******************************************************** 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 ) ) Nathan Sherman Enterprises, Inc.) ) Lubbock SMR, Inc. ) ) S&C Investments, Inc. ) ) Triangle Communications, Inc. ) ) Mobilecom One, L.L.C. ) ) Hawaiian Wireless, Inc. ) ) HBS Communications, Inc. ) ) SRI, Inc. and Spectrum Resources of ) the Northeast, Inc. ) ) Delta Communications, Inc. ) ) Petitions for Reconsideration of the ) Cancellation of 800 MHz Specialized) Mobile Radio Licenses ) ) Requests for Special Temporary Authority) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: December 3, 1999 Released: December 3, 1999 By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we address substantively identical Petitions for Reconsideration, filed November 18, 1998 by the above-captioned licensees (collectively, Petitions). The Petitions request reconsideration of the cancellation of numerous Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licenses. Specifically, Petitioners argue that their licenses have received disparate treatment by the Commission and were erroneously cancelled. We also address requests for Special Temporary Authority (STA Requests) filed by Nathan Sherman Enterprises, Inc. (Sherman) on November 13, 1998, by Triangle Communications (Triangle) and HBS Communications, Inc. (HBS) on November 16, 1998, and by Delta Communications, Inc. (Delta) on November 11, 1998. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Petitions and the STA Requests. 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 extensions by approximately 2,125 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. On October 19, 1998, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) cancelled licenses not granted relief pursuant to the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order, including those held by Petitioners. 3. Petitioners contend that because October 19, 1998 was the first date on which they received proper notice of the status of their authorizations, their Petitions are timely filed. However, the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order plainly limited relief to those licensees who had filed timely extension requests. This put Petitioners on notice that licensees who had failed to file timely requests -- i.e., within their eight-month construction periods -- would not receive extensions. As a licensee, each Petitioner was in a position to know or easily ascertain from its own records whether extension requests had been filed and the timing of such requests. Petitioners' argument that it was not possible to obtain copies of extension requests from the Commission is therefore unpersuasive. 4. Petitioners also argue that requiring non-Goodman/Chan licensees to have filed extension requests prior to the expiration of their original eight-month deadline is unfair. As stated above, the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order limited relief to those licensees who filed timely written extension requests. To the extent that Petitioners claim 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, the Petitions are untimely petitions for reconsideration of the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order, not a challenge to the October 19 cancellations that implemented that Order. In any event, denying relief to non-Goodman/Chan licensees who did not file timely extension requests does not constitute discriminatory treatment. Pursuant to the Commission's rules in effect at the time Petitioners' licenses were issued, Petitioners were required to construct and place their stations into operation within eight months of the date of grant. Furthermore, failure to place their stations into operation within eight months resulted in the automatic cancellation of the license. Petitioners' licenses were cancelled for failure to meet the criteria set forth in the Commission's rules, and Petitioners, having not filed timely extension requests, were not eligible for relief under the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order. As Petitioners have failed to demonstrate how this constitutes disparate treatment, their Petitions are denied. 5. In addition, Sherman, Triangle, and HBS have filed requests for Special Temporary Authority to continue operating their respective stations. Sherman, Triangle and HBS contend that their respective stations have been placed into operation and are currently providing service. They argue that the discontinuation of service would have an adverse effect on their respective customers and that it is therefore in the public interest to grant their requests. We disagree. As discussed above, Sherman, Triangle and HBS failed to timely construct their stations or timely request an extension. Accordingly, their licenses were properly cancelled, and they were not eligible for relief under the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order. These Petitioners have failed to describe any extraordinary circumstances that would justify granting them temporary relief. As a result, their requests for Special Temporary Authority are denied. 6. 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 sections 0.331 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 1.106, the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by the above- captioned licensees on November 18, 1998 ARE HEREBY DENIED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(f) of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 309(f), and sections 0.331 and 1.931 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 1.931, the requests for Special Temporary Authority filed by Nathan Sherman Enterprises, Inc. on November 13, 1998, by Triangle Communications, Inc. and HBS Communications, Inc. on November 16, 1998, and by Delta Communications, Inc. on November 11, 1998 ARE HEREBY DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau