## Facts

- The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated notice-and-comment rulemaking to amend its multiple-ownership rules to limit common ownership of standard (AM), FM, and television broadcast stations to avoid overconcentration of control.
- Storer Broadcasting Company owned or controlled numerous broadcast stations, including five television stations.
- Storer participated in the rulemaking and objected that stricter limits on FM and television could harm existing owners and that the proposed approach was unreasonable.
- The FCC adopted the amended rules and, applying them the same day, dismissed Storer’s pending application for an additional television station because Storer already owned five television stations.
- The FCC dismissed the application without an evidentiary hearing, relying solely on the categorical multiple-ownership limit.

## Issues

1. Whether the amended multiple-ownership rules constituted final agency action and whether Storer was sufficiently aggrieved to obtain judicial review.
2. Whether the Communications Act’s requirement of a “full hearing” before denial of a broadcast license application prevents the FCC from adopting categorical ownership-limit rules and dismissing nonconforming applications without an evidentiary hearing.
3. Whether the FCC must provide a hearing mechanism for requests to waive or amend ownership-limit rules when an applicant makes an adequate showing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that Storer had standing and that completion of the rulemaking produced final agency action with immediate legal effect on Storer.
- The Court held that the Communications Act’s “full hearing” requirement does not strip the FCC of rulemaking authority to set ownership limits consistent with the public interest standard.
- The Court upheld the FCC’s authority to dismiss, without an evidentiary hearing, an application that is facially barred by a valid ownership-limit rule.
- The Court emphasized that affected applicants must have an avenue to seek waiver or amendment; a hearing is required when an applicant presents an application giving adequate reasons why the rule should not be applied.
- The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Completed notice-and-comment rulemaking that has immediate operative effect on a regulated party constitutes final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
- A regulated party is sufficiently aggrieved for review when a rule presently limits its legal rights or is applied to dismiss a pending application.
- A statutory requirement of a “full hearing” in licensing adjudications does not preclude an agency from using rulemaking to define categorical eligibility limits within its delegated authority.
- An agency may summarily deny or dismiss applications that conflict with valid, generally applicable rules, rather than conducting evidentiary hearings on issues resolved by the rule.
- Due process and statutory hearing guarantees are satisfied where the agency provides a meaningful procedure to seek waiver or amendment, with a hearing required upon an adequate factual and legal showing.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the FCC’s use of rulemaking to impose multiple-ownership limits and permitted dismissal of a license application that violated those limits without a case-specific evidentiary hearing, while requiring that applicants have an available waiver or amendment process that can trigger a hearing upon an adequate showing.


United States v. Storer Broad. Co., 351 U.S. 192 (1956)