Opinion ID: 740472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Solar

Text: 17 Solar argues that the Commission's decision must be reversed because the agency retroactively applied (1) a more rigorous standard of financial qualification to Solar's certification and, when Solar then petitioned to amend its certification, (2) a more stringent amendment policy. See CHM Broadcasting v. FCC, 24 F.3d 1453, 1457 (D.C.Cir.1994) (reversible error when agency penalizes applicant based upon standard of which agency failed to provide notice). Solar never raised the first issue before the Commission, as required by § 405(a) of the Communications Act.  By failing to object that Solar failed to preserve the issue, however, the Commission has waived the point. See Petroleum Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 1164, 1170 (D.C.Cir.1994) (§ 405(a) is exhaustion requirement rather than jurisdictional prerequisite). Accordingly, we address both of Solar's arguments on appeal.
18 Although the Commission stated that Solar's application is governed by the Commission's 1981 financial certification standards, 10 F.C.C.R. at 2853, Solar argues that the Commission actually applied the more rigorous standard of financial qualification developed in FCC cases that post-date Solar's 1984 application. It is true that the Commission has at times murmured and mumbled rather than enunciate clearly what Form 301 requires an applicant for a broadcast permit to show in order to certify its financial qualifications. See Northampton Media Associates v. FCC, 941 F.2d 1214 (D.C.Cir.1991) (noting inconsistency). It is also true that the Commission's decision cites cases that post-date Solar's certification. Nevertheless, Solar has not shown that the Commission failed to give it proper notice of what Form 301 requires. Simply put, Solar's efforts to secure financing were so woefully inadequate that they must be deemed insufficient under any interpretation of FCC Form 301. 19 First, Solar made no serious effort to determine how much money it would need. An applicant cannot certify that sufficient net liquid assets are on hand or available from committed sources to construct and operate the requested facilities for three months without revenue, as FCC Form 301 requires, if it has not determined how much money such an operation would require. Even worse than having no idea how much money it needed, Solar had no specific idea how it would get the money; no Solar principal ever met with Applebaum, its only purported source of funding. According to their own testimony, Solar's stockholders had conflicting ideas regarding how Applebaum might finance their venture--as a lender, guarantor, or by using his company as a source of equipment financing--and Solar never called Applebaum as a witness. For all the record shows, Applebaum may be Solar's name for Santa Claus ... or Godot. 20 In addition, Solar took no steps to assure itself that Applebaum could have financed the venture. Yet FCC Form 301 clearly states that when an applicant proposes to rely upon an individual in order to certify its financial qualifications the applicant must assure the FCC that it has determined that a reasonable assurance exists that the individual has sufficient net liquid assets to meet these commitments. See CHM Broadcasting, 24 F.3d at 1457 (applicants must have firsthand knowledge of the sufficiency of the assets upon which their personal certification is based). Moreover, assuming that he has a deep enough pocket, Applebaum made no commitments. In short, Solar's stress upon inconsistencies in the Commission's interpretation of Form 301 is but a red herring; Solar is unable to point to any Commission [324 U.S.App.D.C. 308] decision, before or after 1984, that is inconsistent with the facial requirements of Form 301 discussed above.
21 Solar's second argument is that the Commission erred in not allowing it to amend its certification in 1990 by introducing a newly-obtained bank letter as evidence of its financial qualification. Under the Commission's rules, once an application has been designated for hearing it may be amended only upon a showing of good cause for late filing. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3522(b). Since adopting its financial certification procedure in 1981 the FCC has generally required that an applicant demonstrate that it had a reasonable assurance of financing at the time that it made its initial certification before it will be permitted to amend its application. Pontchartrain Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 15 F.3d 183, 184 (D.C.Cir.1994). 22 Solar argues that this policy is inconsistent with the Commission's historical policy of liberally allowing amendments for good cause. The Commission quite understandably modified its liberal amendment policy, however, in 1981 when it eliminated the requirement that each applicant submit detailed financial documents; the agency was concerned that an applicant would certify to its financial qualifications first and secure its financing only later. See id. at 185 (Commission's amendment policy directed at preventing applicant from certifying financial qualifications without any basis or justification). Solar itself acknowledged in its Petition for Leave to Amend that where an applicant's certification has no objective basis ab initio, the applicant may not rely on a later financial commitment to support its earlier certification. For that very reason, the Commission reasonably denied Solar's request to amend its certification.