Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) QUATRON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ) File No. 697404 ) Application for Modification of License of Station ) WNNJ617 to Relocate Base Station from) Hinsdale, IL to Chicago, IL ) ) O'HARE-MIDWAY LIMOUSINE SERVICE, File No. 509162) INC. ) and QUATRON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.) ) Application for Assignment of License for Station ) WNNJ617 from Quatron Communications, Inc. to ) O'Hare-Midway Limousine Service, Inc. ) ORDER Adopted: May 25, 1999 Released: May 26, 1999 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1. Introduction. We now consider the Emergency Request to Hold Processing of Assignment Application Temporarily in Abeyance (Request) submitted by Veracon Corp. (Veracon). The Request seeks to defer processing of the above-captioned application to assign private land mobile radio Station WNNJ617 until after the Commission has taken action on Veracon's pending Application for Review, which pertains to the status of the authorization for Station WNNJ617. Specifically, Veracon's Application for Review seeks to reverse grant of the above-captioned application to modify the facilities of Station WNNJ617. For the reasons discussed herein, Veracon's Request is denied. 2. Background. On January 17, 1989, the Commission issued a license under Call Sign WNNJ617 to Quatron Communications, Inc. (Quatron). The license authorized a primary mobile repeater with a power limit of 70 watts and operating on 854.7125 MHz in Hinsdale, Illinois. Quatron subsequently modified the license to add a secondary mobile repeater station at Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois. 3. On March 22, 1995, Quatron filed an application seeking to modify the authorized facilities of Station WNNJ617 to move the repeater and increase its mobile count, power, and height. Specifically, in its application, Quatron sought to relocate Station WNNJ617's base station to the Standard Oil Building in Chicago and to discontinue use of the Hinsdale site. Before final processing occurred, Veracon filed a letter of objection on August 7, 1995, which alleged that the station had not been in operation since September 1, 1993 and requested that the application be dismissed without further action in accordance with Section 90.157 of the Commission's Rules. On August 17, 1995, Quatron filed an application seeking consent to the assignment of the Station WNNJ617 license to O'Hare-Midway Limousine Service, Inc. (O'Hare). The August 7, 1995 letter was associated with the application and subsequently the information contained therein was deemed insufficient to deny the application. The application was therefore granted on August 28, 1995. 4. Veracon, believing that the Commission had not associated and considered its letter of objection, filed a request for reconsideration of the grant, which was timely received on September 14, 1995. Correspondence continued to be received from Veracon, Quatron, and O'Hare through July 22, 1997. Processing of the assignment application did not proceed during this period. 5. On February 2, 1998, the Branch, by letter decision, denied Veracon's request for reconsideration of the modification grant to Quatron because there was insufficient documentation to clearly establish that the station failed to operate for one year or more. Based on its decision regarding the modification application, the Branch found that the assignment application for O'Hare was in order and should continue to be processed. 6. On February 12, 1998, Veracon filed the pending Request. The Request essentially seeks to stay the effectiveness of the Recon Decision, which denied Veracon's petition for reconsideration of the License Grant of the captioned modification application while Veracon's Application for Review is pending. 7. In determining whether to grant the extraordinary remedy of a stay, the Commission considers the following factors: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits by the party requesting the stay; (2) whether irreparable harm would occur in the absence of a stay; (3) whether other interested parties would suffer substantial harm if the stay was granted; and (4) whether the public interest weighs in favor of a stay. Veracon contends that there is a strong probability that it will succeed on the merits of its Application for Review and thus a strong probability exists that the Commission will reverse the Bureau's grant of the captioned modification application. Veracon avers that "this alone warrants grant of this Emergency Request to hold the assignment application in abeyance." The Request does not specifically address the remaining three factors considered in determining whether to grant a stay. The parties to the subject assignment application, on the other hand, aver that any further delay would be unjustified. 8. Discussion. Based on our review of the record in this proceeding, we conclude that the Request does not provide sufficient justification that staying the License Grant, Recon Decision, or otherwise holding processing of the subject assignment application in abeyance is warranted. First, because Veracon's self- characterization of the "strong probability" that it will succeed on appeal lacks independent objective support, for purposes of ruling on the Request we find this argument alone to be unpersuasive. We note that this finding as to the Request is without prejudice to the Application for Review, which the Commission, not the Bureau, will decide. Next, we find that Veracon has not established that it will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. In this connection, Veracon contends that without a stay, the captioned assignment application could be granted before the Commission rules on the Application for Review, which would "only serve to complicate matters more and make the unraveling of the Bureau's prior actions more difficult." We do not find these suggested scenarios to be indicative of irreparable harm to Veracon because the irreparable harm factor is not satisfied absent a demonstration that the harm is both certain and great, actual not theoretical. Moreover, our decision is in accordance with prior action taken by the Commission when confronted with similar facts and similar arguments. We further note in this connection that any grant of the subject assignment application would be conditioned upon and subject to the final disposition of Veracon's pending Application for Review. 9. In addition, we find that the Request does not address whether other interested parties would suffer substantial harm if the stay or abeyance was granted. The parties to the captioned assignment application, on the other hand, aver that there is no basis to delay further processing of their application, which was filed with the Commission on August 17, 1995. Finally, with respect to the fourth factor considered in analyzing stay requests, we conclude that neither the Request nor the record before us establishes that the public interest weighs in favor of granting a stay. ORDERING CLAUSES 10. In view of the foregoing, the Emergency Request to Hold Processing of Assignment Application Temporarily in Abeyance filed by Veracon on February 12, 1998, IS DENIED. 11. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau