Sometimes, the footnotes contain buried gold.  Here’s a case in point. 

Earlier today, the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau (Telecommunications Access Policy Division) denied requests from two petitioners who sought waiver of the filing deadline for the annual FCC Form 499-A (the Telecommunications Reporting Worksheet) and for associated late fees.  I’ve blogged before about the Form 499-A requirement, which imposes, with limited exceptions, an annual April 1 filing deadline for providers of telecommunications services and interconnected VoIP services in the United States. 

The Division stated that a waiver “is appropriate only if both (i) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and (ii) such deviation will serve the public interest.”  One petitioner claimed that it “did not realize it was required to file the form until after the deadline,” but the Division stated that this claim “is not a unique circumstance to warrant a waiver of the deadline.” In footnote 16, the Division cited a 2008 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In that case, the Court rejected the FCC’s grant of a waiver to a party who had timely filed an FCC complaint but later had to re-file after the deadline because the initial filing fee submitted was $5 short. The Court noted that 

procrastination plus the universal tendency for things to go wrong (Murphy’s Law) – at the worst possible moment (Finagle’s Corollary) – is not a ‘special circumstance,’ as any junior high teacher can attest. 

This is a classic way to remind parties to file early and to plan for the worst in trying to meet FCC filing deadlines. Murphy and/or Finagle may disrupt the best-laid plans at any time, and waiver proponents have a high burden under FCC rules.  

As for the other petition, the Division quickly dispensed with the claim that the petitioner’s form was “lost in the mail,” finding that without further evidence, a waiver was unwarranted.