**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Richard Hodson --- Request for   | ** |                              |
| Waiver of Section 1.2106(a) of   |    |                              |
| the Commission\'s Rules          | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: November 1, 2004 Released: November 2, 2004**

By the Commission:

1.  In this order, we deny the Application for Review filed by Richard
    Hodson (dba Hodson Broadcasting) on October 4, 2004. Mr. Hodson
    seeks reversal of a decision of the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau\'s Auctions and Spectrum Access Division (Division).[^1] The
    Division denied his request for waiver of Section 1.2106(a) of the
    Commission\'s rules, which requires an auction applicant that
    previously has been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any
    Federal agency to submit an upfront payment equal to 50 percent more
    than that set for each particular license.[^2]

2.  Mr. Hodson applied to participate in FM Broadcast Auction No.
    37.[^3] In his short-form application, Mr. Hodson explained that he
    had defaulted on a Federal student loan which is a non-tax debt owed
    to a Federal agency, and requested a waiver to exempt him from the
    requirement of Section 1.2106(a).[^4] By letter dated September 14,
    2004, the Division denied his waiver request.[^5] In its decision,
    the Division explained that the Commission had adopted this rule
    because \"the integrity of the auctions program and the licensing
    process dictates requiring a more stringent financial showing from
    applicants with a poor Federal financial track record.\"[^6] The
    Division ruled that \"\[w\]aiver of the upfront payment requirement
    in this instance would lead to an inconsistent application of
    \[competitive bidding\] rules and would not serve the public
    interest. The Commission\'s rules and the integrity of the
    competitive bidding process are best served by applying the upfront
    payment requirement in a fair and consistent manner.\"[^7]

By operation of Section 1.2106(a), Mr. Hodson was required to make an
upfront payment of 150 percent

of the number of bidding units of eligibility that he wished to
purchase.[^8] In his Application for Review, Mr. Hodson presents several
arguments for why the Commission should reverse the Division\'s waiver
denial.[^9]

3.  We have reviewed the Division\'s decision and find that the Division
    properly denied Hodson\'s waiver request. [^10] Aside from his
    suggestions that certain statutory provisions and a Commission rule
    intended to provide opportunities for small businesses support his
    request for waiver, Mr. Hodson provides no cogent explanation of why
    he should be treated differently than other bidders who previously
    were delinquent on a single non-tax debt owed to a Federal agency.
    He cites no other instances in which we have granted waivers to
    former defaulters of the requirement of Section 1.2106(a) to make an
    upfront payment of 150 percent. Moreover, while he discusses how his
    private interests would be served by a grant of the requested
    waiver, Hodson never states how the interests of the public would be
    served by a grant of a waiver in this instance.[^11] Hodson presents
    no facts or arguments in his Application for Review that would
    persuade us to change the Division\'s decision. We conclude that the
    Division\'s ruling was correct and that there is no reason to
    disturb it.[^12] For this reason, we affirm the denial of Hodson\'s
    waiver request.

4.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and
    309(j) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, that the Application for Review filed
    by Richard Hodson on October 4, 2004 IS DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

[^1]: Letter to Richard Hodson from Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief,
    Auctions and Spectrum Access Div., Wireless Telecommunications Bur.,
    DA 04-2975 (Sept. 14, 2004) (Division Decision).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2106(a).

[^3]: Auction No. 37 is scheduled to begin on November 3, 2004. Hodson
    requested a Commission decision on his Application for Review before
    November 3, 2004. Hodson Application for Review at 11 (filed Oct. 4,
    2004).

[^4]: Hodson Broadcasting Short-Form Application (FCC Form 175), Waiver
    Request Attachment, filed July 26, 2004.

[^5]: Division Decision at 3.

[^6]: Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission\'s Rules -- Competitive
    Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-82, *Order on Reconsideration
    of the Third Report and Order*, *Fifth Report and Order, and Fourth
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 15 FCC Rcd 15293, 15316-17
    (2000).

[^7]: Division Decision at 3.

[^8]: Hodson submitted \$65,000 as an upfront payment. Hodson\'s upfront
    payment is sufficient for eligibility to bid on 26 of 35
    construction permits designated on his short-form application (but
    not all at the same time). The Division calculated eligibility by
    dividing \$65,000 by 1.5 and rounding the result up to the nearest
    bidding unit.

[^9]: In support of his arguments, many of which were considered by the
    Division, Mr. Hodson makes the following points. Hodson argues that
    grant of his requested waiver would not affect any other Auction No.
    37 participant. Hodson Application for Review at 2, 9. Mr. Hodson
    complains that Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff should have
    amended Section 1.2106(a) by public notice, as he suggested, because
    it is an \"inflexible blanket requirement.\" *Id*. at 3. Hodson
    argues that a waiver of the 150 percent requirement should be
    granted each time a former defaulter has cured a default or
    delinquency and demonstrated rehabilitation by remaining debt free
    for a minimum of ten years. *Id*. Hodson claims his waiver request
    was \"unique,\" \"extraordinary,\" and \"distinguishable and novel
    from any other waiver request\" because he was unemployed for three
    and a half years, and has earned below the poverty level for at
    least 23 years. *Id*. at 5, 7. Hodson also argues that the
    Commission staff would not have discovered his former default if he
    had not disclosed it in his short-form application. *Id*. at 6-7.

[^10]: Mr. Hodson complains also about two minor typographic errors in
    the Division decision. These typographic errors are of no decisional
    significance and therefore are harmless error. *See North Florida
    MMDS Partners*, 10 FCC Rcd 11593, 11599 n. 19 (1995), quoting
    *Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC*, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C.
    Cir. 1970), *cert. denied*, 403 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 2233 (1971).

[^11]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.3 and 1.925.

[^12]: *See WAMC, Inc.*, 10 FCC Rcd 12219 (1995) (denying an application
    for review raising essentially the same arguments as in a petition
    for reconsideration).