******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word 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. ) FCC File Nos. 9600691-9600711 ) 9600714-9600718 To Provide 39 GHz Point-to-Point Microwave ) Radio Service in Various Locations ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: December 15, 1999 Released: December 16, 1999 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1. Introduction. The Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) has before it a petition for reconsideration filed on March 25, 1999, by Plaincom Inc. (Plaincom). Plaincom requests review of the Division's February 23, 1999 order granting petitions to deny the above-captioned applications, and dismissing the applications. For the reasons set forth below, Plaincom's Petition is denied. 2. Background. On March 4, 1994, Avant-Garde Telecommunications (Avant-Garde) filed applications to modify certain existing licenses in the 38.6 40.0 GHz (39 GHz) band. On June 26, 1995, the Commission granted an application from Avant-Garde for consent to transfer its license pursuant to a merger with a subsidiary of WinStar Communications, Inc. On July 18, 1995, the Commission was notified that the merger had been consummated and that Winstar Wireless Fiber Corp. (Winstar) was the surviving corporation. On August 4, 1995, WinStar filed a series of letters substituting WinStar as the applicant with respect to Avant-Garde's pending applications. After the applications appeared on public notice under WinStar's name on August 16, 1995, Plaincom filed the above-captioned applications in partial conflict with the Avant-Garde/WinStar applications. WinStar filed petitions to deny the Plaincom applications on December 1, 1995. In February 1998, the Commission granted the Avant- Garde/WinStar's applications. 3. On February 23, 1999, the Division granted WinStar's petitions to deny the Plaincom applications, and dismissed the applications. We reasoned that, pursuant to former Section 21.23 of the Commission's Rules, an amendment specifying a substantial change in ownership of an applicant is not a major amendment if the transfer or assignment "is for legitimate business purposes other than the acquisition of applications." We found that the August 4, 1995 filing met this standard, so the August 16, 1995 public notice did not open a new window for filing applications mutually exclusive with the Avant-Garde/WinStar applications. Therefore, Plaincom's 1995 applications were not timely filed. We also stated that Plaincom's objections, in its opposition to WinStar's petition to deny, to the June 26, 1995 grant of the transfer application were untimely and would not be addressed. On March 25, 1999, Plaincom filed its petition for reconsideration. 4. Discussion. Plaincom asserts that Winstar's Amendment Letters were major amendments and opened a new cut-off window for filing competing applications. We find that it raises no new information or arguments that we did not consider and address when we granted WinStar's petitions to deny and denied Plaincom's petition for reconsideration of the grant of WinStar's applications. 5. Plaincom also argues that its assertions concerning the transfer application were timely because Plaincom could not have raised them while the application was pending. Plaincom contends that it could not have objected sooner because nothing in the public notice announcing the filing of the transfer application informed it that WinStar was seeking to acquire the Avant-Garde applications. We disagree. As we have explained previously, the transfer application contained sufficient information to put the Commission, and the public, on notice that the application involved the transfer of applications from Avant-Garde to WinStar. Plaincom's failure to object to the transfer applications before they became final renders its objections untimely at this juncture. 6. We continue to believe that the WinStar amendments did not a trigger a new filing window. Therefore, Plaincom's applications were untimely filed and properly dismissed. As a result, we affirm the denial of Plaincom's petition for reconsideration and the dismissal of its applications. 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47. U.S.C.  154(i), 309 and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106 the Petition for Reconsideration filed on March 25, 1999 by Plaincom IS DENIED. 9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Section 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commissions 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