*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 9102.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  169 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 TSR  WIRELESS,  LLC,  et  al., 
 Complainants, 
 v. 
 U  S  WEST  COMMUNICATIONS,  INC.  et  al., 
 Defendants. 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 File  Nos.  E-  98-  13,  E-  98-  17,  E-  98-  18 


 ORDER  ON  RECONSIDERATION 
 Adopted:  May  18,  2001  Released:  May  22,  2001 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  In  this  Order  on  Reconsideration,  we  deny  the  Petition  for  Reconsideration  or  Clarification 
 of  our  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  in  this  proceeding,  1  filed  by  Small  Business  In 
 Telecommunications  (“  SBT”).  SBT,  which  describes  itself  as  representing  “hundreds  of  paging 
 companies,  two-  way  shops,  radio  dealers,  SMR  operators,  community  repeater  operators”  and  other 
 entities,  2  challenges  our  finding  in  the  Order  that  CMRS  carriers,  including  paging  carriers,  must  pay 
 Local  Exchange  Carriers  (“  LECs”)  for  “transiting”  traffic,  that  is,  traffic  originating  from  a  carrier  other 
 than  the  interconnecting  LEC  and  carried  over  the  LEC’s  network  to  the  CMRS  carrier’s  network.  3 


 2.  SBT  was  not  a  party  to  the  underlying  proceeding.  4  As  a  non-  party,  therefore,  to  seek 
 reconsideration  of  the  Order  SBT  must  “state  with  particularity  the  manner  in  which  …  [its]  interests  are 
 adversely  affected  by  the  action  taken,  and  …  show  good  reason  why  it  was  not  possible  …  to  participate 


 1  TSR  Wireless,  LLC  et  al.  v.  U  S  West  Communications,  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC 
 Rcd  11166  (2000)  (“  Order”),  petition  for  review  docketed  sub.  nom.  Qwest  Corp.  v.  FCC,  Nos.  00-  1376  et  al. 
 (D.  C.  Cir.  2001).  The  appeal  raises  different  issues  than  presented  in  SBT’s  Petition  for  Reconsideration  or 
 Clarification. 


 2  SBT  Petition  for  Reconsideration  or  Clarification,  TSR  Wireless,  LLC,  et  al.  v.  U  S  West 


 Communications,  Inc.,  et  al.,  File  Nos.  E-  98-  13  et  al.,  at  1  (filed  July  21,  2000)  (“  Petition”). 
 3  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  11177,  ¶  19  n.  70. 


 4  None  of  the  parties  to  the  consolidated  cases  in  this  proceeding  has  petitioned  for  reconsideration  of  the 
 Order.  Complainants,  TSR  Wireless,  LLC  and  Metrocall,  Inc.,  did  not  participate  in  the  proceeding  upon 
 reconsideration.  Defendants,  Pacific  Bell  Telephone  Co.  and  Southwestern  Bell  Telephone  Co.  (now  merged  into 
 SBC  Telecommunications,  Inc.  (“  SBC”)),  U  S  West  Communications,  Inc.  (now  known  as  Qwest 
 Communications  International,  Inc.),  and  GTE  Telephone  Operations  (now  known  as  Verizon),  opposed  SBT’s 
 petition. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  169 
 2 
 in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  proceeding.”  5  SBT  falls  far  short  of  this  standard.  Rather  than  stating  “with 
 particularity  how  its  interests  are  adversely  affected”  by  the  Order,  SBT  merely  describes  its  membership. 
 Moreover,  SBT  simply  does  not  address  our  requirement  that  non-  parties  explain  why  they  could  not 
 participate  in  the  proceeding  at  an  earlier  stage.  In  light  of  SBT’s  noncompliance  with  our  rule,  we  dismiss 
 SBT’s  petition. 


 3.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i),  4(  j),  and  405  of  the 
 Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  154(  i),  154(  j),  405,  that  SBT’s  Petition  for 
 Reconsideration  or  Clarification  IS  DISMISSED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 Secretary 


 5  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.106(  b). 
2