********************************************************    
                         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.

*****************************************************************






                                        DA 99-515
                                        March 15, 1999

M. Tamber Christian, Esq.
Kraskin, Lesse & Cosson, LLP
2120 L Street, N.W., Suite 520
Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Christian:

This letter responds to the Request for Extraordinary Relief filed by you on behalf of Message
Express Company ("MEC").  MEC requests that we waive the upfront payment deadline of
March 1, 1999, 6:00 p.m. (EST) for Auction No. 22 because the applicant's principal mistakenly
believed that the filing deadline was March 3, 1999.

In order to obtain a waiver of the Commission's upfront payment deadline, MEC must show "(i)
that the underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its
application in the particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest; or
(ii) 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."   For the reasons
cited below, we find that MEC's Request fails to meet the Commission's criteria for obtaining a
waiver.  

On December 23, 1998, the Commission first notified applicants for Auction No. 22 that the
deadline for submission of upfront payments was 6:00 p.m. (EST) on March 1, 1999.  The
Commission also warned applicants that "[f]ailure to deliver the upfront payment by the March 1,
1999 deadline [would] result in dismissal of the application and disqualification from participation
in the auction."

MEC states that its principal was out of the office when the Commission released guidelines for
resubmitting incomplete short form applications (FCC Form 175) in Auction No. 22.  MEC
argues that during a phone conversation with a co-worker concerning the status of its application,
MEC's principal became confused and concluded that the upfront payment was due on March 3,
1999, the deadline for resubmission of the short-form applications.  MEC notes that in previous
auctions, upfront payments were due on the same day as resubmissions.  MEC states that its
principal discovered his error on March 3, 1999, and immediately wired the payment to the
Mellon Bank.  MEC claims that no other applicant would be unduly prejudiced by acceptance of
its late upfront payment, and strict application of the Commission's deadline in this case would
eliminate a qualified bidder from the auction process.  Moreover, MEC notes that it has
previously demonstrated its ability to pay the Commission's fees with regard to E block broadband
PCS license BTA 033 (Battle Creek, Michigan).  

On the basis of the record before us, we are not persuaded that MEC has demonstrated that application of
the deadline in its case would undercut or frustrate its purpose, nor do we find that MEC
presented unique circumstances sufficient to justify grant of its waiver request.  The Commission's
Rules, its Public Notices and the Bidder Information Package provided comprehensive notice of
filing and payment procedures for Auction No. 22.  An applicant is responsible for knowing and
understanding the rules applicable to the auction in which it intends to participate.  Allowing
different deadlines for participants prejudices those applicants that follow the auction procedures,
and the Commission's Rules are best served by applying deadlines in a fair and consistent manner.  
Accordingly, we are not convinced that a grant of the waiver is warranted or would be in the
public interest.

Therefore, MEC's request for a waiver of the upfront payment deadline is denied.  This action is
taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.331 of the Commission's Rules.

                              Sincerely,



                              Amy J. Zoslov
                              Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division
                              Wireless Telecommunications Bureau