d he would be approaching us under a short sort of a chevron step to going of analysis back and so the agency in this case has changed its again i'm not arguing about the change of position the basic authority of the commission to assess the fees just like in concept where they said the the f c c couldn't come up with a fee category for unregulated railroads or people eating ice cream it has to have an initial  authority to reach the entities it's trying to assess the fees from so here's the statute just says space stations that's it and it doesn't in any way limit that but that is that could be on the most this is an example interpretation perhaps even the best interpretation well st of all your honor i mean there are lots of entities that impose regulatory costs on the agency that are not assessed regulatory steeds that's that's beyond doubt there's lots and lots of it also beyond doubt that the agencies under that particular statute are paying the agency under to be feted receiving food based on cost it never mind that there are a lot of things in the world that are regulated that sat the international organizations were exempt already under the international organizations immunities act so in a sense that the commission's new interpretation trying to say that all of that legislative last sentence combined with the nd sentence seems to have a implied thus therefore these fees will apply only to space stations directly licensed by the commission under the act thus these will not be applied i'm adding the word bus fees will not be applied to space stations operated by international organizations legislative history i think has begun ambiguous itself you know either does or it does not there's no hook as we've said before there's no hook between the legislative history or your interpretation of the legislative history and the s if there is it's it it's entirely consistent with the entire structure of the statute which was that want to regionally passed by congress only applied fees durtal to energies that the f c c directly license authorized and that's exactly what the legislative history says is they're entirely consistent we mean when we say space stations only those authorized by the f c c pursuant to title three well ok even if you're right about what let's the last time the f c c decided it didn't have to or stiction and it didn't they haven't changed since the further notice of holes rulemaking in this very proceeding in which the f c c seemed to assume that its prior construction was cracked and that the only way to reach non u s licensed satellites was via some change that happened in re bombs act it was only at the th hour that they came up with this grand new theory on how we've gone back and looked at legislative history from thirty years ago decided we interpreted it incorrectly twenty five years ago and now we have a new view of what section nine has always meant apparently that we were supposed to be plying the regulatory fees to non u s satellites well the luau congress  would call the n p r news and the agency specifically made several statements looking to general questions as to whether or not the foreign license should be charge regulatory fees that put that general question out to be sure they said did the rave bomb statute all or the situation but they had several times looked at the general question so you were in on notice that they were trying to figure a way to interpret the language of everything to allow them to an imposed phase on foreign license satellite so you were on notice that seems to me any lawyer would have realized they were they had been several times reaching for the proper theory so  for almost thirty years at that point twenty five years it was not know nobody thought that that was an issue well except that they just see had several times been looking to see how they would get around the like we're going to make the most general statement and you've got to think about every conceivable argument including those that have been decided for twenty five years and accepted as the given construction of the statute nonetheless assuming that they have or haven't given notice they've legally said enough to get this done in that room making sure you're still stuck with the problem that you have this interpretation by the agency seems to be consistent with the language everything we need now and i do i agree that courts should make the decision tell us what section nine means i would like to have a chance to talk about reenactment because i think this is a classic reenactment case but i see my time is expired here you're well good morning your honour's now for the federal communications commission legislative history for our section nine in particular profession or tell us that filed formal comments file formal reply comments specifically opposing those comments that maintain that the commission has had already to impose regulatory issue on space stations that aren't directly authorized by the commission to access us section and provide satellite service and in the united states ever sense section on risk st and that section nine provided the commission with a specific authority to assess regulatory fees on space stations space stations that are in geostationary orbit and they stations that are not geostationary orbit those are the only two categories the space stations petitioner's they operate in the united states and provide service and united states under authority at the legislative history in concluding that that legislative history does not act as a bar to imposing regulatory free market acce preity why do you dismiss the legislative history is because you do you read it as focused really on the international organizations only that that is the decision not to assess regulatory fee on non u s license base stations and that hour and the reason it did so was r exclusively and the legislative history not in the statute and that and now the commission and could not reasonably have if you have in your brief future you argue that the focus of the congress even on the legislative history was not to touch international organizations and that's was that and the contacts of there being only two types of satellites when section i was inactive there were always satellites that were directly licensed by the it what do you what's your reaction to mr frears three years argument that the commission's interpretation of the commission's new interpretation of the commission has reviewed this issue sent a regulatory feel his bar and act as if that and this was only the latest time that the commission sought authority to impose regulatory phase that is correct and the commission actually a dismissed comments regarding the raid bonds act asked irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the c c c authority for better or worse that's what the court did at that case i think that was the right approach i know i know to dan that the commission has referred once again to a section ninety amendment  was claiming that this was a ninety amendment the reaction in the report in order i don't think you can just use that isn't worth it incantation and do whatever you want if you're the f c c create new categories out of whole clot but there were instances of non u s satellites providing service at the time and it was official us policy to facilitate the expansion of that kind of service it wasn't any kind of surprise to anybody indeed the