47 U.S.C. § 405
Petition for reconsideration; procedure; disposition; time of filing; additional evidence; time for disposition of petition for reconsideration of order concluding hearing or investigation; appeal of order
“Reconsiderations” substituted in text for “Rehearings” as the probable intent of Congress, in view of amendment by section 127(c)(1) of Pub. L. 97–259, which substituted “reconsideration” for “rehearing” wherever appearing in this section.
1988—Pub. L. 100–594 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), substituted “section 155(c)(1)” for “section 155(d)(1)” in two places, and added subsec. (b).
1982—Pub. L. 97–259 substituted “reconsideration” for “rehearing” wherever appearing and “the Commission gives public notice of the order, decision, report, or action complained of” for “public notice is given of orders disposing of all petitions for rehearing filed with the Commission in such proceeding or case, but any order, decision, report, or action made or taken after such rehearing reversing, changing, or modifying the original order shall be subject to the same provisions with respect to rehearing as an original order”.
1961—Pub. L. 87–192 provided for petition for rehearing to the authority making or taking the order, decision, report, or action, substituted references to report and action for requirement, wherever else appearing, and inserted references to proceeding by any designated authority within the Commission, wherever appearing.
1960—Pub. L. 86–752 substituted “any party” for “and party” in first sentence, and inserted sentence dealing with disposition of petitions for rehearing.
1952—Act
Pub. L. 86–752, § 4(d)(4),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 308
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1938–2025 · leading case: Direct Commc'ns Cedar Valley, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014).
Direct Commc'ns Cedar Valley, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014). “Consequently, the FCC asserts, the contentions must be considered waived pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a). Section 405(a) authorizes a party to file with the FCC a motion for reconsideration of “an order, decision, report, or action” of the FCC.”
Council Tree Commc'ns, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 503 F.3d 284 (3rd Cir. 2007). “In Western Union, the FCC adopted an order on March 1, 1985, released it to the public on March 8, 1985, and published it in the Federal Register on March 21, 1985.”
Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000). “6 (CADC 1983) (interpreting issueexhaustion requirement in 47 U. S. C. § 405 (1982 ed.) and collecting statutes).”
United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “” 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a). Because the Commission included its Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in the Order, US Telecom had to file a petition for reconsideration if it wished to object to the analysis.”
Writers Guild of Am., West, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 423 F. Supp. 1064 (C.D. Cal. 1976). “Section IA rejects the private defendants’ contention that 47 U.S.C. § 405 dictates that the plaintiffs are required to file a petition for rehearing with the FCC before securing relief and the private defendants’ alternative contention that 47 U.”
NetworkIP, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 548 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “" 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a). If a petitioner could have called a question of law or fact to the agency's attention, but did not, the issue is waived.”
City of Peoria v. Gen. Elec. Cablevision Corp. (Gecco), & Third-Party v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Third-Party, 690 F.2d 116 (3rd Cir. 1982). “And the proper party defendant in the judicial review proceeding is the FCC, not a private company which, like GECCO, may be indifferent to the validity of the rule. We are not so naive as to suppose that GECCO really is indifferent between paying 10 percent of its gross…”
Washington Gas Light Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 982 A.2d 691 (D.C. 2009). “2d 677, 681-83 (1983) (discussing 47 U.S.C. § 405 ). [13] Avocados Plus, 361 U.”
Nat'l Lifeline Ass'n v. FCC, 983 F.3d 498 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “See 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a). We also reject Petitioner’s challenge to the FCC’s interpretation of § 54.”
In Re Core Commc'ns, Inc., 455 F.3d 267 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “Under 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a), the “filing of a petition for reconsideration” is a “condition precedent to judicial review” of any FCC order “where the party seeking such review .”
Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “2007) (citing 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a)). [4] Although the League did not seek further reconsideration of this issue, we address it in view of its inclusion in the League's petition for reconsideration.”
Prometheus Radio Proj. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 824 F.3d 33 (3rd Cir. 2016). “The Commission argues that Deregulatory Petitioners waived this challenge per 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a). Under that provision, “a party seeking judicial review of an FCC ‘order, decision, report, or action’ must file a petition for reconsideration if it ‘(1) was not a party to the…”
— 47 U.S.C. § 405(a) — 3 cases
Am. Radio Relay League, Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “2007) (citing 47 U.S.C. § 405 (a)). [4] Although the League did not seek further reconsideration of this issue, we address it in view of its inclusion in the League's petition for reconsideration.”
At&T Wireless Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 365 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 524 F.3d 253 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
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.