WPC4 2MB%RK Z3|a Times New RomanTimes New Roman Bold P6G;P"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\  pG;y.X80,IX\  P6G;P2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,D&e4  pG;&\0_=5,% &_*f9 xr G;&X88SS8J82N8\\^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"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\p=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=\Q\\=f===QQ@\=G=.=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\z=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f21K(Z+K."i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7fG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\y.X80,IX\  P6G;P2a=5,0&a\  P6G;&P2e=5,D&e4  pG;&\0_=5,% &_*f9 xr G;&XP:% ,1J:\  P6G;JPH5!,,5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,%W*f9 xr G;X7V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""'ownership or control to those pending applications.X->n {O''ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#Id.X " Z-,C)C)UU"Ԍ S'13. WinStar asserts that the amended applications did not open a new filing window.n.n yOh'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#Consolidated Opposition at 37.n WinStar explains that Sections 21.23(c) and (e) of the Commission's Rules provide that when an application is amended to reflect a change in ownership, it is a major amendment, unless an exception  Sg'applies./gXn {O_'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#47 C.F.R.  21.23(c), (e). See Consolidated Opposition at 78. WinStar asserts that two exceptions apply here. First, WinStar explains that the facts at  S4'issue are the same as those found in Airsignal International.04n {O'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#Airsignal International, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 81 FCC 2d 472 (1980). The Commission explained that the filing of amendments to pending applications to reflect a change in ownership caused by a merger that was previously approved by the Commission, constituted "an independent legitimate business purpose and [was] not primarily for acquiring pending applications" that exempted the amendments from being  Si'deemed "major" pursuant to Section 21.23(c)(6) of the Commission's Rules.X1i|n {O 'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#Id.X Second, WinStar argues that the Notification Letters should not be deemed major amendments under Section 21.31(e)(3) of the  S'Commission's Rulesj2n yO'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#47 C.F.R.  21.31(e)(3).j because the notification reflected only a "change in ownership or control" found  S'by the FCC to be in the public interest when it approved the transfer of control of AvantGarde.l3n yO'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#Consolidated Opposition at 8.l Thus, WinStar contends that the amendments were minor, and did not open a new filing window.  S7 '14. The Commission's Rules state that amendments are classified on a casebycase basis.g47 . n yO'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#47 C.F.R.  21.23(c).g  S 'First, we are persuaded that the factual circumstances presented in this case are the same as the factual  S 'circumstances presented in Airsignal International. In that connection, we find that the subject amendments are appropriately deemed to be within the Section 21.23(c)(6) exemption to the  Sl'classification as major amendments.j5l n yO'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#47 C.F.R.  21.23(c)(6).j Second, we find that the amendments reflect a change in ownership or control found by the Commission to be in the public interest when AvantGarde's application for transfer of control was granted, fitting the exemption from the cutoff rules found in  S'Section 21.31(e)(3) of the Commission's Rules.j6N n yO'ԍ#X\  P6G;IP#47 C.F.R.  21.31(e)(3).j Consequently, we conclude that a new filing  S'window was not opened by the August 16, 1995 Public Notice announcing the WinStar amended applications. We further conclude that the Petitioner's applications were not timely filed because they were received after the applicable cutoff date of July 6, 1994.  15. Thirdly, the Petitioners assert that grant of WinStar's applications violated a licensing policy concerning a restriction on the amount of 39 GHz spectrum held by a single entity in a market  So'for provision of certain services.7on {O&'ЍCollective Petitions at 12, citing Public Notice No. 44787, 75 RR 2d 1341 (rel. Sept. 16, 1994) (September 16 Public Notice). WinStar argues that such policy does not apply, due to the nature"o87,C)C)UU5"  S'of its intended use of the 39 GHz spectrum authorized by the applications.I8n yOh'ԍConsolidated Opposition at 1920.I AvantGarde filed the  S'applications for authority to provide services other than personal communications services support.9Xn {O'ЍSee Waiver Request of AvantGarde Telecommunications, Inc., filed Oct. 17, 1994, attached as Exhibit K to the Consolidated Opposition. We find that grant of the WinStar applications does not violate any applicable policy and affirm the Branch's decision that such grant was in the public interest. 16. Finally, the Petitioner's argue that the Branch acted arbitrarily in granting the applications, instead of dismissing pending 39 GHz applications "without prejudice" pursuant to the 39 GHz rule  S'making proceeding.r:n yO 'ԍCollective Petitions at 12; O'Keefe Petition at 79; O'Keefe Reply at 79.r The Petitioners claim that the Branch's action prejudices them because grant of the applications to WinStar precludes them from applying for licenses in the areas covered by the  S5'applications via the competitive bidding process.x;5Bn yO'ԍCollective Petitions at 12; O'Keefe Petition at 79; O'Keefe Reply at 79.x O'Keefe further argues that the Branch violated  S'Section 555(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)< n yOt'Ѝ5 U.S.C.  555(e) ("Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a written application, petition, or other request of an interested person made in connection with an agency proceeding. Except in affirming a prior denial or when the denial is selfexplanatory, the notice shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the grounds for denial."). by failing to provide notification of the  S'dismissal of his competing applications.V= n yO)'ԍO'Keefe Petition at 910; O'Keefe Reply at 10.V 17. The Petitioners' argument is predicated on there being a new filing window. As indicated, the amendment to WinStar's pending applications was minor and thus, no new filing window was opened. Therefore, the Petitioners applications were untimely filed. The Petitioners had prior notice under Section 21.31(b) of the Commission's Rules that applications which are untimely  S 'filed will be considered defective and subject to dismissal.G> J n yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  21.31(b) (1994).G Accordingly, we do not believe that they  Sj'were prejudiced by grant of WinStar's applications.J?jn {O'ԍSee McElroy, 86 F.3d at 257.J In addition, O'Keefe's claim that the Branch violated Section 555(e) of the APA is moot, because we address the reasons for the dismissal of those  S'applications in this Order.h@ln yO"'ЍMichael McDermott D/B/A McDermott Communications Co., Application for Consent to Assignment and Modification of the License for Station KLY659 in the Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Services,  {O#'Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 5750, 5751  6 (1996) (Petitioner's claim that the Bureau violated Section 555(e) of the APA by failing to issue a statement of grounds for the denial of its petition is  {O2%'moot because the allegations raised in the petition are addressed in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.). h Thus, we find that O'Keefe suffered no harm from the Branch's alleged  S'error.1A n {O''ԍId.1 "A,C)C)UUb"Ԍ18. In their Reply, Collective Petitioners claim, for the first time, that the Transfer Application and the Notification Letters did not comport with Section 21.29 of the Commission's  S'Rules,fBn yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  21.29 (1994) (currently 47 C.F.R.  101.41).f which requires parties in interest to pending applications, when merging their interests, to  Sg'submit certain evidence, showing that the merger of interests is consistent with the public interest.C"gXn yO_'ЍCollective Reply at 34. Collective Petitioners take issue with WinStar's failure to submit an "itemized accounting" to demonstrate that the value of the consideration received by AvantGarde for the subject Applications did not exceed that "legitimate and prudent costs" associated with the administrative costs of those  {O'Applications.  Id. at 4. That argument is unrelated to the matters raised in WinStar's Opposition, and thus is outside the scope  S'of reply, in accordance with Section 1.106(h) of the Commission's Rules.DBn yO 'Ѝ47 C.F.R.  1.106(h) states, in pertinent part, that "Replies . . . shall be limited to matters raised in the opposition." Collective Petitioners argue that WinStar raised the matter of its responsibilities under Section 21.29 of the Commission's Rules, by citing cases that contain discussions of that rule. Thus, according to the Petitioners, the  Sh'issue is permitted under Section 1.106(h) of the Commission's Rules.CEhn yO'ԍCollective Reply at 3, n.4.C WinStar, however, explains that it cited cases in support of its argument that the listing of its applications on public notice did not open a new filing window, and did not discuss Section 21.29 of the Commission's Rules in either of  S'its Oppositions.GF* n yO'ԍConsolidated Opposition at 67.G We conclude that the mere citation of a case in an opposition pleading which contains discussion of a rule or point of law not associated with a matter raised in that opposition does not make challenges or arguments related to such rule or point of law ripe for discussion in a reply  S6 'pleading.JG6 n {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.106(h).J B. Clarification Petition 19. In their Clarification Petition, Plaincom and Sterman argue that if WinStar, by its Correction Letter, sought to amend its request for additional channels in the Atlanta and Dallas markets by seeking enlargement of the respective service areas, such an amendment would have been  S'subject to the 39 GHz filing "freeze," and should not have been accepted for filing.HHL n {O'ЍClarification Petition at 3, citing Amendment 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,  {OO!'37.038.6 GHz and 38.640.0 GHz, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2910, 2911 (1997) (MO&O). O'Keefe, Plaincom and Sterman also argue that WinStar failed to serve them with copies of its Correction Letter,  {O"'in violation of the Commission's ex parte rules. Clarification Petition at 34; January 5 Letter. Since the  {O#'Correction Letter did not address the merits or outcome of the instant proceeding, it was not an ex parte presentation. Consequently, WinStar was not obliged to serve the other parties to this proceeding. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1202(a). The parties request that we clarify that the additional channels granted to WinStar in the Atlanta and Dallas" \H,C)C)UU;" markets do not encompass any territory beyond that specified in the original applications for the new  S'channels.LIn yO5'ԍClarification Petition at 34.L 20. WinStar argues that its sole purpose in filing the Correction Letter was to notify the Branch that the licenses for Stations WMN326 and WMN319 no longer reflected the revised  S'coordinates that were granted on June 13, 1995.?JXn yO'ԍCorrection Letter at 1.? Therefore, by its Correction Letter, WinStar sought to have the licenses for the four original channel pairs at Stations WMN326 and WMN319 reissued  S'with their respective revised coordinates.9Kn {O# 'ԍId. at 23.9 As for the additional channel pairs that were granted for Atlanta and Dallas on February 2, 1998, WinStar requested in its Correction Letter that the Branch  S5'issue new licenses which reflect the originally requested coordinates for each respective market.9L5zn {OO'ԍId. at 23.9 In other words, the Correction Letter did not seek to enlarge the Atlanta and Dallas service areas that were originally requested on March 4, 1994, when WinStar applied for additional channel pairs. Therefore, we clarify that the newly issued licenses for Station WPOP581 in Atlanta and Station WPOP580 in Dallas do not encompass any territory beyond that previously authorized to WinStar in those markets.  S 'GY IV. ORDERING CLAUSES c 21. 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 Petitions for Reconsideration filed on March 12, 1998, by PLAINCOM, Inc., James W. O'Keefe, and Eric Sterman ARE DENIED. 22. 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 1.934(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.934(f), the Application No. 9510171 that was filed by PLAINCOM, Inc. on September 15, 1995, IS DISMISSED. 23. 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 Clarification or, in the Alternative, Reconsideration filed on December 31, 1998, by PLAINCOM, Inc. and Eric Sterman IS GRANTED, and all associated filings ARE DISMISSED. 24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.1202(a) of the  S'Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1202(a), the Letter regarding Ex Parte that was filed on January 5, 1999, by James O'Keefe IS DISMISSED." L,C)C)UUQ" 25. 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. ` `  ,hh]FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  ,hh]D'wana R. Terry ` `  ,hh]Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division ` `  ,hh]Wireless Telecommunications Bureau