WPCPH 2?BJZECourier3|w#Xw PE37}XP#c406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\PX@ Y-#Xw PE37}XP#2@qf X CourierCG Times",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@8wC;,}Xw PE37XP\ @^5q.$h';U7G;A 7ier<?xxx,>fx6X@`7X@2r ZKf '3|wc406c3\lj_hp4si_2033M_600_2HPLAS4SI.PRSXj\  P6G;\PXP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2h#LK VK!Times New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldCG Times BoldCG Times Italic"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx8HH"&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""(cont'd . . .) De Anza Microwave, Application File No. 53152CMP90 at Lewiston, Idaho was returned   -by Commission staff as unacceptable for filing by public notice on October 19, 1994. De Anza Microwave filed a petition for reconsideration on November 21, 1994, 3 days late.  Sierra Enterprises, Application File No. 62013CMP91 at Port Angeles, Washington was returned by   Commission staff as unacceptable for filing by return letter notification on December 4, 1991. Sierra Enterprises filed a petition for reconsideration on January 6, 1992, 3 days late. r They were simply untimely and will be" ,-(-(ZZ!" dismissed on that basis. Four of the eight petitioners have submitted arguments as to why  Y-their petitions were not filed in a timely manner in compliance with the rules.{  yO -ԍ Application File Nos. 183CMP92; 1211CMP92; 1213CMP92; and 2389CMP92. { Each of these petitioners' arguments will be considered in turn. x9. Cindy Barnes ("Barnes") applied to construct and operate an MMDS station on the  Y-H2 channel in Charleston, South Carolina.K  yO-ԍ Application File No. 183CMP92.K Barnes' application was received by the Commission on January 2, 1992, and was deemed by the Commission staff as unacceptable for filing in a November 3, 1993, Public Notice. The Commission staff also sent Barnes a Return Notification letter on October 26, 1993. Barnes filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement; Request for Waiver of Section 1.106(f) of the Commission's Rules; and Request for Acceptance of Latefiled Petition for Reconsideration on January 27, 1994, 55 days past the statutory deadline for filing reconsideration petitions, pursuant to  1.106(f). In her petition Barnes alleges that the Commission staff sent the return notification letter to an incorrect address; thus, she was not appropriately notified by the Commission of the return of her application and requires a waiver of the 30day filing deadline for reconsideration petitions. However, Barnes' argument for the request of waiver is rendered moot by the fact that the return action appeared on public notice on November 3, 1993. As described above,  Yy-see  5, according to 47 C.F.R.  1.106(f) a petitioner has 30 days from the date of public  Yd-notice in which to file a petition for reconsideration. Barnes filed her petition 55 days after the 30day statutory deadline. The Barnes petition for reconsideration was latefiled and her request for waiver of the statutory deadline is not justified. Accordingly, Barnes' petition is dismissed. x10. Shoals Management Systems ("SMS") applied to construct and operate MMDS  Y-stations on the H1 and H3 channels in Florence, Alabama.^(  yO!-ԍ Application File Nos. 1211CMP92 and 1213CMP92.^ The SMS applications were received by the Commission on January 30, 1992, and returned to the applicant as unacceptable for filing in a return action appearing in a public notice dated July 27, 1994. The Commission concurrently sent SMS a Return Notification letter also dated July 27, 1994, informing the applicant of the return action. SMS petitioned the Commission for reconsideration on December 16, 1994, 112 days past the statutory deadline for filing of reconsideration petitions, established by  1.106(f). SMS argues that it notified the"R ,-(-(ZZM" Commission of its change of address on January 25, 1994, and the Commission incorrectly sent the return letter to SMS's original address as indicated in its applications. SMS further argues that it did not learn of the return notification until November 17, 1994, and therefore  1.106 of the Commission's rules should be waived. The SMS argument is unpersuasive. The Commission's rules in this situation are clear. Pursuant to  1.106(f) of the Commission's rules, a petitioner has 30 days from the date of public notice to petition the Commission for reconsideration. Here petitioner failed to comply with this rule by filing its petition 112 days after the statutory deadline for filing reconsideration petitions. The SMS argument, similar to the above Barnes argument, is rendered moot by the fact that the return action appeared on public notice on July 27, 1994. The SMS petition for reconsideration was late filed and its request for waiver of the statutory deadline is not justified. The SMS petition is therefore dismissed. x11. Onondaga Wireless, Inc. ("Onondaga") applied to construct and operate an  Y -MMDS service station utilizing the H1 channel in Syracuse, New York.L  yO7-ԍ Application File No. 2389CMP92.L Onondaga's application was received by the Commission on March 2, 1992 and was returned by the Commission staff as unacceptable for filing by return letter notification on September 29, 1993. Onondaga filed a petition for reconsideration and request for waiver of section 1.106(f) of the Commission's   rules on November 9, 1993, 11 days past the statutory deadline. Onondaga argues that it should be granted leave for the latefiling because it was attempting to determine which applications for the H1 channel filed prior to its application.  Y-Onondaga's argument is unpersuasive. Onondaga does not meet the Gardner narrow exception of an "extraordinary case" in which the Commission may extend or waive the 30day filing period of a petition for reconsideration where the latefiling is due to the Commission's failure to give customary notice of the action for which reconsideration is sought. The Commission clearly provided Onondaga with proper notice and Onondaga makes no claims to the contrary. Onondaga had more than ample time to make its determination, and it simply did not use its allotment of time wisely. Thus, the Commission  Y~-will not waive its filing period. The Onondaga petition is latefiled and therefore dismissed pursuant to  1.106(f) of the Commission's rules. XxP(#IV. CONCLUSION x x12. In view of all of the foregoing, we find that reconsideration of the eight abovereferenced applications is not justified and that reinstatement of these applications is not warranted. x13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that these eight Petitions for Reconsideration ARE DISMISSED and the requests for waiver of Section 1.106 by Barnes, \   \ SMS and Onondaga ARE DISMISSED. "j$X,-(-(ZZ%"Ԍx14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the staff of the Video Services Division shall send copies of the decision to the authorized representative for the petitioners by certified mail, return receipt requested. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  Charles E. Dziedzic x` `  Assistant Chief, Video Services Division  Y -x` `  Mass Media Bureau