Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND 
MOBILE, LLC, DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION
Application to Assign Licenses to Choctaw 
Holdings, LLC
MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND 
MOBILE, LLC
Applications to Modify and to Partially Assign 
License for Station WQGF318 to Southern 
California Regional Rail Authority
Application for New Automated Maritime 
Telecommunications System Stations
Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, 
and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 13-85
FCC File No. 0005552500
FCC File Nos. 0004153701 and 0004144435
FCC File No. 0002303355
EB Docket No. 11-71
File No. EB-09-IH-1751
FCC File Nos. 0004030479, 0004144435, 
0004193028, 0004193328, 0004354053, 
0004309872, 0004310060, 0004314903, 
0004315013, 0004430505, 00044317199, 
0004419431, 0004422320, 0004422329, 
0004507921, 0004153701, 0004526264, 
0004636537, and 0004604962
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  December 14, 2016 Released:  December 15, 2016
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. We have before us several petitions for reconsideration of the Commission’s September 
10, 2014, Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O)
1
in this proceeding, as well as related pleadings.
2
  
In the MO&O, the Commission rejected a request by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, 
Debtor-in-Possession (MCLM)
3
and Choctaw Holdings, LLC (Choctaw)
4
to obtain relief under the 
                                                     
1
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Debtor-in-Possession, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 29 FCC 
Rcd 10871 (2014) (MO&O).
2
The parties and pleadings referenced herein are identified in the Appendix.  
3
We use the term “MCLM” to refer to the company both pre-bankruptcy and as a debtor-in-possession after it filed 
for Chapter 11 protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
4
Choctaw is a limited liability company comprised of four of MCLM’s creditors and created after MCLM filed for 
bankruptcy protection.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
2
Commission’s Second Thursday doctrine that would have permitted the processing of an application to 
assign all of MCLM’s licenses to Choctaw (Choctaw Application),
5
in furtherance of a Bankruptcy Court 
approved Plan of Reorganization (Plan), notwithstanding the pendency of an FCC hearing to determine 
whether MCLM has the basic qualifications to be a Commission licensee.
6
  The Commission, however, 
did grant, in part, an alternative request that MCLM and Choctaw had made in the event the Commission 
were to deny their Second Thursday-based request for assignment of all of the licenses to Choctaw.  The 
alternative request involved various pending applications for assignments of some MCLM spectrum to 
the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and to a number of electric, gas, and oil 
companies.  Based on the public interest in facilitating SCRRA’s deployment of positive train control 
(PTC) by December 31, 2015, pursuant to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008,
7
the Commission 
removed from the hearing the application to assign spectrum from MCLM to SCRRA,
8
but it declined to 
remove other assignment applications from the hearing despite the proposed assignees’ assertion of 
similar public interest considerations.
9
  As discussed below, we find that changed circumstances—the
discharge in bankruptcy of Donald DePriest, an alleged real-party-in-interest in MCLM—arising after the 
adoption of the MO&O warrant reconsideration of the MO&O and support granting Second Thursday
relief.
10
  We therefore grant the MCLM and Choctaw petitions for reconsideration.  This decision also 
terminates the hearing as to MCLM’s basic qualifications,
11
eliminates the need to address the merits of 
                                                     
5
FCC File No. 0005552500 (filed Jan. 23, 2013, amended Jan. 25, 2013) (Choctaw Application).
6
See Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, and Notice 
of Opportunity for Hearing, EB Docket No. 11-71, 26 FCC Rcd 6520 (2011) (HDO).    
7
Pub. L. No. 110-432, § 104, 122 Stat. 4848, 4857 (2008) (RSIA).  On October 29, 2015, Congress extended the 
PTC deadline by three years, until December 31, 2018.  See Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation 
Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-73 § 1302, 129 Stat. 568, 576 (2015).
8
FCC File No. 0004144435 (filed Mar. 11, 2010, amended Oct. 20, 2015, and June 8, 2016) (SCRRA Assignment 
Application).  On September 14, 2016, the SCRRA Assignment Application was granted by the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB), as were associated requests for rule waivers to facilitate the use of the 
spectrum for PTC.  See Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC and Southern California Regional Rail 
Authority File Applications to Modify License and Assign Spectrum for Positive Train Control Use, and Request 
Part 80 Waivers, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 9826 (WTB MD 2016). The Commission also removed from the hearing an 
application filed by MCLM to modify the portion of the license for Station WQGF318 that was to be assigned to 
SCRRA.  See MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 10875, n.34.  The modification application, FCC File No. 0004153701 (filed 
Mar. 8, 2010, amended Aug. 30, 2011), proposed to modify the regulatory status of the spectrum to be assigned to 
SCRRA so that it can be used for PTC operations.  It was also granted on September 14, 2016.  We refer to the 
assignment and modification applications together as the SCRRA Applications.
9
See MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 10883-87, paras. 31-38.  
10
Donald DePriest is also the sole stockholder of Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc., which is the licensee of 
commercial Educational Broadband Service licenses WQCP982 and WQGK277.  We note that Warren Havens and 
associated entities have filed an application for review, petition for reconsideration, and petition to deny challenging 
the character qualifications of Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc.  See Application for Review, Warren C. Havens
et al. (filed June 6, 2008); Petition for Reconsideration, Warren C. Havens et al. (filed June 6, 2008); Petition to 
Deny, or in the Alternative, Section 1.41 Request, Warren C. Havens et al. (filed Mar. 13, 2015).  Our action today 
is without prejudice to our further consideration of the character qualifications of Donald DePriest and Wireless 
Properties of Virginia, Inc., either on our own motion or in connection with the pending pleadings.
11
In addition to designating issues regarding MCLM’s basic character qualifications, the HDO designated an issue 
as to whether any of MCLM’s site-based licenses had terminated automatically under the Commission’s rules due to 
non-construction or permanent discontinuance of operation.  See HDO, 26 FCC Rcd at 6546, para. 61.  The MO&O
denied MCLM’s request for waivers of the Commission’s construction and permanent discontinuance-of-service 
rules, which, if granted, would have resolved this issue and, in conjunction with Second Thursday relief, allowed all 
of MCLM’s licenses, site-based as well as geographic, to be assigned to Choctaw.  See MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 
10887, para. 39.  No party has requested reconsideration of the denial of the waiver requests.  Consequently, 
although our grant of Second Thursday relief extends to the three still-active site-based licenses held by MCLM—
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
3
the other pending petitions for reconsideration of the MO&O,
12
and paves the way for MCLM’s 
remaining licenses to be assigned to qualified third parties, with the proceeds benefitting innocent 
creditors of MCLM.  We also deny an application for review filed by Warren Havens and associated 
entities seeking Commission review of an action by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Mobility 
Division (Division) denying petitions for reconsideration of orders by the Division and its predecessor.
13
    
II. BACKGROUND
2. In the 2005 Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS)
14
auction 
(Auction 61), MCLM was the high bidder for four licenses.  MCLM initially claimed eligibility for a 35% 
bidding credit as a very small business, but failed to count the revenues of (or even to mention) Donald 
DePriest, the husband of MCLM’s nominal sole principal, Sandra DePriest, which were required to be 
included in MCLM’s bidding credit eligibility showing by operation of the Commission’s “spousal 
affiliation rule.”
15
  In an amendment that MCLM was directed to file, it disclosed Mr. DePriest’s revenues 
for the first time, and the additional revenues identified by MCLM at that time rendered MCLM eligible 
for only a 25% bidding credit as a small business.
16
  Over a period of years following the issuance of the 
four licenses to MCLM, MCLM’s responses to pleadings filed against it and to letters of inquiry issued 
by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and the Enforcement Bureau (EB), coupled with 
other information adduced by Commission staff investigation, led the Commission to find that there were 
substantial and material questions of fact as to whether MCLM had been entitled even to a 25% bidding 
credit, and whether it had obtained the bidding credit through misrepresentation, lack of candor, and 
related rule violations. The Commission accordingly designated MCLM for hearing on its basic character 
qualifications on April 19, 2011.
17
  
3. In the years before it was designated for hearing, MCLM filed several applications to 
partition and disaggregate portions of its AMTS licenses to a number of gas, oil, and electric companies 
(CII Companies)
18
and to SCRRA.  Due to the ongoing challenges, fact-gathering, and investigation 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
those for stations KAE889, WHG750, and WRV374—as well as its geographic licenses, that relief does not resolve 
the designated issue regarding the construction and operational status of MCLM’s site-based stations., Accordingly, 
we do not order the hearing to be terminated entirely.  The assignment of the site-based licenses to Choctaw, and 
any subsequent assignments of them from Choctaw to third parties, is without prejudice to a subsequent 
determination that they have canceled automatically due to a failure to construct or a permanent discontinuance of 
operation.  
12
See infra paras. 18-20.
13
See infra para. 21.
14
AMTS is allocated spectrum in the 217/219 MHz band that, although initially intended primarily for maritime 
communications, may now be used for service on land, including private land mobile radio service, under certain 
conditions.  See 47 CFR §§ 80.123, 80.385(a)(2); MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network Services, LLC, Report and 
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8971 (2007), subsequent history omitted.
15
47 CFR § 1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A).
16
MCLM was awarded the license with a 25% bidding credit, but was cautioned that its representations in 
connection with Auction 61 remained subject to further inquiry and possible enforcement action.  See Maritime 
Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 4780 (WTB MD 2007).
17
The HDO found that there were substantial and material questions of fact as to whether MCLM had 
misrepresented or failed to fully disclose the nature of Mr. DePriest’s role in MCLM; whether MCLM had failed to 
fully disclose all of Mr. DePriest’s attributable holdings and revenues under the Commission’s auction rules; and 
whether MCLM had otherwise engaged in misrepresentation, lack of candor or other misconduct in connection with 
its Auction 61-related filings.  See HDO, 26 FCC Rcd at 6521, 6534-45, paras. 2, 35-58.
18
As used here, the term “CII Companies,” with “CII” the acronym for “Critical Infrastructure Industry,” generally 
refers to all of the proposed assignees of MCLM spectrum (other than SCRRA) listed in the HDO, whose 
applications remain pending, plus the Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative (SVEC), a proposed assignee whose 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
4
during this period, the processing of those assignment applications was precluded under the 
Commission’s Jefferson Radio policy, which generally prohibits the assignment of a license while basic 
qualifications issues raised against the licensee remain unresolved, and thus serves as a deterrent to 
licensee misconduct.
19
  
4. The SCRRA Assignment Application stated that SCRRA intended to use the spectrum it 
would acquire from MCLM to implement a PTC system to comply with the federal statutory requirement 
to complete such implementation by December 31, 2015.
20
  In footnote 7 of the HDO (Footnote 7), the 
Commission invited SCRRA and MCLM to submit a showing as to whether the public interest in 
facilitating SCRRA’s acquisition of spectrum for PTC warranted removing the SCRRA Assignment 
Application from the hearing.
21
  SCRRA and MCLM did so.
22
  The CII Companies, while supporting the 
removal from the hearing of the SCRRA Assignment Application pursuant to Footnote 7, argued that 
their intended uses of MCLM-assigned spectrum also would bring significant public safety benefits and 
that they were in other respects similarly situated to SCRRA (in, for example, their need for the spectrum, 
their difficulty in acquiring it elsewhere, and their good faith dealings with MCLM) such that they should 
be given the same opportunity to show why their applications should be removed from the hearing.
23
  
5. In August 2011, MCLM filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court, 
Northern District of Mississippi (Bankruptcy Court).
24
  MCLM then informed the parties to the hearing 
and the presiding Administrative Law Judge that it intended to invoke the Second Thursday doctrine to 
terminate the hearing.
25
  The Second Thursday doctrine creates an exception to the Jefferson Radio policy
that, notwithstanding that issues regarding the licensee’s basic qualifications are unresolved, permits grant 
of a license assignment application if the licensee is in bankruptcy, the assignment will benefit innocent 
creditors of the licensee, and the individuals charged with misconduct will have no part in the proposed 
operations and will either derive no benefit from favorable action on the application or only derive a 
minor benefit which benefit is outweighed by equitable considerations in favor of innocent creditors.
26
  
The Second Thursday doctrine is rooted in the Commission’s duty to accommodate federal bankruptcy 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
application was filed after adoption of the HDO.  Depending on context, however, it may also refer in places to only 
a subset of those applicants.
19
See, e.g., Jefferson Radio Corp. v. FCC, 340 F.2d 781, 783 (D.C. Cir. 1964); Stereo Broadcasters, Inc. v. FCC, 
652 F.2d 1026, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 
20
See RSIA, note 7, supra.
21
See MO&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 6523, n.7 (“Given the potential safety of life considerations involved in the positive 
train control area…, we will, upon an appropriate showing by the parties, consider whether, and if so, under what 
terms and conditions, the public interest would be served by allowing the [SCRRA Assignment Application] to be 
removed from the ambit of this Hearing Designation Order”). 
22
See SCRRA Showing Pursuant to Footnote 7 (filed May 9, 2011); MCLM Showing Pursuant to Footnote 7 and 
Statement in Support (filed May 12, 2011).  
23
See MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 10875-76, 10885, paras. 13, 34 & n.36 and pleadings cited therein.  
24
In re Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, No. 11-13463-DWH (Bankr. N.D. Miss.).  The Commission 
was among the creditors filing a proof of claim, seeking payment in the amount of $6,315,635.65 to recoup the 25% 
bidding credit awarded to MCLM in Auction 61 ($1,955,000) plus interest ($642,635.65), and the maximum 
forfeiture to which MCLM is potentially liable for violations of Commission rules ($3,718,000).  
25
See Maritime’s Motion to Defer All Procedural Dates (filed Aug. 1, 2011 in EB Docket No. 11-71).
26
See, e.g., Second Thursday Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC 2d 515, 516, para. 5, recon. granted 
in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC 2d 112 (1970).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
5
law when doing so will not unduly interfere with the Commission’s public interest responsibilities under 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
27
6. On January 11, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed MCLM’s proposed Plan of 
Reorganization (Plan), which called for MCLM to assign all of its licenses to Choctaw and for Choctaw 
to prosecute the pending assignment applications by stepping into the shoes of MCLM as the assignor to 
the CII Companies and SCRRA, and then to assign the remainder of the MCLM licenses to parties as yet 
unidentified, with the proceeds to be used to repay all of MCLM’s creditors.
28
  On January 23, 2013, 
MCLM and Choctaw filed the Choctaw Application as a first step in effectuating the Plan.  They 
accompanied the application with a request for Second Thursday relief, claiming, inter alia, that the 
individuals suspected of wrongdoing, Donald and Sandra DePriest, would have no role with Choctaw and 
would receive no cognizable benefit from the assignment of MCLM’s licenses to Choctaw.
29
   
7. In the MO&O, the Commission denied the request for Second Thursday relief because it 
found that the MCLM-Choctaw proposal did not satisfy one of the criteria for such relief.  Specifically, 
the Commission determined that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that individuals suspected of 
misconduct would derive no benefit from favorable action on the Choctaw Application or only a minor 
benefit which is outweighed by the equities favoring innocent creditors of MCLM.
30
  The Commission 
noted that “the proceeds from the assignment of MCLM’s spectrum licenses to third parties would be 
more than enough to repay MCLM’s creditors in full,” and that, as a consequence, granting Second 
Thursday relief could effectively extinguish much if not all of Mr. DePriest’s liability under his 
obligations arising from his personal guarantees of loans to MCLM.
31
  It reasoned that allowing a 
suspected wrongdoer to evade a potential liability conservatively estimated to be $8 million
32
was 
inconsistent with Second Thursday precedent.
33
  Because this deficiency in MCLM’s and Choctaw’s 
proposal was sufficient by itself to warrant rejection of Second Thursday relief, the Commission did not 
address other arguments raised by commenters as to why such relief should not be granted,
34
although, as 
discussed below, we address those arguments here.
8. Choctaw, MCLM, and other commenters assert that it was error to deny Second Thursday
relief solely on the basis of the potential elimination of Donald DePriest’s secondary liability to some of 
MCLM’s creditors,
35
and further argue that, in any event, developments occurring after the release of the 
                                                     
27
See, e.g., LaRose v. FCC, 494 F. 2d 1145, 1146-48 & n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (LaRose).
28
See Order Confirming Plan of Reorganization, Case No. 11-13463-DWH (Bankr. N.D. Miss. Jan. 11, 2013) 
(Confirmation Order), attached as Exhibit B to the Choctaw Application.  The Bankruptcy Court has also granted 
MCLM’s motion to allow the Commission’s claim in the full amount of $6,315,635.65.  See Order Granting Motion 
for Allowance of Claim No. 81-1 Filed by the Federal Communications Commission, Case No. 11-13463-DWH 
(Bankr. N.D. Miss. Aug. 25, 2016).
29
See Choctaw Application at Description of Transaction, Public Interest Statement and Second Thursday Showing.  
WTB issued a Public Notice inviting additional pleadings and comments regarding the Choctaw Application, as well 
as the Second Thursday request and related matters.  See Comment Sought on Application to Assign Licenses under 
Second Thursday Doctrine, Request for Waiver and Extension of Construction Deadlines and Request to Terminate 
Hearing, Public Notice, WT Docket No. 13-85, 28 FCC Rcd 3358 (WTB 2013).
30
See MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 10878, para. 20.
31
Id. at 10880, para. 23.  
32
The Commission noted that some commenters had asserted that Mr. DePriest’s liability on personal loan 
guarantees, although estimated to be about $8 million by Mrs. DePriest in hearing testimony, was actually $11 
million or more.  Id. at 10880, n.64.  
33
Id. at 10879-80, paras. 22-23.
34
Id. at 10878, n.56.  
35
See, e.g., Choctaw Petition at 5, 9-12; MCLM Petition at 3-5. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
6
MO&O—the involuntary personal bankruptcy of Donald DePriest and the expected discharge of his 
secondary liability to the MCLM creditors—have negated the Commission’s rationale for denying such 
relief.
36
  In November 2015, MCLM and Choctaw separately filed supplements to their petitions for 
reconsideration
37
to report that, on October 27, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court presiding over Mr. DePriest’s 
personal bankruptcy entered an order
38
that discharged Mr. DePriest of his liability on the personal 
guarantees he made to MCLM’s lenders.  They argue that Mr. DePriest’s personal discharge in 
bankruptcy establishes that there is no longer any reason to deny Second Thursday relief based on a 
concern that such relief would benefit the DePriests.
39
III. DISCUSSION
9. We conclude that the discharge in bankruptcy of Donald DePriest’s secondary liability to 
MCLM’s creditors is a changed circumstance occurring after the adoption of the MO&O that warrants 
reconsideration of the denial of Second Thursday relief to MCLM and Choctaw.  That discharge 
eliminates the basis for the Commission’s denial of Second Thursday relief—that such relief would allow 
Donald DePriest to escape his secondary liability—and we discern no other reason in the record before us 
to deny such relief.
40
  
10. Mr. DePriest’s debts, including his obligations on his personal guarantees of loans to 
MCLM, were extinguished by the order of the court presiding over his personal bankruptcy. MCLM and 
Choctaw assert that, as a consequence, there is no longer any possibility that Mr. DePriest will benefit 
directly or indirectly from a grant of Second Thursday relief because the loan guarantees he made to 
MCLM’s creditors are no longer enforceable.
41
  We agree that the Commission’s conclusion in the 
                                                     
36
See, e.g., Choctaw Petition at 2, 7-8; MCLM Petition at 6-9.
37
We have before us a Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Reconsideration filed by MCLM on November 
6, 2015, and a Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Reconsideration filed by Choctaw on November 9, 
2015.  The supplemental filings provide important new information that could not have been provided before the 
deadline for filing petitions for reconsideration of the MO&O, and bear on a critical question.  We therefore find 
good cause to accept the supplemental filings in the interest of having as complete a record as possible upon which 
to base our decision here, and accordingly grant both motions.  See 47 CFR § 1.106(f).
38
See In re Donald R. DePriest, Discharge of Debtor, Case No. 14-13522-JDW (Bankr. N.D. Miss. Oct. 27, 2015), 
attached as Exh. 1 to Choctaw Supplemental Petition and Attach. No. 1 to MCLM Supplemental Petition.
39
See, e.g., MCLM Supplemental Petition at 2; Choctaw Supplemental Petition at 2-3.  
40
Skytel challenges MCLM’s and Choctaw’s standing to seek reconsideration of the MO&O.  See Skytel Opposition 
at 10-15.  We find this argument to be meritless.  The MO&O specifically addressed the merits of filings by MCLM 
and Choctaw, and its denial of their requests had an immediate, direct, and concrete adverse effect on the applicants 
that would be redressed by granting their petitions for reconsideration.  Skytel’s arguments nominally directed to 
MCLM’s and Choctaw’s standing actually address the substantive merits of their arguments rather than their right to 
be heard. Its citation to SunCom Mobile & Data, Inc. v. FCC, 87 F.3d 1386, 1388 (D.C. Cir. 1996), for the 
proposition that “an entity whose asserted interests are based on FCC discretion cannot meet that burden [of 
establishing standing],” see Skytel Opposition at 10, is inapposite, as the reason for denying standing in that case 
was that the petitioner was not the licensee of, and had no present connection to, the licenses in question, a 
circumstance that readily distinguishes that case from the instant one.  Skytel also separately filed an “Initial Reply 
to Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration” on October 31, 2014, and a “Further Reply to Opposition to Petitions 
for Reconsideration,” on November 5, 2014.  These pleadings are subject to dismissal as unauthorized because the 
Rules authorize the filing only of replies, not initial replies or further replies.  See 47 CFR § 1.106(h).  We have 
nonetheless exercised our discretion to review the pleadings and we find them to be without merit.
41
See Choctaw Petition at 7-9, Reply at 2-3; MCLM Petition at 6-8, Reply at 2-3.  No party offers any rebuttal to 
this argument.  EB, which is serving as trial staff in the hearing proceeding against MCLM, see para. 2, supra, 
initially argued that the involuntary bankruptcy of Donald DePriest does not warrant reconsideration of the MO&O
because “[i]t is purely speculative … whether the Bankruptcy Court will in fact discharge Mr. DePriest’s obligation 
to the guarantees at issue.…”  See EB Opposition at 3.  EB now agrees with the applicants, however, that with the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
7
MO&O, that the possibility that Mr. DePriest would realize a benefit from a grant of Second Thursday
relief by escaping liability on his guarantees to MCLM lenders precludes such relief, is no longer valid 
due to the subsequent discharge of those obligations.
42
  
11. This does not, however, put an end to our Second Thursday analysis.  Parties opposing 
the Second Thursday request also argued that the Plan represents an “inside deal” between the DePriests 
and the Choctaw principals; that a suspected wrongdoer would have an impermissible continuing role 
with respect to the licenses; that Second Thursday relief is not appropriate where, as has been alleged 
here, the bankruptcy filing is for the primary purpose of invoking Second Thursday and thereby 
circumventing the Jefferson Radio policy; and that Second Thursday relief should not be available where, 
as here, no bankruptcy trustee or receiver has been appointed.
43
  Now that MCLM’s and Choctaw’s 
Second Thursday request is no longer subject to rejection for the reason relied upon in the MO&O, we 
address these additional arguments.
44
12. We conclude that these additional arguments do not support a denial of Second Thursday
relief.  The common concerns underlying all of the arguments are, in essence, that the effectuation of the 
applicants’ Second Thursday proposal would result in an undue benefit to the DePriests and/or Choctaw 
at the expense of MCLM’s other creditors, would countenance and encourage gamesmanship by parties 
seeking to escape the limitations imposed by Jefferson Radio, and thus cause these parties to be unfit to 
receive the benefits of Second Thursday relief as innocent creditors.  Our review of the record in this 
proceeding persuades us that these concerns are unfounded. 
13. The record supports the applicants’ assertions that the Plan was the result of good faith, 
arm’s length negotiations intended to fairly compensate all of MCLM’s creditors, rather than a collusive 
inside deal between the DePriests and Choctaw.
45
  The federal bankruptcy process is intended to generally 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
discharge of his debts in the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding, “Mr. DePriest could not receive any benefit from 
being relieved of the obligation to pay these debts if the Commission granted MCLM and Choctaw’s request for 
Second Thursday relief,” and adds that, in light of this changed circumstance, “the Bureau suggests that 
reconsideration of the [MO&O] is now appropriate.”  See EB Response at 3.
42
See LaRose, 494 F.2d at 1149 (reversing denial of Second Thursday relief where suspected wrongdoers were 
judgment-proof); Davis Broadcasting Company, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 67 FCC 2d 872, 875, para. 
9 (1977) (concluding that the possible reduction of a suspected wrongdoer’s secondary liability as a guarantor of 
certain promissory notes was of “minimal importance,” and did not preclude Second Thursday relief, because the 
wrongdoer “has been adjudged a bankrupt leaving his creditors with little or no recourse against him on any of his 
outstanding obligations”); Oyate, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6759, 6762, para. 23 (1988) 
(finding that potential benefit to accused wrongdoer did not preclude Second Thursday relief because supplemental 
filings indicated that wrongdoer’s liabilities greatly exceeded his assets); Pyle Communications of Beaumont, Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 8625, 8626, para. 7 (1989) (although Second Thursday relief might 
indirectly benefit suspected wrongdoers by reducing their liability to third parties, “this benefit does not preclude the 
transaction because the [wrongdoers’] debts will still exceed their assets and they will continue to be subject to the 
bankruptcy court”).
43
See MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 10878, n.56.
44
On February 12, 2016, at Commission staff request, Choctaw filed a [Second] Supplement to Petition for 
Reconsideration (Second Supplement), which addresses these arguments.  The request was made in the interest of 
having as complete a record as possible to inform our decisions in this matter, and we accordingly grant Choctaw’s 
accompanying Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Reconsideration.  
45
See Kola, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 14297, 14308 para. 20 (1996) (claim by opponent 
of Second Thursday relief that beneficiary of license assignment was not a truly innocent creditor rejected because 
opponent “presented no evidence to support his speculation as to [the beneficiary’s] collusion or other alleged lack 
of innocence”).  The Second Supplement includes a Declaration from Patrick Trammell, the Chairman and Chief 
Executive Officer of Choctaw, attesting that “Donald and Sandra DePriest played no role in developing or 
negotiating the Reorganization Plan submitted to and approved by the MCLM Bankruptcy Court….”  Declaration of 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
8
preclude any such collusion, and opposing parties have presented no factual or legal basis to collaterally 
attack the Bankruptcy Court’s determination in this case that the Plan meets the good faith requirement of 
the Bankruptcy Code.
46
  We place great weight on the Court’s determination that “[t]he solicitation for 
acceptances of the Plan was conducted in good faith and in a thorough manner, pursuant to this Court’s 
prior order, was made of all creditors, gave all such creditors a fair and adequate opportunity to accept the 
Plan and was in compliance with Section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code.”
47
14. We also find nothing in the record that would cause us to question Choctaw’s 
representation that neither Donald nor Sandra DePriest played a role in negotiating the Plan, will have any 
role with respect to the licenses assigned to Choctaw, or benefit from the assignment.
48
  MCLM and 
Choctaw affirmatively represented in the Choctaw Application that the DePriests would have no such 
role, and, in response to the petitions to deny the application, included a Supplemental Declaration from 
Patrick Trammell with their opposition, attesting, inter alia, that the DePriests “will receive no 
compensation or other direct benefit as a result of the proposed transaction and will not receive proceeds 
from any future sales and assignments of the Licenses by Choctaw to third parties; … have not had, nor 
will they have, any role with Choctaw…; [and] will play no future role with respect to the licenses….”
49
  
Furthermore, although Donald and Sandra DePriest each filed claims as creditors of MCLM, the Plan 
precludes any payment to them, and the Confirmation Order expressly decrees that “Don DePriest, Sandra 
DePriest, and any entities under their ownership and/or control shall not participate in, nor shall they 
receive any recovery or distributions made by the Administrative Agent/Liquidating Agent under or in 
connection with the Plan.”
50
15. The record also establishes that the creditors of MCLM who would benefit from the 
proceeds obtained from assignment of the licenses are innocent creditors.  None of the creditors has been 
accused of wrongdoing, either in the HDO or otherwise.  Choctaw asserts, without contradiction in the 
record, that “there was extensive testimony before the Bankruptcy Court on the issue of innocent 
creditors,”
51
and we give great weight to the Bankruptcy Court’s findings that the Plan represents a good 
faith effort to benefit innocent creditors of MCLM without unfair discrimination.
52
  And although some of 
MCLM’s spectrum holdings will be assigned to third parties in the immediate future in order to repay the 
creditors, Choctaw also represents that it intends to operate stations authorized under the geographic 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Patrick Trammell, dated Feb. 11, 2016, Attachment C to Second Supplement.  We can discern nothing in the record 
that would contradict that representation, made under penalty of perjury.
46
See 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3) (providing that a bankruptcy court shall not confirm a plan unless the plan “has been 
proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law”).  Choctaw also notes that it and another party 
submitted competing proposals to the Bankruptcy Court, and the entire creditor group reviewed both plans and 
selected the Choctaw plan based on positive votes from “an overwhelming majority of the creditors from each and 
every class.”  See Second Supplement at 6 (emphasis in original).
47
See Confirmation Order at 2.
48
See Second Supplement at 5, 8-9 & Attach. C (Trammell Declaration).    
49
See Reply Comments and Opposition to Petitions to Deny, filed May 30, 2013, by Choctaw Telecommunications, 
LLC and Choctaw Holdings, LLC, (Choctaw Opposition) at Exh. B (Supplemental Declaration).  The Supplemental 
Declaration further represents that “[n]either Sandra and Donald DePriest nor any entity with which they are 
affiliated will have any involvement with the Licenses through any future sales and assignments of the Licenses by 
Choctaw to third parties….”  Id. 
50
See Confirmation Order at 11.
51
See Choctaw Opposition at 15.
52
See, e.g., Confirmation Order at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
9
MCLM licenses, and that it has already obtained bids from multiple engineering and construction firms 
toward that end.
53
16. The record also indicates that MCLM filed for bankruptcy because it lacked the resources 
to conduct day-to-day operations and was unable to repay creditors, rather than for the primary purpose of 
evading the Jefferson Radio policy.
54
  The Bankruptcy Court, which is better positioned than the 
Commission to assess the legitimacy of MCLM’s bankruptcy filing, concluded that the Plan is based on
“the valid business judgment of the Debtor,”
55
and there is nothing in the record that would cause us to 
question that determination.
56
  Finally, we reject assertions that the absence of a trustee or receiver should 
render a bankrupt licensee ineligible for Second Thursday relief.  Under the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor-
in-possession, like a trustee or receiver, owes a fiduciary duty to creditors.
57
  As Choctaw notes, 
moreover, in this case there is also a Court-appointed independent Liquidating Agent to oversee the claim 
process and protect all of MCLM’s creditors, including unsecured creditors.
58
17. Based on the current record, we find, in sum, that the applicants’ proposal warrants 
Second Thursday relief.
59
MCLM and Choctaw have fulfilled their obligation to establish that the 
proposed transaction satisfies all of the Second Thursday criteria:  that MCLM is in bankruptcy; that the 
creditors of MCLM are innocent of any misconduct; that the proposed assignment pursuant to the 
Bankruptcy Court-approved Plan will benefit those innocent creditors of MCLM, including the unsecured 
creditors; that the individuals charged with misconduct, the DePriests, will have no part in the operations 
of the stations authorized under the assigned licenses; and that the DePriests will derive no benefit from 
                                                     
53
See Second Supplement at 4-5.
54
Id. at 9.    
55
See Confirmation Order at 4.
56
We also agree that any allegation that MCLM’s claimed need for bankruptcy protection was entirely spurious 
must be evaluated in light of Donald DePriest’s subsequent involuntary bankruptcy.  See Second Supplement at 9-
10.  See also WorldCom, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 26484, 26499, para. 21 (2003) 
(holding that “operating under bankruptcy law generally imposes substantial short-term and long-term burdens on 
the bankrupt company that provide more than an adequate disincentive to the use of bankruptcy to evade 
accountability to the Commission”).
57
See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a) (specifying debtor-in-possession’s duties); In re Insilco Technologies, Inc., 480 
F.3d 212, 215 n.3 (3
rd
Cir. 2007) (a debtor-in-possession “is bound by all of the fiduciary duties of a bankruptcy 
trustee”); In re Jehan-Das, Inc., 91 B.R. 542, 546 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1988) (a debtor-in-possession “is not free to 
deal with [estate] property as [s]he chooses, but holds it in trust for the benefit of creditors, standing in the shoes of a 
trustee ‘in every way’”) (citations omitted).
58
See, e.g., Second Supplement at 4, 11.  A number of MCLM’s creditors, including unsecured creditors, have filed 
comments in the docket supporting the MCLM-Choctaw proposal and request for Second Thursday relief.  See
Letter from Derek F. Meek, Burr Forman LLP, on behalf of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, to the 
FCC (Nov. 6, 2014); Comment by James L[.] Teel (Nov. 6, 2014); Letter from David S. Shelton to FCC (Nov. 11, 
2014); Letter from Justin Y. Shelton to FCC (Dec. 19, 2014).
59
We emphasize that we are not here granting any of the subject assignment applications but only removing the 
Jefferson Radio policy as an impediment to their processing.  WTB shall process the applications in accordance with 
the Commission’s regulations and policies.  We note that the Choctaw Application proposes to assign to Choctaw all 
of the spectrum currently held by MCLM, including the spectrum that MCLM also proposes to assign to the CII 
Companies.  We anticipate that WTB, upon making the requisite public interest finding under Section 310(d) of the 
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 310(d), will grant the Choctaw Application prior to processing any of the applications assigning 
spectrum to the CII Companies, and then, after Choctaw files and WTB processes the notification of consummation 
of the assignment to Choctaw, that the applications assigning spectrum to the CII Companies will be amended to 
substitute Choctaw for MCLM as the assignor.  That procedure would be consistent with our decision here and our 
expectation regarding the processing of all of the subject applications, but we note that WTB retains discretion to 
address such timing and logistical issues under its existing delegated authority.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
10
favorable action on the Choctaw Application that might outweigh the equitable considerations favoring 
MCLM’s creditors.  In granting Second Thursday relief here, we act in accordance with the 
Commission’s duty to accommodate bankruptcy law and the decisions of bankruptcy courts, while 
discharging the Commission’s own public interest responsibilities, including to protect the integrity of its 
auction procedures.
60
  
18. With this grant of Second Thursday relief and the consequent termination of the hearing 
on MCLM’s license qualifications, the Jefferson Radio policy is no longer an obstacle to the processing 
of any of the pending assignment applications. Our grant of reconsideration on the Second Thursday
issue does not require that we revisit the Commission’s decision to remove the SCRRA Applications (a 
contingency provided for in Footnote 7 of the HDO),
61
but even if we were to grant reconsideration on 
that point, the SCRRA Applications, like the other applications covered by this decision, would 
nonetheless be removed from the hearing by virtue of our grant of Second Thursday relief.  Therefore, we 
find that it is unnecessary to further address arguments regarding the propriety of the Commission’s 
decision in the MO&O to remove the SCRRA Applications, and the SCRRA Applications alone, from the 
hearing.  In the HDO, as noted supra, the Commission invited SCRRA and MCLM to submit a showing 
as to whether the public interest in facilitating SCRRA’s acquisition of spectrum for PTC warranted 
removing the SCRRA Applications from the hearing. The CII Companies argued that their intended uses 
of MCLM-assigned spectrum also would bring significant public safety benefits and that they should be 
given the same opportunity to show why their applications should be removed from the hearing.
62
  In the 
MO&O, the Commission granted relief to the extent of removing the SCRRA Applications from the 
hearing, but declined to extend similar relief to the CII Companies.
63
  
19. The CII Companies seek reconsideration of the decision to exclude them.
64
  The relief the 
CII Companies seek is, in essence, to be treated the same as SCRRA, i.e., to allow their applications to be 
                                                     
60
See LaRose, 494 F. 2d at 1147 n.2.  Although the assignment to Choctaw of the three remaining site-based 
licenses is subject to a possible subsequent determination that they have cancelled automatically under the 
Commission’s construction or permanent discontinuance-of-service rules, maintaining this contingency is not in 
derogation of our duty to accommodate the Bankruptcy Court.  The Confirmation Order states that “the Court is not 
attempting through its orders or otherwise to superimpose this Court’s rulings or judgments on the FCC” and 
recognizes that “the Court’s rulings and orders herein are contingent on what the FCC ultimately decides regarding 
the subject FCC licenses and the Debtor’s rights to hold and/or transfer same….”  See Confirmation Order at 11-12.
61
See HDO, 26 FCC Rcd at 6523, n.7.  As earlier noted, see paragraph 1 & note 8, supra, the SCRRA Applications
were granted on September 14, 2016.  Nothing in the instant decision is intended to disturb those grants.
62
See MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 10875-76, 10885, paras. 13, 34 & n.36, and pleadings cited therein.  The CII 
Companies also petitioned for reconsideration of the HDO because of their exclusion.  In the MO&O, the 
Commission dismissed those petitions as impermissibly seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order.  See 
MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 10885-86, para. 35, citing 47 CFR § 1.106(a)(1).  
63
See MO&O, 29 FCC Rcd at 10878-87, paras. 20-38.  
64
See, e.g., DEMCO Petition at 4-6, 11-20; Enbridge Petition at 11-21; SVEC Petition at 2-12.  The CII Companies 
also argue that the Commission erred in dismissing their petitions for reconsideration of the HDO.  See DEMCO 
Petition at 10; Enbridge Petition at 10-11 (both arguing that the Commission misconstrued Section 1.106(a)(1) by 
failing to recognize that forcing a party to participate in a hearing, as here, is just as much “an adverse ruling” as is 
excluding a party from a hearing, and thus equally availing of the rule’s “adverse ruling” exception to the 
prohibition of petitions for reconsideration of an interlocutory ruling).  The record also includes letters from several 
non-parties supporting the CII Companies’ petitions.  See Letter from American Petroleum Institute, National Rural 
Electric Cooperative Association, National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, Energy, Telecommunications 
and Electrical Association, Electric Institute, and Utilities Telecom Council to the Hon. Tom Wheeler, Chairman, 
FCC (Oct. 31, 2014), Letter from Mark Crosby, President/CEO, Enterprise Wireless Alliance, to the Hon. Tom 
Wheeler, Chairman, FCC (Nov. 15, 2014), Letter from James Bradford Ramsey, General Counsel, National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, to the Hon. Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC (Dec. 2, 2014), Letter 
from Samuel R. Brumberg, Association Counsel, Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
11
processed without protracted delay, notwithstanding the issues regarding MCLM’s basic character 
qualifications.  Our grant of Second Thursday relief accomplishes this goal, so further consideration of 
how the policies of Jefferson Radio might otherwise apply to the CII Companies’ applications would 
serve no purpose and would require an unnecessary expenditure of agency resources.
65
We accordingly 
deny their petitions for reconsideration.
66
  
20. Skytel seeks reconsideration of the removal of the SCRRA Applications.
67
  Here, too, 
however, the grant of Second Thursday relief obviates the need to expend administrative resources to 
address Skytel’s arguments.  The Skytel petitions for reconsideration challenge the substantive and 
procedural propriety of removing the SCRRA Applications from the hearing pursuant to Footnote 7.
68
  
But the grant here of Second Thursday relief provides an exception to the Jefferson Radio impediment to 
processing the SCRRA Applications.  Thus, no purpose would be served by addressing Skytel’s 
arguments; even if those arguments were deemed to have merit, the ultimate outcome would not change.
69
  
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Cooperatives, to the Hon. Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC (Mar. 12, 2015), Letter from David Porter, Chairman, 
Railroad Commission of Texas, to the Hon. Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC (Aug. 17, 2015).    
65
The record in this case demonstrates some of the challenges that the Commission faces in applying Jefferson 
Radio.  In particular, while the Jefferson Radio policy is grounded in the public interest in deterring misconduct by 
Commission licensees and protecting the integrity of the licensing process, the delay and uncertainty that result from 
a designation for hearing on character issues may make valuable spectrum unavailable for use and may adversely 
affect other important public interest goals of the Communications Act, as well as other federal statutes and policies.  
This case reflects multiple efforts to find a way to accommodate these competing interests, and ultimately changes 
in the underlying facts have allowed us to apply the well-established Second Thursday exception to all the licenses 
that remained designated for hearing.  In future cases where established exceptions are unavailable, we may consider
whether alternative mechanisms might accommodate the Jefferson Radio policy goals more efficiently, while also 
promoting other federal policies. As we discuss elsewhere in this decision, the D.C. Circuit recognized in LaRose
that “[a]dministrative agencies have been required to consider other federal policies, not unique to their particular 
area of administrative expertise, when fulfilling their mandate to assure that their regulatees operate in the public 
interest.”  See infra para. 17, citing LaRose, 494 F.2d at 1147 n.2.  See also Tender Offers and Proxy Contests, 
Policy Statement, 59 R. R. 2d 1536, 1537, para. 7 (1986), appeal dismissed, Office of Communication of the United 
Church of Christ v. F.C.C., 826 F.2d 101 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (noting the Commission’s objective to “implement 
procedures which fully accommodate, wherever feasible, other state and federal laws and policies concerning the 
governance of corporations” – specifically, time constraints associated with tender offers and proxy statements); 
HDO, 26 FCC Rcd 6520, 6523, para. 7, n.7 (performing similar balance of “public interest” under Communications 
Act with “potential safety of life considerations involved in the positive train control area” required by Congress to 
be implemented by passenger trains).  
66
  See AT&T Corporation v. Beehive Telephone Company, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 
11641, 11642, n.9 (2002). Our grant of Second Thursday relief likewise removes any need to consider the argument 
that the Commission erred in dismissing the CII Companies’ petitions for reconsideration of the HDO.
67
See, e.g., Skytel-2 Petition at 16-17.  
68
See Skytel-2 Petition at 16-21; Skytel Opposition at 7.  They also largely discuss issues that are outside the scope 
of the MO&O.  For example, Skytel makes arguments regarding the basic qualifications of MCLM and Mr. DePriest 
that are not germane to the question of whether the Commission should grant parties’ requests for relief under 
Footnote 7 or Second Thursday, inasmuch as the propriety of such relief does not rest on a determination of the 
licensee’s qualifications.  See, e.g., Skytel-2 Petition at 5-13 (reiterating arguments made in other proceedings that 
Donald DePriest is a real-party-in-interest to the MCLM Auction 61 application, and that MCLM failed to comply 
with the spousal affiliation rule); see also Skytel Opposition at 2-5 (arguing, inter alia, that MCLM is a “sham 
entity”).  
69
Even if any of these issues had any relevance here, moreover, Skytel’s petitions merely reiterate arguments 
already rejected by the Commission.  We will not grant reconsideration “to debate matters upon which the 
Commission has already deliberated and spoken.” See WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 
686 (1964), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 967.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
12
That is, even if we were to determine on reconsideration that the SCRRA Applications should not have 
been removed from the hearing pursuant to Footnote 7, the Second Thursday relief we are granting as an 
exception to the Jefferson Radio policy would have provided an independent basis for processing the 
SCRRA Applications.  The Skytel petitions are accordingly denied.
70
21. We also deny an application for review filed by Warren Havens and associated entities
71
seeking Commission review of an action by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau’s Mobility 
Division (Division) denying petitions for reconsideration of orders by the Division and its predecessor 
pertaining to the initial grant of the AMTS licenses to MCLM.
72
  Insofar as the AFR argues that the 
Division should have disqualified MCLM or designated it for hearing because of misconduct, it is 
foreclosed by our decision here to grant Second Thursday relief to MCLM and Choctaw.  This decision 
squarely rejects the proposition that it would accord with precedent and serve the public interest to 
continue a hearing on MCLM’s qualifications and consider revocation of its licenses.  In addition, the 
arguments in the AFR that are not related to MCLM’s qualifications—arguments that Commission staff is 
biased against Warren Havens and violated his due process rights, and that the Division erred in not 
treating an amendment to MCLM’s application (revising its attributable revenues upward) as a major 
amendment—are without merit.
73
  Havens has repeatedly claimed that Commission staff is biased against 
him, and the Commission has repeatedly rejected those claims as unsubstantiated.
74
  We find no merit in 
Havens’s cursory claim that the Commission exercises its powers in an unconstitutionally broad manner.
75
Finally, the Division correctly explained that the MCLM amendment was a minor amendment under the 
Commission’s Rules.
76
  
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
22. As a result of changed circumstances based on events occurring after adoption of the 
MO&O, we conclude that it is now appropriate to terminate the pending hearing into MCLM’s basic 
qualifications pursuant to the Second Thursday exception to the Jefferson Radio policy, and to permit the 
Choctaw Application to be processed.
77
  The MCLM-Choctaw proposal warrants Second Thursday relief, 
and will permit a resolution of this matter that accommodates bankruptcy law, protects innocent creditors 
of MCLM, vindicates the integrity of the auction process, preserves an important deterrent to licensee 
misconduct, largely terminates a years-long hearing proceeding that has consumed significant 
administrative and applicant resources, and removes a cloud on valuable spectrum so it can be quickly put 
to use in the public interest.
                                                     
70
Our denial of the Skytel petitions for reconsideration on these grounds obviates the need to consider whether they 
are procedurally defective.  See, e.g., SCCRA Motion to Dismiss at 1-8; SCRRA Reply at 2-3, citing 47 U.S.C. 
§ 405.  We therefore dismiss the SCRRA Motion as moot.
71
See Application for Review, Warren C. Havens et al. (filed Apr. 9, 2007) (AFR).
72
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 4780 (WTB MD 2007) 
(Order).
73
See AFR at 4, 7-8, 16-18.
74
See, e.g., Mobex Network Services, LLC, Memorandum Opinion & Order, 25 FCC Rcd 3390, 3395-96, para. 11
(2010).
75
See Intelligent Transportation and Monitoring Wireless LLC and AMTS Consortium, LLC, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 7720, 7729-30, para. 25 (2012) (declining to address the argument).
76
See Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 4785-86, para. 10.
77
As we have noted supra, we terminate the hearing only as to the basic qualifications issues, and not as to Issue (g), 
pertaining to whether any of MCLM’s site-based licenses have cancelled automatically due to a failure to construct 
or a permanent discontinuance of operation.  Our decision here is without prejudice to the resolution of Issue (g).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
13
23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405(a) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405(a), and section 1.106 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.106, that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Maritime 
Communications/Land Mobile, LLC on October 14, 2014, and by Choctaw Telecommunications, LLC 
and Choctaw Holdings, LLC on October 14, 2014, ARE GRANTED, and application FCC File No. 
0005552500 SHALL BE PROCESSED in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration and the Commission’s rules. 
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405(a) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405(a), and section 1.106 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.106, that the Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, on November 6, 2015, the 
Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Reconsideration filed by Choctaw Telecommunications, 
LLC and Choctaw Holdings, LLC, on November 9, 2015, and the Motion for Leave to Supplement 
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Choctaw Telecommunications, LLC, and Choctaw Holdings, LLC 
on February 12, 2016 ARE GRANTED, and Maritime’s Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration, filed 
by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC on November 6, 2015,the Supplement to Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by Choctaw Telecommunications, LLC and Choctaw Holdings, LLC, on November 
9, 2015, and the Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration filed by Choctaw Telecommunications, LLC 
and Choctaw Holdings, LLC, on February 12, 2016, ARE ACCEPTED into the record of this docket.
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405(a) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),405(a), and section 1.106 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, filed on October 14, 2014, by DIXIE Electric Membership Corporation, the Petition for 
Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed on October 14, 2014 by Enbridge Energy 
Company, Inc., and the Motion of Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative for Reconsideration, or in the 
Alternative, Petition for Leave to Intervene, filed on October 8, 2014, by Shenandoah Valley Electric 
Cooperative ARE DENIED.
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405(a) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405(a), and section 1.106 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration of Skytel-1 Entities filed on 
October 15, 2014, and the Petition for Reconsideration of Skytel-2 Entities filed on October 14, 2014, 
ARE DENIED.
27. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405(a) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405(a), and section 1.106 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.106, that the Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Petitions for 
Reconsideration filed on October 29, 2014, by Southern California Regional Rail Authority IS 
DISMISSED as moot.
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 5(c)(5) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 155(c)(5), and section 1.115 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 1.115, that the Application for Review filed by AMTS Consortium LLC, 
Telesaurus VPC LLC, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC, Skybridge Spectrum 
Foundation, and Warren Havens on April 9, 2007, IS DENIED.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
14
29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), that the presiding Administrative Law Judge SHALL 
TERMINATE the hearing in EB Docket No. 11-71 with respect to the issues pertaining to the basic 
license qualifications of Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, without prejudice to the 
resolution of hearing issue (g).  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
APPENDIX
PARTIES, COMMENTERS AND PLEADINGS
Choctaw Telecommunications, LLC and Choctaw Holdings, LLC (Choctaw)
Petition for Reconsideration, filed 10/14/14 (Choctaw Petition)
Choctaw Request for Confidentiality, filed 10/14/14 (Choctaw Request)
Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 10/24/14 (Choctaw Opposition)
Consolidated Reply to Oppositions to Choctaw’s Petition for Reconsideration, filed 11/5/14 
(Choctaw Reply)
Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Reconsideration, filed 11/9/15 (Choctaw Motion)
Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration, filed 11/9/15 (Choctaw Supplement)
DIXIE Electric Membership Corporation (DEMCO)
Petition for Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed 10/14/14 (DEMCO 
Petition)
DEMCO Reply to Havens’ Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, filed 10/31/15 (DEMCO 
Reply)
Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. (Enbridge)
Petition for Reconsideration of Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed 10/14/14 (Enbridge 
Petition)
Enbridge Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, filed 10/31/14 (Enbridge Reply)
Enforcement Bureau (EB)
Enforcement Bureau’s Opposition to MCLM and Choctaw Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 
10/24/14  (EB Opposition)
Enforcement Bureau’s response to MCLM’s and Choctaw’s Motions for Leave to Supplement 
Their Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 11/12/15 (EB Response)
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC (MCLM)
Petition for Reconsideration, filed 10/14/14 (MCLM Petition)
Request for Confidential Treatment, filed 10/14/14 (MCLM Request)
Opposisition [sic] to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 10/29/14 (MCLM Opposition)
Maritime’s Consolidated Reply to Oppositions to Petition for Reconsideration, filed 11/5/14 
(MCLM Reply)
Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Reconsideration, filed 11/6/15 (MCLM Motion)
Maritime’s Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration (MCLM Supplement)
Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative (SVEC)
Motion of Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, 
Petition for Leave to Intervene [in EB Docket No. 11-71], filed 10/8/14 (SVEC Petition)
Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)
Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 10/29/14 (SCRRA Motion to 
Dismiss)
Reply to “Opposition to Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Petitions for Reconsideration,” filed 
11/19/14 (SCRRA Reply)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-172
16
Skytel
78
Application for Review, filed 4/9/07 (AFR)
Petition for Reconsideration of Skytel-1 Entities, filed 10/15/14 (Skytel-1 Petition)
Petition for Reconsideration of Skytel-2 Entities, filed 10/15/14 (Skytel-2 Petition)
Explanation of Timely Filing, and Explanation of ECFS Problems on 10/14/14, and Conditional 
Request to Accept, filed 10/22/14 (Skytel Explanation)
Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 10/24/14 
Initial Reply to Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 10/31/15 (SkyTel Reply)
Further Reply to Opposition to Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 11/5/15 (SkyTel Further 
Reply)
Opposition to Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Petitions for Reconsideration, filed 11/10/14 
(Skytel Opposition to Motion to Dismiss)
                                                     
78
Skytel is a group of limited liability companies (LLCs) under the control of Warren Havens.  To avoid confusion, 
we refer here to Havens and these LLCs, and also Havens-controlled predecessor LLCs, collectively as Skytel.  For 
purposes of the petitions for reconsideration of the MO&O, Skytel-1 consists of Warren Havens, individually, 
Intelligent Transportation and Monitoring Wireless LLC, and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation; and Skytel-2 
consists of Environmentel LLC, Verde Systems LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, and V2G LLC.