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

                                                                   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.                       )  FCC File No. 9508110     
                                     )  
to Provide 39 GHz Point-to-Point Microwave        )
Service in Oxnard-Simi Valley-Ventura, CA        )


                             ORDER

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 further reconsideration (Petition) filed on March 18, 1999, by Plaincom, Inc. (Plaincom). 
Plaincom requests  reconsideration of the Division's February 16, 1999 Order denying Plaincom's petition
for reconsideration of a Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) dismissal of Plaincom's late-
filed competing application.   For the reasons set forth below, Plaincom's Petition is denied.
2.     Background.  On January 18, 1995, the Commission placed on public notice a Commco
L.L.C. (Commco) application for authorization to provide service in the 38.6-40.0 GHz (39 GHz band) in
the area of Oxnard, CA.  On July 25, 1995, Plaincom submitted a 39 GHz application for substantially
the same service area.  On August 20, 1997, the Branch, by letter ruling, dismissed the competing
Plaincom application as untimely.
3.     Plaincom requested reconsideration of this decision on October 2, 1997.  On February 16,
1999, the Division released an Order affirming the Branch's determination.  Plaincom argued that its
application should be accepted, even though it was filed after the sixty-day period for filing competing
applications with the Commco application, because Plaincom and Commco had entered into a verbal
agreement to avoid harmful electromagnetic interference.  We rejected this argument, concluding that the
agreement did not change the fact that the Plaincom application was untimely, and thus unacceptable for
filing.  
4.     Discussion.  Plaincom again asserts that the sixty-day cut-off rule for filing competing
applications should not apply because of Plaincom's verbal agreement with Commco.  Plaincom raises no
new information or arguments that we did not consider, and we see no basis for reversing our determination
that Plaincom's verbal agreement with Commco did not cure Plaincom's late-filed application.
5.      Plaincom next notes a subsequent Division decision to reinstate an application that was
initially dismissed for failure to meet certain requirements of Section 101.147(u) of the Commission's
Rules, and argues that the Division should similarly reinstate Plaincom's application because of its "good
faith attempt to comply with vague application and processing standards."   We find this argument to be
unpersuasive.  The application and processing standards at issue for Plaincom are clear.  Commco's
application appeared on public notice on January 18, 1995, establishing a sixty-day window for filing
competing applications.  Plaincom's competing application was filed well after the relevant filing window
closed.  Therefore, Plaincom's application was correctly dismissed as untimely.
6.     Finally, Plaincom argues that before we acted on Plaincom's application, an amendment of
right filed by Commco cured any late-filing defect in Plaincom's application.  We disagree.  The first of
the conflicting applications that is placed on public notice as "accepted for filing" opens the sixty-day
window for the filing competing applications, and establishes the cut-off period for all later filed competing
applications.

7.     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 Sections 1.104(b) and 1.106(f) of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.104(b), 1.106(f), the Petition for Further Reconsideration filed by
Plaincom, Inc., on March 18, 1999, IS DENIED. 
8.     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 
                    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau