Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01253/USCOURTS-caDC-00-01253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coalition for Noncommercial Media
Petitioner
Federal Communications Commission
Respondent
United States of America
Respondent
Western New York Public Broadcasting Association
Intervenor for Respondent

Document Text:

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

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued March 22, 2001 Decided June 1, 2001

No. 00-1253

Coalition for Noncommercial Media,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Communications Commission and

United States of America,

Respondents

Western New York Public Broadcasting Association,

Intervenor

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Communications Commission

Jared S. Sher argued the cause for petitioner. On the

briefs were David E. Honig, John C. Quale and Mark C. Del

Bianco.

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 1 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

James M. Carr, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the

brief were Christopher J. Wright, General Counsel, Daniel

M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, A. Douglas Melamed, Acting Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department

of Justice, Robert B. Nicholson and Adam D. Hirsh, Attorneys. Catherine G. O'Sullivan, Attorney, entered an appearance.

Robert A. Woods and Malcolm G. Stevenson were on the

brief for intervenor Western New York Public Broadcasting

Association. Lawrence M. Miller entered an appearance.

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Williams and Henderson,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Williams.

Williams, Circuit Judge: The Coalition for Noncommercial

Media, a nonprofit organization, challenges a Federal Communications Commission order swapping the status of two

television channels licensed to the Western New York Public

Broadcasting Association ("the Association"). As a result of

the swap, Channel 17, previously unreserved, became reserved for non-commercial use and Channel 23, previously

reserved, ceased to be. (The Commission allots a digital

channel to accompany each analog channel,1 and its order

effected similar switches for the Association's digital channels.) Pinning standing to the status of its members as

viewers of these channels, the Coalition raises a host of

claims. We find the appeal timely: The Coalition's appeal

properly falls under 47 U.S.C. s 402(a) and its 60-day limit

(see 28 U.S.C. s 2344), rather than under s 402(b) and its 30-

day limit (see s 402(c)), as the Commission urges. But

because the issues that the Coalition preserved for review

lack merit, we affirm.

__________

1 See In re Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact

upon the Existing Television Broadcasting Service, 13 F.C.C.R.

7418, 7517-18 p p 291-92 (1998), aff'd, Community Television, Inc.

v. FCC, 216 F.3d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also 47 CFR

s 73.622(a).

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 2 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

* * *

The Commission began assigning television channels to

geographic regions almost fifty years ago. To encourage the

development of educational programming, the Commission

reserved some channels for noncommercial use, identifying

such channels with an asterisk in what is now called the Table

of Allotments. See In re Amendment of Section 3.606 of the

Commission's Rules and Regulations, 41 F.C.C. Reports 148,

158-64, 228 & n.60 p p 33-49, 253(a) (1952); see also 47 CFR

s 73.606.

To modify a channel assignment, a broadcast licensee must

apply to the Commission, normally thereby exposing itself to

competing license applications. In the case of some relatively simple exchanges, however, the Commission has taken the

view that the application of this general precept might unjustifiably discourage beneficial exchanges. To address this

concern, it adopted in 1986 a rule expressly permitting a

commercial and a noncommercial broadcaster to petition to

exchange channels without facing competing applications for

the licenses. See In re Amendments to the Television Table

of Assignments to Change Noncommercial Educational Reservations, 59 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 1455 (1986); see also 47

CFR s 1.420(h).

The Association operates two noncommercial television stations in Buffalo, New York--WNEQ-TV on Channel 23,

which was reserved for noncommercial educational use, and

WNED-TV on Channel 17, which was unreserved. In May

1998, the Association petitioned for a rulemaking to amend

the Table of Allotments to switch the two channels' status.

See Petition for Rule Making, Joint Appendix ("J.A.") at 1.

The Association stated that it would provide "a significantly

enhanced programming operation at Station WNED-TV",

which it claimed was "the more powerful of the two stations",

and would "derive substantial new and necessary financial

support for an endowment fund for its Station WNED-TV

operations through assignment of its facility on unreserved

Channel 23 to a commercial entrepreneur." Id. at 3-4. The

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 3 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Commission's Mass Media Bureau issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the Association's proposal and received

comments from the Coalition, among others. Finding that

the proposed change in reservation status would improve

noncommercial service in Buffalo and would not eliminate any

noncommercial channel reservations, the Bureau granted the

petition and modified the television licenses under s 316(a) of

the 1934 Communications Act to reflect the change in July

1999. See In re Amendment of Section 73.606(b), Table of

Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations and Section

73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television Broadcast

Stations (Buffalo, New York), 14 F.C.C.R. 11,856, 11,859,

11,861-62, 11,863 p p 9, 15, 19 (Mass Media Bur. 1999) ("Bureau Order"). The Commission denied the Coalition's application for review. See In re Amendment of Section

73.606(b), Table of Allotments, Television Broadcast Stations

and Section 73.622(b), Table of Allotments, Digital Television

Broadcast Stations (Buffalo, New York), FCC 00-130 (Memorandum Opinion and Order April 19, 2000), J.A. at 188

("Order"). The Coalition now seeks judicial review.

* * *

The Commission published its order on May 4, 2000. See

65 Fed. Reg. 25,865 (2000). The Coalition filed its petition for

review on June 15, 2000. Thus the Coalition's petition was

timely if it belongs under s 402(a)'s 60-day deadline but not

if it belongs under s 402(b)'s 30-day limit. The Coalition's

opening brief oddly asserted that our jurisdiction depended

on s 402(b)(6), a point on which the Commission pounced.

But we decide for ourselves how the petition should be

characterized. See Freeman Engineering Associates, Inc. v.

FCC, 103 F.3d 169, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

For s 402(b)(6) to apply, the Coalition must show that it "is

aggrieved or [its] interests are adversely affected by any

order of the Commission granting or denying any application

described in paragraphs (1) to (4) and (9) of this subsection."

47 U.S.C. s 402(b)(6) (emphasis added); see also Waterway

Communications Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 851 F.2d 401, 403

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 4 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(D.C. Cir. 1988). The Commission's order, however, neither

grants nor denies any application because the Association did

not submit one; the Association petitioned for a rulemaking

to modify the relevant tables reflecting channel assignments.

It did not seek a modification of its licenses.

The matter is complicated by the fact that, even without a

request, the Commission did modify the licenses. Had the

Association sought the modification, the case would presumably fall under s 402(b)(6), because that subsection crossreferences s 402(b)(2), involving applications to modify an

"authorization" specified in subsection (1), which includes

"station license[s]." This would be true even if the Association did not identify its request as an "application." In fact it

made no such request in any form.

But we are still not out of the woods. In Tomah-Mauston

Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 306 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1962), we

held that a Commission order denying a petition to stay and

revoke a party's construction permit to build a radio broadcast station before it went on the air was reviewable under 47

U.S.C. s 402(b)(6) as an order "ancillary" to the grant of the

construction permit. Id. at 812. In effect the petitioner was

directly seeking to reverse the grant. See also id. (observing

that Commission order was "in substance a re-affirmation of

its earlier grant"). But we have never extended TomahMauston. In Freeman Engineering Associates, Inc. v. FCC,

103 F.3d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1997), because grant of a "pioneer's

preference" came close to assuring the grantee a license, the

Commission claimed that appeal from such a grant belonged

under s 402(b). Distinguishing Tomah-Mauston, we held

"that the Commission's denial of a pioneer's preference is

neither a denial of a license nor is it ancillary to such,"

stressing that to actually receive the grant the pioneer must

also be "otherwise qualified." Id. at 177-78. Thus even an

application that strongly foreshadows the grant of a s 402(b)

application is not enough. But see WHDH, Inc. v. United

States, 457 F.2d 559, 561 (1st Cir. 1972) (finding s 402(b)

applicable under Tomah-Mauston to appeal attacking grant

of "program test authority," which "is a step short of the

granting of a station license"). That the Commission leapt

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 5 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

forward and on its own hook eliminated the need for such an

application does not create an application where none was

made. We thus find the Coalition's appeal proper under

s 402(a) and timely under the 60-day limit.

* * *

The Coalition makes several arguments before us that it

did not raise with the Commission. See 47 U.S.C. s 405.

Section 405(a) generally dispenses with any need for a petition for reconsideration with the Commission, but not where

the party seeking review raises a claim "upon which the

Commission ... has been afforded no opportunity to pass."

Although this exhaustion provision does not require that the

"opportunity be afforded in any particular manner, or by any

particular party," Office of Communication of the United

Church of Christ v. FCC, 465 F.2d 519, 523 (D.C. Cir. 1972),

the argument does have to have been meaningfully raised by

someone. See Washington Ass'n for Television & Children

v. FCC, 712 F.2d 677, 681 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Alianza Federal

de Mercedes v. FCC, 539 F.2d 732, 739 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

We find that three of the Coalition's claims have been

waived under 47 U.S.C. s 405. First, the Coalition argues

that when the Commission swapped the channel reservations

in the relevant Tables of Allotments and modified the Association's licenses in the same proceeding, it deviated without

explanation from past practice. See Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 852-53 (D.C. Cir. 1970). In

the Coalition's view this past practice required applicants to

file first for an amendment to the Tables of Allotments and

then separately to modify their licenses to reflect the change.

To support its claim that it made this argument the Coalition

cites a number of pages in its application for Commission

review, see Reply Br. at 11 n.20, but nothing cited reasonably

raises or even suggests this issue. See Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. FCC, 144 F.3d 75, 81 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("[W]e

ask whether a reasonable Commission necessarily would have

seen the question raised before us as part of the case

presented to it.").

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 6 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Grant Television, Inc., a licensee of station WNYO-TV in

Buffalo, New York, did raise this issue--but only before the

Mass Media Bureau. See J.A. at 35-38. Grant Television

was not a party to the Commission's review. As s 405

requires that the Commission itself--and not merely a Commission bureau--have had an opportunity to pass on the

issue, see Bartholdi Cable Co. v. FCC, 114 F.3d 274, 279

(1997), Grant's comments are not enough.

To be sure a few sentences of the Commission order made

reference, in its background section, to the Mass Media

Bureau's disposition of the issue that the Coalition is now

raising. Order at p 5, J.A. at 189. But the "mere fact that

the Commission discusses an issue does not mean that it was

provided a meaningful 'opportunity to pass' on the issue."

Bartholdi, 114 F.3d at 280; see also Time Warner, 144 F.3d

at 79-80. Only a discussion offered in response to someone's

argument--such as petitioner's, another party's, or a Commissioner's--qualifies. See Bartholdi, 114 F.3d at 280. Our

reference in Petroleum Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 22

F.3d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1994), to instances where the Commission "considered the issue ... on its own motion," id. at 1170,

appears to be confined to cases where a dissenting commissioner posed the challenge.

The obstacles for the two remaining barred claims are

more straightforward. The Coalition itself concedes, Reply

Br. at 21 n.42, that it never raised its claim that the Commission's failure to alert interested parties that it might modify

the Association's licenses when it changed the relevant Tables

of Allotments was a violation of the Administrative Procedure

Act's notice requirements. See 5 U.S.C. s 553(b). And the

Coalition identifies no place where it objected that the Association's proposal reduced the number of reserved digital channels in Buffalo, New York because the original table placed

asterisks next to both Channel 32 and Channel 43 (a superficially valid proposition that the Association, rightly or wrongly, explained as having resulted from a pre-existing typographical error in the original digital Table of Allotments, see

Petition for Rule Making, J.A. at 2 n.1). No party made this

argument below and the Coalition cannot raise it now.

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 7 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

None of the exceptions to s 405's exhaustion requirement

is available for these three claims. See Washington Ass'n for

Television & Children, 712 F.2d at 681-83. The Commission

is not obliged to guess what arguments might be before it;

thus we move on without reaching the merits of these claims.

* * *

Surviving are the Coalition's objections to the Commission's

rejection of two counterproposals that the Coalition had made

to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the Association's

channel-swapping proposal. The first asked the Commission

to reserve both of the Association's channels for noncommercial use. The second asked the Commission to reserve all

unreserved stations in the nation that were being used for

noncommercial use. See J.A. at 59.

The Commission acknowledged that the Mass Media Bureau did not specifically address the first proposal but said

that any error was harmless for several reasons. See Order

at p 11, J.A. at 191. On appeal, the Coalition's opening brief

challenges only the Commission's point that "a third party

may not petition for a change in another station's authorization, particularly if the licensee has disavowed an interest in

the particular proposed change." Id. But the Coalition cites

no case or Commission rule that would suggest otherwise--

except in cases, see Reply Brief at 16-17 n.31, where a

licensee or potential licensee of a nearby channel claimed that

an existing license would, in the absence of modification,

create interference, and thus mutual exclusivity within the

meaning of Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327

(1945). Yet the Coalition did not contest the Commission's

reading of Ashbacker as inapplicable to its proposal until its

Reply Brief, and that, as we have said many times, is too late

for a new argument. See United States v. Wilson, 240 F.3d

39, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

The Bureau dismissed the second proposal--to impose

reserved status on all stations that are in noncommercial

use--stating that it "is not mutually exclusive with the Buffalo proposal and is therefore not appropriately filed in this

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 8 of 9
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

proceeding." Bureau Order, 14 F.C.C.R. at 11,856 n.2. The

Commission observed that the issue should be "raised as a

general rulemaking, not as an issue to be resolved in an

adjudicatory proceeding such as this." Order at p 12, J.A. at

191.

The Commission's dismissal of these two counterproposals

was reasonable and adequately explained. See Motor Vehicle

Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States v. State Farm

Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). There is no

sense at all in the claim that the Commission's action here is

inconsistent with its decision in In re Deletion of Noncommercial Reservation of Channel *16, 482-488 MHz, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11 F.C.C.R. 11,700 (1996). The proposal there involved a deletion of one of two reserved channels,

effecting a net reduction; here there was no such reduction.

The Coalition's petition is

Denied.

USCA Case #00-1253 Document #600119 Filed: 06/01/2001 Page 9 of 9