Opinion ID: 392799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: commercial stations

Text: 38 Appellants argue that the seven commercial stations involved in this case are also bound by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and that the FCC must therefore assess their compliance with the statute in considering applications for license renewal. We are unable to accept this argument in the terms advanced by appellants. 39 Section 504 directly imposes legal obligations only on recipients of Federal financial assistance. Appellants correctly argue that a license to broadcast on the public airwaves is a commodity of great value. 55 But this does not resolve the question of congressional intent: Did Congress intend broadcast licenses to count as financial assistance within the meaning of Section 504? We are unable to conclude that it did. 40 The first reason arises from the statute's legislative heritage. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was expressly modeled on Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 56 And although the legislative history of Section 504 is sparse, we find ample evidence to conclude that Congress did not intend Title VI to reach the recipients of licenses from the FCC. This evidence includes congressional hearings and floor debates, in which various speakers interpreted the language as applying to funds 57 and public moneys out of the Federal Treasury, 58 and none apparently referred to federal licenses. 59 It also encompasses authoritative interpretations of the Civil Rights Act developed by the Attorney General both before and after the measure's passage. In anticipation of the congressional debate Congressman Celler asked the Justice Department to supply a list of federal programs and activities that would fall within the ambit of Title VI. 60 Duly prepared by the Deputy Attorney General, the list that appeared in the Congressional Record of June 10, 1964 included no reference to the FCC or to any other government program involving issuance of federal licenses. 61 41 The Justice Department reiterated its interpretation after the Civil Rights Act had become law. Designated to develop interpreting regulations, the Department undertook to aid all affected agencies to formulate standards to implement Title VI. Yet it found no need for the issuance of regulations by the FCC. 62 The Justice Department's contemporaneous construction of the statutory term Federal financial assistance deserves substantial weight in this court, both because of the Department's close involvement in the drafting of the Civil Rights Act and because of its status as the agency responsible for setting the (Act's) machinery in motion. Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965) (citation omitted); E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 134-135, 97 S.Ct. 965, 978, 51 L.Ed.2d 204 (1977). 42 The agencies responsible for implementation of the Rehabilitation Act have followed the pattern of construction established under the Civil Rights Act. They too have regarded broadcast and other licenses as falling outside the statutory meaning of the term Federal financial assistance. Neither HEW nor the Department of Education has thought it necessary to issue regulations applicable to commercial broadcasters. 63 And regulations issued by the Justice Department, which has recently been designated by Executive Order as the agency responsible for coordinating federal efforts to implement the Rehabilitation Act, 64 hold specifically that federal licensees are not bound by Section 504. 65 We note also that the Justice Department's interpretation accords with the FCC's construction of the Communications Act of 1934, under which licenses are not regarded as establishing property rights, 66 even though licensees do enjoy a limited renewal expectancy. 67
43 In denying appellants' claim that the FCC committed reversible error in failing to hold the seven commercial stations to specific obligations under Section 504, we are not unmindful that the FCC functions under a statutory obligation to make findings about the public interest, and that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 may evidence a general national policy of considering the concerns of the deaf within the public interest rubric, 68 even where direct legal obligations are not imposed. Indeed, the FCC itself has sometimes suggested that it could not, consistent with its statutory mandate, ignore the wants and needs of minorities that national policies aim to protect. 69 44 Because of the national policy of extending increased opportunities to the hearing impaired, we believe that some accommodations for the hard of hearing are required of commercial stations, under the general obligation of licensees to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. But in the absence of specific statutory obligations directed at the commercial broadcasters, 70 we conclude that it would not be appropriate for us to delineate standards for the commercial stations or to require specific Commission procedures at this time. 45 In its brief in this court the Commission rehearses a series of efforts that it has encouraged and licensed from 1970 to the present. 71 It represents that it is moving forward in this area, and that it will continue to do so. 72 Recognizing that the Commission possesses special competence in weighing the factors of technological feasibility and economic viability that the concept of the public interest must embrace, 73 we defer today to its judgment. However, should the Commission fail to fulfill its obligations to the nation's hearing impaired minority, as we have indicated above, 74 judicial action might become appropriate at a later date. 46 In consideration of the Commission's representations of good faith and active concern, together with the record on which it based its decisions to renew the licenses of the seven commercial stations, we conclude that the action of the Commission with respect to the commercial broadcasters should be affirmed.