FCC Web Documents citing 73.3584

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-123A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-123A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-123A1.txt
  • in a lump sum prior to the deadline established by the Commission pursuant to �1.2109(a). Long-form construction permit applications will be processed and the FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing such applications that have been accepted for filing and announcing a date by which petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the provisions of ��73.5006 and 73.3584. Construction permits will be granted by the Commission only after full and timely payment of winning bids and any applicable late fees, and if the applicant is duly qualified, and upon examination, the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served. 6. Amend � 73.3573 by revising paragraph (f)(5)(ii) to read as follows: � 73.3573 Processing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1418A1.txt
  • of any document filed with the Commission by a party not represented by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission rules concerning rulemaking proceeding places petitioners on notice that their proposals must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and certification. See also Amendment of Section 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, n.42 (1990). Petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in its comments. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1418 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1418 h i q r s g h � � � � � � � � � � � � g h � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-474A1.txt
  • 4-5. Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd. 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1223A1.doc
  • address a petition to deny filed by Sylvester H. Julien, J.D. (``Julien''), a resident of St. Croix, on November 18, 1996. As a preliminary matter, we note that Julien's petition is procedurally defective, because it is not supported by an affidavit of personal knowledge of the facts alleged. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 73.3584 of the Commission's rules, require that petitions to deny be supported by affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury from persons with personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the petition. Therefore, we will dismiss the petition and treat it as an informal objection pursuant to Section 73.3587 of the Commission's rules. 10. Julien alleges that Marri failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1669A1.txt
  • by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). The petitioner therefore is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1669 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1669 n o n o @& �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0� " ) : ? r w �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1862A1.txt
  • of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Carmel, Carmel Valley, Hollister and Scotts Valley, California), 7 FCC Recd 3056 (M.M.Bur., Pol.Div. 1992). Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). The petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. Although the petitioner's request was signed, it failed to include an affidavit verifying that the statements contained in the petition were accurate to the best of the affiant's knowledge. Section 1.52 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-186A1.txt
  • counsel must be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, n.41 (1990). Therefore, petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. Arriba has a population of 220 people according to the 1990 U.S. Census. Additionally the Rand McNally Commercial Atlas and Marketing Guide (2000 Ed.) reflects that Arriba is incorporated and has its own
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2250A1.txt
  • signed and verified by the commenting or petitioning party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Section 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, N.41 (1990). Pyeatt is requested to rectify this omission in comments. The coordinates for Channel 278A at La Pryor are 28-58-09 and 99-56-05. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2250 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-2250 v w v w �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2813A1.txt
  • 23. This procedure tracks the methodology adopted by the Commission for applications deemed ``tentative selectees'' pursuant to the NCE comparative point determination process. See NCE MO&O, 16 FCC Rcd at 5103-04, para. 87. It also is consistent with the procedures adopted for non-mutually exclusive NCE applications submitted in future filing windows. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3573(e)(4). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. $ B ��PNG �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ��� %�o� �� � �a�% Tf(c) U~��Uy�Ӛ�o=�c� {�YAD ���Zv�}�YAD e/�,�-�%E9 ^1�J 2�� bʆPh=f 8H�]}��`��2@ ���'����X�t�p�O � ��$��>��� -�m�``�Q(q P� ���e D �_�� p�/]b|?�O� V��Jõ tXT���e� 2)�V``� (c)}�l�tmE...bϡ gs�>o���(R)"q�Q ܆���D N ��- >��r�Kp��-~i�f�M�� z} ���� tm��(c)��cv `��� 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2909A1.txt
  • Rcd 5149 (1993); and Blair, NE, 8 FCC Rcd 4086 (1993). There are three exception in Section 1.16 where unsworn declarations are not permitted. These exceptions are for depositions, oaths of office, or oaths required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary. None of these exceptions applies to GGR's counterproposal. See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n.41 (1990). See supra note 3. Lopez and Dushore, PA, 7 FCC Rcd 854 (Policy and Rules Div. 1992). The FM allotment priorities are: (1) first fulltime aural service; (2) second fulltime aural service; (3) first local service; and (4) other public interest matters. Co-equal weight is given to priorities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-428A1.txt
  • by counsel must be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rule Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n. 41, (1990). Petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-428 Federal Communications Commission DA 01-428 _ j n r w ~ � � V W k � � � � � V W k � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-804A1.txt
  • by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919 n.41 (1990). The petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. mandates that the Commission fairly, equitably, and efficiently distribute frequencies " . . . among the several States and communities." The Commission has defined "communities" as geographically identifiable population groupings. Generally, if
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1246A1.txt
  • by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). The petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in its comments. See n.1, supra. See n.1, supra. See n.1, supra. Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1246 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1246 % � � � � $ % $ % � � m �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-158A1.txt
  • not to an agreement to file a subsequent application to downgrade an allotment. It is our view that under these circumstances, AM & FM Broadcasters is, in fact, withdrawing its interest in operating Station KICM as a Class C1 facility, and the agreement would be within the ambit of Section 1.420(j) of the Rules. See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 7600 (1992). It is also our view that if we were to allot Channel 230C1 to Archer City in the context of this proceeding, it would be contingent upon the filing and subsequent grant of an application by AM & FM Broadcasters to downgrade the Station KICM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1901A1.txt
  • represented by counsel must be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform to the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rule Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n. 41, (1990). Petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1901 Federal Communications Commission DA 02-1901 ~ � � ` - � � u v � (c) � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2026A1.txt
  • August 2, 2002, the Media Bureau issued a Broadcast Actions Public Notice (Broadcast Applications, Report No 25290) announcing that the applications had been accepted for filing and establishing a pleading cycle to permit interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction. The petition-to-deny period for this application ends at close of business on September 3, 2002. 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(a). By this Public Notice, the Media Bureau announces that this proceeding has been docketed. The docket number is MB 02-235. All parties filing pleadings or other documents in this proceeding must reference this docket number in their submissions and file them with the Secretary. The decision to docket this proceeding does not alter the original pleading cycle. As stated above,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2082A1.txt
  • August 2, 2002, the Media Bureau issued a Broadcast Actions Public Notice (Broadcast Applications, Report No. 25290) announcing that the applications had been accepted for filing and establishing a pleading cycle to permit interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction. The petition-to-deny period for these applications ends at close of business on September 3, 2002. 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(a). Applications for consent to the transfer of control of broadcast licenses and authorizations are subject, unless otherwise provided, to treatment by the Commission as restricted proceedings for ex parte purposes under Section 1.1208 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. �1.1208. We have concluded, however, that classifying this proceeding as permit-but-disclose would, in this case, serve the public interest. Accordingly, by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2814A1.txt
  • by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). The petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in its comments. Milford is an incorporated community with a 2000 U.S. Census population of 1,451 persons. Milford is in Beaver County east of the Wah Wah Mountains. Milford has an airport, hospital, school system,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-604A1.txt
  • Competitive bidding processing procedures were adopted by the Commission in Implementation of 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Services, MM Docket No. 97-234, GC Docket 92-52 and GEN Docket No. 90-264, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 (1998), reconsid. denied, 14 FCC Rcd 8724 (1999). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. � � � � � $ B ��PNG �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ��� %�o� �� � �a�% Tf(c) U~��Uy�Ӛ�o=�c� {�YAD ���Zv�}�YAD e/�,�-�%E9 ^1�J 2�� bʆPh=f 8H�]}��`��2@ ���'����X�t�p�O � ��$��>��� -�m�``�Q(q P� ���e D �_�� p�/]b|?�O� V��Jõ tXT���e� 2)�V``� (c)}�l�tmE...bϡ gs�>o���(R)"q�Q ܆���D N ��- >��r�Kp��-~i�f�M�� z} ���� tm��(c)��cv `��� 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i 0i
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-847A1.txt
  • bidder. Long-form applications filed by winning bidders shall include the exhibits identified in � 73.5005(a). (ii) These applications will be processed and the FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing such applications that have been accepted for filing and announcing a date by which petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the provisions of �� 73.5006 and 73.3584 of this chapter. If the applicant is duly qualified, and upon examination, the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by the granting of the winning bidder's long-form application, a Public Notice will be issued announcing that the construction permit is ready to be granted. Each winning bidder shall pay the balance of its winning
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-847A1_Erratum.doc
  • bidder. Long-form applications filed by winning bidders shall include the exhibits identified in � 73.5005(a). (ii) These applications will be processed and the FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing such applications that have been accepted for filing and announcing a date by which petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the provisions of �� 73.5006 and 73.3584 of this chapter. If the applicant is duly qualified, and upon examination, the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by the granting of the winning bidder's long-form application, a Public Notice will be issued announcing that the construction permit is ready to be granted. Each winning bidder shall pay the balance of its winning
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-193A1.txt
  • of Filings. All filings made in this proceeding will be available for examination by interested parties during regular business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257) at its headquarters, 445 12th Street, S.W, Washington, D.C. The coordinates for Channel 270C3 at Port St. Joe are 29-47-45 North Latitude and 85-17-27 West Longitude. See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). See Certification that Section 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Do Not Apply to Rule Making to Amend Sections 73.202(b), 73.504 and 73.606(b) of the Commission's Rules 46 FR 11549 (February 9, 1981). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2067A1.txt
  • and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd. 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2681A1.txt
  • and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd. 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2721A1.txt
  • and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-584A1.txt
  • by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). The petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in its comments. See Certification that Section 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Do Not Apply to Rule Making to Amend Sections 73.202(b), 73.504 and 73.606(b) of the Commission's Rules. 46 FR 11549
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-967A1.txt
  • available for examination by interested parties during regular business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257) at its headquarters, 445 12th Street, S.W, Washington, D.C. Station WOKC(AM) and noncommercial Channel 208A is currently assigned to Okeechobee. The reference coordinates for Channel 291A at Okeechobee are 27-20-30 North Latitude and 80-54-08 West Longitude. See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). See Certification that Section 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Do Not Apply to Rule Making to Amend Sections 73.202(b), 73.504 and 73.606(b) of the Commission's Rules. 46 FR 11549 (February 9, 1981). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-123A1.txt
  • amendments in original and two copies. . Applicants filing electronic amendments to applications that were originally filed on paper must first create a new account at the electronic filing site. Contacts: Stephen Svab (202) 418-2700 (legal); John Grizzle (202) 418-2700 (engineering), Electronic Filing (202) 418-2MMB. - FCC - 47 C.F.R. � 73.872(a). See id. � 73.870(d); see also id. � 73.3584. At a later date, the Commission will release a separate public notice for mutually exclusive LPFM applications filed in Window IV that are accepted for filing. See id. � 73.872. The staff has made no ``acceptability'' determination regarding the applications that received fewer than the highest point total in each mutually exclusive group. Creation of a Low Power Radio Service,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1348A1.txt
  • by counsel must be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's rules concerning rule-making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform to the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Section 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, n.41 (1990). Petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1348 Federal Communications Commission DA 04-1348 L M � � � F V �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1415A1.txt
  • by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). SSR Communications Incorporated is requested to rectify this omission in its comments. See Certification that Section 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Do Not Apply to Rule Making to Amend Sections 73.202(b), 73.504 and 73.606(b) of the Commission's Rules. 46 FR
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-679A1.txt
  • not resolved through settlement or time-sharing, applicants will be eligible for equal, successive, non-renewable license terms of no less than one year each, spanning a total of eight years. . Contacts: Stephen Svab (202) 418-2700 (legal); John Grizzle (202) 418-2700 (engineering), Electronic Filing (202) 418-2MMB. - FCC - 47 C.F.R. � 73.872(a). See id. � 73.870(d); see also id. � 73.3584. A separate public notice for mutually exclusive LPFM applications filed in Windows I, II, and III that are accepted for filing was released January 28, 2004. See id. � 73.872. The staff has made no ``acceptability'' determination regarding the applications that received fewer than the highest point total in each mutually exclusive group. Creation of a Low Power Radio Service,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-780A1.txt
  • by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). Boise Community Radio Project, Inc. is requested to rectify this omission in its comments. See Certification that Sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Do Not Apply to Rule Makings to Amend Sections 73.202(b), 73.504 and 73.606(b) of the Commission's Rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • rule.'' Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applications, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6342,6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National Assoc. for Better Broadcasting v. FCC, No. 86-1179 (D.C. Cir. June 11, 1987) (strike pleadings, harassment of opposing parties,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-963A1.txt
  • by counsel be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, n.41 (1990). Northwest Community Radio Project is requested to rectify this omission in its comments. See Certification that Sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act Do Not Apply to Rule Makings to Amend Sections 73.202(b), 73.504 and 73.606(b) of the Commission's Rules, 46
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1306A1.txt
  • on October 15, 2004. Western Slope filed a Reply on November 1, 2004. MBC Grand filed a Supplement to Opposition to Petition to Deny on January 7, 2005. Mr. Roberto Salazar (``Salazar'') also submitted a letter dated April 14, 2005, opposing the transaction (the ``Salazar Letter''). Petitions to deny the Application were due on October 1, 2004. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a). The Salazar Letter thus fails to meet the requirements of a petition to deny. In addition, as of the release of this decision the staff has not received a copy through official Commission channels and learned of it only through MBC Grand's counsel. Nonetheless, we will treat the Salazar Letter as an informal objection, pursuant to Section 73.3587 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1945A1.txt
  • in that same decision, the WNCC-FM modification application, File No. BPH-20010301ABB, was dismissed and the Sutton Informal Objection was denied. On January 7, 2005, Sutton filed an Application for Review of the staff decision, and it remains pending. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1). See Liberty Opposition at 1-3; Saga Opposition at 3-6. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1). See also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a); MCI Communications Corp., 12 FCC Rcd 7790, 7794 (1997). See 47 U.S.C. � 402(b). See also MCI Communications Corp., 12 FCC Rcd at 7794; Standards for Determining the Standing of a Party to Petition to Deny a Broadcast Application, 82 F.C.C.2d 89, 95-96 (1980); Office of Communications of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 359 F.2d 994 (1966). See,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2225A1.txt
  • of the station in its arrangements with NBC, leads Max Media to conclude that an unauthorized transfer of control of the station has already taken place. Discussion. As an initial matter, we conclude that Max Media lacks standing. A petition to deny may only be filed by a party in interest. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Party in interest status is deemed to exist when a petitioner demonstrates that the grant of the petitioned application will cause the petitioner a direct injury. See Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972); see also National Broadcasting Co., 37 FCC 2d 897, 898 (1972). A causal link between the injury and the challenged action must be shown
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1333A1.txt
  • (1999) (denying March 1993 motions for declaratory ruling as untimely petitions for reconsideration of, and impermissible collateral attacks on, the Commission's Frequency Coordination decision, which became final in 1987). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.102 (the Commission may issue a declaratory ruling ``terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty.'') 47 C.F.R. � 1.44(e). See 47 U.S.C. � 308(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3580(a)(1), 73.3584. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3597. The WTRK(FM) Assignment Application was accepted for filing by Public Notice released on March 30, 2004. See Broadcast Applications, Report No. 25703 at 2. Petitions to deny the application were due within 30 days of that date. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. MCR asserts that BBMG's sloppiness has prevented it from improving the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1481A1.txt
  • speech of broadcast licensees. See In re License Renewal Applications of Certain Commercial Radio Stations Serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 8 FCC Rcd 6400 (1993) (Though licensees may not have addressed every problem petitioners view as important, petitioners claims insufficient to show that licensee's programming decisions ignored the needs of any substantial segment of the community). Petition at 6. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 July 20, 2006 } ~ y z | ~  � � � hE* � � �e ~ ,{��'��� ~G��� �L�;�M�8� p�!�y�z(R)$;$=W㯹?�...��^tm��%,+ ���*Rݜ~��u...�

    � w����j``xIC� �J��ރ��aE-��а̪q��=["O$!���K=p��ȭ� ��(Wig�=���tm��b��=W r... �ptm �7�ŀ["Lx�-r��bX�퀛8n [nEܭr+ �^���Sܜ-m"�'W��պ b2�bE ٨R r1G (R)<�5Q���&g0@n�� p;_ �/U=��v�� ȃ2�ot8m �v��E� "�S�\�.Ӛ etmd��tm�V6 �T�e�4�t�'��� �<1 d��V [��w�Cnc$E�Ř;� ?���Z n���� ���(� (-�u�.�^�G �

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2017A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(k)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b); Citizens for Jazz on WRVR v. F.C.C., 775 F.2d 392, 395 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Petition at 8. Id. at 3. 47 C.F.R. � 73.5007(a). Id. � 73.3555, Note 2. In the case of Jensen's alleged use of her employer's fax machine, Stratemeyer states that such misuse of company resources evidences a ``serious lack of character.'' Petition at 3. While Mr.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2349A1.txt
  • fact that neither Morehead nor any of the individuals in question holds a Commission authorization, we exercise our prosecutorial discretion and choose not to impose any sanction against them for the foregoing. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1) (requiring that petitioner support allegations of fact with affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof); see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 312(f)(1). See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991). 47 U.S.C. � 312(f)(2). See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-109A1.txt
  • telephone conversion between an air personality and another employee of the radio station. He contends that this demonstrates a ``consistent and total disregard of the public interest.'' In reply to the Informal Objection, Licensee argues that Blalack's filing does not comply with the Commission's requirements for petitions to deny and should be returned to Blalack without consideration pursuant to Section 73.3584(e) of the Commission's Rules. Moreover, it asserts that the segment complained of ceased long before Licensee obtained the KROM(FM) license. Thus, it contends, the allegations fall outside of the ``certification window'' for which it is responsible. Accordingly, Licensee argues that the allegations contained in the Informal Objection merit no further consideration. Discussion. As an initial matter, as noted by Licensee,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1206A1.txt
  • aff'd, 411 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Id., 18 FCC Rcd at 620. MCBI filed a subsequent application for minor modification to its construction permit, File No. BMPH-20020531AAJ, which was granted July 29, 2002. The instant application is for license to cover the construction permit as modified. See supra note 6. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3580(a)(3), 73.3584(a). Id. � 73.3587. See supra note 10 and accompanying text. fective radiated power is 5.2 kW, the blanketing contour extends 0.559 miles from its transmitter. In its Reply to Opposition, DJ referenced and attached two complaints in which the complainant's names and addresses were hand-written on what appears to be a form prepared by DJ. One of the complainants lists
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1249A1.txt
  • together with civic, community and political leaders, [VSI] has facilitated essential changes in services and programs to better the quality of life for the citizens of this community.'' VSI Petition at 5. Opposition at 3-4. VSI Petition at 5. The deadline for VSI to reply to the Licensee's May 31, 2006, Opposition was June 20, 2006. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). As noted, supra, VSI's Reply was not received by the Commission until July 11, 2006. A pleading is considered to have been filed when it is received by the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.7. VSI states that it did not timely file the Reply because it was ``in the process of exhausting all possibilities in an attempt to gain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1329A1.txt
  • cc: Christopher D. Imlay, Esq. White River Broadcasting Corporation, Inc. Public Notice, Broadcast Actions, Report No. 45787 (July 29, 2004). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. 47 C.F.R. �� 73.1940-1944. Petitioner also alleges, ``Licensee has failed to note the issues which were raised in it's [sic] renewal applications.'' We are unable to determine the meaning of this allegation. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3584(a) and 73.3516(e). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. 47 U.S.C. � 405. See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f). The 30th day after the date of Public Notice fell on Saturday, August 28, 2004, so the filing period was extended to Monday, August 30. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.4(e)(1), (j). See, e.g., Gardner v. FCC 530 F.2d 1086, 1091-92 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Federal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1553A1.txt
  • the licensee). The Renewal Application had previously been accepted for filing by public notice released March 19, 2004. Broadcast Applications, Report No. 25696, Public Notice (MB Mar. 19, 2004). The Assignment Application had previously been accepted for filing by public notice released January 26, 2005. Broadcast Applications, Report No. 25908, Public Notice (MB Jan. 26, 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3516(e). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3580(d)(4)(ii). Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ' 2 9 E Q W X y  � � � � � h� .� � � � � � � h� h� h� h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] gd h � h h gd5] h5] �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1701A1.txt
  • assignment of all the station licenses other than that for KAAK(FM) were dismissed at Fisher's request. Accordingly, we address only the portion of the MRI Petition directed against the Assignment Application. Discussion. Initially, we note that the MRI Petition was untimely filed. The Assignment Application was accepted for filing by Public Notice released on June 21, 2006. Pursuant to Section 73.3584(a) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), petitions to deny were due on July 21, 2006, 30 days after the date of the Public Notice. Because the MRI Petition was filed 35 days after the Public Notice, on July 26, 2006, it was late-filed. Accordingly, the MRI Petition must be dismissed. We will, however, treat and consider the pleading as an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1947A1.txt
  • May 10, 2007, the Media Bureau issued a Broadcast Applications Public Notice (Broadcast Applications, Report No. 26483) announcing that the applications had been accepted for filing and establishing a pleading cycle to permit interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction. The petition-to-deny period for these applications ends at close of business on June 11, 2007. 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(a). Applications for consent to the transfer of control of broadcast licenses and authorizations are subject, unless otherwise provided, to treatment by the Commission as restricted proceedings for ex parte purposes under Section 1.1208 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. �1.1208. We have concluded, however, that classifying this proceeding as permit-but-disclose would, in this case, permit broader public participation and thereby
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2124A1.txt
  • May 9, 2007, the Media Bureau issued a Broadcast Actions Public Notice (Broadcast Applications, Report No. 26482) announcing that the applications had been accepted for filing and establishing a pleading cycle to permit interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction. The petition-to-deny period for these applications ends at close of business on June 8, 2007. 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(a). Applications for consent to assign broadcast licenses and authorizations are subject, unless otherwise provided, to treatment by the Commission as restricted proceedings for ex parte purposes under Section 1.1208 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. �1.1208. We have concluded, however, that classifying this proceeding as permit-but-disclose would, in this case, serve the public interest. Accordingly, by this Public Notice, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2382A1.txt
  • day of the last full calendar month of the expiring license term.'' Because the licenses for the Stations were each to expire on August 1, 2004, the filing deadline for petitions to deny the Applications was July 1, 2004. Accordingly, because the August 9 and August 23 Petitions were filed after this deadline, we will dismiss them pursuant to Section 73.3584(e) of the Rules. Moreover, petitions to deny do not lie against covering license applications. We will nevertheless consider them each as an informal objection pursuant to Section 73.3587 of the Rules. Informal Objections. We deny the August 9 and August 23 petitions under the pleading standards for the evaluation of informal objections. Informal objections must, pursuant to Section 309(e) of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2387A1.txt
  • May 10, 2007, the Media Bureau issued a Broadcast Actions Public Notice (Broadcast Applications, Report No. 26483) announcing that the applications had been accepted for filing and establishing a pleading cycle to permit interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction. The petition-to-deny period for this application ends at close of business on June 11, 2007. 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(a). By this Public Notice, the Media Bureau announces that this proceeding has been docketed. The docket number is MB 07-119. All parties filing pleadings or other documents in this proceeding must reference this docket number in their submissions and file them with the Secretary. The decision to docket this proceeding does not alter the original pleading cycle. As stated above,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2760A1.txt
  • had been accepted for filing. These Public Notices also established a pleading cycle to permit interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction. The petition-to-deny period for the Assignment Applications ended at close of business on June 18, 2007, and the petition-to-deny period for the Trust Application ends at close of business on July 5, 2007. 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(a). Applications for consent to assign broadcast licenses and authorizations are subject, unless otherwise provided, to treatment by the Commission as restricted proceedings for ex parte purposes under Section 1.1208 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. �1.1208. We have concluded, however, that classifying this proceeding as permit-but-disclose would, in this case, serve the public interest. Accordingly, by this Public Notice, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3145A1.txt
  • May 18, 2007, the Media Bureau issued a Broadcast Actions Public Notice (Broadcast Applications, Report No. 26489) announcing that the applications had been accepted for filing and establishing a pleading cycle to permit interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction. The petition-to-deny period for these applications ended at close of business on June 18, 2007. 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(a). Applications for consent to transfer control of broadcast licenses and authorizations are subject, unless otherwise provided, to treatment by the Commission as restricted proceedings for ex parte purposes under Section 1.1208 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. �1.1208. We have concluded, however, that classifying this proceeding as permit-but-disclose would, in this case, permit broader public participation and thereby serve the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3222A1.txt
  • filing by Diliberto as an Informal Objection under Section 73.3587 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., it was not served on KRPS(FM) or its counsel, and it is not supported by affidavit. See 37 U.S.C. � 309(d), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Informal Objection at 2. Id. Id. at 3. Id. at 4. Id. at 13. Id. Id. at 17-18. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), affirmed sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sep. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3223A1.txt
  • Broadcast License'' as an ``Informal Objection'' under Section 73.3587 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., it was not served on WDQN-FM or its representative, and it is not supported by affidavit. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), affirmed sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sep. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR2d 862, 864 (1986) (informal objection must contain adequate and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3475A1.txt
  • Kreisman Chief, Video Division Media Bureau NABET asserts that it represents the employees at WYTV(TV), WKBN-TV, and WYFX-LP, and thus has intimate knowledge of the management and operations of these outlets, as well as staffing. WKBN-TV is located in the same Designated Market Area as WYTV(TV), and the Grade B contours of the two stations overlap. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). See Astroline Communications Co. Ltd. Partnership v FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Id. Stone v. FCC, 466 F.2d 316, 323 (D.C. Cir. 1972). NABET argues that since locally-produced news represents less than 15% of the daily program content, this arrangement would not address the need to continue to obligate WYTV(TV) to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-383A1.txt
  • or deny such facts, Journal asserts, should lead the Commission to fully investigate such matters. That approach, however, fails to satisfy Journal's burden of pleading under the Act and the Commission's Rules, a burden that cannot be shifted to the parties or the Commission. See Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �309(d)(1) and Section 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �73.3584. Additionally, insofar as these allegations concern matters occurring during the licensees' past license terms they are beyond the statute of limitations. Moreover, to the extent that Journal challenges long-since granted assignment and transfer applications, there is no basis to now revisit the matters previously raised and addressed in long-final assignment and transfer applications.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3865A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (``Astroline''). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). Petition at 2. While Howard does not specify the rules or statutes he believes have been violated, we presume that he is claiming that UW violated 47 C.F.R. �� 73.503(d)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3960A1.txt
  • an internal ``adverse finding'' and a subsequent law suit which upheld the right of Meredith Broadcasting to fire O'Brien. Because O'Brien failed to disclose this internal adverse finding, argues Blanchard, he is at the very least guilty of misrepresentation. In response, counsel for Global filed a letter on June 11, 2007, arguing the Commission should exercise its discretion under Section 73.3584(e) of its rules to return Blanchard's pleading without consideration because it is procedurally defective. Specifically, Global points out that the public comment period ended more than five weeks before the date of Blanchard's pleading. In addition, Global notes that Blanchard's pleading does not describe how he would be harmed by the grant of the application, and it does not claim
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4180A1.txt
  • to file a petition to deny the Applications. See infra, note 2. We consider the merits of his submission as an informal objection. The Opposition to the Moss Objection additionally comments that Moss did not establish standing to file a petition to deny the Applications. Under Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 73.3584 of the Commission's rules, a person filing a petition to deny an application in a broadcast proceeding must demonstrate that he or she is a ``party in interest.'' See 47 U.S.C. �309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. �3584(a). Members of the public may establish standing as a party in interest by demonstrating that they are either (1) a resident of the station's service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4266A1.txt
  • the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., it was not served on the Licensee or its counsel, and the factual assertions contained in the filings are not supported by an affiant with personal knowledge. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. On May 11, 2005, the Commission received via the U.S. Postal Service a second undated letter from Pullin. We are treating both submissions by Pullin as Informal Objections under Section 73.3587 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because they fail to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., they were not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4330A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). Examples of the types of statements CVN makes in support of its Petition are as follows: ``[CVN] has been told by a media source that during a conversation between a McDougald
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4343A1.txt
  • Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, 21 FCC Rcd 7988 (MB 2006). See id. at 6 and Appendix G. Petitioners allege that Clear Channel has an existing partnership with developer Robert Congel to promote Destiny USA, a multi-billion-dollar shopping mall and entertainment complex to be constructed north of Syracuse in Salina, New York. See id. at 7. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. 47 U.S.C � 309(k). 47 U.S.C. � 309(k); 47 C.F.R. �� 0.61, 0.283. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 October 19, 2007 � � � � (R) � � � � � "� � h� h� � � �%���PNG �` �` b``D� 4 �&)�@�-�@�@�7 H >��O��� p j�� �2�=��k��� �"_� - J��, �Nt�Rb �7�P���U�ZS '��wp��ˈ jP�T{.|�87w]�g��yA�Ҩ-��=T#�O> �#W p����U�^S� �t�''�TxNt�l ۦ��X6`T{������:�r��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4517A1.txt
  • Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny the license renewals of KMEL(FM), KNEW(AM), and KYLD(FM) (the ``Consolidated Opposition'') on November 28, 2005. YMC filed replies to the KSJO Opposition and the Consolidated Opposition on December 23, 2005. YMC asserts that Clear Channel's Oppositions were untimely filed and should therefore be barred from consideration. YMC is incorrect. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b), oppositions to petitions to deny applications for renewal of license may be filed within 30 days after the petition to deny is filed. YMC's petitions were filed on October 28, 2005. Accordingly, the Consolidated Opposition was timely filed. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. See BRH-20050728ADU. 47 U.S.C. � 309(k). 47 U.S.C. � 309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended to read as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4945A1.txt
  • 11 FCC Rcd 1706 (1996) (petitions for reconsideration) and Letter to Sunbelt Television, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 13888 (MB 2005) (applications for review). Joint Request at 4; Omnibus Settlement Agreement at 2-3. See also supra notes 18, 22, 26. See Stockholders of CBS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3733, 3739 (1995). See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911 (1990). Id. at 3913. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3588. Withdrawal of Section 1.41 Request for Commission Action at 2. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 December 11, 2007 , < D E F u w � � ... � � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1035A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). See Clarification of Commission Policies Regarding Spousal Attribution (``Attribution Policy Statement''), Policy Statement, 7 FCC Rcd 1920, 1922-23 (1992). Id. See Sevier Valley Broadcasting, Inc. (``Sevier Valley''), Memorandum Opinion and Order,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1138A1.txt
  • filed a supplement to these pleadings on January 9, 2007, that also contained arguments and allegations with respect to the cancellation of his construction permit and applications filed on behalf of low power television station W17CR, Plainview, New York. Our decision here does not reach issues related to these other actions and stations, which remain pending. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a) ``[A] party in interest may file with the Commission a Petition to Deny any application . . . for which local public notice pursuant to � 73.3580 is required . . .''). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. See, e.g., Telesis Corp., 68 FCC 2d 696 (1978). See Tabback Broadcasting Company, 15 FCC Rcd 11899, 11900 n.3 (2000); Chet-5 Broadcasting, L.P., 14
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1372A1.txt
  • Coosa Valley News, Inc. and Mr. Howard C. Toole, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 18600 (MB 2007), petition for recon. pending (``Toole Decision''). Objection at 2. Id. Id. Opposition at 3-4. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15464 (1996) (``Greater Muskegon Broadcasters''). Id. at 15472 (emphasis added). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. � 309(d); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.17, 1.41 - 1.77, 73.3584, 73.3587, 73.5006, 73.7004. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.52, 73.3584(b). Coleman Objection, first unnumbered page. Id., second unnumbered page. Id., second-third unnumbered pages. See 47 U.S.C. � 310(d); Dorothy J. Owens, Debtor-in-Possession, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6615 (1990). Cf. Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1223-25 (1986)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1676A1.txt
  • the Objectors as an Informal Objection under Section 73.3587 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., it was not served on the Station or its counsel, and it is not supported by affidavit. See 37 U.S.C. � 309(d), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. ``Opposition to Informal Objection'' (``Opposition''). Informal Objection at 1. Id. Opposition, Declaration of Cary Pahigian. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), affirmed sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sep. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1743A1.txt
  • Division Media Bureau cc: Lawrence Bernstein, Esq. - Counsel for USC Neil Jackson, Esq. - Counsel for National Public Radio, Inc. Barbara K. Gardner, Esq. - Counsel for RT John Crigler, Esq. - Counsel for Pasadena Thomas Van Wazer, Esq. - Counsel for KTLA Venture subsequently filed the license application to cover the construction of the channel 6 facility. Section 73.3584(a) of the rules states that petitions to deny will not be entertained against low power displacement applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a). Petitions to deny that are filed against these applications are instead treated as informal objections. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Also pending at the time of the release of the Video Division's decision were ``petitions to deny'' filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2501A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). Objection at second-third unnumbered pages. Objection at third unnumbered page. Id. See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), modified, 6 FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2629A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Rocky Mountain Radio, 15 FCC Rcd at 7167. Brookfield Development, Inc., Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10558, 10561 (WTB 2003) (quoting Quantron Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4749, 4754 (2000). Id. Id. Id. at 10562. See Rocky Mountain, 15 FCC Rcd at 7167
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2726A1.txt
  • citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972)). 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b)(1) (emphasis supplied). Clay is correct that filing an informal objection against the Community Change Application would not confer ``party'' status under Section 1.106 of the Rules. However, because petitions to deny do not lie against minor modification applications, see 47 U.S.C. � 309(c)and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584, the filing of an informal objection is ``participation in our processes to the fullest extent permitted'' and meets the requirements for standing to file a petition for reconsideration under 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b)(1). CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). Faye
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-408A1.txt
  • 10950, 10952 (2004). The allegations respecting violations of Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 310, (``Section 310''), unauthorized transfer of control and other matters were fully considered and rejected in the DFW-Bernard Reconsideration Order. Bernard characterizes the Objection and Supplement as ``woefully belated.'' Opposition at 3. We agree. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584 (``Section 73.3584'') such ``untimely Petitions to Deny, as well as other pleadings in the nature of a Petition to Deny and any other pleadings or supplements which do not lie as a matter of law or are otherwise procedurally defective, are subject to return by the FCC's staff without consideration.'' Section 73.3584, however, is discretionary. Thus, given our disposition of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-61A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (``Astroline''). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). Petition at 3. Id. at 3-5. Id. at 5-6. Id. at 7-8. Opposition at 2-5. Petition at 17-19; Reply at 2-5. In the Petition, Petitioners erroneously date the Order approving
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-627A1.txt
  • Turrietta, PLLC 555 East Main Street, Suite 1600 Norfolk, VA 23510-3640 Birach alleges that it was not served with the Petition. Extension Motion at 1-2. Its Extension Motion was unopposed. Accordingly, we will grant the Extension Motion. Given our disposition of this matter, Birach's Motion for Expedited Processing is moot and will be dismissed as such. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. ``In the case of applications for transfers and assignments of construction permits or station licenses, Petitions to Deny must be filed not later than 30 days after issuance of a public notice of the acceptance for filing of the applications.'' The Applications were placed on Public Notice on November 26, 2007; Cowan filed the Petition on December 31, 2007 -
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1103A1.txt
  • proceeding, formal or informal, or take any action against Tama Broadcasting, Inc., D.B. Zwirn & Co., L.P., or their affiliates, with respect to their basic qualifications, including character qualifications, to be a Commission licensee.'' Tama Broadcasting, Inc., 24 FCC Rcd at 1618-19. 47 C.F.R. � 1.65(a). DFW-to-Bernard Decision, 23 FCC Rcd at 2644 n.12 (citing Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3912 (1990), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3380 (1991). This admonishment applies only to the Petitioners, not to their counsel. Attorney misconduct associated with frivolous pleadings is referred to the Office of General Counsel under seal. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 May
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-14A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-14A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-14A1.txt
  • the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because they fail to comply with the procedural requirements for filing Petitions to Deny, e.g., they were not served on the Station, and they are not supported by affidavit signed by a person with personal knowledge of the facts contained in the pleading. See 37 U.S.C. � 309(d), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. See Marsh Objection Letter to Federal Communications Commission (March 15, 2006). The station now airs a much more diversified programming format, although it still includes some jazz and classical music. See http://www.wriu.org/programming.html. Marsh Objection at 1. Mr. Marsh states that he ``personally visited the radio station'' and viewed its public inspection file. Id. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1524A1.txt
  • Services, AM or FM Proposals to Change the Community of License, 73 Fed. Reg. 4572 (January 25, 2008). No comments were received by the March 25, 2008, comment deadline. Objection at 1. Although the Objection indicates that it was served on Benton-Weatherford President Larry Weatherford, Benton-Weatherford failed to oppose the Objection. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584; see also Community Change R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 14220; see also CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Objection at 1. See Motient Corporation and Subsidiaries, Transferors, and Skyterra Communications, Inc., Transferee, Memorandum Opinion and Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2470A1.txt
  • (Fern Creek). Brycc notes that they are no longer co-located and that it had filed a modification application to change its location. File No. BPL-20081201ABG, granted on August 3, 2009. Brycc also stated that it would abide by the timeshare agreement and believed it was still in effect. Opposition at 5-7. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584; see also Change of Community, Report and Order 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14220 (2006); see also CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Petition at 1. 47 C.F.R. �73.853(b)(1). See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2613A1.txt
  • to change its location. File No. BPL-20081201ABG, granted on August 3, 2009. Brycc also stated that it would abide by the timeshare agreement and believed it was still in effect. Opposition at 5-7. We also note that formal petitions to deny do not lie against minor modification applications, such as this. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584; see also Change of Community, Report and Order 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14220 (2006); see also CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). Petition at 1. 47 C.F.R. �73.853(b)(1). See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Report and Order
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-908A1.txt
  • Rules beyond a vague and unsupported reference to Section 1.65. As noted by Skywest, the Rules allow but not do require parties to file a response to an informal objection.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs18\fs22\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l in0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs18\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 Response at 2, citing 47 C.F.R. \'a7 73.3584. \par }}}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs22 Therefore, we cannot agree that SkyWest\rquote s failure to carry out a voluntary act presents a substantial and material question of fact as to Skywest\rquote s qualifications pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Act.}{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs22 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs18\fs22\super \chftn {\footnote \ltrpar \pard\plain \ltrpar\s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\l in0\itap0 \rtlch\fcs1 \af0\afs20\alang1025 \ltrch\fcs0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\rtlch\fcs1 \af0 \ltrch\fcs0 \cs18\super \chftn }{\rtlch\fcs1 \af0
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2004A1.txt
  • February 3, 2010. Matthews sent an affidavit (``Matthews Affidavit''), a DVD and a doctor's report on May 13, 2010, as addenda to the Fourth Matthews Objection. Because petitions to deny do not lie against minor modification applications, Matthews' pleadings will be considered as informal objections under � 73.3587 of the Rules. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c) and 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3584, 73.3587; see also Change of Community, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14220 (2006); CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). Filed on Mar. 10, 2009. The Lay/Moore Objection noted that it ``has the same concerns'' as Matthews and agrees
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2064A1.txt
  • Guild's request that we dismiss the Applicants' declarations because they were not sworn (Objector's Response at 3). The Applicants' declarations, filed in response to the informal objections, are not required by law, rule or other regulation to be supported by an affidavit or an unsworn declaration, as provided in Section 1.16 of the Rules (47 C.F.R. � 1.16). While Section 73.3584(b) of the Rules requires allegations of fact or denials thereof in oppositions to petitions to deny to be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, there is no such legal or regulatory requirement for responses to informal objections (See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3584(b) and 73.3587 (discussing informal objections)). Consolidated Opposition at 4. See Joint Opposition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.txt
  • C FM stations to Class C0. Need: This rule is necessary to clarify the pleading procedures that apply in circumstances in which an application is filed which is mutually exclusive with an authorized Class C station operating at less than full Class C antenna height and/or power minimum requirements. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154 and 303. Section Number and Title: 73.3584(d) Procedure for filing petitions to deny. SUBPART J-CLASS A TELEVISION BROADCAST STATIONS Brief Description: This rule provides the definitions that will be used throughout Subpart J of 47 CFR Part 73. Need: Certain terms need to be defined so as to make clear their usage in Subpart J of 47 CFR Part 73 and to avoid having to restate their
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1352A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). 20 Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). 21 Beyond the Bay Media Group, Memorandum Opinion and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 6967, 6974 (MB 2006); John F. Runner, Receiver (KBIF), Memorandum Opinion and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1495A1.txt
  • implementation of overall policy on an individual basis). WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1157. Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11-105, 2011 WL 2722585 (rel. Jul. 12, 2011) (``Third Further Notice''). 47 C.F.R. � 74.1233(a)(1). See 47 CFR �� 74.1233(b)(3) (reserved band) and (d)(2)(i) (non-reserved band). See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563 � 2 (1987) (``We believe that `abuse of process' may be characterized as any action designed or intended to manipulate or take improper advantage of a Commission process, procedure or rule in order to achieve a result which that process, procedure or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1520A1.txt
  • step is not decisive, the Bureau considers aggregated first and second service and applies the same 5,000-person differential. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.7002(b). Id. at 14538. See Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F. 2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Id. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(2). Petition at i and 5. 47 C.F.R. � 73.7004(a). See also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a). Its arguments rest entirely on negative inferences drawn from the timing and title of a CE filing and from the Bureau's silence as to that pleading's existence. Although Regents cites many cases which set forth Commission standards for misrepresentation and lack of candor, Regents has not shown any such misconduct by CE. See, e.g. FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-681A1.txt
  • (202) 488-5563, TTY (202) 488-5562, e-mail fcc@bcpiweb.com. . For further information, contact Taft Snowdon at (202) 418-2742. For press inquiries, contact Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. By: Chief, Media Bureau 47 U.S.C. � 310(d). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1200(a). See id. � 1.1206. Id. � 1.1206(b)(2). Id. Id. � 1.1206(b)(1). Id. � 1.1206(b)(2). Id. � 1.45(c). See id. �� 1.46(a) and 73.3584(e). 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 � ��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� � ��(c)���!��'' �R)&� �A�� "���\��v`` � 6� �� @ � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-755A1.txt
  • are filed electronically are available for viewing and printing on ECFS. For further information, contact Joyce Bernstein at (202) 418-1647. For Press inquiries, contact Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. By: Chief, Media Bureau - FCC - 47 C.F.R. � 73.3540. by entering the file number. The procedure for filing a petition to deny is set forth at 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. See In the Matter of Certain of the Commission's Part 1 Rules of Practice and Procedure and Part 0 Rules of Commission Organization, Report and Order in GC Docket No. 10-44, 26 FCC Rcd 1594 (2011). 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 f j
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-99A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-99A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-99A1.txt
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). KJMG(FM) Assignment Application, Exhibit 4. APA, Section 2.3. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3555, Note 2(i). APA Amendment, Section 2.3. See Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast and Cable/MDS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-866A1.txt
  • at 12686. 47 C.F.R. � 74.1233(a)(1). 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 14859, 14872 � 50 (1998). See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, First Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 5272, 5277 � 8 (1999). See 47 CFR �� 74.1233(b)(3) (reserved band) and (d)(2)(i) (non-reserved band). 47 U.S.C. � 308(a). See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563 � 2 (1987) (``We believe that `abuse of process' may be characterized as any action designed or intended to manipulate or take improper advantage of a Commission process, procedure or rule in order to achieve a result which that process, procedure or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-277947A1.txt
  • Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny the license renewals of KMEL(FM), KNEW(AM), and KYLD(FM) (the ``Consolidated Opposition'') on November 28, 2005. YMC filed replies to the KSJO Opposition and the Consolidated Opposition on December 23, 2005. YMC asserts that Clear Channel's Oppositions were untimely filed and should therefore be barred from consideration. YMC is incorrect. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b), oppositions to petitions to deny applications for renewal of license may be filed within 30 days after the petition to deny is filed. YMC's petitions were filed on October 28, 2005. Accordingly, the Consolidated Opposition was timely filed. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 07-XXX Federal Communications Commission 2 r u
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-368A1.pdf
  • original petition for rule making to amend the FM Table of Allotments, and not through comments or counterproposals. Furthermore, to prevent a backlog of petitions contingent on matters in addition to reclassification, such petitions will be dismissed upon the filing, rather than the grant, of an acceptable construction permit application by the subject Class C station. We shall amend Section 73.3584 to permit the filing of a petition to deny a reclassification application in connection with the staff's issuance of an order to show cause. Arguments opposing reclassification because the station provides useful extended service beyond its actual primary contour or because of obstacles to upgrading facilities will not be deemed to raise a substantial and material question of fact warranting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-387A1.txt
  • � 73.3523, and the license would be awarded to Holdings, contrary to Commission policy generally disfavoring settlements involving ``white knights,'' i.e., non-applicant third parties. In this case, the Bureau maintains, countervailing public interest benefits outweigh the detriments and warrant waiver of the respective policies. Finally, because the assignment application is subject to the provisions of 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3580 and 73.3584, which require public notice of the filing of the application and an opportunity for the filing of petitions to deny, the Bureau urges that the Commission delay final approval of the settlement until the Mass Media Bureau can process the application and determine if Holdings is qualified to hold the license. 12. In further comments filed thereafter, the Bureau reports
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-445A1.txt
  • they do not provide any specific and substantiated facts that justify consideration. Further, by letter dated October 15, 1997, the Commission's Mass Media Bureau informed the parties that ``no further pleadings from the parties will be accepted'' in this case. Moreover, the pleadings are not contemplated in our rules for the filing of petitions to deny. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Therefore, we will not consider these additional declarations or the replies thereto. 16. In general, individual complaints of employment discrimination do not suffice to make a prima facie case that grant of a renewal application would be inconsistent with the public interest. See Pacific and Southern Company, Inc., 11 FCC Rcd 8503, 8505-506 (1996) ("Pacific"). This is based on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-303A1.txt
  • Upon request, stations shall make records available to the Commission for its review. (5) The public may file complaints throughout the license term based on a station's Form 397 or the contents of a station's public file. Provisions concerning filing, withdrawing, or non-filing of informal objections or petitions to deny license renewal, assignment, or transfer applications are delineated in �� 73.3584 and 73.3587-3589 of the Commission's Rules. (g) Sanctions and Remedies. The Commission may issue appropriate sanctions and remedies for any violation of this Rule. ***** II. Part 76 of Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Subpart E -- Equal Employment Opportunity Requirements Section 76.75 is revised by amending paragraphs (b), (f); deleting existing paragraphs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-35A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-35A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-35A1.txt
  • Caton Acting Secretary Section 1.420(g)(3) of the Rules provides in pertinent part that the license or construction permit for an FM station may be modified to a mutually exclusive, higher class adjacent or co-channel in the same community. See 7 FCC Rcd at 3015 n.1., citing South Webster, OH, 4 FCC Rcd 5953 (1989) and Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes (``Abuse of Process R&O''), 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n.41 (Comm. 1990). KYLC was granted a construction permit for Channel 228C3 at Osage Beach, conditioned on the outcome of this proceeding. Thereafter, it filed an application for a one-step upgrade to Channel 228C2, which was also granted subject to the outcome of this proceeding. 5
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-62A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-62A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-62A1.txt
  • in the Solar Application proceeding at 58. Id. (citations and footnotes omitted). Davis Petition to Deny I at 8-12 and Davis Petition to Deny II at 3-10. Davis Petition to Deny II at 14-15. We treat Rainbow/PUSH's letter as an informal objection pursuant to 47 C.F.R. �73.3587. It was filed after the deadline for petitions to deny. See 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(a). Cumulus May 12, 1999 Opposition to Petition to Deny and Informal Objection at 3-9. See, e.g., Cumulus May 12, 1999 Opposition to Petition to Deny and Informal Objection at 9-34; Cumulus October 10, 2000 Opposition to Petition to Deny Assignment Applications, to Terminate Local Marketing Agreement, and for Other Relief at 5-12; and Clear Channel October 10, 2000 Opposition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-239A1.txt
  • not have standing to seek further redress thereafter unless he was a formal participant at the initial stage. Formal participation at the initial stage of a license renewal proceeding is accomplished by filing a complete and timely petition to deny that demonstrates the petitioner's standing. Specifically, Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''), implemented by Section 73.3584 of the Commission's rules, provides that a person filing a petition to deny must demonstrate that he or she is a ``party in interest.'' Similarly, Section 405 of the Act, implemented by Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, requires that a person seeking reconsideration must have qualified as a ``party'' during the previous stages of the proceeding, or demonstrate that
• 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
  • broadcast stations, pursuant to the provisions of � 73.5005(d). Non-mutually exclusive applications for commercial broadcast stations will be processed and the FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing such non-mutually exclusive applications determined to be acceptable for filing and announcing a date by which petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the provisions of �� 73.5006 and 73.3584. Non-mutually exclusive applications for noncommercial educational broadcast stations, as described in 47 U.S.C. � 397(6), will be processed and the FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing such non-mutually exclusive applications determined to be acceptable for filing and announcing a date by which petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the provisions of �� 73.7004 and 73.3584.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-129A1.txt
  • the disclosure of the material terms. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.1216. See Future of Music Coalition, Radio Deregulation: Has it Served Citizens and Musicians?, at 79-80 (2002) (the Future of Music Coalition filed a copy of this study in MB Docket No. 02-277 on November 20, 2002). See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3580 (local public notice of filing of broadcast applications), 73.3584 (procedure for filing petitions to deny). 47 U.S.C. � 309(k)(1). See id. � 309(k)(2). Id. � 309(k)4). See id. � 309(k)(3). See, e.g., Testimony of Commissioner Michael J. Copps, Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (July 23, 2002), available at http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/statements2003.html. See 47 U.S.C. � 334(b) (mid-term review for television broadcast stations); 47 C.F.R. � 73.2080(f)(2) (mid-term
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-154A1.txt
  • Warsaw, MO, 17 FCC Rcd 6119 (2002) (``MO&O III''). The call letters for this station were changed from KLYC(FM) to KRMS-FM, effective January 9, 1998. 5 FCC Rcd 1119 (MMB 1990). Lincoln, Osage Beach, Steelville, and Warsaw, MO, 7 FCC Rcd 3015 (MMB 1992) (``R&O''). See 7 FCC Rcd at 3015 n.2, citing inter alia, Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes (``Abuse of Process R&O''), 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n.41 (1990). For a more detailed background of this proceeding, see MO&O III, 17 FCC Rcd at 6119-6120. 11 FCC Rcd 6372 (MMB 1996) (``MO&O I''). 12 FCC Rcd 4987 (MMB 1997) (``MO&O II''). 17 FCC Rcd at 6125. 345 F. 2d 730, 733 (D.C. Cir.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-123A1.txt
  • in a lump sum prior to the deadline established by the Commission pursuant to �1.2109(a). Long-form construction permit applications will be processed and the FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing such applications that have been accepted for filing and announcing a date by which petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the provisions of ��73.5006 and 73.3584. Construction permits will be granted by the Commission only after full and timely payment of winning bids and any applicable late fees, and if the applicant is duly qualified, and upon examination, the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served. 6. Amend � 73.3573 by revising paragraph (f)(5)(ii) to read as follows: � 73.3573 Processing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-4A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-4A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-4A1.txt
  • in a lump sum prior to the deadline established by the Commission pursuant to �1.2109(a). Long-form construction permit applications will be processed and the FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing such applications that have been accepted for filing and announcing a date by which petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the provisions of ��73.5006 and 73.3584. Construction permits will be granted by the Commission only after full and timely payment of winning bids and any applicable late fees, and if the applicant is duly qualified, and upon examination, the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served. 3. Amend � 73.3573 by revising paragraph (f)(5)(ii) to read as follows: � 73.3573 Processing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-211A1.txt
  • statements at issue conform with the requirements of our rules and are typical of the statements filed in permit-but-disclose proceedings. In addition, UCC/MA has had considerable time since the filing of its motion to make its own ex parte contacts. In light of our action here today, UCC/MA's motion is dismissed as moot. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d). Id. See Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, 330 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2005). See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992); MCI Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7790 (1997), Timothy K. Brady, 20 FCC Rcd 11987, Letter from Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau (MB., Aud. Div. 2005). The Transferees also argue that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-41A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-41A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-41A1.txt
  • maintains that, because Citadel Broadcasting did not ``deny . . .or challenge any of the New York Attorney General's evidence'' in its Opposition, that ``the FCC, as a matter of law, must presume that if Citadel had been forthcoming and produced evidence concerning its . . . activities, that evidence would be highly unfavorable to Citadel.'' Id. at 9-10. Section 73.3584(b) of the Rules provides to the contrary (``The failure to file an opposition or a reply will not necessarily be construed as an admission of fact or argument contained in a pleading''). 47 C.F.R. �73.3584(b). Id. at 2. In the April 3 Petition, Red Wolf maintains that the Merger Applications should be put in hearing because of its allegations against
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-139A1.txt
  • Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 477 (1940) and Rainbow Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2839, 2844 n.24 (1994)(subsequent history omitted)). Second, Appellants were legally precluded from filing a petition to deny in the initial stage of this proceeding, as petitions to deny do not lie against minor modification applications. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3580(a)(1) and 73.3584(a). As indicated above (see supra note 7), Appellants submitted notification of their concerns about the Application, which is appropriately treated as an informal objection under 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Accordingly, we find that Appellants ``participated in our processes to the fullest extent permitted'' and have met the good cause standard of 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b)(1). Cloud Nine, 10 FCC Rcd
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-229A1.txt
  • Nameloc points out, did the staff mention an objection filed by D.A. Lams, President of the Student Government Association of Philander Smith College. The staff did not timely receive a filing from Philander Smith College, which in any event, though captioned as a Petition to Deny, failed to satisfy the requirements of 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. We have now reviewed both the Charles Petition to Deny and the Lams pleading. Charles's and Lams's primary concerns were about retaining and promoting minority broadcast ownership. The staff considered similar concerns raised by other petitioners, and hence, the absence of direct references to the Charles and Lams pleadings was not prejudicial. Charles also objected to ``generic Radio Disney programming,''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-50A1.txt
  • et al., a General Partnership d/b/a McMurray Communications for Construction Permit for a New FM Station on Channel 247A, Lebanon, Ohio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6279 (1993). The petition to deny was filed more than six months after the date established for the filing of such petitions. See Comcast-AT&T Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 23328 n.648. Section 73.3584(a) of the Commission's rules provides that, ``Petitions to Deny must be filed not later than 30 days after issuance of a public notice of the acceptance for filing of the applications'' to transfer licenses. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a). The public notice in this proceeding was released on March 29, 2002. AT&T Corp. and Comcast Corp. Seek FCC Consent for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-73A1.txt
  • Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 20641, 20642, � 4 (2000); Lincoln, Osage Beach, Steelville, and Warsaw, Missouri, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 6119, 6123, � 13 (2002); Conflicts between Applications and Petitions to Amend the FM Table of Allotments, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4743, 4744 (1993) (footnote omitted); and Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3910, 3919 n.41 (1990) (establishing a strict policy of enforcing Section 1.52 verification requirements). Springdale, Arkansas, 4 FCC Rcd at 677 n.7; and Eldorado and Lawton, Oklahoma, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6737 (MMB 1990). Compare Detroit, Texas, 13 FCC Rcd at 15592, � 6 (rejecting late-filed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.pdf
  • is minor and the amended application has the same number of points as originally claimed, or more than the points claimed by the next highest applicant. Tentative selectees whose applications remain unacceptable for filing after this opportunity will be removed from their mutually exclusive groups, and will not be provided with an additional opportunity to amend. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 2483, 2485. Id. at 2507-08, citing Balanced Budget Act of 1997, � 3002(a)(1), codified as 47 U.S.C. � 309(j); see Auctions 1st R&O, 13 FCC Rcd at 15924-25 (concluding that auctions are mandatory for all primary and secondary commercial broadcast services). See NCE Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21170-81. See, e.g., Comments of Mid-America
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00020.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00020.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00020.txt
  • request, stations shall make records available to the Commission for its review. (5) The public may file complaints throughout the license term based on a station's Statement of Compliance or the contents of a station's public file. Provisions concerning filing, withdrawing, or non-filing of informal objections or petitions to deny license renewal, assignment, or transfer applications are delineated in �� 73.3584 and 73.3587-3589 of the Commission's Rules. (j) Sanctions and Remedies. The Commission may issue appropriate sanctions and remedies for any violation of this Rule. Section 73.3526 is revised by amending paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows: � 73.3526 Local public inspection file of commercial stations. * * * * * (e) * * * (7) Equal Employment Opportunity file. Such
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00115.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00115.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00115.txt
  • booster station applications may be filed at any time. Subsequent to filing, the FCC will release a Public Notice accepting for filing and proposing for grant those applications which are not mutually exclusive with any other TV translator, low power TV, TV booster, or Class A TV application, and providing for the filing of Petitions To Deny pursuant to � 73.3584. * * * * * 43. Section 73.3580 is amended to read as follows: � 73. 3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications. * * * * * (c) An applicant who files an application or amendment thereto which is subject to the provisions of this section, must give notice of this filing in a newspaper. Exceptions to
• 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
  • selectee will be chosen from the remaining applicants according to the point system. We thus caution applicants to take great care in preparing their applications. Once a tentative selectee's application is found acceptable we will announce that fact in a public notice, which would establish a due date for Petitions to Deny against the tentative selectee. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. 4. Amendment of Pending Applications to Claim Points All mutually exclusive NCE proposals, including any previously filed and/or designated for hearing will be evaluated by the point system. Mutually exclusive NCE applications already on file do not, however, contain the information that the Commission will need to make a selection under a point system. These existing applicants will be required
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00368.pdf
  • petition for rule making to amend the FM Table of Allotments, and not through comments or counterproposals. Furthermore, to prevent a backlog of petitions contingent on matters in addition to reclassification, such petitions will be dismissed upon the filing, rather than the grant, of an acceptable construction permit application by the subject Class C station. 29. We shall amend Section 73.3584 to permit the filing of a petition to deny a reclassification application in connection with the staff's issuance of an order to show cause.60 Arguments opposing reclassification because the station provides useful extended service beyond its actual primary contour or because of obstacles to upgrading facilities will not be deemed to raise a substantial and material question of fact warranting
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2721A1.html
  • Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6342, 6352 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563, 5563 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National Assoc.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.pdf
  • 11 FCC Rcd 1706 (1996) (petitions for reconsideration) and Letter to Sunbelt Television, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 13888 (MB 2005) (applications for review). Joint Request at 4; Omnibus Settlement Agreement at 2-3. See also supra notes 18, 22, 26. See Stockholders of CBS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3733, 3739 (1995). See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911 (1990). Id. at 3913. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3588. Withdrawal of Section 1.41 Request for Commission Action at 2. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 December 11, 2007 , < D E F u w � � ... � � � � �
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-11-73A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-11-73A1.pdf
  • Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 20641, 20642, � 4 (2000); Lincoln, Osage Beach, Steelville, and Warsaw, Missouri, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 6119, 6123, � 13 (2002); Conflicts between Applications and Petitions to Amend the FM Table of Allotments, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4743, 4744 (1993) (footnote omitted); and Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3910, 3919 n.41 (1990) (establishing a strict policy of enforcing Section 1.52 verification requirements). Springdale, Arkansas, 4 FCC Rcd at 677 n.7; and Eldorado and Lawton, Oklahoma, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6737 (MMB 1990). Compare Detroit, Texas, 13 FCC Rcd at 15592, � 6 (rejecting late-filed
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-99-55A1.pdf
  • FCC Rcd at 14864-65. Moreover, we tentatively rejected the use of this model to determine the number of available signals for purposes of complying with the multiple ownership requirements of Section 73.3555, a context similar to that which Reynolds proposes here. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3555; see Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 14864-65. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d); see 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Reclassified applications will be accorded cut-off protection as of their actual filing dates. Applicants whose applications are so reclassified may seek refund of the difference between fees paid for major and minor change application processing through the Office of the Managing Director, and will be deemed entitled to such refunds under 47 C.F.R. � 1.1113(a)(4). AM and FM translator major
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/amfmrule.html
  • Processing of TV broadcast, Class A TV broadcast, low power TV, TV translators, and TV booster applications. [666]TEXT [667]PDF 73.3573 Processing FM broadcast station applications. [668]TEXT [669]PDF 73.3574 Processing of international broadcast station applications. [670]TEXT [671]PDF 73.3578 Amendments to applications for renewal, assignment or transfer of control. [672]TEXT [673]PDF 73.3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications. [674]TEXT [675]PDF 73.3584 Procedure for filing petitions to deny. [676]TEXT [677]PDF 73.3587 Procedure for filing informal objections. [678]TEXT [679]PDF 73.3588 Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of informal objections. [680]TEXT [681]PDF 73.3589 Threats to file petitions to deny or informal objections. [682]TEXT [683]PDF 73.3591 Grants without hearing. [684]TEXT [685]PDF 73.3592 Conditional grant. [686]TEXT [687]PDF 73.3593 Designation for hearing. [688]TEXT [689]PDF 73.3594 Local
• 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
  • Petitions to Deny. After the winning bidder's long-form application has been accepted for filing, a public notice will be released announcing this fact, thereby triggering the filing window for petitions to deny. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2108(b). Previously, the Commission has generally provided a 30 day period for the filing of Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-194 See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3584(a); 73.3584(c). 186 Section 3008 of the Budget Act provides as follows: 187 [N]o application for an instrument of authorization for frequencies assigned under this title . . . shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 7 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or of any substantial amendment thereto.
• 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
  • Petitions to Deny. After the winning bidder's long-form application has been accepted for filing, a public notice will be released announcing this fact, thereby triggering the filing window for petitions to deny. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2108(b). Previously, the Commission has generally provided a 30 day period for the filing of Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-194 See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3584(a); 73.3584(c). 186 Section 3008 of the Budget Act provides as follows: 187 [N]o application for an instrument of authorization for frequencies assigned under this title . . . shall be granted by the Commission earlier than 7 days following issuance of public notice by the Commission of the acceptance for filing of such application or of any substantial amendment thereto.
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/da020847.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/da020847.txt
  • bidder. Long-form applications filed by winning bidders shall include the exhibits identified in � 73.5005(a). (ii) These applications will be processed and the FCC will periodically release a Public Notice listing such applications that have been accepted for filing and announcing a date by which petitions to deny must be filed in accordance with the provisions of �� 73.5006 and 73.3584 of this chapter. If the applicant is duly qualified, and upon examination, the FCC finds that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by the granting of the winning bidder's long-form application, a Public Notice will be issued announcing that the construction permit is ready to be granted. Each winning bidder shall pay the balance of its winning
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1999/da992582.doc
  • counsel shall be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commissin's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, n.41 (1990). Caf� Broadcasting, Inc. is requested to rectify this omission in comments. Wagonwheel filed a petition for rule making on December 10, 1998, requesting the allotment of Channel 290C2 at Santa Anna, Texas, which conflicted with counterproposals filed in MM Docket No. 98-198, Cross Plains,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da000646.doc
  • signed and verified by the commenting or petitioning party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Section 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919, N.41 (1990). Ashcraft is requested to rectify this omission in comments. The coordinates for Channel 263A at Mount Pleasant are 33-09-21 and 95-01-21. Carephil Communications, licensee of Station KBUS(FM), Paris, Texas, has requested the reallotment of Channel 270C2 from Paris, Texas, to Mount Pleasant, Texas,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001216.doc
  • by counsel must be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n.41 (1990). Petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1216 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1216 5 6 0
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001217.doc
  • counsel must be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Section 1.401(b) of the Commission's Rules concerning rule making proceedings places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also Amendment of Section 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, n.41 (1990). Petitioner is requested to rectify this omission in his comments. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1217 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-1217 � � � � 0 '
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/2000/da001518.doc
  • are true to the best of his knowledge. However, it is unclear whether Arzuaga is the petitioner or only its technical consultant. Therefore, petitioner is requested to clarify this matter in its comments and submit a subscription and verification statement signed by the petitioner, with its address given, if Arzuaga is not the petitioner. See, Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911 (1990) The coordinates for Channel 300B at Rincon are 18-23-06 North Latitude and 67-29-51 West Longitude. D C D � �
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1999/fcc99055.wp
  • Rcd at 14864-65. Moreover, we tentatively rejected the use of this model to determine the number of available signals for purposes of complying with the multiple ownership requirements of Section 73.3555, a context similar to that which Reynolds proposes here. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3555; see Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 14864-65. 51 47 U.S.C. � 309(d); see 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Reclassified applications will be accorded cut-off protection as of their actual filing dates. Applicants whose applications are so reclassified may seek refund of the difference between fees paid for major and minor change application processing through the Office of the Managing Director, and will be deemed entitled to such refunds under 47 C.F.R. � 1.1113(a)(4). AM and FM translator major
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000649.doc
  • not represented by counsel shall be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Further, Section 1.420(b) of the Commission's Rules places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also, Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes ("Abuse of Process"), 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n. 41 (1990). While we have considered proposals which did not initially comply with the verification requirement, it has only been in cases where adoption of the proposal would not adversely affect another allotment or proposed allotment. See, Grants, New Mexico, 8 FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da000833.doc
  • not represented by counsel shall be signed and verified by the party and his/her address stated. In the absence of such verification, the petition may be dismissed. Further, Section 1.420(b) of the Commission's Rules places petitioners on notice that their proposal must conform with the requirements of Section 1.52 regarding subscription and verification. See also, Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes ("Abuse of Process"), 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n. 41 (1990). (Therefore, we believe these rules should be strictly enforced in allocations proceedings.) Therefore, Lunderville's counterproposal will be dismissed and the reply comments filed by Lunderville and North Country will not be discussed. The allotment priorities are: (1) first fulltime aural
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001156.doc
  • Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John A. Karousos Chief, Allocations Branch Policy and Rules Division Mass Media Bureau The community of Northumberland has been added to the caption. Public Notice of the filing of the counterproposal was given on May 6, 1999, Report No. 2328. See, Section 1.420(b) of the Commission's Rules and Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuse of the Commission's Processes ("Abuse of Process"), 5 FCC Rcd 3910, n. 41 (1990). See also, Lancaster, Groveton and Milan, New Hampshire, MM Docket 99-9, DA 00-649, released March 24, 2000. The coordinates for Channel 256A at Whitefield are 44-27-17 NL; 71-31-36 WL.
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/da001179.doc
  • identify themselves in light of their expressions of interest in the proposed allotments. The petitions for both the Arnoldsburg and Gassaway proposals were filed on behalf of the respective proponents by counsel. Since both petitioners were represented by counsel, albeit the same counsel, they were not required to sign, verify or give their addresses. See Amendment of Section 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3919 n.41 (1990). Technical Summary 9. An engineering analysis has determined that Channel 264A can be allotted to Arnoldsburg in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 3.9 kilometers (2.4 miles) to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed site of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fc00019a.doc
  • 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. Section 73.3584-Procedure for filing petitions to deny. Section 73.3587-Procedure for filing informal objections. Section 73.3588-Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of informal objections. Section 73.3589-Threats to file petitions to deny or informal objections. Section 73.3591-Grants without hearing. Section 73.3593-Designation for hearing. Section 73.3598-Period of construction. Section 73.3599-Forfeiture of construction permit. Section 73.3999-Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1464-restrictions on the transmission of obscene
• 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
  • is minor and the amended application has the same number of points as originally claimed, or more than the points claimed by the next highest applicant. Tentative selectees whose applications remain unacceptable for filing after this opportunity will be removed from their mutually exclusive groups, and will not be provided with an additional opportunity to amend. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Notice, 14 FCC Rcd at 2483, 2485. Id. at 2507-08, citing Balanced Budget Act of 1997, � 3002(a)(1), codified as 47 U.S.C. � 309(j); see Auctions 1st R&O, 13 FCC Rcd at 15924-25 (concluding that auctions are mandatory for all primary and secondary commercial broadcast services). See NCE Further Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21170-81. See, e.g., Comments of Mid-America
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00020.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00020.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00020.txt
  • request, stations shall make records available to the Commission for its review. (5) The public may file complaints throughout the license term based on a station's Statement of Compliance or the contents of a station's public file. Provisions concerning filing, withdrawing, or non-filing of informal objections or petitions to deny license renewal, assignment, or transfer applications are delineated in �� 73.3584 and 73.3587-3589 of the Commission's Rules. (j) Sanctions and Remedies. The Commission may issue appropriate sanctions and remedies for any violation of this Rule. Section 73.3526 is revised by amending paragraph (e)(7) to read as follows: � 73.3526 Local public inspection file of commercial stations. * * * * * (e) * * * (7) Equal Employment Opportunity file. Such
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00115.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00115.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00115.txt
  • booster station applications may be filed at any time. Subsequent to filing, the FCC will release a Public Notice accepting for filing and proposing for grant those applications which are not mutually exclusive with any other TV translator, low power TV, TV booster, or Class A TV application, and providing for the filing of Petitions To Deny pursuant to � 73.3584. * * * * * 43. Section 73.3580 is amended to read as follows: � 73. 3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications. * * * * * (c) An applicant who files an application or amendment thereto which is subject to the provisions of this section, must give notice of this filing in a newspaper. Exceptions to
• 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
  • selectee will be chosen from the remaining applicants according to the point system. We thus caution applicants to take great care in preparing their applications. Once a tentative selectee's application is found acceptable we will announce that fact in a public notice, which would establish a due date for Petitions to Deny against the tentative selectee. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. 4. Amendment of Pending Applications to Claim Points All mutually exclusive NCE proposals, including any previously filed and/or designated for hearing will be evaluated by the point system. Mutually exclusive NCE applications already on file do not, however, contain the information that the Commission will need to make a selection under a point system. These existing applicants will be required
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00368.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00368.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00368.txt
  • original petition for rule making to amend the FM Table of Allotments, and not through comments or counterproposals. Furthermore, to prevent a backlog of petitions contingent on matters in addition to reclassification, such petitions will be dismissed upon the filing, rather than the grant, of an acceptable construction permit application by the subject Class C station. We shall amend Section 73.3584 to permit the filing of a petition to deny a reclassification application in connection with the staff's issuance of an order to show cause. Arguments opposing reclassification because the station provides useful extended service beyond its actual primary contour or because of obstacles to upgrading facilities will not be deemed to raise a substantial and material question of fact warranting
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00373.doc
  • to short-spaced stations on the licensees of those stations; and (b) failed to meet the substantive requirements of Section 73.213(a) because the proposed power increase would cause interference to station WBLI(FM). 9. Petition to Deny License Renewal Application. Antonoff's pleading is procedurally defective as a petition to deny. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules requires that petitions to deny be supported by affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury from persons with personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the petition. See Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 46 FCC 2d 903 (1994). Antonoff failed to provide an affidavit or declaration; nonetheless, we will treat Antonoff's pleading as an informal objection
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1999/fcc99322.doc
  • We wish to make clear that the individual viewer/listener exception applies only when such individuals informally file comments regarding pending broadcast applications. Consistent with the Communications Act and our rules, individual viewers and listeners who file formal petitions to deny are deemed parties without any need for action by the Bureau. See 47 U.S.C. �� 309(d),(e); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.221(d), 73.3584. To the extent that paragraph 19 of our Report and Order might suggest otherwise, we hereby modify it. 21. Additionally, we wish to make clear that, although the individual viewer/listener exception was prompted by the public notice provisions of our rules, individual viewers and listeners who comment on applications not subject to the public notice provisions are nevertheless covered by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000474.doc
  • 4-5. Formulation of Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd. 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd. 6342, 6352 � 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd. 5563, 5563 � 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/041210/career_advancement.pdf
  • request, stations shall make records available to the Commission for its review. (5) The public may file complaints throughout the license term based on a station's Form 397 or the contents of a station's public file. Provisions concerning filing, withdrawing, or non-filing of informal objections or petitions to deny license renewal, assignment, or transfer applications are delineated in � � 73.3584 and 73.3587-3589 of the Commission's rules. (g) Sanctions and Remedies. The Commission may issue appropriate sanctions and remedies for any violation of this rule.
• http://www.fcc.gov/DiversityFAC/adopted-recommendations/EEOrule.doc
  • request, stations shall make records available to the Commission for its review. (5) The public may file complaints throughout the license term based on a station's Form 397 or the contents of a station's public file. Provisions concerning filing, withdrawing, or non-filing of informal objections or petitions to deny license renewal, assignment, or transfer applications are delineated in � � 73.3584 and 73.3587-3589 of the Commission's rules. (g) Sanctions and Remedies. The Commission may issue appropriate sanctions and remedies for any violation of this rule. 47 CFR 73.2080 (c) � � " ^a�,< � �
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/DA-03-2721A1.html
  • Policies and Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuse of the Renewal Process, First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 4780, 4793 n.3 (1989); see Silver Star Communications-Albany, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6342, 6352 41 (1988); Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Process, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2 FCC Rcd 5563, 5563 2 (1987); see also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed mem. sub nom National Assoc.
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1481A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-1481A1.pdf
  • speech of broadcast licensees. See In re License Renewal Applications of Certain Commercial Radio Stations Serving Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 8 FCC Rcd 6400 (1993) (Though licensees may not have addressed every problem petitioners view as important, petitioners claims insufficient to show that licensee's programming decisions ignored the needs of any substantial segment of the community). Petition at 6. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 July 20, 2006 } ~ y z | ~  � � � hE* � � �e ~ ,{��'��� ~G��� �L�;�M�8� p�!�y�z(R)$;$=W㯹?�...��^tm��%,+ ���*Rݜ~��u...�

    � w����j``xIC� �J��ރ��aE-��а̪q��=["O$!���K=p��ȭ� ��(Wig�=���tm��b��=W r... �ptm �7�ŀ["Lx�-r��bX�퀛8n [nEܭr+ �^���Sܜ-m"�'W��պ b2�bE ٨R r1G (R)<�5Q���&g0@n�� p;_ �/U=��v�� ȃ2�ot8m �v��E� "�S�\�.Ӛ etmd��tm�V6 �T�e�4�t�'��� �<1 d��V [��w�Cnc$E�Ř;� ?���Z n���� ���(� (-�u�.�^�G �

• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2017A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2017A1.pdf
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(k)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b); Citizens for Jazz on WRVR v. F.C.C., 775 F.2d 392, 395 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Petition at 8. Id. at 3. 47 C.F.R. � 73.5007(a). Id. � 73.3555, Note 2. In the case of Jensen's alleged use of her employer's fax machine, Stratemeyer states that such misuse of company resources evidences a ``serious lack of character.'' Petition at 3. While Mr.
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2349A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2349A1.pdf
  • fact that neither Morehead nor any of the individuals in question holds a Commission authorization, we exercise our prosecutorial discretion and choose not to impose any sanction against them for the foregoing. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1) (requiring that petitioner support allegations of fact with affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof); see also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). 47 U.S.C. � 503(b)(1)(B). See also 47 C.F.R. 1.80(a)(1). 47 U.S.C. � 312(f)(1). See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991). 47 U.S.C. � 312(f)(2). See Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-109A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-109A1.pdf
  • telephone conversion between an air personality and another employee of the radio station. He contends that this demonstrates a ``consistent and total disregard of the public interest.'' In reply to the Informal Objection, Licensee argues that Blalack's filing does not comply with the Commission's requirements for petitions to deny and should be returned to Blalack without consideration pursuant to Section 73.3584(e) of the Commission's Rules. Moreover, it asserts that the segment complained of ceased long before Licensee obtained the KROM(FM) license. Thus, it contends, the allegations fall outside of the ``certification window'' for which it is responsible. Accordingly, Licensee argues that the allegations contained in the Informal Objection merit no further consideration. Discussion. As an initial matter, as noted by Licensee,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1206A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1206A1.pdf
  • aff'd, 411 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Id., 18 FCC Rcd at 620. MCBI filed a subsequent application for minor modification to its construction permit, File No. BMPH-20020531AAJ, which was granted July 29, 2002. The instant application is for license to cover the construction permit as modified. See supra note 6. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c); 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3580(a)(3), 73.3584(a). Id. � 73.3587. See supra note 10 and accompanying text. fective radiated power is 5.2 kW, the blanketing contour extends 0.559 miles from its transmitter. In its Reply to Opposition, DJ referenced and attached two complaints in which the complainant's names and addresses were hand-written on what appears to be a form prepared by DJ. One of the complainants lists
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1249A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1249A1.pdf
  • together with civic, community and political leaders, [VSI] has facilitated essential changes in services and programs to better the quality of life for the citizens of this community.'' VSI Petition at 5. Opposition at 3-4. VSI Petition at 5. The deadline for VSI to reply to the Licensee's May 31, 2006, Opposition was June 20, 2006. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). As noted, supra, VSI's Reply was not received by the Commission until July 11, 2006. A pleading is considered to have been filed when it is received by the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.7. VSI states that it did not timely file the Reply because it was ``in the process of exhausting all possibilities in an attempt to gain
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1329A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1329A1.pdf
  • cc: Christopher D. Imlay, Esq. White River Broadcasting Corporation, Inc. Public Notice, Broadcast Actions, Report No. 45787 (July 29, 2004). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. 47 C.F.R. �� 73.1940-1944. Petitioner also alleges, ``Licensee has failed to note the issues which were raised in it's [sic] renewal applications.'' We are unable to determine the meaning of this allegation. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3584(a) and 73.3516(e). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. 47 U.S.C. � 405. See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(f). The 30th day after the date of Public Notice fell on Saturday, August 28, 2004, so the filing period was extended to Monday, August 30. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.4(e)(1), (j). See, e.g., Gardner v. FCC 530 F.2d 1086, 1091-92 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Federal
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1553A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1553A1.pdf
  • the licensee). The Renewal Application had previously been accepted for filing by public notice released March 19, 2004. Broadcast Applications, Report No. 25696, Public Notice (MB Mar. 19, 2004). The Assignment Application had previously been accepted for filing by public notice released January 26, 2005. Broadcast Applications, Report No. 25908, Public Notice (MB Jan. 26, 2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3516(e). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3580(d)(4)(ii). Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ' 2 9 E Q W X y  � � � � � h� .� � � � � � � h� h� h� h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] h5] gd h � h h gd5] h5] �
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1701A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1701A1.pdf
  • assignment of all the station licenses other than that for KAAK(FM) were dismissed at Fisher's request. Accordingly, we address only the portion of the MRI Petition directed against the Assignment Application. Discussion. Initially, we note that the MRI Petition was untimely filed. The Assignment Application was accepted for filing by Public Notice released on June 21, 2006. Pursuant to Section 73.3584(a) of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), petitions to deny were due on July 21, 2006, 30 days after the date of the Public Notice. Because the MRI Petition was filed 35 days after the Public Notice, on July 26, 2006, it was late-filed. Accordingly, the MRI Petition must be dismissed. We will, however, treat and consider the pleading as an
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2382A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-2382A1.pdf
  • day of the last full calendar month of the expiring license term.'' Because the licenses for the Stations were each to expire on August 1, 2004, the filing deadline for petitions to deny the Applications was July 1, 2004. Accordingly, because the August 9 and August 23 Petitions were filed after this deadline, we will dismiss them pursuant to Section 73.3584(e) of the Rules. Moreover, petitions to deny do not lie against covering license applications. We will nevertheless consider them each as an informal objection pursuant to Section 73.3587 of the Rules. Informal Objections. We deny the August 9 and August 23 petitions under the pleading standards for the evaluation of informal objections. Informal objections must, pursuant to Section 309(e) of
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3222A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3222A1.pdf
  • filing by Diliberto as an Informal Objection under Section 73.3587 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., it was not served on KRPS(FM) or its counsel, and it is not supported by affidavit. See 37 U.S.C. � 309(d), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. Informal Objection at 2. Id. Id. at 3. Id. at 4. Id. at 13. Id. Id. at 17-18. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), affirmed sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sep. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3223A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3223A1.pdf
  • Broadcast License'' as an ``Informal Objection'' under Section 73.3587 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., it was not served on WDQN-FM or its representative, and it is not supported by affidavit. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), affirmed sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sep. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR2d 862, 864 (1986) (informal objection must contain adequate and specific factual allegations sufficient to warrant
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3865A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3865A1.pdf
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (``Astroline''). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). Petition at 2. While Howard does not specify the rules or statutes he believes have been violated, we presume that he is claiming that UW violated 47 C.F.R. �� 73.503(d)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4180A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4180A1.pdf
  • to file a petition to deny the Applications. See infra, note 2. We consider the merits of his submission as an informal objection. The Opposition to the Moss Objection additionally comments that Moss did not establish standing to file a petition to deny the Applications. Under Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'') and Section 73.3584 of the Commission's rules, a person filing a petition to deny an application in a broadcast proceeding must demonstrate that he or she is a ``party in interest.'' See 47 U.S.C. �309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. �3584(a). Members of the public may establish standing as a party in interest by demonstrating that they are either (1) a resident of the station's service
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4266A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4266A1.pdf
  • the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., it was not served on the Licensee or its counsel, and the factual assertions contained in the filings are not supported by an affiant with personal knowledge. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. On May 11, 2005, the Commission received via the U.S. Postal Service a second undated letter from Pullin. We are treating both submissions by Pullin as Informal Objections under Section 73.3587 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because they fail to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., they were not
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4330A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4330A1.pdf
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). Examples of the types of statements CVN makes in support of its Petition are as follows: ``[CVN] has been told by a media source that during a conversation between a McDougald
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4343A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4343A1.pdf
  • Doyle, Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau, 21 FCC Rcd 7988 (MB 2006). See id. at 6 and Appendix G. Petitioners allege that Clear Channel has an existing partnership with developer Robert Congel to promote Destiny USA, a multi-billion-dollar shopping mall and entertainment complex to be constructed north of Syracuse in Salina, New York. See id. at 7. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. 47 U.S.C � 309(k). 47 U.S.C. � 309(k); 47 C.F.R. �� 0.61, 0.283. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 October 19, 2007 � � � � (R) � � � � � "� � h� h� � � �%���PNG �` �` b``D� 4 �&)�@�-�@�@�7 H >��O��� p j�� �2�=��k��� �"_� - J��, �Nt�Rb �7�P���U�ZS '��wp��ˈ jP�T{.|�87w]�g��yA�Ҩ-��=T#�O> �#W p����U�^S� �t�''�TxNt�l ۦ��X6`T{������:�r��
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4517A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4517A1.pdf
  • Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny the license renewals of KMEL(FM), KNEW(AM), and KYLD(FM) (the ``Consolidated Opposition'') on November 28, 2005. YMC filed replies to the KSJO Opposition and the Consolidated Opposition on December 23, 2005. YMC asserts that Clear Channel's Oppositions were untimely filed and should therefore be barred from consideration. YMC is incorrect. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b), oppositions to petitions to deny applications for renewal of license may be filed within 30 days after the petition to deny is filed. YMC's petitions were filed on October 28, 2005. Accordingly, the Consolidated Opposition was timely filed. 47 C.F.R. � 73.3526. See BRH-20050728ADU. 47 U.S.C. � 309(k). 47 U.S.C. � 309(k)(1). The renewal standard was amended to read as
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4945A1.pdf
  • 11 FCC Rcd 1706 (1996) (petitions for reconsideration) and Letter to Sunbelt Television, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 13888 (MB 2005) (applications for review). Joint Request at 4; Omnibus Settlement Agreement at 2-3. See also supra notes 18, 22, 26. See Stockholders of CBS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3733, 3739 (1995). See Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911 (1990). Id. at 3913. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3588. Withdrawal of Section 1.41 Request for Commission Action at 2. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 December 11, 2007 , < D E F u w � � ... � � � � �
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1035A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1035A1.pdf
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). See Clarification of Commission Policies Regarding Spousal Attribution (``Attribution Policy Statement''), Policy Statement, 7 FCC Rcd 1920, 1922-23 (1992). Id. See Sevier Valley Broadcasting, Inc. (``Sevier Valley''), Memorandum Opinion and Order,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1372A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1372A1.pdf
  • Coosa Valley News, Inc. and Mr. Howard C. Toole, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 18600 (MB 2007), petition for recon. pending (``Toole Decision''). Objection at 2. Id. Id. Opposition at 3-4. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15464 (1996) (``Greater Muskegon Broadcasters''). Id. at 15472 (emphasis added). See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. � 309(d); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.17, 1.41 - 1.77, 73.3584, 73.3587, 73.5006, 73.7004. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.52, 73.3584(b). Coleman Objection, first unnumbered page. Id., second unnumbered page. Id., second-third unnumbered pages. See 47 U.S.C. � 310(d); Dorothy J. Owens, Debtor-in-Possession, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 6615 (1990). Cf. Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1223-25 (1986)
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1676A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1676A1.pdf
  • the Objectors as an Informal Objection under Section 73.3587 of the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because it fails to comply with the procedural requirements for filing a Petition to Deny, e.g., it was not served on the Station or its counsel, and it is not supported by affidavit. See 37 U.S.C. � 309(d), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. ``Opposition to Informal Objection'' (``Opposition''). Informal Objection at 1. Id. Opposition, Declaration of Cary Pahigian. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), affirmed sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sep. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2501A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2501A1.pdf
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. F.C.C., 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). Objection at second-third unnumbered pages. Objection at third unnumbered page. Id. See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), modified, 6 FCC
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2629A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-2629A1.pdf
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Rocky Mountain Radio, 15 FCC Rcd at 7167. Brookfield Development, Inc., Order, 18 FCC Rcd 10558, 10561 (WTB 2003) (quoting Quantron Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4749, 4754 (2000). Id. Id. Id. at 10562. See Rocky Mountain, 15 FCC Rcd at 7167
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-408A1.pdf
  • 10950, 10952 (2004). The allegations respecting violations of Section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 310, ("Section 310"), unauthorized transfer of control and other matters were fully considered and rejected in the DFW- Bernard Reconsideration Order. Bernard characterizes theObjection and Supplement as "woefully belated." Opposition at 3. We agree. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584 ("Section 73.3584") such "untimely Petitions to Deny, as well as other pleadings in the nature of a Petition to Deny and any other pleadings or supplements which do not lie as a matter of law or are otherwise procedurally defective, are subject to return by the FCC's staff without consideration." Section 73.3584, however, is discretionary. Thus, given our disposition of
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-627A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-627A1.pdf
  • Turrietta, PLLC 555 East Main Street, Suite 1600 Norfolk, VA 23510-3640 Birach alleges that it was not served with the Petition. Extension Motion at 1-2. Its Extension Motion was unopposed. Accordingly, we will grant the Extension Motion. Given our disposition of this matter, Birach's Motion for Expedited Processing is moot and will be dismissed as such. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. ``In the case of applications for transfers and assignments of construction permits or station licenses, Petitions to Deny must be filed not later than 30 days after issuance of a public notice of the acceptance for filing of the applications.'' The Applications were placed on Public Notice on November 26, 2007; Cowan filed the Petition on December 31, 2007 -
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1103A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1103A1.pdf
  • proceeding, formal or informal, or take any action against Tama Broadcasting, Inc., D.B. Zwirn & Co., L.P., or their affiliates, with respect to their basic qualifications, including character qualifications, to be a Commission licensee.'' Tama Broadcasting, Inc., 24 FCC Rcd at 1618-19. 47 C.F.R. � 1.65(a). DFW-to-Bernard Decision, 23 FCC Rcd at 2644 n.12 (citing Amendment of Sections 1.420 and 73.3584 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Abuses of the Commission's Processes, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3911, 3912 (1990), recon. denied, 6 FCC Rcd 3380 (1991). This admonishment applies only to the Petitioners, not to their counsel. Attorney misconduct associated with frivolous pleadings is referred to the Office of General Counsel under seal. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 May
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-14A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-14A1.pdf
  • the Commission's Rules (the ``Rules''), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587, because they fail to comply with the procedural requirements for filing Petitions to Deny, e.g., they were not served on the Station, and they are not supported by affidavit signed by a person with personal knowledge of the facts contained in the pleading. See 37 U.S.C. � 309(d), 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. See Marsh Objection Letter to Federal Communications Commission (March 15, 2006). The station now airs a much more diversified programming format, although it still includes some jazz and classical music. See http://www.wriu.org/programming.html. Marsh Objection at 1. Mr. Marsh states that he ``personally visited the radio station'' and viewed its public inspection file. Id. See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1524A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1524A1.pdf
  • Services, AM or FM Proposals to Change the Community of License, 73 Fed. Reg. 4572 (January 25, 2008). No comments were received by the March 25, 2008, comment deadline. Objection at 1. Although the Objection indicates that it was served on Benton-Weatherford President Larry Weatherford, Benton-Weatherford failed to oppose the Objection. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584; see also Community Change R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 14220; see also CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Objection at 1. See Motient Corporation and Subsidiaries, Transferors, and Skyterra Communications, Inc., Transferee, Memorandum Opinion and Order
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2470A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2470A1.pdf
  • (Fern Creek). Brycc notes that they are no longer co-located and that it had filed a modification application to change its location. File No. BPL-20081201ABG, granted on August 3, 2009. Brycc also stated that it would abide by the timeshare agreement and believed it was still in effect. Opposition at 5-7. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584; see also Change of Community, Report and Order 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14220 (2006); see also CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Petition at 1. 47 C.F.R. �73.853(b)(1). See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2613A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-2613A1.pdf
  • to change its location. File No. BPL-20081201ABG, granted on August 3, 2009. Brycc also stated that it would abide by the timeshare agreement and believed it was still in effect. Opposition at 5-7. We also note that formal petitions to deny do not lie against minor modification applications, such as this. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584; see also Change of Community, Report and Order 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14220 (2006); see also CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). Petition at 1. 47 C.F.R. �73.853(b)(1). See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Report and Order
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2004A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2004A1.pdf
  • February 3, 2010. Matthews sent an affidavit (``Matthews Affidavit''), a DVD and a doctor's report on May 13, 2010, as addenda to the Fourth Matthews Objection. Because petitions to deny do not lie against minor modification applications, Matthews' pleadings will be considered as informal objections under � 73.3587 of the Rules. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(c) and 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3584, 73.3587; see also Change of Community, Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14212, 14220 (2006); CMP-Houston KC, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10656, 10660 n.31 (2008), citing Cloud Nine Broadcasting, Inc., Letter, 10 FCC Rcd 11555, 11556 (1995). Filed on Mar. 10, 2009. The Lay/Moore Objection noted that it ``has the same concerns'' as Matthews and agrees
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2064A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-10-2064A1.pdf
  • Guild's request that we dismiss the Applicants' declarations because they were not sworn (Objector's Response at 3). The Applicants' declarations, filed in response to the informal objections, are not required by law, rule or other regulation to be supported by an affidavit or an unsworn declaration, as provided in Section 1.16 of the Rules (47 C.F.R. � 1.16). While Section 73.3584(b) of the Rules requires allegations of fact or denials thereof in oppositions to petitions to deny to be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, there is no such legal or regulatory requirement for responses to informal objections (See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3584(b) and 73.3587 (discussing informal objections)). Consolidated Opposition at 4. See Joint Opposition
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1352A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1352A1.pdf
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). 20 Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). 21 Beyond the Bay Media Group, Memorandum Opinion and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 6967, 6974 (MB 2006); John F. Runner, Receiver (KBIF), Memorandum Opinion and
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1520A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-1520A1.pdf
  • step is not decisive, the Bureau considers aggregated first and second service and applies the same 5,000-person differential. Id. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.7002(b). Id. at 14538. See Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F. 2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Id. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(2). Petition at i and 5. 47 C.F.R. � 73.7004(a). See also 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(a). Its arguments rest entirely on negative inferences drawn from the timing and title of a CE filing and from the Bureau's silence as to that pleading's existence. Although Regents cites many cases which set forth Commission standards for misrepresentation and lack of candor, Regents has not shown any such misconduct by CE. See, e.g. FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S.
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-99A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-99A1.pdf
  • � 309(d)(1) (``The petition shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show that . . . grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [Section 309(a)]. Such allegations of fact shall, except for those of which official notice may be taken, be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.''); 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b). Astroline Communications Co. v. FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988). See also Rocky Mountain Radio Co., LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7166, 7167 (1999). KJMG(FM) Assignment Application, Exhibit 4. APA, Section 2.3. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3555, Note 2(i). APA Amendment, Section 2.3. See Review of the Commission's Regulations Governing Attribution of Broadcast and Cable/MDS
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DOC-277947A1.doc
  • Consolidated Opposition to Petitions to Deny the license renewals of KMEL(FM), KNEW(AM), and KYLD(FM) (the ``Consolidated Opposition'') on November 28, 2005. YMC filed replies to the KSJO Opposition and the Consolidated Opposition on December 23, 2005. YMC asserts that Clear Channel's Oppositions were untimely filed and should therefore be barred from consideration. YMC is incorrect. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584(b), oppositions to petitions to deny applications for renewal of license may be filed within 30 days after the petition to deny is filed. YMC's petitions were filed on October 28, 2005. Accordingly, the Consolidated Opposition was timely filed. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau Federal Communications Commission DA 07-XXX Federal Communications Commission 2 r u
• 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
  • selectee will be chosen from the remaining applicants according to the point system. We thus caution applicants to take great care in preparing their applications. Once a tentative selectee's application is found acceptable we will announce that fact in a public notice, which would establish a due date for Petitions to Deny against the tentative selectee. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.3584. 4. Amendment of Pending Applications to Claim Points All mutually exclusive NCE proposals, including any previously filed and/or designated for hearing will be evaluated by the point system. Mutually exclusive NCE applications already on file do not, however, contain the information that the Commission will need to make a selection under a point system. These existing applicants will be required
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-139A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/FCC-08-139A1.pdf
  • Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 477 (1940) and Rainbow Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2839, 2844 n.24 (1994)(subsequent history omitted)). Second, Appellants were legally precluded from filing a petition to deny in the initial stage of this proceeding, as petitions to deny do not lie against minor modification applications. See 47 C.F.R. �� 73.3580(a)(1) and 73.3584(a). As indicated above (see supra note 7), Appellants submitted notification of their concerns about the Application, which is appropriately treated as an informal objection under 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. Accordingly, we find that Appellants ``participated in our processes to the fullest extent permitted'' and have met the good cause standard of 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b)(1). Cloud Nine, 10 FCC Rcd
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html
  • Processing of TV broadcast, Class A TV broadcast, low power TV, TV translators, and TV booster applications. [666]TEXT [667]PDF 73.3573 Processing FM broadcast station applications. [668]TEXT [669]PDF 73.3574 Processing of international broadcast station applications. [670]TEXT [671]PDF 73.3578 Amendments to applications for renewal, assignment or transfer of control. [672]TEXT [673]PDF 73.3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications. [674]TEXT [675]PDF 73.3584 Procedure for filing petitions to deny. [676]TEXT [677]PDF 73.3587 Procedure for filing informal objections. [678]TEXT [679]PDF 73.3588 Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of informal objections. [680]TEXT [681]PDF 73.3589 Threats to file petitions to deny or informal objections. [682]TEXT [683]PDF 73.3591 Grants without hearing. [684]TEXT [685]PDF 73.3592 Conditional grant. [686]TEXT [687]PDF 73.3593 Designation for hearing. [688]TEXT [689]PDF 73.3594 Local
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/63-amfmrule.htm
  • Processing of TV broadcast, Class A TV broadcast, low power TV, TV translators, and TV booster applications. [619]TEXT [620]PDF 73.3573 Processing FM broadcast station applications. [621]TEXT [622]PDF 73.3574 Processing of international broadcast station applications. [623]TEXT [624]PDF 73.3578 Amendments to applications for renewal, assignment or transfer of control. [625]TEXT [626]PDF 73.3580 Local public notice of filing of broadcast applications. [627]TEXT [628]PDF 73.3584 Procedure for filing petitions to deny. [629]TEXT [630]PDF 73.3587 Procedure for filing informal objections. [631]TEXT [632]PDF 73.3588 Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of informal objections. [633]TEXT [634]PDF 73.3589 Threats to file petitions to deny or informal objections. [635]TEXT [636]PDF 73.3591 Grants without hearing. [637]TEXT [638]PDF 73.3592 Conditional grant. [639]TEXT [640]PDF 73.3593 Designation for hearing. [641]TEXT [642]PDF 73.3594 Local
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/univision/ricon091106b.pdf
  • transfer of control of the above-referenced licensees of television and radio stations from Univision Communications Inc., and its various subsidiaries, including Univision Television Group, Inc., Telefutura Television Group, Inc., Univision Puerto Rico Station Acquisition Company, and Univision Radio, Inc., (collectively "Univision") to Broadcasting Media Partners Inc. ("BMPI" or "Transferee").1 Petitioners, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. ��307 and 309, and 47 CFR �73.3584, respectfully request that these Applications be set for evidentiary hearing before the full Commission, and, based on the 1 This Petition is timely filed. Inasmuch as the Commission's Consolidated Database System ("CDBS") was inoperable at certain times in July and August 2006, the Commission has granted a ten day extension for broadcast applicants, permittees and licensees needing to file pleadings
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/univision/ricon09290b.pdf
  • Opposition at 2, and show no cause for filing the document after the initial petition to deny deadline or to request a waiver. Univision Opposition at 7. On the contrary, Rincon et al. clearly stated the cause for the timing of its filing: that they "have had at least 10 days less time than the time contemplated in 47 C.F.R. �73.3584 to prepare this Petition due to lack of access to critical filings only accessible in CDBS." Petition to Deny, at fn 1. Implicit in this statement is an inference that Petitioners attempted to, but failed to access the necessary information. There is no requirement that Rincon et al. state any "magic language" that Applicants seem to believe is required. Univision