WPCH[ 2BVTZ 3|C )6?xxxX[Xx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.WRSx  @,,,j&Z`X@2@ ZPvD3|C HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.WRSC\  P6Q,,,j&Z`P I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` 2pk\k2a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  20v t a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2) b    j a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2 [ #   a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2 Ua1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   2Qc a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 23 <e@a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:27}u88;_Equation Caption_Equation Caption211#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)Courier New (TT)Courier New (Bold) (TT)"5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSS"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2J?ADG"5^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CCCCPCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNCNoddȐoNNF2ldCdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!TT7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<77777772VJM P S"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(:822:!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222"5^*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888C8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82N8\\pC`pSS`*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv8S]SS8S888]]:S8A8o]*ASSSS.S8.Sp8SC\228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSJS"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=ee|Ij|\\j.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\"5^(1< hZi yO''ԍAmended Request at 3. > Both the Request and the Amended Request stated: "h ,N(N(ZZ" "Based upon site inspections and monitoring by our vendor (Motorola Kirk Fybel) we are certain that  S'these transmitters do not exist."I Zi yO@'ԍRequest and Amended Request at 2.I  S' 4. Kane never filed an Opposition to the Request or Amended Request. Roto Rooter was awarded a dispositive preference under the finder's preference program for the Sierra Peak site of  S8'Station WIK209 on March 10, 1993.)8XZi yO0' ! ԍLetter to Danny Lynton, Corporate Officer, Roto Rooter Service & Plumbing Company, from William H.  ! Kellett, Federal Communications Commission (March 10, 1993) (Award Letter). The Award Letter erroneously  !g mentioned only one of the three targeted sites, the Sierra Peak site. The Award Letter referenced the tracking  !. numbers for the Request and the Amended Request (93F513 & 93F514). A copy of the Award Letter was forwarded to Kane. ) On March 11, 1993, Kane was notified via certified mail that  S'the Sierra Peak and Mount Lukens sites of Station WIK209 had been cancelled.Zi yO 'ЍLetter to Dale Kane d/b/a Kane Communications, from William H. Kellett, Federal Communications Commission (March 11, 1993) (Cancellation Letter). The Cancellation Letter erroneously mentioned only two of the three targeted sites, the Mount Lukens and Sierra Peak sites. The Cancellation Letter referenced the tracking numbers for the Request and the Amended Request (93F513 & 93F514). A copy of the Cancellation Letter was forwarded to Roto Rooter. On April 20, 1993, the Cancellation Letter was returned by the U.S. Post Office marked "Unclaimed 4/14/93." On May 25, 1993, the Office of Operations sent Roto Rooter a corrected award letter, notifying Roto Rooter that it was awarded a dispositive preference under the finder's preference program for Station WIK209's Mount Lukens, Oat Mountain and Sierra Peak sites, the three sites targeted by Roto Rooter  SH 'in its Request and Amended Request.KH Zi {O'ЍSupra note 4.K Also, on May 25, 1993, the Office of Operations sent Kane a  S 'corrected cancellation notice,  J Zi yO 'ЍLetter to Dale Kane d/b/a Kane Communications, from William H. Kellett, Federal Communications Commission (May 25, 1993) (Amended Cancellation Letter). The Amended Cancellation Letter referenced the tracking numbers for the Request and the Amended Request (93F513 & 93F514). A copy of the Amended Cancellation Letter was forwarded to Roto Rooter.  notifying Kane that its authorization to operate Station WIK209 at its Mount Lukens, Oat Mountain and Sierra Peak sites had cancelled automatically, based upon Roto  S 'Rooter evidence of violation of Sections 90.155 and 90.157 of the Commission's Rules.; 2Zi {O'ԍSupra note 7.;  S ' 5. Kane timely filed the instant Petition on June 23, 1993. Attached to Kane's Petition was a  SX'copy of Roto Rooter's Amended Request.;XZi {O"'ԍSupra note 1.; In its Petition, Kane argued that the May 23, 1993, action was defective in that Roto Rooter sought a dispositive preference solely for Station WIK209's Sierra Peak site, but had been awarded two additional sites. Kane alleges that it had never received notice that Station WIK209's Mount Lukens and Oat Mountain sites had also been targeted. "V,N(N(ZZk"Ԍ S' 6. Kane additionally argues that Roto Rooter had not served a complete copy of its filing to Kane  S'because Kane had never received the photographic attachments.6Zi yO@'ԍPetition at 3.6 Kane also alleged that Roto Rooter had failed to provide proof of service on Kane of the finder's preference proceeding, stating: ` ` Roto Rooter by way of their request dated January 29, 1993, asserts  S8' ` ` an intention to serve Dale Kane on February 5, 1993, via Federal  S'` ` Express Ticket #6350215815. It is simply logic one cannot ` ` represent they have performed an act, (serving a copy of said ` ` Request upon Dale Kane), prior to the occurrence of such Act. As ` ` the letter in which the alleged proof of service it contained was dated ` ` January 29, 1993, this is precisely what Roto Rooter has attempted  SH '` ` to do.1H XZi {O@ 'ԍId.1,  S ' 7. Kane argues that Roto Rooter did not make out a prima facie case because Roto Rooter did not provide any evidence that Kane had failed to timely construct and continuously operate Station  S 'WIK209.7 Zi {O2'ԍId. at 4.7 Kane alleges that Roto Rooter had made serious misrepresentations to the FCC because Mr. Danny Lynton, corporate officer of Roto Rooter, stated in a document dated January 29, 1993, that Mr. Fybel had conducted an inspection and had monitored Station WIK209. Kane alleges that it was impossible for Mr. Lynton to make this representation on January 29, 1993, since in Mr. Fybel's statement, dated February 5, 1993, he stated that he had inspected the Sierra Peak site on February 3,  S'1993.9|Zi {O'ԍId. at 56.9  S' 8. Kane's final argument is that Station WIK209 was timely constructed and continuously operated at all three subject sites, with the exception of a onemonth period beginning on December  S@'27, 1992.9@Zi {O'ԍId. at 67.9 Kane argues that since the equipment was removed at the end of December, 1992, and Roto Rooter targeted the site in a finder's preference proceeding approximately one month later, the Sierra site had not discontinued operations for a period in excess of one year at the time the Sierra site became the subject of a finder's preference proceeding. Kane alleges that Roto Rooter and Kane had complained to each other that each operator believed that the other operator was causing harmful interference at Oat Mountain on their shared frequencies. Kane therefore argues in his Petition that Roto Rooter's complaints of interference by Kane at Oat Mountain were evidence that Kane must have been operating at Station WIK209's Oat Mountain site, or there would not have been an interference  S'dispute.9Zi {O@%'ԍId. at 7. 9 Evidence of Roto Rooter's alleged complaints was not included by Kane with the Petition. "2 ,N(N(ZZ"  S' III. DISCUSSION  S' 9. Kane's initial argument in the Petition is that Roto Rooter had not sought a dispositive preference for Station WIK209's Mount Lukens and Oat Mountain sites. We disagree. Both the Request and the Amended Request list Station WIK209 and the three subject sites, stating:  S' ` ` Target licensee's call sign and location of licensed facility being pursued:  S' ` ` WIK209  S' ` ` Sierra Peak, Corona, Orange, CA (335100/1173905)   X ` ` Mount Lukens, Montrose, Los Angeles, CA (341605/1181410)  Sp'` ` Oat Mtn., Northridge, Los Angeles, CA (341932/1183501).IpZi yO 'ԍRequest and Amended Request at 1.I Roto Rooter's separate statement by Mr. Fybel relating to Station WIK209's Sierra Peak site corroborates nonconstruction and nonoperation at that specific site. The additional corroborative evidence concerning Station WIK209's Sierra Peak site does not void Roto Rooter's claim against Station WIK209's Mount Lukens and Oat Mountain sites.  SX'  10. Kane's second argument in the Petition is that Kane had not been served with a complete  S0'copy of Roto Rooter's filing, because Kane had not received the photographic attachments.A0XZi yO('ЍPetition at 3. A We disagree. Even if the photographs were not received, we consider such error to be harmless under the  S'circumstances presented. Zi yOh' ! ԍFurther, we note that Kane had been placed on notice, by being served with Roto Rooter's Amended Request  !% referencing the photographic attachments, that the photographs existed and were submitted by Roto Rooter to support  ! Roto Rooter's claim of the nonexistence of repeaters relating to Station WIK209. Thus, Kane could have obtained copies of the photographs by contacting Roto Rooter directly or by contacting the former Office of Operations. In this connection, we note that even if the photographs are not considered, we believe that Roto Rooter has provided other evidence sufficient to demonstrate cancellation of the Mount Lukens, Oat Mountain, and Sierra Peak sites of Station WIK209.  11. Kane additionally argues that Roto Rooter had failed to provide proof of service on Kane of the finder's preference proceeding relating to Station WIK209, and instead, only asserted an intention to serve Dale Kane via Federal Express. We disagree. The Amended Request, the text of which was received by Kane, was filed on February 16, 1993, and appears to be a refiling of the Request filed on February 8, 1993, as well as the photographic attachments, Mr. Fybel's statement, and an amended notice of service on Kane. Moreover, the substance of Kane's contentions acknowledge receipt of the Amended Request without the photographic attachments.  12. Kane argues that Mr. Fybel's written statement and his inspection did not exist on January 29, 1993, the date typed on Mr. Lynton's Request and Amended Request. While it appears that Mr. Lynton's Request and Amended Request were misdated, we nonetheless note that the record reflects that Mr. Fybel's inspection occurred prior to the filing of the Request on February 8, 1993, as well as the filing of the Amended Request on February 16, 1993. Significantly, Kane has not disputed the"`,N(N(ZZt" results of that inspection as reported in Mr. Lynton's letter. Thus we do not believe that such a dating error should alter the outcome in this proceeding.  S'  13. Based upon our review of the record in this proceeding, we find that Roto Rooter had provided Kane with sufficient notice to allow Kane to rebut Roto Rooter's claims. We further find that Kane could have done so by filing an Opposition to the Request or Amended Request. Significantly, Kane failed to rebut Roto Rooter's claims by filing an Opposition. Other than a bare statement that Station WIK209 was timely constructed and had not permanently discontinued operations, Kane failed to provide any objective and documentary evidence, even in his Petition, that he had complied with the Commission's construction and operation rules.  SH 'n,Zi S' DraftD$7:9 2/1/5D  ?4#x6X@`7OX@#   14. Upon evaluation of the entirety of the evidence submitted by both parties in this matter, we therefore find that Roto Rooter satisfied its burden of proof and demonstrated that Kane failed to construct and continuously operate Station WIK209 at the subject sites in accordance with Sections  S '90.155 and 90.157 of the Commission's Rules.< Zi {O8'ԍSupra note 7. < We therefore affirm the May 25, 1993, action awarding a dispositive preference under the Finder's Preference program to Roto Rooter for Station  S 'WIK209's Mount Lukens, Oat Mountain and Sierra Peak sites.[ ZZi {Oz'ԍSee Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd, 7297 (1991).[  SX'#$footnote reference##XP\  P6Q2XP##&a\  P6G;g!&P#)Q$footnote reference)  S' IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES  S' 15. For the reasons stated above, 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), 405, and Sections 1.104(b) and 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.104(b), 1.106(f), the Petition for Reconsideration  S@'filed by Dale Kane d/b/a kane Communications IS DENIED.#&a\  P6G;g!&P#  S' 16. Accordingly, grant of the finder's preference requests filed by Roto Rooter Service and Plumbing Company on February 8, 1993, and February 16, 1993, ARE AFFIRMED. Roto Rooter has ninety (90) days from the date of release of this Order to follow regular application requirements and file an acceptable application with the Commission for the three targeted sites on frequency pair 472/475.2375 MHz.  S' 17. 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.   S' ,hh]FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  S!' hh]D'wana R. Terry  S"' hh]Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division  Sp#' hh]Wireless Telecommunications Bureau