*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 6623.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  40 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 
 In  the  Matter  of:  )  ) 
 Mobile  Relay  Associates,  Inc.  )  File  No.  96F160  ) 
 Finder's  Preference  Request  )  for  Station  WNMT733  ) 
 Licensed  to  Jim  Doering  )  At  Santiago  Peak,  California  ) 


 MEMORANDUM  OPINION  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  February  1,  2001  Released:  February  7,  2001 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  The  Commission  has  before  it  an  Application  for  Review,  filed  on  November  8,  1999  by  Jim 
 Doering  d/  b/  a  J.  Doering  Communications  (“  Doering”).  1  Doering  seeks  review  of  a  decision  2  by  the  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau’s  Commercial  Wireless  Division  (“  Division”),  denying  Doering’s 


 petition  for  reconsideration,  filed  January  24,  1997.  The  Division  upheld  the  December  27,  1996  grant  of  a  finder’s  preference  to  Mobile  Relay  Associates  (MRA)  for  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  (SMR)  station 
 WNMT733,  which  was  licensed  to  Doering. 
 2.  First,  we  find  that  Doering  lacks  standing  to  prosecute  the  Application  for  Review.  An  essential 
 element  of  standing  is  that  the  petitioner  must  allege  facts  sufficient  to  show  that  grant  of  the  application 
 that  it  opposes  would  cause  petitioner  a  direct  injury.  3  We  find  that  Doering  has  failed  to  establish  this 
 element  based  on  the  fact  that  after  MRA  filed  its  finder’s  request,  and  after  the  deadline  for  filing  a 
 response  to  the  request,  Doering  voluntarily  submitted  its  license  to  the  Commission  for  cancellation. 
 Because  Doering  has  relinquished  its  interest  in  the  subject  license,  Doering  cannot  show  that  it  would  be 
 injured  by  our  upholding  of  the  grant  of  the  finder’s  request  to  MRA,  and  therefore  has  failed  to  establish 
 standing. 


 3.  Second,  even  if  we  found  Doering  to  have  standing  in  this  matter,  Doering  presents  no  new 
 arguments  in  its  Application  for  Review,  and  we  see  nothing  in  the  arguments  Doering  has  made  that 
 would  lead  us  to  change  the  Division  decision..  We  therefore  uphold  the  Division's  decision  for  the 
 reasons  stated  therein.  Finally,  in  its  Application  for  Review  and  its  Supplement  to  the  Application  for 
 Review  filed  on  November  24,  1999,  4  Doering  raises  certain  new  procedural  and  substantive  arguments 
 that  were  not  previously  raised  to  the  Division.  Because  these  arguments  could  and  should  have  been 


   Application  for  Review  of  Jim  Doering  d/  b/  a  J.  Doering  Communications,  filed  November  8,  1999. 
 2  Mobile  Relay  Associates,  Inc.,  14  FCC  Rcd.  17,  159  (1999). 
 3  AmericaTel  Corporation,  9  FCC  Rcd  3993,  3995  (1995)  (citing  Sierra  Club  v.  Morton,  405  U.  S.  727,  733 
 (1972). 
 4  Supplement  to  Application  for  Review  filed  November  24,  1999. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  40 
 2 
 presented  earlier  in  Doering’s  petition  for  reconsideration,  we  dismiss  them  as  untimely  filed  pursuant  to 
 section  1.115(  c)  of  the  Commission’s  rules. 


 4.  ACCORDINGLY,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  section  5(  c)(  5)  of  the  Communications  Act, 
 as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §  155(  c)(  5),  and  section  1.115(  g)  of  the  Commission's  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.  115(  g),  the  Application  for  Review  filed  by  Jim  Doering  d/  b/  a  J.  Doering  Communications  on  November  8,  1999 


 in  the  above-  captioned  proceeding  IS  DISMISSED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Magalie  Roman  Salas  Secretary 
2