Opinion ID: 187327
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Forbearance and the Public Interest

Text: M2Z also petitioned the Commission, in a strikingly broad and inclusive request, to forbear from applying  any other rule, provision of the Act, or Commission policy ... to the extent such rules, statutory provisions, or policies [would] impede the acceptance and grant of its application. (Emphasis added.) Under the statute, the Commission should forbear from applying those rules if it determines that forbearance is consistent with the public interest. 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(3). M2Z, however, makes the startling assertion that the Commission should forbear from applying those rules if M2Z's application is consistent with the public interest. It argues that, because both statutory provisions discuss the public interest, the FCC may only make one inquiry to answer the independent questions posed by the two sections. Section 309(a) announces the standard under which the Commission is to consider applicationswhether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the granting of such application. 47 U.S.C. § 309(a). Section 160(a)(3) announces the standard under which the Commission is to consider forbearing from applying its ruleswhether forbearance from applying such provision or regulation [would be] consistent with the public interest. 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(3). As M2Z frames the issue, [s]ince M2Z requested forbearance from any laws or rules that stood in the way of granting its application, the questions presented to the Commission merged into one: Would it be in the public interest to grant M2Z's application? This argument obscures the difference between the questions. The first asks whether granting an application is in the public interest; the second asks whether forbearing from subjecting applications to certain regulations is in the public interest. They might both be true, but the truth of the first does not imply the truth of the second. Because M2Z misconstrues the issue, it is naturally dissatisfied with the resolution. It claims that the FCC was required to walk through its application, and answer each of its proposed public interest claims on the merits. It therefore accuses the Commission of deciding not to decide, an approach we rejected in AT & T, Inc. v. FCC, 452 F.3d 830 (D.C.Cir. 2006). In AT & T, the FCC denied a forbearance request asking it to forbear from applying Title II common carrier regulation to IP platform services. Id. at 832. The Commission reasoned that it could not rule on the forbearance request because it had yet to determine whether common carrier regulations even applied to IP platform services. Id. Although there are some factual parallels to this case, the law is not parallel. We observed in AT & T that the statute gives the Commission authority to decide only whether `forbearance ... is consistent with the public interest,' not to decide whether deciding whether to forbear is in the public interest. Id. at 836 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 160(a)(3)). Although the Commission here ultimately chose to undertake a rulemaking, it first decided whether forbearance was in the public interest. It weighed the costs and benefits in the following manner: While [M2Z's] proposed approach[] may result in the issuance of a license sooner than conforming to established processes, such licensing would come at the expense of establishing a complete record that enables the Commission to consider all of the relevant factors in determining whether to grant a license without a hearing. In short, a potentially speedy but ill-considered licensing process does not serve the public interest. Moreover, as set out in detail below, the various filings made in this proceeding that oppose M2Z's ... application[] or propose competing uses of the band support our conclusion that a grant of ... th[is] ... application[] without adhering to the requirements of Section 1.945 would disserve the public interest. Order, at ¶ 9. The Commission did not refuse to rule on the forbearance request. It ruled, just not the way M2Z wanted it to.