A trade association asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to clarify language in 47 U.S.C.S. 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)

Question:

A trade association asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to clarify language in 47 U.S.C.S. § 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) which required state and local governments to act on any request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities “within a reasonable period of time.” The FCC issued a ruling that a “reasonable period of time” under the statute was presumptively (but rebuttable) 90 days to process a collocation application and 150 days to process all other applications. Several cities challenged the FCC’s ruling. The Fifth Circuit found that the FCC possessed statutory authority to adopt the 90- and 150-day time frames and that the FCC’s ruling was not arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the issue. Is an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of its regulatory authority (that is, its jurisdiction) is entitled to deference? Why or why not?

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Step by Step Answer:

Related Book For  book-img-for-question

Dynamic Business Law The Essentials

ISBN: 9781260253382

5th Edition

Authors: Nancy Kubasek, M. Neil Browne, Daniel Herron, Lucien Dhooge, Linda Barkacs

Question Posted: