NOTICE ********************************************************* NOTICE ********************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file how2ftp. File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory /pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/ ***************************************************************** ******** FCC 96-178 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Robert A. Berry, SMR Station WNXI221; Charles R. Gross, SMR Station WNXI222; Moreno Communications, SMR Station WNXI224; and Alfonse Iudicello, SMR Station WNXI225. Goulds, Florida MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: April 17, 1996 Released: By the Commission: 1. On November 12, 1993, Robert A. Berry, Charles R. Gross, Moreno Communications, and Alfonse Iudicello (collectively "Petitioners") filed a pleading captioned Petition for Reconsideration, or in the alternative, Application for Review, seeking reconsideration of an Order by the former Private Radio Bureau (Bureau) affirming the cancellation of trunked Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licenses WNXI221, WNXI222, WNXI224, and WNXI225. For the reasons that follow, the Application for Review is denied. Background 2. The Bureau granted Petitioners' applications for SMR licenses on October 2, 1991, and construction of the four SMR stations was initially required by October 2, 1992. Petitioners were licensed to use an antenna mounted at the 654-foot level on a tower in Goulds, Florida. The Petitioners state that they were unable to complete the required construction by the deadline because the communications tower on which they intended to construct these systems was destroyed by Hurricane Andrew on August 24, 1992. In an attempt to preserve their licenses, the Petitioners took two actions. First, they requested an extension of time to construct the stations. The extension was granted, moving the required construction deadline to April 2, 1993. Second, they hired American Mobile Systems, Inc. (AMS) to construct operational stations by the original deadline. AMS placed the stations in operation by October 2, 1992. The antenna used was at approximately the 60-foot level on a 300-foot replacement tower. In addition, the stations were operational for approximately two weeks. After two weeks of operation, AMS removed the equipment from the building in which it was operating. This occurred when AMS and Lodestar, the site manager, could not reach an agreement on rental payments for the tower space. The equipment was moved to a storage building that did not have electric power. The Petitioners state that the equipment could have been made operational on an "as needed basis" because it was connected to a 40- foot antenna adjacent to the storage shed and could have used emergency power from a nearby generator. 3. The Bureau notified the Petitioners on May 17, 1993, that the licenses had cancelled after Petitioners failed to respond to our request to substantiate that their stations were constructed in a timely fashion. The Petitioners filed a Petition for Reconsideration on June 1, 1993, requesting reinstatement of the licenses. This petition was denied by the Bureau on October 12, 1993. Discussion 4. The Commission's rules require that SMR stations be constructed, in accordance with the technical parameters of the station authorization, and placed in operation within one year of the license grant. Failure to permanently construct a station and place it in operation results in automatic cancellation of the license. The construction requirement, in Section 90.631(f), reads in pertinent part: If a station is not placed in permanent operation, in accordance with the technical parameters of the station authorization, within one year, except as provided in  90.629, its license cancels automatically and must be returned to the Commission. In the instant case, the facts are undisputed and recounted in Petitioners' Application for Review. The Petitioners, however, dispute the legal conclusion contained in the Bureau's Order regarding their petitions for reconsideration that the appropriate sanction was cancellation of their licenses. 5. Petitioners assert that they satisfied the construction and operation requirements for trunked SMR stations as specified in our rules, and if not, that cancellation of their licenses is not the appropriate sanction in this instance. The Commission has stated on several occasions that construction must be permanent and in substantial accordance with the terms of the authorization. We have previously indicated that factors such as antenna height and extent of operation are indicia of temporary construction and will support a finding that a licensee has not satisfied the Commission's construction requirement. Petitioners mistakenly assert that these decisions were only effective after their construction deadline. To the contrary, we note that their original construction deadline was ten months after the effective date of the Report and Order in PR Docket No. 90-481, and the extended construction deadline was the day the First Report and Order in PR Docket No. 89-553 became effective. 6. Petitioners further assert that antenna height has never been an independent basis for triggering the automatic cancellation provision of our rules. While we may agree with Petitioners' assertion, we disagree with Petitioners' conclusion that their construction was sufficient under our rules. The determinative factors in this case are the extreme discrepancy between the licensed antenna height and the constructed height, the brevity of operations, the Petitioners' decision not to rent space on the tower beyond the brief period of operation, and the Petitioners' decision to move the equipment to a building without electrical power. Although we are aware that Hurricane Andrew impeded the expeditious construction of these stations, we believe the obstacle was addressed when Petitioners requested and received a six- month extension of their construction deadline. Despite the additional time to fully construct their facilities, they simply failed to satisfy the requirements to permanently construct in substantial accordance with authorized parameters. Given the preponderance of facts indicating only temporary construction, the Petitioners cannot support their claim that the stations were permanently constructed. Instead, it appears that Petitioners were holding authorizations without commencing operations. Conclusion 7. We have repeatedly cautioned licensees that precisely this type of temporary construction and operation will not suffice to allow licensees to hold authorizations until they choose to permanently construct and operate stations. The Bureau appropriately extended the construction deadline for these stations after the hurricane. Despite this extension, Petitioners chose to only temporarily construct their systems. Thus, we find that Stations WNXI221, WNXI222, WNXI224, and WNXI225 were never permanently constructed and placed in operation. We therefore affirm the Bureau's Order denying reconsideration of the Notice of Automatic Cancellation sent to Petitioners. 8. It is hereby ORDERED that the Application for Review filed by Messrs. Berry, Gross, Iudicello, and Moreno Communications IS DENIED and SMR licenses WNXI221, WNXI222, WNXI224, and WNXI225 ARE CANCELLED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary