Before the
               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                        )
                                   )
Motions for Declaratory Rulings              )
Regarding Commission Rules and Policies      )
for Frequency Coordination in the            )
Private Land Mobile Radio Services                )

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


     Adopted:  July 2, 1999                       Released:  July 7, 1999

By the Commission:

                         I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.  On January 4, 1994, Merrill T. See filed an Application for Review (Application) which seeks
review of the former Private Radio Bureau's (Bureau's) denial of three motions for declaratory rulings
(Motions) that Mr. See filed with the Commission in March 1993.  The Bureau denied the Motions in
August 1993 (Bureau Letter).  In response to the Bureau Letter, Mr. See filed Petitions for Reconsideration
(Petitions), which the Bureau denied in November 1993 (Bureau Order).  For the reasons discussed below,
we deny the Application for Review.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.  PR Docket No. 83-737.  Frequency coordination for new private land mobile radio (PLMR)
systems involves selecting a frequency that will most effectively meet the applicant's needs while
minimizing interference to licensees already using a given frequency band.  Prior to the Commission's
actions in PR Docket No. 83-737, PLMR frequency coordination involved frequency recommendations
obtained either through advisory committees that were voluntarily formed by interested parties, or through
"field studies" submitted to the Commission by an applicant in support of a particular frequency selection. 
In 1982, Congress recognized the value of the frequency advisory committees and specifically authorized
the Commission to continue using their services.  Congress also encouraged the Commission to develop
appropriate mechanisms to monitor the committees.  In this connection, the Commission opened an inquiry
in 1983, under PR Docket No. 83-737, to review the coordination process.  In 1984 the Commission
proposed to certify a single coordinator per radio service and to eliminate field studies as an alternative
method of PLMR coordination.  Subsequently, in its 1986 Report, the Commission certified one
coordinating committee for each of the various PLMR services or categories of services and eliminated the
field study option of coordination.  The Commission terminated PR Docket No. 83-737, later in 1986, after
ruling on the petitions for reconsideration that were filed.  No party sought judicial review of the 1986
Frequency Coordination Decision and these actions became final, and therefore no longer subject to judicial
or administrative review in early 1987.

     3.  The Motions.  The Motions, which were addressed to the Commission's Managing Director,
sought declaratory rulings from the Commission's Office of General Counsel (General Counsel) related to
the 1986 Coordination Decision and can be summarized as follows:  Did the Commission exceed its
statutory authority by   (1) delegating frequency coordination responsibilities to certified "coordinators"
instead of "committees" under Section 90.175 of the Commission's Rules; (2) not requiring these
committees to be the most representative of the users of each radio service; (3) eliminating the field study
coordination option; and/or (4) requiring applicants for frequencies in the 25-30 MHz band to submit
applications to certified coordinators?  The Motions also made allegations concerning ethics-related
conspiracies in the creation and enforcement of PR Docket No. 83-737 and sought a ruling as to possible
violations of the United States civil rights laws in connection with the theory that the Commission had
exceeded its authority.

     4.  Bureau Letter.  The Commission's General Counsel referred the Motions to the Bureau.  The
Bureau subsequently denied the Motions by correspondence dated August 2, 1993.  The Bureau noted that
it was unpersuaded by Mr. See's attempts to differentiate between "committees" and "coordinators" stating,
"[t]he fact that a frequency coordinator may not formally title itself a "committee" would not in our view
disqualify an entity from being a frequency coordinator."  The Bureau also noted that in accordance with
Section 332, the certified coordinators were representative of the end users of the applicable radio service. 
The Bureau likewise rejected Mr. See's claim that the Commission had exceeded its statutory authority either
by eliminating the field study option or by requiring coordination for PLMR applications below 30 MHz. 
Turning to Mr. See's ethics-related allegations, the Bureau referred Mr. See to several earlier responses to
these allegations issued to him by the General Counsel. 

     5.  Petitions for Reconsideration.  Mr. See filed Petitions for Reconsideration of the Bureau Letter. 
Along with the "statutory authority questions," Mr. See again raised allegations about various improprieties
on the part of certain government officials regarding the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision.  In
addition, he questioned the authority of the Commission's General Counsel to refer his Motions to the Bureau
as well as the Bureau's authority to act on them.  Finally, citing Section 1.106(a)(2) of the Commission
Rules, Mr. See also requested for the first time that an administrative hearing be held to develop a record
of the Commission's frequency coordination policy prior to 1986 and how subsequent proceedings have
represented a departure from this policy.

     6.  Bureau Order.  The Bureau concluded that the Petitions did not warrant reconsideration by either
the General Counsel or the Private Radio Bureau.  The Bureau first noted that, pursuant to Sections 0.131
and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, the Bureau had been delegated the authority to administer frequency
coordination policies and procedures, including oversight of coordinator actions and practices. 
Consequently, the Bureau found that it was appropriate for the General Counsel to refer Mr. See's Motions
to the Bureau.  The Bureau also concluded that Mr. See had presented no new facts, but had merely repeated
his previous allegations concerning both the Commission's statutory authority to issue those frequency
coordination procedures adopted in 1986 and the conduct of various Commission personnel.  The Bureau
also noted that Mr. See's concerns had been addressed on numerous occasions by both the General Counsel
and the Bureau and had been found to be without merit.  As a result, the Bureau concluded that the public
interest did not require further consideration of these matters.  Moreover, the Bureau also observed that Mr.
See's concerns largely related to the frequency coordination procedures adopted in the 1986 Report, which
the Commission had already reconsidered and upheld.  

     7.  In addition, the Bureau rejected Mr. See's request under Section 1.106(a)(2) of the rules to certify
to the Commission the question as to whether, based on policy in effect at the time of, or adopted since the
designation and undisputed facts, a hearing should be held concerning frequency coordination policies.  The
Bureau concluded that the public interest did not merit such action and that Section 1.106(a)(2) was
inapplicable because it applies only to cases in hearing.  The Bureau also concluded in sum that grant of
the Petitions for Reconsideration would not be in the public interest because Mr. See had presented no new
evidence or arguments meriting reconsideration of his Motions, and did not meet the procedural requirements
of Section 1.106(a)(2).

     8.   Application for Review.  On January 4, 1994, Mr. See filed the instant Application for Review 
(Application) that consists largely of unclear and unsupported allegations, some of which were not raised
below, seeking reversal of the Bureau Order.  The Application appears to adopt by reference the claims made
in the Motions that the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision exceeded the Commission's statutory
authority.  The Application also repeats allegations made below concerning various ethics-related
improprieties on the part of certain government officials.  Specifically, Mr. See contends the actions of
certain officials since 1982 constitute misprision, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent representation, and
misprision of felony.  In addition, Mr. See challenges the Bureau's decision to deny Mr. See's request to
certify to the Commission, pursuant to Section 1.106(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules, the question as to
whether a hearing should be held regarding the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision.  According to Mr.
See, the Bureau erroneously or deceitfully concluded that the scope of Section 1.106(a)(2) is limited to
matters that have been designated for hearing.  Additionally, Mr. See avers that the Bureau did not have
delegated authority under Section 0.331(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules to act on the Motions and the
Petitions.  Finally, the Application also makes general allegations that the Commission withheld documents
from Mr. See in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.  

                        III. DISCUSSION

     9.  Any person aggrieved by any action taken pursuant to delegated authority may file an application
requesting review of that action by the Commission.  The Commission may grant the application for review
in whole or in part, or it may deny the application with or without specifying reasons therefor.  The filing
of an application for review is a condition precedent to judicial review of any action taken pursuant to
delegated authority and such applications must be filed within 30 days of public notice of the action taken
on delegated authority for which Commission review is sought.  

     10.  In this case, the Bureau Order was released on November 30, 1993, and the last day to file for
Commission review was December 30, 1993.  Before the deadline, however, Mr. See filed a "Motion for
Extension of Time in which to File an Application for Review" (Motion for Extension).  As there are no
other parties to this proceeding, or otherwise, whose rights could be prejudiced, we now grant the Motion
for Extension.  Thus, we will consider the Application. 

     11.  Decision.  As the Bureau observed, the Motions and Petitions that Mr. See filed in 1993 largely
concerned the coordination procedures adopted by the Commission in the 1986 Report, which the
Commission had already reconsidered and upheld in the 1986 Reconsideration.  Mr. See again appears to
challenge the coordination procedures in his Application by adopting by reference the arguments he formerly
raised in his Motions and Petitions for Reconsideration.  Specifically, Mr. See questions the Commission's
decision in PR Docket No. 83-737 to require that applicants in the private land mobile services use the
services of certified coordinators.  Thus, the Motions, Petitions, and the Application, are in effect untimely
petitions for reconsideration of the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision.  As the Bureau properly noted
in the Bureau Order, the filing of petitions for reconsideration of Commission actions in rulemaking
proceedings is governed by Section 1.429 of the Commission's Rules.  Section 1.429(d) requires a petition
for reconsideration to "be filed within 30 days from the date of public notice of such action."  Here, Mr.
See did not challenge the 1986 Report or the 1986 Reconsideration until several years after the dates of
public notice of these actions.  Thus, to the extent the Motions, Petitions for Reconsideration, and the
instant Application directly challenge the Commission's 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision, they will
be considered untimely petitions for reconsideration of the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision and, as
such, the Application must be denied.  Moreover, as the Commission has previously held, indirect challenges
to Commission decisions that were adopted in proceedings in which the right to review has expired are
considered impermissible collateral attacks and are properly denied. 

     12.  We also note that the Commission has broad discretion in deciding whether to issue declaratory
rulings, which is designed to be exercised to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty.  In view of the
Commission's final actions in PR Docket No. 83-737, we believe that the record before us would not warrant
the issuance of the declaratory rulings sought by Mr. See, and that it was well within the Bureau's delegated
authority to address the Motions and Petitions, which contained no new or novel arguments not previously
considered by the Commission.  Moreover, our decision affirming the Bureau Order effectively moots Mr.
See's delegated authority argument.  We also agree with the Bureau that Mr. See's concerns regarding the
conduct of various Commission personnel are both without merit and were adequately and properly
addressed on numerous occasions by the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Inspector General, and
the Bureau.  As to Mr. See's request for certification under Section 1.106(a)(2), we note that the Bureau's
denial was not an appealable action.  Finally, after reviewing the record, we find no basis for disturbing any
FOIA determination made below in response to Mr. See's FOIA requests.  In sum, read most favorably, the
Application essentially restates the assertions raised in the Motions and Petitions.  These assertions were
thoroughly addressed in earlier Commission correspondence including the Bureau Letter and Bureau Order. 
As such, we find no error below and affirm the Bureau Order. 

                     IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     13.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 5(c)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 155(c)(5), and Section 1.115(g) of
the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115(g), that the Application for Review filed by Merrill T. See on
January 4, 1994, IS DENIED.

     14.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time in which to File an
Application for Review filed by Merrill T. See in the above-captioned proceeding on December 22, 1993,
IS GRANTED IN PART, to the extent indicated above.  

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary