**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| In the matter of               | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
| AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL DOOR, INC, | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
| Assignor                       | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
| and                            | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
| NORCOM COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,   | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
| Assignee                       | ) DA 01-2089                        |
|                                |                                     |
| for Conventional               | )                                   |
| Business/Industrial Radio      |                                     |
| Service Station WIK617         | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
|                                | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
|                                | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
|                                | )                                   |
|                                |                                     |
|                                | )                                   |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------------------+

**Order on Reconsideration**

**Adopted:** September 4, 2001 **Released:** September 5, 2001

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  We have before us a petition for reconsideration filed by American
    Industrial Door, Inc. (AID).[^1] AID seeks reconsideration of the
    December 7, 1999, grant of an assignment application in which the
    license of Conventional Business/Industrial Radio Service Station
    WIK617 was transferred from AID to Norcom Communications Corp.
    (Norcom). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss AID's
    reconsideration petition because it was filed in the wrong location.
    Additionally, after reviewing the record, we decline to take any
    action to undo the assignment on our own motion because we find that
    AID neither alleged nor demonstrated that the assignment was
    procured by fraud on the Commission's processes.

    **II. BACKGROUND**

2.  AID was authorized to operate Station WIK617 at Glen Oaks, Queens
    County, New York on the frequency pair 472/475.7875 MHz. In July,
    1978, the Commission received a FCC Form 600 application requesting
    the assignment of the license of Station WIK617 from AID to Norcom.
    The assignee's certification on the completed FCC Form 600 was
    signed by Norcom's president, Douglas Nopper, on July 2, 1998. In
    addition, the assignor's certification on the completed FCC Form 600
    was undated, the name of the assignor was handwritten and not
    readily legible and the signature of the assignor was likewise not
    readily legible. Pursuant to that application, the Commission
    granted the assignment application on December 7, 1999, with an
    expiration date of June 28, 2000. Subsequently, on January 6, 2000,
    the Commission received a letter from AID addressed to its
    Gettysburg, Pennsylvania offices. That letter, signed by Edward C.
    Jurman, AID's president, protested the "illegal transfer" of the
    Station WIK617 license, alleged that the "assignment to Norcom
    Communication was not done with American Industrial Door
    authorization," and requested "return of the license back to our
    name."[^2] In October of 2000, the Commission's Public Safety and
    Private Wireless Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    referred the Station WIN617 assignment matter to the Commission's
    Enforcement Bureau for investigation. The Enforcement Bureau then
    transmitted a copy of the Petition to Norcom. Norcom opposed the
    Petition by letter of February 28, 2001,[^3] in which it made a
    general denial of AID's allegations and urged various sanctions
    against AID. The Enforcement Bureau made numerous attempts to
    contact AID to obtain more particulars of the alleged irregularity
    of the assignment of the AID license to Norcom but received no
    response from AID.[^4]

    **III. DISCUSSION**

3.  We dismiss AID's petition because it was not filed at the correct
    location. Section 1.106(i) of the Commission's Rules provides that a
    petition for reconsideration must be submitted to the Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.[^5] The
    Commission maintains different offices for different purposes, and
    persons filing documents with the Commission must take care to
    ensure that their documents are filed at the correct location
    specified in the Commission's Rules.[^6] Applications and other
    filings not submitted in accordance with the correct addresses or
    locations will be returned to the filer without processing.[^7] A
    document is filed with the Commission upon its receipt at the
    location designated by the Commission.[^8] Accordingly, the plain
    language of the Commission's Rules indicates that a petition for
    reconsideration submitted to the Commission's Gettysburg,
    Pennsylvania office is not properly filed.[^9]

4.  Based on a review of our records, it does not appear that the
    Petition was ever filed with the Office of the Secretary. Therefore,
    we find that the Petition was not timely filed in the proper
    location. Moreover, AID did not request a waiver to allow it to file
    its reconsideration petition in Gettysburg as opposed to filing it
    with the Office of the Secretary. Consequently, absent a waiver, we
    conclude that AID's Petition should be dismissed as improperly
    filed.

5.  Even when a proper petition for reconsideration is not filed, we
    will consider taking action on our own motion in cases where there
    is possible fraud on the Commission's processes.[^10] In this case,
    however, there is insufficient evidence before us to conclude that
    the assignment of license from AID to Norcom was procured by fraud
    on the Commission's processes. As an initial matter, the application
    form, on its face, appears regular except for the absence of a date
    following the assignor's signature, an omission easily attributable
    to inadvertence. We also deem it significant that Mr. Jurman has not
    denied that it is his signature that appears on the assignor's
    certification. Rather than present evidence that the transaction
    worked a fraud on the Commission's processes, Mr. Jurman has made
    only the bare allegation that the assignment of license from AID to
    Norcom was "illegal" and "not done with American Industrial Door
    authorization." That allegation has been denied by Norcom. Moreover,
    Commission efforts to obtain additional information that might
    support these allegations have been unavailing because Mr. Jurman
    has not responded to several Commission inquiries on the subject.
    Assuming *arguendo* that Mr. Jurman's signature on the assignment
    application is genuine, but was procured by fraud, that does not
    touch upon the Commission's processes. Rather, it is solely a matter
    between assignor and assignee, justicable, if at all, in a court
    with civil jurisdiction and not by the Commission.[^11] Therefore,
    based on the record before us, we find that AID has not alleged or
    demonstrated fraud on the Commission's processes that would warrant
    our taking action on our own motion to undo the assignment of the
    license for Station WIK617 from AID to Norcom.

    **IV. CONCLUSION**

6.  We dismiss AID's petition for reconsideration because it was filed
    in the wrong location. Additionally, we decline to take action on
    our own motion to undo the assignment of the license of Station
    WIK617 from AID to Norcom because AID has neither alleged nor
    demonstrated that the assignment was procured by fraud on the
    Commission's processes. Given our disposition of this matter, we
    decline to act on Norcom's request for an investigation of, and
    sanctions against, AID. As a result, we now consider this matter to
    be resolved with no further FCC action warranted or necessary.

    **\
    V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

7.  Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** 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 C.F.R. § 1.106,
    the petition for reconsideration submitted by American Industrial
    Door, Inc. on January 6, 2000, **IS DISMISSED.**

8.  This action is taken pursuant to 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 Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: Letter from Edward C. Jurman, President, American Industrial Door,
    Inc. to Federal Communications Commission, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
    received January 6, 2000 (Petition). We are treating the letter as a
    timely, but improperly, filed petition for reconsideration, but note
    that it is not accompanied by a service list or other indication
    that the filing was served on the other party to this proceeding.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).

[^2]: Petition at 1.

[^3]: Letter received February 28, 2001, from Russell Fox, Esq. and Russ
    Taylor, Esq., counsel to Norcom, to Charles Kelley and Judy
    Lancaster of the Commission's Enforcement Bureau. We note that the
    letter does not meet the 10 day filing deadline contained in 47
    C.F.R. § 1.106(g) for an opposition to a petition for
    reconsideration inasmuch as 35 days elapsed from the time Norcom was
    on actual notice of the Petition to the time it opposed it. We will
    consider the opposition nonetheless in the interest of our reviewing
    a comprehensive record regarding this matter.

[^4]: On January 24, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau sent a letter to AID's
    president, Mr. Jurman, enclosing a copy of the Assignment of
    Authorization form and requested that Mr. Jurman verify whether or
    not the signature on the assignor's certification was his. Mr.
    Jurman did not respond. On June 12, 2001, the Enforcement Bureau
    sent a letter to Mr. Jurman, via facsimile, enclosing copies of the
    prior correspondence, again asked him to state whether the signature
    on the assignor's certification was his. Mr. Jurman was also asked,
    if he did sign the certification, whether, in doing so, he did not
    intend to transfer ownership. Mr. Jurman did not respond. In
    addition, the Enforcement Bureau twice attempted to contact Mr.
    Jurman by telephone and left messages for Mr. Jurman to return the
    call. Mr. Jurman did not do so.

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(i).

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.401.

[^7]: *Id.*

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.7. *See* First Auction of Interactive Video and Data
    Service Licenses, Request for Waiver of Applications Deadline,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd 1134, 1135 (1996);
    Complaints Regarding Cable Programming Services Prices, *Amended
    Order on Reconsideration,* 10 FCC Rcd 12778, 12780 n.14.

[^9]: *See, e.g.,* Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal
    Communications Commission and Elkins Institute, Inc. *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 14 FCC Rcd 5080 (WTB 1999) \[holding that a
    facsimile copy to a division office neither complied with the
    Commission's Rules nor ameliorated a late filing with the
    Secretary's office\]; Columbia Millimeter Communications, L.P.,
    *Order on Reconsideration,* 14 FCC Rcd 1482 (WTB PSPWD 1999)
    \[holding that a petition for reconsideration sent to the
    Commission's lock box at Mellon bank neither complied with the
    Commission's Rules nor ameliorated a late filing with the
    Secretary's office\], *aff'd, Order on Reconsideration,* 15 FCC Rcd
    11730 (WTB PSPWD 2000).

[^10]: *See, e.g.,* Champion Communications Services, Inc., *Order*, 15
    FCC Rcd 12832 (WTB PSPWD 2000); Comtex Communications, Inc.,
    *Order,* 15 FCC Rcd 11730 (WTB PSPWD 2000). *C.f.* Rule 60,
    F.R.Civ.Pr. (Rule does not limit the power of a court to set aside a
    judgment if there has been fraud upon the court.)

[^11]: *See* Cal Western Termite and Pest Control, Inc*., Order on
    Reconsideration,* DA 01-1728 (PSPWD, July 20, 2001); Clarklift Of
    San Jose, Inc., and Moore Material Handling Group, *Order on
    Reconsideration,* 15 FCC Rcd 4616 (PSPWD, WTB 2000); *Order on
    Further Reconsideration*, DA 01-116 (WTB PSPWD Jan. 18, 2001);
    *Second Order on Further Reconsideration,* DA 01-1835 (WTB Aug. 1,
    2001).