******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect 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 Application of ) ) PAGEPLUS, INC. ) File No. 37740-CD-P/L-95 ) Application to Modify Public Mobile Radio ) Service License - KNKM933, Taylor Mill, KY ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: October 16, 1997 Released: October 16, 1997 By the Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this Order on Reconsideration, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed by PagePlus, Inc. (PagePlus), on March 25, 1996, seeking review of the Narrowband Branch's letter (Ref: 2000C3-GBM, dated March 1, 1996) dismissing the above-captioned application to modify Public Mobile Radio Service License, KNKM933, on 152.78 MHz at Taylor Mill, Kentucky. We conclude that PagePlus has failed to demonstrate that its application was dismissed in error. Accordingly, we deny its Petition. II. BACKGROUND 2. On September 19, 1995, PagePlus filed the above-captioned application to add an additional location to its existing facility on 152.78 MHz at Taylor Mill, Kentucky. In Exhibit 1 to its application, PagePlus included an interference study to demonstrate compliance with the technical channel assignment criteria set forth in Section 22.567 of the rules. In that Exhibit, PagePlus certified that "there are no co- channel facilities, aside from those licensed to it" that require interference protection. However, as PagePlus acknowledges in its Petition, that Exhibit was based on incomplete information contained in a third-party database. The third-party database apparently did not contain the most recent FCC data and, therefore, PagePlus failed to account for certain co-channel facilities in its interference study. In its dismissal letter, the Narrowband Branch noted that PageNet failed to identify and show interference free operation to Stations KSJ804, Greensburg, Indiana, and KIY540, Lexington, Kentucky. Because of this discrepancy, PagePlus' application was dismissed. 3. PagePlus argues that it was aware of the Commission's rules regarding co-channel facilities when it filed its application and that the discrepancy in its application was the result of its reliance on an incomplete third-party database. PagePlus contends that it should not be penalized because the third-party database was incomplete. PagePlus has prepared an amendment to its application, based upon a new database, and asks that its application be reinstated and amended nunc pro tunc to include the updated interference study. III. DISCUSSION 4. We have reviewed PagePlus' Petition and we find that it should be denied. PagePlus acknowledges that its application did not contain an accurate interference study because of its reliance on an incomplete third-party database. Section 0.434(e) of the Commission's rules, which deals with the use of FCC databases made available to the public, cautions that Commission databases, and lists prepared from such databases, are unofficial and prepared for the convenience of the FCC's staff and are not to be relied upon by the public. Actions by the public, such as the filing of applications, should be based upon the primary sources of information, such as official license documents, international notices and actual applications and not upon such databases. PagePlus apparently relied upon an incomplete third-party database to prepare its application. The Commission has historically denied reinstatement of applications that contained errors as a result of the reliance upon erroneous database information. We find no justification for a different result in this case. PagePlus contends that the Commission has previously allowed applicants to cure their interference studies. However, in the case cited by PagePlus, USA Mobile Communications, Inc. II, the application in question was amended prior to it being returned as defective. In this case, PagePlus provided its curative amendment after its application had been dismissed. Therefore, we find that dismissal of PagePlus' application was proper and its Petition must be denied. IV. CONCLUSION 5. In view of the foregoing, we affirm the dismissal of PagePlus' application. We find that PagePlus' reliance on an incomplete third-party database does not warrant reinstatement of its application. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 6. Accordingly, pursuant to our authority under Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by PagePlus, Inc., on March 25, 1996, IS DENIED. 7. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority as set forth in Section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION David L. Furth Chief, Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau