National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs v. F.C.C., Nos. 83-1225

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore WILKEY and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges, and MacKINNON; PER CURIAM
Citation237 U.S.App.D.C. 390,737 F.2d 1095
PartiesNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, et al., Intervenors. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, United Telephone System, Inc., et al., Intervenors. PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Southern Pacific Communications Company, et al., Intervenors. MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., et al., Intervenors. LEXITEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, United Telephone Systems, Inc., et al., Intervenors. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, et al., Intervenors. NORTH AMERICAN TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, GTE Sprint Communications Corporation, et al., Intervenors. MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, GTE Service Corporation, et al., Intervenors. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, GTE Sprint Communications Corporation, et al., Intervenors. AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, Western Union Telegraph Company, et al., Intervenors. UNITED STATES TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COM
Decision Date12 June 1984
Docket Number83-1493,Nos. 83-1225,83-1329,83-1995,83-2168 and 83-2218,83-2108,83-1463,83-1954,83-1439,83-1984,83-1464,83-2016

Page 1095

737 F.2d 1095
237 U.S.App.D.C. 390
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, et al., Intervenors.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
United Telephone System, Inc., et al., Intervenors.
PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California, Petitioners,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
Southern Pacific Communications Company, et al., Intervenors.
MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
Aeronautical Radio, Inc., et al., Intervenors.
LEXITEL CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
United Telephone Systems, Inc., et al., Intervenors.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
MCI Telecommunications Corporation, et al., Intervenors.
NORTH AMERICAN TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
GTE Sprint Communications Corporation, et al., Intervenors.
MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
GTE Service Corporation, et al., Intervenors.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
GTE Sprint Communications Corporation, et al., Intervenors.
AERONAUTICAL RADIO, INC., Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
Western Union Telegraph Company, et al., Intervenors.
UNITED STATES TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
GTE Sprint Communications Corporation, et al., Intervenors.
TELESPHERE NETWORK, INC., Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
American Broadcasting Companies, et al., Intervenors.
ASSOCIATION OF LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of
America, Respondents,
Western Union Telegraph Company, et al., Intervenors.
Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, 83-1493,
83-1954, 83-1984, 83-1995, 83-2016, 83-2108,
83-2168 and 83-2218.
United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 18, 1984, April 19, 1984.
Decided June 12, 1984.

Page 1099

Petitions for Review of Orders of the Federal Communications commission.

Genevieve Morelli, Deputy Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Washington,

Page 1100

D.C., with whom Paul Rodgers, Gen. Counsel, and Charles D. Gray, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, petitioner in No. 83-1225. Deborah A. DuPont, Attorney, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

William J. Byrnes, Washington, D.C., with whom Michael H. Bader, Kenneth A. Cox, Joel Rothstein Wolfson, Theodore D. Kramer, Robert Michelson, and Robert E. Conn, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for MCI Telecommunications Corp., petitioner in Nos. 83-1463 and 83-1984, and intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1464, 83-1493, 83-1954, 83-2016, 83-2108, 83-2168, and 83-2218.

John L. Bartlett, Washington, D.C., with whom Robert J. Butler, Carl R. Frank, Richard E. Wiley, Philip V. Permut, Howard D. Polsky, and James M. Tobin, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for Aeronautical Radio, Inc. and Lexitel Corp., petitioners in Nos. 83-1464 and 83-2016, and intervenors in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, 83-1493, 83-2108, 83-2168, and 83-2218.

Lloyd N. Moore, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Howard C. Davenport and Michael E. Geltner, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, petitioner in Nos. 83-1329 and 83-1995, and intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, and 83-1493.

Denise Bonn, Washington, D.C., with whom Albert H. Kramer, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for North American Telecommunications Association, petitioner in No. 83-1954 and intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, 83-1493, 83-2168, and 83-2218.

J. Calvin Simpson, San Francisco, Cal., and Peter G. Fairchild, Sacramento, Cal., were on the brief for People of the State of California, et al., petitioners in No. 83-1439.

Arthur H. Simms, Lawrence P. Keller, Joel Yohalem, H. Richard Juhnke, Edward Berlin, Carmen D. Legato, and Francis S. Blake, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for Western Union Telegraph Co., petitioner in No. 83-1493 and intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, 83-1954, 83-1984, 83-2016, 83-2035, 83-2108, and 83-2218.

Jeffrey H. Matsuura, F. Thomas Tuttle, William D. English, Kevin H. Cassidy, William E. Willis, Margaret K. Pfeiffer, Robert B. Bell, J. Laurent Scharff, and Richard Singer, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for Satellite Business Systems, intervenor in Nos. 83-1439 and 83-1464.

John A. Ligon, Grant S. Lewis, and John S. Kinzey, New York City, were on the brief for United States Transmission Systems, Inc., petitioner in No. 83-2108 and intervenor in No. 83-1225.

Leo I. George, Washington, D.C., was on the statement in lieu of brief for Telesphere Network, Inc., petitioner in No. 83-2168.

Victor J. Toth, Reston, Va., was on the statement in lieu of brief for Association of Long Distance Telephone Companies, petitioner in No. 83-2218.

John E. Ingle, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C., with whom Bruce E. Fein, General Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, Nancy E. Stanley, Jane E. Mago, and Linda L. Oliver, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for Federal Communications Commission, respondent in all cases.

Robert B. Nicholson, Frederic Freilicher, Barry Grossman, and Nancy Garrison, Washington, D.C., were on the statement in lieu of brief for United States of America, respondent in all cases.

Bruce Renard, Gainesville, Fla., for Florida Public Service Commission, intervenor in Nos. 83-1225 and 83-1329.

Page 1101

Benjamin H. Dickens, Jr., Tallahassee, Fla., with whom Jack Shreve, Tallahassee, Fla., for National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates and Joel B. Shifman, Charleston, W.Va., for Public Service Commission of West Virginia, were on the joint brief, for National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, et al., intervenors in Nos. 83-1225 and 83-1493. Raymond E. Lark, Jr., and Lee Jedziniak, Columbia, S.C., also entered appearances for Steven W. Hamm, as Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina.

Raymond F. Scully, Washington, D.C., with whom Robert P. Casey, Harrisburg, Pa., was on the brief, for Bell Operating Companies, intervenors in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, 83-1493, 83-1954, 83-1984, 83-1995, 83-2016, 83-2108, 83-2168, and 83-2218.

Michael Boudin, Washington, D.C., with whom David H. Remes, Washington, D.C., Howard J. Trienens, Daniel Stark, New York City, Alfred A. Green, New York City, and Judith A. Maynes, New Haven, Conn., were on the brief, for AT & T Co., intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, 83-1493, 83-1954, 83-1984, 83-1995, 83-2016, 83-2108, 83-2168, and 83-2218. M. Jean Dabney, New York City, James D. Ellis, Bedminster, N.J., Alfred Winchell Whitaker, and Hiram D. Gordon, New York City, also entered appearances for AT & T Co.

Mary Jo Manning, Washington, D.C., for ROLM Corporation, intervenor in Nos. 83-1225 and 83-2218.

Charles M. Meehan, Washington, D.C., with whom Shirley S. Fujimato, Washington, D.C., for Utilities Telecommunications Council, Deborah Shur Trinker, Washington, D.C., Lee M. Weiner, Washington, D.C., for Association of Data Communications Users, Wayne V. Black, and Stark Ritchie, Washington, D.C., for American Petroleum Institute, were on the joint brief, for American Petroleum Institute, et al., intervenors in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, and 83-1984.

David Cosson, Washington, D.C., with whom Amy S. Gross, Margot Smiley Humphrey, and Ellen S. Deutsche, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for Rural Telephone Coalition, intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, and 83-1493.

J. Roger Wollenberg, William T. Lake, and Roger M. Witten, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for International Business Machines Corp., intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, 83-1493, 83-1954, 83-1984, 83-1995, 83-2016, 83-2108, 83-2168, and 83-2218.

Joseph M. Kittner, Randolph J. May, and Timothy J. Cooney, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1463, 83-1464, 83-1493, 83-2168, and 83-2218.

Herbert E. Marks, Joseph P. Markoski, Judith Jurin Semo, Washington, D.C., and David A. Wormser, Arlington, Va., were on the brief for Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc., intervenor in Nos. 83-1225, 83-1329, 83-1439, 83-1954, 83-1984, 83-2016, 83-2168, and 83-2218.

Richard E. Wiley, Philip V. Permut, Danny E. Adams, Howard D. Polsky, Philip M. Walker, and Donald E. Ward, Washington, D.C., for GTE Corp., and Bernard C. Topper, Jr., Burlingame, Cal., and Mitchell F. Brecher, Washington, D.C., for GTE Sprint Communications...

To continue reading

Request your trial
99 practice notes
  • Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Civil Action No. 15–0009 (ABJ)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 29, 2015
    ...as justification for the rule, so long as the submissions are examined critically. See Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FCC, 737 F.2d 1095, 1125 (D.C.Cir.1984). But it "need not—indeed cannot—base its every action upon empirical data; depending upon the nature of the problem, an a......
  • Storer Cable Com. v. City of Montgomery, Ala., Civ. A. No. 90-T-958-N.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Alabama
    • October 9, 1992
    ...for the same services when the price variations lack a neutral, rational justification. National Ass'n of Reg. Util. Com'rs v. FCC, 737 F.2d 1095, 1133 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1227, 105 S.Ct. 2224, 806 F. Supp. 1544 84 L.Ed.2d 364 (1985).22 The court has not been presented wi......
  • Lacson v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 11–1447.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 30, 2013
    ...they “were uniquely in a position to know” the relevant information. Id. (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FCC, 737 F.2d 1095, 1125 (D.C.Cir.1984)). Moreover, the petitioner had “point[ed] to nothing suggesting that the information” either one had provided “was unreliable.......
  • Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. F.C.C., Nos. 93-1723
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 17, 1995
    ...deadline for the FCC to promulgate regulations. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 543(b)(2); see National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Comm'rs v. FCC, 737 F.2d 1095, 1124, 1138-42 (D.C.Cir.1984) (accepting agency ratemaking decision based upon agency's expertise and best available information despite agency's ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
96 cases
  • Blackwater v. Salazar, No. 11–5128.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 17, 2012
    ...or where the agency may be drawing improper conclusions from it.’ ” Id. (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FCC, 737 F.2d 1095, 1121 (D.C.Cir.1984)) (alteration and emphasis in original). “It is not consonant with the purpose of a rule-making proceeding to promulgate rules o......
  • Ass'n of Am. Railroads v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., No. 12–5204.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 2, 2013
    ...in the context of agency delegations to private individuals.” [721 F.3d 671]Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FCC (“NARUC”), 737 F.2d 1095, 1143 (D.C.Cir.1984) (per curiam).3 Even an intelligible principle cannot rescue a statute empowering private parties to wield regulatory autho......
  • Strata Prod. Co. v. Jewell, No. Civ. 13-205 JCH-GBW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • August 11, 2014
    ...if it retains final reviewing authority over the private party's actions. See National Ass'n of Regulatory Utility Com'rs v. F.C.C., 737 F.2d 1095, 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Stanton, 54 F. Supp. 2d at 19; see also Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes v. Bd of Oil & Gas Conservation, 792 F.2d 782, ......
  • Michigan Pork Producers v. Campaign for Fam. Farms, No. 1:01-CV-34.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • December 4, 2001
    ...Id. at 559. Another fair statement of these principles was made in National Ass'n of Reg. Util. Com'rs v. Federal Communications Comm'n, 737 F.2d 1095, 1143 n. 41 We also caution the Commission that it cannot, of course, cede to private parties such as the exchange carriers either the right......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT