********************************************************    
                         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 re Application of            )
                                )
RVC Services, Inc.              )
d/b/a Coastel Communications Company)
and                             )       File No. 06641-CL-AL-1-95
Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C.          )
for Consent for Assignment of   )
License of Station KNKA-412 (Market 306A))
Gulf of Mexico Service Area     )
                                )
                                 

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


   Adopted:  May 20, 1999               Released:  May 21, 1999

By the Commission:

     1.  The Commission has before it an application for review, filed on November 3, 1997, by Billy J.
Parrott ("Parrott").  Parrott seeks review of the RVC Services Reconsideration Order released by the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("Bureau") on October 10, 1997, which dismissed his petition for
reconsideration ("Petition") and denied his Motion for Extension of Time to file a petition for reconsideration. 
For the reasons discussed below, we hereby deny Mr. Parrott's application for review and affirm the Bureau's
action.

     2.  Parrott's application for review argues that extremely unusual circumstances prevented him from
filing his petition for reconsideration before the end of the 30-day deadline.  According to Parrott, he had
obtained new counsel and that the late filing was caused by delays related to the transfer of files.  Parrott
argues that dismissal of his petition on procedural grounds, without reaching the substantive issues, is contrary
to the spirit and intent of section 257 of the Communications Act of 1996.

     3.  We affirm the Bureau's decision to dismiss Parrott's petition for reconsideration because it was not
timely filed.  Section 405 of the Communications Act, as amended, provides that "petitions for reconsideration
must be filed within thirty days from the date upon which public notice is given of the order. . .complained of." 
As the Bureau noted, the Commission will only accept late-filed petitions for reconsideration if the petitioner
shows that extremely unusual circumstances warrant overriding the statutory requirements.  

     4.  In this case, Parrott attempted to justify his motion by alleging that he had obtained new counsel
and that delays occasioned by the transfer of files caused the late filing.  We agree with the Bureau that this
does not meet the standard of "extremely unusual circumstances."  These are matters that are within Parrott's
own control, and the 30-day statutory deadline provided Parrott with ample time to arrange for the transfer of
files to new counsel.  We therefore affirm the Bureau's finding that Parrott failed to demonstrate good cause
for acceptance of his late-filed petition.

     5.  Parrott also argues that the Commission's build-out requirement for cellular licensees is
unreasonable and that it caused financial hardship that led to the loss of his company and his inability to retain
counsel.  Parrott argues that these events represent "extreme circumstances" that support accepting the untimely
filing of his reconsideration.  Parrot also states that he should be provided a hearing.  Parrott did not raise
these issues, however, in the pleadings that he filed with the Bureau.  Section 1.115(c) of the Commission's
rules states that "[n]o application for review will be granted if it relies on questions of fact or law which the
designated authority has been afforded no opportunity to pass."  Because Parrott was afforded a full
opportunity to raise all pertinent issues in the pleadings that he filed with the Bureau, we decline to consider
these new issues that he raised in his application for review.

     6.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Application for Review, filed by Billy J. Parrott on
November 3, 1997, IS DENIED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              Magalie Roman Salas
                              Secretary