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

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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                           )
                                )
Chadmoore Wireless Group        )        
                                )
Petition for Reconsideration of October 9, 1998)
Licensee List                   )       
                                 

                                 
                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


   Adopted:  November 9, 1999           Released:  November 9, 1999

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

     1.   In this Order on Reconsideration, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration of the October 9,
1998 License List (Petition) filed on November 9, 1998 by Chadmoore Wireless Group, Inc. (Chadmoore). 
Specifically, Chadmoore requests that we amend the October 9, 1998 License List to include specific licenses
either owned or managed by Chadmoore.  For the reasons set forth below, we deny Chadmoore's Petition.  We
also deny related petitions for reconsideration filed by other licensees that raise identical arguments to those
advanced by Chadmoore.

     2.   In the Goodman/Chan Order and the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order, the
Commission implemented procedures to grant four-month construction period extensions to the approximately
4,000 so-called "Goodman/Chan" licensees who had obtained General Category SMR licenses through four
application processing companies that were placed in receivership in a federal court fraud action, and who were
the subject of a waiver petition filed with the Commission by the Receiver in that action.  In the
Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order, the Commission also addressed requests for extension by
approximately 2125 additional General Category SMR licensees who sought extension of their construction
periods on grounds similar to those advanced by the Receiver.  In addressing these "non-Goodman/Chan"
extension requests, the Commission concluded that only those licensees who had (1) received initial
construction periods of eight months and (2) filed timely extension requests prior to the expiration of their eight
month construction periods should receive the same four-month extension granted to the Goodman/Chan
licensees.  On October 9, 1998, the Commercial Wireless Division granted a Freedom of Information Act
request to release a list of the non-Goodman/Chan 800 MHz General Category licensees who met these
requirements and were granted an extension of time in which to construct pursuant to the Goodman/Chan
Reconsideration Order.

     3.   In its Petition, Chadmoore contends that many licensees made their extension requests orally,
or were told by Commission staff that an extension request was not required.  Chadmoore argues that as a
result, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to determine who did or did not meet the timely
extension requirement and certain licensees should therefore be added to the October 9 List.

     4.   As stated above, the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order limited relief to those licensees
who filed timely written extension requests.  Chadmoore does not claim that any of the licensees identified
in its Petition were improperly excluded from the October 9 List because they in fact filed timely requests. 
Therefore, no basis exists to reconsider the exclusion of these licensees from the list.  To the extent that
Chadmoore claims that relief should be extended to licensees who were excluded from the list because they did
not file timely requests, or did not file any request, for whatever reason, Chadmoore's Petition is an untimely
petition for reconsideration of the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order, not a challenge to the October 9
List that implemented that Order.  

     5.   In a footnote, Chadmoore argues that its petition should be treated as timely with respect to
the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order because Chadmoore had discussions with lower-level Commission
licensing staff that led it to believe that the order afforded relief to the licenses that are the subject of this
petition.  However, the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order plainly limited relief to those licensees who
had filed timely written extension requests.  This put Chadmoore on notice that licensees who had failed to file
timely requests within their eight-month construction periods would not receive extensions.  Chadmoore's
contention that it was "difficult if not impossible" to determine which licensees met this requirement is not
persuasive.  The licenses at issue in this petition were either owned or managed by Chadmoore.  Thus,
Chadmoore was in a position to know or easily ascertain from its own records, or those of its managed
licensees, whether extension requests had been filed and the timing of such requests.  

     6.   We also reject Chadmoore's claim not to have had notice of the effect of the Goodman/Chan
Reconsideration Order on its owned or managed licenses because Chadmoore relied on Commission licensing
staff.  The record does not support a claim that the licensing staff somehow misled or misinformed Chadmoore
after the adoption of the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order.  The information provided by the staff
merely identified those Chadmoore and Chadmoore-affiliated licenses that were on record as being subject to
pending extension requests prior to the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order and that could potentially be
subject to relief depending on the outcome of the order.  At no time after the reconsideration order was adopted
did the staff represent to Chadmoore that relief would be afforded to licensees who filed extension requests after
their eight-month construction periods expired.  In any event, even if the licensing staff mistakenly told
Chadmoore that licensees who had filed extension requests after expiration of their eight-month construction
periods would receive relief, Chadmoore cannot claim reliance when such information was plainly inconsistent
with the Commission's order.

     7.   Chadmoore also contends that with respect to at least some licenses, it meets the conditions
for relief under the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order because on June 16, 1995, it had filed a request
for "extended implementation" authority to construct a wide-area SMR network under section 90.629 of the
Commission's rules.  Chadmoore argues that because this request was filed before the expiration of "most"
of the affected licensees' eight-month construction periods, it should be treated as a timely extension request
for purposes of the Goodman/Chan proceeding.  This argument fails because the extended implementation
procedure under section 90.629 was entirely separate from and had no relation to the extension requests being
considered by the Commission in the Goodman/Chan proceeding.  Moreover, well before the Goodman/Chan
Reconsideration Order, Chadmoore's extended implementation request was denied by the Commission and the
Commission's denial was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit.  We find no basis to extend relief to Chadmoore
licenses under the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order based on an entirely unrelated filing that was the
subject of a prior final disposition by the Commission.

     8.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications
Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106,
the Petition for Reconsideration of October 9, 1998 License List filed November 9, 1998 by Chadmoore
Wireless Group, Inc. IS DENIED.

     9.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), the Emergency Motion for Stay and Reinstatement filed November 20, 1998 by
Chadmoore Wireless Group, Inc. IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.

     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications
Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106,
the Petitions for Reconsideration listed in Appendix A ARE DENIED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



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