Opinion ID: 461338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Requirement of a Comparative Hearing

Text: 19 Finally, North Texas argues that the FCC's failure to designate the waiver issue for decision at the comparative hearing was an unexplained and impermissible departure from agency precedent. In fact, however, in the FM radio context, the FCC's policy is to designate a short-spacing issue for resolution at the hearing only when an applicant can raise a substantial question of fact concerning its opponents' non-short-spaced sites. 32 North Texas not only failed to demonstrate that no properly spaced site was available to serve both Lake Dallas and Denton, but also failed to raise any question about the propriety of its opponents' transmitter sites. 33 20 Appellant's reliance on the FCC's television service policy, pursuant to which applications for the waiver of mileage separation rules are automatically considered at the comparative hearing, is misplaced. The FCC adheres to a long standing practice of examining requests for waiver of the FM spacing rules prior to the comparative hearing at which the license is awarded. North Texas had notice of this policy, and all applicants for FM broadcast facilities were subject to similar requirements. No unfair distinctions were made between similarly situated applicants. In addition, the FCC has a rational basis for distinguishing between waiver requests in FM radio and those in television. Far fewer television channels than FM radio facilities are subject to comparative proceedings, making it feasible to consider at the hearing all requests for waiver of the spacing rules in the former service. We therefore hold that the Commission's refusal to designate North Texas' waiver request for resolution at the hearing was entirely consistent with agency precedent. 34 III. CONCLUSION 21 We find that the FCC's refusal to waive its mileage separation rule and its consequent dismissal of the North Texas application for the FM broadcast facility on channel 256 were fully consistent with agency precedent. We therefore affirm the Commission's decision. 22 So Ordered.