Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-173 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of 
MARITEL, INC.
and
MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, LLC.
Petitions for Rule Making to Amend the 
Commission’s Rules to Provide Additional 
Flexibility for AMTS and VHF Public Coast 
Station Licensees 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 04-257
RM-10743
SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  November 21, 2011 Released:  November 29, 2011
By the Commission:
1. This Second Memorandum Opinion and Order dismisses an application for review of the 
Order on Reconsideration1 in this proceeding, filed by Warren C. Havens (Havens) and associated parties 
(collectively, Petitioners).2 The Order on Reconsideration denied Petitioners’ petition for reconsideration 
of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding,3 which denied Petitioners’ petition for 
reconsideration of the Report and Order in this proceeding.4 For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss 
the application for review as procedurally defective.
2. The Report and Order amended the Commission’s Rules to, inter alia, provide 
Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) licensees additional operational flexibility by 
permitting them to offer private correspondence service to units on land.5 The Commission rejected 
Havens’s argument that the new operational flexibility should be granted only to geographic licensees, 
and not to site-based incumbent licensees.6 In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission 
denied Petitioners’ petition for reconsideration of this decision, noting that it has traditionally afforded 
AMTS site-based and geographic licensees the same flexibility and stating that any imbalance that 
Petitioners perceived with respect to these licensees’ construction and coverage requirements was not 
  
1 MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network Services, LLC, Order on Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 04-257, 26 FCC 
Rcd 2491 (2011) (Order on Reconsideration).
2 Application for Review or in the Alternative Section 1.41 Request (filed April 4, 2011, errata version filed April 5, 
2011) (AFR).  The AFR was filed by Havens, Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent 
Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC (ITM), Verde Systems LLC, V2G LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB 
LLC.  Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC and Paging Systems, Inc. filed oppositions.  Petitioners filed a 
reply.  
3 MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network Services, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 04-257, 25 
FCC Rcd 533 (2010) (MO&O).  Petitioner V2G LLC was not a party to the petition for reconsideration of the 
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
4 See Maritel, Inc. and Mobex Network Services, LLC, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 04-257, 22 FCC Rcd 8971 
(2007).  The petition for reconsideration of the Report and Order was filed by Havens, AMTS Consortium LLC 
(Environmentel LLC’s predecessor-in-interest), ITM, and Telesaurus-VPC, LLC.
5 See id. at 8976-78 ¶¶ 8-10.
6 Id. at 8978-79 ¶ 12.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 11-173 
2
relevant to whether to treat them consistently with respect to their operational requirements.7 In the 
Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denied Petitioners’ petition for reconsideration of this 
decision, concluding that Petitioners’ arguments concerning the character and fitness of individual site-
based licensees, and the construction and operational status of their stations, was irrelevant to the general 
issue of whether the service rules should afford licensees additional operational flexibility.8 Petitioners 
then filed an application for review of the Order on Reconsideration, which reiterates arguments made in 
their previous petitions and incorporates other pleadings by reference.
3. The Commission’s Rules permit an aggrieved party to file an application for review of an 
action taken pursuant to delegated authority but do not authorize the filing of an application for review of 
a Commission-level action.9 Because the Order on Reconsideration was issued by the Commission, we 
dismiss the application for review as unauthorized.10 Moreover, if we were to treat Petitioners’ 
submission as a petition for further reconsideration, it would be subject to dismissal as repetitious, 
because it seeks reconsideration of the denial of a previous petition for reconsideration and does not raise 
any new facts or issues of decisional significance.11
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 5, 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155, 303(r), and Sections 1.41 and 1.115 
of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.41 and 1.115, the application for review filed by 
Environmentel LLC, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless 
LLC, Verde Systems LLC, V2G LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and Warren C. Havens on April 4, 
2011 IS DISMISSED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
7 See MO&O, 25 FCC Rcd at 537 ¶ 10.  The MO&O also addressed other matters, which are not at issue in the AFR.
8 See Order on Reconsideration, 26 FCC Rcd at 2492 ¶ 4.
9 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(a) (“Any person aggrieved by an action taken pursuant to delegated authority may file an 
application requesting review of that action by the Commission.”).
10 We similarly dismiss as unauthorized Petitioners’ request in the alternative that its pleading be accepted under 
Section 1.41.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.41 (providing for the submission of informal requests for action “[e]xcept where 
formal procedures are required”).  If viewed as a Section 1.41 request, Petitioners’ submission should have been 
formally filed as a petition for further reconsideration, which, for the reasons specified herein, would have been 
subject to dismissal.
11 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(i); see also, e.g., Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Maritime 
Communications, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, PR Docket No. 92-257, 25 FCC Rcd 5008, 5010 ¶ 4 
(2010) (affirming the dismissal of Petitioners’ repetitious petitions for reconsideration), recon. pending; Warren C. 
Havens, Order on Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd 511, 513 ¶ 6 (2010) (dismissing Havens’s repetitious petition for 
reconsideration), recon. dismissed, Order on Further Reconsideration, 25 FCC Rcd 2123 (WTB MD 2010), recon. 
pending.  Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either demonstrates a material error or omission 
in the underlying order or raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the petitioner’s last opportunity 
to present such matters.  See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 ¶ 2 (1964) (stating that “it is universally held that 
rehearing will not be granted merely for the purpose of again debating matters on which the tribunal has once 
deliberated and spoken”), aff’d sub. nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965).