DA 98-1526
                                             Adopted:  July 29, 1998
                                             Released: July 31, 1998



Ms. Elisabeth H. Ross
Counsel for Anishnabe Communications Enterprise, Inc.
Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot
1155 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1200
Washington, D.C.  20036


     Re:  Waiver of June 8, 1998 Election Date for PCS C Block Licensees
          to Submit Elections


Dear Ms. Ross:

     This letter responds to Anishnabe Communications Enterprise, Inc.'s ("Anishnabe")
request for a waiver of the June 8, 1998 payment option election deadline for PCS C block
licensees.  Anishnabe requests this waiver of the June 8, 1998 deadline to make a submission
under the Commission's guidelines.  We find that the facts and circumstances presented by
Anishnabe are sufficient to merit a waiver of the deadline.  We also will allow Anishnabe to begin
its repayment obligations ten (10) business days from the release date of this letter, instead of on
July 31, 1998.  We are not extending the 90-day non-delinquency period beyond the October 29,
1998 date and all other terms of the Reconsideration Order remain in effect.  We discuss the
specific rationale for this waiver below.

     Anishnabe holds three C block licenses in Michigan:  Lansing, Mt. Pleasant, and Saginaw. 
On June 8, 1998,  Anishnabe failed to file an election specifying any of the payment options
outlined in the Commission's Reconsideration Order.  Accordingly, Anishnabe would retain all
three of its C block licenses.  It would be responsible for the resumption of installment payments
on the full amount owed for all three licenses under the terms of its existing loan documents.  Any
interest accrued since April 1, 1998 would be due by July 31, 1998, along with all Suspension
Interest.

     On July 20, 1998, Anishnabe filed a "Petition for Waiver" of the June 8, 1998 deadline
with the Commission.  Therein, Anishnabe states that its technical advisors, Associated
Communications & Research Services, Inc., had failed to provide sufficient expertise in the
auctions process, leading to their termination shortly before the June 8, 1998 election date. 
Anishnabe argues that as a small business primarily associated with a Native American tribe, it
was ill-equipped to make an informed decision in this matter.   Thus, the primary basis for
Anishnabe's waiver request is that it lacked competent legal and/or technical assistance with
respect to the election date on the filing date.  It indicates that it intended to request the
Commission's "Resumption of Payments Option."

     Pursuant to Section 24.819 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R. 24.819), waiver of a
provision of the PCS rules is appropriate only when a party demonstrates either that the
underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its application in a
particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest, or that the unique
facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule inequitable, unduly
burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest.

     We find that the facts and circumstances cited here are of sufficient novelty to warrant a
waiver of the June 8, 1998 election date.  First, the C block election process is a unique
occurrence which is unlikely to repeat itself in any other context.  Second, Anishnabe's lack of
technical assistance at this juncture caused a sudden, temporary lack of ability to adhere to the
Reconsideration Order's timeline.  Anishnabe's representatives travelled to Washington, D.C.,
met with the Commission's staff and then immediately obtained legal assistance in this matter. 
Third, we do not believe that the lack of a submission was intended to enhance Anishnabe's
position vis-a-vis the other licensees, nor do we find that Anishnabe intended to delay its ultimate
election by failing to make its election on June 8, 1998.  In fact, Anishnabe's lack of a submission
poses serious financial hardship for it in that it resulted in its inability to make its suspension
payments in eight quarterly installments.  

     Anishnabe's waiver request is distinguishable from instances where a waiver would affect
the integrity and efficient functioning of the auctions process.  A waiver of the election date to
allow Anishnabe's July 20, 1998 submission and a brief delay in the July 31, 1998 repayment
deadline still will permit timely closure in this matter and encourage the licensee to meet its
obligations to the Commission.  A strict application of the election date here would be unduly
burdensome for Anishnabe and cause extreme financial hardship.  Although we find that rigid
enforcement of the June 8, 1998 deadline would not serve the public interest, we caution
Anishnabe that in the future, it should obtain proper legal and/or technical assistance prior to
proceeding in important licensing matters.

     Accordingly, we hereby grant Anishnabe's request for a waiver of the June 8, 1998
election date, and we will permit the submission contained in Anishnabe's July 20, 1998 waiver
request.  We further order that Anishnabe begin its repayment obligations ten (10) business days
from the release date of this letter.  This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under
Section 0.331 of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. 0.331.


                              Sincerely,



                              E. Rachel Kazan, Chief
                              Auction Finance and Market Analysis Branch                            Auctions and Industry Analysis Division
                              Wireless Telecommunications Bureau