WPCJ 2HBVX@Z3|C (TT)y.C8*,/C\  P6QP"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZT7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTHP LaserJet IIISiHPLAIISI.WRSX\  P6G;,,,'cP2& zR@3|C Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZT7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTT22 ZXvL p HP LaserJet IIISiHPLAIISI.WRSX\  P6G;,,,'cP I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2U kd k : v a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2t   8BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2   r1a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2+a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  29]a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2kYa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2-!3DeH  Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBdddddd%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N&27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mCCs,?>[O6Wms[77TTTH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888-\HCCH=7HH!'H=YHH7HC7=HH^HH=!!/2!-2-2-!222N2222!'22H22-006!!!!()!22H-H-H-H-H-YCC-=-=-=-=-!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H-H2H2H2H2H272H2H-H-C-C-C-=-=-=-H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)7'7'N#-2!-22222KK2LL2K!!--2d!!22bd!-d!t!77778c<FRJy.C8*,/C\  P6QP <y.G8*,`G4  pQ7PC2,CXP\  P6QXP<7UC2,XU4  pQX ?^N:,~^\  P6QP<?cN:,c4  pQ!2J=.,gP&J\  P6Q&P <"2N=.,&N4  pQ&#P,%,׵J,\  P6QJP$I(!,ϯ,(\  P6Q,P2{,C8*,3VC*f9 xQX0J=.,3&J*f9 xQ&XNABLEMENUITEMdIPCADDFPFUNCENTRY9 BOOLSTRNCAT IPCGETINIDATADBMQUERYRECORDIN S' X   )DU X'y  #Xj\  P6G;CXP#Federal Communications Commission`+(#DA 991646 ă   yxdddy )#X\  P6G;/P#O #&J\  P6QgP&P#Before the "Federal Communications Commission  S'&RWashington, D.C. 20554 #C\  P6Q/P#у  SP'#&a\  P6G;gP&P#In the Matter of) )  S'Crown Communications)ppFile Nos. 96F022, 96F106, 96F107  S'Gem Electronics)pp 96F109, 96F110, 96F111, 96F113  S'Communications Associates)pp 96F114, 96F116, 96F118, 96F119  S'Leflore Communications)pp 96F122, 96F123, 96F124, 96F125  S`'Racom Corp.)pp 96F126, 96F127, 96F128, 96F129  S8 'TC3M, Inc.)pp 96F130, 96F131, 96F132, 96F138  S 'Rayfield Communications, Inc.)pp 96F139, 96F148, 95F829, 96F024  S 'Bay Electronics)pp 96F112, 96F115, 96F117 Victor Communications, Inc.) W3 Investments) )  SH'Requests for Finder's Preference Regarding)pp  S 'Various 800 MHz SMR Systems)pp  S' Ã  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERc   S0'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:  yO^ 'ԍPetition for Reconsideration at 4.J They assert that the Commission was not "conducting an investigation into the construction and operational status of the systems" at the time of the filing of their finder's preference  S0'requests. 0  {O#' ! ԍId. On February 13, 1997, Chadmoore, not a party to the proceeding, filed a Response to the Petition for Reconsideration.  S'  "( ,N(N(ZZ"  S'PDiscussion Đcc  S'5.The finder's preference program was created in order to relieve the scarcity of spectrum in several frequency bands. This program provided incentives to parties who constructively and effectively assisted the Commission in recovering channels by identifying licensees who had failed to construct or continue to operate their stations and by providing the Commission with the evidence that  S'would lead to the recovery of such channels.e ^  {Ox' !D ԍSee Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Construction, Licensing, and  {OB' !k Operation of Private Land Mobile Radio Stations, PR Docket No. 90481, 6 FCC Rcd. 7297, 7303 (1991) (Finder's  {O 'Preference Report and Order).e A "finder" who conclusively demonstrated that a license assigned on an exclusive basis in the 220222 MHz, 470572 MHz and 800900 MHz bands cancelled automatically for failure to construct, place in operation, or continue to operate a station in compliance with our rules would, as a general matter, obtain a preference for the use of those targeted  Sp'frequencies.0 p  yO ' !M ԍ6 FCC Rcd. at 7305, 47 C.F.R.  90.173(k). The Commission discontinued the Finder's Preference Program  {O'for the 800 MHz Service on December 15, 1995. Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 1463, at 1634,  416 (1995).0  S '6.Chadmoore submitted its E.I. Request to the Commission on June 16, 1995.> H  yO'ԍChadmoore E.I. Request> This E.I.  S 'Request disclosed that certain stations (later targeted by the petitioners) were not constructed.7   {Op'ԍId. at 2.7 Thus, the Commission was made aware of the compliance status of these stations by Chadmoore at the time the E.I. Request was submitted for Commission action. The Finders Report and Order "exempt[s]  S 'from finder's preference the channels of those licensees scheduled or currently under review...."b j  {O'ԍSee Finders Report and Order at 7307,  59.b While the petitioners argue that the category of "licenses under review" encompasses merely those individual stations under active investigation for rule violations, the scope of Commission review clearly includes stations that have acknowledged nonconstruction in an extended implementation  S'request and have submitted themselves to Commission review and action.  yO|' ! ԍHad the plan been approved, the construction deadlines would have been extended, extinguishing the basis of these finder's preference requests"hence the rationale for exempting stations under review from finder's preference. The Office of Operations determined correctly that the stations involved in the Chadmoore E.I. request fell within the category of cases under Commission review and were therefore exempt from finder's preference.  S@'7.Finders must identify noncompliant licensees to the Commission@T  {O4#'ԍIn the Matter of James A. Cassell, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 16720, 16721, 2 (1996). and recovery of channels  S'"must result from information provided [by the finder]."H  yO%'ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.173(k) (1994).H Finder's preferences were never awarded on an unrestricted basis. Finders were always required to provide a detailed statement as to the specific"v,N(N(ZZ"  S'basis for the finder's knowledge that the licensee was violating FCC regulations.K  yOh'ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.175(k)(3) (1994).K This requirement enabled the Commission, among other things, to make a determination as to whether or not individuals who submitted preference requests were assisting the Commission with its compliance efforts. The Commission placed the Chadmoore E.I. Request on public notice, seeking comment on this request  S`'and whether the construction deadlines of participating stations should be extended.}`X  {OX'ԍChadmoore/PCC Public Notice, Public Notice, DA 96424, Released July 19, 1995. } The Public  S:'Notice was released on July 19, 1995, prior to the petitioners filing their finder's preference requests.J:  {O 'ԍSee footnote 2, supra.J  S'These finder's preference requests merely relied on publicly available information. In fact, each preference request quoted directly from the Chadmoore E.I. Request released by the Commission for public comment. Thus, these "finders" did not identify to the Commission licensees who had failed to construct, they only harvested information known to the Commission. The finder's preference  St'program was designed to "supplement rather than duplicate [Commission] compliance efforts."ht|  {O'ԍSee Finder's Preference Report and Order at 7307,  59.h  SL '  S$ '8. At the time these finder's preference requests were filed, the Commission was already aware that the targeted stations were not constructed and was in the process of reviewing their proposed construction plan, the outcome of which was dispositive to the status of their authorizations. Therefore, any recoveries of these channels would have been the result of Commission actions. As was stated above, information provided to the Commission by the finder must "lead to" the recovery  S\'of the targeted stations.H\  yO 'ԍ47 C.F.R.  90.173(k) (1994).H Thus, even had the petitioners surveyed these frequencies and generated  S4'their own evidence (i.e., conducted monitoring which indicated an absence of signal), these filings cannot meet the test of "leading to" the recovery of channels since the same information was already in the Commission's possession at the time these finder's preference requests were filed. Since  S'recovery "must result from" information submitted,1  {O'ԍId.1 the petitioners were not eligible to obtain  S'preferences for the stations in question after the June 16, 1995 filing of the E.I. Plan by Chadmoore.  Sn'  SF'9.Our decision is consistent with the Bureau's recent decisions in finder's preference cases 95F811 and 95F812. In these cases, the stations targeted by the "finders" were listed on a waiver request filed with the Commission. The waiver request was placed on public notice prior to the filing of the finder's preference requests, and the stations were listed therein. The "finders" then submitted finder's preference requests merely relying on that publicly available information. These requests were dismissed. The Bureau denied a petition for reconsideration and affirmed the dismissal of these requests on the basis that the stations involved "were already the subject of compliance review at the  S.'time the finder's preference requests were filed," and the requests were therefore defective..0  {O%'ԍIn the Matter of Montgomery County Maryland, Order, DA 99914, Released May 14, 1999 at 1, 2. Ќ S' 6Conclusion Đcc  S'10.We find that the stations targeted by these petitioners were already the subject of Commission review at the time these finder's preference requests were filed and, therefore, were not properly the  S`'subject of finder's preference requests. The petitioners did not provide information X01Í ÍX01Í Íwhich identified(#(# noncompliant licensees to the Commission and which would lead to the recovery of the targeted licenses. For the aforementioned reasons, we deny the consolidated Petition for Reconsideration.   S'mU Ordering Clause Đccc  Sp'11.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 154(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 of the individual  S 'cases listed in Attachment A of this Order are DENIED. ` `  ,hh]Federal Communications Commission ` `  ,hh]William W. Kunze ` `  ,hh]Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division ` `  ,hh]Wireless Telecommunications Bureau