FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 2, Pages 937 to 1877, February 6 - February 17, 2012 Page: 955
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
operations cannot cause interference to and must accept interference from other users." The Bureaus
upheld this determination in the Order on Reconsideration.53 Whedbee offered no new facts indicating
that grant of these applications would create a risk of interference to Amateur Station NOECN different
from the risks evaluated and addressed in the Waiver Order and the Order on Reconsideration. We
therefore find Whedbee's arguments on this point unpersuasive.
18. Petitions.for Declaratory Ruling. Whedbee filed a pleading styled as a "'Petition for
Declaratory Ruling" against each of the amended applications.s4 In each petition, Whedbee asserts that
the applicants failed to serve copies of their amended applications on ARRL and Whedbee as required by
Section 1.927(i).55 Whedbee waives the service requirement with regard to himself but notes that he
cannot do so with regard to ARRL.56 Whedbee further argues that the status of the amended applications
should be converted from "pending" to "submitted" and that the applications should be dismissed for
failure to prosecute if the proper notice is not provided within 30 days.57
19. We decline to dismiss the amended applications or change their filing status on this basis.
While applicants appear not to have served copies of the amended applications in this instance, neither
Whedbee nor ARRL has shown that they lacked notice of the amended applications or was otherwise
prejudiced by the omission. To the contrary, Whedbee's petitions make clear that he was on notice of the
amended applications and that he notified ARRL by serving copies of his petition.58 In the absence of any
evidence of harm to Whedbee or ARRL, we conclude that dismissal of the applications is unwarranted.
However, we admonish the applicants for not complying with Section 1.927(i) and expect their
compliance in the future should they file further amended applications.
V. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
20. Based on the foregoing, we reject the petitions to deny and grant the applications listed in
Appendix A in accordance with the Waiver Order and the Order on Reconsideration, and subject to the
conditions specified in the Waiver Order. We remind licensees granted authorizations by this order that
they must record all Recon Scout use, including date of operation, start/stop times, location of operation,
frequency segment of operation, reason for use, and a point of contact.59 Licensees must provide this
information to the Commission or to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
upon request of either agency. Moreover, as we stated previously in the Waiver Order, licensees that
operate the Recon Scout in an unauthorized manner are subject to potential Commission enforcement
52 Id. at 11.
53 Order on Reconsideration at 1 1.
54 See, e.g,, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, filed September 11, 2010 in File No. 0004331029, Application of
Alachua County Sheriff's Office. The Petitions are substantively identical but appear to request dismissal of
applications and striking of pleadings filed by ReconRobotics rather than declaratory relief under Section 1.2 of the
Commission's rules. Therefore, we will treat the petitions as informal objections. In several other subsequent
filings, Whedbee also informally requested that the Commission instruct the applicants that they are not permitted to
operate under conditional authority. This order renders those filings moot.
5 47 U.S.C. 1.927(i) (requiring applicants, where a petition to deny or other informal objection has been filed, to
serve copies of any amendment to the application, or other filing, on petitioners).
Whedbee Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 2.
7 Whedbee also reasserts his argument that the pleadings by ReconRobotics should be dismissed for want of
standing, which we reject here. See 5 note 18 supra.
Whedbee Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 5.
* Waiver Order, 25 FCC Red at 1788 13.
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
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 27, No. 2, Pages 937 to 1877, February 6 - February 17, 2012, book, February 2012; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc94251/m1/33/: accessed July 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.