********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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 the Matter of

Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver;
Dr. Robert Chan

Petition for Waiver of Section 90.633(c) and
1.1102 of the Commission's Rules

Request for Waiver of Section 90.633(c) of the
Commission's Rules by Various 800 MHz SMR
Licensees

Request for Waiver of Section 90.609(b) of the
Commission's Rule Prohibiting the Transfer and
Assignment of Unconstructed Licenses

Request for Extension of License Term of 800
MHz Licensees 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)







                             ORDER

     Adopted:  April 26, 2001                                Released:  May 14, 2001

By the Commission:

1.     In this Order, we deny the Petition for Partial Reconsideration (Petition) filed by Preferred
Communication Systems, Inc. (Preferred) of our Preferred Reconsideration Order in the Goodman/Chan
matter.  Preferred seeks partial reconsideration of our decision in the Preferred Reconsideration Order
declining to extend relief to licensees who were outside the scope of the relief granted in the Commission's
Goodman/Chan I and Goodman/Chan II orders.
2.     In Goodman/Chan I and Goodman/Chan II, the Commission implemented procedures to grant
four-month construction extensions to approximately 2,500 so-called "Goodman/Chan" licensees who had
obtained 800 MHz General Category SMR licenses through four application processing companies that
were placed in receivership in a federal court action.  In Goodman/Chan II, the Commission also concluded
that additional General Category licensees should receive relief similar to that afforded to the
Goodman/Chan licensees, provided that they had filed timely extension requests prior to the expiration of
their eight-month construction periods.  Preferred filed a petition for reconsideration of Goodman/Chan II,
requesting that the Commission reconsider its determination that non-Goodman/Chan licensees must have filed
timely extension requests with the Commission in order to receive the same relief granted the Goodman/Chan
licensees. On November 9, 1999, the Commission issued the Preferred Reconsideration Order, in which it
concluded that 1) Preferred lacked standing, and 2) that there was no evidence to support Preferred's
contention that licensees who failed to file timely extension requests had received or detrimentally relied on
Commission staff advice.   Preferred filed the instant petition for partial reconsideration on December 9, 1999.
3.     In its latest petition, Preferred argues that General Category licensees who filed extension
requests after the expiration of their eight month construction periods should be deemed to have filed
"timely" extension requests on the grounds that 1) a small number of the 2,500 original Goodman/Chan
licensees were afforded relief even though the original Goodman/Chan petition was filed by the receiver
shortly after the expiration of their eight-month construction periods, and 2) the Commission's rules in
effect in 1994-1995 provided a 30 day window in the renewal context for licensees to request reinstatement.
  
4.     We note that Preferred did not present these arguments in its previous petition for
reconsideration, and that the Petition is not based on new or previously undiscovered facts or circumstances. 
Thus, Preferred's Petition is procedurally defective under Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's rules. 
We also conclude that there is no public interest reason to consider Preferred's Petition pursuant to Section
1.106(c)(2).  As in the prior petition, Preferred has failed to establish that it has standing on behalf of any
specific licensee that filed an untimely extension request and was denied relief under Goodman/Chan II.  
5.     Even leaving aside these procedural defects, Preferred has presented no compelling argument
that the scope of relief afforded by the Commission in Goodman/Chan II should be expanded. To the extent
that Preferred's claim is based on the reinstatement in Goodman/Chan I of a very small number of
Goodman/Chan licenses whose construction periods had expired before the petition was filed, we limit that
decision to its facts and decline to give it precedential effect.  The vast majority of Goodman/Chan licensees
had time remaining on their construction periods when the petition was filed, and the Commission's
deliberations in Goodman/Chan I were directed to resolving the strongly-contested and controversial issues
associated with extending the time to construct of those licensees.  The Commission did not discuss the
reinstatement request, and it provided no indication of its rationale for granting that request, which is
contrary to the weight of agency precedent regarding untimely extension requests.  We also note that
requiring licensees to file extension requests on a timely basis serves important policy objectives.  As a
general matter, allowing the filing of untimely extension requests, as Petitioners propose, would undermine
orderly and efficient spectrum management, lead to administrative uncertainty and delay, and hinder our
ability to relicense scarce spectrum resources to other licensees who are ready and able to construct.  For
these reasons, we reject Preferred's suggestion that the Commission was compelled to grant similar
reinstatement relief with respect to other General Category SMR licensees whose extension of time requests
were denied in Goodman/Chan II.  Preferred's argument based on the existence of reinstatement
procedures is also not persuasive.  These procedures applied to late-filed renewal applications by licensees
who had successfully constructed and were operating their systems, not to licensees who failed to construct
within the construction period.     
6.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of then Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and Sections 1.106 and 1.115 of the Commission's
Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, 1.115, the Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by Preferred Communication
Systems, Inc. is DENIED.

                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                              Magalie Roman Salas
                              Secretary