Opinion ID: 185452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lower Channel Orders

Text: 23 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. 632(a)(2)(C)(iii) and 5 U.S.C. 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. 604(a)(5). 24 15 U.S.C. 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 harmed in any way by the timing of the SBA approval. 16 25 The petitioner next asserts that the FRFA analysis contained in the Lower Channel First Report and Order violated 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(5). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 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. 26 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 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 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. 27 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. 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 also Public Citizen v. NRC, 845 F.2d 1105, 1108-10 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (final agency action).