The real import of the Arlington v. FCC...
The real import of the Arlington v. FCC decision (CD May 21 p1) is not that the commission can set time limits for localities to act on tower siting applications, but that Chevron deference now applies to agency interpretation of…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
ambiguous statutes, said Free State Foundation President Randolph May in a blog post Tuesday (http://bit.ly/ZcvOlI). May said he sides with the dissent, which said an agency can’t exercise interpretive authority until a court decides the agency has that authority. “Sensible regulatory reform measures” can check agency power resulting from Arlington, May said: Congress could enact legislation with process reforms, and revise the forbearance and periodic regulatory review requirements so the “evidentiary burden is shifted to the Commission to deny regulatory relief.” Congress could also amend the Communications Act’s provision giving the commission general rulemaking authority; add a sunset provision so rules expire automatically; or adopt legislation specifying that independent regulatory agencies aren’t entitled to Chevron deference, May said.