******************************************************** 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 the Matter of ) ) Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver; ) ) Dr. Robert Chan ) ) Petition for Waiver of ) Sections 90.633(c) and 1.1102 ) of the Commission's Rules ) ) Request for Waiver of Section 90.633(c)) of the Commission's Rules ) by Various 800 MHz SMR Licensees) ) Request for Waiver of Section 90.609(b)) of the Commission's Rules Prohibiting) the Transfer and Assignment of ) Unconstructed Licenses ) ) Request for Extension of License Term) of 800 MHz SMR Licensees ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: November 4, 1999 Released: November 9, 1999 By the Commission: 1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order filed August 31, 1998 by Preferred Communication Systems, Inc. (Preferred). Preferred requests that we reconsider our determination that non-Goodman/Chan General Category Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees must have filed timely extension requests with the Commission in order to receive the same relief granted the Goodman/Chan licensees under the Goodman/Chan Order. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss Preferred's Petition. 2. In the Goodman/Chan Order and the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order, we implemented procedures to grant four-month construction period extensions to the approximately 2,500 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, we also addressed requests for extension by approximately 2,125 additional General Category SMR licensees who, like the Goodman/Chan licensees, had received initial construction periods of eight months, but had not used one of the application processing companies placed in receivership. In that Order, we concluded that these licensees should receive relief similar to that afforded the Goodman/Chan licensees, provided that they had filed timely extension requests prior to the expiration of their eight-month construction periods. Accordingly, we provided licensees satisfying these conditions with the same four-month extension granted to the Goodman/Chan licensees. 3. In its petition, Preferred states that it has obtained assignments of certain General Category SMR licenses and has other assignments pending that could be adversely affected by the scope of the relief granted in the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order to non-Goodman/Chan licensees. Preferred states that certain non-Goodman/Chan licensees from whom it has received or has applied to receive license assignments "may not have filed formal extension requests with the Commission," and thus could be subject to license cancellation. Preferred further contends that many non-Goodman/Chan licensees did not file extension requests because they believed based on Commission staff advice that they were not required to do so. Preferred contends that some licensees received letters from Commission staff stating that non- Goodman/Chan licensees in "similar situations" would receive relief, that others were advised by Commission staff orally to the same effect, and that others heard about the alleged staff advice indirectly from other licensees or receivers. Based on these allegations, Preferred contends that all non- Goodman/Chan licensees should obtain the same four month extension as the Goodman/Chan licensees, regardless of whether they filed an extension request. 4. Section 405(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, allows any party in interest, or any person aggrieved or whose interests are adversely affected, to petition for reconsideration of an action by a designated authority. Pursuant to Section 1.106 of our rules, if the petition is filed by a person who is not a party to the proceeding, the petition shall state with particularity the manner in which the person's interests are adversely affected by the action taken, and shall show good reason why it was not possible for the person to participate in the earlier stages of the proceeding. Generally, to establish standing in licensing matters, the petitioner must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that failure to grant the requested relief would cause the petitioner to suffer a direct injury. The petition must further demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury and the challenged action by establishing that (1) the injury "fairly can be traced" to the challenged action, and (2) the injury would be prevented or redressed by the relief requested. 5. As a threshold matter, we conclude that Preferred has failed to establish standing under the criteria stated above. First, while the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order was an adjudicatory order that addressed only the claims of those non-Goodman/Chan licensees who filed extension requests, Preferred's petition seeks relief for licensees who did not file requests. Thus, to the extent that Preferred claims injury on behalf of predecessor licensees who failed to file extension requests, these claims of injury cannot be traced back to the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order because they were never before the Commission in the Goodman/Chan proceeding. Preferred's petition also fails to identify or assert claims on behalf of any predecessor licensee that filed an untimely extension request and was denied relief under the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order. Finally, Preferred's generalized assertion that licensees "may not have filed formal extension requests" is too vague and conclusory to establish injury. On these grounds, therefore, Preferred has failed to establish a causal link between its alleged injury and the challenged order that would confer standing. 6. Even if we were to confer standing on Preferred, either on behalf of licensees who filed untimely extension requests or licensees who failed to file any request, the petition fails on the merits to support Preferred's claim of detrimental reliance on Commission staff advice. Preferred alleges that licensees believed they were not required to file extension requests because the Commission staff told licensees that the relief provided by the Goodman/Chan Order would be extended to licensees in situations "similar" to the Goodman/Chan licensees. In support of this contention, Preferred cites a Commission staff letter that was sent to one licensee, but the letter does not support Preferred's argument. In fact, the letter was a response to a licensee that had previously filed an extension request, and merely stated that the licensee would be informed at a later date regarding the effective date of the Goodman/Chan Order, which would establish the start date for the four-month extension. On its face, the letter neither states nor implies that it was unnecessary for the recipient to file an extension request in order to obtain relief. 7. Preferred also alleges that unspecified licensees relied on oral advice that the relief afforded to the Goodman/Chan licensees would extend to them. However, these claims also are unsupported by the record. First, while Preferred contends that some licensees were "lulled" into believing they did not have to file requests, it does not provide evidence that licensees were expressly told by Commission staff that no request was required. To the contrary, Preferred's argument is undercut by the fact that approximately 2,125 non-Goodman/Chan licensees filed extension requests. The petition further states that "most" licensees did not communicate directly with Commission staff at all, but learned of the alleged staff advice from other licensees or third parties. Given the potential for such second- and third- hand transmission of information to result in distorted and inaccurate versions of any advice that might have been given to the original recipient, we reject the view that licensees could reasonably rely on such information. 8. Finally, even assuming arguendo that licensees could reasonably have inferred from written or oral statements by staff (whether received directly or indirectly) that they did not need to file extension requests, Preferred has failed to demonstrate that the claimed reliance was timely. In order to establish timeliness, Preferred must demonstrate in each case that the reliance occurred before the expiration of the licensee's eight-month construction period, when the licensee still had time to file a timely extension request. Preferred makes no such assertion. Where reliance is not timely, detrimental reliance cannot be established and any incorrect or misleading statements that may have been made by Commission staff are irrelevant. 9. In summary, Preferred has failed to establish standing because there is no showing that its injury resulted from the Commission's action in the Goodman/Chan Reconsideration Order. Even if we were to grant standing to Preferred, it has failed on the merits to support a claim of detrimental reliance. In either event, we find no basis on the facts submitted in this petition to extend relief to non-Goodman/Chan licensees who either filed untimely extension requests or who did not file requests at all. 10. 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 filed August 31, 1998 by Preferred Communication Systems, Inc. IS DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary