Opinion ID: 185276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the Commission exceed its statutory authority?

Text: 36 The Commission conducts spectrum auctions pursuant to its authority to grant licenses through the use of a system of competitive bidding. 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(1). Airwaves argues that post-auction concessions made to the winning bidders effectively render the auction noncompetitive and therefore without statutory authorization. Airwaves argues further that retroactive changes to auction rules violate the requirement that the Commission ensure that ... an ade- quate period is allowed ... after issuance of bidding rules[ ] to ensure that interested parties have a sufficient time to develop business plans, assess market conditions, and evalu- ate the availability of equipment. Id. § 309(j)(3)(E). Air- waves' argument here is that post-auction rule changes nec- essarily leave no time for interested parties to plan, assess, or evaluate. 37 These arguments were not put before the Commission and are therefore not properly before this court. See Washington Ass'n for Television & Children v. FCC, 712 F.2d 677, 680 (1983) ([C]laims not presented to the agency may not be made for the first time to a reviewing court). Airwaves suggests that the issue was adequately raised before the Commission in the comment of another party, which argued that Section 309(j) does not ... contain any provision allow- ing the Commission to change the amount owed the govern- ment as a result of an auction. The broad and general claim that the Commission lacks statutory authority to change the amount owed is materially different, however, from Air- waves' specific argument that the Commission violated the statutory provisions requiring a system of competitive bid- ding and an adequate period for planning after auction rules are issued. Confronted only with the former, broad claim, the Commission had no notice of the specific objections now raised by Airwaves. As we have said more than once before, a litigant may not  'sandbag' agencies by withholding legal arguments ... until they reach the courts of appeal. USAir, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 969 F.2d 1256, 1260 (D.C. Cir. 1992).