Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-01213/USCOURTS-caDC-03-01213-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Communications and Control, Inc.
Appellant
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee

Document Text:

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 2, 2004 Decided July 23, 2004

No. 03–1213

COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTROL, INC.,

APPELLANT

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

Appeal of Orders of the

Federal Communications Commission

Timothy E. Welch argued the cause for the appellant.

Roberta L. Cook, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for the appellee. John A. Rogovin,

General Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, were on brief.

Before: HENDERSON, RANDOLPH and ROBERTS, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge:

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 1 of 12
2

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

 Nothing remains quite the same.

 Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

 If we couldn’t laugh we would all go insane

— JIMMY BUFFETT, CHANGES IN LATITUDES,

 CHANGES IN ATTITUDES (ABC 1977)

Appellant Communications and Control, Inc. (CCI) would

no doubt agree that geographic change can make all the

difference. For CCI a one-degree change in longitude would

have allowed its transmitter to operate from terra firma

rather than not at all. Instead of permitting CCI to amend

its license to reflect the transmitter’s true location, however,

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) cancelled the license, concluding that no station could

have been authorized to operate where CCI’s application

specified—a dot on the Pacific Ocean. CCI now appeals,

claiming that the Commission arbitrarily and capriciously

refused to allow a correction. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). We

agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand.

I.

Following a lottery of spectrum in the 220–222 megahertz

(MHz) band, the Commission in 1993 granted CCI a broadcast license to operate a non-nationwide Phase I 220 MHz

trunked radio system under the call sign WPCX448.1

 CCI’s

application proposed to transmit from Mount Allison, Milpitas, California, at a latitude of 37∞ 298 5688 North and a

longitude of 122∞ 528 1688 West. But the longitude coordinate

CCI supplied in fact indicated a location one degree—or

approximately 88 kilometers—west of Mount Allison in the

Pacific Ocean. Unaware of CCI’s error, the Commission

granted the application. Still unaware of the error itself, CCI

supplied the bad longitude coordinate again when notifying

1 The same day the Commission granted CCI’s application it also

granted Kitsap Cellular a license to operate a Phase I 220 MHz

system under the call sign WPCX469 at a site near Stockton,

California, less than 120 kilometers from CCI’s site on Mount

Allison. Kitsap Cellular later transferred its license to ComTech.

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 2 of 12
3

the Commission that it had constructed its station and was

operating from Mount Allison.

Months later, CCI informed the Commission of an ‘‘inconsistency with the [a]ntenna [l]ongitude’’ in its application and

requested that the Commission change the longitude coordinate listed on its license from 122∞ 528 1688 West to 121∞ 528

1688 West. Deferred Appendix (D.A.) 26. The Land Mobile

Branch (Branch) of the Licensing Division (Division) of the

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) denied CCI’s

request, finding that CCI failed to make ‘‘a timely effort to

correct its application.’’ D.A. 27. The Branch further instructed CCI to submit its license for cancellation, explaining

that ‘‘applications are processed based on the coordinate

information provided by the applicant, and since there are no

frequencies available at [CCI’s] requested location, TTT [CCI]

should submit its license for cancellation.’’ D.A. 27.

CCI responded to the Branch’s letter with another of its

own. Its second letter—styled a ‘‘Second Request for Coordinate Correction’’—again sought to correct the coordinate

and included an engineering study in an effort to show that

its operation from Mount Allison adequately protected ComTech’s neighboring station (call sign WPCX469) from harmful

interference. The Branch again denied CCI’s request, this

time rejecting CCI’s interference analysis as untimely and

wrong. Relying on its own technical analysis, the Branch

explained that CCI failed to meet the exception for shortspacing contained in section 90.723(f) of the Commission

rules2

 because ‘‘station WPCX469 does not receive 10dB of

protection’’ and ‘‘the 28 dBu contour of station WPCX448

overlaps the 38 dBu contour of station WPCX469 by more

than 20 kilometers.’’ D.A. 32.

2 Section 90.723 provided at the time that ‘‘the separation of cochannel base stations shall be 120 kilometers. Shorter separations

will be considered on a case-by-case basis upon submission of a

technical analysis indicating that at least 10 dB protection will be

provided to an existing station’s 38 dBu signal level contour.’’ 47

C.F.R. § 90.723(f) (1991 version).

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 3 of 12
4

CCI responded with another letter; this one met a slightly

different fate from the previous two. Although the Branch

rejected CCI’s claim that the ‘‘incorrect coordinate[ ] on its

license is a typographical error which has no bearing on its

operations at Mount Allison,’’ explaining that ‘‘[s]ince CCI did

not timely request a change of its coordinates, its application

was processed consistent with its stipulated coordinates,’’ it

nevertheless offered that ‘‘[i]f CCI desires to modify its

license to correct those coordinates, it must wait for the filing

window for 220 MHz applications to reopen.’’ D.A. 35. The

Branch further proposed that, in the meantime, ‘‘[d]ue to the

circumstances, CCI may request STA [Special Temporary

Authority] to obtain legal authority for its operation on Mount

Allison.’’ Id. CCI took the Branch’s advice and the Branch

granted it STA for six months.

Before the STA expired, CCI requested an extension. The

Branch denied the request, however, noting that ComTech

had complained that CCI’s operations were interfering with

its own and that CCI was ‘‘not in compliance with Rule

90.723(f) at the requested relocation.’’ D.A. 50. CCI responded by submitting an application to modify its license to

allow it to permanently transmit from Mount Allison and,

shortly thereafter, by petitioning the Branch for reconsideration of the denial of its extension request.

Following the Branch’s denial of the extension request, the

Commission separately advised CCI of ComTech’s interference complaint and ordered it ‘‘to cease operati[ng].’’3

 D.A.

66. CCI responded by reminding the Commission that its

petition for reconsideration remained pending before the

Branch and stated that it would ‘‘await further review TTT

before determining whether the operating status [of] Station

WPCX448 should be altered.’’ D.A. 67.

3 This notice was followed by two more. The second warned that

CCI’s ‘‘evident continued operation of Station WPCX–448 in open

defiance of the Commission’s warning is an extremely grave matter’’ and instructed it to ‘‘cease the operation of WPCX–448 IMMEDIATELY.’’ D.A. 191. The third notice was similar to the second.

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 4 of 12
5

The Division later denied CCI’s petition for reconsideration

along with its application for authority to permanently transmit from Mount Allison. The Division concluded, as the

Branch had before, that CCI failed to comply with Commission rule 90.723(f) because it ‘‘proposes to operate 88.4 Kilometers from Comtech’s station’’ and its proposed relocation

failed to ‘‘provide 10 dB of protection to Comtech’s protected

site.’’ D.A. 107. CCI next applied to the Commission for

review of the Division’s decision.4

 The Commission was no

more receptive than the Division.

Finding that the staff correctly instructed CCI to submit

its license for cancellation, the Commission denied CCI’s

application for review. Communications & Control, Inc.,

Request for Extension of Special Temporary Authority &

Modification of Authorization of 220 MHz System WPCX448

& Comtech Communications, Inc., Request for Extension of

Special Temporary Authority & Modification of Authorization of 220 MHz System WPCX469, Memorandum Opinion &

Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5428 (2000) [hereinafter First Order].

CCI’s license was void ab initio, said the Commission, because it flowed from an administrative error: CCI would have

been granted no license had the Commission realized that

CCI’s requested coordinates were for a site in the Pacific

Ocean. Id. at 5432, ¶12. The Commission also rejected

CCI’s contention that it, the Commission, should have discovered the error in processing the application, observing that

the burden of providing accurate information rests on the

applicant—not the Commission—and that, accordingly, the

Commission ‘‘is entitled to rely on the site coordinates an

applicant provides.’’ Id.

4 CCI also requested permission for its station ‘‘to remain silent’’

pending the resolution of its application for review. See D.A. 193–

96. The Commission granted the request, agreeing that ‘‘CCI’s

silence pendente lite at the Mt. Allison facility should not prejudice

its claim to an authorization.’’ D.A. 197. Before resolving CCI’s

application for review, the Commission in February 1999 renewed

CCI’s license ‘‘subject to the outcome of [CCI’s] pending petitions

for the facility.’’ D.A. 222 (capitalization altered). In May 2002,

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 5 of 12
6

The Commission also offered a two-fold response to CCI’s

contention that it was entitled to an opportunity to correct the

error on its application. Id. at 5433, ¶13. The Commission

first deemed CCI’s argument ‘‘irrelevant,’’ stating that the

‘‘burden is on the applicant to provide accurate site information in its application.’’ Id. The Commission then noted

that, even if CCI’s original application had contained the

correct coordinates, CCI would not have been licensed because CCI’s application would have been ‘‘mutually exclusive’’

with ComTech’s application and the latter, based on its higher

filing priority, would have been granted the only license. Id.

Further, the Commission rejected CCI’s argument that it

should have been able to modify its application under the

procedures outlined in the Commission’s Second Report &

Order in the Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s

Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220–222 MHz Band by the

Private Land Mobile Radio Service docket.5

 Id. at 5433, ¶14.

This procedure was unavailable to CCI, the Commission said,

because the right to relocate was available only to an applicant holding a valid 220 MHz license and CCI, as the Commission earlier concluded, had none. Id. As the Commission

put it, ‘‘because CCI’s initial license was void, CCI was

effectively seeking a new license and this procedure was

unavailable.’’ Id. The Commission also iterated an earlier

point: CCI would not have been authorized to operate from

Mount Allison even had it initially applied to do so given its

lower filing priority. Id. The Commission concluded, therefore, that the Branch ‘‘proper[ly] TTT reject[ed] a modification

application for a site that could not have been initially granted

to the applicant.’’ Id.

The Commission’s order did not end the matter. CCI

thereafter petitioned for reconsideration, which petition the

however, after denying CCI’s second application for review, the

Commission cancelled the license.

5 In that order, the Commission announced a procedure allowing

a 220 MHz licensee to modify its license by relocating to a nearby

location. See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to

Provide for the Use of the 220–222 MHz Band by the Private Land

Mobile Radio Service, Second Report & Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3668,

3668–71, ¶¶1, 8–10 (1996) (codified in 47 C.F.R. pt. 90).

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 6 of 12
7

Chief of the Commercial Wireless Division of the WTB

dismissed as repetitious because CCI presented no facts or

circumstances the Commission had not already considered.

Communications & Control, Inc., Request for Extension of

Special Temporary Authority & Modification of Authorization of 220 MHz System WPCX448, Memorandum Opinion &

Order, 15 FCC Rcd 14,969 (Commercial Wireless Div. 2000).

CCI then applied for review a second time with the Commission and it denied the application as repetitious. Communications & Control, Inc., Request for Extension of Special

Temporary Authority & Modification of Authorization of 220

MHz System WPCX448, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 16

FCC Rcd 19,155 (2001) [hereinafter Second Order]. The

Commission concluded that the Commercial Wireless Division’s Ann Leggett decision,6

 which CCI had called to the

Commission’s attention, did not constitute new evidence or

changed circumstances meriting reconsideration because it ‘‘is

distinguishable and does not support a different result in

CCI’s case.’’7

 Id. at 19,156, ¶6.

CCI then petitioned for reconsideration of this Commission

order, also unsuccessfully. This time the Commercial Wireless Division’s Deputy Chief denied the petition as repetitious,

explaining that ‘‘CCI’s present petition for reconsideration

relies on no new facts or circumstances, but repeats–once

again–claims that have been repeatedly rejected.’’ Commu6 Ann Leggett, Request for Modification of Phase I Non–Nationwide 220 MHz License Station WPCV789, New London, Conn.,

Order, 15 FCC Rcd 2574 (Commercial Wireless Div. 2000) [hereinafter Ann Leggett].

7 In distinguishing the Ann Leggett decision, the Commission

explained that, in Ann Leggett, ‘‘unlike CCI’s case, the incorrect

coordinates specified in the original application were for a grantable

site, and therefore the license was not void ab initio.’’ 15 FCC Rcd

at 19,156, ¶6. The Commission also noted that ‘‘the modified site in

Ann Leggett was also grantable because it did not conflict with any

other application or license.’’ Id. at 19,156–57, ¶6. Because CCI’s

case did not involve the same circumstances, the Commission

concluded that ‘‘no issues were raised by CCI’s petition that warrant further review.’’ Id. at 19,157, ¶6.

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 7 of 12
8

nications & Control, Inc., Request for Extension of Special

Temporary Authority & Modification of Authorization of 220

MHz System WPCX448, Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9359, 9361, ¶7

(Commercial Wireless Div. 2002). CCI once more applied for

review of this decision with the Commission, which it once

more denied as repetitious, finding that ‘‘[w]ith each successive pleading, CCI has essentially reiterated the same basic

points in support of its request for relief, and those claims

have already been rejected twice by the Commission.’’ Communications & Control, Inc., Request for Extension of Special Temporary Authority & Modification of Authorization

of 220 MHz System WPCX448, Memorandum Opinion &

Order, 18 FCC Rcd 13,448, 13,451, ¶10 (2003) [hereinafter

Third Order]. CCI now appeals all three Commission orders—First Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5428; Second Order, 16 FCC

Rcd 19,155; Third Order, 18 FCC Rcd 13,448—to us.

II.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), we set

aside a Commission action if it is ‘‘arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’’

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see, e.g., Ca. Metro Mobile Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 365 F.3d 38, 43 (D.C. Cir. 2004) [hereinafter CMMC]. The scope of our APA review, however, is

narrow. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of United States, Inc.

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

‘‘We do not prefer our judgment to that of the Commission

and require only that it examine the relevant data and

articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a

rational connection between the facts found and the choice

made.’’ CMMC, 365 F.3d at 43 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

The Commission gave two reasons for canceling CCI’s

license rather than allowing its technical modification, neither

of which adequately supports its decision. The Commission’s

simple ipse dixit that CCI’s typographical error rendered its

license void ab initio does not do it, especially in light of the

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 8 of 12
9

Commission’s practice of correcting, without much ado, typographical errors such as this one.8

 The Commission’s departure from this practice, with no explanation, renders its void

ab initio rationale arbitrary and capricious. See, e.g., Motor

8 The Commission routinely allows license applicants in other

services to correct typographical errors. See, e.g., Porta–Phone

Paging Licensee Corp. for Modification of License For Paging

Serv. Station KNKD661 to Establish an Additional 158.10 MHz

Base Station at Thomasville, Ga., Order on Reconsideration, 13

FCC Rcd 5229, 5231, ¶¶6–7 (Commercial Wireless Div. 1998) (reinstating license application because Commission allows ‘‘applicants to

make minor modifications to dismissed applications if inconsistent

information was previously supplied, the correct information is

found within the four corners of the application, and the correct

information can be easily determined’’); Peter J. Rinaldi, Luther

Jackson Lazarus, James Washington D/B/A Washington Broad.,

Cloud Nine, Inc., for Construction Permit For a New FM Station

in Natchez, Miss. Channel 247A (97.3 MHz), Hearing Designation

Order, 5 FCC Rcd 5649, 5649, ¶¶3–4 (Audio Servs. Div. 1990)

(allowing amendment to clarify station’s geographic coordinates);

Milledgeville Mobilefone, Inc., For Authority to Construct an Additional Facility in the Public Land Mobile Serv. for Station

KUC919 to Operate of Frequency 158.70 MHz at Macon, Ga., Order

on Reconsideration, 3 FCC Rcd 1998, 1998, ¶4 (Mobile Servs. Div.

1988) (reinstating application containing ‘‘an extremely minor typographical error which involves the mis-typing of a single digit’’);

Paging Network of Los Angeles, Inc., For Reconsideration of

Authorizations for Facilities in the 931 MHz Band in the Paging

and Radiotelephone Serv., 15 FCC Rcd 6720, 6720, ¶2 (Policy &

Rules Branch 1999) (granting petition for reconsideration of dismissal of application for failure to pay applicable fee because

coordinate correction constituted ‘‘minor amendment’’); cf. Coachella Valley Wireless Corp., For a Construction Permit for a New FM

Station on Channel 249A in Mecca, Ca., 7 FCC Rcd 4252, 4252–53,

¶5 (1992) (dismissing application because staff unable to determine

‘‘which set of coordinates was correct’’ but noting ‘‘[a]lthough a

coordinate discrepancy is considered an acceptability defect, the

staff will, within reason, nonetheless attempt to resolve any discrepancies found in an application’’). Furthermore, as discussed above,

the Commission allowed another licensee in the 220–222 service to

correct a typographical error before denying CCI’s similar request.

See Ann Leggett, 15 FCC Rcd at 2575, ¶4.

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 9 of 12
10

Vehicles Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 57 (‘‘[A]n agency changing

its course must supply a reasoned analysis.’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Moreover, the Commission’s void ab initio rationale makes

no sense. The license the Commission granted CCI specified

Mount Allison as the transmitter site, a fact later confirmed

by CCI itself when it notified the Commission that it had built

its transmitter and was operating from Mount Allison. For

the Commission seven years later to pronounce CCI’s license

void ab initio because the geographic coordinates provided

specify a point in the Pacific Ocean is, politely speaking,

unreasonable. The Commission must have known—from

CCI’s license and CCI’s notice—that CCI was operating from

a mountain, not the ocean; with minimal effort the Commission staff could have determined the precise location.

The Commission is of course entitled to demand strict

adherence to its rules, see Salzer v. FCC, 778 F.2d 869, 871,

875 (D.C. Cir. 1985), but it cannot so proclaim on the fly, as it

did here. See Salzer, 778 F.2d at 871 (‘‘[F]undamental fairness TTT requires that an exacting application standard, enforced by the severe sanction of dismissal without consideration on the merits, be accompanied by full and explicit notice

of all prerequisites for such consideration.’’); Bamford v.

FCC, 535 F.2d 78, 82 (D.C. Cir.) (‘‘elementary fairness requires clarity of standards sufficient to apprise an applicant of

what is expected’’), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 895 (1976). The

Commission likewise may require an applicant to bear the full

cost of its own mistake, see RKO Gen., Inc. v. FCC, 670 F.2d

215, 232 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 927 (1982),

but, again, to do so here, it had to explain why it imposed that

requirement on CCI while regularly allowing others to bear

no cost. See slip op. supra note 8.

The Commission’s second rationale fares no better. It

offers only a partial, and ultimately inadequate, explanation of

the inevitable dismissal of CCI’s application—even had it

contained the correct coordinates at the outset—because CCI

requested a transmitter site less than 120 kilometers from

ComTech’s site. The sites would have been deemed ‘‘mutually exclusive,’’ the Commission says, because section 90.723 of

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 10 of 12
11

the Commission rules provides that ‘‘the separation of cochannel base stations shall be 120 kilometers.’’ 47 C.F.R.

§ 90.723(f) (1991 version); see also id. § 90.711(a) (1991 version). This general requirement, however, is significantly

qualified by the rule’s second sentence, which states that a

station separation of less than 120 kilometers ‘‘will be considered on a case-by-case basis upon submission of a technical

analysis indicating that at least 10 dB protection will be

provided to an existing station’s 38 dBu signal level contour.’’

See id. § 90.723(f) (1991 version). While the Branch and the

Division acknowledged this qualifier but nonetheless concluded that CCI was ineligible, see slip op. supra pp. 3–5, the

Commission did not mention the provision or, more significantly, why it was unavailable to CCI. It did not even

endorse the Branch’s and the Division’s rejection of its applicability to CCI. The Commission counsel now insists that the

Commission’s apparent oversight is not an oversight at all but

instead an implicit, and to its mind reasonable, interpretation

of its rule to the effect that CCI could not fit the exception.

See Appellee’s Br. at 31–32. But we cannot evaluate the

reasonableness of an interpretation the Commission did not

set forth. See PanAmSat Corp. v. FCC, 198 F.3d 890, 897

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘We do not ordinarily consider agency

reasoning that ‘appears nowhere in the [agency’s] order.’ ’’

(quoting Graceba Total Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 115

F.3d 1038, 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997))); see also SEC v. Chenery

Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947). Although the Commission

counsel—before us—proffers a detailed explication of the

Commission’s sub silentio interpretation, we cannot consider

it because it comes too late.9

 See Appellee’s Br. at 32–33. In

any event, such an implied interpretation would conflict with

the regulation’s plain language which calls for ‘‘case-by-case’’

consideration, 47 C.F.R. § 90.723(f) (1991 version). See S.A.

9 See Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. at 196 (‘‘[A] simple but fundamental

rule of administrative law TTT is to the effect that a reviewing court,

in dealing with a determination or judgment which an administrative agency alone is authorized to make, must judge the propriety of

such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency’’ and ‘‘that

basis must be set forth with such clarity as to be understandable.’’).

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 11 of 12
12

Storer & Sons Co. v. Sec’y of Labor, 360 F.3d 1363, 1368 (D.C.

Cir. 2004) (‘‘An agency’s interpretation of its own regulations

is entitled to substantial deference and even receives controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with

the regulation.’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at

1369 (holding Secretary’s inversion of regulation’s plain language unreasonable).

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Commission’s

order, see First Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5428, denying review of

CCI’s application for review, see First Application for Review,

reprinted in D.A. 111–29, and remand the matter for further

consideration in accordance with this opinion.

So ordered.

USCA Case #03-1213 Document #838081 Filed: 07/23/2004 Page 12 of 12