Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-03-01376/USCOURTS-caDC-03-01376-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
Mobile Relay Associates
Intervenor for Appellee
National Science and Technology Network, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 7, 2005 Decided February 18, 2005

Reissued March 3, 2005

No. 03-1376

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NETWORK, INC.,

APPELLANT

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

APPELLEE

MOBILE RELAY ASSOCIATES,

INTERVENOR

Appeal of an Order of the

Federal Communications Commission

Kenneth E. Hardman argued the cause for appellant. On the

briefs was Alan M. Lurya.

Pamela L. Smith, Counsel, Federal Communications

Commission, argued the cause for appellee. With her on the

brief were John A. Rogovin, General Counsel, and Daniel M.

Armstrong, Associate General Counsel.

David J. Kaufman was on the brief for intervenor.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and

USCA Case #03-1376 Document #878839 Filed: 02/18/2005 Page 1 of 3
2

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH.

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: Appellant National Science and

Technology Network, Inc. (“NSTN”) applied for nine private

land mobile radio licenses, which the Federal Communications

Commission granted in the spring of 2000. Mobile Relay

Associates (“MRA”), an intervenor in the proceedings before

this court, challenged these licenses shortly after they issued.

On October 19, 2001, more than eighteen months after NSTN

initially received its licenses, the Commission’s Public Safety

and Critical Infrastructure Division ruled on MRA’s petition.

The Division found that six of the nine licenses had been based

upon “defective” applications and set them aside; the remaining

three licenses had lapsed automatically due to NSTN’s failure to

construct the authorized stations within twelve months of license

approval. In the Matter of Licenses of Nat’l Sci. & Tech.

Network, Inc., 16 F.C.C.R. 18,719 (2001). The Commission

found on review that all nine licenses had lapsed due to

nonconstruction, and consequently dismissed as moot NSTN’s

application for review. 18 F.C.C.R. 19,870 (2003). NSTN now

appeals from the Commission’s order.

The Commission’s regulations are clear. Once a license is

approved, systems must be “placed in operation within twelve

(12) months from the date of the grant or the authorization

cancels automatically and must be returned to the

Commission.” 47 C.F.R. § 90.155(a) (emphasis added). A

licensee may apply for an extension of this one-year deadline,

but such requests “must be filed prior to the expiration of the

construction period.” § 90.155(g). NSTN admits that it neither

completed construction within twelve months, nor requested an

extension during this period.

USCA Case #03-1376 Document #878839 Filed: 02/18/2005 Page 2 of 3
3

NSTN offers two arguments to excuse its inaction. First,

NSTN asserts that it was unable to begin construction because

the required equipment was not commercially available, and that

the Commission therefore should have, sua sponte, exempted

NSTN and all similarly-situated applicants from the one-year

construction requirement. This amounts to an argument that the

Commission’s rules should be different. There are formal

avenues for the pursuit of such changes, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.401

(governing petitions for Commission rulemaking), but these

procedures notwithstanding, NSTN must comply with the rules

as they are, and not the rules as it believes they should be.

NSTN’s other excuse is that it did not apply for an

extension because the Commission clearly would have denied

any such application. Failure to pursue administrative remedies

will be excused for futility only upon a showing that an adverse

decision was a certainty. Communication Workers of Am. v. Am.

Tel. & Tel. Co., 40 F.3d 426, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Far from

meeting this demanding standard, NSTN offers up no reasonable

basis for its belief. The single case cited by NSTN, In the

Matter of Request for Extension of Time to Construct an

Industrial/Business Radio Service Trunked Station, 18 F.C.C.R.

22,055 (2003), is a nonbinding staff decision issued on October

23, 2003 -- more than two years after NSTN’s licenses expired.

In 2000 and 2001, as the clock was ticking on the construction

deadline, there was nothing even to suggest that petitioning for

an extension would be futile. NSTN simply ignored a clear

procedural requirement, and it has offered no valid excuse. As

the saying goes, “rules is rules.” The Commission’s order is

affirmed.

So ordered.

USCA Case #03-1376 Document #878839 Filed: 02/18/2005 Page 3 of 3