IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT National Association of Broadcasters, ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 14-1072 ) Federal Communications Commission ) and United States of America, ) Respondents. ) National Association of Broadcasters, ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 14-1092 (and ) consolidated cases) Federal Communications Commission ) and United States of America, ) Respondents. ) RESPONSE OF FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO CONTINGENT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE On June 11, 2014, several movants for intervention in Case No. 14-1072 filed a contingent motion to consolidate that case with some other cases that have already been consolidated, including Case No. 14-1092. In Case No. 14-1072, the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) seeks review of a March 2014 Public Notice issued by the FCC’s Media Bureau.1 In Case No. 14-1092, NAB petitions for review of an April 2014 order by the FCC concerning the agency’s                                                              1 Public Notice, Processing of Broadcast Television Applications Proposing Sharing Arrangements and Contingent Interests, DA 14-330 (released March 12, 2014) (“Public Notice”). USCA Case #14-1072 Document #1499134 Filed: 06/24/2014 Page 1 of 5 2    review of its media ownership rules.2 NAB’s petition in Case No. 14-1092 has already been consolidated with other petitions for review of the April 15 Order filed by Howard Stirk Holdings (No. 14-1090), Nexstar Broadcasting (No. 14- 1091), and Prometheus Radio Project (No. 14-1113). Prometheus is one of the parties that filed the motion to consolidate Case No. 14-1072 with these cases. The FCC has filed a motion to dismiss Case No. 14-1072. As we explain in that motion, NAB’s petition for review of the Media Bureau’s Public Notice should be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction to review action taken by FCC staff pursuant to delegated authority. See 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(7); Int’l Telecard Ass’n v. FCC, 166 F.3d 387 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Richman Bros. Records, Inc. v. FCC, 124 F.3d 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997). If the Court grants the motion to dismiss Case No. 14-1072, the motion to consolidate that case with the petitions for review of the FCC’s April 15 Order will become moot. In the event that the Court does not dismiss Case No. 14-1072, the FCC believes that the contingent motion to consolidate should be granted. Case No. 14-1072 and Case No. 14-1092 involve the same parties (NAB, the FCC, and the United States). Moreover, these cases (as well as the other cases that have already been consolidated with Case No. 14-1092) involve related issues concerning the                                                              2 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review – Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC 14-28 (released April 15, 2014) (“April 15 Order”). USCA Case #14-1072 Document #1499134 Filed: 06/24/2014 Page 2 of 5 3    review of broadcast transactions under the FCC’s media ownership rules. Indeed, although NAB opposes consolidation, it admits that there is “some overlap between the April 15 Order and the Public Notice” insofar as “both address broadcast television sharing arrangements.” NAB Opposition to Contingent Motion to Consolidate, filed June 19, 2014, at 10. And it is settled practice in this Court that “cases involving essentially the same parties or the same, similar, or related issues, may be consolidated.” D.C. Cir. Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 23 (2013). Therefore, in the event that Case No. 14-1072 is not USCA Case #14-1072 Document #1499134 Filed: 06/24/2014 Page 3 of 5 4    dismissed, we agree with the movants that consolidation of all these cases would serve the interest of judicial economy and efficiency. Respectfully submitted, Jonathan B. Sallet General Counsel David M. Gossett Acting Deputy General Counsel Jacob M. Lewis Associate General Counsel /s/ James M. Carr James M. Carr Counsel Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 (202) 418-1740 June 24, 2014 USCA Case #14-1072 Document #1499134 Filed: 06/24/2014 Page 4 of 5 14-1072 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT National Associat i o n of Br oadc a s t e r s , Petition e r v. Federal Communic a t i o n s Commissi o n and the United States of America, Responde n t s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Carr, hereby certify that on June 24, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing Response Of Federal Communications Commission To Contingent Motion To Consolidate with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system. Helgi C. Walker Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for: NAB Jane E. Mago Jerianne Timmerman National Association of Broadcasters 1771 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Counsel for: NAB Robert J. Wiggers Kristen C. Limarzi U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Room 3224 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Counsel for: USA Angela J. Campbell Andrew Jay Schwartzman Institute for Public Representation Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Counsel for Free Press, et al. /s/ James M. Carr USCA Case #14-1072 Document #1499134 Filed: 06/24/2014 Page 5 of 5