United States DC Circuit

A communication company's petition for review of an order of the Federal Communications Commission allowing another company exogenous treatment of certain post-retirement benefit costs is denied where the agency's interpretation of its control test was consistent with precedent and its approval of certain tariffs placed local exchange carriers in the position they would have been absent certain staff error.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/17/2006
• Decided 05/26/2006
• Published 05/26/2006

Judges

• Before:  SENTELLE, ROGERS and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States DC Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David W. Carpenter argued the cause for petitioner.   With him on the briefs were David L. Lawson, James P. Young, Christopher T. Shenk, and Judy Sello., Scott H. Angstreich argued the cause for intervenors.   With him on the brief were Michael K. Kellogg, Mark L. Evans, Sean A. Lev, Michael E. Glover, Edward H. Shakin, and Bennett L. Ross.


• For Appellees:
  
• Joel Marcus, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for respondents.   With him on the brief were Thomas O. Barnett, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert B. Nicholson and Robert J. Wiggers, Attorneys, Samuel L. Feder, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, Richard K. Welch, Associate General Counsel, and John E. Ingle, Deputy Associate General Counsel.   Laurel R. Bergold, Counsel, entered an appearance.