FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 19, Pages 14991 to 15893, October 24 - November 10, 2011 Page: 15,209
viii, 14991-15893 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Reconsideration, Genesee is not entitled to I MHz separation from Sprint's ESMR operations because it
is not a member of the class to which the Commission extended that protection.'
4. Genesee further argues it will suffer irreparable harm if forced to comply with the
MO&O because it would have to conduct a second rebanding of its system once it prevails on its Petition
for Reconsideration."' We disagree. The MO&O is silent on when Genesee must commence rebanding
its system. Genesee's only obligation under the MO&O is to submit a cost estimate and to negotiate a
Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement." Genesee has failed to demonstrate how either action causes it
irreparable harm.
5. Genesee also argues that grant of the stay will not harm third parties and may actually
harm third parties that may reconfigure their systems to the channels the MO&O directed Genesee to
vacate and, therefore, would have to reconfigure their systems a second time should Genesee prevail on
its Petition for Reconsideration. L While we agree with Sprint that grant of the stay could have
programmatic impact affecting Sprint, we do not find another licensee who would be negatively affected
by grant of a waiver." However, because the stay criteria are conjunctive, and Genesee has not met the
first two prongs of the criteria for a stay, we need not decide whether the effects of a stay on Sprint is
sufficient to warrant denying Genesee's motion.
6. Finally, Genesee argues that since it warrants a stay based upon meeting the other three
factors cited above, it would not be in the public interest to deny the stay.' Since we find that Genesee
has not met two of those factors, we need not address Genesee's public interest argument.
7. Genesee has failed to meet the requirements for obtaining a stay. Thus, we deny its
motion.
8. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of Sections 0.191, 0.392, 1.43 and 1.298(a) of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.191, 0.392, 1.43 and 1.298(a); and Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Stay
filed by the County of Genesee IS DENIED.
9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.191 and 0.392 of
the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.191, 0.392.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michael J. Wilhelm
Deputy Chief- Policy and Licensing Division
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
SSee Improving Public Safety Comnununications in the 800 MlI/ Band, WT Docket 02-55, Second Report and
Order, 23 FCC Red 7605, 7616 1' 25 (2008).
SMotion for Stay at 2.
iAIO&O 41-43.
Motion for Stay at 2-3.
Opposition at 4.
Motion for Slay at 3.15209
Federal Communications Commission
DA 11-1808
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 19, Pages 14991 to 15893, October 24 - November 10, 2011, book, November 2011; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc133013/m1/233/: accessed March 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.