Opinion ID: 702285
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lindsay's Application

Text: 22 As with Achernar, the Commission failed to weigh competing public interest considerations in its denial of Lindsay's application. We therefore find the Commission's action with regard to Lindsay was also arbitrary and capricious, particularly given the fact that Lindsay proposed a site outside the zone. 23 In order to minimize harmful interference to the NRAO, the FCC imposed an extra requirement upon applicants wishing to place transmitters inside the Quiet Zone: notification to NRAO. Lindsay contends that the FCC improperly adopted a new policy by considering interference to NRAO's activities in license applications for a site outside the Quiet Zone and that because its proposed site lies outside of the zone, its application should not be denied on the basis of interference. Lindsay argues the Commission did not balance competing public interest considerations. The FCC refused to give weight to the provision of second service, noting only that if the benefit of the new service that Achernar would provide does not outweigh its potential adverse effect on the NRAO, then it is hardly to be found that Lindsay ... would provide an offsetting benefit of overriding importance because it would cause almost as much interference but far less service. Memorandum Opinion, 6 F.C.C.R. at 5396 n. 3. 24 The FCC responds that nothing in the Quiet Zone notification rule prohibits any party, including NRAO, from exercising its rights under the Communications Act and Commission rules to object on public interest grounds to broadcast applications for stations outside the zone. While this may be true, the Commission has given NRAO's objections the same dispositive weight as it did with Achernar's application without any explanation. Although Lindsay's proposed station is actually closer to NRAO than Achernar's station, see id. at 5395, the FCC failed to offer any reasoned explanation of its decision to use the same standard and rationale--protection of NRAO's operations--for sites located both inside and outside the zone. 25 In adopting the Quiet Zone, the FCC intentionally took itself out of evaluating relative interference levels and instead literally drew a bright line with which to protect NRAO. It knew interference could and would originate outside the zone, but struck a balance in drawing the line. To ignore that bright line without articulating how public interest considerations may differ on the two sides of the line is arbitrary and capricious. The Commission must articulate to what if any extent the Quiet Zone rule protects NRAO's activities from interference caused by stations located outside the zone if it is validly to deny an application on that basis. Furthermore, it must explain why its reasoning is consistent with the Quiet Zone rule and FCC allocations policies. It has not explained why protecting NRAO's activities is a goal of higher priority when considering applications for stations outside the zone, nor why that goal is sufficiently high to offset the goal of providing second service. The Commission needs to articulate clearly to what extent interference to NRAO is relevant to applications outside the zone. 26 As noted earlier, Lindsay filed informal objections to the license renewals of 47 stations. While the FCC is correct in stating that Lindsay lacks standing because it cannot demonstrate that it suffered any harm by the FCC's grant of the renewals, see Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471-72, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-59, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982), Lindsay's allegations support its point that the FCC has adopted a new policy with respect to Lindsay's application. The Commission's rejection of Lindsay's application based on interference grounds is a change in previous practice. See Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C.Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2229, 2233, 29 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971) (agency may not divert from prior policy without reasoned analysis). In denying Lindsay's application, the Commission is treating stations inside and outside of the zone equally with regard to the interference issue, and in the process ignoring the zone's boundary. The Commission has not explained this extension of the zone in a reasonable way. The Commission must more fully articulate and explain its new policy if it has truly adopted a new Quiet Zone policy for general application. Id.; Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 800 F.2d 1181, 1184 (D.C.Cir.1986) (When an agency undertakes to change or depart from existing policies, it must set forth and articulate a reasoned explanation for its departure from prior norms.). 27 Finally, both Achernar and Lindsay contend that the Commission's action amounts to a de facto deletion of Channel 64. They assert that if no station in Charlottesville could satisfy NRAO's noise limits, the Commission's adoption of NRAO standards for approval of any licensee effectively amends the table of assignments without the necessary rulemaking. 47 C.F.R. Secs. 1.401(d), 1.420; see also Communications Inv. Corp. v. FCC, 641 F.2d 954, 967-68 (D.C.Cir.1981) (table of assignments can be modified by proper rulemaking procedures). The parties argue that the FCC's assertion that no one had demonstrated that Channel 64 could not be used to serve Charlottesville with less interference to NRAO is unavailing because the record shows that television stations as far away as Pennsylvania and Florida cause interference at NRAO, and there is no reason to believe that any use of the channel would not violate NRAO's standards. 28 The Commission's weak response--that it authorized a new educational station within the zone that has extremely lower power, Channel 51 in Staunton, Virginia--speaks for itself. The adoption of NRAO standards appears to foreclose the use of Channel 64 for Charlottesville by any station whether inside or outside the zone. Such foreclosure effectively amends the table of assignments by deleting that channel. While the Commission is free on the basis of an appropriate rulemaking record either to change the terms of the Quiet Zone rule or to delete Channel 64, it may not do either in the context of this licensing proceeding. Although the Commission suggests that these denials do not necessarily rule out the use of Channel 64 in the future in a way that would not interfere with NRAO, it does not make this clear. The FCC's decision intimates that any use of the channel would cause some interference and that any interference to NRAO is unacceptable.