Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3024
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
	
)
)
NEW ENGLAND WIRELESS PARTNERS
	
)
)
Extended Implementation for Licenses
	
)
Participating in Wide-Area 800 MHz SMR System
	
)
ORDER
Adopted: December 29, 1999
	
Released: December 30, 1999
By the Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. This Order addresses a petition filed by the participating licensees in New England Wireless
Partners' (NEWP) wide-area 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) system requesting
reconsideration of the cancellation of licenses for failure to construct. For the reasons discussed below,
we dismiss NEWP's petition for reconsideration as untimely.
2. NEWP was granted extended implementation authority to construct a wide-area SMR system
in the northeast United States. Originally, NEWP was given five years to construct all frequencies at all
authorized sites within its wide-area footprint, or lose the unconstructed frequencies.l In 1995, the
Commission accelerated the extended implementation of all incumbent wide-area licensees, including
NEWP, in light of a new, geographic-area (Economic Area, or EA) based licensing scheme for the 800
MHz SMR service.2 The incumbent licensees were required to rejustif' their extended implementation
authorities and, if successful, were given either the remainder of their original five-year construction
periods or two years from the action on their rejustification showings, whichever was shorter.3 NEWP
successfully rejustified its extended implementation and was given the remainder of its original extended
implementation period to construct its wide-area system, i.e., by July 11, l998. On November 4, 1998,
See 47 CF.R. § 90.629.
2
	
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in
the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the
Communications Act - Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No 93-252, Implementation of
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, First Report and Order,
Eighth Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd. 1463, 1524-25, ¶ 110
(1995).
Id. at I525,
	
111.
See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems
in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 322 of the
97
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3024
and again on January 5, 1999, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) sent
correspondence to NEWP requesting that NEWP confirm whether or not the licensed sites comprising
their wide-area system had been constructed by the July II, 1998 deadline. After receiving no response,
the Branch informed NEWP in separate letters dated April 14, 1999 that the frequencies listed in the
letters were presumed to be unconstructed and therefore had been automatically cancelled.
3. On April 30, 1999, NEWP filed the present petition for reconsideration, arguirtg that
cancellation of its unconstructed licenses was premature given the decision announced on April 15, 1999
by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) to suspend temporarily the construction timetable
for wide-area 800 MHz SMR licensees pending the remand proceeding instigated by Fresno Mobile
Radio, Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission.5 We note, however, that NEWP's
construction period had lapsed approximately ten months before the Bureau temporarily suspended the
construction timetable for 800 MHz SMR licensees. Section 90.629(c) of the Commission's rules states
that extended implementation authorizations granted under this section are conditioned upon the licensee
constructing and placing its system into operation within the authorized implementation period and in
accordance with an approved implementation plan of up to five years.6 The same section continues to
state that "{ajt the end of any licensee's extended implementation period, authorizations for all stations
not constructed and placed into operation will be cancelled."7 NEWP's extended implementation
deadline was established in the 800 MHz Rejustfication Orders as July 11, 1998.8 NEWP's request to
reconsider cancellation of its unconstructed licenses was filed on April 30, 1999. Under section 1.106 of
the Commission's rules, a petition for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days from the date of the
public notice of the final Commission action.9 In this case, the final Commission action was the
automatic cancellation of NEWP's unconstructed licenses at the deadline of its extended implementation
period.10 Therefore, NEWP would have had to request reconsideration within 30 days of the
cancellation of its unconstructed licenses on July 11, 1998. Because the.petition was filed over ten
months later, NEWP's petition is dismissed as untimely.
Communications Act - Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No 93-252, Implementation of
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Order, 13 FCC Rcd.
1533 (WTB 1997), recon., 12 FCC Rcd. 18349 (WTB 1997) (collectively, 800 MHz Rejus4fIcation Orders).
Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc., eta!. v. Federal Communications Commission, 165 F. 3d 965 (D.C. Cir., Feb. 5,
47 C.F.R. § 90.629(e).
Id.
800 MHz RejustfIcation Orders, 13 FCC Rcd. at 1538, n. 27, 1546 (Appendix A).
47 C.F.R. § 1.106.
We note that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau routinely sends out form letters (Forms SOOA, 800B
and 800H) when it has not been notified as to the construction status of a particular license. These letters serve only
to update or correct the Commission's database and do not constitute Commission action.
1999).
6
8
98
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3024
4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106,
	
the petition for reconsideration filed by the participating licensees in New England Wireless Partners'
wide-area 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio system on April 30, 1999, IS DISMISSED.
5. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to sections 0.13 1 and 0.331 of theCommission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.13 1, 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William W. Kunze
Deputy Chief
Commercial Wireless Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
99
CAfl0 PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
News media information 202 /41 8-0500 Fax-On-Demand 202 / 41 8-2830 internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY 202 / 418-2555
DA-99-3025
December 30, 1999
Comments Sought on AT&T Communications Construction of Fiber
Optic Signal Regeneration Facility Near Burkittsville,MD - Re: Compliance
with Section 214 and Environmental and Historic Preservation
Requirements Under NEPA and NHPA
NSD File No: NSD-L-99-103
Comments Due: January 28, 2000
The Common Carrier Bureau is seeking comments (1) on whether a purported project by AT&T
Communications to construct a signal regeneration facility for fiber optic cables in the vicinity of
Burkittsville, MD, is subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under section 2 14(a) of the Federal
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C § 214(a), and, if so, whether AT&T has complied with
the Commission's regulations regarding the project, and (2) on a petition dated September 27,
1999, from wireless.org asking the Bureau to require AT&T to prepare an Environmental
Assessment for the project. The Bureau invites comments from the public and, in particular,
from the Maryland State Historic Preservation Officer, Wireless.org, and AT&T.
The Commission's regulations at 47 C.F.R § 63.01 confer blanket authority for domestic new
line constructions under section 214(a), but they require that the carrier must first comply with
the Commission's environmental regulations, which govern compliance with the National
Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and the National Historic Preservation Act. The
environmental regulations, at 47 C.F.R § 1.1301 et seq., require, among other things, that the
carrier "initially ascertain whether the proposed facility may have a significant environmental
impact" and, if so, prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). The regulations specify actions
that are excluded from environmental processing and actions for which EAs must be prepared.
47 C.F.R § 1.1306, 1.1307, and 1.13 12.
Wireless.org submitted its petition for an Environmental Assessment on behalf of itself, the
South Mountain Heritage Society, the Mid-Maryland Land Trust Association, Friends of
Gathland, the Town of Burkittsville, and the Brunswick Regional Planning Committee. The
petition seeks to show that AT&T's proposed facility is likely to have significant adverse
impacts on historic places and adverse visual and aesthetic impacts. Other documents have also
been filed with the Commission. Wireless.org submitted a copy of a letter dated September 30,
1999, transmitting a copy of its petition to AT&T. The Maryland State Historic Preservation
100