C.F.R. » Title 10 » CHAPTER II—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY › SUBCHAPTER G—NATURAL GAS (ECONOMIC REGULATORY ADMINISTRATION) › PART 590—ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE IMPORT AND EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS › Subpart C—Procedures

10 C.F.R. § 590.313

Trial-type hearings

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

(a) Any party may file a motion for a trial-type hearing for the purpose of taking evidence on relevant and material issues of fact genuinely in dispute in the proceeding. The motion shall identify the factual issues in dispute and the evidence that will be presented. The party must demonstrate that the issues are genuinely in dispute, relevant and material to the decision and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts. The Assistant Secretary or presiding official shall grant a party's motion for a trial-type hearing, if the Assistant Secretary or presiding official determines that there is a relevant and material factual issue genuinely in dispute and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts.

(b) In trial-type hearings, the parties shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to request discovery, to present the direct and rebuttal testimony of witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses under oath, and to present documentary evidence.

(c) The Assistant Secretary or presiding official upon his or her own initiative or upon the motion of any party may consolidate any proceedings involving common questions of fact in whole or in part for a trial-type hearing. The Assistant Secretary or presiding official may also place appropriate limitations on the number of intervenors who may participate if two or more intervenors have substantially like interests.

(d) The Assistant Secretary or presiding official may make such rulings for trial-type hearings, including delineation of the issues and limitation of cross-examination of a witness, as are necessary to obtain a full and true disclosure of the facts and to limit irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.

(e) At trial-type hearings, the Assistant Secretary or presiding official, or any other decisional employee directed by the Assistant Secretary or presiding official, may call witnesses for testimony or presenting exhibits that directly relate to a particular issue of fact to be considered at the hearing. The Assistant Secretary or presiding official, or any other decisional employee directed by the Assistant Secretary or presiding official, may also question witnesses offered by the parties concerning their testimony.

(f) Trial-type hearings shall be recorded, and the transcript shall be made part of the official record of the proceeding and available to the public.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1987–1989 · leading case: Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Ass'n v. Econ. Regulatory Admin., 822 F.2d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Ass'n v. Econ. Regulatory Admin., 822 F.2d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “at 98a-99a; see 10 C.F.R. § 590.313 (a) (1986). Petitioner sought rehearing, which ERA denied in Order No.”
Energy Mgt. P 26,603 Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Ass'n v. Econ. Regulatory Admin., 847 F.2d 1168 (5th Cir. 1988). “Whether or not the order required resolution of adjudicative facts depends largely upon the extent to which the ERA was entitled to rely on the 1984 Policy Guidelines and its prior orders authorizing similar imports.”
New England Fuel Inst. v. Econ. Regulatory Admin., 875 F.2d 882 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “ERA’s regulations call for a trial-type hearing when ERA “determines that there is a relevant and material factual issue genuinely in dispute and that a trial-type hearing is necessary for a full and true disclosure of the facts.”
— 10 C.F.R. § 590.313(a) — 1 case
Energy Mgt. P 26,603 Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Ass'n v. Econ. Regulatory Admin., 847 F.2d 1168 (5th Cir. 1988). “Whether or not the order required resolution of adjudicative facts depends largely upon the extent to which the ERA was entitled to rely on the 1984 Policy Guidelines and its prior orders authorizing similar imports.”
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.