Opinion ID: 392799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Required Procedures

Text: 26 In their brief in this court appellants have asked us to remand the license renewal application of public station KCET-TV for a public hearing and other appropriate proceedings by the FCC. 49 We regard this as the proper disposition. 27 The FCC has objected that KCET-TV complied with all existing Commission rules, and that there is thus no substantial and material question of fact to be determined before final action on the application. 50 But, as this court has held before, Under Section 309(e) the Commission must set a renewal application for hearing where 'a substantial and material question of fact is presented or the Commission for any reason is unable to make the finding' that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the license renewal. Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v. FCC, supra, 359 F.2d at 1007 (emphasis in opinion of Burger, J.; citation omitted). 28 Finding that Congress must be understood to have prescribed that the public interest encompasses at least the legal interests of the nation's hearing impaired minority, we do not believe that a Commission decision in which this factor has not been weighed can escape condemnation as arbitrary, capricious, (or) an abuse of discretion. 51 As the Supreme Court held in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1972), satisfaction of this standard requires, at a minimum, consideration of all relevant factors. 29 The task of weighing the interests of the hearing impaired is not an easy one, and we do not presume to intrude into the Commission's range of discretion in this difficult area. It is appropriate, however, for us to respond to some of the concerns that the Commission has raised on this appeal. 30 These concerns arise primarily from the ambiguity of the legislative policy expressed in Section 504. In construing this provision the responsible administrative agencies have concluded that Congress intended recipients of federal funds to make reasonable accommodations to provide service to handicapped persons, see 45 C.F.R. § 84.12 (1977) (HEW guidelines), current version 34 C.F.R. § 104.12 (1980) (Department of Education guidelines), and the courts have generally accepted this construction, see, e. g., United Handicapped Federation v. Andre, 558 F.2d 413 (8th Cir. 1977) (cause remanded to District Court for application of guidelines); Lloyd v. Regional Transportation Authority, 548 F.2d 1277 (7th Cir. 1977) (same). But, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 412, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2370, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979), the line between lawful refusal to extend affirmative action and illegal discrimination will not always be clear. 31 Emphasizing the difficulty of line-drawing in this area, the Commission pleads that it has no choice but to stay its hand. The Department of Education is currently engaged in preparation of interpretive guidelines construing the obligations that Section 504 imposes on public broadcasters. 52 Pending completion of those guidelines the FCC has said that it has no basis for assessing compliance with the statute, and that there would be nothing for it to consider in the public hearing requested by appellants. We do not agree. 32 In pursuing the public policy represented by Section 504 it is not the function of the FCC to adjudicate law violations, or, indeed, to regard itself as bound strictly by the specific dictates of the Rehabilitation Act or interpretive guidelines issued thereunder. See, e. g., California v. FPC, 369 U.S. 482, 490, 82 S.Ct. 901, 906, 8 L.Ed.2d 54 (1962); United States v. Radio Corp. of America, 358 U.S. 334, 350, 79 S.Ct. 457, 466, 3 L.Ed.2d 354 (1959). The Commission's responsibility is rather to effectuate the underlying national policy of providing federally assisted programs, including public television, to handicapped persons, such as the deaf, who are capable of benefitting from them. 33 In effectuating a policy that is currently framed in general terms only, the FCC must of course proceed with sensitivity to the situation of its licensees. In its review of KCET-TV's renewal application the Commission can appropriately consider the station's uncertainty about the precise requirements imposed on it by Section 504. It would indeed be unfair to insist on strict compliance with a standard developed after the fact, and we expect the FCC neither to develop nor to apply a fully formulated set of guidelines at this time. Nonetheless, it is clear to us that the absence of interpretive guidelines either now or during the station's license term could not justify a licensee's disregard of or indifference to the policies of the statute. Eight years after the passage of the Rehabilitation Act, we cannot accept that a public station still has no duty to make reasonable efforts to serve the handicapped, or that this duty cannot be enforced, in an agency proceeding, by an intended beneficiary of the statute. The Commission must therefore proceed immediately to inquire at least into the station's good faith, as manifest in its efforts to provide service in accord with the legislative policy goals of Section 504. 34 The Commission has also argued that it would be unfair for the issues at the heart of this case to be raised for the first time in a license renewal proceeding. 53 During the term of its license KCET-TV lacked clear standards defining the level of service required by Section 504. And in the absence of prior notice of the FCC's renewal policy, the Commission argues, it would be wrong to penalize a station for its shortcomings. 35 Our answer to this argument is implicit in what we have said before. Properly conducted, an FCC inquiry will impose no unreasonable burden on the station. Focusing primarily on good faith efforts to interpret and follow statutory policies, it should not enforce numerical criteria on a retroactive basis, but instead assess the station's willingness as measured against its capacity and its viewers' need to provide programming for the aurally handicapped. 36 As the Commission itself has asserted repeatedly, the predominant concern in a license renewal case may be prospective, seeking to lead a licensee who has not possessed an adequate    program in the past to adopt policies ensuring better performance in the future. Nat'l Organization for Women, NYC Chapter v. FCC, supra, 555 F.2d at 1017, quoting Nat'l Broadcasting Co., 58 FCC2d 419, 422 (1976); see Bilingual Bicultural Coalition of Mass Media, Inc. v. FCC, 595 F.2d 621, 628 & n. 24 (D.C.Cir.1978) (en banc). Consistent with that concern, in a case such as this the FCC may choose among a variety of dispositional alternatives, including short-term or conditional license renewal, as well as standard renewal or denial. We intimate because we hold no a priori preference among them. The ultimate decision is obviously not for us, but for the Commission, 54 with its special expertise concerning what can reasonably be expected of a public broadcaster within the context of current technology and current needs. 37 We recognize the indefiniteness with which our prescriptions are stated. The guidelines promised by the Department of Education will hopefully resolve many of the uncertainties confronting the stations, the Commission, and this court. But we reiterate our strong view that no guidelines are needed to identify the outlines of Congress' policy aims. The Commission like the stations must accept its duty now. There are many ways in which the policy of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act might be implemented. We hold only that it cannot be ignored.