WPC 2U ZB!OHP LaserJet IIPXN\  PXP   #A\  PP#X0ÍÍX0ÍÍHeader ! #XN\  PXP# 4 <DL!#XN\  PXP#2OX.Footer ! #XN\  P XP# 4 <DL!#XN\  P XP#Page Number Heading 1 0 '#Xx6X@X@# #A\  PP#Body Text '  '#Xx6X@X@# #A\  PP#2o  X ^ Heading 5 @ 7#XN\  PXP#  #A\  PP# Heading 6 3 *#XN\  PXP#  #A\  PP# Heading 2 0 '#Xx6X@!X@# #A\  P"P#Footnote Ref 2  H   Footnote Tex ''#XN\  P)XP# #XN\  P*XP#Heading 3 : 1#Xx6X@:X@# #A\  P;P#Heading 4 G >#XN\  PXP# #A\  PP#Document Map LDd!!!!DL# xX# # x # LD!!!!DL#A\  P P# 2kX0[Default ParaXN\  PXP(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  P P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P P\  `&Times New RomanXN\  P XP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  P XP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  P P\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@X@<6X9`(CourierXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@X@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`(CourierXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@X@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  P XP\  `&Times New RomanXXx6X@!X@<6X9`(CourierXA\  P"P\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@#X@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  P$XP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  P%XP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  P&P\  `&Times New RomanXN\  P'XP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  P(P\  `&Times New RomanXN\  P)XP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  P*XP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  P+P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P,P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P-P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P.P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P/P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P0P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P1P\  `&Times New RomanXN\  P2XP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  P3P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P4P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P5P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P6P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P7P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P8P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P9P\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@:X@<6X9`(CourierXA\  P;P\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@<X@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  P=XP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  P>XP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  P?P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P@P\  `&Times New RomanA\  PAP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PBP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PCP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PDP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PEP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PFP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PGP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PHP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PIP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PJP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PKP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PLP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PMP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PNP\  `&Times New RomanA\  POP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PPP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PQP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PRP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PSP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PTP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PUP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PVP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PWP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PYP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PZP\  `&Times New RomanA\  P[P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P\P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P]P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P^P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P_P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P`P\  `&Times New RomanA\  PaP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PbP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PcP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PdP\  `&Times New RomanXN\  PeXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PfP\  `&Times New Romand6X@g@<6X9`(CourierA\  PhP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PiP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PjP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PkP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PlP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PmP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PnP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PoP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PpP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PqP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PrP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PsP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PtP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PuP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PvP\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@wX@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  PxXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PyXP\  `&Times New RomanXXx6X@zX@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  P{XP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  P|XP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  P}P\  `&Times New RomanA\  P~P\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@X@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXx6X@X@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanA\  PP\  `&Times New RomanXx6X@X@<6X9`(CourierXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanXXN\  PXP\  `&Times New RomanX xX $TahomaX x  $TahomaA\  P P\  `&Times New Roman2#|x XX 3  #A\  PP#0 #A\  PP#Header ! #A\  PP#Header  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:XP#   1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  4 4 <DL!4 On July 28 and 29, 1994, the Commission held an auction for IVDS licenses. CRSPI was the successful bidder in 20 IVDS markets. As a winning bidder, CRSPI was required to make a down payment on its successful bids no later than August 8, 1994. CRSPI failed to do so, and therefore, was in default. After the conclusion of the IVDS auction, it came to the Commission's attention that CRSPI may have violated the Commission's rules, including Sections 1.2105(a)(2)(viii), Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í 4 #A\  P?P#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  P@P# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#47 C.F.R. 1.2105(a)(2)(viii).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PAP# Footnote Tex#A\  PBP#ۤ 1.2105(a)(2)(ix), Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PCP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PDP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#47 C.F.R. 1.2105(a)(2)(ix).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PEP# Footnote Tex#A\  PFP#ۢ 1.2105(c) Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PGP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PHP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#47 C.F.R. 1.2105(c).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PIP# Footnote Tex#A\  PJP#ۛ(prohibition of collusion); Sections 1.2110(b) Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PKP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PLP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#47 C.F.R. 1.2110(b).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PMP# Footnote Tex#A\  PNP#ۛ and 95.816(d) Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  POP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PPP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#47 C.F.R. 95.816(d).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PQP# Footnote Tex#A\  PRP#ۛ (claiming a false bidding credit); and Section 1.17 Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í   #A\  PSP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PTP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#47 C.F.R. 1.17.# Footnote Tex# #A\  PUP# Footnote Tex#A\  PVP#ۖ (written submission of false financial information). In addition, CRSPI may have abused Commission processes. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Íy   #A\  PWP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PXP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#Abuse of process is a broad concept that includes use of a Commission process to achieve a result that the process was not intended to achieve or to use that process to subvert the purpose the process was intended to achieve. See Footnote Ref # Footnote Ref#In the Matter of Commercial Realty St. Pete, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 10 FCC Rcd 4277, 4283 n.13 (1995) ( Commercial Realty NALF).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PYP# Footnote Tex#A\  PZP#y Consequently, the Commission ordered an investigation into CRSPIs conduct in the IVDS auction. As a result of this investigation, the Commission, inter alia, released an Order to Show Cause Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í   #A\  P[P#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  P\P# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#See Commercial Realty OSC, supra, 77 RR 2d at 490. on February 16, 1995 ("OSC") to inquire into CRSPIs auctionrelated activities.    3.In the OSC, the Commission ordered CRSPI and its principals to show cause why they should not be barred from participating in any future Commission auctions and from holding Commission licenses. The Commission asked whether: (1) CRSPI or its principals misrepresented facts, lacked candor or attempted to mislead the Commission with respect to certain declarations submitted to the Commission; (2) CRSPI or its principals misrepresented facts, lacked candor, or attempted to mislead the Commission in claiming a bidding credit as a womanowned small business; (3) CRSPI or its principals' "improper communication" with another successful IVDS bidder should bar CRSPI or its principals from future auctions and from holding Commission licenses; and (4) CRSPI or its principals abused the Commission's processes by sending a letter by facsimile to other successful IVDS auction bidders and by releasing a press release prior to the date the first down payment on their bid was due. Prehearing conferences were held on March 29 and July 21, 1995. The hearing was scheduled to begin on September 12, 1995; however, prior to the commencement of the hearing, CRSPI, the Hartleys, and the Bureau reached an agreement in principle on the settlement of those aspects of this case affecting the parties. The Joint Motion for Approval of Agreement followed. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í   #A\  P]P#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  P^P#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  P_P# Footnote Tex#A\  P`P# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#Commercial Realty MO&O, supra, at 1.Ĺ 4. In their Joint Motion, CRSPI, the Hartleys, and the Bureau sought ALJ approval of an Agreement of Settlement into which they had entered. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, CRSPI and the Hartleys, for a period of 10 years, agreed that they would not participate in any FCC auction proceeding, apply for any additional FCC licenses, hold a five percent or greater attributable ownership interest in any FCC licensee, or operate or control any such licensee. In addition, after an opportunity to appeal the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order denying its request for a waiver of the down payment requirement, Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í   #A\  PaP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PbP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PcP# Footnote Tex#A\  PdP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See In The Matter of Requests for Waivers in the First Auction of 594 Interactive Video and Data Service Licenses, Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6384 (1994) ( Requests for Waivers Order); In The Matter of Requests for Waivers in the First Auction of 594 Interactive Video and Data Service Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12153#XN\  PeXP# (#A\  PfP#1995) ( Requests for Waivers MO&O 1995); In The Matter of Requests for Waivers in the First Auction of 594 Interactive Video and Data Service Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 8211 (1996) ( Requests for Waivers MO&O 1996);#d6X@g@# #A\  PhP# bb Commercial Realty St. Pete, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 116 F.3d 941 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ( Commercial Realty St. Pete, Inc.).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PiP# Footnote Tex#A\  PjP# dd  CRSPI agreed not to challenge any Commission order charging it with a default penalty, and agreed to be liable for any default penalties currently provided for in FCC rules, with respect to the 20 IVDS licenses for which CRSPI was the successful bidder. The Settlement Agreement specified that CRSPI and the Hartleys did not admit to any wrongdoing in connection with the matters which were the subject of that proceeding, and that the Settlement Agreement would not affect the rights or obligations of the parties with respect to a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, released by the Commission on February 16, 1995 ("NALF"). Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PkP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PlP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#Commercial Realty NALF, supra, 10 FCC Rcd at 4277. 5.The Presiding Judge granted the Joint Motion and approved the Settlement Agreement under the terms outlined above. The Presiding Judge determined that the Settlement Agreement was in the public interest and capable of preserving the integrity of the Commissions IVDS auction rules. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PmP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PnP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PoP# Footnote Tex#A\  PpP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#Commercial Realty St. Pete MO&O, supra, at 2. The Presiding Judge further noted that the Commission encourages parties to an adjudicatory proceeding to settle their differences on a mutually agreeable basis because eliminating the need for further expenditure of Commission time and resources is in the public interest. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í;  #A\  PqP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PrP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PsP# Footnote Tex#A\  PtP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#Id.# Footnote Tex# #A\  PuP# Footnote Tex#A\  PvP#; Body Text #Xx6X@wX@##XN\  PxXP#6.On October 9, 1998, CRSPI filed the instant Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Other Relief seeking to reopen the Settlement Agreement.!Body Text !ی#XN\  PyXP#  Heading 3 #Xx6X@zX@##XN\  P{XP# III. DISCUSSION! Heading 3 ! #XN\  P|XP#  7.CRSPI raises two arguments in its Request for a Declaratory Ruling. First, CRSPI argues that a conflict of interest on the part of former Commission Chairman Reed Hundt unfairly prejudiced the proceedings. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  P}P#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  P~P# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#Petition for Declaratory Ruling, supra, at 1416 (4048).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Second, CRSPI maintains that it should be relieved of the terms of the Settlement Agreement because the lack of established IVDS technology in 1995 prevented CRSPI from tendering the required down payment. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#Id. at 1617 (4950).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP#ۦ With a new technology now available, CRSPI argues it should be allowed to reclaim the licenses on which it had once defaulted. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#Id. at 17 (50).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP#ۜ As more fully detailed below, we find that neither of these arguments provides a basis for relieving CRSPI from the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  Heading 4 #XN\  PXP#A. Prejudice and Conflict of Interest! Heading 4 ! #XN\  PXP# 8.CRSPI alleges that a conflict of interest on the part of former Commission Chairman Reed Hundt existed at the time of the various adjudicatory proceedings issued against it in the aftermath of the first IVDS auction. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#In its Petition CRSPI identifies only one adjudicatory proceeding: In the Matter of Inquiry Into Alleged Abuses of the Commissions Auction Processes by Applicants for Licenses in the Interactive Video and Data Services, Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6906 (1994).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Ę This conflict, it is alleged, stemmed from Chairman Hundt's prior representation, as an attorney and lobbyist, of Eon Corporation ( Eon), a participant in the IVDS auction and the main purveyor of IVDS technology. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#Id. at 14 (40).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP#ۜ According to CRSPI, the mere existence of such a prior relationship creates a "conflict of interest" that would require the recusal of Chairman Hundt in any adjudicatory proceeding in which Eon is a party. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#Id. at 1516 (4448).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP#ۦ CRSPI requests an investigation by the Commission's Inspector General to "determine the exact nature and extent of Chairman Hundt's relationship with Eon." Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#Id. at 15 (45). 9.The test for disqualification of a Commissioner from an adjudicatory proceeding on grounds of bias or the appearance of bias is whether "a disinterested observer may conclude that [the decision maker] has in some measure adjudged the facts as well as the law of a particular case in advance of hearing it." Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#Metropolitan Council of NAACP Branches v. FCC, 46 F.3d 1154, 116465 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC, 425 F.2d 583, 591 (D.C. Cir. 1970)); In the Matter of Implementation of Section 309(J) of the Communications ActCompetitive Bidding for Commercial Broadcast and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licenses, First Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15920, 16007 ( 215) (1998) ( First Report and Order).ė Moreover, a requestor seeking the recusal of a Commissioner from an adjudicatory proceeding must point to specific statements clearly showing prejudgment of both the facts and law of a given case, and such statements must be viewed in the context of the entire case." Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Íu  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#First Report and Order, supra, 13 FCC Rcd at 16007 (217).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP#u Body Text #Xx6X@X@##XN\  PXP#10.In the instant proceeding, CRSPI provides no factual instances of Chairman Hundt's predisposition towards Eon or against CRSPI. CRSPI confines itself to attaching a copy of a newspaper article from The Washington Post, dated February 17, 1998, containing statements to the effect that, while a lawyer at the law firm of Latham & Watkins, Chairman Hundt had worked on cases where TV Answer, predecessor to Eon, had been a defendant. The article also states, without specifics, that Hundt had once lobbied for the company. The article further states that at the time of his appointment as Chairman, in September of 1993, Mr. Hundt revealed his past relationship with Eon and was given clearance by the Commissions Office of General Counsel to participate in matters concerning the company. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#See Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 14 (42).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP#!Body Text ! #XN\  PXP# Body Text #Xx6X@X@##XN\  PXP#11.CRSPI's speculative allegations do not rise to the level of specific statements "clearly showing prejudgment" required by the applicable law of recusal. The newspaper article, upon which CRSPI relies, does not suggest that Eon or CRSPI was singled out for special treatment, give details of Chairman Hundt's opinions about IVDS technology or Eon, imply some continuing arrangement between Chairman Hundt and Eon, identify any impermissible exparte communication between Chairman Hundt and Eon, or otherwise indicate that any impermissible factor had influenced his decision in matters pending before the Commission. Accordingly, we conclude that CRSPI has failed to furnish evidence that would cause a disinterested observer to conclude that Mr. Hundt had adjudged the facts or law of the case in advance of hearing it. Thus, there is no evidence that Mr. Hundts participation unfairly prejudiced the proceedings, and his removal from the CRSPI proceeding was not required.!Body Text ! #XN\  PXP# B. Lack of Prior Technology 12.CRSPI's second argument, that somehow the lack of enabling technology prevented it from tendering the down payment required by Commission rules, is essentially a restatement of prior arguments raised in CRSPIs prior Request for Waivers, Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#See Requests For Waivers Order, supra, 9 FCC Rcd at 6384. Application for Review, Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See Requests for Waivers MO&O 1995, supra, 10 FCC Rcd at 12153. Petition for Reconsideration, Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4Í  Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See Requests for Waivers MO&O 1996, supra, 11 FCC Rcd at 8211. and Petition for Review, Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4Í  Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See bb Commercial Realty St. Pete Inc., supra, 116 F.3d at 941. dd  all of which were rejected. For the reasons stated below, we likewise find this argument does not provide a basis for the requested relief. 13.CRSPI readopts the argument, advanced in the abovereferenced prior proceedings, that IVDS technology was not sufficiently developed to allow it to meet the Commissions construction, or buildout deadlines. CRSPI then postulates that the unavailability of this technology justifies its decision to withhold the required down payment, and therefore it should be entitled to relief from the forfeiture of its licenses under the Settlement Agreement. We reject this argument for the following reasons. 14.First, information regarding the state of proposed IVDS technology was a matter of public record, Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Íi  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#In the Matter of Implementation of Section 309(J) of the Communications ActCompetitive Bidding, Fourth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994) (modified on other grounds in In the Matter of Implementation of Section 309(J) of the Communications ActCompetitive Bidding, Sixth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 193419 (1996)); Requests for Waivers MO&O 1995, supra, 10 FCC Rcd at 1215354 ( 45).i and in the exercise of due diligence, should have been incorporated into the bidding strategy and valuations of any serious participant in the IVDS auction. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í{   #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See Requests For Waivers Order, supra, 9 FCC Rcd at 6384 ( 7); Requests for Waivers MO&O 1995, supra, 10 FCC Rcd at 1215354 ( 45); Requests for Waivers MO&O 1996, supra, 11 FCC Rcd at 8213 ( 5).{ To hold otherwise would have the unacceptable effect of transferring the risk inherent in such bidding from the bidder to the government. It would also require the government to guarantee the success of such ventures postauction, which the government cannot do. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í!  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#Requests For Waivers Order, supra, 9 FCC Rcd at 6385 ( 7); Requests for Waivers MO&O 1996, supra, 11 FCC Rcd at 8213 ( 5); see also In the Matter of BDPCS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15341 (1997) (inability of the bidder to secure appropriate financing does not justify a waiver of the down payment requirement). In any event, the proper remedy for a lack of technology would be a request for waiver of the buildout deadline, not relief from the down payment obligations. 15.Second, the down payment required by Commission rules stems from the need to eliminate all but serious bona fide bidders from the auction process and to ensure that public dissemination of the desired services will be widespread and efficient. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í0"  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#Requests for Waivers MO&O 1995, supra, 10 FCC Rcd at 1215354 ( 45); see also In The Matter of Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications ActCompetitive Bidding, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2381 ( 190) (1995) ( Second Report and Order) (modified on other grounds In The Matter of Implementation of Section 309(J) of The Communications ActCompetitive Bidding, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7245 (1994)).0 The down payment requirement deters insincere bidders from winning licenses solely with the expectation that, postauction, they can shop their winning bid in a late effort to obtain financing. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Ít#  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See Requests For Waivers Order, supra, 9 FCC Rcd at 6386 ( 12); Requests for Waivers MO&O 1995, supra, 10 FCC Rcd at 121543 ( 2); see also Second Report and Order, supra, 9 FCC Rcd at 238182 ( 192).t Permitting such actions, we have stated, would undermine the integrity of the auction itself. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í$  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#Requests For Waivers Order, supra, 9 FCC Rcd at 6386 ( 12). Such an action would also be patently unfair to those bidders that, in good faith, tendered the required down payment in a timely manner. As in its other abovereferenced proceedings requesting a waiver, CRSPI has offered no legitimate basis for an exemption from our auction rules governing down payments. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í=%  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See Requests For Waivers Order, supra, 9 FCC Rcd at 63846386 ( 513); Requests for Waivers MO&O 1995, supra, 10 FCC Rcd at 1215354 ( 46).= 16.Third, CRSPIs default of the down payment requirement is immaterial to an action to set aside the Settlement Agreement as it touches only tangentially upon the default, providing that CRSPI and its principals would not contest penalties imposed under a separate Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Ív&  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#Commercial Realty NALF, supra, 10 FCC Rcd at 4277.# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP#v The thrust of the Settlement Agreement was to set aside numerous allegations of misconduct surrounding CRSPI's participation in the IVDS auction in July 1994, and was unrelated to the default of CRSPIs down payment obligations. Specifically, issues were specified to determine whether: (1) CRSPI or its principals misrepresented facts, lacked candor or attempted to mislead the Commission with respect to certain declarations submitted to the Commission; (2) CRSPI or its principals misrepresented facts, lacked candor, or attempted to mislead the Commission in claiming a bidding credit as a womanowned small business; (3) CRSPI or its principals' "improper communication" with another successful IVDS bidder should bar CRSPI or its principals from future auctions and from holding Commission licenses; and (4) CRSPI or its principals abused the Commission's processes by sending a letter by facsimile to other successful IVDS auction bidders and by releasing a press release prior to the date the first down payment on their bid was due. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í'  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#See Commercial Realty OSC, supra, 77 RR at 49294 ( 1120).# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# It was these allegations which gave rise to the Order to Show Cause and which were set aside by the instant Settlement Agreement. Indeed in its petition, CRSPI has not addressed any of these additional alleged violations in any manner. It is these other alleged violations which are the thrust of the OSC and which the Settlement Agreement concludes. Thus, an attempt to excuse the default of CRSPIs down payment obligations does not warrant relief from the restrictions of the Settlement Agreement. 17.Finally, we reject CRSPIs assertion that subsequent auctioning of the licenses upon which it was the high bidder is not a viable alternative as it would neither bring as high a price as CRSPI is now willing to pay, nor benefit women and minorities under prior preferences, which are now disallowed under the doctrine prescribed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Graceba Total Communications Inc. v. Federal Communication Commission. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í(  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#115 F.3d at 1038 (1997). CRSPIs argument fails to recognize that its alleged violative conduct during and after the IVDS auction is what led to the Order to Show Cause, which was concluded by the Settlement Agreement. Thus, the amount CRISPI is now willing to pay is immaterial to a decision to overturn the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, the record demonstrates that CRSPI has failed to honor any financial obligations such as the one it proposes here. As noted in the OSC, the investigation indicated that CRSPI falsely represented its line of credit and finances. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í?)  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#  Footnote Refۍ# Footnote Ref#See Commercial Realty OSC, supra, 77 RR at 492 ( 1215).? CRSPI also has failed to pay the forfeiture imposed by the NALF, which it agreed to pay in the Settlement Agreement. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í+*  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See letter dated March 29, 1999, from Susan Launer (Federal Communications Commission), to Lauren Colby, Esq. (counsel for Commercial Realty St. Pete, Inc).+ Likewise, the basis for CRSPIs claim to a bidding credit does not provide a legitimate reason for overturning the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, the OSC charged that CRSPI falsely claimed a bidding credit as a womanowned business, Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0Í+  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#See Commercial Realty OSC, supra, 77 RR at 493 ( 1617). evidencing that no woman or minorityowned preference ever likely applied to CRSPI. Furthermore, contrary to CRSPIs assertions with regard to auction preferences, the Commission still utilizes the mechanism of bidding credits to attempt to equalize the positions of small businesses competing against larger businesses in current auctions, albeit on a somewhat different basis than that previously employed. Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#X0ÍX0ÍN,  #A\  PP#4 <DL!4 Footnote Tex#A\  PP#Í# Footnote Tex# #A\  PP# Footnote Tex#A\  PP# Footnote Ref# Footnote Ref#In the Matter of Amendment of Part 1 of the Commissions Rules Competitive Bidding Procedures, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 37778, 380, 529 (1997) (modified on other grounds in In the Matter of Amendment of Part 1 of the Commissions Rules Competitive Bidding Procedures, Erratum To Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 4621 (1998), and in In the Matter of Amendment of Part 1 of the Commissions Rules Competitive Bidding Procedures, Erratum To Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 10274 (1998)).N Accordingly, we find that these arguments are also unpersuasive.  Heading 3 #Xx6X@X@##XN\  PXP# IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES! Heading 3 ! #XN\  PXP#   Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP#18.For the foregoing reasons, we deny Commercial Realty St. Pete, Inc.s Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Other Relief seeking to reopen the Agreement of Settlement.# Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP## Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP#19.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 154(j), Section 5(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 554(e), and Section 1.2 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.2, that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Other Relief filed by Commercial Realty St. Pete, Inc. on October 8, 1998 is DENIED.# Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP#  Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP## Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP## Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP#20.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Lauren A. Colby Esq., counsel for Petitioner Commercial Realty St. Pete Inc. by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.# Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP## Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP#  DL!FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION# Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP#DL!# Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP#DL!# Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP# < <DL!< X Magalie Roman Salas# Footnote Tex#  X #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP#<DL!<Secretary# Footnote Tex# #XN\  PXP# Footnote Tex#XN\  PXP# <