Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01255/USCOURTS-caDC-97-01255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Electronic Engineering Company
Appellant
Federal Communications Commission
Appellee
PageMart II, Inc.
Intervenor
Personal Communications Industry Association
Intervenor

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 2, 1998 Decided April 14, 

1998

No. 97-1255

Electronic Engineering Company,

Appellant

v.

Federal Communications Commission,

Appellee

PageMart II, Inc. and

Personal Communications Industry Association,

Intervenors

Appeal of an Order of the

Federal Communications Commission

Timothy E. Welch argued the cause and filed the briefs for

appellant.

Roberta L. Cook, Counsel, Federal Communications Commission, argued the cause for appellee, with whom ChristoUSCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 1 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

pher J. Wright, General Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong,

Associate General Counsel, were on the brief. John E. Ingle,

Deputy Associate General Counsel, entered an appearance.

David E. Weisman and Alan S. Tilles were on the brief for

intervenor Personal Communications Industry Association,

Ltd.

Before: Sentelle, Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Sentelle.

Sentelle, Circuit Judge: Electronic Engineering Company ("EEC") appeals a decision of the Federal Communications Commission allowing PageMart II, Inc. ("PageMart") to

use private paging frequency 929.7625 MHz on an exclusive

nationwide basis. EEC argues that the Commission should

have dismissed PageMart's applications because the Personal

Communication Industry Association ("PCIA"), the frequency

coordinator for 900 MHz paging frequencies, unlawfully altered the frequency requested in PageMart's applications and

submitted the amended applications to the Commission without obtaining additional signatures from PageMart. The

Commission, interpreting its own rules, determined that frequency coordinators have the authority to alter a frequency

request on an application before filing it with the Commission,

provided that they act with the consent of the applicant.

Because we conclude that the Commission's interpretation

was neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the rules,

we affirm.

I.

An applicant seeking to provide private land mobile radio

services must obtain a frequency recommendation from a

private organization known as a "frequency coordinator." A

frequency coordinator, as defined by the FCC's rules governing private land mobile radio services, is simply an "entity or

organization that has been certified by the Commission to

recommend frequencies for use by licensees...." 47 C.F.R.

s 90.7 (1994). Frequency coordinators were formed decades

ago in response to FCC rules requiring that channels be used

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 2 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

on a shared basis, and requiring that users and applicants

cooperate in the selection and use of the frequencies to

minimize interference. See In re Frequency Coordination in

the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, 103 F.C.C.2d 1093,

1095 (1986) ("Report and Order"). To facilitate this process,

interested parties organized frequency coordinating committees, which were comprised of entities using their services so

that the recommendations would be both knowledgeable and

impartial. Id.

The FCC formally recognized the role that frequency coordinators play in the selection process in 1958. The Commission first adopted rules simply providing that applicants could

obtain frequency recommendations from these committees,

and that the Commission would consider their recommendations when making assignment decisions. In re Amendment

of Part 11, Rules Governing the Industrial Radio Services,

To Delete, Modify and Create Services and To Effect Changes

in the Availability of Frequencies, First Report and Order,

23 Fed. Reg. 4784 (1958). In 1969, the Commission issued a

Memorandum Opinion and Order that further clarified the

role of frequency coordinators. The order makes clear,

among other things, that a frequency coordinator must not

discriminate between members and non-members, and that a

coordinator's recommendation is not binding on either the

applicant or the Commission. In re Amendment of Section

91.8(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Commission's Rules Relating to

Frequency Coordination in the Industrial Radio Service, 16

F.C.C.2d 299, 305-06 (1969).

In 1982, Congress amended the Communications Act and

affirmed the FCC's authority to use frequency coordinators in

the spectrum management process. 47 U.S.C. s 332(b)(1).

The Commission subsequently revised its rules to improve

the quality and efficiency of frequency selections. The

amended rules provide that all applicants for private land

mobile licenses that require frequency coordination must send

their applications to the certified frequency coordinator. 47

C.F.R. ss 1.912(b), 90.127(a). The coordinator is then required to perform appropriate coordination services. Id.

The rules make clear that each application for frequencies in

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 3 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

the 929-930 MHz band, the band at issue in this case, must

include a "statement from the coordinator recommending the

most appropriate frequency." 47 C.F.R. s 90.175(c). The

frequency coordinator then forwards the application along

with the frequency recommendation to the Commission for

evaluation and decision. 47 C.F.R. ss 1.912(b), 90.127(a).

The Report and Order that announced the new rules

further elaborated upon the frequency coordination process.

An applicant must send its completed application to the

certified frequency coordinator (a single coordinator is certified for each service), rather than to the Commission. 103

F.C.C.2d at 1100, 1104-05. When submitting materials, the

applicant can either request a particular frequency, or leave

the selection of the frequency entirely to the coordinator. Id.

at 1096-97, 1147. An applicant that requests a particular

frequency must submit a technical justification for that frequency along with the application. Id. at 1147. Upon receiving the applications, the frequency coordinator is required to

process the submissions in the order of receipt. Id. at 1104,

1119. The coordinator checks each application for "completeness, accuracy, and compliance with the Commission's rules."

Id. at 1100. If the coordinator encounters an application that

is incomplete or contains minor errors, the coordinator is

authorized to make the necessary corrections with the applicant's approval. Id. at 1147. After reviewing the application,

the coordinator evaluates the channel availability and identifies the most suitable frequency for that particular applicant.

Id. at 1100, 1119. The coordinator then files the application,

along with the frequency recommendation, directly with the

Commission. Id. at 1100, 1104-05. If the coordinator disagrees with the frequency requested by the applicant, and if

the applicant disapproves of the coordinator's recommendation, the coordinator must submit the application, the technical submission, the coordinator's written reasons for rejection,

and the alternate frequency recommendation to the Commission. Id. at 1147-48.

All private paging systems were assigned on a shared basis

until 1993, when the Commission amended its rules governing

the 929-930 MHz band to grant channel exclusivity to qualiUSCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 4 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

fied local, regional, and national paging systems.1 Under the

amended rules, incumbent systems had the first chance to

obtain exclusivity rights. Incumbents were allowed thirty

days from the date of the order to submit a request for

exclusivity to PCIA (formerly known as the National Association of Business and Educational Radio, Inc., or "NABER"),

the frequency coordinator for the 900 MHz private paging

systems. Upon receipt of the requests, PCIA was required

to review the submissions and then forward requests that

satisfied the exclusivity criteria to the Commission for review

and approval. Incumbent systems that satisfied the criteria

would have exclusivity rights with respect to their existing

authorizations as of the effective date of the rules. After the

thirty-day transition period, PCIA would begin to process

applications for exclusive licenses on a first-come, first-served

basis, regardless of whether the applicant was an incumbent

or a new entrant. However, all incumbents, regardless of

whether they qualified for exclusivity, would be grandfathered with respect to their existing systems, so that no

incumbent would have to relocate, change frequencies, or

otherwise curtail previously authorized construction or operations.

On February 21, 1994, after the transition period had

expired, PageMart submitted applications to PCIA for over

three hundred sites, a sufficient number to qualify for an

exclusive nationwide paging system. PageMart specifically

requested to use frequency 929.4875 MHz. Over the next few

months, PageMart submitted additional applications, requesting a total of 429 sites on the 929.4875 MHz frequency. On

March 15, 1994, PCIA received PageMart's request for nationwide exclusivity on frequency 929.4875 MHz for the sites

__________

1 In re Amendment of the Commission's Rules To Provide

Channel Exclusivity To Qualified Private Paging Systems at 929-

930 MHz, 8 F.C.C.R. 8318 (1993). The Commission has recently

abandoned its exclusivity rules and implemented a new geographic

licensing system. In re Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the

Commission's Rules To Facilitate Future Development of Paging

Systems, 12 F.C.C.R. 2732 (1997). That rule change, however, has

no bearing on the Commission's decision in this particular case.

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 5 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

requested in previous applications. That same day, PCIA

also received applications from EEC that sought to expand its

existing system on 929.7625 MHz by twelve sites. Although

EEC's existing system of thirty-eight sites had been eligible

for local exclusivity during the transition period, EEC did not

submit a request for exclusivity during that period of time.

Indeed, EEC did not submit a request for exclusivity until

October 17, 1994.

In May of 1994, PCIA began to evaluate the applications

that PageMart had submitted the previous February. PCIA

determined that the 929.4875 MHz frequency could not be

coordinated on an exclusive nationwide basis because it had

already been assigned to three exclusive regional systems.

PCIA ultimately decided that 929.7625 MHz was the most

appropriate frequency for use by PageMart on a national

exclusive basis, because there were only a few exclusive local

systems on that channel, and because no other channel was

entirely clear and available for nationwide exclusive use.

With PageMart's consent, PCIA crossed out the frequency

requested in PageMart's applications and exclusivity request

and inserted frequency 929.7625 MHz. PCIA then filed

PageMart's applications with the Commission.

A few weeks later, PCIA reached EEC's applications in the

queue and considered its request for expanded usage of the

929.7625 MHz frequency. PCIA concluded that it could not

approve EEC's request because it had already recommended

PageMart's use of that frequency on an exclusive nationwide

basis. As a result, EEC could continue to operate its existing

sites on the 929.7625 MHz frequency on a grandfathered

basis, but could not expand its use of that frequency if the

FCC approved PageMart's applications.

EEC eventually filed a petition with the Licensing Division

of the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, seeking

dismissal of PageMart's request for nationwide exclusivity

because of alleged procedural irregularities. EEC objected

to the fact that "an unidentified party has crossed out PageMart II, Inc.'s typewritten request for '929.4875 ' MHz and

pencilled in '929.7625' " on PageMart's exclusivity request and

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 6 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

on its applications. EEC contended that serious issues were

raised concerning who changed PageMart's materials and

when. PageMart responded that the frequency coordinator

had made the changes before forwarding PageMart's applications to the Commission. PageMart further declared that

PCIA had simply processed the applications in the order of

receipt and had recommended that PageMart be allowed to

use 929.7625 MHz. EEC replied that frequency coordinators

lack the authority to alter applications or exclusivity requests,

and also alleged that PCIA had shown unfair favoritism to

PageMart. By a letter order, the Bureau's Land Mobile

Division concluded that PCIA's handling of PageMart's applications was consistent with 47 C.F.R. s 90.175, even though

the rule does not "provide specific procedures for amending

applications while pending coordination."

EEC filed an Application for Review with the Commission.

EEC once again argued that PCIA had no authority to alter

PageMart's applications without obtaining additional signatures, and that PCIA had shown improper favoritism to

PageMart. The Commission concluded that PCIA's actions

were consistent with its obligations as a frequency coordinator and accordingly denied review. In re Electrical Engineering Co. and PageMart II, Inc. Requests for Exclusivity

on 929.7625 MHz, 12 F.C.C.R. 3819 (1997) ("Denial Order").

The Commission first concluded that PCIA acted within its

authority when it changed the frequency requested on PageMart's applications. The Commission ruled that a frequency

coordinator's authority to alter application materials derives

from its duty to select the most appropriate frequency for

each particular applicant. The Commission further concluded

that there was no basis in the record to support the allegation

that the applications submitted by PageMart and EEC received disparate treatment by PCIA. Id. at 3821-22.

EEC filed a timely appeal in this court.

II.

EEC challenges the Commission's decision under section

706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 7 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

us to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action that is

"arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not

in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A). To prevail on

its claim, EEC must overcome the highly deferential standard

of review that we accord to an agency's interpretation of its

own rules. Bluestone Energy Design, Inc. v. FERC, 74 F.3d

1288, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Provided that it does not violate

the Constitution or a federal statute, the agency's interpretation is entitled to controlling weight "unless it is plainly

erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Stinson v.

United States, 508 U.S. 36, 45 (1993) (internal punctuation

and citation omitted). We conclude that the Commission's

decision easily survives this deferential standard of review.

A.

We begin with EEC's claim that PCIA had no authority to

alter PageMart's applications and submit materials to the

Commission without obtaining additional signatures from a

PageMart representative.

EEC first makes an argument based on the authority of

frequency coordinators to correct clerical errors in applications. The Commission's 1986 Report and Order recognized

that frequency coordinators have the power to correct minor

errors in an application before forwarding it to the Commission: "In cases where the application submitted to the coordinator is incomplete or if there is an obvious error, we are

allowing the coordinator to make the necessary corrections

provided that applicant approval is obtained. Again, we

believe allowing the coordinator to make minor changes will

speed up the overall licensing process." 103 F.C.C.2d at

1147. EEC argues that PageMart's original request for the

929.4875 MHz frequency was not the sort of "obvious" error

that frequency coordinators have the authority to "correct."

Rather, EEC continues, PageMart's selection of 929.4875

MHz was a deliberate act, as evidenced by the consistent

reference to this frequency in its applications and in its

nationwide exclusivity request. EEC contends that the Commission, by approving PCIA's changes even though they did

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 8 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

more than correct minor errors, effectively transformed the

coordinators' limited authority into an all-inclusive amending

power that extends to even the most substantive changes to

an application.

The simple answer to EEC's objection is that PCIA did not

make those changes pursuant to its authority to correct

clerical errors. Frequency coordinators perform a variety of

functions in the spectrum management process. Correcting

clerical errors is one of those functions, but so is the selection

of the most appropriate frequency for use by each particular

applicant. 47 C.F.R. s 90.175(c); 103 F.C.C.2d at 1100.

PCIA made changes to PageMart's applications as part of its

responsibility to select the most appropriate frequency.

PCIA determined that the 929.4875 MHz frequency would not

be suitable for use by PageMart because other systems were

operating on an exclusive regional basis on that channel.

PCIA decided that the 929.7625 MHz frequency was the

appropriate frequency for PageMart, and made changes to its

applications only after receiving PageMart's consent to do so.

While it may be the case that a coordinator does not have

unlimited power to correct application errors, PCIA did not

purport to correct errors in PageMart's applications, but

rather carried out its responsibility to select the most appropriate frequency for this particular applicant.

EEC also faults the Commission for relying on the silence

of its rules as a basis for concluding that PCIA acted within

its authority as a frequency coordinator. EEC draws special

attention to the following passage in the Commission's order:

Rule 90.175(c) provides no specific instructions for handling changes to applications while pending coordination,

and allows the frequency coordinator to recommend the

most appropriate frequency. Other rule sections cover

the execution of applications and amendments of applications before the Commission. Rule 90.175(c), however,

does not explicitly incorporate those rule sections in

connection with changes made to a proposal during prefiling procedures while still before the coordinator.

Thus, absent evidence that the changes made were withUSCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 9 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

out authority of the applicant, or were made subsequent

to the frequency coordinator's submission of the applications to the Commission, PageMart's applications and

related exclusivity request for use of 929.7625 MHz were

properly accepted for filing.

12 F.C.C.R. at 3821-22. In EEC's view, the silence of Rule

90.175(c) must be construed as a denial, not a grant, of power

to frequency coordinators such as PCIA. Absent express

authorization from the rules, EEC argues, coordinators lack

the authority to amend applications and send them directly to

the Commission. We disagree.

The Commission's reasoning in the Denial Order is quite

clear. As the Commission explained, rule 90.175(c) provides

that applications for frequencies in the 929-930 MHz band

must include a "statement from the coordinator recommending the most appropriate frequency," but does not specify

how the coordinator is to proceed when making its recommendation. 47 C.F.R. s 90.175(c). Nor does the rule elsewhere outline specific procedures that a frequency coordinator must follow when making changes to applications before

they are filed with the Commission. Even the Commission's

1986 Report and Order does not speak directly to the question at hand. The Report and Order does explain how the

coordinator is to proceed in one specific circumstance: if the

coordinator disagrees with an applicant's frequency request,

and if the applicant wants to pursue its request with the

Commission, the coordinator is required to forward the application, the technical submission, the coordinator's written

reasons for rejection, and the alternate frequency recommendation to the Commission. 103 F.C.C.2d at 1147-48. The

Report and Order does not, however, specify how the coordinator is to proceed if the applicant agrees that the frequency

selected by the coordinator is preferable to the frequency

originally requested by the applicant.

After acknowledging that the rules do not speak directly to

the question, the Commission returned to the basic requirement that coordinators recommend the "most appropriate

frequency" for each particular applicant. 47 C.F.R.

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 10 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

s 90.175(c). The Commission ultimately decided that altering

a frequency request on an application was an acceptable way

to make a frequency recommendation, provided that the

applicant approves the changes in advance of filing the applications with the Commission. 12 F.C.C.R. at 3821-22. We

conclude that the Commission's interpretation was neither

"plainly erroneous" nor "inconsistent with the regulation."

Stinson, 508 U.S. at 45. The rules require coordinators to

make frequency recommendations, but do not specify how

they are to proceed in every conceivable circumstance. The

Commission's reading gave content to these open-ended provisions without compromising any other requirements in the

rules. EEC has presented us with no reason to conclude that

a coordinator's duty to "recommend[ ] the most appropriate

frequency" cannot be performed by making changes directly

to application materials. 47 C.F.R. s 90.175(c). Accordingly,

we defer to the Commission's interpretation that a coordinator may recommend a frequency by making changes to an

application, with the applicant's consent, before forwarding

the materials to the Commission.

Equally unavailing is EEC's argument that a frequency

coordinator cannot alter an application without obtaining an

additional signature from the applicant. EEC cites to a

number of provisions in the rules that purportedly required

PCIA to return PageMart's applications and exclusivity request for additional signatures. For example, EEC draws

our attention to section 90.131(a), which provides that "[e]ach

amendment to an application shall be signed and submitted in

the same manner as required for the original application." 47

C.F.R. s 90.131(a); see also ss 1.743(a), 1.913(a). EEC also

cites to a few cases before the Commission in which the FCC

mentioned a signature requirement. See, e.g., R & L Broadcasters, 8 F.C.C.R. 7031, 7032 (1993); WMOZ, Inc., 36 F.C.C.

202, 218 (1964). In EEC's view, a change in frequency

constitutes an amendment to the original application, and

thus requires the coordinator to obtain an additional signature before forwarding the amended application to the Commission.

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 11 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

None of the rules cited by EEC requires frequency coordinators to jump through this additional procedural hoop. As

the Commission explained, the rules relied upon by EEC

govern amendments to applications that have been filed with

the Commission. 12 F.C.C.R. at 3821. Frequency coordination, however, is clearly a pre-filing procedure. Frequency

coordinators are to file the applications directly with the

Commission after they have performed "appropriate frequency coordination." 47 C.F.R. ss 1.912(b), 90.127(a); 103

F.C.C.2d at 1104-05. Contrary to EEC's assumption, applications are not considered to be filed with the Commission

when they are received by the coordinator, but only when

they are received by the Commission at its designated location. 47 C.F.R. s 1.7 (1997). At the time that it altered

PageMart's applications, PCIA obviously had not filed the

applications with the Commission, and thus PCIA was not

bound by rules that govern post-filing amendments.

The cases cited by EEC are off the mark. Two of the

cases, like the rules cited by EEC, concerned amendments to

applications already filed with the Commission. R & L

Broadcasters, 8 F.C.C.R. at 7032; CSJ Investments, Inc., 5

F.C.C.R. 3741, 3742 (Rev. Bd. 1990). Two others involved

applicants who attested to the contents of their applications

even though the applications were not complete at that time.

Johnston Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 175 F.2d 351, 354 (D.C.

Cir. 1949); WMOZ, Inc., 36 F.C.C. 201, 218 (1964). The last

case cited by EEC discussed whether it was proper to dismiss

applications containing only facsimile signatures instead of

handwritten signatures. SBM Communications, Inc., 7

F.C.C.R. 3436, 3436 (1992). Not only did none of these cases

purport to discuss whether frequency coordinators are required to obtain additional signatures from applicants when

making changes to applications, none of them involved frequency coordinators at all.

Moreover, the 1986 Report and Order undermines the

notion that frequency coordinators must obtain additional

signatures. The Order requires frequency coordinators to

forward applications directly to the Commission, but makes

no mention of returning material to applicants to gain approvUSCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 12 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

al of their frequency recommendations. 103 F.C.C.2d at

1104-05. Indeed, the Commission initially proposed that a

coordinator return an application if it disagrees with a request for a specific frequency, but ultimately decided against

this proposal in its final rules. See Frequency Coordination

in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, 49 Fed. Reg.

45454, 45457 (proposed Nov. 16, 1984); 103 F.C.C.2d at 1100,

1147-48. Even more illuminating is the procedure for handling applications that do not request any particular frequency. The Report and Order makes clear that applicants are

free to request a specific frequency, but are under no obligation to do so. 103 F.C.C.2d at 1096-97, 1147. The rules

contemplate, in other words, that some applicants will send

their materials to frequency coordinators with blank frequency requests. Frequency coordinators, consistent with their

obligation to recommend the most appropriate frequency, fill

in the blank frequency requests and forward the applications

directly to the Commission for review and approval. The

Commission accepts such applications for filing, even though

the applicant did not request any particular frequency, and

even though the coordinator inserted a frequency in the

applicant's materials without obtaining an additional signature. If a frequency coordinator can fill in a blank frequency

request without an additional signature, we see no reason

why an additional signature would be required if the coordinator, acting with the consent of the applicant, changes the

frequency request in an applicant's materials before forwarding the application to the Commission.

Finally, EEC argues that PageMart's applications must be

considered untimely vis-a-vis EEC's applications for 929.7625

MHz even though PageMart submitted applications to PCIA

before EEC submitted its applications. The basis for this

argument is a rule providing that an application that is

"substantially amended" will be considered newly filed as of

the date of the filing of the amendment. 47 C.F.R.

s 1.918(b); see also 47 C.F.R. s 90.165(d)(1) (1997). EEC

cites to a number of scattered provisions, many of which do

not involve private radio services, to make the point that a

change in frequency constitutes a substantial amendment to

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 13 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

an application. See 47 C.F.R. ss 1.962(c)(1), 73.3571(a)(1),

73.3572(a)(1)(i), 73.3573(a)(1), 74.911(a)(1), 74.1233(a)(1); see

also ss 22.123(e)(6), 90.164(a), 90.165(d) (1997). EEC concludes from these provisions that PCIA's changes to PageMart's applications amounted to substantial amendments,

which moved PageMart's applications to the end of the queue

and thus behind the application submitted by EEC.

Like the argument about the signature requirement, this

argument fails because the rules cited by EEC apply to

applications that have been filed with the Commission. See,

e.g., 47 C.F.R. s 1.962(c) (referring to a "substantial amendment of an application on file" ) (emphasis added). Nothing

in rule 90.175, which outlines the requirements for frequency

coordination, gives any indication that the Commission incorporated these provisions and imposed such procedural strictures on frequency coordinators. 47 C.F.R. s 90.175. Moreover, the logical consequence of EEC's argument would be to

move an application to the end of the queue whenever the

applicant agrees that the frequency selected by the coordinator is preferable to the frequency originally requested by the

applicant. This cumbersome result would seem to be in

tension with the more specific mandate that frequency coordinators process applications "in order of receipt." 103

F.C.C.2d 1104, 1119. Furthermore, various parts of the

Report and Order mention the need to give frequency coordinators flexibility in carrying out their coordination responsibilities. 103 F.C.C.2d at 1109, 1115. Absent an express

provision in the rules, there would seem to be little reason to

encumber the coordinator's task by requiring it to move to

the end of the queue applications that the coordinator has

already considered. In sum, the Commission did not err

when it concluded that the provisions cited by EEC did not

require PCIA to move PageMart's applications to the end of

the queue.

B.

EEC next charges that PCIA violated the Commission's

rules requiring coordinators to handle applications in a nonUSCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 14 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

discriminatory manner by affording disparate treatment to

the EEC and PageMart applications. 103 F.C.C.2d 1101-02.

EEC contends that PCIA went the extra mile for PageMart

when coordinating its applications, but failed to provide even

basic assistance to EEC. EEC asserts, for example, that

PCIA recommended an alternative frequency to PageMart

when 929.4875 MHz was unavailable but made no similar

efforts on behalf of EEC. EEC faults the Commission for

returning its applications without even searching for an alternative frequency. EEC also complains that PCIA delayed

processing its applications, failed to explain the reason for the

delay, and did not inform EEC why its applications could not

be coordinated as requested. EEC speculates that PageMart

received favorable treatment because PageMart, unlike EEC,

is a member of PCIA and pays significant membership and

coordination fees to the organization.

EEC's depiction of the facts does not square with the

record, which reveals that PCIA processed the applications in

full compliance with the Commission's rules. PCIA, like all

frequency coordinators, had a duty to process the applications

in the order of receipt. 103 F.C.C.2d at 1100, 1104, 1119.

PageMart's applications arrived almost a month before

EEC's applications, so PCIA naturally considered PageMart's

applications first. PCIA determined that the frequency requested by PageMart would not be suitable for nationwide

exclusive use because several regional systems already operated on that channel on an exclusive basis. PCIA recommended an alternative frequency, 929.7625 MHz, for use by

PageMart because there were only a few exclusive local

systems on that frequency and because no other channel was

entirely clear and available for nationwide use. With PageMart's approval, PCIA crossed out the frequency requested

by PageMart and inserted a request for 929.7625 MHz, then

filed the applications with the Commission.

When it reached EEC's applications in the queue, PCIA

could not approve the request for expanded usage of 929.7625

MHz because it had already sanctioned PageMart's use of

that channel on an exclusive nationwide basis. PCIA promptly notified EEC that it could not expand its system on

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 15 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

929.7625 MHz due to the assignment of that channel to

PageMart. EEC responded by asking PCIA to hold its

applications while it attempted to obtain a co-channel concurrence agreement with PageMart. PCIA returned EEC's

applications only after two months had elapsed without receiving any update from EEC regarding the status of its

applications. In sum, the record reveals that the process

worked precisely the way that it is intended to operate: the

frequency coordinator processed the applications on a firstcome, first-served basis, gave expeditious review to the applications, and informed the applicants of the status of their

submissions in a prompt manner. PCIA cannot be faulted for

failing to recommend an alternative frequency to EEC, given

EEC's request to put the applications on hold while it negotiated a deal with PageMart. There is simply nothing in the

record to support EEC's allegation that PCIA breached its

duty to process applications with "total impartiality." 103

F.C.C.2d at 1101.

C.

Finally, EEC criticizes the Commission for failing to explain why 929.7625 MHz was the most appropriate frequency

for use by PageMart. EEC points out that the Denial Order

only briefly mentioned the coordinator's reasons for recommending 929.7625 MHz: "PCIA ultimately determined that

the best choice for PageMart's nationwide system would be

929.7625 MHz because there were only a handful of exclusive

local systems on that channel, and there were no alternative

totally clear channels available." 12 F.C.C.R. at 3820. EEC

contends that the Commission did not engage in reasoned

decisionmaking because it offered an inadequate justification

for the selection of this particular frequency. However, EEC

did not contest the frequency selected by PCIA in its arguments before the Commission, which helps to explain why the

Commission gave this issue only brief attention in its Denial

Order. EEC also neglected to file a petition for reconsideration of the FCC's order to challenge the selection of this

particular frequency. Under applicable law, we have no

authority to address the merits of an allegation of error that

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 16 of 17
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

EEC failed to raise in the proceedings before the Commission. 47 U.S.C. s 405(a); American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. FCC,

974 F.2d 1351, 1354 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ("We have construed this

section as codifying the exhaustion of administrative remedies

doctrine, which requires complainants, before coming to

court, to give the FCC a fair opportunity to pass on a legal or

factual argument.") (internal punctuation and citation omitted).

III.

For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the Commission is affirmed.

USCA Case #97-1255 Document #344910 Filed: 04/14/1998 Page 17 of 17