Background

• Wireless siting decisions for cellular facilities are governed by the Communications Act, including the requirement that local authorities act on siting applications within a reasonable time (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii)).
• The FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling (Nov. 2009) finding presumptively 90 days for collocations and 150 days for other applications, to define “reasonable period of time.”
• Arlington and San Antonio challenged the FCC ruling, arguing the FCC lacked authority to interpret §332(c)(7)(B)’s limitations.
• The Fifth Circuit applied Chevron to whether the FCC had authority to adopt the timeframes, upholding the FCC’s interpretation as permissible.
• The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether Chevron deference applies to agency interpretations of its own jurisdiction, and reaffirmed that Chevron applies when reviewing such interpretations if Congress delegated authority.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (establishes the Chevron framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretations)
• National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327 (2002) (deference when agency interprets its own regulatory scope in a delegated area)
• United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (limits Chevron defer to situations where Congress did delegate interpretive authority and method.)
• Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (deference depends on whether Congress delegated interpretive authority over the ambiguity.)
• Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638 (1990) (precondition to deference is a congressional delegation of authority; cannot defer if none.)
• United States v. Eurodif S. A., 555 U.S. 305 (2009) (agency interpretive authority within its delegated powers may receive deference.)