*Pages 1--3 from Microsoft Word - 7313.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 589 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of DETROIT EDISON, INC. For Authority to Operate a Multiple Address System Station in the Area of Southfield, Michigan ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FCC File No. 0000077362 ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: March 5, 2001 Released: March 7, 2001 By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1. Introduction. We have before us a petition, filed by The Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison), requesting reconsideration of the dismissal of the above- captioned application by the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division’s (Division) Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch). 1 For the reasons discussed herein, we dismiss the petition. 2. Background. On June 23, 2000, Detroit Edison filed an application to operate a Multiple Address System station in the area of Southfield, Michigan. 2 The Branch found that Detroit Edison’s proposed station was short- spaced with respect to existing station WPOM928 licensed to Grand Trunk Western Railroad Communications Department (Grand Trunk) on frequencies 952/ 928.25625 MHz. 3 The Branch determined that the application was defective because the frequency engineering analysis submitted with the subject application failed to show interference protection to Grand Trunk’s existing station and Detroit Edison failed to submit a short- spacing agreement with its application. 4 Therefore, on September 14, 2000, the Branch dismissed the subject application. 5 Detroit Edison requested reconsideration of the dismissal of its application in a November 2, 2000 letter to the Branch, which is located in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. 6 1 Letter dated November 2, 2000 from Warren D. Benditz, Principal Engineer, Telecommunications Systems, Detroit Edison, to Mary Shultz, Federal Communications Commission (Petition). 2 See FCC File No. 0000077362. 3 See Letter from Mary Shultz, Chief, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Warren Benditz, Detroit Edison (dated Sep. 14, 2000) (Dismissal Letter) 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 See Petition. 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 589 2 3. Discussion. Section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, sets forth the requirements that a petitioner must satisfy before we may consider the petitioner’s pleadings on reconsideration. 7 Section 405, as implemented by Section 1.106( f) of the Commission’s Rules, requires a petition for reconsideration to be filed within thirty days from the date of public notice the Commission’s action. 8 In addition, Section 1.106( i) of the Commission’s Rules provides that a petition for reconsideration must be submitted to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D. C. 20554. 9 4. In this case, the date of public notice of the dismissal of Detroit Edison’s application was September 14, 2000. 10 The deadline for filing petitions for reconsideration of that action was Monday, October 16, 2000. 11 The Branch received Detroit Edison’s Petition on November 7, 2000, beyond the filing deadline. Therefore, we find that the Petition was untimely. 12 The filing requirement of Section 405( a) of the Act applies even if the petition for reconsideration is filed only one day late. 13 Consequently, we conclude that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Detroit Edison should be dismissed as untimely filed. 14 7 47 U. S. C. § 405. 8 47 U. S. C. § 405; 47 C. F. R. § 1.106( f). 9 47 C. F. R. § 1.106( i). 10 See 47 C. F. R. § 1.4( b)( 5). 11 The thirtieth day after September 14, 2000 was a Saturday. Since that day was a holiday, petitions for reconsideration were due on the next business day, Monday, October 16, 2000. See 47 C. F. R. § 1.4( h). 12 In addition, we note that the petition was filed in the wrong location. The Commission’s Rules require that petitions for reconsideration be filed with the Office of the Secretary in Washington, D. C., 47 C. F. R. § 1.106( i), and warn persons filing documents with the Commission that filings submitted to the wrong location will not be processed. 47 C. F. R. § 0.401; see also 47 C. F. R. § 1.7 (“ documents are considered to be filed with the Commission upon their receipt at the location designated by the Commission”). Thus, even if the petition were timely, it would be subject to dismissal as improperly filed. See In the Matter of Memorandum of Agreement Between the Federal Communications Commission and Elkins Institute, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 5080, 5081 ¶ 3 (WTB 1999) (Elkins); Columbia Millimeter Communications, LP, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 2782, 2784- 85 ¶ 9 (WTB PSPWD 1999), aff’d, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 10251 (WTB PSPWD 2000). See also Petition for Reconsideration Filing Requirements, Public Notice, DA 00- 2252 (WTB rel. Oct. 11, 2000). 13 See, e. g., Panola Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 68 FCC 2d 533 (1978); Metromedia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 56 FCC 2d 909, 909- 10 (1975); Elkins, 14 FCC Rcd at 5081 ¶ 3. 14 If we reached the merits of Detroit Edison’s petition, we would affirm the Branch’s dismissal of the subject application was proper. When Detroit Edison filed the subject application on June 23, 2000, the proposed station was short- spaced with respect to Grand Trunk’s existing station, Station WPOM928. Because Detroit Edison did not submit a short- spacing agreement, the application was defective, and thus, properly dismissed. 47 C. F. R. § 1.934( d). Furthermore, Detroit Edison’s argument that the license for Station WPOM928 was improperly granted is an untimely request for reconsideration of that grant. Grand Trunk was granted a license Station WPOM928 on March 17, 2000, and Detroit Edison did not file this petition for reconsideration until November 2, 2000. Thus, to the extent there may have been error in the grant of Grand Trunk’s authorization, Detroit Edison’s argument is untimely. 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 589 3 5. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, 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, The Detroit Edison Company’s petition for reconsideration dated November 2, 2000 IS DISMISSED. 6. 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. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION John J. Schauble Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 3