*Pages 1--3 from  Microsoft Word - 3057.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  1848 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  re  Application  of 
 MOBILE  UHF,  INC. 
 Request  for  Reinstatement  of  License 
 For  Specialized  Mobile  Radio 
 Station  WPCE768  at 
 Corona,  California 


 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 


 File  No.  D122643 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  August  11,  2000  Released:  August  14,  2000 
 By  the  Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunication  Bureau: 
 I.  Introduction 
 1.  On  April  17,  2000,  James  A.  Kay,  Jr.  (Kay),  a  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  (SMR)  licensee  in  the 
 Los  Angeles,  California  area,  filed  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  1  of  the  March  17,  2000  action  by  the 
 staff  of  the  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau’s  Commercial  Wireless  Division  (CWD  staff)  reinstating 
 the  above-  captioned  application.  For  the  reasons  discussed  below,  Kay’s  Petition  for  Reconsideration  is 
 denied. 


 II.  Background 
 2.  On  October  19,  1998,  CWD’s  staff  cancelled  Mobile  UHF,  Inc.  ’s  (Mobile  UHF)  authorization 
 for  Station  WPCE768.  Pursuant  to  its  actions  in  the  “Goodman/  Chan”  proceeding,  the  Commission 
 determined  that  conventional  SMR  licensees,  such  as  Mobile  UHF,  that  had  not  been  accorded  “similarly 
 situated”  status  and  had  not  constructed  their  stations  within  the  eight-  month  construction  period  were  not 
 entitled  to  temporary  waivers  of  the  Commission’s  construction  and  operation  rules.  2  On  February  14, 
 2000,  Mobile  UHF  filed  the  above-  captioned  application  seeking  reinstatement  of  the  authorization  for 
 Station  WPCE768.  On  March  17,  2000,  CWD’s  staff,  sua  sponte,  reinstated  Mobile  UHF’s 
 authorization.  In  its  petition  for  reconsideration,  Kay  states  that  he  is  an  SMR  operator  in  direct 
 competition  with  Mobile  UHF  and  that  CWD’s  action  reinstating  Mobile  UHF’s  authorization  has  a  direct 


 1  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  April  17,  2000. 
 2  See  Public  Notice,  Commission  Grants  Goodman/  Chan  Receivership  Licensees  and  Similarly  Situated  Non-Goodman/ 
 Chan  General  Category  SMR  Licensees  a  Temporary  Waiver  of  Section  90.609(  b)  of  the 
 Commission’s  Rules,  DA  98-  1656  (rel.  August  19,  1998).  According  to  the  Public  Notice,  “similarly  situated” 
 licensees  are  licensees  who  obtained  their  800  MHz  SMR  General  Category  licenses  through  application 
 preparation  services,  but  did  not  hire  one  of  the  four  companies  that  were  the  subject  of  the  Goodman/  Chan 
 proceeding,  and  who  were  granted  licenses  with  an  eight-  month  construction  period. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  1848 
 2 
 and  adverse  economic  impact  on  him.  3  Kay  alleges  that  both  Mobile  UHF’s  application  for  reinstatement 
 of  the  license  for  Station  WPCE768  and  CWD’s  action  reinstating  the  authorization  were  grossly  untimely.  4  Finally,  Kay  claims  that  the  Commission’s  action  reinstating  Mobile  UHF’s  authorization  for 


 Station  WPCE768  is  inconsistent  with  its  treatment  of  Kay’s  SMR  authorizations,  resulting  in  a  pattern  of 
 unlawful  discrimination  against  Kay.  5 


 III.  Discussion 
 3.  Our  records  indicate  that  Mobile  UHF  provided  the  Commission  with  a  notification  of  timely 
 construction  of  its  facilities  for  Station  WPCE768  and  that  the  station  was  constructed  and  placed  in 
 operation  in  compliance  with  Commission’s  rules.  The  Commission’s  staff  thus  erred  when  it  cancelled  the 
 authorization  for  Station  WPCE768.  The  Commission,  upon  learning  of  an  inadvertent  ministerial 
 processing  error,  may  correct  its  error,  even  beyond  the  reconsideration  period.  6  With  regard  to  Kay’s 
 claim  that  the  Commission’s  action  reinstating  Mobile  UHF’s  applications  demonstrates  a  pattern  of 
 unlawful  discrimination  against  Kay,  Kay  has  failed  to  specify  how  the  Commission’s  action  reinstating 
 Mobile  UHF’s  authorization  violates  the  Commission’s  rules  or  unlawfully  discriminates  against  Kay.  7 


 IV.  Ordering  Clauses 
 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  section  1.106  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47 
 C.  F.  R.  §  1.106,  the  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  James  A.  Kay,  Jr.  on  April  17,  2000  in  the  above-captioned 
 proceeding  IS  DENIED. 


 5.  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 


 William  W.  Kunze 
 Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau 


 3  Petition  at  1. 
 4  Id.  at  2. 
 5  Id. 
 6  See  Interstate  Broadcasting  Company,  Inc.,  2  FCC  Rcd  4051  (1987);  and  American  Trucking  Association  v. 
 Frisco  Transportation  Company,  358  U.  S.  13  (1958). 
 7  Therefore,  we  do  not  need  to  inquire  whether  Kay  has  standing  to  oppose  the  Bureau’s  staff  action  in  this 


 matter. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  00-  1848 
 3 
3