Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01110/USCOURTS-caDC-01-01110-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Birach Broadcasting Corporation
Intervenor
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
New World Radio, Inc.
Appellant

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 February 15, 2002 Decided July 2, 2002

No. 01-1110

New World Radio, Inc.,

Appellant

v.

Federal Communications Commission,

Appellee

Birach Broadcasting Corporation,

Intervenor

Appeal of an Order of the

Federal Communications Commission

Lawrence Roberts argued the cause for the appellant.

Jared S. Sher was on brief.

Thomas E. Chandler, Counsel, Federal Communications

Commission, argued the cause for the appellee. Jane E.

Mago, General Counsel, Federal Communications CommisUSCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 1 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

sion, and Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel,

Federal Communications Commission, was on brief.

Stephen Diaz Gavin was on brief for the intervenor.

Before: Henderson, Randolph and Rogers, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: New World

Radio, Inc. (New World), licensee of AM radio station WUST,

located in Washington, D.C., appeals an order of the Federal

Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) granting

the application of Birach Broadcasting Corporation (Birach)

to renew its license for WDMV(AM) located in Pocomoke

City, Maryland. In re Application of Birach Broadcasting

Corporation for Renewal of License of Station WDMV(AM),

Pocomoke City, Maryland, 16 FCC Rcd 5015 (2001) (Renewal

Application). New World contends the FCC erred in approving the Renewal Application because Birach failed to satisfy

the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" standard of

47 U.S.C. s 309(k)(1) by failing to broadcast for thirty-two

months. Because we conclude that New World lacks standing, we dismiss its appeal.

I.

Birach acquired the license for WDMV from Five Star

Broadcasting, Inc. (Five Star) on January 15, 1993. Earlier,

on May 8, 1992, Birach had applied to the Commission for

both a construction permit to change WDMV's community of

license from Pocomoke City to Brinklow, Maryland (Brinklow

Application)1 and for assignment of the WDMV broadcast

license from Five Star to Birach (Assignment Application).

__________

1 Birach sought to move the station to Brinklow because Pocomoke City already had two local stations, WDMV was losing money

because of the competition, WDMV was likely to go off the air if it

was not sold and Brinklow did not have a local station. FCC Br. 4

(citing Birach's Br. in Support of Grant of Brinklow Application at

3-5).

The Assignment Application advised the Commission that

Birach's obligations under the purchase agreement were contingent on the Commission's approval of the Birach Application. See Assignment Application, Exh. I-5. On November

25, 1992 the FCC granted both the Assignment Application

and the Brinklow Application. On January 15, 1993, the day

Birach acquired WDMV, Birach also notified the FCC that it

and Five Star had completed the assignment and that Five

Star had taken WDMV off the air as of January 14, 1993.

See January 15, 1993 Letter from Lauren Colby, counsel for

Birach, to FCC. Birch did not purchase Five Star's Pocomoke City facilities (for WDMV) at that time because it

planned on resuming operations, after construction, at new

facilities in Brinklow. Id.

On May 6, 1994 Birach applied to the FCC to extend the

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 2 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Brinklow construction permit beyond the May 25 expiration

date, stating that it was unable to obtain the transmitter site

specified in the Brinklow Application. New World filed an

informal objection to the extension request, alleging that

Birach had engaged in misrepresentations and/or lacked candor in connection with its certification of site availability

included in the Brinklow Application. While Birach attempted to secure an alternate transmitter site in Brinklow,

WDMV remained off the air pursuant to successive FCC

special temporary authorizations. See August 1, 1994 Letter

from James R. Burtle to Birach (three-month authorization to

remain silent); November 9, 1994 Letter from James R.

Burtle to Birach (same); February 13, 1995 Letter from

James R. Burtle to Birach (same); May 19, 1995 Letter from

James R. Burtle to Birach (same); September 11, 1995 Letter

from James R. Burtle to Birach (same).

The WDMV license that Birach acquired from Five Star

was scheduled to expire on October 1, 1995. Consistent with

the FCC rule requiring a renewal applicant to file four

months before the expiration date, see 47 C.F.R. 73.3539,

Birach filed an application for renewal of broadcast station

WDMV, Pocomoke City, Maryland dated May 30, 1995 (ReUSCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 3 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

newal Application).2 On September 18, 1995 New World filed

an informal objection, claiming, inter alia, that Birach had

not operated the radio station during the approximately 32

months that it held the WDMV license and had no firm plans

to do so. On October 2, 1995 Birach filed an opposition,

arguing that New World's informal objection did not constitute a petition to deny and that, in any event, New World

lacked standing to file a petition to deny because it could not

show that it would be injured by granting the Renewal

Application. In its Reply, New World acknowledged that "it

lacks the required standing to maintain a petition to deny,"

which, it explained, was the reason it "filed its pleading as an

Informal Objection, not a petition to deny." October 11, 1995

Reply [to Birach's Opposition to Informal Objection] at 3 p 5.

On July 15 1996, without having resumed broadcasting

from WDMV, Birach again applied to change the community

of license and relocate WDMV's transmission facilities, this

time from Pocomoke City to Damascus, Maryland (Damascus

Application). The Damascus Application was prompted by

Birach's continuing inability to secure the site specified in the

Brinklow Application. Opposing Birach at every step, New

World filed a petition to dismiss or deny the Damascus

Application.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104,

110 Stat. 56 (1996) (Telecom Act) became effective on February 8, 1996. Section 312(g) provides that "[i]f a broadcasting

station fails to transmit broadcast signals for any consecutive

12-month period, then the station license granted for the

operation of that broadcast station expires at the end of that

period, notwithstanding any provision, term, or condition of

the license to the contrary." 47 U.S.C. 312(g). Any station

silent as of the date of enactment had one year from the

effective date of the Telecom Act--that is, until February 9,

1997--to begin broadcasting before the license automatically

expired. In order to satisfy the new statutory directive,

Birach purchased Five Star's Pocomoke City transmission

facilities (which, as noted earlier, it had not done at the time

__________

2 The FCC date stamp has the date as June 8, 1995.

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 4 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

it acquired WDMV from Five Star) and resumed operations

at the Pocomoke City, Maryland site on November 11, 1996.

In light of Birach's Damascus Application, on January 14,

1997 the Audio Services Division of the FCC's Mass Media

Bureau dismissed as moot Birach's Brinklow extension request and canceled its Brinklow construction permit. January 14, 1997 Letter Decision from Linda Blair, Chief, Audio

Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.3 In addition, the

__________

3 On January 4, 2001 the Mass Media Bureau dismissed the

Damascus Application as not "technically grantable" because of the

unacceptable overlap of signal strength contours with another station (WWCS(AM)) Birach partly owned in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania in violation of 47 C.F.R. s 73.37(a). Section 73.37(a) provides

that "no application will be accepted for a change of the facilities of

an existing station if the proposed change would involve ... overlap

[of signal strength contours]" with another station as therein described. 47 C.F.R. s 73.37(a) (2002). In 1997 Birach had applied

for and been granted a construction permit to reduce WWCS's

daytime power and to change its daytime directional antenna parameters; these changes, if implemented, would have cured the

unacceptable overlap. See BP-19961015AB. Birach never filed a

license modification application to implement the changes, however,

and its construction permit expired on December 21, 2000. January 4, 1997 Letter Decision from Linda Blair, Chief, Audio Services Division, Mass Media Bureau 1 n.2 .

On January 9, 2001 Birach filed a new WWCS modification

application to eliminate unacceptable overlap with the facilities

proposed in the Damascus Application, apparently curing the defect

that led to the dismissal of the Damascus Application. See July 18,

2001 Letter Decision at 2. Subsequently, the Mass Media Bureau

granted Birach's petition for reconsideration and reinstated the

Damascus Application based on Birach's amendment that made the

Damascus Application and a new WWCS Application contingent

applications pursuant to 47 C.F.R. s 73.3517(c) (allowing AM licensee to file contingent modification applications if granting contingent applications "will reduce interference to one or more AM

stations or will otherwise increase the area of interference-free

service"). New World then petitioned for reconsideration of the

Mass Media Bureau's reinstatement of the Damascus Application,

asserting that it improperly relied on the presumed validity of

letter decision granted Birach's Renewal Application, stating

that "because New World's allegations in its Informal Objection ... relate only to the station's silent status, ... we grant

the pending license renewal application in light of

WDMV(AM)'s resumption of broadcast operations." Id.4

On February 18, 1997, New World petitioned for reconsideration of the January 14, 1997 letter decision granting

Birach's Renewal Application, reasserting the arguments

made in its informal objection. The Audio Services Division,

by letter, denied New World's petition for reconsideration

and request for a hearing on November 20, 1997. November

20, 1997 Letter Decision from Linda Blair, Chief, Audio

Services Division, Mass Media Bureau. New World then

petitioned for review by the Commission on November 22,

1997. Birach opposed New World's petition. On February

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 5 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

28, 2001 the FCC denied New World's petition. See In re

__________

Birach's new WWCS Application, which New World claims was

defective because it attempted to revive a construction permit

automatically forfeited under the Commission's regulations. See

August 23, 2001 New World Petition for Reconsideration of Reinstatement of Damascus Application at 4 p 6 & n.5 (citing 47 C.F.R.

s 73.3598(e)). New World also claimed that reinstatement was

premature because "the Division also needs to address a number of

other issues related to the [Damascus] Application," (e.g., New

World's petition to dismiss or deny). Id. at 4-5 p 7. A separate

Audio Services Division letter ruling related to a modification

application for Station WWTL(AM) filed by Birach's sister company, Elijah Broadcasting Corporation, also addressed some Damascus Application issues. See July 18, 2001 Letter Ruling from Peter

H. Doyle, Chief, Audio Services Division, to Elijah Broadcasting,

et al. That letter ruling is subject to a petition for reconsideration

filed by New World on August 22, 2001. As of December 17, 2001

reinstatement of the Damascus Application remained pending, apparently awaiting resolution of the issues raised in New World's

petition for reconsideration.

4 The letter decision also noted the Commission's policy of assistance to those stations facing the statutory deadline. See January

14, 1997 Letter Decision from Linda Blair, Chief, Audio Services

Division, Mass Media Bureau at 3-4.

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 6 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Application of Birach Broadcasting Corporation for Renewal

of License of Station WDMV(AM), Pocomoke City, Maryland, 16 FCC Rcd 5015 (2001) (Order). The FCC concluded

that New World's charge that Birach had made misrepresentations in connection with its filing of the Assignment and

Brinklow Applications, which charge was first raised by New

World eighteen months after both applications had become

final, was untimely. Id. at p 8. The FCC further concluded

that New World's argument was based on the erroneous view

that Birach was required to make efforts to resume broadcasting at Pocomoke City while at the same time seeking to

relocate to Brinklow and then to Damascus. Id. Regarding

any subsequent Birach misrepresentation involving Birach's

operation of the station at Pocomoke City, the FCC again

found no merit in New World's allegations. Id. In light of

its longstanding policy to encourage a silent station to resume

operations, the FCC affirmed the grant of Birach's Renewal

Application. Id. at p 11. In so concluding, it also noted that

Birach had never been warned that keeping the station silent

could jeopardize any renewal application. Id.

New World filed a timely notice of appeal on March 7, 2001.

Birach subsequently intervened in support of the Commission. New World contends the FCC decision to grant the

Renewal Application was arbitrary and capricious because

Birach failed to broadcast any programming for more than

thirty-one months. For the same reason, New World contends the FCC's order contravenes the public interest. Finally, New World argues that the FCC's failure to examine

adequately whether Birach made misrepresentations coincident with its Assignment and Brinklow Applications left

unresolved questions of fact about Birach's qualifications to

remain a licensee. The FCC first challenges New World's

standing to seek review of Birach's Renewal Application.

Because we agree that New World lacks standing, we do not

reach its arguments on the merits.

II.

The FCC challenges New World's standing, asserting New

World is not injured by the grant of Birach's Renewal AppliUSCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 7 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

cation for the Pocomoke City license. Section 402(b) of the

Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. ss 151 et seq. (1982)

(Act), provides that "any ... person who is aggrieved or

whose interests are adversely affected by any order of the

Commission granting or denying any application" may seek

judicial review thereof. 47 U.S.C. s 402(b)(6). A party is

"aggrieved" under the statute if it satisfies both the constitutional and prudential requirements of standing. See Orange

Park Florida T.V., Inc. v. FCC, 811 F.2d 663, 670 (D.C. Cir.

1987); see also City of Orrville v. FERC, 147 F.3d 979, 985

(D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Louisiana Energy & Power Auth. v.

FERC, 141 F.3d 364, 366 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (interpreting "aggrieved" party language in Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C.

s 825)).5

To establish Article III standing, a party must allege (1) an

injury-in-fact that is (2) "fairly traceable" to the defendant's

conduct and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial

decision. Jersey Shore Broadcasting Corp. v. FCC, 37 F.3d

1531, 1535 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). To establish "injury-infact," the plaintiff must show "an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b)

actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." SunCom Mobile & Data Inc. v. FCC, 87 F.3d 1386, 1388 (D.C.

Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). The burden is on the party

seeking judicial review "clearly to allege facts demonstrating

that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the

dispute and the exercise of the court's powers." SunCom

Mobile & Data Inc., 87 F.3d at 1388 (quoting Warth v.

Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 518 (1975)). Moreover, "when the

[party] is not himself the object of the government action or

inaction he challenges, standing is not precluded, but it is

__________

5 Despite the FCC's claim to the contrary, New World's acknowledgment at the agency level that it lacked "the required standing to

maintain a petition to deny" Birach's Renewal Application does not

decide New World's Article III standing. Nor is New World's

participation in the agency proceedings sufficient by itself to sustain

Article III standing. See Fund Democracy v. SEC, 278 F.3d 21, 27

(D.C. Cir. 2002).

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 8 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ordinarily 'substantially more difficult' to establish." Lujan,

504 U.S. at 562 (citations omitted).

New World claims to be "aggrieved" by the FCC's grant of

Birach's Renewal Application for Pocomoke City because

renewal allows Birach to keep its license, moving one step

closer to competing with, and therefore economically injuring,

WUST, New World's Washington, D.C. station. New World's

claim is not without support; the United States Supreme

Court, in the Camp triad, upheld "competitor standing" even

though the economic injury was latent. See Ass'n of Data

Processing Serv. Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 152 (1970)

(sellers of data processing services had standing to test ruling

allowing national banks to sell data processing services because competition "might entail some future loss of profits" in

that respondent bank was already preparing to perform such

services for two of plaintiffs' clients); Arnold Tours, Inc. v.

Camp, 400 U.S. 45, 45-46 (1970) (travel agents had "competitor standing" to challenge ruling allowing national banks to

provide travel services); Investment Co. Inst. v. Camp, 401

U.S. 617, 620-21 (1971) (investment companies had "competitor standing" to test regulatory ruling authorizing national

banks to operate collective investment funds). Moreover, the

Supreme Court held long ago that a competing broadcast

station has "aggrieved" party standing under section 402(b) of

the Act to challenge the grant of a license to another "on the

ground that the resulting competition may work economic

injury to him." FCC v. Sanders Brothers Radio Station, 309

U.S. 475, 477 (1940). Nonetheless, the Camp cases and

Sanders Brothers are premised on the petitioner's status as a

direct and current competitor whose bottom line may be

adversely affected by the challenged government action.

In Sanders Brothers, the Court reviewed the FCC's decision to grant, in a consolidated hearing, two applicants (Sanders Brothers and Telegraph Herald) separate licenses to

broadcast from the same city, Dubuque, Iowa. Sanders

Brothers sought to relocate its transmitter and studios to

Dubuque, Iowa after having for some years held a broadcast

license for a station in East Dubuque, Illinois, located across

the Mississippi River from Dubuque, Iowa. The Telegraph

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 9 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Herald, a newspaper published in Dubuque, Iowa, was applying for a construction permit to erect a broadcasting station

in that city. While it found that economic injury to an

existing station was not "a separate and independent element" that the Commission was required to consider in

determining whether to grant a license, the Court nonetheless

concluded that Sanders Brothers, as an existing station "likely to be financially injured by issuance of the license," had

standing to challenge the FCC's finding that the "public

interest, convenience, and necessity" would be served by

granting the Telegraph Herald application. Sanders Brothers, 309 U.S. at 476-77. In particular, Sanders Brothers

alleged that there existed insufficient advertising revenue,

talent and need for an additional station in Dubuque. The

Sanders Brothers Court found standing in the circumstance

of two stations competing for the right to broadcast in one

city. In contrast, New World does not, and cannot, allege

that granting Birach's Renewal Application for Pocomoke

City will, standing alone, "financially injure" New World's

position in the Washington, D.C. marketplace. The FCC's

decision to grant Birach's Renewal Application merely allows

Birach to retain its Pocomoke City license. Instead, New

World's "competitive injury" will occur, if at all, only if Birach

subsequently seeks and secures the relocation of its Pocomoke City broadcast license to the Washington, D.C. programming area.

In Mount Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc. v. FCC, 884 F.2d

1462, 1465 (D.C. Cir. 1989), Mount Wilson, an FM station

licensee, challenged the FCC's decision to allot a new FM

channel on a nearby frequency, claiming that the mere allotment made the possibility of future competition more likely

and thereby adversely affected the current market value of

its station. Id. at 1463. In establishing a new FM radio

station, the FCC first allots the channel or frequency to a

particular community and then considers applications for a

license on that channel. Id. at 1465-67. In Mount Wilson,

we found "doubtful" whether the mere allotment, without the

issuance of a license, could damage Mount Wilson's "concrete,

economic interest" sufficiently to confer standing. Id. at

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 10 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1465.6 Similarly here, granting Birach's Renewal Application

by itself does not adequately harm New World to establish

standing. In its Reply Brief, New World attempts to distinguish Mount Wilson by attaching great significance to Mount

Wilson's "two bites at the same apple" language,7 pointing

out that New World, unlike Mount Wilson, will not get two

bites because it cannot raise "programming issues" in any

subsequent Damascus Application/license transfer proceeding.8 This distinction, if accurate, nonetheless does not give

New World Article III standing. The "injury-in-fact" requirement "serves to distinguish a person with a direct stake

in the outcome of a litigation--even though small--from a

person with a mere interest in the problem." United States

v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures

(SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 690 n.14 (1973). New World's interest in raising "programming issues" does not give it a direct

enough stake in the outcome of Birach's Renewal Application

to establish its standing here.

Pointing to Birach's past attempts to relocate WDMV to

the Washington D.C. area, New World asserts that the FCC's

__________

6 The court ultimately dismissed Mount Wilson's appeal as unripe.

See Mount Wilson, 884 F.2d at 1467.

7 In its ripeness discussion, the court noted that no prior case had

held that "allotment of a channel alone results in sufficient economic

injury to existing license holders to make an appeal ripe." Mount

Wilson, 884 F.2d at 1467. The court found that "[a]ll institutional

interests recognized in the decisions of this and other courts

militate against immediate review here" because "[e]very issue

raised by petitioners now can be raised, together with all relevant

Step 2 issues, in a single appeal after the Commission has ruled on

the pending license applications." Id. While the "two bites at the

same apple" ripeness issue may not be present here, the court's

observation that "[t]his or any appeal from a channel allotment

decision may be made unnecessary by future agency action" fits

here as well because Birach may never succeed in relocating

WDMV to the Washington, D.C. area.

8 New World cites no FCC regulation that would prohibit its

raising Birach's failure to broadcast in a subsequent license transfer

proceeding.

decision "is tantamount to renewal of license for a radio

station competing in the D.C. market." While there is support in our court's caselaw for the assertion that a party

suffers cognizable injury under Article III when an agency

"lift[s] regulatory restrictions on their competitors or otherwise allow[s] increased competition," Louisiana Energy and

Power Auth. v. FERC, 141 F.3d 364, 367 (D.C. Cir. 1998)

(citations omitted), this description does not fit the FCC's

decision here. We read this holding to apply the "competitor

standing" doctrine to an agency action that itself imposes a

competitive injury, i.e., that provides benefits to an existing

competitor or expands the number of entrants in the petitioner's market, not an agency action that is, at most, the first

step in the direction of future competition. The difference is

critical because New World will have an opportunity to

challenge any FCC decision that directly affects it as a

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 11 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

competitor. See, e.g., February 18, 1997 New World Petition

to Dismiss and Deny Damascus Application. While the court

is aware of Birach's apparent desire to compete in the

Washington, D.C. market, New World's "chain of events"

injury is too remote to confer standing. We cannot say, as

we did in Orange Park, that New World has specified a

"concrete, economic interest that has been perceptibly damaged by the Commission's award." Orange Park, 811 F.2d at

673 (emphasis added); see also Associated Gas Distribs. v.

FERC, 899 F.2d 1250, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (competitor had

standing because "the challenged action authorized allegedly

illegal transactions that have the clear and immediate potential to compete with petitioners' own sales" (emphasis added)); National Treasury Employees Union v. United States,

101 F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (no standing based on

injury not "certainly impending"); Northwest Airlines, Inc. v.

FAA, 795 F.2d 195, 201 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (that party can

"imagine circumstances in which it could be affected by the

agency's action" insufficient for standing). In addition, New

World's "chain of events" argument depends on the independent actions of third parties, distinguishing its case from the

"garden variety competitor standing cases" which require a

court to simply acknowledge a chain of causation "firmly

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 12 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

rooted in the basic law of economics." United Transp. Union

v. ICC, 891 F.2d 908, 913 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Moreover, Birach

has now purchased Five Star's Pocomoke City facilities in

order to broadcast from that location. Finally, New World's

"tantamount" contention assumes that Birach, which has

failed in past efforts to relocate the license, will now persuade

the FCC to reverse field.

For the foregoing reasons, New World's appeal is

Dismissed.

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 13 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Randolph, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Because the FCC has

not yet granted the latest application by Birach Broadcasting

Corporation (the intervenor in this case) to relocate its station

into the Washington, D.C. radio market, the majority holds

that New World Radio (the petitioner) does not have standing

to challenge the FCC's renewal of the very broadcast license

Birach seeks to relocate. Economic competitors, the majority

holds, have only suffered a constitutional injury-in-fact where

the petitioner is "a direct and current competitor whose

bottom line may be adversely affected by the challenged

government action." Maj. op. at 9. The license renewal

"standing alone" is not enough. Maj. op. at 10.

I respectfully disagree. A party need not wait until after

an allegedly illegal agency action causes injury to bring suit.

The test for constitutional standing is less severe: a plaintiff's

injury needs to be "actual or imminent, not conjectural or

hypothetical." Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167 (1997).

For almost ten years--its entire term of ownership--Birach

has sought to move WDMV into the D.C. broadcast market.

The FCC approved the company's first application to move,

and Birach is currently attempting to resolve the FCC's

technical objections to its second request. WDMV did not

broadcast for almost four years, further proof that Birach

sought the WDMV license so it could make money in the

Washington, D.C. market, rather than in the unprofitable

Pocomoke City, Maryland, market. Any competitive injury is

surely "imminent."

I would affirm the FCC. In renewing the license for

WDMV, the FCC had to decide whether the station had

served "the public interest, convenience, and necessity." 47

U.S.C. s 309(k). We give "substantial judicial deference" to

the FCC's judgment in this regard. FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 U.S. 582, 596 (1981). On the "unique facts of

this case," including the FCC's repeated assurances that the

station could remain silent as it sought to relocate, the FCC

renewed WDMV's license despite its failure to broadcast for

several years. In re Birach Broad. Corp., No. BR950608YB, at 6 (Feb. 22, 2001). New World Radio's arguUSCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 14 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ments have not convinced me this action was beyond the

FCC's power, so I would affirm the agency's decision on the

merits.

USCA Case #01-1110 Document #686685 Filed: 07/02/2002 Page 15 of 15