Opinion ID: 740566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ashbacker claim

Text: 26 Western argues that the Service violated the Ashbacker doctrine by failing to consider jointly Western's and Cellular One's mutually exclusive applications. We hold that Ashbacker does not apply to the Service's decision to grant a special use permit.
27 Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC involved two broadcasting companies seeking to broadcast over the same radio frequency. Ashbacker applied for a license two months after Fetzer Broadcasting Company, but before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had acted on Fetzer's application. Ashbacker, 326 U.S. at 328, 66 S.Ct. at 148-49. Both applications were at the same stage in the review process. They were actually exclusive in the sense that only one could broadcast over the particular frequency for which both had applied. Id. at 332, 66 S.Ct. at 150-51. The FCC granted Fetzer's application and, the same day, scheduled a hearing on Ashbacker's application. 28 The Supreme Court held that consolidated consideration was required. Because the FCC was considering two mutually exclusive applications for a facility which can be granted to only one, id., only joint consideration would guarantee the applicants their statutory right to a hearing on their applications. Id. at 333, 66 S.Ct. at 151. Otherwise, the later-heard applicant would bear the heavier burden of proving that its proposal warranted revoking an existing license. Id. 29 A literal reading of Ashbacker suggests that the Service satisfied the holding of that case by communicating with Western and Cellular One regarding their applications for the same site and by meeting with Western to discuss the conflict before granting Cellular One's application. The district court so found. However, after careful consideration of Ashbacker and its progeny, we conclude that the Service's permitting decision should not be subject to the Ashbacker doctrine and that Western's and Cellular One's applications were not mutually exclusive in the sense Ashbacker contemplates.
30 Ashbacker involved two applications for a single radio frequency for which only one broadcaster could receive a license. In the fifty-odd years since Ashbacker, the vast majority of cases relying on it have involved FCC licensing decisions. 5 The second largest group has involved route authorizations by the Civil Aeronautics Board. 6 A dozen cases have applied Ashbacker to decisions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or its predecessor, the Federal Power Commission. 7 A few cases have considered Ashbacker in reviewing decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 8 31 In Federal Home Loan Bank Bd. v. Rowe, 284 F.2d 274 (D.C.Cir.1960), the District of Columbia Circuit considered whether the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was obligated to afford consolidated consideration to applicants for a federal savings and loan association charter. The court declined to extend Ashbacker to this situation, noting that 32 no group of associates was given a statutory status. No 'right' was conferred. Unlike the situation in Ashbacker ..., the basic statute here did not entitle competing groups of applicants to a comparative hearing. 33 Id. at 275. Because the relevant statute provided no right to a hearing and because Congress clearly reposed in the Board a wide discretion to grant or deny applications, the court concluded that joint consideration was not required. Id. 34 The Court's holding in Ashbacker preserved the applicants' statutory right to a hearing, but did not interfere with the FCC's decision-making procedures. See Ashbacker, 326 U.S. at 333, 66 S.Ct. at 151 (We hold only that where two bona fide applications are mutually exclusive, the grant of one without a hearing to both deprives the loser of the opportunity which Congress chose to give him.) (emphasis added). Neither the NFMA nor the regulations provide special use permit applicants with a right to a hearing. A special use permit for a telecommunications use may include conditions requiring the holder to co-locate with other users, to accommodate other landusers, or to avoid creating interference. See 36 C.F.R. §§ 251.55(b), 251.56. While the Service may solicit competitive bids for projects it wishes to initiate, it has no statutory or regulatory obligation to award special use permits on a competitive basis and was not seeking bids for the construction or management of a facility on the Dead Indian Mountain site. We therefore hold that Ashbacker does not provide Western with a claim against the Service.
35 Even if Ashbacker required the Service to consolidate consideration of mutually exclusive permit applications, Western's and Cellular One's applications were not mutually exclusive in the Ashbacker sense. In the Ashbacker line of cases, mutually exclusive applications are those which compete for a single available authorization; the grant to one applicant absolutely precludes all other applicants from operating in the location at issue. Accordingly, Ashbacker exclusivity has been construed as economic exclusivity. See Public Util. Comm'n v. FERC, 900 F.2d 269, 277 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1990) (It is economic not legal mutual exclusivity that triggers Ashbacker.); Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 669 F.2d 1063, 1073 (5th Cir. Unit A 1982); see also Washington Util. & Transp. Comm'n v. FCC, 513 F.2d 1142, 1165-66 (9th Cir.1975); Carroll Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 258 F.2d 440, 443 (D.C.Cir.1958). 36 Here, Cellular One applied for a permit to construct a tower and equipment shelter on a particular site to support its microwave cellular telephone communications services. Western applied for a permit to construct a tower and shelter on the same site to support its radio and mobile telephone services. These applications were mutually exclusive only in the sense that only one applicant could construct a tower in the precise location both requested. However, the Service discussed alternative sites on Dead Indian Mountain with both Cellular One and Western. Each applicant apparently viewed the contested site as the ideal location for its facility, but each also asserted that its facility could accommodate the other's activities. Also, regardless of which applicant built a tower and equipment shelter at the site, each could receive a permit to conduct its telecommunications activities at that site. In fact, the Service advised both applicants that they would not be considered for a multi-user or facility manager permit and that each operator at the site would need to obtain a separate permit. 37 Furthermore, Western and Cellular One are not direct competitors in the same communications market. They provide different types of communications services and serve different customer bases. Western does argue that Cellular One's permit deprives Western of the economic opportunity to rent tower space to other users. However, Cellular One's permit deprives Western only of the opportunity to rent tower space to others at that particular site. If Western's objective is to build a tower for the purpose of profiting from rent payments, it may apply for a tower-construction permit at another site on Dead Indian Mountain. The Service has identified other sites on the mountain which may be suitable for tower construction. 38 Western also claims that the contested site is the only place on Dead Indian Mountain from which it can conduct its broadcasting activities. However, Cellular One has offered to accommodate Western, and Western still may apply for a special use permit to co-locate with Cellular One or may pursue a tenancy arrangement with Cellular One. Western's permit application is not mutually exclusive with that of Cellular One; even if Ashbacker applied, Western would not be entitled to consolidated consideration. 9