47 C.F.R. § 1.415

Comments and replies

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

(a) After notice of proposed rulemaking is issued, the Commission will afford interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking proceeding through submission of written data, views, or arguments, with or without opportunity to present the same orally in any manner.

(b) A reasonable time will be provided for submission of comments in support of or in opposition to proposed rules, and the time provided will be specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

(c) A reasonable time will be provided for filing comments in reply to the original comments, and the time provided will be specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

(d) No additional comments may be filed unless specifically requested or authorized by the Commission.

Note:

In some (but not all) rulemaking proceedings, interested persons may also communicate with the Commission and its staff on an ex parte basis, provided certain procedures are followed. See §§ 1.420 and 1.1200 et seq. See also __ FCC 2d __ (1980) (i.e., this order).

(e) For time limits for filing motions for extension of time for filing responses to petitions for rulemaking, replies to such responses, comments filed in response to notices of proposed rulemaking, replies to such comments, see § 1.46(b).

[28 FR 12432, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 42 FR 28888, June 6, 1977; 45 FR 45591, July 7, 1980; 52 FR 37460, Oct. 7, 1987]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1977–2014 · leading case: Home Box Off., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Prof'l Baseball, Intervenors, 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Home Box Off., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Prof'l Baseball, Intervenors, 567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977). · cites it 4× “47 C.F.R. § 1.415 (1975). Substantially similar rules were construed in Sangamon Valley Television Corp.”

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). · cites it 2× “Omnipoint also raises the claim that the FCC violated the APA by making the final rule effective immediately upon publication, and both Omnipoint and the joint petitioners join QTEL in its claim that the Commission violated its own regulations by dispensing with reply comments.”

Mark S. Mais v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., 768 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2014). “3600 (2006); see 47 C.F.R. § 1.415 (a) (“After notice of proposed rule-making is issued, the Commission will afford interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking proceeding through submission of written data, views, or arguments----”).”

Action for Child.'s Television v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 564 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “Finally, the court in Home Box Office further held that Commission reception of ex parte communications violated the agency’s own rules published at 47 C.F.R. § 1.415 (1975). The panel there admits that this “inference” is “less easy to draw,” in part because of “the apparent…”

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.