*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 14060.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  44 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 GELICO  INC.,  Debtor-  in-  Possession 
 900  MHz  SMR  Station  WNMO982 
 Denver,  Colorado 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  January  9,  2002  Released:  January  10,  2002 
 By  the  Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau: 
 1.  On  September  8,  1999,  Larry  D.  Henderson  and  Robert  A.  Benz  d/  b/  a  Quad 
 Communications  (“  Quad”)  filed  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  of  an  action  by  the  Licensing  and 
 Technical  Analysis  Branch  (“  Branch”)  of  the  Commercial  Wireless  Division  dismissing  Quad’s  Petition 
 to  Purge  Authorization  filed  against  Gelico,  Inc.,  Debtor-  in-  Possession  (“  Gelico”).  1  For  the  reasons  set 
 forth  below,  we  dismiss  Quad’s  Petition  for  Reconsideration  as  moot. 


 2.  Gelico,  a  wholly-  owned  subsidiary  of  Geotek  Communications,  Inc.,  Debtor-  in-Possession, 
 was  authorized  for  a  ten-  channel  Designated  Filing  Area  (“  DFA”)  license  at  six  sites  in 
 Colorado  on  frequency  block  C  (“  DFA  License”)  in  the  900  MHz  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  (“  900  MHz 
 SMR”)  radio  service.  2  In  1996,  the  Commission  granted  Quad  a  geographic  license  to  operate  in  the 
 Denver  Major  Trading  Area  (“  MTA”),  also  on  frequency  block  C  in  the  900  MHz  SMR  service.  3 
 Because  Gelico’s  DFA  was  located  within  the  Denver  MTA,  Quad  was  required  to  provide  adequate 
 interference  protection  to  Gelico’s  incumbent  authorization,  so  long  as  Gelico’s  authorization  remained 
 valid.  4 


 3.  On  February  26,  1999,  Quad  filed  a  Petition  to  Purge  Authorization  (“  Purge  Petition”)  in 
 which  it  claimed  that  the  stations  authorized  under  the  DFA  License  were  either  never  constructed  or  had 
 discontinued  operations  for  90  or  more  continuous  days.  If  either  were  true,  the  DFA  License  would  have 
 cancelled  automatically  as  of  the  construction  deadline  or  after  the  90-  day  discontinuation  period, 
 whichever  is  applicable,  5  and  the  subject  frequencies  would  revert  to  Quad  as  the  MTA  licensee.  6  On 
 August  9,  1999,  the  Branch  dismissed  Quad’s  Purge  Petition  because  Quad  had  not  provided  prima  facie 
 evidence  that  Gelico  had  discontinued  operations  for  90  or  more  continuous  days  or  adequate  proof  that 


 1  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  Quad  on  September  8,  1999.  Gelico  filed  an  Opposition  to  the 
 Petition  for  Reconsideration  on  September  27,  1999  and  Quad  filed  a  Reply  to  the  Opposition  on  October  18,  1999. 
 2  The  call  sign  for  Gelico’s  DFA  license  was  WNMO982. 


 3  The  call  sign  for  Quad’s  MTA  license  is  KNNX950. 
 4  See  47  C.  F.  R.  §  90.  663. 
 5  See  47  C.  F.  R.  §  90.  631(  f). 
 6  See  47  C.  F.  R.  §  90.  663(  b). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  02-  44 
 2 
 the  stations  had  not  been  constructed.  7  On  September  8,  1999,  Quad  filed  the  instant  Petition  for 
 Reconsideration  of  the  Branch’s  dismissal.  One  year  later,  Gelico’s  DFA  License  was  assigned  to 
 Neoworld  License  Holdings,  Inc.  (“  Neoworld”).  Quad  supplemented  its  Petition  for  Reconsideration  on 
 January  25,  2001  and  served  Neoworld  a  copy  of  the  supplement  on  June  18,  2001. 


 4.  On  December  27,  2001,  Neoworld  submitted  an  application  to  cancel  the  DFA  License. 
 The  Commission  granted  cancellation  on  December  28,  2001.  Because  the  DFA  License,  which  was  the 
 subject  of  the  Purge  Petition  and  the  instant  Petition  for  Reconsideration,  has  been  cancelled,  the  Petition 
 for  Reconsideration  is  now  moot.  Therefore,  we  dismiss  the  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  Quad 
 on  September  8,  1999  as  moot. 


 5.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  section  4(  i)  of  the  Communications  Act,  as 
 amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §  154(  i),  and  sections  0.331  and  1.106  of  the  Commission’s  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §§ 
 0.331,  1.  106,  that  the  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by  Larry  D.  Henderson  and  Robert  A.  Benz  d/  b/  a 
 Quad  Communications  on  September  8,  1999  IS  DISMISSED  AS  MOOT. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


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


 7  See  Letter  of  Terry  L.  Fishel,  Deputy  Chief,  Licensing  and  Technical  Analysis  Branch,  Commercial 
 Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  to  Elizabeth  R.  Sachs,  counsel  for  Quad,  and  Russell  H. 
 Fox,  counsel  for  Gelico,  dated  August  9,  1999. 
2