********************************************************    
                         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                           )
                                )
Industrial/Business Pool and Business Licensees)  
                                )
Applications for Review of Denial of )
Motions for Reconsideration of Waiver)       
Requests of Construction Period )
                                 

                                 
                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


   Adopted:  December 17, 1999          Released:  December 21, 1999

By the Commission:

     1.   The Commission has before it multiple Applications for Review filed by
Industrial/Business Pool and Business Licensees licensees.  Petitioners request review of the denial of their
respective motions for reconsideration of denials of requests for waiver of the Commission's construction
period for Industrial/Business Pool and Business licenses.

     2.    The Applications for Review listed in Appendix A were untimely filed, pursuant to section
1.115(d) of the Commission's rules, because they were filed more than 30 days after the denial of these
petitioners' respective requests for reconsideration.  We therefore dismiss these applications as untimely.

     3.   With respect to the remaining Applications for Review listed in Appendix B, we deny the
requests for extensions of time to construct facilities.  The Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch of the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau denied petitioners' original waiver requests because the requests for
extension were untimely filed and/or did not provide sufficient justification for an extension.  Petitioners
then filed motions for reconsideration, contending that they should receive extensions based on the
Goodman/Chan proceeding.  

     4.   By letter decisions, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch denied the petitions for
reconsideration. The Branch concluded that petitioners' reliance on the Goodman/Chan proceeding was
misplaced because the relief afforded in that proceeding was expressly limited to General Category
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees who had obtained eight-month construction periods under pre-
1995 rules, and did not extend similar relief to licensees who had twelve months to construct, such as
petitioners.  

     5.   The Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch properly decided the matters raised below. 
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. Thus, the Goodman/Chan
proceeding provided no basis for granting extensions to licensees, such as petitioners, who already had
twelve month construction periods.  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.  

     6.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the applications for review listed in Appendix A ARE
DISMISSED pursuant to Section 1.115(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115(d).

     7.   IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the applications for review listed in Appendix B ARE
DENIED for the reasons specified herein.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Magalie Roman Salas
                              Secretary