Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-2
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of 
WARREN C. HAVENS
Applications to Provide Automated Maritime 
Telecommunications System Stations at Various 
Locations in Texas, and
Applications to Provide Automated Maritime 
Telecommunications System Stations at Chaffee, 
Aspen, Colorado Springs, Copper Mountain, and 
Leadville, Colorado
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
 
File Nos. 852997-853009
File Nos. 853010-853014
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  January 5, 2010 Released:  January 14, 2010
By the Commission:
1. Introduction.  This Order on Reconsideration dismisses a repetitious petition for 
reconsideration.  We have before us a petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s Memorandum 
Opinion and Order in this proceeding,1 filed by Warren C. Havens (“Havens”) and related parties.2 For 
the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the petition for reconsideration.3
2. Background.4 The above-captioned Automated Maritime Telecommunications System 
(AMTS) applications filed by Havens were dismissed in 2000 and 2001 because they did not meet the 
coverage requirements in Section 80.475(a) of the Commission’s Rules, as then in effect.5 Havens filed 
  
1 Warren C. Havens, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 3210 (2008) (“Memorandum Opinion and 
Order”).  
2 Petition for Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order Based on New Facts (filed Mar. 28, 2008) 
(“Petition”).  (On April 2, 2008, Havens filed an Erratum to the Petition to correct typographical errors and delete 
unintended text.  Page citations herein are to the Erratum version of the Petition.)  The related parties are AMTS 
Consortium LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus VPC LLC, and Skybridge 
Spectrum Foundation. Because Havens has standing to file the Petition, we need not address the other petitioners’ 
standing.  See Emmis Communications Corporation, Order on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 12219, 12221 n.17 
(2006).
3 On April 9, 2008, Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC (“MC/LM”) filed an opposition to the Petition.  
Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order Based on New Facts (filed Apr. 
9, 2008) (“Opposition”).  On April 22, 2008, petitioners filed a reply.  Reply to Opposition to Petition for 
Reconsideration of the Memorandum Opinion and Order Based on New Facts (filed Apr. 22, 2008).  We do not 
address whether MC/LM has standing to oppose the Petition, because we have not relied upon the Opposition.  See 
JNE Investments, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 623, 628 ¶ 13 (2008); Capitol 
Radiotelephone, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 7468, 7471 n.25 (2001).
4 The background is set out more thoroughly in Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3210-12 ¶¶ 5, and 
Warren C. Havens, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 23196, 23196-99 ¶¶ 2-8 (WTB PSCID 2004) (“PSCID Order”).
5 See Warren C. Havens, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 22296 (WTB PSPWD 2000); Warren C. Havens, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 
2539 (WTB PSPWD 2001).  Specifically, applicants proposing to serve a waterway less than 150 miles in length 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-2
2
petitions for reconsideration that were denied in 2001,6 a petition for further reconsideration that was 
denied in 2001,7 applications for review that were denied in 2002,8 and appeals to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that remain pending.9 After the Commission adopted 
geographic licensing for AMTS and accordingly eliminated the site-based coverage requirements in 
Section 80.475(a) in the AMTS Fifth Report and Order,10 Havens requested that the dismissed 
applications be processed pursuant to the new geographic coverage rules and requested forbearance from 
the site-based coverage requirements.  After those requests were denied in 2004,11 Havens filed a petition 
for reconsideration that was dismissed in 2005 as untimely filed,12 a petition for reconsideration that was 
denied in 2006,13 and an application for review that was denied in 2008.14  
3. Discussion.  Section 1.106(b)(2) of the Commission’s Rules provides that a petition for 
reconsideration of the denial of an application for review will be entertained only if “(i) [t]he petition 
relies on facts which relate to events which have occurred or circumstances which have changed since the 
last opportunity to present such matters; or (ii) [t]he 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.”15 A petition that fails to introduce relevant new 
facts or changed circumstances may be dismissed as repetitious.16   
4. Havens argues that the instant petition for reconsideration is permissible because it relies 
on relevant new evidence that he could not have learned prior to his last opportunity to present such 
matters – specifically, the responses to two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that Havens 
filed in 2007.17 In the first FOIA request, Havens sought records pertaining to the engineering that was 
used to determine whether AMTS applications satisfied the coverage requirements in former Section 
80.475(a).18 In the second request, Havens sought records pertaining to the elimination of the site-based 
  
(...continued from previous page)
had to serve the entire waterway, and applicants proposing to serve a longer waterway had to provide continuity of 
service along at least sixty percent of it.  See 47 C.F.R. § 80.475(a) (1999).
6 See Warren C. Havens, Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 18046 (WTB PSPWD 2001); Warren C. Havens, 
Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 9337 (WTB PSPWD 2001).
7 See Warren C. Havens, Order on Further Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 19240 (WTB 2001).
8 See Warren C. Havens, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 17588 (2002); Warren C. Havens, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 17527 (2002).
9 Havens v. FCC, Nos. 02-1315, 02-1316 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 16, 2002).
10 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, Second Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Fifth Report and Order, PR Docket No. 92-257, 17 FCC Rcd 6685, 6702-03 ¶ 37 (2002), 
recon. granted in part and denied in part, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 24391 (2003) 
(“AMTS Fifth Report and Order”).
11 See PSCID Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 23199-201 ¶¶ 9-13. 
12 See Warren C. Havens, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 3995, 3996-97 ¶ 6 (WTB PSCID 2005).  
13 See Warren C. Havens, Order on Further Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3553, 3555 ¶ 5 (WTB 2006).
14 See Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3212-13 ¶ 7.
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(2).
16 See Emery Telephone, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 7181, 7184 ¶ 5 (1999) (citing 47 C.F.R.    
§ 1.106(b)(3)); see also, e.g., Sagir, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 15967, 16004 ¶ 16 (2003).
17 See Petition at 2-3.
18 See id., Ex. 1 Part 1 at 1-2.  The request also sought records pertaining to the education and experience of 
Commission personnel who performed such engineering, computer software and other documents used in the 
(continued....)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-2
3
coverage requirements in Section 80.475(a).19
5. As noted above, a petition for reconsideration of an order denying an application for 
review must rely on relevant new facts or circumstances.  While the exhibits arguably are new, we 
conclude that they are not relevant.20 The issue in the Memorandum Opinion and Order was whether 
Havens’s petition for reconsideration was properly dismissed in 2005 as untimely filed.  The exhibits to 
the instant petition for reconsideration shed no light on this question.  Instead, they relate to the merits of 
the underlying applications and previous requests.21 Consequently, we dismiss the instant petition.
6. Conclusion.  Havens has presented no grounds for reconsideration of our decision 
denying review of the denial of reconsideration of the dismissal of his untimely petition for 
reconsideration.  We therefore dismiss the instant petition for reconsideration as repetitious.22
7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i), 5(c), and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155(c), and 405(a), and Section 1.106 of 
the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Warren C. 
  
(...continued from previous page)
engineering, and the Commission officials who made recommendations and ultimate decisions regarding whether 
AMTS applications satisfied the coverage requirements in former Section 80.475(a).  In response, Commission staff 
identified a study pertaining to the interference potential from AMTS systems to television reception and the 
comments in the rulemaking proceedings pertaining to the coverage requirements, but located no other responsive 
records.  See id., Ex. 1 Part 2 at 2-5.
19 See id., Ex. 2 Part 1 at 1-2.  The request also sought records pertaining to including the Commission employees 
who made any recommendations or the ultimate decision to eliminate the requirements.  In response, Commission 
staff identified the AMTS Fifth Report and Order, the Federal Register summary thereof, and the comments in that 
rulemaking proceeding, but located no other responsive records.  See id., Ex. 2 Part 2 at 2-4.
20 Similarly, the authority cited by Havens for reopening the administrative record to admit new information, see 
Petition at 10 (citing Butterfield v. FCC, 237 F.2d 552 (1956); Beacon Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 3012 (1996); Armond J. Rolle, Decision, 31 F.C.C. 2d 533 (Rev. Bd. 1971)), 
supports reopening the record only for evidence that is relevant to the proceeding, and thus does not support such 
action in this instance.  Given our resolution of the Petition, we do not reach the question of whether evidence 
discovered through a FOIA request filed after the petitioner’s last opportunity to present such matters should be 
deemed to have been previously unavailable for purposes of Section 1.106(b).
21 Nor is Havens’s assertion that Commission staff is prejudiced against him and in favor of other AMTS licensees 
relevant to whether the petition for reconsideration was timely filed.  See Petition at 3-4, 7.  Moreover, these 
allegations have been addressed elsewhere, and applications for review and petitions for reconsideration of those 
decisions remain pending.  See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, 
Second Order on Further Reconsideration, 24 FCC Rcd 4150, 4153 ¶ 8 (WTB MD 2009) (citing Northeast Utilities 
Service Co., Order, 24 FCC Rcd 3310, 3312 n.22 (WTB MD 2009), recon. pending; Mobex Network Services, 
LLC, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 665, 672 ¶ 15 (WTB MD 2007), recon. and review pending), review 
pending.
22 The above-captioned applications have now been the subject of twelve orders at the Division, Bureau, and 
Commission level, and are at issue in pending judicial appeals.  We plan to give no further consideration to this 
matter, and the staff is hereby directed to dismiss summarily any subsequent pleadings filed by Havens or related 
parties with respect to these applications or the authority requested therein.  See Central Mobile Radio Phone 
Service, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 86-88, ¶ 3 (rel. Mar. 4, 1986); Western Communications, Inc. 
(KORK-TV), Decision, 59 F.C.C. 2d 1441, 1456 n.21 (1976).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-2
4
Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Telesaurus 
VPC LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on March 28, 2008 IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary