WPCUN 2BVTZ 3|v )6?xxxX[Xx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSx  @,,,'CX@2z@?P Z3|v phoenix#x P7P#HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSx  @,,,'CX@ FJETERFJETER ;2l0Default Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Font11#X P7XP##x P7P#endnote textendnote text;1#X P7XP##x P7P#endnote referenceendnote reference44#X P7XP##x P7P#2"rx,footnote textfootnote text;1#X P7XP##x P7P#footnote referencefootnote reference4#X P7XP#Document 8Document 811#X P7XP##x P7P#Document 4Document 4  2p   lJ  Document 6Document 611#X P7XP##x P7P#Document 5Document 5 11#X P7XP##x P7P#Document 2Document 2 Document 7Document 7 11#X P7XP##x P7P#2<  \  l BibliogrphyBibliogrphy 11#X P7XP##x P7P#Right Par 1Right Par 1 11#X P7XP##x P7P#Right Par 2Right Par 211#X P7XP##x P7P#Document 3Document 3 2Vn (Right Par 3Right Par 311#X P7XP##x P7P#Right Par 4Right Par 411#X P7XP##x P7P#Right Par 5Right Par 511#X P7XP##x P7P#Right Par 6Right Par 611#X P7XP##x P7P#2Bl(hRight Par 7Right Par 711#X P7XP##x P7P#Right Par 8Right Par 811#X P7XP##x P7P#Tech InitTech Init Document 1Document 1X` hp x (#` hp x (#` hp x (#X` hp x (#2|l6lTechnical 5Technical 511#X P7XP##x P7P#Technical 6Technical 611#X P7XP##x P7P#Technical 2Technical 2 Technical 3Technical 3 2@lf Technical 4Technical 411#X P7XP##x P7P#Technical 1Technical 1 Technical 7Technical 711#X P7XP##x P7P#Technical 8Technical 811#X P7XP##x P7P#2  !"#Doc InitDoc Init 11#X P7XP##x P7P#Bullet ListBullet List!11#X P7XP##x P7P#toc 1toc 1"X` hp x (#(#`(#`X` hp x (#toc 2toc 2#X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#2f($% "&*$'H&toc 3toc 3$X` hp x (#` (#`` (#`X` hp x (#toc 4toc 4%X` hp x (# (#` (#`X` hp x (#toc 5toc 5&X` hp x (#h(#`h(#`X` hp x (#toc 6toc 6'X` hp x (#(# (# X` hp x (#2h/(v())*,++J-toc 7toc 7( toc 8toc 8)X` hp x (#(# (# X` hp x (#toc 9toc 9*X` hp x (#(#`(#`X` hp x (#index 1index 1+X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#2T5,/-1.3/4index 2index 2,X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading-X` hp x (#(#(#X` hp x (#captioncaption.;1#X P7XP##x P7P#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption/11#X P7XP##x P7P#2>5}v88;"5^*ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddVSWySvx@@ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd*ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddVSWySvx@@ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddCourier New (TT)Bookshelf Symbol 3 (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CCCCPCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNCNoddȐoNNF2ldCddddddd<d<CCoodCCddCoCddzzzzzzzzzzCCCCozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2\JRSN6?xxxXbXx6X@DQX@j y.v8*Xv) P7QP.7PC2X+XP\  P6QXPl7UC2XAXU4  pQX.W!0(X+h0\  P6QhP.y.C8*X+/C\  P6QP.I(!X+,(\  P6Q,P5PC2X^f_XP*f9 xQXX "  @7!  7r?Tr  H7uO  7fI f 3;z; @aLL aLL Ha @E X'  ݠ X'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:,,O(O(  %"Ԍ X45BAbuse of Process Issueă  "199. This issue is "[t]o determine whether James A Kay, Jr. has abused the Commission's  xprocesses by filing applications in multiple names in order to avoid compliance with the  xCommission's channel sharing and recovery provisions in violation of Section 90.623 and 90.629.  X4 x<HDO at  10(d). Section 90.629 is no longer at issue in this proceeding. See MO&O 98M94.  xThe Bureau has failed to meet its burden of showing that Kay was the real party in interest in  xany of these applications, and has not, in any event, demonstrated that Section 90.623 would have  xlprecluded Kay from submitting any one of the questioned applications in his own name. It is therefore concluded that the Bureau has failed to meet its burden of proof under the issue.  "`200. The Bureau asserts that Kay abused the Commission process "by submitting  X 4 xapplications for end user licenses in the names of individuals who had no bona fide intention of  xusing radios." WTB PF&C at  250. Specifically, the Bureau claims: "Kay filed bogus end  xluser applications in the names of Roy Jensen, Kevin Hessman, and Vincent Cordaro. While  xthose applications represented that these individuals had businesses that required the use of  xradios, these individuals, who were employees of Kay, had no intention of using radios in these  Xy4 xpalleged businesses." Id. at 253. The Bureau's theory is that Kay did this as part of a scheme to  Xb4"warehouse" spectrum so that he would have capacity to serve future users. Id. at  251252. v-b yO' xx #C\  P6Q/P#э The Bureau makes inconsistent arguments. Here, in furtherance of its charge of abuse of process, it asserts  xx that Kay was in such dire need of excess capacity that he had to file bogus applications to make certain he would  x be able to serve users. Under the loading issue, however, the Bureau argues that Kay had dozens upon dozens of  x| unloaded repeaters (and, hence, excess capacity). The Bureau can not have it both ways, and has not met its burden of proving either theory.v  "J201. Contrary to the Bureau's assertions, the undisputed record establishes there is a  xfactual basis for Kay's belief that each of these individuals either were engaged in or intended  x}to engage in pursuits beyond the scope of their employment by Kay in which they desired to use  X4 xKay's radios and repeaters. See Kay PF&C at  9597, 104, 115. In these circumstances, prior  xto October of 1992, it would have been unlawful for Kay to have permitted these individuals to operate radios on his system for their own outside pursuits unless such operations were licensed.  "q202. The credibility of the witnesses against Kay on this issue is also questionable for  xtother reasons. Both Hessman and Jensen were found to have made misrepresentations under oath  x3before the Office of Appeals of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board regarding  XN4 xthe circumstances of their discharge from Kay's employ. .xNx yOw"' x" #C\  P6Q/P#э The Bureau's attempt to negate the findings that Jensen and Hessman misrepresented facts in their  x unemployment hearings by accusing Kay of similar misconduct is indefensible. The Bureau's claim that Kay's reason  x for firing Hessman was different than he testified to at the unemployment hearing (WTB PF&C at  262) is a  x distortion of the record. The Bureau has not offered a shred of support showing that the reasons relied upon by Kay  x* at the unemployment hearing were not true. The fact that Kay also had another reason for wanting to discharge  x Hessman the one he could not absolutely prove does not make the reason on which he did rely untrue. Kay testified in this hearing as follows:"''-,O(O(#'"Ԍ yO' "p ԙX[Hessman] very nicely gave me a justifiable firing by his actions, so he was fired both for what he did that  "p I could not prove and for something he conveniently gave me that I could prove and did prove and I fired him.(#  yO'Tr. 1294. Emphasis supplied.  In addition, Cordaro tells inconsistent"N?x.,O(O(   "  xstories. At hearing he denied having obtained an authorization in pursuit of an independent  xbusiness activity; but in 1992 he signed and submitted to the Commission a declaration, under  xEpenalty of perjury, attesting to the opposite. WTB Ex. 351 at pp. 2 & 5. Also, the evidence  xcadduced indicates that Cordaro further misrepresented to the Bureau during the investigation, to  xAKay during discovery, and to the Presiding Judge and the Commission during the hearing  x&regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding computer files he removed from Kay's system.  x+All three of these men have reason to dislike Kay and are clearly biased against him. Their testimony is not credible and is not accepted.  "[203. There is also reason to question the reliability, if not the credibility, of Carla Pfeifer.  xShe purports to have vague and incomplete recollections about events that allegedly occurred ten  x8plus years ago. She questions whether her signature on various documents is genuine, even  xIthough (a) the documents were all in her possession until such time as they were turned over to  xIFCC investigators, and (b) she has no idea of who might have signed them. She acknowledged  x_that she acquired the station as a business opportunity, but then she claims to have agreed to  xpassign the license without any information or understanding of what the terms of the assignment  xwere to be; indeed, she was not even aware until she was crossexamined at the hearing that the  xassignment had in fact been granted years ago. Ms. Pfeifer's testimony is certainly not adequate  x<to sustain the Bureau's burden of proof. The Bureau has failed, in any event, to show that Kay would have had any motive for using Pfeifer as an application shill. See, paragraph 207 below.  "204. Significantly, the Bureau is charging Kay with preparing and filing false  x<applications, but in many cases it has not even placed copies of the applications in evidence. In  xthe cases of Jensen and Cordaro, for example, the Bureau offered only copies of the resulting  xlicenses, but Kay forthrightly admitted that he probably prepared or assisted in the preparation  xof the applications. There is no evidence that Kay in any way concealed his involvement. In  x4the Roy Jensen end user application, for example, Kay's name and the call sign of Kay's  xassociated station were handwritten (most likely by Kay) on the application. WTB Ex. 306 at  x+p. 3. And the contact phone number provided at two different places on the application is a business number that rings at Kay's offices. WTB Ex. 306 at p. 1.  "d205. The Bureau further charges that Kay abused Commission process "by using the  xnames of other to apply for additional frequencies for himself." WTB PF&C at  254. In this  xconnection the Bureau is referring principally to the base station licenses held by Carla Pfeifer,  xVincent Cordaro, Jerry Gales, and Marc Sobel. As the Bureau correctly notes, "it is an abuse  xyof process to specify a surrogate to apply for a station so as to deny the Commission and the  X 4 xcpublic the opportunity to review and pass on the qualifications of that party." Id., quoting Trinity  X!4 xBroadcasting of Florida, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 12020, 12060 (ALJ 1999). But the Bureau has not"!@x.,O(O(  "  xImet its burden of proving that Kay did any such thing. The Bureau has presented absolutely no  xevidence or other showing that Kay was ineligible to hold the licenses in question, and the  xIBureau has offered no evidence showing that Kay in any way acted to conceal his involvement  xin the applications; indeed, in many instances Kay's name and telephone number was provided in the applications as the contact person and the one who prepared the application.  "206. Kay explicitly testified that he could have easily applied, in his own name, for the  x}Castro Peak license held by Carla Pfeifer had he so desired, Tr. 24322433, and the Bureau has  xnot contradicted this. The record indicates that most, if not all, of the management agreement  xstation licenses held by Marc Sobel were, at the time he obtained them, on encumbered channels.  X 4 x"E.g., WTB Ex. 229 at pp. 198199. The Bureau has not disputed this. Kay demonstrated that,  x"if he had desired to apply in his own name for the Rasnow Peak authorization held by Cordaro,  xIhe would have been able to do so by simply demonstrating a need for only 9 mobile units, based  xon an analysis of the loading environment on the channel at that time. Tr. 24792483. The  X 4 xBureau has not disputed this. /  yO7' x #C\  P6Q/P#э Official notice is taken of the fact that the authorization held by Jerry Gales, Call Sign WPFF295 at Heaps  xk Peak is cochannel to and shortspaced with Trunked SMR Station WNPJ874 operated by Kay at Mount Lukens.  x} Heaps Peak, being only 65 miles from Mount Lukens, is well within the 105 mile protection area for Station  x* WNPJ874. Accordingly, there would have been no need for Kay to have used Jerry Gales as a shill if he wanted to apply for this channel in his own name at Heaps Peak. In this connection, the record establishes Kay's adeptness at  x}obtaining licenses on encumbered channels in his own name in circumstances where there were  X4existing users already on the channel. E.g., Kay PF&C at  93.  "207. Abuse of process, especially the particular manifestation of it alleged here, is a very  xserious charge. It can not be supported by mere speculation. It was incumbent upon the Bureau  xto prove that Kay did the acts it alleges. The Bureau can not even make out a case that Kay had  x_any motive to do the things alleged. It has not demonstrated that Section 90.623 would have  xprecluded Kay from submitting any one of the questioned applications in his own name.  xAccordingly, since the Bureau has not satisfied its evidentiary burdens, the issue is resolved in Kay's favor.  X4f4Malicious Interference Issueă  "208. This issue is "[t]o determine whether James A. Kay, Jr. willfully or maliciously  xyinterfered with the radio communications of other systems, in violation of Sections 333 of the  XN4 xAct." HDO at  10(e). The Bureau has recommended resolution of this issue in Kay's favor. It is therefore not necessary to address the matter further.  X 4'Effect of De Facto Control Issueă  "h209. The issue as framed by Judge Sippel seeks to determine "[w]hether based upon the  x<findings and conclusions reached in WT Docket No. 9756 concerning Kay's participation in an" Ax/,O(O(  ;"  X4 xunauthorized transfer of control Kay is basically qualified to be a Commission license." 0x yOy' xQ #C\  P6Q/P#э The issue as framed by Judge Sippel does not permit the Presiding Judge in this case to make independent  x. findings as to whether the Management Agreement between Sobel and Kay constituted an unauthorized transfer of  x control. However, it should be noted that in determining whether management agreements executed by SMRs  x constitute a transfer of control, the Commission does not use the sixprong test of control spelled out in  yO' x Intermountain Microwave, 24 RR 983 (1983). See Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 80958096, note 434  yOa' x (1994) comparing Intermountain and test used in Application of Motorola, Inc., File No. 507505, Order, para. 14 (July 30 1985). It is  xuconcluded that such findings and conclusions do not render Kay unfit to be a Commission licensee.  "=210. As discussed in Findings 168 and 169, the Sobel conclusion that Sobel was unfit  xto be a licensee was tainted by the fact that the Bureau deliberately concealed the fact that Kay  xVprovided to the Bureau a copy of the Management Agreement in March 1995. The Bureau did  xmore than conceal this critical information. It falsely stated in its October 31, 1997 Comments  xyto Kay's and Sobel's pleadings relating to the misrepresentation issue that "none of Sobel's or  xKay's filings in 1994, or 1995 disclosed the relationship between Sobel and Kay with respect to  X 4 xthe Management Agreement stations." Par. 4. 1X  yO' xQ #C\  P6Q/P#э This Judge has never seen prosecutorial misconduct of this magnitude in the twenty years he has presided  x over Commission cases. Such misconduct can not be countenanced. It is completely contrary to the Commission's duty and responsibility to treat all its licensees in a fair and evenhanded manner. Thus, Judge Frysiak erroneously assumed that  xthe Bureau first obtained a copy of the Management Agreement in July 1996, in response to a  X 4 xletter of inquiry to Sobel. See Judge Frysiak's Initial Decision, 12 FCC Rcd at 22902, para. 74,  x77. There is no doubt that his ultimate conclusion that Sobel "made misrepresentations and  xlacked candor about the transfer of control" (para. 78) was based on his erroneous assumption  xas to when the Agreement was given to the Bureau. In light of these considerations, Judge Frysiak's conclusion must be disregarded in determining Kay's fitness to be a licensee.  ">211. An unauthorized transfer of control, in and of itself, is not grounds for  XK4 xEdisqualification unless coupled with an intent to deceive or other disqualifying conduct. E.g.,  X44 xDeer Lodge Broadcasting, Inc., 86 FCC 2d 1066, 49 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 1317 at  6367  X4 x(1981); Blue Ribbon Broadcasting, Inc., 90 FCC 2d 1023, 51 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 1474 at  79  X4 x}(Rev. Bd. 1982); Silver Star Communications Albany, Inc., 3 F.C.C.R. 6342 at  5258 (Rev.  X4 xcBd. 1988), aff'd 6 F.C.C.R. 6905, 70 Rad Reg. 2d (P&F) 18 at  1320 (1991); Roy M. Speer,  x_11 F.C.C.R. 18393 at  88 (1996). While this principle evolved in broadcast cases, it applies  X4 xequally in the wireless services. Brian L. O'Neill, 6 F.C.C.R. 2572, 69 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) 129  X4 xat 30 (1991); Century Cellunet of Jackson MSA Limited Partnership, 6 F.C.C.R. 6150, 70 Rad.  X4 xReg. 2d (P&F) 214 at  8 (1991); Catherine L. Waddill, 8 FCC 2710, 72 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F)  X|4500 at  19 (1993); Applications of Motorola, Inc., supra.  "N212. The Commission's usual response to unauthorized transfers is to require them to be  X74 x8undone. E.g., Ellis Thompson, 3 F.C.C.R. 3962 (Mob. Serv. Div. 1988) (cellular application  xgranted conditioned on removal from an agreement a paragraph potentially conferring control on" B( 1,O(O(  "  X4 xIa third party), affirmed on recon., 4 F.C.C.R. 2599 (Com. Car. Bur. 1989), affirmed on review  X4 xsub nom. Ellis Thompson Corp., 7 F.C.C.R. 3932 (1992), reversed on other grounds sub nom.  X4 xTelephone and Data Systems, Inc. v. FCC, 19 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir 1994); Petroleum V. Nasby  X4 xCorp., 10 F.C.C.R. 6029 (Rev. Bd. 1995) recon. granted in part, 10 F.C.C.R. 9964 (Rev. Bd.  x1995) (renewal and belated approval of an unauthorized transfer of control issued subject to a  X4 xdivestiture condition), remanded on other grounds 11 F.C.C.R. 3494 (1996). When a sanction  Xv4 x}has been imposed, it is typically a forfeiture, not license revocation. E.g., Rasa Communications  X_4 xCorp., 11 F.C.C.R. 13243 (1996); Kenneth B. Ulbricht (DA 962193; released December 31,  XH4 x1996); Galesburg Broadcasting Co., 6 F.C.C.R. 2210 (1991); The Hinton Telephone Co., 6  X14 xF.C.C.R. 7002 (1991), forfeiture reduced, 7 F.C.C.R. 6643 (1992). See also, Forfeiture Policy  X 4Statement, 12 F.C.C.R. 17087 (1997).  "5213. Turning to the facts of this case, as discussed in the Findings, the written  x}management agreement was prepared for Kay and Sobel by Washington, D.C. communications  xcounsel, and both individuals were specifically advised that it complied with applicable FCC  xIrequirements. Moreover, there is no evidence of an intent to conceal the business arrangement  x}from the Commission. The Agreement was voluntarily given to the Bureau in March 1995, long  xbefore the Bureau raised any questions about its propriety. Therefore, consistent with  xCommission precedent, even if it is ultimately concluded that the Agreement constitutes an  XK4 xunauthorized transfer of de facto control of Sobel's stations to Kay, the transgression is not  x/grounds for disqualification. In addition, a requirement to undo the Agreement is not necessary  xsince the Agreement is no longer in effect, having been replaced by a revised agreement drafted  xby Kay's current regulatory counsel. Further, the assessment of a forfeiture would appear to be  xprecluded by the statute of limitation. See Section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act and Section 1.80(c)(3)  xof the Rules which provide that no forfeiture penalty shall be imposed if the violation occurred  xmore than one year prior to the issuance of the appropriate notice. However, even if this was  xVnot the case, a forfeiture would not be warranted considering the complete absence of an intent  xcto conceal the Agreement, Kay having given the Bureau, in good faith, a copy of the agreement  xIin March 1995. If the Bureau found the Agreement wanting, it should have timely notified Kay  xand Sobel of that fact, instead of waiting more than a year and designating Sobel's applications  xfor hearing on the pretext that the agreement was first filed in July 1996. Under the circumstances, no sanctions are warranted.  X 4 Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor Issueă  "214. The issue added by Judge Sippel seeks a determination whether Kay "misrepresented  xfacts or lacked candor in presenting a Motion to Enlarge, Change, Or Delete Issues that was filed  xby Kay on January 12, 1995 and January 25, 1995." As previously documented Judge Sippel's  xaction stemmed from Judge Frysiak's erroneous conclusion that Sobel intentionally concealed the  xhManagement Agreement until compelled to disclose it in July 1996, pursuant to a letter of  xVinquiry. It is concluded that the issue, contrived by the Bureau, is without substance. The issue is resolved in favor of Kay. "#'C1,O(O(  %"Ԍ "215. The issue concerns a brief statement made in a 16 page pleading filed in January  x1995, that Kay had no "interest" in Sobel's stations or licenses. The Bureau contends that the  x/statement was intended to deceive the Commission about his business arrangement with Sobel.  xqThe Bureau's argument rests on the false premise that Sobel and Kay concealed their  xVManagement Agreement until Sobel responded to a letter of inquiry in July 1996. The Bureau's  xcontention is baseless. Initially, as discussed in the Findings, the statement was intended to  xcorrect an error in the original HDO that Kay was conducting business under a number of names  xWincluding Marc Sobel dba Airwave Communications. The HDO did not state that the  x<Commission was inquiring into the relationship between Sobel and Kay, but rather its erroneous  xbelief that Sobel was a fictitious name being used by Kay. The statement in issue must be fairly understood in that context.  "216. Moreover, the record makes clear that Kay understood the language in the statement  x}prepared by his counsel denying an interest in Sobel's licenses or stations to mean that Kay "had  xno ownership interest as in owning a part of this, being a partner, in any licenses that were issued  xto Marc Sobel." Tr. 2444. Kay did not consider his provision of equipment and services in  xconnection with a managed station to give him an interest in that station license, any more than  x_he considers his provision of equipment and services to a community repeater to give him an  xNinterest in the licenses held by the users of the community repeater. Tr. 937939. Kay's  xEtestimony as to what he meant by the word "interest" and the phrase "stations or licenses" is  xentirely reasonable and credible. Significantly, the Bureau shared the same view when in March  x1996, it, like Kay earlier, sought to sever the Sobel licenses from the Kay proceeding, although  xit was aware that "Kay manages stations which are authorized to Marc Sobel." See "Wireless Telecommunication's Bureau's Request For Certification" filed March 6, 1996, note 2.  "217. Further, the actions of Sobel and Kay are inconsistent with an intent on their part  xto conceal the management agreement from the Commission. The Bureau's speculation can not  xbe reconciled with the fact that only two months after the January 1995 pleading, in March 1995,  xlong before the Bureau first raised questions about the Management Agreement and the January  xc1995 pleading, Kay produced copies of agreements for stations he managed, including the Sobel  XN4 xlManagement Agreement. Kay's Responses to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's First  X74 xIRequest for Documents (March 24, 1995). Bereft of its false premise that the Agreement was  x/first filed in July 1996, the Bureau now speculates that Kay would not have produced the Sobel  xManagement Agreement if the January 1995 pleading had been successful. The facts, however,  xdo not support this speculation. The Bureau ignores the fact that Kay managed other stations  xbesides Sobel's. In the March 1995 discovery response, in addition to the Sobel Management  xVAgreement, Kay produced other management agreements that had no relevance to the January  X!4 x"1995 pleading and were not expressly implicated in the HDO. For example, it was by virtue of  x&this discovery production that the Bureau received a copy of the management agreement between Kay and Jerry Gales. Bureau Ex. 326.  XQ%4 "218. The sine qua non of disqualifying misrepresentation or lack of candor is a fraudulent  X:&4 xor deceptive intent. Leflore Broadcasting v. FCC, 636 F.2d 454, 461 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Policy  X#'4 xRegarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1196, 59 Rad Reg."#'D1,O(O(  %"  X4 x2d (P&F) 801 (1986); Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., 93 FCC 2d 127, 129, 53 Rd. Reg. 2d (P&F)  x44 (1983). The Bureau has not offered even a shred of evidence that Kay and Sobel intended  xlto deceive the Commission about their management agreement. On the contrary, the record  X4 xshows that Kay and Sobel have been open and straightforward with the Commission. The misrepresentation issue is resolved in favor of Kay.  Xv4:2Automatic Cancellation Issueă  "219. The HDO also calls for a determination as to whether any of Kay's licenses have automatically cancelled as a result of certain rule violations (issue h).  "~220. The Bureau lists a number of UHF repeaters which Kay has admitted are not in  xRoperation. WTB PF&C at  107. However, Kay notes it is not the entire station authorized  xyunder the call sign that is not in operation, but only certain parts thereof. As noted by Kay, a  x/single authorization may, in addition to one or more base station locations, also authorize control  xstations, mobile and talkaround authority, etc. Further, in reviewing the list set forth by the  xRBureau in paragraph 107 of its proposed findings, the vast majority of the locations listed are  x'designated as Signal Hill. In April 1994, he points out that he submitted an application to  xImodify a large number of his UHF authorizations, and part of that proposal was to delete all the  xIbase stations authorized at Signal Hill. That application is still pending before the Bureau to this  xhday, more than five years later. See Kay Ex. 65; Tr. 23832394. Of the remaining listed  xlocations, Kay asserts that reference to the authorizations themselves will reveal that the vast  xmajority of these are control stations, not base stations. As such, according to Kay, they are not  x0subject to construction deadlines, and the maintenance of that particular portion of an  xauthorization does not have any preclusive effect on other licensees and applicants. Kay also  x=states that most if not all of these items would be deleted if longpending modification  X4applications are granted. 2 yO#' x #C\  P6Q/P#эAccording to Kay, in many, if not most, of these instances, the situations exist only because the Bureau is maintaining a five year old freeze on the processing of any of Kay's applications.   "221. Similarly, the Bureau lists a number of 800 MHz stations which Kay has admitted  xare not in operation. WTB PF&C at  108. Kay claims that reference to the authorizations in  xquestion will reveal that each of these is a secondary base station site. Kay points out that at 800  xMHz, a licensee may be authorized for both primary and secondary locations on the same  xauthorization. While primary sites are subject to applicable construction deadlines, secondary  X 4 xVsites are not subject to construction deadlines and are not protected from interference. 3   X"4 x#XP\  P6QXP#э See, e.g., Sharon Mutter, 4 FCC Rcd 2654 at n. 18 & n.19 (PRB 1989); Environmental  X#4Exploration Corp., 4 FCC Rcd 2651 at n 16 n. 17 (PRB 1989). Thus,  xas Kay indicates, automatic cancellation of authority for a secondary site would have no  xsignificant regulatory effect as a practical matter, because the site could be added back to the authorization at any time, subject to the restrictions applicable to all secondary sites." E3,O(O(  b"Ԍ  "h222. The Bureau has suggested that "[t]he Presiding Judge may simply wish to conclude  x[certain] base stations were either not constructed or [permanently] discontinued operation ... and  x/direct the Commission licensing staff to perform the appropriate licensing maintenance." WTB  xPF&C at n. 23. This appears to be consistent with Kay's offer "to cooperate with the Bureau,  xdafter the hearing, to determine which authorizations, if any, should be purged from the  xCommission's database as a result of this stipulation." Kay PF&C at n. 27. The parties seem  xto be in agreement, therefore, that this is an administrative housekeeping chore that can be better  x}accomplished on an informal basis in a posthearing context. However, in light of the significant  xquestions raised by Kay, it is imperative that the Bureau staff coordinate this matter with Kay,  X 4 xEi.e., this should be a joint and cooperative determination, not a unilateral determination of the  xBureau staff. The Commission staff, of course, will ultimately make the determination and act  xaccordingly, but it would be an inefficient use of public and private resources to have the Bureau  x/act unilaterally only to have Kay then seek reconsideration of one or more of its determinations  x and action. Therefore, the Bureau is directed to coordinate this matter with Kay before  X 4 xpcancelling any of Kay's authorizations. In addition, in light of the determination, below, that Kay  x+is qualified to remain a licensee, it is time to lift the five year old freeze on the processing of Kay's applications and the Bureau is directed to do so expeditiously.  "q223. Finally, all issues having been resolved in favor of Kay, it is ultimately concluded  xthat Kay is qualified to remain a licensee. Further, there is no basis for license revocation of any of his stations or imposition of a forfeiture.  "Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that unless an appeal from this Initial Decision is taken  xby a party, or it is reviewed by the Commission on its own motion in accordance with Section  X4 xI1.276 of the Rules, 4X yO:' x #C\  P6Q/P#э In the event exceptions are not filed within 30 days after the release of this Initial Decision, and the  xx Commission does not review the case on its own motion, this Initial Decision shall become effective 50 days after its public release pursuant to Section 1.276(d) of the Rules. the licenses of James A. Kay, Jr., holder of One Hundred Fifty Two Part 90 Licenses in the Los Angeles, California, area ARE NOT REVOKED. ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqJoseph Chachkin ` `  hhCqAdministrative Law Judge