Federal Communications Commission DA 11-194
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
County of Hinds, Mississippi
and 
Sprint Nextel
Mediation No. TAM-50047
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 02-55
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  February 2, 2011 Released: February 2, 2011
By the Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:
1. By this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Reconsideration, we dismiss, as 
untimely filed, (1) the Petition for De Novo Review (De Novo Review Petition)1 filed September 17, 20102
by the County of Hinds, Mississippi (Hinds) and (2) the Petition for Reconsideration of the Memorandum 
Opinion and Order (Hinds Reconsideration Petition) filed by Hinds on October 13, 2010 .  In addition, we 
deny the Petition for Waiver of the Commission’s Rules Requiring that a Petition for De Novo Review be 
Filed Within Ten Days of the Release of the August 23, 2010, Opinion and Order (Waiver Request) filed 
by Hinds on October 14, 2010.
I. BACKGROUND
2. On August 23, 2010, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau), on 
delegated authority, released a Memorandum Opinion and Order in the captioned proceeding resolving a 
dispute between Hinds and Sprint Nextel.3 The Commission’s rules specify that such orders are effective 
on their release date4 and that appeals of such orders must be filed within ten days thereafter.5 Hinds did 
  
1 On Sept. 27, 2010, Nextel Communications Inc., (Nextel) a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel Corp. 
timely filed an Opposition to Petition for De Novo Review. On October 21, 2010, Nextel filed a timely Opposition 
to Petition for Waiver (Nextel Waiver Opposition).
2 The De Novo Review Petition, dated Sept. 15, 2010, was received by the Commission on September 17, 2010.  
Documents are considered filed with the Commission upon their receipt at the location designated by the 
Commission.  47 C.F.R. § 1.7.  
3 Hinds County, Mississippi and Sprint Nextel Corp. Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 02-55, 25
FCC Rcd 12336 (PSHSB 2010) (Hinds Order).
4 Section 1.102(b)(1) of the Commission’s rules provides: “Non-hearing or interlocutory actions taken pursuant to 
delegated authority shall, unless otherwise ordered by the delegated authority, be effective on release of the 
document containing the full text of such action or in the event such a document is not released, upon release of a 
public notice announcing the action in question.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(1).  
5 Section 90.677(d)(1) of the Commission’s Rules provides, in pertinent part, that if the Chief, Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, decides an issue, any party to the dispute wishing to appeal the decision may do so by 
filing with the Commission, within ten days of the effective date of the initial decision, a Petition for de novo 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-194
2
not file its De Novo Review Petition until September 17, 2010, 25 days after the August 23, 2010 release 
date of the Hinds Order.6 Section 1.106(f) of the Commission’s rules requires that petitions for 
reconsideration be filed within 30 days of the release date of the underlying order.7 Hinds filed its 
Reconsideration Petition on October 13, 2010, 51 days after the release date of the Hinds Order.  On 
October 14, 2010, Hinds filed its Waiver Request seeking acceptance of its late-filed De Novo Review 
Petition.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Waiver Request
3. In its waiver request, Hinds claims that it did not receive the Hinds Order until “several 
days” after its release.8 It asserts that there is “ambiguity” between the Hinds Order and an order from 
the TA mediator terminating mediation of the Hinds case.9 Because of this alleged ambiguity, Hinds 
claims that the Bureau should measure the time for filing a petition for de novo review from the date of 
the TA Mediator’s order, not the release date of the Hinds Order.10 In the alternative, Hinds argues that 
the Commission should grant it a waiver of the filing deadline,11 and cites the WAIT Radio case for the 
proposition that the Commission is required to give waiver requests a “hard look.”12
4. We perceive no ambiguity between the Hinds Order and the TA Mediator’s order 
terminating mediation of the case.  Each document had a separate purpose and one followed the other in 
logical sequence, i.e., mediation was terminated once the case was decided.13 Section 90.677(d)(2) of the 
Commission’s rules is clear that it is the “initial decision”—here, the Hinds Order—that triggers the ten-
day period for filing an appeal, not the TA Mediator’s order terminating mediation.14 Indeed, the rule 
says nothing about orders from the TA Mediator.  We thus reject Hind’s inference that “ambiguity” in 
the two documents caused Hinds to file its De Novo Review Petition late. 
5. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has “discourage[d] 
the Commission from entertaining late-filed pleadings ‘in the absence of extremely unusual 
(Continued from previous page)    
review; whereupon the matter will be set for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.” 47 
C.F.R. § 90.677(d)(1).  
6 Sprint Nextel Corporation timely filed an Opposition to Petition for De Novo Review on September 27, 2010.
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).  
8 Waiver Request at 2.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id..
12 Id. citing WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (WAIT Radio).
13 As Nextel points out, the TA Mediator’s order was ministerial and not substantive.  Nextel Waiver Opposition at 
4.
14 47 C.F.R. § 90.677(d)(2) (“. . . any party to the dispute wishing to appeal the decision may do so by filing with 
the Commission, within ten days of the effective date of the initial decision, a Petition for de novo review; 
whereupon the matter will be set for an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge”). (Emphasis 
supplied.) 
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-194
3
circumstances,’”15 and has held that “procrastination  . . . is not a ‘special circumstance.’”16 We perceive 
no unusual or special circumstance that would have prevented Hinds from making a timely request for de 
novo review.  As Nextel points out, “the Hinds Order was publically released and was available on the 
Commission’s web site the day it was released.” 17 We thus agree with Nextel’s contention that “it was 
the decision of the County to proceed with de novo review at the Bureau, and it is not unreasonable for 
the Bureau to expect that a party that elects to participate in a proceeding before the Bureau to monitor 
the status of that proceeding for a decision that affects the party’s rights.” 18
6. Once Hinds received the Hinds Order it knew, or should have known, that any appeal was 
due within ten days.  Preparation of a request for de novo review is neither complex nor time 
consuming—a party need only state that it is appealing the Bureau’s decision.  Indeed, Hind’s request for 
de novo review is a one-page, one-sentence document.  Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that Hinds did 
not receive the Hinds Order until “several days” after its release, it could have prepared a timely notice 
of appeal had it exercised ordinary diligence.  Instead, it procrastinated and filed the De Novo Review 
Petition 15 days late. 
7. Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules provides that, with respect to wireless 
telecommunications services, the Commission may grant a request for waiver if it is shown that: “(i) The 
underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant 
case, and that a grant of the requested waiver would be in the public interest; or (ii) In view of unique or 
unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly 
burdensome or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.”19
8. Hinds has not shown that the underlying purpose of the time restriction in Section 
90.677(d)(2) of the Commission’s rules—facilitating the Commission’s prompt disposition of the 
proceedings before it—would be frustrated were its requested waiver not granted, much less that grant of 
the requested waiver would be in the public interest.  Moreover, Hinds has not pointed to any unusual 
factual circumstance that would render denial of the requested waiver inequitable, unduly burdensome or 
contrary to the public interest.  For the reasons stated in ¶ 4, supra, Hinds’ argument that alleged 
“ambiguity” in the orders it received constituted an “unusual factual circumstance” is without merit.  
Finally, we note that Hinds had a reasonable alternative to filing its De Novo Review Petition 15 days 
late, i.e., with the exercise of ordinary diligence it could have filed its one-page, one-sentence, pleading 
on time. 
9. In sum, we have given Hinds’ waiver request the “hard look” mandated by WAIT Radio.  Our 
careful analysis of the arguments raised by Hinds reveals that it has not established good cause for grant 
of a waiver.
  
15 BDPCS, Inc. v. FCC, 351 F.3d 1177, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2003) quoting 21st Century Telesis Joint Venture
v. FCC, 318 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
16 NETWORKIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Telecom v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 127 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
17 Nextel Waiver Opposition at 3.   
18 Id.   
19 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-194
4
B. Petition for Reconsideration
10. Section 405(a) of the Communications Act of 1934,20 as amended, as implemented by 
Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules,21 requires that a petition for reconsideration be filed within 
30 days from the release date of the Commission's action.  Hinds filed its Reconsideration Petition 51 
days after release of the Hinds Order.  The Commission consistently has held that it is without authority 
to extend or waive the statutory thirty-day period for filing petitions for reconsideration specified in 
Section 405(a) of the Communications Act.22 The filing deadline of Section 405(a) of the Act applies 
even to petitions for reconsideration filed only one day late.23 Consequently, we conclude that the Hinds 
Reconsideration Petition must be dismissed as untimely filed.
11. Moreover, Hinds’ Reconsideration Petition is defective for an additional procedural reason.   
Section 1.106 (b)(2)(i-ii) of the Commission’s rules24 provides that petitions for reconsideration are 
acceptable only if they rely “on facts which relate to events that have occurred or circumstances which 
have changed since the last opportunity to present such matters” or “the petition relies on facts unknown 
to the petitioner until after his last opportunity to present such matters which could not, through the 
exercise of ordinary diligence have been learned prior to such opportunity.”  The gravamen of Hinds’ 
Reconsideration Petition is that its employee, Captain John Wilson, “impermissibly” negotiated the 
Hinds’ Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement (FRA) with Sprint but neglected to include the services 
and associated costs sought in the Change Notice and, therefore, that “the prior agreement [the FRA] was 
contemplated in bad faith.”25
12. In its Reconsideration Petition, Hinds does not cite to facts or events that occurred or 
circumstances that have changed since its last opportunity to present such matters, i.e., in its Proposed 
Resolution Memorandum, or that were unknown to Hinds and could not have been learned through the 
exercise of ordinary diligence.  In fact, Hinds presents no new evidence whatsoever.  Rather than arguing 
new facts or changed circumstances, Hinds uses the Reconsideration Petition merely to reassert the 
arguments made in its Proposed Resolution Memorandum, i.e., that Captain Wilson “unofficially waived 
them [Hinds’ costs] in his negotiations without proper or actual authority.”26 We fully considered Hinds’ 
arguments in that regard in the Hinds Order and found them without merit, inter alia, because, “[b]oth 
the County's Planning Funding Agreement (PFA) and FRA were negotiated by Wilson, but the FRA was 
reviewed by the County's legal counsel and ratified by the president of its Board.”  Therefore, we 
concluded, there was no merit to “the County's claim that Wilson lacked ‘proper or actual authority’ to 
  
20 47 U.S.C. § 405(a).
21 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f).
22 See Reuters Ltd. v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 951-52 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
23 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).
24 47 C.F.R. § 1.106 (b)(2)(i-ii).
25 Hinds Reconsideration Petition at 1.
26 Hinds Proposed Resolution Memorandum at 4.   
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-194
5
negotiate the FRA.”27  
13. It is Commission policy that “petitions for reconsideration are not to be used for the mere 
reargument of points previously advanced and rejected.”28 Hinds’ advancement of the same facts and 
circumstances previously raised by Hinds and considered and rejected by the Bureau does not meet the 
requirements of that well-settled policy.  Moreover, reconsideration of a Commission decision is 
appropriate only when the petitioner demonstrates that the original Order contains a material error or 
omission.29 Nothing offered by Hinds demonstrates a material error or omission in the Hinds Order that 
undercuts the Bureau’s finding that Hinds’ undocumented request for a change order lacked merit. 
III. DECISION
14. For the reasons set forth above, we find that Hinds Waiver Request does not meet the waiver 
criteria in Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules and the cases interpreting that rule section.  We 
therefore deny the request for waiver.  
15. Further, we find that the untimely Petition for De Novo Review and the Petition for 
Reconsideration are procedurally defective, and thus subject to dismissal.  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the Petition for Waiver of the Commission’s Rules 
Requiring that a Petition for De Novo Review be Filed Within Ten Days of the Release of the August 23, 
2010, Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed by Hinds County, Mississippi, IS DENIED.  
17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for De Novo Review filed by Hinds County, 
Mississippi, IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of the Memorandum 
Opinion and Order for De Novo Review filed by Hinds County, Mississippi, IS DISMISSED WITH 
PREJUDICE.
  
27 Hinds Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 12340 ¶11.  Even assuming, arguendo, that Hinds was not aware that it had sued 
Captain Wilson when it filed its Proposed Resolution Memorandum, that is not a “new fact” sufficient to justify 
our considering Hinds’ Reconsideration Petition because the mere fact that suit has been filed is irrelevant.  See 
Hinds Reconsideration Petition at 1.
28 Quest Communications Corp., Third Order on Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd 3422 (2010); see also James Kay, 
Jr., Order on Reconsideration, 19 FCC Rcd 2938, 2940 (WTB 2004) (argument did not rely on any new facts or 
changed circumstances), affirmed, James A. Kay, Jr. Order, 20 FCC Rcd 12228 (2005); See also S&L Teen 
Hospital Shuttle, Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 7899, 7900 (2002); Romar Communications, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 23 FCC Rcd. 2512, 2513 (2008).
29 See, e.g., Toll Free Service Access Codes, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 22188, 22192-22193 (2007); 
Feature Group IP Petition for Forbearance, Order on Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd 8867, 8868 (2010); City of 
Boynton Beach, Florida, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 4551, 4552 (PSHSB 2010);  Comcast 
Corp. and AT&T Corp, Order on Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd. 3492, 3493 (2010).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-194
6
19. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.191 and 0.392 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michael J. Wilhelm 
Deputy Chief - Policy Division
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau