Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01338/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01338-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
Red Rock Broadcasting, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

*At the time of oral argument, Judge Buckley was a circuit judge in active service. He

assumed senior status on September 1, 1996. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued December 19, 1995 Decided September 13, 1996

No. 92-1541

RED ROCK BROADCASTING, INC., APPELLANT

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, APPELLEE

Consolidated with No. 95-1338

Appeals from Orders of the

Federal Communications Commission

Barry D. Wood, with whom Mark A. Brinton was on the brief, argued the cause for appellant Red

Rock Broadcasting, Inc.

Gregory M. Christopher, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), with whom

William E. Kennard, GeneralCounsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate GeneralCounsel, FCC,

were on the brief, argued the cause for appellee. Roberta L. Cook, Counsel, FCC, entered an

appearance.

Before SILBERMAN and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLEY,

*

Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the court filed by Senior Circuit Judge BUCKLEY.

BUCKLEY, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellant Red Rock Broadcasting seeks review of the

FederalCommunications Commission's decision to returnRedRock's application for a new FM radio

station as unacceptable for filing. We find that the FCC did not abuse its discretion in refusing to

grant Red Rock a waiver of its minimum spacing rules; and we hold that, under the agency's "hard

look" procedures, the FCC properly returned Red Rock's application for noncompliance with the

filing rules.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Regulatory Framework

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 1 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Anticipating a flood of applications for new FM station licenses, in 1985 the FCC adopted

application processing procedures that were designed to expedite the initiation of FM service and to

increase certainty and efficiency in the licensing process. See Processing of FM and TV Broadcast

Applications, Report & Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 19,936, et seq. ("FM Processing Rules"). Under these

"hard look" procedures, the FCC staff conducts a preliminary review of a new application to

determine whether it is "substantially complete" in accordance with criteria set forth in Appendix D

to the FM Processing Rules ("Appendix D"). See id. at 19,945-46. Applications that are not in

substantial compliance with these criteria when filed are returned as unacceptable for filing. Id. at

19,940. Applications that are acceptable are listed in publicly released "Notices of Tenderability."

Id. at 19,941. Applicants then have 30 days to amend or perfect their applications as a matter of

right. Id.

Following the 30-day amendment period, the FCC studies applications for "acceptability,"

which it defines as "compliance with the technical requirements for FM facilities," id., as set forth in

Appendix D. Applications that are "patently not in accordance with the FCC rules, regulations, or

other requirements, unless accompanied by an appropriate request for waiver, will be considered

defective and will not be accepted for filing...." 47 C.F.R. § 73.3566(a). Those applications that are

not accepted for filing are returned. 50 Fed. Reg. at 19,941. Applications that are resubmitted with

curative amendments after the 30-day period will not receive nunc pro tunc status because "[t]o

permit curative amendments after that period poses too great a threat to the orderly functioning of

our new processing procedures." Id.

Appendix D requires, inter alia, that the applicant submit the geographic coordinates of its

proposed transmitter site. Id. at 19,945. This information allows the Commission to determine

whether the site complies with its mileage separation rules, which require that FM transmitters be

located at specified minimum distances from neighboring FM broadcast stations in order to prevent

interference. North Texas Media, Inc. v. FCC, 778 F.2d 28, 30-31 (D.C. Cir. 1985). A site that does

not meet the minimum separation requirement is "short spaced." The amount of separation depends

on the classes of the affected stations. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.207. Stations are primarily classified as

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 2 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

A, B, or C, depending on their transmission range. North Texas Media, 778 F.2d at 31. Class A

stations have the weakest power and thus the smallest area of coverage, while Class C stations have

the largest. See 47 C.F.R. § 73.207. Class C is divided in turn into three classes, C1, C2, and C3,

the first being the strongest. Id.

B. The Applications at Issue

Having been unsuccessful in a previous attempt to find a qualified licensee for FM channel

259C in St. George, Utah, the FCC announced, on May 25, 1988, that it would again accept

applicationsfor that allotment. Notice of FM Broadcast Allotment "First-Come/First-Serve" Filing

Status, Report No. FCFS-8. On June 1, the FCC received an application from EAR, Inc., which

proposed a fully spaced transmitter site. On June 2, Red Rock Broadcasting, Inc., submitted an

application for a site that fell 1.16 kilometers short of the 209 kilometers required between it and

Station KGMN in Kingman, Arizona. KGMN was a class A station that had been authorized to

operate as a Class C1 facility but had not upgraded its facilities to do so. Red Rock's proposal was

shortspaced onlywith respect to this unused C1 allotment. With its application, Red Rock submitted

a request for a waiver of the spacing rules, setting forth certain reasons why the waiver would serve

the public interest. Red Rock also noted that KGMN had not taken any steps to operate as a C1

facility. KGMN did not file an objection to Red Rock's application. Red Rock's and EAR's mutually

exclusive applications were accepted for tender on August 8, 1988.

The following succession of eventsinvolving Red Rock, EAR, and KGMN led to this appeal.

On January5, 1989, the FAAissued an aeronauticalstudywhich indicated that construction ofEAR's

proposed antenna tower would be a hazard to air navigation. On May 10, the FCC's Mass Media

Bureau ("Bureau") denied Red Rock's waiver request and returned its application. A month later,

EAR's application was accepted for filing. Red Rock petitioned for reconsideration of the denial of

its waiver on June 15, and on July 5, it filed a petition to deny EAR's application. In both petitions,

RedRock called attention to the FAA's adverse determination regarding EAR's proposed antenna site

and requested that its own application be reinstated. On July 21, EAR filed an amendment to its

application, which proposed a new transmitter site to cure the air navigation problem.

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 3 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

On September 25, 1989, KGMN applied for a permit to modify its facilities as authorized by

the FCC and noted that it had decided to operate as a Class C2, rather than as a Class C1, facility.

The application was granted. In July 1990, while its petition for reconsideration was still pending,

Red Rock filed an "Information Statement" to inform the FCC of the significance of KGMN's

modification: "[E]ven the "de minimus' [sic] short-spacing which once existed has been wholly

removed as a factor in the consideration of Red Rock's proposal." In re Red Rock Broadcasting,

Inc., Information Statement at 3 (July 19, 1990). Red Rock also maintained that, "at the time the

Commission dismissed Red Rock's proposal, the EAR application did not have an acceptable site

proposal" due to the FAA's air hazard determination; thus, "the Commission unknowingly but

mistakenly assumed [EAR] had a fully-spaced site." Id. at 2.

The Bureau denied Red Rock's petition for reconsideration and its petition to deny EAR's

application. Letter from Larry D. Eads, Chief, Audio Services Division, FCC Mass Media Bureau,

to J. Dominic Monahan, Esq. (Dec. 27, 1990). It also declined to consider Red Rock's "Information

Statement," treating it as an untimely amendment. Id. at 1 n.1. The Commission denied Red Rock's

subsequent application for review of the denial of its petition for reconsideration. In re Red Rock

Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion & Order, 7 F.C.C.R. 5947 (1992) ("First Order").

Red Rock appealed that decision and, in 1993, we granted the FCC's motion for voluntary

remand so that the agency could address Red Rock's arguments and the basis for its decision more

fully. The Commission released its second decision on June 1, 1995, in which it affirmed its initial

conclusions. In re Red Rock Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion &Order, 10 F.C.C.R. 5990

(1995) ("Second Order"). Red Rock appeals both decisions.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Short-Spacing Waiver

"The Commission need not grant a waiver of its Rules unless an application therefor sets out

"adequate reasons why the Rules should be waived....' " Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc.

v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664, 666 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. Storer

Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192, 205 (1956)). The FCC has explained that the

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 4 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

spacing requirements presumptively serve the public interest, and applicants seeking

waiversto operate fromshort-spaced sites are required to demonstrate that the public

interest will be better served by a waiver in the circumstances presented than by

following the terms of the rule.

In re Caloosa Television Corp., 3 F.C.C.R. 3656, 3657 (1988), on recon., 4 F.C.C.R. 4762 (1989);

accord Nelson County Broadcasting Co., 64 F.C.C.2d 932, 933 (1977). Further, waiver applicants

must make a threshold showing that no fully spaced sites are available. Kenter Broadcasting Co.,

62 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1573, 1577 (1986), aff'd, 816 F.2d 8 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (table); see also

North Texas Media, 778 F.2d at 32.

If the short spacing is de minimis, i.e., less than one mile (1.6 km), an applicant such as Red

Rock does not have to make this threshold showing; it must, however, be able to explain why a

waiver is in the public interest. Kenter Broadcasting, 62 Rad. Reg. 2d at 1577 n.9; North Texas

Media, 778 F.2d at 32 n.15. A party challenging the FCC's refusal to grant a waiver

not only bears the burden of convincing the agency that it should depart from the

rules, but, on judicial appeal, the applicant must show that the agency's reasons for

declining the waiver were so insubstantial as to render that denial an abuse of

discretion.

Id. at 31-32 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In its waiver request, Red Rock advanced three public interest considerations in support of

a waiver: (1) the proposed FM service would reach nearly 33,000 people; (2) previous unsuccessful

applicants for the channel had encountered difficulty in locating fully spaced sites while conforming

with the FCC's other requirements; and (3) the notice announcing the availability of the channel

provided a short application period that hampered site selection. Request for Waiver of Section

73.207 of the Commission's Rules at 2, reprinted at Joint Appendix ("J.A.") 22-23. Red Rock also

called attention to KGMN's failure to use its C1 allotment, which Red Rock said exhibited a lack of

good faith on KGMN's part. Id. at 22 n.1; Engineering Exhibits in Support of Application for

Construction Permit at 9, reprinted at J.A. 31, 41.

In itsinitialresponse to the waiver application, the Bureau did not address Red Rock's public

interest showing. Instead, it merely stated that, "[s]ince the competing application for EAR, Inc. ...

proposed a fully spaced site, you have failed to show that fully spaced sites do not exist." Letter from

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 5 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Dennis Williams, Chief, FM Branch FCC Mass Media Bureau, to Red Rock Broadcasting, Inc. (May

10, 1989), reprinted at J.A. 78-79. In reviewing Red Rock's petition for reconsideration, however,

the Bureau agreed that because Red Rock's short spacing was de minimis, it was not required to

show that no fully spaced site was available. Letter from Larry D. Eads, Chief, Audio Services

Division, FCC Mass Media Bureau, to J. Dominic Monahan, Esq. at 2 (Dec. 27, 1990), reprinted at

J.A. 107, 108. The Bureau concluded, however, that Red Rock had failed to make a sufficient public

interest showing. Id. at 3. It noted that

an applicant's claim that operation from a short-spaced site will permit the applicant

to provide a new service to a given population, will be of no consequence if the new

area to be served is presentlyneither unserved or underserved.... Commission records

indicated that St. George is currently served by 2 AM stations, one commercial FM

station and one noncommercial, educational FM station. Therefore, we find that Red

Rock has failed to make a compelling showing in support of this aspect of its request

for waiver. Secondly, we do not find Red Rock's argument concerning a lack of time

to locate a fully-spaced site to be a sufficient public interest showing. EAR was

operating under the same time constraint....

Id.

In its First Order, the Commission found "no reason to disturb the [Bureau's] ruling." 7

F.C.C.R. at 5948. It also considered and rejected an additional factor advanced by Red Rock,

namely, that granting the waiver would provide the FCC with a choice of applicants. The agency

rejected the suggestion because "Red Rock's proposal was defective and its consideration would be

inconsistent with the principles underlying the "hard look' policy." Id.

In its Second Order, the FCC again affirmed that Red Rock had not made a sufficient public

interest showing. Before arriving at this conclusion, it stated:

In determining whether to grant a de minimis waiver request, we have summarized

the public interest factors we will consider as follows:

(i) the unsuitability of the existing site in technical terms or in terms of a

licensee's inability to reach areas containing a significant number of viewers

who lack service, a network service, or "independent" service; (ii) the

magnitude of the short-spacing created; (iii) the aeronautical and

environmental benefits and drawbacks oflocating a tower in a particular area;

(iv) the concerns, if any, expressed by the licensee(s) to which the

short-spacing would result; and (v) the extent to which the licensee obtained

its license knowing there were spacing restraints imposed in a rulemaking.

Caloosa Television Corp., 3 FCC Rcd 3656 (1988), on recon. 4 FCC Rcd

4762 (1989) (Footnote deleted).

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 6 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Second Order, 10 F.C.C.R. at 5990 (quoting R & L Broadcasters, 7 F.C.C.R. 5551, 5553 (1992)).

One ofRed Rock's principal contentions on appeal isthat the FCC arbitrarily and capriciously

limited the public interest factorsthat it will consider to the five listed above ("Caloosa" factors). We

disagree. The FCC acknowledged that it has considered other factors in de minimis situations, but

it found that none of them were relevant here. See Second Order, 10 F.C.C.R. at 5991 & n.2. But

more to the point, because we conclude that the FCC has adequately addressed the public interest

considerations advanced by Red Rock in the proceedings before the agency, Red Rock's claim that

the Caloosa factors are inapplicable here because theywere taken froma non-de minimis waiver case

involving television rather than radio is simply irrelevant.

We turn now to the FCC's disposition of the public interest considerations that Red Rock

claimed in its waiver request as well as othersthat it advanced before the Commission. In evaluating

whether the FCC's reasons for declining to grant the waiver were so insubstantial as to render the

denial an abuse of discretion, we emphasize "that the role of the court is not to determine the public

interest, but to determine whether the agency's delineation is contrary to law." WAIT Radio v. FCC,

459 F.2d 1203, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Given this standard, we cannot say that the FCC abused its

discretion.

In response to Red Rock's claim that its station would reach nearly 33,000 people, the

Commission observed that Red Rock had not shown that it would be offering service to an area that

was either unserved or underserved. Second Order, 10 F.C.C.R. at 5991. Contrary to Red Rock's

assertion, the FCC did not state that provision of service to unserved or underserved areas is a

prerequisite to a waiver. It merely noted that when an applicant cites "service" as a factor supporting

a waiver, "the test ... is whether the proposal will provide service to listeners who currently lack it."

Id. As the FCC points out, every applicant for a new station will provide a new service to listeners

within itsreach. Therefore, we cannot fault the Commission for discounting the public interest value

of a new station that does not reach areas that currently have little or no service. Cf. WAIT Radio,

459 F.2d at 1209 (holding Commission may take into account, in considering waiver of clear channel

rules, whether applicant would offer service to an area lacking it).

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 7 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The Commission dismissed KGMN's failure to use its C1 allotment with the statement that

"the fact that Station KGMN ... neither pursued its upgrade nor complained of the

short-spacingdoes not constitute a public interest showing which would warrant a grant of Red

Rock's waiver request." Second Order, 10 F.C.C.R. at 5991. This response is undeniably terse; but

Red Rock has not explained the relationship between KGMN'sfailure to upgrade itsfacilities and the

public interest that would be served by granting its waiver request. Under the circumstances, we

cannot find that the FCC's summary rejection of the suggestion was an abuse of discretion.

It appears that, in the proceedings before the Commission, Red Rock also called attention to

the fact that KGMN had not objected to its application. The FCC acknowledged that the failure of

a short-spaced licensee to object is a factor to be

considered in evaluating the sufficiency of an applicant's public interest showing[,] ...

where ... an applicant has failed to make an affirmative demonstration that a grant of

its waiver request would be in the public interest, the absence of opposition to its

proposal does not in itself justify a grant.

Second Order, 10 F.C.C.R. at 5991. Again, we see no reason to question the Commission's judgment

in treating the silence of a short-spaced licensee as a makeweight consideration rather than as an

independent basis for finding that the grant of a waiver would serve the public interest.

Finally, the FCC stated that "[a]lthough retention of Red Rock's application would give the

Commission a choice of applicants, this is not one of the public interest factors that the Commission

will consider in evaluating waiver requests." 10 F.C.C.R. at 5991 (citations omitted). It is quite true,

as Red Rock contends, that the FCC was once ready to accept curative amendments in the interest

of enlarging the pool of applicants:

Since the public interest is best served by having as many qualified applicants as

possible competing for each broadcasting facility, it haslong beenCommission policy

to permit an applicant to remove a disqualifying factor through amendment during

hearing.

In re Azalea Corp., 31 F.C.C.2d 561, 563 (1971); accord Gilbert Broadcasting Corp., 91 F.C.C.2d

450, 462 (1982). The FCC's interest in increasing the pool of applicants has been superseded by the

FCC's hard look policy, which "place[s] greater emphasis on providing service to the public in the

most efficient, expeditious manner possible." In re James C. Rogers III, 2 F.C.C.R. 5536, 5537

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 8 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(1987). Because the grant of a waiver will always add an additional applicant to the pool, no matter

how flawed the proposal, we cannot say that the FCC abused its discretion in finding that the

preservation of a choice of applicants was not a sufficient public interest to support a waiver of the

spacing rules.

Red Rock cites various FCC decisions to show that the Commission has granted waivers for

much larger short spacings. Red Rock does not, however, argue that the public interest

considerationsin those cases, or their factual context, are applicable here. As we have noted on more

than one occasion,

the Commission has shown some leniency in the application of its mileage spacing

rules to existing stations; but the FCC has, with only a few tightly contained

exceptions, refused to permit the licensing of new stations that violate the

short-spacing rule.

North Texas Media, 778 F.2d at 32 (citations omitted). In situations such as the one before us, where

one applicant for a new station has proposed a fully spaced site while another applicant requires a

waiver of the spacing rules, the FCC has declined to find that a waiver would be in the public interest.

See In re Evans Broadcasting, 5 F.C.C.R. 1675, 1676 (Audio Servs. Div. 1990) ("it would be

difficult to grant such a waiver in the public interest when other applicants propose to provide the

same service without violating anyCommission rule"); Eugene Walton, 6 F.C.C.R. 6071, 6074 (Rev.

Bd. 1991) (waiver denied "in light ofthe fact that the remaining applicantsspecified non-short-spaced

sites, and that no public interest showing sufficient to support a waiver request was filed"), aff'd, 7

F.C.C.R. 3237 (1992), on recon., 7 F.C.C.R. 6038 (1992). In light of this precedent, it cannot be

said that the FCC has departed from its past practice in this case.

At various pointsin its briefs, Red Rock suggests that public interest considerationsfavor its

application over EAR's. See Brief for Appellant at 21 ("Red Rock ... showed that its site would be

superiorin terms ofservice"); 28 (grant of waiver "would have permitted a substantial gain in service

as compared with EAR's proposal") (emphasis in original); Reply Brief for Appellant at 5-7 (FCC

should have considered that Red Rock would provide service to more people than would EAR).

These arguments might well be persuasive if its application had been accepted and then considered

in a comparative hearing. The FCC, however, has a "long standing practice of examining requests

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 9 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

for waiver of the FM spacing rules prior to the comparative hearing at which the license is awarded."

North Texas Media, 778 F.2d at 34.

Red Rock makes several additional public interest claims. Because these are advanced for

the first time in these proceedings, however, we do not reach them. See id. at 33-34 (appellant

precluded from raising on appeal any claim that it failed to assert before Commission).

As Red Rock has failed to establish that the Commission's dismissal of its public interest

claims was an abuse of discretion, we affirm the denial of its waiver request.

B. The Hard Look Procedures

Because it found that a waiver of the spacing rules in this case would not serve the public

interest, the FCC was required by its hard look procedures to return Red Rock's application as

unacceptable. See Malkan FM Assocs. v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313, 1319-20 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (upholding

FCC dismissal of application because of non-compliance with technical criteria concerning heighth

of antenna). The hard look policy focuses on the acceptability of applications at the end of the 30-day

amendment-as-of-right period. At that moment, the FCC takes a figurative "snapshot" of the filed

applications to determine their acceptability; those that are not in compliance with the requirements

detailed in Appendix D are returned. Because Red Rock's application was not acceptable as of the

cut-off date, it was not entitled, under the hard look rules, to file a curative amendment to correct the

defect. See 50 Fed. Reg. at 19,946.

Red Rock insists that specification of a fully spaced site is not required by Appendix D and,

accordingly, does not bear on the acceptability of an application. That is simply not the case. The

Appendix states, quite explicitly, that "[i]n the commercial FM service, spacing determines

acceptability of an application where mutual exclusivity exists with respect to a given allocation...."

50 Fed. Reg. at 19,945. In the alternative, Red Rock contends that its application should have been

reinstated once it was clear that KGMN's decision to operate a C2 rather than a C1 facility eliminated

the short-spacing problem.

We may require the FCC to reinstate an application only if,

based upon the entire record, the agency's decision was not a reasonable exercise of

procedural discretion. We will uphold the decision if we can discern a reasoned path

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 10 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

from the facts and considerations before the Commission to the decision it reached.

Russian River Vintage Broadcasting v. FCC, 5 F.3d 1518, 1521 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (internal quotation

marks omitted). In upholding the Bureau's refusal to reinstate Red Rock's application, the FCC

explained that pursuant to the Commission's "hard look" procedures,

the benchmark for determining the acceptability for filing of an application is the last

date for filing amendments as a matter of right. As of that, [sic] Red Rock's

application was short-spaced and thus not acceptable for filing, whereas EAR's

application was fully-spaced and acceptable for filing. Moreover, Red Rock's

amendment unlike EAR's did not fall within the "good cause" exception ... for the

acceptance of late-filed amendments.

First Order, 7 F.C.C.R. at 5948. The FCC affirmed this holding on review. Second Order, 10

F.C.C.R. at 5991. Red Rock also claims that the FCC acted arbitrarily by treating Red Rock's

information statement as anuntimelyamendment, while accepting EAR'slate amendment designating

a new transmitter location.

Unfortunately for Red Rock, the hard look policy is not misnamed. As we have confirmed,

"applications failing to meet specified criteria will be dismissed without a hearing." JEM

Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (emphasis deleted). Only if the

"snapshot" revealed that its application was acceptable could Red Rock be given an opportunity to

amend its application after the expiration of the 30-day amendment period. Because Red Rock's

information statement represented an attempt to correct a defect affecting the acceptability of its

application, the FCC properly dismissed it as an untimely curative amendment. In contrast, the FCC

properly accepted EAR's amendment specifying a new transmitter site because "[t]he Commission

has traditionally considered FAA disapproval to be "good cause' for a site relocation amendment."

Susan Beauchamp, 6 F.C.C.R. 490, 491-92 (Audio Servs. Div. 1991) (citation omitted). Therefore,

the FCC did not act arbitrarily in refusing to accept Red Rock's untimely information statement while

accepting EAR's amendment.

Finally, Red Rock relies on Clearlake Broadcasting Co., 47 Fed. Reg. 47,931 (Broadcast

Bureau 1982) to argue that the FCC should have designated its application for comparative hearing

with EAR's application. In Clearlake, a short-spaced applicant raised a question about the other

applicants' compliance with the agency's "line-of-sight" rule, which requires that there be no major

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 11 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

obstruction between an FM station's antenna and the principal city or cities it is to serve. Id. at

47,932 & n.2. The FCC designated the question for hearing because its review of the claims and

engineering studies "indicate[d] that a question of fact exist[ed] that would be best treated during the

comparative hearing process." Id. We have since held that it is FCC policy to "designate a

short-spacing issue for resolution at a hearing "only when an applicant can raise a substantial question

of fact concerning its opponents' non-short-spaced sites.' " North Texas Media, 778 F.2d at 34

(quoting Clearlake) (emphasis added).

We note at the outset that Clearlake predates the hard look rule; therefore, it is not at all

clear to us what relevance it has to the present case, which is concerned with the application of that

rule. Nevertheless, as the FCC points out, Clearlake is inapplicable here in any event because Red

Rock's allegations about EAR do not relate to the FCC's technical criteria. Red Rock insists,

however, that the FAA hazard determination raised a substantial question of fact regarding the

technical feasibility of EAR's proposed site; further, it argues that the Commission would have

acknowledged that fact and returned EAR's application for want of a feasible antenna site if EAR had

not hidden the information about the FAA's determination from the FCC for six months instead of

reporting it within 30 days, as required by the Commission's regulations (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.65).

We admit to some sympathy for Red Rock's position here and elsewhere in this case, but we

are faced with the understandably rigid requirements of the hard look rule. Contrary to Red Rock's

assertion, FAA approval is not one of the FCC's technical acceptance requirements. See Bobby

Duffy, 7 F.C.C.R. 1734, 1735 (1992). Thus, Red Rock has failed to "raise a substantial question of

fact" concerning EAR'ssite of a kind that we found to warrant a hearing in North Texas Media. The

situation remains that, upon the expiration of the 30-day amendment period, Red Rock's application

contained a clear acceptabilityproblemwhile EAR's applicationwasin full compliance withAppendix

D's requirements. We conclude, therefore, that the FCC was warranted in finding that the hard look

rule required the return of Red Rock's application.

III. CONCLUSION

We hold that the Commission's reasons for denying Red Rock's waiver request were not so

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 12 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

insubstantial as to render the denial an abuse of discretion and that its subsequent dismissal of Red

Rock's applicationrepresented a reasonable exercise of proceduraldiscretionpursuant to its hard look

rule. The orders on appeal are therefore

Affirmed.

USCA Case #95-1338 Document #223349 Filed: 09/13/1996 Page 13 of 13