47 C.F.R. § 3.28

Denial of privilege

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

(a) The Commission, in its sole discretion, may refuse to grant an application to become an accounting authority for any of the following reasons:

(1) Failure to provide evidence of acceptable financial responsibility;

(2) If the applicant, in the opinion of the FCC reviewing official, does not possess the qualifications necessary to the proper functioning of an accounting authority;

(3) Application is not personally signed by the proper official(s);

(4) Applicant does not provide evidence that accounting operations will take place in the United States or its territories and the applicant does not already possess an AAIC issued by another administration;

(5) Application is incomplete, the applicant fails to provide additional information requested by the Commission or the applicant indicates that it cannot meet a particular provision; or

(6) When the Commission determines that the grant of an authorization is contrary to the public interest.

(b) These rules provide sufficient latitude to address defects in applications. Entities seeking review should follow procedures set forth in § 1.106 or § 1.115 of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1957–1962 · leading case: Roy L. Albertson v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Jet Broad. Co., Intervenor, 243 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Roy L. Albertson v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Jet Broad. Co., Intervenor, 243 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1957). · cites it 2× “We understand the Commission to be saying no more than the simple fact that “there was no evidence in rebuttal which would contradict or weaken” the “showing that a need exists” as found by the Commission, in accordance with its Rule, 47 C.F.R. § 3.28 (c). Whether WBNY had…”

Daniel F. Guinan, D/B/A Guinan Realty Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Louis Adelman, Intervenor, 297 F.2d 782 (D.C. Cir. 1961). “* * ” 47 C.F.R. § 3.28 (c). The issues specified to be determined at the consolidated hearing were the following : “1.”

Interstate Broad. Co., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, E. Weaks McKinney Intervenor, 265 F.2d 598 (D.C. Cir. 1959). “28(c) (1958) provides: “Upon a showing that a need exists, a Class II, III or IV station may be assigned to a channel available for such class, even though interference will be received within its normally protected contour; Provided: (1) No objectionable interference will be…”

Herman E. Sayger, Tr/as Sayger Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 312 F.2d 352 (D.C. Cir. 1962). · cites it 2× “28(d), 47 C.F.R. § 3.28 (d), reads: “Upon showing that a need exists, a Class II, III or IV station may be assigned to a channel available for such class, even though interference will be received within its normally protected contour; Provided: (1) no objectionable interference…”

— 47 C.F.R. § 3.28(c) — 1 case

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.