WPC4< 2BVXZ3|P (TT).7PC2X XP\  P6QXP"5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5Si 8010Additional)HPLAS5SI.WRSXj\  P6G;,,,j&Z`XP2 *4D Z43|P "5^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CCCCPCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdCdCCCdNdoNNF2ZdCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 5Si 8010Additional)HPLAS5SI.WRSXj\  P6G;,,,j&Z`XP2*ZJ : I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)"5^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CCCCPCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNCNoddȐoNNF2ldCdddddd .#&"5^17MSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77SxoxxoeAPoxex\oxxxxo777SSSS\J\J:S\.7\.\S\\JA7\SxSSJSSS7SSSSSSS\xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x\SSSSx\x\x\x\xSxSx\SSxSxSe\xSxSxSxSxSoSoSoSSSS\\S\S\SSA\SS{\ANS7SS7SGGSSSSSS:SSS:77__S++SSe7_7:N7S\GG\17MSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77SxoxxoeAPoxex\oxxxxo777SSSS\J\J:S\.7\.\S\\JA7\SxSSJSSS7S_SSS\+77__SSSeA+{x17SSSSSSSSSG7SSS::S\S7S:SGSxxxxxxxooooAAAAxxxxxxxe\SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S\SSSSSS\\\\S\"5^ %377aU%%%7a%%%%7777777777%%nan1aOEKQEAOQ%+MEcQO?OI;EQOgOOG%%%77717171%777U7777)+77O771171n%77777777O1O1O1O1O1aIK1E1E1E1E1%%%%Q7O7O7O7O7Q7Q7Q7Q7O7O1Q7O7O7O7Q7?7O7O7O7K7K7E7E7E7O7O7O7Q7Q7777777%77O7aO;+N7%77%1--77777aa7'777a'%%997a77Ca%9%'N%aaa7=a--= %377aU%%%7a%%%%7777777777%%nan1aOEKQEAOQ%+MEcQO?OI;EQOgOOG%%%77717171%777U7777)+77O771171nn%79a777;a%%9977a7C+OO %777777777-a%777a''7=7%7'7-aaa1OOOOOOaKEEEE%%%%QQOOOOOaOQQQQO?7111111I111117777777a7777777"5^6=U[[===[====[[[[[[[[[[==[zzpGXzpezz===[[[[eQeQ@[e3=e3e[eeQG=e[[[Q[[[=[[[[[[[e[[[[[QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3e[[[[eeee[[e[[[[pe[[[[[z[z[z[[[[ee[e[e[[Ge[[·eGN[=[[=[NN[[[[[[@[[[@==ii[//[[p=i=@N=[eNNe6=U[[===[====[[[[[[[[[[==[zzpGXzpezz===[[[[eQeQ@[e3=e3e[eeQG=e[[[Q[[[=[i[[[e/==ii[[[pG/6=[[[[[[[[[N=[[[@@[e[=[@[N[zzzzGGGGpe[[[[[[QQQQQ3333[e[[[[[[eeee[eTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)CG Times (W1)CG Times (W1) (Bold)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)CG Times (W1) (Italic)Courier New (TT)22 &) , /"5^*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888C8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJxSoSAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82N8\\pC`pSS`*8FSS$88Sp*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88pppSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv8S]SS8S888]]:S8A8o]*ASSSS.S8.Sp8SC\228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxpxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS\SSSSSJS"5^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====I=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\I\=\===\Q\z\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7N=ee|Ij|\\j.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic=\f\\=\===ff@\=G=zf.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\"5^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7bO=+N&27%177777"RR7!TT7R!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!N%<<>,?>77?%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5^17PSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77Seeoxe_xx7Jo\oxexeS\xee\\777SSSSSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAJSJ7SSSSSSSSeSeSeSeSeSooJeJeJeJeJ7.7.7.7.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS\JeSxSxSxS\JxSeSeSeSeSoSoSeSeSeSxSxSxSxSxSSSSSSS7SSxSoSANS7SS7SMMSSSSSS:SSS:77SSS..SSe7S7:N7S\MM\17PSS777S7777SSSSSSSSSS77Seeoxe_xx7Jo\oxexeS\xee\\777SSSSSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAJSJ7SSSSSS.77SSSSSeA.o\17SSSSSSSSSM7SSS::S\S7S:SMSeeeeeeoeeee7777xoxxxxxxxxxx\eSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSSSSSSSJS22b5R2<"5^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!(!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2YH8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!N!778(:822:!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,222222272222222.j7PC2X2XP\  P6QXPlk7UC2XXU4  pQX.l2J=.Xg!&J\  P6Q&P lm2N=.X&N4  pQ& no8D81X3D"  P7jQP oC!)!X3,)"  P7jQ,P.py.C8*X/C\  P6QP qz=K=6X3a&K"  P7jQ&P rJ$-% X3J-"  P7jQJP s~9O=6XA &&O!  p7sQ&t{,C8*XVVC*f9 xQX us4H81XADH!  p7sQ.vP,%XJ,\  P6QJP wq6D81XuDr?  x7.QX6?xxxXOXx6X@DQX@0J=.XVa&J*f9 xQ&X.I(!X,(\  P6Q,Pv===[[[Q[Q[Q=[[33[3[[[[DG3[[[[QQ[Q=[[[[[[[[QQQQQz}QsQsQ=3=3=3=3[[[[[[[[[[Q[[[[[i[[[[}[}[s[s[s[[[[ S' X   )4 X4x  #XP\  P6Q2XP#Federal Communications Commission`(#FCC 99134 ă   yxdddy )#&a\  P6G;g!&P#`(#(#  S'Q Before the "Federal Communications Commission S'(#c&RWashington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of Application of) ) WASTE MANAGEMENT,) COLLECTION & RECYCLING, INC.) ) For an Industrial/Land Transportation Category) Station at El Toro, California)  S '  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER c  S 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:(>(ZZ"  S' !<have coordinated his request for that channel.1 2l9 Sh' xE ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Huth Petition to Dismiss or Deny Application of Waste Management at 12 (filed July 18, 1994) (Huth  ! Petition). The Commission's Rules do not provide for petitions to deny Private Land Mobile Radio Service  {O' ! applications. See 47 C.F.R. 1.962(a). But see 47 C.F.R. 1.41 (permitting informal requests for Commission  yO'action).#XP\  P6Q2XP#1 In response to the Huth Petition, ITA defended its  !treatment of Huth's request, and stated that it would have coordinated Waste Management's request but  S' !for the LMR application. l9 S'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#ITA Letter at 12.#&J\  P6Qg!&P#ё Additionally, ITA requested that Waste Management's application be granted  S' !k(but with no explanation of how this grant could be made while the LMR application was pending).g bl9 S 'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Id. at 3.g The  !Branch denied the Huth Petition, on the grounds that ITA properly denied Huth's request because, while  !Waste Management's license was expired, it nonetheless was on the Commission's database when ITA  S' !received the request.l9 S' x ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Letter from Terry L. Fishel, Chief, Land Mobile Branch, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Dennis C. Brown, Esq., Ref. No. 7110165 (Nov. 17, 1994). It further noted that Huth was not prejudiced because LMR had applied for that  S'channel before him.j l9 S'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Id.#&J\  P6Qg!&P#ш  S' ( 5.` ` Waste Management's license application was granted on December 2, 1994. On May 19,  !1995, however, the Branch set aside the grant as void on the grounds that the application lacked frequency  SH ' !coordination.H l9 S'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Application Dismissal Letter at 1. #XP\  P6Q2XP#ѣ Consequently, the Branch returned the application to pending status, and dismissed it as  S ' !Mdefective. l9 Sj'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Id.#&J\  P6Qg!&P#ш The Branch also stated that the license grant violated Section 90.611 of the Commission's  S ' !gRules, Jl9 S'ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#47 C.F.R. 90.611. #X\  P6G;/P#ї which requires that applications be processed in order of receipt.h l9 S' x ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#Application Dismissal Letter at 1. #X\  P6G;/P#This statement was a reference to the pending LMR application. #C\  P6Q/P#See  ! Reconsideration Denial at 1. The Application Dismissal Letter also stated that the license grant violated the co yO"'channel separation requirements of 47 C.F.R. 90.621. Application Dismissal Letter at 1. Waste Management filed a  S ' !Petition for Reconsideration on June 19, 1995, suggesting that its application was properly coordinated. l9 S!'ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#Waste Management Petition for Reconsideration (filed June 19, 1995).#Xj\  P6G;2XP#  S ' !QThe Branch denied the Petition on June 21, 1995. l9 S$'ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#Reconsideration Denial Letter at 1.#Xj\  P6G;2XP#Ѣ Waste Management continues to operate the Santiago Peak station under an STA which was first granted in 1994, and subsequently extended.  S0' ( 6.` ` On July 21, 1995, Waste Management filed an Application for Review of the  !Reconsideration Denial alleging administrative error both procedurally and substantively. As a result,"Z,>(>(ZZ"  !Waste Management requests that the Commission reinstate Waste Management's license; or at least  !&reinstate Waste Management to its place in the processing line behind LMR, either by restoring Waste  !Management's application to pending status until the LMR application is resolved, or by returning the application to Waste Management for correction and resubmittal.  S8'ip III. DECISION ă  S' (  7.` ` Based on our review of the record in this proceeding, we find no justification for reversing  !lthe Branch's decision setting aside Waste Management's license and subsequently dismissing its  !application. Waste Management offers three arguments for reversing the decision. First, Waste  !Management argues that it was entitled to notice and a hearing before its license was revoked. Second,  !3it contends that because the Commission's Rules require only a coordinator's recommendation, not its  !certification, ITA's response to the Huth Petition constituted sufficient coordination of Waste  !QManagement's application. Third, Waste Management maintains that the Branch's decision was not in the public interest.  S ' ( 8.` ` Waste Management's first argument is that Section 312(c) of the Communications Act of  SX' !1934, as amended,Xl9 S'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#47 U.S.C. 312(c).#&J\  P6Qg!&P#ѕ entitled it to thirty days notice and an opportunity to respond before the Branch  S0' !rescinded its license."0hl9 S8' x ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Application for Review at 45.#XP\  P6Q2XP##C\  P6Q/P# Waste Management does not dispute the Branch's authority to rescind the license." Because this argument was not made earlier in this proceeding and Waste  !ZManagement has not set forth any arguments as to why it could not have been made, we find that it is  S'procedurally improper for Waste Management to raise it for the first time in the Application for Review.l9 SP'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#47 C.F.R. 1.115(c); Carol B. Ingram, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4100, 4100 (1996).#XP\  P6Q2XP#  S' ( 9.` ` Waste Management's second contention is that ITA's response to the Huth Petition  Sh' !<constituted sufficient frequency coordination.hpl9 Sx'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Application for Review at 56.#XP\  P6Q2XP#ѝ The coordination requirement is set out in Section  !90.175(e) of the Commission's Rules, which provides that "applications" for the frequencies in question  !"must include ... [a] statement from the applicable coordinator recommending specific frequencies that  !are available for assignment in accordance with the loading standards and mileage separations applicable  S' !to the specific radio service or category of user involved."I4l9 Sx ' x ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#47 C.F.R. 90.175(e). At the time of the Branch's action, this provision was 47 C.F.R.  90.175(b). It was  {OP!' ! redesignated in 1997. See Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and  {O"' !k Modify the Policies Governing Them, Second Report and Order, PR Docket No. 92235, 12 FCC Rcd 14307, 14528  yO"'(1997).#XP\  P6Q2XP#I Waste Management argues that this section  S' !requires only that the coordinator recommend a frequency, as opposed to certifying the coordination. l9 SL%'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Application for Review at 5.#&J\  P6Qg!&P#ћ  !kIt further contends that ITA's statement in its response to the Huth Petition that it would have coordinated  !}the Waste Management request but for the pending LMR application, and its request that the Waste"P ,>(>(ZZ"  S'Management application be granted, was such a recommendation.l9 Sh'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Id. at 6.#&J\  P6Qg!&P#ю  S' (  10.` ` We disagree with Waste Management's contention that ITA's statement satisfies the  !coordination requirement, either procedurally or substantively. The rule expressly requires that evidence  S`' !of coordination be included in the application.`hl9 Sh'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#47 C.F.R.  90.175 introductory paragraph.#&J\  P6Qg!&P#Ѭ Thus, we cannot accept ITA's comment as an amendment  !to Waste Management's application because it was not "signed and submitted in the same manner as  S' !required for the original application," and thus was not an amendment thereto.l9 S 'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#47 C.F.R. 90.131(a).#XP\  P6Q2XP#ј In addition, Section  !&90.175 of the Commission's Rules requires more than a suggestion from the coordinator; it requires a  ! decision "identify[ing] the most suitable frequency," which the Commission, if it approves, can adopt  S' !intact.Zl9 S' x} ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Report and Order, PR Docket No. 83 {O'737, 103 FCC 2d 1093, 1100 (1986); see also id. at 1108.#XP\  P6Q2XP#Z We believe that a coordinator's identification of frequencies regarding which the application  Sp' !conflicts with a prior application is insufficient.j 2pl9 S"' x ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Indeed, recommendations for spectrum requested in a pending application was a "problem" that the rule  ! sought to eliminate, because such recommendations "either lead[] to applications having to be recoordinated and  ! additional delays for the parties concerned, or result[] in the new user operating on a frequency which may not be  {O'the most appropriate." Id. at 1097; see also id. at 1119. #XP\  P6Q2XP#j Further, even if ITA's request that Waste Management's  !application be granted were deemed to be a proper recommendation, it could not have been accepted by  S 'the Commission, because the LMR application was filed first and thus had to be processed first.! l9 S'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#47 C.F.R.  90.611.#&J\  P6Qg!&P#ѕ  S ' (  11.` ` Waste Management requests that, in the event its frequency coordination is deemed  !insufficient, its application be restored to pending status, or returned to it for correction and resubmittal  S ' !7within thirty days pursuant to Section 90.611(f) of the Commission's Rules," l9 S'ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#47 C.F.R. 90.611(f); accord 47 C.F.R. 1.959.#Xj\  P6G;2XP#ѻ so that Waste Management  SX' !may keep its place in the processing line behind LMR.#XLl9 SD'ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#Application for Review at 2, 7.#Xj\  P6G;2XP#ў Because this relief was not requested earlier, we  S0' !@believe it to be procedurally inappropriate in the context of an Application for Review._$40l9 S!' x ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#47 C.F.R.  1.115(c) requires that procedural, as well as substantive, issues be presented to the designated  ! authority before they are raised in an Application for Review applies as much to arguments about what procedure  {O\#' ! the designated authority should have followed as it does to substantive matters. See, e.g., Sherry Rullman,  {O&$'Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 4012, 4012 & n.3 (1993). _ Moreover, an"0$,>(>(ZZ"  S' !gapplication that lacks the required coordination is incomplete, and cannot be placed in pending status.g%4l9 Sh' x ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#Only applications that are "substantially complete" are put in pending status. 47 C.F.R. 90.611(a). Given  {O@' ! the critical nature of frequency coordination, see 47 C.F.R. 90.127(a), 90.129(a), 90.175, an application lacking  {O ' ! coordination is not substantially complete. See, e.g., MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. Order, DA 981100,  4 (PS&PWD  yO'rel. June 10, 1998).#Xj\  P6G;2XP#g Finally, applicants are not permitted to queue behind alreadypending mutually exclusive applications.  S' (  12.` ` Waste Management's third argument is that rescinding its license is not in the public  S`' !kinterest.&`l9 S 'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Application for Review at 67.#XP\  P6Q2XP#ѝ We note Waste Management's representation that it provides trash collection services for many  !Southern California communities. We further note its statement that radio communications are essential  S' !*to the efficient and timely collection of refuse, and that no replacement spectrum is available.'dl9 S 'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#Id.#&J\  P6Qg!&P#ш In effect,  !7Waste Management seeks to be excused from its failure to renew its original license, based on the benefit  !gits use of that spectrum will confer on the public. We have rejected similar arguments in the past, and  S' !we do so now.(hl9 S<' x ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#See, e.g., Western Information Network Ass'n, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 65 F.C.C.2d 370, 373  ! (1977) (denying reinstatement of university consortium's license to construct and operate a closed circuit educational  yO'television system that expired when consortium failed to construct the system on schedule).#XP\  P6Q2XP# While there is a benefit for the general public interest in facilitation of trash collection,  !MWaste Management has not demonstrated that the public interest would be harmed if it did not receive  !an authorization for this particular spectrum or that no one else could perform these functions if Waste  !Management cannot. Moreover, Waste Management has not established that it cannot procure alternate  !gcommunications services. Waste Management allowed its license to expire and failed to act within the  !^additional thirty days after expiration during which a licensee could have applied for reinstatement without  S ' !@having to seek new a license under the rules then in effect.) 4 l9 S|'ԍ#C\  P6Q/P#See 47 C.F.R. 90.127(b), 90.149(a), 90.175 introductory paragraph (1994). #XP\  P6Q2XP# We decline to waive the rules or provide  S ' !<other relief that would, in effect, extend this period.* l9 S' x& ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#See First Auction of Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS) Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and Order,  ! 11 FCC Rcd 1134, 1135 (1996) (a "strict standard is necessary to ensure that applicants are treated fairly and  {O' !Q equally"); see also Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in  {O^' ! the Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service, Report and Order, PR Docket  yO(' ! No. 94131, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9607 (1995) (it is in the public interest to encourage the widest possible variety of  ! applicants by not giving a preference to incumbents, for new entrant may value the spectrum more highly than  yO 'existing licensee).#Xj\  P6G;2XP# Further, Waste Management has not met its  SX'burden+X(l9 S #'ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#See 47 U.S.C. 309(a); see also, e.g., Bonduel Telephone Co., 68 FCC 2d 497, 503 (1978).#Xj\  P6G;2XP# of establishing that there is a greater public interest in maintaining its business arrangements than "X+,>(>(ZZ"  S' !there is in maintaining the fairness of the application process and treating applicants equally.,Vl9 Sh' x ԍ#X\  P6G;/P#See Consolidated Nine, Inc. v. FCC, 403 F.2d 585, 595 (D.C. Cir. 1968) ("the public has a greater interest  !b in the fairness of the licensing process than in simply adding or keeping one more broadcast facility on the air");  !Q Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Construction, Licensing, and Operation  {O' !t of Private Land Mobile Radio Stations, Report and Order, PR Docket No. 90481, 6 FCC Rcd 7297, 7301 (1991)  !o ("That a licensee is engaged in public safety activities does not justify a lesser degree of diligence in complying with  {Ob' ! our renewal procedures."); Ramon Martinez, Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 86510, 3 FCC Rcd  !M 407, 408 (1988) (discussing "the Commission's obligation to assure comparable treatment of similarly situated  {O'parties") (citing Melody Music, Inc. v. FCC, 345 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1965)).#Xj\  P6G;2XP#ѷ Thus, we  !conclude that Waste Management has failed to demonstrate sufficiently that affirming the Branch's setaside action would be contrary to the public interest.  S`'d IV. CONCLUSION ă  S' (  13.` ` We affirm the Branch's action setting aside grant of Waste Management's license. Waste  !Management's contention that it was entitled to notice and an opportunity to comment beforehand is  !untimely. The Branch correctly determined that Waste Management's license application lacked the  !required frequency coordination, because a coordinator may not recommend a frequency that conflicts with  !a prior application. Finally, Waste Management has not shown that the public interest requires reinstatement of its license.  S 'Q V. ORDERING CLAUSE ă  S ' (  14.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Section 4(i) of the  !Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and Section 1.115 of the Commission's  !yRules, 47 C.F.R. 1.115, the Application for Review filed by Waste Management, Collection &  S0'Recycling, Inc., on July 21, 1995 IS DENIED . ` `  ,hh]FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  Sh'` `  ,hh] (#(#` `  ,hh]Magalie Roman  &l` Salas ` `  ,hh]Secretary