Opinion ID: 305487
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standards for Judicial Review

Text: 17 It is important at the outset to delineate the standards under which the FCC operates, which thereby become the focal point for our review of the agency's decision. 18 The standards applicable to FCC conduct with respect to broadcast license applications are contained in Section 309 (d) of the Communications Act of 1934. 10 Section 309(d) provides for granting such applications where the Commission finds, after full consideration of all pleadings submitted, that there are no substantial and material questions of fact and that a grant of the application would be consistent with [the public interest]. In those instances where a petition to deny such an application is filed by a party, it must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show . . . that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [the public interest]. 11 Where the Commission finds that such a showing has not been made, it may refuse the petition to deny on the basis of a concise statement of the reasons for denying the petition, which statement shall dispose of all substantial issues raised by this petition. 12 19 The legislative history accompanying the 1960 amendment of Section 309(d) indicates Congress' intent that petitions to deny filed under the amended Section 309(d) should make 20 a substantially stronger showing of greater probative value than is now necessary in the case of a post grant [of initial license] protest. The allegation of ultimate, conclusionary facts or more general allegations on information and belief, supported by general affidavits, as is now possible with protests, are not sufficient. 13 21 In the event, then, that a petition to deny does not make substantial and specific allegations of fact which, if true, would indicate that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, the petition may be denied without hearing on the basis of a concise statement of the Commission's reasons for denial. While this court in West Michigan Telecasters, Inc. v. FCC remanded a decision of the Commission in order that the FCC might either state with particularity the reasons for its grant of a broadcast application or hold a hearing, we recognized: 22 Admittedly, the scope of our review is quite narrow; we defer to the expertise and experience of the Commission within its field of specialty and would reverse only where the Commission's position is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable . . . [a]nd it is clear that the decision of when hearings are necessary or desirable to clarify issues is one which lies in the first instance with the Commission. 14 23 Aside from the sufficiency of a petition to deny, the FCC is not required to hold a hearing where it finds, on the basis of the application and other pleadings submitted, no substantial and material questions of fact to exist and that granting the application would serve the public interest. 15 Nor is a hearing required to resolve undisputed facts. 16 And, where the facts required to resolve a question are not disputed and the disposition of [an appellant's] claims [turn] not on determination of facts but inferences to be drawn from facts already known and the legal conclusions to be drawn from those facts, the Commission need not hold a hearing. 17 Finally, a hearing is not required to resolve issues which the Commission finds are either not substantial or material, regardless of whether the facts involved are in dispute. 18 24 We now turn to plaintiffs' specific objections, in order to determine whether the Commission was correct in dismissing plaintiffs' Petition to Deny and granting WMAL-TV's license renewal application without a hearing.