Opinion ID: 184378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Commission precedent

Text: The decision under review is also inconsistent with theCommission's previous decisions in Highlands and Bott. In Highlands the Commission stated that the public interestwould be served by maintaining the status quo after we had,in light of Bechtel, reversed and remanded the Commission'slicensing decision. See Highlands Broadcasting Co., Inc., 9FCC Rcd 5746 (1994). Although the Commission now attempts to distinguish Highlands on the ground that thelicensee in that case had begun broadcasting before theremand, it fails to explain how that difference is relevanthere. Even if the Commission had justified rescinding Orion's license as necessary in order to avoid benefitting theincumbent operator during the proceedings on remand--asthe Commission now suggests it should have done--thatrationale would seem to apply equally to an incumbent thathad begun operating before the remand. Nor can the Commission distinguish its decision in Bottfrom the decision under review. There as here the initiallicensee did not begin broadcasting program tests until afterthe remand. The Commission nonetheless permitted thelicensee to remain on the air until the Commission reached afinal decision. See Bott, 9 FCC Rcd 6426 (1994). Although the Commission is not necessarily bound by itsprior decisions, particularly in cases where it must weigh thepublic interest and the equities in an individualized fashion,the Commission is bound to provide an explanation when itdeparts from a clear precedent. Here the Commission provided no such explanation of its prior inconsistent decision inBott, which compels the conclusion that the Commission actedarbitrarily and capriciously in this case. See New OrleansChannel 20, Inc., v. FCC, 830 F.2d 361, 366 (D.C. Cir. 1987). __________  In a footnote to its initial decision rescinding Orion's permit theCommission did attempt to distinguish Bott on the ground that thelicensee in that case had begun operating before the remand. SeeOrion Communications, Ltd., 10 FCC Rcd 13066, 13067 n.6 (1995). Commission counsel now acknowledges, however, that [u]pon acloser review of the facts in Bott that case is not in fact distinguishable on this ground. Perhaps that is why upon reconsideration of its decision regarding Orion the Commission failed even tomention Bott. See Orion Communications, Ltd., 11 FCC Rcd19589 (1996).