Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Denial of Warren Havens Petitions to Deny MariTEL Applications

Download Options

Released: April 4, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-537

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)

MARITEL, INC., MARITEL ALASKA, INC.,
)
MARITEL GREAT LAKES, INC., MARITEL
)
HAWAII, INC., MARITEL MID-ATLANTIC,
)
INC., MARITEL MISSISSIPPI RIVER, INC.,
)
MARITEL NORTHERN ATLANTIC, INC.,
)
MARITEL NORTHERN PACIFIC, INC.,
)
MARITEL SOUTHERN ATLANTIC, INC.,
)
MARITEL SOUTHERN PACIFIC, INC.
)
)

Applications to Transfer Control of MariTEL,
)
File Nos. 0003463998, 0003470447,
Inc. and its Subsidiaries to Shareholders of
)
0003470497, 0003470527, 0003470576,
MariTEL, Inc.
)
0003470583, 0003470593, 0003470602,
)
0003470608, 0003470613
Applications to Modify the Licenses for Stations )
File Nos. 0003652393, 0003652417
WPOJ538 and WPOJ537
)
)

Applications to Renew the Licenses for Stations
)
File Nos. 0003832407, 0003832487,
WPOJ530, WPOJ533, WPOJ534, WPOJ535,
)
0003832501, 0003836437, 0003836439,
WPOJ532, WPOJ536, WPOJ531, WPOJ538,
)
0003840247, 0003841628, 0003841952,
WPOJ537, WPTI475, WPTI476, WPTI477,
)
0003841963, 0004900093, 0004900100-01,
WPTI478, WPTI479, WPTI480, WPTI481
)
0004903174-77

ORDER

Adopted: April 3, 2012

Released: April 4, 2012

By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1.
Introduction. We have before us applications filed by MariTEL, Inc. and its nine
subsidiaries (MariTEL)1 to transfer, modify, and renew VHF Public Coast (VPC) station licenses. The
applications are opposed by Warren C. Havens and entities he controls (collectively, Havens), who argue
that the MariTEL applications should be dismissed, denied, or held in abeyance due to questions about the
basic character qualifications of Donald DePriest (DePriest) and for other reasons. The Commission has
designated for hearing issues related to possible misconduct by DePriest in connection with applications
filed and licenses held by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC (MC/LM).2 Havens asserts that
MariTEL’s basic character qualifications also are potentially at issue because DePriest controlled
MariTEL during the period when the alleged MC/LM-related misconduct occurred. For the reasons
discussed below, we deny the Havens pleadings.


1 MariTEL, Inc.’s license-holding subsidiaries are MariTEL Northern Atlantic, Inc., MariTEL Mid-Atlantic, Inc.,
MariTEL Southern Atlantic, Inc., MariTEL Mississippi River, Inc., MariTEL Northern Pacific, Inc., MariTEL
Southern Pacific, Inc., MariTEL Great Lakes, Inc., MariTEL Alaska, Inc., and MariTEL Hawaii, Inc. Except where
the context indicates otherwise, we refer to MariTEL, Inc. and its subsidiaries collectively as MariTEL, and textual
references to particular subsidiaries will omit the “Inc.” designation.
2 See Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, and Notice
of Opportunity for Hearing
, EB Docket No. 11-71, 26 FCC Rcd 6520 (2011) (OSC/HDO).

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-537

2.
Background. In designating MC/LM and DePriest for hearing on basic qualifications
issues, the Commission held that there are substantial and material questions of fact as to whether
MC/LM, in filing and prosecuting its application for the Automated Maritime Telecommunications
System station licenses for which it was the high bidder in Auction No. 61,3 claimed a bidding credit to
which it was not entitled, made misrepresentations to and lacked candor with the Commission, and
committed other misconduct.4 The Commission found, in particular, that there are substantial questions
as to whether MC/LM fully and accurately disclosed its attributable gross revenues as required under the
Commission’s rules.5 These questions arose because MC/LM’s application initially failed to include
DePriest as a disclosable interest holder, and MC/LM apparently failed to disclose all of the entities under
DePriest’s control at the first opportunity after being directed to do so by the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau).6 Even after MC/LM and DePriest belatedly disclosed additional
entities under DePriest’s control, they denied that DePriest controlled MariTEL during the relevant
period.7
3.
Transfer of Control Applications. In June 2008, MariTEL and its subsidiaries filed
transfer of control applications (Transfer of Control Applications).8 The Transfer of Control Applications
stated that DePriest controlled MariTEL, and that the proposed transaction would divest him of control,
reducing his ownership interest in MariTEL to 24.24%, and that no single entity would control MariTEL
following the transaction.9 The Transfer of Control Applications were granted pursuant to the
Commission’s Immediate Approval Procedures.10
4.
Havens filed a petition for reconsideration of the grant of the Transfer of Control
Applications (PFR).11 In the PFR, Havens notes the conflicting representations regarding DePriest’s


3 See FCC File No. 0002303355 (filed Sept. 7, 2005).
4 See OSC/HDO, 26 FCC Rcd at 6521 ¶ 2.
5 Id. at 6521 ¶ 3, citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2110, 1.2112.
6 See OSC/HDO, 26 FCC Rcd at 6523-28 ¶¶ 9-22; see also Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Order,
21 FCC Rcd 8794, 8798 n.39 (WTB PSCID 2006) (holding that, despite MC/LM’s representation that MC/LM was
owned and controlled solely by DePriest’s wife, the Commission’s spousal affiliation rule required that DePriest’s
interests and revenues be counted in determining MC/LM’s eligibility for a bidding credit), subsequent history
omitted
.
7 See OSC/HDO, 26 FCC Rcd at 6527 ¶ 19 & n.35.
8 See FCC File Nos. 0003463998 (MariTEL, Inc.), 0003470447 (MariTEL Alaska, Inc.), 0003470497 (MariTEL Great
Lakes, Inc.), 0003470527 (MariTEL Hawaii, Inc.), 0003470576 (MariTEL Mid-Atlantic, Inc.), 0003470583 (MariTEL
Mississippi River, Inc.), 0003470593 (MariTEL Northern Atlantic, Inc.), 0003470602 (MariTEL Northern Pacific,
Inc.) , 0003470608 (MariTEL Southern Atlantic, Inc.), 0003470613 (MariTEL Southern Pacific, Inc.) (all filed June
12, 2008).
9 See, e.g., FCC File No. 0003463998, Description of Transaction.
10 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(j)(2). MariTEL later notified the Commission that the transfer of control had been
consummated. See, e.g., FCC File No. 0003493551 (filed July 3, 2008).
11 See Petition to Deny and Petition for Reconsideration (filed July 18, 2008, by AMTS Consortium LLC,
Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and
Skybridge Spectrum Foundation) (PFR). (Although captioned as both a petition to deny and a petition for
reconsideration, the PFR can be treated only as a petition for reconsideration because it was filed after the
Commission granted the Transfer of Control Applications. See 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1) (providing that petitions to
deny an application may be filed prior to grant of the application).) MariTEL filed an Opposition of MariTEL, Inc.
on July 31, 2008 (Opposition to PFR). Havens filed a Reply to Opposition on August 20, 2008, after being granted
an extension of time to file. See E-mail dated Aug. 11, 2008, from Scot Stone, Deputy Chief, Mobility Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Warren Havens.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-537

control of MariTEL,12 and argues that DePriest did control MariTEL and that DePriest “lacks the required
character and fitness to be a Commission licensee,” as evidenced by his alleged misrepresentations, lack
of candor, and other misconduct regarding MC/LM’s participation in Auction No. 61.13 Havens also
contends that the Transfer of Control Applications should not have been granted because they failed to
identify a particular party or group that would control MariTEL following the transaction,14 and that,
given the questions regarding control of MariTEL, the filing of the Transfer of Control Applications and
subsequent consummation of the transaction cannot be deemed “authorized acts” of MariTEL.15
5.
License Modification Applications. In November 2008, MariTEL Alaska and MariTEL
Hawaii each filed an application to modify its VPC license to designate a portion of its spectrum for
private mobile radio service (PMRS) use (Modification Applications).16 Havens petitioned to dismiss or
deny the Modification Applications.17 Havens argues that, until the conflict between DePriest’s and
MariTEL’s representations regarding control of MariTEL is resolved, “MariTEL does not have, under
applicable facts and law, the authority to execute and seek authority for the subject Applications or any
other applications that it has filed….”18 Havens also reiterates his allegations regarding DePriest’s
character and fitness to be a Commission licensee.19
6.
Renewal Applications. In May 2009, the MariTEL subsidiaries filed applications (2009
Renewal Applications)20 to renew their nine licenses for the maritime VPC Service Areas (VPCSAs). In
October 2011, MariTEL, Inc. filed applications (2011 Renewal Applications)21 to renew its seven


12 See PFR at 9-10.
13 Id. at 9.
14 Id. at 9-10. Havens argues that MariTEL’s failure to identify a post-transaction controlling party or group
precluded a determination that grant of the Transfer of Control Applications would serve the public interest. Id.
15 Id. at 10-12.
16 See FCC File Nos. 0003652393 (filed by MariTEL Alaska, Inc. on Nov. 17, 2009, seeking to modify the license
for station WPOJ538), 0003652417 (filed by MariTEL Hawaii, Inc. on Nov. 17, 2009, seeking to modify the license
for station WPOJ537). VPC stations are presumptively treated as commercial mobile radio service providers. See
47 C.F.R. § 20.9(a)(5). VPC licensees are permitted, however, to file applications to dedicate a portion of their
licensed spectrum for PMRS, and may be regulated as PMRS providers upon certifying that they will so operate.
See 47 C.F.R. § 20.9(b).
17 See Petition to Dismiss or Deny (filed Dec. 24, 2008, by AMTS Consortium LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC,
Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum
Foundation) (Modifications PTD). MariTEL filed an Opposition of MariTEL, Inc. on January 5, 2009. Havens
filed a Reply to Opposition to Petition to Dismiss or Deny on January 21, 2009.
18 See Modifications PTD at 2.
19 Id.
20 See FCC File Nos. 0003832407 (filed May 8, 2009 by MariTEL Northern Atlantic, Inc. to renew the license for
station WPOJ530), 0003832487 (filed May 8, 2009 by MariTEL Mid-Atlantic, Inc. to renew the license for station
WPOJ533), 0003832501 (filed May 8, 2009 by MariTEL Southern Atlantic, Inc. to renew the license for station
WPOJ534), 0003836437 (filed May 12, 2009 by MariTEL Mississippi River, Inc. to renew the license for station
WPOJ535), 0003836439 (filed May 12, 2009 by MariTEL Northern Pacific, Inc. to renew the license for station
WPOJ532), 0003840247 (filed May 15, 2009, by MariTEL Southern Pacific, Inc to renew the license for station
WPOJ536), 0003841628 (filed May 18, 2009, by MariTEL Great Lakes, Inc. to renew the license for station
WPOJ531), 0003841952 (filed May 18, 2009 by MariTEL Alaska, Inc. to renew the license for station WPOJ538),
0003841963 (filed May 18, 2009 by MariTEL Hawaii, Inc. to renew the license for station WPOJ537) (collectively,
2009 Renewal Applications).
21 See FCC File Nos. 0004900093, 0004900100-01 (each filed Oct. 5, 2011), 0004903174-77 (each filed Oct. 6,
2011) (collectively, 2011 Renewal Applications).
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-537

licenses for inland VPCSAs. Havens filed petitions to deny both sets of renewal applications.22 Both of
Havens’s petitions to deny the MariTEL renewal applications rely primarily on the same arguments raised
in his pleadings opposing the other applications filed by MariTEL. Havens again argues that MariTEL’s
licenses may be subject to revocation based on DePriest’s misconduct,23 and that the renewal applications
should not be granted, if at all, until completion of a hearing resolving DePriest’s and MariTEL’s
differing representations regarding control of MariTEL.24 In addition, in an extension of his argument
that none of MariTEL’s applications has been authorized by MariTEL, Havens contends that MariTEL’s
licenses have expired due to the absence of timely MariTEL-authorized renewal applications.25 Havens
also argues that the 2011 Renewal Applications are defective because they do not include a public interest
statement or a statement that MariTEL has been in compliance with all Commission rules.26
7.
Discussion. We conclude that the public interest would be served by processing the
captioned applications filed by MariTEL notwithstanding the pendency of the hearing proceeding
involving DePriest and MC/LM. As discussed below, deferring the processing of these MariTEL
applications would be inconsistent with the Commission’s Character Qualifications Policy27 because the
Commission has not designated MariTEL itself, or any of MariTEL’s licenses or applications, for
hearing. Given the circumstances surrounding this matter, in particular the absence of any probative
evidence to indicate that MariTEL itself committed any actionable misconduct or that DePriest’s alleged
misconduct benefitted, otherwise affected, or was facilitated by MariTEL’s operations, we see no reason
to depart from that long-established policy in this case. In addition, we find the arguments in Havens’s
opposition pleadings pertaining to matters other than DePriest’s qualifications to be without merit. 28
8.
Under the Commission’s Jefferson Radio policy, an assignment or transfer of control
application will not be granted when the seller’s qualifications to continue holding the licenses are in
issue.29 The purpose of the Jefferson Radio policy is to provide a deterrent to licensee misconduct by


22 See Petition to Dismiss or Deny Or in the alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed June 12, 2009 by Environmentel
LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC,
and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation) (2009 Renewals PTD); Petition to Dismiss or Deny, or in the Alternative
Section 1.41 Request (filed Nov. 14, 2011 by Warren C. Havens, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Verde Systems
LLC, Environmentel LLC, Environmentel-2 LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and V2G
LLC) (2011 Renewals PTD). MariTEL opposed both petitions to deny. See Opposition of MariTEL, Inc. (filed
June 22, 2009) (Opposition to 2009 Renewals PTD); Opposition of MariTEL, Inc. (filed Nov. 29, 2011) (Opposition
to 2011 Renewals PTD). Havens filed a reply to the Opposition to 2011 Renewals PTD. See Reply to Opposition to
Petition to Dismiss or Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed Dec. 9, 2011).
23 See, e.g., 2009 Renewals PTD at 3-4 7-9; 2011 Renewals PTD at 5.
24 See, e.g., 2009 Renewals PTD at 3-6; 2011 Renewals PTD at 3-4, 16-18. (The OSC/HDO was released after the
filing of the 2009 Renewal Applications but before the filing of the 2011 Renewal Applications.)
25 See, e.g., 2009 Renewals PTD at 3; 2011 Renewals PTD at 14-15.
26 See 2011 Renewals PTD at 18-21.
27 See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102
FCC 2d 1179, recon. denied, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986) (1986 Character Policy Statement).
28 MariTEL challenges Havens’s standing to oppose MariTEL’s applications. See, e.g., Opposition to PFR at 5-8.
Given that Havens is raising issues going to the basic qualifications of MariTEL, which implicate matters that the
Commission has found to warrant designation of a hearing, albeit not against MariTEL itself, we exercise our
discretion to consider the substance of the arguments without reaching the question of standing. See, e.g., In Re
Application of Central Mobile Radio Phone Service, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 65 F.C.C.2d 648, 650 ¶ 7
(1977) (“Irrespective of formal standing . . . the Commission possesses independent discretion to consider the merits
of a controversy where the issues raised are in the public interest.”).
29 See Jefferson Radio Corp. v. FCC, 340 F.2d 781, 783 (D.C. Cir. 1964).
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-537

preventing the licensee from avoiding the loss that would result from revocation or non-renewal of a
license.30 This deterrent effect would be undermined if a licensee could “sell out from under a potential
disqualification.”31 The Commission must also consider the character qualifications of applicants seeking
renewal or modification of a license.32 When considering an application filed by a licensee with
unresolved basic qualifying issues, however, the Commission is “vested with broad discretion in [its]
choice of remedies.”33
9.
In this case, the basic character qualifications of MariTEL itself have not been designated
for hearing by the Commission,34 notwithstanding that the Commission was aware of the Transfer of
Control Applications in which MariTEL represented that it had been controlled by DePriest.35 Although
it is possible that DePriest’s misconduct could be imputed to MariTEL36 if DePriest controlled MariTEL
during the relevant period,37 the Commission’s policy is that a licensee’s misconduct with respect to one
station is not necessarily relevant to its qualifications to hold station licenses generally.38 The
Commission instead determines on a case-by-case basis whether alleged wrongdoing at one station may
be relevant to the licensee’s qualifications to hold any station license.39
10.
In addition, the Commission’s long-standing policy is to designate for hearing all station
licenses that it believes may be subject to revocation due to misconduct at one particular station or group
of stations, so that the licensee facing revocation or other sanction has a better opportunity to contest the
matter at the earliest practicable date.40 Accordingly, “unless the Commission makes an affirmative
decision at that time to impose … restrictions generally on the licensee, the Commission will not


30 See Stereo Broadcasters, Inc. v. FCC, 652 F.2d 1026, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
31 See Cellular System One of Tulsa, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 102 F.C.C. 2d 86, 90 ¶ 7 (1985).
32 See 47 U.S.C. § 308(b).
33 See Little Dixie Radio, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 4375, 4379 ¶ 6 (2010) (internal
citations omitted).
34 We do not agree with MariTEL’s suggestion that the fact that the OSC/HDO did not designate MariTEL for
hearing constitutes a tacit exoneration of MariTEL. See, e.g., Opposition to 2011 Renewals PTD at 3. We clarify
that nothing herein is intended to foreclose further inquiry regarding MariTEL’s qualifications or to preclude
appropriate enforcement action against MariTEL if there should be a determination that MariTEL engaged in
actionable misconduct. Cf. 1986 Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 1225 ¶ 95 (holding that the
Commission retains discretion to take remedial action even with respect to a licensee-in-hearing’s non-designated
licenses/stations if Commission inquiry “ultimately reveal[s] that the applicant does not possess the requisite basic
qualifications to remain a licensee”).
35 See OSC/HDO, 26 FCC Rcd at 6527 ¶ 19 & n.35
36 See, e.g., Westel Samoa, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, Hearing Designation Order, Notice of
Opportunity for Hearing, and Order to Show Cause
, 12 FCC Rcd 14057 (1997) (designating applications for
hearing based on issues regarding the qualifications of the applicant’s controlling principal).
37 As noted, while DePriest has consistently denied that he exercised control over MariTEL during the relevant
period, MariTEL itself stated to the contrary in the Transfer of Control Applications. See para. 3, supra. In the
OSC/HDO, the Commission said that “[t]here is evidence that, contrary to [MC/LM’s] assertions, Mr. DePriest
controlled MariTEL through sophisticated corporate structuring.” See OSC/HDO, 26 FCC Rcd at 6527 ¶ 19.
38 See 1986 Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 1223-25 ¶ 92-95; see also Paging Systems, Inc., Order on
Reconsideration
, 26 FCC Rcd 16573, 16574 ¶ 3 (2011) (PSI Recon Order).
39 See 1986 Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 1223-24 ¶ 92.
40 Id. at 1224 ¶ 93 (holding that “[i]f the charges are serious enough to possibly affect the transferability of the
multiple owner’s other stations, then by designating all the stations, we afford licensees faced with qualifications
questions a better opportunity to defend themselves at the earliest practicable date”) (internal citations omitted).
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-537

encumber proceedings involving the licensee’s other licenses with consideration of the pending character
allegations made in the principal proceeding.”41
11.
We see no reason to depart here from the Commission’s policy of encumbering only
those licenses encompassed in the hearing designation order rather than all of the licenses held by a
licensee whose character qualifications are in issue, especially given that this case concerns not licenses
held by the same licensee, but rather different licensees (albeit licensees that may have been under the
common control of DePriest at one time).42 Thus, our policy’s underlying considerations of fair notice
and an opportunity to respond apply with particular force here.
12.
Further, application of our policy to the cases under consideration here will not
undermine the goal of deterring, detecting, and punishing licensee misconduct. Nothing in the record of
these licensing proceedings or the hearing proceeding suggests that MariTEL itself violated any
Commission rules, lacked candor with the Commission, or otherwise engaged in any misconduct. The
current record is also devoid of evidence indicating that DePriest engaged in any misconduct at or through
MariTEL. In these circumstances, the goal of deterring licensee misconduct would not be materially
advanced by placing a cloud over MariTEL’s licenses for an indefinite and potentially protracted period.43
We therefore reject Havens’s argument that in this case, in contravention of long-standing policy, we
should deny, dismiss or defer acting on applications that have not been designated for hearing, involving
licenses that have not been designated for hearing, filed by applicants that have not been designated for
hearing.
13.
We find Havens’s other arguments equally unpersuasive. Havens’s argument that the
Transfer of Control Applications are defective because of their failure to identify a single individual,
entity or group as having control of MariTEL following the transfer is unavailing. There is no basis to
question the representation made by MariTEL in the exhibit to the Transfer of Control Applications that,
following consummation of the transaction, no single entity will control MariTEL. Havens has not
identified any Commission rule requiring identification of a single controlling party or group, and, as
MariTEL notes,44 the Commission has previously approved assignment or transfer of control applications
in which the applicants represented that no single entity or group of entities would be in control of the
licensee after the transaction was consummated.45


41 See PSI Recon Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 16576 ¶ 7, citing 1986 Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 1224-25
¶¶ 92-95; see also Straus Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2 FCC Rcd 7469, 7470 ¶ 6
(1987) (Straus Communications) (holding that at the time a misconduct issue is designated with respect to one
license, “[a]bsent an express limitation on the transferability of a multiple owner’s other licenses, . . . those licenses
are freely transferable without condition”); Citicasters Licenses, L.P., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice
of Apparent Liability
, 22 FCC Rcd 19324, 19336 ¶ 34 (MB 2007). Although this policy was adopted initially in the
context of broadcast licensing, it is now applicable to other services, including wireless services. See, e.g., Leslie D.
Brewer, Order to Show Cause, Notice of Order of Suspension, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of
Apparent Liability for a Forfeiture
, EB Docket No. 01-61, 16 FCC Rcd 5671, 5674 ¶ 12 (2001) (stating that “[t]he
Character Policy Statement is applicable to . . . wireless radio licensees”).
42 Havens does not discuss the Commission’s policy of not encumbering non-designated licenses and applications.
43 See Straus Communications, 2 FCC Rcd at 7470 ¶ 7 (holding that “while the adjudication of the character issue is
pending, the public interest requires that the transfer of other stations not be deferred indefinitely if it appears from
the outset that the alleged misconduct does not directly involve the day-to-day operation of the station being
assigned”), citing RKO General, Inc., Decision, 1 FCC Rcd 1081, 1085 ¶¶ 22-23 (1986).
44 See Opposition to PFR at 12.
45 See, e.g., WorldCom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26484, 26487 ¶ 7 (2003); XO
Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion, Order and Authorization, 17 FCC Rcd 19212, 19215 ¶ 7
(IB/WTB/WCB 2002). Havens is thus incorrect that the omission of an identified controlling party or group
(continued....)
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-537

14.
We likewise find no merit in Havens’s argument that the MariTEL applications are
defective because MariTEL did not authorize the filing of the applications, and that this defect in
MariTEL’s renewal applications has resulted in the expiration of MariTEL’s licenses. Havens appears to
argue that the differing claims made by MC/LM and DePriest, on the one hand, and MariTEL, on the
other, as to whether DePriest controlled MariTEL during the period when DePriest allegedly engaged in
misconduct, precludes a finding that MariTEl’s applications were filed by persons authorized to do so.
We disagree. That there is dispute regarding DePriest’s role at MariTEL does not establish or even imply
that no person had authority to act on the company’s behalf. There is no evidence in the record that the
pending MariTEL applications were not authorized by its Board of Directors or signed by persons vested
with authority to act on MariTEL’s behalf,46 and MariTEL has repeatedly affirmed that the applications
were all properly authorized by the company.47
15.
Finally, there is no merit to Havens’s argument that the 2011 Renewal Applications
should be dismissed for failing to include a showing to demonstrate that renewal of the subject inland
VPCSA licenses would serve the public interest. At the time that it filed the 2011 Renewal Applications,
MariTEL also filed Notifications of Compliance with Substantial Service Requirements for each of the
subject licenses.48 Unlike some other services, the Part 80 rules do not currently require renewing
licensees to include a public interest statement and a statement that it has been in compliance with all
Commission rules.49
16.
Conclusion and Ordering Clauses. Consistent with the Commission’s Character
Qualifications Policy, we reject Havens’s argument that we should deny, dismiss, or defer action on
MariTEL’s applications until completion of the pending hearing on MC/LM’s and DePriest’s basic
character qualifications. The Commission’s general policy is not to impose restrictions on licenses and
applications not themselves designated for hearing, even if the applicant’s character qualifications have
been so designated on the basis of alleged misconduct involving other stations, and Havens has not
identified, and we do not independently discern, any reason to depart from that policy in this case. We


(...continued from previous page)
prevents the Commission from making the statutorily required finding that the proposed transfer of control would
serve the public interest. See PFR at 9-10, citing 47 U.S.C. §§ 308, 310(d). The information supplied by MariTEL
in its FCC Form 602 Ownership Report, coupled with the information on its FCC Form 603 Transfer of Control
Applications, is sufficient for the Commission to make the requisite public interest determination. See FCC File No.
0003470445 (filed June 12, 2008) (FCC Form 602 with attached Ownership Exhibit detailing MariTEL’s ownership
after the proposed transfer of control is consummated).
46 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.917(a) (applications may be signed “by an officer, director, or duly authorized employee, if the
applicant is a corporation”).
47 See, e.g., Opposition to PFR at 12-13.
48 See FCC File Nos. 0004899076, 0004899125, 0004899129 (all filed Oct. 4, 2011); 0004903064, 0004903144,
0004903166, 0004903170 (all filed Oct. 6, 2011). With one exception, the Commission has accepted those
notifications as demonstrating that MariTEL has met its construction requirement. The Notification of Compliance
with Substantial Service Requirements for station WPTI475, FCC File No. 0004899076, has been returned for the
licensee to provide additional information. See Notice of Return, Ref. No. 5323960 (Mar. 1, 2012). Further action
regarding the application to renew that license, FCC File No. 0004900093, will be deferred pending resolution of the
Notification of Compliance with Substantial Service Requirements.
49 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.743; see also Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish
Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partition and Spectrum Disaggregation
Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, WT Docket No.
10-112, 25 FCC Rcd 6996, 6999 ¶ 8 (2010) (License Renewal NPRM) (“the Commission’s current renewal
requirements vary widely; some rules include comprehensive procedures, while others contain only minimal
guidance”). Havens’s reliance on the License Renewal NPRM, see 2011 Renewals PTD at 19-20, is premature, for
no final rules have been adopted in that proceeding.
7

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-537

likewise find no merit in Havens’s other arguments. We therefore deny Havens’s petitions and process
the captioned applications accordingly.
17.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission’s Rules, 47
C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition to Deny and Petition for Reconsideration filed by AMTS Consortium
LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring
Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on July 18, 2008, IS DENIED.
18.
IT IS FURTHER 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 Section 1.939 of the
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny filed by AMTS Consortium
LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring
Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on December 24, 2008, IS DENIED, and
applications File Numbers 0003652393 and 0003652417 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with
this Order and the Commission’s Rules.
19.
IT IS FURTHER 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 1.41 and
1.939 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41, 1.939, the Petition to Dismiss or Deny Or in the
alternative Section 1.41 Request filed by Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings
GB LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on
June 12, 2009, IS DENIED, and the Petition to Dismiss or Deny, or in the Alternative Section 1.41
Request filed by Warren C. Havens, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Environmentel
LLC, Environmentel-2 LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, and V2G LLC on
November 14, 2011, IS DENIED, and applications File Numbers 0003832407, 0003832487,
0003832501, 0003836437, 0003836439, 0003840247, 0003841628, 0003841952, 0003841963,
0004900093, 0004900100-01, 0004903174-77 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Order
and the Commission’s Rules.
20.
These actions are taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of
the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
8

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.