(a) The Commission may, in accordance with section 5(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, on motion or on its own motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty.
(b) The bureau or office to which a petition for declaratory ruling has been submitted or assigned by the Commission should docket such a petition within an existing or current proceeding, depending on whether the issues raised within the petition substantially relate to an existing proceeding. The bureau or office then should seek comment on the petition via public notice. Unless otherwise specified by the bureau or office, the filing deadline for responsive pleadings to a docketed petition for declaratory ruling will be 30 days from the release date of the public notice, and the default filing deadline for any replies will be 15 days thereafter.
[76 FR 24390, May 2, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
City of Arlington v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 668 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “The Declaratory Ruling is designated as a “Declaratory Ruling,” and it was issued pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.2 . Section 1.2 grants the FCC the power to issue declaratory orders and is derivative of § 554(e) of the APA.”
Mark S. Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2014).
“2 (a) (“The Commission may, in accordance with section 5(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, on motion or on its own motion issue a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty.”). The FCC sought public comment in accordance with its rulemaking…”
Red Lion Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
“the book to smear and destroy Barry Goldwater called ‘Barry Goldwater — Extremist Of The Right!’ ” 3 The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition for want of a reviewable order, later reversing itself en banc upon argument by the Government that the FCC rule used here,…”
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n v. ITT World Commc'ns, Inc., 466 U.S. 463 (1984).
“In any event, even if the question of the lawfulness of the agency’s past conduct were the central element of respondent ITT’s judicial complaint, the District Court under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should have dismissed the complaint, as respondents could have…”
Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 630 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2010).
“And we have not hesitated to invoke an agency’s primary jurisdiction before, even when the idea was raised for the first time on appeal, see Alltel Tenn.”
CBS Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 535 F.3d 167 (3rd Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2 . [41] It serves no purpose to do so in the context of this litigation.”
In re: Tennant, Jame, 359 F.3d 523 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
“108 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.2 (motion for declaratory ruling); id.”
Chisholm v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 538 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
· cites it 2× “” 47 C.F.R. § 1.2 . Petitioners argue that the Commission was not presented with an actual controversy, since there was no request for equal time by any candidate against CBS or any other licensee.”
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.