WPC` 2MBVRKZ3|j 7jC:,߈Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\k&DQXP2> K Z3|j "i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\k&DQXP2 pK <U K  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)"i~'^5>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\Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"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\2:K KYKK"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd%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>lBBn7"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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\@7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XPA2a=5,u&a\  P6G;&PB2e=5,&e4  pG;&C7nC:,(>(ZZU"  S' x were defective at the time of their submission.Y$ {Oh' x7 #X\  P6G;ɒP#эSee,e.g., Letter from W. Riley Hollingsworth, Dep. Chief, Licensing Division, Wireless Telecommunications  x Bureau, to Richard S. Myers, Esq., In re Air Cable Limited Partnership, File Nos. 781116781121, Request for  x Reconsiderationregarding Applications for Multiple Address System Station Authorizations in the Private Operational  {O'Fixed Microwave Service, dated Dec. 15, 1992; see also 47 C.F.R.  1.958(c) and 94.33(c) (1992).Y These letters were mailed to each of The Applicants, notifying them of the decisions and the basis for those decisions.  S' "4. On January 14, 1993, The Applicants filed an appeal of the Licensing Division's decision with  S`' x@the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ` {O ' x #X\  P6G;ɒP#э On January 23, 1993, the Court of Appeals consolidated The Applicants' appeals sub nom. Tsaconas v. F.C.C, No.931032. On June 29, 1993, the Court  xof Appeals granted the Commission's motion to dismiss the consolidated appeals due to The Applicants'  S' xfailure to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review.E  {O ' x #X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Tsaconas v. F.C.C., No. 931032, 1993 WL 260704 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (granting motion to  {O'dismiss and denying request for rehearing en banc). See also 47 C.F.R.  1.115(k).E On January 24, 1994,  xthe appellate litigation was concluded when the United States Supreme Court denied The Applicants'  S'December 9, 1993 Petition for Writ of Certiorari. j  {O'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Tsaconas v. F.C.C., 510 U.S. 1094 (1994).  Sp' "5. On May 11, 1994, The Applicants filed an Application for Review of the Licensing Division's  xDecember 15 and 16, 1992 letter rulings denying their petitions for reconsideration. Subsequently, The  S ' xApplicants submitted pleadings styled as "Supplement to Application for Review" on May 23, 1994,   yO' xH #X\  P6G;ɒP#э In this supplement, The Applicants argue that an August 25, 1992 letter from the Licensing Division evidences  x. prejudicial procedural error. In response to their petitions for reconsideration, the Division wrote to The Applicants  xb requesting additional information regarding their frequency coordination efforts and clarifying the Branch's rationale  x for dismissing their MAS license applications. Letter from W. Riley Hollingsworth, Dep. Chief, Licensing Division,  x Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Richard S. Myers, Esq., In re Air Cable Limited Partnership, File Nos.  {O' x 781116781121, et al., Applications for Multiple Address System Station Authorizations in the Private Operational  x Fixed Microwave Service, dated Aug. 25, 1992. In light of the Licensing Division's subsequent denials of their  x reconsideration petitions on the basis stated in the August 25, 1992 letter, The Applicants contend that the Licensing Division had decided the merits of the reconsideration petitions before receiving the requested information.  and  S ' x"Further Supplement to Application for Review" on July 11, 1994. Z  yOf' x #X\  P6G;ɒP#э It appears that this supplement was precipitated by release of a public notice indicating the dismissal of nine  {O. ' x of the subject applications, i.e., File Nos. 780324780332, filed by Alfred Leong d/b/a Sobrantech. See Public Notice No. 43386, Report No. 1747 (Private Radio Bureau, released June 10, 1994), at 19. On February 14, 1995, The  xApplicants submitted another pleading styled as "Second Further Supplement to Application for Review"  xgby which they sought to incorporate by reference the initial Application for Review and their additional  S ' xpleadings.Z  yO%' x #X\  P6G;ɒP#э It appears that this supplement was precipitated by release of a public notice indicating the dismissal of one  {O%' xx of the subject applications, i.e., File No. 781140, filed by Kenneth Merin. See Public Notice No. 51890, Report No. 1781 (Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, released Feb. 3, 1995), at 34. By letter dated November3, 1995, the Licensing Division dismissed as untimely The" ,>(>(ZZN "  S' xVApplicants' initial Application for Review.N$ yOh' x #X\  P6G;ɒP#э Letter from W. Riley Hollingsworth, Dep. Associate Bureau Chief, Office of Operations, Wireless  {O0' x Telecommunications Bureau, to Richard S. Myers, Esq., Sean P. Beatty, Esq., Law Offices of Richard S. Myers, re:  xU Application for Review, Applications for Multiple Address System Station Authorizations in the Private Operational  {O'Fixed Microwave Service, in re Air Cable Limited Partnership, et al., dated Nov. 3, 1995.N On December1, 1995, The Applicants filed the instant  xApplication for Review seeking Commission review of the Licensing Division's dismissal of its initial Application for Review.  S8'F III. DISCUSSION ă  S' "6. In the instant Application for Review, The Applicants first contend that their initial Application  xMfor Review was timely filed in that they did not receive proper public notice pursuant to Section 1.104  S' xof the Commission's Rules. {O '#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Application for Review at 12; see also 47 C.F.R.  1.104. Thus, The Applicants argue that the 30day period for the filing of an  Sp' xApplication for Review set forth in the Commission's RulespF {OV'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id; see also 47 C.F.R.  1.115(d). was not triggered. Consequently, they  xIargue, the Licensing Division erred in dismissing their initial Application for Review on the basis of  S ' xuntimeliness.Z  {O'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z The Applicants premise their argument on a "Note" appended to Section 1.104(b), which states:  XIn those cases where the Commission does not intend to release a document containing  S 'the full text of its action, it will state that fact in the public notice announcing its action.i j  yO'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  1.104(b).i   xThe Applicants contend that this "Note" is applicable to the Licensing Division's letters of December 15  xDand 16, 1992, which denied The Applicants' various petitions for reconsideration, and that, because those  xletters failed to state that the Commission did not intend to release a document containing the full text of  xits action, public notice of the Licensing Division's decisions denying The Applicants' petitions was not  S' xMgiven.v  yO*'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Application for Review at 12, and 4.v Consequently, they argue, the 30day period for filing an Application for Review was not and  Sh'has not been triggered.Zh  {O!'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э Id.Z  "7. We find that The Applicants' arguments regarding the timeliness of their initial Application  xfor Review lack merit. As explained in the November 3, 1995 letter dismissing The Applicants' initial  xApplication for Review, Section 1.115(d) of the Commission's Rules requires the filing of an Application  xQfor Review within 30 days of the public notice of final action, as defined by 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b). In cases  Sx' x*where a Commission decision is neither published in the Federal Register nor released, the Commission's"x,>(>(ZZ"  x<Rules define "public notice" as "the date appearing on the document sent to persons affected by an  S' xZaction."t {O@'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  1.4(b)(5).t Thus, the date indicated on a letter ruling mailed directly to the parties in interest, stating the  xkCommission's action and the basis of such action, is the relevant benchmark for determining public notice  S' x^under Section 1.4 of the Commission's Rules.}\Z {O' xk #X\  P6G;ɒP#э See Gardner v. F.C.C., 530 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (mailing adjudicatory decisions and orders is adequate  {OL' x notice); see also 47 C.F.R.  0.445(a) (Commission practice of mailing orders and adjudicatory decisions to affected parties).} Notably, Section 1.4 of the Commission's Rules does not  xrequire any further action for public notice to be given to the affected parties under such circumstances.  xHere we find that the date of the letter dismissing The Applicants' petitions for reconsideration is the date  x"certain on which public notice of the dismissal of the subject MAS license applications was given.  xDAccordingly, we find that public notice of the Licensing Division's actions occurred on December 15 and  xy16, 1992 the dates of the Licensing Division's letter rulings. As a result, a request for further  xreconsideration of that action was due 30 days after such date. We agree with the Licensing Division's  xVfinding that The Applicants' failure to file their initial Application for Review within such timeframe  SH ' xgconstituted a substantial procedural defect. The Applicants' reliance on the "Note" to Section 1.104(b)  xis inapposite here because that provision, by its plain meaning, only applies where the Commission does  S ' xnot intend to release a document containing the full text of its action.\ ~ {O' x #X\  P6G;ɒP#э See also In re Application of Hancock Communications, Inc., for a Construction Permit for a New FM Station  {O' xZ at Cannelton, IN, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 13068 (1995) (Hancock). In Hancock, the Commission also stated that this provision does not apply to actions taken on delegated authority. Here, the letter rulings provided  xthe full texts of the decisions. Moreover, contrary to The Applicants' assertions, there is nothing in the  S ' xCommission's Rules which requires the converse, i.e., that the Commission announce in a letter containing the full text of its decision that it does not intend to issue a further public notice of its decision.  "8. In addition, we find The Applicants' contention that they had not received public notice of the  xxLicensing Division's decisions to be unpersuasive given their appeal of those decisions to the United States  xCourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 30 days of the date of the letter rulings. In  xthis connection, we note that The Applicants filed their Notice of Appeal pursuant to Section 402(c) of  S' xthe Communications Actg yO'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 U.S.C.  402(c).g on January14, 1993, which was within 30 days of the date of the Licensing  xDivision's decisions. Because the time period for filing a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Section 402 also  x7is triggered by "public notice" of a Commission action, it is disingenuous for The Applicants, after having  xlost their challenge in court, to argue now that there was never any public notice of the Licensing Division's decisions.  "9. The Applicants concluded their appellate litigation on January24, 1994, but filed their initial  xApplication for Review on May11, 1994, nearly four months after the United States Supreme Court had  x*denied their Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Applicants have failed to explain or offer any justification  S*' x@for their lengthy delay in filing the Application for Review. Even if one were to assume arguendo that  x/The Applicants could file their initial Application for Review at the conclusion of the litigation, The  xApplicants still would not be entitled to an additional four months in which to exhaust their administrative  xremedies. Given that The Applicants did not file their initial Application for Review in a timely manner,"2 ,>(>(ZZ"  S' xthe Licensing Division's decisions became final pursuant to the Commission's Rules.w yOh'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  1.103(b), 1.104(b).w Commission  xactions become final unless a timely request for stay, a petition for reconsideration, or an application for  S' xMreview is filed.X {O'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  1.43, 1.44(e), 1.45, 1.102(b)(2), 1.106(n). While engaged in the judicial review process, however, The Applicants failed to seek  xa stay of the Commission's proceedings pending completion of the litigation. Under the circumstances, such failure constitutes a fatal procedural flaw.  "l 10. Because we conclude that the Application for Review was untimely, we need not reach the  xmerits of their argument. We note, however, that The Applicants next contend that the Licensing  xDivision's dismissal of their initial Application for Review exceeded its delegated authority because under  S' x<the Commission's Rules, only the Commission may act upon an Application for Review.p {O" '#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  1.104.p Section  x0.331(c) of the Commission's Rules provides that, under authority delegated by the Commission, the  xBureau "may dismiss any such application [for review] that does not comply with the filing requirements  S ' xof  1.115(d) and (f) of this chapter."i | yO<'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э 47 C.F.R.  0.331(c).i The Licensing Division, in turn, operated on authority delegated  xkby the Bureau. Section 1.115(d) requires that Applications for Review be filed within 30 days after public  xnotice of the action taken on delegated authority. Because the Licensing Division found that The  xApplicants' initial Application for Review did not comply with those requirements in that it was not filed  xcwithin 30 days from the date of public notice of the Licensing Division's denials of The Applicants'  SX' xpetitions for reconsideration,sX  {O'#X\  P6G;ɒP#э See 47 C.F.R.  1.115(d).s the Bureau had the requisite delegated authority to dismiss the Application for Review.  " 11. The Applicants also contend that, in wrongfully dismissing their initial Application for  xReview and supplemental filings, the Licensing Division failed to consider their arguments and evidence  xproving that The Applicants' MAS license applications fully complied with the Commission's Rules and,  xtherefore, that the Licensing Division's denials of their petitions for reconsideration were in error.  xMBecause we have decided that The Applicants' initial Application for Review was untimely and that the  xgLicensing Division properly exercised its delegated authority in dismissing that Application for Review,  xwe decline to address the substantive issues also raised in the instant Application for Review. Such  xdecisions have become final actions under the Commission's Rules due to The Applicants' failure to seek full Commission review of such decisions in a timely manner.  S('@ `IV. CONCLUSIONS ă  " 12. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Licensing Division correctly determined that  xThe Applicants had received public notice of the denials of their petitions for reconsideration, and failed`  xMto file an Application for Review within the requisite 30day time period. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant Application for Review and affirm the decisions of the Bureau's Licensing Division."`,>(>(ZZ"Ԍ  S'- `V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S' " 13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i) and 303(r)  xof t`he Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(r), and Section 1.115 of  xthe Commission's Rules, 47C.F.R. 1.115, the Application for Review filed by the abovecaptioned  S'Applicants IS DISMISSED . ` `  hhCFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  ` `  hhCMagalie Roman Salas ` `  hhCSecretary" ,>(>(ZZ' "  S' j:\pspwd\ferndz\havnsafr.m1 &Z] 2 &Z]   S'(05/13/98; Rev. 09/04, 11/04, 11/09, 11/10/98, 2/25 & (OGC) 3/30/99) &Z]  Adopted unanimously w/o edits 0 &Z] 4/19/99  S8'cc:PWD/Chron Subject File D. Terry H. Zeiler R. Melson J. Borkowski M. Shultz S. Linn K. Hosford J. Fernndez