Case: BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Maxtel Limited Partnership, Pacific Cablevision and Western Cable Communications, Inc., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Spectradyne, Inc., National Cable Television Association, Inc., Wireless Cable Association, Inc., Southwestern Bell Corporation and Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., Intervenors
Abbreviation: Beach Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
Decision Date: 1993-10-22
Docket Number: No. 91-1089
Citation: 304 U.S. App. D.C. 36
Volume: 304
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Parties: BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Maxtel Limited Partnership, Pacific Cablevision and Western Cable Communications, Inc., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Spectradyne, Inc., National Cable Television Association, Inc., Wireless Cable Association, Inc., Southwestern Bell Corporation and Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., Intervenors.
Judges: Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
Pages: 36–36

Head Matter:
10 F.3d 811
BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Maxtel Limited Partnership, Pacific Cablevision and Western Cable Communications, Inc., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Spectradyne, Inc., National Cable Television Association, Inc., Wireless Cable Association, Inc., Southwestern Bell Corporation and Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc., Intervenors.
No. 91-1089.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided Oct. 22, 1993.
Publication Ordered Dec. 21, 1993.
Deborah C. Costlow and Thomas C. Power, Washington, DC, were on the brief for petitioners.
John E. Ingle, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., Renee Licht, Acting Gen. Counsel, F.C.C., Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Douglas N. Letter and Bruce G. Forrest, Attys., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, were on the brief for respondents.
Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM:
Upon motion by respondents pursuant to Local Rule 14(e), the Court directs that the order herein, issued by the Court on October 22, 1993, be published. The order reads as follows:
ORDER
This cause came before the court upon petition for review of an order of the Federal Communications Commission and is presently on remand from the Supreme Court, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 124 L.Ed.2d 211. Upon consideration of the supplemental briefs of the parties filed pursuant to the order of July 29, 1993, it is
Ordered, by the Court, that the petition for review is dismissed. We find that there is no basis for application of a heightened scrutiny standard as claimed by petitioners and, therefore, there is no remaining meritorious issue to be considered.
The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.