regulation, or practice is or will be just, fair, and reasonable,” id. § 205(a). We first dispense with the idea that Congress clearly intended to limit the practices that can be deemed “unjust or unreasonable,” under § 201(b), to those that are contrary to practices prescribed solely under the authority of § 205. To the contrary, it appears to us that Congress has extended the scope of § 201(b) far beyond those core original provisions. Section 201(b) gives the Commission broad power to enact such “rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act,” including sections that were added later by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. See AT & T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 377-78 & n. 5, 119 S.Ct. 721, 142 L.Ed.2d 835 (1999) (<HOLDING>). And, as we mentioned above, the Commission
holding that the courts retained jurisdiction over cases pending pursuant to the 1996 amendment when the congress enacted the new terrorism exception holding that terms of 29 usc  156 authorizing the nlrb to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the act grant the nlrb broad rulemaking authority holding statutory authority of commission to promulgate rules to interpret law does not impose affirmative rulemaking requirement holding that rule 14e3a does not exceed secs rulemaking authority holding that the commissions rulemaking authority under  201b extends to the implementation of provisions enacted in 1996