C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER C—BROADCAST RADIO SERVICES › PART 76—MULTICHANNEL VIDEO AND CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE › Subpart J—Ownership of Cable Systems

47 C.F.R. § 76.502

Time limits applicable to franchise authority consideration of transfer applications

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

(a) A franchise authority shall have 120 days from the date of submission of a completed FCC Form 394, together with all exhibits, and any additional information required by the terms of the franchise agreement or applicable state or local law to act upon an application to sell, assign, or otherwise transfer controlling ownership of a cable system.

(b) A franchise authority that questions the accuracy of the information provided under paragraph (a) must notify the cable operator within 30 days of the filing of such information, or such information shall be deemed accepted, unless the cable operator has failed to provide any additional information reasonably requested by the franchise authority within 10 days of such request.

(c) If the franchise authority fails to act upon such transfer request within 120 days, such request shall be deemed granted unless the franchise authority and the requesting party otherwise agree to an extension of time.

[61 FR 15388, Apr. 8, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2001–2015 · leading case: Charter Commc'ns, Inc. v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Charter Commc'ns, Inc. v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (N.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 4× “47 C.F.R. 76.502. In the Charter/Sonic transaction, the parties submitted a Form 394 plus attachments to the County, which then requested and received additional voluminous supplemental information.”
Charter Commc'ns, Inc., a Delaware Corp. Charter Commc'ns Props., LLC Paul G. Allen v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 304 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2002). “See 47 C.F.R. 76.502. 3 . Charter contended at trial that the County acted unlawfully, and therefore unreasonably, in its attempts to gather information beyond what was permitted by Section 617 of the Cable Act and the FCC regulations.”
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Roberts, 477 S.W.3d 293 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 543 (b),(d); and the transfer of cable television systems, 47 C.F.R. § 76.502 , are all regulated by federal law.”
Charter Commc'ns, Inc. v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 203 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “47 CFR 76.502 (emphasis added). The County of Santa Cruz has also enacted a cable ordinance that addresses the situation of a change in control of a franchisee, codified in the Code of the County of Santa Cruz, Chapter 5.”
— 47 C.F.R. § 76.502(b) — 1 case
Charter Commc'ns, Inc. v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “47 C.F.R. 76.502. In the Charter/Sonic transaction, the parties submitted a Form 394 plus attachments to the County, which then requested and received additional voluminous supplemental information.”
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.