Consumers' Research petitioned the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc review of an opinion denying its challenge of the FCC's USF 2021 Q4 contribution factor, saying the opinion "turned the nondelegation doctrine on its head" and "conflicts with binding precedent." The court denied the group's challenge last week (see 2305040087). "Under the opinion, there is nothing stopping agencies from handing over vast powers to private companies run by industry interest groups," the group said in its petition, filed Wednesday in case 21-3886.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit permanently denied pro se appellant William Schwab’s motion for leave to file his petition for an en banc rehearing, said its per curiam order Friday (docket 22-1016). Schwab as the “100% controlling sole member of Schwab Multimedia” sought a review of the D.C. Circuit’s March 3 rejection of his appeal of FCC decisions that led to the broadcaster losing its permit to build an AM station in Culver City, California. The D.C. Circuit said Schwab wasn’t qualified to file the motion for leave because he’s not a licensed attorney. Schwab responded that “financial hardship” prevented him from hiring a lawyer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted Hikvision USA’s consent motion to modify the briefing schedule in its consolidated petition with Dahua Technology USA to review the FCC’s Nov. 25 order barring authorization of network equipment considered a threat to U.S. national security (see 2304250043), said a clerk’s order Tuesday (docket 23-1032). Hikvision said it needed the additional time for the petitioners’ counsel “to coordinate the preparation of their joint opening brief and ensure adequate time for counsel to communicate with clients in China.” Hikvision’s joint opening brief with Dahua is now due June 8.

Hikvision USA seeks to modify the briefing schedule at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in its consolidated petition with Dahua Technology USA to review the FCC’s Nov. 25 order barring the authorization of network equipment considered a threat to U.S. national security (see 2304170034), said its motion Monday (docket 23-1032). It said all parties consented to the request. The proposed modification would move the due date for the petitioners’ joint opening brief to June 8 from May 24, with the deadline for the FCC’s responding brief moved to July 31 from July 10, said the motion. The due date for the brief from intervenor Motorola would move to Aug. 7 from July 17, it said. Final briefs would be due Sept. 20, about three weeks later than the existing Aug. 28 deadline, it said. “Good cause” for the modification exists because it will give additional time for the petitioners’ counsel “to coordinate the preparation of their joint opening brief and ensure adequate time for counsel to communicate with clients in China,” it said.

Consumers' Research petitioned the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc review of an opinion denying its challenge of the FCC's Q1 2022 USF contribution factor, saying the opinion "further watered down" the nondelegation doctrine's "intelligible principle standard" (see 2303240049). "The novel delegation to an agency of a broad and perpetual taxing power should have raised alarm bells," Consumers' Research said in its petition, filed Thursday in case 22-60008. The group said an en banc review was warranted "not only because it conflicts with binding precedent but also because of the significance of the issues involved."

Opening briefs are due May 24 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from Hikvision USA (docket 23-1032) and Dahua Technology USA (docket 23-1073) in their consolidated petitions to review the FCC’s Nov. 25 order barring the authorization of network equipment considered a threat to U.S. national security (see 2303200023), said a scheduling order posted Friday in both dockets. July 10 is the deadline for the brief from respondents FCC and DOJ, and the brief from Motorola Solutions, which is intervening in support of the government, is due July 17, said the order. The schedule calls for final briefs to be filed by Aug. 28.

The FCC's 2022 partial approval of SpaceX's second-generation constellation (see 2301030014) failed to sufficiently deal with arguments about the environmental threat it poses and to evaluate SpaceX's compliance with the power limits meant to protect direct broadcast satellite services, said the International Dark-Sky Association (IDSA) and Dish Network Friday in appellant briefs challenging the agency's decision (see 2301060004). Despite being given ample evidence that SpaceX's second-generation constellation poses significant light pollution risks, the FCC in approving the constellation didn't give any reasoned analysis on those environmental arguments, the IDSA told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (docket 22-1337). The agency misinterpreted its own rules and misapplied its "may" standard requiring that since the mega constellation may cause substantial light pollution, the agency is required to do an environmental assessment, it said. The astronomy and environmental conservation advocacy group said the agency leaned heavily on SpaceX's self-serving representations and didn't do a thorough analysis of them. "The FCC cannot continue to wash its hands of the interference avoidance duties entrusted to the agency by Congress," Dish told the D.C. Circuit (docket 23-1001). It said the FCC seemed to agree with the basis of Dish's studies showing the second-gen's interference threat in the 12 GHz band, but it ignored Dish's conclusion that the second-gen system would exceed power limits. More egregiously, Dish said, the agency let SpaceX keep outside the record a revised showing of compliance with the power limits. The FCC didn't comment Monday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit should grant pro se appellant William Schwab leave to file his petition for an en banc rehearing even though he’s not a licensed attorney because he’s the “100% controlling sole member of Schwab Multimedia,” said his answer Tuesday (docket 22-1016) to the court’s April 4 show-cause order (see 2304050001). His petition seeks a review of the three-judge panel’s unanimous March 3 rejection of Schwab's appeal of FCC decisions that led to the broadcaster losing its permit to build an AM station in Culver City, California. The order instructed him to explain why his petition shouldn’t be denied because case law shows “artificial entities” may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel. “I no longer retain counsel for this appeal for reasons of financial hardship,” responded Schwab. He asked to appear before the court via remote access to accommodate his poor health.

The Spectrum Act limits the FCC’s authority over state and local infrastructure approvals to modifications of existing facilities that don’t substantially change their physical dimensions, said both the city and county of San Francisco in a reply brief (docket 20-71765) filed Friday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the League of California Cities challenge of the 2020 FCC wireless infrastructure declaratory ruling (see 2304030059. The law doesn’t allow the FCC to “interfere with State and local authority beyond this specific limitation” and doesn’t give the FCC authority “to impose a federal preference for certain siting conditions or impose retroactive procedural requirements on local governments,” said the filing. The declaratory ruling’s limitations on what can be treated as “concealment elements” under the rules are too narrow, and its relaxation of limits on equipment cabinets conflicts with the statute, the brief said. The ruling’s conclusion that a change in antenna height doesn’t constitute a substantial change to an existing facility is contrary to the law, the brief said: The FCC “fails to explain how ignoring the height of a new antenna can be squared with the statute.” In a separate filing, Marin County California and the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors endorsed the briefs from San Francisco and the League of California Cities.

Consumers' Research challenged the FCC's Q1 2023 USF contribution factor in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, saying "no separate document was issued when the proposed USF tax factor was deemed approved by the FCC on March 28." The petition, filed Monday in docket 23-1091, said approval of the contribution factor "exceed[s] the FCC’s statutory authority" and asked the court to deem the factor unlawful. It's the fourth challenge of a quarterly factor by the group. The 5th Circuit denied the group's challenge of the Q1 2022 factor in March (see 2303240049).