Opinion ID: 186086
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver Requests.

Text: 13 Our review of an agency's denial of a waiver is extremely limited; we vacate such denials only when the agency's reasons are so insubstantial as to render that denial an abuse of discretion. Mountain Solutions, Ltd. v. FCC, 197 F.3d 512, 517 (D.C.Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 The Commission's rules allow the grant of a waiver only upon a showing that enforcement of the rule would not serve the rule's underlying purpose or otherwise would be inequitable, and that a waiver would be in the public interest. 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.819(a)(1)(i), (ii) (1996). Tellingly, the Commission's rules never compel the Commission to grant a waiver. 15 Here, the Commission concluded that the abrupt collapse of BDPCS's financing did not constitute adequate grounds for a waiver. See Order, 15 F.C.C.R. at 17,605-07 ¶¶ 28-31. The Commission noted that the purpose of the default penalty rule — central to the integrity of the Commission's auction process — was to encourage bidders to make certain of their qualifications and financial capabilities before the auction so as to discourage default and avoid delays in the deployment of new services to the public. Id. at 17,606 ¶¶ 29, 30. BDPCS frustrated this objective when it continued to participate actively in the C block auction even after it had become aware that its financing was, at the very least, seriously imperiled. Id. at 17,607 ¶ 31. This course of conduct, the Commission concluded, was exactly the sort our rules are intended to deter. Id. The Commission thus denied the waiver request, rejecting outright BDPCS's argument that such a waiver would serve the public interest. Id. 16 The Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying the waiver request. Far from it. As the Commission pointed out, BDPCS's behavior in the auction is exactly the kind of conduct the default penalty rule was designed to deter. Enforcement of the default penalty rule was appropriate, to borrow from Voltaire,  pour encourager les autres.  Before the auction had closed, BDPCS knew its financing arrangements were in jeopardy. It could have withdrawn its bids then, subject only to the possibility of a withdrawal penalty. BDPCS chose another course; it not only remained in the auction, but it submitted ever-higher bids on at least one license, see id., and did so resting only on the unsecured hope that the ability to pay would materialize in the end. In short, BDPCS gambled and lost. Its argument that it should not now be made to pay thus rings quite hollow. 17