About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 
Home   |   Customers   |   Vendors   |   Libraries  

The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) is a regularly updated, unofficial editorial compilation of CFR material and Federal Register amendments produced by the National Archives and Records Administration's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and the Government Printing Office.

Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules for the Code of Federal Regulations and the United States Code
Text | PDF

Find, review, and submit comments on Federal rules that are open for comment and published in the Federal Register using Regulations.gov.

Purchase individual CFR titles from the U.S. Government Online Bookstore.

Find issues of the CFR (including issues prior to 1996) at a local Federal depository library.

[2]
 
 

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

e-CFR Data is current as of September 29, 2014

Title 47Chapter ISubchapter APart 0Subpart B → §0.341


Title 47: Telecommunication
PART 0—COMMISSION ORGANIZATION
Subpart B—Delegations of Authority


§0.341   Authority of administrative law judge.

(a) After an administrative law judge has been designated to preside at a hearing and until he has issued an initial decision or certified the record to the Commission for decision, or the proceeding has been transferred to another administrative law judge, all motions, petitions and other pleadings shall be acted upon by such administrative law judge, except the following:

(1) Those which are to be acted upon by the Commission. See §1.291(a)(1) of this chapter.

(2) Those which are to be acted upon by the Chief Administrative Law Judge under §0.351.

(b) Any question which would be acted upon by the administrative law judge if it were raised by the parties to the proceeding may be raised and acted upon by the administrative law judge on his own motion.

(c) Any question which would be acted upon by the Chief Administrative Law Judge or the Commission, if it were raised by the parties, may be certified by the administrative law judge, on his own motion, to the Chief Administrative Law Judge, or the Commission, as the case may be.

(d) In the conduct of routine broadcast comparative hearings involving applicants for only new facilities, i.e., cases that do not involve numerous applicants and/or motions to enlarge issues, the presiding administrative law judge shall make every effort to conclude the case within nine months of the release of the hearing designation order. In so doing, the presiding judge will make every effort to release an initial decision in such cases within 90 days of the filing of the last responsive pleading.

(e) Upon assignment by the Chief Administrative Law Judge, Administrative Law Judges, including the Chief Judge, will act as settlement judges in appropriate cases. See 47 CFR 1.244 of this chapter.

(f)(1) For program carriage complaints filed pursuant to §76.1302 of this chapter that the Chief, Media Bureau refers to an administrative law judge for an initial decision, the presiding administrative law judge shall release an initial decision in compliance with one of the following deadlines:

(i) 240 calendar days after a party informs the Chief Administrative Law Judge that it elects not to pursue alternative dispute resolution as set forth in §76.7(g)(2) of this chapter; or

(ii) If the parties have mutually elected to pursue alternative dispute resolution pursuant to §76.7(g)(2) of this chapter, within 240 calendar days after the parties inform the Chief Administrative Law Judge that they have failed to resolve their dispute through alternative dispute resolution.

(2) The presiding administrative law judge may toll these deadlines under the following circumstances:

(i) If the complainant and defendant jointly request that the presiding administrative law judge toll these deadlines in order to pursue settlement discussions or alternative dispute resolution or for any other reason that the complainant and defendant mutually agree justifies tolling; or

(ii) If complying with the deadline would violate the due process rights of a party or would be inconsistent with fundamental fairness; or

(iii) In extraordinary situations, due to a lack of adjudicatory resources available at the time in the Office of Administrative Law Judges.

[29 FR 6442, May 16, 1964, as amended at 37 FR 19372, Sept. 20, 1972; 41 FR 14870, Apr. 8, 1976; 56 FR 792, Jan. 9, 1991; 62 FR 4170, Jan. 29, 1997; 76 FR 60671, Sept. 29, 2011]



For questions or comments regarding e-CFR editorial content, features, or design, email ecfr@nara.gov.
For questions concerning e-CFR programming and delivery issues, email webteam@gpo.gov.