********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In re                           )
                                )
929 MHz Paging Licensees        )  Arthur Abrahams, call sign WPIG675, et al.
     
                                )
Motions for Reconsideration of Waiver)
Requests of Construction Period )       
                                )
                                 

                                 
                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


   Adopted:  June 23, 1999              Released:  June 23, 1999

By the Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

     1.   We have before us 298 motions for reconsideration of denials by the Commercial Wireless
Division's Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch of requests for waiver of the Commission's construction
period for paging licenses.  The Commission's rules at that time required that, for the licenses here at issue,
the licensees must have commenced service within twelve months of the license grant.  In order to be granted
an extension of the construction period, licensees were required to file an extension request prior to the
expiration of the construction period.  Furthermore, licensees were required to demonstrate that failure to
complete construction was due to causes beyond their control.  The Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch
denied all of the petitioners' original waiver requests because the requests for extension were untimely filed and
did not provide sufficient justification for an extension.

     2.   The motions for reconsideration before us rely on the so-called "Goodman/Chan" case.  In
1995, the Commission released the Goodman/Chan Order, which, among other things, granted certain General
Category SMR licensees (Goodman/Chan Licensees) an additional four months to construct and commence
operations of their licenses.  The Goodman/Chan Licensees held licenses that originally required them to
construct within eight months of their license grant.  The Commission partially granted the Goodman/Chan
waiver petitions because during the pendency of those waiver petitions, it had changed the construction period
for all new CMRS licenses, including conventional SMR licenses, from eight months to twelve months.  The
basis for granting the additional four months to the Goodman/Chan Licensees was to place them in the same
posture as Part 90 CMRS providers licensed after January 2, 1995, when the new rule took effect, that
received twelve month construction periods.  However, this relief did not take effect until the Goodman/Chan
Order was published in the Federal Register, which did not occur until August 27, 1998.

     3.   In their motions for reconsideration, the petitioners argue that because of the delay in
publishing the Goodman/Chan Order in the Federal Register, the Goodman/Chan Licensees were given the
interim period prior to the Goodman/Chan Order's publication to construct, as well as the four months
explicitly granted, and were therefore granted an extended construction period.  As such, petitioners argue that
by denying them additional time to construct beyond their original twelve month construction period, the
Commission is discriminating against licensees which were originally granted twelve-month construction
periods.

     4.   Petitioners' reliance on the Goodman/Chan case is misplaced.  The Goodman/Chan Order
granted relief to certain specific General Category SMR licensees who received their licenses from one of four
application preparation companies that were sued by the Federal Trade Commission in 1994.  The
Goodman/Chan Licensees held licenses that had an eight month construction requirement.  The rationale of the
Goodman/Chan Order was to place this limited group of SMR licensees in the same position as other CMRS
licenses that acquired their licenses after January 2, 1995 and received licenses with twelve month construction
requirements.  It did not afford relief to any twelve month licenses, such as those held by petitioners.

     5.   Therefore, all of the motions for reconsideration for relief filed by the 929 paging licensees
listed in the Appendix ARE DENIED.  This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to section 0.331
of the Commission's rules.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Steven E. Weingarten
                              Chief, Commercial Wireless Division
                              Wireless Telecommunications Bureau