FCC Web Documents citing 1.939

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1068A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1068A1.pdf
  • facts or more general allegations on information and belief, supported by general affidavits . . . are not sufficient'' to establish a prima facie case of misrepresentation or lack of candor. Accordingly, we are denying the Motion and Supplement because of the lack of evidentiary support for the allegations made therein. oRDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939 and Sections 4(i) and 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d)(1), the Motion to Set Aside, filed by EMR Consulting, Inc. on October 17, 2005, and the Supplement to Motion to Set Aside and Further Request for Investigation and Order to Show Cause, filed by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3129A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3129A1.pdf
  • application. In this connection, we note that assignments must be made within the regional plan as adopted by the Regional Planning Committee according to its Commission-approved procedures. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Commission's action in granting Ohio's application for modification is consistent with the Region 33 plan and therefore proper. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939 and Sections 4(i) and 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 309(d)(1), the Petition for Reconsideration to Deny the Grant of the State of Ohio's Application for Modification for Station WPQF782, File No. 00021006060, filed by the City of Brooklyn, Cuyahoga, Ohio and County of Medina, Ohio
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-334A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-334A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-334A1.txt
  • and 90. While we are not seeking specific comment on these changes, we include them to provide notice to the public. The following are the administrative changes we plan to make: Part 1, subpart F - Title. Correct the term ``Wireless Telecommunications Services'' to read ``Wireless Radio Services.'' Section 1.927(g). Replace the cross-reference to Section 1.948(h)(2) with Section 1.948(i)(2). Section 1.939(b). Eliminate the third sentence which states that manually filed petitions to deny can be filed at the Commission's former office location. Section 1.955(a)(2). Replace the cross-reference to Section 1.948(c) with Section 1.946(c). Section 22.946(b)(2). Replace the reference to Form 489 with Form 601. Section 22.946(c). Replace the cross-reference to Section 22.144(b) with Section 1.955. Section 22.947(c). Update the location for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1765A1.txt
  • and Vodafone Group, Plc, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 99-1200, 1999 WL 413,237 (WTB rel. June 22, 1999) at �� 5-9 (``Vodafone/AirTouch Order''). See Conway Comments at 1. Id. Id. While Dr. Conway does not explicitly state this, we presume that his concern is that Nextel will gain control of the licenses in violation of the Nextel Consent Decree. Section 1.939(d) of the Commission's rules requires that ``a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the pubic interest, convenience and necessity. Such allegations of fact, except for those of which official notice may
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1895A1.txt
  • deny (Petition) the above-captioned application of Twiggs County Cellular Partnership (Twiggs). On July 27, 2000, however, the Commercial Wireless Division, on its own motion, dismissed the application as moot. We therefore dismiss the Petition as moot. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C � 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R �� 0.331, 1.939(g), the petition to deny filed by American Cellular Communications Corporation on June 30, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See Letter from Paul D'Ari, Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, to James Yates, Twiggs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2158A1.txt
  • to Deny Bala Equity at 1-2; Petition to Deny WinStar at 1-2. Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 3; Petition to Deny WinStar at 3. Auction Closes Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 13648, 13654. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. 570 (rel. Jun. 28, 2000). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.4. 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g). Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 2; Petition to Deny WinStar at 2. Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 3; Petition to Deny WinStar at 3. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.41. See 47 U.S.C. � 402(h); Applications of Cambridge Partners, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-322, � 6 (rel. Sept. 15, 2000); Qualcomm Incorporated, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Giving
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2311A1.txt
  • that Carolina PCS has not demonstrated an injury, or even the likelihood of an injury, that is traceable to these proposed transactions or redressable by preventing the transactions. Therefore, we do not believe that Carolina PCS has shown that it is a party in interest under section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1), or section 1.939(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a), and we dismiss Carolina PCS's petitions. 6. Even if Carolina PCS did have standing to challenge the grants of these applications, we would deny Carolina PCS' petitions on substantive grounds. The arguments that Carolina PCS raise against Leap include the same arguments that Carolina PCS raised in previous proceedings regarding Leap's qualifications.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2778A1.txt
  • that Carolina PCS has not demonstrated an injury, or the likelihood of an injury, that is traceable to these proposed transactions or redressable by preventing Leap from purchasing these licenses from Beta. Therefore, we do not believe that Carolina PCS has shown that it is a party in interest under section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, as amended, or section 1.939(a) of the Commission's rules, and we dismiss Carolina PCS's petition. Even if Carolina PCS were found to have standing to challenge the grants of these applications, we would deny Carolina PCS's petitions on substantive grounds. The arguments that Carolina PCS raises here against Leap include the same arguments that Carolina PCS raised in previous proceedings regarding Leap's qualifications, and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2850A1.txt
  • 3986 (Rev. Bd. 1993). Second Petition at 4-5. Second Petition at 5-6. 47 C.F.R. � 90.35(e). See Second Petition at 6-8. See Order on Reconsideration, �� 4-6. Id. at 2. See Letter from Ronald B. Fuhrman, Deputy Chief, Technical Analysis Section, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Damon Silva, Cumulous Communications (dated Nov. 17, 1999). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.41. Second Petition at 3-4, citing Order on Reconsideration, � 2. Demonstration Licenses in the Business Radio Service, Public Notice, released February 16, 1983. Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2850 Federal Communications Commission DA 00-2850 � � �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �0� �`� �0�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2868A1.txt
  • justifications in full detail as required by Section 90.313 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR � 90.313. On April 10, 2000, Mr. Gronemeier responded to the Branch's March 15, 2000 letter. On March 31, 2000, Samtrans simultaneously filed two pleadings, a Petition for Reinstatement pursuant to Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, and a Petition to Deny, pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules. In its Petition for Reinstatement, Samtrans seeks to have its authorization to operate Station KYC941 reinstated. In its Petition to Deny, Samtrans requests that we deny Mr. Gronemeier's five applications seeking the same frequency pairs as were authorized to Samtrans under Station KYC941. Contentions of the Parties Petition for Reinstatement. In its Petition for Reinstatement, Samtrans
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-2903A1.txt
  • are mutually-exclusive with WWC's application. On August 26, 1999, the Division released a Public Notice stating that NECC's five applications and WWC's application appeared to be mutually-exclusive and designating the six applications for auction. On October 13, 1999, more than 30 days after WWC's application appeared on public notice as accepted for filing, the Petitioner filed its Petition. 3. Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules requires that a petition to deny be filed within 30 days of the date that an application is listed on Public Notice as accepted for filing. In this case, NECC's Petition was filed more than two months after the filing deadline. We note that NECC was clearly aware of the filing deadline, and that NECC's applications,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-344A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), and section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.2, the March 17, 1998 ``Request for Permission to Withdraw Motion for Declaratory Rulings and Related Pleadings'' filed by Zephyr is hereby GRANTED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by AALA on July 2, 1992 is hereby DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Progressive Cellular III B-3 was the original winner of the lottery held for the Oklahoma 4-Nowata RSA, Market No. 599A. As set
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-363A1.txt
  • Corporation (CINC) filed a petition to deny the above-captioned application of Donald H. Pollard/Zeta Trust Partnership. On February 10, 1997, however, the application was dismissed as defective. We therefore dismiss CINC's petition to deny as moot. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C � 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R �� 0.331, 1.939(g), the petition to deny filed by Cellular Inc. Network Corp. on January 23, 1997 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See Public Notice, Report No. CL-97-31, (rel. Feb 10, 1997) (dismissing application); Public Notice, Report No. CL-97-36
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-408A1.txt
  • 154(i), 309, and sections 0.331and 1.934 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.934, First Kentucky Cellular Corporation's above-captioned application under File No. 01247-CL-MP-94, filed on December 7, 1993, is hereby DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and sections 0.331and 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.939(g), the Consolidated Petition to Deny filed by Contel Cellular of Tennessee, Inc. and Knoxville Cellular Telephone Company, Inc. on January 18, 1994 is hereby DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau As a result of Commission-approved assignments of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-460A1.txt
  • sign KNKN-719, P-Corp (through its controlling entity, AT&T), has requested that File No. 06087-CL-MP-92 be withdrawn. Because there is no dispute between the parties, we grant P-Corp's request to withdraw FCC File No. 06087-CL-MP-92. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.939(g), the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, filed on July 6, 1992, by Pennsylvania Cellular Telephone Corp. and Harrisburg Cellular Telephone Company is hereby DISMISSED as moot. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-462A1.txt
  • �� 154(i), 309, and sections 0.331 and 1.934 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.934, C.I.S. Operating Company-3, Inc.'s application under File No. 03281-CL-MP-96, filed on May 9, 1996, is hereby DISMISSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and section 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), the Petition To Deny filed by Wisconsin II Venture against CIS's application (File No. 03281-CL-MP-96) on June 24, 1996, is hereby DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau CIS's application was accepted for filing on May 24, 1996 and was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-463A1.txt
  • permanent authority in the Minnesota 7 - Chippewa RSA6 and because our records do not reflect that a request to withdraw the Petitions was received in response to the Branch Letter.7 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and sections 0.33 land 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.939(g), CSH Cellular's Petitions to Dismiss or Deny the above-captioned Applications filed on August 26, 1993 and September 20, 1993, respectively, are hereby DISMISSED as moot. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-464A1.txt
  • of permanent authority in the Texas 15 - Concho RSA, Lone Star ceased interim operations in Market 666A. For these reasons, we dismiss the Foster Petition and the Texas 14 Petition as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and sections 0.331and 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.939(g), the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Kent A. Foster on June 1, 1994 and the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Texas 14 Cellular Corporation on June 1, 1994 against the above-captioned application are hereby DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-492A1.txt
  • was in accordance with the Commission's Rules. Finally, we dismiss Hyland's petition to dismiss or deny the Petitioners' assignment and modification application as moot because the application has been dismissed by the Branch. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309 and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, filed by Hyland Transit Corp. on April 1, 1996, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-5A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-5A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-5A1.txt
  • the outcome of the Application for Review filed by the Petitioners on May 3, 1996. We find that Petitioners have received the relief sought in their Petition - namely, a conditional grant of the subject assignment application. 2. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309 and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to dismiss or deny filed by Mobile Radio Cooperative Association and S&S Excavating on August 27, 1996, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 3. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-5A1_Erratum.doc
  • the outcome of the Application for Review filed by the Petitioners on May 3, 1996. We find that Petitioners have received the relief sought in their Petition - namely, a conditional grant of the subject assignment application. 2. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309 and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to dismiss or deny filed by Mobile Radio Cooperative Association and S&S Excavating on August 27, 1996, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 3. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-786A1.txt
  • Kay was authorized to operate, the Branch considered Kay to be a party directly affected by the outcome. In sum, we reject Kay's suggestion that Branch staff acted incorrectly in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.106 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106, 1.939(g), the Petition for Reconsideration by James A. Kay, Jr., filed May 26, 1999, IS DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-78A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-78A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-78A1.txt
  • Service, FCC 99-382 (released December 9, 1999). 21 See former Section 90.163 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 90.163, which was in effect at the time Tel-A-Car filed its petition. The Commission's current rules also do not allow for the filing of petitions to deny against applications for stations in the private wireless services. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.933(d)(9), 1.939(a). 22 Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1189 (1986). 23 See Abacus Broadcasting Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 5110, 5117 (Rev. Bd. 1993). 24 Id. at 5117 (concurring statement of Board Member Blumenthal). 25 See Application for Review Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 13723-24. 26 See Michael McDermott, 11 FCC Rcd 5750 (1996). (continued....) Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-828A1.txt
  • 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.3, the request to withdraw the above-captioned application filed by Binghamton Celltelco Cellular One on July 26, 1999 IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C � 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939(g), the petition to deny filed by PA4 on July 15, 1999 IS DISMISSED as MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Notice, DA 99-745 (Apr. 16, 1999) (Greenmail Waiver Notice). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.935(a), (b). The waiver initially was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1381A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and sections 0.331, 1.925, and 1.934(d)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.925, 1.934(d)(2), the associated application of Skytel Communications, Inc., File No. 0000116431, IS DISMISSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and by sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the request to dismiss filed by Stratophone, LLC on May 19, 2000, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 47 C.F.R. � 22.813(a). 47 C.F.R. � 1.925(b)(3). Waiver Request at 1. Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1381 Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1497A1.txt
  • application and licensing matters involving the Wireless Radio Services, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.51(f); (e) petitions for reconsideration of licensing actions, as well as oppositions and replies thereto, that are filed with respect to Wireless Radio Services, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(o); (f) petitions to deny and other related pleadings filed in the Wireless Radio Services, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(b); (g) responses to official communications filed by licensees or applicants in the Wireless Radio Services, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.951; and (h) audited financial statements reflecting the nonprofit cost-sharing of cooperative arrangements between wireless licensees and third parties, see 47 C.F.R. � 1.981(c). These functions are not yet available in ULS. We will announce by public notice when each of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1565A1.txt
  • (Dec. 15, 2000). Id. Petition at 5. Id. at 3. Id. at 4. Id. See Petition, Attachment B - Petition to Deny filed by GTECH against SRP Application No. 0000216989 on October 6, 2000. See also Attachment C - Erratum to Petition to Deny (dated Dec. 20, 2000). GTECH's petition does not comply with the criteria set forth in Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules and is therefore an informal objection. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(b), (c), (d). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.929(d)(1)(i). The Commission's Rules specifically indicate instances where data corrections are considered minor modifications. For example, in the 2 GHz band, Section 101.81(d) of the Commission's Rules specifically lists a data correction that does not involve a change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-177A1.txt
  • in the Oldsmar, Florida area. The cancellation of Acosta's license renders the Nextel Petition for Reconsideration moot, and it is hereby dismissed pursuant to section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106. The grant of Acosta's reinstatement application in the Division's Reinstatement Order renders the Nextel Petition to Deny moot, and it is hereby dismissed pursuant to section 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. Because Acosta no longer has authority to operate an 800 MHz station in the Tampa, FL area, the Acosta Petition also is rendered moot and accordingly is hereby dismissed pursuant to sections 1.106 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106, 1.939(g). Action by the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2067A1.txt
  • 8148. Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Grant of Application filed by Cel-Tel on June 5, 2000 (resubmitted and re-served on February 2, 2001). The Settlement Agreement concerned only Cel-Tel's application for Missouri 6, which was not at issue in the Algreg Proceeding. 47 C.F.R. � 1.65. See Algreg, 12 FCC Rcd. 8148. . See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended, permits any "party in interest" to file a petition to deny an application. See Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 13 FCC Rcd. 4601, 4603-4604 (1998), citing AmericaTelCorp., 9 FCC Rcd 3993, 3995 (1994), citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2084A1.txt
  • Agreement and their respective certifications along with the withdrawal request. The Division has reviewed the proposed Agreement and certifications. The Division hereby approves the withdrawal of the petition to deny and grants consent to Application File No. 0000230759, which authorizes the assignment of the license for SMR Station WPEF823 from Clarus to All Points, in accordance with sections 0.331, 1.935, 1.939, and 1.948 of the Commission's rules.1 Action by Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. For further information, contact Don Johnson of the Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-7240. 1 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.935, 1.939 and 1.948. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News media
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2270A1.txt
  • renewal standard. On January 29, 2001, Mountain Microwave filed renewal applications for its 39 GHz band Stations WPNE403, Eureka, California and WPNE749, Mt. Lassen, California. In accordance with Section 101.17 of the Commission's Rules, Mountain Microwave attached its substantial service showing to the subject renewal applications. Mountain Microwave's applications were accepted for filing on February 7, 2001. Pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, the deadline for filing petitions to deny against Mountain Microwave's applications was March 9, 2001. On March 29, 2001, TRW was granted a license for the Redding, California Economic Area (EA). On April 16, 2001, TRW filed its petition to deny against the subject applications. On May 8, 2001, Mountain Microwave filed an Opposition to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2277A1.txt
  • band licensees from this new ``substantial service'' renewal standard. On January 30, 2001, ART filed renewal applications for its 39 GHz band Stations WMK257, in Altoona, Pennsylvania. In accordance with Section 101.17 of the Commission's Rules, ART attached its substantial service showing to the subject renewal applications. ART's application was accepted for filing on February 7, 2001. Pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, the deadline for filing petitions to deny against ART's applications was March 9, 2001. Mr. Beyerle states that he attempted to file the Petition through the Universal Licensing System (ULS) on March 9, 2001, but was unable to do so. Mr. Beyerle represents that he asked a member of the ULS Technical Support staff how he
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2282A1.txt
  • filed renewal applications for its 39 GHz band Stations WPNE290, located in the area of Colorado Springs, Colorado and WPNG380, located in the area of Cleveland, Ohio. In accordance with Section 101.17 of the Commission's Rules, GEC attached its substantial service showing to the subject renewal applications. GEC's applications were accepted for filing on February 7, 2001. Pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, the deadline for filing petitions to deny against GEC's applications was March 9, 2001. On April 16, 2001, TRW filed its Petition to Deny against the subject applications. On May 8, 2001, GEC filed an Opposition to the Petition to Deny. On May 18, 2001, TRW filed its Reply to the Opposition. DISCUSSION TRW asks the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2284A1.txt
  • new ``substantial service'' renewal standard. On January 29, 2001, Spectrum filed renewal applications for its 39 GHz band Stations WPNE976, Eureka, California and WPNE984, Mt. Lassen, California. In accordance with Section 101.17 of the Commission's Rules, Spectrum attached its substantial service showing to the subject renewal applications. Spectrum's applications were accepted for filing on February 7, 2001. Pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, the deadline for filing petitions to deny against Spectrum's applications was March 9, 2001. On March 29, 2001, TRW was granted a license for the Redding, California Economic Area (EA). On April 16, 2001, TRW filed its petition to deny against the subject applications. On May 8, 2001, Spectrum filed an Opposition to the Petition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2335A1.txt
  • authority held by Kerrville was found, upon initial review, to be acceptable for filing and subject to the streamlined processing procedures set forth in section 63.12 of the Commission's rules. See Streamlined International Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No. TEL-00447S (rel. Sept. 28, 2001); see also 47 C.F.R. � 63.12. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 63.52(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). See 47 C.F.R. � 63.52(b); 47 U.S.C. � 309(b). PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov � � � � @ � �� @ � �� +D�� +D`� +D`� �����PNG > �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ���
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2352A1.txt
  • deny or dismiss the AGS Application. Spectrum contends that we should summarily dismiss the In-Sync Petitions because they were untimely filed and because In-Sync lacks standing to file a petition to deny in this proceeding. DISCUSSION Based on our review and analysis of the record in this proceeding, we agree with Spectrum that the In-Sync Petitions are procedurally defective. Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules sets forth the requirements for petitions to deny. Section 1.939(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules states that for non-auctionable applications, petitions to deny must be filed within thirty days after the date of the public notice accepting the application for filing. In this case, the public notice accepting the application for filing was dated January 24, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2369A1.txt
  • serve its petition on Spectrum. Spectrum contends that we should summarily dismiss the In-Sync Petitions because they were untimely filed and because In-Sync lacks standing to file a petition to deny in this proceeding. DISCUSSION Based on our review and analysis of the record in this proceeding, we agree with Spectrum that the petitions to deny are procedurally defective. Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules sets forth the requirements for petitions to deny. Section 1.939(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules states that for non-auctionable applications, petitions to deny must be filed within thirty days after the date of the public notice accepting the application for filing. In this case, the public notice accepting the Americom Application for filing was dated January 24,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-240A1.txt
  • we will dismiss as defective its applications for AMTS stations that would serve the Savannah River, Chesapeake Bay, south coastal region of California, Sacramento River Delta area, and Apalachicola and Chattahoochee Rivers. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny File Nos. 853269-77, and 853279-86, filed by Warren C. Havens, on July 6, 2000 IS GRANTED IN PART as set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 1.934(d)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2417A1.txt
  • held by Teleglobe Inc. was found, upon initial review, to be acceptable for filing and subject to the streamlined processing procedures set forth in section 63.12 of the Commission's rules. See Streamlined International Application Accepted for Filing, Report No. TEL-00457S (rel. October 26, 2001); see also 47 C.F.R. � 63.12. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 63.52(c) and 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). See 47 C.F.R. � 63.52(b); 47 U.S.C. � 309(b). PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 418-2830 TTY 202 / 418-2555 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov ftp.fcc.gov � �� +D�� +D`� +D`� �����PNG > �!�R>^��S�S߿�"K�k������er4 �J�dM�O�O � �,I TV��5 0�z̪�� ��� %�o� �� � �a�% Tf(c) U~��Uy�Ӛ�o=�c� {�YAD ���Zv�}�YAD
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-241A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 1.934(d) and 80.475(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.934(d), 80.475(a), FCC File Nos. 852997-853009, filed by Warren C. Havens on February 1 and 10, 2000 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny FCC File Nos. 852999-853001, 853003-853006, 853008-853009, filed by Waterway Communications, Inc., on March 24, 2000 IS DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2550A1.txt
  • See Opposition at 1-2. Reply at 2-4. Id. at 4. According to Commission sign-out records, Havens's information collection request regarding Call Sign WRV374 (which included applications, attachments, licenses, activation letters, waivers, etc.) was completed during the period of November 2 through November 16, 2000. Shortly after this time period, he was given copies of the requested information. 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). See Ogden Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3116, 3117 � 5 (MMB VSD 1992). See Sagir, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8159 (2001); Gap Cellular, L.C., Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4540 (WTB CWD 2000); Bravo Cellular, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 4517 (WTB CWD 2000). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2574A1.txt
  • to serve. Therefore, PCM's application is in violation of sections 1.934(e)(2) and 22.949(a)(1)(iii) of the Commission's rules. For these reasons, we grant Concho's Petition and dismiss PCM's above-captioned application as defective. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Concho Cellular Telephone Company IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and sections 1.934(e)(2), 22.911, and 22.949(a)(1)(iii), 47 C.F.R. �� 1.934(e), 22.911,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2581A1.txt
  • licensees from this new ``substantial service'' renewal standard. On January 31, 2001, Commco filed a renewal application for its 39 GHz band Station WPJC568 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In accordance with Section 101.17 of the Commission's Rules, Commco attached its substantial service showing to the subject renewal applications. Commco's application was accepted for filing on February 7, 2001. Pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, the deadline for filing petitions to deny against Commco's applications was March 9, 2001. Mr. Beyerle states that he attempted to file the Petition through the Universal Licensing System (ULS) on March 9, 2001, but was unable to do so. Mr. Beyerle represents that he asked a member of the ULS Technical Support staff how he
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2623A1.txt
  • asking for additional information on the alternative CGSA proposals at the sites located at Springfield and Walsenberg. NECC seeks reconsideration and clarification of the December Order. Discussion We deny NECC's Reconsideration Petition for several reasons. First, we dismissed NECC's Petition to Deny in the December Order because the petition was filed almost two and one-half months late. Pursuant to section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, a petition to deny must be filed within 30 days of the date that an application is listed on public notice as accepted for filing. The public notice listing WWC's Application as accepted for filing was released on June 30, 1999. Petitions to deny were therefore due no later than July 30, 1999. NECC filed its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2826A1.txt
  • C.F.R. � 0.331, the Reply to Opposition to Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by of AirPaging Communications Corp. aka Super Beeper Electronic II, Inc on September 13, 2001, IS DISMISSED as untimely filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Deny or Dismiss filed by AirPaging Communications Corp. aka Super Beeper Electronic II, Inc. on August 8, 2001, IS DISMISSED as raising issues outside the scope permitted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2906A1.txt
  • because Havens was not a party to the proceeding and did not explain why it was not possible for him to participate in the earlier stages of the proceeding. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(a)(1). Compare 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b)(1) with 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(g). Petition for Reconsideration at 6-8. Id. at 6-7. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939; see also 47 U.S.C. � 309(d). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.933, 1.945(a). Even if we were to assume arguendo that the channel block B applications amended the channel block A applications, it would be considered a major amendment, 47 C.F.R. � 1.929(a)(6), which would trigger a new petition to deny filing period. 47 C.F.R. � 1.945(a). Petition for Reconsideration at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3024A1.txt
  • The Commission, however, is not bound by the title that a filing party gives a pleading, particularly if, as here, the form chosen appears designed to circumvent our procedural rules . We therefore will address the Petition as a petition to deny. A. Procedural Matters 5. The Petition clearly is untimely as to all but one of the Applications. Section 1.939(a)(2) of the Commission's rules states that for non-auctionable applications, petitions to deny must be filed within thirty days after the date of the public notice accepting the applications for filing. Consumers Alliance filed its Petition on August 24, 2001, well past the respective filing deadlines of July 13, 2001 and August 6, 2001 for the majority of the Applications. Moreover,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-371A1.txt
  • such agreement. Id. Id. at 1772 � 14. 39 GHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 13648, 13648 (WTB 2000) (Auction Closing PN). See id. Id. at 13656-13759. TRW, FCC Form 601. WinStar Comments, filed July 31, 2000 (Comments); WCA, Petition to Deny, filed July 31, 2000 (Petition). At the outset, we note that 47 C.F.R. �� 1.925, 1.939, 1.2108 do not authorize the filing of a petition to deny against a waiver request. Comments may be filed in response to the filing of a waiver request. Because the title of a pleading filed by a party is not controlling as to the disposition of the pleading, we will consider WCA's filing as comments concerning the waiver request. Daniel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-890A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-890A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-890A3.txt
  • us to redraw the CGSA. Accordingly, we conclude that NECC's application is defective under Section 22.912(a) of the Commission's rules because the SAB of each cell site it proposes impermissibly extends into Sagir's authorized CGSA. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Sections 1.934(d)(2), 1.939, 22.912(a) and 22.949(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.934(d)(2), 1.939, 22.912(a), and 22.949(a), the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sagir, Inc. on April 30, 2000 in the above-captioned matter is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Sections 1.934(d)(2),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-98A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-98A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-98A1.txt
  • of the renewal application for Station WPER274, are dismissed without prejudice or returned without action. The renewal application relating to Station WPER274 is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the Wyoming State Court litigation discussed herein. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939, 1.41, that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny/Informal Complaint filed by Communication Technologies, Inc. on August 30, 1999, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the application to assign or transfer the licenses for Stations WNJN327, WPER274, WPET577 and WPAF615, filed by Western Management Corporation on July 26, 1999, FCC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1023A1.txt
  • a period of a year or more and, if so, the date on which the system(s) were permanently taken out of service; and, 5) the frequencies on which the stations currently operate. On November 7, 2001, GlobeCast responded to the letter and provided the requested information. III. DISCUSSION Prior to addressing GlobeCast's applications, we will address the Fine Petition. Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules sets forth the requirements for petitions to deny. Section 1.939(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules states that for non-auctionable applications, petitions to deny must be filed within thirty days after the date of the public notice accepting the application for filing. In this case, the public notice accepting the applications for filing was dated April 11, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1149A1.txt
  • Branch should not have considered the information submitted in the Section 308(b) Response. Repeater first contends that the Section 308(b) Response was untimely filed because, under Commission rules, oppositions to petitions to deny must be filed within ten days after the petition is filed. Repeater further complains that because it was not served the Section 308(b) Response pursuant to Section 1.939(c) of the Commission's rules, Repeater was denied the right to reply. While Repeater is correct about the deadline under Section 1.45 of the Commission's rules for filing oppositions to petitions to deny, Bay submitted the information in response to the Branch's request for additional information pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act, as amended. Section 308(b) is a tool
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1411A1.txt
  • Petition at 3. Jonach Electronics, Order on Further Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 13094 (WTB PSPWD 2001). Id. � 9. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1202(d)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 0.445(a). See Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086 (DC Cir. 1976). PLMR applications are not subject to the formal procedures associated with petitions to deny as set forth in Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. Rather, objections to such applications are governed by the Commission's informal request rules set forth in Section 1.41. 47 C.F.R. � 1.41. See Landlinx Communications, Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 24932, 24933 � 4 (2000). 47 C.F.R. � 1.41. See, e.g., Applications of WINV, Inc., Assignor, and WGUL-FM, Inc., Assignee,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1669A1.txt
  • within 30 days from the date of public notice of the challenged action. JPJ was notified that its request for bidding credits was denied on October 17, 2001. The instant Petition was filed on April 17, 2002, six months after that action and well after the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration. III. Ordering Clause C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by JPJ Electronic Communications, Inc. Rene Matthew Corporation on April 17, 2002 IS HEREBY DISMISSED. Federal Communications Commission Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2110(f)(2)(i) (setting forth bidding credit criteria). See Petition at 4-5. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1). See Minnesota PCS Limited Partnership, Order,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1722A1.txt
  • 47 C.F.R. � 1.41, that the Petition for Initiation of License Revocation Proceeding filed by Futronics, Inc., on August 30, 2001 IS DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED AS MOOT IN PART to the extent described herein. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), that the Petition to Deny filed by Futronics, Inc., on April 5, 2002, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1929A1.txt
  • 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Robert D. Ryan on May 4, 2001 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), 309(d) and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Opposition to the Granting of Pending License Transfer A050009 filed by Overlook Hospital on March 27, 2000 IS DISMISSED. These actions are taken pursuant to delegated authority granted under the provisions of Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2849A1.txt
  • business entity. For the same reasons, we further conclude that Telesaurus' allegations provide no grounds for conducting an audit of PCS' reported gross revenues. Accordingly, we will deny Telesaurus' Petition in its entirety. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.939(h) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939(h), the Petition to Deny filed by Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC on August 20, 2001 IS HEREBY DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Linda C. Ray Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See Petition at 1. See ``VHF Public Coast and Location and Monitoring Service Spectrum Auction Closes,''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2979A1.txt
  • response to Excomm's petition, WWC filed an amended application on May 23, 2002, which restored the contours at the Chugwater site to their original operating parameters. We therefore dismiss the petition as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ��154(i), 309(d), and sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.331, 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Excomm, LLC on April 19, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 47 C.F.R. � 22.911(b). Public Notice, Report No. 1127 (Mar. 20, 2002). Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2983A1.txt
  • its license. We therefore deny Arcom's Petition and refer VI Mobile's application to the Commercial Wireless Division's Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch for further processing in accordance with Commission rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 5(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by Ralph Addington d/b/a Arcom Communications on June 15, 2001, IS DENIED. Federal Communications Commission Paul D'Ari, Chief Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Petition to Deny filed by Ralph Addington d/b/a Arcom Communications (June 15, 2001). FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2984A1.txt
  • Reply one day late. That, however, is incorrect. The Reply was filed in a timely manner. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.4(h). On May 25, 2001, Lone Star filed a response to GEI's Reply. Commission rules, however, do not provide for the filing of a response to a reply to the opposition to a petition to deny. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(f) (stating that ``[t]he applicant and any other interested party may file an opposition to any petition to deny and the petitioner may file a reply thereto''). We therefore will not consider the arguments presented in Lone Star's May 25, 2001 response. 47 U.S.C. � 308(b). Letter from Paul D'Ari, Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division to John J.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3149A1.txt
  • boundary to extend into Virginia-10's cellular geographic service area without the consent from Virginia-10. On November 5, 2002, Verizon withdrew its application. We therefore dismiss the Virginia-10 Petition as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Virginia 10 RSA Limited Partnership on July 19, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy & Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau File No. 0000918877. Public Notice, Report No. 1207 (June 19, 2002). Petition to Deny filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3209A1.txt
  • harmful interference to SBI's existing system. On July 11, 2002, McElroy amended its application to remove any potential interference to SBI's system. We therefore dismiss the SBI Petition as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Smith Bagley, Inc. on July 11, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy & Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Notice, Report No. 1201 (June 12, 2002). Petition to Deny filed by Smith Bagley, Inc. (July 11,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3341A1.txt
  • provide cellular service in the Colorado 1 - Moffat Rural Service Area. The application appeared on public notice as accepted for filing on June 5, 2002, and was granted on July 26, 2002. On July 25, 2002, CommNet Cellular License Holding, LLC (CommNet) filed an untimely petition to deny the application (Petition) together with a request for waiver of section 1.939(a)(2) of the Commission's rules, which sets forth the filing deadline for petitions to deny. On August 8, 2002, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch of the Commercial Wireless Division set aside the July 26, 2002 grant of Excomm's application and dismissed the application because the service area boundary of the proposed cellular site extended into CommNet's protected cellular geographic service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3351A1.txt
  • Petition to Deny (Informal Objection) filed by Ralph Addington d/b/a Arcom Communications on June 26, 2001, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Scot Stone Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Private land mobile radio applications are not subject to the formal procedures associated with petitions to deny as set forth in Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. Rather, objections to such applications are governed by the Commission's informal request rules set forth in Section 1.41, 47 C.F.R. � 1.41. See, e.g., Landlinx Communications, Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 24932, 24933 � 4 (WTB PSPWD 2000). Petition to Deny (Informal Request) filed by Ralph Addington d/b/a/ Arcom Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3374A1.txt
  • within 30 days from the date of public notice of the challenged action. JPJ was notified that its request for bidding credits was denied on October 17, 2001. The instant Petition was filed on April 17, 2002, six months after that action and well after the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration. III. Ordering Clause C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by JPJ Electronic Communications, Inc. Rene Matthew Corporation on April 17, 2002 IS HEREBY DISMISSED. Federal Communications Commission Linda C. Ray Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2110(f)(2)(i) (setting forth bidding credit criteria). See Petition at 4-5. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1). See Minnesota PCS Limited
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3375A1.txt
  • within 30 days from the date of public notice of the challenged action. JPJ was notified that its request for bidding credits was denied on October 17, 2001. The instant Petition was filed on April 17, 2002, six months after that action and well after the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration. III. Ordering Clause C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by JPJ Electronic Communications, Inc. Rene Matthew Corporation on April 17, 2002 IS HEREBY DISMISSED. Federal Communications Commission Linda C. Ray Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See 47 C.F.R. � 1.2110(f)(2)(i) (setting forth bidding credit criteria). See Petition at 4-5. 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1). See Minnesota PCS Limited
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-708A1.txt
  • substantial level of service in the subject areas. Accordingly, we find that Commco has demonstrated substantial service in accordance with Section 101.17 of the Commission's Rules, thus warranting renewal of its current authorizations. Ordering Clauses IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by TRW, Inc. on April 10, 2001, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1.949 and 101.17 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.949, 101.17, renewal applications filed by Commco Technology, LLC, Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession, FCC Nos. 0000351676, 0000351289, SHALL BE GRANTED. This
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-847A1.txt
  • application (FCC Form 175), whichever is earlier. (c) Definitions. The terms small business and consortium of small businesses used in this section are defined in � 22.223. Revise � 22.227 to read as follows: � 22.227 Petitions to deny and limitations on settlements. (a) Procedures regarding petitions to deny long-form applications in the paging service will be governed by � 1.939. (b) The consideration that an individual or an entity will be permitted to receive for agreeing to withdraw an application or petition to deny will be limited by the provisions set forth in � 1.935. Revise � 22.228 to read as follows: � 22.228 Cellular Rural Service Area licenses subject to competitive bidding. Mutually exclusive initial applications for Cellular Rural
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-847A1_Erratum.doc
  • application (FCC Form 175), whichever is earlier. (c) Definitions. The terms small business and consortium of small businesses used in this section are defined in � 22.223. Revise � 22.227 to read as follows: � 22.227 Petitions to deny and limitations on settlements. (a) Procedures regarding petitions to deny long-form applications in the paging service will be governed by � 1.939. (b) The consideration that an individual or an entity will be permitted to receive for agreeing to withdraw an application or petition to deny will be limited by the provisions set forth in � 1.935. Revise � 22.228 to read as follows: � 22.228 Cellular Rural Service Area licenses subject to competitive bidding. Mutually exclusive initial applications for Cellular Rural
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-876A1.txt
  • U.S.C. � 405; 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b). The 10 Petitions filed on April 23, the 13 Petitions filed on April 25, the 15 Petitions filed on April 27 and the 14 Petitions filed on May 3, 2001 all addressed Nextel Notifications listed in the March 21 grant Public Notice; the 30 day-deadline was April 20, 2001. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2) (requiring that petitions to deny be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice listing the application as accepted for filing). The Petitions filed against the 6 Renewal Applications were filed on April 19, April 23, April 25, April 27 and May 3, 2001. See Opposition at 5. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1) (providing that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1044A1.txt
  • other base station and mobile frequencies. We conclude that these applications are deemed to request ten channels and may be processed upon release of this item if the applications otherwise meet Commission requirements, including Section 90.187(e). Finally, we dismiss Hexagram's Petition to Deny, which seeks interference protection for all co-channel licensees from i2way's operations in the 450-470 MHz bands. Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules provides that petitions to deny must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice listing the application or major amendment to the application as accepted for filing. While most of the applications listed in Hexagram's Petition were filed in January 2001, the public notice accepting the latest amendments to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1102A1.txt
  • new markets, and provide new services to subscribers and increase subscribership in markets in which it currently provides service. We therefore grant the Applications. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 309, and 310(d), and Section s 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.331, 1.939, that the Petition to Deny of National Engineering Technical Company IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 309, 310(d), that the Applications filed by Northcoast Communications, LLC, to assign its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1102A1_Erratum.doc
  • new markets, and provide new services to subscribers and increase subscribership in markets in which it currently provides service. We therefore grant the Applications. ORDERING CLAUSES ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 309, and 310(d), and Section s 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 0.331, 1.939, that the Petition to Deny of National Engineering Technical Company IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and (j), 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 154(j), 309, 310(d), that the Applications filed by Northcoast Communications, LLC, to assign its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1779A1.txt
  • we find that correctly filed formal objections within 30 days of the second public notice, i.e., by January 10, 2003, would have been timely. 8. We agree however, with Albemarle's second procedural argument that the objections were improperly filed as petitions to deny because they were filed with the Deputy Chief instead of the Secretary's office, as required by Sec. 1.939 of the Commission's rules. In the case of an application to which Section 309(b) of the Communications Act applies, formal objections based on environmental considerations shall be filed as petitions to deny. Petitions to deny filed against an application placed on public notice as accepted for filing must be filed either electronically in the Universal Licensing System or manually with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2064A1.txt
  • Oct. 16, 2002). On April 30, 2003, Mobex requested a further extension because the Commission had not yet acted on its modification application. Request for Extension of Time, File No. 0001293111 (filed Apr. 30, 2003). The further extension was granted on May 29, 2003. Opposition at 1-2. Mobex also argues that Havens failed to comply with the 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d) requirement that allegations of fact in a petition to deny be supported by affidavit. Opposition at 3. No affidavit is needed in this case, however, because all of the operative facts - largely regarding what Mobex filed in 2000 and 2002 - are of the type of which we can take official notice. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). LMS provides
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2065A1.txt
  • Havens offers no new objective information to the contrary. Conclusion. Havens has not demonstrated any defect in Mobex's renewal applications under the Commission's rules and policies. Consequently, we deny Havens's petition to deny the applications. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens on December 13, 2002 IS DENIED, and applications File Nos. 0001082495-0001082548 SHALL BE REFERRED to the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch for processing consistent with this Order. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.txt
  • new applications for ITFS applications for the E and F Group Channels would be accepted, we conclude that the application is defective pursuant to Section 73.3566 of the Commission's Rules. We therefore dismiss the application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 1.939(g), 21.30 and 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939(g), 21.30, 74.912, the Petition to Deny filed by the Grand MMDS Alliance New York F/P Partnership on September 27, 1995, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3121A1.txt
  • 214 Authorizations, and Their Request for Declaratory Ruling Allowing Indirect Foreign Ownership, IB Docket No. 02-286, DA 03-1724, 18 FCC Rcd 10447 (Int'l Bur. 2003 ) (providing the following filing dates: June 16, 2003 for first-round petitions; June 26, 2003 for second-round oppositions; and July 3, 2003 for third-round replies). See also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.45 (pleadings and filing periods), 1.939(e) (petition to deny a major amendment may raise only matters directly related to the major amendment). As discussed above, the filing of the Third Amendment, reflecting ST Telemedia's assumption of the rights and obligations of Hutchison Telecommunications Ltd. in addition to the continuation of ST Telemedia's own rights and obligations under the Purchase Agreement, mooted the Second Amendment that Applicants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3726A1.txt
  • the allegations. In this case, ACSI has presented no new arguments that would persuade us to reach a different result, and we, therefore, deny ACSI's Petition to Deny. Ordering clause Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309, and Sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by ACS Investments, Inc. on November 29, 2002, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy & Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Commission Petition to Deny, filed by ACS Investments, Inc. (Nov. 29, 2002). Specifically, the application seeks authority to convert service from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3826A1.txt
  • impact on the environment. Therefore, we deny the Petition to Deny, issue the FONSI, grant the Application, dismiss as moot Mr. Kane's petition to require an EA, and rescind the June 2002 order to stop work. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �154(i), and Sections 1.939(b) and 1.1313(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939(b) and 1.1313(a), the Petition to Deny filed by Petitioners on June 19, 2003 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �154(i), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 C.F.R. �� 1501.3, 1508.9 and 1508.13, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-615A1.txt
  • 508, 519-520 (Mass Media Bur. and Wireless Tel. Bur. 2002) (an Environmental Assessment is not required when a SHPO (or the Commission) concurs with the tower constructor that the project will not adversely affect historic properties). We note that the petition to deny and comments on the Environmental Assessment were untimely filed under the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. Nonetheless, we have fully considered these pleadings in our review under the NHPA. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1306. Mr. William J. Sill March 10, 2003 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 March 11, 2003 R S � � �B��k�(/YM��`鉉��PNG �0���eX...�W0f�"˸ -ʝ �D... p-C� C\ i8 �] ~'��\��� g�bF�JU �}p�� Ӵ�:|Y�.̕� ���`]fe�ʦ�S ��8���o��(R)� �� -�o} �^ rt2 ; X�0~B�e6%����70o�B(R)x�oG�� �k��"a �n�"W -1��$�7'����2
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-641A1.txt
  • reasons stated above, we conclude that Biztel has demonstrated sufficiently its provision of substantial service during the subject license terms. Thus, we conclude that grant of the renewal applications is warranted. V. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the applications filed by Biztel, Inc. for renewal of the licenses for Stations WMT884, Omaha, Nebraska and WPJA898, San Juan, Puerto Rico (respectively, 0000309573 and 0000314076) ARE GRANTED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-690A1.txt
  • numbers of illegal radios raises serious questions about the fitness of both Harvey and Thomas to be Commission licensees, warranting the denial of the instant applications and, at the very least, requiring an investigation by the Commission. Discussion. Private land mobile radio applications are not subject to the formal procedures associated with petitions to deny as set forth in Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules. Rather, objections to such applications are governed by the Commission's informal request rules set forth in Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules. We deny Arcom's Informal Requests because they do not raise substantial or material questions of fact that a grant of the applications would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. With respect
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-843A1.txt
  • 0.331 and 1.934 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.934, the Application for Modification of Station WPFN331 filed by Donna J. Olson on March 8, 2002, IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309, and Sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. on March 19, 2002, IS DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 0.331 and 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1058A1.txt
  • pending, the Mobility Division, on its own motion, dismissed the above-captioned applications as defective for failing to meet the Commission's frequency coordination requirements. We therefore dismiss Kurian's Petition as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by Thomas K. Kurian on September 22, 2003, IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Cyndi Thomas Assistant Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization, FCC Form 601, File No. 0001419150 (Aug. 15, 2003). FCC Application for Wireless
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1493A1.txt
  • Notice. Applicants can obtain an FCC Registration Number (FRN) using the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov/ and select ``CORES/Call Sign Registration'' from the right hand menu under the heading of Licensing. Applicants must consult and follow FCC Form 601-Instructions. See 47 C.F.R. �101.147(z)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.945(b)(c). See id. at � 1.945(b); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2) (petitions to deny common carrier applications must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice listing such applications as accepted for filing). Ordinarily, in requesting authority to offer both common carrier and non-common carrier service, an applicant would choose to file a single FCC Form 601 and enter Codes C and N on it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1493A1_Erratum.doc
  • Notice. Applicants can obtain an FCC Registration Number (FRN) using the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov/ and select ``CORES/Call Sign Registration'' from the right hand menu under the heading of Licensing. Applicants must consult and follow FCC Form 601-Instructions. See 47 C.F.R. �101.147(z)(1). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.945(b)(c). See id. at � 1.945(b); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2) (petitions to deny common carrier applications must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice listing such applications as accepted for filing). Ordinarily, in requesting authority to offer both common carrier and non-common carrier service, an applicant would choose to file a single FCC Form 601 and enter Codes C and N on it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2019A1.txt
  • Petition and the Club Petition. We also dismiss as moot the Petition for Environmental Assessment, filed by HFC, dated July 16, 2002, and the State's Petition for Reconsideration of the Division's May 8, 2003 Letter. V. ORDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �154(i), and Sections 1.939(b) and 1.1313(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939(b) and 1.1313(a), the separate Petitions to Deny, filed by the Harpers Ferry Conservancy and the Potomac Trail Club, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.935 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.935, that the Request for Acknowledgement of Withdrawal of ATPO Comments and Letter, filed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2990A1.txt
  • We further conclude that allowing the State to construct a tower needed for public safety radio communications near Deersville, Ohio, will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Accordingly, we grant the State's application. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �154(i), and Sections 1.939(b) and 1.1313(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939(b) and 1.1313(a), the Petition to Deny filed by the Forest Conservation Council and the American Bird Conservancy IS DENIED. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �303(a), and Section 17.4 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 17.4,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4051A1.txt
  • 0001370847, 0001370848, 0001370850, and 0001768691; and grant in part and deny in part Havens's petition to deny Mobex's transfer of control application FCC File No. 0001885281. The applications will be processed consistent with this Order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens on August 7, 2003 IS DENIED with respect to FCC File Nos. 0001370847, 0001370848, and 0001370850; the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens on July 29, 2004 IS DENIED with respect to FCC File No. 0001768691; the petition to deny filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • permit them to continue to provide service from their now-licensed locations. Joint Opposition to Petitions to Deny In its Joint Opposition, Nextel and WorldCom first argue that the Petitions to Deny filed by NCI and ITF are procedurally defective and must be dismissed because NCI and ITF failed to serve Nextel with copies of their Petitions as required by Section 1.939(c) of the Commission's rules. The Applicants also contend that all three of the Petitions should be dismissed for lack of standing and for failure to make the required showing pursuant to Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act. Specifically, the Applicants argue that the Petitions fail to make a prima facie showing that a grant of the Applications is inconsistent with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1316A1.txt
  • Debtors filed a Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Request for Leave to File Substantive Response, dated May 18, 2004; a Statement of Licensee Debtors-in-Possession, dated May 27, 2004; and a Reply to Supplement to Petition to Deny, dated May 28, 2004. Procedural IssueS The Debtors argue that the Petition should be dismissed as an unauthorized pleading under section 1.939 of the Commission's rules. Pursuant to section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, a petition to deny may be filed against ``any application listed in a Public Notice as accepted for filing.'' However, involuntary assignments and transfers of control are expressly excluded from the requirement to be placed on public notice as accepted for filing. Moreover, section 1.939 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1317A1.txt
  • not have the requisite qualifications to be a Commission licensee or assignor. We find that the Debtor has shown the requisite qualifications to assign the license. Furthermore, we find the assignment of the License from the Debtor to Cricket to be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 1.933(d) and 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.933(d), 1.939(a), the Petition to Deny filed by Alpine PCS, Inc. and Alpine Operating, LLC is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority granted in Sections 4(i), 309(j), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(j), 310(d), the Applications, dated March 3, 2004,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1510A1.txt
  • not have the requisite qualifications to be a Commission licensees or assignors or that Calcutt, as receiver, lacked the requisite legal authority to enter into the transaction reflected in the Applications. Furthermore, we find the assignment of the Licenses to be in the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1.933(d) and 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.933(d), 1.939(a), the Request for Commission Action and Supplement to Petition to Deny filed by Alpine PCS, Inc. and Alpine Operating, LLC is DISMISSED with respect to the Applications. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority granted in Sections 4(i), 309(j), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-286A1.txt
  • argument considered and rejected in the PSPWD Order. As a result, we have no basis on which to consider Cal Western's Petition. We therefore deny Cal Western's Petition to Deny. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by Cal Western Termite Control Inc., is DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Cyndi Thomas Assistant Chief, Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Opposition to Applications, Letter from Arthur B. Cook, Counsel for Cal Western Termite Control Inc. to Terry L. Fishel, Chief, Land Mobile Branch, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2947A1.txt
  • licenses at issue, and therefore outside of the scope of the concern here. We deny Havens's petition to deny for the same reasons that we denied his earlier petitions directed at the same Mobex licenses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens on July 6, 2005 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that application File No. 0002197542 SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent with this Order and the Commission's Rules. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2948A1.txt
  • to deny because Mobex has not adequately demonstrated that proposed station KPB531 will not cause interference to television reception. Consequently, application File No. 0001438800 will be denied, and application File No. 0001439011 will be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens on August 7, 2003 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to deny filed by KM LPTV of Chicago-13, LLC on October 24, 2003 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applications File Nos. 0001438800 and 0001439011 SHALL BE PROCESSED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2948A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2948A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2948A2.txt
  • to deny because Mobex has not adequately demonstrated that proposed station KPB531 will not cause interference to television reception. Consequently, application File No. 0001438800 will be denied, and application File No. 0001439011 will be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens on August 7, 2003 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to deny filed by KM LPTV of Chicago-13, LLC on October 24, 2003 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applications File Nos. 0001438800 and 0001439011 SHALL BE PROCESSED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-338A1.txt
  • site at Quemado, New Mexico. SBI counters its own contention arguing that WWC's application is so defective because of the interference that it would cause to SBI's Station KNKR315 that WWC's application ``does not warrant concurrent consideration with SBI's Quemado application'' and ``should be dismissed.'' We initially dismiss SBI's argument as a late-filed petition to deny WWC's initial application. Section 1.939(a)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that petitions to deny must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the public notice listing the application as accepted for filing. WWC's application was accepted for filing on July 17, 2002, establishing a deadline for petitions to deny of August 16, 2002. SBI filed its Opposition, which presents its argument
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1401A1.txt
  • standing because none of the petitioners is licensed to operate any AMTS system that is in direct competition with Station WHG545, and the LMS station is not constructed or operating. Opposition to Petition at 2-3. It is questionable whether the mere potential for competition suffices to confer standing under Section 309(d)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. See New World Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 294 F.3d 164, 169-72 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (standing ``is premised on the petitioner's status as a direct and current competitor whose bottom line may be adversely affected by the challenged government action,'' so no standing to challenge license grant that "is, at most, the first
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1581A1.txt
  • pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Petitioners have not provided a basis to deny the ITMW and AMTS Consortium applications. We accordingly deny the petitions to deny. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petitions to Deny applications FCC File Nos. 0002302769 and 0002304206 filed by Paging Systems, Inc. and Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC on November 10, 2005, ARE DENIED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.313 and 0.331. Federal Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1582A1.txt
  • not provided a basis to dismiss or designate issues against the MC/LM and PSI applications. We accordingly deny the petitions to deny. We also deny the Motion to Hold in Abeyance. For the aforementioned reasons, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Deny application FCC File No. 0002303355 filed by Warren C. Havens, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, AMTS Consortium, LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC on November 14, 2005, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2249A1.txt
  • Band ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Report No. AUC-65 DA 06-1520 FCC File No. 0002653156 FCC File No. 0002658043 ORDER Adopted: October 30, 2006 Released: October 31, 2006 By the Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Introduction We have before us a Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Sections 1.939, 1.2108, and 1.41 (``Petition'') of the Commission's Rules, filed by AMTS Consortium LLC and Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC regarding the two above-referenced applications for authorizations to provide air-ground radiotelephone service in the 800 MHz band. The Havens Parties' pleading is based on allegations that certain Auction 65 rules were ``unconstitutionally vague, otherwise defective, and thus unenforceable'' and that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-399A1.txt
  • determining whether the proposed construction would have a significant environmental effect. American Tower, thereafter, supplemented its Environmental Assessment and served copies of the documents on all parties. Discussion American Tower initially argues that the petitions should not be considered due to procedural deficiencies. Petitions to deny an application, contesting an environmental assessment, must comply with the procedural requirements in Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules. Under Section 1.939, the petition to deny must be filed within thirty days following placement of the application on public notice. The petition must be filed electronically via the Universal Licensing System (ULS) or manually with the Office of the Secretary, and must be served upon the applicant. A petitioner must set out specific allegations of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-651A1.txt
  • and PSI's representations to the Commission concerning same, do not provide a sufficient basis for denying the Application on the grounds that PSI is not qualified to hold the subject MAS licenses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLV on October 24, 2005, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-790A1.txt
  • filed by Mobile Relay Associates on January 6, 2005 in association with application FCC File No. 0001996438 IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0001996438, filed by Mobile Relay Associates on January 6, 2005 SHALL BE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Informal Petition to Dismiss or Deny of National Science and Technology Network, Inc., filed on July 7, 2005, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT, and the Informal Objection of San Diego State University, filed on April 28, 2005, IS DISMISSED IN PART AS MOOT. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1061A1.txt
  • the HHI is zero. Accordingly, we find no need for a further, in-depth analysis based on concentration measures and find Chama's argument regarding anti-competitive impact to be without merit. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � � 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 0.331 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � � 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by Chama Wireless, LLC on October 6, 2005, IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Lloyd W. Coward Deputy Chief Mobility Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Petition to Deny, filed by Chama Wireless, LLC (Oct. 6, 2005). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2102(a), 22.131. Chama's application (File No. 0002252327)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1068A1.txt
  • facts or more general allegations on information and belief, supported by general affidavits . . . are not sufficient'' to establish a prima facie case of misrepresentation or lack of candor. Accordingly, we are denying the Motion and Supplement because of the lack of evidentiary support for the allegations made therein. oRDERING CLAUSES Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939 and Sections 4(i) and 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d)(1), the Motion to Set Aside, filed by EMR Consulting, Inc. on October 17, 2005, and the Supplement to Motion to Set Aside and Further Request for Investigation and Order to Show Cause, filed by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1196A1.txt
  • 6, 10, 21, 24-25; see also Second Reply at 6-8, 10. See, e.g., ACL Petition at 6-7, 15-24; see also ACL Reply at 3-6. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.933(b) (providing for additional public notice of applications subject to a major amendment, but not providing for such public notice for applications subject to a minor amendment); see also 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939(e) (discussing petitions to deny amended applications, but making mention only of applications subject to a major amendment), 1.2105(b)(2) (recognizing the dichotomous treatment of major and minor amendments with respect to auction applications). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.929(k). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2105, 1.929(a)(2) See Second Petition at 6-7. As explained in the Second Order, the Division did not find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1197A1.txt
  • 10, 2006; Clarification of Treatment of Bids by Bidders Sharing a Controlling Interest,'' Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 5058 (WTB 2006) (``Auction No. 65 Supplemental Procedures Public Notice''). Id. at 5058 and n.4. Division Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5120 � 10 On August 7, 2006, the Havens Parties filed a ``Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Sections 1.939, 1.2108, and 1.41.'' Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC and AMTS Consortium LLC, Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Sections 1.9393, 1.2108 and 1.41, filed on Aug. 7, 2006 (``Auction No. 65 Applications Petition''). The applicants, AC BidCo LLC and LiveTV, LLC, filed oppositions. See AC BidCo LLC, Opposition to Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1557A1.txt
  • 3, Exhibit 4; Reply at 5. Petition at 6-7. Id. at 6-9, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6; Reply at 4-5. Petition at 1, 11; Reply at 2. RCC Opposition at 2-3, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3. RCC Opposition at 3. ALLTEL Opposition at 1, 6, 10. Id. at 2, 9-10. Id. at 4-6; see also 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). ALLTEL Opposition at 6-9. Id. at 7 (citations omitted). Id. at 8. Id. Id. at 8-9. Reply at i. Id. at i, 3-4. Id. at 6-7; see also 47 U.S.C. �� 251, 252; 47 C.F.R. Part 51. Reply at 8. Id. at 11. In light of our resolution of the substantive issues raised in the Petition, we do not find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1729A1.txt
  • she still would prefer that the Commission deny or defer processing of the Application instead of granting it conditionally. See Reply at 2 n.3. See Objection at 1. See Division Letter at 1 (discussing the opposition pleadings). The Division concluded that the Objection was subject to dismissal because it had not been served on the applicants, in violation of Section 1.939(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(c). The Division added that the Objection also appeared to violate other provisions of Section 1.939, but that it was unnecessary to reach that question in light of the finding of a violation of the service requirement. Division Letter at 2. The Petition does not challenge the conclusion in the Division Letter that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1808A1.txt
  • Liability for Forfeiture, finding that Neptuno had apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating unlicensed radio transmitters. The Enforcement Bureau concluded, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, that Neptuno was apparently liable for forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). Neptuno paid the $20,000 forfeiture on February 12, 2007. III. DISCUSSION Section 1.939(d) of the Commission's Rules requires that a petition to deny contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. The PTD alleges that, due to Neptuno's misconduct, it would not be in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2039A1.txt
  • entitled ``Informal Objection'' objecting to the grant of the Application and requesting the Commission to defer action. On May 18, 2006, Wireless filed an opposition asking that the Petition be dismissed or otherwise rejected. On May 26, 2006, Petitioner replied to the Opposition. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Petition insofar as it might be treated under section 1.939 of the Commission's rules as a Petition to Deny the Application. We also deny the Petition insofar as it might be treated as an informal request to defer action on the Application pursuant to section 1.41 of the Commission's rules. BACKGROUND Petitioner states that she was previously married to Thomas K. Kurian (``Mr. Kurian''), that while they were married, he
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-203A1.txt
  • U.S.C. � 154(i), and Sections 21.19 and 21.44 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 21.19, 21.44, that the waiver request filed by Rohel Pascual (File No. 20010430AAB) on November 30, 2004 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the Petition to Deny filed by WHTV Broadcasting Corporation on September 2, 2005 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.46 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.46, that the Request for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2870A1.txt
  • the proposed facilities are operated in accordance with the technical parameters specified in the Applications, there will be no interference to Verizon's existing operations. Verizon has not offered any engineering evidence to establish that the technical specifications proposed by WSI are inconsistent with the Commission's rules, nor has it supported its allegations with the requisite affidavits in accordance with Section 1.939(d) of the Commission's Rules. Furthermore, our own analysis of WSI's proposed technical parameters leads us to conclude that the specifications for WSI's proposed systems are consistent with the Commission's Rules. Moreover, WSI's Applications appear to contain all the required information in accordance with the Commission's licensing rules for point-to-point microwave systems, and have been properly coordinated pursuant to Section 101.103
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-290A1.txt
  • that neither NTELOS nor Havens has established a valid argument as to why the assignment of licenses for Stations WMY290, WMY291 and WQCP982 from WPV to Sprint Nextel is not in the public interest. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the Petition to Deny filed by NTELOS Licenses, Inc. on August 23, 2006 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-291A1.txt
  • the place . . . to reargue the positions already taken in other matters still pending.'' PSI alleges that the ``so-called facts by Petitioners are nothing more than allegations and speculation contained in other filings.'' PSI emphasizes that the PTD fails to cite a Commission decision that makes adverse findings with respect to PSI's qualifications to hold Commission licenses. Section 1.939(d) of the Commission's Rules requires that a petition to deny contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. To establish a party in interest standing, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-295A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.925, that the ``Request for Waiver'' filed by WHTV Broadcasting Corp. d/b/a/ Digital TV One on September 30, 2005 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 1.939 and 27.55 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939, 27.55, that the Petition to Deny filed by Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. on January 30, 2006 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), 309, and Section 1.924 of the Commission's Rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-298A1.txt
  • present such matters that could not, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been learned prior to such opportunity. WBSWP did not file a petition to deny or other objection when the KZB30 Renewal Application and associated Waiver Request were filed. On January 18, 2006, the Commission issued a Public Notice of the filing of the KZB30 renewal application. Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules provides that any interested party who wants to object must file a petition to deny within thirty days of the public notice. WBSWP did not do so. While WBSWP accuses School Board of ``hiding'' the Waiver Request in the Renewal Application, we find School Board's filing method to be appropriate. Waiver Requests are commonly filed with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-305A1.txt
  • filing had selected a given license, that applicant would not automatically be granted the license. Instead, the license would have been removed from the auction and that applicant would have been permitted to file a long-form application. Auction No. 40 Procedures Public Notice at 7671. At that stage, other parties could file petitions to deny the long-form application. 47 C.F.R. �1.939; see Competitive Bidding Second Report and Order at 2376 �165. In any event, none of the short-form applications filed prior to the original deadline were accepted for filing before being purged. Even if they had been accepted, the Bureau still could have dismissed them. See Elleron Oil Company WVI Partners, Inc. Petition for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Short-Form Applications for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3129A1.txt
  • application. In this connection, we note that assignments must be made within the regional plan as adopted by the Regional Planning Committee according to its Commission-approved procedures. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Commission's action in granting Ohio's application for modification is consistent with the Region 33 plan and therefore proper. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939 and Sections 4(i) and 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 309(d)(1), the Petition for Reconsideration to Deny the Grant of the State of Ohio's Application for Modification for Station WPQF782, File No. 00021006060, filed by the City of Brooklyn, Cuyahoga, Ohio and County of Medina, Ohio
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3475A1.txt
  • acceptance of an application for filing. However, NABET's petition was filed 67 days after the public notice. Just as importantly, assert the applicants, NABET did not serve its late-filed petition on either party to the WYTV(TV) assignment application. Under Section 1.45 of the Commission's rules, a petitioner must file its petition to deny in accordance with the procedures of Section 1.939. That section requires that a ``petitioner shall serve a copy of its petition to deny on the applicant and on all other interested parties pursuant to Section 1.47.'' Furthermore, the applicants note that the certificate of service appended to the petition does not even purport to provide service on the parties to the application or their respective counsel. On the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3495A1.txt
  • includ[ing] the innovative remote baggage check points at the convention center, and other tourist sites,'' appears to conflict with the requirement that ATU frequencies be used ``only in connection with servicing and supplying of aircraft.'' Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petitions to deny filed by United Airlines on March 15, 2007, Skywest Airlines on March 20, 2007, and Southwest Airlines on March 21, 2007, ARE GRANTED, and application FCC File No. 0002932217 SHALL BE DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-433A1.txt
  • rules, seeking clarification of the ten-channel limit set forth in Section 90.187(e) of the Commission's rules. The Commission released the Public Notice regarding i2way's applications on December 19, 2001, with a corresponding filing deadline for petitions to deny of January 18, 2002. On February 28, 2002, nearly six weeks later, Hexagram filed its petition to deny certain i2way applications. Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules provides that petitions to deny must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice listing the application or major amendment to the application as accepted for filing. The Bureau denied Hexagram's petition on April 1, 2003, citing Hexagram's failure to meet the required 30 day filing deadline, among other reasons.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4604A1.txt
  • does not provide sufficient basis for rejecting the offered justification. Accordingly, petitions to deny are now due February 11, 2008; oppositions are due February 21, 2008; and replies are due February 28, 2008. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), 303(r), 310(d), and sections 1.939 and 1.948 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939, 1.948, that an extension of 90 days for the filing of petitions to deny, oppositions, and replies regarding the applications for transfer of control and the related petitions for declaratory ruling IS HEREBY GRANTED, and petitions to deny are due February 11, 2008, oppositions are due February 21, 2008, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4605A1.txt
  • business with the FCC (including via ULS) and is not to be confused with the fixed and base station registration procedures discussed below. Applicants can obtain a FRN using the WTB web site at and selecting ``FRN Registration'' from the right hand menu under the heading of Licensing. . See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.945(b)(c). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2) (petitions to deny common carrier applications must be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice listing such applications as accepted for filing). For example, on November 21, 2007, WTB releases the weekly Public Notice of applications received between November 12-16, 2007, that are acceptable for filing. The 31st day following this Public Notice is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-480A1.txt
  • the Commission in Parsons found extraordinary circumstances to excuse the receiver in that case from operating the station prior to receipt of Commission approval to the assignment of the license. See id. See also Applications of D.H. Overmyer Telecasting Co., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 94 FCC 2d 117, 123 (1983). 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1). See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 07-480 Federal Communications Commission DA 07-480 � �@��� �@��� S T � � � h F - � ` � � � 4 �L �X 0a p �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-674A1.txt
  • and deployment of services in rural areas. On July 22, 2005, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making that streamlines and harmonizes the Part 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 rules to clarify spectrum rights and obligations and optimize flexibility for wireless service licensees. For example, the Commission amended sections 1.927, 1.929 and 1.939 regarding the filing of transfers of control, the classification of major vs. minor modifications and the process for filing petitions to deny, respectively. Comments No comments were filed with respect to this subpart. Recommendation The Part 1, subpart F rules establish general procedural requirements applicable to our many different wireless services, and do not contain substantive rules affecting any particular
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-939A1.txt
  • and Location and Monitoring Service Spectrum Auction Scheduled for June 6, 2001; Notice and Filing Requirements for 16 Licenses in the VHF Public Coast and 241 Licenses in the Location and Monitoring Service Auction; Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedural Issues,'' Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 6986, 6991-92 (2001) (``Auction No. 39 Procedures Public Notice''). 47 C.F.R. � 1.939; see also id. � 1.2108 Winstar, 17 FCC Rcd at 6132 � 15. Waiver Request at 3. Id. at 4. Letter to John Jung from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 18 FCC Rcd 14,427, 14,431-32 (2003); see also Letter to Mr. Kurt Schueler, President, New England Mobile Communications, Inc., from Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-987A1.txt
  • the Commission by regulation may prescribe,'' but not requiring the Commission to prescribe such regulations) (emphasis added). January Notice at 1 quoting 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1). See Letter from Erin L. Dozier, Esq., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (transmitting Motion for Leave to File a Consolidated Opposition, filed Feb. 14, 2007). See Motion at 2, n.4 citing 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). According to M2Z, for example, if petitions to deny were filed on February 14, February 20, and March 2, and each petition were served via hand delivery, M2Z would be required to respond to these pleadings on three separate dates: February 26, March 2, and March 12. Id. at n.7. See Motion at 2, n.5 citing 47 C.F.R. �� 1.45(b)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1084A1.txt
  • area. Id. at 1. Id. at 1. See id. at 2. See id. at 3. Paging Systems, Inc., Opposition to Petition to Deny (July 26, 2006). Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, and Intelligent Transportation and Monitoring Wireless LLC, Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny (Aug. 7, 2006). 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d) requires that a petition to deny contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). To establish a party in interest standing, a petitioner must allege facts
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1085A1.txt
  • Universal Licensing System (ULS) records indicate that only one amendment for this application was filed. See Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, File No. 0002303355 (filed Sep. 7, 2005; amended Aug. 21, 2006). We note that the Havens PTD sought to incorporate various pleadings associated with this Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC application. See Havens PTD at 4. . See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d)(1) (requiring that a petition to deny contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity). See MO&O, 22 FCC Rcd at 1291-1292 � 10. PFR at 3-4. On March 9, 2007, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1086A1.txt
  • false representations and certifications including since those are not matters of fact that any potential challenger should need to investigate and disprove.'' Moreover, the petitioners argue that the Petition conforms to Section 1.49 of the Commission's Rules because it is allegedly less than ten pages once captions and exhibits are excluded from the calculation of the pleading's length. dISCUSSION Section 1.939(d) of the Commission's Rules requires that a petition to deny contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. To establish party in interest standing, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1375A1.txt
  • the Petition to Deny filed by Western Inspirational Broadcasters, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application of Union Valley Baptist Church, Inc. (File No. BNPED-20071022BNE) as amended IS GRANTED. Sincerely, Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau cc: Union Valley Baptist Church, Inc. Western did not file a reply to Union's Opposition. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(f). Union's Opposition includes a copy of its agreement for access to the site associated with ASR number 1211839. The ASR number thereon is, in part, illegible. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 June 10, 2008 � � � �%���PNG �` �` b``D� 4 �&)�@�-�@�@�7 H >��O��� p j�� �2�=��k��� �"_� - J��, �Nt�Rb �7�P���U�ZS '��wp��ˈ jP�T{.|�87w]�g��yA�Ҩ-��=T#�O> �#W p����U�^S� �t�''�TxNt�l ۦ��X6`T{������:�r��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1733A1.txt
  • Verizon Wireless Ex Parte Filing. RTG asserts that the Verizon Wireless Ex Parte Filing ``raises new and substantial matters not contained in the original transfer of control application put out for public comment on June 25, 2008'' and that there is good cause to waive the 30 day requirement for the filing of petitions to deny set forth in section 1.939(a)(2) of the Commission's rules because this information was not made available until two days before the deadline to file petitions to deny. RTG requests that the Commission establish a revised pleading cycle with petitions to deny due on August 1, 2008, oppositions due on August 11, 2008, and replies due on August 18, 2008. Alternatively, RTG argues that, to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1877A1.txt
  • Spectrum Access Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau cc: David L. Sieradzki, Esq. Motion to Dismiss and Petition to Deny, filed on behalf of AST Telecom, LLC, dated July 16, 2008. We note that the Commission's Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules only provide for the filing of petitions to deny against the long-form applications of winning bidders. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.2108(a), 1.939(a). ``Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses: Status of Short-Form Applications to Participate in Auction 78,'' Public Notice, DA 08-1579 (July 7, 2008) (``Status Public Notice''). The Status Public Notice stated that the short-form applications of both AST and ASTCA were complete and had been accepted for filing. Motion at 2. See ``Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes: Winning
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2614A1.txt
  • licenses, Call Signs WPTH 955-WPTH 999 and WPTI 200-WPTI 238, and that the five-year construction deadline IS HEREBY EXTENDED until July 19, 2012, and the ten-year construction deadline IS HEREBY EXTENDED until July 19, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i) and 309, and Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by Warren Havens, Telesaurus Holdings, GB LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation et. al. on June 4, 2008 IS HEREBY DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), and Section 1.46(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.�
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-831A1.txt
  • the Petition on either of the parties to the assignment or their counsel renders it procedurally defective and should result in the Commission's dismissal of the Petition. East Kentucky also argues that Petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing ``that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity'' as required by section 1.939(d) of the Commission's rules. Further, East Kentucky states that Petitioner has failed to ``demonstrate how consumers would be negatively impacted by grant of the application and assignment of the license.'' Both CCI and East Kentucky argue that even if the Petition had been properly served, the underlying basis for the Petition is an ongoing private business matter and thus not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1004A1.txt
  • to take any remedial action, including revocation of these and other PSI licenses, that it deems warranted in light of its ultimate resolution of the arguments raised by Petitioners in those proceedings. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium, LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on August 27, 2008, IS DENIED, and the motion to strike filed by Paging Systems, Inc. on September 30, 2008 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1004A1_Rcd.pdf
  • take any remedial action, including revocation of these and other PSI licenses, that it deems warranted in light of its ultimate resolution of the arguments raised by Petitioners in those proceedings.7 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium, LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on August27, 2008, IS DENIED, and the motion to strike filed by Paging Systems, Inc. on September 30, 2008 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 4.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-116A1.txt
  • might reveal possible anticompetitive practices. In their Joint Opposition to the ACS Wireless Petition, Alaska DigiTel and SprintCom argue that the Commission should summarily dismiss ACS Wireless's petition to deny as procedurally defective because it fails to present specific allegations of anticompetitive conduct, as required by Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and section 1.939 of the Commission's rules. GCI, in its Limited Opposition, similarly contends that the ACS Wireless Petition should be dismissed on procedural grounds for failing to meet the pleading standards as set forth in these provisions. These parties assert that ACS Wireless's contentions are speculative, involve no specific allegations of anticompetitive conduct, and rely on the same line of argument that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1257A1.txt
  • Corp. of California, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9504 (1995); Niles Broadcasting Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 5959 (1992). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1204(a)(8); see also Henry Goldberg, Esq., Edward Hayes, Jr., Letter, 12 FCC Rcd 15242 (MMB 1997). See Broadcast Applications, Public Notice, Report No. 26874 (rel. Dec. 2, 2008); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. 47 U.S.C. � 310(d). 47 U.S.C. � 309(e). 47 U.S.C. � 309(a). See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), aff'd sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sept. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1307A1.txt
  • Who may sign applications. 1.919 Ownership information. 1.923 Content of applications. 1.924 Quiet zones. 1.925 Waivers. 1.926 Application processing; initial procedures. 1.927 Amendment of applications. 1.929 Classification of filings as major or minor. 1.931 Application for special temporary authority. 1.933 Public notices. 1.934 Defective applications and dismissal. 1.935 Agreements to dismiss applications, amendments or pleadings. 1.937 Repetitious or conflicting applications. 1.939 Petitions to deny. 1.945 License grants. 1.946 Construction and coverage requirements. 1.947 Modification of licenses. 1.948 Assignment of authorization or transfer of control, notification of consummation. 1.949 Application for renewal of license. 1.951 Duty to respond to official communications. 1.955 Termination of authorizations. 1.956 Settlement conferences. 1.957 Procedure with respect to amateur radio operator license. 1.981 Reports, annual and semiannual.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1331A1.txt
  • waiver, we conclude that the circumstances surrounding Applicants' 2002 extension applications justify a waiver of Section 1.949(a) of the Commission's Rules. We therefore grant a waiver and direct processing of Applicants' renewal and extension applications. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), that the Petitions to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on July 13, 2007, August 24, 2007, October 26, 2007, and November 2, 2007 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.41 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1331A1_Rcd.pdf
  • No. 0003160180 (filed Aug. 31,2007) (Turner Waiver Request) at 1. 16Cook County Schools Waiver Request, File No. 0003139917 (filed Aug. 15, 2007) (Cook County Waiver Request) at 1; Oakdale Waiver Request at 1; Trenton Waiver Request at 1; Tri-County R-VII Schools Waiver Request, File No. 0003082029 (filed Jun. 21, 2007) at 1; Turner Waiver Request at 1. 1747 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). 18SeePetitions. 19See, e.g., Consolidated Petition to Dismiss or Deny of Sprint Nextel Corporation (filed Mar. 30, 2007) (Sprint March 30 Petition) at 4-9, 11-14;Consolidated Petition to Dismiss or Deny of Sprint Nextel Corporation (filed Jul. 13, 2007) (Sprint July 13 Petition) at 4-8, 11-18; Petition to Dismiss or Deny of Sprint Nextel Corporation (filed Aug. 24, 2007) (Sprint August 24
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1334A1.txt
  • his last opportunity to present such matters which could not, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been learned prior to such opportunity, or (3) consideration of the facts relied on is in the public interest. A petitioner must also show good reason why it was not possible for it to participate in the earlier stages of the proceeding. Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules provides that any interested party who wants to object to any application must file a petition to deny within thirty days of the public notice. The Application was accepted for filing on January 10, 2007. Although Sprint Nextel, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, could have filed a petition to deny or other objection in response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1334A1_Rcd.pdf
  • his last opportunity to present such matters which could not, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, have been learned prior to such opportunity, or (3) consideration of the facts relied on is in the public interest.36A petitioner must also show good reason why it was not possible for it to participate in the earlier stages of the proceeding.37 11. Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules provides that any interested party who wants to object to any application must file a petition to deny within thirty days of the public notice.38The Application was accepted for filing on January 10, 2007. Although Sprint Nextel, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, could have filed a petition to deny or other objection in response to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1336A1.txt
  • opportunity. In 2003, American Telecasting of Michiana, Inc. was controlled by Sprint Corporation, which merged with Nextel to become Sprint Nextel. Sprint did not file a petition to deny or other objection when the Waiver Request was filed. On December 17, 2003, the Commission issued a Public Notice of the filing of the WMI307 Renewal Application and Waiver Request. Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules provides that any interested party who wants to object must file a petition to deny within thirty days of the public notice. Sprint did not do so. Furthermore, after Hubbard filed her petition for reconsideration, Sprint Nextel did not file an opposition, even though it would have acquired the rights to operate on the spectrum covered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1336A1_Rcd.pdf
  • prior to such opportunity. In 2003, American Telecasting ofMichiana, Inc. was controlled by Sprint Corporation, which merged with Nextel to become Sprint Nextel. Sprint did not file a petition to deny or other objection when the Waiver Request was filed.54On December 17, 2003, the Commission issued a Public Notice of the filing of the WMI307 Renewal Application and Waiver Request.55Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules provides that any interested party who wants to object must file a petition to deny within thirty days of the public notice.56Sprint did not do so. Furthermore, after Hubbard filed her petition for reconsideration, Sprint Nextel did not file an opposition, even though it would have acquired the rights to operate on the spectrum covered by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1337A1.txt
  • We deny Sprint Nextel's request to change the ex parte status of this proceeding. We grant Seventh Day's request for waiver of Section 1.949(a) of the Commission's Rules and direct processing of its renewal application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), that the Petition to Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on March 30, 2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002923574. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1337A1_Rcd.pdf
  • deny Sprint Nextel's request to change the ex parte status of this proceeding. We grant Seventh Day's request for waiver of Section 1.949(a) of the Commission's Rules and direct processing of its renewal application. 22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), that the Petition to Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on March 30,2007 IS DISMISSED with respect to File No. 0002923574. 23. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.41,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1338A1.txt
  • Nextel's Petition and conclude that Sprint Nextel has provided no basis for denying the Waiver Requests. We therefore deny the Petition, grant the Waiver Requests, and direct processing of Applicants' Renewal Applications and Extension Applications. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(h) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(h), that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on October 19, 2007 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 1.925, 1.949(a), and 21.11(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1338A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Nextel's Petition andconclude that Sprint Nextel has provided no basis for denying the Waiver Requests. We therefore deny the Petition, grant the Waiver Requests, and direct processing of Applicants' Renewal Applications and Extension Applications. 16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(h) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(h), that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on October 19, 2007 IS DENIED. 17. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 1.925, 1.949(a), and 21.11(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1340A1.txt
  • request.'' The Appendix to this Memorandum Opinion and Order lists EBS licensees that have filed untimely applications for extension of time to construct, the dates those applications were filed, and the applicable construction deadline. The applicants have requested waivers because their applications were filed after the construction deadline. discussion Renewal Applications - Procedural Matters Untimely Petitions to Deny Under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, petitions to deny are due thirty days after public notice that an application has been accepted for filing. As is indicated in the Appendix, several of the petitions to deny before us are untimely, as they were filed weeks or months after the deadline. Accordingly, we dismiss those petitions. We note that under Section 1.41 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1340A1_Rcd.pdf
  • and Reinstatement, Peabody- Burns Unified School District #398 at 1; Hatch Waiver Request at 1. 19See, e.g., Petition for Waiver and Reinstatement, Landmark Baptist Receiver for Bethel Christian School at 1. 20See, e.g., Houston Academy Waiver Request at 1, Dothan City Waiver Request at 1. 21Foreign Language and Cultural Foundation, Request for Waiver of Late-Filing at 1. 2247 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). 23See, e.g., Petition to Dismiss or Deny of Sprint Nextel Corporation directed against West Georgia RESA (filed Mar. 2, 2007) (West Georgia RESA Petition) at 4-11; Petition to Dismiss or Deny of Sprint NextelCorporation directed against Houston Academy (filed Mar. 2, 2007) (Houston Academy Petition) at 3-11; Petition to Dismiss or Deny of Sprint Nextel Corporation directed against Liberty University
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1341A1.txt
  • waiver, we conclude that the circumstances surrounding the 2003 Application justify a waiver of Section 1.949(a) of the Commission's Rules. We therefore grant a waiver and direct processing of Utopia's March 29, 2007 renewal application. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on May 4, 2007 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.41, that the informal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1341A1_Rcd.pdf
  • we conclude that the circumstances surrounding the 2003 Application justify a waiver of Section 1.949(a) of the Commission's Rules. We therefore grant a waiver and direct processing of Utopia's March 29, 2007 renewal application. 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), that the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Sprint Nextel Corporation on May 4, 2007 IS DISMISSED. 42Waiver Request at 1. 4347 C.F.R. � 1.5. 44Declaratory Ruling, supra. 45Id. 8142 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1341 19. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i)of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1874A1.txt
  • the application. In response, CVI, Multi-Micro, and Arizona Broadband consent to Ohio Valley's requested commitments. They ask that the Petition be dismissed as moot. In its reply, Ohio Valley represents that it ``is fully satisfied with the commitments made in the Opposition and there is no part of the Petition that has not been rendered moot by the Opposition.'' Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules provides that the Commission may dismiss a petition to deny if ``the issues raised become moot . . .'' In light of the fact that the Application has been withdrawn and all parties now agree that the issues raised in the Petition are moot, we will dismiss the Petition as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1874A1_Rcd.pdf
  • the grant of the application.4In response, CVI, Multi-Micro, and Arizona Broadband consent to Ohio Valley's requested commitments.5They ask that the Petition be dismissed as moot.6In its reply, Ohio Valley represents that it "is fully satisfied with the commitments made in the Opposition and there is no part of the Petition that has not been rendered moot by the Opposition."7 Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules provides that the Commission may dismiss a petition to deny if "the issues raised become moot . . ."8In light of the fact that the Application has been withdrawn and all parties now agree that the issues raised in the Petition are moot, we will dismiss the Petition as moot. 1File No. 0002890589 (Application). 2Petition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2423A1.txt
  • Review filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings, GB LLC and Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC with respect to File No. 0002647326 on June 6, 2008 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), that the Petition to Deny And, in the Alternative, Request Under Section 1.41 filed by Environmentel LLC , Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC and Warren C. Havens on July 8, 2009 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. This action is taken under delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2423A1_Rcd.pdf
  • for Review filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings, GB LLC and Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC with respect to File No. 0002647326 on June 6, 2008 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Section 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), that the Petition to Deny And, in the Alternative, Request Under Section 1.41 filed by Environmentel LLC , Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC and Warren C. Havens on July 8, 2009 IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. This action is taken under delegated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2579A1.txt
  • Petitions to deny the application were due by August 29, 2007. No petitions to deny were filed during this period. On March 6, 2008, Utopian filed a Petition to Deny the assignment of the BRS Stations located in Rutland to VTEL along with a motion to accept its late-filed petition to deny and a request for a waiver of Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules. On March 27, 2008, Utopian filed a Request for an Order to Show Cause asking the Bureau to designate certain issues for hearing and objecting to the assignment of Station WMH308 to VTEL. On March 16, 2009, the Bureau denied Utopian's motion to accept its late-filed petition to deny and its associated waiver request. The Bureau
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2579A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 15, 2007.5Petitions to deny the application were due by August 29, 2007.6 No petitions to deny were filed during this period. On March 6, 2008, Utopian filed a Petition to Deny the assignment of the BRS Stations located in Rutland to VTEL along with a motionto accept its late-filed petition to deny and a request for a waiver of Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules.7On March 27, 2008, Utopian filed a Request for an Order to Show Cause asking the Bureau to designate certain issues for hearing and objecting to the assignment of Station WMH308 to VTEL.8 3.On March 16, 2009, the Bureau denied Utopian's motion to accept its late-filed petition to deny and its associated waiver request.9The Bureau concluded that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2626A1.txt
  • at 1-2 noting Declaration of Bahram Khoee (dated Nov. 24, 2009, stating that the CPE was installed and used at the Konet offices for passive frequency scanning to determine what channels were being used by other operators in the area). See Second Response at 1, 4; Neptuno Reply to Response of World Data at 9, n.35. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a) (any party in interest may file with the Commission a petition to deny any application listed in a Public Notice as accepted for filing). ``Station registrations will not be placed on Public Notice as a matter of routine unless they raise a matter of public significance (e.g., environmental concerns).'' Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 19808 citing 47 C.F.R. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2626A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 1934, as amended, provides that any party in interest may oppose grant of a license application in the broadcasting and common carrier services, as well as in certain other specified services not relevant here, if that grant would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity standard set forth in Section 309(a) of the Act.37Because this 31See47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a) (any party in interest may file with the Commission a petition to deny any application listed in a Public Notice as accepted for filing). "Station registrations will not be placed on Public Notice as a matter of routine unless they raise a matter of public significance (e.g., environmental concerns)." Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 19808 citing47 C.F.R. � 1.933(a)(3)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-603A1.txt
  • of the assignment application was given on August 15, 2007. Petitions to deny the application were due by August 29, 2007. No petitions to deny were filed during this period. On March 6, 2008, Utopian filed a petition to deny the Assignment Application. Utopian leases three Educational Broadband Service (EBS) licenses in Rutland, Vermont. Utopian requests a waiver of Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules to permit it to file a petition to deny more than thirty days after WTCI's Assignment Application was placed on public notice indicating that the assignment application was accepted for filing. Utopian asks the Bureau to consider its late-filed petition because, Utopian asserts, the Bureau removed WTCI's Assignment Application from the Commission's general application processing twice.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-643A1.txt
  • dismiss PSI's modification application. We also conclude that NUSCO's proposed Greenwich and Norwalk sites substantially meet the interference protection criteria of Section 80.385(b)(1). We therefore deny in part PSI's petition, and will grant NUSCO's modification application. Ordering Clauses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petitions to dismiss or deny filed by Northeast Utilities Service Company and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on November 21, 2007 and November 23, 2007, respectively, ARE GRANTED, and application FCC File No. 0003202834 SHALL BE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to dismiss or deny filed by Paging Systems,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-73A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-73A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-73A1.txt
  • access condition), id. at 8287-88, �� 190-191 (discussing program carriage condition); but see Comcast Corporation Petition for Declaratory Ruling That The America Channel is Not a Regional Sports Network, 22 FCC Rcd 17938, 17946-47, � 24 (suspending the Adelphia program carriage condition). Adelphia Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 8336-39, App. B. See 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1); 47 C.F.R. �� 1.45, 1.939. 18 U.S.C. � 1464; see also 47 U.S.C. � 559 (``[w]hoever transmits over any cable system any matter which is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both''). . Concerns about sexually explicit adult programming on subscription video services are more appropriately
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-889A1.txt
  • dismissed. In addition, we direct the licensing staff to take appropriate action to restore Petitioners' ULS access to the licenses for which each is the licensee of record. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 309(d), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), 405, and Sections 1.41, 1.106, and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.106, 1.939, that the Opposition to Assignment of Authorization and Transfer of Control and Modification, Initiate License Revocation Proceedings filed by Jose Francis, Joy Francis (individually and on behalf of Wireless US, LLC), Satheeshmoorthy Punniamurthy, and Richard Susainathan on December 17, 2007, partially treated as an Informal Objection, IS GRANTED TO THE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-889A1_Rcd.pdf
  • dismissed. In addition, we direct the licensing staff to take appropriate action to restore Petitioners' ULS access to the licenses for which each is the licensee of record.36 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 309(d), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), 405, and Sections 1.41, 1.106, and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.106, 1.939, that the Opposition to Assignment of Authorization and Transfer of Control and Modification, InitiateLicense Revocation Proceedingsfiled by Jose Francis, Joy Francis (individually and on behalf of Wireless US, LLC), Satheeshmoorthy Punniamurthy, and Richard Susainathan on December 17, 2007, partially treated as an Informal Objection, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT SET
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-891A1.txt
  • as the contact person with respect to Station WPXY504. In addition, we direct the licensing staff to take appropriate action to restore Susainathan's ULS access to the S M Leasing licenses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.939, that the Petition to Deny filed by Pappammal Kurian on April 12, 2007, treated as an Informal Objection, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-891A1_Rcd.pdf
  • yourself as the contact person with respect to Station WPXY504.26In addition, we direct the licensing staff to take appropriate action to restore Susainathan's ULS access to the S M Leasing licenses. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.939, that the Petition to Deny filed by Pappammal Kurian on April 12, 2007, treated as an Informal Objection, IS DENIED. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-893A1.txt
  • 05-689 (WTB rel. Apr. 6, 2005) (``If the FCC does not receive either a notification of consummation or a request for an extension of time to consummate on or before the consummation deadline, the application will be dismissed and a dismissal letter will be sent to the parties involved with the application.''). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. �� 1.47, 1.106(f)-(h), 1.115(f), 1.939(c), 1.1204(a)(10)(ii). ACL suggests that it filed its notice of consummation before the Division processed the withdrawal request, because ``ACL did not see any grant of the Withdrawal Request when filing the Notice of Consummation on ULS.'' First Petition at 2 n.1; Second Petition at 4 n.5. We note, however, that processing actions taken during the business day generally are not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-893A1_Rcd.pdf
  • of Control Applications, Public Notice, DA 05-689 (WTB rel. Apr. 6, 2005) ("If the FCC does not receive either a notificationof consummationor a request for an extension of time to consummate on or before theconsummation deadline, the application will be dismissedand a dismissalletter will be sent to the parties involved with the application."). 19See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. ��1.47, 1.106(f)-(h), 1.115(f), 1.939(c), 1.1204(a)(10)(ii). 20ACL suggests that it filedits notice of consummation before the Division processed the withdrawal request, because "ACL did not see any grant of the Withdrawal Request when filing the Notice of Consummation on ULS." First Petition at 2 n.1; Second Petition at 4 n.5. We note, however, that processing actions taken during the business (continued....) 4851 Federal Communications Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-896A1.txt
  • Petition. In addition, because this Order renders moot all of the arguments raised in AMTS Consortium's Petition for Reconsideration of the Havens Letter Ruling, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration as moot. Ordering Clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Sections 1.939 and 1.2108 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939, 1.2108, the Petition to Deny application File No. 0003098334 filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC, and Telesaurus-VPC LLC on August 10, 2007, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Sections 1.3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-896A1_Rcd.pdf
  • information of decisional significance. 4863 Federal Communications Commission DA 09-896 arguments raised in AMTS Consortium's Petition for Reconsideration of the Havens Letter Ruling, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration as moot. III. ORDERINGCLAUSES 17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Sections 1.939 and 1.2108 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939, 1.2108, the Petition to Deny application File No. 0003098334 filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC, and Telesaurus-VPC LLC on August 10, 2007, IS DENIED. 18. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Sections 1.3
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1311A1.txt
  • able to undertake such operations while still complying with their Part 80 obligations to provide service to the maritime community can be addressed in the event that the applicants apply for waivers of the relevant Part 80 rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC on July 31, 2009, against Applications File Nos. 0003875412 and 0003875418 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1311A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 19330 � 6 (2002). 20Verde's conclusory assertions that all of the petitioners' licenses are invalid do not merit discussion in this proceeding. See Opposition to MC/LM Petitions at 8-9; Opposition to PSI Petition at 7-8. 21We reject Verde's argument that the petitions should be dismissed as deficient because they were not accompanied by an affidavit or declaration, pursuant to Sections 1.939(d) and 20.9(b)(2) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939(d), 20.9(b)(2). See Opposition to MC/LM Petitions at 1; Opposition to PSI Petition at 1. As MC/LM notes, Section 1.939(d) contains an exception to the affidavit requirement for matters of which official notice may be taken, and there is nothing in the petitions of which we cannot take official notice. See MC/LM
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1466A1_Rcd.pdf
  • proper forum to resolve private disputes). 10703 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1466 for Station WNMR238 to Cardwell. Therefore, we deny the petition to deny the assignment application, and will process the application accordingly. 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.939, the petition to deny filed by Thomas K. Kurian on October 30, 2009 IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0004009600 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Orderand the Commission's Rules. 9. These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1467A1.txt
  • presents no evidence that MRA will be in a position to exercise actual or potential control over the applicants' stations. Neither use of a common license consultant nor co-location constitutes such evidence. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petitions to dismiss or deny filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc. on September 18, 2009, February 2, 2010, and May 20, 2010, ARE DENIED. IT US FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1467A1_Rcd.pdf
  • NSTN presents no evidence that MRA will be in a position to exercise actual or potential control over the applicants' stations.10Neither use of a common license consultant nor co-location constitutes such evidence. 5.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petitions to dismiss or deny filed by National Science and Technology Network, Inc. on September 18, 2009, February 2, 2010, and May 20, 2010, ARE DENIED. 6.ITUS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-943A1.txt
  • reconsideration filed by Environmentel LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Warren C. Havens on June 4, 2009 IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Warren C. Havens on March 19, 2010, IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0004116275 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order on Reconsideration and Order.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-943A1_Rcd.pdf
  • petition for reconsideration filed by Environmentel LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Warren C. Havenson June 4, 2009 IS DENIED. 7.ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Warren C. Havens on March 19, 2010, IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0004116275 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order on Reconsideration and Order.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-955A1.txt
  • COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John J. Schauble Deputy Chief, Broadband Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau File No. 0002831316 (Renewal Application). Renewal Application, Waiver Request (filed Nov. 26, 2006) at 1. Id. Renewal Application, Amendment (filed Dec. 28, 2006). See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No. 2802, Public Notice (WTB rel. Jan. 3, 2007) at 2. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications Action, Report No. 2940, Public Notice (WTB rel. Feb. 21, 2007) at 2. Request to Designate Proceedings as ``Permit but Disclose,'' Sprint Nextel Corporation (filed Mar. 22, 2007) (Ex Parte Motion). Petition for Reconsideration of Sprint Nextel Corporation (filed Mar. 23, 2007) (Petition). Id. at 1-3. Id. at 4-8. Id. at 10-13. Id. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-955A1_Rcd.pdf
  • objections were filed during that period. On February 13, 2007, the Renewal Application was granted.7 1File No. 0002831316 (Renewal Application). 2Renewal Application, Waiver Request (filed Nov. 26, 2006) at 1. 3Id. 4Renewal Application, Amendment (filed Dec. 28, 2006). 5SeeWireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications Accepted for Filing, Report No. 2802, Public Notice(WTB rel. Jan. 3, 2007) at 2. 6See47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). 7SeeWireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications Action, Report No. 2940, Public Notice (WTB rel. Feb. 21, 2007) at 2. 5806 Federal Communications Commission DA 10-955 3. On March 22, 2007, Sprint Nextel filed a motion seeking to designate this proceeding, among others, as "permit but disclose" for the purposes to the Commission's ex parterules8On March 23, 2007, Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-106A1.txt
  • STI was bidding on this license. Id. Auction 71 Opposition at 7. ASTCA's Opposition is supported by a declaration from ASTCA's Executive Director, Aleki Sene. Affidavit of Aleki Sene, dated July 12, 2007, Auction 71 Opposition, Attachment A. STI's response to Blue Sky's accusations relies upon factual information contained in a Declaration of Esther Prescott. STI Opposition, Attachment A. Section 1.939(f) of the Commission's rules requires that the allegations of fact, or denials thereof, in an opposition be supported by the affidavit of a person with personal knowledge thereof. 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(f). STI's Opposition states that ``logistical difficulties in faxing the Declaration from American Samoa to counsel's office in Washington, DC'' caused Esther Prescott to request that STI's counsel sign
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-106A1_Rcd.pdf
  • a bid on the E block until after 54Auction 71 Opposition at 7. ASTCA's Opposition is supported by a declaration from ASTCA's Executive Director,Aleki Sene. Affidavit of Aleki Sene, dated July 12, 2007, Auction 71 Opposition, Attachment A. STI's response to Blue Sky's accusations relies upon factual information contained in a Declaration of Esther Prescott. STI Opposition, Attachment A. Section 1.939(f) of the Commission's rules requires that the allegations of fact, or denials thereof, in an opposition be supported by the affidavit of a person with personal knowledge thereof. 47C.F.R. � 1.939(f). STI's Opposition states that "logistical difficulties in faxing the Declaration from American Samoa to counsel's office in Washington, DC" caused Esther Prescott to request that STI's counsel sign the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1186A1.txt
  • the character and fitness to be a Commission licensee. On June 2, 2011, Touch Tel responded that the Petition to Deny must be dismissed because the petitioners lack standing. The Petition to Deny should also be dismissed, Touch Tel argues, because the Petitioners do not operate and provide Broadband Radio Services, they are not a ``party in interest'' under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, and are not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for Station WNTA626. They further argue that the Petition to Deny should be dismissed as a strike pleading. Discussion. Most of Petitioners' arguments do not involve the instant application; instead, Petitioners allege that PSI's conduct with respect to licenses held by PSI is attributed to Touch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1186A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Cooper, lacks the character and fitness to be a Commission licensee.6On June 2, 2011, Touch Tel responded that the Petition to Deny must be dismissed because the petitioners lack standing.7The Petition to Deny should also be dismissed, Touch Tel argues, because the Petitioners do not operate and provide Broadband Radio Services, they are not a "party in interest" under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,8and are not 1File No. 0004687226 (filed Apr. 12, 2011) (Renewal Application). 2Petition to Deny to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed May 20, 2011) (Petition). Touch Tel filed an opposition. Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Jun. 2, 2011) (Opposition to Petition). Petitioners
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1650A1.txt
  • 2010, August 4, 2010, August 19, 2010, January 14, 2011, and February 24, 2011 against the applications listed in the Appendix ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated above and are otherwise DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 1.41, 1.46(a) and 1.939 of the Commission Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.46(a), 1.939, that the Petitions for Leave to Submit Late-Filed Comments, filed by Hughes Network Systems, LLC and DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC on August 4, 2010 ARE GRANTED to the extent that the comments will be treated as informal requests for Commission action and are otherwise DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1650A1_Rcd.pdf
  • band would limit its ability "to provide critical emergency services over its voice, data and Internet networks when its wireline backhaul facilities are unavailable."30 10. We deny Hughes' and DIRECTV's request to exclude the 29.25-29.5 GHz band from the licenses in question. The requests are inconsistent with the Commission's determinations that (1) the 2147 C.F.R. � 1.46(a). 22See47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). 23SeeAppendix.Specifically, Hughes and DIRECTV untimely filed comments on applications for call signs KSA96, KQH74, KGC79, KEB29, KME49, KMQ44, KIP50, and KEB35. 24See, e.g., Petition for Leave to Submit Late-Filed Comments, In re the Application of Illinois Bell Telephone Company for Renewal of License Call Sign KSA96, File No. 0004264280 (Aug. 4, 2010) at 1. 25Id. 26See Appendix. 27See, e.g., Petition
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1658A1.txt
  • amends the following rules in Part 1, Subpart F, Wireless Radio Services Applications and Proceedings, to update references that are obsolete and make other corrections: Section 1.929(b)(1) is amended to correct a typographical error. Section 1.931(b)(1), which pertains to applications for special temporary authority for wireless radio services, is amended to change ``�� 1.962(b)(5) and (f)'' to ``�� 1.933(d)(6) and 1.939'' because section 1.962 was eliminated and its provisions were moved into sections 1.933 and 1.939. Part I, Subpart N, Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Federal Communications Commission. This Order amends the following rules in Part 1, Subpart N, Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1732A1.txt
  • conclude that no substantial and material question of fact has been raised concerning the character qualifications of Rockne, Albion, or Krisar. We therefore deny the petition and direct processing of the lease applications. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ��154(i), 309, and Sections 1.41, 1.46, and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.46, 1.939, that the Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to File Petition to Deny filed by the Benton Foundation on July 7, 2010 IS GRANTED to the extent that the pleading filed by the Benton Foundation on July 21, 2010 will be considered an informal objection and is otherwise DENIED.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1732A1_Rcd.pdf
  • conclude that no substantial and material question of fact has been raised concerning the character qualifications of Rockne, Albion, or Krisar. We therefore deny the petition and direct processing of the lease applications. 13.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. ��154(i), 309, and Sections 1.41, 1.46, and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.46, 1.939, that the Motion for Extension of Time Within Which to File Petition to Deny filed by the Benton Foundation on July 7, 2010 IS GRANTED to the extent that the pleading filed by the Benton Foundation on July 21, 2010 will be considered an informal objection and is otherwise DENIED.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1920A1.txt
  • filing was submitted outside the 14-day petition to deny period specified by section 1.9030(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission's rules; (3) the Texas Energy August 29, 2011 Letter fails to include specific allegations of fact necessary to support a petition to deny and is not supported by an affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, as required by section 1.939(d); and (4) Texas Energy is improperly asking the Commission to inject itself into a commercial dispute of the type that the Commission usually refuses to address in the licensing context. Discussion. We agree with Infrastructure that Texas Energy did not timely file its initial pleading regarding the proposed spectrum leasing arrangement. Section 1.9030(e)(1)(iii) is quite clear that any petition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1920A1_Rcd.pdf
  • initial filing was submitted outside the 14-day petition to deny period specified by section 1.9030(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission's rules;14(3) the Texas Energy August 29, 2011 Letter fails to include specific allegations of fact necessary to support a petition to deny and is not supported by an affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, as required by section 1.939(d);15and (4) Texas Energy is improperly asking the Commission to inject itself into a commercial dispute of the type that the Commission usually refuses to address in the licensing context.16 5. Discussion. We agree with Infrastructure that Texas Energy did not timely file its initial pleading regarding the proposed spectrum leasing arrangement. Section 1.9030(e)(1)(iii) is quite clear that any petition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1953A1.txt
  • MariTEL-Motorola assignment applications. We will not entertain collateral attacks on those applications in proceedings regarding subsequent applications filed by Motorola relating to that spectrum. We therefore deny the instant petitions regarding the above-captioned applications. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, Or in the alternative Section 1.41 Request filed on December 2, 2009 by Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation IS DENIED IN PART to the extent set forth herein, and application FCC File
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1953A1_Rcd.pdf
  • MariTEL-Motorola assignment applications. We will not entertain collateral attacks on those applications in proceedings regarding subsequent applications filed by Motorola relating to that spectrum.11We therefore deny the instant petitions regarding the above-captioned applications.12 4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, Or in the alternative Section 1.41 Request filed on December 2, 2009 by Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation IS DENIED IN PART to the extent set forth herein, and application FCC FileNo
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1994A1.txt
  • acknowledge that their challenge to those licenses is therefore moot. To the extent that Petitioners seek further relief, they have expressed general repugnance for PSI's character but have not specified what exactly they want done to them, which is a fundamental requirement when seeking any action by the Commission. If Petitioners seek to deny PSI license applications, for example, Rule 1.939 requires that they reference the file numbers of the pending applications that are the subject of the petition. Petitioners have not done so. Rule 1.939 further requires that any petition to deny a license application make a prima facie showing that that the petitioner is a party in interest. In this case, Petitioners have not explained how they would be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1994A1_Rcd.pdf
  • acknowledge that their challenge to those licenses is therefore moot. To the extent that Petitioners seek further relief, they have expressed general repugnance for PSI's character but have not specified what exactly they want done to them, which is a fundamental requirement when seeking any action by the Commission. If Petitioners seek to deny PSI license applications, for example, Rule 1.939 requires that they reference the file numbers of the pending applications that are the subject of the petition.15Petitioners have not done so. 8File Nos. 0004593703; 0004593704; 0004593705; 0004593786; 0004593794; 0004593831; 0004593941 (filed Jan. 28, 2011) (Renewal Applications). The Renewal Applications were granted on May 5, 2011. 9File Nos. 0004817160; 0004817161; 0004817162; 0004817163; 0004817164; 0004817165; 0004817166 (filed July 27, 2011). 10Notices
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1.txt
  • and fitness to be a Commission licensee. On March 10, 2011, Touch Tel responded that the First Petition must be dismissed as moot because the applications were granted on January 26, 2011-one month prior to the filing by the Petitioner against the Renewal Applications. In addition, Touch Tel argued that the Petitioners were not a ``party in interest'' under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules because the Petitioners did not operate and provide point-to-point microwave radio services and were not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for the Stations. Touch Tel also contended that the First Petition should be dismissed as a strike pleading. On May 5, 2011, the Broadband Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``Bureau'') denied the First
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1995A1_Rcd.pdf
  • the character and fitness to be a Commission licensee.4On March 10, 2011, Touch Tel responded that the First Petition must be dismissed as moot because the applications were granted on January 26, 2011-one month prior to the filing by the Petitioner against the Renewal Applications.5In addition, Touch Tel argued that the Petitioners were not a "party in interest" under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules6because the Petitioners did not operate and provide point-to- point microwave radio services and were not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for the Stations.7 Touch Tel also contended that the First Petition should be dismissed as a strike pleading.8 3.On May 5, 2011, the Broadband Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("Bureau") denied the First
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1996A1.txt
  • the character and fitness to be a Commission licensee. On June 2, 2011, Touch Tel responded that the Petition to Deny must be dismissed because the petitioners lack standing. The Petition to Deny should also be dismissed, Touch Tel argued, because the Petitioners do not operate and provide Broadband Radio Services, they are not a ``party in interest'' under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, and are not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for Station WNTA626. It further argued that the Petition to Deny should be dismissed as a strike pleading. On July 12, 2011, the Broadband Division (Division) denied the Petition to Deny. It noted that ``[m]ost of Petitioners' arguments do not involve the instant application'' and that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1996A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Robert Cooper, lacks the character and fitness to be a Commission licensee.4On June 2, 2011, Touch Tel responded that the Petition to Deny must be dismissed because the petitioners lack standing.5The Petition to Deny should also be dismissed, Touch Telargued, because the Petitioners do not operate and provide Broadband Radio Services, they are not a "party in interest" under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,6and are not 1File No. 0004687226 (filed Apr. 12, 2011)(Renewal Application). 2Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Site-by-Site Accepted For Filing, Public Notice, Report Number 6774 (WTB rel. Apr. 20, 2011) at 3. 3Petition to Deny to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed May 20, 2011) (Petition to Deny) at 1. 4 Id.at 1
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-680A1.txt
  • Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.925 the waiver requests filed by Paging Systems, Inc. in association with applications File Nos. 0002925303 and 0002925304, filed on February 26, 2007, ARE GRANTED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.939, the Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium, LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on April 6, 2007, IS DENIED, and applications File Nos. 0002925303 and 0002925304 SHALL BE PROCESSED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-680A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.925 the waiver requests filed by Paging Systems, Inc. in association with applications File Nos. 0002925303 and 0002925304, filed on February 26, 2007, ARE GRANTED. 8.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.939, the Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request filed by Warren C. Havens, AMTS Consortium, LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on April 6, 2007, IS DENIED, and applications File Nos. 0002925303 and 0002925304 SHALL BE PROCESSED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-827A1.txt
  • WLS861. On March 4, 2011, Petitioners asked the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``Bureau'') to deny the renewal of the Stations, alleging that PSI lacks the character and fitness to hold any Commission license. On March 17, 2011, PSI responded that because the Petitioners do not operate and provide point-to-point microwave radio services, they are not a ``party in interest'' under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, and are not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for the Stations. Discussion. Most of Petitioners' arguments do not involve the instant applications; instead, Petitioners allege that PSI's conduct with respect to other licenses demonstrates that PSI lacks character and fitness to be a Commission licensee, and incorporate by reference arguments they raised in other
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-827A1_Rcd.pdf
  • WLS844, WLS849, and WLS861.3On March 4, 2011, Petitioners asked the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("Bureau") to deny the renewal of the Stations, alleging that PSI lacks the character and fitness to hold any Commission license.4On March 17, 2011, PSI responded that because the Petitioners donot operate and provide point-to-point microwave radio services, they are not a "party in interest" under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,5and are not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for the Stations.6 3.Discussion. Most of Petitioners' arguments do not involve the instant applications; instead, Petitioners allege that PSI's conduct with respect to other licenses demonstrates that PSI lacks character and fitness to be a Commission licensee, and incorporate by reference arguments they raised in other proceedings
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-828A1.txt
  • responded that the Petition to Deny must be dismissed as moot because the applications were granted on January 26, 2011, one month before Petitioners filed their Petition to Deny. The Petition to Deny should also be dismissed, Touch Tel argues, because the Petitioners do not operate and provide point-to-point microwave radio services, they are not a ``party in interest'' under 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, and are not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for the Stations. They further argue that the Petition to Deny should be dismissed as a strike pleading. Discussion. Most of Petitioners' arguments do not involve the instant applications; instead, Petitioners allege that PSI's conduct with respect to licenses held by PSI is attributed to Touch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-828A1_Rcd.pdf
  • public notice requirement of 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1). See47 C.F.R. � 1.933(d)(9). We will treat the Petition as a timely petition for (continued....) 6655 Federal Communications Commission DA 11-828 The Petition to Deny should also be dismissed, Touch Tel argues, because the Petitioners do not operate and provide point-to-point microwave radio services, they are not a "party in interest" under 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,8and are not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for the Stations.9They further argue that the Petition to Deny should be dismissed as astrike pleading.10 3.Discussion. Most of Petitioners' arguments do not involve the instant applications; instead, Petitioners allege that PSI's conduct with respect to licenses held by PSI is attributed to Touch Tel and thus
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-232A1.txt
  • the application, RTG requests that we consent to this transaction only in markets where, post-transaction, AT&T would control less than 110 megahertz of total spectrum below 2.3 GHz. Also, both RTG and RCA argue that any approval of this transaction should include conditions applicable to AT&T generally requiring data roaming, device interoperability, and the elimination of exclusivity agreements. Under section 1.939(d) of the Commission's rules, a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. RTG and RCA have provided no specific allegations of fact with respect to the instant transaction. There are no facts or evidence in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-232A1_Rcd.pdf
  • AT&T Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated For Consent To Assign Licenses and Authorizations, WT Docket No. 11-18, Order, FCC 11-18, �� 23-26 (rel. Dec. 22, 2011) ("AT&T-Qualcomm Order"). 1147 U.S.C.�� 308, 310(d). See also, e.g., AT&T-Qualcomm Orderat � 27. 12See, e.g., AT&T-Qualcomm Orderat � 28. 13See generally RTG Comments; RCA Reply Comments. 14RTG Comments; RCA Reply Comments. 15See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). See also Joint Opposition at n 2. 1670 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-232 spectrum below 2.3 GHz into the hands of" AT&T and that such a result is anticompetitive and against the public interest.16Similarly, RCA asks that the proposed transaction be denied in light of the increasing dominance in the wireless market of AT&T and Verizon Wireless and because it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-234A1.txt
  • proposed acquisition of BTA's Lower 700 MHz B Block license in this particular CMA is likely to cause competitive or other public interest harms. Nor does RCA present specific facts that would support a finding that it or any of its members would suffer a direct harm from the consummation of the proposed transaction in the affected market. Under section 1.939(d) of the Commission's rules, a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. We deny RCA's petition because RCA failed to offer any specific allegations of fact with respect to the particular transaction in question.. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-234A1_Rcd.pdf
  • of AT&T's proposed acquisition of BTA's Lower 700 MHzB Block license in this particularCMA is likely to cause competitive or other public interest harms. Nor does RCA present specific facts that would support a finding that it or any of its members would suffer a direct harm from the consummation of the proposed transaction in the affected market.17 7.Under section 1.939(d) of the Commission's rules, a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.18 We deny RCA's petition because RCA failed to offer any specific allegations of fact with respect to the particular transaction in question.. 8.We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-45A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-45A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-45A1.txt
  • met its obligation under Sections 80.215(h)(3) and 80.475(a)(1) of the Rules with respect to the remaining locations. We emphasize that Avista remains obligated to cure any instances of actual interference to television reception. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Spokane Television, Inc., on January 29, 2010, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to deny filed by Oregon Public Broadcasting on January 29, 2010, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-45A1_Rcd.pdf
  • its obligation under Sections 80.215(h)(3) and 80.475(a)(1) of the Rules with respect to the remaining locations. We emphasize that Avista remains obligated to cure any instances of actual interference to television reception. 15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Spokane Television, Inc., on January 29, 2010, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as set forth above. 16. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition to deny filed by Oregon Public Broadcasting on January 29, 2010, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 17. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-537A1.txt
  • and Petition for Reconsideration filed by AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on July 18, 2008, IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on December 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and applications File Numbers 0003652393 and 0003652417 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order and the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-537A1_Rcd.pdf
  • and Petition for Reconsideration filed by AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on July 18, 2008, IS DENIED. 18. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on December 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and applications File Numbers 0003652393 and 0003652417 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Orderand the Commission's Rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-595A1.txt
  • the character and fitness to be a Commission licensee. On June 2, 2011, Touch Tel responded that the Petition to Deny must be dismissed because the petitioners lack standing. The Petition to Deny should also be dismissed, Touch Tel argued, because the Petitioners do not operate and provide Broadband Radio Services, they are not a ``party in interest'' under Section 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules, and are not aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for Station WNTA626. It further argued that the Petition to Deny should be dismissed as a strike pleading. On July 12, 2011, the Broadband Division (Division) denied the Petition to Deny and directed the Division's licensing staff to process the renewal application for BRS Station WNTA626.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-595A1_Rcd.pdf
  • 20, 2011) at 3. 3Petition to Deny to Dismiss, Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed May 20, 2011) (Petition to Deny) at 1. 4 Id.at 1 and 3. 5Opposition to Petition to Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request (filed Jun. 2, 2011) (Opposition to Petition) at 2. 4042 Federal Communications Commission DA 12-595 1.939(a) of the Commission's Rules,6and arenot aggrieved by the renewal of the licenses for Station WNTA626.7Itfurther argued that the Petition to Deny should be dismissed as a strike pleading.8 3.On July 12, 2011, the Broadband Division (Division) denied the Petition to Deny and directed the Division's licensing staff to process the renewal application for BRS Station WNTA626.9It noted that "[m]ost of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-615A1.txt
  • AT&T and T-Mobile, filed March 19, 2012 (``Diogenes Reply''). See Diogenes Reply at 6. Diogenes filed a Supplement to Petition to Deny on April 16, 2012 (``Diogenes Supplement''). The Diogenes Supplement does not comply with the requirements for timely supplemental filings as set forth in the Comment Public Notice, at 3, and we need not address it. 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). Wireless Co., L.P., Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13233, 13235 � 7 (WTB 1995) (``Wireless Co.''), citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972). Wireless Co., 10 FCC Rcd at 13235 � 7. Id. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 23622, �� 2-3 (2003). Diogenes Petition to Deny at 2. See id. See Diogenes Merger
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-615A1_Rcd.pdf
  • as to how denying the proposed license transfers would redress any 15SeeDiogenes Reply at 6. Diogenes filed a Supplement to Petition to Deny on April 16, 2012 ("Diogenes Supplement"). The Diogenes Supplement does not comply with the requirements for timelysupplemental filings as set forth in the Comment Public Notice, at 3, and we need not address it. 1647 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). 17Wireless Co., L.P., Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13233, 13235 � 7 (WTB 1995) ("Wireless Co."), citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972). 18Wireless Co., 10 FCC Rcd at 13235 � 7. 19Id. 20See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc.,18 FCC Rcd 23622, �� 2-3 (2003). 21Diogenes Petition to Deny at 2. 22See id. 23SeeDiogenes Merger Petition to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-676A1.txt
  • Silke and Two Way would not serve the public interest. Discussion We dismiss the Havens Parties' petitions for reconsideration as procedurally improper. We also dismiss the Havens Parties' petitions to deny the license applications for lack of standing to challenge the application of our policy concerning minor amendments to Two Way and Silke and failure to comply with the section 1.939 procedural requirements. As alternative and independent bases for rejecting the petitions to deny, we find no merit in the Havens Parties' claim that Two Way and Silke undertook a major change and that those parties should have been disqualified from participation in the auction on that basis. Accordingly, we will proceed with processing of the long-form applications of Two Way
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-676A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Two Way would not serve the public interest.40 II. DISCUSSION 14. We dismiss the Havens Parties' petitions for reconsideration as procedurally improper. We also dismiss the Havens Parties' petitions to deny the license applications for lack of standing to challenge the application of our policy concerning minor amendments to Two Way and Silke and failure to comply with the section 1.939 procedural requirements. As alternative and independent bases for rejecting the petitions to deny, we find no merit in the Havens Parties' claim that Two Way and Silke undertook a major change and that those parties should have been disqualified from participation in the auction on that basis. Accordingly, we will proceed with processing of the long-form applications of Two Way
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-816A1.txt
  • the Application, that the only basis on which he claims an interest are matters that are being addressed in other forums, and that to the extent Tracy claims to be a Telemetrix shareholder, his interests should be represented by appropriate corporate officers. In the Tracy Reply, Tracy states ``[t]he Petitioner has standing as a party in interest, pursuant to Section 1.939(a) of the Rules,'' but provides no further elaboration. We find that Tracy has failed to establish standing to challenge the Application. To establish party-in-interest standing, a petitioner must allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that grant of the subject application would cause it to suffer a direct injury. In addition, a petitioner must demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-851A1.txt
  • Petitioners did not comply with the Commission's filing requirements for petitions for reconsideration. Progeny asserts that the Petition is not a petition to deny because the application was consented to and consummated prior to the filing of the Petition. Progeny states that, even if the Petition was considered a petition to deny, Petitioners do not meet the requirements of Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, because this rule required that petitioners must be a party in interest and must provide ``specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is a party.'' Progeny also argues that the Petition also cannot be an informal request for action under Section 1.41 of the Commission's rules, because there are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-879A1.txt
  • reconsideration filed by Warren C. Havens, Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus Holdings LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on July 15 and August 19, 2011, ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 309(d), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens, Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus Holdings LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on September 9, 2011, IS DENIED, and application FCC File No. 0004825560 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order on Reconsideration and Order. These actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-936A1.DOC http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-936A1.txt
  • 405 and Sections 1.106, and 1.931 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106, 1.931, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Utopian Wireless Corporation on June 24, 2010, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 1.41 and 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.939, that the Petition to Deny filed by Utopian Wireless Corporation on December 28, 2009, IS DISMISSED as a petition to deny and IS DENIED as an informal objection. 1.945(e), that the request to delete conditions from the licenses for Stations WQHJ858 and WQHJ859 contained in application File Nos. 0004320696 and File
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-190304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-190304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-190304A1.txt
  • Bureau See Public Notice, Report No. CL-95-67 (rel. Feb. 10, 1995). See Public Notice, Report No. CL-95-71 (rel. Mar. 31, 1995). 47 C.F.R. �� 22.99, 22.911(d), 22.912(d) and 22.949(b). See Smoky Hill Petition at 5-6; Badlands Cellular Petition at 5-6. GAP's Oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May 15, 1995, at 1. 47 C.F.R. � 22.130 (1994). Current rule section 1.939, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, governs the filing of a Petition to Deny. 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b)(1). Smokey Hill Petition at 2-3; Badlands Cellular Petition at 3-4. See, In re Application of Iowa RSA # 12 Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5306 (1991). 47 C.F.R. � 22.903 (1994). Section 22.903 was renumbered as rule section 22.911 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-115A1.txt
  • Parts 0, 1, 12, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 98-20, FCC 98-234 (rel. Oct. 21, 1998), 63 Fed. Reg. 68904 (Dec. 14, 1998) (ULS Order). New rule Section 1.939, adopted in the ULS Order, sets forth the requirements for filing petitions to deny. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. See Public Notice, Report No. CL-95-55 (rel. Feb. 17, 1995) (accepting NECC's application and granting NECC tentative selectee status for unserved areas within the Sioux RSA). Public Notice, Report No. CL-95-24 (rel. April 7, 1995). Branch Order, 15 FCC Rcd. at
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-142A1.txt
  • sections 309(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. Id. at 1560. These provisions require a protesting party to ``submit a petition containing `specific allegations of fact sufficient to show . . . that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [the public interest, convenience, and necessity].' `` Id. (citing 47 U.S.C. 309(d)(1)); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). If the Commission finds that the petition to deny satisfies this standard, the Commission then determines whether ``on the basis of the application, the pleadings filed, or other matters which it may officially notice[,] . . . a substantial and material question of fact is presented.'' Id. at 1561 (citing 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(2)). When a petition to deny meets
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-10A1.txt
  • the Office of the Secretary before 7:00 p.m., at 445 12th Street, SW, TW-A325, Washington, DC. The Secretary will determine whether a tendered document meets the pre-7:00 p.m. deadline. Documents filed electronically pursuant to �1.49(f) must be received by the Commission's electronic filing system before midnight. Applications, attachments and pleadings filed electronically in the Universal Licensing System (ULS) pursuant to �1.939(b) must be received before midnight on the filing date. Media Bureau applications and reports filed electronically pursuant to �73.3500 of this chapter must be received by the electronic filing system before midnight on the filing date. * * * * * 41. Section 1.115 is amended by revising paragraph (3)(4) to read as follows: � 1.115 Application for review of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-288A1.txt
  • who wait until the last minute of the last day of the filing period to submit a pleading should not routinely expect a waiver. Turning to the merits, Havens first argues that the Order on Further Reconsideration is defective because it relied on facts and arguments presented in Regionet's opposition that were not supported by an affidavit pursuant to Section 1.939(f) of the Commission's Rules. We disagree. We note that the Order on Further Reconsideration did not ``rely'' on Regionet's opposition; rather, it evaluated and rejected Havens's contentions on their own merits vel non. Moreover, the Section 1.939(f) affidavit requirement applies only to an opposition to a petition to deny; no such requirement applies to an opposition to a petition for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-310A1.txt
  • six months after the April 29, 2002 deadline for filing or petitions to deny the Application. AT&T Corp. and Comcast Corp. Seek FCC Consent for a Proposed Transfer of Control, MB Docket No. 02-70, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 5907 (2002) (establishing a deadline of April 29, 2002 for filing of comments or petitions to deny the Application); see also 1.939(a)(2)(providing that petitions to deny may be filed no later than 30 days from the date of public notice listing an application as accepted for filing). Clancy's petition references several exhibits and attachments that, at the time of adoption, still had not been received by staff reviewing the transaction. See Harriscope of Chicago, Inc., et al., 3 FCC Rcd 757, 760
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-74A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-74A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-74A1.txt
  • as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the petition for reconsideration filed by Warren C. Havens on January 16, 2001 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens on May 25, 2001 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 405, and Section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-74A1_Erratum.doc
  • as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, that the petition for reconsideration filed by Warren C. Havens on January 16, 2001 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, that the petition to deny filed by Warren C. Havens on May 25, 2001 IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 303(r), 405, and Section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.2,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-113A1.txt
  • of this part), will be accepted for filing and will be placed on public notice, except no prior public notice will be required for applications involving authorizations in the Private Wireless Services, as specified in � 1.933(d)(9) of this part. Petitions to deny filed in accordance with � 309(d) of the Communications Act must comply with the provisions of � 1.939 of this part, except that such petitions must be filed no later than 14 days following the date of the Public Notice listing the application as accepted for filing. No later than 21 days following the date of the Public Notice listing an application as accepted for filing, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) will affirmatively consent to the application, deny
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-113A1_Erratum.doc
  • of this part), will be accepted for filing and will be placed on public notice, except no prior public notice will be required for applications involving authorizations in the Private Wireless Services, as specified in � 1.933(d)(9) of this part. Petitions to deny filed in accordance with � 309(d) of the Communications Act must comply with the provisions of � 1.939 of this part, except that such petitions must be filed no later than 14 days following the date of the Public Notice listing the application as accepted for filing. No later than 21 days following the date of the Public Notice listing an application as accepted for filing, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) will affirmatively consent to the application, deny
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.txt
  • rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc. on May 7, 2001 in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED as indicated to the extent above, and otherwise DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d), and Sections 1.934(d)(2), 1.937(c), 1.939, 22.912(a) and 22.949(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.934(d)(2), 1.937(c), 1.939 and 22.912(a) and 22.949(b), the above-captioned Phase II unserved area application filed by N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc. on September 21, 2001 is DISMISSED as defective. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309(d),
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-213A1.txt
  • C.F.R. � 1.1202(d)(1). This was why MRA was entitled to notice of the Commission's decision. The question of MRA's standing to file a petition to deny was irrelevant, the Division further explained, because MRA's filing was an informal objection, not a petition to deny. Order on Further Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd at 11135-36 � 5 (citing 47 C.F.R. �� 1.41, 1.939; Landlinx Communications, Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 24932, 24933 � 4 (2000); Applications of WINV, Inc., Assignor, and WGUL-FM, Inc., Assignee, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 2032 � 2 (1998); Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc., Order, DA 02-876 � 16 (rel. Apr. 16, 2002)). In fact, MRA could not have filed a petition to deny against
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-334A1.txt
  • and 90. While we are not seeking specific comment on these changes, we include them to provide notice to the public. The following are the administrative changes we plan to make: Part 1, subpart F - Title. Correct the term ``Wireless Telecommunications Services'' to read ``Wireless Radio Services.'' Section 1.927(g). Replace the cross-reference to Section 1.948(h)(2) with Section 1.948(i)(2). Section 1.939(b). Eliminate the third sentence which states that manually filed petitions to deny can be filed at the Commission's former office location. Section 1.955(a)(2). Replace the cross-reference to Section 1.948(c) with Section 1.946(c). Section 22.946(b)(2). Replace the reference to Form 489 with Form 601. Section 22.946(c). Replace the cross-reference to Section 22.144(b) with Section 1.955. Section 22.947(c). Update the location for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-167A1.txt
  • required application fee(s) (see � 1.1102). Once accepted for filing, the application will be placed on public notice, except no prior public notice will be required for applications involving authorizations in the Private Wireless Services, as specified in � 1.933(d)(9). Petitions to deny filed in accordance with section 309(d) of the Communications Act must comply with the provisions of � 1.939, except that such petitions must be filed no later than 14 days following the date of the public notice listing the application as accepted for filing. No later than 21 days following the date of the public notice listing an application as accepted for filing, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) will affirmatively consent to the application, deny the application, or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-144A1.txt
  • 90. We received no comment on any of the proposed administrative changes. Consequently, based on the record before us, we adopt those administrative changes. The specific administrative changes are as follows: Part 1, subpart F - Title. Correct the term ``Wireless Telecommunications Services'' to read ``Wireless Radio Services.'' Section 1.927(g). Replace the cross-reference to Section 1.948(h)(2) with Section 1.948(i)(2). Section 1.939(b). Eliminate the third sentence which states that manually filed petitions to deny can be filed at the Commission's former office location. Section 1.955(a)(2). Replace the cross-reference to Section 1.948(c) with Section 1.946(c). Section 22.946(b)(2). Replace the reference to Form 489 with Form 601. Section 22.946(c). Replace the cross-reference to Section 22.144(b) with Section 1.955. Section 22.947(c). Update the location for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-144A1_Erratum.doc
  • 90. We received no comment on any of the proposed administrative changes. Consequently, based on the record before us, we adopt those administrative changes. The specific administrative changes are as follows: Part 1, subpart F - Title. Correct the term ``Wireless Telecommunications Services'' to read ``Wireless Radio Services.'' Section 1.927(g). Replace the cross-reference to Section 1.948(h)(2) with Section 1.948(i)(2). Section 1.939(b). Eliminate the third sentence which states that manually filed petitions to deny can be filed at the Commission's former office location. Section 1.955(a)(2). Replace the cross-reference to Section 1.948(c) with Section 1.946(c). Section 22.946(b)(2). Replace the reference to Form 489 with Form 601. Section 22.946(c). Replace the cross-reference to Section 22.144(b) with Section 1.955. Section 22.947(c). Update the location for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-155A1.txt
  • Comments at 5. MSTV/NAB Comments at 18, citing Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), GN Docket 01-74, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022, 1081-1082 �� 158-160. MSTV/NAB note that no party petitioned the Commission for reconsideration of that decision. MSTV/NAB Comments at 18. MSTV/NAB Reply Comments at 14, citing 47 C.F.R. � 1.939 (petition to deny may be filed ``no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice listing the application or major amendment to the application as accepted for filing''). Pappas Comments at 14-17. Pappas also argues that Qualcomm's reliance on forbearance precedent is inapposite to the streamlining that Qualcomm requests. Id. at 15-16, citing Federal Communications Bar Association's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-52A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-52A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-52A1.txt
  • determining the applicable application fees as set forth in � 1.1102. (d) Streamlined approval procedures. (1) The eligibility event application will be placed on public notice once the application is sufficiently complete and accepted for filing (see � 1.933). (2) Petitions to deny filed in accordance with � 309(d) of the Communications Act must comply with the provisions of � 1.939, except that such petitions must be filed no later than 14 days following the date of the Public Notice listing the application as accepted for filing. (3) No later than 21 days following the date of the Public Notice listing an application as accepted for filing, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) will grant the application, deny the application, or remove
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-84A1.txt
  • and data services at reasonable rates and on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions. Moreover, we find that consent to the Applications will further the public interest, convenience, and necessity. ordering clauses Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, 310(d), and section 1.939(h) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(h), the Petition of SouthernLINC Wireless, filed March 29, 2006, is DENIED for the reasons stated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309, and 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, 310(d), the above-referenced applications for the transfer of control of licenses
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-161A1.txt
  • substantial and material question of fact and do not specifically allege facts sufficient to show the granting of M2Z's application would be inconsistent with the public interest. M2Z also argues that the parties opposing its application failed to follow the procedural steps necessary for the proper filing of petitions to deny set forth in 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(1) and Section 1.939(d) of the Commission Rules. Specifically, M2Z argues that that the Commission should dismiss all opposing petitions because M2Z did not receive proper service. M2Z also suggests the opposing petitions should be dismissed for lack of standing. CTIA asserts that M2Z's allegations of procedural defects in opposing pleadings are overstated, and the opposing pleadings do not warrant dismissal. NetfreeUS, Nextwave, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-258A1.txt
  • entities receiving bidding preferences. It also claims that the Applicants' reliance of the legislative history of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, is misplaced, because this section is relevant only to the Commission's authority to award licenses via competitive bidding. Discussion. We find Arkansas Limited Partners' allegations insufficient to support a petition to deny. Under section 1.939(d) of the Commission's rules, a petition to deny must ``contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that . . . a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.'' Arkansas Limited Partners base their trafficking allegations solely on speculation that Atlantis must have commenced negotiations with Verizon Wireless very
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-61A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-61A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-61A1.txt
  • information relates to events in 2002 and earlier, and NSTN offers no explanation why it could not have been submitted sooner. Moreover, an application for review may not rely on questions of law or fact upon which the designated authority was afforded no opportunity to pass. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.115(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.45(c). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 862, 864 (1986). The entire petition to deny was reproduced in a footnote in the Order on Reconsideration. See Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd at 3771 n.26. See Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 5153 � 5. We do not believe that this was the Division's intent,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-53A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-53A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-53A1.txt
  • at that time to identify mitigation measures to address the adverse effect the USCC tower has had on historic properties. These efforts should have occurred, according to FFFITS, only after the Commission had determined whether or not USCC intentionally avoided Section 106. In response, USCC contends the FFFITS petition should be dismissed for failure to meet procedural requirements of Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, USCC argues, the petition does not offer substantial evidence, supported by affidavit, that FFFITS is an interested party in the proceeding. On the merits, USCC asserts FFFITS has failed to challenge the MOA, which mitigated the adverse effects identified by the VASHPO. Hence, any damage to historic properties was mitigated by the MOA - and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-53A1_Rcd.pdf
  • at that time to identify mitigation measures to address the adverse effect the USCC tower has had on historic properties. These efforts should have occurred, according to FFFITS, only after the Commission had determined whether or not USCC intentionally avoided Section 106.43 14. In response, USCC contends the FFFITS petition should be dismissed for failure to meet procedural requirements ofSection 1.939 of the Commission's rules.44Specifically, USCC argues, the petition does not offer substantial evidence, supported by affidavit, that FFFITS is an interested party in 36 Id. at 3, �13. 37Id. at 3, �14. 38 SeeConsent Orderat 1, �3. 39 See47 C.F.R. �� 1.929(a)(4), 1.1307(a)(4), 1.1308(a), 1.1312(a), 22.165(c). Previously, on February 23, 2007 the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau had granted USCC Special Temporary
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-86A1.txt
  • J. Evans, Jennifer L. Richter, and Stephen M. Roberts, at 2 (dated Dec. 12, 2007). The Office of General Counsel also noted that ``no actual prejudice to Green Flag and Snapline has occurred, since these parties have had an opportunity to respond to NextWave's presentation prior to any decision about the various applications.'' Id. at 6. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1200 et. seq. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1206(b)(2). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1206(b). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1200(a). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.1208. A list of the pending applications covered by this change in the ex parte status is attached as Appendix C. See generally 47 C.F.R. �� 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-86A1_Rcd.pdf
  • to Donald J. Evans, Jennifer L. Richter, and Stephen M. Roberts, at 2 (dated Dec. 12, 2007). The Office of General Counsel also noted that "no actual prejudice to Green Flag and Snapline has occurred, since these parties have had an opportunity to respond to NextWave's presentation prior to any decision about the various applications." Id.at 6. 313See47 C.F.R. � 1.939. 31447 C.F.R. �� 1.1200 et. seq. 315See generally47 C.F.R. �� 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206. 316See47 C.F.R. � 1.1206(b)(2). 31747 C.F.R. � 1.1206(b). 31847 C.F.R. �1.1200(a). 7039 Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-86 "restricted"319to "permit-but-disclose."320Thus, ex partepresentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the Commission's rules.321As with the rulemaking itself, persons making oral ex partepresentations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-181A1.txt
  • a notice, comment, and approval process for ASR applications modeled after the process for applications for assignments and transfers of authorizations. According to the Infrastructure Coalition, the assignment and transfer process rules were designed to minimize delays and reduce transaction costs, and these goals apply to processing ASR applications. Further, the Infrastructure Coalition Petition asks the Commission to apply Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, which establishes criteria for filing a petition to deny, to objections to proposed ASR structures in order to prevent frivolous objections. Ten parties filed comments on the Infrastructure Coalition Petition. Comments from communications providers and tower companies generally support the Infrastructure Coalition Petition, with some differences as to certain details. These commenters assert that the Infrastructure
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-181A1_Rcd.pdf
  • institute a notice, comment, and approval process for ASR applications modeled after the process for applications for assignments and transfers of authorizations. According to the Infrastructure Coalition, the assignment and transfer process rules were designed to minimize delays and reduce transaction costs, and these goals apply to processing ASR applications.83Further, the Infrastructure Coalition Petition asks the Commission to apply Section 1.939 of the Commission's rules,84which establishes criteria for filing a petition to deny, to objections to proposed ASR structures in order to prevent frivolous objections.85 30. Ten parties filed comments on the Infrastructure Coalition Petition.86Comments from communications providers and tower companies generally support the Infrastructure Coalition Petition, with some differences as to certain details.87These commenters assert that the Infrastructure Coalition's proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1.txt
  • in a non-Covered Block, the application will be treated as if the entire claimed area is in a Covered Block. See supra note 174. Applications for renewal must comply with any applicable provisions of the Notice released by the Commission in the WRS proceeding in May 2010. See generally 2010 WRS NPRM, supra note 166. See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. Kessler, 326 F.2d at 680-81. See supra � 70. If an application proposes to claim (as CGSA) contiguous Unserved Area that is partially in a Covered Block and partially in a non-Covered Block, the application will be treated as if the entire claimed area is in a Covered Block. See, e.g., 2003 ITFS NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6813-14; 2000
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1_Rcd.pdf
  • and partially in a non-Covered Block, the application will be treated as if the entire claimed area is in a Covered Block. 175See supra note 174. 176Applications for renewal must comply withanyapplicable provisions of the Notice released by the Commission in the WRS proceeding in May 2010. See generally 2010 WRS NPRM, supra note 166. See also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. 177Kessler, 326 F.2d at 680-81. 1773 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-20 freeze and related interim procedures we adopt today. In the following SectionB, we discuss how we will process currently pending new-system and CGSA-expansion applications in Covered CMA Blocks. B. Currently Pending Non-Mutually Exclusive Applications in Covered CMA Blocks 73.New-System and Major Modification Applications. Currently pending applications (i.e., filed prior
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-66A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-66A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-66A1.txt
  • Auctions Division had failed to fully address their issues. Also on May 10, 2006, Auction 65 bidding began, with both Havens Parties participating. The auction closed on June 2, 2006, with two winning bidders, AC BidCo LLC (``BidCo'') and LiveTV, LLC (``LiveTV''). On August 7, 2006, the Havens Parties filed a ``Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Sections 1.939, 1.2108, and 1.41'' (``Auction 65 Applications Petition'') in which they reiterated their request for clarification of the rules as applied to Auction 65, ``including with regard to the long forms of the parties who won Auction 65 licenses[,]'' i.e., BidCo and LiveTV. The Havens Parties attached and incorporated by reference their prior petitions and supplement in this proceeding. BidCo and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2001/fcc01142.pdf
  • sections 309(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. Id. at 1560. These provisions require a protesting party to "submit a petition containing `specific allegations of fact sufficient to show . . . that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [the public interest, convenience, and necessity].' " Id. (citing 47 U.S.C. 309(d)(1)); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). If the Commission finds that the petition to deny satisfies this standard, the Commission then determines whether "on the basis of the application, the pleadings filed, or other matters which it may officially notice[,] . . . a substantial and material question of fact is presented." Id. at 1561 (citing 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(2)). When a petition to deny meets
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.959 Resubmitted applications (renumbered and combined 1.933, 1.934 with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.961 Dismissal of applications (renumbered and combined 1.934 with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.962 Public notice of acceptance for filing; petitions to deny 1.933, 1.939 applications of specified categories (public notice and petition sections divided; rules combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.971 Grants without a hearing (renumbered and combined 1.945 with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.972 Grants by random selection (deleted per Balanced No new rule Budget Act of 1997).
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/31/releases/9906240(1stReporttoCongress).pdf
  • due not less than five days after the deadline for oppositions." The approximate dates listed below are based on the statutory mnumum for these tiling periods, II 3. Milestone: See 47 C.F.R. 5 1.2107(b). Release Read,, to Grant Public Nolice (unopposed licenses) I? See Balanced Budget Act of 1997.5 3008; DOD Appropriations Act, 5 8124(a); see also 47 C.F.R. 5s: 1.939 and 1.2108. 8 Approximate Date: July 19, 2000 SummaN: After the period for filing petitions to deny (see Phase III, item 2. supra), the Bureau will release a Ready to Grant Public Notice announcing that it is prepared to grant the unopposed licenses. Within ten (10) business days after the date ofthe Ready, 10 Granr Public Notice, winning bidders will
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/da020847.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/da020847.txt
  • (FCC Form 175), whichever is earlier. (c) Definitions. The terms small business and consortium of small businesses used in this section are defined in � 22.223. 24. Revise � 22.227 to read as follows: � 22.227 Petitions to deny and limitations on settlements. (a) Procedures regarding petitions to deny long-form applications in the paging service will be governed by � 1.939. (b) The consideration that an individual or an entity will be permitted to receive for agreeing to withdraw an application or petition to deny will be limited by the provisions set forth in � 1.935. 25. Revise � 22.228 to read as follows: � 22.228 Cellular Rural Service Area licenses subject to competitive bidding. Mutually exclusive initial applications for Cellular
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/releases/da990385.doc
  • processing line and be treated as newly-filed applications. We also take this opportunity to clarify our policy regarding pleadings associated with applications filed before the Bureau. The rules provide for interested parties to file petitions to deny applications pending before the Bureau as well as petitions for reconsideration of actions taken by the Bureau under delegated authority. Pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, petitions to deny may be dismissed as procedurally defective unless they meet the minimum criteria set forth below. Each petition to deny must: � be filed manually at the Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554 , or electronically via the ULS (when capability becomes available); � be
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/releases/da991267.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/releases/da991267.pdf
  • in the past (e.g., letter, fax, email, phone.) We also take this opportunity to clarify our policy regarding pleadings associated with applications filed before the Bureau. The rules provide for interested parties to file petitions to deny applications pending before the Bureau as well as petitions for reconsideration of actions taken by the Bureau under delegated authority. Pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, petitions to deny may be dismissed as procedurally defective unless they meet the minimum criteria set forth below. Each petition to deny must: � be filed manually at the Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554 , or electronically via the ULS (when capability becomes available); � be
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/wtb/index.htm?job=releases_page&y=2006&m=10&t=Order
  • - [213]txt 10/31/2006 WTB Orders (DA 06-2178) Final Bid Withdrawal Payment for Auction No. 44, XIT Telecommunications & Technology, Ltd Assessed final bid withdrawal payment DA-06-2178A1: [214]pdf - [215]word - [216]txt 10/31/2006 WTB Orders (DA 06-2249) AUCTION 65 Public Notice Regarding Long Form/FCC Form 601 Applications Accepted For Filing Dismissed the Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Section 1.939, 1.2108... DA-06-2249A1: [217]pdf - [218]word - [219]txt 10/27/2006 WTB Orders (DA 06-2197) Application of Bell Atlantic New Zealand Holdings, Inc., Assignor, and GTE Pacifica, Inc., Assignee, for the Assignment of Personal Communications Service (PCS) License WQCV808 (MTA 050) Resolved the application for assignment of a PCS license from Bell Atlantic New Zealand Holdings, In... DA-06-2197A1: [220]pdf - [221]word - [222]txt
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2001/fcc01142.pdf
  • sections 309(d)(1) and (2) of the Act. Id. at 1560. These provisions require a protesting party to "submit a petition containing `specific allegations of fact sufficient to show . . . that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [the public interest, convenience, and necessity].' " Id. (citing 47 U.S.C. 309(d)(1)); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(d). If the Commission finds that the petition to deny satisfies this standard, the Commission then determines whether "on the basis of the application, the pleadings filed, or other matters which it may officially notice[,] . . . a substantial and material question of fact is presented." Id. at 1561 (citing 47 U.S.C. � 309(d)(2)). When a petition to deny meets
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.959 Resubmitted applications (renumbered and combined 1.933, 1.934 with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.961 Dismissal of applications (renumbered and combined 1.934 with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.962 Public notice of acceptance for filing; petitions to deny 1.933, 1.939 applications of specified categories (public notice and petition sections divided; rules combined with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.971 Grants without a hearing (renumbered and combined 1.945 with other rules into new consolidated rule for all Wireless Radio Services). 1.972 Grants by random selection (deleted per Balanced No new rule Budget Act of 1997).
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991677.doc
  • intentional barrier to entry to competitive telecommunications carriers such that the character qualifications of both GTE and its subsidiaries to hold Commission licenses are in question. In joint opposition, GTE and Ameritech argue that Regionet lacks standing to file a petition to deny in this matter because Regionet does not show that it is a ``party in interest'' under section 1.939(d) of the Commission's rules. It appears from the record before us that Regionet's complaint stems from brief contact between its predecessor, Orion Telecom (``Orion''), and GTE during April and May, 1998, wherein Orion requested to negotiate an interconnection agreement, including reciprocal compensation and access to UNEs. Orion's letter requested commencement of a 160-day negotiation period for interconnection agreements pursuant to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992834.doc
  • applications will be dismissed for failure to complete the frequency coordination process set forth in the Commission's Rules. We also find that Questar does not qualify for conditional authority. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 309, and 312 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and 312, and Sections 1.939 and 101.43(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.939 and 101.43(a), IT IS ORDERED that WTCI's Petition to Deny and for Cancellation of Conditional Authority filed on July 23, 1998, IS GRANTED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applications File Nos. 9706836 and 9706837, filed by Questar on June 5, 1998, WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Questar's conditional
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000005.doc
  • the outcome of the Application for Review filed by the Petitioners on May 3, 1996. We find that Petitioners have received the relief sought in their Petition - namely, a conditional grant of the subject assignment application. 2. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309 and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the petition to dismiss or deny filed by Mobile Radio Cooperative Association and S&S Excavating on August 27, 1996, is GRANTED to the extent indicated herein. 3. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000078.doc
  • Service, FCC 99-382 (released December 9, 1999). 21 See former Section 90.163 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 90.163, which was in effect at the time Tel-A-Car filed its petition. The Commission's current rules also do not allow for the filing of petitions to deny against applications for stations in the private wireless services. See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.933(d)(9), 1.939(a). 22 Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1189 (1986). 23 See Abacus Broadcasting Corp., 8 FCC Rcd 5110, 5117 (Rev. Bd. 1993). 24 Id. at 5117 (concurring statement of Board Member Blumenthal). 25 See Application for Review Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 13723-24. 26 See Michael McDermott, 11 FCC Rcd 5750 (1996). (continued....) Federal Communications
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000344.doc
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), and section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �1.2, the March 17, 1998 ``Request for Permission to Withdraw Motion for Declaratory Rulings and Related Pleadings'' filed by Zephyr is hereby GRANTED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and section 1.939 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Deny filed by AALA on July 2, 1992 is hereby DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Progressive Cellular III B-3 was the original winner of the lottery held for the Oklahoma 4-Nowata RSA, Market No. 599A. As set
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000363.doc
  • Corporation (CINC) filed a petition to deny the above-captioned application of Donald H. Pollard/Zeta Trust Partnership. On February 10, 1997, however, the application was dismissed as defective. We therefore dismiss CINC's petition to deny as moot. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C � 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R �� 0.331, 1.939(g), the petition to deny filed by Cellular Inc. Network Corp. on January 23, 1997 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See Public Notice, Report No. CL-97-31, (rel. Feb 10, 1997) (dismissing application); Public Notice, Report No. CL-97-36
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000408.doc
  • 154(i), 309, and sections 0.331and 1.934 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.934, First Kentucky Cellular Corporation's above-captioned application under File No. 01247-CL-MP-94, filed on December 7, 1993, is hereby DISMISSED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and sections 0.331and 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.939(g), the Consolidated Petition to Deny filed by Contel Cellular of Tennessee, Inc. and Knoxville Cellular Telephone Company, Inc. on January 18, 1994 is hereby DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau As a result of Commission-approved assignments of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000444.doc
  • Bureau See Public Notice, Report No. CL-95-67 (rel. Feb. 10, 1995). See Public Notice, Report No. CL-95-71 (rel. Mar. 31, 1995). 47 C.F.R. �� 22.99, 22.911(d), 22.912(d) and 22.949(b). See Smoky Hill Petition at 5-6; Badlands Cellular Petition at 5-6. GAP's Oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed May 15, 1995, at 1. 47 C.F.R. � 22.130 (1994). Current rule section 1.939, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, governs the filing of a Petition to Deny. 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(b)(1). Smokey Hill Petition at 2-3; Badlands Cellular Petition at 3-4. See, In re Application of Iowa RSA # 12 Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 5306 (1991). 47 C.F.R. � 22.903 (1994). Section 22.903 was renumbered as rule section 22.911 and
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000460.doc
  • sign KNKN-719, P-Corp (through its controlling entity, AT&T), has requested that File No. 06087-CL-MP-92 be withdrawn. Because there is no dispute between the parties, we grant P-Corp's request to withdraw FCC File No. 06087-CL-MP-92. 3. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.939(g), the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, filed on July 6, 1992, by Pennsylvania Cellular Telephone Corp. and Harrisburg Cellular Telephone Company is hereby DISMISSED as moot. 4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i), and Section
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000462.doc
  • �� 154(i), 309, and sections 0.331 and 1.934 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.934, C.I.S. Operating Company-3, Inc.'s application under File No. 03281-CL-MP-96, filed on May 9, 1996, is hereby DISMISSED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and section 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g), the Petition To Deny filed by Wisconsin II Venture against CIS's application (File No. 03281-CL-MP-96) on June 24, 1996, is hereby DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau CIS's application was accepted for filing on May 24, 1996 and was
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000464.doc
  • of permanent authority in the Texas 15 - Concho RSA, Lone Star ceased interim operations in Market 666A. For these reasons, we dismiss the Foster Petition and the Texas 14 Petition as moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and sections 0.331and 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331 and 1.939(g), the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Kent A. Foster on June 1, 1994 and the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by Texas 14 Cellular Corporation on June 1, 1994 against the above-captioned application are hereby DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000492.doc
  • was in accordance with the Commission's Rules. Finally, we dismiss Hyland's petition to dismiss or deny the Petitioners' assignment and modification application as moot because the application has been dismissed by the Branch. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309 and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, filed by Hyland Transit Corp. on April 1, 1996, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000786.doc
  • Kay was authorized to operate, the Branch considered Kay to be a party directly affected by the outcome. In sum, we reject Kay's suggestion that Branch staff acted incorrectly in this matter. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.106 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 1.106, 1.939(g), the Petition for Reconsideration by James A. Kay, Jr., filed May 26, 1999, IS DISMISSED. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000828.doc
  • 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.3, the request to withdraw the above-captioned application filed by Binghamton Celltelco Cellular One on July 26, 1999 IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C � 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939(g), the petition to deny filed by PA4 on July 15, 1999 IS DISMISSED as MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Notice, DA 99-745 (Apr. 16, 1999) (Greenmail Waiver Notice). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.935(a), (b). The waiver initially was
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001765.doc
  • and Vodafone Group, Plc, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 99-1200, 1999 WL 413,237 (WTB rel. June 22, 1999) at �� 5-9 (``Vodafone/AirTouch Order''). See Conway Comments at 1. Id. Id. While Dr. Conway does not explicitly state this, we presume that his concern is that Nextel will gain control of the licenses in violation of the Nextel Consent Decree. Section 1.939(d) of the Commission's rules requires that ``a petition to deny must contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the petitioner is a party in interest and that a grant of the application would be inconsistent with the pubic interest, convenience and necessity. Such allegations of fact, except for those of which official notice may
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da001895.doc
  • deny (Petition) the above-captioned application of Twiggs County Cellular Partnership (Twiggs). On July 27, 2000, however, the Commercial Wireless Division, on its own motion, dismissed the application as moot. We therefore dismiss the Petition as moot. 2. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C � 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R �� 0.331, 1.939(g), the petition to deny filed by American Cellular Communications Corporation on June 30, 2000 IS DISMISSED as moot. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau See Letter from Paul D'Ari, Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, to James Yates, Twiggs
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da002158.doc
  • to Deny Bala Equity at 1-2; Petition to Deny WinStar at 1-2. Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 3; Petition to Deny WinStar at 3. Auction Closes Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 13648, 13654. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications Accepted for Filing, Public Notice, Report No. 570 (rel. Jun. 28, 2000). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.4. 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(g). Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 2; Petition to Deny WinStar at 2. Petition to Deny Bala Equity at 3; Petition to Deny WinStar at 3. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.41. See 47 U.S.C. � 402(h); Applications of Cambridge Partners, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 00-322, � 6 (rel. Sept. 15, 2000); Qualcomm Incorporated, Petition for Declaratory Ruling Giving
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/er000828.doc
  • 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.3 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.3, the request to withdraw the above-captioned application filed by Binghamton Celltelco Cellular One on July 26, 1999 IS GRANTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C � 154(i), and sections 0.331 and 1.939(g) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.331, 1.939(g), the petition to deny filed by PA4 on July 15, 1999 IS DISMISSED as MOOT. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Notice, DA 99-745 (Apr. 16, 1999) (Greenmail Waiver Notice). See 47 C.F.R. �� 1.935(a), (b). The waiver initially was
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1999/da990385.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1999/da990385.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/1999/da990385.wp
  • was amended in the ULS Report and Order and moved to Section 1.934(c) of the Rules in order to unify procedural rules for all wireless services. The Bureau will normally provide 30 days for the applicant to amend its application, but this period may be shortened if conditions warrant. 4 taken by the Bureau under delegated authority. Pursuant to Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, petitions to deny may be dismissed as procedurally defective unless they meet the minimum criteria set forth below.5 Each petition to deny must: �be filed manually at the Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.; TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554 , or electronically via the ULS (when capability becomes available); �be timely filed
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2006/dd061101.html
  • SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT. Granted the application for modification of facilities of Station KSDS(FM), San Diego, CA, with conditions. Action by: Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau by LETTER. (DA No. 06-2253). MB [70]DA-06-2253A1.doc [71]DA-06-2253A1.pdf [72]DA-06-2253A1.txt AUCTION 65 PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING LONG FORM/FCC FORM 601 APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED FOR FILING. Dismissed the Petition for Clarification, and Action Deemed Appropriate, Under Section 1.939, 1.2108, and 1.41 of Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC and AMTS Consortium LLC, filed on August 7, 2006. Action by: Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: 10/30/2006 by ORDER. (DA No. 06-2249). WTB [73]DA-06-2249A1.doc [74]DA-06-2249A1.pdf [75]DA-06-2249A1.txt References 1. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268284A1.pdf 2. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268284A1.txt 3. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268283A1.pdf 4. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268283A1.txt 5. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268281A1.pdf 6. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268281A1.txt 7. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268260A2.txt 8. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268260A1.pdf 9. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268259A2.txt 10. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-268259A1.pdf 11.
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-615A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-03-615A1.pdf
  • 508, 519-520 (Mass Media Bur. and Wireless Tel. Bur. 2002) (an Environmental Assessment is not required when a SHPO (or the Commission) concurs with the tower constructor that the project will not adversely affect historic properties). We note that the petition to deny and comments on the Environmental Assessment were untimely filed under the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. Nonetheless, we have fully considered these pleadings in our review under the NHPA. 47 C.F.R. � 1.1306. Mr. William J. Sill March 10, 2003 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 March 11, 2003 R S � � �B��k�(/YM��`鉉��PNG �0���eX...�W0f�"˸ -ʝ �D... p-C� C\ i8 �] ~'��\��� g�bF�JU �}p�� Ӵ�:|Y�.̕� ���`]fe�ʦ�S ��8���o��(R)� �� -�o} �^ rt2 ; X�0~B�e6%����70o�B(R)x�oG�� �k��"a �n�"W -1��$�7'����2
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1375A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-1375A1.pdf
  • the Petition to Deny filed by Western Inspirational Broadcasters, Inc. IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Application of Union Valley Baptist Church, Inc. (File No. BNPED-20071022BNE) as amended IS GRANTED. Sincerely, Peter H. Doyle Chief, Audio Division Media Bureau cc: Union Valley Baptist Church, Inc. Western did not file a reply to Union's Opposition. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(f). Union's Opposition includes a copy of its agreement for access to the site associated with ASR number 1211839. The ASR number thereon is, in part, illegible. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 June 10, 2008 � � � �%���PNG �` �` b``D� 4 �&)�@�-�@�@�7 H >��O��� p j�� �2�=��k��� �"_� - J��, �Nt�Rb �7�P���U�ZS '��wp��ˈ jP�T{.|�87w]�g��yA�Ҩ-��=T#�O> �#W p����U�^S� �t�''�TxNt�l ۦ��X6`T{������:�r��
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1257A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-09-1257A1.pdf
  • Corp. of California, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9504 (1995); Niles Broadcasting Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 5959 (1992). 47 C.F.R. � 1.1204(a)(8); see also Henry Goldberg, Esq., Edward Hayes, Jr., Letter, 12 FCC Rcd 15242 (MMB 1997). See Broadcast Applications, Public Notice, Report No. 26874 (rel. Dec. 2, 2008); see also 47 C.F.R. � 1.939(a)(2). 47 C.F.R. � 73.3587. 47 U.S.C. � 310(d). 47 U.S.C. � 309(e). 47 U.S.C. � 309(a). See, e.g., WWOR-TV, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 193, 197 n.10 (1990), aff'd sub nom. Garden State Broadcasting L.P. v. FCC, 996 F.2d 386 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rehearing denied (Sept. 10, 1993); Area Christian Television, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/att-comcast/jtpet_mot052402.pdf
  • one week to reply to the Opposition to Petition to Deny filed by Comcast Corporation and AT&T Corp. (Appli- cants) on May 21, 2002. If the Bureau grants this Motion, Joint Consumer Petitioners will have until June 5, 2002, to file a timely Reply to Applicants� Opposition. On April 29, 2002, in accordance with 47 CFR �1.45 and 47 CFR �1.939, the Joint Consumer Petitioners filed a timely Petition to Deny the above captioned application. See Petition to Deny of Arizona Consumers Council, et al. filed April 29, 2002. Applicants were initially required to file their Opposition to this petition on May 14, 2002. See Public Notice, released March 29, 2002. On May 1, 2002, Applicants filed a motion under 47
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/echostar-directv/nrtc_response040402.pdf
  • in responding to the Commission's Information Request. Rather, as detailed in the NRTC Letter, the Applicants 3 March 22 Letter, p.3. 4 See Petition to Deny of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, In the Matter of EchoStar Communications Corporation, General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics Corporation, CS Docket No. 01-348 (filed February 4, 2002) (NRTC Petition). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.939. 5 See NRTC Petition. 6 Order Adopting Protective Order, In the Matter of EchoStar Communications Corporation, General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics Corporation, CS Docket No. 01-348, DA 02-27 (released January 9, 2002) (Protective Order). 7 March 22 Letter, p. 1. 8 Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel for EchoStar Communications Corporation, to William F. Caton, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (March
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/telecorp-tritel/alpine_reply082800.pdf
  • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of )) Applications of TeleCorp PCS, Inc., ) WT Docket No. 00-130 Tritel, Inc. and Indus, Inc. Seeking FCC ) DA 00-1589 Consent to Transfer Control of, or Assign ) Broadband PCS and LMDS Licenses ) REPLY COMMENTS OF ALPINE PCS, INC. Pursuant to FCC Public Notice DA 00-1589 and Sections 1.939 and 1.2108 of the FCC's rules, Alpine PCS, Inc. ("Alpine")1 files this brief reply in support of the "Comments on or, in the Alternative, Petition to Deny of Nextel Communications, Inc." ("Nextel"), filed on August 16, 2000 in the captioned proceeding. In its Comments, Nextel requests that the Commission take a close look at both the present and post-merger structure
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/telecorp-tritel/apline_amended082800.pdf
  • FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of )) Applications of TeleCorp PCS, Inc., ) WT Docket No. 00-130 Tritel, Inc. and Indus, Inc. Seeking FCC ) DA 00-1589 Consent to Transfer Control of, or Assign ) Broadband PCS and LMDS Licenses ) REPLY COMMENTS OF ALPINE PCS, INC. Pursuant to FCC Public Notice DA 00-1589 and Sections 1.939 and 1.2108 of the FCC's rules, Alpine PCS, Inc. ("Alpine")1 files this brief reply in support of the "Comments on or, in the Alternative, Petition to Deny of Nextel Communications, Inc." ("Nextel"), filed on August 16, 2000 in the captioned proceeding. In its Comments, Nextel requests that the Commission take a close look at both the present and post-merger structure
• http://www.fcc.gov/transaction/telecorp-tritel/leaco2_reply082800.pdf
  • re Applications of Zuma PCS, LLC ) For Consent to Transfer Control of ) File Nos. Zuma/Odessa, Inc. and ) 0000163408 Zuma/Lubbock, Inc. to ) 0000163410 Royal Wireless, L.L.C. ) To: Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau PETITION TO DENY Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. ("Leaco") and Comanche County Telephone Company, Inc. ("Comanche") (collectively "Petitioners"), by their attorneys and pursuant to ? 1.939 of the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC" or "Commission"), hereby petition the Commission to deny the above-referenced applications ("Transfer Applications") by which Zuma PCS, LLC ("Zuma") seeks FCC consent to transfer control of Zuma/Odessa, Inc. and Zuma/Lubbock, Inc. (collectively the "Zuma Licensees") to Royal Wireless, L.L.C. ("Royal").1 The Zuma Licensees are the FCC licensees of certain