Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4880 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
THOMAS K. KURIAN
Assignor
AMTS CONSORTIUM, LLC
Assignee
Application for Consent to the Partial Assignment 
of the License for Public Coast Station WQCP809
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FCC File No. 0002196859
SECOND ORDER ON FURTHER RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  December 3, 2007 Released:  December 4, 2007
By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1. We have before us a second petition for further reconsideration1 submitted by 
Pappammal Wellington Kurian (Ms. Kurian), seeking reconsideration of the July 20, 2007 Order on 
Further Reconsideration in this proceeding by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau), 
Mobility Division.2 For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition.
2. The Order on Further Reconsideration dismissed as procedurally and substantively 
defective Ms. Kurian’s May 17, 2007 petition for reconsideration3 of the Mobility Division’s April 17, 
2007 Order on Reconsideration4 denying Ms. Kurian’s May 3, 2006 petition for reconsideration5 of the 
April 3, 2006 decision6 by the Bureau’s former Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division7 that 
dismissed in part and denied in part her objection to the above-captioned application for the partial 
assignment of the license for Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Station WQCP809 from 
Thomas K. Kurian to AMTS Consortium, LLC.  On August 22, 2007, the Deputy Chief of the Mobility 
Division received Ms. Kurian’s petition for reconsideration seeking “justice” in this proceeding.8  
3. Although Ms. Kurian did not title her letter a petition for reconsideration, we will treat it 
  
1 Letter dated August 18, 2007, from Pappammal Wellington Kurian to Scot Stone, Deputy Chief, Mobility 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (received August 22, 2007) 
(Petition).
2 See Thomas K. Kurian, Order on Further Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 13223 (WTB MD 2007).
3 Electronic mail message dated May 17, 2007, from Pappammal Wellington Kurian, to Scot Stone, Deputy Chief, 
Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.
4 Thomas K. Kurian, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 7318 (WTB MD 2007).
5 Pappammal Wellington Kurian, Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 3, 2006).
6 Letter dated April 3, 2006, from Michael J Wilhelm, Chief, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Byron L. Mills, Esq., and Darren L. Walker, Esq., Mills & Mills L.L.C.  
7 Pursuant to a Commission reorganization effective September 25, 2006, certain duties of the Public Safety and 
Critical Infrastructure Division were assumed by the Mobility Division.  See Establishment of the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 10867 (2006).
8 Petition at 1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-4880 
2
as a petition for reconsideration because it clearly seeks further review of the action consenting to the 
application.9  We dismiss the petition as procedurally and substantively defective.  First, we note that the 
petition is untimely.  Section 1.106(f) of the Commission’s Rules requires that a petition for 
reconsideration be filed within thirty days from the date of public notice of the Commission's action.10  
Thus, the deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration of the July 20, 2007 dismissal action was 
August 20, 2007.  Ms. Kurian failed to meet this deadline. Rather, Ms. Kurian filed her petition on 
August 22, 200711 and does not allege any "extraordinary circumstances" to excuse her failure to timely 
file the petition for reconsideration.12 Second, the record does not indicate that Ms. Kurian served the 
petition on the parties, as required by Section 1.106(f).13 This also is grounds for dismissal.14 Finally, the 
petition is subject to dismissal pursuant to Section 1.106(k)(3) of the Commission’s Rules as repetitious, 
because it seeks reconsideration of an order which has been previously denied on reconsideration, and 
does not raise any new facts or issues of decisional significance.15  Reconsideration is appropriate only 
where the petitioner either demonstrates a material error or omission in the underlying order or raises 
additional facts not known or not existing until after the petitioner’s last opportunity to present such 
matters.16  
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 further reconsideration submitted by Pappammal 
Wellington Kurian on August 22, 2007, IS DISMISSED. 17
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
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
  
9 See, e.g., Jack Gerritsen, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 4273, 4273 n.3 (EB 2005); Redlands 
Municipal Airport, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 14782, 14782 ¶ 4 (WTB PSCID 2005).
10 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).
11 Pursuant to Section 1.7 of the Commission’s Rules, “documents are considered to be filed with the Commission 
upon their receipt at the location designated by the Commision.”  47 C.F.R. § 1.7.  The Petition was received by the 
Office of the Secretary on August 22, 2007.
12 See Reuters Limited v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 951-52 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (narrowly construing the judicially created 
"extraordinary circumstances" exception to statutory time limit for filing petitions for reconsideration).
13 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).
14 See, e.g., D & I Electronics, Inc., Order, 16 FCC Rcd 15243, 15249 ¶ 5 (WTB PSPWD 2001).
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(k)(3).
16 See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 ¶ 2 (1964) (stating that “it is universally held that rehearing will not be granted 
merely for the purpose of again debating matters on which the tribunal has once deliberated and spoken”), aff’d sub. 
nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966); see also 47 
C.F.R. § 1.106(c). 
17 In addition, we note that the Petition is moot because the above-captioned application has been withdrawn.  See
FCC File No. 0002196859 (withdrawal request filed October 12, 2007, accepted October 18, 2007), recon. pending.