Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/984/1209/356321/
Timestamp: 2013-05-18 09:02:13
Document Index: 262725228

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 31', '§ 32', '§ 1', '§ 194', '§ 207', '§ 1', '§ 205', '§ 409', '§ 409']

984 F.2d 1209: New York State Department of Law and the New York Stateconsumer Protection Board, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States Ofamerica, Respondents,new York Telephone Company and New England Telephone Andtelegraph Company, Intervenors.allnet Communication Services, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States Ofamerica, Respondents,new York Telephone Company and New England Telephone Andtelegraph Company, Intervenors.scott J. Rafferty, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States Ofamerica, Respondents,new York Telephone Company and New England Telephone Andtelegraph Company, Intervenors :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.2d > Volume 984 > 984 F.2d 1209 - New York State Department of Law and the New ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
984 F.2d 1209: New York State Department of Law and the New York Stateconsumer Protection Board, Petitioners, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States Ofamerica, Respondents,new York Telephone Company and New England Telephone Andtelegraph Company, Intervenors.allnet Communication Services, Inc., Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States Ofamerica, Respondents,new York Telephone Company and New England Telephone Andtelegraph Company, Intervenors.scott J. Rafferty, Petitioner, v. Federal Communications Commission and United States Ofamerica, Respondents,new York Telephone Company and New England Telephone Andtelegraph Company, Intervenors
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 984 F.2d 1209
Argued Nov. 17, 1992.Decided Feb. 9, 1993
1 More specifically, transactions occurring between April 3, 1987 and December 31, 1987, are governed by the initial codification of these rules, 47 C.F.R. § 31.01-11, and transactions occurring from January 1, 1988 forward are governed by the current codification of the rules, 47 C.F.R. § 32.27
2 Pursuant to that authority, the FCC has enacted regulations providing that it may negotiate a consent order "[w]here the interests of timely enforcement and compliance, the nature of the proceeding, and the public interest permit." 47 C.F.R. § 1.93(b). Negotiations leading to a consent decree may be undertaken either before or after a matter has been designated for a hearing. 47 C.F.R. § 194(a) and (f)
3 The statutory standards are somewhat different, however, when the agency is responding to a complaint, rather than initiating action on its own. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 207-208; see also infra note 8. Even in these circumstances, however, the statute requires only that the Commission investigate the matter, if appropriate, and respond, not that it undertake any enforcement action
4 Since we decide that these enforcement decisions are nonreviewable, we do not need to address whether any of the petitioners have satisfied the exhaustion requirement as to these claims by "show[ing] good reason why it was not possible ... to participate in the earlier stages of the proceeding." 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1); see also Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 911 F.2d 803, 808 (D.C.Cir.1990) ("Interested persons seeking to participate in FCC proceedings are required to join the proceedings at the earliest opportunity."). In its Reconsideration Order, the Commission found that the New York petitioners' claim of newly-discovered evidence provided at least "some support" for its claim that it was not possible to intervene earlier, but that Allnet had no excuse for its failure to do so. Reconsideration Order, 6 F.C.C.2d at 3304 (para. 8). The FCC, however, citing the "public interest," declined to dismiss either petition. Id. (para. 9). It then argued to this court that its "discretionary decision" to address these petitions did not waive the exhaustion requirement as to these claims, and that petitioners were therefore not entitled to be heard on appeal
5 The motion generally applauded the Commission's pursuit of overcharges from the NTCs, asking it to "affirm and enforce its Forfeiture Notice," and encouraging it not to "dilute the proposed forfeitures without giving interested parties an opportunity to provide information in support." It did, however, claim that MECO's overcharges exceeded the proposed remedy, which it termed "extremely modest."
6 Section 205 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 205(a), has been held to require a formal public hearing for setting tariffs or practices, but not for adjudications. See W.U. Tel. Co. v. FCC, 665 F.2d 1126, 1151-52 (D.C.Cir.1981) (evidentiary hearing not required when agency making policy, not setting rates); New York Tel. Co. v. FCC, 631 F.2d 1059 (2d Cir.1980) (Commission not required to hold hearing where its order did not abrogate tariff currently on file); AT & T v. FCC, 572 F.2d 17, 22-23 (2d Cir.) (where statute does not require hearing "on the record," APA does not require trial-type evidentiary hearing), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 875, 99 S.Ct. 213, 58 L.Ed.2d 190 (1978); AT & T v. FCC, 487 F.2d 865 (2d Cir.1973) (Commission can prescribe or determine rates only after a hearing). Nor does § 409 of the Act mandate a full hearing on the record, as it merely prescribes procedures for those adjudications that are designated for a hearing. 47 U.S.C. § 409
7 Since we conclude that the APA did not require that the FCC give notice and an opportunity to comment to "interested parties," we do not reach the question of whether Allnet would so qualify
8 Sections 207, 208 and 209 provide, in part: