Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1864
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Application of 
VAN BUREN PUBLIC SCHOOL
For Renewal and Modification of License for 
Educational Broadband Service Station WNC445
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.  0006408130
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  December 18, 2014 Released:  December 19, 2014
By the Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we grant a petition for reconsideration and reinstate a 
renewal application that had been dismissed for failure to respond to a notice of return.  While the original 
dismissal was correct, we find that the public interest would best be served by reinstating the renewal 
application and allowing the licensee to provide educational broadband services.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Van Buren Public School (“Van Buren”) operates Educational Broadband Service 
(“EBS”) Station WNC445 on the A-group channels in Van Buren, Arkansas.1 Van Buren had timely 
demonstrated substantial service for Station WNC445 in 2011.2 Van Buren operates a wireless network 
that covers its senior high school campus, administrative facilities, and adjacent athletic and recreational 
facilities.3 Van Buren was required to file a renewal application in the 90-day period prior to September 
30, 2014.4 On August 4, 2014, Van Buren timely filed a Renewal/Modification Application to renew and 
modify Station WNC445.5  
3. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) returned the 
Renewal/Modification Application on August 9, 20146 because Van Buren answered “yes” to Item 12, 
which asks whether “the frequencies or parameters requested in the filing are covered by grandfathered 
privileges, previously approved by waiver, or functionally integrated with an existing station.”7 The 
Notice of Return then stated that Van Buren should “review its present authorization or the specific rules 
governing operation on the frequency (ies) requested to determine if entering ‘yes’ to Item 12 was 
  
1 File No. 0006408130 (filed Aug. 4, 2014) (“Renewal/Modification Application”).
2 See File No. 0004868468 (filed Sep. 8, 2011, amended Sep. 28, 2011, accepted Oct. 12, 2011).
3 Petition for Reconsideration, Van Buren Public School (filed Nov. 21, 2014) (“Petition”) at 2.
4 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a).
5 Renewal/Modification Application.
6 Notice of Return, Ref. No. 5846613 (Aug. 9, 2014) (“Notice of Return”).
7 Id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1864
2
appropriate.”8 If Van Buren’s response to Item 12 was correct, the Notice of Return indicated that Van 
Buren should “update and amend its application by attaching an exhibit that explained the 
circumstances.”9 If, however, Van Buren’s response to Item 12 was in error, the Notice of Return 
indicated that Van Buren was to update and amend its application to correct this response.10 The Notice 
of Return informed Van Buren that it must respond within 60 days of the date of the Notice of Return.11  
Thus, Van Buren was required to respond to the Renewal/Modification application Notice of Return on or 
before October 8, 2014.
4. On August 15, 2014, Van Buren attempted to respond to the Notice of Return by filing a 
separate modification application to, among other things, change its response to Item 12 from “yes” to 
“no.”12 The Bureau granted that application on August 18, 2014.13 Van Buren did not amend the 
Renewal/Modification Application as directed by the Notice of Return.  On October 28, 2014, the Bureau 
dismissed the Renewal/Modification Application because Van Buren had not amended the 
Renewal/Modification Application within 60 days of the date of the Notice of Return.14  
III. DISCUSSION
5. In this case, Van Buren responded to the Notice of Return letter on August 15, 2014, thus 
complying with the Notice of Return’s deadline, but it incorrectly filed a separate modification 
application rather than an amendment to the Renewal/Modification Application.  Thus, under the 
Commission’s Universal Licensing Service processes, Van Buren did not properly respond to the Notice 
of Return because it used an incorrect process, and thus did not timely respond to the Notice of Return.  
Under Section 1.934(c) of the Commission’s Rules, an application may be dismissed when the applicant 
fails “to respond substantially within a specified time period to official correspondence or requests for 
additional information.”15 The Bureau sends a Notice of Return to applicants when additional 
information is necessary for the Bureau to process the application.  The Notice of Return plainly states 
that “[i]f you do not file an amendment to your application within 60 days of the date on the top of this 
letter, your application will be dismissed.”16 Although Van Buren attempted to respond to the Notice of 
Return it incorrectly did so.  Accordingly, we conclude that the dismissal of Van Buren’s 
Renewal/Modification Application was proper.
6. The pertinent question before us, however, is whether to reinstate Van Buren’s 
Renewal/Modification Application on reconsideration.  Based upon the totality of the circumstances 
involved in this case, we believe the public interest would best be served by granting the Petition and 
reinstating the Renewal/Modification Application.  Although Van Buren did not correctly respond to the 
Notice of Return, it did in fact try to respond on August 15, 2014, well within the 60-day deadline 
specified in the Notice of Return.  According to Van Buren, this whole situation occurred because it 
  
8 Notice of Return at 1.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 See File No. 0006425362 (filed Aug. 15, 2014).
13 See File No. 0006425362 (granted Aug. 18, 2014).
14 Notice of Dismissal, Ref. No. 5888937 (Oct. 28, 2014).  See also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-
Based Applications Action, Report No. 10011 (Oct. 29, 2014) at 1.
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.934(c).
16 Notice of Return.
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1864
3
should have originally filed a renewal only application rather than a renewal/modification application.17  
If Van Buren had filed a renewal only application, Van Buren would not have had to respond to Item 12, 
and since there was no other defect in the Renewal/Modification Application, the application would not 
have been returned.  Van Buren states that this situation should not occur in the future because it plans to 
work with Aristotle Inc., a wireless Internet service provider based in Little Rock, Arkansas, to expand 
the educational and commercial deployment of its licensed spectrum, and, as part of this arrangement, 
Aristotle and its counsel will track deadlines pertinent to Van Buren’s license so that clerical errors and 
confusion can be avoided in the future.18 Thus under these specific circumstances, while we expect Van
Buren to exercise greater care in the future, we do not believe that Van Buren should lose its license for 
this isolated failure.  
7. Another circumstance supporting reinstatement of Van Buren’s renewal applications is 
that it is providing educational broadband service to students and faculty.  Van Buren indicates that it 
“‘wirelessly distributes access to its own internal network(s) and the public internet over the licensed 
spectrum to portable Wi-Fi access points (hot spots) that can be moved as needed across the Coverage 
Area.’” 19 According to Van Buren, “‘through the use of hot spots, students, faculty, and other authorized 
end users are able to access the wireless network throughout the Coverage Area, including areas not 
presently equipped with wireless coverage.’”20 Based upon the totality of the circumstances, we conclude 
that it is in the public interest to grant Van Buren’s Petition.  Our action is consistent with other cases 
where we have reinstated renewal applications when licensees failed to properly respond to return notices 
but acted in good faith.21
8. We will therefore reinstate the Renewal/Modification Application to pending status.  In 
order to ensure that we have an accurate record, we direct Van Buren to amend the Renewal/Modification 
application within 60 days from the release of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to correct its 
response to Question 12 and to provide such additional information and explanation as it deems 
appropriate.  If Van Buren fails to amend the Renewal/Modification Application within that 60-day 
period, the Renewal/Modification Application will be dismissed.22
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
9. The decision to dismiss Van Buren’s Renewal Application was correct.  However, based 
upon the information provided in the Petition, we have decided to reinstate Van Buren’s Renewal 
Application.  Accordingly, we grant Van Buren’s petition for reconsideration.
10. 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 Van Buren Public 
School on November 21, 2014 IS GRANTED.
  
17 Petition at 3.
18 Id. at 4.
19 Id. at 2.
20 Id.
21 See Somerville Independent School District, Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 6063 (WTB BD 2012) 
(renewal application reinstated despite failure to respond to notice of return where two notices of return had been 
sent around the same time and licensee had otherwise been diligent in complying with the Commission’s rules); 
Burlington College, Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 15267 (WTB BD 2012).
22 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.934(c).
Federal Communications Commission DA 14-1864
4
11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), 309, and Section 1.949 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 
C.F.R. § 1.949, that the Broadband Division SHALL REINSTATE AND PROCESS the application filed 
by Van Buren Public School to renew and modify EBS Station WNC445 (File No. 0006408130) in 
accordance with this Order on Reconsideration and the Commission’s rules and policies.
12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), 309, and Section 1.923(a) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 
C.F.R. § 1.923(a), that within 60 days of the release of this Order on Reconsideration, Van Buren Public 
School SHALL AMEND File No. 0006408130 to change the answer to Question 12 to “No” and to make 
such other changes as it deems appropriate.
13. These actions are taken under designated 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
Deputy Chief, Broadband Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau