Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-173
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 Partial Assignment of 
the License for Station WQCP809
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. 0002196859
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  September 21, 2010 Released:  September 22, 2010
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This order affirms the processing of a request submitted by the proposed assignor to 
withdraw an assignment application, and the subsequent dismissal of a notification of consummation of 
the assignment submitted by the proposed assignee after the application was withdrawn.  Specifically, this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses an application for review filed by Environmentel LLC 
(Environmentel)1 seeking Commission review of an Order by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s 
Mobility Division (Division).2 In the Order, the Division affirmed the grant of a request by Thomas K. 
Kurian (Kurian) to withdraw an application to partially assign an Automated Maritime 
Telecommunications System station to Environmentel, and affirmed the dismissal of a notification of 
consummation submitted by Environmentel with respect to the same transaction.  Environmentel’s 
arguments challenging those licensing actions and the Division’s rejection of petitions for reconsideration 
of those actions are without merit, and we therefore deny its application for review of the Division’s 
Order.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Division consented to the above-captioned application, authorizing Kurian to 
partition and disaggregate to Environmentel3 some of the spectrum authorized under the license for 
Station WQCP809, on April 7, 2006.4 On October 12, 2007, however, Kurian submitted a request 
  
1 Environmentel LLC, Application for Review (filed May 21, 2009) (AFR).  On May 22, 2009, Environmentel filed 
an erratum version of the AFR, which deleted extraneous language.  
2 Thomas K. Kurian, Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4849 (WTB MD 2009) (Order).
3 At that time, Environmentel operated under the name AMTS Consortium LLC (ACL).  See, e.g., FCC File No. 
0003649429 (filed Nov. 14, 2008).  For convenience, we refer to ACL herein as Environmentel.
4 See FCC File No. 0002196859 (filed June 14, 2005).  The Division subsequently granted two requests for 
extension of time to consummate the transaction.  See FCC File Nos. 0002749571 (filed Sept. 13, 2006), 
0002996562 (filed Apr. 17, 2007).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-173
2
through the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) to withdraw the application.  The Division 
processed the request on October 18, 2007, and the application was consequently designated as 
“Withdrawn” in ULS.  Also on October 18, 2007, Environmentel submitted a consummation notification, 
representing that the partial assignment had been consummated on October 10, 2007.5 The Division 
dismissed Environmentel’s notification of consummation, because Kurian had withdrawn the application 
before the notification was submitted.6  
3. Environmentel filed petitions for reconsideration of both the grant of Kurian’s 
withdrawal request and the dismissal of its consummation notification.7 It argued that the withdrawal 
request was procedurally defective, and that the Division erred in processing it because the transaction 
had been consummated in fact before the withdrawal request was filed.  The Division denied both 
petitions for reconsideration, finding that Environmentel had not demonstrated any error in processing the 
withdrawal request or in dismissing Environmentel’s notification of consummation.8 In rejecting the 
argument that it was improper to grant the withdrawal request because the transaction had already been 
consummated, the Division stated that its licensing staff is not obligated, before processing a request to 
withdraw a consented assignment application for which no consummation notification has been received, 
to investigate whether the transaction remains unconsummated.9 The Division also reasoned that it would 
be illogical to accept and process a notification of consummation for a withdrawn assignment application 
because, upon the withdrawal of the application, the parties are divested of authority to consummate the 
transaction.10 Finally, the Division noted that the source of Environmentel’s grievance appeared to be that 
Kurian had breached a contract between the parties regarding an exchange of spectrum, and held that the 
courts, rather than the Commission, are the proper forum to resolve such contractual disputes.11
III. DISCUSSION
4. Environmentel argues that its consummation notification was timely and otherwise in 
compliance with the Commission’s rules, and thus should have been processed as a ministerial manner.12  
It also contends that an assignment application cannot be withdrawn after the transaction is consummated 
in fact.13 Therefore, Environmentel contends, the Division lacked authority to allow the application to be 
withdrawn, because no party has disputed Environmentel’s representation that the assignment was 
consummated before Kurian filed his withdrawal request.14 Environmentel also argues that, by failing to 
credit Environmentel’s representation that the transaction had been consummated, the Division actually 
  
5 The notification of consummation was filed manually by letter (and via e-mail), and electronically as a “Pleading.”  
See Letter dated Oct. 18, 2007, from Warren Havens, President, ACL, to Office of the Secretary, FCC.  
Environmentel was unable to file a notification of consummation electronically through the normal process because 
ULS does not accept notifications of consummation for assignment applications that are in “Withdrawn” status.
6 See FCC File No. 0003205477, Auto Letter Ref. No. 4671670 (generated Nov. 23, 2007).
7 AMTS Consortium LLC, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Nov. 19, 2007); AMTS Consortium LLC, Petition for 
Reconsideration (filed Nov. 23, 2007).
8 See Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 4850 ¶ 5, citing WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 F.C.C. 685, 686 ¶ 2 
(1964), aff'd sub. nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965); 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
9 Id. at 4851 ¶ 8.
10 Id. at 4851-52 ¶ 8.
11 Id. at 4852-53 ¶ 9, citing, e.g., Regents of University System of Georgia v. Carroll, 338 U.S. 586, 602 (1950).
12 See AFR at 2, citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.948(d) (permitting consummation notification to be filed up to thirty days after 
consummation).  
13 Id.
14 Id. at 5-7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-173
3
interposed itself in a private contractual dispute, contrary to the Commission’s policy.15
5. We find Environmentel’s arguments to be without merit, and we affirm the Division’s 
decision.  We are aware of no authority for the proposition that consummation of which the Commission 
has not been notified cuts off an assignor’s ability to withdraw a consented assignment application, or the 
Commission’s ability to act on such a request.16 The processing of Kurian’s withdrawal request was a 
routine matter, and the dismissal of Environmentel’s subsequent notification of consummation was based 
on the simple fact that, at the time the notification was filed, there was no longer a consented assignment 
application to which it could apply.17  
6. We also agree with the Division that granting Environmentel the relief requested would 
have interjected the Commission into a private contractual dispute between Kurian and Environmentel.  
Contrary to Environmentel’s arguments,18 the Division did not purport to determine whether the 
transaction should be deemed to have been consummated under state law; nor does anything in the Order
affect the rights of the parties under state law.  What the Division did in this case was to act according to 
its standard procedures in processing a withdrawal request, then dismissing an unprocessable 
consummation notification.  By adhering to its routine practice, rather than departing from that practice at 
Environmentel’s behest, the Division’s actions were consistent with the Commission’s policy of not 
intervening in private contractual disputes that are the province of the courts.19  
IV. CONCLUSION  
7. We conclude that the Division correctly denied Environmentel’s petitions for 
reconsideration of the Division’s actions in processing the withdrawal request and dismissing the 
notification of consummation, and we affirm the reasoning as well as the result of the Order.   
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 5(c)(5), and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155(c)(5), 303(r), and Section 1.115 of 
the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, the application for review filed by Environmentel LLC on 
May 21, 2009 IS DENIED.     
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
15 Id. at 4-5, 7.  Environmentel argues that the Division “clearly erred in overturning a valid consummation under 
State contract law.”  Id. at 4.
16 The sole authority cited by Environmentel, Mid Atlantic Network, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order and 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 7582 (MB AD 2008), is not germane.  The passage cited by 
Environmentel deals not with whether a state-law contractual question governs the Commission’s policies governing 
license assignments, but with whether the Commission’s licensing policies preempt state contract law.  Indeed, the 
decision affirms “the Commission’s longstanding policy that it will defer to courts of competent jurisdiction in the 
interpretation and enforcement of contractual rights between parties.”  Id. at 7586 ¶ 9, citing Arecibo Radio Corp., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 101 F.C.C. 2d 545 (1985).
17 We concur in the Division’s statement that licensing staff is not required to verify that the transaction remains 
unconsummated before processing a request to withdraw an assignment application.
18 See AFR at 4-5, 7.
19 We note that Environmentel remarks that, if we were to act favorably on the AFR, Kurian would be “free to sue 
[Environmentel] in a court action.”  Id. at 8.  So too is Environmentel able to seek redress in the courts.