*** CURRENT THROUGH P.L. 108-76, APPROVED 8/18/03 ***
 
             TITLE 47. TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS
 
                     CHAPTER 5. WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION
 
                    PROCEDURAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
 
                 Review Court Orders which may amend this Rule.
 
                             47 USCS § 402  (2003)
 
§ 402.  Judicial review of Commission's orders and decisions
 
(a) Procedure.  Any proceeding to enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend any order
 of the Commission under this Act (except those appealable under subsection (b)
 of this section) shall be brought as provided by and in the manner prescribed in
 chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code [28 USCS §§ 2341 et seq.].
 
(b) Right to appeal.  Appeals may be taken from decisions and orders of the
 Commission to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
 any of the following cases:
    (1) By any applicant for a construction permit or station license, whose
 application is denied by the Commission.
    (2) By any applicant for the renewal or modification of any such instrument
 of authorization whose application is denied by the Commission.
    (3) By any party to an application for authority to transfer, assign, or
 dispose of any such instrument of authorization, or any rights thereunder, whose
 application is denied by the Commission.
    (4) By any applicant for the permit required by section 325 of this Act [47
 USCS § 325] whose application has been denied by the Commission, or by any
 permittee under said section whose permit has been revoked by the Commission.
    (5) By the holder of any construction permit or station license which has
 been modified or revoked by the Commission.
    (6) By any other person who is aggrieved or whose interests are adversely
 affected by any order of the Commission granting or denying any application
 described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (9) hereof.
    (7) By any person upon whom an order to cease and desist has been served
 under section 312 of this Act [47 USCS § 312].
    (8) By any radio operator whose license has been suspended by the Commission.
    (9) By any applicant for authority to provide interLATA services under
 section 271 of this Act [47 USCS § 271] whose application is denied by the
 Commission.
 
(c) Filing notice of appeal; contents; jurisdiction; temporary orders.  Such
 appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court within thirty
 days from the date upon which public notice is given of the decision or order
 complained of. Such notice of appeal shall contain a concise statement of the
 nature of the proceedings as to which the appeal is taken; a concise statement
 of the reasons on which the appellant intends to rely, separately stated and
 numbered; and proof of service of a true copy of said notice and statement upon
 the Commission. Upon filing of such notice, the court shall have jurisdiction of
 the proceedings and of the questions determined therein and shall have power, by
 order, directed to the Commission or any other party to the appeal, to grant
 such temporary relief as it may deem just and proper. Orders granting temporary
 relief may be either affirmative or negative in their scope and application so
 as to permit either the maintenance of the status quo in the matter in which the
 appeal is taken or the restoration of a position or status terminated or
 adversely affected by the order appealed from and shall, unless otherwise
 ordered by the court, be effective pending hearing and determination of said
 appeal and compliance by the Commission with the final judgment of the court
 rendered in said appeal.
 
(d) Notice to interested parties; filing of record.  Upon the filing of any such
 notice of appeal the appellant shall, not later than five days after the filing
 of such notice, notify each person shown by the records of the Commission to be
 interested in said appeal of the filing and pendency of the same. The Commission
 shall file with the court the record upon which the order complained of was
 entered, as provided in section 2112 of Title 28, United States Code.
 
(e) Intervention.  Within thirty days after the filing of any such appeal any
 interested person may intervene and participate in the proceedings had upon said
 appeal by filing with the court a notice of intention to intervene and a
 verified statement showing the nature of the interest of such party, together
 with proof of service of true copies of said notice and statement, both upon
 appellant and upon the Commission. Any person who would be aggrieved or whose
 interest would be adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the order
 of the Commission complained of shall be considered an interested party.
 
(f) Records and briefs.  The record and briefs upon which any such appeal shall
 be heard and determined by the court shall contain such information and
 material, and shall be prepared within such time and in such manner as the court
 may by rule prescribe.
 
(g) Time of hearing; procedure.  The court shall hear and determine the appeal
 upon the record before it in the manner prescribed by section 706 of title 5,
 United States Code.
 
(h) Remand.  In the event that the court shall render a decision and enter an
 order reversing the order of the Commission, it shall remand the case to the
 Commission to carry out the judgment of the court and it shall be the duty of
 the Commission, in the absence of the proceedings to review such judgment, to
 forthwith give effect thereto, and unless otherwise ordered by the court, to do
 so upon the basis of the proceedings already had and the record upon which said
 appeal was heard and determined.
 
(i) Judgment for costs.  The court may, in its discretion, enter judgment for
 costs in favor of or against an appellant, or other interested parties
 intervening in said appeal, but not against the Commission, depending upon the
 nature of the issues involved upon said appeal and the outcome thereof.
 
(j) Finality of decision; review by Supreme Court.  The court's judgment shall
 be final, subject, however, to review by the Supreme Court of the United States
 upon writ of certiorari on petition therefor under section 1254 of title 28 of
 the United States Code, by the appellant, by the Commission, or by any
 interested party intervening in the appeal, or by certification by the court
 pursuant to the provisions of that section.
 
HISTORY:    (June 19, 1934, ch 652, Title IV, § 402, 48 Stat. 1093; May 20,
 1937, ch 229, §§ 11-13, 50 Stat. 197; May 24, 1949, ch 139, § 132, 63 Stat. 108;
 July 16, 1952, ch 879, § 14, 66 Stat. 718; Aug. 28, 1958, P.L. 85-791, § 12, 72
 Stat. 945; Sept. 13, 1982, P.L. 97-259, Title I, §§ 121, 127(b), 96 Stat. 1097,
 1099; Nov. 8, 1984, P.L. 98-620, Title IV, Subtitle A, § 402(50), 98 Stat. 3361;
 Feb. 8, 1996, P.L. 104-104, Title I, Subtitle B, § 151(b), 110 Stat. 107.)
 
                    HISTORY; ANCILLARY LAWS AND DIRECTIVES
 
References in text:
    "This Act", referred to in this section, is Act June 19, 1934, ch 652,
 popularly known as the Communications Act of 1934, which appears generally as 47
 USCS §§ 151 et seq. For full classification of such Act, consult USCS Tables
 volumes.
 
Effective date of section:
    For effective date of section, see Act June 19, 1934, ch 652, Title VII
 [Title VI], § 707 [607], 48 Stat. 1105, which appears as 47 USCS § 607.
 
Amendments:
    1937. Act May 20, 1937, in subsec. (a), inserted ", or suspending a radio
 operator's license"; added subsec. (b)(3); and in subsec. (c), inserted "or
 order".
    1949. Act May 24, 1949, in subsec. (a), substituted "title 28 of the United
 States Code" for "the Act of Oct. 22, 1913 (38 Stat. 219)" and substituted "such
 title 28" for "that Act".
    1952. Act July 16, 1952 (applicable as provided by § 19(2) of such Act, which
 appears as a note to this section), substituted this section for one which read:
    "(a) The provisions of title 28 of the United States Code, relating to the
 enforcing or setting aside of the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission,
 are hereby made applicable to suits to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul, or
 suspend any order of the Commission under this Act (except any order of the
 Commission granting or refusing an application for a construction permit for a
 radio station, or for a radio station license, or for renewal of an existing
 radio station license, or for modification of an existing radio station license,
 or suspending a radio operator's license), and such suits are hereby authorized
 to be brought as provided in such title 28.
    "(b) An appeal may be taken, in the manner hereinafter provided, from
 decisions of the Commission to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
 in any of the following cases:
       "(1) By any applicant for a construction permit for a radio station, or
 for a radio station license, or for renewal of an existing radio station
 license, or for modification of an existing radio station license, whose
 application is refused by the Commission.
       "(2) By any other person aggrieved or whose interests are adversely
 affected by any decision of the Commission granting or refusing any such
 application.
       "(3) By any radio operator whose license has been suspended by the
 Commission.
    "(c) Such appeal shall be taken by filing with said court within twenty days
 after the decision complained of is effective, notice in writing of said appeal
 and a statement of the reasons therefor, together with proof of service of a
 true copy of said notice and statement upon the Commission. Unless a later date
 is specified by the Commission as part of its decision, the decision complained
 of shall be considered to be effective as of the date on which public
 announcement of the decision is made at the office of the Commission in the city
 of Washington. The Commission shall thereupon immediately, and in any event not
 later than five days from the date of such service upon it, mail or otherwise
 deliver a copy of said notice of appeal to each person shown by the records of
 the Commission to be interested in such appeal and to have a right to intervene
 therein under the provisions of this section, and shall at all times thereafter
 permit any such person to inspect and make copies of the appellant's statement
 of reasons for said appeal at the office of the Commission in the city of
 Washington. Within thirty days after the filing of said appeal the Commission
 shall file with the court the originals or certified copies of all papers and
 evidence presented to it upon the application or order involved, and also a like
 copy of its decision thereon, and shall within thirty days thereafter file a
 full statement in writing of the facts and grounds for its decision as found and
 given by it, and a list of all interested persons to whom it has mailed or
 otherwise delivered a copy of said notice of appeal.
    "(d) Within thirty days after the filing of said appeal any interested person
 may intervene and participate in the proceedings had upon said appeal by filing
 with the court a notice of intention to intervene and a verified statement
 showing the nature of the interest of such party, together with proof of service
 of true copies of said notice and statement, both upon appellant and upon the
 Commission. Any person who would be aggrieved or whose interests would be
 adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the decision of the
 Commission complained of shall be considered an interested party.
    "(e) At the earliest convenient time the court shall hear and determine the
 appeal upon the record before it, and shall have power, upon such record, to
 enter a judgment affirming or reversing the decision of the Commission, and in
 event the court shall render a decision and enter an order reversing the
 decision of the Commission, it shall remand the case to the Commission to carry
 out the judgment of the court: Provided, however, That the review by the court
 shall be limited to questions of law and that findings of fact by the
 Commission, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive unless it
 shall clearly appear that the findings of the Commission are arbitrary or
 capricious. The court's judgment shall be final, subject, however, to review by
 the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari on petition
 therefor under section 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended, by appellant, by
 the Commission, or by any interested party intervening in the appeal.
    "(f) The court may, in its discretion, enter judgment for costs in favor of
 or against an appellant, and/or other interested parties intervening in said
 appeal, but not against the Commission, depending upon the nature of the issues
 involved upon said appeal and the outcome thereof.".
    1958. Act Aug. 28, 1958, in subsec. (d), substituted "the record upon which
 the order complained of was entered, as provided in section 2112 of title 28,
 United States Code." for "a copy of the order complained of, a full statement in
 writing of the facts and grounds relied upon by it in support of the order
 involved upon said appeal, and the originals or certified copies of all papers
 and evidence presented to and considered by it in entering said order.".
    1982. Act Sept. 13, 1982, in subsec. (a), substituted "chapter 158 of title
 28, United States Code.". for "Public Law 901, Eighty-first Congress, approved
 December 29, 1950."; and, in subsec. (d), substituted "appellant" for
 "Commission", substituted "filing of such notice" for "date of service upon it",
 deleted "and shall thereafter permit any such person to inspect and make copies
 of said notice and statement of reasons therefor at the office of the Commission
 in the city of Washington" following "pendency of the same", and substituted
 "The" for "Within thirty days after the filing of an appeal, the".
    1984. Act Nov. 8, 1984 (applicable as provided by § 403 of such Act, which
 appears as 28 USCS § 1657 note), in subsec. (g), substituted "The" for "At the
 earliest convenient time the" and substituted "706 of title 5, United States
 Code" for "10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act".
    1996. Act Feb. 8, 1996, in subsec. (b), in para. (6), substituted "(3), (4),
 and (9)" for "(3), and (4)", and added para. (9).
 
Other provisions:
    Application of July 16, 1952 amendment. Act July 16, 1952, ch 879, § 19(2),
 66 Stat. 722, provided: "The amendments made by this Act to section 402 of the
 Communications Act of 1934 [this section] (relating to judicial review of orders
 and decisions of the Commission) shall not apply with respect to any action or
 appeal which is pending before any court on the date of enactment of this Act.".
 
NOTES:
 
                               CROSS REFERENCES
    This section is referred to in 28 USCS § 2342; 47 USCS §§ 159, 204, 208, 405,
 503.
 
                                RESEARCH GUIDE
 
Federal Procedure:
    17 Moore's Federal Practice (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), Determination of Proper
 Venue § 110.60.
    20 Moore's Federal Practice (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), Review or Enforcement of
 an Agency Order--How Obtained; Intervention § 315.20.
    22 Moore's Federal Practice (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), Jurisdiction Over
 Administrative Agencies and Orders §§ 409.02, 03.
    17 Moore's Federal Practice (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), Determination of Proper
 Venue § 110.60.
    20 Moore's Federal Practice (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), Review or Enforcement of
 an Agency Order--How Obtained; Intervention § 315.20.
    22 Moore's Federal Practice (Matthew Bender 3d ed.), Jurisdiction Over
 Administrative Agencies and Orders §§ 409.02, 03.
    2 Fed Proc L Ed, Administrative Procedure §§ 2:265, 272.
    31 Fed Proc L Ed, Telecommunications §§ 72:931-933, 936-947, 950-954, 965,
 974, 1037.
 
Am Jur:
    74 Am Jur 2d, Telecommunications §§ 31, 157-160.
 
Forms:
    15A Fed Procedural Forms L Ed, Telecommunications (2002) §§ 62:384-388.
    23A Am Jur Pl & Pr Forms (Rev ed), Telecommunications §§ 49-52.
 
Law Review Articles:
    Judicial Power to Extend FCC Divestiture Orders.  24 Wayne L Rev 1421, July
 1978.
 
                        INTERPRETIVE NOTES AND DECISIONS
 
I. IN GENERAL
  1. Generally
  2. Constitutionality
  3. Construction
 
II. JURISDICTION
 
A. In General
  4. Generally
  5. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
 
B. Particular Courts
  6. Courts of Appeals
  7. --Court of Appeals for District of Columbia
  8. Supreme Court
  9. Court of Federal Claims
  10. District Courts
 
III. APPEALABLE ORDERS OR DECISIONS
  11. Generally
  12. Finality requirement
  13. Commission action having effect of order or decision
  14. Orders affecting third parties
  15. License applications
  16. Construction permit applications
  17. Renewal and modification applications
  18. Transfer and assignment applications
  19. Other matters
 
IV. STANDING TO APPEAL
  20. Generally
  21. Aggrieved or interested person
  22. Applicants
  23. Licensees
  24. --Economic injury
  25. Related corporations
  26. Miscellaneous
 
V. APPELLATE REVIEW
 
A. Scope and Standard of Review
  27. Generally
  28. Commission discretion
  29. Sufficiency of evidence
  30. Adequacy of administrative procedure
 
B. Stay
  31. Generally
 
C. Remand
  32. Generally
  33. Remand of particular determinations
  34. Reopening of proceedings upon remand
 
D. Injunctions
  35. Generally
  36. Availability of adequate legal remedy
 
E. Effect of Judgment or Decision on Appeal
  37. Generally
 
F. Other Particular Matters
  38. Parties
  39. Statement of reasons for appeal
  40. --Purpose
  41. --Sufficiency
  42. Time for filing of appeal
  43. Miscellaneous
 
I. IN GENERAL
 
1. Generally
    Purposes sought to be accomplished by 47 USCS § 402 and 28 USCS § 2324 would
 be defeated if suitor were unable to resort to them to avoid reasonably
 anticipated irreparable injury resulting from legal consequences of Commission's
 order, merely because Commission as yet has neither refused to renew license, as
 regulations require, nor cancelled license, as regulations permit.  Columbia
 Broadcasting System, Inc. v United States (1942) 316 US 407, 86 L Ed 1563, 62 S
 Ct 1194.
    Purpose of statutory provision for limited judicial review of decisions of
 Federal Communications Commission does not require United States Court of
 Appeals to do futile thing or one the only consequence of which would be to
 delay final determination of entire controversy.  Evans v FCC (1940) 72 App DC
 159, 113 F2d 166.
 
2. Constitutionality
    It is within power of Congress to confer upon licensee of radio broadcasting
 station standing to appeal from order licensing rival station.  FCC v Sanders
 Bros. Radio Station (1940) 309 US 470, 84 L Ed 869, 60 S Ct 693, reh den (1940)
 309 US 642, 84 L Ed 1037 and (criticized in Busse Broadcasting Corp. v FCC
 (1996, App DC) 318 US App DC 447, 87 F3d 1456).
 
3. Construction
    The word "person" in 47 USCS § 402(b)(7) includes a nonlicensee of the
 commission.  Valley Vision, Inc. v FCC (1968, CA9) 399 F2d 511.
    Provision of 47 USCS § 402 for appeals by persons aggrieved or whose
 interests are adversely affected should not be given its broadest literal
 meaning.  Yankee Network, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 11, 107 F2d 212.
 
II. JURISDICTION
 
A. In General
 
4. Generally
    Provisions for judicial review contained in 47 USCS §§ 402(a) and (b) are
 mutually exclusive.  Friedman v FCC (1959, App DC) 105 US App DC 47, 263 F2d
 493.
 
5. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
    No one is entitled to judicial relief for supposed or threatened injury until
 prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.  FCC v Schreiber (1965) 381
 US 279, 14 L Ed 2d 383, 85 S Ct 1459.
    Proceedings for judicial review of final orders of FCC may be brought only in
 federal Court of Appeals; if party seeking review is not party to FCC's
 rulemaking proceeding, it cannot get review by Court of Appeals without first
 petitioning FCC to reconsider rule pursuant to 47 USCS § 405. Peoria v General
 Electric Cablevision Corp. (GECCO) (1982, CA7 Ill) 690 F2d 116.
    Whether appellant has appealable interest cannot be decided until he has had
 opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies.  Great Western Broadcasting
 Ass'n v FCC (1937) 68 App DC 119, 94 F2d 244; Woodmen of World Life Ins. Ass'n v
 Federal Communications Com. (1938) 69 App DC 87, 99 F2d 122.
    There being several remedies open to broadcasting company as interested and
 aggrieved person, when another company is granted permit to open station, it is
 its duty to exhaust all remedies before Commission before appealing to court,
 and one so aggrieved, having notice of application, who fails to ask for
 rehearing, cannot be heard on appeal.  Red River Broadcasting Co. v Federal
 Communications Com. (1938) 69 App DC 1, 98 F2d 282, cert den (1938) 305 US 625,
 83 L Ed 400, 59 S Ct 86.
    Administrative remedies must be exhausted before judicial review.  Yankee
 Network, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 11, 107 F2d 212.
    Commission must be given opportunity to pass on question of fact or law
 before petitioner may seek judicial review, hence, where petitioners failed to
 raise before Commission question of propriety of 1.6 kilometer benchmark
 standard for judging substantial accordance with authorized coordinates of
 private mobile land radio station, judicial review of issue was precluded.
 Cassell v FCC (1998, App DC) 332 US App DC 156, 154 F3d 478.
    District Court has no jurisdiction in proceedings pending before Federal
 Communications Commission before administrative remedies have been exhausted and
 review is sought.  Hearst Radio, Inc. v Federal Communications Com. (1947, DC
 Dist Col) 73 F Supp 308, affd (1948, App DC) 83 US App DC 63, 167 F2d 225.
    Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for a District Court to
 stay effect of FCC family viewing policy where it is shown that Commission is
 biased toward policy and where agency has taken action beyond its jurisdiction
 thereby imposing immediate burden on exercise of important rights.  Writers
 Guild of America, West, Inc. v FCC (1976, CD Cal) 423 F Supp 1064, 2 Media L R
 1009, vacated on other grounds (1979, CA9 Cal) 609 F2d 355, 5 Media L R 2121,
 cert den (1980) 449 US 824, 66 L Ed 2d 27, 101 S Ct 85.
 
B. Particular Courts
 
6. Courts of Appeals
    Exclusive jurisdiction for review of final FCC orders, such as denial of
 rulemaking petition, lies in Court of Appeals under 28 USCS § 2342 and 47 USCS §
 402; litigants may not evade these provisions by requesting District Court to
 enjoin action that is outcome of agency's order on grounds that such action is
 ultra vires agency's authority.  FCC v ITT World Communications, Inc. (1984) 466
 US 463, 80 L Ed 2d 480, 104 S Ct 1936, 10 Media L R 1685.
    United States Court of Appeals for ninth circuit will not review action of
 FCC under 47 USCS § 402(a) where such action is ancillary to protest proceeding
 pending before Commission and where United States Court of Appeals for the
 District of Columbia, which has exclusive jurisdiction under 47 USCS § 402(b)
 over such Commission orders entered in protest proceedings, has already had
 occasion to act and may again be required to act upon it.  Helena TV, Inc. v FCC
 (1959, CA9) 269 F2d 30.
    47 USCS § 402(a) is residual category and courts other than Court of Appeals
 for District of Columbia have jurisdiction only if 47 USCS § 402(b) does not
 apply; consequently, Court of Appeals for first circuit does not have
 jurisdiction to hear appeal by person aggrieved by Commission's authorization of
 program test authority.  WHDH, Inc. v United States (1972, CA1) 457 F2d 559.
    Proceedings for judicial review of final orders of FCC may be brought only in
 federal Court of Appeals; if party seeking review is not party to FCC's
 rulemaking proceeding, it cannot get review by Court of Appeals without first
 petitioning FCC to reconsider rule pursuant to 47 USCS § 405. Peoria v General
 Electric Cablevision Corp. (GECCO) (1982, CA7 Ill) 690 F2d 116.
    Declaratory ruling issued by FCC was final order reviewable under 47 USCS §
 402(a) only by court of appeals, and therefore action appealing ruling which was
 brought in district court was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter
 jurisdiction. Wilson v A.H. Belo Corp. (1996, CA9 Cal) 87 F3d 393, 96 CDOS 4759,
 96 Daily Journal DAR 7667, 24 Media L R 2166.
    Because jurisdiction over claims brought against FCC in its regulatory
 capacity lies exclusively in federal courts of appeals, bankruptcy court and
 district court lacked jurisdiction to determine whether winning bidder for
 spectrum licenses had satisfied regulatory conditions placed by FCC on its
 retention of licenses or whether bidder's payment obligations were
 constructively fraudulent. FCC v Nextwave Personal Communs., Inc. (In re
 Nextwave Personal Communs., Inc.) (1999, CA2 NY) 200 F3d 43, 35 BCD 122, motions
 ruled upon (2000, CA2) 2000 US App LEXIS 1180 and cert den (2000) 531 US 924,
 148 L Ed 2d 240, 121 S Ct 298, reh den (2000) 531 US 1030, 148 L Ed 2d 519, 121
 S Ct 609 and (criticized in United States ex rel. FCC v GWI PCS 1, Inc. (In re
 GWI PCS 1, Inc.) (2000, CA5 Tex) 230 F3d 788, 36 BCD 239).
    Court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to decide any proceeding to
 enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of Commission, and therefore,
 district court did not have jurisdiction over individual's defenses in which he
 challenged validity of implementing regulations, since attacking FCC regulations
 is equivalent to action to enjoin, annul, or set aside order of FCC. United
 States v Dunifer (2000, CA9 Cal) 219 F3d 1004, 2000 CDOS 6061, 2000 Daily
 Journal DAR 7991.
    Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review action of Commission in refusing
 petition of radio station to set down for hearing application of another radio
 station for renewal of license, where facts disclosed that operation of license
 of applicant did interfere with operation of license of petitioner.  Radio
 Station WOW, Inc. v FCC (1950, App DC) 87 US App DC 226, 184 F2d 257.
    Although amateur radio station operator's notice of appeal characterized his
 appeal as being from FCC's order deny his petition for reconsideration, because
 operator's intent to appeal FCC's underlying decision could reasonably be
 inferred from his concise statement of reasons which he filed with his notice of
 appeal as required by 47 USCS § 402(c), FCC could not claim that any notice
 defects surprised or misled it, and therefore, appellate court had jurisdiction
 to review FCC's decision to deny renewal of operator's amateur radio licenses.
 Schoenbohm v FCC (2000, App DC) 340 US App DC 205, 204 F3d 243, cert den (2000)
 531 US 968, 148 L Ed 2d 312, 121 S Ct 405.
    Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Appeal under 47 USCS § 402(a) providing
 that proceedings to challenge orders of Commission shall be brought under
 Administrative Orders Review Act (predecessor to 28 USCS § 2342) is reserved
 only for review of final orders of Commission.  Writers Guild of America, West,
 Inc. v FCC (1976, CD Cal) 423 F Supp 1064, 2 Media L R 1009, vacated on other
 grounds (1979, CA9 Cal) 609 F2d 355, 5 Media L R 2121, cert den (1980) 449 US
 824, 66 L Ed 2d 27, 101 S Ct 85.
    Action challenging validity of FCC's family viewing policy was not within
 exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Appeals where informal pressure applied to TV
 networks, which amounted to informal regulation without agency proceedings and
 without public notice, were not "orders" of Commission within meaning of 47 USCS
 § 402. Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v FCC (1976, CD Cal) 423 F Supp
 1064, 2 Media L R 1009, vacated on other grounds (1979, CA9 Cal) 609 F2d 355, 5
 Media L R 2121, cert den (1980) 449 US 824, 66 L Ed 2d 27, 101 S Ct 85.
    It is beyond power of District Court to review propriety or legality of order
 of Federal Communications Commission since Congress has vested that jurisdiction
 only in Court of Appeals.  South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v Louisiana Public Service
 Com. (1983, MD La) 570 F Supp 227, affd (1984, CA5 La) 744 F2d 1107, vacated on
 other grounds, remanded (1986) 476 US 1166, 90 L Ed 2d 972, 106 S Ct 2884.
    Neighbors' complaint, based upon private nuisance theory, about amateur radio
 operator's interference with their radio and television reception must be
 dismissed, because jurisdiction to control interferences over airwaves rests
 exclusively with FCC, and exclusive review of FCC final orders lies in court of
 appeals, under 28 USCS § 2342(1) and 47 USCS §§ 402(a) and (b).  Still v
 Michaels (1992, DC Ariz) 791 F Supp 248.
 
7. --Court of Appeals for District of Columbia
    Commission order refusing to consider application for license for radio
 station is order in aid of and within exercise of Commission's licensing power
 and appeals from such orders are limited to Court of Appeals for District of
 Columbia.  Cook, Inc. v United States (1968, CA7) 394 F2d 84.
    Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has exclusive jurisdiction
 under 47 USCS § 402(b) to review Commission's cease and desist order against
 nonlicensee CATV operators.  Valley Vision, Inc. v FCC (1968, CA9) 399 F2d 511.
    Program test authority, while not actually a license itself, is nevertheless
 ancillary to exercise of FCC licensing power such that appeals from Commission's
 actions with respect to such authority must be taken pursuant to 47 USCS § 402
 (b).  WHDH, Inc. v United States (1972, CA1) 457 F2d 559.
    Exclusive jurisdiction to review FCC denial of Amateur Radio Service license
 is with Court of Appeals for District of Columbia.  Rippe v FCC (1976, CA6) 528
 F2d 771.
    FCC's denial of application for broadcast license by microbroadcaster was
 subject to review only in U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia, and
 argument that FCC's policies regarding microbroadcasters were
 unconstitutional could also have been considered by that court. La Voz Radio de
 la Communidad v FCC (2000, CA6 Mich) 223 F3d 313, 28 Media L R 2217, 2000 FED
 App 262P.
    Right afforded by appeal to United States Court of Appeals for District of
 Columbia by person aggrieved or whose interests are adversely affected, does not
 depend upon right to resort to District Court.  Yankee Network, Inc. v FCC
 (1939) 71 App DC 11, 107 F2d 212.
    Court of Appeals for District of Columbia does not have jurisdiction under 47
 USCS 402(b) to review action of Commission in refusing petition of radio station
 in which it asked modification of license issued over 2 years before to another
 station, since right to modification of license is restricted to holder of
 license.  Radio Station WOW, Inc. v FCC (1950, App DC) 87 US App DC 226, 184 F2d
 257.
    Court of appeals has jurisdiction over international telephone carrier's
 petition for review of FCC's order conditionally granting plaintiff
 authorization to provide international telephone service between U.S. and
 Guyana, and exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required before seeking
 judicial review, since plaintiff was not applying for station license or
 construction permit, and applicant was not required to reject conditional grant
 as prerequisite to judicial review. Atlantic Tele-Network v FCC (1995, App DC)
 313 US App DC 396, 59 F3d 1384.
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals does not have exclusive jurisdiction of
 suit seeking to require the Federal Communications Commission to issue
 certificate for tax purposes under 26 USCS § 1071 that sale of television
 station was necessary.  Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Co. v FCC (1969, WD NC)
 297 F Supp 784, 23 AFTR 2d 1636.
    Under 47 USCS § 402(b), District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has
 exclusive jurisdiction over any attempt to set aside or determine validity of
 any final FCC order involving licensing process, including Fifth Amendment
 challenge to denial of licenses to aliens under 47 USCS § 303. Campos v FCC
 (1980, ND Ill) 487 F Supp 865, app dismd (1981, CA7 Ill) 650 F2d 890.
    Provision of 47 USCS § 402 authorizing appeal from Commission to Court of
 Appeals for the District of Columbia precludes other courts from assuming equity
 jurisdiction to grant relief.  Monocacy Broadcasting Co. v Prall (1937, Dist Col
 App) 67 App DC 176, 90 F2d 421; Black River Valley Broadcasts, Inc. v McNinch
 (1938) 69 App DC 311, 101 F2d 235, cert den (1939) 307 US 623, 83 L Ed 1501, 59
 S Ct 793.
 
8. Supreme Court
    In considering question of sufficiency of evidence to support administrative
 order, Supreme Court must and does rely largely on first reviewing court's
 conclusion.  Radio Corp. of America v United States (1951) 341 US 412, 95 L Ed
 1062, 71 S Ct 806.
    United States Supreme Court is not reviewing body of ultimate administrative
 determinations of Federal Communications Commission, and Supreme Court, in
 finding errors of law in Court of Appeals' reversal of determination of Federal
 Communications Commission, will not reinstate the determination of Commission,
 but will remand case to Court of Appeals for reconsideration of record but freed
 from rulings which Supreme Court has declared erroneous.  FCC v Allentown
 Broadcasting Corp. (1955) 349 US 358, 99 L Ed 1147, 75 S Ct 855.
    Neither Court of Appeals nor United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction of
 controversy involving Federal Communications Commission order adopting
 regulations alleged to be invalid where party invoking appellate jurisdiction
 cannot rightfully seek review of order; in this situation, party challenging
 regulations may obtain judicial review only after action to his disadvantage has
 been taken under the regulations.  United States v Storer Broadcasting Co.
 (1956) 351 US 192, 100 L Ed 1081, 76 S Ct 763, 1 Media L R 1983.
 
9. Court of Federal Claims
    Enforcement of Communications Act of 1934 (47 USCS §§ 151 et seq.) rests in
 Federal Communications Commission and not in district courts, save for right of
 review of Commission's orders under 47 USCS § 402. McIntire v Wm. Penn
 Broadcasting Co. (1945, CA3 Pa) 151 F2d 597, cert den (1946) 327 US 779, 90 L Ed
 1007, 66 S Ct 530.
    Claims Court (now Court of Federal Claims) has jurisdiction to consider
 plaintiffs' claim where plaintiffs do not challenge validity or propriety of FCC
 order but instead argue that order itself is "taking".  Shanbaum v United States
 (1982) 1 Cl Ct 177, affd without op (1983, CA) 723 F2d 69.
    It is beyond power of District Court to review propriety or legality of order
 of Federal Communications Commission since Congress has vested that jurisdiction
 only in Court of Appeals.  South Cent. Bell Tel. Co. v Louisiana Public Service
 Com. (1983, MD La) 570 F Supp 227, affd (1984, CA5 La) 744 F2d 1107, vacated on
 other grounds, remanded (1986) 476 US 1166, 90 L Ed 2d 972, 106 S Ct 2884.
 
10. District Courts
    Provision of Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USCS § 227)
 banning automated, prerecorded calls to residences is content-neutral and
 narrowly tailored to advance legitimate government interest and leaves open
 ample alternative channels of communication, and therefore provision does not
 violate First Amendment; additionally, district court had jurisdiction to hear
 suit challenging constitutionality of 47 USCS § 227, since suit did not
 challenge any related FCC regulations. Moser v FCC (1995, CA9 Or) 46 F3d 970, 95
 CDOS 925, 132 ALR Fed 799, cert den (1995) 515 US 1161, 132 L Ed 2d 857, 115 S
 Ct 2615.
    District court does not have jurisdiction to entertain challenge to FCC
 regulations, and therefore, in action for in rem forfeiture of radio equipment
 used to broadcast without license, district court did not have jurisdiction to
 also hear defendant's constitutional challenges to regulations that prohibited
 microbroadcasters from obtaining licenses or operating without licenses, even
 though constitutional challenges were brought as affirmative defenses. United
 States v Any & All Radio Station Transmission Equip. (2000, CA8 Minn) 207 F3d
 458, reh, en banc, den (2000, CA8) 2000 US App LEXIS 15698 and cert den (2001)
 531 US 1071, 148 L Ed 2d 663, 121 S Ct 761.
    Microbroadcaster could not file preemptive suit in district court in
 anticipation of adverse decision by FCC on microbroadcaster's application for
 license, because where review of agency's actions has been expressly committed
 to designated court of appeals, that court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction
 over any suit seeking relief that might affect its future statutory power of
 review, and review of FCC's actions has been expressly committed to Court of
 Appeals for District of Columbia. La Voz Radio de la Communidad v FCC (2000, CA6
 Mich) 223 F3d 313, 28 Media L R 2217, 2000 FED App 262P.
    District court had subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings for
 enforcement of FCC order, in spite of fact that station owner had appealed same
 order to D.C. Circuit, and in spite of fact that station owner raised identical
 issues in both courts; rather than creating system of conflicting jurisdiction,
 47 USCS § 401(b) and § 402(b), operated to permit parallel concurrent suits in
 district court and D.C. Circuit. United States v Peninsula Communs., Inc. (2002,
 CA9 Alaska) 287 F3d 832, 2002 CDOS 3444.
    District Court may not exercise jurisdiction over Commission's actions
 otherwise exclusively within jurisdiction of Court of Appeals under 47 USCS §
 402(a) merely because violation of National Environmental Policy Act (42 USCS §
 4332) is alleged.  Rochester v Bond (1979, App DC) 195 US App DC 345, 603 F2d
 927.
    District court has general federal question jurisdiction to consider facial
 challenge to constitutionality of Cable Act (47 USCS §§ 402 et seq.) so long as
 that challenge is not raised in suit challenging validity of agency action taken
 pursuant to challenged statute or in suit that is collateral to one challenging
 validity of such agency action. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v FCC (1996,
 App DC) 320 US App DC 294, 93 F3d 957, reh, en banc, den (1997, App DC) 323 US
 App DC 109, 105 F3d 723.
    Federal District Court has jurisdiction of action by labor union against
 defendant telegraph company for damages and injunctive relief for breach of
 contract under which plaintiff was designated exclusive bargaining agent of
 defendant's employees resulting from defendant's assumption of contract of
 another telegraph company with another labor union when defendant company merged
 with such other company.  Commercial Telegraphers' Union, AFL v Western Union
 Tel. Co. (1943, DC Dist Col) 53 F Supp 90, 13 BNA LRRM 713.
    United States District Court for Southern District of Texas does not have
 jurisdiction of action by owner of radio station in Houston, Texas, against
 United States and Federal Communications Commission to annul opinion of
 defendant Commission as to meaning and effect of 47 USCS § 315 and to enjoin its
 enforcement, where complaint alleges that such interpretation or opinion,
 announced by Commission in course of deciding in reapplication of Port Huron
 broadcasting company, in effect declared that censorship forbidden by 47 USCS §
 315 is absolute and extends to censoring for libelous or slanderous matter,
 where challenged language of Commission was not order, but is instead an opinion
 that radio stations ought to be, and are, exempt, from libel laws in connection
 with political broadcasts and ought not to be, and are not, permitted to censor
 them for libel.  Houston Post Co. v United States (1948, DC Tex) 79 F Supp 199.
    FCC denial of broadcaster's request for tax certificate under 26 USCS § 1071
 (a) is reviewable by United States District Court in that such denial is neither
 order of Commission for purposes of 47 USCS § 402(a) nor is such review an
 appeal within meaning of 47 USCS § 402(b) nor is issuance of tax certificate
 ancillary to Commission's power to issue licenses.  Jefferson Standard
 Broadcasting Co. v FCC (1969, WD NC) 297 F Supp 784, 23 AFTR 2d 1636.
    United States District Court does not have jurisdiction to hear complaint by
 political candidate claiming that FCC should require broadcasting station to
 afford him free political advertisement time, notwithstanding fact that
 plaintiff alleges that claim is based on United States Constitution since it is
 order of Commission denying him relief of which he complains and any proceeding
 to enjoin, satisfy, annul or suspend any order of FCC must, under 47 USCS § 402,
 be taken either to Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or Court of
 Appeals in which one of parties resides.  Morrisseau v Mt. Mansfield Television,
 Inc. (1974, DC Vt) 380 F Supp 512.
    District Court has jurisdiction to invalidate pre-emption order of FCC, since
 proceeding is not to enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend any order of FCC,
 making 47 USCS § 402(a) applicable, and since determination of issue is merely
 incidental to action over which District Court has ample jurisdictional basis.
 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm'n (1984, ED Ark) 584 F
 Supp 1087, revd on other grounds, remanded (1984, CA8 Ark) 738 F2d 901, vacated
 on other grounds, remanded (1986) 476 US 1167, 90 L Ed 2d 973, 106 S Ct 2885.
    Hispanic radio stations' challenge to FCC must be dismissed, where stations'
 applications for licensure have been submitted to FCC, because scheme provided
 at 47 USCS § 402 cuts off District Court's jurisdiction over this action, and
 judicial review of adverse order of FCC is available in Circuit Court. Radio Luz
 v FCC (1999, ED Pa) 88 F Supp 2d 372, affd without op (2000, CA3 Pa) 213 F3d
 629.
    Court approved California Public Utilities Commission's decisions as to
 common cost of incumbent local exchange carrier's (ILEC's) leasing unbundled
 network elements to competitive local exchange carriers to exclude risk adder,
 holding that to extent that ILEC was arguing that Federal Communications
 Commission's rules, as set forth in In re Matter of Implementation of Local
 Competition Provisions in Telecommunications Act of 1996, Interconnection
 between Local Exchange Carriers and Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers,
 11 F.C.C.R. 15499, 15702 (Aug. 8, 1996), were invalid, district court lacked
 jurisdiction to hear such argument under Hobbs Act. AT&T Communs. of Cal., Inc.
 v Pac. Bell Tel. Co. (2002, ND Cal) 228 F Supp 2d 1086.
 
III. APPEALABLE ORDERS OR DECISIONS
 
11. Generally
    Particular label placed by Federal Communications Commission upon matter
 decided by it is not necessarily conclusive on question whether such matter is
 in the form of "order" subject to review under 47 USCS § 402(a); if effect of
 order of Federal Communications Commission is to penalize licensees it is
 reviewable under 47 USCS § 402(a), and it does not cease to be so merely because
 it is not certain whether Commission will institute proceedings to enforce
 penalty incurred under its regulations for noncompliance.  Columbia Broadcasting
 System, Inc. v United States (1942) 316 US 407, 86 L Ed 1563, 62 S Ct 1194.
    Action challenging validity of FCC's family viewing policy was not within
 exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Appeals where informal pressure applied to TV
 networks, which amounted to informal regulation without agency proceedings and
 without public notice, were not "orders" of Commission within meaning of 47 USCS
 § 402. Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v FCC (1976, CD Cal) 423 F Supp
 1064, 2 Media L R 1009, vacated on other grounds (1979, CA9 Cal) 609 F2d 355, 5
 Media L R 2121, cert den (1980) 449 US 824, 66 L Ed 2d 27, 101 S Ct 85.
 
12. Finality requirement
    FCC order finding that wireline company engaged in anticompetitive conduct
 against radio common carrier is appealable "final order" within meaning of 47
 USCS § 402(a).  Capital Tel. Co. v FCC (1985, CA2) 777 F2d 868.
    Commission order denying intervention as a matter of right is a final order
 subject to immediate review.  Interstate Broadcasting Co. v United States (1960,
 App DC) 109 US App DC 255, 286 F2d 539.
    Jurisdiction exists under 5 USCS § 704 and 47 USCS § 402(b)(1) to review
 Commission's reversal of hearing examiner's decision to award license to
 appellant as preferable on a comparative basis to station (RKO) filing renewal
 application, notwithstanding Commission's contention that its decision on
 applications filed nine years previously was not "final" in that, after earlier
 refusing to reopen proceedings for additional evidence relating to possible
 anti-trust activities of RKO brought out in a hearing on another application,
 the Commission might eventually reconsider its present decision in light of
 ultimate resolution of latter case.  Fidelity Television, Inc. v FCC (1974, App
 DC) 163 US App DC 441, 502 F2d 443.
    Rejection of tariff is clearly a final order reviewable in Court of Appeals
 under 47 USCS § 402 and 28 USCS § 2342. American Broadcasting Cos. v FCC (1980,
 App DC) 213 US App DC 369, 663 F2d 133.
    Lack of final order does not automatically preclude Court of Appeals
 jurisdiction under 28 USCS § 1651 over claim that FCC unreasonably delayed in
 issuing order; court has present jurisdiction to hear claims concerning nonfinal
 agency action or inaction that might affect future statutory review of final
 agency action; claims of unreasonable agency delay fall into class of
 interlocutory appeals from agency action over which court exercises
 jurisdiction; in light of failure of commission to meet prior deadlines for
 proceedings, court retains jurisdiction.  Telecommunications Research & Action
 Center v FCC (1984, App DC) 242 US App DC 222, 750 F2d 70 (criticized in United
 States v Marine Shale Processors (1996, CA5 La) 81 F3d 1329, 42 Envt Rep Cas
 1481, 26 ELR 21012).
    Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Appeal under 47 USCS § 402(a) providing
 that proceedings to challenge orders of Commission shall be brought under
 Administrative Orders Review Act (predecessor to 28 USCS § 2342) is reserved
 only for review of final orders of Commission.  Writers Guild of America, West,
 Inc. v FCC (1976, CD Cal) 423 F Supp 1064, 2 Media L R 1009, vacated on other
 grounds (1979, CA9 Cal) 609 F2d 355, 5 Media L R 2121, cert den (1980) 449 US
 824, 66 L Ed 2d 27, 101 S Ct 85.
 
13. Commission action having effect of order or decision
    Determination by Federal Communications Commission through its telephone
 division that telephone company is under "control" of another company with which
 it has physical connections and for this reason is not excepted from
 jurisdiction of Commission, which determination is accompanied by order
 declaring that company is subject to provisions of Communications Act and to all
 orders of telephone division of Commission, is not exempt from judicial review
 under doctrine of "negative orders," but, applying more appropriate criteria of
 primary jurisdiction and administrative finality, constitutes reviewable order,
 since it has effect, not merely of determining abstractly status of company, but
 of immediately subjecting it to previously formulated mandatory orders of
 Commission directed to telephone companies.  Rochester Tel. Corp. v United
 States (1939) 307 US 125, 83 L Ed 1147, 59 S Ct 754.
    Fact that Federal Communications Commission in its report of investigation
 characterized regulations contained therein as announcements of policy does not
 make order promulgating such regulations any less subject to review under 47
 USCS § 402(a), where regulations were avowedly adopted in exercise of
 Commission's rule-making power.  Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v United
 States (1942) 316 US 407, 86 L Ed 1563, 62 S Ct 1194.
    Letter from FCC to radio station rescinding forfeiture of moneys imposed by
 Broadcast Bureau for station's alleged violation of "Personal Attack Rule" was
 an appealable "order" within meaning of 47 USCS § 402(a) where such letter
 clearly indicated Commission's belief that station's action in instant case
 constituted violation of such rule, even if not a violation so flagrant as to
 merit monetary penalty; if Commission's order was valid, infraction became
 permanent part of licensee's record and in all likelihood meant that future
 violations by licensee would result in harsher treatment than similar violations
 by other licensees.  Straus Communications, Inc. v FCC (1976, App DC) 174 US App
 DC 149, 530 F2d 1001.
    Although United States Court of Appeals may review actions of FCC where it
 seems that agency has departed from normal course of its proceedings to make
 gratuitous prejudicial determinations or has otherwise cloaked kinds of actions
 and harms normally associated with orders in nonreviewable garb; court does not
 have jurisdiction where (1) there was neither evidence of any procedural
 manipulation by Federal Communications Commission nor showing of genuine
 substantial harms, and (2) there was nothing unusual or gratuitous about
 Commission's inquiry into competitive effects, which fell squarely within normal
 scope of its rate-making proceeding.  American Tel. & Tel. Co. v FCC (1979, App
 DC) 195 US App DC 223, 602 F2d 401.
    FCC denial of broadcaster's request for tax certificate under 26 USCS § 1071
 (a) is reviewable by United States District Court in that such denial is neither
 order of Commission for purposes of 47 USCS § 402(a) nor is such review an
 appeal within meaning of 47 USCS § 402(b) nor is issuance of tax certificate
 ancillary to Commission's power to issue licenses.  Jefferson Standard
 Broadcasting Co. v FCC (1969, WD NC) 297 F Supp 784, 23 AFTR 2d 1636.
 
14. Orders affecting third parties
    Order dismissing without hearing protest of granting of application of
 competitor to change frequency and power of its broadcasting station is
 reviewable under 47 USCS § 402. Metropolitan Television Co. v United States
 (1955, App DC) 95 US App DC 326, 221 F2d 879.
    Commission order denying intervention as a matter of right is a final order
 subject to immediate review.  Interstate Broadcasting Co. v United States (1960,
 App DC) 109 US App DC 255, 286 F2d 539.
    Commission's order denying petition to stay and revoke construction permit
 for a radio station is to be considered an order "ancillary" to the grant of the
 construction permit and reviewable by the Court of Appeals under 47 USCS § 402
 (b).  Tomah-Mauston Broadcasting Co. v FCC (1962, App DC) 113 US App DC 204, 306
 F2d 811.
    Denial of objection to allowance of application for additional hours, made by
 another broadcaster, is "decision" if application was granted.  Sykes v Jenny
 Wren Co. (1935, Dist Col App) 64 App DC 379, 78 F2d 729, 104 ALR 864, cert den
 (1935) 296 US 624, 80 L Ed 443, 56 S Ct 147.
 
15. License applications
    Commission may not call license by another name and deprive broadcasting
 company of right of judicial review given it by Congress.  Crosley Corp. v FCC
 (1939) 70 App DC 312, 106 F2d 833, cert den (1939) 308 US 605, 84 L Ed 506, 60 S
 Ct 142.
 
16. Construction permit applications
    Where petitioner filed application for construction permit for commercial
 television in San Francisco, and Commission ordered consolidated hearing of all
 applicants with exception of one applicant and also withdrew one of channels,
 Court of Appeals of District of Columbia does not have appellate jurisdiction of
 appeal objecting to order of severance, since order did not deny or grant
 permit.  Pauley v FCC (1950, App DC) 86 US App DC 294, 181 F2d 292.
 
17. Renewal and modification applications
    47 USCS § 402 does not give radio station right to appeal Commission's order
 refusing to grant extension of experimental authorization granted under 47 USCS
 § 303(g), where authorization was granted on condition that it might be
 discontinued by Commission without advance notice of hearing.  Crosley Corp. v
 FCC (1939) 70 App DC 312, 106 F2d 833, cert den (1939) 308 US 605, 84 L Ed 506,
 60 S Ct 142.
    Commission's action in assigning new and fourth VHF channel to area in
 rule-making proceeding does not constitute modification of existing licensee's
 UHF license on theory that granting of additional VHF channel will work severe
 economic injury upon licensee's operation, and assigning of new channel is not
 reviewable order under 47 USCS § 402(b)(5).  Friedman v FCC (1959, App DC) 105
 US App DC 47, 263 F2d 493.
 
18. Transfer and assignment applications
    Order of Commission denying consent to voluntary transfer of license to
 operate radio station is not order which is subject to judicial review.  FCC v
 Columbia Broadcasting System (1940) 311 US 132, 85 L Ed 87, 61 S Ct 152.
    Where FCC approved transfer of radio channel permit, subject to limitation on
 amount of payment, judicial review of decision is unavailable since decision did
 not constitute denial of application to assign permit.  Central Television, Inc.
 v FCC (1987, App DC) 266 US App DC 160, 834 F2d 186.
    Where Commission granted license transfer application subject to condition,
 not requested by applicant, that applicant divest itself of ownership of one of
 its media outlets within one year, application was denied for purposes of 47
 USCS § 402(b), and consequently, district court had jurisdiction to hear appeal
 of denial. Tribune Co. v FCC (1998, App DC) 328 US App DC 198, 133 F3d 61, 26
 Media L R 1237.
    Application for radio license does not include application for transfer of
 existing license.  Mester v United States (1947, DC NY) 70 F Supp 118, reh den
 (1947) 332 US 820, 92 L Ed 397, 68 S Ct 150 and affd (1947) 332 US 749, 92 L Ed
 336, 68 S Ct 70.
 
19. Other matters
    Exemptions of telephone and telegraph companies from the antitrust laws by
 Federal Communications Commission are subject to judicial review.  United States
 v Radio Corp. of America (1959) 358 US 334, 3 L Ed 2d 354, 79 S Ct 457.
    Subject to judicial review under 47 USCS § 402 is order of FCC that radio
 station has not violated either fairness doctrine or personal attack rule; mere
 fact that Commission is refusing to take action against licensee, as opposed to
 affirmatively taking such action, does not make Commission's ruling exercise of
 discretion not reviewable by courts.  Maier v FCC (1984, CA7) 735 F2d 220.
    Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear consolidated cases challenging
 validity of group of final orders of Federal Communications Commission which
 deny refund of fees paid under Commission's 1970 fee schedule.  National Asso.
 of Broadcasters v FCC (1976, App DC) 180 US App DC 259, 554 F2d 1118, 2 Media L
 R 1129.
    Order disqualifying attorney from appearing as counsel in FCC proceeding is
 unreviewable in court when petition for judicial review is filed by attorney
 rather than his client.  Law Offices of Seymour M. Chase, P.C. v FCC (1988, App
 DC) 269 US App DC 24, 843 F2d 517.
    Commission's decision to deny pioneer's preference application is not denial
 of license, nor is it ancillary to denial or grant of license, and therefore
 jurisdiction of federal court of appeals to review denial of pioneer's
 preference application is governed by 47 USCS § 402(a), not § 402(b). Freeman
 Eng'g Assocs. v FCC (1997, App DC) 322 US App DC 263, 103 F3d 169, petition gr,
 remanded (1999, App DC) 337 US App DC 78, 181 F3d 1370.
 
IV. STANDING TO APPEAL
 
20. Generally
    Complainant seeking judicial review of adverse action by Federal
 Communications Commission must establish controversy within Constitution with
 conventional requisites for equity jurisdiction.  Rochester Tel. Corp. v United
 States (1939) 307 US 125, 83 L Ed 1147, 59 S Ct 754.
    The word "person" in 47 USCS § 402(b)(7) includes a nonlicensee of the
 commission.  Valley Vision, Inc. v FCC (1968, CA9) 399 F2d 511.
    One appealing from decision of Commission on application of broadcasting
 company must bring itself within requirements of 47 USCS § 402. Pittsburgh Radio
 Supply House (WJAS) v FCC (1938) 69 App DC 22, 98 F2d 303.
 
21. Aggrieved or interested person
    "Persons aggrieved, or whose interests are adversely affected" by action of
 Federal Communications Commission, to whom a right of appeal is given by
 Communications Act of 1934 47 USCS § 402(b) have standing only as
 representatives of the public interest.  Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v FCC (1942)
 316 US 4, 86 L Ed 1229, 62 S Ct 875 (ovrld on other grounds as stated in V.N.A.
 of Greater Tift County, Inc. v Heckler (1983, CA11 Ga) 711 F2d 1020).
    47 USCS § 402 authorizes appeal by one other than applicant, whose interests
 are adversely affected by granting of application.  Great Western Broadcasting
 Ass'n v FCC (1937) 68 App DC 119, 94 F2d 244.
    Congress did not intend to limit aggrieved persons or interested persons to
 those whose applications have been denied or to those possessed of legal rights
 known to common law.  Yankee Network, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 11, 107 F2d
 212.
    Appealable interest of person aggrieved or whose interests are adversely
 affected by decision of Federal Communications Commission granting right to
 construct radio station is dependent upon considerations of public interest
 inherent in particular case.  WOKO, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 228, 109 F2d
 665.
    Although considered aggrieved persons, prospective applicants for television
 licenses who were not parties to agency proceedings must petition Commission for
 reconsideration of disputed orders before seeking judicial review.  Coalition
 for Preservation of Hispanic Broadcasting v FCC (1991, App DC) 289 US App DC
 228, 931 F2d 73, cert den (1991) 502 US 907, 116 L Ed 2d 242, 112 S Ct 298 and
 (criticized in Busse Broadcasting Corp. v FCC (1996, App DC) 318 US App DC 447,
 87 F3d 1456).
 
22. Applicants
    One who, before granting by Federal Communications Commission of application
 for specified radio broadcasting frequency with unlimited time, has made
 application for same frequency within same broadcasting area, is entitled to
 appeal from order of Commission granting the other application, as "person
 aggrieved or whose interests are adversely affected." Ashbacker Radio Corp. v
 FCC (1945) 326 US 327, 90 L Ed 108, 66 S Ct 148.
    Operator of broadcasting station who has application pending for increased
 facilities is not person aggrieved under 47 USCS §§ so as to enable it to
 maintain appeal from granting of permit to construct new utility in field
 covered by such application.  Pulitzer Pub. Co. v Federal Communications Com.
 (1937) 68 App DC 124, 94 F2d 249.
    Where appellant's application to reconstruct radio station was rightly
 denied, he has no ground for complaint against granting of intervenor's
 application.  Simmons v FCC (1944, App DC) 79 US App DC 264, 145 F2d 578.
    Where there were 3 applicants for 2 FM channels and cases were consolidated
 for hearing, whereafter one channel was assigned to one of applicants and
 consideration continued as to assignment of other channel, appellant is not
 "person aggrieved," and his interests are not adversely affected by assignment
 of one of said channels.  Mansfield Journal Co. v FCC (1949, App DC) 84 US App
 DC 341, 173 F2d 646.
    Plaintiff, who had applied for permit to construct television station, had
 standing to appeal grant of application of competitor since decision caused
 plaintiff economic injury, thereby making it aggrieved party within zone of
 interest protected by statute.  Orange Park Florida T.V., Inc. v FCC (1987, App
 DC) 258 US App DC 322, 811 F2d 664.
    Applicant which was disqualified from competition for permit to construct
 radio station due to lack of candor did not have standing to appeal Commission's
 award of construction permit to another applicant since first applicant would
 remain disqualified even if court were to conclude that Commission had erred in
 approving other applicant's application. Swan Creek Communications v FCC (1994,
 App DC) 309 US App DC 125, 39 F3d 1217.
 
23. Licensees
    Licensee of radio broadcasting station may appeal from order of Federal
 Communications Commission granting application of rival station for license,
 under 47 USCS § 402(b).  FCC v Sanders Bros. Radio Station (1940) 309 US 470, 84
 L Ed 869, 60 S Ct 693, reh den (1940) 309 US 642, 84 L Ed 1037 and (criticized
 in Busse Broadcasting Corp. v FCC (1996, App DC) 318 US App DC 447, 87 F3d
 1456).
    Economic or financial injury is not only basis for standing for review of
 Commission action under 47 USCS § 402; substantial amount of new electrical
 interference can create standing to appeal issuance of license.  FCC v National
 Broadcasting Co. (1943) 319 US 239, 87 L Ed 1374, 63 S Ct 1035.
    Where it does not appear and is not claimed that denial of application will
 result in pecuniary or other damage or deprive appellant of its ability to
 continue to function in public interest where it is not applicant it has no
 appealable interest under 47 USCS § 402. Great Western Broadcasting Ass'n v FCC
 (1937) 68 App DC 119, 94 F2d 244.
    Where Commission granted permit to change radio station so as to involve
 higher antenna than application called for, revoked inconsistent permit, and
 ordered new hearing with notice to objector that higher antenna would be
 considered, such objector is not aggrieved person entitled to appeal under 47
 USCS § 402, where grant would not result in objectional interference to
 objector.  Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc. v Federal Communications Com. (1939)
 70 App DC 196, 105 F2d 75, cert den (1939) 308 US 588, 84 L Ed 492, 60 S Ct 112.
    Licensee is entitled to appeal from decision granting to another licensee
 permit to change in frequency and increase in power.  Yankee Network, Inc. v FCC
 (1939) 71 App DC 11, 107 F2d 212.
    Provision of 47 USCS § 402 for appeals by persons aggrieved or whose
 interests are adversely affected is intended to include existing licensees,
 assuming that they are able to show actual aggrievance or affectation of
 interest.  Yankee Network, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 11, 107 F2d 212; Ward v
 Federal Communications Com. (1939) 71 App DC 166, 108 F2d 486.
    Operator of existing radio station is "aggrieved person" within 47 USCS § 402
 when Commission granted permit for construction of new station in same area.
 Colorado Radio Corp. v Federal Communications Com. (1941) 73 App DC 225, 118 F2d
 24.
    Original applicant for construction license, who withdrew as applicant but
 sought to remain party because of competition with its own local station is
 entitled to remain party, and Commission erroneously refused to permit
 enlargement of issues to include inquiry into alleged irregularity in offers of
 sale of stock of successful applicant, raised by withdrawn applicant.  Frontier
 Broadcasting Co. v United States (1959, App DC) 105 US App DC 161, 265 F2d 353.
    Micro broadcaster had standing to challenge Commission's ban on licensing of
 micro broadcasting, even though he had not applied for license or sought waiver
 of ban. Grid Radio v FCC (2002, App DC) 278 F3d 1314.
 
24. --Economic injury
    Appeal by owner of existing radio station from order of Federal
 Communications Commission granting application for license to construct new
 radio station on alleged ground that it was aggrieved and adversely affected by
 granting of new license due to fact that it would suffer economic injury,
 necessarily is dismissed, where evidence sustained Commission's finding that
 expected competition would not immediately or ultimately result in such
 reduction in income of existing radio station as to require deterioration of its
 service to listening public.  Tri-State Broadcasting Co. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC
 157, 107 F2d 956.
    Injury to economic interests that may be sufficient to bring station license
 holder within terms of 47 USCS § 402 as aggrieved person, are equally applicable
 in case of objectionable electrical interference.  Ward v Federal Communications
 Com. (1939) 71 App DC 166, 108 F2d 486.
    Appealable interest in decision of Federal Communications Commission granting
 permit to construct radio station is not necessarily shown by mere showing that
 existing station may suffer such reduction in income as will cause deterioration
 of its service, question being one of public interest.  WOKO, Inc. v FCC (1939)
 71 App DC 228, 109 F2d 665.
    Licensee of existing radio station, appealing from decision of Federal
 Communications Commission granting permit for construction and operation of new
 station on ground that it would be competitor and that resources of advertising,
 talent, etc., in competitive area were insufficient to support 2 stations, is
 "person aggrieved" within meaning of 47 USCS § 402 and entitled to such appeal.
 Evans v FCC (1940) 72 App DC 159, 113 F2d 166.
    Broadcaster did not have standing to challenge FCC's grant of broadcasting
 license to radio station since broadcaster's competitive injury would have
 occurred only if station sought and secured relocation of its license from one
 city to another. New World Radio, Inc. v FCC (2002, App DC) 294 F3d 164.
 
25. Related corporations
    Likelihood of economic injury confers right of appeal under 47 USCS § 402,
 but economic interest parent corporation has in its wholly-owned subsidiary is
 not sufficient to constitute it "person who is aggrieved or whose interests were
 adversely affected by" extension of construction permit to third party, and
 where subsidiary was not party before Commission and did not petition for
 rehearing, appeals of both parent and subsidiary are required to be dismissed.
 Southwestern Publishing Co. v FCC (1957, App DC) 100 US App DC 251, 243 F2d 829.
    Parent corporation has no standing to appeal on behalf of wholly owned
 subsidiary where that subsidiary is aggrieved or adversely affected when parent
 has only derivative interest in subsidiary's injury, and that quantum of
 interest or aggrievance necessary to satisfy 47 USCS § 402 is not met.  Re
 Gerard T. Uht, et al (1972) 35 FCC2d 140.
 
26. Miscellaneous
    Standing of owner of national broadcasting network to maintain suit in equity
 to enjoin under 47 USCS § 402(a) enforcement of regulations promulgated by
 Commission affecting existing contracts of such network is unaffected by fact
 that regulations are not directed to such network, and do not in terms compel
 action by it or impose penalties upon it because of its action or failure to
 act.  Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v United States (1942) 316 US 407, 86 L
 Ed 1563, 62 S Ct 1194.
    Where owner of radio broadcasting station who was wrongly denied right to
 intervene in proceeding before Federal Communications Commission for granting of
 rights to another station which would result in interference with first
 station's operating rights, first station is entitled to appeal from
 Commission's order entered in such proceeding.  FCC v National Broadcasting Co.
 (1943) 319 US 239, 87 L Ed 1374, 63 S Ct 1035.
    Federal Communications Commission order adopting regulations providing that
 licenses for television broadcasting stations will not be granted if applicant,
 directly or indirectly, has interest in more than 5 other stations, is
 reviewable at instance of broadcast licensee where it appears that such
 licensee's business is controlled by Commission regulations; that licensee
 cannot, absent modification of regulations adopted by Commission, enlarge number
 of its broadcasting stations or cogently plan its present or future operations;
 and that regulations, as adopted, endanger licensee's existing stations; in this
 situation licensee is aggrieved party within meaning of statutes (5 USCS § 1034,
 47 USCS § 402(a), 5 USCS § 1009(a) and (c)) authorizing review of Commission
 action.  United States v Storer Broadcasting Co. (1956) 351 US 192, 100 L Ed
 1081, 76 S Ct 763, 1 Media L R 1983.
    A state utilities commission and the National Association of Regulatory
 Utility Commissioners are proper plaintiffs to obtain review of FCC order
 involving establishment of private or leased line communication services through
 microwave transmission facilities in competition with established carriers, in
 view of effect of outcome of suit on intrastate telephone rates and the public
 interest.  Washington Utilities & Transp. Com. v FCC (1975, CA9) 513 F2d 1142, 7
 Envt Rep Cas 1561, cert den (1975) 423 US 836, 46 L Ed 2d 54, 96 S Ct 62.
    City mayor has standing under 47 USCS § 402 to challenge FCC's order that
 radio station violated neither fairness doctrine nor personal attack rule in
 connection with editorials relating to manner in which city managed its garbage
 collection system and labor disputes involving public employees, where such
 editorials were specifically critical of mayor.  Maier v FCC (1984, CA7) 735 F2d
 220.
 
V. APPELLATE REVIEW
 
A. Scope and Standard of Review
 
27. Generally
    Upon review court may correct errors of law and Commission is bound to act
 upon correction.  FCC v Pottsville Broadcasting Co. (1940) 309 US 134, 84 L Ed
 656, 60 S Ct 437, 2 CCH LC P 17058.
    Judicial review of administrative orders is limited to determining whether
 errors of law have been committed; because of historical differences in
 relationship between administrative bodies and reviewing courts and that between
 lower and upper courts, court of review exhausts its power when it lays bare
 misconception of law and compels correction.  Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v FCC
 (1942) 316 US 4, 86 L Ed 1229, 62 S Ct 875 (ovrld on other grounds as stated in
 V.N.A. of Greater Tift County, Inc. v Heckler (1983, CA11 Ga) 711 F2d 1020).
    Ultimate test of reviewability of administrative regulations is to be found,
 not in overrefined technique, but in need of review to furnish protection from
 irreparable injury threatened in exceptional case by administrative rulings
 which attach legal consequences to action taken in advance of other hearings and
 adjudications that may follow, results of which regulations purport to control.
 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v United States (1942) 316 US 407, 86 L Ed
 1563, 62 S Ct 1194.
    Federal district court in which suit is brought to enjoin enforcement of
 regulations adopted by Federal Communications Commission is limited to review of
 evidence before Commission, and may not try matter de novo.  National
 Broadcasting Co. v United States (1943) 319 US 190, 87 L Ed 1344, 63 S Ct 997, 1
 Media L R 1965.
    Enforcement of Communications Act of 1934 (47 USCS §§ 151 et seq.) rests in
 Federal Communications Commission and not in district courts, save for right of
 review of Commission's orders under 47 USCS § 402. McIntire v Wm. Penn
 Broadcasting Co. (1945, CA3 Pa) 151 F2d 597, cert den (1946) 327 US 779, 90 L Ed
 1007, 66 S Ct 530.
    Language of 47 USCS § 402 implies that there shall be public hearing, that
 evidence shall be taken and preserved, and that Court of Appeals shall have
 jurisdiction to deny effect to order made without any supporting evidence or
 wherever hearing or decision is inadequate, unfair or arbitrary.  Missouri
 Broadcasting Corp. v Federal Communications Com. (1937) 68 App DC 154, 94 F2d
 623, cert den (1938) 303 US 655, 82 L Ed 1115, 58 S Ct 759.
    On appeal, court is not concerned with weight of evidence or with wisdom or
 expediency of administrative action.  Evangelical Lutheran Synod v Federal
 Communications Com. (1939) 70 App DC 270, 105 F2d 793.
    General provisions for judicial review of agency action as set forth in
 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 USCS § 706, are controlling in appeal of FCC
 action pursuant to 47 USCS § 402 where rejection of tariff is not at issue but
 petitioners seek determination of legality of certain findings of FCC.  American
 Broadcasting Cos. v FCC (1980, App DC) 213 US App DC 369, 663 F2d 133.
 
28. Commission discretion
    Wisdom of regulations adopted by Federal Communications Commission is not
 matter for courts, whose duty is at an end when they find that action of
 Commission was based upon findings supported by evidence, and was made pursuant
 to authority granted by Congress.  National Broadcasting Co. v United States
 (1943) 319 US 190, 87 L Ed 1344, 63 S Ct 997, 1 Media L R 1965.
    That court might not have made the same determination on same facts as was
 made by Federal Communications Commission in refusing to renew license of radio
 broadcasting station because of concealment of identity of certain of its
 stockholders does not warrant substitution of judicial for administrative
 discretion.  FCC v WOKO, Inc. (1946) 329 US 223, 91 L Ed 204, 67 S Ct 213.
    It is for courts to say whether Federal Communications Commission has, in
 granting or refusing a license, fairly exercised its discretion within bounds
 expressed by the statutory standard of "public interest" and has been guided by
 proper considerations.  Federal Communications Com. v RCA Communications, Inc.
 (1953) 346 US 86, 97 L Ed 1470, 73 S Ct 998.
    On review of Federal Communications Commission decision rejecting claims of
 organizations that broadcast licensee's general policy of not selling any
 editorial advertising time to individuals or groups wishing to speak out on
 public issues violated Federal Communications Act of 1934 (47 USCS §§ 151 et
 seq.) and First Amendment, court must give due weight to Commission's decision
 that on balance, undesirable effects of right of access urged by complainants
 would outweigh asserted benefits.  Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v
 Democratic Nat'l Committee (1973) 412 US 94, 36 L Ed 2d 772, 93 S Ct 2080, 1
 Media L R 1855.
    FCC's denial of "package" of applications is, as matter of substance,
 exercise by FCC of its "radio-licensing power" reviewable under 47 USCS § 402.
 Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v FCC (1982, CA8) 684 F2d 594, cert den (1983) 459 US
 1202, 75 L Ed 2d 433, 103 S Ct 1186.
    Court of Appeals, in reviewing FCC order forbidding divested Bell operating
 companies from selling or leasing telecommunications equipment to their
 customers, will defer to FCC and Justice Department discretion issue of just how
 acute danger posed by Bell operating companies in their postdivestiture form is
 to successful implementation of regulatory and antitrust policies.  Illinois
 Bell Tel. Co. v FCC (1984, CA7) 740 F2d 465.
    Within area bounded by standard of public interest, convenience and
 necessity, Federal Communications Commission has wide discretionary power, and
 if it acts within this area of discretion prescribed by Communications Act of
 1934 (47 USCS §§ 151 et seq.), and its determination is supported by substantial
 evidence, there is no ground or reason for judicial interference, even though in
 particular case its decision may cause injury to existing licensee.  WOKO, Inc.
 v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 228, 109 F2d 665.
 
29. Sufficiency of evidence
    Rulings of Federal Communications Commission are subject to review by Courts
 of Appeals to extent that those courts may determine whether such rulings are
 supported by substantial evidence.  FCC v Allentown Broadcasting Corp. (1955)
 349 US 358, 99 L Ed 1147, 75 S Ct 855.
    United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia, when reviewing
 orders of Commission, may not pass upon weight of evidence as to its accuracy
 and credibility, but must determine whether it substantially supports its
 findings.  Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v Federal Communications Com. (1938) 68 App
 DC 282, 96 F2d 554, cert den (1938) 305 US 613, 83 L Ed 391, 59 S Ct 72.
    Where each of 2 radio stations in same locality operated on same frequency
 and under time-sharing agreement, and each applied for, and was denied, increase
 in time and power, Commission's decision that public interest would be served by
 maintaining status quo rather than switching time from one to other is supported
 by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious.  Evangelical
 Lutheran Synod v Federal Communications Com. (1939) 70 App DC 270, 105 F2d 793.
    In proceeding against Federal Communications Commission on appeal from order
 denying application to reconstruct radio station, findings of Commission that
 appellant's proposed operation would cause serious interference with stations in
 other cities, would not tend toward fair, efficient and equitable distribution
 of radio service, and that appellant's proposed directional antenna array would
 be hazard to air navigation are supported by substantial evidence, and
 appellant's application is rightly denied.  Simmons v FCC (1944, App DC) 79 US
 App DC 264, 145 F2d 578.
    Denial of construction permit requiring frequencies of 2 established
 stations, and renewals of licenses with permission to assign, is supported by
 evidence.  Don Lee Broadcasting System v Federal Communications Com. (1935, Dist
 Col App) 64 App DC 228, 76 F2d 998.
 
30. Adequacy of administrative procedure
    Federal District Court and Court of Appeals err in ruling on Federal
 Communications Commission rule governing disclosure in investigation where
 neither court inquires into validity of Commission's exercise of its rule-making
 authority and instead District Court devises procedures to be followed by
 Commission on basis of court's conception of how public and private interests
 involved can best be served, while Court of Appeals reviews District Court's
 determination from point of view of whether District Court abused its discretion
 rather than from point of view of whether Commission abused its discretion.  FCC
 v Schreiber (1965) 381 US 279, 14 L Ed 2d 383, 85 S Ct 1459.
    It is not function of United States Court of Appeals to direct Commission as
 to routine of its administrative procedure, so long as it conforms to law.  Ward
 v Federal Communications Com. (1939) 71 App DC 166, 108 F2d 486.
 
B. Stay
 
31. Generally
    While appeal from decision of Federal Communications Commission in granting
 permit for construction of new radio station is pending, refusal to sustain
 motion of appellant for order directing Commission and its members to stay all
 further proceedings on application for modification of such permit or any
 application for authority to construct or operate new station does not subject
 appellant to any prejudice or cause him to lose any benefit from his failure to
 secure such stay.  Evans v FCC (1940) 72 App DC 159, 113 F2d 166.
    UHF television stations cannot have Federal Communications Commission's
 orders stayed which orders allot VHF licenses on channels previously assigned
 when UHF stations had had notice that VHF stations were already assigned and
 this was particularly true in view of considerable doubt of likelihood of
 success on their appeal from licensing order of Federal Communications
 Commission because of public need and interest in such additional VHF stations.
 Coastal Bend Television Co. v Federal Communications Com. (1956, App DC) 97 US
 App DC 339, 231 F2d 498.
    Where District Court granted temporary restraining order of Commission
 relative to adoption of system of color television pending decision of court,
 restraining order is continued pending determination of appeal by Supreme Court
 though summary judgment in proceeding to vacate order of Commission was granted
 in favor of Commission due to high cost of preparing public for color
 television, and general economic condition of country.  Radio Corp. of America v
 United States (1950, DC Ill) 95 F Supp 660, affd (1951) 341 US 412, 95 L Ed
 1062, 71 S Ct 806.
 
C. Remand
 
32. Generally
    Statutory provision that in case court reverses decision of Commission "it
 shall remand the case to the commission to carry out the judgment of the court"
 means no more than that Commission in its further action is to respect and
 follow court's determination of questions of law.  Federal Radio Com. v Nelson
 Bros. Bond & Mortg. Co. (1933) 289 US 266, 77 L Ed 1166, 53 S Ct 627, 89 ALR
 406.
    United States Supreme Court is not reviewing body of ultimate administrative
 determinations of Federal Communications Commission, and Supreme Court, in
 finding errors of law in Court of Appeals' reversal of determination of Federal
 Communications Commission, will not reinstate the determination of Commission,
 but will remand case to Court of Appeals for reconsideration of record but freed
 from rulings which Supreme Court has declared erroneous.  FCC v Allentown
 Broadcasting Corp. (1955) 349 US 358, 99 L Ed 1147, 75 S Ct 855.
    On appeal from decision of Commission denying permit to build new radio
 station, it is not function of United States Court of Appeals to revise action
 of Commission from administrative standpoint and to make administrative
 judgment, but Commission in its further action, after reversal and remand, is to
 respect and follow determinations of law by that court.  Heitmeyer v Federal
 Communications Com. (1937) 68 App DC 180, 95 F2d 91.
    Court of Appeals has power to remand cause for further hearing without
 reversal despite lack of specific authority for such action.  Fleming v FCC
 (1955, App DC) 96 US App DC 223, 225 F2d 523.
 
33. Remand of particular determinations
    Where petition to modify was heard by Commission on individual merit basis,
 Court of Appeals can review on basis of whether there is substantial evidence to
 support decision of Commission since this is question affecting basic
 prerequisites of proof, but where record set forth only ultimate finding of
 facts, and not basic or underlying facts, case will be remanded for correction
 of record to show basic or underlying facts.  American Broadcasting Co. v FCC
 (1949, App DC) 85 US App DC 343, 179 F2d 437.
 
34. Reopening of proceedings upon remand
    Commission's rule permitting joint hearing of pending applications, is
 certainly reasonable one, and when appellant, fullhanded with knowledge of
 situation, failed to request such joint hearing, he is in no position to demand,
 and court has no power to require, that Commission suspend its normal functions
 and reopen its proceedings so as to entitle him as "person aggrieved" to appeal
 from Commission's decision.  Ward v Federal Communications Com. (1939) 71 App DC
 166, 108 F2d 486.
    Denial of protest against grant of permit by Federal Communications
 Commission constitutes determination that grant serves public interest,
 convenience, and necessity but protest was denied on inadequate record and hence
 cause is remanded for further hearing upon reopened record.  Clarksburg
 Publishing Co. v FCC (1955, App DC) 96 US App DC 211, 225 F2d 511.
    On appeal from Commission's denial of partnership application for television
 license (based upon partners' acquiescence in certain advertising practices by
 corporation in which partners were substantial stockholders), cause will be
 remanded to Commission to be reopened for determination of effect of one
 partner's death subsequent to hearing upon original decision as to said
 advertising practices; Commission will have authority to revise its decision;
 remanded record will be forwarded to court on appeal.  Fleming v FCC (1955, App
 DC) 96 US App DC 223, 225 F2d 523.
    FCC acted arbitrarily in determining that 47 USCS § 402(h) prohibits
 post-remand consideration of new factual materials in absence of specific court
 order, and that appropriate course would be for petitioner to obtain leave of
 court to supplement record, where agency failed to provide notice of change of
 policy to petitioner; however, in determining on remand that broadcast station
 failed to demonstrate need for hearing on cumulative impact in connection with
 construction of television transmitters, FCC did not err in declining to
 consider supplemental material submitted by broadcast station, since Commission
 did not act arbitrarily in determining that supplementary comments were not
 necessary to resolve cumulative impact claim.  Eastern Carolinas Broadcasting
 Co. v FCC (1985, App DC) 246 US App DC 1, 762 F2d 95.
 
D. Injunctions
 
35. Generally
    Possibility of the wholesale cancellation by local stations of contracts
 entered into by them with national network, as result of regulations promulgated
 by Federal Communications Commission indicating its intention to refuse to grant
 licenses to stations having such contracts, constitutes threat of irreparable
 injury to such network sufficient to sustain suit in equity, brought by the
 owner of the network under 47 USCS § 402(a) to enjoin enforcement of such
 regulations.  Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v United States (1942) 316 US
 407, 86 L Ed 1563, 62 S Ct 1194.
    Injunctive relief is not warranted where petitioner neither sought
 reconsideration of order nor appealed to court.  In Re: Peninsula Broadcasting
 Corp. et al. (1959) 27 FCC 673.
 
36. Availability of adequate legal remedy
    Intervention by owner of national network in any proceedings that may
 subsequently be had upon applications for renewal of licenses of local stations
 is not adequate remedy precluding injunctive relief, under 47 USCS § 402(a)
 against enforcement of regulations of Federal Communications Commission
 affecting existing contracts between such network and the local stations, since
 issues involved in such proceedings would not necessarily be same as in
 injunction suit, and any review sought by licensee of order entered in such
 proceedings would be too late to save network from injury; such intervention is
 not made adequate remedy by the promulgation by Commission of "minute" declaring
 that, if local station wishes to challenge regulation, Commission will grant
 temporary extension of its license until there has been final court
 determination of issues, and that, if validity of regulations are sustained,
 Commission will nevertheless grant regular license to unsuccessful litigant,
 upon his conformance to decision.  Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v United
 States (1942) 316 US 407, 86 L Ed 1563, 62 S Ct 1194.
    Writ of mandamus seeking judicial stay apart of FCC's decision in rate refund
 proceeding will be dismissed, since petitioners have clearly adequate remedy in
 that they could have petitioned for review of Commission's order pursuant to 47
 USCS § 402(a).  In re GTE Service Corp. (1985, App DC) 246 US App DC 45, 762 F2d
 1024.
    Broadcaster cannot enjoin Commission from authorizing additional hours to
 another broadcaster, since he has adequate remedy at law under 47 USCS § 402(b).
 Sykes v Jenny Wren Co. (1935, Dist Col App) 64 App DC 379, 78 F2d 729, 104 ALR
 864, cert den (1935) 296 US 624, 80 L Ed 443, 56 S Ct 147.
    Where plaintiff has plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law under 47 USCS
 § 402, court of equity will not issue injunction.  Monocacy Broadcasting Co. v
 Prall (1937, Dist Col App) 67 App DC 176, 90 F2d 421.
 
E. Effect of Judgment or Decision on Appeal
 
37. Generally
    Decision of United States Court of Appeals on appeal from decision of Federal
 Communications Commission has no finality against power of Commission to make
 proper allocation of facilities as required by "public interest, convenience and
 necessity," whether upon applications involved in appeal or others, so long as
 its doing so does not involve disregarding court's decision upon questions of
 law determined in appeal.  Evans v FCC (1940) 72 App DC 159, 113 F2d 166.
    After decision of appeal from decision of Federal Communications Commission,
 Commission has jurisdiction to consider application for modification of
 facilities previously applied for or for entirely different ones by parties to
 appeal as fully as those made by strangers to such appeal, provided they are
 made in good faith and present facts and issues essentially different at least
 in some respects from those involved in appeal.  Evans v FCC (1940) 72 App DC
 159, 113 F2d 166.
    Appeal from decision of Federal Communications Commission is conclusive as
 among parties to it upon questions of law decided by it, but it does not result
 in judgment which forecloses right of others not parties to it, to apply for
 same facilities or to be heard upon their application without prejudice to
 whatever showing of comparative merit they may be able to make, resulting from
 appeals taken and decided.  Evans v FCC (1940) 72 App DC 159, 113 F2d 166.
 
F. Other Particular Matters
 
38. Parties
    Proper party defendant in judicial review proceeding is FCC and not private
 company which may be indifferent to validity of rule.  Peoria v General Electric
 Cablevision Corp. (GECCO) (1982, CA7 Ill) 690 F2d 116.
 
39. Statement of reasons for appeal
    One appealing from order of Commission must state his assignment of error,
 and nature of petitioner's grievance and his appealable interest.  Missouri
 Broadcasting Corp. v Federal Communications Com. (1937) 68 App DC 154, 94 F2d
 623, cert den (1938) 303 US 655, 82 L Ed 1115, 58 S Ct 759.
    Jurisdiction of United States Court of Appeals, on appeal under 47 USCS § 151
 et seq. depends upon whether reasons of appeal are assigned, which, if well
 founded, would show that appellant is person aggrieved or whose interests are
 adversely affected by decision of Commission from which appeal is taken.  Yankee
 Network, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 11, 107 F2d 212.
    Where appellant claims to be person aggrieved or whose interests are
 adversely affected by grant, jurisdiction of United States Court of Appeals for
 District of Columbia, must be determined upon basis of assigned reasons of
 appeal.  WOKO, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 228, 109 F2d 665.
 
40. --Purpose
    Statement of reasons for appeal serves purpose of assignment of errors and
 must set forth with particularity errors on which appeal is based.  Stuart v FCC
 (1939) 70 App DC 265, 105 F2d 788.
    It is function of brief, with appropriate references to printed record, to
 point out specifically evidence upon which appellant relies, findings to which
 he objects, and, if he desires to do so, for purpose of analysis and argument,
 to suggest appropriate findings.  Florida Broadcasting Co. v FCC (1939) 71 App
 DC 231, 109 F2d 668.
 
41. --Sufficiency
    Destructive economic competition may constitute sufficient basis for contest
 on appeal.  Yankee Network, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 11, 107 F2d 212.
    No statement of reasons is sufficient to support appeal from decision of
 Federal Communications Commission granting permit to construct radio station by
 one aggrieved or whose interests are adversely affected by grant, unless
 statement of reasons speaks terms of public interest, convenience, or necessity,
 or in equivalent terms.  WOKO, Inc. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 228, 109 F2d 665.
    Appellant's statement of reasons for appeal that Commission erred in failing
 to make appropriate findings to justify its conclusion that record did not show
 that operation of proposed station would have any detrimental economic effect
 upon appellant's station in its continued operation in public interest, is
 sufficient.  Florida Broadcasting Co. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 231, 109 F2d 668.
    Because Federal Communications Commission, as authorized by 47 USCS § 409(b),
 certified on record of its decision granting application for extension of
 service to radiotelegraph carrier that due and timely execution of its functions
 required that record be certified to it by hearing examiner without preparation
 of initial decision, it was unnecessary for Court of Appeals to determine
 whether intervenor's statement, in petition for rehearing, that Commission had
 omitted initial decision and deprived intervenor of opportunity to file
 exceptions and be heard in oral argument complied with requirements of 47 USCS §
 402 that notice of appeal shall contain "a concise statement of the reasons on
 which the appellant intends to rely," so as to raise issues on appeal.  RCA
 Communications, Inc. v FCC (1956, App DC) 99 US App DC 163, 238 F2d 24, cert den
 (1957) 352 US 1004, 1 L Ed 2d 549, 77 S Ct 563.
 
42. Time for filing of appeal
    Until administrative order has been entered appeal does not lie.  Black River
 Valley Broadcasts, Inc. v McNinch (1938) 69 App DC 311, 101 F2d 235, cert den
 (1939) 307 US 623, 83 L Ed 1501, 59 S Ct 793.
    As applied to rules and regulations, the statutory time limit restricting
 judicial review of Federal Communications Commission action is applicable only
 to cut off review directly from the order promulgating a rule; statutory time
 limit does not foreclose subsequent examination of a rule where properly brought
 before the Court of Appeals for review of further Commission action applying it.
 Functional Music, Inc. v FCC (1958, App DC) 107 US App DC 34, 274 F2d 543, cert
 den (1959) 361 US 813, 4 L Ed 2d 60, 80 S Ct 50.
    Thirty day time limit of 47 USCS § 402(c) is jurisdictional, and if present
 appeal cannot be brought within terms of statute, it must be dismissed; FCC's
 failure to provide parties with personal notice of its decision, in violation of
 its own rules, does not operate to toll 30 day period.  National Black Media
 Coalition v FCC (1985, App DC) 245 US App DC 273, 760 F2d 1297.
    Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeal of FCC's rejection of
 plaintiff's petition to deny certain license to plaintiff's competitor where
 appeal was filed 18 days before public notice of license grant and not within 30
 days thereafter as required by statute.  Waterway Communications Systems, Inc. v
 FCC (1988, App DC) 271 US App DC 146, 851 F2d 401.
    Pursuant to 47 USCS § 405, person aggrieved by FCC order may petition agency
 for reconsideration in lieu of immediate judicial review, and if petitioning
 party withdraws its administrative petition for reconsideration, 30-day appeal
 period begins to run anew. Los Angeles SMSA Ltd. Partnership v FCC (1995, App
 DC) 315 US App DC 146, 70 F3d 1358, dismd, in part (1995, App DC) 1995 US App
 LEXIS 37392, dismd, in part (1996, App DC) 1996 US App LEXIS 14215, remanded
 (1996, App DC) 318 US App DC 174, 86 F3d 248.
    Nonprofit organization's challenge to FCC order swapping status of two
 television channels, which caused previously unreserved channel to become
 reserved for non-commercial use and caused previously reserved channel to cease
 to be reserved, fell under 47 USCS § 402(a) and its 60-day limit, rather than
 under § 402(b) and its 30-day limit. Coalition for Noncommercial Media v FCC
 (2001, App DC) 249 F3d 1005.
 
43. Miscellaneous
    On appeal from order of Federal Communications Commission granting
 application for license for new radio station, owner of existing radio station,
 who intervened in hearing on application, cannot for first time complain of
 denial of oral argument.  Tri-State Broadcasting Co. v FCC (1939) 71 App DC 157,
 107 F2d 956.
    When operator of existing radio station, intervening in proceeding on
 application for permission to construct and operate competing station, could
 have moved to submit additional evidence concerning changed conditions at any
 time between date Commission set aside its decision denying application for new
 station and date of reargument, but did not do so, he is not entitled, after
 application is granted upon reargument, to persuade Commission with supplemental
 record.  Colorado Radio Corp. v Federal Communications Com. (1941) 73 App DC
 225, 118 F2d 24.
    On a petition for review of an order of the Federal Communications Commission
 authorizing the commencement of operation of a community antenna television
 system petitioners carry the burden of showing the market does not conform to
 the pattern of below top 100 markets described by Commission, and where
 petitioners failed to carry that burden authorization does not pose a sufficient
 threat to the economic health of existing television stations or to potential
 developers of UHF broadcasting in the market area to warrant or require holding
 an evidentiary hearing on those issues.  Pikes Peak Broadcasting Co. v Federal
 Communications Com. (1969, App DC) 137 US App DC 234, 422 F2d 671.
    FCC misapplied sunset provision contained in 47 USCS § 309, which withdrew
 its authority to award new pioneer's preferences, when it dismissed applicant's
 petition seeking to enforce prior final judgment which had held that applicant
 was entitled to pioneer's preference under rules then in effect. QUALCOMM Inc. v
 FCC (1999, App DC) 337 US App DC 78, 181 F3d 1370.
    Intervenor in proceeding to vacate order of Commission relative to adoption
 by Commission of certain system of color television is not entitled to
 production of correspondence between chairman of Interstate Commerce Committee
 and members of Commission where same were not of record in Commission hearing.
 Radio Corp. of America v United States (1950, DC Ill) 95 F Supp 660, affd (1951)
 341 US 412, 95 L Ed 1062, 71 S Ct 806.