February 22, 2017–PCS Partners L.P. has filed an application for review asking the FCC to review bureau orders rejecting the company’s request for a longer extension to complete construction of its M-LMS (multilateration location and monitoring service) licenses.
“In this matter, the agency followed an unprecedented, and ultimately arbitrary and unreasonable course: It proposed new service rules in recognition of the fact existing rules did not offer a viable path forward for any M-LMS licensees; extended all licensees’ deadlines to comply with the original rules, based on regulatory uncertainty and lack of equipment; abandoned its proposals to change the rules, without following its notice-and-comment procedures; and then informed PCS Partners, L.P. (‘PCSP’) that – because another M-LMS licensee had obtained waivers of the original rules in order to implement a proprietary technology not available to PCSP – regulatory uncertainty no longer existed, and PCSP would have just two additional years to satisfy its construction obligations,” said the application for review filed Feb. 17 in WT docket 12-202.
“Commission review of the issues presented herein is warranted because the Bureau’s 2014 Order granting PCSP an unreasonably brief extension of time to satisfy construction obligations, and the Bureau’s Order on Reconsideration denying PCSP’s petition for reconsideration of the 2014 Order, conflict with the agency’s rules, precedent, and established policy, contain numerous erroneous findings as to important and material questions of fact, and violate PCSP’s due process rights. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(b)(2),” the company added.
“In particular, extension must be granted because PCSP’s inability to construct and commence service at all times has been due to causes beyond its control. As shown herein, the Bureau’s finding that termination of the proceeding proposing to change the service rules for all M-LMS licensees did not remove regulatory uncertainty. And, the extensions granted were arbitrary, and not based on reasoned analysis. When presented with requests to clarify significant aspects of its arbitrary decision, the Bureau failed to do so. Finally, the Bureau erred in its disparate treatment of PCSP relative to other M-LMS licensees,” according to the filing.
“On review, PCSP respectfully requests that the Commission, taking into account relevant facts and changed circumstances, extend end-of-term construction deadlines for PCSP’s M-LMS licenses and waive the requirement to satisfy the interim construction requirement; or, alternatively, initiate a proceeding to determine appropriate construction obligations for M-LMS Band licensees.” —Paul Kirby, firstname.lastname@example.org