[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30154-30168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12792]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[EB Docket No. 11-71; FCC 11-64]


Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Licensee of Various 
Authorizations in the Wireless Radio Services, Applicant for 
Modification of Various Authorizations in the Wireless Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document commences a hearing proceeding to determine 
ultimately whether Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC (Maritime) 
is qualified to be and to remain a Commission licensee, and as a 
consequence whether any or all of its licenses should be revoked, and 
whether any or all of the applications to which Maritime is a party 
should be denied. The issues designated for hearing also include 
whether Maritime should be ordered to repay to the U.S. Treasury the 
full amount of the bidding credit, plus interest, that it received as a 
result of claiming designated entity status; whether a forfeiture not 
to exceed the statutory maximum should be issued against Maritime for 
apparent violations of the Commission's rules; whether Maritime and its 
principals should henceforth be prohibited from participating in FCC 
auctions; and whether Maritime's licenses for its site-based AMTS 
stations cancelled automatically for lack of construction or permanent 
discontinuance of operation in violation of sections of the 
Commission's rules.

DATES: Petitions to intervene by parties desiring to participate as a 
party in the hearing, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.223, may be filed on or 
before June 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Schonman, Investigations & 
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission at (202) 418-1795.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each document that is filed in this 
proceeding must display the docket number of this hearing, EB Docket 
No. 11-71, on the front page. This is a Public Version of the text of 
the Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (Order to 
Show Cause), FCC 11-64, released April 19, 2011, which is also 
available for inspection and copying from 8 a.m.

[[Page 30155]]

until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. until 11:30 
a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 
Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete 
text of the Public Version may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-
3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, e-mail [email protected], or you may 
contact BCPI via its Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com. When ordering 
documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC document 
number, FCC 11-64. The Public Version of the Order to Show Cause is 
also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site through its 
Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. Alternative formats are available to 
persons with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format); to obtain, please send an e-mail to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Order To Show Cause

I. Introduction

    1. In this Order to Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order, and 
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, we commence a hearing proceeding 
before the Administrative Law Judge to determine ultimately whether 
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC (Maritime) is qualified to be 
and to remain a Commission licensee, and as a consequence thereof, 
whether any or all of its licenses should be revoked, and whether any 
or all of the applications to which Maritime is a party should be 
denied.\1\ In addition, we direct the Administrative Law Judge to 
determine whether Maritime should be ordered to repay to the United 
States Treasury the full amount of the bidding credit, plus interest, 
that it received as a result of claiming designated entity status in 
Auction No. 61; whether a forfeiture not to exceed the statutory 
maximum should be issued against Maritime for apparent violations of 
the Commission's rules; and whether Maritime and its principals should 
henceforth be prohibited from participating in FCC auctions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A list of the authorizations held by Maritime that are the 
subject of this Order is appended hereto as Attachment A. A list of 
the pending applications filed by or on behalf of Maritime that are 
the subject of this Order is appended hereto as Attachment B.
    \2\ We note that Maritime and its principals have made various 
requests for confidential treatment of certain information and 
submissions pursuant to Sec.  0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 0.459. See, e.g., Letter and Request for Confidential Treatment 
from Patricia J. Paoletta and Jonathan B. Mirsky, Counsel to 
Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc. and Maritime Communications/
Land Mobile, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, dated February 10, 2011; Letter and 
Request for Confidential Treatment from Patricia J. Paoletta and 
Jonathan B. Mirsky, Counsel to Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc. 
and Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated January 25, 
2011; Letter and Request for Confidential Treatment from Patricia J. 
Paoletta and Jonathan B. Mirsky, Counsel to Wireless Properties of 
Virginia, Inc. and Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 
dated December 29, 2010; Letter and Request for Confidential 
Treatment from Dennis C. Brown, Esq., Counsel to MCLM, to Michele 
Ellison, Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, dated March 29, 2010. Pursuant to 47 CFR 0.459(d)(3), we 
are deferring action on such confidentiality requests, and are 
according confidential treatment to the relevant information until 
such time as a ruling is made. See 47 CFR 0.459(d)(3). Therefore, we 
will release to the public a redacted version of the Order, where 
``[REDACTED]'' will indicate information for which the submitter has 
requested confidential treatment. The unredacted version of this 
Order will be made available to Maritime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. As discussed more fully below, based on the totality of the 
evidence, there are substantial and material questions of fact as to 
whether Maritime: (i) Violated the designated entity rules and received 
a credit on its obligations to the United States Treasury of 
approximately $2.8 million to which it was not entitled; (ii) 
repeatedly made misrepresentations to and lacked candor with the 
Commission in connection with its participation in Auction No. 61 and 
the claimed bidding credit; (iii) failed to maintain the continuing 
accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its still pending 
long-form application; and (iv) purports to hold authorizations that 
have cancelled automatically for lack of construction or permanent 
discontinuance of operation.
    3. Sections 1.2110 and 1.2112 of the Commission's rules require 
Maritime, in seeking designated entity status, to have disclosed in its 
pre-auction short-form application and in its post-auction long-form 
application its gross revenues and those of its affiliates, its 
controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling 
interests.\3\ Despite repeated Commission requests for the needed 
information over the last six years, substantial factual questions 
remain regarding Maritime's eligibility for a small business bidding 
credit. Indeed, it is still not clear whether all required disclosures 
of interests and revenues have been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 47 CFR 1.2110 and 1.2112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In both its short-form and long-form applications filed in 2005, 
Maritime disclosed only the interests of Maritime's named principal 
Sandra M. DePriest and her affiliates. Maritime claimed that Sandra 
DePriest was the sole officer and key employee of Maritime and appears 
to have concluded that because her husband, Donald R. DePriest, was not 
an ``officer'' or ``director'' of Maritime, his interests were not 
relevant to the designated entity analysis. However, Maritime was 
obligated to disclose Donald DePriest's revenues pursuant to the 
spousal affiliation requirements set forth in Sec.  1.2110 of the 
Commission's rules. Furthermore, there is credible evidence suggesting 
that Donald DePriest was a real party in interest behind Maritime and 
exercised de facto control of Maritime--both of which would also 
require attribution of his interests under our designated entity rules. 
Among other things, Donald DePriest incorporated Maritime, [REDACTED].
    5. Even after the Commission directed Maritime to disclose Mr. 
DePriest's interests, Maritime's submissions appear to have lacked 
candor. It was more than a year after its initial auction filing before 
Maritime amended its long-form application (at staff direction) to 
disclose what the company represented, at that time, were the gross 
revenues of Donald DePriest and his affiliates. In the amendment, 
Maritime stated, among other things, that Donald DePriest controlled a 
single revenue-producing company: American Nonwovens Corporation. 
Several weeks later--and only in response to ongoing administrative 
litigation--Maritime belatedly acknowledged that Donald DePriest 
actually controlled three more entities: Charisma Broadcasting Co., 
Bravo Communications, Inc., and Golden Triangle Radio, Inc. Some three 
years later--and again only in response to a written request for 
information from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) under 
section 308(b) of the Communications Act--Maritime divulged more than 
two dozen additional affiliates of Donald DePriest. Several months 
thereafter--and only in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of 
inquiry--Maritime disclosed information about Donald DePriest's 
involvement in a large multinational corporation, MCT Corp., which had 
potentially attributable revenue [REDACTED]. The timing and substance 
of these disclosures raise material questions of fact about whether 
Maritime and its principals engaged in a pattern of deception and

[[Page 30156]]

misinformation designed to obtain and conceal an unfair economic 
advantage over competing auction bidders through the misappropriation 
of monies that would otherwise have flowed to the United States 
Treasury.
    6. There are also substantial and material questions of fact about 
whether Maritime made repeated and affirmative misrepresentations and 
provided false certifications to the Commission in both its short- and 
long-form applications, as well as in various filings submitted over 
the last six years, in violation of Sec. Sec.  1.17 and 1.2105 of the 
Commission's rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 47 CFR 1.17 and 1.2105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The integrity of our auctions program is of paramount 
importance, and we take allegations and evidence of auction misconduct 
very seriously. The Commission relied to its detriment on Maritime's 
initial and purportedly ``corrective'' filings--including in its 
dismissal of a petition to deny. As the Commission has stated, ``[we 
rely] heavily on the truthfulness and accuracy of the information 
provided to us. If information submitted to us is incorrect, we cannot 
properly carry out our statutory responsibilities.'' \5\ Consistent 
with our obligations under sections 309(d) and (e) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act),\6\ 
we hereby designate this matter for administrative hearing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the 
Commission's Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 3296, 3297 para. 3 (2002).
    \6\ 47 U.S.C. 309(d), (e).
    \7\ We note that on March 11, 2010, Maritime and Southern 
California Regional Rail Authority (``Metrolink,'' and together with 
Maritime, the ``Parties'') sought Commission consent to assign 
certain spectrum. See Application for Assignment of Authorization, 
File No. 0004144435. Metrolink has represented that it plans to use 
such assigned spectrum to comply with the Rail Safety Improvement 
Act of 2008. See Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law No. 
110-432, filed Oct. 16, 2008, 122 Stat. 4848, 4856-57 section 104(a) 
(2008). This law requires, among other things, that by 2015, 
passenger trains implement positive train control systems and other 
safety controls to enable automatic braking and to help prevent 
train collisions. Given the potential safety of life considerations 
involved in the positive train control area and therefore attendant 
to the Metrolink application, 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 
Metrolink application to be removed from the ambit of this Hearing 
Designation Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    8. In order to ``promote and facilitate the participation of small 
businesses in the public coast auctions and in the provision of 
service,'' bidding credits were made available to ``very small 
businesses'' and ``small businesses'' in Auction No. 61.\8\ A bidder 
with attributed average annual gross revenues of $3 million or less for 
the preceding three years was characterized as a ``very small 
business'' and eligible to receive a 35 percent discount on its winning 
bids. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues of more 
than $3 million but less than $15 million for the preceding three years 
was considered a ``small business'' and eligible to receive a 25 
percent discount on its winning bids. A bidder with attributed revenues 
of $15 million or more for the preceding three years was not eligible 
for any bidding credit.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime 
Communications, Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 para. 65 (1998) (confirming the use of the 
two tier bidding credit to ``allow current public coast licensees to 
compete favorably with larger entities, without denying entities 
with relatively small gross revenues the opportunity to participate 
meaningfully in the auctions,'' and denying a proposal made by 
MariTEL to use a one-tier system to determine small business 
status).
    \9\ 47 CFR 1.2110 and 80.1252. See Auction of Automated Maritime 
Telecommunications System Licenses Scheduled for August 3, 2005, 
Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 7811, 7828-29 (WTB 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Maritime's Claimed Eligibility To Receive a Bidding Credit
    9. On June 9, 2005, Maritime filed pre-auction FCC Form 175 (the 
short-form application).\10\ In its short-form application, Maritime 
sought a 35 percent bidding credit, declaring under penalty of perjury 
that it was eligible for the bidding credit based on its status as a 
``very small business'' with gross revenues of less than or equal to $3 
million.\11\ The short-form application included a ``Gross Revenues 
Confirmation,'' which required Maritime to certify that it ``provided 
separate gross revenue information for itself, for each of [its] 
officers and directors; for each of [its] other controlling interests; 
for each of [its] affiliates; and for each affiliate of each of [its] 
officers, directors, and other controlling interests.'' \12\ Maritime 
asserted that the only gross revenues requiring disclosure were those 
of Sandra DePriest (valued at less than $450,000 for any given year in 
the relevant period), and her affiliates Communications Investments, 
Inc. and S/RJW Partnership, Ltd. (both reporting no revenue).\13\ On 
September 6 and 7, 2005, Maritime filed post-auction FCC Forms 601 and 
602 (the long-form application), in which it reasserted its entitlement 
to the 35 percent bidding credit on the basis of its status as a ``very 
small business.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Short-form application, FCC File No. 0002191807, filed June 
9, 2005 (short-form application).
    \11\ Id. See also 47 CFR 1.2110 and 1.2105(a)(2)(iv).
    \12\ See short-form application, FCC File No. 000219807. See 
also Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 
13735, 13737 (Nov. 27, 2006) (``WTB November 2006 Order'') (stating 
that, ``for the purposes of determining the affiliates of an 
applicant claiming designated entity status, both spouses are deemed 
to own or control or have the power to control interests owned or 
controlled by either of them, unless they are subject to a legal 
separation recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction in the 
United States'').
    \13\ See short-form application.
    \14\ See long-form application, FCC File No. 0002303355, filed 
Sept. 6 and 7, 2005 (long-form application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In both its short- and long-form applications, Maritime 
identified Sandra DePriest as its ``sole officer, director and key 
management personnel.'' \15\ In its short-form application, Maritime 
identified its counsel, Dennis Brown, as well as John S. Reardon and 
Ronald Fancher, as authorized bidders for Maritime.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See short-form application and long-form application.
    \16\ See short-form application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Notably, Maritime failed to list Sandra DePriest's spouse, 
Donald DePriest, as a disclosable interest holder, on either the short-
form or the long-form applications, and thus none of the companies 
controlled by Mr. DePriest were disclosed.\17\ Maritime filed an 
addendum to its long-form application entitled ``Disclosable Interest 
Holders,'' where the company sought to provide additional information 
based on the claim that the ``information concerning disclosable 
interest holders was not carried over from the Form 175 application.'' 
\18\ In this filing, Maritime again asserted that the only disclosable 
interest holders were Sandra DePriest, Communications Investments, 
Inc., and S/RJW Partnership, L.P. Maritime also certified for each of 
the three disclosed interest holders that ``unaudited financial 
statements [were] prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted 
Accounting Practices and certified by Applicant's chief financial 
officer,'' notwithstanding Maritime's apparent failure to name such 
officer in any of its filings.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See short-form application and long-form application.
    \18\ See Disclosable Interest Holders Addendum to long-form 
application.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Based on this limited disclosure, Maritime received a bidding 
credit valued at $2,737,000 which had the effect of reducing the amount 
owed to the Commission for Maritime's $7,820,000 winning bid to 
$5,083,000.

[[Page 30157]]

B. Investigations of Maritime Applications
1. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Proceeding
    13. Auction No. 61 concluded on August 17, 2005.\20\ On November 
14, 2005, Warren C. Havens and certain affiliated entities 
(collectively ``Petitioners'') filed a Petition to Deny Maritime's 
long-form application (``November 2005 Petition to Deny'') based on 
assertions that ``Maritime submitted, in its short-form and the [long-
form application] fraudulent and false certifications and these 
included fraudulent and false identity of the real party in control, * 
* * that Maritime deliberately and fraudulently failed to disclose many 
`affiliates' (as defined in FCC auction rules) which, if disclosed, 
would have resulted in a loss of the 35% bidding credits and resulted 
in a different auction outcome.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Auction of Automated Maritime Telecommunications System 
Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 61, 
Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 17066 (August 23, 2005).
    \21\ See Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Petition to 
Deny Application FCC File No. 0002303355, at 3 (filed November 
2005). Petitioners also alleged that Maritime failed to construct 
and/or operate one or more of its site-based stations in compliance 
with Sec. Sec.  1.955(a) and 80.49(a) of the Commission's rules. See 
47 CFR 1.955(a) and 80.49(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. On August 3, 2006, WTB issued an order denying the November 
2005 Petition to Deny, but determined that Maritime's failure to 
include Donald DePriest's interests and revenues in its designated 
entity showing contravened the spousal affiliation provision contained 
in Sec.  1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 
8794, 8798 n.39 (WTB PSCID 2006). The spousal affiliation rule, 47 
CFR 1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A), provides that ``[b]oth spouses are deemed 
to own or control or have the power to control interests owned or 
controlled by either of them, unless they are subject to a legal 
separation recognized by a court of competent jurisdiction in the 
United States.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. Thereafter, on August 21, 2006, Maritime amended its long-form 
application to provide what Maritime represented were the gross 
revenues of Donald DePriest and his affiliates. In the amendment, 
Maritime stated, among other things, that Donald DePriest ``controls 
American Nonwovens Corporation (ANC)'' and that ``ANC is the only 
revenue producing entity that [Donald DePriest] owns or controls.'' 
\23\ Maritime further represented that Donald DePriest had no ownership 
interest in, was neither an officer nor a director of, and did not 
control Maritime.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See long-form application, as amended Aug. 21, 2006 
(``amended long-form application'').
    \24\ See Attachment to amended long-form application at 1. 
According to the Attachment to the Amended Application, Mr. DePriest 
controls American Nonwovens Corporation (ANC), which had average 
gross revenues for the relevant three-year period of $9,838,403. As 
to Mr. DePriest's role in Maritime, we note that Maritime has 
variously claimed and denied that he served as an officer and a 
director of the company. See Maritime Communications/Land Mobile 
LLC, Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 4780, 4783 n.35 (WTB 
Mobility Division 2007), recon and review pending (``Order on 
Reconsideration'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. On September 18, 2006, Maritime submitted a pleading in 
response to the Petition for Reconsideration of WTB's August 3, 2006 
order.\25\ Therein, Maritime belatedly acknowledged that Donald 
DePriest controlled three additional entities that Maritime had not 
previously disclosed: Charisma Broadcasting Co., Bravo Communications, 
Inc., and Golden Triangle Radio, Inc.\26\ Maritime listed the average 
annual gross revenues for each of the three companies at less than 
$100,000, claiming that such aggregate amount had no effect on 
Maritime's designated entity status.\27\ Maritime attributed its 
failure to initially identify the three companies to an oversight.\28\ 
Specifically, Maritime stated that it ``regrets its oversight of these 
revenues and trusts that the Commission will recognize that they are 
immaterial to any issue in the instant matter.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Opposition to 
Petition for Reconsideration, filed September 18, 2006 (Maritime 
September 2006 Opposition).
    \26\ Id. at 10-11.
    \27\ Id.
    \28\ Id.
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. On November 27, 2006, WTB ruled that Maritime's bidding credit 
should be reduced from 35 percent to 25 percent, and it ordered 
Maritime to pay the difference.\30\ On December 26, 2006, Maritime paid 
$782,000 to the United States Treasury. Three days later, on December 
29, 2006, WTB granted Maritime's long-form application, as well as 
those of the other winning bidders in Auction No. 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See WTB November 2006 Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. The Order reducing Maritime's bidding credit from 35 percent to 
25 percent was the subject of a Petition for Reconsideration, filed by 
Petitioners, which alleged that Donald DePriest was an undisclosed real 
party in interest behind Maritime and challenged Maritime's entitlement 
to any bidding credit in Auction No. 61.\31\ The Petitioners asserted, 
among other things, that Maritime should have disclosed additional 
entities controlled by Donald DePriest, including Wireless Properties 
of Virginia, Inc. (a Broadband Radio Service licensee) and MariTEL, 
Inc. (a VHF Public Coast licensee). Although WTB denied the Petition 
for Reconsideration in March 2007, in part based on a lack of 
supporting evidence, WTB stated that, while it appeared that the 
attribution of the relatively small gross revenues of three identified 
entities did not affect Maritime's designated entity status, the 
omission did constitute a violation of the Commission's rules.\32\ In 
addition, WTB noted for the record the contradictory representations 
made by Maritime and Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc. regarding 
whether Donald DePriest was an officer and/or director of Maritime and 
that Maritime had ``offered no explanation for the inconsistent 
statements regarding Mr. DePriest's status.'' \33\ WTB concluded that 
it remained concerned by Maritime's failure to provide accurate 
information on the first attempt, and stated that its actions ``are 
without prejudice to further inquiry and action by the Commission's 
Enforcement Bureau.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Petition for Reconsideration filed jointly by Warren C. 
Havens, Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless, LLC, AMTS 
Consortium, LLC, Telesaurus-VPC, LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, 
and Skybridge Spectrum Foundation (filed Dec. 27, 2006).
    \32\ See Order on Reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd at 4783 n.35.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id. On April 9, 2007, the Petitioners filed an Application 
for Review of the Order on Reconsideration, which is still pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. Inconsistencies between Maritime's representations and those 
contained in the filings by MariTEL raise further questions about 
Maritime's truthfulness. In Maritime's initial filings, it failed to 
disclose MariTEL as an entity under Donald DePriest's control 
(affirmatively denying such control), and therefore never attributed 
MariTEL's revenues to Maritime for the purposes of its designated 
entity showing. There is evidence that, contrary to Maritime's 
assertions, Mr. DePriest controlled MariTEL through sophisticated 
corporate structuring.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ On June 12, 2008, three years after the filing of 
Maritime's initial short-form application, MariTEL, Inc. filed a 
transfer of control application with the Commission. The application 
included an exhibit describing the transaction, which stated that 
``control of MariTEL * * * will pass from Donald DePriest and MCT 
Investors, LP to the shareholders of MariTEL as a group. Mr. 
DePriest has controlled MariTEL through a combination of direct 
investments and his role as General Partner of MCT Investors, LP.'' 
See MariTEL, Inc. Exhibit to FCC Form 603, Transfer of Control 
Application, filed June 12, 2008. Although Maritime argued that 
Donald DePriest did not control MariTEL, the representation in the 
MariTEL transfer of control application is consistent with 
information provided by MariTEL in earlier FCC Form 602 ownership 
disclosure filings. For example, in its FCC Form 602 ownership 
disclosure filings submitted on March 13, 2001, which apparently 
remained current up until the time the MariTEL transfer of control 
was consummated in 2008, MariTEL indicated that MCT Investors, LP 
held 58.3% of MariTEL's issued and outstanding voting stock (and 
26.1% of all stock, voting and non-voting), that MedCom Development 
Corporation was the sole general partner of MCT Investors, LP, and 
that Donald DePriest was the sole shareholder of MedCom Development 
Corporation. See, e.g., FCC File No. 0002080704 (filed Mar. 13, 
2001).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30158]]

    20. As a consequence of the myriad questions as to the ownership of 
Maritime and of the attributable revenues of Donald DePriest, WTB, on 
August 18, 2009, directed Donald DePriest to produce, among other 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
things, the following information:

    Identify and describe all business entities, of whatever form, 
that have been controlled by you during the relevant period. For 
purposes of this question, you are deemed to have controlled any 
entity in which you held a 50.0% or more ownership interest, or 
served as a director or officer, or served as a general partner, or 
exercised de facto control in any way at any time during the 
relevant period.
    State whether all of the interests held by you that should have 
been disclosed in the [Maritime] Application, as amended, FCC File 
No. 0002303355, were disclosed in the [Maritime] Application. 
Identify any interests and entities that should have been disclosed 
in the [Maritime] Application as attributable to you, but were not 
so disclosed. To the extent you have personal knowledge of the 
matter, indicate the reason why each such entity was not disclosed 
in the [Maritime] Application. For each such entity, except those 
entities that were required to be disclosed only under 47 CFR 
1.2112(b)(1)(ii) and no other rule, provide its annual gross 
revenues for each of the three calendar years 2002, 2003, and 
2004.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Letter from Scot Stone, Deputy Chief, Mobility 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, to Donald R. DePriest, dated August 18, 2009.

    In his response, dated September 30, 2009, Donald DePriest revealed 
more than two dozen entities which he controlled or in which he served 
as an officer or director. He also indicated that he had served as 
Chairman of a company doing business as MCT Corp. during the relevant 
three-year period, but did not provide any revenue information related 
to this entity.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Letter from Donald R. DePriest, to Jeffrey Tobias, 
Esq., Attorney, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated September 30, 2009, 
at 11 (``Donald DePriest Response to WTB'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. According to publicly available records, MCT Corp. was 
registered as a Delaware corporation on February 15, 2000.\38\ 
Documents filed in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where MCT Corp. did 
business, identify Donald DePriest as having served as an officer, 
director, and the Chairman of MCT Corp.\39\ MCT Corp. was dissolved in 
2007, after being acquired by Teliasonera Acquisitions Corp. According 
to information provided by Donald DePriest, MCT Corp. was, among other 
things, [REDACTED].\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Certificate of Incorporation of MCT Corp., filed February 
15, 2000, with the State of Delaware, Secretary of State, Division 
of Corporations.
    \39\ See 2002-2004 Annual Reports filed by MCT Corp. with the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, State Corporation Commission.
    \40\ See Letter from Donald R. DePriest, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated March 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Simultaneously with the letter to Donald DePriest, on August 
18, 2009, WTB posed the same questions to Maritime set forth in 
paragraph 20 above. By letter dated September 30, 2009, Maritime 
responded to WTB,\41\ revealing more than two dozen additional entities 
in which Donald DePriest was involved that it had not previously 
disclosed.\42\ Maritime maintained that none of the additional entities 
had enough revenues during the applicable time period to undermine its 
claimed entitlement to a ``small business'' bidding credit in Auction 
No. 61.\43\ Notably, Maritime made no mention of MCT Corp. in its 
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Letter from Sandra DePriest, to Jeffrey Tobias, Esq., 
Attorney, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated September 30, 2009 
(``Maritime Response to WTB'').
    \42\ Id. These companies included, among others, Wireless 
Properties, Inc., Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc., Wireless 
Properties--East, Inc., Wireless Properties--West, Inc., Wireless 
Properties--Upper Midwest, Inc., Cellular and Broadcast 
Communications, Inc., MCT Investors, LP, BD Partners, CD Partners, 
Tupelo Broadcasting Corporation, Transition Funding, LLC, and WJG 
Telephone Co., Inc.
    \43\ Id. We note that the Commission's rules do not provide an 
exception to the designated entity ownership disclosure requirements 
for otherwise disclosable entities that have no gross revenues. See 
47 CFR 1.2112(b)(1)(iv). Thus, Maritime was required to disclose 
information about all applicable entities, regardless of their gross 
revenues. Without such disclosures neither the Commission nor 
interested third-parties can test an applicant's eligibility claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Enforcement Bureau Investigation
    23. Given the lingering questions about Maritime's entitlement to a 
bidding credit in Auction No. 61 and Maritime's dilatory disclosures 
about the full range of Donald DePriest's interests, WTB referred the 
matter to the Enforcement Bureau (EB) for investigation in late 2009. 
On February 26, 2010, EB directed a letter of inquiry (LOI) to 
Maritime.\44\ Among other things, the LOI directed the production of 
supporting documentation to verify the revenues of all entities 
controlled by Donald DePriest, including MCT Corp. On March 29, 2010, 
Maritime responded to EB's LOI and provided records and financial 
data.\45\ In its response, Maritime indicated, among other things, that 
it had not identified MCT Corp. previously as among those entities 
controlled by Donald DePriest because it had ``relied on counsel to 
prepare and file the application and it did not receive any 
instructions regarding the bidding credit calculations or any 
information indicating that there would be spousal attribution of 
revenues.'' \46\ Maritime further stated that ``it was unaware of its 
need to supply revenue data.'' \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Letter from Gary Schonman, Special Counsel, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Dennis C. Brown, Esq., counsel for 
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, dated February 26, 2010.
    \45\ See Letter from Sandra DePriest, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated March 29, 2010 
(``Sandra DePriest March 29 Response Letter'').
    \46\ See id. at 8.
    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. On February 26, 2010, EB also issued a letter of inquiry to 
Donald DePriest seeking additional information about his interests and 
revenues.\48\ Specifically, EB's inquiry was designed to explore Mr. 
DePriest's prior statement that he had served as Chairman of MCT Corp. 
and sought documentation of the aggregate gross revenues of MCT Corp. 
during the 2002-2004 calendar years. In response to EB, Mr. DePriest 
provided financial information suggesting that MCT Corp. had gross 
revenues in each of the three relevant years [REDACTED].\49\ In 
addition, Mr. DePriest offered various explanations of his role in MCT: 
that he was a ``non-executive chairman of MCT Corp.,'' that his ``post 
as chairman carried no executive duties,'' and [REDACTED].\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Letter from Gary Schonman, Special Counsel, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Donald R. DePriest, dated February 26, 
2010.
    \49\ Donald DePriest requested confidential treatment of the 
exact amounts of the company's gross revenues pursuant to Sec.  
0.459 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.459. See Letter and 
Request for Confidential Treatment from Dennis C. Brown, Esq., 
Counsel for Donald DePriest, to P. Michele Ellison, Chief, 
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated March 
29, 2010. We need not disclose this information in the context of 
this Hearing Designation Order, and consequently, we will defer 
action on the confidentiality request. See 47 CFR 0.459(d)(3).
    \50\ See Letter from Donald DePriest, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated March 29, 2010; 
See also Letter from Patricia J. Paoletta and Jonathan B. Mirsky, 
Counsel to Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc. and Maritime 
Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated December 29, 2010, and 
Declarations at Exhibit B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Subsequently, EB issued a supplemental letter of inquiry to Mr.

[[Page 30159]]

DePriest to further investigate the extent of his participation in MCT 
Corp.\51\ In a December 29, 2010 supplemental response--submitted more 
than four years after WTB directed disclosure of all attributable 
interests and providing information contrary to prior assertions--Mr. 
DePriest disclosed for the first time that [REDACTED].\52\ The December 
30, 2010 supplemental response also disclosed for the first time that, 
in his capacity as Chairman, he had the authority to [REDACTED].\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Letter from Gary Schonman, Special Counsel, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Donald R. DePriest, dated December 15, 
2010.
    \52\ [REDACTED].
    \53\ [REDACTED].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Mr. DePriest also provided documentation related to MCT Corp., 
including but not limited to company bylaws, articles of incorporation, 
a listing of officers, directors and shareholders, MCT Corp.'s 2002 
private placement memorandum, and related corporate documents. The 
documents also appear to conflict with Mr. DePriest's assertions that 
[REDACTED] and that, as Chairman, he did not have any executive duties. 
The materials indicate, among other things, that the Chairman of MCT 
Corp. [REDACTED],\54\ that Mr. DePriest was in fact listed as an 
officer and director of MCT Corp. in filings with the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, State Corporation Commission, [REDACTED].\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ [REDACTED].
    \55\ See Letter and Request for Confidential Treatment from 
Patricia J. Paoletta and Jonathan B. Mirsky, Counsel to Wireless 
Properties of Virginia, Inc. and Maritime Communications/Land 
Mobile, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, dated February 10, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

A. Applicable Legal Standard
    27. Section 312(a)(2) of the Communications Act provides that the 
Commission may revoke any license if ``conditions com[e] to the 
attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant 
a license or permit on the original application.'' \56\ The character 
of the applicant is among those factors that the Commission considers 
in its review of applications to determine whether the applicant has 
the requisite qualifications to operate the station for which authority 
is sought.\57\ Therefore, any character defect that would warrant the 
Commission's refusal to grant a license or permit in the original 
application would warrant the Commission's determination to revoke a 
license or permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 47 U.S.C. 312(a)(2).
    \57\ See, e.g., Worldcom, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 26484, 26493 para. 13 
(2003) (endorsing the use of the Commission's character policy in 
the wireless and other common carrier contexts); See also Policy 
Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Report, 
Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 1210-11, para. 60 
(1986), recon. denied, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), appeal dismissed sub 
nom. National Ass'n for Better Broadcasting v. FCC, No. 86-1179 
(D.C. Cir. 1987), recon. granted in part, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), 
recon. on other grounds, 6 FCC Rcd 3448 (1991), modified on other 
grounds, 7 FCC Rcd 6564 (1992) (``Character Policy Statement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. In considering an applicant's character, one of the 
Commission's primary purposes is to ensure that licensees will be 
truthful in their future dealings with the Commission. 
Misrepresentation and lack of candor raise serious concerns as to the 
likelihood of such truthfulness.\58\ Section 1.17(a)(1) of the 
Commission's rules states that no person shall, ``in any written or 
oral statement of fact, intentionally provide material factual 
information that is incorrect or intentionally omit material 
information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement 
that is made from being incorrect or misleading.'' \59\ In addition, 
Sec.  1.17(a)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that no person 
shall, ``in any written statement of fact, provide material factual 
information that is incorrect or omit material information that is 
necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from 
being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing 
that any such material factual statement is correct and not 
misleading.'' \60\ In assessing an applicant's character, the 
Commission may consider a range of evidence, including the truthfulness 
of an applicant's responses to Commission forms and inquiries, and the 
accuracy of an applicant's certifications.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Character Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986). The 
fundamental importance of truthfulness and candor on the part of 
applicants and licensees in their dealings with the Commission is 
well established. See FCC v. WOKO, Inc., 329 U.S. 223 (1946); 
Lebanon Valley Radio, Inc., Decision, 35 FCC 2d 243 (Rev. Bd. 1972); 
Nick J. Chaconas, Decision, 28 FCC 2d 231 (Rev. Bd. 1971).
    \59\ 47 CFR 1.17(a)(1).
    \60\ 47 CFR 1.17(a)(2).
    \61\ See supra note 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. Pursuant to Sec.  1.2112 of the Commission's rules,\62\ an 
auction applicant is required to disclose certain ownership information 
to the Commission in its pre-auction short-form and post-auction long-
form applications. Generally, under Sec.  1.2112(a) of the Commission's 
rules, the applicant must identify, among other things, the real 
parties in interest to the application, including the identity of all 
persons or entities directly or indirectly owning or controlling the 
applicant. Indeed, the Commission has stated that ``we continue to 
believe that detailed ownership information is necessary to ensure that 
applicants claiming designated entity status in fact qualify for such 
status, and to ensure compliance with spectrum caps and other ownership 
limits. Disclosure of ownership information also aids bidders by 
providing them with information about their auction competitors and 
alerting them to entities subject to our anti-collusion rules.'' \63\ 
The Commission has further noted that its rules ``provide specific 
guidance to applicants, to provide transparency at all stages in the 
competitive bidding and licensing process; and, finally to ensure that 
the Commission, the public, and interested parties, are aware of the 
real party or parties in interest before the Commission acts on a 
pending application.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ 47 CFR 1.2112.
    \63\ Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules--Competitive 
Bidding Procedures, Third Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 13 FCC Rcd 
10274 para. 73 (1997).
    \64\ Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules--Competitive 
Bidding Procedures, Second Order on Reconsideration of the Third 
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report 
and Order (2003), 18 FCC Rcd 10180, 10214 para. 50 (citations 
omitted). The Commission has explained that the test for determining 
the real party in interest to an application is whether that party 
has an ownership interest in the applicant or will be in a position 
to actually or potentially control the operation of the station. See 
Video/Multipoint, Inc. for Authority to Construct and Operate 
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on the F-Group 
Channels at Richmond, Virginia and Syracuse, New York, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 5313 para. 7 (1992) (citing San Joaquin 
Television Improvement Corp., 2 FCC Rcd 7004, 7008 (1987) and KOWL, 
Inc., 49 FCC 2d 962, 964 (1974)); Applications of David Lausten and 
Broadcast Data Corporation for Authority to Construct and Operate 
Two Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service Stations on the E-
Group Channels and the F-Group Channels for Aberdeen, South Dakota, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 2053 para. 8 (1988); 
Instructions to FCC Form 601 at 15 (defining real party in interest 
as a person who ``has an ownership interest, or will be in a 
position to actually or potentially control the operation of the 
station.'') (citing Astroline Communications Co. Ltd. Partner v. 
FCC, 857 F.2d 1556, 1564 (D.C. Cir. 1988), citing Applications of 
Georgia Public Telecommunications Commission, et al., MM Docket No. 
89-337, 7 FCC Rcd 7996 (1992); Applications of Madalina 
Broadcasting, et al., MM Docket No. 91-100, 8 FCC Rcd 6344 (1993)); 
Heitmeyer v. FCC, 95 F. 2d 91, 99 (D.C. Cir. 1937) (stating that 
``one of the most powerful and effective methods of control of any 
business, organization, or institution, and one of the most potent 
causes of involuntary assignment of its interests, is the control of 
its finances''); See also Black's Law Dictionary 874 (6th ed. 1991) 
(A ``real party in interest'' is ``a person who will be entitled to 
benefits of action if successful, that is, the one who is actually 
and substantially interested in subject matter as distinguished from 
one who has only nominal, formal, or technical interest in or 
connection with it'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30160]]

    30. In the auction context, the Commission may award bidding 
credits to eligible designated entities.\65\ Accordingly, the standard 
disclosures required by Sec.  1.2112(a) of the Commission's rules are 
expanded in Sec.  1.2112(b) of the Commission's rules for entities 
claiming designated entity status.\66\ Pursuant to Sec.  1.2112(b) of 
the Commission's rules, if the applicant is seeking designated entity 
status, it must also provide additional ownership-related information 
in the form of, among other things, a list of any FCC-regulated 
entities in which any controlling principal of the applicant owns a 10 
percent or greater interest or a total of 10 percent or more of any 
class of stock, warrants, options, or debt securities.\67\ In addition 
to this requirement, however, Sec.  1.2112(b) of the Commission's rules 
also requires that applicants seeking designated entity status list 
separately and in the aggregate the gross revenues of the applicant, 
its affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an 
attributable material relationship.\68\ Applicants seeking designated 
entity status must satisfy these two disclosure requirements in both 
their short- and long-form applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications 
Act--Competitive Bidding, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348.
    \66\ 47 CFR 1.2112.
    \67\ 47 CFR 1.2112(b)(1)(ii) (for the short-form application); 
47 CFR 1.2112(b)(2)(ii) (for the long-form application).
    \68\ 47 CFR 1.2112(b)(1)(iv) (for the short-form application); 
47 CFR 1.2112(b)(2)(v) (for the long-form application). It is 
important to note that, unlike Sec.  1.2112(b)(ii) of the 
Commission's rules, this requirement extends to all such entities 
and is not limited to FCC-regulated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. In addition to strict compliance with the Commission's general 
ownership disclosure provisions in Sec.  1.2112(a) of the Commission's 
rules, and expanded, designated entity-related, ownership requirements 
in Sec.  1.2112(b) of the Commission's rules, all auction applicants 
seeking designated entity status for the purpose of claiming a bidding 
credit must also comply with Sec.  1.2110 of the Commission's 
rules.\69\ Section 1.2110 of the Commission's rules sets forth, among 
other things, attribution disclosure requirements.\70\ Pursuant to 
Sec.  1.2110(b) of the Commission's rules, an applicant seeking 
designated entity status must disclose in its pre-auction short-form 
and post-auction long-form applications the gross revenues for each of 
the previous three years of the applicant, its affiliates, its 
controlling interests, the affiliates of its controlling interests, and 
the entities with which it has an attributable material relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 47 CFR 1.2110.
    \70\ While the attribution disclosure requirements in Sec.  
1.2110 of the Commission's rules apply equally to all auction 
applicants seeking designated entity status, the extent of the 
bidding credit to which a particular auction applicant might be 
entitled varies from service to service. In the instant case, 
Auction No. 61 involved the auction of licenses in the AMTS service. 
Under the AMTS service-specific provisions contained in Sec.  
80.1252 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 80.1252, bidding credits 
were available to very small businesses and small businesses. A 
bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues of $3 million 
or less for the preceding three years was characterized as a very 
small business and eligible to receive a 35 percent discount on its 
winning bids. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues 
of more than $3 million but less than $15 million for the preceding 
three years was considered a small business and eligible to receive 
a 25 percent discount on its winning bids. A bidder with attributed 
revenues of $15 million or more for the preceding three years was 
not eligible for any bidding credit. See also Auction of Automated 
Maritime Telecommunications System Licenses Scheduled for August 3, 
2005, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 7811 (WTB 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. For the purposes of Sec. Sec.  1.2110 and 1.2112 of the 
Commission's rules, a controlling interest includes individuals with 
either de jure or de facto control of the applicant.\71\ Both spouses 
are deemed to own or control or have the power to control interests 
owned or controlled by either of them under the spousal affiliation 
provisions of Sec.  1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules.\72\ 
Pursuant to Sec.  1.2110(c)(5)(i) of the Commission's rules, an 
individual or entity is an affiliate of an applicant or of a person 
holding an attributable interest in an applicant if such individual or 
entity directly or indirectly controls or has the power to control the 
applicant.\73\ In this regard, the Commission has stated unequivocally 
that affiliates of controlling interests will be considered affiliates 
of the applicant.\74\ In addition, pursuant to Sec.  
1.2110(c)(5)(ii)(B) of the Commission's rules, control can arise 
through stock ownership; occupancy of director, officer or key employee 
positions; contractual or other business relations; or combinations of 
these and other factors.\75\ Consequently, entities that the spouse of 
an applicant either directly or indirectly controls or has the power to 
control must be disclosed to the Commission, and the gross revenues for 
each of the previous three years of such entities will be considered in 
determining whether the applicant is entitled to a bidding credit. An 
applicant that applies as a designated entity pursuant to Sec.  1.2110 
of the Commission's rules must, under Sec.  1.2105(a)(2)(iv) of the 
Commission's rules, provide a statement to that effect and a 
declaration under penalty of perjury that it is qualified as a 
designated entity under Sec.  1.2110 of the Commission's rules.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(2).
    \72\ 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A).
    \73\ 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(5)(i).
    \74\ See Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules--
Competitive Bidding Procedures, Order on Reconsideration of the 
Third Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, and Fourth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 15293, 15323-24, para. 59 
(2000) (citations omitted), in which the Commission stated:
    We will adopt as our general attribution rule a ``controlling 
interest'' standard for determining which applicants qualify as 
small businesses. Under this standard, we will attribute to the 
applicant the gross revenues of its controlling interests and their 
affiliates in assessing whether the applicant is qualified to take 
advantage of our small business provisions, such as bidding credits. 
We note that operation of our definition of ``affiliate'' will cause 
all affiliates of controlling interests to be affiliates of the 
applicant. We believe that this approach is simpler and more 
flexible than the previously used control group approach, and thus 
will be more straightforward to implement. Moreover, application of 
the ``controlling interest'' standard will ensure that only those 
entities truly meriting small business status qualify for our small 
business provisions. We used this same approach in the attribution 
rules for the LMDS, 800 MHz SMR, 220 MHz, VHF Public Coast and LMS 
auction proceedings.
    \75\ 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(5)(ii)(B).
    \76\ 47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Under Sec.  1.65 of the Commission's rules,\77\ an applicant is 
responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of the 
information furnished in a pending application or in Commission 
proceedings involving a pending application. Whenever the information 
furnished in the pending application is no longer substantially 
accurate and complete in all significant respects, the applicant must, 
within 30 days, amend its application so as to furnish the additional 
or correct information.\78\ For the purposes of Sec.  1.65 of the 
Commission's rules, an application is ``pending'' before the Commission 
from the time it is accepted for filing until a Commission grant (or 
denial) is no longer subject to reconsideration by the Commission or 
review by any court.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 47 CFR 1.65.
    \78\ Id.
    \79\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. Finally, pursuant to section 309(e) of the Act,\80\ the 
Commission is required to designate an application for evidentiary 
hearing if a substantial and material question of fact is presented 
regarding whether grant of the application would serve the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity. Therefore, if there exists a 
substantial and material question of fact as to any

[[Page 30161]]

of the matters enumerated above, the Commission must designate the 
matter for an evidentiary hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 47 U.S.C. 309(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Analysis of Relevant Facts
1. Failure To Disclose Real Party in Interest
    35. As indicated above, under Sec.  1.2112(a)(1) of the 
Commission's rules, Maritime was required to identify, among other 
things, the real parties in interest to its application, including the 
identity of all persons or entities directly or indirectly owning or 
controlling the applicant.\81\ Section 1.2112(a)(1) of the Commission's 
rules states in pertinent part:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 47 CFR 1.2112(a)(1).

    (a) Each application to participate in competitive bidding 
(i.e., short-form application (see 47 CFR 1.2105)), or for a 
license, authorization, assignment, or transfer of control shall 
fully disclose the following:
    (1) List the real party or parties in interest in the applicant 
or application, including a complete disclosure of the identity and 
relationship of those persons or entities directly or indirectly 
owning or controlling (or both) the applicant;

    36. The requirement to disclose the real party in interest has been 
a longstanding requirement for wireless licenses.\82\ The focus of the 
Commission's real party in interest analysis is whether there has been 
an accurate and complete identification of the true principals of the 
applicant.\83\ As the Commission has stated, ``a real party in interest 
issue, by its very nature, is a basic qualifying issue in which the 
element of deception is necessarily subsumed.'' \84\ Similarly, the 
Commission has noted that ``both the potential for deception and the 
failure to submit material information can undermine the Commission's 
essential licensing functions.'' \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See e.g., 47 CFR 21.13, 25.522, 25.531, 90.123 (1993) 
(Domestic Public Fixed Radio Services); 47 CFR 101.19 (1998) (Fixed 
Microwave Services); 47 CFR 22.108 (1998) (Public Mobile Services); 
47 CFR 1.914 (1994) (generally requiring that applications ``contain 
full and complete disclosures with regard to the real party or 
parties in interest and as to all matters and things required to be 
disclosed by the application forms''). Although Sec.  1.914 of the 
Commission's rules was subsequently deleted in 1999, the real party 
in interest disclosure language was incorporated into Sec.  1.919(e) 
of the Commission's rules and applied to applicants for wireless 
licenses where Sec.  1.2112 of the Commission's rules was not 
applicable. 47 CFR 1.919(f). In 1994, the requirement to fully 
disclose the real party in interest was incorporated into the 
competitive bidding rules. Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and 
Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5656 (1994); 47 CFR 24.813 (1994).
    \83\ Intermart Broadcasting Pocatello, Inc., Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8822, 8826-27 (2008); See also Arnold L. 
Chase, Decision, 5 FCC Rcd 1642, 1648 n.5 (1990) (concern in a real 
party in interest inquiry is whether an applicant is, or will be, 
controlled in a manner that differs from the proposal before the 
Commission).
    \84\ See Fenwick Island Broadcast Corp. & Leonard P. Berger, 
Decision, 7 FCC Rcd 2978, 2979 (Rev. Bd. 1992) (citation omitted); 
See also Lowrey Communications, L.P., Decision, 7 FCC Rcd 7139, 7147 
n.32 (Rev. Bd. 1992) (subsequent history omitted) (sine qua non of a 
real party in interest issue is a showing that a party not named as 
a principal holds either an undisclosed ownership interest or the 
functional equivalent thereof).
    \85\ Intermart Broadcasting Pocatello, Inc., 23 FCC Rcd at 8827 
para. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. In its short- and long-form applications filed in 2005, 
Maritime identified only Sandra DePriest as having an interest in the 
company. Maritime did not disclose any involvement by Sandra DePriest's 
husband, Donald DePriest. Maritime's short-form application states:

    One hundred percent of the membership interests in Maritime 
Communications/Land Mobile, LLC are owned by S/RJW Partnership, Ltd. 
The general partner in S/RJW Partnership, Ltd. is Communications 
Investments, Inc. One hundred percent of the shares in 
Communications Investments, Inc. are owned by Sandra M. DePriest. 
One hundred percent of the partnership shares in S/RJW Partnership, 
Ltd. are owned by Sandra M. DePriest.
    Sandra M. DePriest is the sole officer, director and key 
management personnel of Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC. 
Sandra M. DePriest is the sole key management personnel of S/RJW 
Partnership, Ltd. Sandra M. DePriest is the sole officer, director 
and key management personnel of Communications Investments, Inc.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See short-form application, Explanation of Ownership. 
Maritime also certified that it had provided separate gross revenue 
information for itself, for each of its officers, directors, 
controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling 
interests, and for each affiliate of each of its officers, 
directors, and other controlling interests. See short-form 
application, Gross Revenues Confirmation.

    38. Maritime's long-form application reiterated these claims and 
included further certifications as to Maritime's ownership disclosures 
and bidding credit eligibility, including that ``all statements made in 
this application and in the exhibits, attachments, or documents 
incorporated by reference are material, * * * and are true, complete, 
correct, and made in good faith.'' \87\ In various other pleadings, 
Maritime repeatedly represented that Sandra DePriest has held 100 
percent control of Maritime at all relevant times.\88\ Maritime also 
claimed that Donald and Sandra DePriest ``live separate economic 
lives'' and that Donald DePriest has no ownership interest in and is 
not an officer nor a director of Maritime.\89\ While Sandra DePriest 
may have been the nominal owner, these statements, when considered in 
light of the evidence, appear to be misleading because they suggest 
that Donald DePriest played a limited role in Maritime and therefore 
that his interests were not relevant to the designated entity and 
bidding credit analysis. Contrary to these claims, disclosure of Donald 
DePriest (and attribution of associated revenues) appears to have been 
required by two independent sections of our rules--the spousal 
affiliation rule in Sec.  1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's 
rules and the real party in interest disclosure requirements of Sec.  
1.2112(a) of the Commission's rules. Maritime's apparent failure to 
identify either Donald DePriest or his associated revenues in its pre-
auction short-form and post-auction long-form applications, together 
with the fact that Maritime repeatedly provided incomplete and 
potentially misleading information concerning Donald DePriest during 
the course of WTB's and EB's investigations, raise significant and 
material questions of fact about Maritime's qualifications, including 
its basic character qualifications, to hold Commission licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See long-form application.
    \88\ See, e.g., Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, 
Opposition to Petition to Deny Application FCC File No. 0002303355 
(September 18, 2006) (``[a]t all times from the filing of 
[Maritime's] Form 175 application to the date of the filing of the 
instant opposition, Sandra M. DePriest has held one hundred percent 
control of [Maritime]'').
    \89\ See amended long-form application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    39. Spousal Affiliation. In 2006, WTB concluded that Maritime 
should have disclosed Donald DePriest and his revenues under the 
spousal affiliation provisions of Sec.  1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the 
Commission's rules.\90\ Maritime had claimed that the spousal 
affiliation rule did not apply because of the separation between Donald 
and Sandra DePriest's economic lives, but filed a request for waiver of 
the rule ``in an abundance of caution.'' In rejecting Maritime's 
claims, WTB explained that the spousal affiliation rule is a ``bright-
line standard,'' \91\ emphasizing the Commission's longstanding 
conclusion that ``[it] will in every instance attribute the financial 
interests of an applicant's spouse to the applicant.'' \92\ WTB 
stressed that Sec.  1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules 
required the attribution of Donald DePriest's revenues to Maritime for 
the purposes of

[[Page 30162]]

determining Maritime's designated entity status.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A).
    \91\ WTB November 2006 Order at 13736 para. 5 (``section 
1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules clearly requires that 
the revenues of Mr. DePriest * * * be attributed to [Maritime]'').
    \92\ See Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications 
Act--Competitive Bidding, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC 
Rcd 7245, 7262 para. 100 (1994).
    \93\ WTB November 2006 Order at 13736 para. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. Although Sec.  1.2110(c)(5)(iii)(A) of the Commission's rules 
establishes a bright-line standard that would apply to Maritime 
irrespective of any claim of the DePriests' supposed ``separate 
economic lives,'' this claim itself appears to be inaccurate. The 
record suggests that since as early as the 1980s, the DePriests' 
professional and economic interests have been intertwined. This 
apparent inconsistency raises further questions as to whether 
Maritime's disclosure failures were calculated to mislead the 
Commission into awarding Maritime a higher bidding credit than was 
warranted, and thus bears on its qualifications to hold Commission 
licenses.
    41. Real Party in Interest. Furthermore, even if the DePriests had 
not been married, the information before us suggests that Donald 
DePriest may have been an undisclosed real party in interest behind 
Maritime. In this regard, the record indicates that Donald DePriest 
often acted on behalf of Maritime, binding the company in significant 
respects.\94\ For example, in his role as ``Manager'' of Maritime, 
Donald DePriest signed the incorporation filings for Maritime; \95\ 
[REDACTED]; \96\ issued [REDACTED]; \97\ [REDACTED]; \98\ 
[REDACTED].\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See Letter from Sandra DePriest to Jeffrey Tobias, Esq., 
Attorney, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission, dated September 30, 2009 
(indicating that nine days after Maritime was formed, Mrs. DePriest 
designated Mr. DePriest to serve as manager/signer on behalf of 
Maritime); See Letter from Sandra DePriest to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated March 29, 2010 
at 5-7 (see March 10, 2009 Maritime Meeting Minutes [REDACTED]).
    \95\ See Certificate of Formation, dated February 15, 2005, 
filed with the Delaware Secretary of State's Office (executed by 
Donald DePriest).
    \96\ [REDACTED].
    \97\ [REDACTED].
    \98\ [REDACTED].
    \99\ There is credible evidence suggesting that [REDACTED].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. In addition, it appears that Communications Investments, Inc.--
which indirectly owns Maritime--was until recently still led by Mr. 
DePriest as President. While Mr. DePriest claims to have transferred 
the stock of Communications Investments, Inc. to his wife, Sandra 
DePriest, and to have resigned as President just less than four months 
prior to the filing of Maritime's short-form application,\100\ 
contemporaneous submissions to the state of Mississippi (signed by 
either Sandra or Donald DePriest) reflect that Mr. DePriest was 
President of Communications Investments Inc. until 2008.\101\ 
Therefore, during Auction No. 61 Mr. DePriest appears to have served as 
President of the general partner of Maritime. In sum, while Mrs. 
DePriest was nominally identified as the ``sole officer, director, and 
key management personnel'' of Maritime, it appears that Donald DePriest 
may have been a real party in interest behind Maritime--especially 
given the evidence about Maritime's corporate structure as well as the 
evidence suggesting that Mr. DePriest was integrally involved in 
significant financial and operational decisions and otherwise played a 
much larger role in Maritime than the DePriests initially disclosed. 
Accordingly, an appropriate issue will be designated to determine 
whether Maritime willfully violated Sec.  1.2112 of the Commission's 
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Maritime Response to WTB, Exhibit 6.
    \101\ See Communications Investments Inc., 2002 Annual Corporate 
Report, filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State on Mar. 20, 
2002 (listing Donald DePriest as the President of Communications 
Investments, Inc.); Communications Investments Inc., 2003 Annual 
Corporate Report, filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State on 
April 1, 2003 (same); Communications Investments Inc., 2004 Annual 
Corporate Report, filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State on 
Mar. 16, 2004 (same); Communications Investments Inc., 2005 Annual 
Corporate Report, filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State on 
Feb. 16, 2005 (same); Communications Investments Inc., 2006 Annual 
Corporate Report, filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State on 
Mar. 10, 2006 (same); Communications Investments Inc., 2007 Annual 
Corporate Report, filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State on 
Mar. 19, 2007 (same); Communications Investments Inc., 2008 Annual 
Corporate Report, filed with the Mississippi Secretary of State on 
Jan. 20, 2008 (showing a change in the President from Donald 
DePriest to Sandra DePriest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Failure To Disclose Attributable Interests and Revenues
    43. As indicated above, Sec.  1.2110 of the Commission's rules 
establishes the core requirements for obtaining bidding credits as a 
designated entity. It requires any entity seeking a bidding credit to 
establish that it is entitled to such a credit by providing the gross 
revenues (for each of the three years prior to an auction) of the 
applicant, its affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of 
its controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an 
attributable material relationship.\102\ Pursuant to Sec.  1.2110 of 
the Commission's rules, Maritime was required to disclose upfront in 
its short- and long-form applications the gross revenues of Donald 
DePriest and those of his affiliates. The record before us indicates 
that not only did Maritime fail to make the required disclosures, it 
appears to have engaged in a continued practice of obfuscation and 
misdirection, incrementally disclosing tidbits of information about the 
nature and extent of Donald DePriest's affiliates. The piecemeal and 
selective nature of Maritime's disclosures not only wasted precious 
Commission resources but essentially forced the Commission to 
repeatedly seek information which Maritime was legally required to 
provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ 47 CFR 1.2110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Furthermore, we must question the plausibility of Maritime not 
understanding its legal disclosure obligations. In administering the 
initial stages of Auction No. 61, the Commission adopted several 
measures to ensure that participants knew and understood the relevant 
auction service rules and disclosure requirements, and made available 
several aids to assist bidders with the auction process.\103\ For 
example, in an April 21, 2005 Public Notice, the Commission explained 
in great detail the rules and procedures attendant to participation in 
the auction. In relevant part, the Commission explained that 
``[p]rospective applicants must familiarize themselves thoroughly with 
the Commission's rules [and] with the procedures, terms and conditions 
* * * contained in [the] Public Notice.'' \104\ The Public Notice 
emphasized, for example, that ``[s]ection 1.65 of the Commission's 
rules requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness 
of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the 
Commission within 30 days of any substantial change that may be of 
decisional significance to that application.'' \105\ The Public Notice 
also provided guidance to those participants seeking a bidding credit 
by explaining that, ``for Auction No. 61, if an applicant claims 
eligibility for a bidding credit, the information provided will be used 
in determining whether the applicant is eligible for the claimed 
bidding credit,'' and that submission of the initial application 
``constitutes a representation by the certifying official * * * that 
the contents of the application, its

[[Page 30163]]

certifications and any attachments are true and correct.'' \106\ 
Finally, the Public Notice gave detailed explanations for (a) 
Determining the size standards for bidding credits, (b) understanding 
ownership disclosure requirements, and (c) calculating bidding credit 
revenue disclosures.\107\ The above-mentioned measures are only a 
sampling of the efforts that the Commission made to ensure that 
participants knew and understood the rules and requirements of Auction 
No. 61.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Auction No. 61 was also the first to employ an extensive 
redesign of the Commission's Integrated Spectrum Auction System. The 
newly redesigned system included enhancements to the FCC Form 175 
such as ``discrete data elements in place of free-form exhibits and 
improved data accuracy through automated checking of FCC Form 175 
applications'' and allowed for easier navigation, customizable 
results, and improved functionality.
    \104\ Auction of Automated Maritime Telecommunications System 
Licenses Scheduled for August 3, 2005, Notice and Filing 
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other 
Auction Procedures for Auction No. 61, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 
7811, 7816, (WTB 2005) (``Auction No. 61 Procedures Public 
Notice'').
    \105\ Auction No. 61 Procedures Public Notice at 7818 (citing 47 
CFR 1.65).
    \106\ The Public Notice also put bidders on notice that 
``[s]ubmission of false certification to the Commission may result 
in penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license forfeitures, 
ineligibility to participate in future auctions, and/or criminal 
prosecution.'' Id. at 7828.
    \107\ Id at 17.
    \108\ On May 25, 2006, the Commission hosted an auction seminar 
(made available via webcast) and made available supplemental 
materials on the Commission's Web site. The Auction seminar included 
various presentations and accessible materials such as PowerPoint 
presentations on the Pre-Auction Process, Overview of AMTS Rules and 
Due Diligence, Legal, Technical Auction Rules, and Payment Process, 
Auction Bidding Procedures, and Post-Auction Process. On June 28, 
2005, the Commission issued a second Public Notice that reiterated 
the need to update pending applications to maintain the completeness 
and accuracy of the application pursuant to Sec.  1.65 of the 
Commission's rules. See Auction of Automated Maritime 
Telecommunications Systems Licenses, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 
11431, 11434 (2005). On July 22, 2005, the Commission released a 
further Public Notice, which, in addition to restating the section 
1.65 requirement, also reminded participants that applicants 
claiming eligibility to receive a ``small or very small business 
bidding credit should be aware that, following the auction they 
[would] be subject to more extensive reporting requirements 
contained in the Commission's Part 1 ownership disclosure rule'' 
pursuant to Sec.  1.2112(b)(2) of the Commission's rules. See 
Auction of Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems Licenses, 
Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 12373, 12379 (2005). All of the Auction 
No. 61 materials made clear the rules, requirements, and procedures 
for participation, and emphasized the need for strict compliance 
with the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Notwithstanding extensive Commission guidance directing 
otherwise, in its applications filed in 2005, Maritime disclosed only 
the interests of Sandra DePriest and her affiliates.\109\ It took more 
than a year--and only after WTB determined that Maritime had run afoul 
of the ``bright-line'' spousal attribution provisions in Sec.  1.2110 
of the Commission's rules--for Maritime to amend its application, at 
staff direction, to disclose what the company represented, at that 
time, were the gross revenues of Donald DePriest and his 
affiliates.\110\ In this amendment, Maritime stated, among other 
things, that Donald DePriest controlled just one company: American 
Nonwovens Corporation.\111\ Several weeks later--and only in response 
to ongoing administrative litigation--Maritime belatedly acknowledged 
that Donald DePriest actually controlled three more entities: Charisma 
Broadcasting Co., Bravo Communications, Inc., and Golden Triangle 
Radio, Inc.\112\ Some three years later--and only in response to a 
written request for information from WTB--Maritime divulged more than 
two dozen additional affiliates of Donald DePriest.\113\ Several months 
thereafter--and only in response to an Enforcement Bureau letter of 
inquiry--Maritime disclosed information about Donald DePriest's 
involvement in MCT Corp.\114\ The timing and substance of these 
disclosures raise material questions of fact about whether Maritime and 
its principals engaged in a pattern of deception and misinformation 
carefully designed to obtain and conceal an unfair economic advantage 
over competing auction bidders through the receipt of designated entity 
status and the associated bidding credit to which it may not have been 
entitled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See short-form application and long-form application.
    \110\ See amended long-form application.
    \111\ Id.
    \112\ See Maritime September 2006 Opposition.
    \113\ See Maritime Response to WTB.
    \114\ See Sandra DePriest March 29 EB Response Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. Moreover, the evidence reflects a conflict between Donald 
DePriest's assertions regarding the role that he played in MCT Corp. 
and other evidence received by the Commission. As noted above, in the 
record before us, Mr. DePriest initially acknowledged to WTB that he 
served as Chairman of MCT Corp.\115\ When faced with EB's further 
inquiry, however, Mr. DePriest claimed that his role as MCT's Chairman 
was a limited one, i.e., that he [REDACTED].\116\ Similarly, Mr. 
DePriest claimed [REDACTED], while simultaneously submitting 
documentation MCT Corp. had filed with the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
State Corporation Commission reporting that he served as officer, 
director and as Chairman.\117\ When confronted with this apparent 
inconsistency, Mr. DePriest claimed that [REDACTED].\118\ In addition, 
while Mr. DePriest eventually conceded that [REDACTED], he 
simultaneously asserted that he [REDACTED].\119\ We find that these 
various factual conflicts continue to raise questions, including with 
respect to overall credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Letter from Donald R. DePriest to Jeffrey Tobias, 
Esq., Attorney, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated September 30, 2009.
    \116\ See Letter from Patricia J. Paoletta and Jonathan B. 
Mirsky, Counsel to Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc. and 
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated December 29, 
2010, Exhibit B (``December 29 Letter'').
    \117\ See 2002-2004 Annual Reports filed by MCT Corp. with the 
Commonwealth of Virginia, State Corporation Commission.
    \118\ See Letter from Patricia J. Paoletta and Jonathan B. 
Mirsky, Counsel to Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc. and 
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated January 25, 
2011, Exhibit A.
    \119\ See December 29 Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. In light of the repeated inconsistencies between and among Mr. 
DePriest's own statements and the other evidence before us, we are 
unable to conclude that he did not control or have the ability to 
control MCT Corp. Mr. DePriest is variously identified as an officer 
and director of the company and there is no question that at various 
times he served as Chairman of the Board, [REDACTED]. The record also 
indicates that [REDACTED],\120\ [REDACTED]. Furthermore, MCT Corp.'s 
bylaws indicate that [REDACTED].\121\ Given our broad definition of 
``control'' in the designated entity context which, pursuant to Sec.  
1.2110(c)(5) of the Commission's rules, can arise through stock 
ownership, occupancy of director, officer or key employee positions; 
contractual or other business relations; or combinations of these and 
other factors, substantial and material questions of fact as to Mr. 
DePriest's control of MCT Corp. remain, which are properly resolved by 
an independent trier of fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ [REDACTED].
    \121\ [REDACTED].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. We also question whether Maritime has yet to provide a 
definitive list of, and accompanying financial data for, all of Donald 
DePriest's affiliates, as required by Sec.  1.2110 of the Commission's 
rules.\122\ Maritime was absolutely required to provide all relevant 
information about the revenues of Donald DePriest and his affiliates in 
the first instance, and its demonstrated propensity to withhold 
pertinent and requisite information raises questions about Maritime's 
basic qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ The evidence suggests that Donald DePriest may have had an 
interest in several other companies not previously disclosed, 
including International Telecommunications Holdings Corporation, 
International Telecommunications Services Corporation, MCT Sibi 
Corp., UZLC Corp., and MCT Uzbekistan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. Maritime's multiple failures to fulfill its disclosure 
obligations under Sec. Sec.  1.2110 and 1.2112 of the Commission's 
rules raise particular concerns given the importance of maintaining the 
integrity of our spectrum auctions. We adopted carefully structured 
disclosure rules to

[[Page 30164]]

ensure that our auctions are conducted in a fair and transparent manner 
and that all applicants participate on an even playing field. When 
auction applicants undermine our disclosure rules, such actions 
threaten the very foundation upon which we conduct our auctions. While 
Maritime and its principals claim that these disclosure failures 
resulted from ``mistaken beliefs,'' \123\ ``oversights,'' \124\ or 
``good faith reliance on counsel,'' \125\ they have provided no 
substantiation of these claims. We are also mindful that Maritime's 
principals are sophisticated business people,\126\ that Maritime had 
multiple opportunities to provide the required information, and that 
Maritime had a significant financial motive to conceal Donald 
DePriest's revenues. When these realities are coupled with the 
allegations of the Petitioners and the corroborating information in the 
record, we conclude that there are material questions of fact as to 
whether all attributable interests and revenues were disclosed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See Letter from Sandra DePriest to Brian J. Carter, 
Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, dated March 29, 2010, at 9.
    \124\ Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Opposition to 
Petition for Reconsideration, filed September 18, 2006, at 11.
    \125\ See Letter from Sandra DePriest to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Investigations and 
Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, dated March 29, 2010, at 8.
    \126\ Donald DePriest has extensive experience in the 
communications industry and a long history of investing in multiple 
communications-related companies and ventures. Sandra DePriest is a 
former communications attorney. Donald DePriest founded Charisma 
Communications Corporation in 1982, serving as Chairman of the Board 
and President through the sale of its operations to McCaw 
Communications in 1986 and 1987. Charisma developed and operated 
eleven cellular systems. Mr. DePriest created MCT Investors, LP in 
1987 to develop, among other things, telecommunications ventures. He 
also served as Chairman of the Board of American Telecasting, Inc. 
which was sold to Sprint in 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Accordingly, an appropriate issue will be designated to 
determine whether Maritime failed on multiple occasions to reveal 
material information in support of its claimed entitlement to a 
designated entity bidding credit, in willful and repeated violation of 
Sec.  1.2110 of the Commission's rules. In addition, if it is 
determined that Maritime was not entitled to a bidding credit in 
Auction No. 61, the Administrative Law Judge shall determine whether 
Maritime should be ordered to repay the entire amount of its bidding 
credit plus all accrued interest to the United States Treasury.
3. Misrepresentations and Lack of Candor
    51. False Certification and Section 1.2105 of the Commission's 
Rules. As indicated above, Sec.  1.2105 of the Commission's rules 
requires an applicant that applies as a designated entity pursuant to 
Sec.  1.2110 of the Commission's rules to provide a statement to that 
effect and a declaration under penalty of perjury that it is qualified 
as a designated entity under Sec.  1.2110 of the Commission's 
rules.\127\ In its short-form application, Maritime made several 
certifications that now appear to have been false, or at a minimum, 
made without a reasonable basis for believing that the statements were 
correct and not misleading.\128\ For example, Maritime certified that 
it provided gross revenues for all relevant interests, a statement 
later shown to be incorrect.\129\ Maritime also asserted that it was 
eligible for a ``very small business'' bidding credit which was later 
partially rescinded.\130\ In addition, in its long-form application, 
Maritime certified that ``all statements made in the application and in 
the exhibits, attachments, or documents incorporated by reference are 
material, are part of [the] application, and are true, complete, 
correct, and made in good faith.'' \131\ Maritime further certified 
that it ``ha[d] current required ownership data on file with the 
Commission, [was] filing updated ownership data simultaneously with the 
application, or [was] not required to file ownership data under the 
Commission's rules.'' \132\ In filing its long-form application, 
Maritime also took the opportunity to correct the name of one of the 
affiliate interests listed in its short-form application, but failed to 
provide any additional information regarding other disclosable interest 
holders.\133\ Given the material and substantial questions that remain 
about Maritime's eligibility for designated entity status in Auction 
No. 61, we have grave concerns about whether Maritime falsely certified 
to such eligibility, in willful violation of Sec.  1.2105 of the 
Commission's rules. Accordingly, an appropriate issue will be 
designated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ 47 CFR 1.2105. See also 47 CFR 1.2110.
    \128\ See short-form application; See also notes 140-147 and 
accompanying text (discussing Sec.  1.17(a)(2) of the Commission's 
rules, which require due diligence in preparing written submissions 
to the Commission).
    \129\ See short-form application.
    \130\ Id. See also Maritime Communications, 21 FCC Rcd at 13735.
    \131\ See long-form application.
    \132\ Id.
    \133\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. Misrepresentation/Lack of Candor and Section 1.17 of the 
Commission's Rules. Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Commission's rules states 
that no person shall, in any written or oral statement of fact, 
intentionally provide material factual information that is incorrect or 
intentionally omit material information that is necessary to prevent 
any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or 
misleading.\134\ We note that a misrepresentation is a false statement 
of fact made with the intent to deceive the Commission.\135\ Lack of 
candor is a concealment, evasion, or other failure to be fully 
informative, accompanied by an intent to deceive the Commission.\136\ A 
necessary and essential element of both misrepresentation and lack of 
candor is intent to deceive.\137\ Fraudulent intent can be found from 
``the fact of misrepresentation coupled with proof that the party 
making it had knowledge of its falsity.'' \138\ Intent can also be 
found from motive or logical desire to deceive. \139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ 47 CFR 1.17(a)(1).
    \135\ Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., Order, 93 FCC 2d 127, 129 
(1983); Discussion Radio, Incorporated, Memorandum Opinion and Order 
and Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 7433, 7435 (2004).
    \136\ Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., 93 FCC 2d at 129; Discussion 
Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7435.
    \137\ Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., Initial Decision, 
10 FCC Rcd 12020, 12063 (1995); Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 
7435.
    \138\ David Ortiz Radio Corp. v. FCC, 941 F.2d 1253, 1260 (D.C. 
Cir. 1991)(quoting Leflore Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 636 F.2d 454, 
462) (D.C. Cir. 1980); See also Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 
7435.
    \139\ See Joseph Bahr, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 
32, 33 (Rev. Bd. 1994); Discussion Radio, 19 FCC Rcd at 7435; Black 
Television Workshop of Los Angeles, Inc., Decision, 8 FCC Rcd 4192, 
4198 n. 41 (1993)(citing California Public Broadcasting Forum v. 
FCC, 752 F.2d 670, 679 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Scott & Davis Enterprises, 
Inc., 88 FCC 2d 1090, 1100 (Rev. Bd. 1982)). Intent to deceive can 
also be inferred when the surrounding circumstances clearly show the 
existence of an intent to deceive. Commercial Radio Service, Inc., 
Order to Show Cause, 21 FCC Rcd 9983, 9986 (2006)(citing American 
International Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 86 
FCC 2d 808, 816 n.39 (1981), aff'd sub nom. KXIV, Inc. v. FCC, 704 
F.2d 1294 (DC Cir. 1983)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Commission's rules further requires 
that no person may provide, in any written statement of fact, 
``material factual information that is incorrect or omit material 
information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement 
that is made from being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable 
basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct 
and not misleading.'' \140\ Any person who has received a letter of 
inquiry from the Commission or its staff or is otherwise

[[Page 30165]]

the subject of a Commission investigation is subject to this rule.\141\ 
In expanding the scope of Sec.  1.17 of the Commission's rules in 2003 
to include written statements that are made without a reasonable basis 
for believing the statement is correct and not misleading, the 
Commission explained that this requirement was intended to more clearly 
articulate the obligations of persons dealing with the Commission, 
ensure that they exercise due diligence in preparing written 
submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of the Commission's 
enforcement efforts.\142\ Thus, even absent an intent to deceive, a 
false statement may constitute an actionable violation of Sec.  1.17 of 
the Commission's rules if provided without a reasonable basis for 
believing that the material factual information it contains is correct 
and not misleading.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ 47 CFR 1.17(a)(2).
    \141\ 47 CFR 1.17(b)(4).
    \142\ In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the 
Commission's Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, 
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016, 4016 para. 1-2, 4021 para. 12 
(2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 
5790, further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC 
Rcd 1250 (2004) (``Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's 
Rules'').
    \143\ See id. at 4017 para. 4 (stating that the revision to 
Sec.  1.17 of the Commission's rules is intended to ``prohibit 
incorrect statements or omissions that are the result of negligence, 
as well as an intent to deceive'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. The Commission and the courts have recognized that ``[t]he FCC 
relies heavily on the honesty and probity of its licensees in a 
regulatory system that is largely self-policing.'' \144\ Full and clear 
disclosure of all material facts in every application is essential to 
the efficient administration of the Commission's licensing process, and 
proper analysis of an application is critically dependent on the 
accuracy and completeness of information and data which only the 
applicant can provide. Further, an applicant has a duty to be candid 
with all facts and information before the Commission, regardless of 
whether that information was elicited.\145\ Similarly, a false 
certification may constitute a misrepresentation.\146\ As the 
Commission has noted, ``misrepresentation and lack of candor raise 
immediate concerns as to whether a licensee will be truthful in future 
dealings with the Commission.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ See, e.g., Contemporary Media Inc. v. FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 
193 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
    \145\ Fox River Broadcasting, Inc., 93 FCC 2d at 129.
    \146\ San Francisco Unified School District, Hearing Designation 
Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 
13326, 13334 para. 19 nn. 40-41 (2004).
    \147\ Commercial Radio Service, Inc, 21 FCC Rcd at 9986 (citing 
Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing 
Amendment of Rules of Broadcast Practice and Procedure, Relating to 
Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and the Making of 
Misrepresentation to the Commission by Applicants, Permittees, and 
LicenSees, and the Reporting of Information Regarding Character 
Qualifications, Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179, 
1210-11 para. 60 (1986)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. In the instant case, Maritime claimed an entitlement in both 
its short-form and long-form auction applications to a ``very small 
business'' bidding credit in Auction No. 61, amounting to 35 percent of 
its winning bids. In support of this claimed entitlement, Maritime was 
required to provide to the Commission full and complete information, 
including information relating to gross revenues, about all entities 
having an attributable interest in Maritime.\148\ The information 
before us indicates, however, that Maritime did not do so. Rather, in 
its short-form and long-form applications, as initially filed, Maritime 
disclosed only the personal interests of Sandra DePriest as well as the 
gross revenues of only two entities: Communications Investments, Inc., 
and S/RJW Partnership, L.P. Through its responses to WTB's and EB's 
investigations, Maritime has revealed that its initial short-form \149\ 
and long-form \150\ auction applications failed to present full and 
complete information about Maritime's interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ 47 CFR 1.2110.
    \149\ Among other things, on its short-form application Maritime 
made statements that now appear to be misrepresentations or to lack 
candor, including: (1) Claiming eligibility as a ``very small 
business'' with gross revenues ``between $0.00 and $3,000,000.00'' 
in the ``Bidding Credit Eligibility'' section; (2) certifying that 
it ``provided separate gross revenue information for itself, for 
each of [its] officers and directors, for each of [its] other 
controlling interests, for each of [its] affiliates, and for each 
affiliate of each of [its] officers, directors, and other 
controlling interests in the ``Gross Revenues Confirmation'' 
section; (3) stating that Sandra DePriest is the ``sole officer, 
director and key management personnel of Maritime,'' although Mrs. 
DePriest later admits that Donald DePriest served as a manager for 
Maritime carrying out high-level tasks (See supra para. 41); (4) 
stating that Sandra DePriest is also the ``sole officer, director 
and key management personnel of Communications Investments Inc.,'' 
although Donald DePriest is listed as the President and sole 
Director of Communications Investments Inc. on Annual Corporate 
Reports filed with the Secretary of the State of Mississippi until 
2008 (See supra para. 42) in the attachment titled ``Explanation of 
Ownership.''
    \150\ Among other things, in its FCC 602 long-form application, 
Maritime made repeated statements (similar to those in its short-
form application) that now appear to be misrepresentations or to 
lack candor. In addition, in an August 21, 2006 amendment to the 
long-form application submitted to ``inform the Commission of the 
gross revenues of an entity controlled by Donald R. DePriest,'' 
Maritime stated that (1) ``ANC is the only revenue producing entity 
which Don owns or controls;'' (See supra para. 45) (2) ``Sandra and 
Don live separate economic lives,'' although (a) many of the 
companies listed in the Mississippi Secretary of State database for 
which Donald DePriest served as an officer or director also list 
Sandra DePriest as having been an officer or agent, and (b) in one 
of Mr. DePriest's answers to the Feb. 26, 2010 EB inquiry, Mr. 
DePriest states that he and Sandra DePriest ``have been involved in 
multiple radio services which are regulated by the Commission * * * 
.''; (3) ``Don DePriest does not, in fact, have any ownership 
interest in or control of MC/LM,'' although as referenced above, in 
addition to being one of three signatories on Maritime's bank 
account, Donald DePriest appears to have made significant corporate 
decisions and performed various management functions for Maritime 
(See supra para. 41). The amendment to the long-form application 
also fails to include certain Maritime employees listed in minutes 
executed on January 26, 2006, who by their titles appear to be 
officers. On March 29, 2009, in answer to EB's inquiry as to why MCT 
Corp. and its revenues had not been disclosed and declared under 
penalty of perjury, Donald DePriest stated that he ``had no reason 
to believe that [his] role as non-executive chairman of MCT Corp. or 
any of the other entities in which [he] had an interest affected 
Sandra DePriest's position with the Commission.'' Donald DePriest 
made this statement after the November 2006 Order that required him 
to be listed as a disclosable interest holder for the purpose of 
determining Maritime's eligibility for bidding credits as a 
designated entity (irrespective of whatever actual role he played in 
Maritime), and prior to the Commission learning that Donald DePriest 
served as one of three members on the Executive Committee at MCT 
Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. As discussed in detail above, the information before us further 
indicates that Maritime failed to identify Donald DePriest as a 
disclosable interest holder in its Auction No. 61 applications as 
originally filed, notwithstanding that the power to control Maritime 
was imputed to him under the spousal affiliation rule \151\ and that 
there are other indicia of control. For instance, as detailed in 
paragraph 41 above, the record shows that Donald DePriest appears to 
have acted as more than just an agent for Maritime, developing 
financial contacts, suggesting equipment vendors, and attending 
conventions on behalf of Maritime.\152\ In addition, he guaranteed some 
of Maritime's debt obligations \153\ and was authorized to enter into 
contracts on behalf of Maritime.\154\ Clearly, Donald DePriest was more 
involved in what was nominally characterized as his wife's company than 
Maritime led the Commission to believe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See supra para. 39 and 40 for discussion of the spousal 
affiliation rule.
    \152\ See Maritime Response to WTB at 7.
    \153\ Id.
    \154\ See Donald DePriest Response to WTB at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. Moreover, it appears that, on a number of occasions, Maritime 
withheld information from the Commission related to the interests of 
Donald DePriest. In its auction applications as originally filed, 
Maritime revealed no interests of Donald DePriest. On August 21, 2006, 
at the prodding of WTB, Maritime revealed that Donald DePriest held an 
interest in just one company--American Nonwovens Corporation.\155\

[[Page 30166]]

Subsequently, on September 18, 2006, Maritime revealed three more 
companies in which Donald DePriest was involved--Charisma Broadcasting 
Co., Bravo Communications, Inc., and Golden Triangle Radio, Inc.\156\ 
Questions continued to be raised about the veracity of Maritime's 
disclosures to the Commission even after its Auction No. 61 licenses 
were granted. Thus, on September 30, 2009, in its response to WTB's 
inquiry, Maritime acknowledged, for the first time, the existence of 
more than two dozen additional entities in which Donald DePriest was 
involved that it had not disclosed previously.\157\ Even then, 
Maritime's representations failed to present full and complete 
information concerning its attributable interests. Most significantly, 
Maritime failed to disclose the existence of MCT Corp., an entity in 
which Donald DePriest served as an officer, as Chairman of the Board of 
Directors, and as a member of the company's Executive Committee. 
Maritime only disclosed MCT Corp. after the matter of Maritime's 
behavior became the subject of an Enforcement Bureau investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ See amended long-form application.
    \156\ See Maritime September 2006 Opposition.
    \157\ See Maritime Response to WTB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. The information before us indicates that MCT Corp. had revenues 
during each of the relevant years from 2002-2004 of [REDACTED]. 
Maritime had an obligation to disclose its attributable interests to 
the Commission in the first instance, without the Commission having to 
elicit the information from Maritime over the course of multiple 
requests spanning several years. The fact that many of the companies in 
which Donald DePriest was involved posted annual revenues [REDACTED] is 
of no significance in determining whether Maritime ignored the 
Commission's auction disclosure obligations. To the contrary, the 
evidence suggests that Maritime was not merely careless in ignoring its 
auction disclosure obligations; rather, we recognize that it had a 
clear financial incentive in the form of a substantial bidding credit 
for dissembling to the Commission with regard to the revenues of the 
entities in which Donald DePriest was involved. Such conduct, if proven 
at hearing, is patently inconsistent with the basic character 
qualifications of a Commission licensee. Accordingly, appropriate 
issues will be specified herein to determine whether Maritime 
misrepresented or lacked candor in its dealings with the Commission, 
either with an intent to deceive and/or in willful and repeated 
violation of Sec.  1.17 of the Commission's rules.
4. Failure to Maintain Completeness and Accuracy of Pending 
Applications
    59. As indicated above, under Sec.  1.65 of the Commission's rules, 
an applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and 
completeness of the information furnished in a pending application or 
in Commission proceedings involving a pending application.\158\ 
Whenever the information furnished in the pending application is no 
longer substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects, 
the applicant must, within 30 days, amend its application so as to 
furnish the additional or correct information. For the purposes of 
Sec.  1.65 of the Commission's rules, an application is ``pending'' 
before the Commission from the time it is accepted for filing until a 
Commission grant (or denial) is no longer subject to reconsideration by 
the Commission or review by any court.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ 47 CFR 1.65.
    \159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. In the instant case, Maritime's long-form application remains 
pending because it is the subject of ongoing administrative litigation. 
Thus, Maritime has been under a continuing obligation to ensure the 
continuing accuracy of its application and to amend its application 
accordingly with new information. The record before us indicates that 
Maritime only once amended its application, on August 21, 2006, to 
purportedly provide information about the affiliates of Donald 
DePriest. Although Maritime appears to have further refined the list of 
all such affiliates of Donald DePriest via subsequent disclosures, 
Maritime has failed to amend its pending application to reflect such 
additional information. Accordingly, an appropriate issue will be 
designated to determine whether Maritime willfully and/or repeatedly 
violated Sec.  1.65 of the Commission's rules.
5. Termination of Authorizations
    61. Pursuant to Sec.  1.955(a) of the Commission's rules, an 
authorization will terminate automatically without affirmative 
Commission action for failure to construct or, if constructed, for 
failure to operate pursuant to the service-specific rules for that 
authorization.\160\ In the instant case, one of the petitioners 
challenging Maritime alleges that Maritime's licenses for site-based 
AMTS stations have canceled automatically because stations either were 
never constructed by Maritime's predecessor-in-interest or because 
operation of the stations has been permanently discontinued.\161\ 
Maritime generally denies these allegations.\162\ We conclude that 
there is a disputed issue of material fact with respect to whether the 
licenses for any of Maritime's site-based AMTS stations have canceled 
automatically for lack of construction or permanent discontinuance of 
operation.\163\ Accordingly, an appropriate issue will be designated to 
determine whether any of Maritime's site-based licenses were 
constructed or operated in violation of Sec. Sec.  1.955(a) and 
80.49(a) of the Commission's rules.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See 47 CFR 1.955(a) and 80.49(a) (providing the specific 
conditions and time periods governing the automatic cancellations of 
AMTS station licenses).
    \161\ See, e.g., Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, 
Petition to Deny Application FCC File No. 0004193328, at 57-60 
(filed May 12, 2010).
    \162\ See, e.g., Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, 
Opposition to Petition to Deny Application FCC File No. 0004131898 
(filed Apr. 7, 2010).
    \163\ We note that the Commission previously concluded that 
Maritime's authorization for a site-based station in Chicago had 
canceled due to permanent discontinuance of operation. See Mobex 
Network Services, LLC, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 
3390, 3395 para. 10 (2010), recon. pending.
    \164\ If the Presiding Judge makes the fact-based determination 
that Maritime has constructed or operated any of its stations at 
variance with Sec. Sec.  1.955(a) and 80.49(a) of the Commission's 
rules, those authorizations will be deemed to have cancelled 
automatically, and the Presiding Judge need not take any affirmative 
action revoking, deleting, or otherwise terminating such licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Ordering Clauses

    62. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 309(e), 
312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), and 312(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 
309(e), 312(a)(1), 312(a)(2), 312(a)(4), and 312(c), Maritime 
Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, shall show cause why the 
authorizations for which it is the licensee set forth in Attachment A 
should not be revoked, and that the above-captioned applications filed 
by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, are designated for 
hearing, in a consolidated proceeding before an FCC Administrative Law 
Judge, at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, upon 
the following issues:
    (a) To determine whether Maritime failed to disclose all real 
parties in interest and other ownership information in its applications 
to participate in Auction No. 61, in willful and/or repeated violation 
of Sec.  1.2112 of the Commission's rules, and whether Donald DePriest 
was such a real party in interest.
    (b) To determine whether Maritime failed to disclose all 
attribution information in its applications to

[[Page 30167]]

participate in Auction No. 61, in willful and/or repeated violation of 
Sec.  1.2110 of the Commission's rules.
    (c) To determine whether Maritime falsely certified to its 
eligibility as a designated entity, in willful and/or repeated 
violation of Sec.  1.2105 of the Commission's rules.
    (d) To determine whether Maritime failed to amend its Auction No. 
61 long-form application, in willful and/or repeated violation of Sec.  
1.65 of the Commission's rules.
    (e) To determine whether Maritime engaged in misrepresentation and/
or lack of candor in its applications relating to Auction No. 61 and/or 
in its responses to official Commission inquiries for information 
relating to its participation in Auction No. 61.
    (f) To determine whether Maritime made incorrect written statements 
of fact to, and/or omitted material information from, the Commission, 
in connection with matters arising from its participation in Auction 
No. 61, and/or in its responses to official Commission inquiries for 
information relating to its participation in Auction No. 61, in willful 
and/or repeated violation of Sec.  1.17 of the Commission's rules.
    (g) To determine whether Maritime constructed or operated any of 
its stations at variance with Sec. Sec.  1.955(a) and 80.49(a) of the 
Commission's rules.
    (h) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the 
foregoing issues, whether Maritime is qualified to be and remain a 
Commission licensee.
    (i) To determine, in light of the foregoing issues, whether the 
captioned authorizations for which Maritime is the licensee should be 
revoked.
    (j) To determine, in light of the foregoing issues, whether the 
captioned applications filed by or on behalf of Maritime 
Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, should be granted.
    63. It is further ordered that, irrespective of the resolution of 
the foregoing issues, it shall be determined whether an order should be 
issued against Maritime directing it and its principal(s) to repay in 
full to the United States Treasury the entire amount of the bidding 
credit that it was awarded in Auction No. 61, plus all accrued 
interest.
    64. It is further ordered that, irrespective of the resolution of 
the foregoing issues, it shall be determined whether an order should be 
issued against Maritime prohibiting it and its principal(s) from 
participating in future Commission auctions.
    65. It is further ordered that, irrespective of the resolution of 
the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section 
503(b)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1), whether an order of 
forfeiture should be issued against Maritime in an amount not to exceed 
the statutory limit for the willful and/or repeated violation of each 
rule section above for which the statute of limitations in section 
503(b)(6), 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6), has not lapsed.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Pursuant to Sec.  20.9(b) of the Commission's rules, AMTS 
is presumed to be a commercial mobile radio service and will be 
treated as a common carriage service absent an interested party's 
satisfactory demonstration to the Commission that it be deemed 
otherwise. Therefore, for the purposes of any forfeiture that may be 
issued, Maritime shall be considered to be a common carrier. 
Pursuant to Sec.  1.80(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, the maximum 
forfeiture shall not exceed $150,000 for each violation or each day 
of a continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any 
continuing violation shall not exceed a total of $1.5 million for a 
single act for failure to act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. It is further ordered that, in connection with the possible 
forfeiture liability noted above, this document constitutes notice of 
an opportunity for hearing, pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(3)(A), and Sec.  1.80 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.80.
    67. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 312(c) of the 
Act and Sec. Sec.  1.91(c) and 1.221 of the Commission's rules, 47 
U.S.C. 312(c) and 47 CFR 1.91(c) and 1.221, to avail itself of the 
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at a hearing in this 
proceeding, Maritime, in person or by an attorney, shall file with the 
Commission, within 20 calendar days of the release of this Order, a 
written appearance stating that it will appear at the hearing and 
present evidence on the issues specified above.
    68. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec.  1.91 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.91, if Maritime fails to file a timely 
appearance, its right to a hearing shall be deemed to be waived. In the 
event the right to a hearing is waived, the Chief Administrative Law 
Judge (or presiding officer if one has been designated) shall, at the 
earliest practicable date, issue an order reciting the events or 
circumstances constituting a waiver of hearing, terminating the hearing 
proceeding, and certifying the case to the Commission. In addition, 
pursuant to Sec.  1.221 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.221, if any 
applicant to any of the captioned applications fails to file a timely 
written appearance, the captioned application shall be dismissed with 
prejudice for failure to prosecute.
    69. It is further ordered that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall 
be made a party to this proceeding without the need to file a written 
appearance.
    70. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 312(d) of the 
Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(d) and Sec.  1.91(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.91(d), the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence 
and the burden of proof shall be upon the Enforcement Bureau as to the 
issues at para. 62(a)-(i), above, and that, pursuant to section 309(e) 
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(e), and Sec.  1.254 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.254, the burden of proceeding with the introduction of 
evidence and the burden of proof shall be upon Maritime Communications/
Land Mobile, LLC, as to the issue at para. 62(j), above.
    71. It is further ordered that each of the following entities shall 
be made a party to this hearing in its capacity as an applicant in one 
or more of the captioned applications: EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc.; 
Duquesne Light Company; DCP Midstream LP; Jackson County Rural 
Membership Electric Cooperative; Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Enbridge 
Energy Company, Inc.; Interstate Power and Light Company; Wisconsin 
Power and Light Company; Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, Inc.; 
Atlas Pipeline--Mid Continent LLC; Denton County Electric Cooperative, 
Inc. dba CoServ Electric; and Southern California Regional Rail 
Authority.
    72. It is further ordered that each of the following entities shall 
be made parties to this hearing in its capacity as a petitioner to one 
or more of the captioned applications: Environmental LLC; Intelligent 
Transportation and Monitoring Wireless LLC; Skybridge Spectrum 
Foundation; Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC; Verde Systems LLC; V2G LLC; and 
Warren Havens.
    73. It is further ordered that copies of this document shall be 
sent via Certified Mail--Return Receipt Requested to the following:
    Patricia J. Paoletta, Esq., Wiltshire & Grannis LLP, 1200 18th 
Street, NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036. Counsel for Maritime 
Communications/Land Mobile, LLC.
    EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc., Attn: Dean Purcelli, 1400 North 
Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75240.
    Duquesne Light Company, Attn: Lee Pillar, 2839 New Beaver Avenue, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15233.
    DCP Midstream LP, Attn: Mark Standberry, 6175 Highland Avenue, 
Beaumont, TX 77705.
    Jackson County Rural Membership Electric Cooperative, Attn: Brad 
Pritchett, 274 E. Base Road, Brownstown, IN 47220.

[[Page 30168]]

    Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Attn: Rudy Wolf, P.O. Box 97034, 10885 NE 
4th Street, Bellevue, WA 98009-9734.
    Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., Attn: Telecom, 1001 G Street, NW., 
Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001.
    Kurt E. DeSoto, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20006. Counsel for Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Kurt E. DeSoto, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20006. Counsel for Wisconsin Power and Light Company.
    Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, Inc., Attn: John D. Vranic, 
16262 Wax Road, Greenwell Springs, LA 70739.
    Atlas Pipeline--Mid Continent LLC, Attn: James Stepp, 110 W 7th 
Street, Suite 2300, Tulsa, OK 74119.
    Mona Lee & Associates, Attn: Mona Lee, 3730 Kirby Drive, Suite 
1200, PMB 165, Houston, TX 77098. Contact for Atlas Pipeline--Mid 
Continent LLC.
    Denton County Electric Cooperative, Inc. dba CoServ Electric, Attn: 
Chris Anderson, Project Mgr.--IS, 7701 S. Stemmons, Corinth, TX 76210-
1842.
    Fletcher Heald & Hildreth, PLC, Attn: Paul J. Feldman, 1300 N. 17th 
Street, 11th Fl., Arlington, VA 22209. Counsel for Southern California 
Regional Rail Authority.
    Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, Robert J Miller, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 
2800, Dallas, TX 75201. Counsel for Denton County Electric Cooperative, 
Inc. dba CoServ Electric .
    Environmentel, LLC, 2509 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA 94705.
    Intelligent Transportation and Monitoring Wireless LLC, 2509 Stuart 
Street, Berkeley, CA 94705.
    Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, 2509 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA 
94705.
    Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Attn: Darrel Maxey, 
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 2600, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
    Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC, 2509 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA 94705.
    Verde Systems LLC, 2509 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA 94705.
    V2G LLC, 2509 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA 94705.
    Warren Havens, 2509 Stuart Street, Berkeley, CA 94705.
    74. It is further ordered that a copy of this document, or a 
summary thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

ATTACHMENT A

    The following authorizations of which Maritime Communications/
Land Mobile, LLC is the licensee are the subject of this license 
revocation hearing:
1. WQGF315
2. WQGF316
3. WQGF317
4. WQGF318
5. KA98265
6. KAE889
7. KCE278
8. KPB531
9. KUF732
10. WFN
11. WHG693
12. WHG701
13. WHG702
14. WHG703
15. WHG705
16. WHG706
17. WHG707
18. WHG708
19. WHG709
20. WHG710
21. WHG711
22. WHG712
23. WHG713
24. WHG714
25. WHG715
26. WHG716
27. WHG717
28. WHG718
29. WHG719
30. WHG720
31. WHG721
32. WHG722
33. WHG723
34. WHG724
35. WHG725
36. WHG726
37. WHG727
38. WHG728
39. WHG729
40. WHG730
41. WHG731
42. WHG732
43. WHG733
44. WHG734
45. WHG735
46. WHG736
47. WHG737
48. WHG738
49. WHG739
50. WHG740
51. WHG741
52. WHG742
53. WHG743
54. WHG744
55. WHG745
56. WHG746
57. WHG747
58. WHG748
59. WHG749
60. WHG750
61. WHG751
62. WHG752
63. WHG753
64. WHG754
65. WHV733
66. WHV740
67. WHV843
68. WHW848
69. WHX877
70. WRD580
71. WRV374

ATTACHMENT B

    The following pending applications are designated for hearing in 
this proceeding:
    1. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and EnCana Oil and 
Gas (USA), Inc., Application for Assignment of Authorization, File 
No. 0004030479.
    2. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Southern 
California Regional Rail Authority, Application for Assignment of 
Authorization, File No. 0004144435.
    3. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Application for 
Modification of Facilities, File No. 0004193028.
    4. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, and Duquesne Light 
Company, Application for Assignment of Authorization, File No. 
0004193328.
    5. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and DCP Midstream 
LP, Application for Assignment of Authorization, File No. 
0004354053.
    6. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Application for 
Modification of Facilities, File No. 0004309872.
    7. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Jackson County 
Rural Membership Electric Cooperative, Application for Assignment of 
Authorization, File No. 0004310060.
    8. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC, Application for 
Modification of Facilities, File No. 0004314903.
    9. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Puget Sound 
Energy, Inc., Application for Assignment of Authorization, File No. 
0004315013.
    10. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Enbridge 
Energy Company, Inc., Application for Assignment of Authorization, 
File No. 0004430505.
    11. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Interstate 
Power and Light Company, Application for Assignment of 
Authorization, File No. 0004417199.
    12. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Wisconsin 
Power and Light Company, Application for Assignment of 
Authorization, File No. 0004419431.
    13. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Wisconsin 
Power and Light Company, Application for Assignment of 
Authorization, File No. 0004422320.
    14. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Wisconsin 
Power and Light Company, Application for Assignment of 
Authorization, File No. 0004422329.
    15. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Dixie Electric 
Membership Corporation, Inc., Application for Assignment of 
Authorization, File No. 0004507921.
    16. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, Application for 
Modification of Facilities, File No. 0004153701.
    17. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Atlas 
Pipeline--Mid Continent LLC, Application for Assignment of 
Authorization, File No. 0004526264.
    18. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and Denton County 
Electric Cooperative, Inc. dba CoServ Electric, Application for 
Assignment of Authorization, File No. 0004636537.
    19. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, and EnCana Oil and 
Gas (USA), Inc., Application for Assignment of Authorization, File 
No. 0004604962.

[FR Doc. 2011-12792 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P