Document: 349 U.S. 358 75 S.Ct. 855 99 L.Ed. 1147 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.ALLENTOWN BROADCASTING CORP. No. 451. Argued April 20, 21, 1955. Decided June 6, Mr. Warren E. Baker, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Donald C. Beelar, respondent. Justice REED delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case involves disposition two applications construction permits standard broadcast stations. One application was filed by Easton Publishing Co. Easton, Pennsylvania, and other Allentown Broadcasting Corp. Allentown, Pennsylvania. Both were same frequency, and, despite fact that neither station would render service to community, simultaneous operation stations cause mutually destructive interference. 2 Hearings first held in 1946 resulted grant application. The Court Appeals District Columbia Circuit reversed Commission remanded 'findings upon comparative needs communities new radio relative abilities applicants serve greater need.' Pub. v. Federal Communications Commission, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 40, 175 F.2d 344, 351. 3 New hearings 1951 an examiner whose initial decision recommended be granted. exceptions with after oral argument issued its final decision, disagreeing granting Easton. made detailed findings as qualifications nature served. Most factors provided no basis choosing between applicants. found legally, technically otherwise qualified become licensee; both equally need programs proposed each applicant. factor, however, crucial determining, under § 307(b) Act,1 which applicant should receive license. had three local stations; only one. recognized a city almost triple size growing at pace, but Easton's choice locally originated decisive. 4 reversed.2 Its examination record detail demonstrated it overruled Hearing Examiner erroneous. Since these findings, thought, body's ultimate finding ability serve, directed revaluate 'issue public interest.' It there substantial evidence support determination 'the their respective about equal.' concluded that, without this underlying finding, improper apply "choice service" principle. In view importance administration Act, certiorari granted review decision. 348 910, 296. 5 more important question presented certiorari, stated petitioner, is whether awarding AM licenses exclusive different communities, can select one community over another on former's if has are approximately equal communities. 6 judgment such preliminary necessary predicated requirement earlier controversy, not appealed, must be, above, also 'relative Appeals, we understand present case, thought principle applied where equal.3 7 challenges position. asserts when seek authority determines additional services then best community's need. Otherwise, argues subordinated locality. position quite clear Allentown's petition rehearing.4 8 We agree contention Commission. Section 307(b), note 1, supra, empowers allow so provide fair distribution among Fairness furthered recognition mouthpiece. second license order secure competition originating broadcasting interest appears us likewise within allowable area discretion. There instances use allocation means expression.5 9 hearing shows before conclusion applicant's superior capacity appraising day night existing staffs, little room except decisive factor competitive already had. originate awarded 10 reaching set aside Commission's reversal That court analyzed uncertainty affiliating networks listeners, reluctance, evasiveness lack candor principal witnesses concentration communications media hands who publisher newspaper, licensee FM television station. agreed None above circumstances themselves bar Each appraisals testimony put into facts derived from various interrogation. considering whole weighed, pro con, types programs, witnesses, desirability allocating controlled communication. 11 Appeals' error relies largely understanding Examiner's based demeanor witness Board "very preponderance recorded", citing National Labor Relations Universal Camera Corp., Cir., 190 429, 430. think attitude goes too far. seems adopt examiners administrative agencies 'clearly erroneous' rule Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., applicable courts. Board, 340 474, 492, 71 456, 467, 95 said, Management Act hearings: 12 'Section 10(c) provides 'If taken shall any person named complaint engaged or engaging unfair labor practice, state * *.' 61 Stat. 147, 29 U.S.C. (Supp. III) 160(c), U.S.C.A. 160(c). responsibility thus placed wholly inconsistent notion power reverse examiner's they erroneous.' Such limitation make drastic departure prior practice explicitness required.' 13 comment here applicable. See Administrative Procedure 60 242, 1007. 14 gives ruling policies instance. But rulings subject Courts scope defined 456 Pittsburgh Steamship Co., 498, 453, 479. correction errors law committed through jurisdiction. have Appeals. Therefore, below cannot stand. our function reinstate reviewing body proper remand reconsideration freed declared erroneous opinion. 15 Reversed. 16 DOUGLAS dissents. 17 BLACK took part consideration case. 'In licenses, modifications renewals thereof, insofar demand same, frequencies, hours operation, several States fair, efficient, equitable same.' 47 307(b). 94 353, 222 781. said: 'This 'choice service' gloss 1934, supra. Northwestern Ohio 'indeed difficult one,' 'propose(d) meritorious program designed meet affirmed appeal because 'no record,' approval limited equivalent Although purported find equivalence, whole—including Initial Decision—to essential equal. Hence, hold fatal requires Commission.' called consider proposing community; instead, proposes Pennsylvania community. Under circumstances, primary required Act; namely, how distribute states 'to efficient having determined substantially facility than four stations, went consider, accordance mandate Company applicant.' Pike & Fischer Radio Regulation 889. Not yet officially reported. Newark F.C.C. 1269, 1271; 1945, Sky Way 425, 176 951; Newnan 1369; Lee-Smith 589; Finger Lakes System, 528; WMAK, Inc., 850; Southern Media 688; Lake Huron 1185; see Vermilion Fischer, 602(b).

Category: 7