47 C.F.R. § 1.65

Substantial and significant changes in information furnished by applicants to the Commission

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

(a) Each applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information furnished in a pending application or in Commission proceedings involving a pending application. Except as otherwise required by rules applicable to particular types of applications, whenever the information furnished in the pending application is no longer substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects, the applicant shall as promptly as possible and in any event within 30 days, unless good cause is shown, amend or request the amendment of the application so as to furnish such additional or corrected information as may be appropriate. Except as otherwise required by rules applicable to particular types of applications, whenever there has been a substantial change as to any other matter which may be of decisional significance in a Commission proceeding involving the pending application, the applicant shall as promptly as possible and in any event within 30 days, unless good cause is shown, submit a statement furnishing such additional or corrected information as may be appropriate, which shall be served upon parties of record in accordance with § 1.47. Where the matter is before any court for review, statements and requests to amend shall in addition be served upon the Commission's General Counsel. For the purposes of this section, an application is “pending” before the Commission from the time it is accepted for filing by the Commission until a Commission grant or denial of the application is no longer subject to reconsideration by the Commission or to review by any court.

(b) Applications in broadcast services subject to competitive bidding will be subject to the provisions of §§ 1.2105(b), 73.5002 and 73.3522 of this chapter regarding the modification of their applications.

(c) All broadcast permittees and licensees must report annually to the Commission any adverse finding or adverse final action taken by any court or administrative body that involves conduct bearing on the permittee's or licensee's character qualifications and that would be reportable in connection with an application for renewal as reflected in the renewal form. If a report is required by this paragraph(s), it shall be filed on the anniversary of the date that the licensee's renewal application is required to be filed, except that licensees owning multiple stations with different anniversary dates need file only one report per year on the anniversary of their choice, provided that their reports are not more than one year apart. Permittees and licensees bear the obligation to make diligent, good faith efforts to become knowledgeable of any such reportable adjudicated misconduct.

Note:

The terms adverse finding and adverse final action as used in paragraph (c) of this section include adjudications made by an ultimate trier of fact, whether a government agency or court, but do not include factual determinations which are subject to review de novo unless the time for taking such review has expired under the relevant procedural rules. The pendency of an appeal of an adverse finding or adverse final action does not relieve a permittee or licensee from its obligation to report the finding or action.

[48 FR 27200, June 13, 1983, as amended at 55 FR 23084, June 6, 1990; 56 FR 25635, June 5, 1991; 56 FR 44009, Sept. 6, 1991; 57 FR 47412, Oct. 16, 1992; 63 FR 48622, Sept. 11, 1998; 69 FR 72026, Dec. 10, 2004; 75 FR 4702, Jan. 29, 2010]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1962–2005 · leading case: City of Angels Broad., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Fid. Television, Inc., Rko Gen., Inc., Intervenors, 745 F.2d 656 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Angels Broad., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Fid. Television, Inc., Rko Gen., Inc., Intervenors, 745 F.2d 656 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “There can be no doubt, as the dissent argues, that significant changes have swept over Los Angeles County during the past twenty years.”

CFM Commc'ns, LLC v. Mitts Telecasting Co., 424 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (E.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 2× “Given this prohibition, and given Larry Miller’s pending application for Channel 45 in Lincoln, Larry Miller could not, consistent with 47 C.”

David Ortiz Radio Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Ramon Rodriguez & Assocs., Inc., Intervenor, 941 F.2d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “253, and whether RRAI had violated an FCC regulation requiring applicants to inform the Commission “as promptly as possible and in any event within 30 days” if the information in the pending application “is no longer substantially accurate and complete in all significant…”

Weyburn Broad. Ltd. P'ship v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, James River Commc'ns Corp., Intervenor, 984 F.2d 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “65 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.65 (1991), by failing to report material information concerning its financial qualifications.”

Herbert L. Schoenbohm v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 204 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.65 (a) ("Each applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information furnished in a pending application or in Commission proceedings involving a pending application .”

Chuck Stone v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, the Evening Star Broad. Co., Intervenor, 466 F.2d 316 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “, at 826-907, pursuant to the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.65 , 1.522. 8 . Evening Star Broadcasting Company, 24 F.”

Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, William P. Johnson & Hollis B. Johnson, Doing Bus. as Radio Carrollton, Intervenor, 557 F.2d 866 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “65 (1976), provides in relevant part: Each applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information furnished in a pending application or in Commission proceedings involving a pending application. Whenever the information furnished in the pending…”

Comm. for Open Media v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Chronicle Broad. Co., Intervenor, 543 F.2d 861 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “Renewal applications proposing significant changes in program format or commercial practices, or proposing decreases in the minimum amount of time the applicant will devote to specified types of programming submitted before renewal is granted, are treated as major changes…”

Webr, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Florian R. Burczynski, Etc., D/B/A Ultravision Broad. Co., Intervenor, 420 F.2d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1969). “Furthermore, no disclosure of this interest was made until 17 months after the Cable Company’s incorporation and with, full knowledge of the Commission’s new rule, 47 C.F.R. § 1.65 (1968), which came into effect on December 22, 1964, requiring the amendment of pending…”

EDM & Assocs., Inc. v. GEM Cellular, 597 A.2d 384 (D.C. 1991). “, 47 C.F.R. § 1.65 (a) (1989), which provides that "(f]or purposes of this section, an application is ‘pending’ before the Commission .”

Wadeco, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Belo Broad. Corp., Intervenor, 628 F.2d 122 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “” 47 CFR § 1.65 (1977). Thus, on July 11, 1972, WADECO had revised its shareholder list to show that Peter Manos had withdrawn as a shareholder, and on November 2, 1972, to show that Gilbert Curie had withdrawn.”

Lakewood Broad. Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 478 F.2d 919 (D.C. Cir. 1973). “47 C.F.R. § 1.65 requires that an amendment to the application be filed by the applicant whenever “the pending application is no longer substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects .”

Show all 19 citing cases →

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.