********************************************************    
                         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 the Matter of                )
                                )
Crown Communications            )       File Nos. 96F022, 96F106, 96F107
Gem Electronics                 )        96F109, 96F110, 96F111, 96F113
Communications Associates       )        96F114, 96F116, 96F118, 96F119
Leflore Communications          )        96F122, 96F123, 96F124, 96F125
Racom Corp.                     )        96F126, 96F127, 96F128, 96F129
TC3M, Inc.                      )        96F130, 96F131, 96F132, 96F138
Rayfield Communications, Inc.   )        96F139, 96F148, 95F829, 96F024
Bay Electronics                 )        96F112, 96F115, 96F117
Victor Communications, Inc.     )
W-3 Investments                 )
                                )
Requests for Finder's Preference Regarding)       
Various 800 MHz SMR Systems     )       
                                 

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


   Adopted:  August 17, 1999            Released:  August 17, 1999

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

                          Introduction

1.   On January 31, 1997, Crown Communications, Gem Electronics, Communications Associates,
Leflore Communications, Racom Corp., TC3M, Inc., Rayfield Communications, Inc., Bay Electronics,
Victor Communications, Inc., and W-3 Investments (Petitioners) filed a consolidated Petition for
Reconsideration (Petition) of decisions by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) denying
various individual requests for finder's preferences.  For the reasons that follow, we affirm the prior
individual decisions of the Bureau's Office of Operations in the above-captioned finder's preference cases. 
Accordingly, this consolidated Petition for Reconsideration is denied.

                           Background

2.   In 1995, the petitioners filed finder's preference requests (requests) against numerous 800 MHz
SMR licensees.  The various finders alleged that the stations were not constructed within one year of the
issuance of their licenses as required by section 90.631(f) of the Commission's rules.  The finders'
allegations were based solely on information provided in a Request for Extended Implementation Authority
(Chadmoore E.I. Request) which was filed by Chadmoore Communications, Inc. (Chadmoore) on June 16,
1995.  

3.   In January 1997, the finder's preference requests were denied.   The Bureau's Office of Operations
noted that the targeted stations were participating stations in the Chadmoore E.I. Request.  As such, these
stations and many others were listed in a Public Notice requesting comment on this E.I. Request and
whether the construction deadlines of participating stations should be extended.   This Public Notice was
released on July 19, 1995, prior to the filing of the finder's preference requests.  The Office of Operations
determined that the targeted stations were already the subject of compliance review because they were listed
as participating stations in the Chadmoore E.I. Request.  Therefore, these stations were excluded from
being the targets of finder's preference requests.                 

4.   In their Petition for Reconsideration, the petitioners argue that the inclusion of the targeted stations
in the Chadmoore E.I. Request should have no bearing on the outcome of their finder's preference
requests.  They assert that the Commission was not "conducting an investigation into the construction and
operational status of the systems" at the time of the filing of their finder's preference requests. 
                                
                                                           Discussion

5.   The finder's preference program was created in order to relieve the scarcity of spectrum in several
frequency bands.  This program provided incentives to parties who constructively and effectively assisted
the Commission in recovering channels by identifying licensees who had failed to construct or continue to
operate their stations and by providing the Commission with the evidence that would lead to the recovery of
such channels.  A "finder" who conclusively demonstrated that a license assigned on an exclusive basis in
the 220-222 MHz, 470-572 MHz and 800-900 MHz bands cancelled automatically for failure to construct,
place in operation, or continue to operate a station in compliance with our rules would, as a general matter,
obtain a preference for the use of those targeted frequencies.    

6.   Chadmoore submitted its E.I. Request to the Commission on June 16, 1995.  This E.I. Request
disclosed that certain stations (later targeted by the petitioners) were not constructed.  Thus, the
Commission was made aware of the compliance status of these stations by Chadmoore at the time the E.I.
Request was submitted for Commission action.  The Finders Report and Order "exempt[s] from finder's
preference the channels of those licensees scheduled or currently under review...." While the petitioners
argue that the category of "licenses under review" encompasses merely those individual stations under
active investigation for rule violations, the scope of Commission review clearly includes stations that have
acknowledged nonconstruction in an extended implementation request and have submitted themselves to
Commission review and action.  The Office of Operations determined correctly that the stations involved
in the Chadmoore E.I. request fell within the category of cases under Commission review and were
therefore exempt from finder's preference.

7.   Finders must identify noncompliant licensees to the Commission and recovery of channels "must
result from information provided [by the finder]."  Finder's preferences were never awarded on an
unrestricted basis.  Finders were always required to provide a detailed statement as to the specific basis for
the finder's knowledge that the licensee was violating FCC regulations.  This requirement enabled the
Commission, among other things, to make a determination as to whether or not individuals who submitted
preference requests were assisting the Commission with its compliance efforts.  The Commission placed the
Chadmoore E.I. Request on public notice, seeking comment on this request and whether the construction
deadlines of participating stations should be extended.  The Public Notice was released on July 19, 1995,
prior to the petitioners filing their finder's preference requests. These finder's preference requests merely
relied on publicly available information.  In fact, each preference request quoted directly from the
Chadmoore E.I. Request released by the Commission for public comment.  Thus, these "finders" did not
identify to the Commission licensees who had failed to construct, they only harvested information known to
the Commission.  The finder's preference program was designed to "supplement rather than duplicate
[Commission] compliance efforts."  

8.     At the time these finder's preference requests were filed, the Commission was already aware that
the targeted stations were not constructed and was in the process of reviewing their proposed construction
plan, the outcome of which was dispositive to the status of their authorizations.  Therefore, any recoveries
of these channels would have been the result of Commission actions.  As was stated above, information
provided to the Commission by the finder must "lead to" the recovery of the targeted stations.  Thus, even
had the petitioners surveyed these frequencies and generated their own evidence (i.e., conducted monitoring
which indicated an absence of signal), these filings cannot meet the test of "leading to" the recovery of
channels since the same information was already in the Commission's possession at the time these finder's
preference requests were filed.  Since recovery "must result from" information submitted, the petitioners
were not eligible to obtain preferences for the stations in question after the June 16, 1995 filing of the E.I.
Plan by Chadmoore.    
9.   Our decision is consistent with the Bureau's recent decisions in finder's preference cases 95F811
and 95F812.  In these cases, the stations targeted by the "finders" were listed on a waiver request filed with
the Commission.  The waiver request was placed on public notice prior to the filing of the finder's
preference requests, and the stations were listed therein.  The "finders" then submitted finder's preference
requests merely relying on that publicly available information.  These requests were dismissed.  The
Bureau denied a petition for reconsideration and affirmed the dismissal of these requests on the basis that
the stations involved "were already the subject of compliance review at the time the finder's preference
requests were filed," and the requests were therefore defective.  

                           Conclusion

10.  We find that the stations targeted by these petitioners were already the subject of Commission
review at the time these finder's preference requests were filed and, therefore, were not properly the subject
of finder's preference requests.  The petitioners did not provide information which identified 
noncompliant licensees to the Commission and which would lead to the recovery of the targeted licenses. 
For the aforementioned reasons, we deny the consolidated Petition for Reconsideration.

                        Ordering Clause

11.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 154(i) and 405 of the Communications
Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and sections 0.331 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R.  0.331, 1.106, the Petitions for Reconsideration of the individual cases listed in Attachment A of
this Order are DENIED.


                                   Federal Communications Commission





                                   William W. Kunze
                                   Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division
                                   Wireless Telecommunications Bureau