********************************************************    
                         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 Application of            )
                                )
C. M. O'NEILL, et. al.          )       File No. 26755-CD-P/L-95, et al.
     
                                )
For Reconsideration of Authorizations)
for Facilities in the 931 MHz Band)
in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service)
                                 


                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


   Adopted:  July 12, 1999              Released:  July 12, 1999

By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

     1.   This Order denies twenty-three petitions listed in Attachment A for reconsideration of actions
taken by the Commercial Wireless Division's Narrowband Branch (Petitions).  In their license applications,
the petitioners requested assignment on frequency 931.2625 MHz.  The Narrowband Branch, however, granted
authorizations on that frequency to other applicants.  The petitioners seek reconsideration of the license grants
and request that the Commission reassign 931.2625 MHz to them.  For the reasons discussed below, we deny
the Petitions.
     
     2.   In most of the Petitions listed in Attachment A, Metrolink, Inc. (Metrolink) contends that
Wharton Telecom, Inc. (Wharton) was the real-party-in-interest and had, therefore, orchestrated a fraudulent
application scheme in filing underlying applications to the license grants.  While Metrolink raises these
arguments in its petitions for reconsideration, it did not file petitions to deny against the underlying
applications.  Metrolink states that listing the underlying applications on public notice as accepted for filing
provided insufficient notice that its interests might be adversely affected.  Metrolink therefore argues that it had
no basis on which to file petitions to deny against the applications.  We disagree.  The public notices that listed
the applications as accepted for filing included the applicants' name, frequency requested, and station location. 
In fact, the public notices accepting the applications for filing contained the same information included in the
public notices that granted the licenses.  Under section 1.106(c)(2) of the Commission's rules, a petition for
reconsideration, which relies on facts not previously presented to the Commission, may be granted only when
the Commission "determines that consideration of the facts relied on is required in the public interest."  We
find that Metrolink could have presented its arguments in petitions to deny before the applications were granted
and has failed to provide evidence supporting its claims in its petitions for reconsideration.  Accordingly, we
dismiss these Petitions pursuant to section 1.106(c)(2) of the Commission's rules.
          
     3.   In addition, section 22.501(p)(2) of the Commission's rules provides that applicants for 931
MHz paging channels may specify a frequency preference in their applications, but that "the Commission is
not bound by such requests."  Nevertheless, all the Petitions listed in Attachment A make two additional
arguments supporting the contention that the petitioners should be assigned frequency 931.2625 MHz.  First,
the petitioners argue that the Commission's decision to grant them a frequency, other than their requested
frequency, was an error because 931.2625 MHz was available for assignment at the time their applications
were filed.  Second, petitioners contend that an entity operating a wide-area system has a preference to its
requested frequency over an entity seeking to establish a new system.  Notwithstanding these arguments, the
plain language of section 22.501(p)(2) of the Commission's rules allows the Commission to assign an applicant
any available 931 MHz frequency.  We therefore find that the assignment of these frequencies complies with
the Commission's rules.  

     4.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405, of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 405, and sections 0.331 and 1.106 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331 and 1.106, the petitions for reconsideration listed in Attachment A
of this Order ARE DENIED.



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              
                              Paul D'Ari                         
                                   Chief, Policy and Rules Branch
                              Commercial Wireless Division
                              Wireless Telecommunications Bureau