Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Comm Systems, LLC, et al. Order Denying 800 MHz Applications

Download Options

Released: November 28, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of Applications of
)
)

Comm Systems, LLC
)
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

Order

Adopted: November 28, 2012

Released: November 28, 2012

By the Assistant Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
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

DA 12-1904

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.

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
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....)
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

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
4.
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

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

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.

DISCUSSION

8.
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.
9.
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, Section 1.937(a) prohibits the filing


18 James A. Kay, Jr. and Marc Sobel, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 7639 (2010) (June 2
Order
). While the Commission dismissed the petition as repetitious, it further explained that if the petition had not
been procedurally defective, it would have denied it on the merits. Id. at 7639, ¶ 1.
19 Id. at 7642, ¶ 10.
20 Kay and Sobel v. FCC, Case No. 10-1155 (Order of Oct. 19, 2010).
21 Kay v. FCC, 131 S. Ct. 2913 (2011).
22 On June 1, 2005, Kay also amended 15 other applications, changing the proposed service from conventional
Business Radio (GB) to trunked Business Radio (YB).
23 47 C.F.R. § 1.937(a). Section 1.937(a) provides “[w]here the Commission has, for any reason, dismissed with
prejudice or denied any license application in the Wireless Radio Services, or revoked any such license, the
Commission will not consider a like or new application involving service of the same kind to substantially the same
area by substantially the same applicant, its successor or assignee, or on behalf of or for the benefit of the original
parties in interest, until after the lapse of 12 months from the effective date of final Commission action.” Id.
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

of any application “by substantially the same applicant, its successor or assignee, or on behalf of or for the
benefit of the original parties in interest, until after the lapse of 12 months from the effective date of final
Commission action.”24 In this case, James A. Kay, Jr. was the licensee for 33 of his 34 revoked 800 MHz
licenses, and Kay owns and controls Buddy Corp., the licensee of Kay’s “34th” revoked license.25
Furthermore, Sobel owns and controls MS Airwaves, Inc., the licensee of Sobel’s 13 revoked 800 MHz
licenses.26 As explained in the Opposition, Kay owns and controls three of the Applicants, Comm
Systems, Oak Lands, and Third District, and Sobel owns and controls the fourth Applicant, MDS.27 We
conclude that the applications were clearly filed on behalf of or for the benefit of Kay and Sobel, the
original parties in interest of the revoked 800 MHz SMR licenses.
10.
We further find that the applications involve service of the same kind in substantially the
same area as that previously authorized under the revoked licenses. In fact, Applicants acknowledge that
the “applications specify base station frequencies on the existing channel pairs at most of the primary
sites” authorized under their 800 MHz SMR licenses at the time they filed the applications, but contend
the applications “fall substantially short of duplicating the existing authority of either licensee.”28
Applicants argue that the applications do not fully duplicate the existing systems because they do not
propose to use the “full compliment of currently authorized base station locations” and they do not
propose the “full number of authorized mobiles.”29 Applicants therefore conclude that because the
applications do not “fully duplicate” the revoked licenses, they must be processed.30 We disagree. By its
plain language, Section 1.937(a) imposes a 12-month suspension period after the effective date of final
Commission action on the filing of applications involving the same kind of service in substantially the
same area as a revoked license. The rule does not require an application to propose identical service in
identical areas previously authorized under a revoked license to trigger the 12-month period.
11.
As the Attachment to this Order shows, Kay’s three companies, Comm Systems, Oak
Lands, and Third District each filed 33 applications for community repeater licenses31 with the


24 Id.
25 The 33 “James A. Kay, Jr.” revoked licenses were for Stations WNIZ676, WNJA910, WNJL306, WNKV762,
WNMT755, WNMY402, WNMY773, WNPJ874, WNSK552, WNVL794, WNVW779, WNWB268, WNWB332,
WNWK982, WNWN703, WNWQ651, WNXB280, WNXG372, WNXQ353, WNXQ911, WNXS450, WNXS753,
WNXW280, WNXW327, WNXW549, WNYQ437, WNYR747, WNZY505, WNZZ731, WPAP683, WPAZ639,
WPBW517, and WPBZ518. The Buddy Corp. revoked license was for Station WNXW487.
26 The 13 “MS Airwaves, Inc.” licenses revoked were for Stations KNBT299, KRU576, WNPY680, WNWB334,
WNXL471, WNYR424, WPAD685, WPCA891, WPCG780, WPCZ354, WPDB603, WPFF529, and WPFH460.
27 Opposition at 2.
28 Id. at 3, n.7.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Mobile relay stations provide what is commonly called repeater service for Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR)
systems. As the Commission has previously explained, most PLMR communication systems employ mobile relays
(repeaters) with wide-area coverage so that communication may be maintained between mobile units that otherwise
would be out of range of one another. Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, Second Report and Order
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
, 25 FCC Rcd 2479, 2484-85, ¶ 14 (2010) (citing id., Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order
, 22 FCC Rcd 9595, 9599, ¶ 10 (2007)) (Part 90 Second Report and Order). It is
common practice for an entity that owns and operates a repeater to share the base station with a number of other
users. Id.; Amendment of Parts 89, 91, 93, and 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt New Practices and
Procedures for Cooperative Use and Multiple Licensing of Stations in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 F.C.C. 2d 510, 513, ¶ 13 (1970). This
sharing is referred to as “multiple licensing,” 47 C.F.R. § 90.185, and the mobile relay station is commonly called a
“community repeater.” Under the multiple licensing concept, each user of the community repeater applies for and
(continued....)
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

explanation that each application is seeking authority for “an ‘add-on’ community repeater facility to be
functionally integrated” with one of Kay’s 33 revoked licenses.32 More specifically, Kay’s companies
filed 99 applications, where, in practice, each application is “functionally integrated” in terms of seeking
authority for community repeater service from the same locations and on the same frequencies using the
same facilities previously authorized under one of Kay’s revoked licenses.33 MDS filed the remaining
13 applications for community repeater licenses, and each similarly seeks authority to operate from the
same locations and on the same frequencies using the same facilities previously authorized under each of
Sobel’s 13 revoked 800 MHz licenses.34 While almost all of the community repeater applications propose
using the same locations and same frequencies previously authorized on a single revoked license, a few
applications combine locations and frequencies previously authorized on more than one revoked license.35
In all cases, however, each location and each frequency proposed in an application was previously
authorized on at least one of Kay’s or Sobel’s revoked 800 MHz SMR licenses.
12.
We further find in this proceeding that the SMR service Kay and Sobel offered under
their revoked licenses and the type of Business Radio service they propose in their applications involve
the “same kind of service” for purposes of Section 1.937(a). In particular, Kay and Sobel provided
repeater service from their revoked 800 MHz SMR mobile relay stations,36 and are now seeking authority


(...continued from previous page)
obtains an individual license for the station. Thus, a single base station is licensed to multiple users. Part 90 Second
Report and Order
, 25 FCC Rcd at 2484-85, ¶ 14.
32 For example, File Nos. 0002145861 (Comm Systems), 0002145862 (Oak Lands), and 0002145863 (Third
District) each seek authority for “an ‘add-on’ community repeater facility to be functionally integrated with station
WNVW779,” one of Kay’s revoked licenses.
33 Again, for example, File Nos. 0002145861 (Comm Systems), 0002145862 (Oak Lands), and 0002145863 (Third
District) each seek authority for community repeater service from six locations, including Santiago Peak in Orange
County, and Sunset Peak, Mount Lukens, Mount Wilson, and two sites on Johnstone Peak in Los Angeles County,
California. The applications propose to operate on frequency 852.9875 MHz at each of those locations. Before the
license for Station WNVW779 was revoked, Kay was authorized under that license to provide SMR mobile relay
(repeater) service at the same six locations on the same 800 MHz frequency at each location.
34 Like the Kay company applications, each MDS application includes a public interest statement explaining that the
application is seeking authority for “an ‘add-on’ community repeater facility to be functionally integrated” with one
of Sobel’s revoked licenses. For example, MDS’s File No. 0002151735 seeks authority for “an ‘add-on’ community
repeater facility to be functionally integrated with station KNTB299,” one of Sobel’s revoked licenses. The
application seeks authority for community repeater service from two locations, Santiago Peak and Sierra Peak in
Orange County, on frequency 851.1125 MHz. Before the license for Station KNTB299 was revoked, Sobel was
authorized under that license to provide SMR mobile relay (repeater) service at the same locations on the same
800 MHz frequency.
35 For example, application File Nos. 0002182148 (Third District), 0002182415 (Comm Systems), and 0002182416
(Oak Lands) state in attached public interest statements that each application would be functionally integrated with
Station WNJA910, one of Kay’s revoked licenses. The applications, however, also propose frequencies previously
authorized on two other revoked Kay licenses, WPAZ639 and WPBW517. In addition, while the revoked license
for Station WNJA910 previously authorized 800 MHz mobile relay service at two locations, Oat Mountain and
Rasnow Peak, the three pending applications only propose service at one location, Oat Mountain. In another
example, Third District’s application File No. 0002286108 proposes mobile relay operations at locations and on
frequencies previously authorized under several of Kay’s revoked licenses, including WNJL306, WNPJ874,
WNMY402, WNXW487, WNXW327, WNKV762, and WNJA910.
36 See James A. Kay, Jr. Licensee of One Hundred Fifty Two Part 90 Licenses in the Los Angeles, California Area,
Initial Decision of Chief Administrative Law Judge Joseph Chachkin, FCC 99D-04, 1999 WL 700534, ¶ 91
(rel. Sept. 10, 1999) (describing Kay’s business operations as “providing repeater service to end users on a
commercial basis acting as a ‘private carrier’ with respect to UHF stations or as an ‘SMR’ with respect to 800 MHz
stations”). Judge Chachkin further explained that Sobel was involved in the land mobile radio business in the Los
Angeles area before Kay, but that he became interested in obtaining authorizations for 800 MHz facilities in the
(continued....)
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

to use those same facilities for community repeater service on the same frequencies and at the same
locations as previously authorized under those revoked licenses. Applicants argue, however, that the
revoked authorizations were “for conventional or trunked SMR stations (GX/FB2 or YX/FB2) with full
commercial authority,” and that “[t]he facilities proposed in the … applications are for community
repeater authorizations (GB/FB4 or YB/FB4) with substantial restrictions on the extent to which they may
be used for commercial service.”37 Applicants therefore conclude that “the scope of authority sought in
the … applications is significantly narrower” than that authorized under the 800 MHz licenses held by
Kay and Sobel at the time they filed the applications.38
13.
Again, Section 1.937(a) does not require that the service proposed in an application be
identical to that previously authorized under a revoked license to trigger the 12-month suspension period.
Commission rules allow SMR licensees to use their 800 MHz frequencies to provide mobile relay
(repeater) service to entities to support those entities’ internal communications needs.39 Similarly, entities
engaged in the operation of a commercial activity may use mobile relay stations for community repeater
service on 800 MHz frequencies allocated to the Industrial/Business Pool also to support those entities’
internal communications needs.40 Whether SMR or Business Radio, the service Kay and Sobel
previously offered and now seek to employ is repeater service to support an entity’s internal
communications needs by providing wide-area coverage so that communication among the entity’s
mobile units that otherwise would be out of range of one another may be maintained. We further note
that, if we were to grant the applications, Commission rules would allow Kay and Sobel to later modify
their licenses to authorize use of the Business Radio channels for commercial SMR operations.41
14.
Finally, we find in this proceeding that Comm Systems, MDS, Oak Lands, and Third
District filed the applications prior to the effective date of final Commission action in the Kay and Sobel
revocation proceedings. As already explained, Section 1.937 precludes the filing of repetitious
applications until 12 months after the effective date of final Commission action. Thus, for the
applications at issue in this case to have been filed in a timely manner, the effective date of final
Commission action in the revocation proceedings would have had to occur prior to May, June, and
August 2004 – one year before Comm Systems, MDS, Oak Lands, and Third District filed the
applications.


(...continued from previous page)
early 1990’s. Id. at ¶ 143. Prior to that time, Sobel’s repeaters were operated in the UHF bands (450 MHz and 470-
512 MHz). Id.
37 Opposition at 3, n.7.
38 Id.
39 Applications for LMR Systems, Inc., Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17227, 17235, ¶ 15 (WTB PSPWD 1999) (citing
47 C.F.R. § 90.603(c)) (LMR Systems). Section 90.603 provides that the following persons are eligible for licensing
in the 800 MHz bands, … including “(c) [a]ny person eligible under this part and proposing to provide on a
commercial basis base station an[d] ancillary facilities as a Specialized Mobile Radio Service System operator, for
the use of individuals, federal government agencies and persons eligible for licensing under subparts B or C of this
part.” 47 C.F.R. § 90.603(c).
40 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(a)(1) (providing that “[p]ersons primarily engaged in any of the following activities are
eligible to hold authorizations in the Industrial/Business Pool to provide commercial mobile radio service as defined
in part 20 of this chapter or to operate stations for transmission of communications necessary to such activities of the
licensee: (1) the operation of commercial activity; (2) the operation of educational, philanthropic, or ecclesiastical
institutions; (3) Clergy activities; or (4) The operation of hospitals, clinics, or medical associations”).
41 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(e) (providing that “licensees of channels in the Business/Industrial/Land Transportation
category may request a modification of the license, …, to authorize commercial operation).
7

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

15.
While there is limited precedent addressing the date on which Section 1.937’s 12-month
suspension period would begin, the Commission’s 2002-2003 rulemaking proceeding revising that rule
section offers guidance. As originally adopted, Section 1.937 specified certain types of applications that
were prohibited as repetitious, i.e., applications for new stations, or for modification of services or
facilities, or for licenses that had been revoked.42 The Commission instituted its rulemaking proceeding
after finding the rule’s original language could be interpreted as permitting the filing of repetitious
applications that were not specified in the rule, including, for example, renewal applications.43
16.
In its discussion on the issue, the Commission noted that because Section 1.937 could be
interpreted as permitting the filing of repetitious applications that were not specified in the original
language of the rule, in at least one instance, a licensee – Herbert L. Schoenbohm – had filed a repetitious
application for the same service less than 12 months after the denial of his renewal application.44 In the
Schoenbohm proceeding, the licensee filed a renewal application on February 2, 1994, the Commission
held a hearing on the application on August 8, 1995, and on February 2, 1996, the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) issued his Initial Decision denying Schoenbohm’s renewal application.45 On October 9,
1997, upon remand, the ALJ issued a Supplemental Initial Decision (SID) again denying the renewal
application.46
17.
In affirming the SID on July 8, 1998, the Commission authorized continued operation of
Schoenbohm’s station until “the ninety-first day following the release date of an order on reconsideration
or the completion of judicial review, whichever is later.”47 The Commission denied reconsideration of its
denial of Schoenbohm’s renewal application on October 9, 1998.48 The Court of Appeals affirmed the
Commission’s denial of Schoenbohm’s renewal application on February 9, 2000, and denied rehearing on
June 28, 2000.49 The Supreme Court denied review on October 30, 2000,50 and, in accordance with the
Commission’s July 8, 1998 order, Schoenbohm’s authority to operate his station expired 90 days later, on
January 28, 2001.
18.
Two months after his operating authority expired, on April 4, 2001, Schoenbohm filed a
repetitious renewal application. Because the language of Section 1.937 did not, at that time, expressly
prohibit the filing of repetitious renewal applications, the Commission designated Schoenbohm’s April 4,
2001 renewal application for hearing, noting that “although the Supreme Court denied certiorari on
October 30, 2000, the Commission gave Mr. Schoenbohm 90 days thereafter in which to effect the


42 Amendment of Section 1.937 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Repetitious or Conflicting Applications,
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 7190, 7192, ¶ 4 (2003) (Section 1.937 Report and Order).
43 Id.
44 Section 1.937 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 7192, ¶ 4 (citing id., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC
Rcd 5628, 5630, ¶ 3 (2002) (citing In the Matter of Application of Herbert L. Schoenbohm for a Station License in
the Amateur Radio Service and Application of Herbert L. Schoenbohm for a General Class Operator License in the
Amateur Radio Service, Hearing Designation Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1369 (2002) (2002 Schoenbohm HDO)).
45 In the Matter of the Application of Herbert L. Schoenbohm Kingshill, Virgin Islands, Initial Decision of
Administrative Law Judge Edward Luton
, 11 FCC Rcd 1146 (1996).
46 Id., Supplemental Initial Decision of Administrative Law Judge Edward Luton, 13 FCC Rcd 1853 (1997).
47 In re Applications of Herbert L. Schoenbohm, Kingshill, Virgin Islands, Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 15028, 15037,
¶ 29 (1998). The Commission further explained that “[j]udicial review is completed when the forum which had
jurisdiction to review this proceeding issues its mandate.” Id.
48 Id., Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23774 (1998).
49 Schoenbohm v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243 (2000), rehearing en banc denied (May 2, 2000), as amended (June 28, 2000).
50 Schoenbohm v. FCC, 531 U.S. 968 (Oct. 30, 2000).
8

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

orderly cessation of his station operations. Hence, Mr. Schoenbohm retained his operating privileges
until January 28, 2001, when his license cancelled, and only a little more than 2 months later filed his
application for new station and operator licenses.”51 Given the timeline in the Schoenbohm case and the
Commission’s characterization of that case in its Section 1.937 rulemaking proceeding as a case where
the licensee filed a repetitious renewal application less than 12 months after the denial of his renewal
application, it is clear the Commission concluded that the effective date of final Commission action under
Section 1.937 in Schoenbohm occurred after April 4, 2000, one year before Schoenbohm filed his
repetitious renewal application and several years after the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s denial of the
initial renewal application.
19.
In this case, we need not determine the precise date on which final Commission action
became effective because all of the potential events that would trigger the 12-month suspension period
under Section 1.937(a) occurred after August 2004. In particular, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
Commission’s revocation orders in February 2005, the Supreme Court denied review in October 2005,
and the Court of Appeals issued its mandate on December 5, 2005. We note that Kay and Sobel
themselves have acknowledged that the revocation orders “will become effective on either October 28,
2005,” the deadline for seeking rehearing of the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, “or on the date the
Court of Appeals issues its mandate, whichever comes later.”52 In addition, the Commission denied
Kay’s and Sobel’s Motion to Modify Sanctions on April 12, 2010, and denied reconsideration of that
decision on June 2, 2010. Upon appeal of those 2010 orders, the Court of Appeals once again denied
review in October 2010, and on May 23, 2011, the Supreme Court also once again denied review.
20.
We further note that, in its 2002 decisions, the Commission allowed Kay and Sobel to
continue operating their 800 MHz SMR stations during the appeals processes. In fact, the Commission
authorized Kay and Sobel to operate the stations until April 23, 2010, when the Commission finally
directed the licensees to cease operations and cancelled the licenses in ULS.53 We note that the
Commission’s characterization of the Schoenbohm case as a case where the licensee filed his repetitious
renewal application within 12 months of the effective date of final Commission action, i.e., “a little more
than 2 months” after he lost his operating authority on January 28, 2001, suggests the effective date of
final Commission action in this proceeding would be April 23, 2010. Accordingly, we conclude that
under Section 1.937(a), the effective date of final Commission action in the Kay and Sobel revocation
proceedings occurred after May, June, and August 2004. The applications filed in May, June, and August
2005, involving the same kind of service to substantially the same areas as that provided under the
revoked licenses were therefore prematurely filed in violation of Section 1.937(a) of the Commission’s
rules.
21.
Moreover, once the Commission revoked Kay’s and Sobel’s 800 MHz licenses, the SMR
spectrum associated with those licenses automatically reverted to Nextel of California, Inc. Section
90.173(n) of the Commission’s rules provides that “[a]ny recovered channels in the 800 MHz SMR
service will revert automatically to the holder of the EA license within which such channels are included.
If there is no EA licensee for recovered channels, such channels will be retained by the Commission for
future licensing.”54 In this case, Nextel of California, Inc. holds EA licenses authorized on all of the SMR


51 2002 Schoenbohm HDO, 17 FCC Rcd at 1371, n.15.
52 Motion for Extension of Operating Authority, filed by James A. Kay, Jr. and Marc D. Sobel in WT Docket
Nos. 94-17 and 97-56 at 2, ¶ 2 (Oct. 17, 2005).
53 April 12 Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 4070-71, ¶¶ 7 and 9.
54 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(n); see id. § 90.683(b) (providing that “[i]n the event that the authorization for a previously
authorized co-channel station within the EA licensee’s spectrum block is terminated or revoked, the EA licensee’s
co-channel obligations to such station will cease upon deletion of the facility from the Commission’s official
(continued....)
9

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

frequencies previously authorized under Kay’s and Sobel’s 800 MHz licenses.55 As a result, that
spectrum automatically reverted to Nextel of California, Inc. once Kay and Sobel were no longer
authorized to operate on those channels. While the majority of frequencies previously authorized under
Kay’s and Sobel’s revoked licenses were SMR frequencies, some were not. The non-SMR frequencies,
including Industrial/Business Pool frequencies, reverted back to the Commission and are available for
licensing subject to the Commission’s frequency coordination56 and 800 MHz reconfiguration rules and
procedures.57
22.
Finally, we reject Applicants’ argument that an evidentiary hearing under Section 309(e)
of the Communications Act, as amended, is required in this proceeding. Under Section 309(e), when
considering an application, if “a substantial and material question of fact is presented … [the
Commission] shall formally designate the application for hearing.”58 According to Applicants, the
question in this case is not whether the revocation orders “preclude the … applications,” but whether
consideration of the applications on their merits “would adversely affect the integrity of the
Commission’s licensing system.”59 We disagree.
23.
Applicants argue, in particular, that an evidentiary hearing is needed to resolve questions
of fact, including whether the scope of the sanctions imposed in the revocation proceedings should be
extended to “future applications for new facilities.”60 Applicants further argue that a hearing is needed to
determine whether the Commission’s decision that Kay and Sobel lacked candor in the revocation
proceedings is relevant to consideration of the applications.61 As already explained, however,
Commission rules – in particular Section 1.937 – preclude consideration of the applications as a matter of
law. Contrary to Applicants’ arguments, no substantial or material questions of fact are presented in this
proceeding. We are not rejecting the applications based on the scope of sanctions imposed in the
revocation proceedings. Nor are we basing our decision on any type of character inquiry.
24.
Moreover, we find that designating these applications for an evidentiary hearing would
frustrate the purpose of Section 1.937 and circumvent the Commission’s decisions in the revocation
proceedings by allowing Kay and Sobel to continue litigating matters already decided. As the
Commission has previously stated, Section 1.937 was adopted “to aid the Commission in achieving sound
administrative process by barring applicants from continuously relitigating matters already decided. This
end could be too easily circumvented if a party, … whose license had been revoked, was free to refile


(...continued from previous page)
licensing records, and the EA licensee will be able to construct and operate without regard to that previous
authorization”).
55 The Nextel of California, Inc. EA licenses are authorized in BEA 160 and include WPRQ226, WPRQ363,
WPRQ495, WPRQ622, WPRQ749, and WPQZ882.
56 47 C.F.R. § 90.175.
57 See In the Matter of Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order,
WT Docket No. 02-55, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 (2004); see also In the Matter of Improving Public Safety
Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Supplemental Order and Order on Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 02-55,
19 FCC Rcd 25120 (2004); In the Matter of Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 02-55, 20 FCC Rcd 16015 (2005).
58 47 U.S.C. § 309(e).
59 Opposition at 5.
60 Id. at 5-6.
61 Id. at 7. According to Applicants, the affidavit at issue in determining Kay and Sobel lacked candor was
submitted to the Commission more than ten years before they filed the applications. Id.
10

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

immediately for substantially the same facilities.”62 Not only did the Commission revoke all of Kay’s and
Sobel’s 800 MHz licenses, the Commission dismissed and denied Sobel’s pending applications and
finder’s preference requests for 800 MHz facilities. In 2010, in affirming the denial of the Motion to
Modify Sanctions, the Commission explicitly directed the Enforcement Bureau to ensure Kay and Sobel
were not operating on “their formerly licensed frequencies, and if the Bureau determines otherwise, to
take immediate action, including forfeiture proceedings and/or proceedings to revoke any other licenses
held by Kay or Sobel.”63
25.
In this case, the Commission clearly intended, in its revocation proceedings, to deprive
Kay and Sobel, at the time the applications at issue in this proceeding were filed, of the interests they held
in the 800 MHz band, including licenses, applications, and finder’s preference requests. Nextel argues
that granting the applications would effectively allow Kay and Sobel to retain authorizations to operate
stations under the guise of add-on repeater stations “on the very 800 MHz channels and at the same
locations” authorized under the revoked licenses, and that “[s]uch a result would make a nullity of the
Commission’s lengthy revocation proceeding[s] and open the door for further litigation relating to the use
of the subject 800 MHz channels.”64 We agree. Grant of the applications would effectively allow Kay
and Sobel to retain the licensing authority revoked by the Commission, nullify any intent to deter
misconduct, and further litigate matters already well settled. Accordingly, we grant Nextel’s petition and
dismiss the 113 applications filed by Comm Systems, MDS, Oak Lands, and Third District as defective.

IV.

ORDERING CLAUSES

26.
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 0.131, 0.331,
and 1.939, of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny,
filed by Nextel Communications, Inc. on June 2, 2005, IS GRANTED.
27.
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 0.131, 0.331, 1.934,
and 1.937 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, 1.934, 1.937, the applications 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 filed by Comm Systems, LLC on May 2 and 3, 2005, ARE
DISMISSED as defective.
28.
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 0.131, 0.331, 1.934,
and 1.937 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, 1.934, 1.937, the applications File Nos.
0002151735, 0002151737, 0002151739, 0002151740, 0002151741, 0002151742, 0002151743,


62 Section 1.937 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 7192, ¶ 5 (stating that “the goal of Section 1.937 – the attainment
of sound administrative process by preventing the relitigation of decided matters – would be easily circumvented if
applicants were free to refile for the same relief immediately after being denied such relief”) (citing Salter
Broadcasting Co. et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 F.C.C. 2d 809, 813, ¶ 10 (1967)).
63 June 2 Order, 25 FCC Rcd at7642, ¶ 10. In fact, the Commission stated that “[i]t is our understanding that in the
five years since we ordered that their licenses be revoked, Kay and Sobel have continued to earn substantial license-
related fees. That is enough of a windfall; this matter must now come to an end. Kay and Sobel forfeited their
opportunity to hold the licenses at issue when they violated our rules, and it is high time that they face the
consequences of their actions.” Id.
64 Petition at 4.
11

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

0002151745, 0002151746, 0002151747, 0002151748, 0002151749, and 0002153150 filed by
MDS Investments, Inc. on May 6 and 9, 2005, ARE DISMISSED as defective.
29.
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 0.131, 0.331, 1.934,
and 1.937 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, 1.934, 1.937, the applications 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, and 0002146506 filed by Oak Lands Development, LLC on May 3, 2005, ARE
DISMISSED as defective.
30.
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 0.131, 0.331, 1.934,
and 1.937 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, 1.934, 1.937, the applications 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, and 0002146510 filed Third District Enterprises, LLC on May 3, 2005, ARE
DISMISSED as defective.
31.
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 0.131, 0.331, 1.934,
and 1.937 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, 1.934, 1.937, the applications File
Nos. 0002181773 and 0002182415 filed by Comm Systems, LLC, the applications File Nos. 0002181774
and 0002182416 filed by Oak Lands Development, LLC, and the applications File Nos. 0002181776 and
0002182148 filed by Third District Enterprises, LLC on June 1, 2005, ARE DISMISSED as defective.
32.
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 0.131, 0.331, 1.934,
and 1.937 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331, 1.934, 1.937, the application File
No. 0002286108 filed by Third District Enterprises, LLC on August 22, 2005, IS DISMISSED as
defective.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Cyndi Thomas
Assistant Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
12

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

ATTACHMENT

APPLICANT

FILE NO.

RS

FILED

REVOKED

RS

FORMER

LICENSE

LICENSEE

Comm Systems
0002144710
GB
5/2/05*
WNWK982
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146022
GB
5/3/05
WNWK982
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146023
GB
5/3/05
WNWK982
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145861
GB
5/3/05
WNVW779
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145862
GB
5/3/05
WNVW779
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145864
GB
5/3/05
WNVW779
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145865
GB
5/3/05
WNVL794
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145866
GB
5/3/05
WNVL794
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145867
GB
5/3/05
WNVL794
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145868
GB
5/3/05
WNIZ676
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145869
GB
5/3/05
WNIZ676
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145870
GB
5/3/05
WNIZ676
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145871
GB
5/3/05
WNWN703
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145872
GB
5/3/05
WNWN703
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145873
GB
5/3/05
WNWN703
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145874
GB
5/3/05
WNWQ651
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145875
GB
5/3/05
WNWQ651
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145876
GB
5/3/05
WNWQ651
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145877
GB
5/3/05
WNXG372
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145879
GB
5/3/05
WNXG372
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145880
GB
5/3/05
WNXG372
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145881
GB
5/3/05
WNXB280
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145882
GB
5/3/05
WNXB280
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145883
GB
5/3/05
WNXB280
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145884
GB
5/3/05
WNXQ911
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145885
GB
5/3/05
WNXQ911
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145886
GB
5/3/05
WNXQ911
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145888
GB
5/3/05
WNXS450
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145889
GB
5/3/05
WNXS450
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145890
GB
5/3/05
WNXS450
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145891
GB
5/3/05
WNXW280
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145892
GB
5/3/05
WNXW280
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145894
GB
5/3/05
WNXW280
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
* Amended 5/9/05
13

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

ATTACHMENT

APPLICANT

FILE NO.

RS

FILED

REVOKED

RS

FORMER

LICENSE

LICENSEE

Comm Systems
0002145895
GB
5/3/05
WNXW549
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145896
GB
5/3/05
WNXW549
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145897
GB
5/3/05
WNXW549
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145898
GB
5/3/05
WNYQ437
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145899
GB
5/3/05
WNYQ437
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145900
GB
5/3/05
WNYQ437
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145901
GB
5/3/05
WNYR747
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145902
GB
5/3/05
WNYR747
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145903
GB
5/3/05
WNYR747
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145904
GB
5/3/05
WNZY505
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145905
GB
5/3/05
WNZY505
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145906
GB
5/3/05
WNZY505
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145907
GB
5/3/05
WNZZ731
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145908
GB
5/3/05
WNZZ731
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145909
GB
5/3/05
WNZZ731
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145910
GB
5/3/05
WPAZ639
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145911
GB
5/3/05
WPAZ639
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145912
GB
5/3/05
WPAZ639
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145913
GB
5/3/05
WPBZ518
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145914
GB
5/3/05
WPBZ518
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145915
GB
5/3/05
WPBZ518
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145917
GB
5/3/05
WPAP683
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145918
GB
5/3/05
WPAP683
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145919
GB
5/3/05
WPAP683
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002145920
GB
5/3/05
WPBW517
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002145921
GB
5/3/05
WPBW517
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002145923
GB
5/3/05
WPBW517
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146009
GB
5/3/05
WNMT755
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146010
GB
5/3/05
WNMT755
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146011
GB
5/3/05
WNMT755
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146012
GB
5/3/05
WNMY773
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146013
GB
5/3/05
WNMY773
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146014
GB
5/3/05
WNMY773
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146015
GB
5/3/05
WNWB332
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146017
GB
5/3/05
WNWB332
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146018
GB
5/3/05
WNWB332
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
14

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

ATTACHMENT

APPLICANT

FILE NO.

RS

FILED

REVOKED

RS

FORMER

LICENSE

LICENSEE

Comm Systems
0002146019
GB
5/3/05
WNXS753
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146020
GB
5/3/05
WNXS753
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146021
GB
5/3/05
WNXS753
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146027
YB
5/3/05*
WNKV762
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146028
YB
5/3/05*
WNKV762
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146029
YB
5/3/05*
WNKV762
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146030
YB
5/3/05*
WNXW327
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146032
YB
5/3/05*
WNXW327
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146035
YB
5/3/05*
WNXW327
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146036
YB
5/3/05*
WNPJ874
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146037
YB
5/3/05*
WNPJ874
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146038
YB
5/3/05*
WNPJ874
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146176
GB
5/3/05
WNWB268
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146177
GB
5/3/05
WNWB268
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146178
GB
5/3/05
WNWB268
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146179
GB
5/3/05
WNXQ353
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146180
GB
5/3/05
WNXQ353
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146181
GB
5/3/05
WNXQ353
GX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146500
YB
5/3/05*
WNSK552
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146501
YB
5/3/05*
WNSK552
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146503
YB
5/3/05*
WNSK552
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002146504
YB
5/3/05*
WNMY402
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002146506
YB
5/3/05*
WNMY402
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002146510
YB
5/3/05*
WNMY402
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002181773
YB
6/1/05
WNJL306
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002181774
YB
6/1/05
WNJL306
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002181776
YB
6/1/05
WNJL306
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Comm Systems
0002182415
YB
6/1/05**
WNJA910#
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Oak Lands
0002182416
YB
6/1/05**
WNJA910#
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002182148
YB
6/1/05**
WNJA910
YX
James A. Kay, Jr.
Third District
0002286108
YB
8/22/05
Several
James A. Kay, Jr.
* Amended 6/1/05; ** Amended 8/21/06; # The public interest statement included with these applications
states that the applications are functionally integrated with Station WNWK982, a conventional 800 MHz SMR
station (GX). Because the applications are identical to Third District’s application, File No. 0002182148, and
based on the technical information included in each of the three applications, we believe Comm Systems and
Oak Lands intended to state the applications, File Nos. 0002182415 and 0002182416, are functionally
integrated with Station WNJA910.
15

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-1904

ATTACHMENT

APPLICANT

FILE NO.

RS

FILED

REVOKED

RS

FORMER

LICENSE

LICENSEE

MDS Investments
0002151735
GB
5/6/05
KNBT299
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151737
GB
5/6/05
WNPY680
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151739
GB
5/6/05
WNWB334
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151740
GB
5/6/05
WNXL471
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151741
GB
5/6/05
WNYR424
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151742
GB
5/6/05
WPAD685
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151743
GB
5/6/05
WPCA891
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151745
GB
5/6/05
WPCG780
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151746
GB
5/6/05
WPCZ354
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151747
GB
5/6/05
WPFH460
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151748
GB
5/6/05
WPFF529
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002151749
GB
5/6/05
WPDB603
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
MDS Investments
0002153150
GB
5/9/05
KRU576
GX
MS Airwaves, Inc.
16

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.