Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

JEM Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. FCC


    Citation. Jem Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10036, 306 U.S. App. D.C. 11, 75 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 273 (D.C. Cir. May 6, 1994)

    Brief Fact Summary. JEM Broadcasting Company (JEM) submitted an application for
    a license for a new FM station to the FCC, but the FCC dismissed it without providing
    JEM an opportunity to correct its error. JEM contended that the “hard look” rules of the
    FCC could not be applied toward it because the rules were promulgated without notice
    and comment in violation of the APA.

    Synopsis of Rule of Law. Challenges to the procedural lineage of agency regulations,
    whether raised by direct appeal, by petition for amendment or rescission of the regulation
    or as a defense to an agency’s enforcement proceeding will not be entertained outside the
    60-day period provided by the statute.


    Facts. JEM submitted an application for a license for a new FM station and the FCC
    accepted it for filing. However, the FCC later found that JEM had provided inconsistent
    geographic coordinates for its proposed transmitter, and dismissed the application
    without providing JEM an opportunity to correct its error.

    Section:2344 of the Hobbs Act provides that any party aggrieved by a final agency order can file
    a petition to review the order within sixty days in the court of appeals where the venue
    lies.

    JEM challenged the “hard look” rules as in violation of the APA because the FCC had
    not given notice and an opportunity to comment. JEM conceded that the direct petitions
    for review were governed by the sixty-day period, but claimed that indirect attacks on a
    rule’s validity in the context of an adjudicatory proceeding were not so governed.
    Second, JEM urged that it couldn’t have petitioned for direct review of the “hard look”
    rules within the statutory period because it was not then an aggrieved party.

    Issue. Could JEM challenge the “hard look” rules outside the statutory period?

    Held. No. The Court rejected JEM’s arguments and held that its challenge to the “hard
    look” rules was untimely.

    The sixty day limitations period does bar an action of this type. The
    aforecited rule of NLRB Union and Natural Resources Defense Council is
    equally applicable to cases of the type presented here.
    Challenges to the procedural lineage of agency regulations, whether raised by
    direct appeal, by petition for amendment or rescission of the regulation or as a
    defense to an agency’s enforcement proceeding will not be entertained outside
    the 60-day period provided by the statute.
    Any other party aggrieved at the time the “hard look” rules were promulgated
    would have been “aggrieved” within the meaning of Section:2344, and thus would

    have had standing to challenge the procedural lineage by a direct petition for
    review thereof. No party did so, and the statutory period expired.

    Dissent. None.

    Concurrence. None.


    Discussion. The policies underlying Congress’ adoption of the statute of limitations
    strongly supports this result. There is a high value placed on finality in administrative
    processes, both to conserve agency resources and protect the reliance interests of
    regulatees.

    Text Box:


    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following