WPCT 2BJZ Courier3|X/ QSx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5SiHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\<'4OX@26KF Z3|X/ "i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN3J}a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . 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:.toc 5toc 5)X` hp x (#h(#`h(#`X` hp x (#toc 6toc 6*X` hp x (#(# (# X` hp x (#toc 7toc 7+ toc 8toc 8,X` hp x (#(# (# X` hp x (#29-0.2/406toc 9toc 9-X` hp x (#(#`(#`X` hp x (#index 1index 1.X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#index 2index 2/X` hp x (#` (#` (#X` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading0X` hp x (#(#(#X` hp x (#2L?18929K:K=captioncaption1;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption211#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>\>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;<?xxx,<x6X@`7X@ ?xxx,Dx `7X) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) S' X   )8 X'w B#XP\  P6QynXP# Federal Communications Commission`)(#DA 992055   yxdddy )#&a\  P6G;u&P# P Before the IFederal Communications Commission  S'"yWashington, D.C. 20554 ă  S'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:'ЍOur records reflect that Calumet was originally authorized to operate Station KNHQ715 in the former Special Emergency Public Safety Service on VHF base/mobile frequency 155.2800 on May 31, 1995. On November 28, 1995, Station KNHQ715 was purged from our database for failure to seek renewal. V another station authorized to Calumet, instead of operating  S'on 800 MHz Station WNVA790 (frequencies 853.2375/808.2375 MHz).5 q= yO6"'ԍRequest at 2.5 Mr. Barcal also observed that Calumet's buses were using a VHF radio system with 14" whip antennas, the type typically employed for VHF frequencies. He noted that the antenna on the tower for the base station located at Calumet's Gary, Indiana office was a VHF antenna, although Station WNVA790's authorization is for  S'an 800 MHz system and would employ a shorter 800 MHz radio antenna.2nq= {O&''ԍId. 2 ",N(N(ZZ"Ԍ S'ԙ 4. At the time the Request was filed, a target licensee was provided a ten (10) day period in  S'which to file an Opposition in a finder's preference proceeding.q= {O@'ЍSee 47 C.F.R. 1.45 (1993). The target licensee's ten (10) day response period ran from the latter of the  {O 'finder's filing date with the Commission or the date the finder served the target licensee. By Memorandum  {O'Opinion and Order released on September 13, 1993, target licensees were afforded a thirty (30) day period in  {O'which to respond to a Request. See 8 FCC Rcd 6690 (1993). The change from ten (10) to thirty (30) days did  yOh'not go into effect until October 31, 1993. Veracon filed its Request on October 26, 1993, subjecting Calumet to the more restrictive ten (10) day rule.  Therefore, any Opposition to  S'Veracon's Request had to be filed by Calumet by November 10, 1993.Hq= yO 'ЍBecause service was perfected by mail, any Opposition was due by November 10, 1993. By letter dated December 7, 1993, Calumet filed a request for an extension of time until December 17, 1993, in which to file an  S`'Opposition.`q= yO 'ЍLetter to W. Riley Hollingsworth, Federal Communications Commission, from Lonna M. Thompson, Esquire on behalf of Calumet (filed December 7, 1993). In its extension request, Calumet argued that it had been served with the Request directly by Veracon, and had only recently retained counsel, and Calumet's counsel required additional  S'time to prepare a response.10 q= {O'ԍId.1 On December 9, 1993, Veracon filed an objection to Calumet's extension request, arguing that Calumet waited approximately one month after being served with  S'Veracon's Request prior to obtaining counsel. q= yO"'ЍLetter to W. Riley Hollingsworth, Federal Communications Commission, from Terry J. Romine, Esquire, on behalf of Veracon (filed December 9, 1993). On December 17, 1993, Calumet filed its Opposition  S'to Veracon's Request.yq= yOR'ԍOpposition to Finder's Preference Request (filed December 17, 1993) (Opposition).y Calumet's extension request, seeking an extension of time until December 17, 1993, in which to file any Opposition, was granted on June 15, 1994, concurrent with the initial denial of Veracon's Request. Because the extension request was granted, Calumet's Opposition was  S 'considered. q= yOj'ЍIn granting the extension request, the former Office of Operations of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Office of Operations) reasoned that although the filing deadline relating to an Opposition in a finder's preference proceeding had been increased from ten (10) days to thirty (30) days, subsequent to the filing by Veracon of its Request, it was in the public's best interest to develop a full record and accept Calumet's late {O'filed Opposition. See Letter from William H. Kellett, Federal Communications Commission, to Robert Barcal, Sr. (dated June 15, 1994).  S ' 5. In its Opposition, Calumet admitted that it was not an Illinois Corporation.9 $q= yO"'ԍOpposition at 2. 9 Calumet stated that it was a subsidiary of "Vancom Transportation, Inc. of Indiana" (Vancom), and that "Indiana Bus Service, Inc.," a Vancom subsidiary, had assumed the business name of "Calumet Bus Service, Inc.," and later amended the articles of Indiana Bus Service, Inc. to change its name to VancomIndiana,  S0'Inc.10q= {O''ԍId.1 Calumet conceded in its Opposition that it had not informed the Commission of its change in"0F,N(N(ZZ"  S'name from Calumet Bus Service, Inc. to VancomIndiana, Inc.=q= {Oh'ԍId. at 1 n.1. = Calumet further stated that its Opposition to Veracon's Request was untimely filed because "Calumet was under the impression that  S'it would respond to Veracon's Request when the Commission asked for a response."3Zq= {O'ԍId. 3 6. Calumet additionally argued in its Opposition that Mr. Barcal may not have seen the equipment for Station WNVA790 when he visited their repeater site in June of 1993, because their equipment was locked in a cabinet which is accessible only to authorized persons. Calumet also argued that Mr. Barcal may not have heard any transmissions from Station WNVA790 in February, 1993, when he monitored the subject frequencies, since "channel occupancy by twoway radio used in connection with  S'the operation of buses is not heavy."9q= {O$ 'ԍId. at 3. 9 Calumet further argued that Mr. Barcal did not observe any 800 MHz equipment at Calumet's operation center because Calumet had relocated its control point to serve the needs of "VancomIllinois," another Vancom subsidiary. Calumet alleged that a control point may be relocated without prior Commission approval, citing former Section 90.61(a) of the  S 'Commission's Rules.H ~q= yO'ԍ47 C.F.R. 90.61(a) (1993). H 7. Calumet additionally argued that use of a station to provide service to a parent or sister  S 'subsidiary is not only permissible, but was the Commission's historic practice.: q= yO.'ԍOpposition at 34.: In this connection, Calumet stated: "Thus, while initially Station WNVA790 was intended to provide communications service to Calumet, for management and operational reasons not here relevant, the station is now used  S'to serve the needs of VancomIllinois, another Vancom subsidiary."8q= {OF'ԍId. at 4. 8 As evidence of construction and operation of Station WNVA790, Calumet provided the statement of Mr. Bruce Hamann, Corporate Director of Maintenance at Vancom, certifying that Station WNVA790 was installed during February, 1991, and provided service to "VancomIllinois, located at 16950 S. State Street, South Holland, IL.,  Sh'which is and has been a subsidiary of Vancom, Inc. as is and has been Calumet Bus Service, Inc."Bh0 q= {O8'ԍId. at Exhibit IV. B  S' 8. Veracon timely filed a Reply to Calumet's Opposition on December 29, 1993.` q= yOz"'ԍReply to Opposition (filed December 29, 1993) (Reply). ` In its Reply,  S'Veracon noted various inconsistencies, discussed infra, in Calumet's Opposition. In further support of its evidence indicating that Station WNVA790 had not operated for a period in excess of one year, in  S'violation of the Commission's rules, Veracon submitted a letter from Mr. Richard Lamkey of Nilco, Inc. (Nilco). Mr. Lamkey declared under penalty of perjury that Nilco is licensed to operate on subject frequencies 853.2375/808.2375 MHz in the Chicago area under Call Sign WNQZ339, issued"RR ,N(N(ZZ" December 20, 1989, and has "never experienced any form of radio traffic that would be or could be  S'associated with a bus transportation service while monitoring our frequency."4 q= yO@'ԍReply at 5. 4  S'  S' 9. On February 4, 1994, thirtyseven days after Veracon filed its Reply, Calumet filed an unauthorized pleading entitled "Supplement to Opposition to Finder's Preference Request" (Sur S8'Reply).L!8Xq= yO0'ԍSurReply (filed February 4, 1994). L As part of its SurReply, Calumet submitted into evidence a work order, three purchase  S'orders, and three invoices<"q= {O 'ԍId. at 511. < to "conclusively prove the timely construction and continuous operation of  S'WNVA790."8#zq= {O 'ԍId. at 2. 8 The site at which Station WNVA790's repeater was delivered and installed is not identified on the documents, nor are the radios identified on which the frequency was programmed.  Sp'  10. Veracon's finder's preference request was denied on June 15, 1994, by the Office of  SH 'Operations.$H q= yO'ЍLetter from William H. Kellett, Federal Communications Commission, to Robert Barcal, President of Veracon (dated June 15, 1994). The denial letter stated:  S '` ` Veracon has not conclusively demonstrated that Calumet did not construct  S ' ` ` Station WNVA790 by its construction deadline, nor has it demonstrated  S '` ` that Calumet discontinued operation for more than one year.1% d q= {O'ԍId.1  SX'  11. Veracon timely filed the instant Petition on July 15, 1994.H&X q= yO'ԍPetition (filed July 15, 1994). H In its Petition, Veracon argued that the June 15, 1994, action was defective in that documentation had not been provided by Calumet  S'to constitute a finding of construction and operation by Calumet of Station WNVA790 at the station's  S'authorized location.9' q= {O'ԍId. at 13.9 Veracon additionally argued that Calumet's latefiled Opposition should not have been considered, since Veracon filed the instant Request prior to the effective date of the  S'amended rules.8(q= {OH"'ԍId. at 2. 8 Veracon further argued that Calumet's latefiled SurReply should not have been considered since Section 1.46(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.46(a) (1994), states that it  S@'is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time shall not be routinely granted.9)@q= {O%'ԍId. at 34.9 Veracon finally argued that the delegated authority had not carefully considered the evidence when it denied"<),N(N(ZZ"  S'Veracon's Request on June 15, 1994.:*q= {Oh'ԍId. at 36. :  S'  12. Calumet timely filed an Opposition to Veracon's Petition on July 28, 1994.U+Zq= yO'ԍOpposition to Petition (filed July 28, 1994).U In its  S'Opposition to Petition, Calumet argued that it had not disclosed the name of its corporate parent in its  S`'initial application for Station WNVA790, because "no FCC land mobile application does."8,`q= {O'ԍId. at 5. 8 Calumet also argued that it was irrelevant that its application for Station WNVA790 did not provide information relating to provision of service to corporate affiliates, because "such information is not  S'required."1-|q= {O 'ԍId.1 Calumet further argued that it was irrelevant that its site lease for Station WNVA790 did  S'not specify the frequency for the station because "site leases typically do not."2.q= {On'ԍId. 2 In response to Veracon's argument that Calumet's latefiled Opposition and latefiled SurReply should not have been accepted, Calumet argued that it was in the public interest to accept the pleadings.  S '   S ' III. DISCUSSION   13. Veracon asserts that the initial decision did not accurately gauge the sufficiency of its  S 'evidence./ q= {O' |$g ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.106(d); see also In the Matter of Leflore Communications, Inc., Memorandum, Opinion and  {O'Order, DA 991902, 1999 WL 721600 (F.C.C.), ___ FCC Rcd ___ (WTB CWD rel. Sept. 16, 1999).  In this connection, Veracon contends that it set forth prima facie evidence of nonoperation of Station WNVA790 in its Request, but based upon Calumet's evidence, although  S2'inconclusive, Veracon's Request was denied on June 15, 1994.G02 q= {O'ԍSee note 36, supra.G After reviewing the entire record in this proceeding, including all pleadings relating to the instant Petition, we agree with Veracon and are reversing the initial decision, because we find that Calumet's rebuttal to Veracon's nonoperational claims is insufficient. Calumet had originally provided some evidence that it had constructed and operated during the subject period, in its effort to refute Veracon's Request, but the evidence was not frequency or stationspecific. Although Calumet had been provided an opportunity to rebut Veracon's claims, and was at risk of losing its license, Calumet failed to provide any verifiable evidence that it had constructed Station WNVA790, or, if constructed, that Station WNVA790 had not ceased operations for a period in excess of one year, in violation of our rules. Calumet's "Site Agreement," for example, which it had submitted with its Opposition, did not list Calumet, Station WNVA790, or  S'frequencies 853.2375/808.2375 MHz.B1 q= yO%'ԍOpposition at Exhibit III.B The site agreement was between Nationwide Radio Communications, Inc. and Vancom, and pertained to an unidentified 800 MHz repeater. While such repeater could have been Station WNVA790, it is equally plausible that it was not. "R1,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ S'  S'  14. Calumet also argued that Veracon had not observed any 800 MHz equipment when Mr. Barcal visited Calumet at its originally authorized location, because Calumet had moved Station WNVA790's control point location without the Commission's prior knowledge. Calumet stated that  S8'prior Commission approval of a change in control point location was not required.928q= yO'ԍOpposition at 4. 9 Although prior  S'Commission approval was not required to change a control point location, Calumet was required to submit a modification application to the Commission within thirty (30) days of changing Station WNVA790's control point location, pursuant to former Sections 90.135(a)(5) and 90.135(e) of the  S'Commission's Rules, if indeed such a control point location change did occur.^3Xq= yO 'ԍ47 C.F.R. 90. 135(a)(5) and 90.135(e) (1993).^ The existence of a subsequent followup application that had been filed by Calumet to modify its license would lend credence to its representation that it moved an actual control point. Inability of Calumet to document such a change in control point location, on the other hand, renders Calumet's explanation that it changed its control point as nothing more than an unsupported allegation. Thus, we are not persuaded that such allegation adequately rebuts Veracon's finder's preference showing. 15. Further, Calumet attempts to rely upon the argument that although it may appear as if it was  SX'not operating Station WNVA790, its sister subsidiary, VancomIllinois, was allegedly operating the  S0'station.:40q= yO'ԍOpposition at 3. : Calumet has not, however, met its burden of proof in demonstrating the veracity of this proposition. Specifically, Calumet has not provided conclusive evidence of construction and operation  S'of Station WNVA790 either in its own name or in the name of VancomIllinois.  S' 16. Having further reviewed all of the evidence in this matter, we find that Veracon has sufficiently demonstrated that Calumet failed to timely construct and operate Station WNVA790, in  S@'violation of the Commission's rules.5@xq= yOX'ЍThe sufficiency of evidence in finder's preference matters is reviewed on a case by case basis. 6 FCC Rcd 7297, 7308 (1991). Calumet provided insufficient evidence to rebut the substantial showing made by Veracon. We believe that if Calumet had in fact constructed and operated Station WNVA790, it could have provided a coherent description of the construction and operation of the station, or construction and operation by its sister subsidiary, with substantial corroborating evidence.  S' Instead, Calumet has provided unsubstantiated allegations with a variety of reasons advanced for inadequate evidentiary support for those allegations. Thus, we conclude that Calumet failed to make  SP'the showing required to retain its station license.l6Pq= yO"'ЍThis result is consistent with our prior finder's preference decisions wherein petitioners have made  {O#'substantial showings that our initial assessment of the evidence was deficient. See In the Matter of Mobile  {OR$'U.H.F., Inc. (MUHF), Order, DA 991194, 1999 WL 417462 (F.C.C.), ___ FCC Rcd ___ (WTB PSPWD rel.  yO%'June 23, 1999) (Application for Review pending, filed July 23, 1999), where the dismissal of MUHF's finder's preference request targeting Station WIG912 was reversed, and MUHF was awarded a dispositive preference for  {O&'Station WIG912 on reconsideration. See also In the Matter of Motorola, Inc. (Motorola), Memorandum Opinion  {Ov''and Order, DA 991753, 1999 WL 674805 (F.C.C.), ___ FCC Rcd ___, (WTB CWD rel. Sept. 1, 1999), where"v'5,N(N(l'" the dispositive preference award to Motorola was reversed, and the target licensee's authorization to operate Station WNHJ736 was reinstated. l "P 6,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ S'ԙ  S' IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES  17. For the reasons stated above, the dismissal of the finder's preference request filed by Veracon, Inc. against Station WNVA790 IS REVERSED. Accordingly, a dispositive preference under the finder's preference program IS AWARDED to Veracon, Inc. for Station WNVA790, formerly licensed to Calumet Bus Service, Inc. Veracon, Inc. 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 targeted frequencies. 18. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 405 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Veracon, Inc. IS GRANTED. #&a\  P6G;u&P# 19. 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.  ` `  Ghh}FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  Ghh}D'wana R. Terry ` `  Ghh}Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division  S'` `  Ghh}Wireless Telecommunications Bureau  yO'#X\  P6G;ɒP#