C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE › Subpart A—General Rules of Practice and Procedure

47 C.F.R. § 1.3

Suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules

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

The provisions of this chapter may be suspended, revoked, amended, or waived for good cause shown, in whole or in part, at any time by the Commission, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act and the provisions of this chapter. Any provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause therefor is shown.

Cross Reference:

See subpart C of this part for practice and procedure involving rulemaking.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 852 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 852 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “1990) (quoting 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 ). A waiver is appropriate “only if [1] special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and [2] such deviation will serve the public interest.”
Viasat, Inc. v. FCC, 47 F.4th 769 (D.C. Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “” 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 . Good cause exists “when particular facts would make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest.”
Comcast Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 526 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “Comcast alternatively argues that it is entitled to a waiver under the 2005 Order, which the Commission now tells us (although it was not specific in 2005) was based on the Commission’s general waiver authority, 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 , rather than on section 629(c).”
United States v. Dunifer, 997 F. Supp. 1235 (N.D. Cal. 1998). · cites it 3× “at 3; 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 . In response to a properly presented waiver application which *1241 includes factual material to support a non-frivolous First Amendment claim, the agency must address the constitutional issues raised by the applicant.”
Prayze Fm, Also Known as Incom, L.L.C., Mark Blake & Loretta Spivey v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 214 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 . On February 2, 2000, the FCC formally denied Prayze’s application for an experimental license, stating that it was not a bona fide experimental proposal within the meaning of § 74.”
Brodsky ex rel. Situated v. Humanadental Ins. Co., 910 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2018). “" See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 . That provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ny provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause therefor is shown.”
United States v. Stephen Paul Dunifer, 219 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 . On January 27, 2000, the FCC adopted rules authorizing the licensing of two new classes of radio stations — one operating at a maximum power of 100 watts and another at a maximum power of 10 watts.”
United States v. Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip., 19 F. Supp. 2d 738 (E.D. Mich. 1998). · cites it 4× “47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3 , 1.106. However, Straweut-ter contends that those provisions are meaningless to micro broadcasters who seek to obtain an FCC broadcast license because it has not, and will not, grant a license or waive the regulations inhibiting new micro broadcast…”
Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & the United States of Am., Go Commc'ns Corp., Intervenors, 78 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “Did the FCC violate its own regulations? QTEL, Omnipoint and the joint petitioners also claim the Commission violated its own regulations because it did not request reply comments. The Commission’s regulations provide that a reasonable time will be provided for filing reply…”
At & T Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 582 F.3d 490 (3d Cir. 2009). “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 (allowing the FCC to waive any regulation "for good cause shown”).”
Brodsky v. Humanadental Ins. Co., 269 F. Supp. 3d 841 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 (“Any provision of the rules may be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good cause therefor is shown.”
City of Peoria v. Gen. Elec. Cablevision Corp. (Gecco), & Third-Party v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Third-Party, 690 F.2d 116 (3d Cir. 1982). “So all Peoria had to do was file a petition for waiver under 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 or 47 C.F.R. § 76.7 (a), as GECCO had done, to get a ruling on the current validity of Rule 76.”
Show all 35 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.