47 C.F.R. § 1.45

Pleadings; filing periods

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

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, pleadings in Commission proceedings shall be filed in accordance with the provisions of this section. Pleadings associated with licenses, applications, waivers, and other documents in the Wireless Radio Services must be filed via the ULS, and persons other than applicants or licensees filing pleadings in ULS must provide an email address to receive electronic service. See § 1.47(d).

(a) Petitions. Petitions to deny may be filed pursuant to § 1.939 of this part.

(b) Oppositions. Oppositions to any motion, petition, or request may be filed within 10 days after the original pleading is filed.

(c) Replies. The person who filed the original pleading may reply to oppositions within 5 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired. The reply shall be limited to matters raised in the oppositions, and the response to all such matters shall be set forth in a single pleading; separate replies to individual oppositions shall not be filed.

(d) Requests for temporary relief; shorter filing periods. Oppositions to a request for stay of any order or to a request for other temporary relief shall be filed within 7 days after the request is filed. Replies to oppositions should not be filed and will not be considered. The provisions of § 1.4(h) shall not apply in computing the filing date for oppositions to a request for stay or for other temporary relief.

(e) Ex parte disposition of certain pleadings. As a matter of discretion, the Commission may rule ex parte upon requests for continuances and extensions of time, requests for permission to file pleadings in excess of the length prescribed in this chapter, and requests for temporary relief, without waiting for the filing of oppositions or replies.

Note:

Where specific provisions contained in part 1 conflict with this section, those specific provisions are controlling. See, in particular, §§ 1.294(c), 1.298(a), and 1.773.

[28 FR 12415, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 33 FR 7153, May 15, 1968; 45 FR 64190, Sept. 29, 1980; 54 FR 31032, July 26, 1989; 54 FR 37682, Sept. 12, 1989; 63 FR 68919, Dec. 14, 1998; 85 FR 85528, Dec. 29, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1972–1997 · 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). “, supra, it took the Commission alone six and a half months to process a waiver petition, and judicial review has taken an additional 19 months.”

Pablo Llerandi & Carmen Phipps Llerandi v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n Hato Abajo Dev. Corp., Intervenors, 863 F.2d 79 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “Under the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.45 (c), once a reply to the opposition is filed, “[additional pleadings may be filed only if specifically requested or authorized by the Commission.”

Graceba Total Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n & United States of Am., Ad Hoc Ivds Coalition, Intervenors, 115 F.3d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “Because parties may supplement their pleadings in pending proceedings with agency approval, see 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.45 (c), 1.106(f), the Commission clearly had the discretion to entertain Graeeba’s belated petition.”

Chuck Stone v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, the Evening Star Broad. Co., Intervenor, 466 F.2d 316 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “The Commission did not here specifically request such pleadings or authorize their filing.”

Am. Fam. Life Assurance Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 129 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “2d 681 (1997); 47 C.F.R. § 1.45 (c) (1997); North American Telecomm.”

Meredith Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 809 F.2d 863 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.45 and 1.106(f) (1986). Clearly, then, the Commission had discretion to grant Meredith leave to present its constitutional argument.”

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.