47 C.F.R. § 1.229

Motions to enlarge, change, or delete issues

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

(a) A motion to enlarge, change or delete the issues may be filed by any party to a hearing proceeding. Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, such motions must be filed within 15 days after the full text or a summary of the order designating the case for hearing has been published in the Federal Register.

(b)(1) For program carriage complaints filed pursuant to § 76.1302 of this chapter that the Chief, Media Bureau refers to a presiding officer, such motions shall be filed within 15 calendar days after the deadline for submitting written appearances pursuant to § 1.221(f), except that persons not named as parties to the proceeding in the designation order may file such motions with their petitions to intervene up to 30 days after publication of the full text or a summary of the designation order in the Federal Register. (See § 1.223).

(2) Any person desiring to file a motion to modify the issues after the expiration of periods specified in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this section shall set forth the reason why it was not possible to file the motion within the prescribed period. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the motion will be granted only if good cause is shown for the delay in filing. Motions for modifications of issues which are based on new facts or newly discovered facts shall be filed within 15 days after such facts are discovered by the moving party.

(c) In the absence of good cause for late filing of a motion to modify the issues, the motion to enlarge will be considered fully on its merits if (and only if) initial examination of the motion demonstrates that it raises a question of probable decisional significance and such substantial public interest importance as to warrant consideration in spite of its untimely filing.

(d) Such motions, opposition thereto, and replies to oppositions shall contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to support the action requested. Such allegations of fact, except for those of which official notice may be taken, shall be supported by affidavits of a person or persons having personal knowledge thereof. The failure to file an opposition or a reply will not necessarily be construed as an admission of any fact or argument contained in a pleading.

(e) In any case in which the presiding officer grants a motion to enlarge the issues to inquire into allegations that an applicant made misrepresentations to the Commission or engaged in other misconduct during the application process, the enlarged issues include notice that, after hearings on the enlarged issue and upon a finding that the alleged misconduct occurred and warrants such penalty, in addition to or in lieu of denying the application, the applicant may be liable for a forfeiture of up to the maximum statutory amount. See 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(2)(A).

[41 FR 14872, Apr. 8, 1976, as amended at 44 FR 34947, June 18, 1979; 51 FR 19347, May 29, 1986; 56 FR 792, Jan. 9, 1991; 56 FR 25639, June 5, 1991; 62 FR 4171, Jan. 29, 1997; 76 FR 60672, Sept. 29, 2011; 76 FR 70908, Nov. 16, 2011; 78 FR 5745, Jan. 28, 2013; 85 FR 63175, Oct. 6, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1967–1994 · leading case: Fid. Television, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Rko Gen., Inc., Intervenor, 515 F.2d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fid. Television, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Rko Gen., Inc., Intervenor, 515 F.2d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.229 (1973). Fidelity, on June 27, 1966, filed such a petition, requesting the addition of three issues: which applicant would provide for a more fair, efficient and equitable distribution of television services; the “service philosophy” of each applicant; 4 and…”

Comm. for Open Media v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Chronicle Broad. Co., Intervenor, 543 F.2d 861 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “47 C.F.R. § 1.229 (a) (1974). 55 . Chronicle Broadcasting Co.”

CHM Broad. Ltd. P'ship v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 24 F.3d 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “47 C.F.R. § 1.229 (b). Otherwise, the FCC will accept the motion only if the applicant can show either that good cause exists for the delay in filing or that “initial examination of the motion demonstrates that it raises a question of probable decisional significance and such…”

RKO Gen., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 670 F.2d 215 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “47 C.F.R. § 1.229 (1979). .The FCC contends that had the SEC investigation continued only a few months longer, “the Commission might never have known about the investigation or been in a position to condition any renewal on the outcome of the investigation and any resulting…”

Amigos Broad., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 696 F.2d 128 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “Having determined that LBC’s overall comparative advantage was overwhelming, the Board was certainly within the bounds of its discretion when it held that, unless Amigos could make out a case for disqualification, a hearing on the issue of what type of demerit to give was…”

Wftl Broad. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Boca Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor, 376 F.2d 782 (D.C. Cir. 1967). “Actually, the Review Board denied the Broadcast Bureau’s motion to add this issue on the narrow procedural ground that it was untimely under the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.229 (b) (1966). But, because of the importance of the issue, the Review Board added it on its own…”

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.