federal law, either because it is impossible to comply with both or because the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congressional objectives. 479 U.S. 481 (1987). None of these three scenarios are International Paper v. Ouellette, present in the instant case. There is no express statutory language in the federal Act that governs the assessment of interest. Second, because telecommunications regulation is shared between the FCC and the States in a dual regulatory system, Congress clearly has not the of telecommunications regulation. 319 F.3d Ting v. AT&T, “occupied field” 1126, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2003); Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation 489 U.S. 493 (1989) (Northwest (under Natural Commission of Kansas, Central Pipeline) Gas of dual federal and state regulation, a finding that Congress has Act’s system occupied the field would be an extravagant interpretation of federal power and would undermine the dual regulatory field established by Congress.). Finally, AT&T has cited to no specific federal law or regulation that conflicts with an award of interest to Core, or explained how interest on an overdue bill for utility service would frustrate the objectives of Congress. In the telecommunications arena, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the FCC is barred from preempting state regulation over depreciation of dual jurisdiction property for intrastate ratemaking purposes. The Court relied on the express jurisdictional limitations on the powers of the FCC contained in Section 152(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 152(b). Louisiana Public Service Commission 476 U.S. 355 (1986) (Louisiana Section v. Federal Communications Commission, PSC). 152(b) provides, in part, that in this Act shall be construed to apply or to give “[Nothing] the [FCC] jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any carrier . . The Court observed that this statutory provision .” “fences off from FCC reach or regulation intrastate matters indeed, including matters – ‘in with intrastate at 370. The Court stated that the Louisiana PSC connection’ service.” language fencing off intrastate matters from the reach of the FCC in this dual regulatory
federal law, either because it is impossible to comply with both or because the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of Congressional objectives. International Paper v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987). None of these three scenarios are present in the instant case. There is no express statutory language in the federal Act that governs the assessment of interest. Second, because telecommunications regulation is shared between the FCC and the States in a dual regulatory system, Congress clearly has not “occupied the field” of telecommunications regulation. Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2003); Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Commission of Kansas, 489 U.S. 493 (1989) (Northwest Central Pipeline) (under Natural Gas Act’s system of dual federal and state regulation, a finding that Congress has occupied the field would be an extravagant interpretation of federal power and would undermine the dual regulatory field established by Congress.). Finally, AT&T has cited to no specific federal law or regulation that conflicts with an award of interest to Core, or explained how interest on an overdue bill for utility service would frustrate the objectives of Congress. In the telecommunications arena, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the FCC is barred from preempting state regulation over depreciation of dual jurisdiction property for intrastate ratemaking purposes. The Court relied on the express jurisdictional limitations on the powers of the FCC contained in Section 152(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 152(b). Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission, 476 U.S. 355 (1986) (Louisiana PSC). Section 152(b) provides, in part, that “[Nothing] in this Act shall be construed to apply or to give the [FCC] jurisdiction with respect to (1) charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or regulations for or in connection with intrastate communication service by wire or radio of any carrier . . .” The Court observed that this statutory provision “fences off from FCC reach or regulation intrastate matters – indeed, including matters ‘in connection’ with intrastate service.” Louisiana PSC at 370. The Court stated that the language fencing off intrastate matters from the reach of the FCC in this dual regulatory
1242876.docx