WPCM 2BJZCourier3|x7x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Sii PostScriptHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\G"DpX@ Y3  @-  -@Њ#Xw PE37|XP#2f XE CourierCG Times",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d|8|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddxxdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCxCddoddCdYds]xUvdYYCCCCx~oxoY~NYdYC8YooYdYxsdxdd~YYxoxxx~CdxYxxxxCCdddddddxCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L<?xxx,x6X@`7X@8wC;,|Xw PE37XP !!""##$$%%&&''((3|x72U Z 9KFHP LaserJet 5Sii PostScriptHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\G"DpX@"   ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````CourierCourier BoldCourier ItalicCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times Italic"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gCCwh,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,w;w`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``V,,,CC,;C;C;,CC%%C%hCCCC14%CC`CC;;C;C#CCCCC,CCCCCCCCC%`;`;`;`;`;wY[;T;T;T;T;,%,%,%,%cC`C`C`C`CcCcCcCcC`C`;cC`C`C`CcCMC`;`C`;[;[;[C[CcPS;TCTCS;`C`C`C`C`CcCcC,%CCCC,CaJCC^CS%S0TCS%S%cCMcCcC`C`Cw`X0X0YCH3H3H3HCS0S%TCcCcCcCcCcCcC~``CU;U;U;cCTCcCHCTC`CP,CC,,,WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN```CCC,;66CCuCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,EECw##CCPPeCC`COmmJJw,EC~/"``C`E``wwCww&wC,,`Pw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`hV``````````>``````mYPh`9O```````C```````;````;````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````PTJPJY;T4V;cC`;,%^;YJyJc;YC`;`PMCPCCT;`;YP`JhPPP`Tc,C```P;PPPPb,,CCCC`cCCC```P,MC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8`T[cTO`c,4^Tyc`M`YHTc`~``VJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gCCwm,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,wCw`Y``YPhh4@hY~`hPh`JY````Y,,,CC,CJ;J;/CJ%,J%mJCJJ;4,JC`CC;CCCC#CCCCC,CCCCCCCCJ%`C`C`C`C`C``;Y;Y;Y;Y;4%4%4%4%`JhChChChC`J`J`J`J`C`C`KhChC`C`CPJ`C`C`C`;`;`C`C`[X;YCYCX;hChChChChChJhJ3%CJCC4JyKCChJX%X5YCY4Y%`Kj`K`JhChCc`;`;`CK3J4K3JCX5X-YC`J`K`J`J`K`J``CX;Y;X;`JYC`JJCYC`C[,CC,,,WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN```CCC,C99CCCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,MMCw##CCPPeCC`CTmmJJw,MC~/"``C`L``wwCww&wC,,`Pw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`h[``````````@``````tYPh`9O```````C```````C````C````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````PYJPJY;Y4Y;h;`;4%h;YJ~J`;YCh;`PPCPCCY;`;YP`JhPPP`Yh4Ch``P;PPPPb,,CCCC`hCCC```P,PC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx<?xxx,x6X@`7X@<n2```,^`6X@`7@E?xxx,x6X@`7XP?xxx,x `7X ?xxx,Ρx6Nhez7XHFx/c81,$ c PE37P `%O,(,$O PE37PFx/c81,$ c PE37PDGy.f81,-f_ pi7 Hz-b81,;ub&_ x7XD`%Q,(,-Q_ pi7 Gy.f81,-f_ pi7 H<!,$,< PE37,P"i~'K2^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88SxoxxodAPoxdx]oxxxxo888SS8`Y``YPhh4@hY~`hPh`JY````YSSSS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSS].xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSd]xSxSxSxIxIxSxSxqnIoSoSnISSSSS]]?.S]SSA]]SS]n/nCoSoAo.x]x]x]SS{xIxIxS]?]A]?]SnCn9oSx]x]x]x]x]x]xxSnIoJnIx]oSx]]SoSxSq8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SGGSSSSSS;SSSS;88``S++SSddSSxSi]]8`S;"xxSx`xxS唔0S88xdxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xrxxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxodxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxx`oYdPoYoYoYhx`A4hoY~x`oYhx`dPdPoYx`oYx`hdPxoASxxdJddddz88SSSSxSSSxxxd8dSJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k"i~'K2^!.22YN!!!2Y!!!!2222222222!!dYd,YH?EJ?;HJ!'F?[JH9HC6?JH^HHA!!!22!,2,2,!222N2222%'22H22,,2,d222222!222222222H,H,H,H,H,YCE,?,?,?,?,!!!!J2H2H2H2H2J2J2J2J2H2H,J2H2H2H2J292H,H2H,D,D,E2E2J<>,?2?2>,H2H2H2H2H2J2J2!2222!2I822F2>>$?2>>J2:J2J2H2H2YHB$B$C26&6&6&62>$>?2J2J2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,@,@,J2?2J262?2H2<!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22< Columbia Cellular, Inc. and  BellSouth Mobility Inc.,  xP3 Intervenorsă  yP3t """" ă  xPQ3 Appeal of an Order of the  ~Federal Communications Commission  xP3  yPq3t """" ă  zP3 Bruce D. Sokler argued the cause for appellant, with  zP3 whom Howard J. Symons and James A. Kirkland were on the briefs.  zP3 iJoel Marcus, Counsel, Federal Communications  Commission, argued the cause for appellee, with  zP3 whom William E. Kennard, General Counsel, Daniel  zPJ3 M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, John E.  zP 3  Ingle, Deputy Associate General Counsel, and  zP 3Roberta L. Cook, Counsel, were on the brief.  zPp"3 EKenneth E. Hardman, L. Andrew Tollin and Michael  zP:#3 Deuel Sullivan were on the joint brief for intervenors  Columbia Cellular, Inc. and BellSouth Mobility Inc.  zN$3 David G. Frolio, Jim O. Llewellyn, Robert G. Kirk,  zP%3 Walter H. Alford and William B. Barfield entered appearances.  zP'3 6 Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Wald and  zP(3Sentelle, Circuit Judges."(0*0*0*,"Ԍ zP3 l6 ԙppOpinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge  xP3Wald.  zPZ3 l6& ppWald, Circuit Judge: On August 14, 1996,  %the Federal Communications Commission ("the   Commission") released an order dismissing the  Gapplication of MobileTel, Inc. ("MobileTel") to  $provide cellular service in two Rural Service Areas  ("RSAs") in Louisiana using frequencies reserved for   applicants that already provide "public landline  message telephone service," 47 C.F.R.  22.902(b)  zP3 z(1988), in those areas. See In re Applications of  zPf 3 %MobileTel, Inc., FCC 96345, 1996 WL 459977   (F.C.C.) (August 14, 1996). The Commission  concluded that MobileTel was ineligible for the  6reserved frequencies in these RSAs because the  Wcompany provided telephone service to customers in  zthese areas only by means of radio links, and the  $regulation making the provision of "public landline  Fmessage telephone service" a condition of eligibility  excluded companies serving customers only by means  of radio links. MobileTel appealed the Commission's order to this court. We affirm.  yP3  I. Background ă  l6 ppThe Commission established rules to govern  %the implementation of cellular communications  zP!3  service in 1981. See Cellular Communications  zP3 Systems, 86 FCC 2d 469 (1981), modified, 89 FCC  zP3  2d 58 (1982), further modified, 90 FCC 2d 571  zP3 (1982), petition for review dismissed, United States v.  zPI3 6FCC, No. 821526 (D.C.Cir.1984). To promote  competition in cellular markets, the Commission  divided the radio spectrum into two frequency blocks,  ensuring that two cellular systems would compete in  zPk3 each market. See id. at 48793. In making its initial  allocation of cellular frequencies, the Commission  zmade the "Block A" frequencies in each market  zP3 Favailable to "[c]ommon carriers not also engaged in  the business of affording public landline message  telephone service," 47 C.F.R.  22.902(b) (emphasis  5added), and reserved the "Block B" frequencies for  zP 3  common carriers that were engaged directly or  indirectly in the provision of "public landline message  zPy"3 telephone service." Id. The Commission eliminated  this system of separate allocations for landline and  zP $3 non-landline applicants in 1994. See Revision of Part  zP$3 22 of the Commission's Rules, 9 FCC Rcd 6513 (1994).  l6l ppThe Commission reserved the Block B  frequencies for companies already providing landline  service because it wanted to take advantage of the  $technical expertise and knowledge of local marketsH(0*0*0*,$),,0*0*H  hthat AT&T and other experienced providers of basic  zlocal telephone service had accumulated through  zP3 j years of providing local service. See Cellular  zPZ3 Communications Systems, 86 FCC 2d at 48889  ("Given AT&T's distinctive technical capabilities,  hand its operation in most major markets, we are left  %with little doubt that only AT&T is in a position  today to place cellular systems in operation around  j the country in the immediate future."). The  FCommission also hoped in this way to minimize the  number of applications competing for the Block B  $frequencies in each market. Although in previous   license distributions it had allowed providers of  landline service to qualify for landline set-aside  zP 3 Wfrequencies in any market, see In re Application of  zP 3 5Bonduel Telephone Co., 68 FCC 2d 497 (1978), the  zP 3 XCommission deliberately abandoned the Bonduel  approach in creating the Block B cellular landline  & set-aside, deciding instead to permit landline  companies to apply for cellular frequencies only in  the markets in which they were already providing  zPr3 6landline service. See Cellular Communications  zP<3 zSystems, 86 FCC 2d at 490 n.56. In this way the  yCommission hoped to guarantee that in all but a few  hmarkets, only one wireline carrier would be eligible  for the Block B frequencies, which would eliminate  the delay caused by the often drawn-out comparative  hearings required for dealing with mutually-exclusive  zP3 $applications under Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC,  326 U.S. 327 (1945). The Commission also expected  that rapid approval of the local landline company's  Fapplication for the Block B frequencies in a market  zwould give competing applicants for the Block A  frequencies in that market an incentive to reach a   settlement agreement, to prevent the company  Foperating in the Block B frequencies from getting a  zP03 #head start. See Cellular Communications Systems, 86  FCC 2d at 49091. Except where they threaten its  %goal of preserving competition, the Commission  generally favors measures that streamline the license   distribution process"for example by encouraging   settlement agreements between competing  applicants"in light of its statutory mandate "to make  available, so far as possible, to all the people of the  United States a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and  world-wide wire and radio communication service  with adequate facilities at reasonable charges...." 47 U.S.C.  151. g"R   6 When the Commission replaced the  Wcomparative hearing system with a lottery system in  & 1983, it expressly declined to discontinue the  Xset-aside for landline companies operating in the   relevant market, despite arguments that the"(0*0*0*,"  Xabandonment of the comparative hearing system  Y eliminated the need for set-asides designed to  zP3 streamline the selection process. See Cellular Lottery  zPZ3  Rulemaking, 98 FCC 2d 175 (1984), modified,  zP$3 hCellular Lottery Reconsideration Order, 101 FCC 2d  zP3 577 (1985), affirmed in pertinent part, Maxcell  zP3 Telecom Plus, Inc. v. FCC, 815 F.2d 1551 (D.C.  Cir. 1987). The Commission defended the retention  H of the landline set-aside on the ground that it  9 continued to promote important goals,  zP3 5notwithstanding the switch to a lottery system. See  zP3 6id. at 19298. First, the set-aside protected local  landline telephone companies from being shut out of  their local cellular markets. Were they to be shut out  hof the local cellular market, these companies would   lose customers to the local providers of cellular  service, especially in rural areas where the cost of  providing landline service is high; eventually the  local companies could be forced out of business by  zP3 H their cellular competitors. See id. at 19495.  XIndividuals served by these small local telephone  6companies would then be left without telephone  $service, an outcome which would conflict with the   Commission's objective of achieving universal  telephone service. Second, the Commission believed  that the separate allocation system lent the cellular  markets a structure which would foment healthy  hcompetition, since the two types of communications  carriers would draw upon their respective "traditions  zP3 of service" to compete for customers. See id. at 196.  #Third, the set-aside continued to encourage settlement  zagreements by limiting the number of competing  applications, and settlement agreements were still  (despite the obviation of comparative hearings by the  yintroduction of a lottery system) thought to serve the  7 public interest by creating synergies between   heterogeneous companies and minimizing the  administrative burden, delay, and expense involved in  dealing with petitions challenging cellular frequency  zP3 5allocations. See id. at 19697. Fourth, eliminating  the set-aside would be unfair to the local telephone  j companies, because they had previously been   precluded by the terms of the set-aside from  competing for Block B frequencies in areas where  zPt"3they did not provide landline service. See id. at 197.  l6Z ppIn October of 1988, MobileTel"an affiliate   of Lafourche Telephone Company, Inc.  | ("Lafourche")"applied for Block B cellular  frequencies in the St. James and Plaquemines RSAs  6in swampy areas on the gulf coast of Louisiana.  hCompeting applications for the St. James RSA were  Wfiled by BellSouth Mobility, Inc. ("BellSouth") and  Columbia Cellular, Inc. ("Columbia"), and BellSouthH(0*0*0*,$z)q[q[.0*0*H  also filed a competing application for the Plaquemines  RSA. Columbia's (undisputed) claim of eligibility as  a "[c]ommon carrier[ ] engaged directly or indirectly  Win the business of affording public landline message  5telephone service" in the St. James RSA was based  Won its affiliation with Reserve Telephone Company,  a small, independent, rural telephone company  xPx3 operating a wireline $73ԍThe term "wireline" describes a system in which the connections  $%3between individual customers and central offices are made by wires, as opposed to alternative technologies such as radio links.  local telephone service in the St.  James RSA. MobileTel's claim of eligibility was   based on its affiliation with Lafourche, which  zP3 operated wireline local telephone service outside of  the St. James and Plaquemines RSAs, and which had  zPb 3 recently instituted local service to one customer inside   each of these RSAs using Basic Exchange  Telecommunications Radio Service ("BETRS") in   place of wireline technology. BETRS is an  %alternative to wireline technology that is used to  connect individual customers' telephones to the  service provider's central office; instead of wires,  GBETRS connects customers to central offices by  means of radio transmissions. Where the terrain  between the central office and individual customers is  rugged (in this case, swampy), and therefore difficult  5or impossible to span with wires, BETRS facilitates  Xthe provision of local service to those customers.  The Commission authorized the use of BETRS by  local telephone companies in 1988, seven years after  the establishment of the landline set-aside, and did  | not modify the set-aside subsequent to this  zP3 zauthorization. See In the Matter of Basic Exch.  zPv3 Telecomm. Radio Serv., 3 FCC Rcd 214 (1988) ("BETRS Order").  6 MobileTel won the lottery for the Block B  frequencies in the St. James and Plaquemines RSAs,  and was named the tentative selectee for both. After  #BellSouth and Columbia formed a limited partnership,   BellSouth petitioned the Commission's Mobile  XServices Division ("MSD") to deny MobileTel's   applications on the ground that MobileTel was  ineligible because neither it nor its affiliate Lafourche  zPH3 $provided wireline telephone service in these RSAs.  %BellSouth argued that the requirement, under   522.902(b), that an applicant be providing "landline"  service in the area for which it is applying to provide  5cellular service required the exclusion of applicants  serving these areas only by means of non-wireline  technologies such as BETRS. The MSD granted  zP$3 MobileTel's applications in October of 1990. See In  zP%3 re Applications of MobileTel, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 5854  (MSD 1990). Although it acknowledged that the  FCommission had commonly referred to the Block B  hfrequencies as the "wireline set-aside," and that the  5provision of BETRS-based service "does not qualify"(0*0*0*-"  an applicant as a wireline for purposes of Section  zP3 22.902(b)," id. at 5855, the MSD reasoned that  allowing companies providing local telephone service  in particular cellular markets only through BETRS to  compete for these frequencies was consistent with the  zP3 Commission's intent in creating the set-aside. See id.  at 585556. BellSouth and Columbia each filed  petitions for reconsideration of the MSD order,  Garguing that to allow an applicant providing only  non-wireline service to apply for frequencies set aside  Ffor providers of "landline" service would violate the plain meaning of the regulation.  l6[ ppOn January 27, 1995, the Commission  adopted (but did not release) an order reversing the  zMSD and dismissing MobileTel's applications as  hunacceptable for filing, on the ground that "BETRS   is indisputably a radio, not a "landline' (or  "wireline') service," and that therefore MobileTel did  not provide "landline" service in the St. James or  Plaquemines RSAs as required for eligibility under   22.902(b). On February 6, 1995, the Commission  Wannounced this order in a press release. On March  23, 1995, the Commission released an order vacating  its (still-unreleased) January 27 order, and remanding  %the matter to the Wireless Telecommunications  %Bureau ("WTB") with directions that the WTB  iconsider the relevance to the January 27 order of  BellSouth's request to withdraw its petition and  Columbia's request for approval of its settlement with  5MobileTel"facts of which the Commission had been  zPt3 unaware when it issued the January 27 order. See In  zP>3 Xre Applications of MobileTel, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd  10657 (1996). The WTB later recused itself from  5further participation in the licensing proceeding for  reasons unrelated to the issues in this appeal, and the  Commission's Office of General Counsel assumed  responsibility for making recommendations to the Commission on the remanded matters.  l69 ppOn August 14, 1996, the Commission  returned to the conclusion it had reached in the  never-released January 27 order: MobileTel was  #ineligible for the Block B frequencies in the St. James  and Plaquemines RSAs, because the set-aside for  Xproviders of local "landline" service required the  6exclusion of applicants providing service only by  means of non-wireline technologies such as BETRS.  zP#3 See In re Applications of MobileTel, Inc., 1996 WL  X459977 (F.C.C.) at 9. The Commission rejected  FMobileTel's argument that the provision of BETRS  Xservice in an RSA could create eligibility for the  set-aside, finding this interpretation inconsistent with   the plain meaning of the term "landline," the  Commission's prior decisions, and the purposes forH(0*0*0*,$v)1]0*0*H  zP3 which the set-aside was implemented. See id. at 48.  The Commission also observed that allowing BETRS  Xlinks to create eligibility under  22.902(b) could  enable applicants to undermine the set-aside system.  The set-aside was intended to give a leg up to local  telephone companies with an established presence in  particular geographical areas, on the rationale that  these local companies would have a unique reserve of  expertise and knowledge about these areas. Because  BETRS "loops" linking individual customers in  hparticular RSAs to pre-existing central offices could   be thrown up relatively quickly and cheaply, a  5company operating only BETRS-based local service  in an RSA might well have been operating in the area  yonly a very short while, and thus have no such local  zP 3expertise. See id. at 8.  6& MobileTel filed this appeal from the August 14 order, and Columbia and Bell South intervened.  yP3 II. Discussion ă  zPm3 iXVA. The Commission's Construction of the Term  zN73"Landline"  6& When we review a challenge to an agency's  Finterpretation of its own regulations, we will accept   the agency's interpretation unless it is "plainly  zP3 wrong." General Carbon Co. v. Occupational Safety  zP3 & Health Review Comm'n, 860 F.2d 479, 483 (D.C.  zP3 Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Larionoff, 431  zP}3 6U.S. 864, 872 (1977) and Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 (1965)).  6 MobileTel argues that the Commission's  construction of the term "landline" in  22.902(b) of  Y its regulations was plainly wrong because, by  construing the term to exclude BETRS-based service,  the Commission ignored and undermined the policies  4underlying the set-aside which that regulation created.  hConceding that the Commission commonly used the  Eterms "landline" and "wireline" interchangeably when  zit instituted what was generally referred to as the  6"wireline set- aside," MobileTel argues that the  Commission's use of these terms prior to the 1988  order authorizing the use of BETRS technology must  in retrospect be construed as describing the provision  of local telephone service by BETRS, as well as by  ywires. MobileTel asserts that this must be the case,  because excluding BETRS-based service from the  $set-aside conflicts with the policies underlying both  ythe "wireline set-aside" and the Commission's order   authorizing the use of BETRS by local service providers.  6 The Commission's stated intent in creating"(0*0*0*,"  Fthe set-aside, and in preserving it despite the switch   to a lottery system, was to protect telephone  companies that were small, that had a presence in the  particular area in which cellular service was to be  licensed, that might be squeezed out of the market   altogether if they failed to land a local cellular  Flicense, and the demise of which would leave some  zPx3 customers with no local telephone service at all. See  zPB3 5Cellular Lottery Rulemaking, 98 FCC 2d at 19298.  XMobileTel argues that all of these factors should  j apply to companies providing local service via   BETRS, and claims that as a provider of local  FBETRS-based service to customers in the St. James  and Plaquemines RSAs, it has the same expertise and  knowledge of these markets as a company that had  Xset up wireline links in these RSAs would have.  MobileTel also accuses the Commission of unfair and  contradictory behavior, arguing that the Commission  first encouraged local telephone companies to use  BETRS, and then "puni[shed]" companies who took  hthe bait by denying them eligibility for the "wireline  set-aside" frequencies. Amended Brief for Appellant at 33.  l6Z ppWhen MobileTel filed its application, the  Commission's rules included no definition of the term  y"landline" or of the phrase "public landline message  telephone service." The Commission points out that  a 1986 dictionary of industry terms defined "landline"   in such a way as to include only wire-based or  zP3 cable-based service, see Brief for Appellee at 22,  Gwhile MobileTel cites a 1993 industry dictionary  Gincluding fiber optic and microwave links in the  zP3 hdefinition. See Reply Brief for Appellant at 8 n.20.   Given the facts that no statutory definition   accompanied the regulation, and that industry   dictionaries offer conflicting definitions which  5arguably could reflect the very sort of technological   "updating" on which MobileTel's argument is  premised, we obviously cannot resolve this dispute  Gsolely on the basis of the "plain meaning" of the  zword "landline" or of the phrase "public landline   message telephone service" divorced from the  zP 3 #policies underlying the set-aside. Cf. In the Matter of  zP!3 Xerox Corp. and MCI Communications Corp., 90  $FCC 2d 547, 55054 (1982) (finding that the lack of  a statutory definition of the term "public landline   message telephone service" precluded a "plain  meaning" answer to the question of whether a service  not in existence at the time the regulation was drafted  #should fall within the scope of the phrase, and turning  to other Commission policies and decisions to answer  the question). The Commission's interpretation of  "landline," and of the phrase in which it appeared inH(0*0*0*,$w)ڋ0*0*H  zP3  22.902(b), certainly was not clearly wrong under  any "plain meaning" analysis, and thus we turn to the  other grounds on which MobileTel challenges the Commission's interpretation.  6 The "wireline set-aside" was intended to  benefit small telephone companies with a presence in  a local market"companies with local expertise and  experience, that could be squeezed out of business if  k they failed to land a local cellular license.  $MobileTel's argument that it was unreasonable for   the Commission to exclude from this category  companies that serve a market only via BETRS  "loops" is disproved by the record in this case, which  yindicates that the sum and substance of MobileTel's  "presence" and "experience" in the St. James and  Plaquemines RSAs was the extension of radio service  zP 3 & to one customer in each RSA"and even these   minimal excursions were set up just in time to  isupport MobileTel's applications for the Block B   cellular frequencies in these areas. The  Commission's additional rationale based on its desire  yto minimize the number of competing applicants for  %each RSA also was served by the Commission's  interpretation barring providers of only BETRS-based  service. Thus we must reject MobileTel's argument   regarding the policies underlying the "wireline  set-aside" because the Commission's construction of  the term "landline" is consistent with several of these  %policies, and because only the Commission may  decide how much precedence particular policies will  be granted when several are implicated in a single decision.  6Y Nor is the Commission's authorization of the  6use of BETRS to provide local telephone service  fundamentally incompatible with its refusal to permit   BETRS links alone to create eligibility for the   "wireline set-aside." Had the Commission, in  authorizing the provision of local service via BETRS,  Wintended for BETRS service to be treated identically  zP|3 with wireline service in all respects, we doubt that  Xthe Commission would have enumerated certain  contexts in which it intended for BETRS service and  zP 3 ywireline service to be treated similarly. See BETRS  Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 223 n.10 ("It is our intention  that wire and radio basic exchange service be treated   similarly with regard to eligibility for high cost  %assistance."). Merely declining to extend them  eligibility for a special set-aside cannot fairly be   described as "punishing" companies that set up   BETRS links. Nor can we accept MobileTel's  argument that the introduction of BETRS technology  implied a radical alteration in the definitions of the   terms "landline" and "wireline"; we note that"(0*0*0*,"  BETRS is not the first technology to substitute for  wires in the provision of local telephone service"the  replacement of wireline links with cellular, fiber  optic, or "point-to-point microwave" service predated  the authorization of BETRS service, and none of  $these technologies was thought to have implied any  xP3redefinition of the terms "landline" or "wireline."1<% $[3ԍA portion of the Commission's 1988 regulations not directly  $I3involved in this case demonstrates that all of the technologies  $m3encompassed by the Rural Radio Service were, at the time of  $3MobileTel's application, explicitly treated by the Commission as  ? D $%3alternatives to "wireline" service, rather than as types of service  ?D $3subsumed within the definition of "wireline." See 47 C.F.R.   $322.609(a) (1988) ("Each application in [the Rural Radio Service]  $3shall be accompanied by a showing why it is impracticable to  $I3provide the required communication service by means of wireline facilities."). 1  l6J ppMobileTel also argues that even if the  $Commission's interpretation of the term "landline"  Wwas not plainly wrong, the Commission was obliged  to waive the eligibility requirement for MobileTel in  Flight of the policies underlying the set-aside and the  zP` 3 authorization of BETRS service. See Amended Brief  for Appellant at 3639. In its order, the Commission  expressly declined to waive the eligibility rules for  GMobileTel because it was "unpersuaded that the  purposes underlying [the] eligibility rule would be  zPJ 3 frustrated absent a waiver," In re Applications of  zP3 MobileTel, Inc., 1996 WL 459977 (F.C.C.) at 7, and  $cited the same policy justifications that it applied in  support of its construction of the term "landline."   These justifications adequately support the  5Commission's refusal to grant MobileTel a waiver,  %particularly in light of the fact that MobileTel's   extension of local service in the St. James and  WPlaquemines RSAs was extremely limited in tenure  Fand scope, and thus MobileTel was distinctly not in  the genre of companies that the Commission intended for the set-aside to benefit.  l6 ppBecause the Commission's interpretation of  the term "landline" as used in  22.902(b) of its  regulations was reasonable and consistent with several  Gof the Commission's relevant policies, we easily  iconclude that this interpretation was not "plainly wrong." Xpp(#p  zP&3B. The Commission's Notice to Applicants  l6l ppMobileTel next argues that even if the  Commission's construction of its rule was not plainly  ywrong and the Commission was justified in refusing  to waive the rule, we should overturn the August 14  order because the regulation "as written," and the  Commission's interpretation of it in prior orders, had  5given MobileTel the reasonable impression that the   set-aside "covered all parties who provide local  telephone service in an area," whether by wires or by   an alternative technology. Amended Brief for  zP%3 Appellant at 4041 (citing McElroy Elec. Corp. v.  zPR&3 GFCC, 990 F.2d 1351, 135863 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).  yMobileTel bases this argument on the same theories   it offered in support of its assertion that the  Commission's interpretation of the regulation wasH(0*0*0*-$p)K~g0*0*H unreasonable.  zP3 6 In McElroy, we reversed a Commission  6order dismissing several applications for cellular  Xlicenses as untimely filed because we found that  under a "fair reading," the Commission's order  establishing the timeline for applications failed to give  prospective applicants for the licenses notice of the  zPz3 proper time window for filing. Id. at 1358. Because  $we doubted that the Commission's interpretation of  zP 3 Fits order was "reasonably comprehensible to [people  zP3  acting in] good faith" at the time the order was  zP3 issued, id. (quoting Maxcell Telecom Plus, Inc., 815  zPj 3 yF.2d at 1558 (quoting Bamford v. FCC, 535 F.2d 78,  zP4 3 z82 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (quoting Radio Athens, Inc.  zP 3 6(WATH) v. FCC, 401 F.2d 398, 404 (D.C. Cir.  zP 3 h1968))) (emphasis added by the Maxcell court)), we ordered the reinstatement of several applications.  6 In this case, MobileTel itself describes the  Commission's construction of the term "landline" as  "literalistic," Amended Brief for Appellant at 19,   suggesting that MobileTel's notice argument is  Wpremised on the extraordinary assertion that a "good  faith" applicant trying to give the regulation a "fair  reading" would not have understood that the term  "landline" was to be read "literally." What makes it  even more implausible that MobileTel could have  misunderstood the term "landline" is the fact that  only two months before Lafourche set up BETRS  links in St. James and Plaquemines, the Commission  zP3 hhad announced in In re Application of the Offshore  zP3 XTelephone Co., 3 FCC Rcd 4601 (1988), that the  zPN3 iprovision of exclusively radio-based service in an  RSA does not render a company eligible for the   "wireline set-aside" frequencies in that RSA.  G(MobileTel was even better situated to mark the  zPp3 significance of the Offshore decision than were other  "good faith" readers of the Commission's regulation,  Wbecause MobileTel's parent SJI, Inc. was a party to  zP3the Offshore case.)  6 Because we believe a good faith prospective  applicant for the Block B frequencies in the St. James  j and Plaquemines RSAs would, upon giving   X22.902(b) of the Commission's regulations a fair  reading, have understood that the provision of only  BETRS-based service in these RSAs would not create  Z eligibility for these frequencies, we reject MobileTel's notice argument. XV  zP%3 VC. The Commission's Refusal to Consider MobileTel's  zNf&3Settlement Agreement With Columbia  6: Finally, MobileTel argues that the  GCommission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in"(0*0*0*,"  dismissing its applications because MobileTel and  Columbia had arrived at a settlement agreement, and  the Commission failed to consider the possibility that  dismissing MobileTel's application would contravene   the purpose of the Commission's directives  Wencouraging mutually-exclusive applicants to create  such agreements. The Commission clearly does have  zPx3 ia policy of encouraging settlements, see Cellular  zPB3 hCommunications Systems, 86 FCC 2d at 49091, but  MobileTel itself acknowledges that this policy does   not extend so far as to justify the approval of a  settlement agreement if that would result in the grant  zPd 3 7 of a license to an unqualified applicant. See  zP. 3 Amended Brief for Appellant at 14 n.40 (citing In re  zP 3 Applications of Kannapolis Television Co., 1 FCC  Rcd 1037, 1039 (1986)). Because MobileTel was   ineligible for the Block B frequencies, the  WCommission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in  dismissing MobileTel's application despite the fact  7 that MobileTel had entered into a settlement agreement with an eligible entity.  l67 ppMobileTel also claims that in remanding the   matter to the WTB for its consideration of the  5settlement agreement's relevance, the Commission  zP3 $must have relied on the assumption that MobileTel  was eligible for the set-aside frequencies, because  otherwise it would by its remand have been directing  the WTB to engage in "the vain act of promoting a  settlement with an unqualified party." Amended   Brief for Appellant at 47. But at that point the  Commission might have lacked the full panoply of  $information needed to determine whether its policy   barring the acceptance of settlements involving  unqualified entities would apply. For example, a  settlement involving an ineligible entity may be  acceptable if, under the agreement, the ineligible  Wentity is to hold only a noncontrolling interest in the  zP3 k entity to be granted the license. See In re  zN3 Applications of Advanced Mobile Phone Serv., Inc.,  93 FCC 2d 683, 69193 (1983). Thus, because the  hCommission might reasonably have thought that the  zP 3 possible relevance of the settlement agreement to the   January 27 order was a matter for the WTB to  Xaddress in the first instance, the March 23 order   cannot be viewed as a final  determination-by-implication that MobileTel was eligible for the set-aside frequencies.  l6H ppFor the foregoing reasons, the Commission's  August 14 order dismissing MobileTel's applications  for "wireline set-aside" frequencies in the St. James  and Plaquemines RSAs as ineligible under 47 C.F.R.  22.902(b) is hereby  zP(3pp` (#WAffirmedă