Blanca Tel. Co. V

No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BLANCA TELEPHONE COMPANY, CTC TELECOM, INC., AND FARMERS CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TIMOTHY E. WELCH Counsel of Record HILL & WELCH 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite #1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-1470 (office) (202) 321-1448 (cell-preferred) [email protected] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In 2003 the Federal Communications Commis- sion adopted a rule requiring that cellular telephone companies distribute hearing aid compatible (HAC) handsets by September 18, 2006. When the compliance deadline arrived, Petitioners and the known universe Tier III small carriers filed rule waiver petitions with the FCC because they were unable to obtain HAC compliant handsets – the FCC’s HAC rule had failed to account for, inter alia, the industry’s handset distribution stream which prevented smaller carriers from obtaining HAC compliant handsets. The FCC did not act upon Petitioners’ waiver requests until 1.5 years later during which time Petitioners obtained compliant handsets and reported that fact to the FCC. In February 2008, months after Petitioners had reported compliance, the FCC granted waivers to carriers which had obtained compliant handsets by January 1, 2007, 105 days after the date specified in the HAC rule. The FCC denied Petitioners’ waiver requests because Petitioners had not obtained HAC compliant handsets by January 1, 2007. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a rule which contains a date-specific compliance deadline implicitly provides Fifth Amend- ment Due Process fair notice allowing Federal Agency designation of a subsequent, but already lapsed, compliance deadline. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW – Continued 2. Whether a Federal Agency’s failed rule implicitly provides fair notice that a waiver applicant would need to demonstrate a “redoubling” of compliance effort commencing 105 days after the compliance deadline specified in the rule. 3. Whether Due Process requires a Federal Agency to provide fair notice regarding a change in compliance requirements and a conclusive presumption used to award a rule waiver. iii LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE 1. Petitioner, Blanca Telephone Company, is a non- public closely held telecommunications corporation located in rural Colorado and no owner is a publicly held company. 2. Petitioner, CTC Telecom, Inc., is a wholly-owned corporate subsidiary of Cambridge Telephone Com- pany which in turn is a non-public closely held telecommunications company located in rural Idaho and no owner is a publicly held company. 3. Petitioner, Farmers Cellular Telephone Company, Inc., is a wholly-owned corporate subsidiary of Farm- ers Telephone Cooperative, Inc., which in turn is a non-public cooperative telephone company located in rural Alabama and no owner is a publicly held company. 4. Respondents are the Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........ i LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE ...................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................... iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. vi OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW ................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ...................... 1 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY PROVI- SIONS CITED .................................................. 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................. 2 A. Court of Appeals’ Jurisdiction ................... 2 B. Standing .................................................... 3 C. Factual Background .................................. 4 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 10 I. Standard of Review ................................... 10 II. Fair Notice of Regulatory Requirements is Fundamental.......................................... 11 III. There Was No Notice that January 1, 2007 Was a Critical Compliance Deadline ........... 12 A. The FCC Failed to Respond to Peti- tioners’ Requests for Compliance Guidance .............................................. 12 B. The FCC Admitted that It Failed to Provide Prior Notice ............................ 17 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page C. The FCC’s Waiver Discretion is Not Unbounded .......................................... 19 D. Absent Forward-looking Guidance Petitioners Had Undirected Compli- ance Discretion .................................... 21 IV. Petitioners’ “Noncompliance” Caused No Harm .......................................................... 23 CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF ... 24 APPENDIX Decisions Below Blanca Telephone Company, et al. v. FCC, 743 F.3d 860 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................. App. 1 Order on Reconsideration (FCC Reconsidera- tion Order), 27 FCC Rcd. 9814 (FCC 2012) .... App. 17 Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC Initial Order), 23 FCC Rcd. 3352 (FCC 2008) .......... App. 60 Order Denying Rehearing, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7384 (D.C. Cir., Apr. 18, 2014) ......... App. 186 Statutory Material U.S. Const. Amend. V ...................................... App. 187 47 U.S.C. § 610 ................................................ App. 188 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.19(d)(1), (2) (2006) .................. App. 194 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Blanca Telephone Company, et al. v. FCC, 743 F.3d 860 (D.C. Cir. 2014), rehearing denied, Blanca Tel. Co. et al. v. FCC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7384 (D.C. Cir., Apr. 18, 2014) ............ passim Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 322 (1926) ......................... 11 FCC v. Fox TV Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012) ....................................................... 3, 11, 19, 21 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ......................................................................... 3 Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) ......... 10, 11, 16, 20 PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) .......... 23 Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 96 F.2d 554 (D.C. Cir. 1938) .......................................................... 3 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION U.S. Const. Art. III ....................................................... 3 U.S. Const. Amend. V ................................................... 2 STATUTORY PROVISIONS 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) ......................................................... 13 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) ......................................................... 13 5 U.S.C. § 702 ........................................................... 1, 3 5 U.S.C. § 706 ............................................................. 10 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (B) ........................................... 10 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ....................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c) ....................................................... 1 28 U.S.C. § 2344 ........................................................... 3 28 U.S.C. § 2350 ........................................................... 1 47 U.S.C. § 151 ............................................................. 2 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) .......................................................... 2 47 U.S.C. § 402(a) ......................................................... 3 47 U.S.C. § 402(j) .......................................................... 1 47 U.S.C. § 405(a) ......................................................... 3 47 U.S.C. § 610 (Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988) .................................................................. 2, 4 COURT RULES D.C. Cir. Rule 35(a) ...................................................... 1 D.C. Cir. Rule 41 ........................................................... 2 D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures (November 2013) .................................... 2 Fed. R. App. P. 41 .......................................................... 2 Supreme Court Rule 13.1 ............................................. 1 Supreme Court Rule 13.3 ............................................. 1 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page REGULATORY PROVISION 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d)(1) (2006) ................................... 2, 5 47 C.F.R. § 20.19(d)(2) (2006) ............................. passim ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Cingular Waiver Order, 20 FCC Rcd. 15108 (FCC 2005) .......................................................... 7, 18 Hearing Aid Compatibility Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 16753 (FCC 2003) ..................................................... 4 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Acoustic Coupling Waiver Order), 22 FCC Rcd. 20459 (FCC 2007) .................................................... 7, 17, 18 Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC Initial Order), 23 FCC Rcd. 3352 (FCC 2008) ........... passim Order on Reconsideration (FCC Reconsidera-

Load more