WPC 2BVXZ3|J  (TT).y.C8*X/C\  P6QP"5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,,%^P2 *4 ZD3|J  HP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXHPLA5SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,,%^P S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Qg &P##&J\  P6Qg &P#2jRZ0z Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT).6y.C8*X/C\  P6QP.72J=.Xg &J\  P6Q&Pl82N=.X&N4  pQ&90J=.X3L&J*f9 xQ&X.:P,%XJ,\  P6QJP.;I(!X,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X3VC*f9 xQX"5^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888C8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSx]AN:*KS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82N8\\^C`^SS`*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv8SJSS8]888JJ:S8A8xx*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC\228`K*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSSS"5^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====I=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\G\fGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7N=eegIjg\\j.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\2\|l"5^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====I=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQzQzQzQ\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\\fGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=eeiIji\\j.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=ee|Ij|\\j.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\"5^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!TT7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(:822:!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,2222222722222222R~"5^*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888C8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82N8\\pC`pSS`*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv8S]SS8S888]]:S8A8o]*ASSSS.S8.Sp8SC\228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSJS X   ( S'" #&J\  P6Qg &P#Federal Communications Commission`(#DA 99222 ă   yx}dddy (  S'Q Before the "Federal Communications Commission  Sg'&RWashington, D.C. 20554 ă  S'In the Matter of Applications ofhh]) ` `  ,hh])  S5'DCT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.hh])File No. 9505299 ` `  ,hh])  S'to Provide 39 GHz PointtoPoint Microwave)  S 'Radio Service in West Palm Beach, Florida) ` `  ,hh])  S6 'and` `  ,hh]) ` `  ,hh])  S 'WINSTAR WIRELESS, INC.,hh])File No. 9504862 ` `  ,hh])  Sj'to Provide 39 GHz PointtoPoint Microwave)  S7'Radio Service in Miami, Florida.hh])  Sk'2M ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Đc  S' Adopted: January 20, 1999, hh]pp& Released: January 21, 1999 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)  S'a I. INTRODUCTION Đc  S'1. In this Order on Reconsideration, we deny two Petitions for Reconsideration filed by DCT Communications, Inc. (DCT). First, DCT's application to operate systems in the 38.6 to 40.0 GHz (39 GHz) band in the area of West Palm Beach, Florida, was dismissed as defective because it was  S'untimely filed.o yOp' !h ԍLetter from Michael J. Regiec, Acting Chief, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, to DCT Communications, Inc. (September 11, 1997). Second, WinStar Wireless, Inc.'s (WinStar) application to operate systems in the 39  S'GHz band in the area of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was properly granted] o yO!'ԍPublic Notice No. 1955 (released September 23, 1997).] because it was a non S'mutually exclusive application that was ripe as of November 13, 1995 in accordance with the 39 GHz  Sp'Memorandum Opinion and Order.  S 'c II. BACKGROUND Đc  S!'2. WinStar applied for a 39 GHz authorization in the PointtoPoint Microwave Service in the"!, * *,,""  S'Miami, Florida, area on March 4, 1994.gX yOh' ! ԍFCC File No. 9404178 (hereinafter referred to as "Miami Application"). WinStar's Miami application requested  !Q a service area defined by the following rectangular coordinates: minimum latitude 253000; maximum latitude 262230; minimum longitude 0800345; maximum longitude 0803000.g WinStar's Miami Application was placed on public notice on  S'July 6, 1994.W yOU'ԍPublic Notice No. 1090 (released July 6, 1994).W DCT applied for a 39 GHz authorization in the West Palm Beach, Florida, area on May  S'18, 1995.xx yO'ԍFCC File No. 9505299 (hereinafter referred to as "West Palm Beach Application").x On August 7, 1995, DCT filed an amendment to its West Palm Beach Application to reduce the requested service area and eliminate the geographic overlap with WinStar's Miami Application. On September 11, 1997, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) dismissed DCT's application in accordance with Sections 101.45 and 101.35 of the Commission's  S'Rules, 47 C.F.R.  101.45 and 101.35.| {Ov 'ԍLetter from Michael J. Regiec to DCT Communications, Inc., supra note 1, at 1.| Section 101.45 provides that no application will be entitled to be included in a random selection process or to comparative consideration with a previously filed application unless such application is substantially complete and tendered for filing within sixty days  S5'after the date of the public notice listing the first of the conflicting applications as accepted for filing.A5 yOo'ԍ47 C.F.R.  101.45(b).A As a result, the Branch dismissed DCT's West Palm Beach Application as defective because it conflicted with the Miami Application and was filed more than sixty days after public notice of  S 'acceptance for filing of such application.\ *  {Of' ! ԍ47 C.F.R.  101.35(b) states that applications are deemed to be defective and are returned to the applicant, inter  {O0' ! alia, when the application fails to meet statutory requirements, special requirements applicable to the radio service involved, or when the application fails to meet any other Commission requirements. On October 10, 1997, DCT filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Miami Petition) of the Branch's dismissal of its 39 GHz PointtoPoint Microwave Radio Service application. The Miami Application was granted by the Division on February 2, 1998. 3. WinStar also applied for a 39 GHz authorization in the PointtoPoint Microwave Service  S 'in the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, area on May 10, 1995.{ X N  yO' ! ԍFCC File No. 9504862 (hereinafter referred to as "Fort Lauderdale Application"). WinStar's Fort Lauderdale  ! application requested a service area defined by the following rectangular coordinates: minimum latitude 251418; maximum latitude 264018; minimum longitude 0800154; maximum longitude 0814732.{ WinStar's Fort Lauderdale Application was  Sj'placed on public notice on May 24, 1995.X jn yOx 'ԍPublic Notice No. 1136 (released May 24, 1995). X The application was granted by the Branch on September  S7'15, 1997.] 7 yO"'ԍPublic Notice No. 1955 (released September 23, 1997).] On October 23, 1997, DCT filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Fort Lauderdale Petition)  S'seeking revocation of WinStar's Fort Lauderdale license.   yO2%' ! ԍOn November 5, 1997, WinStar filed an Opposition to DCT's Fort Lauderdale Petition. On November 13,  !g 1997, DCT filed a Reply to WinStar's Opposition. On November 18, 1997, WinStar filed a Motion to Strike the  !M "Reply to Opposition" filed by DCT on November 13, 1997, on the basis that the Reply was latefiled and not  ! properly served. On November 24, 1997, DCT filed an "Opposition to Motion to Strike." Given the decision in this"' ,l(l('"  ! Order on Reconsideration to deny both of DCT's Petitions for Reconsideration, the Division does not find it necessary to reach the merits of these pleadings. "  ,l(l(,,"Ԍ S'ԙf III. DISCUSSION Đc 4. In its Miami Petition, DCT argues that its August 7, 1995 amendment to its West Palm Beach Application resolving the mutual exclusivity with the WinStar Miami Application rendered Section 101.45 inapplicable because the amendment eliminated the need to use Section 101.45 as a basis for examining the filing date of DCT's application. DCT further argues that such amendment  S'was an "amendment of right," pursuant to Section 101.29 of the Commission's Rules.   yO ' ! ԍ47 C.F.R.  101.29 provides that an amendment that cures a mutually exclusive situation without creating a new one is an amendment of right that is effective upon filing. DCT states that the Division must therefore "give immediate effect" to this amendment reducing the service area  Sh'outlined in DCT's West Palm Beach Application.Bhx yO 'ԍDCT's Miami Petition at 2.B DCT argues that the amendment eliminated the geographic overlap shared by DCT and WinStar and, therefore, DCT's application filing date need not  S'be compared with the date that WinStar's Miami Application appeared on public notice.7 {O'ԍId. at 2.7 5. We disagree. DCT filed its West Palm Beach Application on May 18, 1995, well after the  Si '60day cutoff period for filing mutually exclusive applications had lapsed.Qi  {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  21.31(d) (1995).Q The fact that DCT subsequently filed an amendment to eliminate the geographic overlap with WinStar's Miami  S 'Application cannot and does not cure the untimeliness of DCT's application.{ ,  {O' ! ԍSee Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to Modify Processing Procedures for Commercial FM  {O' ! Broadcast Applications, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 5074 (1992) (holding that broadcast applicants cannot cure  {Oc' !7 through amendment the problems of premature or late filing); see also McElroy Electronics Corp. v. FCC, 86 F.3d  ! 248 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (holding that the notice and cutoff procedure serves the public's interest in administrative finality and prompt issuance of licenses).{ Therefore, DCT's application and subsequent amendment were properly dismissed pursuant to Section 101.35. For the foregoing reasons, DCT's Miami Petition is hereby denied. 6. In its Fort Lauderdale Petition, DCT argues that the Branch improperly dismissed its application because it failed to take into account the amendment filed on August 7, 1995 to the West  S'Palm Beach Application. DCT argues that its application is "likely to be reinstated nunc pro tunc," and that absent revocation of WinStar's Fort Lauderdale license, DCT is "deprived of its right to seek  Sl'reconsideration of the dismissal of its application."Ll yO"'ԍDCT's Fort Lauderdale Petition at 2.L DCT also argues that grant of WinStar's Fort Lauderdale Application violated the Commission's interim application processing procedures for the 39  S'GHz service. Specifically, DCT argues that WinStar's Fort Lauderdale Application was mutually exclusive with DCT's application and, therefore, it should have been held in abeyance pending the"r,l(l(,,{"  S'Commission's ultimate decision in the 39 GHz rule making proceeding.7 {Oh'ԍId. at 3.7 7. DCT's Fort Lauderdale Petition is based on the assumption that the Division will reinstate its West Palm Beach Application. This assumption is incorrect. As discussed previously herein, an application filed after the 60day cutoff period established by an earlier filed application, notwithstanding a subsequent attempt to amend the second filed application, is defective. In addition, grant of WinStar's Fort Lauderdale Application has not deprived DCT of its right to seek  S'reconsideration of the dismissal of its application. This Order on Reconsideration gives full consideration to DCT's Fort Lauderdale Petition. 8. Furthermore, and contrary to DCT's assertion, grant of WinStar's Fort Lauderdale Application did not violate the Commission's interim application processing procedures for the 39 GHz  S 'service. The Commission held in its Memorandum Opinion and Order released on January 17, 1997, that it would process all nonmutually exclusive applications, provided they were ripe as of November  S8 '13, 1995.$8 Z yO2' !u ԍAmendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.038.6 GHz and 38.640.0 GHz Bands;  ! Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, 37.038.6 GHz and 38.640.0  {O' !7 GHz Bands, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2910,  2 (1997) (39 GHz Memorandum Opinion and  {O'Order). The Commission defined "ripe" as those applications that (1) were not mutually exclusive  S 'with other applications at the time of the Bureau's November 13, 1995 Freeze Order, F yO' ! ԍPetition for Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.038.6 GHz and 38.640 GHz Bands,  {O'Order, 11 FCC Rcd 1156 (1995). and (2) the 60 S 'day period for filing mutually exclusive applications had expired prior to November 13, 1995.B  {O'ԍId. at 2913,  6.B In this instance, WinStar's Fort Lauderdale Application was not mutually exclusive with DCT's West Palm Beach Application because DCT's application was untimely filed. Furthermore, the 60day public notice period for the filing of competing applications against WinStar's Fort Lauderdale  S'Application had passed as of November 13, 1995.L2  yO'ԍDCT's Fort Lauderdale Petition at 3.L Therefore, the Fort Lauderdale Application was a  S'nonmutually exclusive ripe application under the 39 GHz Memorandum Opinion and Order.  S'Accordingly, the Branch properly granted WinStar's Fort Lauderdale Application. For the foregoing reasons, DCT's Fort Lauderdale Petition is hereby denied.  S 'N IV. ORDERING CLAUSE Đc 9. 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) and 405 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by DCT Communications, Inc. on October 10, 1997 and October 23, 1997 are DENIED. "> ,l(l(,,"Ԍ10. 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. ` `  ,hh]FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION    ` `  ,hh]D'wana R. Terry ` `  ,hh]Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division ` `  ,hh]Wireless Telecommunications Bureau