Sm Bus Telecom v. FCC

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 Com-
mission, argued the cause for the respondents. Christopher
J. Wright, General Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong, Asso-
ciate General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission,
A. Douglas Melamed, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and

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 chal-
lenge 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 re-
spect 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 Recon-
sideration, 12 F.C.C.R. 9972 (1997) [Upper Channel First Reconsid-
eration 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 commer-
cial 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
gives the displaced licensee comparable facilities and spec-
trum, 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 band-
width, 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.

 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 elimi-
nate 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 incum-
bent licensee to reimburse the incumbent for relocation ex-
penses. 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 por-
tions of the Lower Channel Report and Order while the other
sought reconsideration of the Upper Channel First Reconsid-
eration Order. On October 24, 1997 the petitioner filed a
"Consolidated Supplement to Petitions for Reconsideration,"
contending that the FCC failed to obtain the requisite ap-
proval of its "small business" definitions from the Small
Business Administration (SBA). JA 563. The last paragraph
of the Consolidated Supplement requested "that the Commis-
sion reconsider its Orders in accord with the foregoing, obtain
necessary prior approval from the Small Business Adminis-
tration, 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 Sup-
plement. The Commission rejected the petitioner's conten-
tion 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

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 peti-
tion for reconsideration of the Upper Channel First Recon-
sideration Order. The Commission stayed with its decision
to eliminate installment payments, rejecting the contention
that installment payments were necessary to ensure "a mean-
ingful 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 Reconsid-
eration, 14 F.C.C.R. 21,068, p 3 (1999) [Upper Channel Sec-
ond 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 Memo-
randum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration In the Mat-
ter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules;
Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communica-
tions Act; and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act adopted on September 30, 1999 [Lower

Channel Reconsideration Order]." Petition for Review, No.
99-1543 (filed Dec. 29, 1999). On January 6, 2000 the peti-
tioner filed a "Certificate as to Parties, Rulings and Related
Cases," noting the above cited Lower Channel Reconsidera-
tion 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 proce-
dure in the United States courts of appeal," Fed. R. App. P.

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 peti-
tion." 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 Decem-
ber 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 peti-
tioner'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, En-
travision, 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 Entravi-
sion'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 contempo-
raneous 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 Reconsidera-
tion 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

fied only the reconsideration order. Additionally, Entravi-
sion'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 contempo-
raneously 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 Certifi-
cate Order, the petitioner had sufficiently identified the Cer-
tificate 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 challeng-
ing 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 Is-
sues" 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 state-
ment of the issues involved...."); see also United States v. Pogue,
19 F.3d 663, 666 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

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 investi-
gation 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 men-
tioned and attached only the reconsideration order. Finally,
the court stated that Southwestern Bell's Preliminary State-
ment 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 South-
western 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 dis-
missed 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 reason-
ing of Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir.
1991) (refusing "to allow a mere technicality in pleading to

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 ascer-
taining the petitioner's intent. Here SBT failed to designate
in its petition for review the order that it ultimately chal-
lenged in its brief. SBT's "Petition for Review" named only
the Lower Channel Reconsideration Order; it included nei-
ther the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order nor the
Upper Channel Second Reconsideration Order. SBT at-
tached 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 underly-
ing 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: "Re-
leased 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.

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 peti-
tion for review. The dictionary definition of "contemporane-
ous" is "existing or occurring during the same time." Web-
ster'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 State-
ments," "Certificates as to Parties, Rulings and Related

__________
9 We acknowledge that while courts use the term "contemporane-
ous" 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 inter-
preting 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 contemporane-
ous 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. Missis-
sippi, 379 U.S. 443 567-68 (1965); Wilson v. Waggener, 837 F.2d
220, 222 (5th Cir.1988).

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 mo-
tion 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. Never-
theless, SBT had filed two separate petitions for reconsidera-
tion: 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 notwithstand-
ing they arose from the same rulemaking proceeding.

Contrary to SBT's claim, moreover, its Consolidated Sup-
plement nowhere expressly requested that the Commission
consolidate the petitions for reconsideration. Rather, it ar-
gued 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 Reconsidera-
tion 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 reconsider-
ation 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 Re-
consideration 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, re-
sponding to one in its Lower Channel Reconsideration Order
and to the other in its Upper Channel Second Reconsidera-
tion Order. Accordingly, we must dismiss SBT's petition for

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 prema-
ture. 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." Unit-
ed 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

entered,13 making the petition for review "incurably prema-
ture" as to the Upper Channel First Reconsideration Order.
BellSouth, 17 F.3d at 1490.

SBT responds that the Upper Channel Second Reconsider-
ation 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 petition-
er 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, geo-
graphic 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 Chan-
nel Reconsideration Order, the Commission primarily re-
ferred 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 recon-
sideration 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 Reconsidera-
tion 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 Re-
port 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

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 Commis-
sion'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 au-
thorized 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 ap-
proved 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 statuto-
ry 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. Never-
theless 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 Reconsidera-
tion 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 Reconsider-
ation Order.

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

The petitioner next asserts that the FRFA analysis con-
tained 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 descrip-
tion 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 in-
curred 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 reim-
bursed for relocation costs,17 the Commission asked that the

__________
16 SBT claims that the FCC knowingly published a misrepresen-
tation 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 licen-
see 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 clarifi-
cation filed by the American Mobile Telecommunications As-
sociation, 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 Recon-
sideration Order]. The FCC noted that "neither the [Lower
Channel Report and Order] nor the [Lower Channel Recon-
sideration 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 replace-
ment 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.

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 submit-
ted in response to the FRFA." Lower Channel Reconsidera-
tion 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 Re-
port 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 frequen-
cies are free and clear." Id.

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 Proce-
dure 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.