of the Licenses; revocation is made explicit in a filing before the bankruptcy court (which filing is not itself an order) and is implicit in the Public Notice announcing the re-auction of the Licenses previously held by NextWave. Nevertheless, as this Court's prior opinion makes clear, we think that the FCC action in question is unmistakably regulatory in nature. But even if the FCC’s acts do not amount to "decisions” or "orders” of the Commission, subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, that would not expose the FCC's acts to review in the bankruptcy court. A regulatory action short of a decision or order is an exercise of regulatory discretion that is not subject to review. See Bethesda-Chevy Chase Broadcasters, Inc. v. FCC, 385 F.2d 967, 968 (D.C.Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Telecommunications Research &
holding allegation made in enforcement suit does not impose the kind of legal obligation with which the finality doctrine is concerned holding that obligation to pay pension benefits gave rise to a constructive trust relationship and obligation was not discharged in bankruptcy holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation holding that a regulatory action that did not impose an obligation deny a right or fix a legal relationship was not reviewable holding erroneous exclusion of hearsay did not deny defendant a substantial right