WPC2 2?BJZECourier3|j#Xw PE37}XP#c406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\#I^X@ Y-#Xw PE37}XP#2@qf X CourierCG Times",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L<?xxx,ix6X@`7X@8wC;,}Xw PE37XP@kHMI-2-@c jf p$ić f pf Hf `f hf 2lrK ZE'3|j"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\#I^XPTimes New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic2a#f KK!",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#Xw PE37}XP##X\  P6G;ɓP#X01Í ÍX01Í Í#Xj\  P6G;yoXP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""novo review, a July 8, 1996Z3 yO-ԍ Burlington erroneously stated, in its application for review, that it was filed in response to the July 8,  {O-1996, ruling which was "issued by the Mass Media Bureau ("Bureau") on December 5, 1995." Application for  yO~-Review at 1 (emphasis added). The Letter Ruling dated, July 8, 1996, was in fact issued on July 8, 1996. Ĥ ruling from the Assistant Chief, Video Services Division, Mass  x{Media Bureau, found that Burlington failed to justify a waiver of 47 C.F.R.  21.44(b) and dismissed its application for renewal and petition for reinstatement as untimely.   x4. On August 7, 1996, Burlington filed an Application for Review of the Division's July  X - x8, 1996 ruling.B *  yO-ԍ On January 11, 1996, Burlington had also filed a petition for reconsideration of the December 5, 1995,  {Oe-ruling dismissing its transfer application. See  2. In the two page petition for reconsideration, Burlington attached its petition for reinstatement and stated that the transfer application was dismissed due to the finding that petitioner failed to file a renewal application. The July 8, 1996, ruling found that Burlington's renewal application and its petition for reinstatement were untimely. Thus, Burlington's petition for reconsideration of its transfer application was moot since Burlington's license was automatically forfeited, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.44, and no license existed to transfer. Petitioner in the application for review considered in this order does not refer to the above reconsideration petition.  Burlington, in its Application for Review, reiterated its arguments from the  X - xpetition for reinstatement and presented several new arguments. See infra  5. The Commission's rules provide:   XxNo application for review will be granted if it relies on questions of fact or law upon which the designated authority has been afforded no opportunity to pass.(#  ` XxX` ` NOTE: Subject to the requirements of  1.106, new questions of fact or law may be presented to the designated authority in a petition for reconsideration.(#`  x47 C.F.R.  1.115(c). The Commission has issued a series of cases dismissing applications for"4,-(-(ZZ"  X- xreview due to the failure to comply with 47 C.F.R.  1.115(c). See, e.g., Philadelphia MDS  X- xCompany, 8 FCC Rcd 3147 (1993) ("Philadelphia presented several questions of law and fact  x which the Division, as the delegated authority . . . has not been afforded an opportunity to  xconsider. The proper procedure . . . would have been for Philadelphia to file a petition for  xyreconsideration with the Division. Therefore, Philadelphia's application for review is dismissed  X- x[as procedurally defective.") (footnotes and citations omitted); see also Sherry Rullman, 8 FCC  X|-Rcd 4012 (1993); Kevin Johnson, 9 FCC Rcd 2471 (1993).   {x5. Burlington, raises several new questions of law that were not previously presented to  xthe Division. Specifically, petitioner for the first time argues that: (1) the Commission did not  x/provide sufficient notice of the station license expiration; (2) the Commission should apply  xbroadcasting renewal procedures to MDS licensees; (3) there is no public interest benefit to  xdenying the reinstatement request; and (4) the Commission's recent waiver of the license renewal  xcycle for MDS auction winners supports petitioner's contention that its failure to file a timely  X - x[renewal application lacks substantive significance. See infra  9, 13, 15, 17. Consequently, in  xlight of the above new questions of law, Burlington's application for review could be dismissed  xby the Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R  1.115(c). However, in the interests of equity and in  xLorder to fully develop the record, we will treat petitioner's application for review as the petition  Xl-for reconsideration Burlington should have filed.dl yO-ԍ In a 1994 Letter Ruling, the Domestic Facilities Division of the Common Carrier Bureau, citing  {O-1.115(c), elected to treat an application for review as a petition for reconsideration. Todd Communications,  {Ow-Inc., Letter Ruling from the Chief, Domestic Facilities Division (April 6, 1994). See also The CB Shop, 8 FCC Rcd 6707 (Field Oper. Bur. 1993) (Bureau decided in the interest of record development to consider petitioner's petition for reconsideration over its simultaneously filed application for review.). d %III. DISCUSSION  X-  mx6. Notice of MDS License Expiration Date. Part 21 rules provide that applications for  xLrenewal of an MDS station license must be filed between 30 and 60 days prior to the expiration  X- x=of the license. See 47 C.F.R.  21.11(c). Section 21.45(a) states that MDS station licenses "will  xbe issued for a period not to exceed 10 years." 47 C.F.R. 21.45(a). "Unless otherwise  x.specified by the Commission" MDS station licenses, as a class, expire in the year of expiration  X- xon May 1 (i.e. the year which is ten years from the last expiration date of the class of MDS  X- xlicenses). Id. In 1983, the Commission adopted the ten year term and extended thencurrent  Xu- xlicenses, such as WKR62's, from five years to ten years. See Common Carrier and Satellite  X`- xLicensing Procedures, 48 Fed. Reg. 27,251 (1983) (1983 Report and Order). When the ten year  xirule was enacted, the last previous date and year of expiration for MDS station licenses, including  X4- x/WKR62's, was May 1, 1981.N ^4| {Oa$-ԍ See WKR62's 1980 station license which stated "the licensee hereof is hereby authorized to use and  {O+%-operate the . . . facilities hereinafter described . . . for the term beginning July 25, 1980, and ending May 1,  {O%-1981." (emphasis added). N In a 1987 Report and Order, the Commission set forth a list of  xdates at which licenses would expire so that there would be no confusion. The list explicitly" ,-(-(ZZ="  X- xstated that MDS station licenses expired on May 1, 1991. See In the Matter of Revision of Part  X-21 of The Commission's Rules, 2 FCC Rcd 5713, 5728 (1987) (1987 Report and Order).   x7. If a timely application for renewal is not filed, the MDS station license is automatically  X- xforfeited on its expiration date. Section 21.44(a)(2) states that "A license shall be automatically  X- x\forfeited in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee . . . ." 47 C.F.R. 21.44(a)  x(emphasis added). Petitions for reinstatement of a forfeited license will be considered only if the  xpetition is filed within 30 days of the license expiration date, it adequately explains the failure  xto timely file the renewal application, and it specifies procedures which have been established to  xjensure timely filings in the future. 47 C.F.R. 21.44(b)(1)(3). Petitions for reinstatement which  x.do not meet the above criteria may request, pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  21.19, a waiver of 47 C.F.R.  X - 21.44(b).   {O -ԍ As noted previously, Burlington in its petition for reinstatement requested a waiver, but as discussed infra, we find that petitioner has failed to justify grant of a waiver.   !x8. Burlington was required to file an application for renewal of WKR62's station license  xbetween March 2 and April 1, 1991. 47 C.F.R. 21.11(c). Petitioner failed to file a timely  xyrenewal application which resulted in the expiration and automatic forfeiture of its MDS license  xMon May 1, 1991. 47 C.F.R. 21.44(a)(2), 21.45(a). Additionally, Burlington did not petition  xjto have its license reinstated on or before May 31, 1991, which was within 30 days of WKR62's  xautomatic forfeiture. 47 C.F.R.  21.44(b)(1). Burlington, instead, filed its renewal application  XS- xand petition for reinstatement on January 11, 1996, over four and a half years after the required  X>-filing dates.   x9. Petitioner, in an attempt to excuse its untimeliness, contends that sufficient notice was  X- xnot provided to Burlington regarding the expiration date and procedures. Petitioner quotes Salzer  X- xkv. FCC, 778 F.2d 869 (D.C. Cir. 1985) as holding the Commission to a "rigorous" standard of  X- xZnotice to support an action as drastic as revocation. In Salzer, the Commission dismissed several  x\low power television ("LPTV") applications, under the applicable "complete and sufficient"  X- xstandard, " yOx-ԍ The complete and sufficient standard is also referred to as requiring applications to be "letter perfect."  {O@-See Citizen Television Corp., 10 FCC 2d 170, 173 (1985). for failing to file the then newly required certifications and preference information.  X- xId. at 871. The D.C. Circuit held that the Salzer applicants, who filed LPTV applications after  xthe relevant Commission order, had adequate notice of what information had to be filed, but did  Xb- xnot receive adequate notice of when and how the required information was to be submitted. b| {O"-ԍ The court did, however, find that the Garnerlynn applicant in Salzer, which was pending at the time of the relevant LPTV rulemaking order, was properly dismissed as it had adequate notice of the need to amend its  {O!$-application to include required engineering data. Salzer, 778 F.2d at 872. In particular, the court noted that the LPTV order, which was properly published in the Federal Register, and the clear language of a subsequent public  {O%-notice provided Garnerlynn with the necessary information to submit the required amendment. Id. at 876.   XK- x!Id. at 875. The court noted that the unavailability of the official form combined with the"K2 ,-(-(ZZ"  xambiguity of the pertinent order failed to properly inform the applicants with regard to the timing  X- xand form of the required submissions. Id. The court also observed that although the use of an  x"unofficial" supplementary form was suggested by the Commission, the vast majority of the  X-applicants in question failed to file the unofficial form. Id.  X-  x10. We find that Burlington's reliance on Salzer is misplaced. As the D.C. Circuit opined  X|- xin Malkan FM Associates v. FCC, 935 F.2d 1313, 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1991), "Salzer's full and  Xg- xexplicit notice' phrasing, we think it critical, must be appraised in the context of the highly  XR- xconfusing situation that case presented." Id. (emphasis added). In contrast to the confusion in  X=- xSalzer, the Commission through its regulations, orders, and information available in the Federal  xRegister, provided adequate notice of when MDS licenses, including WKR62's, expired and the  xappropriate procedures to avoid automatic forfeiture. Four years before Burlington's acquisition  X - xof WKR62 was approved, the Commission announced in the 1983 Report and Order which was  xpublished in the Federal Register, the adoption of the ten year term for MDS station licenses and  X - xjthe extension of existing licenses to ten years. 48 Fed. Reg. 27,251, 27,25253 (1983). The 1983  X - xReport and Order amended Section 21.45(a) of the Commission's rules to include the new ten  x[year station license period; all MDS licensees are charged with being familiar with Part 21 rules  X- x>that are relevant to MDS. Almost four years prior to WKR62's expiration date, in the 1987  Xx- xReport and Order, the Commission adopted a number of significant changes to Part 21, and set  Xc- xzforth a list explicitly stating that MDS station licenses expired on May 1, 1991. c {O-ԍ In the 1987 Report and Order, the Commission explained that the reprinting of the MDS station license  {O-expiration date was for clarification purposes. 2 FCC Rcd at 5728. In the 1983 Report and Order, although it was clearly stated that the new term was ten years, a typographical error in a footnote, listed May 1, 1990, instead of the correct date of May 1, 1991, as the expiration date for MDS licenses. 48 Fed. Reg. at 27,252  {O-n.11. This was harmless error, nonetheless, as the 1983 Report and Order and  21.45(a) clearly stated that MDS licenses, unless excepted, expired ten years from the previous date of expiration, which was May 1, 1981. Moreover, we note, four years before the May 1, 1991, expiration date, a list with the correct date was  {OZ-published. See  2 FCC Rcd 5728. See Greater Boston Television Corporation v. FCC, 444 F.2d 841, 851 (D.C.  {O$-Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971) (The court will not ". . . upset a decision because of errors that are not material, there being room for the doctrine of harmless error.").  2 FCC Rcd  XL- xat 5728. A summary of the 1987 Report and Order appeared in the Federal Register. See 52  x=Fed. Reg. 37,775 (1987). Moreover, contrary to petitioner's assertions that no indication of the  x>expiration date existed on the license, WKR62's expiration date could be easily ascertained,  X - xpursuant to the 1983 Report and Order, by adding five years to its renewal license stated  xMexpiration date of May 1, 1986, which was granted in 1981. Therefore, we conclude that the Commission provided adequate notice of when the required renewal application was due.   0x11. In addition, we note, Burlington was subject to a more lenient filing standard, under  X- xyPart 21 rules, than the LPTV applicants in Salzer were required to meet. Specifically, the Salzer  X- x/applicants were subject to a letter perfect standard. See n.12, supra. Whereas, in MDS, an  xapplication is unacceptable for filing, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 21.20(a), if it is deficient with  xrespect to completeness of answers, informal showings, execution or other formal matters; or  X@- x"does not substantially comply with the Commission rules, regulations, specific requests for"@j ,-(-(ZZ>"  X- x>additional information, or other requirements." 47 C.F.R.  21.20(a)(1)(2) (emphasis added).  X- xSee also Boyd B. Hopkins, Sr., 9 FCC Rcd 569, 571 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1994) ("While Hopkins  xargues that the Commission has adopted a letter perfect' standard for determining the  xacceptability of an application for filing, Section 21.902 clearly outlines the demonstration  xrequired to be filed by an MMDS applicant . . . . This requirement is not inconsistent with or a  xcontradiction of the substantial compliance' standard."). Since Burlington filed a renewal  Xx- xapplication over four and a half years after its renewal was due, we do not find that petitioner substantially complied with Commission rules.   x12. It is well established that any applicant who "either ignores or fails to understand  xclear and valid rules of the Commission respecting the requirements for an application assumes  X - xjthe risk that the application will not be acceptable for filing." Ranger v. FCC, 294 F.2d 240, 242  X - x(D.C. Cir. 1961). As discussed, supra at  6, 10, the Commission provided adequate notice of  xwhen Burlington's license for WKR62 expired and how to timely file for renewal of the license.  X - xSee Florida Cellular Mobil Communications Corporation v. FCC, 28 F.3d 191, 198 (D.C. Cir.  X - x|1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1016 (1995), ("The Commission's rules and orders put the  xapplicants on notice that their applications would be subject to dismissal for failure to comply  xwith the FCC . . . rules."). Thus, we conclude that it was Burlington's responsibility to file the renewal application in compliance with the Commission's rules.   Bx13. We also reject, as inapplicable, petitioner's assertion that we should apply  xCommission rules and procedures for other Mass Media services, such as radio and television,  x\to MDS. Broadcast station licenses, unlike MDS stations which as a class have a common  X- x.expiration date, expire on different dates and years depending upon the type of station and its  X- xgeographical location. See 47 C.F.R. 73.1020. Broadcast station licensees, pursuant to the  X- xCommission's rules, are required to file several months prior to the license expiration date;  xsubmit a variety of information to ensure consideration of the renewal application; and, when  X- x=granted, are awarded shorter license periods than MDS licensees. See 47 C.F.R.  73.1020(a),  x.73.3539(a)(b). Hence, MDS renewal applicants are not similarly situated to broadcast renewal  Xw- xapplicants. In the 1987 Report and Order, at 5723, the Commission stated that "different  xtreatment for different services has always existed in our rules . . . ." Here at bar, the different  XK- x.renewal procedures are justified. Cf. Salzer, 778. F.2d at 876 n.27 ("These applicants were not  xsimilarly situated, and the FCC provided a rational explanation for their disparate treatment.").  X-  X-  x14. Waiver Request. Burlington maintains that the Commission should grant a waiver  xNof the 30day reinstatement petition filing deadline specified in 47 C.F.R.  21.44(b). The  xCommission's rules require that a request for waiver contain a statement of reasons sufficient to  xjustify a waiver. 47 C.F.R.  21.19. A waiver will only be granted upon an affirmative showing that:  ` 2XxX` ` (a) The underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated,  ` by its application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise  H` ein the public interest; or "9' ,-(-(ZZ%"  ` #(b) The unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of  ` the rule inequitable, unduly burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest. Applicants must also show the lack of a reasonable alternative.(#`  x47 C.F.R. 21.19. Burlington has made neither of the abovereferenced showings. Citing  X- xCheyenne Corporation, 8 FCC Rcd 7049 (Dom. Fac. Div. 1993), petitioner asserts that the  Xx- x<Commission has broad discretion to grant Burlington's requested waiver. In Cheyenne, however,  xjpetitioner's request for waiver of 47 C.F.R.  21.44(b) was denied because the petitioner did not  x/present a sufficient showing under 47 C.F.R.  21.19 to justify a waiver. 8 FCC Rcd at 7049.  x"An applicant for waiver faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate. When an applicant seeks  x-a waiver of a rule, it must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances which warrant such  X - xaction.'" WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (citing Rio Grande Family  X -Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam)).  X -  Px15. Petitioner contends that no public interest is served if WKR62's license is not  X - xreinstated. Burlington, citing Superior Broadcasting Corporation, 7 FCC Rcd 7543 (Dom. Fac.  X- xDiv. 1992), argues that application of 47 C.F.R.  21.44(b) would not serve the rule's purpose  X- x.which is to ensure a date certain which other applicants can use to file for the forfeited station  xlicense. Here, petitioner notes, no other applicant is seeking a competing facility or opposed its  xpetition for reinstatement. Moreover, Burlington maintains, since the Commission subsequently  xwaived the license renewal cycle set forth in 47 C.F.R.  21.45 for auction winners, it would be  X'- xarbitrary to revoke WKR62's license for failing to comply with the renewal regulations. See In  xthe Matter of Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules With Regard to Filing  xProcedures in the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed  X- xService and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding,  X- x10 FCC Rcd 9589, 965758 (1995) (MDS Competitive Bidding Order). Furthermore, petitioner  xasserts, the absence of any public interest benefit is demonstrated by the fact that nothing of consequence happened as a result of its license expiration.   x16. Burlington's arguments misconstrue the purposes of 47 C.F.R.  21.44(b). In  X^-Superior, the underlying purposes of 47 C.F.R.  21.44(b) were explained:  XxFirst, a purpose of the rule is to ensure that parties will have a date certain after  which they may file applications for an area covered by an expired license.  PSuperior's late filing even of its reinstatement petition makes certainty impossible. Second, the rule ensures uninterrupted, authorized service to the public.   X!- x/7 FCC Rcd at 7543. The Commission has a strong interest in preserving the clarity of when  xyother applicants may permissibly file for expired stations. To grant Burlington's waiver request  xand reinstate its forfeited license, under the circumstances presented here, would frustrate the goal  xof providing a date certain upon which one may file an application for an area covered by an  xexpired license and the goal of ensuring uninterrupted, authorized service to the public. As the  xD.C. Circuit ruled in 1969, the Commission neither "must or should tolerate evisceration of a rule  X5'-by waivers." WAIT Radio, 418 F.2d at 1159. "5' ,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍ  ԙx17. We also reject petitioner's contention that inequity exists between auction winners  xiand incumbent MDS stations concerning license terms and procedures. In 1995 when the auction  X- x]winners were exempted from the license renewal cycle contained in 47 C.F.R.  21.45, the  xLCommission noted that such licensees would receive a station license with only approximately  X- xfive years since the next class expiration date is May 1, 2001. MDS Competitive Bidding Order  xjat 9658. Therefore, in order to place auction winners in the same position as incumbent station  x-holders, the Commission provided that auction winners would have a ten year license term which  Xa-commenced from the closing date of the MDS auction. Id.   Nx18. Petitioner, in describing the circumstances surrounding its late filing, contends that  xit was not represented by FCC counsel at the time it acquired WKR62 and it relied on the seller's  X - xcounsel for suggestions regarding the license. In Salzer, the D.C. Circuit explicitly stated "we  xdo not rely on the fortuity that appellants filed their applications without the assistance of  X - x\counsel; the FCC need not take this circumstance into consideration." 778 F.2d at 875 n.27.  X - x[Thus, regardless of petitioner's legal representation or lack of, as the licensee of WKR62 at the  xtime the license expired, Burlington was solely responsible for ensuring compliance with the Commission's rules.   x19. Burlington further asserts that it relied on erroneous advice provided to its counsel  xby Commission staff. Specifically, on May 13, 1993, petitioner contends its attorney inquired  xabout its license status and was informed by Commission staff that WKR62's license would not  X#- x\expire until 2001. In Hinton Telephone Company, 10 FCC Rcd 11625, 11638 (1995), aff'd sub  X- xnom. Knollwood, Ltd. v. FCC, 84 F.3d 1452, 1996 WL 250370 (D.C. Cir., April 29, 1996) (per curiam), the Commission stated:  ` XxX` ` [Petitioners] claim that they contacted Commission staff after the return of their  ` applications to learn the deficiencies in their returned applications. As these  ` alleged conversations with Commission staff took place after the applications were  ` Areturned, there could not have been any detrimental reliance on Commission staff  ` nstatements by the applicants when they submitted their applications. The alleged  ` 3discussions thus are irrelevant to our analysis of the applications, which were unacceptable when submitted. (#`  xSimilarly, the alleged conversation between Burlington's attorney and Commission staff took  X- xplace two years after petitioner's renewal application and petition for reinstatement were due.  xxHence, petitioner could not have suffered detrimental reliance as these statements, allegedly made  x\in 1993, could not have possibly caused Burlington's failure, in 1991, to file a timely renewal  xor petition for reinstatement. Moreover, even if Commission staff had made such a statement  xprior to WKR62's expiration date, we have "specifically held that parties who rely on staff"" ,-(-(ZZf!"  X- x>advice or interpretations do so at their own risk." Hinton, 10 FCC Rcd at 11637. yOy-ԍ We also note that while seeking to blame Commission staff for Burlington's failure to timely renew its station license, petitioner is apparently confused about other filings it made. Burlington, in its application for review, claims uncertainty as to whether WKR62's application for renewal was filed, although it admits it has no record of such filing, because the staff person it allegedly spoke with in May 1993 "obviously had access to the Commission records since it was also disclosed that an application of completion of construction was filed on  yOa-March 27, 1989 and granted on October 27, 1989." Application for Review at 3. According to Commission files, on March 27, 1989, Burlington filed a modification application, Application File No. 50129CMP89, which was granted on October 27, 1989, and required construction certification on October 27, 1990; Commission records do not indicate that such certification was ever made.  The D.C.  X- xCircuit in Malkan, affirmed the Commission's decision to enforce our rules despite a prior  X- x>erroneous staff interpretation of the rules made at an official seminar. 935 F.2d at 1319. The  xLcourt noted "[i]n the real world of agency practice . .. slips of this kind are not rare and should  X- xynot engender reliance." Id. With respect to Burlington, the Commission's regulations for filing  xapplications for renewal and petitions for reinstatement are clear and it is expected that licensees  xwill turn to these regulations for guidance. 47C.F.R.21.11(c), 21.44(b), 21.45(a). Burlington  xhas not demonstrated that unique facts and circumstances existed to cause its late filings.  xzAccordingly, we find that Burlington has failed to justify a waiver under 47 C.F.R. 21.19(a)  X7-or (b). \7 yO-ԍ In addition, we note, WKR62's "silent" status further weighs against the grant of a waiver. In adopting the rule that requires a licensee to submit an unused license for cancellation, 47 C.F.R.  21.303, the  {O-Commission sought to ensure efficient use of the spectrum. 1987 Report and Order, 2 FCC Rcd at 5724. The rule set forth reporting requirements and a time period after which "unused licenses must be submitted for  {O-cancellation. " Id. It is well established that "silent stations are not consistent with the public interest because  {Ol-they do not provide service." COM III TV, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 3613, 3615 (1992); see also United Television Co.,  {O6-Inc., 46 FCC 2d 698, 700 (1974).  yO- By Burlington's own admission, WKR62 "suspended operation in conjunction with TV KJMH 26's request for specific temporary authority to suspend broadcasting which was granted by the Commission on March 9,  {OX-1995." See Response to Letter Requesting Further Information at 1 ("Response"). According to Commission records, Burlington Broadcasting Co., Ltd., licensee of KJMH, in 1994, shared the same president as Burlington Cablevision, Inc., licensee of WKR62. On December 13, 1994, Burlington Broadcasting Co., Ltd., on behalf on KJMH, requested special temporary authority to suspend operations in order to upgrade station equipment and affiliate with United Paramount Network; no reference was made to WKR62. In a March 24, 1995, Letter Ruling, by the Chief, Television Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, KJMH was granted, for  {O -six months, "special temporary authority to remain dark pursuant to Section 73.1740 ... ." (emphasis added). Section 73.1740 of the Commission's rules regulates the minimum operating schedules for broadcast radio and television stations, but does not encompass MDS stations for which Part 21 rules apply. 47 C.F.R.  73.1740. Therefore, notwithstanding petitioner's belief that the above special authority covered "all auxiliary operations" the request was made only for and granted solely for KJMH. Moreover, we note, even if petitioner erroneously assumed the special temporary authority applied to WKR62, the MDS station remained silent long after KJMH's sanctioned suspension expired. As of April 12, 1996, petitioner stated, "Burlington Cablevision believes that it should not return the station to operation pending the resolution of the questions raised in connection with the transfer and renewal." Response at 3. Thus, for almost three years WKR62 has failed, without Commission approval, to provide service to the local community. " ,-(-(ZZ " x"IV. CONCLUSION   }x20. In view of all of the foregoing considerations, we affirm the staff's dismissal of  xBurlington Cablevision's renewal application for station WKR62, under consideration in this order. Reinstatement of the license renewal application is not warranted.   x21. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Application for Review filed by Burlington Cablevision, Inc. IS DENIED.   x22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send  xa copy of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhCharles E. Dziedzic x` `  hhAssistant Chief, Video Services Division x` `  hhMass Media Bureau