********************************************************    
                         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)
                                )
PLAINCOM, INC.                  )  File No. 9507559
                                )       
to Provide 39 GHz Point-to-Point Microwave)  
Service in Lancaster, PA        )



                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


Adopted:  September 23, 1999            Released:  September 24, 1999

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

     1.  Introduction.  By letter dated August 20, 1997, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch
(Branch) dismissed the above-captioned application submitted by Plaincom, Inc. (Plaincom) as untimely
filed.  On September 2, 1997, the Branch released a public notice describing its dismissal of the subject
application.  On October 2, 1997, Plaincom filed a petition for reconsideration (Petition) of the dismissal
of its application requesting authorization to operate systems in the 38.6 to 40.0 GHz band (39 GHz band)
in the area of Lancaster, PA.  For the reasons set forth below, Plaincom's Petition is dismissed.

     2.  Background.  On April 5, 1995, we placed a BizTel, Inc. (BizTel) application for a 39 GHz
station authorization in the Point-to-Point Microwave Service in the area of Lancaster, PA on public
notice.  On July 17, 1995, we received the above-referenced Plaincom application for filing.  On August
20, 1997, the Branch, by letter ruling, dismissed the Plaincom application in accordance with Sections
101.45 and 101.35 of the Commission's Rules.  Section 101.45 states that no application will be
consolidated for hearing with a previously filed application unless such application is substantially
complete and tendered for filing within sixty days after the date of the public notice listing the first of the
conflicting applications as accepted for filing.  The Branch found that the Plaincom application was
untimely filed because the relevant 60-day cut-off date for filing competing applications was June 5, 1995. 
Therefore, the Bureau dismissed the Plaincom application as unacceptable for filing, in accordance with
Section 101.35 of the Commission's Rules.

     3.  Discussion.  Plaincom, in its Petition of the Branch's dismissal of its application, argues that the
late-filing defect was cured when the Bureau dismissed Biztel's Application.  Plaincom cites
Commonwealth Telephone Co. and Moore's Service, for the proposition that it is the policy of the
Commission to reinstate an application nunc pro tunc as of the original filing date, if the defect is properly
cured prior to processing. 

     4.  The first of the conflicting applications that is placed on public notice as "accepted for filing"
opens a 60-day window for the filing of competing applications.  Such notice does not preclude the
subsequent return of the first filed application.  The first filed application, even if subsequently dismissed,
establishes the cut-off period for all later filed competing applications.  Accordingly, an application that is
accepted for filing, but later is deemed to be defective, establishes a filing cut-off date for competing
applications.  The public notice date of April 5, 1995 opened a 60-day filing window for competing
applications that closed on June 5, 1995.  Plaincom filed a competing application on July 17, 1995, after
such filing period closed.  Thus, the Branch properly dismissed Plaincom's application as untimely filed.

     5.   Moreover, Plaincom's reliance upon Commonwealth Telephone Co. and Moore's Service is
misplaced.  In Commonwealth Telephone Co. and Moore's Service, unlike the instant setting, petitioners
timely-filed competing applications and the Commission held that late-filed curative minor amendments did
not open a new filing window.  Moreover, in Commonwealth Telephone Co., the Commission dismissed a
competing application that was not filed within the 60-day cut-off window for filing mutually exclusive
applications, which is the same action we are taking in the instant setting.  

     6.  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, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Plaincom,
Inc. on October 2, 1997 IS DISMISSED.

     7.  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