# **Before the**

# **FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

# **Washington D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

AT&T CORPORATION ) File No. ITC-MSC-19981229-00905 ) Application for
Authority under )

Section 214 of the Communications )

Act, as amended, to Discontinue )

The Offering of High Seas Service )

And to Close its Three Radio Coast )

Stations (KMI, WOM and WOO) )

#### ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Adopted: July 9, 2001 Released: July 10, 2001

By the Chief, International Bureau:

#### I. INTRODUCTION

1.  In this Order we deny petitions seeking reconsideration of the
    International Bureau's 1999 *Discontinuance Order*[^1] and reaffirm
    the grant of authority to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to close three
    public coast stations and discontinue its High Seas Radiotelephone
    Service (High Seas Service)[^2] previously offered over those
    facilities. We conclude that the petitioners do not offer any new
    facts or evidence that was not before the Bureau at the time we
    issued the *Discontinuance Order*; nor do petitioners demonstrate a
    material error or omission in the *Discontinuance Order*.
    Accordingly, as explained below, we deny their petitions and
    reaffirm the *Discontinuance Order*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
II. **BACKGROUND**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  On December 29, 1998, AT&T filed an application for authority to
    discontinue its offer of High Seas Service.[^3] In the
    *Discontinuance Order,* the Bureau found that AT&T had shown that it
    was losing money on the offer of High Seas Service and that there
    was no compelling need to require it to continue to offer the
    service.[^4] The Bureau also found that users of the service had
    several viable alternatives available, including satellite-based
    telecommunications services as well as offerings of HF radio service
    by other companies.[^5]

3.  On September 8, 1999, David E. Hoxeng (Hoxeng) filed a Petition for
    Reconsideration of the *Discontinuance Order.*[^6] On September 9,
    1999, MarSal Marine L.C. (MarSal) filed a pleading styled a \"Motion
    for Reconsideration\" seeking the same remedy.[^7] On September 21,
    1999, AT&T filed an Opposition to the Hoxeng and MarSal
    petitions.[^8] On October 7, 1999, Hoxeng filed a reply to the AT&T
    Opposition.[^9] In this Order, we rule on the pending petitions for
    resonsideration.

4.  In addition to his petition for reconsideration, Hoxeng filed an
    Emergency Motion for Stay (Stay Motion) of the *Discontinuance
    Order*.[^10] On October 8, 1999, AT&T filed an Opposition to
    Hoxeng\'s Stay Motion.[^11] By separate Order, released October 13,
    1999, we denied Hoxeng's Stay Motion, stating that Petitioner had
    failed to show that he was likely to prevail on the merits.[^12]
    However, because some of the arguments raised in the Stay Motion,
    and AT&T\'s Opposition thereto, cast additional light on the issues
    raised in the petitions for reconsideration, we consider those
    arguments where relevant.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. **DISCUSSION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  Petitioners challenge four aspects of the *Discontinuance Order*.
    First, Hoxeng and MarSal challenge the sufficiency of the cost
    information on which the Bureau concluded that requiring AT&T to
    continue to offer High Seas Service would subject AT&T to economic
    harm. Second, Hoxeng and MarSal challenge the Bureau's conclusion
    that current AT&T customers will have adequate alternatives to High
    Seas Service. Third, petitioners argue that, due to limitations on
    the coverage areas of the various alternative HF radiotelephone
    providers, significant numbers of current AT&T customers will be
    deprived of reliable HF communications and that this would represent
    a significant safety risk to such users. Finally, Hoxeng argues that
    the Bureau should have designated the AT&T application for an oral
    hearing.[^13]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Cost Issue**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  **[Background.]{.underline}** In the *Discontinuance Order*, we
    found that AT&T was incurring significant financial losses in
    offering High Seas Service and that it would be a hardship to
    require AT&T to continue to offer the service indefinitely under
    those circumstances.[^14] AT&T supported its application for
    discontinuance with information showing the decline in volumes and
    revenues that had occurred between May 1997 and March 1999.[^15]
    AT&T also filed a letter on August 4, 1999, that stated that it had
    experienced a loss on the service in 1998 of more than \$5 million
    and that it projected a greater loss for 1999.[^16] Additionally, in
    its opposition to Hoxeng's Emergency Stay Petition, AT&T included a
    document entitled "High Seas Radiotelephone Fully Allocated Income
    Statement" (Income Statement) that provided greater detail with
    respect to the loss figure in its August 4, 1999, letter.[^17]

7.  **[Discussion.]{.underline}** We reaffirm the finding in the
    *Discontinuance Order* that AT&T has demonstrated that it was
    incurring a significant loss on the offer of High Seas Service.
    Hoxeng asserts that AT&T\'s cost information is deficient under the
    Commission\'s decision in its 1978 *Public Coast Station
    Inquiry.*[^18] Hoxeng argues that, under the holding in the *Public
    Coast Station Inquiry*, the Bureau should have required AT&T "to
    submit detailed financial statements with a sworn statement by its
    Certified Public Accountant."[^19] Since its decision in the *Public
    Coast Station Inquiry*, however, the Commission has streamlined the
    regulations under which non-dominant carriers seek authority to
    discontinue service.[^20] As a result, the *Public Coast Inquiry* no
    longer controls what a non-dominant carrier must submit under the
    current regulations, and, thus, provides no grounds on which to
    reconsider the finding that AT&T was incurring significant financial
    losses in providing High Seas Service.[^21]

8.  We also are not persuaded by Hoxeng\'s arguments that AT&T\'s cost
    information is deficient because the reports that AT&T submitted are
    unsigned and did not indicate they were prepared by a certified
    public accountant. The procedures for applying for authority to
    discontinue a common carrier service do not establish any specific
    requirements regarding the contents of financial statements.[^22]
    There is no rule that requires applicants to have a certified public
    accountant prepare cost information for submission in a Commission
    proceeding, nor does the Commission require applicants to submit
    affidavits or to swear to the truth of information they submit. The
    document in question was signed by AT&T\'s attorney and therefore is
    subject to Section 1.52 of the Commission\'s rules.[^23]
    Furthermore, Hoxeng has not provided us with any reason to question
    the accuracy of any of the cost information that AT&T submitted or
    the truthfulness of any statements AT&T has made in this proceeding.

9.  We agree with Hoxeng that the figures cited in the *Discontinuance
    Order* understate the revenue AT&T derived from High Seas Service,
    but this has no decisional relevance. The Order stated that, for the
    12-month period from April 1998 through March 1999, AT&T's High Seas
    Service generated total revenues of \$235,587. As Hoxeng correctly
    noted in his petition, calculations based on the materials submitted
    by AT&T show revenues during that period of \$1,549,244. The figures
    contained in the Order were calculated using the materials AT&T
    submitted in its May 6, 1999, letter. However, we did not base our
    conclusion that AT&T had experienced a loss on High Seas Service on
    those figures. The revenue figure of \$235,587 was not intended to
    support AT&T's claim of a loss of \$5 million. Rather, the figure
    was intended merely to show that AT&T's High Seas revenues appeared
    to be declining over time. The conclusion that AT&T was incurring
    losses on High Seas Service was based on the figure AT&T submitted
    in its August 4, 1999, letter. In the Income Statement attached to
    its opposition to Hoxeng's stay motion, AT&T amplified upon the loss
    figure in its August 4, 1999, letter, showing it had experienced a
    1998 loss \$5,163,000 and a 1999 loss of \$5,061,000.[^24] As a
    result, the calculation did not affect the Bureau's conclusion that
    AT&T had shown a loss of approximately \$5 million.[^25]

10. We also are not persuaded by Hoxeng\'s argument in his Reply to AT&T
    Stay Opposition that the cost information in AT&T's Income Statement
    is deficient because it includes annual charges of approximately \$2
    million for depreciation.[^26] It is reasonable for carriers to
    include allocations for depreciation in determining the costs
    associated with a service,[^27] and Hoxeng has not provided any
    information that would suggest that the specific amount that AT&T
    charged for depreciation is unreasonable. Moreover, even were we to
    disallow the entire \$2 million depreciation charge, AT&T\'s Income
    Statement would still show an annual loss of more than \$3
    million.[^28] An annual loss of \$3 million would still mean that
    AT&T was incurring a loss on High Seas Service and that requiring
    AT&T to continue providing the service would continue to place a
    financial burden on AT&T.[^29]

11. Finally, we are not persuaded by Hoxeng\'s claim that AT&T violated
    the *ex parte* rules.[^30] In his reply to AT&T's opposition, Hoxeng
    noted that AT&T claimed in its opposition that the \$5 million loss
    figure in its August 4, 1999, letter summarized "substantial"
    financial information it had provided the Bureau staff at the May 6,
    1999, meeting.[^31] Hoxeng claims that this constitutes an admission
    that it violated the *ex parte* rules because its May 6, 1999,
    letter summarizing that meeting does not include any such cost
    information.[^32] As required by our *ex parte* rules,[^33] AT&T
    submitted letters disclosing its various meetings with the Bureau
    staff.[^34] It is true that most of AT&T's *ex parte* letters
    contained no information concerning the profitability of High Seas
    Service. AT&T's August 4, 1999, letter did, however, address that
    issue, stating that AT&T had experienced a loss in 1998 of
    approximately \$5 million and that it was projecting a similar loss
    for 1999.[^35] Hoxeng also argues[^36] that AT&T violated the *ex
    parte* rules by failing to disclose in its *ex parte* letters
    information on its claim that it would need to invest \$5 million to
    make High Seas Service "Y2K compliant." It is clear, however, from
    the *Discontinuance Order* that we did not base our decision to
    authorize AT&T to discontinue High Seas Service on the cost of
    making the service Y2K compliant, but upon the information AT&T
    provided showing a steadily declining customer base and a loss of
    \$5 million per year.[^37] We found AT&T\'s claimed loss to be
    sufficient to show economic harm justifying the grant of
    discontinuance authority. As a result, we need not consider whether
    High Seas Service was compliant with Y2K or whether the \$5 million
    investment claimed by AT&T is reasonable and substantiated. We,
    thus, conclude that Hoxeng has not shown material error in our
    finding in the *Discontinuance Order* that AT&T would experience
    economic harm were we to require it to continue to offer High Seas
    Service indefinitely.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Sufficiency of Alternative Services**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
12. **[Background]{.underline}**. The *Discontinuance Order* concluded
    that there are adequate alternative services available to users of
    High Seas Service such that granting AT&T authority to discontinue
    service would not prevent users from obtaining maritime
    communications service. We found that there are several alternatives
    to AT&T\'s High Seas Service including INMARSAT satellite-based
    services, AT&T\'s SeaCall service, and Iridium satellite-based
    global mobile telephone service.[^38] The Order further noted that
    these services would require current users of AT&T\'s High Seas
    Service to make capital expenditures of varying amounts up to
    approximately \$6,500 for an INMARSAT mobile satellite
    terminal.[^39] The Order found that such expenditures are not
    substantially out of line with the \$2,500 cost of an HF radio and
    concluded that such services are, therefore, not too costly to be a
    reasonable alternative to HF radio service.[^40] In addition, the
    Bureau found that vessels close to the coast of the United States
    could use cellular telephone service, VHF radiotelephone service and
    the services of the domestic American Mobile Satellite
    Corporation.[^41] Finally, the Bureau found that users also have
    five alternative HF radio services that they can, for the most part,
    access without additional investment for new equipment: the HF
    services offered by one U.S. licensee, Mobile Marine Radio Co., and
    four foreign licensees, Stratos Mobile Networks, a Canadian carrier,
    Telia, a Swedish carrier, Telecom-Telegrafos Mexico (XDA), a Mexican
    carrier and Telstra, an Australian carrier. [^42]

13. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We reaffirm the conclusion in the
    *Discontinuance Order* that users have adequate alternatives to
    AT&T's High Seas Service. Hoxeng and MarSal argue that the
    conclusion in the *Discontinuance Order* that users have adequate
    substitutes to High Seas Service was incorrect because the
    alternatives we found to exist\--satellite-based radiotelephone
    services and alternative HF services\--are not reasonably equivalent
    to AT&T's High Seas Service. Hoxeng argues that satellite-based
    services we cited are too costly for many users.[^43] Hoxeng and
    MarSal also argue that the HF services provided by the five
    alternative providers do not provide as extensive a coverage as does
    AT&T's High Seas Service. MarSal argues that the three stations used
    for High Seas Service provide a more reliable coverage under varying
    propagation conditions than does any single station operated by the
    alternative providers. In his Stay Motion, Hoxeng challenged the
    adequacy of the alternative providers' coverage by including
    computer-generated graphs that purport to show three positions
    within the coverage AT&T's High Seas Service where it would be
    impossible to contact any of the five other providers.[^44] Marsal
    further argues that it is much easier to obtain service from one
    provider, AT&T, rather than multiple providers, particularly because
    some are foreign-owned.[^45] Hoxeng and MarSal also argue that,
    because one of the alternative providers, XDA, does not guarantee
    that all of its operators can speak English, its service is an
    inadequate substitute for AT&T service and that use of the phonetic
    alphabet to communicate with a non-English speaker is difficult or
    impossible.[^46]

14. The arguments of Hoxeng and MarSal do not persuade us to change our
    finding that one or more of the alternative services identified in
    the *Discontinuance Order* will meet the needs of AT&T's High Seas
    Service subscribers. We continue to find that satellite-based
    communications service is a viable alternative to High Seas Service.
    The *Discontinuance Order* identified two such services: 1) AT&T's
    SeaCall service, offered over the INMARSAT satellite system, and 2)
    the Iridium satellite system, offered over a network of low earth
    orbit satellites.[^47]

15. As discussed in *the Discontinuance Order*, the Commission has held
    that the mere fact that a substitute service costs more than a
    discontinued service, or that a customer must purchase new equipment
    to use it, does not render the substitute service nonviable.[^48]
    The issue, therefore, is not whether customers must purchase
    satellite terminals in order to use satellite-based services, but
    whether the price for such terminals is so high that most users
    cannot afford to purchase them. As to the Inmarsat alternative, we
    do not agree with petitioners that the cost of purchasing the
    INMARSAT terminals is prohibitive. As to the AT&T SeaCall service
    option, the higher cost of SeaCall terminals is offset by the fact
    that AT&T levies substantially lower per-minute charges for SeaCall
    service than it did for High Seas Service.[^49]

16. Hoxeng raises only one cost issue that was not directly addressed in
    the *Discontinuance Order*. Specifically, Hoxeng argues that the
    *Discontinuance Order* understated the cost for some users of High
    Seas Service to switch to satellite-based services because it failed
    to consider the approximately \$1,200 those users had incurred in
    purchasing a special handset that was pretuned to the AT&T coast
    stations.[^50] Hoxeng argues that AT&T's closure of High Seas
    Service would render the handset useless. Hoxeng contends that the
    cost these customers would incur in obtaining satellite-based
    service is even greater than the *Discontinuance Order* stated,
    because they would also lose the benefit of lower per-minute usage
    charges that AT&T had charged purchasers of the handset.[^51] With
    respect to the cost of the handset, we note that the amount spent
    represents a sunk cost that such purchasers cannot avoid. Customers
    who purchased their handsets several years ago have recovered some
    of that expenditure in the form of savings from reduced per-minute
    charges. For others, whose handsets were still under warranty at the
    time AT&T discontinued High Seas Service, AT&T promised to rebate a
    portion of the purchase price.[^52]

17. Moreover, AT&T's High Seas Service customers need not subscribe to
    satellite-based services, but may continue to use their existing HF
    radio equipment with other HF service providers if they choose. As
    we noted in the *Discontinuance Order*, there are one U.S. and four
    foreign providers of HF radio service that collectively serve an
    area nearly identical to that of AT&T\'s High Seas Service.[^53] We
    find nothing in petitioners' comments concerning the service
    coverage of these alternative providers that persuades us that the
    analysis in the *Discontinuance Order* on this point was incorrect.
    AT&T included in Exhibit B of its Opposition to Hoxeng's Stay Motion
    material obtained from the alternative providers that confirm that
    the coverage information AT&T included in its May 25, 1999, letter
    correctly stated their claimed service areas.[^54] We do not believe
    that the graphs Hoxeng included with his Stay Motion[^55] prove that
    the coverage area claimed by the providers is inaccurate. Hoxeng
    argues that the graphs show a point within the coverage area of each
    of the alternative providers where it would be impossible to contact
    such provider's coast station. As MarSal notes, however, the range
    of HF communications can vary from day to day and from season to
    season, depending upon atmospheric conditions, interference and
    other man-made radio noise.[^56] We agree with AT&T that the
    submitted analyses prove only that on the particular date and time
    of the survey, a ship at that location would likely be able to reach
    AT&T but not one of the alternative providers. Similarly, at another
    location on the same day, or at the same location on another day,
    the ship might be able to contact one of the alternative providers
    but not AT&T. As even Petitioners have acknowledged, one cannot
    expect to be able to communicate with every station every day.[^57]
    Thus, Hoxeng's evidence does not prove that the alternative
    providers have misstated their areas of coverage or negate the
    Bureau's conclusion that the five alternative providers collectively
    offer service that is a reasonable substitute for AT&T\'s High Seas
    Service for most users.[^58] Moreover, if users do not like the
    alternative HF providers, they can subscribe to one of the
    satellite-based services.

18. We note, however, that satellite-based services, which are provided
    via geostationary satellites orbiting the Earth at the equator,
    cannot provide full service near the North and South poles.[^59] For
    those relatively few vessels that venture into such waters, called
    in International Maritime Organization (IMO) terms \"Sea area
    A4,\"[^60] HF radio is the only viable means of communications. The
    issue of coverage of Sea Area A4 is, however, mostly irrelevant to
    the question of AT&T's discontinuing High Seas Service. In materials
    AT&T provided to the Bureau staff, AT&T included a map of the
    service coverage of its three US coast stations.[^61] That map shows
    that one of its stations, WOO in New Jersey, serves a small portion
    of the north polar region above Greenland and Northern Europe, and
    another of its stations, KMI in California, serves a small area of
    the south polar region south of Australia. None of its stations
    serves the vast bulk of the waters around the North Polar icecap or
    the waters off the coast of Antarctica. Comparing the map of AT&T
    coverage with the map of the coverage of the five alternative
    suppliers in AT&T's May 25, 1999, letter shows that Stockholm Radio
    provides nearly the same coverage of the north polar region as did
    AT&T and that Telstra provides nearly the same coverage of the south
    polar region as did AT&T. It is apparent from the service coverage
    maps that neither AT&T nor the five alternative providers were
    intended to provide a comprehensive coverage of the polar regions.
    As a result, the closure of AT&T's High Seas Service will not
    deprive vessels operating in the Polar Regions of any ability to
    communicate that they previously had.

    **C. Safety Issue**

19. **[Background]{.underline}.** The *Discontinuance Order* concluded
    that AT&T's discontinuance of High Seas Service would not have a
    significant effect on the safety of ships at sea.[^62] It noted that
    the responsibility of the United States with respect to maritime
    communications is contained in the International Convention for
    Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)[^63] to which the United States is a
    Signatory.[^64] Under the SOLAS the primary means to ensure maritime
    safety is the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
    (GMDSS),[^65] which does not rely upon commercial HF radio coast
    stations such as those of AT&T. GMDSS differs from the older system
    of distress communications in that it is fully automated, seeking to
    ensure that distress communications can be received at any hour of
    the day or night.

20. Commercial HF radio coast stations have never been charged with the
    responsibility for maritime safety communications. In the United
    States, that function has been the responsibility of the U.S. Coast
    Guard. The Coast Guard does not monitor commercial HF frequencies.
    Rather, as the *Discontinuance Order* noted, the Coast Guard
    monitors an international distress channel at 2182 KHz (2.182 MHz).
    This distress channel will be available to HF users until they
    switch to GMDSS. [^66] For these reasons, the Bureau concluded that
    the discontinuance of High Seas Service would not unduly harm the
    operation of the GMDSS or prevent the United States from meeting its
    obligations under SOLAS. Although the *Discontinuance Order* noted
    that customers have used AT&T's High Seas Service to place distress
    calls, and to place calls for assistance that do not rise to the
    level of distress calls,[^67] it concluded that discontinuance of
    High Seas Service would not prevent customers from continuing to use
    HF for such calls. Rather, it noted that users could rely on other
    commercial HF services for this function.

21. **[Discussion]{.underline}**. Hoxeng and MarSal both argue that
    discontinuance of High Seas Service would adversely affect maritime
    safety, particularly during hurricane season.[^68] Hoxeng argues
    that SOLAS does not require vessels to monitor the 2182 KHz distress
    channel and is therefore of little value to most vessels in
    distress. Further, while Hoxeng acknowledges that the U.S. Coast
    Guard will continue to monitor the 2182 KHz channel, he notes that
    the range of communications on that frequency is "only a few hundred
    miles" and argues that many vessels will not be able to reach the
    Coast Guard.[^69] Both petitioners argue that, because many boats
    are not required to have GMDSS equipment, commercial HF stations
    such as those of AT&T are often the only way for vessels to make
    their distress calls heard. Hoxeng further notes that even if
    vessels are equipped with satellite terminals, they cannot use them
    beyond 70° North or South Latitude.

22. We find that petitioners have not provided any new information that
    would cause us to change the conclusion in the *Discontinuance
    Order* that cessation of AT&T\'s High Seas Service will not unduly
    compromise maritime safety communications or undermine the
    commitments of the United States under the SOLAS agreement.
    Petitioners have acknowledged that the *Discontinuance Order* was
    correct that international regulations do not rely on commercial HF
    radio services for maritime safety communications but upon the
    GMDSS.[^70] Petitioners do not challenge the finding in the
    *Discontinuance Order* that there is no international distress
    channel in the HF band, nor our finding that ships and shore
    stations are not required to monitor the HF band for distress
    calls.[^71] Until 1999 the international radiotelephone distress
    channel was the MF channel at 2182 KHz, on which most HF
    transceivers can send and receive.[^72] Since 1999, however, SOLAS
    no longer requires ships to monitor the 2182 KHz distress channel
    and has, thus, reduced its efficacy as a means of placing distress
    calls. This fact, however, has no direct relevance to the
    discontinuance of AT&T's High Seas Service because international
    regulations have never required ships to monitor commercial HF
    frequencies for distress calls. The *Discontinuance Order* noted
    that ships navigating within the range of the U.S. Coast Guard
    stations will have some protection because the Coast Guard has
    announced that it will continue to monitor 2182 KHz until 2005.[^73]

23. The *Discontinuance Order* recognized that users of High Seas
    Service have in fact used it to send distress calls and other safety
    communications.[^74] It noted, however, that discontinuance of
    AT&T's High Seas Service would not leave users of HF radio services
    without the ability to use their HF radios to send distress
    calls.[^75] Such users can subscribe to one or more of the five
    other providers of HF radiotelephone service. Those services can
    carry distress and safety calls in the same way that AT&T does.

24. Comprehensive international maritime safety communications will only
    be provided via the GMDSS system. Users who wish to protect
    themselves fully can subscribe to a satellite-based radiotelephone
    service and acquire the equipment needed to participate in the
    GMDSS. Those who do not wish to participate in GMDSS can, of course
    continue to use their HF radios to communicate with HF coast
    stations other than those of AT&T. The *Discontinuance Order* noted
    that users who do not feel the need for the full panoply of GMDSS
    service can use their existing HF radios to access parts of the
    GMDSS if they purchase DSC equipment.[^76] Because such equipment
    can be purchased for approximately \$1,000 to \$2,000, they can take
    advantage of the automated monitoring features of the GMDSS while
    saving the cost of a satellite terminal.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  **Hearing Issue**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
25. **[Background]{.underline}.** The Bureau placed AT&T's application
    for discontinuance authority on public notice on January 22,
    1999.[^77] Twenty-five members of the public, including MarSal and
    Hoxeng, and one employee of AT&T filed comments. Prior to issuance
    of the *Discontinuance Order*, no one requested the Commission to
    hold an oral hearing.

26. **[Discussion.]{.underline}** We are not persuaded that we should
    have set the AT&T discontinuance request for oral hearing prior to
    adopting the *Discontinuance Order*. [^78] Hoxeng argues that we
    should have set the matter for hearing because Section 309 (d) of
    the Act[^79] obligates us to set an application under Title III for
    hearing whenever a party has filed a petition to deny the
    application that contains specific allegations sufficient to show
    that a grant of the application would be *prima facie* inconsistent
    with the public interest, or that the Commission lacks sufficient
    data on which to make an informed decision.[^80] Further, Hoxeng
    asserts that the Communications Act generally requires the
    Commission to hold a hearing or formal inquiry where substantial and
    material facts have been presented that need to be resolved.[^81]
    AT&T did not address this issue in its opposition to the Hoxeng
    petition.

27. We find that Hoxeng's reliance upon Section 309 (d) is misplaced.
    Section 309 (d) states that the filing of a petition to deny an
    application under Section 309 (d) renders it subject to Section 309
    (e). Section 309 (e) states that it applies to applications that
    come under Section 308 of the Act.[^82] Section 308, in turn, states
    that it covers requests by an applicant for the grant, modification
    or renewal of a construction permit or station license for a radio
    station.[^83] AT&T's application in this matter does not request a
    grant, modification or renewal of any radio station license. Indeed,
    AT&T did not request any action under Section 308 or any other
    provision of Title III, but authority under Section 214(a) of the
    Act to discontinue its offer of High Seas Service on a common
    carrier basis.

28. Carrier requests for authority to discontinue common carrier service
    come under Section 214 even in cases where, as here, the carrier
    also must hold a license under Title III.[^84] We recognize that
    AT&T would, after being granted discontinuance authority, close its
    stations and return to the Commission the station licenses under
    which it operated the service.[^85] Section 308, however, does not
    require AT&T to file an application for authority to surrender a
    radio station license. As a result, we conclude that nothing in
    Section 309(d) would obligate the Commission to hold a hearing on
    AT&T's Section 214 application.

29. Under Section 214, the Bureau is not legally obligated to order an
    oral hearing on the AT&T application, whether or not someone has
    opposed the application.[^86] Nor do we find that the Administrative
    Procedure Act (APA) would separately require us to hold an oral
    hearing on the AT&T application. Actions under Section 214(a) to
    grant or deny authorizations constitute "adjudications" within the
    meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[^87] Section
    554 (a) of the APA, relating to adjudications, states that the
    hearing requirement it details applies to "adjudications required by
    statute to be determined on the record after opportunity for agency
    hearing."[^88] As noted above, Section 214 (a) does not require a
    hearing, let alone a hearing "on the record." While courts have held
    that a statute need not contain the wording of Section 554 (a)
    verbatim to trigger the applicability of Section 554,[^89] the
    absence of any hearing requirement gives little support to a claim
    that Section 214 requires use of the formal procedures of
    Section 554. The fact that Congress did not in Section 214 require
    an oral hearing in discontinuance proceedings is evidence that
    Congress was leaving it to the discretion of the Commission to
    decide what procedure to use.[^90] Here, the Commission has provided
    adequate notice and opportunity for comment through the procedures
    that the Bureau employed**.**

    **IV. CONCLUSION**

30. For the reasons discussed above, we find that neither Petitioner has
    presented any basis for concluding that the *Discontinuance Order*
    was wrongly decided or that we should reopen the issue of AT&T\'s
    authorization to discontinue its High Seas Service. We therefore
    affirm our prior conclusion to grant AT&T authorization to
    discontinue its High Seas Service.

    **V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

31. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petitions for reconsideration
    filed by David E. Hoxeng and MarSal Marine L.C. are hereby DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Donald Abelson

    Chief, International Bureau

[^1]: ^?^ *AT&T Corporation, Application for Authority under Section 214
    of* the *Communications, as Amended, to Discontinue the Offering of
    High Seas Service and to Close its Three Radio Coast Stations (KMI,
    WOM and WOO)*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 13,225
    (1999) (*Discontinuance Order*).

[^2]: ^?^ High Seas Service was a High Frequency (HF) radiotelephone
    service AT&T offered between three public coast stations in the
    United States and ships in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the
    Gulf of Mexico.

[^3]: ^?^ AT&T Corporation, Application for Authority to Discontinue
    High Seas Service, File No. ITC-MSC-19981229-00905 (filed December
    29, 1998).

[^4]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,228-9.

[^5]: ^?^ *Id*. at 13,229-31.

[^6]: ^    ?^ David E. Hoxeng, Petition for Reconsideration (filed
    September 9, 1999). On September 10, 1999, Hoxeng filed a Motion for
    Acceptance of Errata to Petition for Reconsideration asking us to
    accept an amended copy of his Petition that corrected certain
    typographical and citation errors in his original petition. David E.
    Hoxeng, Motion for Acceptance of Errata to Petition for
    Reconsideration (Hoxeng Petition) (filed September 10, 1999). The
    motion noted that both it and the originally filed petition have
    been served on AT&T. Because the two petitions are essentially
    identical, and because the corrected petition will make it easier
    for us to address Hoxeng\'s arguments, we grant the Hoxeng motion.
    Citations to the Hoxeng Petition in this Order refer to the
    September 10 Prtition.

[^7]: ^    ?^ MarSal Marine L.C., Motion for Reconsideration (MarSal
    Petition) (filed September 9, 1999). Although styled as a \"Motion
    for Reconsideration,\" MarSal's pleading constitutes a petition for
    reconsideration under the Commission's rules, *see* 47 C.F.R. §
    1.106, and we shall treat it as such. On September 15, 1999, MarSal
    filed an \"Errata to Motion for Reconsideration\" to correct its
    prior Motion for Reconsideration by submitting a Certificate of
    Service showing that it had served AT&T with a copy of the Motion at
    the time it filed with the Commission.

[^8]: ^?^ AT&T Corporation, Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration
    (AT&T Opposition) (filed September 21, 1999).

[^9]: ^?^ David E. Hoxeng, Reply to Opposition to Petitions for
    Reconsideration (Hoxeng Reply) (filed on October 7, 1999).

[^10]: ^?^ David E. Hoxeng, Emergency Motion for Stay (filed October 4,
    1999).

[^11]: ^?^ AT&T Corporation, Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay
    (filed October 7, 1999). Also on October 8, 1999, Hoxeng filed an
    unauthorized pleading styled as a "Reply to \[AT&T's\] Opposition to
    Emergency Motion for Stay" (Reply to AT&T Stay Opposition). Section
    1.45(d) of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.45(d), provides
    that replies to oppositions to petitions for stay are not permitted.
    However, because it includes arguments that bear upon the issues in
    this reconsideration, we shall consider it.

[^12]: ^    ?^ *AT&T Corp*., 14 FCC Rcd 17,266 (1999).

[^13]: ^?^ MarSal did not specifically challenge the Bureau's decision
    not to hold an oral hearing, but did request in its petition that
    the Bureau hold such a hearing. MarSal Petition at 3.

[^14]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,229.

[^15]: ^?^ *See* Letter from Michael F. Del Casino, Regulatory Division
    Manager, AT&T, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated May 6,
    1999 (May 6, 1999 letter), p. 3 of attached *ex parte* materials.

[^16]: ^?^ *See* Letter from Douglas W. Schoenberger, Government Affairs
    Director, AT&T, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated August
    4, 1999 (August 4, 1999 letter), at p.1.

[^17]: ^?^ AT&T Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay, Exhibit C.

[^18]: ^    ?^ Hoxeng Petition at 8-9, citing *Inquiry into Problems of
    Public Coast Radiotelegraph Stations,* 67 FCC 2d 790, 799 (1978)
    (*Public Coast Station Inquiry*).

[^19]: ^?^ Hoxeng Petition at 9. The *Public Coast Station Inquiry*
    concerned applications by a number of operators of public telegraph
    coast stations to close their stations. In acting on those
    applications, the Commission hired Advance Technology Systems, Inc.
    (ATS) to study the various applications. The language in paragraph
    18, on which Hoxerng relies, states that the ATS study had shown
    that there was sufficiently wide variance between the cost
    information each of the applicants had submitted that the Commission
    could not conclude that the carriers had shown they were "suffering
    severe economic loss." 67 FCC 2d at 799.

[^20]: ^?^ *See Streamlining the International Section 214 Authorization
    Process and Tariff Requirements*, 11 FCC Rcd 12,884, 12,904-5,
    12,939 (1996). The Commission declared AT&T non-dominant for
    international services in *Motion of AT&T Corporation to Be Declared
    Non-Dominant for International Services*, 11 FCC Rcd 17,963 (1996).

[^21]: ^?^ In any event, that order does not require carriers seeking
    discontinuance authority to have a CPA prepare its submissions. It
    does not, in fact, specify the type of financial information such a
    carrier must submit. Rather, as is clear from footnote 34, the
    Commission merely directed the Common Carrier Bureau to study the
    issue of cost reporting and to determine the appropriate cost
    categories operators of coast stations should report. *See* 67 FCC
    2d at 799, n. 34.

[^22]: ^?^ *See* 47 C.F.R. § 63.19 (2000).

[^23]: ^    ?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1.52. That rule does not require pleadings
    signed by an applicant\'s attorney to be verified or accompanied by
    an affidavit. Rather, it states that the attorney\'s signature
    represents a certificate that he or she has read the document and
    that, to the best of the attorney\'s knowledge, information and
    belief, there is good ground to support the statements in the
    document. The rule further provides that an attorney may be
    subjected to appropriate disciplinary action should he or she make
    false statements in a submission to the Commission.

[^24]: ^?^ AT&T Opposition to Emergency Motion for Stay, Exhibit C.

[^25]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,229.

[^26]: ^    ?^ Hoxeng Reply to AT&T Stay Opposition at 6. To be precise,
    the AT&T Income Statement shows a charge for depreciation of
    \$2,078,000 in 1998 and \$1,978,000 in 1999. AT&T Stay Opposition,
    Exhibit C.

[^27]: ^    ?^ *See, e.g., Federal Power Company v. Hope Natural Gas
    Co.*, 320 U.S. 591 (1944).

[^28]: ^?^ Specifically, the resultant loss figure for 1998 would be
    \$3,085,000 (\$5,163,000 less \$2,078,000) and for 1999 would be
    \$3,083,000 (\$5,061,000 less \$1,978,000).

[^29]: ^?^ *See* 14 FCC Rcd at 13,229.

[^30]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200-16.

[^31]: ^?^ AT&T Opposition at 5.

[^32]: ^?^ Hoxeng Reply at 4-5.

[^33]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. at § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^34]: ^?^ AT&T met with the staff on May 6, May 25, June 29, July 8 and
    July 16, 1999. *See* 14 FCC Rcd at 13,227.

[^35]: ^?^ *See* AT&T's August 4, 1999, letter at p. 1.

[^36]: ^?^ Hoxeng Reply to AT&T Stay Opposition at p. 6. The term "Y2K
    compliant" refers to modifications to computer software that were
    necessary to allow computers to continue operating without
    interruption at the beginning of the year 2000 (Y2K).

[^37]: ^?^ *See* 14 FCC Rcd at 13,229.

[^38]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^39]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^40]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^41]: ^?^ *Id* at 13,233.

[^42]: ^?^ *Id* at 13,230.

[^43]: ^?^ Hoxeng Petition at 10-12.

[^44]: ^?^ Hoxeng Stay Motion, Attachments 1, 2 and 3.

[^45]: ^?^ MarSal Petition at 2.

[^46]: ^?^ Hoxeng Petition at 14-5; MarSal Petition at 2.

[^47]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,229. Although Iridium went bankrupt, its
    assets were acquired by Iridium Satellite LLC, which is providing a
    similar service. *See* The New Iridium Launches Service, The
    Washington Post, April 2, 2001, at E1.

[^48]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,230, citing *American Tel. and Tel. Co*., 63
    FCC 2d 371 (1977).

[^49]: ^?^ We noted that AT&T charged \$15.39 to initiate a High Seas
    Service call, with a three-minute minimum, and \$5.13 for additional
    minutes. Further, if the call is connected to the U.S. public
    switched telephone network, AT&T imposed an additional charge of
    \$1.78 for the first three minutes and \$.60 per minute thereafter.
    In contrast, AT&T charges \$2.50 per minute for a call over SeaCall.
    Charges for INMARSAT-based services from other providers range from
    \$2.20 to \$3.50 per minute. *Discontinuance Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at
    13,229.

[^50]: ^?^ Hoxeng Petition at 10.

[^51]: ^  \ ?^ For subscribers who purchased the special AT&T handset,
    AT&T reduced its regular \$5.13 per minute usage rate to \$1.29 per
    minute. *See* Hoxeng Petition at 10.

[^52]: ^?^ *See* AT&T's August 4, 1999, letter at p. 4.

[^53]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,230. *See also* Letter from Michael F. Del
    Casino, Regulatory Division Manager, AT&T, to Magalie Roman Salas,
    Secretary, FCC, dated May 25, 1999 (May 25, 1999, letter), p. 2 of
    attached *ex parte* materials.

[^54]: ^?^ AT&T Opposition to Stay Motion, Exhibit B. AT&T included
    information from Mobile Marine Radio (pp. 1-8), Telstra (pp. 9-12),
    Stratos (pp.13-18), XDA (p. 19). In addition, Stockholm Radio
    notified Bureau staff by facsimile with information that confirms
    the coverge information in AT&T's May 25, 1999 letter. *See*
    Facsimile from Christer Tjäder, Duty Officer, Stockholm Radio, to
    John Copes, FCC Staff, dated July 27, 1999.

[^55]: ^?^ *See* Hoxeng Stay Motion, Attachments 1, 2 and 3.

[^56]: ^?^ MarSal Petition at 1-2.

[^57]: ^?^ *See* MarSal Petition at 1. Hoxeng's Petition for
    Reconsideration also recognizes that coverage area under "optimal"
    propagation conditions may differ from actual coverage under other
    conditions. *See* Hoxeng Petition at 14. While this observation was
    offered to critique the claimed service coverage of the alternative
    HF providers, it would be true of any provider, including AT&T.

[^58]: ^?^ We are also not persuaded by Hoxeng\'s arguments that U.S.
    users will not be able to use XDA because some of the XDA radio
    operators do not speak English. In a telephone conversation with
    John Copes of the FCC Staff on July 23, 1999, the manager of XDA,
    Carlos Garcia stated that many foreign vessel operators, who do not
    speak Spanish or English, successfully use XDA through use of the
    phonetic alphabet to establish connection to the telephone network.
    A U.S. vessel operating in international waters cannot expect that
    every coast station with which it wishes to communicate will have
    English-speaking operators. Certainly, the fact that some XDA
    operators do not speak English would not be sufficient grounds for
    requiring AT&T to incur losses in operating its High Seas Service.

[^59]: ^    ?^ The *Discontinuance Order* stated that Inmarsat satellite
    service is not available beyond 80 degrees north or 80 degrees south
    latitude. *See* 14 FCC Rcd at 13,230. Hoxeng correctly notes that
    INMARSAT does not guarantee service beyond 70 degrees north or 70
    south latitude. Although INMARSAT does not guarantee 100 percent
    coverage beyond 70 degrees, a text on communications satellite
    systems states that geostationary satellites can be used up to 81.25
    degrees north or south. *See* James Martin, Communications Satellite
    Systems, at p. 49, published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978. The text
    also notes that there is little other than polar ice beyond this
    point. In any event, the difference between 70 and 80 degrees would
    not require us to change our conclusion that Inmarsat-based service
    is a viable substitute for High Seas Service. There is very little
    open water north of 70 degrees north latitude. Basically, there are
    three areas of open water above 70 degrees north latitude, the area
    north of the north slope of Alaska, the area on either side of
    Greenland (Baffin Bay and the Norwegian Sea) and an area north of
    Russia (comprising portions of the Kara, Laptev and Barents Seas).
    In the Southern Hemisphere, there are only two areas of open water
    below 70 degrees south latitude, a small portion of the Weddell Sea
    and a portion of the Ross Sea.

[^60]: ^    ?^ The IMO, an international body composed of the major
    maritime nations, including the United States, defines four ocean
    areas for purposes of its regulations regarding ship-to-shore
    communications. *See* International Maritime Organization,
    International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, as
    amended (SOLAS), Regulation 2.1 (Edition London 1997). SOLAS
    Regulation 2.1.12 defines " Sea area A1" as the are within the
    radiotelephone coverage of a Very High Frequency (VHF) coast station
    refers (about 20-25 miles). Regulation 2.1.13 defines Sea area A2 as
    the area beyond Sea area A1 that is within the radiotelephone
    coverage of at least one Medium Frequency (MF) coast station
    (roughly 100 miles). Regulation 2.1.14 defines Sea area A3 as the
    area beyond Sea areas A1 and A2 that is within the coverage of an
    Inmarsat geostationary satellite. Regulation 2.1.15 defines Sea area
    A4 as the area outside sea areas A1, A2 and A3 (roughly the area
    beyond 70 degrees north or 70 degrees south latitude.

[^61]: ^?^ Letter from Michael F. Del Casino, Regulatory Division
    Manager, AT&T to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated July 19,
    1999, p.2.

[^62]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,233-4.

[^63]: ^?^ *See* note 60, *supra.* Requirements pertaining to radio
    communications are contained in Chapter IV of SOLAS. The SOLAS
    regulations apply to all commercial passenger ships and to other
    commercial vessels over 100 tons. Private vessels are not required
    to carry radios that comply with SOLAS.

[^64]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,233.

[^65]: ^    ?^ GMDSS is an automated maritime distress communications
    system. The Commission's rules implementing GMDSS in the United
    States are set forth in 47 C.F.R. Part 80, Subpart W.

[^66]: ^?^ The 2182 KHz distress channel is technically within the MF
    rather than the HF band. Because it is so close to the HF band many
    people consider it an HF frequency and most HF transceivers can send
    and receive at 2182 KHz. SOLAS only required the monitoring of 2182
    KHz until February 1, 1999, when the GMDSS became effective, but the
    U.S. Coast Guard has announced that it will continue to monitor the
    frequency until 2005 to ensure tht U.S. HF users have time to switch
    to GMDSS.

[^67]: ^?^ In addition to calls for immediate assistance, Hoxeng notes
    that users also need to communicate to get medical aid from a
    shore-based doctor, to get advice from a shore-based mechanics, to
    contact the Coast Guard when they are out of range of a Cost Guard
    coast station and to report suspicious activity to the Coast Guard
    and Customs. Hoxeng Opposition to AT&T's Application to Discontinue
    High Seas Service, 2 (filed June 30, 1999).

[^68]: ^?^ Hoxeng Petition at 16-9; MarSal Petition at 2.

[^69]: ^?^ Hoxeng Petition at 17.

[^70]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^71]: ^?^ SOLAS Regulation 7.1.1 requires every ship to carry a VHF
    transceiver with Digital Selective Calling (DSC) that allows the
    vessel automatically to monitor VHF channel 70 (156.525 MHz) for
    distress calls. SOLAS, pp 380-1. DSC refers to digital radio
    equipment that allows the radio set automatically to monitor a
    selected frequency or frequencies and to notify the operator if it
    detects a signal on that frequency. Because VHF has a range of
    approximately 20 miles, a ship that sails no more than 20 miles off
    the coast (defined by SOLAS as Sea area A1) need carry only this
    equipment. Regulation 9.1 requires ships that sail into Sea area A2,
    defined as the area beyond area A1 that is within the coverage of an
    MF radio station with DSC (approximately 100 miles), also to carry
    an MF radio (with DSC) capable of maintaining a continuous DSC watch
    on the frequency 2187.5 KHz. SOLAS, pp. 383-4. Regulation 10.1
    requires ships that sail into Sea area A3, defined as the area
    beyond areas A1 and A2 that is within the coverage on an Inmarsat
    satellite, to carry an Inmarsat satellite terminal. SOLAS, p. 384-5.

[^72]: ^?^ Solas Convention, Regulation 7.2, p. 381.

[^73]: ^?^ 14 FCC Rcd at 13,234, n.31.

[^74]: ^?^ *Id*. at 13,234.

[^75]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^76]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^77]: ^?^ Public Notice, Report No. TEL-D-0001, released January 22,
    1999. AT&T filed its request for discontinuance authority under
    Section 63.71 of the rules, which relate to discontinuance of
    domestic service. We determined, however, that AT&T's request comes
    under Section 63.19 of the rules, which relate to discontinuance of
    international services by a non-dominant carrier. Although Section
    63.19 does not require carriers requesting discontinuance authority
    to obtain prior authorization, but only to give its customers
    60-days notice of the planned discontinuance and to notify the
    Commission when it has done so, we decided, on our own motion, to
    place AT&T's application on public notice and to allow interested
    persons to file comments on it.

[^78]: ^?^ Marsal's motion requested, without elaboration, that the
    Commission prospectively order a hearing on this matter. MarSal
    Petition at 3. Hoxeng, however, challenged the Bureau's
    *Discontinuance Order* because the Commission had not held a hearing
    before issuing the Order. Hoxeng Petition at 19-20.

[^79]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309(d).

[^80]: ^?^ Hoxeng Petition at 19, citing *U.S. v. FCC (SBS)* No.
    77-1249, 652 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1980)*.*

[^81]: ^?^ Hoxeng Petition at 19, citing 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(d)(2), (e) and
    *Citizens for Jazz on WRVR v. FCC,* 775 F.2d 392, 397 (D.C. Cir.
    1985); *Anti-Defamation League v. FCC*, 403 F.2d 169, 171 (1968);
    and *Applications of Stockholders of CBS and Westinghouse Electric
    Corporation*, 11 FCC Rcd 3733, 3738-9 (1995).

[^82]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 309 (e).

[^83]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 308 (a).

[^84]: ^?^ *See* 47 U.S.C. § 214 (a). Indeed, in cases where the
    applicant requests authority to provide a common carrier service by
    means of radio, the Commission has always issued a separate
    authorization under Section 214 and a license for the necessary
    radio facilities under Section 308.

[^85]: ^?^ Indeed, by letter dated October 13, 1999, AT&T notified the
    Commission that it was discontinuing High Seas Service and returned
    to the Commission all licenses used by its three coast stations.

[^86]: ^?^ Section 214 (a), the subsection under which the Commission
    acts on applications for authority to discontinue service, does not
    mention a hearing of any kind. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 214 (a). *See also
    ITT World Communications Inc. v. FCC,* 595 F.2d 897, 901 (2d Cir.
    1979); *Western Union International*, 76 FCC 2d 166 (1980), *aff'd
    sub nom. Western Union Int'l v. FCC,* 673 F.2d 539 (1982).

[^87]: ^?^ 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(6)-(9). Subsection 551 (7) states that an
    adjudication "means agency process for the formulation of an order."
    Subsection (6) states that an order "means the whole or part of a
    final disposition . . . of an agency in a matter other than a rule
    making but including licensing." Subsection (8) states that a
    license "includes the whole or any part of an agency permit,
    certificate, approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory
    exemption or other form of permission." Subsection (9) states that
    licensing "includes agency process respecting the grant, renewal,
    denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation,
    amendment, modification, or conditioning of a license." An action
    under Section 214(a) is an adjudication under these definitions
    because it is the process under which the Commission issues an order
    granting a carrier permission to discontinue service.

[^88]: ^?^ 5 U.S.C. § 554 (a).

[^89]: ^?^ *See Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle,* 572 F.2d 872
    (1^st^ Cir. 1978), citing *United States v. Florida East Coast
    Railway,* 410 U.S. 224, 225 (1973), where the Supreme Court rejected
    such an extreme reading in the more informal context of rulemaking.

[^90]: ^?^ Courts have recognized that "absent constitutional
    constraints or extremely compelling circumstances the administrative
    agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and
    to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge
    their multitudinous duties," *Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
    Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,* 435 U.S. 519 (1978),
    citing *FCC v. Schreiber*, 381 U.S. 279, 290 (1965) and *FCC v.
    Pottsville Broadcasting Co.,* 309 U.S. 134, 143 (1940).