Opinion ID: 461338
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 9
10 This court recently described the heavy burden of a litigant who challenges an agency's refusal to waive one of its rules:An applicant for a waiver not only bears the burden of convincing the agency that it should depart from the rules, but, on judicial appeal, the applicant must show that the agency's reasons for declining the waiver were so insubstantial as to render that denial an abuse of discretion. 12 11 In the present case, the FCC decision is fully grounded in explicit agency precedent and practice and must therefore be affirmed. 12 Since the time of the major FM rulemaking in the early 1960's, the Commission has shown some leniency in the application of its mileage spacing rules to existing stations; 13 but the FCC has, with only a few tightly contained exceptions, refused to permit the licensing of new stations that violate the short-spacing rule. 14 This policy flows logically from the choice of the mileage separation method to protect against mutual interference. 13 The FCC has consistently refused to waive the mileage separation rule unless no non-short-spaced sites are available. 15 An applicant seeking a waiver must therefore make a threshold showing, using legitimate engineering evidence, that no properly spaced location is obtainable. The FCC was entirely justified in finding that North Texas had failed to demonstrate that no properly spaced site was available to serve both Lake Dallas and Denton. The record 16 demonstrates that North Texas' entire showing on this matter consisted of a flat assertion by its consulting engineer that the short-spacings were unavoidable. 17 No supporting engineering data were submitted. 18 As this court has stated, [t]he applicant for waiver must ... adduce concrete support, preferably documentary. 19 The North Texas showing was manifestly inadequate. 14 One recent FCC decision that initially appeared troublesome was, in fact, only an apparent deviation from the above-described policies. In Sanibel Broadcasting Co., 20 the Commission staff improperly waived a short-spacing of 3.74 miles with an existing station, WVFM of Lakeland, Florida, reasoning that no actual interference would be created. 21 Shortly thereafter, WVFM filed pleadings with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the comparative hearing, requesting that the short-spacing issue be reconsidered at the hearing. This request was supported by the agency's Mass Media Bureau, which pointed out that the waiver applicant had not submitted information on the availability of alternative transmitter sites. The Bureau conceded that the waiver request had not been fully considered in the Hearing Designation Order and that that order did not contain a reasoned analysis of the ... waiver request. 22 As a result the ALJ designated the waiver issue for resolution at the comparative hearing. The initial improvident grant of a waiver in this case, now described as an error, does not deprive the agency of authority to require future applicants to meet certain standards in order to obtain such a waiver. 15
16 Although it was perfectly proper for North Texas to select Lake Dallas as a community of license, such choice did not excuse the applicant from compliance with the FCC's short-spacing rule. North Texas, however, makes much of its alleged entitlement to preferential treatment under section 307(b) of the Federal Communications Act. Section 307(b) of the Act provides that, in considering applications for radio licenses, the Commission must provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service to as many communities as possible. 23 In making such a determination, the Commission is guided by three principal objectives, 24 only one of which is of decisional significance here--the provision of service of local origin to as many communities as possible. North Texas asserts that the local service criterion should weigh decisively in favor of its proposal, since it would provide first local service to Lake Dallas, or should, at the very least, militate in favor of a waiver of the mileage spacing rule. 17 We disagree. The FCC allocated channel 256 to Denton, Texas after a notice and comment proceeding during which 307(b) benefits were considered and a specific site restriction was imposed in order to meet spacing requirements to KTXU in Paris, Texas, KLVV in Dallas, Texas, and KPLX in Fort Worth, Texas. 25 In addition, the Commission found, in the context of the present waiver request, that the 307(b) virtues of appellant's application were outweighed by the strong policy in favor of maintaining the requirements of appropriate spacing as a means of allocating stations. 26 Finally, and most significantly, it is absolutely clear that, under normal circumstances, in order for an applicant for a new FM broadcast facility even to be considered for a waiver of the mileage separation rule, a threshold showing must be made that no properly spaced site is available. Section 307(b) considerations do not obviate this requirement.
18 North Texas also alleges that it was entitled to a waiver because the spacing violations in question were de minimis. 27 First, we note that North Texas failed to assert this claim before the Commission and thus is precluded from raising it here. 28 Second, the spacing violations inherent in appellant's proposal are far outside the range encompassed by the de minimis exception. 29 In fact, the North Texas spacing violation of 16.7 miles is more than double that of any prior FCC waiver based on the de minimis rationale. 30 The proposed transmitter site was thus substantially beyond the conceivable range of a de minimis violation as delimited by agency precedent. 31
19 Finally, North Texas argues that the FCC's failure to designate the waiver issue for decision at the comparative hearing was an unexplained and impermissible departure from agency precedent. In fact, however, in the FM radio context, the FCC's policy is to designate a short-spacing issue for resolution at the hearing only when an applicant can raise a substantial question of fact concerning its opponents' non-short-spaced sites. 32 North Texas not only failed to demonstrate that no properly spaced site was available to serve both Lake Dallas and Denton, but also failed to raise any question about the propriety of its opponents' transmitter sites. 33 20 Appellant's reliance on the FCC's television service policy, pursuant to which applications for the waiver of mileage separation rules are automatically considered at the comparative hearing, is misplaced. The FCC adheres to a long standing practice of examining requests for waiver of the FM spacing rules prior to the comparative hearing at which the license is awarded. North Texas had notice of this policy, and all applicants for FM broadcast facilities were subject to similar requirements. No unfair distinctions were made between similarly situated applicants. In addition, the FCC has a rational basis for distinguishing between waiver requests in FM radio and those in television. Far fewer television channels than FM radio facilities are subject to comparative proceedings, making it feasible to consider at the hearing all requests for waiver of the spacing rules in the former service. We therefore hold that the Commission's refusal to designate North Texas' waiver request for resolution at the hearing was entirely consistent with agency precedent. 34 III. CONCLUSION 21 We find that the FCC's refusal to waive its mileage separation rule and its consequent dismissal of the North Texas application for the FM broadcast facility on channel 256 were fully consistent with agency precedent. We therefore affirm the Commission's decision. 22 So Ordered.