfers.") Teledesic Comments at 35-38; Teledesic Reply at 28-30. Space Station Reform NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3864-65 (para. 51). Space Station Reform NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 3865 (para. 52). Space Station
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-44A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-44A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-44A1.txt
  • �� 154(i), 303(r). NAB Reply at 4-5. 47 C.F.R. � 1.2105(c)(1). In the Matter of Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2387 (1994). 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Broadcast Auction First Report & Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15927; Memorandum Opinion & Order, 14 FCC Rcd 8724, 8757-59 (1999). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525 (requiring, inter alia, an applicant to certify that it has not received any consideration in excess of its legitimate and prudent expenses). We will not extend a similar settlement opportunity to mixed groups, for other services, as some commenters suggested. See, e.g., Garter at 3; Rocky Mountain Corp. for Public Broadcasting at 3. Applicants for full-power FM and TV stations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-141A1.txt
  • recent decision in Delmarva Educational Association, 19 FCC Rcd 6793 (2004) (``Delmarva''), supports his contention that rule waiver is appropriate in order to achieve multiple grants. That case is distinguishable, arising as it did in a distinctly different context. The Commission mandated a settlement window for noncommercial educational (``NCE'') applicants, and also directed the Bureau to waive 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3), which limits consideration for dismissal of applications to legitimate and prudent expenses, during the settlement window. These Commission mandates enabled mutually exclusive NCE applicants, which are not subject to our auction procedures, to file universal settlements of their MX groups. In Delmarva, nine NCE applicants, with ten separate applications, agreed to the dismissal of seven applications and the grant of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-220A1.txt
  • of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Fixed Service Licenses, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 (1998). CBA Reply Comments at 10. To prevent possible abuse by applicants, we will require that parties submitting a settlement agreement comply with the settlement limitations set forth in Section 311(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules, including, inter alia, the reimbursement limitations. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). See Notice, 18 FCC Rcd at 18410 citing 47 C.F.R. � 73.3598. See APTS/PBS Comments at 9; Joint Commenters Comments at 23; Parsons Comments at 15; San Bernardino County Comments at 3; KM Comments at 13; Commercial Reply Comments at 6-7. APTS/PBS Comments at 9.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-90A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-90A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-90A1.txt
  • to their pending applications, in which they would claim Section 307(b) preferences, if applicable, and list the number of points to which they were entitled. 4. In the NCE MO&O, in order to facilitate universal settlements among existing groups of mutually exclusive applicants, the Commission directed the Bureau, until the point supplement filing deadline, to waive the provision of Section 73.3525(a)(3) of our Rules precluding the receipt of any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for dismissal of an application. Thus, during this limited time period, the Bureau would accept settlements that resolved the claims of all applications within a mutually exclusive group, in which consideration paid to the withdrawing applicants exceeded the expense
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-120A1.txt
  • Broadcast Applications,'' 16 FCC Rcd 17091 (MMB 2001) (``2001 Settlement Public Notice''). The same approach is codified in Section 309(l)(3) of the Act, which was adopted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to promote settlements of long-pending applications. 47 U.S.C. � 309(l)(3). 2001 Settlement Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 17091 (waiving provisions of 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3)). Id. But see Public Notice, ``Window Announced for Noncommercial Educational FM Settlements and Technical Amendments - Settlement Reimbursement Cap Waived Until August 13, 2004,'' 19 FCC Rcd 10498 (MB 2004) (encouraging, but not requiring, universal settlements). 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). First Broadcasting Petition at 24-25. Id. at 25. We note that, while the First Broadcasting Petition proposing this settlement window
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-204A1.txt
  • and 73.3539. * * * * * (e) Mutually exclusive applicants may propose a settlement at any time during the selection process after the release of a public notice announcing the mutually exclusive groups. Settlement proposals must include all of the applicants in a group and must comply with the Commission's rules and policies regarding settlements, including the requirements of Sections73.3525, 73.3588, and 73.3589. Settlement proposals may include time-share agreements that comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, provided that such agreements may not be filed for the purpose of point aggregation outside of the 90 day period set forth in paragraph (c) of this section. 8. Section 73.3598 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-190A1.txt
  • during the threshold qualifications window, the FCC will specify by Public Notice a period of time, after the close of the threshold qualifications window but before the next FM auction, during which the parties may negotiate a settlement or bona fide merger, as a way of resolving the conflict between their applications. Parties to a settlement must comply with � 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. If a settlement or bona fide merger is reached, the surviving application will be processed. If no settlement or bona fide merger is reached among the threshold qualifications window applicants, the Tribal Priority FM allotment will be offered at auction as described in paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(5) of this section, except that only those applicants whose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-67A1.txt
  • SDSMT and Three Angels. The other participant in the Group 417 tie-breaker was Three Angels. In its Motion, Three Angels requests the dismissal of its Application with prejudice. In support of its Motion, Three Angels states that ``[t]he Church has been dissolved and no longer functions as an independent entity.'' It has supplied the declaration regarding consideration required by Section 73.3525(c) of the Rules. In light of the foregoing, we will dismiss the RCCC Application, grant the Motion, and dismiss the Three Angels Application, and grant the SDSMT Application. NEXT STEPS Acceptability Studies and Filing of Petitions. The staff has examined the applications of each tentative selectee for application defects. Each tentative selectee identified in this Order and its Appendix appears
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • 60 We note, however, that the Commission's current settlement rules will continue to apply to pending mutually exclusive commercial and noncommercial applications, i.e., any pending applicants who did not take advantage of the Commission's prior windows for settling for more than out-of-pocket expenses and who wish to settle now are, absent a waiver of the provisions of 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525, restricted to out-of-pocket expenditures. Furthermore, we emphasize that settlement agreements to procure the removal of application conflict submitted pursuant to Section 311(c) of the Act and Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules, must be accompanied by affidavits from each party setting forth, inter alia, the exact nature and amount of any consideration paid or promised. 61 We recently released a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.pdf
  • equally among the remaining licensees for that station. For example, assume an unresolved tie among four grantable applications. If permittees A, B, C and D file their license applications in that order, then their two-year license terms will be in that sequence, with the eight years commencing on the date that A's license application is granted. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525. See NCE Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21176, n. 22. 47 U.S.C. �155(c)(1). The Commission previously secured similar legislation allowing it to delegate authority to the staff to conduct ITFS point system proceedings. See id. Comments of Robert W. Federal at 5; Comments of Scott D. Fowler at 4; Comments of John D. Bowker at 16. Comments of Craig
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.txt
  • of permits in cases where the parties are not interested in settlement, we stress that parties are free to settle at any time during the process. Our general rules for broadcast settlements will apply, including the requirement that the settling parties certify that they have not received consideration in excess of their legitimate and prudent expenses. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525. We are not adopting the suggestion of licensing two stations over one, in the event of a three-way tie. We see this suggestion as one best considered by the applicants themselves as part of any settlement negotiations that they may undertake voluntarily. D. Attribution Issues for NCE Point System Several of the factors in the NCE point system including local
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fc01064.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fc01064.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fc01064.txt
  • those settlement agreements, but have an affirmative obligation to submit a written statement to the staff by the supplement date referencing the pending settlement. Applicants with neither a settlement nor supplement on file by the supplement date will be dismissed. For settlements received by the supplement date, the Commission will waive any of its rules, such as 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3), that preclude the receipt of any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of an application, but due to the nature of the NCE service we will not waive our policy against ``white knight'' settlements involving non-applicant third parties. This is a one-time opportunity. We do not envision waiving our rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.txt
  • engineering solutions to resolve their mutual exclusivities, we will also permit applicants to enter into settlement agreements whereby one or more applicants may agree to change their proposed facilities or dismiss their expansion application altogether in exchange for compensation. 101 In an effort to provide additional flexibility and to hasten the settlement process, we will waive the provisions of Section 73.3525(a)(3) of the Rules which limit the monetary settlement of pending applications to the legitimate and prudent expenses of the applicant.102 All other provisions of Section 73.3525 of the Rules will continue to be applied to these settlements. We find that the public interest will be served by waiving the monetary limitation because it will result in the resolution of more
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01064.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01064.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01064.txt
  • those settlement agreements, but have an affirmative obligation to submit a written statement to the staff by the supplement date referencing the pending settlement. Applicants with neither a settlement nor supplement on file by the supplement date will be dismissed. For settlements received by the supplement date, the Commission will waive any of its rules, such as 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3), that preclude the receipt of any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of an application, but due to the nature of the NCE service we will not waive our policy against ``white knight'' settlements involving non-applicant third parties. This is a one-time opportunity. We do not envision waiving our rules
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/da010729.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/da010729.html http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/da010729.txt
  • The MO&O established actions that closed group applicants must take by a ``supplement date'', which we hereby announce will be June 4, 2001, approximately 45 days after the rule clarifications become effective. On or before June 4, 2001 pending closed group applicants must file either a settlement (which can exceed the monetary settlement caps set forth in 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3525(a)(3)) or a supplement claiming the points to which they are entitled under the new rules. Those filing neither a settlement agreement nor a supplement claiming points by June 4, 2001 will be dismissed. in the headlines section under the date ``02/28/2001''. Mutually exclusive applicants listed in Appendix D should contact each other to ascertain whether a settlement may now be
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/amfmrule.html
  • [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 Application for license to use former main antenna as
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da991638.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da991638.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/da991638.wp
  • electing not to participate in the auction. Refunds will be issued only upon specific request. On or before August 20, 1999, - the Form 175 filing deadline date - pending applicants may file a pleading disavowing any interest in participating in the auction, seeking the dismissal of their applications, and requesting a refund of paid fees. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(c). Such pleadings should be addressed to the appropriate Division - Audio Services Division or Video Services Division. Once the dismissal of the application is final, refund requests will be processed and the pertinent paperwork forwarded to the Commission's Fees Section. The Commission will not refund filing fees paid by applicants who file FCC Form 175 applications, thus electing to participate
• 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
  • commercial full-power radio or television station) could not benefit from the waiver. 72. Pursuant to Section 309(l)(3), mandating that the Commission "shall . . . waive any provisions of its regulations necessary to permit such persons to enter an agreement to procure the removal of a conflict between their applications," we have waived the payment limitations set forth in Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525, as well as our prohibition against third-party settlements. Several 68 commenters urge that our settlement policy is too restrictive in excluding post-June 30, 1997 applicants for new commercial full power radio and television stations (even if mutually exclusive with pre-July 1, 1997 applicants) and all pending applicants for licenses to provide secondary
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.wp
  • in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications but before the start of the auction. Any settlement must comply with all applicable Commission regulations, including the limitations on payments to settling applicants and the prohibition against non-party (or "white knight") settlements. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a). Any amendments filed by competing applicants to resolve their mutual exclusivities must be minor, as defined by the rules of the applicable service. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3572(a); 74.1233(a). To resolve mutual 102 exclusivities, applicants may also, as permitted under existing Commission rules, file negotiated agreements to accept interference, or demonstrate that, based on terrain shielding, no actual interference will
• 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
  • commercial full-power radio or television station) could not benefit from the waiver. 72. Pursuant to Section 309(l)(3), mandating that the Commission "shall . . . waive any provisions of its regulations necessary to permit such persons to enter an agreement to procure the removal of a conflict between their applications," we have waived the payment limitations set forth in Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525, as well as our prohibition against third-party settlements. Several 68 commenters urge that our settlement policy is too restrictive in excluding post-June 30, 1997 applicants for new commercial full power radio and television stations (even if mutually exclusive with pre-July 1, 1997 applicants) and all pending applicants for licenses to provide secondary
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.wp
  • in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications but before the start of the auction. Any settlement must comply with all applicable Commission regulations, including the limitations on payments to settling applicants and the prohibition against non-party (or "white knight") settlements. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a). Any amendments filed by competing applicants to resolve their mutual exclusivities must be minor, as defined by the rules of the applicable service. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3572(a); 74.1233(a). To resolve mutual 102 exclusivities, applicants may also, as permitted under existing Commission rules, file negotiated agreements to accept interference, or demonstrate that, based on terrain shielding, no actual interference will
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/da002416.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/da002416.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/da002416.txt
  • mutually exclusive applications that are not resolved by the parties. Mutually exclusive groups consisting of only new station applications will be resolved through auction procedures. Applicants who are permitted to resolve their mutual exclusivities through settlement, described supra, must ensure that their settlement agreements comply with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. � 311(c) and pertinent requirements of 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525, including, inter alia, reimbursement restrictions. In the interest of expediting new service to the public, conserving agency resources, and preserving the efficacy of the anti-collusion rules in general, only universal settlements will be considered. To facilitate processing, applicants who intend to settle should promptly notify the staff in writing that a pre-auction settlement is forthcoming. The prevailing party in the
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.wp
  • in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications but before the start of the auction. Any settlement must comply with all applicable Commission regulations, including the limitations on payments to settling applicants and the prohibition against non-party (or "white knight") settlements. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a). Any amendments filed by competing applicants to resolve their mutual exclusivities must be minor, as defined by the rules of the applicable service. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3572(a); 74.1233(a). To resolve mutual 102 exclusivities, applicants may also, as permitted under existing Commission rules, file negotiated agreements to accept interference, or demonstrate that, based on terrain shielding, no actual interference will
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98281.pdf
  • 60 We note, however, that the Commission's current settlement rules will continue to apply to pending mutually exclusive commercial and noncommercial applications, i.e., any pending applicants who did not take advantage of the Commission's prior windows for settling for more than out-of-pocket expenses and who wish to settle now are, absent a waiver of the provisions of 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525, restricted to out-of-pocket expenditures. Furthermore, we emphasize that settlement agreements to procure the removal of application conflict submitted pursuant to Section 311(c) of the Act and Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules, must be accompanied by affidavits from each party setting forth, inter alia, the exact nature and amount of any consideration paid or promised. 61 We recently released a
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fc00019a.doc
  • Section 73.1750-Discontinuance of operation. Section 73.1920-Personal attacks. Section 73.1940-Legally qualified candidates for public office. Section 73.1941-Equal opportunities. Section 73.1943-Political file. Section 73.1944-Reasonable access. Section 73.3511-Applications required. Section 73.3512-Where to file; number of copies. Section 73.3513-Signing of applications. Section 73.3514-Content of applications. Section 73.3516-Specification of facilities. Section 73.3517-Contingent applications. Section 73.3518-Inconsistent or conflicting applications. Section 73.3519-Repetitious applications. Section 73.3520-Multiple applications. Section 73.3525-Agreements for removing application conflicts. Section 73.3539-Application for renewal of license. Section 73.3542-Application for emergency authorization. Section 73.3545-Application for permit to deliver programs to foreign stations. Section 73.3550-Requests for new or modified call sign assignments. Section 73.3561-Staff consideration of applications requiring Commission consideration. Section 73.3562-Staff consideration of applications not requiring action by the Commission. Section 73.3566-Defective applications. Section 73.3568-Dismissal of applications.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.txt
  • equally among the remaining licensees for that station. For example, assume an unresolved tie among four grantable applications. If permittees A, B, C and D file their license applications in that order, then their two-year license terms will be in that sequence, with the eight years commencing on the date that A's license application is granted. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525. See NCE Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21176, n. 22. 47 U.S.C. �155(c)(1). The Commission previously secured similar legislation allowing it to delegate authority to the staff to conduct ITFS point system proceedings. See id. Comments of Robert W. Federal at 5; Comments of Scott D. Fowler at 4; Comments of John D. Bowker at 16. Comments of Craig
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00120.txt
  • of permits in cases where the parties are not interested in settlement, we stress that parties are free to settle at any time during the process. Our general rules for broadcast settlements will apply, including the requirement that the settling parties certify that they have not received consideration in excess of their legitimate and prudent expenses. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525. We are not adopting the suggestion of licensing two stations over one, in the event of a three-way tie. We see this suggestion as one best considered by the applicants themselves as part of any settlement negotiations that they may undertake voluntarily. D. Attribution Issues for NCE Point System Several of the factors in the NCE point system including local
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00149.doc
  • also further the public interest by expediting long awaited, much needed television service to Charlottesville. Moreover, as discussed below, we intend to modify the authorization to specify operation on Channel 19, thereby avoiding any possible impact on public safety use. 16. The proposed settlement agreement complies fully with 47 U.S.C. � 311(c) of the Communications Act and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a) of the Commission's Rules governing settlement agreements among mutually exclusive broadcast applications. Attached to the applicants' Joint Petition are declarations from each party to the agreement stating that their respective applications were not filed for the purpose of reaching a settlement agreement. They further state that approval of the agreement will serve the public interest by expediting the initiation of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fc01064.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fc01064.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fc01064.txt
  • those settlement agreements, but have an affirmative obligation to submit a written statement to the staff by the supplement date referencing the pending settlement. Applicants with neither a settlement nor supplement on file by the supplement date will be dismissed. For settlements received by the supplement date, the Commission will waive any of its rules, such as 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3), that preclude the receipt of any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of an application, but due to the nature of the NCE service we will not waive our policy against ``white knight'' settlements involving non-applicant third parties. This is a one-time opportunity. We do not envision waiving our rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01024.txt
  • propose engineering solutions to resolve their mutual exclusivities, we will also permit applicants to enter into settlement agreements whereby one or more applicants may agree to change their proposed facilities or dismiss their expansion application altogether in exchange for compensation. In an effort to provide additional flexibility and to hasten the settlement process, we will waive the provisions of Section 73.3525(a)(3) of the Rules which limit the monetary settlement of pending applications to the legitimate and prudent expenses of the applicant. All other provisions of Section 73.3525 of the Rules will continue to be applied to these settlements. We find that the public interest will be served by waiving the monetary limitation because it will result in the resolution of more
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01064.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01064.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2001/fcc01064.txt
  • those settlement agreements, but have an affirmative obligation to submit a written statement to the staff by the supplement date referencing the pending settlement. Applicants with neither a settlement nor supplement on file by the supplement date will be dismissed. For settlements received by the supplement date, the Commission will waive any of its rules, such as 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3), that preclude the receipt of any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for the dismissal of an application, but due to the nature of the NCE service we will not waive our policy against ``white knight'' settlements involving non-applicant third parties. This is a one-time opportunity. We do not envision waiving our rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Applications/pnmm9297.doc
  • of the agreement and the attached declarations, by this Public Notice, the Mass Media Bureau finds that approval of the Settlements would serve the public interest and that the applications were not filed for the purpose of reaching or carrying out the settlements. Accordingly, the applicants have complied with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. � 311(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525. For each community of license listed below, the Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement Agreement IS GRANTED and for: PARKER, ARIZONA Farmworker Educational Radio Network, Inc.'s application (File No. BPH-971003ME) IS GRANTED; Western Broadcasting System, Inc.'s application (File No. BPH-971002ME) IS DISMISSED. NASHVILLE, ARKANSAS Harold L. Sudbury, Jr.'s application (File No. BPH-970820MD) IS GRANTED; Temperance Broadcasting Company's application (File No.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/ITFS_Notices/fcc00098.doc
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 1 V V V � � � � � � � � � � � � � V FCC 00-98 Released: March 20, 2000 ITFS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE APPLICATIONS - SETTLEMENT PERIOD The FCC will waive certain provisions of 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a), which limits the terms for settlement among applicants competing for Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) facilities, for a 60 day period, effective April 30, 2000. In order to facilitate settlements, the FCC will also permit ``white knight'' settlements which involve the award of a license to a non-applicant third party. In the First Report and Order, Implementation of Section 309(j)
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/pnmm0010.doc
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 24664A RELEASED: FEBRUARY 4, 2000 CUT-OFF DATE: MARCH 18, 2000 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications, pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules. This application is hereby accepted for filing. Because the application listed below involve amendments to previously cut-off applications or resulted from a merger of one or more applications which were submitted in response to a cut-off date for conflicting applications, no applications which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/pnmm0015.doc
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 24674A RELEASED: FEBRUARY 18, 2000 CUT-OFF DATE: MARCH 28, 2000 NOTICE is hereby given that the applications listed in this notice are the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications, pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules. These applications are hereby accepted for filing. Because the applications listed below involve amendments to previously cut-off applications or resulted from a merger of one or more applications which were submitted in response to a cut-off date for conflicting applications, no application which would be in conflict with the applications on this list will be accepted
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/pnmm0026.doc
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 24703A RELEASED: MARCH 31, 2000 CUT-OFF DATE: MAY 9, 2000 NOTICE is hereby given that the applications listed in this notice are the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications, pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules. These applications are hereby accepted for filing. Because the applications listed below involve amendments to previously cut-off applications or resulted from a merger of one or more applications which were submitted in response to a cut-off date for conflicting applications, no application which would be in conflict with the applications on this list will be accepted
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/pnmm0034.doc
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit � � � NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 24719A RELEASED: APRIL 24, 2000 CUT-OFF DATE MAY 30, 2000 NOTICE is hereby given that the application listed in this notice is the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications, pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules. This application is hereby accepted for filing. Because the application listed below involves amendments to previously cut-off applications or resulted from a merger of one or more applications which were submitted in response to a cut-off date for conflicting applications, no application which would be in conflict with the application on this list will be accepted
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/pnmm9228.doc
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 24591A RELEASED: OCTOBER 15, 1999 CUT-OFF DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1999 NOTICE is hereby given that the applications listed in this notice are the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications, pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules. These applications are hereby accepted for filing. Because the applications listed below involve amendments to previously cut-off applications or resulted from a merger of one or more applications which were submitted in response to a cut-off date for conflicting applications, no application which would be in conflict with the applications on this list will be accepted
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/TV_Notices/pnmm9267.doc
  • information 202/418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202/418-2830 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE FOR FILING OF TELEVISION BROADCAST STATION APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF PETITION TO DENY DEADLINE REPORT NO. 24601A RELEASED: OCTOBER 28, 1999 CUT-OFF DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1999 NOTICE is hereby given that the applications listed in this notice are the result of a settlement agreement among competing applications, pursuant to Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules. These applications are hereby accepted for filing. Because the applications listed below involve amendments to previously cut-off applications or resulted from a merger of one or more applications which were submitted in response to a cut-off date for conflicting applications, no application which would be in conflict with the applications on this list will be accepted
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/da010729.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/da010729.html http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/da010729.txt
  • The MO&O established actions that closed group applicants must take by a ``supplement date'', which we hereby announce will be June 4, 2001, approximately 45 days after the rule clarifications become effective. On or before June 4, 2001 pending closed group applicants must file either a settlement (which can exceed the monetary settlement caps set forth in 47 C.F.R. Section 73.3525(a)(3)) or a supplement claiming the points to which they are entitled under the new rules. Those filing neither a settlement agreement nor a supplement claiming points by June 4, 2001 will be dismissed. in the headlines section under the date ``02/28/2001''. Mutually exclusive applicants listed in Appendix D should contact each other to ascertain whether a settlement may now be
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1935A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1935A1.pdf
  • (``First Settlement''), pursuant to which Apache agreed to dismiss its application in return for receiving $25,000 from Konpnicki. Navajo tendered an ``Opposition to Joint Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement'' on February 28, 1996, the same date on which it filed its Petition to Deny Konipnicki's application. Navajo argued that the applicants were ineligible to take advantage of the Section 73.3525 waiver policy set forth in the 1995 Settlement Public Notice allowing settlements among MX applicants for a limited period without a limit on the amount of consideration that could be paid a dismissing applicant because their November 1995 applications were not pending at the time the that Public Notice was released. In response, on April 5, 1996, Konopnicki and Apache
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1936A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1936A1.pdf
  • the fact that, in Kimler, the Purchase Option Agreement was included as a fundamental component of the Joint Petition for Approval of Agreement and Dismissal of Applicants, filed on May 5, 1999, well after the Settlement Window had closed. Thus, the Bureau viewed the option as an attempt to circumvent both the general prohibition against ``white knight'' settlements and Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules, both of which were in effect at the time the parties filed the settlement. Here, as noted in the CBC Dismissal Letter, the option agreement between Cumulus and Signature, as reflected in the Signature MOU, was not a settlement agreement to remove an application conflict, nor was it part of such a settlement agreement. Thus, Signature
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1272A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1272A1.pdf
  • order to consider the Settlement Agreement reached by these applicants. As discussed above, TIC and HIM have entered into a Settlement Agreement and filed a Joint Motion seeking our approval of the agreement. We have reviewed the Joint Motion and attached declarations, and the Settlement Agreement. We find that it complies fully with Section 311(c) of the Act and Section 73.3525 of the Rules, which govern settlement agreements among mutually exclusive broadcast applicants. Specifically, both TIC and HIM have certified that they did not file their applications for the purpose of reaching or carrying out a settlement. In addition, the Settlement Agreement specifies the exact nature of the consideration that HIM will receive from TIC, which both TIC and HIM have
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1717A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-1717A1.pdf
  • objects to the grant of the Application, averring that: (1) Hammock is a ``sham applicant'' and therefore not qualified to hold an NCE license; (2) Hammock has misrepresented material facts in its Application, including its status as a Section 501(c)(3) organization and certification that it qualifies as an ``established local applicant''; and (3) the Settlements fail to comply with Section 73.3525 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''). In its Opposition, Hammock asserts that the Cornerstone Petition is meritless, was filed solely for the destructive purpose of stopping a competitor, and thus constitutes a ``strike petition.'' Discussion. In assessing the merits of a petition to deny under Section 309(d) of the Communications of 1934, as amended, we first determine whether the petitioner
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-00-120A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-00-120A1.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-00-120A1.txt
  • of permits in cases where the parties are not interested in settlement, we stress that parties are free to settle at any time during the process. Our general rules for broadcast settlements will apply, including the requirement that the settling parties certify that they have not received consideration in excess of their legitimate and prudent expenses. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525. We are not adopting the suggestion of licensing two stations over one, in the event of a three-way tie. We see this suggestion as one best considered by the applicants themselves as part of any settlement negotiations that they may undertake voluntarily. D. Attribution Issues for NCE Point System Several of the factors in the NCE point system including local
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-04-90A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-04-90A1.pdf
  • to their pending applications, in which they would claim Section 307(b) preferences, if applicable, and list the number of points to which they were entitled. 4. In the NCE MO&O, in order to facilitate universal settlements among existing groups of mutually exclusive applicants, the Commission directed the Bureau, until the point supplement filing deadline, to waive the provision of Section 73.3525(a)(3) of our Rules precluding the receipt of any money or other consideration in excess of legitimate and prudent expenses in exchange for dismissal of an application. Thus, during this limited time period, the Bureau would accept settlements that resolved the claims of all applications within a mutually exclusive group, in which consideration paid to the withdrawing applicants exceeded the expense
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-05-120A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-05-120A1.pdf
  • Broadcast Applications,'' 16 FCC Rcd 17091 (MMB 2001) (``2001 Settlement Public Notice''). The same approach is codified in Section 309(l)(3) of the Act, which was adopted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to promote settlements of long-pending applications. 47 U.S.C. � 309(l)(3). 2001 Settlement Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 17091 (waiving provisions of 47 C.F.R. � 73.3525(a)(3)). Id. But see Public Notice, ``Window Announced for Noncommercial Educational FM Settlements and Technical Amendments - Settlement Reimbursement Cap Waived Until August 13, 2004,'' 19 FCC Rcd 10498 (MB 2004) (encouraging, but not requiring, universal settlements). 47 C.F.R. � 1.420(j). First Broadcasting Petition at 24-25. Id. at 25. We note that, while the First Broadcasting Petition proposing this settlement window
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-07-204A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-07-204A1.pdf
  • and 73.3539. * * * * * (e) Mutually exclusive applicants may propose a settlement at any time during the selection process after the release of a public notice announcing the mutually exclusive groups. Settlement proposals must include all of the applicants in a group and must comply with the Commission's rules and policies regarding settlements, including the requirements of Sections73.3525, 73.3588, and 73.3589. Settlement proposals may include time-share agreements that comply with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, provided that such agreements may not be filed for the purpose of point aggregation outside of the 90 day period set forth in paragraph (c) of this section. 8. Section 73.3598 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-11-190A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-11-190A1.pdf
  • during the threshold qualifications window, the FCC will specify by Public Notice a period of time, after the close of the threshold qualifications window but before the next FM auction, during which the parties may negotiate a settlement or bona fide merger, as a way of resolving the conflict between their applications. Parties to a settlement must comply with � 73.3525 of the Commission's rules. If a settlement or bona fide merger is reached, the surviving application will be processed. If no settlement or bona fide merger is reached among the threshold qualifications window applicants, the Tribal Priority FM allotment will be offered at auction as described in paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(5) of this section, except that only those applicants whose
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/92-53.pdf
  • thereisnorecordofsuchafilingintheCommission's files.Ifregularmailserviceisused,theapplicantmust submitproofthatthemaileddocumentwasproperly addressedtotheCommission,hadsufficientpostage,and wasdepositedinthemail.SeeInreYoderCo.,758F.2d 1114,1118 Para.4(6thCir.1985);andSimpsonv.Jefferson StandardLifeInsuranceCompany,465F.2d1320(6thCir. 1972).Thatadeliveryserviceotherthanregularmail serviceisuseddoesnotmateriallyaffectthetypeofproof thatmustbesubmitted.SeeYoder,supraat1120,1121Paragraphs 10and11. 11.Here,Midwayreliedonaverifiedstatementofits counseltomeetitsburdenofproofofproperdelivery. Therein,counselstatedthatheusedanovernightcourier todeliverMidway'sclaimedappealtotheCommission, thathedidnotknowwhichcourierwasused,butthathe wasattemptingtoobtaininvoicesand/orbillsofladingto establishitsidentity.Midwayhasneverprovidedthese documentstotheCommission,eventhoughitwasspecifi- callyinvitedtodoso.6Underthecircumstancesofthis case,webelievethatsomethingmorewasrequiredof Midway:namely,thepertinentinvoiceand/orbilloflad- ingfromthecourierthatcounselindicatedhewasat- temptingtoobtain,whichwouldhavecertainlyshownthe identityofthecourierandwhenitsserviceswerere- tained.Intheabsenceofsuchcorroboratingevidence,we cannotagreewiththeBoardthatMidwaymetitsburden ofshowingproperdeliverytotheCommissionofits appeal. 12.Inviewoftheforegoing,wefindthatnotimely appealoftheALJ'sorderdismissingMidway'sapplication waspendingbeforetheCommission;thatnogoodcause forthelate-filingofsuchanappealisapparentbasedon thecircumstancesbeforeus;that,consequently,theALJ's dismissalorderbecamefinalasamatteroflawunder Section1.302;7andthatactionsthereafterbytheBoard andtheALJwerethereforevoidabinitio. 13.ACCORDINGLY,ITISORDERED,Thatthe Board'sdecision,5FCCRcd3694(1990),reinstating Midway'sapplication,theALJ'sorder,FCC90M-2868, releasedSeptember12,1990,allowingMidwaytopartici- pateintheapplicants'settlementagreement,andthe Board'sdecisions,6FCCRcd889(1991),recon.denied,6 FCCRcd1984(1991),AREVACATED. 14.ITISFURTHERORDERED,ThattheALJ'sorder, FCC90M-103,releasedJanuary18,1990,dismissingMid- way'sapplicationISREINSTATED. 15.ITISFURTHERORDERED,ThattheApplication forReviewfiledMay9,1991,byHerbertRegenstreifIS GRANTEDtotheextentindicatedhereinandISDE- NIEDinallotherrespects. FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION DonnaR.Searcy Secretary FOOTNOTES 1Undertheapplicants'settlementagreementMidwaywasto receive$30,000fromRegenstreifandBelhouseforthedismissal ofitsapplication.AstheagreementwasfiledpriortoAugustl, 1991,itisnotsubjecttothecurrentrequirementsof47C.F.R.� 73.3525whichlimitsettlementpaymentstolegitimateandpru- dentout-of-pocketexpenses.SeeAmendmentofSection73.3525 oftheCommission'sRulesRegardingSettlementAgreements AmongApplicantsforConstructionPermits,6FCCRcd85 (1990),clarifiedandmodifiedonreconsideratioin,6FCCRcd 2901(1991). FCC92-53 FederalCommunicationsCommissionRecord 7FCCRedNo.4 2 TheBoard'sremandorderwasissuedinresponsetoan appeal(titledExceptions),whichwassubmittedtotheBoardby Midway'scounselonApril2,1990,41daysaftertheFebruary 20duedateandafterhehadbeeninformedduringanearlier statuscheckthatnosuchpleadingwasthenpendingbeforethe Board.See,5FCCRcd3694atn.1and6FCCRcdat890Para.9.As thesubmittedcopyboreanFCCMailSectionstampindicating thatitwastimelyfiledwiththeCommission,theBoardcon- cludedthatithadauthorityunder47C.F.R.$l.302toruleon thatappeal. 3 TheBoardsubsequentlyacknowledgedthatfact,butfound thatitwasharmless.errorsinceMidway'sappealwasfiledmore timelythantheBoardhadthoughtwhenitentereditsremand order.See6FCCRcd890atn.2(1991). 4 Aspreviouslymentioned,noneofthepartiestothispro- cedingeverreceivedacopyofthatappeal,eventhoughthe certificateofserviceattachedtheretoindicatedthatcopieswere mailedtothem.Non-receiptofcopiesbythemwarrantsan inferencethattheclaimedappealwasinfactnotreceivedbythe Commission.SeeBaldwiny,FidelityPhenixFireInsuranceCo. ofN.Y.,260F.2d951(6thCir.1958)(evidencethatonead- dresseedidnotreceiveanoticesupportstheinferencethat anotheraddresseedidnotreceivethenotice).Moreover,where, ashere,twoindependentdeliveryserviceswereallegedlyused (anovernightcouriertodeliverthedocumenttotheCommis- sionandregularmailservicetodelivercopiestotheparties)we believethatsuchaninferenceisevenstrongersincethelikeli- hoodthatbothdeliveryserviceswouldfailtodelivertheplead- ingsisextremelyremote. 5Whilethismatterwaspendingbeforeus,counselwas accordedtheopportunitytosubmittheactualstamped-incopy ofMidway'sappealthatbearstheoriginalinkstampoftheFCC MailSection,aswellasthedocumentationfromthecourier thathepreviouslyindicatedhewasattemptingtoobtain.FCC 91-062,releasedSeptember11,1991,CounselforMidwaysub- mittedneither,Instead,onSeptember18,1991,hemerelyagain submittedacopyofMidway'sExceptions,Counselfurtherstat- edthat"thedocumentsregardingthecourierarenotinmy control,but1haverequestedthemfrommyformerfirm," Thus,Midwayhasprovidednodocumentsshowingreceiptofits pleadingbytheFCCandithasgivennocredibleexplanation whytheyareunavailable. 6Seen.5, 7Section1,302providesthatapresidingofficer'sfinalruling, suchasadismissalofanapplication,shallbefinal50daysafter thedayofitsrelease,ifanappealisnotfiledfollowingthefiling ofanoticeofappeal.
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html
  • [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 Application for license to use former main antenna as
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/pdf/fr03au05-37.pdf
  • status quo and avoid increasing backlogs while the Commission solicits comments and considers the procedural changes proposed in the NPRM. Finally, the Commission announces a one-time settlement window, to commence on a date to be announced in a subsequent Public Notice, in which parties to pending allocations proceedings may universally settle conflicting proposals without limitation as to reimbursement (47 CFR 73.3525(a)(3)). This one-time settlement window is designed to eliminate much of the current allocations backlog. 8. Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to ��1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.415, 1.419), interested parties must file comments on or before October 3, 2005, and must file reply comments on or before November 1, 2005. Comments may be filed using: (1)
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/63-amfmrule.htm
  • [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 Application for license to use former main antenna as