Federal Communications Commission DA 08-85 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
THOMAS H. MURPHY
Application for a New Industrial/Business Pool 
Station in Las Vegas, Nevada
)
)
)
)
)
)
FCC File No. 0002932217
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted:  January 14, 2008 Released:  January 14, 2008
By the Deputy Chief, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
1. Introduction. We have before us a Petition1 submitted by Thomas Murphy (Murphy),
seeking reconsideration of the August 1, 2007 decision by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
Mobility Division (Division), dismissing Murphy’s application for authorization to operate a new 
Industrial/Business Pool station on eight pairs of airport terminal use (ATU) frequencies at McCarran 
International Airport (McCarran) in Las Vegas, Nevada.2 For the reasons discussed below, we deny the 
Petition.
2. Background. Pursuant to Section 90.35(c)(61) of the Commission’s Rules, ATU 
frequencies are available within ten miles of specified airports (including McCarran) only to “persons 
furnishing commercial air transportation service or, pursuant to § 90.179, to an entity furnishing radio 
communications service to persons so engaged.”3  On March 2, 2007, Murphy filed the above-captioned 
application for authorization to operate with an effective radiated power (ERP) of one hundred watts on 
eight pairs of ATU frequencies at a site 2.4 miles from McCarran.  The application stated that Murphy 
would offer radio communications service to eligible entities at the airport, and at certain off-site 
locations.  Three airlines operating at McCarran filed petitions to deny the application.4  
3. On August 1, 2007, the Division granted the petitions, and dismissed Murphy’s 
application.  The Division concluded that Murphy had failed to establish his eligibility for ATU 
frequencies because the application did not indicate that any carrier had agreed to receive service, or even 
expressed interest in the service.5 The Division also concluded that Murphy failed to justify the number 
of channels requested,6 as required by Section 90.35(e) of the Commission’s Rules.7 In addition, the 
  
1 Petition for Reconsideration (filed August 29, 2007) (Petition).
2 See Thomas H. Murphy, Letter, 22 FCC Rcd 13999 (WTB MD 2007) (Decision).
3 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(c)(61)(i).  These frequencies were set aside for ATU use so that aircraft at designated airports 
could readily communicate with each existing air terminal system.  See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules 
Concerning Airport Terminal Use Frequencies in the 450-470 MHz Band of the Private Land Mobile Radio 
Services, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 02-318, 20 FCC Rcd 1966, 1969 ¶ 6 (2005) (citing Amendment of 
Parts 89, 91, 93, and 95 (Formerly 10, 11, 16, and 19) of the Commission’s Rules to Reduce the Separation Between 
the Assignable Frequencies in the 450-470 Mc/s Band, Second Report and Order, Docket Nos. 13847, 11959, 
11991, 11994, 11 F.C.C. 2d 648, 655 ¶ 20 (1968)).
4 See United Airlines Petition to Deny (filed March 15, 2007); Skywest Airlines Petition to Deny (filed March 20, 
2007); Southwest Airlines Petition to Deny (filed March 21, 2007).  
5 See Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 14000.
6 See id.
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-85 
2
Division noted that Murphy’s proposed operation with an ERP of one hundred watts would likely cause 
interference to co-channel ATU licensees operating at McCarran with an ERP of twenty-five watts or 
less.8  
4. On August 28, 2007, Murphy filed the Petition seeking reconsideration of the dismissal 
of his application. Two airlines operating at McCarran filed oppositions to the Petition.9
5. Discussion. Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either demonstrates 
a material error or omission in the underlying order or raises additional facts not known or not existing 
until after the petitioner’s last opportunity to present such matters.10  The Petition filed by Murphy fails to 
satisfy this requirement.  
6. We note first that the Petition does not at all address the Division’s conclusion that the 
application failed to justify the number of channels requested, as required by Section 90.35(e).  With 
respect to Murphy’s eligibility for ATU frequencies, the Petition inconsistently asserts both that the 
application substantiated Murphy’s eligibility and that the Division should have permitted Murphy to 
supplement the application to substantiate his eligibility.11 Neither assertion is persuasive.  Murphy has 
been afforded ample opportunity to demonstrate his eligibility in the application, the opposition to the 
petitions to deny the application, and the Petition.  While more than forty airlines and more than thirty 
Aviation Support Service companies operate at McCarran,12 Murphy has yet to provide any evidence that 
any have expressed interest in utilizing his proposed service.  Returning the application for 
supplementation would serve no apparent purpose.  
7. Finally, we note that the Petition fails to adequately address the issue of anticipated 
interference to existing ATU licensees at McCarran, stating only that any technical concerns should have 
been directed to Murphy’s frequency coordinator.13 We remind Murphy that successful coordination of 
an application by a certified frequency coordinator does not guarantee the grant of a license.14 Moreover, 
Section 90.173(b) of the Commission’s Rules explicitly requires applicants (not coordinators) and 
licensees to cooperate in the selection and use of frequencies in order to reduce interference.15  
8. 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), 405, and Section 1.106 of the 
  
(...continued from previous page)
7 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(e).
8 See Decision, 22 FCC Rcd at 14000.
9 See Opposition of United Airlines, Inc. to Petition for Reconsideration (filed September 24, 2007); Opposition of 
SkyWest Airlines to Petition for Reconsideration (filed September 24, 2007).  Because Murphy failed to serve the 
Petition on all parties to the proceeding, in violation of Section 1.106(f) of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R.             
§ 1.106(f), the Division notified the airlines that had filed petitions to deny Murphy’s application of the filing of the 
Petition, and granted extensions to permit the filing of oppositions more than ten days after the filing of the Petition, 
see 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(g).
10 See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 ¶ 2 (1964), aff’d sub. nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. 
Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966). 
11 See Petition at 1-2.
12 Data available at http://www.mccarran.com/doingbusiness/Aviation.html.
13 See Petition at 2.
14 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.175(h) (stating that any recommendation by a frequency coordinator “is advisory in character 
and is not an assurance that the Commission will grant a license for operation on that frequency”). 
15 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(b).
Federal Communications Commission DA 08-85 
3
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, the petition for reconsideration submitted by Thomas H. Murphy 
on August 29, 2007 IS DENIED.
9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau