FCC must be filed “within 60 days after its entry.” 28 U.S.C. § 2344 (2000); see also 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). In this case, the petition for review was filed within 60 days of the Clarification but not within 60 days of the Supplemental Order. Respondent argues that it is timely only as to claims that arose from the Clarification, not as to ones essentially aimed at the Supplemental Order. But the Clarification radically changed the Supplemental Order in a way we have not yet mentioned. In the Supplemental Order the Commission said that it would issue a final decision on the EELs restriction in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”), which notice “will occur on or before June 30, 2000.” Supplemental Order, 15 FCC Red 1760 at Comm’n, 720 F.2d 958, 961 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Here the initial order appeared to present
holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial holding that the petitioner could demonstrate its constitutional standing for the first time on judicial review of an order of the land use board of appeals because the need to do so first arose when the petitioner sought to invoke the courts jurisdiction on judicial review holding that a temporary order with no fixed time period had lasted so long as to make judicial review timely holding that under the apa exhaustion is a prerequisite to judicial review when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review so long as the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review holding party must make timely and specific objection at trial to preserve issue for appellate review