WPCo^ 2MB;RKZ3|a  S'#&a\  P6G;u&P#"i~'^+2RII{222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII22RRRIjajja[rr8Irajr[rjRajjjja2)2UI2IRARA2IR)2R){RIRRA82RIjIIA; ;L2&LU222&222222I2R)jIjIjIjIjIjjAaAaAaAaA6)6)6)6)jRrIrIrIrIjRjRjRjRjIjIjRqIrIjIjIYRjIjIjIjAjAjLjAjmaAaAaAaArIrIrIrLrIrRrU8)8R828RwRLLrRa)aBa2a;a)jRjjRjRrIrIjjAjAjAR8R8R8RLaKa2aUjRjRjRjRjRjRjjLaAaAaAjRa2jRR8a2jIk&II1(1WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5NI2IIIIII,2ooI,2mmIo,22III22XIIXo5XX5\xxRR2II{,"aaaaooIoXWOIRXXIHP LaserJet 5Si 4-C342HPLAS5SI.PRSX\  P6G;\&,eP2];KX S'#&a\  P6G;u&P#"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>jajja[rr8Irajr[rjRajjjjaI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\`y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&PuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN;i><?Footnote9Íčfootnote tex#:'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#header;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#2FF=~@>i0B?^C@ODitemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#2LA xFBGKFHKJCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\2:VKMKYOKQKS"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"" {O@, wԍSee, e.g., Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, PR Docket No. 88-548, Notice  {O ,of Proposed Rule Making, 4 FCC Rcd 6325 (1989) ("1989 Notice").  wIn 1982, Congress recognized the value of the frequency advisory committees and specifically authorized  S, wthe Commission to continue using their services.$> yOL, wԍThe Communications Amendments Act of 1982, P.L. 97-259, 96 Stat. 1087, September 13, 1982. Section 331 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, is codified at 47 U.S.C.  332. Congress also encouraged the Commission to develop  S`, wYappropriate mechanisms to monitor the committees.`|> {O| , w"ԍSee Conference Report No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2nd Sess., August 19, 1982, at 53, reprinted in 1982 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2237. In this connection, the Commission opened an  S8, winquiry in 1983, under PR Docket No. 83737, to review the coordination process. 8> {O , w\ԍ1989 Notice, 4 FCC Rcd at 632526 citing Notice of Inquiry, PR Docket No. 83-737, 48 Fed.Reg. 35149 (August 3, 1983). In 1984 the  wCommission proposed to certify a single coordinator per radio service and to eliminate field studies as an  S, walternative method of PLMR coordination. 0 > {O,ԍSee PR Docket No. 83737, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 49 Fed. Reg. 45454 (Nov. 16, 1984). Subsequently, in its 1986 Report, the Commission certified  w\one coordinating committee for each of the various PLMR services or categories of services and  S, weliminated the field study option of coordination.  > {O, wԍSee 1986 Report, 103 FCC 2d at 1125-26. Certain applications were exempted from the frequency  {O,coordination requirement. See 47 C.F.R.  90.175 (1986). The Commission terminated PR Docket No. 83737,  Sr, wKlater in 1986, after ruling on the petitions for reconsideration that were filed. r> {O0, wԍSee 1986 Reconsideration, 61 RR 2d 148, para. 23 (1986). Mr. See did not petition for reconsideration of  {O,the 1986 Report. No party sought judicial  SJ , wKreview of the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision and these actions became final, and therefore no  S$ ,longer subject to judicial or administrative review in early 1987.Z $ z> {O>,ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.427, 1.429. Z  S ,  3. The Motions. The Motions, which were addressed to the Commission's Managing Director, > {O,ԍSee, e.g., Motion for a Declaratory Ruling filed by Merrill T. See on March 15, 1993, supra, note MOTIONS2.  wlsought declaratory rulings from the Commission's Office of General Counsel (General Counsel) related  S , wVto the 1986 Coordination Decision and can be summarized as follows: Did the Commission exceed its  wstatutory authority by " (1) delegating frequency coordination responsibilities to certified "coordinators"  S8, winstead of "committees" under Section 90.175 of the Commission's Rules;G8> yOv$,ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.175 (1987). G (2) not requiring these  wcommittees to be the most representative of the users of each radio service; (3) eliminating the field study  wcoordination option; and/or (4) requiring applicants for frequencies in the 2530 MHz band to submit  S, wdapplications to certified coordinators? The Motions also made allegations concerning ethicsrelated".,`(`(88"  wconspiracies in the creation and enforcement of PR Docket No. 83737 and sought a ruling as to possible  wviolations of the United States civil rights laws in connection with the theory that the Commission had exceeded its authority.  S`,  4. Bureau Letter. The Commission's General Counsel referred the Motions to the Bureau. The  S:, wBureau subsequently denied the Motions by correspondence dated August 2, 1993.H:> {O,ԍSee Bureau Letter. H The Bureau noted  wthat it was unpersuaded by Mr. See's attempts to differentiate between "committees" and "coordinators"  wstating, "[t]he fact that a frequency coordinator may not formally title itself a "committee" would not in  S, wgour view disqualify an entity from being a frequency coordinator."_Z> {O ,ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id. at 1. _ The Bureau also noted that in  waccordance with Section 332, the certified coordinators were representative of the end users of the  wapplicable radio service. The Bureau likewise rejected Mr. See's claim that the Commission had exceeded  wits statutory authority either by eliminating the field study option or by requiring coordination for PLMR  wapplications below 30 MHz. Turning to Mr. See's ethicsrelated allegations, the Bureau referred Mr. See  S ,to several earlier responses to these allegations issued to him by the General Counsel. B > {O, wԍId. at 2 citing Letter from Susan H. Steiman, Deputy Associate General Counsel, to Merrill T. See (June 21,  w1989) (indicating that it would be inappropriate for the Commission to issue an advisory opinion concerning the  w\scope and applicability of the federal civil rights laws); Letter from Susan H. Steiman, Deputy Associate General  wCounsel, to Merrill T. See (November 2, 1988) (responding to Mr. See's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request  wfor materials related to the certified frequency coordinator concept by providing responsive records and withholding  w%others, in whole or in part, under Exemption 5 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C.  552(b)(5)); Letter from Diane S. Killory,  wFCC General Counsel, to Merrill T. See (December 7, 1987) (finding Mr. See's allegations of collusion between unidentified Commission employees and private individuals were unsubstantiated).   S ,  35. Petitions for Reconsideration. Mr. See filed Petitions for Reconsideration of the Bureau  S , wLetter.Z > yO, wԍPetition for Reconsideration of Motion for Declaratory Ruling filed by Merrill T. See on August 24, 1993.  {O, wAnother Petition for Reconsideration related to the Motions was filed by Mr. See on September 23, 1993. See Petition for Reconsideration of Motion for Declaratory Ruling filed by Merrill T. See on September 23, 1993. Along with the "statutory authority questions," Mr. See again raised allegations about various  S`, wimproprieties on the part of certain government officials regarding the 1986 Frequency Coordination  S:, wDecision.3:> {O,ԍId. 3 In addition, he questioned the authority of the Commission's General Counsel to refer his  S, wMotions to the Bureau as well as the Bureau's authority to act on them.3> {O^!,ԍId. 3 Finally, citing Section  S, w1.106(a)(2) of the Commission Rules,E<> yO#,ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.106(a)(2). E Mr. See also requested for the first time that an administrative  whearing be held to develop a record of the Commission's frequency coordination policy prior to 1986 and  S,how subsequent proceedings have represented a departure from this policy.j> {O ',ԍId.; see also Bureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8398. j"^,`(`(88"Ԍ S,  ԙ6. Bureau Order. The Bureau concluded that the Petitions did not warrant reconsideration by  S, wgeither the General Counsel or the Private Radio Bureau.P> {OB,ԍBureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8398. P The Bureau first noted that, pursuant to  S, wSections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules,RZ> yO,ԍ 47 C.F.R.  0.131, 0.331 (1993). R the Bureau had been delegated the authority to  wadminister frequency coordination policies and procedures, including oversight of coordinator actions and  wpractices. Consequently, the Bureau found that it was appropriate for the General Counsel to refer Mr.  wSee's Motions to the Bureau. The Bureau also concluded that Mr. See had presented no new facts, but  w=had merely repeated his previous allegations concerning both the Commission's statutory authority to issue  wthose frequency coordination procedures adopted in 1986 and the conduct of various Commission  S, wpersonnel.'&> {OL , wzԍSee Bureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8398 n.6 citing 47 C.F.R.  1.106(c) and (d) (petitions for reconsideration  wmust be based upon newly discovered evidence or upon errors of fact or law in the action for which reconsideration  {O , wis sought).  See also WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d  {O,824 (D.C.Cir.1965), cert. den. 383 U.S. 967 (1966). ' The Bureau also noted that Mr. See's concerns had been addressed on numerous occasions  S, wby both the General Counsel and the Bureau and had been found to be without merit.> {O, wԍBureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8398 citing GTE Mobilnet of Houston Limited Partnership, 8 FCC Rcd 2728 (1993). As a result, the  wHBureau concluded that the public interest did not require further consideration of these matters. Moreover,  wthe Bureau also observed that Mr. See's concerns largely related to the frequency coordination procedures  S" ,adopted in the 1986 Report, which the Commission had already reconsidered and upheld.T" 2 > {O,ԍBureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8398 n.7. T  S ,  j7. In addition, the Bureau rejected Mr. See's request under Section 1.106(a)(2) of the rules to  wcertify to the Commission the question as to whether, based on policy in effect at the time of, or adopted  wsince the designation and undisputed facts, a hearing should be held concerning frequency coordination  wQpolicies. The Bureau concluded that the public interest did not merit such action and that Section  S4, wK1.106(a)(2) was inapplicable because it applies only to cases in hearing.$4 > {O, wԍSee Bureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8398 citing Application of Cosmopolitan Enterprises, Inc., Memorandum  {Ob, wNOpinion and Order, 50 FCC 2d 308 (1974) ( 1.106(a)(2) empowers presiding Administrative Law Judge to certify  w\questions of policy to the Commission for immediate consideration if an appropriate showing has been made) and Applications of Gross Telecasting, Inc., 47 FCC 2d 349 (1974).  The Bureau also concluded in  wsum that grant of the Petitions for Reconsideration would not be in the public interest because Mr. See  S, whad presented no new evidence or arguments meriting reconsideration of his Motions, and did not meet the procedural requirements of Section 1.106(a)(2).  S,  Sn,  g8. Application for Review. On January 4, 1994, Mr. See filed the instant Application for Review  SF, w(Application) that consists largely of unclear and unsupported allegations, some of which were not raised  S , wabelow, seeking reversal of the Bureau Order. The Application appears to adopt by reference the claims  S, wmade in the Motions that the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision exceeded the Commission's statutory  S, w}authority. The Application also repeats allegations made below concerning various ethicsrelated  w5improprieties on the part of certain government officials. Specifically, Mr. See contends the actions of",`(`(88`"  wcertain officials since 1982 constitute misprision, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent representation, and  S, wmisprision of felony.> {O@, wԍApplication at 34  citing U.S. v. Perlstein, 126 F.2d 789, 798 (3d Cir. 1942). Misprision is a common law  wcrime involving the failure of a citizen to prevent the commission of a crime; or, having knowledge of its  {O, wzcommission, to reveal it to the proper authorities. State v. Biddle, 124 A. 804, 805 (Del. 1923). In U.S. v. Perlstein,  w the court noted that "misprision" is a word used to describe a misdemeanor which does not possess a specific name,  yOd, wand that "misprision of felony" is the concealment of felony without giving any degree of maintenance to the felon.  {O,,U.S. v. Perlstein, 126 F.2d at 798 citing 2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary 2225, Rawle's Third Rev. (8th Ed.).  In addition, Mr. See challenges the Bureau's decision to deny Mr. See's request  wto certify to the Commission, pursuant to Section 1.106(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules, the question as  S, wto whether a hearing should be held regarding the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision.AF> {On ,ԍApplication at 5. A According  wYto Mr. See, the Bureau erroneously or deceitfully concluded that the scope of Section 1.106(a)(2) is  S:, wlimited to matters that have been designated for hearing.S :> {O ,ԍSee Application at 58. S Additionally, Mr. See avers that the Bureau  S, wYdid not have delegated authority under Section 0.331(a)(4) of the Commission's RulesK!j > yO,ԍ47 C.F.R.  0.331(a)(4) (1993). K to act on the  S, wMotions and the Petitions.G" > {O,ԍSee Application at 12. G Finally, the Application also makes general allegations that the Commission  S,withheld documents from Mr. See in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.=# > {O,ԍSee id. at 9. =  St, III. DISCUSSION Đm  S$ ,  p9. Any person aggrieved by any action taken pursuant to delegated authority may file an  S , wrapplication requesting review of that action by the Commission.h$ > yO,ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  1.115(a). h The Commission may grant the  wapplication for review in whole or in part, or it may deny the application with or without specifying  S , w reasons therefor.h% > {O,ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.,  1.115(g).h The filing of an application for review is a condition precedent to judicial review of  S , wany action taken pursuant to delegated authorityh& @> {Od ,ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#Id.,  1.115(k).h and such applications must be filed within 30 days of  S\,public notice of the action taken on delegated authority for which Commission review is sought.'\> yO", wԍ47 C.F.R.  1.115(d). The various forms of public notice are defined in Section 1.4(b) of the Commission's  {O#,Rules. 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b). See also 47 C.F.R.  1.115(d) citing id.   S ,   10. In this case, the Bureau Order was released on November 30, 1993, and the last day to file  S, wfor Commission review was December 30, 1993. Before the deadline, however, Mr. See filed a "Motion",',`(`(880"  S, wfor Extension of Time in which to File an Application for Review" (Motion for Extension).(> yOh, wWԍMotion for Extension of Time in which to File an Application for Review filed by Merrill T. See on  {O0,December 22, 1993 ("Motion for Extension"). As there  S, waare no other parties to this proceeding, or otherwise, whose rights could be prejudiced, we now grant the  S,Motion for Extension. Thus, we will consider the Application.  Sd,   11. Decision. As the Bureau observed, the Motions and Petitions that Mr. See filed in 1993  S>, wlargely concerned the coordination procedures adopted by the Commission in the 1986 Report, which the  S, wlCommission had already reconsidered and upheld in the 1986 Reconsideration.)"> {O ,ԍ See supra note  19865 . See also Bureau Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 8398 n. 7. Mr. See again appears  S, wto challenge the coordination procedures in his Application by adopting by reference the arguments he  S, wlformerly raised in his Motions and Petitions for Reconsideration.K*> {O ,ԍSee Application at 2. K Specifically, Mr. See questions the  wCommission's decision in PR Docket No. 83737 to require that applicants in the private land mobile  S~, wHservices use the services of certified coordinators.+~F> {Od,ԍSee, e.g., Motion for a Declaratory Ruling filed by Merrill T. See on March 12, 1993, supra, note MOTIONS2. Thus, the Motions, Petitions, and the Application, are  SX , win effect untimely petitions for reconsideration of the 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision.,X > yO, wԍPetitions for reconsideration of the Commission's decisional orders in PR Docket No. 83737 were addressable  {O, wonly to the full Commission, see 47 C.F.R.  1.44, 1.106(a)(1), and the filing deadlines passed well before the filing  {Ob, wof the Motions and Petitions for Reconsideration in 1993. See 47 C.F.R.  1.429(d); accord Brown v. FCC 888 F.2d  {O,, w898, 899 (1989) (notes that 1986 Frequency Coordination Decision could not be challenged because judicial review was not sought).  As the  S2 , wBureau properly noted in the Bureau Order, the filing of petitions for reconsideration of Commission  S , wactions in rulemaking proceedings is governed by Section 1.429 of the Commission's Rules.>- > yO:,ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.429. > Section  w1.429(d) requires a petition for reconsideration to "be filed within 30 days from the date of public notice  S , wof such action."B. > yOz,ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.429(d). B Here, Mr. See did not challenge the 1986 Report or the 1986 Reconsideration until  S , wseveral years after the dates of public notice of these actions. /& > yO, w;ԍFor rulemaking documents, including summaries thereof, the date of public notice is the date of publication  {O, win the Federal Register. See 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(1). Public notice of the 1986 Report occurred on April 22, 1986,  {Ov , wsee 51 Fed. Reg. 14993 (April 22, 1986); public notice of the 1986 Reconsideration occurred on October 8, 1986,  {O@!,see 51 Fed. Reg. 36013 (Oct. 8, 1986).  Thus, to the extent the Motions, Petitions  Sp, w for Reconsideration, and the instant Application directly challenge the Commission's 1986 Frequency  SJ, w Coordination Decision, they will be considered untimely petitions for reconsideration of the 1986  S$, wFrequency Coordination Decision and, as such, the Application must be denied. Moreover, as the  w Commission has previously held, indirect challenges to Commission decisions that were adopted in"/,`(`(88"  S, wVproceedings in which the right to review has expired are considered impermissible collateral attacks and  S,are properly denied.0^> {O@, wԍSee e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co., Memorandum Opinion  {O , wand Order, 5 FCC Rcd 216, para. 41, n.38 (1990), recon. denied, 5 FCC Rcd 3463 (1990), appeal dismissed sub  {O,nom. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co. v. FCC, 951 F.2d 1259 (10th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).   S,   12. We also note that the Commission has broad discretion in deciding whether to issue  S`, wdeclaratory rulings, which is designed to be exercised to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty._1`> {O,ԍSee 5 U.S.C.  554(e) and 47 C.F.R.  1.2. _  S8, wIn view of the Commission's final actions in PR Docket No. 83737, we believe that the record before  wus would not warrant the issuance of the declaratory rulings sought by Mr. See, and that it was well within  S, wthe Bureau's delegated authority to address the Motions and Petitions, which contained no new or novel  S, warguments not previously considered by the Commission.2> {O , wԍ See 47 C.F.R.  0.331(a)(4) (1993). Section 0.331 also required the Bureau to refer to the Commission petitions and requests presenting facts or arguments which appear to justify a change in Commission policy.  Moreover, our decision affirming the Bureau  S, wOrder effectively moots Mr. See's delegated authority argument.3~> {O, w ԍSee, e.g., Beehive Telephone, Inc. v. Bell Operating Cos., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd  w17,930, 17,93839 (1997) (delegated authority rules are a matter between Commission and its staff and do not give  w private parties rights; Commission decision affirming staff decision effectively moots delegated authority argument).  w;Regarding any outstanding allegation that Mr. See was aggrieved because the Office of General Counsel did not  {O8, waddress his Motions as requested, we note that such allegation fails to address the Office of General Counsel's  {O, wprevious review of Mr. See's concerns by correspondence prior to 1993. See, e.g., infra, note LETTERS52. Moreover, we find the Office of General Counsel's referral of the matter to the Bureau proper in this instance.  We also agree with the Bureau that  wMr. See's concerns regarding the conduct of various Commission personnel are both without merit and  SN , w5were adequately and properly addressed on numerous occasions by the Office of General Counsel,4N > {O, wԍSee, e.g., Letter from Diane S. Killory, FCC General Counsel, to Merrill T. See (December 7, 1987) (finding  wthat Mr. See's allegations of collusion between unidentified Commission employees and private individuals were  w;unsubstantiated); Letter from Diane S. Killory, General Counsel, to Merrill T. See (August 29, 1988) (concluding  w}that applicants do not have a statutory right to coordinate by field studies); Letter from Susan H. Steiman, Deputy  wAssociate General Counsel, to Merrill T. See (November 2, 1988) (responding to Mr. See's Freedom of Information  wAct (FOIA) request for materials related to the certified frequency coordinator concept by providing responsive  wrecords and withholding others, in whole or in part, under Exemption 5 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C.  552(b)(5)); and  wLetter from Susan H. Steiman, Deputy Associate General Counsel, to Merrill T. See (June 21, 1989) indicating that  wit would be inappropriate for the Commission to issue an advisory opinion concerning the scope and applicability of the federal civil rights laws).  LETTERS  the  S& , wOffice of Inspector General,5 & > yO", wԍ The Office of the Inspector General is responsible for implementing the intent of the Inspector General Acts  wof 1978 and 1988. In September 1990, the Commission Inspector General (IG) conducted a survey audit of the  wYCommission's frequency coordination program. As part of the survey audit, the IG reviewed records requested from the two largest coordinators. The IG set forth the results of his survey audit in a report dated January 29, 1991.  and the Bureau. As to Mr. See's request for certification under Section  S , w1.106(a)(2), we note that the Bureau's denial was not an appealable action.6 > {O@',ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.106(a)(2) (no appeal may be filed from an order denying a request for certification). Finally, after reviewing the" 46,`(`(88! "  w-record, we find no basis for disturbing any FOIA determination made below in response to Mr. See's  S, w FOIA requests.97&> yO@, wԍWe also note that the Commission has previously denied two applications for review filed by Mr. See in  {O, wconnection with FOIA determinations made under delegated authority. See Merrill T. See On Request for Inspection  {O, wof Records, FOIA Control No. 8736, Order, 2 FCC Rcd 4489 (1987); Merrill T. See On Request for Inspection of  {O,Records, FOIA Control No. 91163, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 2756 (1993). 9 In sum, read most favorably, the Application essentially restates the assertions raised  S, wrin the Motions and Petitions. These assertions were thoroughly addressed in earlier Commission  S, wcorrespondence including the Bureau Letter and Bureau Order. As such, we find no error below and  Sf,affirm the Bureau Order.  S,aw IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Đm  S,  + 13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 5(c)(5) of the  wCommunications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 154(j), 155(c)(5), and Section 1.115(g)  wwof 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.  S ,  m 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time in which to File an  wApplication for Review filed by Merrill T. See in the abovecaptioned proceeding on December 22, 1993, IS GRANTED IN PART, to the extent indicated above. ` `  Ghh~FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  Ghh~Magalie Roman Salas ` ` Ghh~Secretary