******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 Applications For Vanity Call Signs Received) Prior to the Opening of Filing Gate 2. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: November 26, 1996 Released: November 26, 1996 By the Chief, Licensing Division: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Petitions for Reconsideration ("Petitions") filed by nine individual amateur radio operators ("Petitioners"). The Petitions request reconsideration of the decision by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Licensing Division to dismiss their applications for amateur station vanity call signs. The dismissals were based on the fact that the documents were unacceptable for filing because they arrived at the filing location prematurely. For the reasons set forth below, the Petitions are denied. II. BACKGROUND 2. On December 23, 1994, the Commission adopted a Report and Order establishing a first-come, first-served system for the assignment of vanity call signs to amateur stations. The strong interest in vanity call signs shown in the proceeding demonstrated that the number of applications filed initially could be very large. A major concern in that proceeding was that the system be considered fair and equitable by the amateur service community. The vanity call sign system established by the Commission, therefore, incorporates filing priorities that allow certain amateur operators to request call signs before the system is opened to all amateur operators. These filing priorities appeared to be perceived by amateur operators as fair. First, licensees who formerly held a particular call sign may request that call sign. Where the person who formerly held a particular call sign is now deceased, the call sign can be requested by a licensee who is a close relative of the deceased. Next, an amateur radio club may request in memoriam the call sign previously shown on the station license of a deceased person who was a member of the club. The system is then opened to those holding the highest class of operator license who can request any unassigned call sign. Next in line are those holding the second highest class of license. Thereafter, any amateur operator can request any unassigned call sign otherwise consistent with his or her class of operator license. 3. The procedures adopted to implement the vanity call sign system are detailed in public announcements. These procedures include opening the system gradually through a series of filing gates ("gates") that, once open, do not close. The gates implement the filing priorities. The gates are: o Gate 1. (Opened May 31, 1996.) (1) A primary station licensee may request the call sign previously shown on the license, or shown on the station license of a now-deceased close relative. (2) A club station license trustee may request the call sign previously shown on the club station license. o Gate 1(A). (Opened July 22, 1996.) A club station license trustee may request in memoriam the call sign previously shown on the station license of a deceased person who was a member of the club. o Gate 2. (Opened September 23, 1996.) (1) An Amateur Extra Class operator may request a Group A, B, C or D call sign for his or her primary station. (2) An Amateur Extra Class operator may request, including request in memoriam, a Group A, B, C or D call sign for the club station for which he or she is license trustee. o Gate 3. (Opening to be announced.) (1) An Advanced Class operator may request a Group B, C, or D call sign for his or her primary station. (2) An Advanced Class operator may request, including request in memoriam, a Group B, C or D call sign for the club station for which he or she is license trustee. o Gate 4. (Opening to be announced.) (1) A General, Technician Plus, or Technician Class operator may request a Group C or D call sign for his or her primary station. (2) A General, Technician Plus, or Technician Class operator may request, including request in memoriam, a Group C or D call sign for the club station for which he or she is license trustee. (3) A Novice Class operator may request a Group D call sign for his or her primary station. 4. On Monday, September 23, 1996, the day upon which Gate 2 opened, there were 69,580 Amateur Extra Class operators. On that day, applications for vanity call signs from 4,188 Amateur Extra Class licensees were filed properly at the designated filing location, our lockbox agent Mellon Bank (Mellon). The nine application documents filed by Petitioners, however, arrived at Mellon on September 20, 1996, and were routinely dismissed. The Petitioners have requested reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications alleging that they were improperly dismissed. III. THE PETITIONS 5. The Petitions fall into two groups. Messrs. Dobis, Griffith, Mewhorter, Talley, Wright and York sent their application packages via a private courier service that allegedly assured them the packages would be delivered to Mellon on Monday, September 23, 1996. Messrs. Chandler, Harrison and Sherrill sent their application packages via the United States Postal Service. Messrs. Harrison and Sherrill argue that their application packages could not have been received at Mellon on the same day that they were mailed in North Carolina and Florida, respectively. Mr. Chandler states that he mailed his application package with the expectation that it would arrive at Mellon on September 21, 1996. He claims that a Commission employee advised him that he could submit his application on September 21. He argues that, if the Commission could accept applications filed two days before September 23, it could also make an exception and accept an application filed three days early. IV. DISCUSSION 6. The vanity call sign filing procedures are intended to provide amateur operators with a fair and efficient implementation of the vanity call sign system, as well as ease administrative burdens on the Commission. Gate 2 represents to many amateur operators one of the most important stages in the implementation of the system. It is the earliest of the gates that allows an amateur operator -- in this case those who have attained the highest class of amateur operator license -- to submit a list of twenty-five call signs from which the first assignable call sign is granted first-come, first-served. There is an incentive, therefore, for amateur operators wanting the widest choice among vanity call signs to file their applications promptly after the appropriate filing gate opens. In the interest of fairness, the Commission made public the details of the vanity call sign system procedures, including explanations in fact sheet documents and posting on our Internet Home Page. Also in the interest of fairness, the Commission sought to discourage persons from filing applications before the gate opened. Included in the procedures are the following statements: Starting gates are being used to implement the system in stages. Applications filed before the appropriate starting gate opens will be dismissed. A public notice will announce the opening of each gate: Gate 2. An Amateur Extra Class operator may request a Group A, B, C or D call sign for his or her primary station. 7. On August 22, 1996, the Commission released a Public Notice stating that Gate 2 would open on September 23, 1996. As Amateur Extra Class operators, therefore, the Petitioners became eligible to file their applications for vanity call signs on September 23, 1996. It appears that the Petitioners had full knowledge that they would become eligible to file their applications on September 23, 1996. They chose to send -- prior to September 23, 1996 - - packages containing their application documents to Mellon, via a private courier service or the United States Postal Service. Apparently, they expected their application packages to arrive at Mellon on September 21, 22, or 23, 1996. Their packages arrived at Mellon, however, on September 20, 1996. In accord with the established procedures for handling prematurely- filed applications, the applications of Petitioners were dismissed. 8. It appears that Petitioners acted in good faith in attempting to file their applications for vanity call signs on September 23, 1996. They had several options open to them, all of which were used successfully by the 4,188 Amateur Extra Class licensees who filed applications for vanity call signs on September 23, 1996. Applications for vanity call signs were filed electronically and by documents delivered to Mellon in person, by courier, and by mail. Messrs. Dobis, Griffith, Mewhorter, Talley, Wright and York opted to use a private courier service. They relied upon assurances from the courier that their application packages would not be delivered to Mellon prematurely. Despite such assurances, the courier delivered their application packages to Mellon on Friday, September 20, 1996. Their application documents, therefore, arrived at the designated filing location prior to the opening of filing Gate 2, causing them to be dismissed as unacceptable for filing. The Petitioners do not show any error or culpability on the part of the Commission or Mellon's Lockbox Shift Supervisor. The Commission, moreover, is not responsible for the delivery of the application documents prematurely. This is a matter for resolution between the petitioners and the courier service they employed to deliver their application packages. 9. Messrs. Harrison and Sherrill used the United States Postal Service for their application packages which arrived at Mellon on Friday, September 20, 1996. Their application documents, therefore, arrived at the designated filing location prior to the opening of filing Gate 2, causing them to be dismissed as unacceptable for filing. The Petitioners do not show any error or culpability on the part of the Commission or Mellon. The Commission, therefore, is not responsible for the delivery of the application documents prematurely. 10. Mr. Chandler's application package also arrived at Mellon on Friday, September 20, 1996. It was, therefore, received at the filing location prior to the opening of filing Gate 2, causing it to be dismissed as unacceptable for filing. Mr. Chandler apparently mailed his application package with the expectation that the period of time required for the Postal Service to deliver it to Mellon would result in its arrival at Mellon on Saturday, September 21, 1996. Mr. Chandler's asserts that a Commission employee told him he could file his application on September 21, 1996. In this regard, an applicant relying upon an informal statement of a Commission employee does so at his or her own risk. Such advice is not binding. Commission employees are not empowered to make an exception to a Commission announced date for the opening of a filing gate. His argument that an exception should be made for an application filed three days before starting Gate 2 opened, because such exception was made for applications filed two days before starting Gate 2 opened, is without merit. The absence of dismissal of applications that arrived at the lobby of Mellon on September 21 or 22, 1996, is not the result of exceptions to the date of the opening of the Gate 2. Rather, it is because the documents arrived at Mellon on Saturday and Sunday, holidays on which the Commission's offices are closed, and were held until Monday at which time they were stamped September 23, 1996, as were the application documents arriving on that day. Although applications requiring an accompanying fee may be hand-delivered to Mellon twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, the formal filing date of an application is the date it is received, if that day is a regular Commission business day, or the next regular Commission business day, if the date it is received is a weekend or a Commission holiday. This procedure clearly does not provide any basis for granting an exception to Mr. Chandler's prematurely-filed application document. Petitioner does not show any error or culpability on the part of the Commission or Mellon. The Commission, therefore, is not responsible for the delivery of the application document prematurely. 11. Section 1.958(a)(6) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.958(a)(6), states that an application that is not in accordance with a requirement of the Commission will be considered to be defective. Pursuant to Section 1.958(b)of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.958(b), an application that is defective on its face will not be accepted for filing and will be dismissed. The requirement here was clear. Applications from persons becoming eligible to request a vanity call sign at the opening of filing Gate 2 could be filed only on or after September 23, 1996. They could not be filed before September 23, 1996. Further, notice had been given that applications filed before the opening of the appropriate filing gate would be dismissed. Given these circumstances, the dismissal of the subject applications was proper. Moreover, it would be unfair to amateur operators who filed their requests in a timely manner to include, in the first-come, first-served vanity call sign system selection process, requests that were filed before the appropriate filing gate opened. V. DECISION 12. Upon reconsideration and for the reasons stated above, the Petitions are denied. As Amateur Extra Class operators, the Petitioners are eligible to file new applications for amateur station vanity call signs. Their new applications, however, will be processed as of the date that they are received at the filing location. 13. In view of the foregoing, the dismissal of the vanity call sign system application documents filed by the Petitioners IS AFFIRMED. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU Walter G. Boswell Chief, Licensing Division