WPC0 2MBERK Z3|a  S'#&a\  P6G;u&P#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNa6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2lk-39a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2ePleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\]y.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P^2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&P_2e=5,&e4  pG;&P:% ,J:\  P6G;JP\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn72/K&Z(KE+K-"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN'ԍ Id. at 1047.< The  xterms of the applicant's proposal were deemed to be of such importance to the FCC in certifying the entity  S ' xMas an examination manager that they were required to be incorporated by reference into the agreement  S 'between the FCC and the certified entity.3 4 2 {OX'ԍ Id.3  "4. On July 16, 1993, the FCC executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Elkins  xZInstitute, Inc. (Elkins Institute) in which the FCC found Elkins Institute qualified to perform the duties  xIof a COLEM pursuant to the provisions of Section 4(f)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as  S' xamended.C  2 yO"'ԍ 47 U.S.C.  154(f)(5).C The FCC made this finding based on the substance of Elkins Institute's request for  xccertification, which was incorporated by reference into the agreement, and which included detailed  xinformation as to its organization, qualifications, and  q&N prevention of  q&N conflicts of interest as well as its  xproposed examination procedures, fees, and services. The MOA also provided that "any changes to the  S'terms specified in the request must be mutually agreed on in writing by both parties."B V 2 {O$'ԍ See MOA at  1.B The MOA  q&N " 0*&&88"  x q&N provided further that the "agreement may be cancelled by either party hereto by giving [30 days] written  S'notification to the other party of its intent to cancel . . . ."B 2 {O@'ԍ See MOA at  4.B  "5. We have been informed that, on January 1, 1997, Elkins Institute filed for bankruptcy  S`' xprotection in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.i `Z2 {OZ'ԍ In re Elkins Institute, Inc., Case No. 39730518SAF7. i BFT  xstates that although not originally filed as such, the case was ultimately converted to a Chapter 7  S' xliquidation proceeding. 2 {O 'ԍ See Brief in Support of Petitioner's Motion for Petition for a Stay filed by BFT Training Unlimited, Inc.  {Of '(BFT Petition for Stay) at 2. BFT contends that on May 19, 1997, James W. Cunningham, Trustee in  S' x@Bankruptcy, assigned all rights to the assets of Elkins Institute, including, inter alia, the July 16, 1993  S' xMOA, to BFT.KH2 {O'ԍ BFT Petition for Stay at 2.K BFT states that for a period of time after transfer of the assets of Elkins Institute, Bill  xElkins, Laura Elkins, and Laura Sue Elkins were retained on a contract basis by BFT to perform services  Sr' xand maintain certain Elkins Institute relationships with the Designated Examiners.r2 {O'ԍ BFT Petition for Stay at 23. Designated Entities are entities or persons employed by or with whom a COLEM contracts to administer the examinations. According to BFT,  SJ ' x&it severed its relationship with Bill, Laura and Laura Sue Elkins in June of 1998.KJ 4 2 {O'ԍ BFT Petition for Stay at 3.K During the summer  xof 1998, staff of the Division's Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch learned that both the Elkins  xCorporation and BFT had conducted commercial operator license examinations in the name of Elkins  xInstitute. Subsequently, each party asked the FCC to declare it the COLEM certified by the FCC under  S 'the 1993 MOA. 2 {O'ԍ See, e.g., Letter from Bill Elkins, President of Elkins Institute, to John Borkowski, July 8, 1998. Similar requests were also made verbally to the staff from representatives of Elkins and BFT.  "46. On September 30, 1998, the Chief of the Division, notified Mr. Bill Elkins and Ms. Laura  xElkins and Mr. J. David Byrd that the FCC was cancelling the COLEM agreement between the FCC and  S ' x[Elkins Institute, Inc. effective thirty days after their receipt of such letter by certified mail.(X  2 yO'ԍ Letter from D'wana R. Terry, Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division and addressed to Elkins Institute, Inc., attention Mr. Bill Elkins and Ms. Laura Elkins, and to Elkins Institute, Inc., attention Mr. J. David Byrd, dated September 30, 1998.(  xZSubsequently, the Elkins Corporation and BFT submitted Petitions for Reconsideration and Stay of the  S'Division's cancellation action.N@2 {O$'ԍ See fns 2 and 3, supra. N "0*&&88x"Ԍ"0*&&88"Ԍ7. The Elkins Corporation argues that a stay is needed during the time its petition for  xreconsideration is pending to minimize damage to hundreds of designated examiners and thousands of past,  S' xxpresent, and future examinees.P# {O'ԍ Elkins Petition for Stay at 23.P BFT also contends that a stay should be granted because it is the rightful  S' xowner of the MOA and is the entity which has the right to operate as a COLEM.KZ# {O'ԍ BFT Petition for Stay at 6.K In addition, BFT  xcontends that absent a stay it will be put out of the business of conducting commercial operator license  xexaminations. Thus, BFT argues that the concomitant irreparable harm far outweighs any alleged injury  S'  to other parties, and the public interest is best served by maintaining the status quo.N# {O 'ԍ  BFT Petition for Stay at 712.N _DISCUSSION  "/8. In determining whether to grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay, the Commission considers  x&the following factors: (1) whether the party requesting the stay is likely to succeed on the merits; (2)  xwhether irreparable harm would occur in the absence of a stay; (3) whether other interested parties would  x be substantially harmed if a stay is granted; and (4) whether the public interest weighs in favor of the  S ' xgrant of a stay.& ~# {O'ԍ See Virginia Petroleum Jobbers v. Federal Power Commission v. Federal Power Commission, 259 F.2d  {O'921 (D.C. Cir. 1958 ) (Virginia Jobbers), as modified in Washington Metropolitan Transit Commission v.  {O'Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977). See also Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, 8 FCC Rcd 6709 (1993). The Elkins Corporation asserts that it is not opposing the Commission's decision to  xcancel the MOA but contends that a stay is required to minimize potential harm to its designated  S 'examiners and future examinees.P l # {O'ԍ Elkins Petition for Stay at 23.P  "9. Based q&wM   q&wM on our review of the BFT Petition for Stay and the Elkins Petition for Stay and in  x/consideration of the factual circumstances involved in this matter, we conclude that absent a stay,  xsubstantial harm would accrue to third parties. In this connection, we note that Designated Examiners,  xwho are in the business of training personnel and administering various license examinations have  xcontinued to administer commercial operator license examinations using the services of the Elkins  xCorporation and BFT. In addition, hundreds of applications for various commercial operator licenses have  xbeen submitted to the FCC since notification of the Division's cancellation action regarding the Elkins  x/Institute MOA was given to principals of the Elkins Corporation and BFT. We note that in several  x<instances, particularly the Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS), a proper license is a  xcondition of employment. Therefore, we conclude that it would not be in the public interest to penalize  x^the Designated Examiners and the applicants who paid to take and passed the examinations without notice  xthat the Elkins Institute MOA was the subject of a cancellation action. Thus, based on the facts before  xus, we find that the public interest weighs in favor of a grant of interim relief to such Designated"P 0*&&88"  S' xExaminers and applicants.# {Oh'ԍ See In the Matter of Century Cable of Northern California, Inc., Order, 13 FCC Rcd 22817 (1998). Specifically, the Division will process those commercial radio operator  x7license applications received after November 6, 1998 for BFT and November 16, 1998 for Elkins that are currently pending at the FCC.  "+10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Petition for Stay filed by BFT Training  xMUnlimited, Inc. d/b/a the Elkins Institute and the Petition for Stay filed by The Elkins Corporation ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.  "+11. 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.    ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCD'wana R. Terry ` `  hhCChief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division ` `  hhCWireless Telecommunications Bureau