Opinion ID: 402058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Meaning of a Modification Under Section 316

Text: 20 In its brief to this court, appellee acknowledges that 21 (t)he Communications Act explicitly permits the Commission to modify any station license, but only after notification to the licensee and an opportunity for the licensee to show cause in a public hearing why the modification should not be ordered. 47 U.S.C. 316. It has long been established that this provision covers indirect as well as direct modifications of licenses.... Indirect modifications include factual circumstances where it is alleged that a new grant may create objectionable electrical interference to an existing licensee and the existing licensee is protected by Commission policy or regulation from such interference. 22 Appellee's brief at 9-10 (citations omitted). We accept this as an accurate statement of the controlling legal principles in this case. Indeed, it is for precisely the reasons outlined by appellee that we hold that the Commission erred in denying appellant a hearing under section 316. 23 Despite the acknowledgement that a hearing is required under section 316 where it is alleged that a new grant may create objectionable electrical interference to an existing licensee, the Commission argues that appellant has no legally protectable interest because the grant of KSRF's application was based on its consistency with Section 73.213 of the Rules and the Fourth Report and Order (see notes 6 and 7 supra), adopted long before KOCM's current license term. Appellee's brief at 10. In short, appellee contends that (t)he basis for KOCM's argument that it was entitled to a hearing-increased objectionable interference within its 1.0 mV/m contour-was rejected by the Commission as a material consideration in the Fourth Report and Order. Id. at 10-11. Thus, according to the Commission, appellant's claim cannot be viewed as a modification under section 316 because, following the conclusion of the rulemaking proceeding in Docket 14185 in 1964, see note 7 supra, FM licensees were no longer entitled to protection based on their 1.0 mV/m signal contours. They were thereafter protected from interference only to the extent provided by the minimum mileage separations and related rules. Id. at 11. 24 As has already been suggested above, see note 7 supra, the Commission's arguments on this point must fail. As noted by appellant: 25 The Commission premises this argument on the Fourth Report and Order in Docket No. 14185, promulgating Section 73.213 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 73.213). However, the provision in that order upon which the Commission relies related only to claims of interference occurring as a result of the change in the rules at that time, not to additional interference, and thus, hearings on subsequent modifications which might result from future changes in another station's license are not precluded by that Order. KOCM is not arguing that interference caused by KSRF's existing antenna causes such a modification of its license as to require the holding of a hearing pursuant to Section 316. Rather, KOCM is asserting its rights with respect to the additional interference which would result from the change in KSRF's antenna site. 26 Appellant's reply brief at 3-4 (footnote omitted). See also discussion at note 7 supra. 27 The appellee's position that appellant's claim cannot be viewed as a modification under section 316 is wrong as a matter of law and patently inconsistent with the Commission's own decision here under review. In ruling against appellant, the Commission made it plain that the fact that KSRF's application complied with the standards set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 73.213 was not dispositive of this case. Furthermore, the Commission never suggested, either in its initial decision or in the decision following the request for reconsideration, that appellant's claim fell outside of the scope of section 316. Rather, the opinion of the Commission first noted that the interference issue (must) be examined on a case-by-case basis ... in situations of short-spaced stations under Section 73.213, and then found that appellant had no legally protectable interest in this case because KSRF's proposal will involve no additional area of interference within KOCM's 1 mV/m contour. 79 F.C.C.2d at 951. These rulings by the FCC surely do not support the contention advanced by appellee on this appeal, i.e., that appellant's claim does not, as a matter of law, raise an issue that is cognizable under section 316. 28 On the record before us, we hold that appellant's claim, alleging that the grant of the KSRF application may create objectionable interference, raises a legally cognizable issue under section 316. 29