Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-16-01118/USCOURTS-caDC-16-01118-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
Walker Broadcasting Company, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 16-1118 September Term, 2016

 FILED ON: DECEMBER 5, 2016

WALKER BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.,

APPELLANT

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

On Appeal of an Order of the

Federal Communications Commission

Before: BROWN and SRINIVASAN, Circuit Judges, and RANDOLPH, Senior

Circuit Judge.

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this appeal of an Order of the Federal

Communications Commission. After giving full consideration to the issues presented

in the record, the parties’ briefs, and at oral argument, we have determined that a

published opinion is not needed. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). For the reasons stated

below, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal is affirmed.

Walker Broadcasting requests vacatur of the Commission’s Order denying its

license application and its petition for eligibility in a spectrum auction. We reject

Walker’s request because the Commission properly found that Walker forfeited its

construction permit and was therefore ineligible for the license and auction. 

In 2004, the Commission issued a construction permit to Walker with a

deadline, after an extension, of April 3, 2009. The permit required Walker to

demonstrate and submit documentation that “objectionable interference will not be

USCA Case #16-1118 Document #1649268 Filed: 12/05/2016 Page 1 of 4
2

caused to existing land mobile radio facilities” through operation of the station. This

interference study would ensure that Walker’s broadcasts did not interfere with

two-way radio users such as police and firefighters. See Neighborhood TV Co., Inc.

v. F.C.C., 742 F.2d 629, 641-43 (D.C. Cir. 1984). April 2009 passed without Walker 

submitting the required study. Walker concedes this point. 

In 2014, the Commission announced an Incentive Auction to reallocate

spectrum from television broadcasters to mobile broadband providers. See In the

Matter of Expanding the Econ. & Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through

Incentive Auctions, 29 F.C.C. Rcd. 6,567 (2014); Nat’l Ass’n of Broadcasters v.

F.C.C., 789 F.3d 165, 168-70 (D.C. Cir. 2015). In the preceding five years, Walker

had some contact with the Commission but had neither filed an interference study nor

received a broadcast license. The announcement of the auction apparently motivated

Walker, so it submitted an interference study in May 2015 and, two weeks later,

petitioned for eligibility in the auction. The Commission’s Media Bureau and then the

Commission itself denied both the license application and eligibility petition.

The Commission decided that Walker had forfeited its construction permit and

was therefore ineligible for both the Incentive Auction and a broadcast license. When

Walker failed to provide an interference study by the construction permit deadline, it

“automatically forfeited” its construction permit “without any further affirmative

cancellation by the Commission.” 47 C.F.R. § 73.3598(e); 47 U.S.C. § 319(b).

Although Walker acknowledges missing the deadline, it maintains that the

Commission abused its discretion by not waiving the forfeiture rule. It offers four

arguments, but none suffice. 

Walker’s first argument – that Commission precedent required waiver – is

procedurally barred because Walker never made the argument before theBureau. See

1

In the Matter of Walker Broad. Co., Inc., 31 F.C.C. Rcd. 2,395, 2,400 n.43 (2016); 47

U.S.C. § 405(a)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c); BDPCS, Inc. v. F.C.C., 351 F.3d 1177, 1183

(D.C. Cir. 2003). Even if the argument was not procedurally barred, the precedent

Walker notes correctly that the Commission can abuse its discretion in 1

enforcing its procedural rules, but Walker makes no showing of the “extenuating

circumstances” required for such a finding. See BDPCS, Inc. v. F.C.C., 351 F.3d

1177, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture v. F.C.C.,

318 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).

USCA Case #16-1118 Document #1649268 Filed: 12/05/2016 Page 2 of 4
3

Walker relies on are staff decisions that do not bind the agency. See Comcast Corp.

v. F.C.C., 526 F.3d 763, 769-70 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

Walker also forfeited its second argument that the Commission disfavors

automatic expiration. It did not make the argument before the Bureau or the

Commission. 47 U.S.C. § 405(a)(2); Bartholdi Cable Co., Inc. v. F.C.C., 114 F.3d

274, 280 (D.C. Cir. 1997). On the merits, Walker supports its argument with cases

of Commission and Bureau waiver after the applicant demonstrated timely

construction. Appellant Br. 29 n.88, 30 n.90. The construction here, however, was

untimely. See 47 U.S.C. § 319(b) (requiring applicant to be “ready for operation” by

permit deadline).

Walker’s third argument is that it had a right to receive a deficiency letter

before its application was denied. Although the Commission must issue deficiency

letters for “minor” application defects, 47 C.F.R. § 73.3564(a)(1), the absence of the

interference study was a major defect. Interference studies ensure that broadcasts do

not interfere with two-way radio users such asfirst responders. See Neighborhood TV

Co., 742 F.2d at 641-43. Because compliance can prove so important, the

Commission has held that “patent omissions in the technically critical proofs of

performance . . . can only be characterized as major deficiencies.” In re Aerco Broad.

Corp., 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 24,417, 24,419 (2003).

Walker’s fourth argument is that “numerous affirmative actions by the FCC”

constituted an implicit waiver of the forfeiture rule, Appellant Reply Br. 3, but the

Commission reasonably found that granting the application six years after the deadline

would be “inappropriate and inconsistent with the Commission’s goals of prompt

initiation of service and spectrum efficiency.” In the Matter of Walker Broad. Co.,

Inc., 31 F.C.C. Rcd. at 2,400. Because the Commission’s affirmative actions after

April 2009 do not render that explanation unreasonable or otherwise require waiver,

see Morris Commc’ns, Inc. v. F.C.C., 566 F.3d 184, 187-191 (D.C. Cir. 2009), the

Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the waiver. 

Because Walker forfeited its construction permit in April 2009, it was not

eligible for the Incentive Auction. Walker accepts that the Incentive Auction Order

protects from spectrum reallocation those “television stations that were authorized by

construction permits, but not yet licensed, as of February 22, 2012.” Expanding the

Econ. &Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 29 F.C.C.

Rcd. at 6,656. Walker was not authorized by a construction permit in February 2012,

so it was not entitled to protection.

USCA Case #16-1118 Document #1649268 Filed: 12/05/2016 Page 3 of 4
4

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The

Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after

resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See FED.R. APP.

P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

 BY: /s/

 Ken Meadows

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #16-1118 Document #1649268 Filed: 12/05/2016 Page 4 of 4