Click here for Microsoft Word Version

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).


                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                 )
TSR WIRELESS, LLC, et al.,       )
                                )    File Nos. E-98-13, E-98-17, 
    Complainants,               )    E-98-18
              v.                )
et al.,                          )

                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

   Adopted:  May 18, 2001               Released: May 22, 2001

By the Commission:

In this  Order  on  Reconsideration, we  deny  the  Petition  for 
Reconsideration or Clarification  of our  Memorandum Opinion  and 
Order  in   this  proceeding,1   filed  by   Small  Business   In 
Telecommunications (``SBT'').   SBT,  which describes  itself  as 
representing ``hundreds of paging companies, two-way shops, radio 
dealers, SMR operators, community repeater operators'' and  other 
entities,2  challenges  our  finding  in  the  Order  that   CMRS 
carriers, including  paging  carriers, must  pay  Local  Exchange 
Carriers (``LECs'') for ``transiting'' traffic, that is,  traffic 
originating from a carrier other than the interconnecting LEC and 
carried over the LEC's network to the CMRS carrier's network.3  

SBT was not  a party to  the underlying proceeding.4   As a  non-
party, therefore, to seek reconsideration  of the Order SBT  must 
``state  with  particularity  the  manner  in  which  ...   [its] 
interests are adversely  affected by  the action  taken, and  ... 
show good reason why  it was not possible  ... to participate  in 
the earlier stages of the proceeding.''5  SBT falls far short  of 
this standard.  Rather than stating ``with particularity how  its 
interests are  adversely  affected''  by the  Order,  SBT  merely 
describes its membership.  Moreover, SBT simply does not  address 
our requirement  that  non-parties  explain why  they  could  not 
participate in the proceeding at  an earlier stage.  In light  of 
SBT's noncompliance with our rule, we dismiss SBT's petition.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),  and 
405 of the Communications Act of  1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.   
154(i), 154(j), 405, that  SBT's Petition for Reconsideration  or 
Clarification IS DISMISSED.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              Magalie Roman Salas

1    TSR Wireless, LLC et al. v. U S West Communications,  Inc., 
Memorandum  Opinion  and   Order,  15  FCC   Rcd  11166   (2000) 
(``Order''), petition for review docketed sub. nom. Qwest  Corp. 
v. FCC, Nos. 00-1376 et al. (D.C. Cir. 2001).  The appeal raises 
different  issues   than  presented   in  SBT's   Petition   for 
Reconsideration or Clarification.

2    SBT Petition  for  Reconsideration  or  Clarification,  TSR 
Wireless, LLC, et al. v. U S West Communications, Inc., et  al., 
File  Nos.  E-98-13  et  al.,   at  1  (filed  July  21,   2000) 

3    Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 11177,  19 n.70.

4    None of  the  parties to  the  consolidated cases  in  this 
proceeding has  petitioned  for reconsideration  of  the  Order.  
Complainants, TSR  Wireless, LLC  and Metrocall,  Inc., did  not 
participate in the proceeding upon reconsideration.  Defendants, 
Pacific Bell Telephone Co.  and Southwestern Bell Telephone  Co. 
(now merged into  SBC Telecommunications, Inc.  (``SBC'')), U  S 
West Communications,  Inc. (now  known as  Qwest  Communications 
International, Inc.), and GTE Telephone Operations (now known as 
Verizon), opposed SBT's petition.

5    47 C.F.R.  1.106(b).