********************************************************    
                         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                           )
                                )
929 MHz and 931 MHz Paging Licensees)   
                                )
Motions for Reconsideration of Waiver)
Requests of Construction Period )       
                                )
                                 

                                 
                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


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

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

     1.   We have before us 88 motions for reconsideration of denials by the Commercial Wireless
Division's Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch of requests for waiver of the Commission's construction
period for paging licenses.  The Commission's rules at that time required that, for the licenses here at issue,
the licensees must have commenced service within twelve months of the license grant.  In order to be granted
an extension of the construction period, licensees were required to file an extension request prior to the
expiration of the construction period.  Furthermore, licensees were required to demonstrate that failure to
complete construction within the twelve-month period was due to causes beyond their control.  The Licensing
and Technical Analysis Branch denied all of the petitioners' original waiver requests because the requests for
extension were untimely filed and/or did not provide sufficient justification for an extension.

     2.   The motions for reconsideration before us rely on the so-called "Goodman/Chan" case.  In
1995, the Commission released the Goodman/Chan Order, which, among other things, granted certain General
Category SMR licensees (Goodman/Chan Licensees) an additional four months to construct and commence
operations of their licenses.  The Goodman/Chan Licensees held licenses that originally required them to
construct within eight months of their license grant.  The Commission partially granted the Goodman/Chan
waiver petitions because during the pendency of those waiver petitions, it had changed the construction period
for all new CMRS licenses, including conventional SMR licenses, from eight months to twelve months. 
However, this relief did not take effect until the Goodman/Chan Order was published in the Federal Register,
which occurred on August 27, 1998 following adoption of the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order.

     3.   In their motions for reconsideration, the petitioners argue that because the four-month
extensions granted to the Goodman/Chan licensees did not commence until publication of the Goodman/Chan
Order in the Federal Register, the Goodman/Chan Licensees were effectively granted an extended construction
period.  Petitioners argue that by denying them additional time to construct beyond their original twelve month
construction period, the Commission is discriminating against licensees that were originally granted twelve-
month construction periods.

     4.   We deny petitioners' arguments.  First, to the extent that petitioners' original extension requests
were untimely, denial of these requests was proper because the rules required licensees to file extension requests
prior to the expiration of the twelve month construction period.  Second, as noted above, the relief afforded in
the Goodman/Chan proceeding was expressly limited to certain General Category SMR licensees who had
obtained eight-month construction periods under pre-1995 rules.  The rationale of these orders was to place
this limited group of SMR licensees in the same position as other CMRS licensees who acquired their licenses
after January 2, 1995 and received licenses with twelve month construction requirements.  The Commission
did not extend similar relief to licensees in non-SMR services who had twelve months to construct, such as
petitioners, and we find no basis to do so here.  Because petitioners have no underlying claim to relief based
on Goodman/Chan, petitioners' arguments based on the amount of time that elapsed before the relief afforded
to the Goodman/Chan licensees became effective are irrelevant and need not be addressed.

     5.   Therefore, all of the motions for reconsideration for relief filed by the licensees listed in the
Appendix ARE DENIED.  This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to section 0.331 of the
Commission's rules.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



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