18 C.F.R. § 385.713

Request for rehearing (Rule 713)

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

(a) Applicability. (1) This section applies to any request for rehearing of a final Commission decision or other final order, if rehearing is provided for by statute, rule, or order.

(2) For the purposes of rehearing under this section, a final decision in any proceeding set for hearing under subpart E of this part includes any Commission decision:

(i) On exceptions taken by participants to an initial decision;

(ii) When the Commission presides at the reception of the evidence;

(iii) If the initial decision procedure has been waived by consent of the participants in accordance with Rule 710;

(iv) On review of an initial decision without exceptions under Rule 712; and

(v) On any other action designated as a final decision by the Commission for purposes of rehearing.

(3) For the purposes of rehearing under this section, any initial decision under Rule 709 is a final Commission decision after the time provided for Commission review under Rule 712, if there are no exceptions filed to the decision and no review of the decision is initiated under Rule 712.

(b) Time for filing; who may file. A request for rehearing by a party must be filed not later than 30 days after issuance of any final decision or other final order in a proceeding.

(1) State concisely the alleged error in the final decision or final order;

(2) Conform to the requirements in Rule 203(a), which are applicable to pleadings, and, in addition, include a separate section entitled “Statement of Issues,” listing each issue in a separately enumerated paragraph that includes representative Commission and court precedent on which the party is relying; any issue not so listed will be deemed waived; and

(3) Set forth the matters relied upon by the party requesting rehearing, if rehearing is sought based on matters not available for consideration by the Commission at the time of the final decision or final order.

(d) Answers. (1) The Commission will not permit answers to requests for rehearing.

(2) The Commission may afford parties an opportunity to file briefs or present oral argument on one or more issues presented by a request for rehearing.

(e) Request is not a stay. Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, the filing of a request for rehearing does not stay the Commission decision or order.

(f) Commission action on rehearing. Unless the Commission acts upon a request for rehearing within 30 days after the request is filed, the request is denied.

[Order 225, 47 FR 19022, May 3, 1982, as amended by Order 375, 49 FR 21316, May 21, 1984; Order 575, 60 FR 4860, Jan. 25, 1995; 60 FR 16567, Mar. 31, 1995; Order 663, 70 FR 55725, Sept. 23, 2005; 71 FR 14642, Mar. 23, 2006]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 31 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Port of Seattle v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 499 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Port of Seattle v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 499 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “" 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (f). On the other hand, the statute also states that until the record is filed with the court of appeals, FERC may at any time, with reasonable notice, modify or set aside any finding or order it has made.”

Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Permanent Easements for 2.14 Acres & Temp. Easements for 3.59 Acres in Conestoga Twp., 907 F.3d 725 (3rd Cir. 2018). “6, 2017), Accession No. 20170306-5202. The tolling order noted that if FERC had not responded to the rehearing requests within 30 days, the requests would be considered denied under 18 C.”

Allegheny Def. Proj. v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (2016). In order to afford additional time for consideration of the matters raised or to be raised, rehearing of the Commission’s order is hereby granted for the limited purpose of further consideration, and timely-filed rehearing requests will not be deemed…”

New England Power Generators Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatiory Comm'n, 879 F.3d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§ 8251(a), (b); 18 C.F.R. §§ 385.713 (b), 385.2007(a). The FPA dictates the standard of judicial review.”

Duncan's Point Lot Owners Ass'n v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 522 F.3d 371 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “Petitioners filed a request for rehearing, see 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (providing for requests for rehearing of final Commission decisions or orders), challenging the denial of their complaint and alleging for the first time that FERC itself had abridged petitioners’ due process…”

City of Orrville v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 147 F.3d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “See 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (b) (1997). 4 . The Secretary also rejected Orrville’s rehearing request inasmuch as only a party to a proceeding may request rehearing.”

No Gas Pipeline v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 756 F.3d 764 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “” 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (c)(3); see also Rehearing Order P.”

City of Oswego, New York v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 97 F.3d 1490 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “The Licensing Order stated that it “constitute[d] final agency action,” and that requests for rehearing by FERC were to be filed within thirty days, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 . Id. at 63,220 . The City did not seek rehearing by FERC of the Licensing Order.”

Food & Water Watch v. FERC, 104 F.4th 336 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “” 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (c)(2). Moreover, they provide that failure to do so means that the issue “will be deemed waived.”

FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 551 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2008). “Within the thirty-day limit provided for reconsideration, 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (b), Appalachian Mountain Club (“AMC”) filed a timely petition for rehearing of FERC’s decision granting the license.”

City of Lincoln v. FERC, 89 F.4th 926 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “§ 825l(a); 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (f); see Sw. Power Pool, Inc.”

Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC v. FERC, 106 F.4th 1220 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “; see also 18 C.F.R. § 385.713 (d)(1) (2019). 1. Range’s Complaint mentions Section 6.”

Show all 31 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.