Pursuant to § 402(a) of the Communications Act,1 Gerico Investment Company2 petitions this court in No. 14387 for review of the action of the Commission in assigning a new and fourth VHF channel, No. 6, to Miami, Florida, in a rule-making proceeding. Gerico contends that this action constitutes a modification of its own UHF license on Channel 17 at Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The argument is that the economic effect of assigning Channel 6 to Miami will cause such severe economic injury to Gerico’s operations on Channel 17 as to constitute a modification of its license. On the basis of the reasoning which led us to conclude that the grant of a construction permit for a VHF station on Channel 10 at Miami did not constitute in law a modification of Gerico’s license at Fort Lauderdale on Channel 17 we are unable to accept Gerico’s present contention. See Gerico Investment Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 141, 255 F.2d 893.

Gerico’s petition also challenges the action of the Commission in refusing to modify Gerico’s own license, above referred to, by permitting operation on the new VHF Channel 6 in lieu of Channel 17. It is urged that in this manner the Commission could remedy the problem by placing Gerico in a position to have a fair chance of operating successfully in competition with VHF stations in the area. To sustain this contention we would be required to hold, as we cannot do, that the Commission, has been arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable in opening the question of allocating Channel 6 to other applicants as well as to Gerico. The disposition of this channel is now before the Commission to be determined in a consolidated proceeding in which we must at present assume that the rights of the respective applicants, including Gerico, will be respected by the Commission, subject to judicial review.

The actions of the Commission above discussed will be sustained in case No. 14387. The appeal in case No. 14386, filed pursuant to § 402(b), directed to the same matters, will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, since the provisions for judicial review contained in §§ 402 (a) and 402(b) are mutually exclusive.

It is so ordered.