of compliance with environmental guidelines by FCC license applicants); CHM Broad. Ltd. P’ship v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1453, 1455-56 (D.C.Cir.1994) (noting that the FCC uses self-certification to implement the statutory requirement that applicants for radio station licenses demonstrate their financial qualifications); Supplemental Order Clarification, Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 15 FCC Red 9587, 9602-03, ¶ 29, 2000 WL 713746 (2000) (clarifying that "incumbent LECs must allow requesting carriers to self-certify” that they meet certain requirements, and noting that "a letter sent to the incumbent LEC by a requesting carrier is a practical method of certification”). 8 . See AT&T v. FCC, 220 F.3d 607, 631 (D.C.Cir.2000)
holding that after stem bankruptcy judges have the authority to enter interlocutory orders in noncore proceedings and in core proceedings as to which the bankruptcy court may not enter final orders or judgment consistent with article iii absent consent holding that the fcc may consistent with american telephone bar collateral challenges to other fcc orders in proceedings brought to adjudicate applications to provide inregion long distance service holding that a district court may not disregard the fccs final orders simply because congress did not specifically grant the fcc express authority to regulate a specific subsection of the tcpa holding that language found in 8 usc  1105aa 1961 giving circuit courts of appeal exclusive jurisdiction to review final orders was expressly limited to orders made in the course of deportation proceedings or to direct challenges of the deportation order itself and stating that in all other cases an aliens remedies would lie first in an action brought in an appropriate district court holding that use of an identification number that allowed access to long distance telephone service was an access device as defined by 18 usc  1029e1