Opinion ID: 461571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the garnerlynn application

Text: 26 In the LPTV Report and Order, the Commission announced that applicants with proposals pending would be afforded ninety days to amend their applications in order to bring them into compliance with the final LPTV rules. 28 One specific item of engineering data required for the first time in the new LPTV regulations was a frequency offset specification. Frequency offset operation permits a greater number of stations to occupy the same channel without destructive interference. An assigned frequency band or channel may be divided, and broadcasters may operate exclusively within the upper portion (plus offset), the middle portion (zero offset), or the lower portion (minus offset), of the band, or, alternatively, without any offset at all. Thus, a LPTV applicant, such as Garnerlynn, proposing to use a channel already occupied by a full power television station, may do so only if the full power licensee is operating with frequency offset and if the LPTV applicant specifies its selection of a different type of frequency offset. 27 In the LPTV Report and Order, the Commission noted a new requirement for applicants desiring to employ frequency offset: If an applicant proposes offset operation, an offset must be specified. 29 The possible types of offset (plus, minus, zero) were enumerated in the same paragraph. 30 28 On June 23, 1982, the Commission issued a Public Notice, directing applicants who had already filed to amend their applications within ninety days. 31 The notice contained a guide for the amendment of LPTV applications and answers to the most frequently asked questions relating to the recent Report and Order. Specific reference was made to the offset specification requirement: 29 Frequency Offset. Since the application form (FCC Form 346) does not elicit frequency offset information, any applicant proposing offset must so indicate by specifying zero, plus or minus offset in the amendment. 32 30 Although Garnerlynn stated in its engineering statement that it proposed to operate with frequency offset, nowhere in its proposal did it specify which type it would utilize. This case turns on whether Garnerlynn had adequate notice that it had to amend its application to specify frequency offset.
31 The LPTV Report and Order was properly published in the Federal Register. It is the FCC's principal statement regarding LPTV licenses. Any applicant, or other party with an interest in a LPTV license, should have read it carefully and been alerted to the forthcoming amendment period. In fact, Garnerlynn does not contend that it was not aware of the rulemaking and subsequent public notice. Instead, Garnerlynn attempts to characterize the amendment notice as obscure and hypertechnical, 33 and further contends that its unamended application met the FCC's requirements. 32 Garnerlynn is mistaken on both counts. First, we fail to see how the above-cited language of the public notice could be misunderstood. 34 Second, although Garnerlynn did note on the third page of its engineering statement that it proposed to use frequency offset, the type of offset to be utilized was mentioned neither on the face of the application nor in the engineering statement. The requirement is clear; applicants must specify the type of offset they propose to use on the application form. 33 Garnerlynn contends that the FCC should have deduced the type of offset proposed from its application. 35 However, it is not the agency's task to select for an applicant the type of operation that will minimize impermissible interference. We hold that the FCC gave notice to LPTV applicants that it would not perform this sort of a deduction; the burden was therefore on the LPTV applicant to submit a proposal acceptable to the FCC. Moreover, Garnerlynn's omission had a substantive effect on the FCC's ability to process the application. Absent the specification of zero offset, the Garnerlynn proposal was predicted to create unacceptable interference with the operation of a high power television station. 34 It is well-settled that to be entitled to consideration with other mutually acceptable applications, a proposal must meet the FCC's criteria of acceptability by the cut-off date established. 36 The Public Notice of the Amendment Period clearly required the specification of frequency offset. The agency staff's computer operators fed the unamended application's data into the LPTV program and predicted disqualifying interference with channel 5 in New York. Where, as here, the notice provided was so patently clear, the FCC was entirely justified in enforcing strict compliance with its amendment requirements in order to expedite the processing of literally thousands of LPTV applications.