Source: http://www.fcc.gov/print/node/43507
Timestamp: 2014-04-24 23:00:23
Document Index: 258463943

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 90', 'art 90', 'art 90', 'art 90', 'art, 17', 'art 90', 'art 90']

Comm Systems, LLC, et al. Order Denying 800 MHz Applications
DA 12-1904
File Nos. 0002144710, 0002145861, 0002145865, )
0002145868, 0002145871, 0002145874, 0002145877, )
0002145881, 0002145884, 0002145888, 0002145891, )
0002145895, 0002145898, 0002145901, 0002145904, )
0002145907, 0002145910, 0002145913, 0002145917, )
0002145920, 0002146009, 0002146012, 0002146015, )
0002146019, 0002146027, 0002146030, 0002146036, )
0002146176, 0002146179, 0002146500, 0002146504, )
0002181773, and 0002182415
MDS Investments, Inc.
File Nos. 0002151735, 0002151737, 0002151739, )
0002151740, 0002151741, 0002151742, 0002151743, )
0002151745, 0002151746, 0002151747, 0002151748, )
0002151749, and 0002153150
Oak Lands Development, LLC
File Nos. 0002145862, 0002145866, 0002145869, )
0002145872, 0002145875, 0002145879, 0002145882, )
0002145885, 0002145889, 0002145892, 0002145896, )
0002145899, 0002145902, 0002145905, 0002145908, )
0002145911, 0002145914, 0002145918, 0002145921, )
0002146010, 0002146013, 0002146017, 0002146020, )
0002146022, 0002146028, 0002146032, 0002146037, )
0002146177, 0002146180, 0002146501, 0002146506, )
0002181774, and 0002182416
Third District Development, LLC
File Nos. 0002145864, 0002145867, 0002145870, )
0002145873, 0002145876, 0002145880, 0002145883, )
0002145886, 0002145890, 0002145894, 0002145897, )
0002145900, 0002145903, 0002145906, 0002145909, )
0002145912, 0002145915, 0002145919, 0002145923, )
0002146011, 0002146014, 0002146018, 0002146021, )
0002146023, 0002146029, 0002146035, 0002146038, )
0002146178, 0002146181, 0002146503, 0002146510, )
0002181776, 0002182148, and 0002286108
By this Order, we dismiss the 113 above-captioned applications filed by Comm Systems, LLC (Comm Systems), MDS Investments, Inc. (MDS), Oak Lands Development, LLC (Oak Lands), and Third District Development, LLC (Third District) (collectively, Applicants). James A. Kay, Jr. (Kay) Federal Communications Commission
owns and controls Comm Systems, Oak Lands, and Third District, and Marc D. Sobel (Sobel) owns and controls MDS. The applications seek authority to operate stations in the 800 MHz band in Southern California, and were filed in May, June, and August 2005, during the pendency of various appeals in the license revocation proceedings against Kay and Sobel. On June 2, 2005, Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) filed a petition to dismiss or deny 105 of the applications.1 Applicants filed an opposition on June 21, 2005,2 and Nextel replied on June 30, 2005.3 For the following reasons, we grant Nextel’s petition and dismiss all of the applications as defective.
Kay and Sobel have provided service in the Los Angeles, California area on a commercial basis for many years. Both have operated and maintained Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) (450 MHz and 470-512 MHz) as well as 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) stations. In the mid-1990’s, upon receiving a number of complaints regarding the construction and operation of Kay’s licensed facilities, the Commission instituted a proceeding to revoke 152 licenses held by Kay.4 The licenses were authorized in both the UHF and 800 MHz SMR services. In 1997, the Commission instituted a related proceeding to revoke 28 licenses held by Sobel, also authorized in both the UHF and 800 MHz SMR services.5 In the Sobel license revocation proceeding, the Commission further designated for hearing eight pending UHF and five pending 800 MHz applications, and five pending finder’s preference requests in the 800 MHz service, all filed by Sobel.6 3.
In companion decisions issued on January 25, 2002, the Commission ordered that all of Kay’s and Sobel’s 800 MHz licenses be revoked on findings that they had transferred control of Sobel’s 800 MHz licenses to Kay without authority to do so, and had lacked candor toward the Commission.7 In 1 Petition to Dismiss or Deny, filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. (June 2, 2005) (Petition). The Petition seeks dismissal of the 105 applications filed on May 3, 6, and 9, 2005.
2 Opposition to Petition to Dismiss or Deny, filed by Comm Systems, LLC, MDS Investments, Inc., Oak Lands Development, LLC, and Third District Development, LLC (June 21, 2005) (Opposition). The Opposition includes seven additional applications not referenced in the Petition. The applications, FCC File Nos. 0002144710, 0002181773, 0002181774, 0002181776, 0002182415, 0002182416, and 0002182148, were filed on May 2, 2005, and June 1, 2005. On our own motion, we also include FCC File No. 0002286108, filed by Third District Development, LLC on August 22, 2005. Applicants filed a motion on June 15, 2005, seeking an extension of three business days beyond the filing deadline, to June 20, 2005, to submit their Opposition. Motion for Extension of Time, filed by Comm Systems, LLC, MDS Investments, Inc., Oak Lands Development, LLC, and Third District Development, LLC (June 15, 2005). Applicants, however, filed their Opposition one day later, on June 21, 2005. Because Nextel agreed to additional time, Motion at 2, and so that we can address all arguments presented in this proceeding, we extend the deadline for filing Applicants’ Opposition. 3 Reply to Opposition to Petition to Dismiss or Deny, filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. (June 30, 2005).4 James A. Kay, Jr. Licensee of One Hundred Sixty Four Part 90 Licenses in the Los Angeles, California Area, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for Forfeiture, 10 FCC Rcd 2062 (1994), modified, 11 FCC Rcd 5342 (1996).
5 Marc Sobel Applicant for Certain Part 90 Authorizations in the Los Angeles Area and Requestor of Certain Finder’s Preferences; Marc Sobel and Marc Sobel d/b/a Airwave Communications Licensees of Certain Part 90 Stations in the Los Angeles Area, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for Forfeiture, 12 FCC Rcd 3298 (1997), modified, FCC 97M-82 (rel. May 8, 1997).
6 Id.7 James A. Kay, Jr. Licensee of One Hundred Fifty Two Part 90 Licenses in the Los Angeles, California Area, Decision, 17 FCC Rcd 1834 (2002), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 17 FCC Rcd 8554 (2002) (Kay Decision); Marc Sobel Applicant for Certain Part 90 Authorizations in the Los Angeles Area and Requestor of Certain Finder’s Preferences; Marc Sobel and Marc Sobel d/b/a Airwave Communications Licensee of Certain Part 90 Stations in the Los Angeles Area, Decision, 17 FCC Rcd 1872 (2002), recon. denied, 17 FCC Rcd 8562 (continued....)
addition, the Commission denied Sobel’s five pending applications for 800 MHz licenses and his five pending finder’s preference requests in the 800 MHz service.8 The Commission determined that the misconduct in both proceedings involved only stations operating in the 800 MHz band. Rather than altogether disqualifying Kay and Sobel as licensees, the Commission found that the loss of Kay’s and Sobel’s interests involving the 800 MHz band would serve as a significant deterrent to future misconduct.9
In each of the 2002 decisions, the Commission also authorized Kay and Sobel to continue operating the stations, for which licenses had been revoked, for 90 days unless the parties sought reconsideration or judicial review of the action revoking the licenses.10 In the event they sought review, the Commission authorized Kay and Sobel to operate the stations until final disposition of all administrative and judicial appeals.11 Kay and Sobel, in fact, appealed the Commission’s decisions. On February 1, 2005, however, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the revocation orders and denied rehearing on April 5, 2005.12 The following month, the Court granted a stay of its mandate pending Kay’s and Sobel’s appeal to the Supreme Court. On October 3, 2005, the Supreme Court denied review of the revocation orders,13 and on December 5, 2005, the Court of Appeals denied a motion for further stay of its mandate and issued the mandate.14 5.
Once the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s revocation orders and denied rehearing in 2005, and while the Supreme Court appeal was pending, Kay and Sobel initiated a double-pronged effort to retain licensing authority sufficient to continue operating the facilities they used to provide service in Southern California on the 800 MHz frequencies revoked by the Commission. In August 2005, Kay and Sobel filed a Motion to Modify Sanctions, in which they asked the Commission to rescind the license revocations and substitute an alternative set of sanctions that they proposed. On April 12, 2010, the Commission denied the motion.15 Upon rejecting the Motion to Modify Sanctions, the Commission further directed Kay and Sobel to cease operating their stations no later than 11 days after release of its order.16 On April 23, 2010, to implement that decision, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) performed the administrative task of updating the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) to reflect the cancellation of the licenses at issue.17 On April 21, 2010, two days before the (...continued from previous page)(2002), further recon. denied, 19 FCC Rcd 801 (2004) (Sobel Decision). The Commission also found that Kay failed to meet his responsibilities as a licensee when he acted in a recalcitrant manner in violation of Section 308(b) of the Communications Act, as amended, resulting in the imposition of a $10,000 forfeiture. Kay Decision, 17 FCC Rcd at 1850, ¶ 50, and 1864, ¶ 100. 8 Sobel Decision, 17 FCC Rcd at 1893-94, ¶ 80.9 Kay Decision, 17 FCC Rcd at 1865, ¶ 101; Sobel Decision, 17 FCC Rcd at 1893-94, ¶ 80.10 Kay Decision, 17 FCC Rcd at 1866, ¶ 109; Sobel Decision, 17 FCC Rcd at 1895, ¶ 90. 11 Id. In practice, Kay and Sobel were required to file motions to extend operating authority for each license to continue operating the stations during the appeals process.
12 Kay v. FCC, 396 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 13 Kay v. FCC, 546 U.S. 871, 126 S. Ct. 176 (2005).14 Kay v. FCC, No. 02-1175 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 5, 2005).15 James A. Kay, Jr. and Marc Sobel, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 4068 (2010) (April 12 Order). 16 Id. at 4070-71, ¶ 9. 17 One week later, on April 30, 2010, the Bureau also dismissed all applications associated with the revoked licenses. 3
licenses were cancelled in ULS, Kay and Sobel filed a petition for reconsideration of the April 12, 2010 order and a motion for stay of that order pending a decision on the petition. 6.
On June 2, 2010, the Commission dismissed the April 21 petition for reconsideration as repetitious, and, in light of that disposition, dismissed as moot the motion for stay.18 In the June 2 order, the Commission also “direct[ed] the Enforcement Bureau to ensure that Kay and Sobel in fact have desisted from using their formerly licensed frequencies.”19 Kay and Sobel appealed the 2010 decisions, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds in October 2010,20 and on May 23, 2011, the Supreme Court once again denied review.21 7.
Also in 2005, while the first Supreme Court appeal was pending, Kay and Sobel submitted the 113 applications at issue in this proceeding also in an effort to retain licensing authority over their revoked 800 MHz frequencies. As the Attachment to this Order shows, between May 2 and 9, 2005, Applicants filed 106 applications, and on June 1, 2005, Kay’s companies filed an additional six applications.22 On August 22, 2005, Third District filed the remaining application at issue in this proceeding. III.
As already explained, the Commission rejected Kay’s and Sobel’s efforts in 2005, to retain licensing authority over revoked 800 MHz frequencies by denying their Motion to Modify Sanctions. We now dismiss the 113 applications filed in 2005, because the applications were prematurely filed in violation of Section 1.937 of the Commission’s rules, which prohibits the filing of repetitious applications. In particular, Section 1.937(a) prohibits the filing of “like or new” applications involving services of the same kind to substantially the same area by substantially the same applicant previously authorized under a revoked license until 12 months after the effective date of final Commission action.23 As explained below, each application seeks to provide service in the 800 MHz band from the same locations, on the same frequencies, using the same facilities formerly authorized under Kay’s and Sobel’s revoked 800 MHz SMR licenses. In addition, the applications would have been filed in a timely manner under Section 1.937 only if the effective date of the Commission’s final action in the revocation proceedings occurred prior to May, June, or August 2004 – one year before Comm Systems, MDS, Oak Lands and Third District filed the applications. The effective date of final Commission action in this proceeding, however, occurred after August 2004.
First, for purposes of Section 1.937(a), we find that Comm Systems, MDS, Oak Lands, and Third District are “substantially the same applicant[s]” as the licensees of Kay’s and Sobel’s revoked licenses. In particular, where the Commission has revoked a license, Secti