Opinion ID: 184378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Orion's conduct

Text: The Commission argues that this court's remand of March15, 1994, by vacating the Commission order granting Orion'slicense, served automatically to revoke Orion's constructionpermit and that Orion therefore acted unreasonably in continuing to build its station. Orion argues first that it actedreasonably in continuing to build its station and alternativelythat the FCC had to give it notice before the revocation of itslicense could take effect. We agree with the first point andso need not resolve the second. Orion reasonably inferred from the Commission's grantingit a construction permit for an auxiliary station in June1994--well after our decision remanding the matter of itsprimary license for reconsideration after Bechtel--that itspermit to construct the primary station was still valid. Anauxiliary station is by its nature dependent upon there beinga primary station, as the Commission's explanation accompanying its grant of the auxiliary license makes clear. Further,the grant of the initial construction permit for the primarystation had conferred upon Orion the authority not only tobuild the station but also, without obtaining further authorization, to begin program tests, as Orion did on July 29, 1994. See 47 C.F.R. s 73.1620(a)(1). Orion acted reasonably not only in beginning but also incontinuing to operate because the Public Notice of August 4,1994 by its terms authorized Orion to do so. Regardless ofwhether Orion acted reasonably, however, we do not see howthe Commission could rationally conclude that Orion's conduct had been clearly unreasonable. As we have seen, theCommission's staff denied BFRI's request to rescind Orion'spermit precisely because it understood the Public Notice toauthorize Orion's continued operation of the station. TheCommission is of course at liberty to rule that its staff erred,but it cannot say in the present circumstance that Orion wasclearly unreasonable to have come to the same arguablyerroneous conclusion. Nor did Orion's competitors' filing a request for rescissionmake Orion's operation of the station unreasonable, as theCommission now argues; if it had, then every permit-holderthat began to broadcast despite continuing appeals would beacting unreasonably. The provision of service to the publicwould be long delayed if successful applicants were requiredto wait until every last appeal was resolved before beginningto broadcast. We hold, therefore, that the Commission acted arbitrarilyand capriciously in basing its decision to revoke Orion'sinterim operating authority in any part upon Orion's havingacted unreasonably in building and operating its station.