Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 18, 2003 Decided October 10, 2003

No. 02-1166

MARSEILLES LAND AND WATER COMPANY,

PETITIONER

v.

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,

RESPONDENT

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Elizabeth W. Whittle argued the cause and filed the briefs

for petitioner.

Beth G. Pacella, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, argued the cause for respondent. With her on

the brief were Cynthia A. Marlette, General Counsel, and

Dennis Lane, Solicitor.

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.
2

Before: ROGERS and ROBERTS, Circuit Judges, and

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge

SILBERMAN.

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Petitioner Marseilles

Land and Water Company (Land Company) challenges the

decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC or Commission) to reject as untimely Land Company’s notice of intent to submit a development application for a

hydroelectric project, as well as FERC’s decision to reject its

request to waive the deadline for filing the notice of intent.

We deny the petition for review.

I.

A company wishing to investigate an area to determine

whether it is suitable for a hydroelectric project may request

a preliminary permit application from FERC. This permit

gives the holder the right to study the site and a preference

over other companies who may wish to develop the project

within up to three years from the issuance of the permit. See

16 U.S.C. § 798.

The preliminary permit does not itself, however, give the

bearer the right to develop the project. Companies interested in developing a hydroelectric project must first obtain a

license from FERC by filing a ‘‘development’’ or ‘‘license’’

application. FERC assesses timely filed development applications, and grants a license to the applicant whose proposal

‘‘is best adapted to serve the public interest.’’ 16 U.S.C.

§ 808(a)(2). Once one interested party files a permit application, the Commission publishes notice of the filing in the

Federal Register, along with a prescribed ‘‘intervention deadline,’’ by which time other interested parties must file applications (or notices of intent to file applications) in competition

with the initial permit application. See 18 C.F.R. § 4.36.1

1 Competing permit applications are due on the intervention

deadline, see 18 C.F.R. §§ 4.36(a)(1). Filing a notice of intent,

however, extends the deadline by thirty days. See id. § 4.36(a)(2).
3

While a permit grants the holder a preference should it

decide to file a development application, it is not necessary for

anyone to apply for a permit prior to applying for a license;

the permit application process can be bypassed altogether. If

the initial application is a development application instead of a

permit application, FERC follows a similar procedure as if a

permit application had been filed. The Commission publishes

notice of the filing in the Federal Register and sets an

‘‘intervention deadline,’’ by which competing development applications (or notices of intent) must be received to be considered.2

Land Company filed a preliminary permit application on

October 31, 2000, to study a site on the Illinois River to

determine whether the site would be suitable for a hydroelectric project. FERC published notice of the application on

November 16, 2000, and set January 16, 2001, as the intervention deadline. On January 14, 2001, two days before the

intervention deadline, Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC (Hydro

Power) filed a notice of intent to file a development application for the same site, and it filed the application on May 14,

2001. No other party submitted an application before the

intervention deadline. On August 16, 2001, FERC published

notice of Hydro Power’s filing, and established October 15,

2001, as the deadline for comments about the application.

FERC made clear, however, that the deadline for filing

competing development applications had passed:

Public notice of the filing of the initial development

application [presumably meaning Land Company’s

preliminary permit application], which has already

been given, established the due date for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the

2 As in the case of competing permit applications, see note 1,

supra, filing a notice of intent to submit a competing development

application extends the applicable deadline. While the competing

development applications must generally be submitted by the intervention deadline, see 18 C.F.R. § 4.36(b)(1), filing a notice of intent

gives the applicant an additional 120 days. See 18 C.F.R.

§ 4.36(b)(2).
4

Commission’s regulations, any competing development application must be filed in response to and in

compliance with public notice of the initial development application. No competing applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this notice.

66 Fed. Reg. 44,129 (Aug. 16, 2001).

Notwithstanding FERC’s statement that it would not accept any more applications, Land Company filed a notice of

intent on October 15, 2001, to file a development application

competing with Hydro Power’s. FERC, viewing the deadline

for all notices of intent to be January 16, 2001, refused to

consider Land Company’s late submission, and this challenge

followed.

II.

Land Company contends that Hydro Power’s filing was an

‘‘initial development application,’’ and that 18 C.F.R. § 4.36(b)

gives developers an opportunity to file development applications competing with that sort of application. See 18 C.F.R.

§ 4.36(b)(1) (providing that competing development applications may be submitted by the intervention deadline established with the filing of the initial development application);

and id. § 4.36(b)(2) (providing that competing development

applications filed pursuant to a timely notice of intent may be

submitted within 120 days after the intervention deadline).

Land Company points to the definition of an initial development application provided in FERC regulations:

Initial development application means any acceptable application for either a license or exemption

from licensing for a proposed water power project

that would develop, conserve, and utilize, in whole or

in part, water resources for which no other acceptable application for a license or exemption from

licensing has been submitted for filing and is pending before the Commission.
5

18 C.F.R. § 4.30(b)(11)(i). According to Land Company,

Hydro Power’s filing was an initial development application

because it is an application for a license to use resources for

which no license application was pending—even though a

preliminary permit application had been filed.

FERC, however, contends that Hydro Power’s filing was

not an initial development application, but rather a competing

one—competing, that is, with Land Company’s preliminary

permit application. The Commission directs us to another

definition, the one for a competing development application:

Competing development application means any application for a license or exemption from licensing

for a proposed water power project that would develop, conserve, and utilize, in whole or in part, the

same or mutually exclusive water resources that

would be developed, conserved, and utilized by a

proposed water power project for which an initial

preliminary permit or initial development application

has been filed and is pending before the Commission.

18 C.F.R. § 4.30(b)(1)(i). In the Commission’s view, Hydro

Power’s filing is a competing development application, because it is an application for a license that would use the same

resources that would be used by the project considered by

Land Company’s then-pending preliminary permit application. If FERC is correct, 18 C.F.R. § 4.36(a) (‘‘Deadlines for

filing applications in competition with an initial preliminary

permit application’’), rather than 18 C.F.R. § 4.36(b) (‘‘Deadlines for filing applications in competition with an initial

development application’’) applies. And pursuant to 18

C.F.R. § 4.36(a), the operative deadline for competing applications is the intervention deadline established at the time of

the filing of Land Company’s preliminary permit application,

i.e., January 16, 2001, making Land Company’s development

application late.

We are left in a bit of a quandary because it appears that

Hydro Power’s application fits both definitions. The Commission points out that it actually amended its regulations in
6

1985 to alter its prior Georgia Pacific Corp. ‘‘rule,’’ which had

permitted a new round of applications under a new intervention deadline when an initial development application was

filed. See In re: Georgia Pacific Corp., 17 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,174

(1981). But the preamble to the regulation (Order No. 413),

which states that it intended ‘‘to introduce greater certainty

into the process for all prospective applicants’’ by reversing

the Georgia Pacific rule, does not squarely answer petitioner’s linguistic argument drawn from the wording of the

regulation itself.

Thus, Land Company contends that the Commission’s interpretation of its regulation is unreasonable (arbitrary and

capricious) because it contemplates necessarily that a permit

applicant would, indeed should, file a development application

competing against itself—which it insists is a logical absurdity. If a permit applicant does not so file during the intervention period and, as in this case, another party files a development application on or near the intervention deadline, the

permit applicant not only loses its preference, it is foreclosed

from even competing with the development applicant. Therefore, a permit applicant who wishes to ensure it remains in

the game, according to the Commission’s interpretation of its

regulation, must file a development application during the

intervention period even if that application competes only

against itself.

The Commission concedes that petitioner’s analysis is correct, but points out that in a prior case, In re: Tropicana Ltd.

Partnership, 65 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61,094 (1993), it set forth its

interpretation of its regulations and rejected the very same

argument petitioner raises here—that FERC’s interpretation

is unreasonable because that construction forces an initial

permit applicant to compete against itself. The Commission

explained in Tropicana that it wished to induce all potential

applicants to come in to the process early, and therefore

explicitly held that ‘‘[t]he Commission’s notice of a development application filed in competition with an initial permit

application does not establish a new competition deadline for

subsequent development applications.’’ Id.
7

Since we gather that it is significantly more time consuming and expensive for a potential applicant to prepare a

development application, as opposed to a mere permit application, the Commission’s interpretation of its rule as explained

in Tropicana puts a potential applicant to its choice. If it

wishes to ensure its priority that an initial permit application

gives, it must follow up with a development application (or a

notice of intent to file such application) within the intervention period. Otherwise, it risks losing its priority if a competitor files during the intervention period and it does not.

Although petitioner claims that it did not have adequate

notice of the Commission’s policy, a party before FERC is

deemed to have read relevant Commission cases. Therefore,

we are not faced with a situation such as we encountered in

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

1987), where we held that an agency’s interpretation of its

regulation, even if reasonable, is not a legitimate basis for

‘‘penalizing a private party—without first providing adequate

notice’’ of its interpretation if the private party’s contrary

interpretation is also reasonable. Id. at 3.

Still, if FERC’s interpretation of its regulation is wholly

unreasonable, it does not suffice to establish that petitioner

was on notice of that interpretation. Even if petitioner

admitted that it examined the Tropicana decision, it could

still prevail if the Commission’s regulation clearly supported

petitioner’s position—and only petitioner’s position. For an

administrative agency may not slip by the notice and comment rule-making requirements needed to amend a rule by

merely adopting a de facto amendment to its regulation

through adjudication. See Air Transp. Ass’n of Am. v. FAA,

291 F.3d 49, 55–56 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Paralyzed Veterans of

Am. v. D.C. Arena, L.P., 117 F.3d 579, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1997),

cert. denied 523 U.S. 1003 (1998). On the other hand, agencies are entitled to great deference in the interpretation of

their own rules. See, e.g., Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325

U.S. 410, 414 (1945); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461

(1997); Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512

(1994) Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review

Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144, 150–51 (1991); Fina Oil & Chem. Co.
8

v. Norton, 332 F.3d 672, 676 (D.C. Cir. 2003). If we conclude

that the Tropicana decision was not a ‘‘plainly erroneous’’

interpretation of the rule, FERC prevails. Bowles, supra, at

414.

Although the Commission’s interpretation of its regulation

does assume rather awkwardly that a permit applicant’s

subsequent development application may compete with itself,

petitioner’s argument rests essentially on the proposition that

Hydro Power’s application meets the definition of an ‘‘initial

development application,’’ and therefore § 4.36(b) guarantees

its right to file a competing development application within a

new intervention period. But—as we have noted—Hydro

Power’s application also perfectly meets the definition of a

‘‘competing development application.’’ And if Hydro Power’s

application is a competing development application then the

original ‘‘deadline’’ created by Land Company’s initial permit

application applies. It is thus hard to find a better paradigm

of an ambiguous regulation. Under the circumstances, we

think FERC was clearly authorized to resolve the ambiguity

in the Tropicana decision.

* * * *

Accordingly, the petition for review is denied.