(a) Waiver requests generally. The Commission may waive specific requirements of the rules on its own motion or upon request. The fees for such waiver requests are set forth in § 1.1102 of this part.
(b) Procedure and format for filing waiver requests. (1) Requests for waiver of rules associated with licenses or applications in the Wireless Radio Services must be filed on FCC Form 601, 603, or 605.
(2) Requests for waiver must contain a complete explanation as to why the waiver is desired. If the information necessary to support a waiver request is already on file, the applicant may cross-reference the specific filing where the information may be found.
(3) The Commission may grant a request for waiver if it is shown that:
(i) The underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and that a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or
(ii) In view of unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.
(4) Applicants requiring expedited processing of their request for waiver shall clearly caption their request for waiver with the words “WAIVER—EXPEDITED ACTION REQUESTED.”
(c) Action on Waiver Requests. (i) The Commission, in its discretion, may give public notice of the filing of a waiver request and seek comment from the public or affected parties.
(ii) Denial of a rule waiver request associated with an application renders that application defective unless it contains an alternative proposal that fully complies with the rules, in which event, the application will be processed using the alternative proposal as if the waiver had not been requested. Applications rendered defective may be dismissed without prejudice.
[63 FR 68926, Dec. 14, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Morris Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 566 F.3d 184 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
“47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (b)(3). The FCC may grant a waiver of the automatic cancellation of a license due to a missed payment deadline if the deadline was missed due to “inadvertence or administrative error.”
Mary v. Harris Found. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 776 F.3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
“would be in the public interest; or (ii) In view of unique or unusual factual circumstances ..., application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.”
Blanca Tel. Co. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 743 F.3d 860 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Applying its general discretionary waiver standard under 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (b), the FCC granted waivers with nunc pro tunc effect only to late-complying carriers that had exhibited “reasonable diligence” in their efforts to comply.”
Montgomery Cnty. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015).
“at 43 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (b)(3)(i), (ii)). Thus, *132 the waiver procedure provides a forum for municipal complaints, even if the procedure is not formally part of the Order.”
Alpine Pcs, Inc. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
“47 C.F.R. § 1.925 . An adverse decision must be appealed to the full Commission before the party seeks judicial review.”
Mountain Solutions, Ltd. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 197 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
“819 since has been replaced by 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (1999). . Carolina petitioned for a waiver rather than making a late payment due to "investor uncertainty about the terms under which a payment might be accepted.”
Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 213 F.3d 720 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
“47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (b)(3). Omnipoint assumes a “heavy” burden because “an agency’s refusal to grant a waiver will not be overturned unless the agency’s reasons are so insubstantial as to render that denial an abuse of discretion.”
GLH Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 930 F.3d 449 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
“" 47 C.F.R. § 1.925 (b)(3). In rejecting GLH's waiver request, the Commission explained that the auction system is designed to award each license "to the party that placed the highest value on the spectrum.”
Mtn Solu LTD Inc v. FCC, 197 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
“819 since has been replaced by 47 C.F.R. 1.925 (1999). 9 Carolina petitioned for a waiver rather than making a late payment due to "investor uncertainty about the terms under which a payment might be accepted.”
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.