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, 30154-30168 [2011-12792]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30154-30168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 FCC@BCPIWEB.com, or you may 
contact BCPI via its Web site, https://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 https://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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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, 
co