FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 2, Pages 937 to 1877, February 6 - February 17, 2012 Page: 951

A. Collateral Attacks on the Waiver Order and Order on Reconsideration
6. In the Waiver Order, WTB and PSHSB granted a waiver establishing the specific
conditions (including an application process) under which applicants could obtain licenses for operation
of the Recon Scout pursuant to the Act and the Commission's Rules.'9 Subsequently, the Order on
Reconsideration retroactively granted a waiver of the allocation table for the 420-450 MHz band.20 In
their petitions, Whedbee and ARRL assert that the applications are defective because the 420-450 MHz
band is not allocated for use by Public Safety land mobile services.2' Whedbee also argues that the
Waiver Order is invalid because the Commission should have resolved this question via a rulemaking
proceeding as opposed to waiver and that the Bureaus violated the Administrative Procedure Act in
adopting the Waiver Order.22
7. Whedbee and ARRL assert that the objections to the Waiver Order contained in their
respective petitions are not collateral attacks on the 1'Waiver Order but rather are challenges to the
applicants' inappropriate reliance on that order.23 Whedbee also argues that the application proceeding is
an appropriate place to raise concerns that were raised in the waiver proceeding in order to preserve the
objections in the event the applications survive the reconsideration.24
8. We find that the Waiver Order and the Order on Reconsideration fully addressed and
decided these arguments raised by Whedbee and ARRL in their petitions. The Order on Reconsideration
retroactively waived the applicable provisions of section 2.106 to the extent necessary to permit use of the
Recon Scout. We therefore find that Whedbce's and ARRL's argument with respect to the allocation
issue is moot.2" The Waiver Order and Order on Reconsideration also rejected the argument that the
Commission should have acted via a rulemaking proceeding as opposed to waiver."2 Therefore,
petitioners no longer have any basis for "preserving" these objections and there is no need to re-address
these arguments in the context of the individual applications at issue in this order.
B. Additional Contentions of Petitioners
9. Alleged Application Defects. Whedbee alleges that the applications filed by the public safety
entities listed in the Appendix are defective because:
to consider Whedbee's standing argument against ReconRobotics but will instead consider ReconRobotics' filings
as informal requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41.
'9 Waiver Order at i 1-13.
20 Order on Reconsideration at 1 7.
21 ARRL Petition at 5, Whedbee Petition to Deny at 2-3, Ex Parte Memo, Reply at 2, Amended Petition at 4-6.
2 Whedbee Reply at 2. As noted in the Order on Reconsideration, party-specific waivers of the Table of
Allocations are neither prohibited nor particularly unusual. See, e.g., Globalstar Licensee LLC, Order, 25 FCC Red
13114, 13132 48 (IB/WTB/OET 2010); County of Franklin, Pennsylvania, Order; 25 FCC Rcd 8111. 8118 18
(PSHSB PD 2010).
' Whedbee Reply at 2-3, ARRL Petition to Deny at 6.
24 Whedbee Reply at 4-5.
25 Order on Reconsideration at 7. See 47 C.F.R. 2.106.
26 See supra note 22.

951

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-123