## Facts

- The Communications Act requires state and local governments to act on wireless facility siting requests “within a reasonable period of time” after a request is filed.  
- In 2009, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a declaratory ruling interpreting “reasonable period of time” as presumptively 90 days for collocation applications and 150 days for other siting applications, subject to rebuttal.  
- The Cities of Arlington and San Antonio challenged the ruling, arguing the FCC lacked statutory authority to interpret the siting-timing provision because zoning and land use are traditionally local matters.  
- The Fifth Circuit found statutory ambiguity on the FCC’s authority and, applying Chevron deference, upheld the FCC’s interpretation under the FCC’s general rulemaking authority in the Communications Act.  
- The Supreme Court granted review limited to whether Chevron applies when the ambiguity concerns the scope of the agency’s own statutory authority.

## Issues

1. Whether courts must apply Chevron to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision when the ambiguity concerns the scope of the agency’s own statutory authority (“jurisdiction”).  
2. Whether the FCC’s general rulemaking authority under the Communications Act supports deference to its interpretation of the siting-timing requirement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit.  
- Courts must apply the Chevron framework to an agency’s interpretation of statutory ambiguity even when the ambiguity concerns the scope of the agency’s own authority.  
- The Court rejected a categorical exception for “jurisdictional” interpretations, reasoning that the line between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional questions is not workable.  
- The FCC’s general grant of rulemaking authority empowered it to interpret and implement the relevant timing provision, and its interpretation was entitled to Chevron deference.  
- The dissent would have required a non-deferential judicial determination of whether Congress delegated the contested authority before applying Chevron.

## Legal Principles

- Chevron deference applies to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute the agency administers, including interpretations bearing on the agency’s own statutory authority.  
- Courts should not create a separate, threshold “jurisdictional” category exempt from Chevron, because statutory interpretation questions can often be framed as boundary-of-authority disputes.  
- A general congressional conferral of rulemaking or adjudicative authority within a statutory scheme can supply the delegation necessary for Chevron deference when the agency acts within that field.  
- Federalism-based objections do not bar Chevron where Congress has already imposed federal limits on state or local authority within the statutory text.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Chevron deference is not limited to “nonjurisdictional” questions and applies when an agency reasonably interprets statutory ambiguity concerning the scope of its own authority, affirming the FCC’s power to interpret the wireless siting “reasonable period of time” requirement through its general rulemaking authority.


City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)