IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT NOS. 16-1060 & 16-1071 THE VIDEOHOUSE, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY PENDING REVIEW WILLIAM J. BAER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT B. NICHOLSON ROBERT J. WIGGERS ATTORNEYS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 JONATHAN B. SALLET GENERAL COUNSEL DAVID M. GOSSETT DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL JACOB M. LEWIS ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL JAMES M. CARR COUNSEL FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 (202) 418-1740 USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 1 of 27 Table of Content s BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2 A. The Spectr um Act .......................................................................................... 2 B. Proceedi n g s Below ........................................................................................ 3 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 8 I. Videohou s e Has Not Shown A Likeliho o d Of Success On The Merits. ......... 9 II. Video hous e Has Not Demons trated Irreparable Harm. ................................. 15 III. A Stay Would Harm Third Par ties And The Public Interest. ........................ 17 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 20   USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 2 of 27 i i   Table of Authoriti e s Cases * Ass’n of Accredited Cosmetology Schools v. Alexander, 979 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ....................................................................... 10, 11 AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 220 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................ 9 Bell Atl. Tel. Cos. v. FCC, 79 F.3d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 10 Blanca Tel. Co. v. FCC, 743 F.3d 860 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 13 Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 15 ConverDyn v. Moniz, 68 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D.D.C. 2014) .......................................................................... 16 * Covad Commc’ns Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 9 FCC v. Radiofone, Inc., 516 U.S. 1301 (1995 ) ..................................................................................... 17, 20 Fla. Inst. of Tech. v. FCC, 952 F.2d 549 (D.C. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................. 13 Nat’l Ass’n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 789 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 3, 4, 20 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) .............................................................................................. 17 Regions Hosp. v. Shalala, 522 U.S. 448 (1998) .............................................................................................. 10 * Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 17 Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958) .............................................................................. 17 Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ................................................................................ 9 USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 3 of 27 iii   * Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ....................................................................... 15, 16 Statutes 47 U.S.C. § 309(j )(8)(G)(i) ........................................................................................ 2 47 U.S.C. § 1401(6) ................................................................................................... 3 47 U.S.C. § 1452(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 3 47 U.S.C. § 1452(b) ................................................................................................... 3 47 U.S.C. § 1452(b)(2 ).................................................................................... 3, 4, 10 47 U.S.C. § 1452 (c)(1) ............................................................................................... 3 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creatio n Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 125 Stat. 156 ( 2012) ....................................................................................................... 2 Regulatio n s * 47 C. F.R. § 1.429(b) ...............................................................................................5, 7 47 C.F.R. § 1. 2105(c)(1) .......................................................................................... 19 47 C.F.R. § 1. 2205(b) .............................................................................................. 19 47 C.F.R. § 73.3533 ................................................................................................... 6 Administ r a t i v e Decision s Establishment of a Class A Television Service, 15 FCC Rcd 6355 (2000) ...................................................................................... 11 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 2016 WL 593209 (rel. Feb. 12, 2016) (Third Recon. Order) ................................................. 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 2016 WL 854392 (Media Bur. rel. Ma r. 3, 2016) (Stay Denial Order) ............................................................. 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 27 FCC Rcd 12357 (2012) (NPRM) ............................................................................................................ 3, 20 USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 4 of 27 iv   Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 29 FCC Rcd 6567 (2014) ( Order), pets. for review denied, Nat’l Ass’n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 789 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 4, 5, 12, 13 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 30 FCC Rcd 6668 (2015) ........................................................................................ 5 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 30 FCC Rcd 6746 (2015) (Second Recon. Order) .................................................................... 5, 6, 11, 12, 14 * Cases and other authorities principally relied upon are marked with asterisks. USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 5 of 27     Responde n t s, the Federal Communic a t i o n s Commiss i o n and the United States of America, oppose the motion for a stay pendin g revie w filed by The Videohou s e, Inc. (Videohou s e). 1 Videohou s e has not justi f i e d its extra o r d in a r y reques t that this Court stay the FCC’ s upcomi n g broad c a s t spect r u m incen t i v e aucti o n — n o w sched u l e d to begin on Ma rch 29, 2016—until the Court resol v e s Videohou s e ’ s claims that it should be allowe d to partic i p a t e. As we explai n, the FCC drew a reason a b l e line in determi n i n g au ctio n eligib i l i t y ; and in ap plyi n g that line, it reaso n a b l y concl u d e d that Videohou s e was ineli g i b l e. Videohous e does not contes t the Comm iss i o n ’ s deter mi n a t i o n that only licen s e e s of stati o n s that had a full-power or Class A low-power licen s e or pendi n g appli c a t i o n for a licen s e as of Februa ry 22, 2012, have a statut o r y right to repac k i n g prote c t i o n and eligi b i l i t y to partici p a t e in the auctio n. There is no disput e that WOSC—Videohous e ’ s low-power tele v i s i o n stati o n in Pittsbu r g h — d i d not have a Class A licens e or pendi n g appli c a t i o n for such a licens e as of that date. As a matter of its discre t i o n, the FCC extend e d repac k i n g prote c t i o n (and auctio n eligi b i l i t y) to curren t Class A st ation s that had a Class A constru c t i o n permi t or appli c a t i o n for a permi t on file as of February 22, 2012. But Videohous e does not quali f y under the FCC’s discre t i o n a r y stand a r d for aucti o n eligi b i l i t y                                                              1 Videohou s e is one of three petit i o n e r s in this case. The other two petit i o n e r s — Fifth Street Enterpri s e s, LLC and WM TM, LLC—have not reque s t e d a stay. USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 6 of 27 2   e i t h e r. Although Videohou s e has since obtai n e d a Class A license for WOSC, it did not file an appli c a t i o n to conve r t its low-power stati o n to Class A status until January 15, 2013—almost a year after the February 22, 2012 cut-off date. The FCC has broad discr e t i o n in im ple m e n t i n g the Spectrum Act and in drawin g a line betwee n statio n s that are el igib l e for the auctio n and those that are not. Videohou s e canno t show that the Commissi o n has abused its discre t i o n. Nor is Videohou s e likel y to suffe r irrep a r a b l e injur y absent a stay pendin g review. On the other hand, delayin g the auctio n — a s Videohou s e has reque s t e d — w o u l d cause subs t a n t i a l harm to other part i e s and to the public intere s t. Videohou s e ’ s motio n for a stay pendi n g revie w should be denie d. BACKGROUND A. The Spectrum Act On February 22, 2012, Congr ess adopte d the Spectrum Act, see Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Cr eation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, Title VI, 125 Stat. 156 (2012). This statut e author i z e s the FCC to conduc t an incent i v e aucti o n to “enco u r a g e ” telev i s i o n broad ca s t e r s “to relin q u i s h some or all of [thei r ] licen s e d spectr u m usage rights ” so th at broadc a s t telev i s i o n spect r u m may be reallo c a t e d for other uses, such as mobil e broad b a n d servi c e. 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(8)(G)(i). The incent i v e aucti o n will consi s t of three interde p e n d e n t phases : (1) a “reve r s e aucti o n to deter mi n e the amoun t of comp e n s a t i o n that each broad c a s t USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 7 of 27 3   t e l e v i s i o n licen s e e would accep t in return for volun t a r i l y relin q u i s h i n g some or all of its broad c a s t telev i s i o n spect r u m usage right s,” 47 U.S.C. § 1452(a)(1); (2) the reorga n i z a t i o n (or “repac k i n g ”) of the broad c a s t telev i s i o n spect r u m in order to move broad c a s t e r s from a porti o n of the UHF spect r u m to make it avail ab l e for new uses, id. § 1452(b); and (3) a “forwa r d aucti o n ” to assig n licen s e s for use of the reall o c a t e d broad c a s t telev i s i o n spect r u m, id. § 1452(c)(1). See Nat’l Ass’n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 789 F.3d 165, 170 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The Spectrum Act authoriz e s “broadc a s t telev i s i o n licen s e e [ s ] ” to partic i p a t e in the revers e aucti o n, 47 U.S.C. § 1452(a)(1 ), and grants them certai n prote c t i o n s in the repac k i n g proce s s, instr u c t i n g th e FCC to “make all reas on a b l e effor t s to preser v e, as of February 22, 2012, the cove r a g e area and popul a t i o n serve d of each broad c a s t telev i s i o n licen s e e,” id. § 1452(b)(2). The Act define s a “broad c a s t telev i s i o n licen s e e ” as “the licens e e of … (A) a full-power telev i s i o n stati o n or (B) a low-power telev i s i o n stati o n that has been accord e d primar y status as a Class A televis i o n licen s e e ” under the Comm iss i o n ’ s rules. 47 U.S.C. § 1401(6). B. Proceed i n g s Belo w 1 . The Initial Order . In October 2012, the FCC initia t e d a rulem a k i n g to implem e n t the incent i v e auctio n provis i o n s of the Spectrum Act. 2 After revie w i n g                                                              2 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 27 FCC Rcd 12357 (2012) ( NPRM). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 8 of 27 4   v o l u mi n o u s comme n t s from inter e s t e d pa rti e s, the Commissi o n in June 2014 issued an order estab l i s h i n g the polic i e s and rules for the incen t i v e aucti o n. 3 It identi f i e d sever a l categ o r i e s of stati o n s eligi b l e for repac k i n g prote c t i o n, Order ¶ ¶ 183-245; and it decid e d that only statio n s that quali f y for such protect i o n would be eligibl e to partici p a t e in the reverse auctio n, id. ¶ ¶ 354-357. The Commissi o n concl u d e d that the Sp ectrum Act mandat e s prot e c t i o n only for full-power and Class A stat ion s that were licen s e d or had a licen s e appli c a t i o n on file as of February 22, 2012, the da te of enact m e n t of the Spectrum Act. Order ¶ ¶ 184-189 (discus s in g 47 U.S.C. § 1452(b)(2)). The Commiss i o n then deter mi n e d that it had discre t i o n to grant rever s e auct i o n elig i b i lit y and repac k i n g prot e c t i o n to certai n other statio n s. Id. ¶ ¶ 190-194. Initiall y, the Commissio n grante d discre t i o n a r y protec t i o n to just one Class A statio n, KHTV. Order ¶ ¶ 224, 235. KHTV’s licens e e “made repea t e d effor t s over the course of a decad e to conver t to Class A status,” during which time it “conti n u e d to have a Class A licens e appli c a t i o n on file in which it certi f i e d that it was meeti n g, and would c ontin u e to meet, all Class A operat i n g requi r em e n t s.” Id. ¶ 235 & nn.728-729. But due to circu ms t a n c e s beyon d its contro l, KHTV was unable to find a suitab l e chann e l and file its Class A license appli c a t i o n until                                                              3 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 29 FCC Rcd 6567, 6652 ¶ 185 (2014) ( Order), pets. for review denied, Nat’l Ass’n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 789 F.3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2015). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 9 of 27 5   February 24, 2012, two days afte r the Spectrum Act was passe d. Id. ¶ 235 & nn.727-730. Taking into accou n t these “uni q u e circu ms t a n c e s,” as well as the “cert i f i e d opera t i o n ” of KHTV “consis t e n t with Class A operat i n g requi r em e n t s since 2001” and the “repea t e d effor ts ” of KHTV’s licens e e “to conve r t to Class A status” over the past decad e, the Commis sion concl u d e d that “the equiti e s in favor of prote c t io n of this stati o n outwe i g h the minim a l imp ac t that prote c t i n g this one facili t y will have” on the auctio n. Id. ¶ 235. 2 . The Second Reconsideration Order. 4 In petiti o n s for recon s i d e r a t i o n of the Order , Videohous e and Abacus—l i c e n s e e s of low-power telev i s i o n stati o n s that had filed for and recei v e d Class A license s after February 22, 2012—asked the FCC to grant their stati o n s repac k i n g prote c t i o n. In June 2015, the Commissi o n denied their reques t. Second Recon. Order ¶ ¶ 50-61. First, it dismis s e d th e petit i o n s on proce d u r a l groun d s, findi n g that the licen s e e s had not shown “why they were unable to raise these facts and argume n t s befor e adopt i o n ” of the Order . Id. ¶ 59 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b)). Alte rnative l y, the agen cy reject ed the licensees’ clai ms that they were simil a r l y situa t e d to KHTV and other stati o n s that had been grant e d discr e t i o n a r y repac k i n g prote c t i o n. Id. ¶ ¶ 60-61.                                                              4 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 30 FCC Rcd 6746 (2015) (Second Recon. Order ). An earlier order on recon s i d e r a t i o n, 30 FCC Rcd 6668 (2 015), dealt with ch ann e l shari n g and is not at issue in this case. USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 10 of 27 6   At the same time, the FCC decided to extend discr e t i o n a r y prote c t i o n and auctio n eligi b i l i t y to stati o n s “that hold a Class A licens e today and that had an appli c a t i o n for a Class A constru c t i o n perm i t pendi n g or grant e d as of Februar y 22, 2012.” Second Recon. Order ¶ 62. 5 It noted that those stati o n s, by filing such an applic a t i o n, “had certif i e d … with th e Commission” before en act ment of the Spectrum Act “that they wer e ope rat i n g like Class A station s.” Id. The filing of the appli c a t i o n provid e d an offic i a l and verif i a b l e indic a t i o n of a statio n ’ s Class A operati o n s. By contra s t, Videohou s e “did not certi f y conti n u in g comp l i a n c e with Class A requir e men t s in an appli c a t i o n filed with the Commissi o n until after the enact me n t of the Spectrum Act.” Id. 3 . The Third Reconsideration Order . 6 In a petiti o n for recon s i d e r a t i o n filed in Septembe r 2015, several Class A licens e e s that did not quali f y for manda t o r y repac k i n g prote c t i o n — i n c l u d i n g Videohou s e — a r g u e d that they should recei v e discr e t i o n a r y prote c t i o n becau s e they we r e si milar l y situate d to the Class A licensee s that wer e granted such protect i o n in the Second Reconsideration Order.                                                              5 The FCC employs a two-stage licens i n g pr oce s s for broad c a s t stati o n s. A station first must obtai n a const r u c t i o n permi t, whic h autho r i z e s the stati o n to const r u c t its facili t y. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3533. Once constr u c t i o n is co mp le t e d, the statio n must apply for a “lice n s e to cover ” the permi t, grant of which autho r i z e s the stati o n to opera t e on its const ru c t e d facil i t i e s. See id. § § 73.1620(a)(1), 73.3536(a). 6 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 2016 WL 593209 (rel. Feb. 12, 2016) (Third Recon. Order ). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 11 of 27 7   The FCC denied this petiti o n in Febr uar y 2016, findin g that it was “both proce d u r a l l y and subst a n t i v e l y defec t i v e.” Third Recon. Order ¶ 7. As a thres h o l d matte r, the Commiss i o n found that petit i o n e r s faile d to prese n t facts or argum e n t s as to why thei r stati o n s shoul d be prote c t e d “unti l after the Commissio n adopte d ” the origina l Order in this procee d i n g, even though “all of [thos e ] facts and argume n t s … existe d befor e h a n d.” Third Recon. Order ¶ 8. Because of this unexcu s e d tardin e s s, th e agency found that the petiti o n shoul d be dismi s s e d. Id. ¶ ¶ 8-10 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b)). “As an alter n a t i v e and indep e n d e n t gr oun d ” for its decis i o n, the Commissi o n reject e d petiti o n e r s ’ cl aims on the merits. Third Recon. Order ¶ 11. The agency expla i n e d that it grant e d discr e t i o n a r y prote c t i o n to certa i n Class A station s becau s e, “as of February 22, 2012, th e date establ i s h e d by Congres s for deter mi n i n g which stati o n s are entit l e d to repac k i n g prote c t i o n,” those stati o n s “had on file with the Commissi o n ” appli c a t i o n s for Cl ass A constr u c t i o n permi t s, which includ e d “certi f i c a t i o n s that they were operat i n g like Class A station s.” Id. By contras t, Videohou s e and the other petit i o n e r s “neit h e r reque s t e d Class A status, nor demon s t r a t e d that they we re provi d in g Class A servic e [thro u g h the filin g of an appli c a t i o n ], until after pa ssag e of the Spectru m Act create d the USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 12 of 27 8   p o t e n t i a l for Class A status to yield subs tan t i a l financ i a l rewa r d s throu g h aucti o n partic i p a t i o n.” Id. ¶ 12. 7 The Stay Denial Order . 8 On February 29, 2016, Videohou s e asked the FCC to stay the incent i v e auctio n. Commissi o n staff, actin g on deleg a t e d autho r i t y, denied that reques t in an order issu e d on March 3, 2016 (the same day that Videohou s e filed its motio n for a stay in this Court). ARGUMENT To obtain the extra o r d i n a r y remed y of a stay, Videohou s e must show that: (1) it is likel y to preva i l on the merit s ; (2 ) it will suffer irrepa r a b l e injury withou t a stay; (3) a stay will not harm other parti e s ; and (4) the publi c inter e s t favor s a stay.                                                              7 Petition e r s also argued that they were like WDYB, a statio n liste d “on the June 30, 2015 list of eligib l e stati o n s.” Third Recon. Order ¶ 20. Upon furth e r revie w, the FCC found that WDYB “did not ha ve an appli c a t i o n for a Class A author i z a t i o n pendi n g or grant e d as of February 22, 2012,” id., and that the statio n there f o r e was “not entit l e d to discr e t i o n a r y repac k i n g prote c t i o n or eligi b l e to partici p a t e in the reverse auctio n,” id. ¶ 21. WDYB’s licens e e has petit i o n e d for revie w of that decis i o n and m oved for a stay pendi n g revie w. See Latina Broadcasters of Daytona Beach, LLC v. FCC, D.C. Cir. Nos. 16-1065 & 16-1069 (Latina Broadcasters). 8 Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 2016 WL 854392 (Media Bur. rel. Mar. 3, 2016) ( Stay Denial Order). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 13 of 27 9   Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Videohou s e has not sa tisf i e d any of these prere q u i s i t e s. 9 I. Videohou s e Has Not Shown A Likelih o o d Of Success On The Merits. Videohous e chall e n g e s the reaso n a b l e n e s s of the FCC’s determi n a t i o n that it is not entitl e d to discr e t i o n a r y repac k i n g pr otect i o n. This chall en g e to the ag ency’ s line-drawin g has little ch ance of succes s. This Court is "gene r a l l y unwil l i n g to review line-drawin g perfo r me d by the Commissi o n unles s a petiti o n e r can demon s t r a t e that lines drawn … are pate n t l y unrea s o n a b l e, having no relat i o n s h ip to the underl y i n g regula t o r y proble m.” Covad Commc’ns Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528, 541 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (interna l quota t i o n mark s omitt e d). Videohou s e has “poin t [ e d ] to nothi n g sugge s t in g that the agenc y abuse d its discr e t i o n in drawi n g the line” where it did. AT&T Corp. v. FCC, 220 F.3d 607, 627 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 1 . Videohou s e argue s that becau s e the eligi b i l it y deter mi n a t i o n s at issue here hinge d on licen s e e s ’ actio n s as of Februa ry 22, 2012, the FCC imprope r l y impos e d a “retro a c t i v e ‘deadl i n e.’” Mo t. 14. Not so. The agency was entitl e d to consid e r the                                                              9 Videohou s e claims that it has met the firs t two of these requi r e men t s becau s e the Court “gran t e d exped i t e d revie w of th is case.” Mot. 2. But the Court “ denied ” petit i o n e r s ’ motio n for expedi t e d consi d e r a t i o n “to the extent that petiti o n e r s seek resol u t i o n of their petit i o n for revie w be for e March 29, 2016.” Order, No. 16-1060 (issued Feb. 23, 2016) (emphas i s added). In that order, the Court made no findi n g s regar d i n g likel i h o o d of succe s s or irrep a r a b l e injur y. The Court’s exped i t io n of merit s brief i n g does not relie v e Videohou s e of its oblig a t i o n to demon s t r a t e both a likel i h o o d of succe s s on the merit s and irre pa r a b l e harm before it can obtain a stay. See Stay Denial Order ¶ 5. USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 14 of 27 10   p a s t condu c t of licen s e e s “in deter mi n i n g futur e eligi b i l i t y for … partic i p a t i o n ” in the incent i v e auctio n ; such an eligib ility requiremen t “does not operat e retroac t i v e l y.” See Ass’n of Accredited Cosmetology Schools v. Alexander, 979 F.2d 859, 865 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ( AACS).10 Nor does Videohou s e have a basis to questi o n the reason a b l e n e s s of the agency’s approach, much le ss the “statu to r y autho r i t y ” (Mot. 14) underly i n g the FCC’s decisi o n to adopt the Februar y 22 deadlin e. That cut-off date “is tied direct l y to the date establ i s h e d by C ongress for repac k i n g prote c t i o n ” in the Spectrum Act. Third Recon. Order ¶ 15; see 47 U.S.C. § 1452(b)(2) (direct i n g the FCC to “make all reasona b l e effort s to preserv e, as of February 22, 2012, the cover a g e area and popul a t i o n serve d of each broad c a s t telev i s i o n licen s e e ”) (emphas i s added). It was plain l y reaso n a b l e for the Commissi o n to base its cut-off on a date that is refle c t e d in the statu t e itsel f. Videohous e also argues that it was en titl e d to “advan c e notic e ” of the February 22 cut-off date. Mot. 15. But th at conte n t i o n is “mere l y a reite r a t i o n ” of its “retro act i v i t y argum e n t,” see AACS , 979 F.2d at 867, and is equall y unfoun d e d.                                                              10 See also Regions Hosp. v. Shalala, 522 U.S. 448, 456 (1998) (a regul a t i o n “is not made retroac t i v e merely because it draws upon antec e d e n t facts for its opera t i o n ”) (intern a l quot a t i o n mark s omit t e d); Bell Atl. Tel. Cos. v. FCC, 79 F.3d 1195, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (regulat i o n s ar e not “retro a c t i v e ” if “they contemp l a t e only the use of past infor ma t i o n for subse q u e n t decis i o n ma k i n g ”) (intern a l quot a t i o n mark s omit t e d). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 15 of 27 11   Videohous e was not entit l e d to prior notice in this conte x t becau s e it had “no legall y protec t a b l e intere s t in futu re partic i p a t i o n ” in the auctio n. See id. a t 868. Videohou s e asser t s that FCC staff “e xac e r b a t e d ” the agenc y ’ s suppo s e d “retro a c t i v i t y proble m ” by “induc i n g ” licen s e e s to delay filin g appli c a t i o n s for Class A constr u c t i o n permi t s until after Februar y 22, 2012. Mot. 15. But by Videohou s e ’ s own accou n t, id. a t 4-5, the informa l st aff advice that allege d l y induc e d this delay occur r e d in 2011, befo re Congress had even author i z e d the incent i v e aucti o n. Videohou s e canno t plaus i b l y claim that licen s e e s had any basis for relyin g on staff advic e in 2011 to preser v e their right s to partic i p a t e in an auctio n that did not yet exist. In a ny event, Videoho u s e canno t blame its own tardin e s s on staff advic e it purpor t e d l y recei v e d in 2011. Two years earlie r, when it filed an ap pli c a t i o n for a low-power const r u c t i o n permi t for a channe l that was eligi b l e for Class A status, Videohou s e faile d to compl y with a longst a n d in g requi r e m e n t for statio n s seeki n g Class A status : It did not simu l t a n e o u s ly file an appli c a t i o n for a Class A constru c t i o n permi t. See Stay Denial Order ¶ 7 (citin g Establishment of a Class A Television Service, 15 FCC Rcd 6355, 6396 ¶ 103 (2000)). If it had comp l i e d with this requi r e me n t, Videohou s e would have been eligi b l e to parti c i p a t e in the aucti o n and to recei v e repac k i n g prote c t i o n. See Second Recon. Order ¶ 62. USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 16 of 27 12   2 . Videohous e next conten d s that th e Commissi o n acted arbit r a r i l y in treat i n g its stati o n diffe r e n t l y than KHTV . Mot. 15-16. But, as the FCC reasona b l y deter mi n e d, the two stati o n s are not simil a r l y situa t e d. In the first place, unlike Videohou s e, KHTV’s licens e e respon d e d to the NPRM i n this proce e d i n g by submi t t i n g “evid e n c e demon s t r a t i n g why it shoul d be afford e d discre t i o n a r y protec t i o n.” Second Recon. Order ¶ 59. Videohou s e did not co me forwar d with any such eviden c e un til it petit i o n e d for recon s i d e r a t i o n of the Order. And it faile d to show “why [it was] unable to raise these facts and argume n t s before adopti o n ” of the Order, as KHTV had done. Id. Becaus e Videohou s e ’ s argum e n t s were untime l y, the FCC proper l y dismi s s e d them as proced u r a l l y barre d. Id. (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b)); see also Third Recon. Order ¶ ¶ 8-10. 11 In any event, the evide n c e that Videoho u s e tardi l y submi t t e d did not demons t r a t e that it was otherw i s e in the same positi o n as KHTV’s licens e e. As the Commissi o n expla i n e d, KHTV’s licens e e ha d made “repe a t e d effor t s … to conve r t to Class A status” since 2001; and throu g h o u t that perio d, KHTV had “a Class A license appli c a t i o n on file in which it certi f i e d that it was meeti n g, and would continu e to meet, all Cla ss A operat i n g requi r e men t s.” Order ¶ 235. But “uniqu e                                                              11 Videohou s e misch a r a c t e r i z e s this pro ce d u r a l rulin g. The Commiss i o n did not find that petit i o n e r s ’ petit i o n s for recon s i d e r a t i o n of the Order w e r e “proc e d u r a l l y defec t i v e ” becau s e they were “i ns uff i c i e n t l y detaile d.” Mot. 16. USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 17 of 27 13   c i r c u ms t a n c e s ” had “preve n t e d [KHTV’s li cense e ] from filing its Class A license appli c a t i o n … until just two da ys after February 22, 2012.” Id.; see also id. n n.727- 730. Unlike KHTV, “which demon s t r a t e d that it commen c e d e ffor t s to achie v e Class A status” in 2001, Videohou s e produ c e d no evide n c e that it made “any such effor t s befor e 2009”—near l y a decade after it first became eligi b l e to seek Class A status. Third Recon. Order ¶ 14. And the evide n c e that Videohou s e prese n t e d “regar d i n g [its] effort s to obtain Cla ss A status betwe e n 2009 and Februar y 22, 2012” failed to “demon s t r a t e that [WOSC] acted like [a] Class A station [ ] during that time period.” Id. The FCC reasona b l y distin g u i s h e d betwe e n KHTV’s licens e e and Videohou s e based on their relat i v e dilig e n c e. Distincti o n s of this sort are reason a b l e. See Blanca Tel. Co. v. FCC, 743 F.3d 860, 865-66 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Fla. Inst. of Tech. v. FCC, 952 F.2d 549, 554 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 3 . Videohou s e broad l y asser t s that “the FCC’s reason s for rejec t i n g Petitio n e r s ’ reque s t for discr e t i o n a r y protec t i o n do not pass muster.” Mot. 16. Its stay motio n, howeve r, does not even men tio n — l e t alone refute — t h e agen cy ’ s princi p a l ration a l e for declin i n g to protec t its station. The Class A stations that quali f i e d for discr e t io n a r y prote c t i o n “had on file with the Commissi o n certif i c a t i o n s that they were operat i n g like Class A stations ” when the Spectrum Act was passe d on Fe bruary 22, 2012. Third Recon. Order ¶ 11. Videohou s e ’ s USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 18 of 27 14   s t a t i o n did not. See Second Recon. Order ¶ ¶ 60, 62. Videohou s e “n eit h e r reque s t e d Class A status, nor demon s t r a t e d that [it was] provi d i n g Class A service, until after passage of the Spectr u m Act creat ed the poten t i a l for Class A status to yield subst a n t i a l finan c i a l rewar d s throu g h auctio n parti c i p a t i o n.” Third Recon. Order ¶ 12. In light of these consi d e r a t i o n s, the Commissi o n reaso n a b l y concl u d e d that “the equit ie s do not weigh in favor of granti n g [discr e t i o n a r y ] protec t i o n ” to Videohous e. Id. ¶ 16. 4 . Finally, Videohous e conten d s that, if this Court were to find that the petit i o n e r in Latina Broadcasters (D.C. Cir. Nos. 16-1065 & 16-1069) is likely to succee d on the merit s of its stay re ques t, it “would necess ar i l y mean” that Videohou s e is “likel y to succee d on the me rits.” Mot. 16. Latina, howeve r, is unlikely to succeed on the merit s. See Responde n ts ’ Opposit io n to Motion for Stay Pending Review, D.C. Cir. Nos. 16-1065 & 16-1069, at 9-15. In any event, while Latina (like Vide ohou s e) failed to meet the FCC’s test for aucti o n eligi b i l i t y, the bases for Latina’ s claims are disti n g u i s h a b l e from those of Videohou s e, as Latina itsel f has noted. See Latina Amicus Statemen t at 5-6. The predece s s o r licens e e of Latina’ s statio n (WDYB) did file an applic a t i o n for a Class A constr u c t i o n permi t befor e Februar y 22, 2012 (althou g h the a ppli c a t i o n expir e d befor e that date). And for a time, WDYB appeared on a provis i o n a l list of prote c t e d stati o n s (from which it was re mov e d after the Commiss i o n deter mi n e d USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 19 of 27 15   t h a t it did not meet the criter i a for discre t io n a r y protec t i o n). Third Recon. Order ¶ ¶ 20-21. Because Latina’s case invol v e s diffe r e n t facts, this Court would not be comp e l l e d to grant a stay to Videohou s e in the unlik e l y event that it ruled in Latina’s favor. II. Videohou s e Has Not Demo nstr a t e d Irrepar a b l e Harm. A stay is also unwarr a n t e d becaus e Videohou s e has faile d to demon s t r a t e irrep a r a b l e harm that is “both certa i n and great,” “actua l and not theore t i c a l.” Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “Bare allega t i o n s of what is likel y to occur ” are not enoug h ; to obtai n a stay, Videohou s e “must provi d e proof ” that irrepa r a b l e “harm will in fact occur” absent a stay. Id. It has faile d to do so. Videohou s e ’ s unsub s t a n t i a t e d claims of ha rm (Mot. 18) do not come close to meeti n g this Court’s “high sta nd a r d for irrep a r a b l e injur y.” Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 1 . Videohous e ’ s inabi l i t y to partic i p a t e in the rever s e aucti o n does not const i t u t e irrep a r a b l e harm. The revers e aucti o n may pr ese n t a valuab l e econo mi c oppor t u n i t y, but it is “well settl e d that ec ono mi c loss does not, in and of itsel f, consti t u t e irrep a r a b l e harm.” Wis. Gas, 758 F.2d at 674. The lack of an oppor tu n it y to parti c i p a t e in the rever s e aucti o n doe s not depriv e Videohou s e of the value of WOSC’s existi n g opera t i o n s, nor does it precl u d e Videohou s e from later selli n g WOSC’s broadc a s t licen s e or other asset s to any inter e s t e d buyer outsi d e the USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 20 of 27 16   i n c e n t i v e auctio n. The inabil i t y to partic i p a t e in a partic u l a r aucti o n does not depriv e a broadc a s t e r of any fundam e n t a l right or const i tu t e any irrep a r a b l e harm. Cf. ConverDyn v. Moniz, 68 F. Supp. 3d 34, 46-47 (D.D.C. 2014) (loss of an econo mi c oppor t u n i ty gener a l l y does not amoun t to irrep a r a b l e injur y unles s it is likel y to force a compan y out of busin e s s). 2 . Videohous e asser t s that “stat i o n s with o u t [repa c k i n g ] prote c t i o n may be stripp e d of their licen s e s witho u t any co mpen s a t i o n or other relief.” Mot. 18. But Videohou s e offer s no evide n c e that this situ a t i o n is likel y to confr o n t its telev i s i o n stati o n, WOSC. The risk that WOSC wo uld even be displ a c e d from its curre n t chann e l depen d s on a host of facto r s that Videohou s e does not even attem p t to analy z e — i n c l u d i n g the numbe r of broad c a s t e r s that partic i p a t e in the revers e auction, the amount of spectru m that the au ctio n clear s, and the partic u l a r chann e l assign me n t s made in th e repack ing process. Stay Denial Order ¶ 10; cf. Wis. Gas , 758 F.2d at 675 (allege d inju r y only “s pecu l a t i v e and hypoth e t i c a l ” where petit i o n e r has “not attemp t e d to provi d e any subst a n t i a t i o n ”). Even if WOSC were displac e d from its cu rren t channe l as a result of the auctio n repac k i n g, it could file an appli c a t i o n for a suitab l e replac e m e n t channe l. Stay Denial Order ¶ 10. And becaus e WOSC curren t l y holds a Class A license, it will be given the first oppor t u n i t y to file such an applic a t i o n, maximi z i n g its chanc e s of obtai n i n g a repla c e m e n t chann e l. Third Recon. Order ¶ 22. The FCC USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 21 of 27 17   a l s o has other tools to help WOSC rema in on the air, such as permit t i n g the statio n to enter into a ch anne l-sharin g agreem e n t with anoth e r broad c a s t e r or incre a s i n g the power of WOSC’s signal to addre s s a ny adjac e n t-channe l inter f e r e n c e issue s in the event WOSC proposes a repl ac e m e n t chann e l of its own. See Stay Denial Order n.42. If Videohou s e event u a l l y prev a i l s on the merits, the Court can requir e the FCC to take such measur e s to make a replac e m e n t chann e l avail a b l e. 12 III. A Stay Would Harm Third Part ies And The Public Interes t . Even if Videohou s e ’ s claims of harm we re more than specu l a t i v e, a stay “is not a matter of right, even if irrep a r a b l e injur y might other w i s e resul t ” to Videohous e. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) (intern al quota t i o n marks omit t e d). In balanc i n g the equiti e s, the Court ca nno t enter a stay that would merel y shift harm from Videoho u s e to other parties — o r cause even great e r harm to other s than denial of a stay would cause to Videohous e. See Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 398-99 (D.C. Cir. 2011). In this case, a stay of the aucti o n would unden i a b l y injur e other parti e s and the publi c inter e s t.                                                              12 Cf. FCC v. Radiofone, Inc., 516 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1995) (Stevens, J., in chamb e r s) (“[A]llowi n g the natio n a l auc ti o n to go forwa r d will not defea t the power of the Court of Appeals to gran t appro p r i a t e relie f in the event that [peti t i o n e r ] overc o m e s the presu mp t i o n of valid i t y that suppo r t s the FCC regulat i o n s and preva i l s on the merit s.”); Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. FPC , 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (“The possib i l i t y that adequa t e … correc t i v e relie f will be av ailab l e at a later da te, in the ordina r y cours e of litiga t i o n, weighs heavi l y against a clai m of irrepara b l e har m.”). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 22 of 27 18   The incenti v e auctio n has been years in the making, and partic i p a n t s were notif i e d of the March 29 star t date more than six month s ago. Any unnece s s a r y delay, esp ecial l y this close to the start of the aucti o n, would upend the settl e d plans of those broad c a s t e r s, wirel e s s telec o m mu n i c a t i o n s carriers, and other comp anie s that have made signif i c a n t inves t m e n t s, secure d finan c i n g, and delay e d other busin e s s propo s a l s based on the curre n t sched u l e. See Stay Denial Order ¶ 12. Indeed, numero u s third parti e s have made clear, in oppos in g a stay pendi n g revie w in Latina Broadcasters, D.C. Cir. Nos. 16-1065 &16-1 069, that a delay in the start of the aucti o n will harm them becau s e they have eng age d in ex tens i v e prepar a t i o n s in relian c e on the curren t schedu l e. 13 Videohou s e ignor e s the disru p t iv e impac t that a stay pendi n g revie w would have on third parti e s. It simp ly asser t s that “the FCC will suff e r no harm from havin g the first phase of the aucti o n proce s s modest l y delaye d.” Mot. 19. But there                                                              13 See Brief Amici Curiae of Ellis Commun ica t i o n s KDOC Licensee et al., D.C. Cir. Nos. 16-1065 & 16-1069 (Ellis Amic us Brief), at 5-6 (a stay “would under mi n e ” broad c a s t e r s ’ “abil it y to keep their aucti o n teams toget h e r or to do so withou t incurr i n g consid e r a b l e expens e ”) ; Competi t i v e Carrier s Associa t i o n and CTIA—The Wireless Associat i o n ’ s Join t Response in Oppositio n to Petitio n e r s ’ Emergenc y Motion for Stay, D.C. Cir. Nos. 16-1065 & 16-1069 (CCA-CTIA Response), at 4 (a stay of the aucti o n “c ould advers e l y affect ” wirel e s s carri e r s ’ “time sensi t i v e busin e s s plans based on the curre n t sched u l e ” and “resu l t in waste d expen d i t u r e s ”); Consumer Technolo g y Asso ciatio n ’ s Amicus Statement, D.C. Cir. Nos. 16-1065 & 16-1069 (CTA Amicus Stateme n t), at 7 (delayi n g the aucti o n “woul d irrep a r a b l y harm CTA’s memb er s, w ho have inves t e d tens of milli o n s of dolla r s in prepa r i n g fo r a March 2016 auction ”). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 23 of 27 19   i s nothin g “mode s t ” about the delay Videoho u s e seeks. Oral argume n t in this case will not be held until May; and prepar a t i o n and issuan c e of a decisi o n may well take additi o n a l month s. Such a delay, on the eve of the auction ’ s co mmen c e m e n t, would have subst a n t i a l adve r s e conse q u e n c e s for third parti e s and for the publi c intere s t. Among other thing s, “a stay would exten d the quiet perio d that is now in effec t for both the rever s e and forwa r d aucti o n s, which limit s the types of discus s i o n s that would other w i s e take pl ace betw e e n and among broa d ca s t e r s and prospe c t i v e forwa r d aucti o n bidde r s.” Stay Denial Order ¶ 12 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2105(c)(1), 1.2205(b)). 14 A stay would thus have the effec t of placi n g busin e s s plans in a signif i c a n t seg me n t of the co mm uni c a t i o n s marketp l a c e on an exten d e d hold. That prospe c t weigh s decid e d l y again s t grant i n g a stay. There is also a comp el l i n g publi c need to condu c t the incen t i v e aucti o n with dispatch to acco mmo d ate the in creasing deman d for spect r u m-based servi c e s. With the proli f er a t i o n of smart p h o n e s, “the use of wirele s s networ k s in the United States is skyrock e t i n g,” an d our nation “faces a ma jor chal len g e to ensure that the speed, capaci t y, and access i b i l i t y of our wirele s s netwo r k s keeps pace with these deman d s                                                              14 See also Ellis Amicus Brief at 6 (the FCC’s quiet perio d rules place signi f i c a n t “cons t r a i n t s on all broad c a s t telev i s i o n li cen s e e s ”); CCA-CTIA Response at 9 (the quiet perio d rules could chill or preven t “crit i c a l busin e s s negot i a t i o n s for a signif i c a n t perio d of time” if th e incen t i v e aucti o n is delay e d). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 24 of 27 20   i n the year s ahead.” NAB, 789 F.3d at 169 (intern a l quot a t i o n mark s omit t e d). “Meeting this challe n g e is essent i a l to c onti n u i n g U.S. leaders h i p in techn o l o g i c a l innov a t i o n, growin g our ec on o my, and main t a i n i n g our global co mp et i t i v e n e s s.” NPRM ¶ 1. The incent i v e aucti o n will help meet this challe n g e by freein g up a substa n t i a l porti o n of the broadc a s t telev i s i o n spect r u m for reall o c a t i o n to wirel e s s netwo r k s. A stay of the aucti o n would serio u s l y imped e the Commissi o n ’ s effor t s to addre s s this criti c a l issue and there b y harm the pu bli c inter e s t. 15 In sum, becaus e “the harm to the public caused by a nation w i d e postp o n em e n t of the aucti o n would outwe i g h [any ] poss i b l e ha rm to” Videohou s e, Radiofone, 516 U.S. at 1301-02, the public intere s t weighs heavil y agains t a stay. CONCLUSION Videohou s e ’ s motio n for a stay pe ndi n g revie w should be denie d.                                                              15 See CTA Amicus Stateme n t at 6 (delayi n g the aucti o n, “even tempo r a r i l y, will postp o n e [wire l e s s carri e r s ’ ] acces s ” to much-needed new spect r u m, “stifl i n g econo mi c progr e s s and threa t e n i n g the count r y ’ s statu s as a leader in wirele s s techn o l o g y ”); CCA-CTIA Response at 7 (“a stay” of the auctio n “woul d pose signif i c a n t l y sever e conse q u e n c e s for wi rele s s consu m e r s ’ abili t y to enjoy the mobil e offer i n g s they incre a s i n g l y deman d — o f f e r i n g s that are expecte d to require far more exten s i v e spect r u m resou r c e s as carri e r s evolv e towar d offer i n g next- genera t i o n techn o l o g i e s ”). USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 25 of 27 21   Respectf u l l y submi t t e d, Jonath an B. Sallet General Counsel David M. Gossett Deputy General Counsel William J. Baer Jacob M. Lewis Assistan t Attorney General Associate General Counsel Robert B. Nicholson Robert J. Wiggers /s/James M. Carr Attorneys James M. Carr U.S. Departme n t of Justice Federal Communic a t i o n s Commissi o n 950 Pennsylv a n i a Ave., N.W. Washingto n, D.C. 20554 Washingto n, D.C. 20530 (202) 418-1740 March 8, 2016 USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 26 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT The Videohouse, Inc., et al., ) Petition e r s, ) ) v. ) Nos. 16-1060 & ) 16-1071 Federal Communi c a t i o n s Commiss i o n ) and United States of America, ) Responde n t s. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Carr, hereby certi f y that on March 8, 2016, I electr o n i c a l l y filed the foreg o in g Respond e n t s ’ Opposit io n to Motion for Stay Pending Review with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by using the CM/ECF system. Particip a n t s in the case who ar e registe r e d CM/ECF users will be serve d by the CM/ECF system. Thomas R. McCarthy William S. Consovoy J. Michael Connolly CONSOVOY MCCARTHY, PLLC 3033 Wilson Bouleva r d Suite 700 Arlingto n, VA 22201 Counsel for: Petitioners K r i s t e n C. Limarzi Robert B. Nicholson Robert J. Wiggers U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylv a n i a Avenue, NW Washingto n, DC 20530 Counsel for: USA David S. Wachen HCH LEGAL, LLC 6400 Goldsbor o Road, Suite 215 Bethesda, MD 20817 Counsel for: Latina Broadcasters of Daytona Beach, LLC Shelley Sadowsky, Esq. SHELLEY SADOWSKY , LLC 5938 Dorchest e r Way Rockvill e, MD 20852 Counsel for: LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition /s/ James M. Carr USCA Case #16-1060 Document #1602920 Filed: 03/08/2016 Page 27 of 27