**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of Applications of | ) | FCC File No. A050009         |
|                                  |   |                              |
| ROBERT D. RYAN                   | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
| For Assignment and Renewal of    | ) |                              |
| Authorization for Conventional   |   |                              |
| Industrial/Business Station      | ) |                              |
| WIH657, West Orange, New Jersey  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: August 5, 2002 Released: August 7, 2002**

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

1.  On May 4, 2001, Robert D. Ryan (Ryan or Mr. Ryan) requested
    reconsideration[^1] of the dismissal of his applications to assign
    and renew the license for Conventional Industrial/Business Station
    WIH657, West Orange, New Jersey. For the reasons discussed below, we
    deny the Petition.

2.  *Background.* On January 28, 2000, Mr. Ryan submitted an FCC Form
    600 Application for Mobile Radio Service Authorization (Form 600) to
    assign and renew the license for Industrial/Business Station WIH657
    and an FCC Form 1046 Assignment of Authorization (Form 1046) to
    assign the license for Station WIH657 from Frassetto Construction
    Company, Inc. (Frassetto) to Mr. Ryan.[^2] When the applications
    were filed Frassetto was the licensee of record. Frassetto's
    vice-president, Angelo Frassetto, signed the Form 1046, but Mr. Ryan
    signed the Form 600.

3.  On March 27, 2000, Overlook Hospital (Overlook) objected to the
    assignment and renewal applications.[^3] Subsequently, while the
    objection was pending, on August 7, 2000, the license for Station
    WIH657 expired. On April 5, 2001, we dismissed the applications
    (Forms 1046 and 600) because Mr. Ryan lacked the authority to
    request the renewal of a license that he did not possess and an
    expired license cannot be assigned.[^4] On May 4, 2001, Mr. Ryan
    requested reconsideration of this decision.

4.  *Discussion.* Ryan raises six reasons why the Public Safety and
    Private Wireless Division's "dismissal was wrong" and should
    reinstate and grant the subject applications.[^5] First, Mr. Ryan
    argues that the Form 600 was proper because the assignment of
    authorization was signed by an officer of the licensee and he did
    not need the signature of an officer of the Frasetto on the renewal
    application.[^6] Second, assuming the signature of an officer of
    Frasetto was needed, Ryan contends that we should permit him to
    provide that signature now.[^7] Ryan argues that if his application
    had been granted earlier, there would have been no issue as to
    whether the license expired on August 7, 2000.[^8] Third, Ryan
    asserts that the license for Station WIH657 cannot expire while the
    Form 600 is pending.[^9] Fourth, Ryan asserts that we should have
    notified him that the license could expire while the application was
    pending.[^10] Fifth, Ryan contends that the Overlook objection can
    not form the basis for dismissal of his application.[^11]

5.  Based on our review of the record, we find that the Division's
    dismissal of Mr. Ryan's applications was correct. As filed, the
    application containing the renewal request was defective and could
    not be granted. Mr. Ryan was not the proper entity to sign the
    renewal application. Section 1.917 of the Commission's Rules[^12]
    and the instructions for completing Form 600 clearly state that only
    those parties listed may sign a license application. A proposed
    assignee is not among those individuals who may sign an application
    for renewal of license.[^13] Accordingly, the Form 600 application
    was defective to the extent that it sought renewal because it was
    not signed by an officer of Frassetto, the licensee of record for
    Station WIH657, or another appropriate party pursuant to Section
    1.917 of the Commission's Rules.[^14]

6.  Additionally, in the *Transit Mix MO&O,*[^15] the Commission
    emphasized the role of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended (the Act)[^16] upon the Commission's application
    processing requirements. The Commission noted that Section 310(d) of
    the Act provides that no station license or any rights thereunder
    shall be assigned or disposed of in any manner except upon
    application to the Commission and upon finding by the Commission
    that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served
    thereby.[^17] The Commission therefore explained that "\[u\]nless
    and until the Commission acts favorably on an assignment
    application, the proposed assignee has no legal right with regard to
    the station, including applying for a reinstatement or renewal of a
    license. To hold otherwise would effectively legitimize an
    assignment of license for which the Commission had not approved.
    Such a result would be contrary to the precedent concerning
    unauthorized transfers."[^18] We find such precedent to be
    controlling in this matter. Mr. Ryan, as the proposed assignee,
    lacked standing to request the renewal of a license that he did not
    possess. Rather, Frasetto, the licensee of record for Station WIH657
    was required to sign the application seeking renewal of the station
    license in order to constitute a valid, and proper renewal
    application.[^19] We reiterate "that a licensee's signature on an
    associated FCC Form 1046 does not constitute a proper request for
    renewal of a license. The purpose of FCC Form 1046 is to assign an
    existing and valid authorization. As a result, the FCC Form 1046 may
    not be used to apply for renewal of a license."[^20]

7.  Ryan's next argument is that if his application had been granted,
    there would have been no issue as to whether the license expired on
    August 7, 2000. However, as noted above the application was
    defective and could not be granted. Thus, the license expired on
    August 7, 2000 due to the absence of a timely filed and proper
    renewal application being filed prior to such date.

8.  Ryan's third argument assumes that the mere act of filing an
    application means the status of a license does not change until the
    application is acted upon. Thus, he argues that Station WIH657
    cannot expire while the application is pending. The filing of an
    assignment application does not relieve a Commission licensee of the
    responsibility of renewing its authorization. Rather, it is
    well-settled that a license remains subject to our rules, including
    operational and renewal provisions, even where an assignment or
    transfer of control application is pending for the underlying
    license. In accordance with its terms, the license for Station
    WIH657 expired on August 7, 2000. Thus, to continue as a valid
    operating station, Frasetto should have filed a renewal application
    while the assignment application was pending because an expired
    license cannot be assigned.

9.  Fourth, Ryan asserts that the Division should have notified him that
    the license could expire while the application was pending.[^21] As
    noted above, a proposed assignee has no legal right with regard to a
    station until or unless the Commission approves the assignment.[^22]
    Since the assignment application was still pending, any renewal
    notification would have been sent to the licensee of record,
    Frasetto, and not Mr. Ryan.

10. Fifth, Ryan cites several reasons concerning why the Overlook
    objection can not form the basis for dismissal of his
    application.[^23] We need not address these concerns because the
    Overlook objection was not the reason for the dismissal of the
    application.[^24] Rather, the application was dismissed because it
    was procedurally defective. The renewal application was not signed
    by the licensee of record and the license expired before a proper
    renewal application was filed. Although we noted the receipt of the
    Overlook objection, we did not consider the merits thereof in
    disposing of the application.[^25]

11. We therefore find that the captioned application was correctly
    dismissed. Accordingly, we deny the Petition.

12. 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 Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106,
    the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Robert D. Ryan on May 4,
    2001 IS DENIED.

13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309(d) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i),
    309(d) and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    1.939, the Opposition to the Granting of Pending License Transfer
    A050009 filed by Overlook Hospital on March 27, 2000 IS DISMISSED.

14. These actions are taken pursuant to delegated authority granted
    under the provisions of Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    D'wana R. Terry

> Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division
>
> Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: Robert D. Ryan, Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 4, 2001)
    ("Petition").

[^2]: FCC File No. A050009 (filed Jan. 28, 2000). At the time of the
    filings, Frassetto was the licensee of record.

[^3]: *See* Overlook Hospital, Opposition to the Granting of Pending
    License Transfer A050009 (filed Mar. 27, 2002; dated Mar. 22, 2002).

[^4]: Letter from Ramona E. Melson, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and
    Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC,
    to Robert D. Ryan (dated Apr. 5, 2001) ("Dismissal Letter").

[^5]: *See* Petition at 1-2.

[^6]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^7]: *Id*. at 3.

[^8]: *Id.* at 3.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *See id.*

[^11]: *Id*. at 3.

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.917.

[^13]: *Id*.

[^14]: *See* Dismissal Letter at 1 (*citing* 47 C.F.R. § 1.917).

[^15]: *See* Transit Mix Concrete and Material Company, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 15005, 15007 ¶ 5 (2001) (*Transit Mix
    MO&O*).

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. § 310(d).

[^17]: *See Transit Mix MO&O,* 16 FCC Rcd at 15007 ¶ 5 (*citing* 47
    U.S.C. § 310(d)).

[^18]: *Transit Mix MO&O,* 16 FCC Rcd at 15007-15008 ¶ 5 (internal
    citations omitted).

[^19]: *See Transit Mix MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 15008 ¶ 6.

[^20]: *Transit Mix Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 20199 ¶ 6 (internal citations
    omitted).

[^21]: *See* Petition at 3*.*

[^22]: *See* para. 6.

[^23]: Mr. Ryan argues that in addition to never receiving a copy of the
    objection, there is no possibility of harmful interference to
    hospital communications; Overland does not hold a Commission
    license; no station on the Overlook Hospital site is used for
    hospital purposes; and, there is no activity on the channel at that
    site. *See* Petition at 3.

[^24]: On Thursday, July 18, 2002, in response to Mr. Ryan's concern
    that he had not seen the Overlook objection, he was provided with a
    copy of it. We reiterate that this objection did not form the basis
    for the dismissal of Ryan's applications.

[^25]: We note that assuming arguendo that Ryan could seek a renewal
    request, the subject application still would have been subject to
    dismissal. Specifically, such application seeking renewal of the
    license for Station WIH657 would have been premature. Applications
    for renewal of license may not be filed more than ninety days prior
    to the expiration of the license. 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a). While the
    license for Station WIH657 was scheduled to expire on August 7,
    2000, Ryan filed his application on January 28, 2000, or over six
    months before the license was scheduled to expire. Accordingly, the
    January 28, 2000 filing was premature.