Source: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-mandamus-opposition-re-legacy-commcns-dc-cir
Timestamp: 2015-05-23 03:08:12
Document Index: 161087954

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 155', '§ 151', '§ 301', '§ 159', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 159']

FCC Mandamus Opposition - In Re: Legacy Commc'ns (D.C. Cir.) | FCC.gov
Home / Business & Legal / Commission Documents / FCC Mandamus Opposition - In Re: Legacy Commc'ns (D.C. Cir.)Commission Document	Print
FCC Mandamus Opposition - In Re: Legacy Commc'ns (D.C. Cir.)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT In re ) ) Legacy Communications, LLC, et al., ) No. 13-1013 ) Petitioners. ) OPPOSITION OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission” or “FCC”) respectfully opposes the joint petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Legacy Communications, LLC, Julie Epperson, JAB Broadcasting, LLC, Bott Communications, Inc., E-String Wireless, Ltd., Horizon Christian Fellowship, Independence Media Holdings, LLC, Delta Management Corporation, Airen Broadcasting Company, Mattox Broadcasting, Inc., Absolute Communications, LLC, Programmers Broadcasting, Inc., Tri-State Radio, LLC and William C. Doleman on January 18, 2013 (“Petition”). Petitioners ask the Court to compel the Commission to refund filing fees that Petitioners tendered with their applications for FCC broadcast licenses or, alternatively, to compel immediate action by the Commission on Petitioners’ 2
applications – filed three weeks ago – for administrative review of decisions by the FCC’s staff denying the requested refunds.1 After Petitioners filed their mandamus petition, the FCC’s Office of Managing Director (“OMD”), acting on authority delegated by the Commission, denied Petitioners’ requests for refunds in a series of letter rulings.2 We understand that each of Petitioners has asked the full Commission to review those staff rulings.3 As we explain, Petitioners’ request that the Court compel payment of refunds that the FCC’s staff denied is tantamount to a request for judicial review of the staff rulings. Section 5(c)(7) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(7), however, deprives this Court of jurisdiction to review those rulings and to compel refunds before the Commission has issued a decision on the pending applications for review. 1 The mandamus petition and related papers identify “Delta Management Corporation” as one of the Petitioners in this case. We assume that Petitioners thereby intend to refer to Delta Media Corporation, as that entity (not Delta Management Corporation) paid, and sought a refund of, long-form broadcast application fees. 2 The OMD letter rulings denying the refund requests are set forth in Attachment A to this opposition. 3 Commission counsel is in receipt of applications for review filed by nine of the fourteen petitioners. Copies of those applications are set forth in Attachment B. Counsel for Petitioners has informed Commission counsel that all Petitioners have filed such applications. 3
Insofar as Petitioners ask the Court to compel agency action on their refund requests, the staff already has acted on (and denied) the refund requests, and there has been no unreasonable delay on Petitioners’ applications for review, which were filed only three weeks ago. Petitioners have no right to mandamus when there is an adequate administrative appeals process which they are pursuing. Finally, on the merits, petitioners have not come close to making the requisite showing that they have a “clear and indisputable” right, Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (quoting Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)), to the “extraordinary remedy” of mandamus, Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. Background Congress has charged the Commission with “regulating . . . communication by . . . radio so as to make available . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide . . . radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” 47 U.S.C. § 151. To discharge that responsibility, the Commission has authority, inter alia, to grant 4
licenses to applicants seeking to use the electromagnetic spectrum. 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 308-09. In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-
72, Title V, 100 Stat. 82, Congress established a schedule specifying the fees regulated entities must pay the Commission for various FCC actions (such as processing of license applications). 47 U.S.C. § 159(g). The Commission in 1987 incorporated in its rules the fee schedule prescribed by statute. Establishment of a Fee Collection Program to Implement the Provisions of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 947, 948-49 (¶¶ 8-10) (1987). See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1104.4 Since 1987, the FCC’s rules have included, among the charges specified in the fee schedule, “long-form applications” for licenses in the broadcast services. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1104.5 In 1993, Congress authorized the Commission to conduct a competitive bidding process (or auction) in order to choose among competing applicants for spectrum for non-broadcast services. Omnibus 4 Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 159(b), the Commission has periodically adjusted the particular fees due to reflect, among other things, increased costs of processing applica