Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01543/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01543-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Communications Commission
Respondent
Small Business in Telecommunications
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 11, 2001 Decided June 8, 2001

No. 99-1543

Small Business in Telecommunications,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Communications Commission and

United States of America,

Respondents

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Federal Communications Commission

Robert H. Schwaninger, Jr. argued the cause for the

petitioner.

Roberta L. Cook, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for the respondents. Christopher

J. Wright, General Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission,

A. Douglas Melamed, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 1 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Catherine G. O'Sullivan and Andrea Limmer, Attorneys,

United States Department of Justice, were on brief.

Before Henderson, Rogers and Tatel, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Henderson.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, Circuit Judge: The petitioner,

Small Business in Telecommunications (SBT), seeks to challenge rulemaking orders of the Federal Communications

Commission (FCC or Commission) that, inter alia, devised

service and competitive bidding rules as well as technical and

operational rules for 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR) service.1 For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss

the petition for review with respect to the Upper Channel

First Reconsideration Order and deny the petition with respect to the Lower Channel Report and Order and the Lower

Channel Reconsideration Order.

Background

In 1974 the FCC created the SMR service. SMR licensees

use bandwidth2 in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz ranges to

__________

1 The rulemakings include: In the Matter of Amendment of Part

90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of

SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, Second Report and

Order, 12 F.C.C.R. 19,079 (1997) [Lower Channel Report and

Order], In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's

Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800

MHz Frequency Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 F.C.C.R. 9972 (1997) [Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order] and In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the

Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR

Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration, 14 F.C.C.R. 17,566 (1999) [Lower

Channel Reconsideration Order].

2 Bandwidth is "[t]he capacity of a telecom line to carry signals.

The necessary bandwidth is the amount of spectrum required to

transmit the signal without distortion or loss of information. FCC

rules require suppression of the signal outside the band to prevent

interference." Federal Communications Comm'n, What We're All

provide "land mobile communications services" on a commercial basis. 47 C.F.R. s 90.7. In order to accommodate new

uses of the bandwidth, including cellular telephone and data

transmission services, and to respond to changes in statutory

law, see Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 165 F.3d 965, 967

(D.C. Cir. 1999), in 1995 the Commission adopted a regime for

the upper 200 channels of the SMR bandwidth which planned

to auction licenses for each of 175 newly-designated Economic

Areas (EA). Each EA license includes a large block of

spectrum3 for an entire geographic area, thereby making

transmitter-by-transmitter and channel-by-channel licensing

unnecessary. To help EA licensees obtain the contiguous

spectrum needed to provide competitive wide-area services,

the Commission determined that any EA licensee can require

any incumbent SMR licensee to relocate to the lower 230

channels of the SMR spectrum, provided the EA licensee

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 2 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

gives the displaced licensee comparable facilities and spectrum, pays its relocation expenses and ensures a "seamless"

transition between the old and new frequencies. See In the

Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules

to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800

MHz Frequency Band, First Report and Order, 11 F.C.C.R.

1463 (1995). Although the Commission adhered to the new

regulatory scheme for the upper 200 channels of SMR bandwidth, it ultimately changed its procedure to give small

businesses an advantage in the auction process by allowing

bidding credits for which only small businesses could qualify.4

It maintained its two-tiered definitions of small business but

adjusted for the deletion of the installment payment plan.

See Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order, 12 F.C.C.R.

9972, pp 125-34.

__________

About: A Consumer's Guide to the FCC (FCC Handbook) 2001,

available at http://www.fcc.gov/cib/handbook.html.

3 Spectrum is "[t]he range of electromagnetic radio frequencies

used in the transmission of sound, data and television." FCC

Handbook, supra.

4 Previously it had allowed them to pay for their license in

installments.

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 3 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

In June 1997 the Commission adopted a similar set of rules

for the lower 230 channels. Again, the FCC decided to

auction the new EA licenses, each of which was intended to

cover a wide geographic area and a large block of spectrum.

As before, the Commission decided to aid small businesses

with bidding credits but deferred deciding whether to eliminate installment payments. It again used the two-tiered

definitions of small business based on average gross revenue.

The FCC also required an EA licensee displacing an incumbent licensee to reimburse the incumbent for relocation expenses. See Lower Channel Report and Order, 12 F.C.C.R.

19,079, pp 123-25, 272-87.

On September 2, 1997 the petitioner filed two petitions for

reconsideration. One requested the FCC to reconsider portions of the Lower Channel Report and Order while the other

sought reconsideration of the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order. On October 24, 1997 the petitioner filed a

"Consolidated Supplement to Petitions for Reconsideration,"

contending that the FCC failed to obtain the requisite approval of its "small business" definitions from the Small

Business Administration (SBA). JA 563. The last paragraph

of the Consolidated Supplement requested "that the Commission reconsider its Orders in accord with the foregoing, obtain

necessary prior approval from the Small Business Administration, provide necessary time prior to the scheduling of its

auction in accord with 47 U.S.C. s 309(j)(3(E) [sic], and take

such other action that is necessary to cause its decisions and

Orders to be rendered in accord with applicable statutory

law." JA 566.

On October 8, 1999 the FCC issued its Lower Channel

Reconsideration Order, in which it addressed the issues

raised both in SBT's petition for reconsideration of the Lower

Channel Report and Order and in SBT's Consolidated Supplement. The Commission rejected the petitioner's contention that the failure to obtain SBA approval of the "small

business" definitions suspended the operation of the Lower

Channel Report and Order until the SBA's approval was

secured, explaining that the SBA had by then approved the

definitions. Lower Channel Reconsideration Order, 14

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 4 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

F.C.C.R. 17,566, p 87 n.251. The Commission also "reiterated

that payment of relocation costs" by an EA licensee to an

incumbent licensee "will not be due until the incumbent has

been fully relocated and the frequencies are free and clear."

Id. at p 58. On October 19, 1999 the petitioner filed a petition

for review of both the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order

and the Lower Channel Report and Order as well as the

Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order. See Small

Business in Telecommunications v. FCC, No. 99-1419 (D.C.

Cir. filed Oct. 19, 1999). The respondents moved to dismiss

on the ground that the petition was premature because the

Lower Channel Reconsideration Order had not yet been

published in the Federal Register. The petitioner then

moved for voluntary dismissal, which the court granted. The

Lower Channel Reconsideration Order was subsequently

published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1999. 64

Fed. Reg. 71,042.

On December 2, 1999 the FCC issued its Upper Channel

Second Reconsideration Order, denying the petitioner's petition for reconsideration of the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order. The Commission stayed with its decision

to eliminate installment payments, rejecting the contention

that installment payments were necessary to ensure "a meaningful opportunity" for small businesses to participate in the

800 MHz SMR auction. See In the Matter of Amendment of

Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future

Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency

Band, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 F.C.C.R. 21,068, p 3 (1999) [Upper Channel Second Reconsideration Order]. The Upper Channel Second

Reconsideration Order was published in the Federal Register

on July 14, 2000.

On December 29, 1999 the petitioner filed a petition "for

review of the Federal Communications Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules;

Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act; and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the

Communications Act adopted on September 30, 1999 [Lower

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 5 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Channel Reconsideration Order]." Petition for Review, No.

99-1543 (filed Dec. 29, 1999). On January 6, 2000 the petitioner filed a "Certificate as to Parties, Rulings and Related

Cases," noting the above cited Lower Channel Reconsideration Order as well as the Lower Channel Report and Order.

Certificate as to Parties, Rulings and Related Cases, No.

99-1543 (filed Jan. 6, 2000). On April 24, 2000 the petitioner

moved to amend the Certificate to "include Amendment of

Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future

Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency

Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, Memorandum Opinion and

Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 9972 (1997) [Upper

Channel First Reconsideration Order], as a ruling under

review." Motion to Amend Certificate as to Parties, Rulings

and Related Cases, No. 99-1543 (filed Apr. 24, 2000). The

petitioner's motion declared that the Upper Channel First

Reconsideration Order "is an underlying Order to the [Lower

Channel Reconsideration Order] released on October 8, 1999

in the same matter, which order is the primary order on

review in the above-captioned case." Id. The motion was

granted on April 28, 2000.

Discussion

The petitioner argues that in issuing the Lower Channel

Report and Order, Lower Channel Reconsideration Order

and Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order, the FCC

violated (1) 15 U.S.C. s 632(a)(2)(C)(iii) and 5 U.S.C. s 553(d)

by failing to obtain prior SBA approval of its "small business"

definitions, (2) 47 U.S.C. s 309(j) by failing to allow interested

parties sufficient time to participate in the 800 MHz SMR

auction and (3) 5 U.S.C. s 604(a)(5) by failing to address the

economic impact of relocation on "small business" incumbent

licensees. Because we dispose of the petitioner's challenges

to the upper and lower channel orders in different ways, we

address the orders separately.

A. Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure "govern procedure in the United States courts of appeal," Fed. R. App. P.

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 6 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1, as do the Circuit Rules of our Circuit. See Circuit Rule 1.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

that a petition for review "specify the order or part thereof to

be reviewed." Fed. R. App. P. 15(a)(2)(C). "Failure to

specify the correct order can result in dismissal of the petition." Entravision Holdings, LLC v. FCC, 202 F.3d 311, 312

(D.C. Cir. 2000). "A mistaken or inexact specification of the

order to be reviewed will not be fatal to the petition, however,

if the petitioner's intent to seek review of a specific order can

be fairly inferred from the petition for review or from other

contemporaneous filings, and the respondent is not misled by

the mistake." Id. at 313 (collecting cases). It is undisputed

that the petitioner failed to specify the Upper Channel First

Reconsideration Order in its petition for review filed December 29, 1999.5 Accordingly, we examine not only the petition

for review but also other documents contemporaneously filed

therewith to determine whether we can fairly infer the petitioner's intent to seek review of the Upper Channel First

Reconsideration Order. Our caselaw provides instructions

for undertaking this task.

In Entravision Holdings LLC v. FCC, the petitioner, Entravision, specified only the order denying reconsideration

and not the underlying order it later sought to challenge in its

brief. Entravision, 202 F.3d at 312. Even though Entravision's petition noted the underlying order in setting out the

history of the proceedings, the court held that it could not

determine whether Entravision intended to seek review of the

underlying order. It then looked at Entravision's contemporaneous filings. See id. at 314. Entravision's docketing

statement,6 filed within one month of its petition, also speci-

__________

5 As already noted, although the petitioner's October 19, 1999

petition for review included the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order, the petitioner voluntarily dismissed that petition on

December 20, 1999.

6 Under D.C. Circuit Rules the docketing statement "must be on

a form furnished by the clerk's office and contain such information

as the form prescribes" including case name, type of case and

identifying information about the order to be reviewed. Circuit

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 7 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

fied only the reconsideration order. Additionally, Entravision's "Preliminary Statement of Issues,"7 filed the same day,

identified only two issues, "both of which relate[d] exclusively

to the Commission's denial of reconsideration." Id. After

looking at the contemporaneously filed documents as well as

the petition for review, the court concluded that it "cannot

fairly infer that [Entravision] intended to seek review of the

[underlying order]." Id.

By contrast, in Martin v. FERC, 199 F.3d 1370, 1371-73

(D.C. Cir. 2000), the court held that the petitioner's intent to

seek review of the Certificate Order, instead of the Rehearing

Order specified in its petition, was evident from a contemporaneously filed (same day) motion to stay. The court found

that by attaching to the motion a copy of his application for

rehearing, in which the petitioner took issue with the Certificate Order, the petitioner had sufficiently identified the Certificate Order as the order from which his challenge to the

Commission action arose. Additionally, the court found that

the nature of the motion to stay itself sufficed to indicate that

the petitioner's purpose in filing his petition for review was to

obtain review of the Certificate Order. The court also looked

at the docketing statement which "indicated he was challenging the Certificate Order as well as the Rehearing Order."

Id. at 1373. Finally, the court found that the Commission

understood the petitioner to be challenging the Certificate

Order as was apparent from its responsive filings. See id.;

see also Schoenbohm v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243, 245-46 (D.C. Cir.

__________

Rule 15(c). "Attached to the docketing statement must be a

provisional certificate ... setting forth the information required by

Circuit Rule 28(a)(1)," which includes parties and amici, rulings

under review and related cases. Circuit Rule 15(a)(3); see Circuit

Rule 28(a)(1).

7 The court routinely requests a "Preliminary Statement of Issues" as part of the information included with the Docketing

Statement. See Circuit Rule 15(c)(2); D.C. Circuit Handbook of

Practice and Internal Procedures ss IV.A3 & IV.B, at 21-22 ("The

docketing statement includes ... a non-binding preliminary statement of the issues involved...."); see also United States v. Pogue,

19 F.3d 663, 666 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 8 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2000) (fair to infer intent from "concise statement of reasons"

required by 47 U.S.C. s 402(c) to be filed together with notice

of appeal, which failed to specify correct decision).

We came to the opposite conclusion in Southwestern Bell

Telephone Co. v. FCC, 180 F.3d 307, 313 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

There, the petitioner, Southwestern Bell, requested the court

to consider its petition for review of a reconsideration order,

which the court held was unreviewable, to include an investigation order, which was reviewable. The court denied the

request. It noted that the petition for review named only the

reconsideration order and only that order was appended to

the petition, see id., and that the docketing statement mentioned and attached only the reconsideration order. Finally,

the court stated that Southwestern Bell's Preliminary Statement of Issues both began and ended by referring to the

reconsideration order and included only those issues raised in

its petition for reconsideration. The court concluded: "In

short, nothing prior to the brief filed in this court (by

appellate counsel) gave the Commission any notice of Southwestern Bell's intent to seek review of the Investigation

Order. Nor should that intent have been obvious." Id.

In City of Benton v. NRC, 136 F.3d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1998)

(per curiam), the petitioner conceded that it had named the

wrong order in its petition. Nevertheless, it argued that the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission was not prejudiced because

the agency knew which order it wanted to challenge. The

court explained that "[w]hichever order ACC intended to ask

the court to review, it named the wrong order in its petition.

Fed. R. App. P. 15(a) requires that ACC's petition be dismissed for failing properly to designate the order to be

challenged." Id. at 826 (emphasis original). The court, citing

John D. Copanos & Sons, Inc. v. FDA, 854 F.2d 510, 527

(D.C. Cir. 1988), noted that a petition for review designating

only one order issued in an administrative proceeding was not

adequate to obtain review of any other order included in the

same administrative record. The court rejected the reasoning of Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir.

1991) (refusing "to allow a mere technicality in pleading to

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 9 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

result in a denial of an opportunity for petitioner to obtain a

decision on the merits" and concluding "that we should treat

the petition for review of the immigration judge's order as

'effective, although inept, attempt' to seek review of the final

order of the Board"), and dismissed the petition.

These cases illustrate that the court considers not only the

contents of the petition for review but also any documents

affixed thereto or filed contemporaneously therewith in ascertaining the petitioner's intent. Here SBT failed to designate

in its petition for review the order that it ultimately challenged in its brief. SBT's "Petition for Review" named only

the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order; it included neither the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order nor the

Upper Channel Second Reconsideration Order. SBT attached only the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order to its

petition. Likewise, SBT's "Certificate As To Parties, Rulings

and Related Cases," filed January 6, 1999, failed to mention

either upper channel order; the Certificate designated only

the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order and the underlying Lower Channel Report and Order.8

SBT also filed a "Docketing Statement" on January 6, 1999,

listing the docket numbers as "PR Doc. No. 93-144; GN Doc.

No. 93-252; PP Doc. No. 93-253." In Entravision, Martin

and Southwestern Bell, the court considered the Docketing

Statement as a contemporaneous filing from which it could

infer the petitioner's intent. Although the two lower channel

and two upper channel orders at issue share the same docket

number, the manner in which the petitioner described the

dates of the orders indicates to us that it sought review of the

lower channel orders only. It described the orders as: "Released Dates: MO&O, 10/8/99; Second Order, 7/10/97." Its

use of "Second Order" instead of "Second Orders" or "Second

__________

8 The "Statement of Issues" which prefaced the Certificate did

include two issues that referred to "the FCC's scheduling of the 800

MHz auction." Requested Information, No. 99-1543 (filed Jan. 6,

2000). The petitioner did not argue, and we do not find, that these

references allow us to fairly infer that the petitioner sought review

of the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order.

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 10 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Order and Reconsideration Order" manifests that it sought

review of only one of the July 10, 1997 orders. SBT's

description of the challenged order as "Second Order" also

indicates that it sought review of the Lower Channel Report

and Order, which was entitled "Second Report and Order,"

and not the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order,

which was entitled "Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration." And, as we have held in the past, the

petitioner's designation of only one order does not "suffice[ ]

to obtain review of any other order that is part of the same

administrative record" even if the order specified has the

same docket number as another order sought to be reviewed.

John D. Copanos & Sons, 854 F.2d at 527.

On April 24, 2000, almost four months after it filed its

petition for review, SBT filed a "Motion to Amend Certificate

as to Parties, Rulings and Related Cases." We do not regard

this document to be a filing contemporaneous with the petition for review. The dictionary definition of "contemporaneous" is "existing or occurring during the same time." Webster's Third International Dictionary 491 (1981).9 We use

the term "contemporaneous filing" to include documents filed

at or near the same time as the petition for review. See, e.g.,

Entravision, 202 F.3d at 313-14; Martin, 199 F.3d at 1371-

73. Although these documents can include "Docketing Statements," "Certificates as to Parties, Rulings and Related

__________

9 We acknowledge that while courts use the term "contemporaneous" to mean "close in time," it is a relative term. For example,

under the contemporaneous construction doctrine, a court or agency

decision or practice interpreting an ambiguous statute may be

considered a contemporaneous construction even though the interpreting act occurs months or even one year or more after the

statute was enacted. See Andrus v. Shell Oil Co., 446 U.S. 657, 673

n.12 (1980); Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co. v. United States, 288

U.S. 294, 315 (1933). On the other hand, under the contemporaneous objection rule, an objection to the admission of evidence may

not be considered a contemporaneous objection even if made within

a few minutes of the objected-to admission. See Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443 567-68 (1965); Wilson v. Waggener, 837 F.2d

220, 222 (5th Cir.1988).

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 11 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Cases," and "Statements of Issues" as well as documents

attached to the petition for review, the petitioner's motion to

amend filed almost four months after its petition for review is

plainly not a contemporaneous filing.10 Moreover, we could

easily conclude from the motion to amend that it was not

SBT's intent to seek review of the Upper Channel First

Reconsideration Order at the time it filed the petition for

review, but instead an afterthought occurring several months

down the road.11 Accordingly, we find nothing in the petition

for review or documents filed contemporaneously therewith

from which we can fairly infer that the petitioner sought

review of the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order in

its petition for review.12

The petitioner next argues that the Lower Channel Report

and Order and the Upper Channel First Reconsideration

Order are part of a single consolidated rulemaking, thereby

making the separate identification of the upper channel order

surplusage. To support its contention, SBT points to its

"Consolidated Supplement to Petitions for Reconsideration"

__________

10 SBT maintains that its failure to specify the Upper Channel

First Reconsideration Order was a ministerial oversight which "was

corrected by amendment accepted by the Court," relying on this

court's opinion in City of Oconto Falls v. FERC, 204 F.3d 1154, 1160

(D.C. Cir. 2000). But our holding in Oconto Falls does not depart

from our decisions in Entravision, Martin, Southwestern Bell and

City of Benton: It did not hold that a brief, or any document not

filed contemporaneously with the petition for review (like the motion to amend here), may be considered a contemporaneous filing

from which a court may infer intent.

11 After all, in its original October 19, 1999 petition for review

(subsequently voluntarily dismissed), SBT specified each of the

lower channel orders and the Upper Channel First Reconsideration

Order, manifesting that it knew how to specify the orders it sought

to challenge.

12 SBT asserts that the FCC would not be prejudiced by our

review of the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order. But we

consider prejudice to the opposing party only if we first find it fair

to infer the petitioner's intent. See City of Benton, 136 F.3d at

826-27.

filed October 24, 1997, maintaining that it worked to combine

the two petitions for reconsideration, both of which were

denied in the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order. Nevertheless, SBT had filed two separate petitions for reconsideration: The first "request[ed] that the Commission reconsider

its decisions within [the Lower Channel Report and Order]."

JA 477. The second, filed the same day, "request[ed] that

the Commission reconsider its decisions within its [Upper

Channel First Reconsideration Order]." JA 511. The filing

of two separate petitions for reconsideration indicates not

only that the Lower Channel Report and Order and the

Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order are separate

orders but also that SBT viewed them as such notwithstanding they arose from the same rulemaking proceeding.

Contrary to SBT's claim, moreover, its Consolidated SupUSCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 12 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

plement nowhere expressly requested that the Commission

consolidate the petitions for reconsideration. Rather, it argued that the Commission failed to obtain SBA approval of its

"small business" definitions in the Commission's 1997 orders.

JA 563. The FCC responded separately to the issues raised

in the Supplement, addressing only the issues regarding the

lower channel rulemaking in the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order. See Lower Channel Reconsideration Order, 14

F.C.C.R. 17,566, p 87 n.251. Although the Appendix to the

Lower Channel Reconsideration Order, listing the petitions

addressed in the order, noted an SBT petition for reconsideration as well as SBT's Supplement, by the time the petitioner

filed its petition for review (on December 29, 1999), the FCC

had issued its Upper Channel Second Reconsideration Order,

putting SBT on notice that the FCC had also denied SBT's

petition for reconsideration of the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order. The petitioner's argument that the

Commission's Lower Channel Reconsideration Order ignored

issues included in its petition for reconsideration of the Upper

Channel First Reconsideration Order further manifests that

SBT believed the FCC treated the petitions separately, responding to one in its Lower Channel Reconsideration Order

and to the other in its Upper Channel Second Reconsideration Order. Accordingly, we must dismiss SBT's petition for

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 13 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

review to the extent that it attempts to challenge the Upper

Channel First Reconsideration Order because it failed to

designate that order in accordance with Fed. R. App. P.

15(a)(C).

Even if we found no violation of Rule 15(a)(C), we would

nevertheless dismiss the challenge to the Upper Channel

First Reconsideration Order because it is incurably premature. A party that files a petition for reconsideration before

an agency "render[s] the underlying agency action nonfinal

(and hence unreviewable) with respect to th[at] party." United Transp. Union v. ICC, 871 F.3d 1114, 1116 (D.C. Cir.

1989). "Therefore, a party that stays before an agency to

seek reconsideration of an order cannot at the same time

appear before a court to seek review of that same order, any

more than the party could literally be in two places at the

same time." BellSouth Corp. v. FCC, 17 F.3d 1487, 1489

(D.C. Cir. 1994).

The petitioner filed a separate petition for reconsideration

of each of the 1997 SMR orders. Its two petitions had the

effect of making both the Lower Channel Report and Order

and the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order nonfinal

as to it, for the purpose of judicial review, until "entry" of the

Lower Channel Reconsideration Order and of the Upper

Channel Second Reconsideration Order respectively. See 28

U.S.C. s 2344. 28 U.S.C. s 2344 "imposes a jurisdictional

bar to judicial consideration of petitions filed prior to entry of

the agency orders to which they pertain." Western Union

Tel. Co. v. FCC, 773 F.2d 375, 378 (D.C. Cir. 1985). "Entry of

the agency order[ ]" occurs on the date the Commission gives

public notice of the order. See 47 U.S.C. s 405; 47 C.F.R.

s 1.103(b); Western Union Tel. Co., 773 F.2d at 376. The

FCC's rules identify the date of public notice as "the date of

publication in the Federal Register." 47 C.F.R. s 1.4(b). On

December 29, 1999, the date the petitioner filed its petition

for review, the Upper Channel Second Reconsideration Order

denying the petitioner's petition for reconsideration of the

Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order had not been

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 14 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

entered,13 making the petition for review "incurably premature" as to the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order.

BellSouth, 17 F.3d at 1490.

SBT responds that the Upper Channel Second Reconsideration Order was a duplicate order "which again denied SBT's

consolidated petitions and supplement." Reply Br. 12. We

fail to understand how the petitioner could have "rightfully

determined that although the duplicate Order did add to the

record, it was not significant for the purpose of the Court's

jurisdiction." Id. Aside from its bare assertion, the petitioner has no record support for its claim. Paragraph six of the

Lower Channel Reconsideration Order states: "In response

to the [Lower Channel Report and Order], the Commission

received a number of pleadings requesting reconsideration,

modification or clarification of its rules relating to mandatory

relocations, co-channel interference, spectrum block size, geographic area licensing, and partitioning and disaggregation.

We address these concerns below." 14 F.C.C.R. 17,566 at

p 6. Throughout the "Discussion" portion of the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order, the Commission primarily referred to the Lower Channel Report and Order. Although it

did mention the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order

in a limited context, see, e.g., id. at pp 33, 41, 70, it addressed

only those arguments presented in SBT's petition for reconsideration of the Lower Channel Report and Order,14 not

SBT's petition for reconsideration of the Upper Channel First

Reconsideration Order.15 We thus find no merit in SBT's

__________

13 Entry of the Upper Channel Second Reconsideration Order

occurred on July 14, 2000. 65 Fed. Reg. 43,716.

14 For example, footnote 35 of the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order cites "SBT Petition at 7, n.5." Id. at p 12 n.35. Only the

petitioner's petition for reconsideration of the Lower Channel Report and Order has a footnote on its seventh page.

15 Footnote 1 of the Upper Channel Second Reconsideration

Order notes that the Industrial Telecommunications Association,

Inc. filed a single Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration of

both the Lower Channel Report and Order and the Upper Channel

First Reconsideration Order. The FCC explained that it addressed

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 15 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

contention that the Upper Channel Second Reconsideration

Order was a duplicate order relieving it of the obligation to

separately challenge that order.

B. Lower Channel Orders

We turn to SBT's challenge to the Lower Channel Report

and Order and Lower Channel Reconsideration Order. SBT

makes two claims: (1) the FCC's failure to obtain SBA

approval of its small business definitions violated 15 U.S.C.

s 632(a)(2)(C)(iii) and 5 U.S.C. s 553(d) and (2) the Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRFA) analysis in the

Lower Channel First Report and Order was invalid under 5

U.S.C. s 604(a)(5).

15 U.S.C. s 632(a)(2)(C) provides: "Unless specifically authorized by statute, no Federal department or agency may

prescribe a size standard for categorizing a small business

concern, unless such proposed size standard ... (iii) is approved by the Administrator [of the SBA]." SBT argues that

in failing to obtain the SBA Administrator's prior approval of

its definition of "small business," the FCC violated its statutory duties under Title 15 and Title 5. The FCC acknowledges

that it did not have SBA approval at the time it adopted the

Lower Channel Report and Order on June 23, 1997. Nevertheless the SBA had approved the definitions before the FCC

commenced the lower channel auction, see JA 609 (Aug. 10,

1999 approval letter for lower channel auction). The SBA's

tardy approval does not, in our view, nullify the entire

rulemaking; the SBA approved the definitions before the

auction and SBT failed to show that any of its members were

__________

the issues raised in that petition in its Lower Channel Reconsideration Order. While the FCC's notation may have recognized that

the 1997 orders contained overlapping issues, at the same time the

Commission sent a clear message to SBT that the FCC did not

consider its petitions to be consolidated and that the Lower Channel

Reconsideration Order did not address issues raised in SBT's

petition for reconsideration of the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order.

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 16 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

harmed in any way by the timing of the SBA approval.16

The petitioner next asserts that the FRFA analysis contained in the Lower Channel First Report and Order violated

5 U.S.C. s 604(a)(5). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. s 604(a)(5) an

agency is required to include in its FRFA analysis "a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the

significant economic impact on small entities consistent with

the stated objectives of applicable statutes." The petitioner

challenges the FCC's decision to require EA licensees to pay

relocation costs to an incumbent licensee for expenses incurred from relocating from the upper 200 channels to the

lower 230 channels only after the relocation is complete and

the upper channel frequencies are clear. See Lower Channel

Reconsideration Order, 12 F.C.C.R. 17,566 pp 57-58. It

maintains that the FCC failed to describe what steps it took

to minimize the economic impact on the small incumbent

licensees that will have to pay relocation costs up front.

Acknowledging that the Lower Channel Reconsideration

Order is unclear on when incumbent licensees will be reimbursed for relocation costs,17 the Commission asked that the

__________

16 SBT claims that the FCC knowingly published a misrepresentation by stating, erroneously, in its FRFA analysis accompanying

the Lower Channel Report and Order that the SBA "has approved

these definitions for 800 MHz SMR services." Although SBT did

bring the issue of SBA approval to the attention of the Commission

in its Consolidated Supplement, it never claimed before now that

the FCC misrepresented the facts. Because the Commission was

not given "a meaningful 'opportunity to pass' on the issue," the

claim is not properly before this court. See 47 U.S.C. s 405;

Bartholdi Cable Co., Inc. v. FCC, 114 F.3d 274, 280 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

17 In the Lower Channel Report and Order, the Commission

addressed when an EA licensee must reimburse another EA licensee for costs associated with relocating an incumbent licensee. See

Lower Channel Report and Order, 12 F.C.C.R. 19,079, at pp 120-25.

But the Commission did not address the timing of payments

between EA licensees and incumbent licensees. In response to

petitions for reconsideration filed by the AMTA and the Personal

Communications Industry Association (PCIA), which contended that

incumbent licensees should be reimbursed for relocation costs as

those expenses are incurred, see Lower Channel Reconsideration

court await the Commission's decision on a petition for clarification filed by the American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA). The FCC subsequently reconsidered

the issue in "In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the

Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of

SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band," FCC 01-33

(released February 2, 2001) [Lower Channel Second Reconsideration Order]. The FCC noted that "neither the [Lower

Channel Report and Order] nor the [Lower Channel Reconsideration Order] adequately addressed the question of when

incumbent licensees should be repaid for their involuntary

relocation costs." Id. p 7. It explained that, because EA

licensees bear the costs of building and testing the replacement system, "it is clear that the primary cost burden for

involuntary relocations rests on the EA licensee, not the

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 17 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

incumbent." Id. p 8. It therefore concluded that to the

extent the incumbent may incur additional relocation costs,

they will be reimbursed by the EA licensee after relocation is

complete. Id. pp 8-10.

From our review of the record, however, it appears that

SBT failed to raise the FRFA analysis issue during the

rulemaking, see 47 U.S.C. s 405; Southwestern Pa. Growth

Alliance v. Browner, 121 F.3d 106, 122 (3d Cir. 1997), and the

FCC noted that "[n]o reconsideration petitions were submitted in response to the FRFA." Lower Channel Reconsideration Order, 14 F.C.C.R. 17,566, at App. C p 3. Assuming

arguendo that SBT's failure is understandable in light of the

Commission's admission that neither the Lower Channel Report and Order nor the Lower Channel Reconsideration

Order clearly addressed the issue, we would nonetheless

reject the challenge. Cf. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S.

136, 148-49 (1967) (ripeness); Star, Inc. v. FCC, 888 F.2d 132,

134 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (same); Midwestern Gas Transmission

Co. v. FERC, 589 F.2d 603, 618 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (same); see

__________

Order, 14 F.C.C.R. 17,566, at p 58, the Commission purported to

"reiterate" its previous position that "relocation costs will not be

due until the incumbent has been fully relocated and the frequencies are free and clear." Id.

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 18 of 19
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

also Public Citizen v. NRC, 845 F.2d 1105, 1108-10 (D.C. Cir.

1988) (final agency action).

Conclusion

To sum up, we conclude that SBT's failure to specify the

Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order as an order

under challenge violates Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 15 and mandates that we dismiss the petition to the

extent it seeks review of that order. With respect to SBT's

challenges to the lower channel orders--failure to obtain SBA

approval of the small business definitions and failure to

perform an adequate FRFA analysis--we conclude the first

challenge is without merit and the second was waived. For

the foregoing reasons, and in accordance with this opinion,

the petition for review is dismissed in part and denied in part.

So 

ordered.

USCA Case #99-1543 Document #601635 Filed: 06/08/2001 Page 19 of 19