opinion: TI BROADCASTING, INC., Appellant v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee, Frank Alvin Delle, Jr., and Donald G. Fisher, d/b/a Voice of Middlebury, Intervenor.
  No. 20339.
  United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
  Argued Nov. 15, 1966.
  Decided Dec. 13, 1966.
  Mr. Howard Jay Braun, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Peter Shuebruk, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
  Mr. John H. Conlin, Associate Gen. Counsel, F. C. C., with whom Messrs. Henry Geller, Gen.-, Counsel, and Joseph A. Marino, Atty., F. C. C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mrs. Lenore G. Ehrig, Counsel, F. C. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
  Mr. Lauren A. Colby, Washington, D. C., for intervenor.
  Before Wilbur K. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, and Fahy and Tamm, Circuit Judges.
  PER CURIAM.
  Appellant, licensee of Radio Station WIPS of Ticonderoga, New York, challenges orders of the Federal Communications Commission granting the application of intervenor Voice of Middlebury, for a first local radio station in Middle-bury, Vermont. The application of intervenor was filed with the Commission on March 2, 1961, appellant’s petition to deny or designate the application for hearing was filed approximately a year later, and the Commission’s appealed-from orders were issued on April 20, 1966 and July 20, 1966.
  Having initially through its own inadvertences deprived appellant of the opportunity to respond to three amendments filed by Voice, the Commission reviewed appellant’s substantive arguments, set forth in its petition for reconsideration, regarding the materials in the amendments, “in the same manner as if they had been received” before the Commission’s original decision. Following such review the Commission denied the petition for reconsideration. The Commission’s corrective action also adequately disposes of appellant’s attack upon specific procedural rules of the Commission, challenged for the first time on appeal.
  Upon consideration of all the pleadings and data set forth by appellant on other issues, we agree with the Commission’s reconsidered determination that no evidentiary hearing was required in this case.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".