********************************************************    
                         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.,             )       File No. 06641-CL-AL-1-95
d/b/a Coastel Communications    )
Company                         )
and                             )
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:  October 10, 1997           Released:  October 10, 1997

By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

                        I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this order, we address a Petition for Reconsideration ("Petition") filed by Billy J. Parrott
("Parrott")  on July 2, 1996.   Parrott requests reconsideration of the Coastel Order issued by the Chief,
Commercial Wireless Division ("Division") on May 29, 1996.  Specifically, he requests that the Bureau
reconsider the Division's decision, grant his Petition to Deny which was denied in the Coastel Order, and
designate the above referenced matter for hearing in accordance with the Commission's Rules.  For the
reasons discussed below, we dismiss the Petition.       

                        II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   On May 29, 1996, the Chief, Commercial Wireless Division granted the application for
assignment of license to operate cellular radio station KNKA-412 in the Gulf of Mexico filed jointly by RVC
Services, Inc., d/b/a Coastel Communications Company ("RVC") and Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C.
("Bachow/Coastel") and denied Parrott's Petition to Deny that application.  On July 2, 1996, Parrott filed a
Motion for Extension of Time to petition for reconsideration of the Division's order ("Extension of Time
Motion") and his Petition.  On July 16, 1996, RVC opposed the Extension of Time Motion and, on the same
date, Bachow/Coastel filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition.  Parrott replied to these pleadings on July 25,
1996 and Bachow/Coastel replied on August 6, 1996.
    
                        III.  DISCUSSION

     3.   Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, 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."  Petitions against the Coastel Order were due to be filed on or before June 28, 1996. 
The Petition was clearly filed late.  Parrott attempted to justify his Extension of Time motion by alleging that
he had obtained new counsel and that delays occasioned by the transfer of files caused the late filing.  This
motion was also untimely filed as it was filed less than 7 days prior to the due date of the Petition without
notice to Commission staff in violation of the Commission's rules.  

     4.   In order for the Commission to consider a late-filed petition, Petitioner must show some
circumstance that warrants overriding the statutory filing requirements.  The courts "have discouraged the
Commission from accepting such petitions in the absence of extremely unusual circumstances."  In Vitelco,
the court ruled that "miscommunications within the firm" did not justify a late-filed petition.  In Reuters,
the court reversed the Commission when it overturned license grants as a result of a late-filed petition.  The
court opined that the grants were made in accordance with the Commission's rules and the court would not
allow the Commission "to deviate from its rules in order to achieve what it deems to be justice in the
individual case."  In this instance, Parrott requested an extension of time based upon additional time needed
to transfer files to his newly obtained counsel.  Petitioner's statement does not meet the standard of
"extremely unusual circumstances."  These are matters within Petitioner's own control, and the thirty-day
filing deadline provided under our rules provides ample time for parties to make arrangements for transfer
of files to new counsel.  Based on these facts, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause for acceptance
of its late-filed petition.  
 
                        IV.  CONCLUSION

     5.   Having reviewed the pleadings in this matter, we conclude that the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by Billy J. Parrott must be dismissed.

                      V.  ORDERING CLAUSE

     6.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405(a) of the Communications
Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 405(a), and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
 1.106, that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Billy J. Parrott on July 2, 1996, IS DISMISSED.

     7.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
 1.46, that the Motion for Extension of Time (to File) Petition for Reconsideration filed by Billy J. Parrott
on July 2, 1996, IS DENIED.

                                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                                   Daniel B. Phythyon
                                   Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau