*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 14032.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  15 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of  Application  of 
 MIKE  GRUSS 
 For  Renewal  and  Reinstatement  of  License  For 
 Conventional  Business  Radio  Service  Station 
 WPCM987,  Fremont,  Ohio 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 FCC  File  No.  0000451709 


 ORDER  ON  RECONSIDERATION 
 Adopted:  January  3,  2002  Released:  January  10,  2002 
 By  the  Deputy  Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau: 
 1.  On  June  7,  2001,  Mike  Gruss  (Mr.  Gruss),  licensee  of  Station  WPCM987,  Fremont,  Ohio, 
 filed  a  petition  for  reconsideration  (Petition)  requesting  reinstatement  of  the  above-  captioned  application.  1 
 The  Petition  seeks  reconsideration  of  the  decision  by  the  Licensing  and  Technical  Analysis  Branch 
 (Branch),  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  dismissing 
 Mr.  Gruss’s  renewal  application  on  May  9,  2001.  2  For  the  reasons  set  forth  below,  we  deny  the  Petition. 


 2.  Mr.  Gruss’s  license  for  Station  WPCM987  expired  on  April  23,  2001.  On  May  3,  2001, 
 Mr.  Gruss  submitted  the  above-  captioned  application  for  renewal  of  license  for  Station  WPCM987  to  the 
 FCC’s  lock  box  at  Mellon  Bank.  Mr.  Gruss  did  not,  however,  include  the  correct  amount  for  the  filing  fee.  3  Consequently,  the  Branch  dismissed  the  application  for  insufficient  payment.  4  The  dismissal  notice  is 


 dated  May  9,  2001,  but  Mr.  Gruss  states  that  the  postmark  on  the  envelope  indicates  that  it  was  not  mailed 
 until  May  25,  2001.  5 


 3.  Discussion.  Section  1.106  of  the  Commission's  rules  specifically  requires  that  petitions 
 for  reconsideration  cite  the  findings  of  fact  and/  or  conclusions  of  law  which  petitioner  believes  to  be 
 erroneous,  and  state  with  particularity  the  respects  in  which  such  findings  and  conclusions  should  be 
 changed.  6  While  acknowledging  that  his  “filing  on  May  3,  2001  was  late,”  Mr.  Gruss  provides  no  basis  on 


 1  Mike  Gruss  Petition  for  Reconsideration,  filed  June  7,  2001  (Petition). 


 2  Notice  of  Application  Dismissal,  dated  May  9,  2001. 
 3  Instead  of  the  required  $180.00,  Mr.  Gruss  submitted  a  check  for  only  $120.00. 
 4  Notice  of  Application  Dismissal,  dated  May  9,  2001. 
 5  Petition  at  2.  Attached  to  the  Petition  is  a  copy  of  an  envelope  from  the  FCC  bearing  a  May  25,  2001  postmark. 
 Id.  at  6. 
 6  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.106(  d)(  2).  See  also  National  Science  and  Technology  Network,  Inc.,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  8648, 


 8650  ¶  5  (WTB  PSPWD  2000);  Federal  Express  Corporation,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  4289,  4293  n.  40  (WTB 
 PSPWD  2000). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  15 
 2 
 which  to  conclude  that  the  Branch  action  dismissing  his  application  was  improper.  7  We  therefore  affirm 
 the  Branch’s  dismissal  of  the  renewal  application.  If  Mr.  Gruss  wishes  to  obtain  a  valid  authorization  for 
 this  station,  he  may  file  a  waiver  request  seeking  renewal  of  the  license  in  conjunction  with  an  application 
 for  renewal.  This  waiver  request  should  include  a  detailed  explanation  of  the  reasons  for  the  failure  to 
 timely  file  the  renewal  application,  the  potential  consequences  to  the  public  if  the  license  should  terminate, 
 and  the  performance  record  of  the  licensee.  8  In  the  alternative,  Mr.  Gruss  may  file  a  new  properly 
 coordinated  application.  9  If  he  desires  to  continue  operating  this  facility  until  he  receives  a  new  or  renewed 
 authorization,  he  must  obtain  authorization  to  do  so.  10 


 4.  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  petition  for  reconsideration  filed  by  Mike  Gruss  on  June  7, 
 2001  IS  DENIED. 


 5.  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 


 Ramona  E.  Melson,  Deputy  Chief 
 Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau 


 7  See  Petition. 
 8  See  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  –  Amendment  of  Parts  0,  1,  13,  22,  24,  26,  27,  80,  87,  90,  95,  97,  and  101  of 
 the  Commission’s  Rules  to  Facilitate  the  Development  and  Use  of  the  Universal  Licensing  System  in  the 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Services,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  WT  Docket  No. 
 98-  20,  14  FCC  Rcd  11476  (1999). 


 9  See  47  C.  F.  R.  §  90.175. 


 10  See  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.931. 
2