Lexplug logoLexplug

Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
564 F.2d 458 (1977)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An administrative agency's decision to decline to adopt specific rules and instead issue a policy statement relying on industry self-regulation is a reasoned exercise of its discretion, provided the agency has conducted a thorough inquiry, articulated a rational basis for its decision, and maintained oversight to ensure the public interest is protected.


Facts:

  • Action for Children’s Television (ACT), a non-profit organization, proposed rules to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to improve children's television.
  • ACT's proposals included eliminating all commercials from children's programming and requiring broadcasters to provide a minimum of 14 hours of age-specific programming per week.
  • In response to the FCC's inquiry and public pressure, the broadcast industry, primarily through the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), undertook voluntary self-regulation.
  • The NAB amended its code to reduce the amount of advertising time during children's programming, prohibit ads for certain products like vitamins, and restrict practices such as "host selling."
  • The Association of Independent Television Stations (INTV) also recommended that its member stations adopt similar reductions in advertising time.
  • Prior to the FCC issuing its final report, the FCC Chairman met privately with NAB officials to discuss the industry's self-regulatory proposals.

Procedural Posture:

  • Action for Children's Television (ACT) filed a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
  • The FCC initiated a formal rulemaking proceeding, Docket No. 19142, and issued a Notice of Inquiry inviting public comment.
  • The FCC gathered over 100,000 comments and held three days of panel discussions and three days of oral argument.
  • The FCC terminated the inquiry by issuing a Children's Television Report and Policy Statement, which declined to adopt specific rules and instead relied on industry self-regulation, but left the rulemaking docket open for future monitoring.
  • ACT filed a petition for reconsideration with the FCC, which was denied.
  • ACT, as petitioner, sought review of the FCC's final order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) abuse its discretion by declining to adopt specific rules regulating children's television programming and advertising and instead choosing to rely on industry self-regulation, after conducting a thorough rulemaking inquiry?


Opinions:

Majority - Tamm, Circuit Judge

No. The FCC's decision to issue a policy statement and rely on industry self-regulation rather than adopting specific rules was a reasoned exercise of its broad discretion under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review. The court found that an agency is entitled to leeway in choosing its regulatory tools and is not required to promulgate rules upon petition. The FCC conducted a comprehensive inquiry, considered the relevant factors, and articulated a rational basis for its decision. Specifically, the Commission weighed the potential harm of abolishing advertising, such as a reduction in the quantity and quality of children's programming due to loss of funding, against the benefits of regulation. It also considered the sensitive First Amendment issues involved in detailed governmental supervision of programming. The FCC's decision to allow a period of industry self-regulation while explicitly retaining jurisdiction and warning that it would adopt per se rules if self-regulation proved ineffective was a cautious and permissible approach.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the substantial deference courts afford to administrative agencies in selecting their methods of regulation, particularly in informal rulemaking contexts. It affirms that an agency can legitimately opt for a policy of monitored self-regulation over command-and-control rulemaking, so long as the choice is well-reasoned and not a complete abdication of its statutory duty. The opinion is also significant for its treatment of ex parte communications in informal rulemaking, establishing that such contacts do not per se invalidate an agency's action unless the proceeding involves competing claims to a valuable privilege, thereby distinguishing general policymaking from quasi-adjudicative contexts. This provides agencies with greater flexibility in gathering information and negotiating with regulated industries in general rulemaking proceedings.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission (1977) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Action for Children's Television v. Federal Communications Commission