47 C.F.R. § 1.110

Partial grants; rejection and designation for hearing

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Where the Commission without a hearing grants any application in part, or with any privileges, terms, or conditions other than those requested, or subject to any interference that may result to a station if designated application or applications are subsequently granted, the action of the Commission shall be considered as a grant of such application unless the applicant shall, within 30 days from the date on which such grant is made or from its effective date if a later date is specified, file with the Commission a written request rejecting the grant as made. Upon receipt of such request, the Commission will vacate its original action upon the application and set the application for hearing in the same manner as other applications are set for hearing.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1968–2015 · leading case: Tribune Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 133 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tribune Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 133 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.110 (1996). We start with the statute.”

Atl. Tele-Network, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Intervenor, 59 F.3d 1384 (D.C. Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “Jurisdiction As an initial matter, the Commission alleges that we lack jurisdiction to consider ATN’s petition because one of its regulations, 47 C.F.R. § 1.110 (1994), requires ATN to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing a petition for judicial review.”

Mobile Commc'ns Corp. of Am. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 77 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “These include 47 CFR § 1.110 , which states that an approval subject to conditions “shall be considered as a grant of such application unless the applicant” files a timely request “rejecting the grant as made,” thereby precipitating Commission reconsideration.”

Buckley-Jaeger Broad. Corp. of California v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 397 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1968). · cites it 2× “§ 309 (e) (1964) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.110 (1967), concerning partial grants, the action of the Commission constituted a denial of the renewal application as filed, thus entitling Appellant to a hearing.”

Behr v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 638 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “Appellant Lawrence Behr challenges an FCC order denying his request for a hearing under 47 C.F.R. § 1.110 . Behr’s claim arises out of a lengthy history with the FCC.”

Peninsula Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 55 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “Peninsula then filed a rejection of the conditional renewals under 47 C.F.R. § 1.110 . In 2001, the Commission dismissed Peninsula’s rejection as untimely because § 1.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.