Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-01478/USCOURTS-caDC-98-01478-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
Lakeshore Broadcasting, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 17, 1999 Decided December 21, 1999

No. 98-1478

Lakeshore Broadcasting, Inc.,

Appellant

v.

Federal Communications Commission,

Appellee

Appeal of an Order of the

Federal Communications Commission

George R. Borsari, Jr. argued the cause for appellant.

With him on the briefs was Anne Thomas Paxson.

Pamela L. Smith, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for appellee. On the brief were

Christopher J. Wright, General Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, C. Grey Pash, Jr., and K.

Michele Walters, Counsel.

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 1 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Ginsburg, Henderson, and Randolph, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Ginsburg.

Ginsburg, Circuit Judge: Lakeshore Broadcasting Corporation appeals an order of the Federal Communications Commission dismissing Lakeshore's application for a construction

permit due to its failure to make timely payment of the

hearing fee. Pursuant to Commission regulations, the deadline for payment of the hearing fee had been announced in a

public notice released only in the Commission's press office in

Washington, D.C.

Lakeshore claims that the Commission violated the Communications Act of 1934, the agency's own regulations, and

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States by dismissing Lakeshore's

application for failure to meet a deadline of which Lakeshore

was never given personal notice. Lakeshore also challenges

as arbitrary and capricious the Commission's denial of Lakeshore's petition for waiver of the deadline and reinstatement

of its application.

We affirm the order of the Commission. The dismissal of

Lakeshore's application for failure to pay by the deadline

does not violate any statutory, regulatory, or constitutional

constraint. Because the Commission's policy is lawful, and

because Lakeshore has failed to demonstrate that the agency

treated its application differently from others similarly situated, the Commission properly denied Lakeshore's petition for

waiver and reinstatement.

I. Background

Under the Communications Act of 1934, the Commission

grants an application for a broadcasting license based upon

its determination that "the public interest, convenience, and

necessity will be served." 47 U.S.C. s 309(a). If the Commission has before it two or more "mutually exclusive" applications--that is, applications of which only one can be granted

because they seek the same license or different licenses for

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 2 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

broadcasting stations that would interfere with each other--

then the Commission must hold a "comparative hearing" to

consider the relative merits of the applications. See Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327, 333 (1945).

The Commission periodically releases a public notice listing

applications newly accepted for filing, grouped by station so

that it is apparent where there are mutually exclusive applications subject to a comparative hearing. During the period

relevant to this litigation, such public notices were released

only in the Commission's press office in Washington, D.C.;

they were neither mailed to the listed applicants nor published by the Commission in any other form. At some point after

release of the public notice, the Commission, as required by

statute, "formally designate[s] the application for hearing ...

[and] forthwith notif[ies] the applicant." 47 U.S.C. s 309(e).

Specifically, the Commission issues a hearing designation

order (HDO) giving the time and place of the hearing and

setting forth issues to be heard, which it mails to each

affected applicant. See 47 C.F.R. s 1.221(a)-(b).

A. The Hearing Fee Deadline Rule

In 1986 the Congress added s 8 to the Communications

Act, 47 U.S.C. s 158, instructing the Commission to assess

and collect a substantial fee from each applicant subject to a

comparative hearing. See Consolidated Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-272, s 5002(e), 100

Stat. 82, 118 (1986) (COBRA). The Commission was authorized to "prescribe appropriate rules and regulations to carry

out" the fee program, 47 U.S.C. s 158(f), and to dismiss

applications for "failure to pay [the fee] in a timely manner,"

id. s 158(c)(2).

The Commission first promulgated a rule establishing the

deadline for payment of the comparative hearing fee in 1987.

At that time, the Commission opined that "[t]he relevant

legislative history indicates that [the hearing fee] should be

levied when an application is designated for hearing." See

Establishment of a Fee Collection Program, 2 F.C.C.R. 947,

p 138 (1987) (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 99-453, at 427

(1985)). The Commission therefore tied the fee deadline to

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 3 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the formal act of designating an application for hearing: Each

applicant was required to pay the hearing fee within 20 days

of the Commission's mailing the HDO to that applicant. See

id. at p p 144, 157. Thus, under the 1987 rule, an applicant

whose application had been designated for hearing received

personal notice from which the applicant--provided it knew

the deadline rule--could determine when the hearing fee was

due.

In 1990 the Commission decided to move the time for

payment of the hearing fee to an earlier stage in the comparative process; it did so in order to promote earlier settlements by weeding out non-serious applicants and by encouraging the serious ones to settle before the hearing fee was

due. See Proposals to Reform the Commission's Comparative Hearing Process to Expedite the Resolution of Cases,

Report and Order, 6 F.C.C.R. 157, p 4 [Report & Order]; see

also 47 U.S.C. s 158(g) (1990) (setting comparative hearing

fee at $6,760 for 1990). The Commission again considered

the remark in the conference report on the COBRA linking

the hearing fee to formal designation of the application for

hearing, but concluded this time that the remark was descriptive rather than prescriptive; the Congress did not intend to

limit the Commission's discretion over when to require payment. See Report & Order, 6 F.C.C.R. 157, p 6 n.8. The

Commission then adopted its current approach to setting the

deadline for payment, under which the deadline is tied to the

release of the public notice rather than to formal designation

of the application for hearing and the mailing of the HDO:

In addition to announcing the acceptance of mutually

exclusive applications and establishing a date for the

filing of petitions to deny such applications, the public

notice ... will also announce the date on which all

mutually exclusive applicants will be required to pay the

hearing fee.

47 C.F.R. s 73.3573(g)(2)(i). The new rule makes no provision for personal notice to the applicant of the deadline for

paying the fee.

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 4 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The practical effect of the 1990 rule is that once one files an

application with the Commission, one must monitor the Commission's public notices in order to determine when one's

application has been accepted for filing and whether a mutually exclusive application has been accepted; if so, then there

will be a comparative hearing, a hearing fee, and a deadline

for paying the fee. If one misses the relevant public notice,

then the payment deadline could pass--and one's application

be dismissed--before one receives personal notice (in the

HDO) that a hearing is necessary.

B. Lakeshore's Application

On January 19, 1993 Lakeshore applied to the Commission

for a permit to construct a new FM broadcast station to

operate on channel 229A. On April 9, 1993 the Commission

released at its Washington, D.C. press office Public Notice

NA-168, reporting the acceptance of five mutually exclusive

applications for channel 229A, including Lakeshore's. See

Notice of Acceptance for Filing of FM Broadcast Applications and Notice of Petitions to Deny and Hearing Fee

Deadlines, Mimeo No. 32634. The Public Notice also stated

that Lakeshore and its rivals were each required to pay the

$6,760 hearing fee "no later than June 11, 1993, or the

application will thereafter be dismissed." Id.

When June 11 arrived the other four applicants had paid

their hearing fees but Lakeshore had failed to do so. By

letter dated August 3, 1993 the Commission staff therefore

dismissed Lakeshore's application. In response, Lakeshore

tendered a check in the amount of the hearing fee, along with

a petition requesting reconsideration of the dismissal or waiver of the deadline and reinstatement of its application. The

staff denied Lakeshore's petition in 1995, and in 1998 the

Commission denied Lakeshore's application for review. See

In re Application of Lakeshore Broadcasting, Inc., 13

F.C.C.R. 19062.

II. Analysis

Lakeshore challenges the dismissal of its application, first,

on the ground that the 1990 deadline rule violates the ComUSCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 5 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

munications Act of 1934 by requiring payment of the hearing

fee before an application has been formally designated for

hearing. Second, Lakeshore claims the dismissal of its application violates the Commission regulation precluding enforcement of an unpublished requirement against a party that has

not received actual notice thereof. Third, Lakeshore argues

that the dismissal violates its fifth amendment right to due

process, both because Lakeshore was not given personal

notice of the deadline and because the published rule does not

provide fair notice of what is required of an applicant. In the

alternative, Lakeshore challenges as unreasonable and discriminatory the Commission's denial of its petition for waiver

of the deadline and reinstatement of its application.

A. The Communications Act of 1934

As mentioned above, Lakeshore claims that the Commission's deadline rule violates the Communications Act of 1934

because it requires payment of the hearing fee prior to formal

designation of the application for hearing. Under s 8 of the

Act, as added by the COBRA in 1986, the Commission is

required simply to "assess and collect" a charge for a comparative hearing; the time for its payment is not specified. The

conference report accompanying the 1986 legislation, however, describes the hearing fee as "[t]he charge levied when an

application is designated for hearing." H.R. Conf. Rep. No.

99-453, at 427 (1985). Lakeshore therefore argues that the

Congress expressed its intention that the hearing fee not be

levied--let alone made payable--before an application is formally designated for hearing.

Because the Congress committed administration of the Act

in general, and of s 8 in particular, to the Commission, see 47

U.S.C. ss 154(i) and 158(f), Lakeshore's challenge to the

agency's statutory authority is governed by the two-step

analysis of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837

(1984). Under Chevron step one, we ask "whether Congress

has directly spoken to the precise question at issue." Id. at

842. If so, then we "must give effect to the unambiguously

expressed intent of Congress." Id. at 843. If not, then

under Chevron step two we will defer to the agency's interUSCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 6 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

pretation of the statute if it is reasonable in light of the text,

the structure, and the purpose of that enactment. See id.

As for Chevron step one, we cannot say that the Congress

has spoken to the issue and made the hearing fee payable

only after the application is formally designated for hearing.

Clearly, s 8 itself is silent on the question when the hearing

fee must be paid; it requires only that "the Commission shall

assess and collect application fees." Nor does the apparent

purpose behind s 8--to recapture the costs of regulation--

have any implication for what the Congress must have intended with respect to the deadline for paying the hearing fee to

cover those costs. Finally, the conference report contains no

evidence at all that the Congress intended to preclude the

Commission from changing the timing of payment. The

relevant fragment is: "2.c. Hearing Charge--The charge

levied when an application is designated for hearing." H.R.

Conf. Rep. No. 99-453, at 427 (1985). This description appears only in the legislative history, not in the statute itself;

moreover, it is but an entry in a list describing 80 different

fees being newly imposed by the Congress in the COBRA.

We will not, based upon nothing more than this itemization in

the conference report, attribute to the Congress a definitive

intent upon a subject as to which the statute itself is silent.

With respect to Chevron step two, the important feature of

the present rule is that it ties the time for payment of the

hearing fee to the Commission's acceptance of mutually exclusive applications. That event marks the beginning of a

process that will, unless the applicants settle, lead inexorably

to a comparative hearing. See Report & Order, 6 F.C.C.R.

157, p 6. Considering that the Act directs the Commission to

"assess and collect" a fee for such a hearing, we can hardly

say it is unreasonable for the Commission to demand payment of the fee when the hearing first becomes necessary,

rather than waiting for the formality of the HDO in which the

hearing is scheduled and the issues are set out. We conclude

that the Commission's current rule on the hearing fee deadline reflects a reasonable interpretation of s 8 of the Communications Act.

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 7 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

B. The Notice Regulation

Lakeshore also challenges the dismissal of its application as

a violation of the Commission's regulation governing the use

of unpublished materials, 47 C.F.R. s 0.445(e), which provides:

If [adjudicatory opinions and orders of the Commission,

texts adopted by the Commission or a member of its

staff, rulemaking documents, and certain formal policy

statements and interpretations] are published in the Federal Register, the FCC Record, FCC Reports, or Pike

and Fischer Radio Regulation, they may be relied upon,

used or cited as precedent by the Commission or private

parties in any manner. If they are not so published,

they may not be relied upon, used or cited as precedent,

except against persons who have actual notice of the

document in question or by such persons against the

Commission. No person is expected to comply with any

requirement or policy of the Commission unless he has

actual notice of that requirement or policy or a document

stating it has been published as provided in this paragraph.

According to Lakeshore, the June 11, 1993 fee deadline for its

application is a Commission requirement that was not published as provided in the quoted regulation; therefore, Lakeshore, not having had actual notice of the deadline, cannot be

required to comply with it.

The Commission responds that s 0.445(e) requires publication or actual notice only of the deadline policy, not of every

deadline established pursuant to that policy. Because the

final rule promulgating the deadline policy was published in

the Federal Register, see 56 Fed. Reg. 787, 796 (Jan. 9, 1991),

s 0.445(e) has been satisfied and the deadline can be enforced

against Lakeshore without publication or actual notice of the

specific deadline by which it had to pay the hearing fee.

Even without the substantial deference we show to an

agency's interpretation of its own regulations, see Udall v.

Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1965); Jersey Shore BroadcastUSCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 8 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ing Corp. v. FCC, 37 F.3d 1531, 1536 (D.C. Cir. 1994), we

would accept the Commission's interpretation of s 0.445(e) as

having been satisfied by publication of the deadline policy in

the Federal Register. The regulation on its face authorizes

the agency to enforce a published policy, which necessarily

leaves to the individual regulatee the burden of knowing that

policy and how it applies to that regulatee.*

C. Due Process: Herein of Personal Notice and of Fair

Notice

Lakeshore claims that dismissal of its application on the

facts of this case violates its constitutional right to due

process. Specifically, Lakeshore claims that the due process

clause requires the Government to give adequate and effective notice of any proceeding that will adversely affect the

property or liberty interest of a party thereto, and that

public--as opposed to personal--notice is inadequate where

the affected party is known to the Government. See Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 800 (1983);

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306,

314-15 (1950). Because the Commission knew Lakeshore's

identity and knew that its application would be dismissed if it

failed to meet the deadline, Lakeshore claims the Commission

was required to give it personal notice of the fee deadline.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that Lakeshore was

deprived of a liberty or property interest by dismissal of its

application, we hold that public notice was all the process that

Lakeshore was due. See Brenner v. Ebbert, 398 F.2d 762,

765 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (assuming property interest at stake and

denying due process challenge because notice was adequate).

The premise of Lakeshore's constitutional argument appears

to be that it had no notice at all of the payment deadline, but

that is not so. Lakeshore "received, or should have received,

notice ... in the most obvious way of all: by reading the

regulations." General Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 53 F.3d 1324, 1329 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Had

__________

* Lakeshore does not claim that it did not have "actual notice of

... a document stating [that the deadline rule] has been published

as provided in this paragraph." 47 C.F.R. s 0.445(e).

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 9 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Lakeshore simply read the Commission's regulations, it would

have known how to determine and satisfy the deadline for

paying its hearing fee. The Commission promulgated the

1990 deadline rule more than two years before Lakeshore

filed its application. The rule had been the subject of a notice

and comment rulemaking, see Report & Order, 6 F.C.C.R. 157

(1990), had been published in the Federal Register, see 56

Fed. Reg. 787, 796 (Jan. 9, 1991), and had been placed in the

Code of Federal Regulations, see 47 C.F.R. s 73.3573. The

rule unambiguously notified each prospective applicant, including Lakeshore, that the public notice announcing that its

application had been accepted for filing "will also announce

the date on which all mutually exclusive applicants will be

required to pay the hearing fee." Id.

The Commission's published regulations also notified prospective applicants how to obtain the public notice: "A limited

number of copies of ... public notices of Commission actions

[ ] and other public releases [are] made available at the Press

and News Media Division when they are issued. Back issues

of public releases are available for inspection in this office."

Id. s 0.422. Finally, the Commission's published regulations

notified the prospective applicant that failure to pay the fee in

a timely manner would result in the dismissal of its application. See id. s 1.1110 (1993), recodified at id. s 1.1112.

The Commission's regulations clearly put Lakeshore on

notice that once it filed an application it would be required to

monitor the Commission's public notices as they were released in the Commission's Washington press office. This is

not an unreasonable burden to place upon an applicant.

Lakeshore was not required to monitor public notices on a

daily basis: The minimum period between the issuance of a

public notice and the hearing fee deadline was 60 days, see id.

s 73.3573(g)(2), and the Commission maintained back issues

of public notices for inspection at its Washington office, see id.

s 0.422. Therefore, Lakeshore could safely have checked the

public notices as infrequently as every 45 or 50 days. The

Commission also represented at oral argument that at the

relevant time all public notices were indexed by applicant

name in the FCC Daily Digest, thus further reducing the

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 10 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

effort required to monitor the status of one's application.

True, the 1990 deadline rule requires an applicant to bear a

greater burden of diligence than would a rule that provided

for personal notice of the deadline. Lakeshore adduces no

principle of due process, however, that precludes the Commission, by a duly published rule, from transferring this burden

to the prospective licensee.

Mullane and its progeny, urged upon us by Lakeshore,

require no different result. Those cases were concerned with

notice to parties who had no reason even to know there was

pending a proceeding that could result in deprivation of their

property interest. Lakeshore is in a fundamentally different

position: as an applicant before the Commission, it had

initiated the application process and knew or should have

known that its application was subject to dismissal if it failed

to abide by the Commission's various regulations for the

submission and prosecution of an application. By filing its

application, Lakeshore did not become entitled, as a matter of

due process, to personal notice of all existing regulatory

requirements that might affect its application; rather, the

burden was upon Lakeshore to read and to comply with the

agency's published regulations.

Upon these facts, notice by publication of the rule, without

personal notice of the individual applicant's deadline, is consistent with Mullane. Therefore, Lakeshore's claim of inadequate notice reduces to its argument that the Commission's

publication of the deadline rule "did not give adequate notice

of the substance of its new rules." Although it is unclear

whether Lakeshore premises this "fair notice" claim upon the

due process clause, see, e.g., General Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 53 F.3d 1324, 1328 (D.C. Cir.

1995), or upon the Administrative Procedures Act, see, e.g.,

Satellite Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 824 F.2d 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir.

1987), Lakeshore correctly notes that this court has consistently reversed Commission decisions dismissing applications

where the Commission failed to provide "full and explicit

notice of all prerequisites." Salzer v. FCC, 778 F.2d 869,

871-72 (D.C. Cir. 1985); see also McElroy Electronics Corp.

v. FCC, 990 F.2d 1351, 1358 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Satellite

Broadcasting, 824 F.2d at 3-4; Radio Athens, Inc. (WATH)

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 11 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

v. FCC, 401 F.2d 398, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1968). The Commission

need not, however, have "made the clearest possible articulation"; it is enough if "based on a 'fair reading' of [the rule,

applicants] knew or should have known what the Commission

expected of them." McElroy Electronics, 990 F.2d at 1358.

Lakeshore claims that the deadline rule fails to provide

fair notice that an applicant would not receive a personal

notice of the deadline in addition to the public notice. Under

the 1987 deadline rule, applicants had received personal notice before the fee deadline, in the form of the HDO. When

the Commission first proposed moving the hearing fee deadline forward, it included a provision for personal notice. See

Proposals to Reform the Commission's Comparative Hearing Process to Expedite the Resolution of Cases, Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, 5 F.C.C.R. 4050, p 8 (1990) ("the

staff would send the applicants a pre-designation notice....

That notice would establish the date for filing notices of

appearance and the hearing fee"). Although the Commission

did not in the end adopt that provision, Lakeshore argues

that a reasonable applicant would believe the agency would

nonetheless continue to provide personal notice in addition to

releasing the public notice. Therefore, according to Lakeshore, a reasonable applicant would not be on notice, even if

it had read the 1990 deadline rule, that it must "ferret out"

the deadline by searching the public notices.

We think that a fair reading of the 1990 deadline rule would

put a reasonable applicant on notice that it must monitor the

Commission's public notices in order to determine whether

and when any hearing fee was due. The 1990 rule makes no

mention of additional personal notice, see 47 C.F.R. s 73.3573,

and the Report and Order adopting the final rule chose to

announce the deadline in the public notice "as opposed to a

date established in a pre-designation letter," i.e., as opposed

to the proposed rule upon which Lakeshore seeks to rely. 6

F.C.C.R. 157, p 6 (1990). In light of the Commission's rejection of the proposed rule and the unambiguous character of

the final rule, a reasonable applicant would not sit back and

await personal notice. We therefore conclude that the Commission has satisfied its obligation to provide fair notice of

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 12 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

what is required of an applicant in order to avoid dismissal

for non-payment of its hearing fee.

D. Lakeshore's Petition for Waiver and Reinstatement

Assuming its application was properly dismissed for failure

to make timely payment, Lakeshore argues that the Commission abused its discretion when it denied Lakeshore's request

for a waiver of the deadline. Proper consideration of a

waiver request is particularly important insofar as the Commission regulates through stringent general rules. See

WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

To prevail upon this ground, however, Lakeshore must show

that the Commission's reason for denying it a waiver of the

deadline rule is "so insubstantial as to render that denial an

abuse of discretion." WAIT Radio v. FCC, 459 F.2d 1203,

1207 (D.C. Cir. 1972). This Lakeshore cannot do.

In rejecting Lakeshore's petition for a waiver, the Commission expressly cited Lakeshore's failure to "establish[ ] good

cause for waiver of the hearing fee deadline." In re Application of Lakeshore Broadcasting, Inc., 13 F.C.C.R. 19062

(1998); see also Letter from Marilyn McDermett, FCC Associate Managing Director, to George R. Borsari, Jr. and Susan

H. Rosenau 2 (Sept. 11, 1995) ("Lakeshore has not advanced

any compelling or extraordinary circumstances that would

warrant waiver of the hearing fee deadline"). Indeed, Lakeshore's only proffered reason for its failure to pay the hearing

fee on time is that public notice of the deadline was inadequate--the very point we have already rejected.

In the alternative, Lakeshore argues that its waiver request was treated differently from those of two similarly

situated petitioners, citing In re Nancy Naleszkiewicz, 7

F.C.C.R. 1797 (1992), and Letter to Martin W. Hoffman, Esq.

(Apr. 23, 1993) (Martin Hoffman). To prevail upon a claim of

disparate treatment, Lakeshore must demonstrate that the

Commission's action was "so inconsistent with its precedent

as to constitute arbitrary treatment amounting to an abuse of

discretion." New Orleans Channel 20, Inc. v. FCC, 830 F.2d

361, 366 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 13 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In the challenged order, the Commission distinguished

Nancy Naleszkiewicz because that case did not involve a

waiver of the deadline for payment of a hearing fee; and it

distinguished Martin Hoffman because that decision was

based upon concern that dismissing the application of a

Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee could interfere with federal

bankruptcy policy. At the same time, the Commission cited

three other cases in which it denied waivers upon facts

similar to those of the present case. See Lakeshore, 13

F.C.C.R. at 19062 (citing East Coast Comm. L.P., 11 F.C.C.R.

18221 (1996); Macon County Broadcasting, Inc., 8 F.C.C.R.

8669 (1993); Gerald E. Davis & Joe Ann Dunn, 9 F.C.C.R.

3016 (1994)).

The Commission's action here does not appear to be at all

inconsistent with precedent, let alone "so inconsistent ... as

to constitute ... an abuse of discretion." New Orleans

Channel 20, 830 F.2d at 366. Lakeshore pointed to a single

instance in which the Commission waived the hearing fee

deadline, and the Commission discussed the factual differences between that case and this, while noting three cases

closer on point where it did not waive the rule. To require a

waiver on these facts would be to "transform [an] isolated

grant[ ] of [waiver] into a rule binding on the agency." Id.

III. Conclusion

When the Commission by rule adopted the practice of

announcing the deadline for an applicant to pay the hearing

fee in a public notice released prior to issuance of the HDO, it

shifted to the applicant the burden of monitoring the progress

of its application in order to keep abreast of procedural

milestones. The rule is premised upon a reasonable interpretation of the Commission's authority under the Communications Act to implement the hearing fee program, and the

dismissal of an application for failure to comply with the rule

neither violates the Commission's own regulations nor denies

the applicant due process of law. We therefore reject Lakeshore's challenges to the dismissal of its application. Because

Lakeshore has presented no valid justification for its failure

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 14 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

to pay by the deadline and has failed to demonstrate that it

was treated more harshly than was any similarly situated

applicant, we uphold the Commission's denial of Lakeshore's

petition to waive the hearing fee deadline. The order of the

Commission is therefore

Affirmed.

USCA Case #98-1478 Document #484980 Filed: 12/21/1999 Page 15 of 15