Opinion ID: 680702
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission's Disapproval of the Settlement Agreement.

Text: 23
24 We review the Commission's disapproval of the settlement agreement under the highly deferential standard set by section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides that a court must uphold a final agency action unless that action is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2)(A) (1988). Under this standard, we may reverse the Commission's decision only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, or the agency has made a clear error in judgment. Kisser v. Cisneros, 14 F.3d 615, 619 (D.C.Cir.1994) (citingCitizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415-16, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823-24, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971)). 25
26 At the heart of their appeal, Press and Jersey Shore challenge the Commission's decision that neither appellant could participate in the settlement agreement after the dismissal of their original applications under the inconsistent application rule. Appellants contend that this decision was arbitrary and capricious in that the Commission departed from established precedent and well-settled policy without providing an appropriate explanation. We reject appellants' argument. The Commission action represents a well-reasoned decision to protect Commission processes and the integrity of the inconsistent application rule, consistent with Commission precedent making clear that the inconsistent application rule is not to be applied in a lax manner. 27 The FCC's inconsistent application rule, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 73.3518, bars an applicant from filing with the Commission two or more applications, all of which cannot be granted because they are inconsistent or conflicting. The Commission views the filing of inconsistent applications as a serious violation of Commission rules. In 1953, the Commission explained that without the rule, applicants could flood the Commission's resources with multiple applications, many of which could not be granted and require otherwise which unnecessary hearings denying just administration and fairness to all other applicants seeking the establishment of broadcast services in the same community. See In re Storer Broadcasting Co., 43 F.C.C. 1254, 1256 (1953). 28 Appellants urge that the inconsistent application rule should be relaxed here, relying upon a series of cases in which dismissed applicants were later allowed to participate in a settlement agreement. See In re Judith O. and Larry R. Orkus, 7 FCCR 20 (Rev.Bd.1992); In re Webster-Fuller Communications Assoc., 4 FCCR 4952, 4954 (1989). However, none of the cases cited by appellants involve violations of the inconsistent application rule. In Orkus, the original application violated a U.S./Canada agreement regarding power limitations for domestic stations near the Canadian border. 7 FCCR at 20. The Commission allowed the applicant to participate in the settlement agreement after the power output of the station was cleared by the Canadian government. Similarly, in Webster-Fuller, an ALJ dismissed an applicant's original application for failure to provide reasonable assurance of a transmitter site. 4 FCCR at 4952. The Commission later reinstated the dismissed application and allowed the applicant to participate in the settlement agreement. Id. at 4954. While violation of other rules led to the original dismissals of the applications in those cases, those violations do not implicate Commission procedure. The inconsistent application rule exists primarily to protect Commission resources and processes. It is not unreasonable for the Commission consistently to conclude that violation of that rule, unlike the rules in Orkus and Webster-Fuller, cannot be undone by subsequent amendment. See Big Wyoming Broadcasting Corp., 2 FCCR 3493 (1987). 29 Even when the Commission in a 1992 decision relaxed its previous hard look policy, it emphasized that certain defects could not be remedied. In re Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Modify Processing Procedures for Commercial FM Broadcast Applications, 7 FCCR 5074 (1992). In that decision, relaxing FM processing rules to permit curative amendments on a more expansive basis, the Commission noted that its new policy of relaxed filing requirements does not alter the fact that under our rules certain defects related to the filing of broadcast applications are uncorrectable. For example, an applicant cannot cure through amendment the problems of premature or late filing, inconsistent applications, or failure to pay the required application fee. Id. at 5078 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). 30 Approving the settlement agreement in which Press would be substituted as the applicant on LD Broadcasting's application, the ALJ and Review Board allowed appellants to circumvent the rule. The Commission has a vested interest in prohibiting abuse of its procedural rules. Thus, we uphold the Commission's decision, that Press and Jersey Shore should not be allowed to participate in the settlement agreement because to do so would permit[ ] the parties to accomplish through a creative settlement agreement what they could not have accomplished directly through the application process, In re Atlantic Radio Communications, Inc., 7 FCCR at 5106, as a reasoned attempt to protect its processes and limited resources. It is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Rather we conclude that the Commission's analysis is reasonable and well supported by Commission precedent. 31 Accordingly, the FCC orders denying approval of the settlement agreement and the Press-Jersey Shore option agreement are 32 Affirmed.