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

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of the Application of)
                                )
ALTRON COMMUNICATIONS, L.C.     )  FCC File No. 9502937
                                )
For A New Microwave Facility in the)
38.6 - 40.0 GHz Spectrum,       )
Channels 10A and 10B Orlando, Florida)


                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


   Adopted:  September 9, 1999          Released:  September 13, 1999

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

                         I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.  We have before us a self-styled "Petition for Partial Reconsideration; Suggestion for
Reconsideration Sua Sponte" filed by Altron Communications, L.C. (Altron).  Pursuant to a previous petition
for reconsideration filed by Altron, its application for a new microwave facility in the 38.6 - 40.0 GHz
Spectrum (39 GHz band) was reinstated for further processing and review.  Altron now seeks reconsideration
of that action "for the limited purpose of establishing that Altron's reinstated Application should be granted
immediately, without any further need for comparative review."  For the reasons set forth below, we deny the
petition and dismiss Altron's application.  

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.  On March 17, 1995, Altron filed an application for a license to operate a new facility in the 39 GHz
band at 39,050-39,100 MHz and 39,750-39,800 MHz (Channels 10A and 10B) in Orlando, Florida.  We
placed Altron's application on public notice on April 5, 1995.  On May 26, 1995, Commco L.L.C. (Commco)
filed an application for a license to operate a new facility at 39,050-39,100 MHz and 39,750-39,800 MHz
(Channels 10A and 10B), as well as at other frequencies, in Daytona Beach, Florida.  The geographic areas
proposed by Altron's and Commco's applications overlapped and the applications were therefore partially
mutually exclusive.

     3.  By letter dated March 1, 1996, Altron submitted a minor amendment to its application in an attempt
to resolve the partial mutual exclusivity.  Altron's minor amendment was returned on March 19, 1996, because
of the Commission's suspension on the acceptance of amendments to applications for new 39 GHz facilities. 
On April 18, 1996, Altron filed a Petition for Reconsideration regarding the return of its amendment.

     4.  On November 13, 1996, the Bureau dismissed Altron's application for failure to demonstrate that
the requested service area was as small as practical consistent with the local service requirements of the
carrier.  Altron timely filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the dismissal on December 13, 1996.  By letter
dated March 31, 1997, the Bureau's Licensing Division granted Altron's December 13, 1996, Petition regarding
the dismissal, and reinstated Altron's application.  However, the Licensing Division denied Altron's April  18,
1996, Petition regarding the return of Altron's proposed minor amendment.  The letter directed Altron to
resubmit its signed original application and noted that the disposition of any mutually exclusive applications
would be held in abeyance pending the conclusion of a proposed rule making in the 39 GHz band.  On April
22, 1997, Altron resubmitted its original application as directed by the Licensing Division.

     5.  On April 28, 1997, Altron timely filed its Petition.  Altron asks that we grant its original application
without further review on the grounds that it is not mutually exclusive with Commco's application.  In the
alternative, Altron requests that we grant its application as modified because its proposed minor amendment
would resolve the mutual exclusivity with Commco's application.

                         III.  DISCUSSION

     6.  We deny Altron's request that we grant its original application because we find that it is mutually
exclusive with Commco's application.  An application will be deemed mutually exclusive of an earlier-filed
application if the two applications (a) are conflicting and (b) the second application was filed either within sixty
days after the date of the public notice listing the earlier application or one business day before the Commission
acts on the earlier application, whichever is earlier.  As to the first requirement, both Altron and Commco
propose to provide service on Channels 10A and 10B and the proposed service areas in Orlando, Florida and
Daytona Beach, Florida substantially overlap.  The two applications are therefore conflicting.  As to the second
requirement, a Public Notice listing Altron's application was released on April 5, 1995.  Commco's application
was filed on May 26, 1995, within sixty days of the release date of the Public Notice and before the
Commission acted on Altron's application.  Commco's application was therefore timely filed.  Contrary to
Altron's arguments, the sixty-day period for filing mutually exclusive applications does not begin to run on
the filing date of the first application, nor, in order for a second application to be timely, must public notice
of the second application be released within sixty days of the release date of the Public Notice of the first
application.  Rather, as the rule explicitly states, two applications are mutually exclusive if the second
application is filed within sixty days of the public notice of the first application.  Given that Commco's
application was filed within sixty days of the release of the public notice indicating acceptance for filing of
Altron's subject application and conflicted with such Altron application, we conclude that the Commco and
Altron applications are mutually exclusive.  Accordingly, we deny Altron's request that we grant its original
application.

     7.  We also deny Altron's request that we grant its application as modified by its proposed minor
amendment.  As the Microwave Branch stated when it returned Altron's proposed minor amendment, on
December 15, 1995 the Commission adopted the 39 GHz NPRM and Order providing that no amendments to
pending applications would be accepted for filing.  Altron tendered its minor amendment on March 1, 1996. 
Accordingly, the Microwave Branch properly did not accept Altron's amendment for filing, consistent with the
Commission's decision in the 39 GHz NPRM and Order.  Thus, we will not grant Altron's application as
modified by the proposed amendment.

     8.  Finally, we dismiss Altron's application.  In the 39 GHz R&O, the Commission dismissed without
prejudice all pending applications that were mutually exclusive.  As stated in the two paragraphs above,
Altron's application is mutually exclusive with Commco's application and its proposed minor amendment
attempting to resolve that exclusivity was untimely and properly not accepted for filing.  Accordingly, we
dismiss Altron's application without prejudice.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     9.  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 Petition for Partial Reconsideration; Suggestion for Reconsideration Sua Sponte of Altron
Communications, L.C., filed on April 28, 1997, IS DISMISSED.

     10.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 308 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 308, the Application of Altron Communications, L.C., for a new
microwave facility in the 38.6 - 40.0 GHz spectrum, Channels 10A and 10B, Orlando, Florida, filed March
17,1995, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

     11.  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.


                                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




D'wana R. Terry
Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau