NEWSReport No. GN 95-8        GENERAL ACTION      October 12, 1995

               FCC DENIED AMERITEL'S APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

     The FCC denied Ameritel's August 7, 1995 application for review, which sought
review of a Review Board order denying Ameritel's petition to intervene in this proceeding.

     The Commission designated for hearing the application of Ellis Thompson
Corporation, the selectee for authority to operate a cellular system on the non-wireline block
in Atlantic City, NJ.  Ameritel, an Ohio general partnership, sought to intervene as of right
in the hearing, claiming that it is a party-in-interest because it is the successor-in-interest of
Ameritel, Inc., the applicant selected fifth in the cellular lottery.  Ameritel supported its
petition with a declaration by one of its partners stating, without further explanation, that
Ameritel is Ameritel, Inc.'s successor-in-interest.

     The presiding Administrative Law Judge denied Ameritel's petition.  He held that the
unsubstantiated declaration of Ameritel's principal was insufficient to establish Ameritel's
interest.  Moreover, the Administrative Law Judge found that evidence in the Ohio public
records, proffered by Ameritel's opponents, indicated that Ameritel, Inc. had merged into an
entity other than Ameritel and that there was no record of a general partnership called
Ameritel doing business in Ohio.  The Administrative Law Judge rejected as dilatory an
attempt by Ameritel to respond to the oppositions to its petition, which contained this
information.

     The FCC's Review Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's action.  It ruled
that Ameritel's petition lacked "specific allegations of fact" sufficient to show that it is the
successor-in-interest of Ameritel, Inc.  The Review Board also affirmed that rejection of
Ameritel's reply, holding that the Commission's rules do not authorize replies to oppositions
to petitions to intervene.  The Review Board also found that Ameritel could not in effect
supplement its petition to intervene outside the deadline for filing the petition.

     In denying review, the Commission commented on two aspects of the Board's order. 
first, the Commission agreed with Ameritel's opponents that, in light of the serious
allegations raised by the opponents, Ameritel failed to provide timely support for its claim
that it is Ameritel, Inc.'s successor-in-interest.  Second, the Commission ruled that the
Administrative Law Judge had properly exercised his discretion in rejecting as untimely
Ameritel's attempt to respond to its opponents.

                                 - more -



                                   - 2 -

     Action by the Commission October 6, 1995 by Order (FCC 95-424).  Chairman
Hundt, Commissioners Quello, Barrett, Ness and Chong.

                                  - FCC -

News Media contact: Kara Palamaras at (202) 418-0500.