47 C.F.R. § 0.291

Authority delegated

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

The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, is hereby delegated authority to perform all functions of the Bureau, described in § 0.91, subject to the following exceptions and limitations.

(a) Authority concerning applications. (1) The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau shall not have authority to act on any formal or informal common carrier applications or section 214 applications for common carrier services which are in hearing status.

(2) The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau shall not have authority to act on any applications or requests which present novel questions of fact, law or policy which cannot be resolved under outstanding precedents and guidelines.

(b) Authority concerning section 220 of the Act. The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau shall not have authority to promulgate regulations or orders prescribing permanent depreciation rates for common carriers, or to prescribe interim depreciation rates to be effective more than one year, pursuant to section 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

(c) Authority concerning forfeitures. The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau shall not have authority to impose, reduce or cancel forfeitures pursuant to Section 203 or Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in amounts of more than $80,000.

(d) Authority concerning applications for review. The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, shall not have authority to act upon any applications for review of actions taken by the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, pursuant to any delegated authority, except that the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau may dismiss any such application that does not contain any statement required under § 1.115(a) or (b) of this chapter, or does not comply with the filing requirements of § 1.115(d) or (f) of this chapter.

(e) Authority concerning rulemaking and investigatory proceedings. The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, shall not have authority to issue notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of inquiry, or reports or orders arising from either of the foregoing, except that the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, shall have authority, in consultation and coordination with the Chief, Office of International Affairs, to issue and revise a manual on the details of the reporting requirements for international carriers referenced in § 43.61(a)(3) of this chapter.

(f) Authority concerning the issuance of subpoenas. The Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau or her/his designee is authorized to issue non-hearing related subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, schedules of charges, contracts, agreements, and any other records deemed relevant to the investigation of matters within the jurisdiction of the Wireline Competition Bureau. Before issuing a subpoena, the Bureau shall obtain the approval of the Office of General Counsel.

(g) The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, is delegated authority to enter into agreements with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to perform accreditation of Telecommunication Certification Bodies (TCBs) pursuant to §§ 68.160 and 68.162 of this chapter. In addition, the Chief is delegated authority to develop specific methods that will be used to accredit TCBs, to designate TCBs, to make determinations regarding the continued acceptability of individual TCBs and to develop procedures that TCBs will use for performing post-market surveillance.

(h) [Reserved]

(i) Authority concerning schools and libraries support mechanism audits. The Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, shall have authority to address audit findings relating to the schools and libraries support mechanism. This authority is not subject to the limitation set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau is delegated authority to adopt changes to rules the Wireline Competition Bureau administers where the rule changes are exempt from prior notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), and where the action on delegated authority is not new or novel.

(Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1068, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 303; secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 315, 317, 48 Stat., as amended, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1068, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1089; 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 155, 303, 307, 308, 309, 315, 317) [44 FR 18501, Mar. 28, 1979] Editorial Note:For Federal Register citations affecting § 0.291, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at www.govinfo.gov.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1978–2008 · leading case: Sprint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Pub. Commc'ns Council, Inc., Intervenors, 315 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sprint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Am. Pub. Commc'ns Council, Inc., Intervenors, 315 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “Commission Organization, 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 (g) (2001). Sprint, therefore, was not on notice that the Commission was proposing to “revise” its initial rule, much less that it would shift the locus of payment responsibility in any manner other than the Coalition Petition’s CIC…”

Fones4all Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 550 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2008). “” 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 . There is no specific provision reserving the right to grant extensions of time to the commissioners; extensions of time are not generally regarded as presenting novel issues of law or policy.”

Cablevision of Texas Iii, L.P. v. Oklahoma W. Tel. Co. & Star Search Rural Television Co., 993 F.2d 208 (10th Cir. 1993). “” 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 . The Domestic Facilities Division is a division of the Common Carrier Bureau.”

Solomon v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 640 F. Supp. 997 (E.D. Mich. 1986). “This power was delegated to the FCC by Congress in 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 (1985). In five complaints which were filed with the FCC in late 1984, the plaintiffs complained that MCI was illegally charging its customers for incomplete calls.”

Hawaiian Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 589 F.2d 647 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “” 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 (a)(2) (1977). Finally, appellants contend that the FCC should have required a more fully developed economic justification from the applicants before approving their applications.”

Sprint Corp v. FCC (D.C. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “Com- mission Organization, 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 (g) (2001). Sprint, therefore, was not on notice that the Commission was propos- ing to ‘‘revise’’ its initial rule, much less that it would shift the locus of payment responsibility in any manner other than the Coalition Petition’s…”

In Re Long Distance Telecomm. Litig., 640 F. Supp. 997 (E.D. Mich. 1986). “This power was delegated to the FCC by Congress in 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 (1985). In five complaints which were filed with the FCC in late 1984, the plaintiffs complained that MCI was illegally charging its customers for incomplete calls.”

Fones4all Corp. v. FCC (9th Cir. 2008). “” 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 . There is no specific provision reserving the right to grant extensions of time to the commissioners; extensions of time are not gen- erally regarded as presenting novel issues of law or policy.”

AT & T v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 550 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2008). “” 47 C.F.R. § 0.291 . There is no specific provision reserving the right to grant extensions of time to the commissioners; extensions of time are not generally regarded as presenting novel issues of law or policy.”

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.