Federal Communications Commissionda 99-1691

Federal Communications CommissionDA 99-1691

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of)

)

Ralph Hodge Construction Company)File No. 94F385

)

Finder's Preference Request)

Against Specialized Mobile Radio)

Station WNQG403, at Wilson, NC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Adopted: August 24, 1999Released: August 24, 1999

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

1.On January 24, 1997, Joy Rheins filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) of a decision by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) denying her request for a finder's preference against Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Station WNQG403. The Bureau had previously denied her finder's preference request for the above-referenced station.[1] The target licensee, Ralph Hodge Construction Co. (Hodge), filed an Opposition to the Petition for Reconsideration (Opposition). For the reasons discussed below, we deny Ms. Rheins’s Petition for Reconsideration.

1. Ms. Rheins presents no new facts or arguments that would lead us to change the Office of

Operation’s decision. We agree and affirm the initial decision for the reasons stated therein.[2] Ms. Rheins asserts that the evidence presented by Hodge regarding the operation of mobiles was not credible. We disagree and find that the target licensee submitted sufficient evidence to rebut Ms. Rheins’s showing in support of her allegation that the station was not operating. The evidence includes a declaration by Tommy S. Evans, the president of the firm that constructed the station for Hodge, stating that mobiles were operating on the station. In addition, Hodge submitted billing records indicating that roamers were using the system.

3.Ms. Rheins has not shown that “roamers” did not use the system. She also wholly ignores the Commission’s decision that end users of other stations were, at the time in question, permitted to “roam.” Thus, they were allowed to use stations other than those on which the units were specifically authorized.[3] Therefore, Ms. Rheins fails to demonstrate that the station was not operating.

4.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 405, and sections 0.331 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331 and 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration in the above captioned Finder's Preference Case, No. 94F385, IS DENIED.

Federal Communications Commission

William W. Kunze

Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[1]See Letter from William K. Kellett, Esq., Office of Operations, to A.B. Cruz, III, Esq., dated December 24, 1996.

[2]See In the Matter of Montgomery County, Order, DA 99-914 (WTB/PSPWD: rel. May 14, 1999); see also In re Application of Three Guys CellCom, Order on Reconsideration, DA 99-1011 (WTB/CWD: rel. June 4, 1999).

[3]See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Application Requirements for End-Users in the 800 MHz Private Land Mobile Band, Report and Order, FCC 86-232, 60 Rad. Reg. 2d 867, 51 Fed. Reg. 18794 (1986).