**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | ) | File No. 0001077180          |
|                                  |   |                              |
| SAMUEL MOSES                     | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Licensee of 900 MHz Private Land | ) |                              |
| Mobile Radio Station WPTG843     |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Petition to Deny or Informal     |   |                              |
| Objection, Petition for          | ) |                              |
| Reconsideration, Motion for Set  |   |                              |
| Aside and Motion for Stay; and   | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT        | ) |                              |
| AUTHORITY                        |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Licensee of 900 MHz Private Land |   |                              |
| Mobile Radio Station WNJU479     | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Request for Reinstatement of     | ) |                              |
| Licensed Frequency and for       |   |                              |
| Cancellation or Revocation of    | ) |                              |
| License                          |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: July 5, 2006 Released: July 7, 2006**

By the Chief, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Order*, we address several pleadings filed by Samuel Moses
    (Moses) in connection with the grant of Special Temporary
    Authorization (STA) to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority
    (DART) to operate Station WPWF999 on frequency 936.9000 MHz at
    Dallas, Texas: the Petition to Deny,[^1] which requests the
    dismissal or denial of the request for STA; the Petition for
    Reconsideration,[^2] which requests reconsideration of the grant of
    STA; the Motion for Set Aside,[^3] which requests that the grant to
    DART be set aside; and the Motion for Stay,[^4] which requests a
    stay of the STA grant pending resolution of his other petitions. We
    also address a Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation filed by
    DART, which requests correction of an alleged licensing error on
    DART's authorization to operate Station WNJU479.[^5] Specifically,
    DART requests[^6] that the Commission reinstate DART's permanent
    authorization for frequency 936.9000 MHz, and revoke the co-channel
    license issued to Moses for Station WPTG843, Dallas, Texas.[^7]

2.  For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that frequency
    936.9000 MHz was properly assigned to Moses under Call Sign WPTG843.
    There are irrelevancies and procedural deficiencies in the pleadings
    of both parties. However, all pleadings are directed to the same
    issue and we treat them collectively and for convenience as informal
    requests for Commission action pursuant to Section 1.41 of the
    Commission's Rules.[^8] The single issue presented is which party
    should have the right to use frequency 936.9000 MHz in the Dallas
    area: (1) DART, which was previously licensed for the frequency but
    neglected to list it on applications for renewal of the license for
    Station WNJU479; or (2) Moses, who subsequently filed for and
    received a license for the frequency under Call Sign WTPG843. We
    resolve the issue in Moses's favor but allow DART to continue
    operating on the frequency until the end of the term of the STA
    under which it now operates. Accordingly, we deny DART's Request for
    Reinstatement and Cancellation, and grant Moses's Petition to Deny,
    Petition for Reconsideration, and Motion to Set Aside, to the extent
    that we will not permit DART to use frequency 936.9000 MHz beyond
    the term of its current STA grant. We also dismiss Moses's Motion to
    Stay as moot.

# BACKGROUND

3.  DART's original license for Station WNJU479 was issued in 1987.[^9]
    DART has operated on twelve paired 900 MHz channels in the Dallas
    area as part of its multi-channel trunked system. Channels in the
    system have been licensed for base transmitter operation on the
    "high side" of the frequency pair, with corresponding mobile
    frequencies.[^10] DART's system coordinates the activities of 1500
    public transit vehicles used to transport passengers.[^11]

4.  On July 18, 1997, DART filed an application for renewal of the
    license of Station WNJU479 on FCC Form 600, which required a listing
    of each of the frequencies that DART sought to renew on an attached
    Schedule G, Technical Data form.[^12] Because DART was licensed for
    twelve frequency pairs and mobile talk around,[^13] the renewal
    application required thirty-six individual frequency entries. DART's
    renewal application, however, contained what DART describes as a
    typographical error.[^14] Rather than requesting base station
    authority for both 936.0000 MHz and 936.9000 MHz, DART twice listed
    the base frequency 936.0000 MHz (omitting the base station frequency
    936.9000 MHz).[^15] The application was granted on October 6, 1997,
    but because the base frequency 936.9000 MHz was not listed on DART's
    renewal application, DART's authorization was not renewed for base
    station frequency 936.9000 MHz. On July 12, 2002, DART filed another
    renewal application, which also did not list base station frequency
    936.9000 MHz.[^16] The application was granted on July 13, 2002.

5.  Because frequency 936.9000 MHz became available for licensing after
    DART's renewal of the license for Station WNJU479, Moses was granted
    authority to operate Station WPTG843 on base station frequency
    936.9000 MHz on October 1, 2001.[^17] In response to a complaint
    filed by Moses that DART was using frequency 936.9000 MHz without
    Commission authorization, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau issued
    DART a Notice of Violation (NOV) on October 18, 2002.[^18] On
    November 1, 2002, DART filed an application for STA to use frequency
    936.9000 MHz, explaining that its failure to list frequency 936.9000
    MHz on its 1997 application for renewal of its license was an
    inadvertent typographical error.[^19] It also set forth the nature
    of its operations and asserted that there would be public safety
    implications if DART were not able to maintain communication with
    the fleet of public transit vehicles. That STA application was
    granted on November 7, 2002, under the Call Sign WPWF999.[^20] That
    STA has been renewed several times, most recently on June 12,
    2006.[^21]

6.  On November 6, 2002, Moses filed a Petition to Deny or Informal
    Objection to DART's November 1, 2002 request for STA.[^22] Moses,
    citing Section 405(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    argued in essence that DART should have rectified its error by
    filing a timely petition for reconsideration within thirty days of
    the grant of the 1997 renewal application.[^23] Moreover, Moses
    contended that DART ratified the deletion of frequency 936.9000 MHz
    from its license when DART filed a subsequent application for
    renewal of the license for Station WNJU479 in 2002.[^24] Moses
    further argued that the Commission should dismiss or deny DART's
    November 1, 2002 STA request, and order DART to cease and desist use
    of frequency 936.9000 MHz.[^25] Moses contended that because the
    Commission cannot lawfully grant "regular" authority to DART for
    frequency 936.9000 MHz,[^26] there is no basis for allowing DART to
    continue to operate on that frequency under STA.[^27] Moses also
    claimed that because DART failed to timely protest Moses's
    application for frequency 936.9000 MHz, Moses is entitled to
    exclusive use of that frequency,[^28] and the Commission should not
    allow DART to continue operating on the frequency because DART's
    operations are causing interference to Moses's system.[^29]

# Discussion

7.  We agree with DART that, pursuant to Section 316 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission is authorized
    to exercise its discretion to modify a license "if in the judgment
    of the Commission, such action will promote the public interest,
    convenience, and necessity, or the provisions of this Act . . . will
    be more fully complied with."[^30] We also agree with DART that
    although Section 405 of the Act, as amended, requires that petitions
    for reconsideration be filed within thirty days after public notice
    of the action is given,[^31] Commission action under Section 316 is
    not subject to the limitations on revocation, modification or
    reconsideration imposed by Section 405 and implemented by Sections
    1.106[^32] and 1.113[^33] of the Commission's Rules.[^34] Therefore,
    DART is not precluded from seeking relief pursuant to Section 316.

8.  In our consideration of Section 316 relief, we note that the charge
    first given to the Commission by Congress was to promote "the safety
    of life and property through the use of . . . radio
    communication."[^35] Consistent with this charge, Commission policy
    regarding the reinstatement of authorizations generally involves an
    analysis of public interest considerations.[^36] For the reasons
    stated below, we find that DART has not advanced public interest
    considerations that justify reinstatement of its authority to
    operate on frequency 936.9000 MHz.

9.  In its Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation, DART generally
    describes its responsibilities of managing a transit system, which
    includes the public bus, electric light rail, and commuter rail
    systems, and the monitoring of high occupancy vehicle lanes.[^37] It
    describes its operating area as more than 750 square miles, covering
    a population of almost two million residents.[^38] DART further
    explains that local officials may rely on DART and its
    communications system to implement effective evacuation of the
    area's buildings, nursing homes and other establishments in the
    event of an emergency such as a terrorist attack.[^39]

10. We understand that if DART is required to relinquish use of
    frequency 936.9000 MHz, its system's capacity will be somewhat
    reduced, and 1500 transit vehicle radios may have to be reprogrammed
    and software changes made.[^40] However, we are not convinced based
    on the evidence presented that DART's loss of frequency 936.9000 MHz
    or its inability to locate replacement 900 MHz spectrum[^41] would
    leave DART with a system incapable of meeting its communications
    requirements in the Dallas region. While DART has described a
    situation in which its system might possibly suffer some temporary
    disruption if the 936.9000 MHz frequency is not available to it, the
    description falls short of a showing that DART requires the
    frequency to promote the public interest, convenience, and
    necessity.[^42] DART has additional frequencies on this system,[^43]
    and has not explained how a failure to reinstate authority for its
    operations on the 936.9000 MHz frequency would actually hinder its
    overall operations. DART merely asserts in its Request for
    Reinstatement and Cancellation that such failure to reinstate would
    not be in the public interest of its clients.[^44] In contrast, the
    relief requested by DART would in effect require the revocation of
    Moses's license for Station WPTG843, which does not authorize
    operation on any other channels.[^45] Accordingly, we find an
    insufficient basis to conclude that under the circumstances, the
    public interest, convenience, and necessity require the
    reinstatement of DART's authorization.[^46]

11. Although DART acknowledges responsibility for listing frequency
    936.0000 MHz twice in its renewal application, it asserts in essence
    that the Commission compounded the error by not recognizing DART's
    error and returning the application for clarification.[^47] We
    conclude that the error made by DART is not one that would have been
    readily apparent to the Commission in the routine processing of
    DART's application. The Commission staff relied on specific
    information in the renewal application in taking its action to not
    renew DART's authorization for frequency 936.9000 MHz.[^48] We agree
    with Moses's assertion that the Commission granted DART renewal of
    the license for Station WNJU479 in the manner requested by DART's
    manually executed application.[^49] While in hindsight it may have
    been preferable to have sought clarification from DART, we find that
    the Commission's actions here were not an inadvertent,
    unintentional, or ministerial error.

12. DART not only had a duty to submit accurate information and to know
    the state of its license, but also had a responsibility to confirm
    that its operations were authorized, which it failed to do.[^50]
    DART acknowledges that even after review of its renewal application,
    it failed to notice the error.[^51] Potential licensees, such as
    Moses, should not effectively be denied a license or suffer harmful
    interference in situations in which a licensee has failed to
    exercise due diligence in carrying out its obligations. Thus, here
    we will not require Moses to bear the brunt of DART's mistake.[^52]
    Under the circumstances presented, Moses was entitled to rely on the
    Commission's records reflecting that frequency 936.000 MHz was
    available for assignment. Moreover, the Commission was fully
    justified in relying on the frequency information DART listed on its
    renewal application and took reasonable action under the
    circumstances. DART's failure to identify its own error in the
    frequency information it submitted does not justify a departure from
    the Commission's long standing principles regarding the timely
    renewal of applications and the duty of a licensee to know the state
    of its license.

# Conclusion

13. After full consideration of the record, we find that the public
    interest does not mandate reinstatement of DART's authorization to
    operate on frequency 936.9000 MHz. Accordingly, we grant in part and
    deny in part the Petition to Deny, the Petition for Reconsideration
    and the Motion for Set Aside.[^53] Specifically, we will allow DART
    to operate until expiration of its June 12, 2006 STA, but order DART
    to cease and desist from use of frequency 936.9000 MHz by August 11,
    2006 when the STA terminates. Further, we deny the Request for
    Reinstatement and Cancellation.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

14. 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
    Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the
    Petition to Deny, the Petition for Reconsideration, and the Motion
    for Set Aside filed by Samuel Moses on November 6, 2002, November
    27, 2002, and November 27, 2002, respectively, ARE GRANTED IN PART
    AND DENIED IN PART to the extent set forth herein.

15. 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 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the
    Opposition to Petition to Deny or Informal Objection and Request for
    Reinstatement of Licensed Frequency and for Cancellation or
    Revocation of License, filed by the Dallas Area Rapid Transit
    Authority on November 18, 2002 IS DENIED.

16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DART shall terminate its operations on
    frequency 936.9000 MHz on or before August 11, 2006.

17. 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 1.41 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.41, the Motion
    for Stay filed by Samuel Moses on November 27, 2002 IS DISMISSED as
    moot.

18. 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

Michael J. Wilhelm

Chief, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: FCC File No. 0001077180, Petition to Deny or Informal Objection,
    filed on Nov. 6, 2002.

[^2]: FCC File No. 0001077180, Petition for Reconsideration, filed on
    Nov. 27, 2002.

[^3]: FCC File No. 0001077180, Motion for Set Aside, filed on Nov. 27,
    2002.

[^4]: FCC File No. 0001077180, Motion for Stay, filed on Nov. 27, 2002.

[^5]: FCC File No. 0001077180, Opposition to Petition to Deny or
    Informal Objection and Request for Reinstatement of Licensed
    Frequency and for Cancellation or Revocation of License, filed on
    Nov. 18, 2002 (Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation). Moses
    filed a Reply to Opposition to Petition to Deny or Informal
    Objection (FCC File No. 0001077180, filed on Nov. 27, 2002), and
    Moses filed an opposition in response to DART's Request for
    Reinstatement and Cancellation (FCC File No. 0001077180, Opposition
    to Request for Reinstatement of Licensed Frequency and for
    Cancellation or Revocation of License, filed on Nov. 27, 2002). In
    turn, DART filed a reply (FCC File No. 0001077180, Reply to
    Opposition to Request for Reinstatement of Licensed Frequency and
    for Cancellation or Revocation of License, filed on Dec. 10, 2002).
    On December 10, 2002, DART filed an opposition to the Petition for
    Reconsideration, Motion for Set Aside, and Motion for Stay. FCC File
    No. 0001077180, Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, Motion
    for Set Aside and Motion for Stay, filed on Dec. 10, 2002.

[^6]: Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation at 1.

[^7]: After the pleadings were filed, Moses assigned the license for
    Station WPTG843 to S M Leasing and Rental Ltd. *See* FCC File No.
    0002175028. We believe that the matter is not moot, however, because
    DART seeks to be licensed on frequency 936.9000 MHz on an exclusive
    basis. Thus, this matter affects the present license.

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.41.

[^9]: FCC File No. 8707578885, FCC Form 574-L.

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.20, 90.35, 90.173(i). Frequencies in the
    900 MHz band are assigned in pairs with mobile and control stations
    frequencies taken from the 896-901 MHz band segment and
    corresponding base station frequencies taken from frequencies 39 MHz
    [higher]{.underline} and taken from the 935-940 MHz band segment.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.613.

[^11]: *See* FCC File No. 0000960501. DART is a regional transportation
    authority for the greater Dallas area. DART's responsibilities
    include managing a number of different transit systems in various
    cities in the Dallas, Texas area.

[^12]: FCC Form 600, filed July 1997.

[^13]: *See* 47 C. F. R. §§ 90.155(c), 90.631(f), 90.633(d). The
    Commission\'s Rules require transmission and reception of radio
    signals between a base station and a mobile station for a system to
    be "placed in operation." "Mobile talk around" refers to
    communications directly between one vehicle and another vehicle, or
    mobile without the use of a repeater.

[^14]: Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation at 4.

[^15]: FCC Form 600-Schedule G, July 1997.

[^16]: *See* FCC File No. 0000960501; *see also* Request for
    Reinstatement and Cancellation at 5; Petition for Reconsideration at
    2.

[^17]: *See* File No. 0000549249, granted Oct. 1, 2001. On October 3,
    2002, Moses filed the required construction notification with the
    Commission. *See* FCC File No. 0001047976. It is not clear from the
    notification whether Moses constructed his base station, or only
    activated the associated mobile units. We note the arguments
    presented by DART that Moses certified that he constructed when he
    in fact had not. *See* Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation at
    15-17. We further note Moses's representations to the Commission
    that he has been unable to obtain a lease or to construct a base
    station either because DART was already operating on the frequency
    or due to DART's harmful interference. *See, e.g*., Letter from
    Dennis C. Brown, counsel for Samuel Moses, to David Solomon, Chief,
    Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated April
    3, 2002; *see also* Petition to Deny or Informal Objection at 4. We
    conclude, under the circumstances presented, that we need not
    resolve the disputed issue of whether Moses ever constructed a base
    station, given the undisputed evidence that the operation of DART's
    base station currently renders the frequency unusable by Moses.
    Moreover, the present matter is limited to the issue of which of
    these two parties is duly licensed to use frequency 936.9000 MHz in
    the Dallas area; to the extent that DART wishes to pursue collateral
    issues relating to Moses's alleged misstatements, his qualifications
    as a licensee, and his eligibility to use the frequency, this is not
    the appropriate proceeding. *See* Request for Reinstatement and
    Cancellation at 17-20.

[^18]: *See* File No. EB-020DL-307. DART responded to the NOV on
    November 5, 2002. *See* *also* Opposition to Petition for
    Reconsideration, Motion for Set Aside and Motion for Stay at 3 n.2.

[^19]: *See* FCC File No. 0001077180.

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: *See* FCC File No. 0002644336.

[^22]: *See* Petition to Deny.

[^23]: 47 U.S.C. § 405(a).

[^24]: Petition to Deny at 1-2.

[^25]: *Id*. at 4.

[^26]: Frequencies in the 900 MHz bands are assigned on an exclusive
    basis. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.631.

[^27]: Petition to Deny at 3.

[^28]: *Id.*

[^29]: *Id*. at 1, 3-4. Moses indicates that he constructed the
    facilities of Station WPTG843 and commenced operation, but has been
    unable to make effective use of the station because of ongoing,
    unauthorized interference by DART. *See* n.17, *supra*.

[^30]: 47 U.S.C § 316(a)(1); *see also* Request for Reinstatement and
    Cancellation at 11-12.

[^31]: 47 U.S.C § 405.

[^32]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.

[^33]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.113.

[^34]: *See* California Metro Mobile Communication, Inc., *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 22974, 22975 ¶ 6 (2002) (California
    Metro Mobile), *aff'd*, 365 F.3d 38 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

[^35]: 47 U.S.C § 151 (1934).

[^36]: *See,* *e.g.,* ADF Communications, Inc., Application for a New
    470 MHz Radio Station in Boston, Massachusetts, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd 17037 (WTB 1999). In that case, the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) determined that the reinstatement
    of the Revere Police Department\'s authorization of frequency
    operations was in the public interest. This determination took into
    account the Revere Police Department\'s critical need for the
    frequencies. Specifically, the Bureau determined that a denial of
    the requested relief would create an emergency situation in which
    police, fire and medical units would lose communications service
    vital to the health and safety of an entire populous community.

[^37]: Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation at 2.

[^38]: *Id.* at 1-2.

[^39]: *Id.*

[^40]: *See* Reinstatement and Cancellation at 13-14.

[^41]: *Id*. DART explains that it has confirmed with a certified
    frequency coordinator that there are no 900 MHz channels available
    for assignment at DART's Dallas, Texas site, and that such spectrum
    has been fully licensed for a number of years.

[^42]: *See* New York City Transit Authority, *Petition for
    Reconsideration and Reinstatement, Order Proposing Modification and
    Order to Show Cause*, 3 FCC Rcd 5621 (PRB 1988). In granting
    reinstatement of the New York City Transit Authority's license, the
    Private Radio Bureau found that the proposed system was unique,
    involving the safety of millions of passengers on thousands of
    buses, and that it was totally dependent upon retention of the
    twenty channels at issue. The channels involved were licensed for
    use in a city-wide bus radio system that would provide operational
    and emergency communications. The Private Radio Bureau concluded
    that the safe and efficient operation of the urban mass
    transportation system for the largest city in the United States
    would be seriously harmed by cancellation of the licenses.

[^43]: DART also is authorized to use frequencies under other call
    signs. *See* licenses for Stations KNGK465 (five 800 MHz channel
    pairs authorized at the same location as Stations WNJU479 and
    WPWF999) and WQAV359 (two VHF channels at various locations, granted
    in 2004).

[^44]: *See* Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation at 13-14.

[^45]: *See* VSS Enterps., LLC, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 6225, 6227 ¶ 7 (WTB PSPWD 2003) (*VSS*) (where frequency was
    erroneously licensed to two parties in the same vicinity due to a
    typographical error in the coordinates on one license, equitable
    considerations favor deleting the frequency from the license that
    has other frequencies rather than revoking the license that
    authorizes only that frequency); *cf*.*, e.g.,* California Metro
    Mobile, 17 FCC Rcd at 22977 ¶ 12 ("CMMC has additional frequencies
    and has made no showing that \[loss of the frequencies at issue\]
    would actually hinder its service.").

[^46]: *See* Pacific Gas and Electric Company, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 22761, 22768 ¶ 16 (2003) ("Section 316
    modification should be undertaken only under . . . limited and
    unusual cases").

[^47]: *See* Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation at 7-11. DART
    believes that the Commission processor should not have deleted the
    frequency from the authorization without the requisite prior
    frequency coordination, because Section 90.135 of the Commission's
    Rules required licensees to submit to the applicable frequency
    coordinator any application for modification for any change listed
    in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.929(c)(4) and 90.621(a)(1)(ii). *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    90.135. DART also argues that it should have been clear that it did
    not intend to delete the frequency because the deletion resulted in
    an authorization for mobile operation on a frequency for which the
    licensee no longer had base station authority, contrary to the
    frequency pairing in Part 90.

[^48]: *See* Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation at 7-9.

[^49]: We note that the Universal Licensing System has subsequently been
    designed to avoid similar problems by eliminating the need to list
    specific frequencies in renewal applications.

[^50]: *See* Fresno City and County Housing Authorities, *Order on
    Reconsideration,* 15 FCC Rcd 10998 (WTB PSPWD 2000); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 1.903(a) (stations in the Wireless Radio Services must be
    used and operated only in accordance with the rules applicable to
    their particular service).

[^51]: *See* Request for Reinstatement and Cancellation at 5.

[^52]: *See VSS*, 15 FCC Rcd at 6227 ¶ 7 ("we note that VSS . . . had
    multiple opportunities to seek correction of its license").

[^53]: Because our action addresses DART's renewal grant on the merits,
    we need not consider Moses's argument that the Commission erred in
    granting DART's November 7, 2002 STA to operate on frequency
    936.9000 MHz while this controversy remained unresolved. We
    therefore dismiss the Motion for Stay filed by Moses on November 27,
    2002 as moot.