WASHINGTON OFFICE
2331 RAVBURN HOUSE OrnCE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
12021225--4155
DISTRICT OFfICE
11717 BURT STREET, SUITE 106
OMAHA, NE 68154
14021397-9944
Talk2lee mall,house gO\l
www noUH gO\l!terry
JLee ~errp
(ltongre1i1i of tbe Wniteb ~tate1i
j!)ouse of )l\epreselltatibes
2nb :li'hstrict, Jlebraslm
February 16, 2012
COMMITTEE:
ENERGY AND COMMERCE
SU8COMMITIEES
VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMUNICATIONS ANO
TECHNOLOGY
ENERGY AND POWER
OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
Hon. Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 - 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re: MariTEL Northern Pacific, Inc.; Application for Renewal of License; Call Sign
WPOJ532; File No. 0003836439 (filed May 12,2009)
MariTEL Southern Pacific, Inc.; Application for Renewal of License; Call Sign
WPOJ536; File No. 0003840247 (filed May 15,2009)
PaeiliCorp; Notification of ConsuJ11mation of Assignment of License; Call Sign
WPOJ532; File No. 0003920147 (filed August 3, 2009)
PacifiCorp; Notification of Consummation of Assignment of License; Call Sign
WPOJ536; File No. 0003920 150 (filed August 3, 2009)
MariTEL Northern Pacific, Inc. and PacifiCorp; Application for Assignment of
License; Call Sign WPOJ532; File o. 0003941632 (filed August 24, 2009)
MariTEL Southern Pacific, Inc. and PacifiCorp; Application for Assignment of
License, Call Sign WPOJ536; File No. 0003941633 (filed August 24, 2009)
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
On July 14,20 I I, I inquired as to the status of the above-referenced applications filed by
PacifiCorp and MariTEL, which have been pending since 2009. In your reply of September I,
2011, you explained that the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) had
deferred action on these applications because of a petition to deny that was filed against
MariTEL's renewal applications in 2009 and because the Commission had initiated an
enforcement hearing in early 20 II against another company, Maritime Communications/Land
Mobile (MC/LM). You acknowledged that because prolonged deferral of these applications
could cause hardship to these applicants the WTB staff was considering which, if any, of the
applications filed by these two companies could be processed. You further assured me that if the
staff found that PacifiCorp's applications could be processed the staff would complete the action
as quickly as possible.
I would appreciate knowing whether your staff has made any progress in the last five
months in deciding whether they can process these applications, which have now been pending
for nearly three years and which constitute an unacceptable risk to PacifiCorp, its customers, and
the power grid in the western United States. PacifiCorp advised me that they requested a meeting
to discuss these issues with the WTB staff and the other parties, consistent with the FCC's ex
parle rules, but were turned down.
Ifit would be of any help, perhaps my staff could convene a meeting among the parties
and the WTB to determine how these applications can be moved forward most expeditiously.
I look forward to hearing from you.
~ I/VV>
~e Terry
/
Vice Chair,
Subcommittee on Co lmunications and Technology