98 N.Y.2d 73 (2002)
An agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference if that interpretation is not irrational or unreasonable.
Summary
The New York City Council challenged the Public Service Commission’s (PSC) approval of cable franchise renewals, arguing that the Council’s approval was also required. The PSC had approved renewals negotiated by the Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (DOITT) and approved by the Franchise and Concession Review Committee (FCRC) and the Mayor. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the PSC’s determination, deferring to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, which it found to be rational and consistent with the City Charter’s allocation of franchise approval authority.
Facts
In 1970, the Board of Estimate granted two cable franchises. In 1972, the State Legislature created the Commission on Cable Television (CCT), the PSC’s predecessor, imposing requirements for cable franchises. The Board of Estimate approved all franchises until 1989, when its composition was deemed unconstitutional. In 1993, the Council adopted a resolution authorizing DOITT to grant cable franchises, subject to FCRC and Mayoral approval. In 1996, DOITT began the process of renewing cable franchises, holding public hearings and surveying subscribers. In 1998, DOITT informed the Council that renewals would be submitted to the FCRC, not the Council, for approval. The FCRC approved the renewals, and the PSC ultimately affirmed, leading to this litigation.
Procedural History
The Council initiated an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, Albany County, seeking to annul the PSC orders and require submission of franchise agreements to the Council. The Supreme Court upheld the PSC’s decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the PSC’s interpretation of its own regulation, 9 NYCRR 591.3(c), to mean that the “local legislative body” refers to the body designated to approve franchise renewals under local law, and not necessarily the City Council, is rational and entitled to deference.
Holding
Yes, because the PSC’s interpretation was not irrational or unreasonable and aligns with the City Charter, which designates the FCRC as the body responsible for approving franchise agreements, explicitly barring the Council’s involvement in the selection process after the initial authorizing resolution.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference, provided that interpretation is not irrational or unreasonable. The Court found that the PSC’s interpretation of 9 NYCRR 591.3(c) was rational, considering the City Charter’s specific allocation of authority for franchise approvals to the FCRC. The Court reasoned that Public Service Law § 222(1) speaks of “any municipal approval required * * * by law,” and that the FCRC is the body with the relevant authority in New York City. The court stated, “the interpretation given to a regulation by the agency which promulgated it and is responsible for its administration is entitled to deference if that interpretation is not irrational or unreasonable”. The court rejected the Council’s argument that the Charter only precludes involvement in the initial selection but not renewal of franchise agreements, finding that renewal necessarily involves a selection process. The court concluded that “the Charter contains the same limitation in connection with the renewal process” and that “the PSC correctly concluded that the FCRC was the ‘local legislative body’ whose assent is required by state regulation.”