**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Silver Palm Communications, Inc. | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

Order

**Adopted: February 16, 2007 Released: February 16, 2007**

By the Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION 

1.  In this Order, we deny a request for waiver of Section 1.2109 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2109, filed by Silver Palm
    Communications, Inc. ("Silver Palm"), the winner of ten 800 MHz
    Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") licenses in Auction No. 34 (the
    "Licenses").[^1] Silver Palm paid the required down payments on the
    Licenses but subsequently failed to pay the remaining balance of its
    winning bids by the payment deadline. Silver Palm claims that it
    failed to make this payment on time because it was unaware of the
    release of the Public Notice that announced the deadline.[^2] Silver
    Palm requests a waiver of Section 1.2109(a), which requires that
    winning bidders pay the balance of their winning bids in a lump sum
    by the deadline established by public notice, and reinstatement
    *nunc pro tunc* of its FCC Form 601 application for the Licenses. As
    explained below, we find that Silver Palm has failed to show that a
    waiver of its final payment deadline and reinstatement of its FCC
    Form 601 are warranted.[^3]

# BACKGROUND

2.  On September 6, 2000, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    ("Bureau") issued a Public Notice announcing the close of Auction
    No. 34 and the winning bidders.[^4] In keeping with the Commission's
    rules, the *Closing Public Notice* announced that by September 20,
    2000, winning bidders were required to have on deposit with Mellon
    Bank, the financial institution that receives payments of winning
    bids on behalf of the Commission, enough funds to cover all required
    down payments.[^5] The *Closing Public Notice* also announced that
    winning bidders were required to submit completed FCC Form 601
    long-form applications for the licenses they had won by September
    20, 2000.[^6]

3.  Silver Palm's net winning bids for the Licenses totaled
    \$393,000.[^7] The upfront payment Silver Palm had submitted to the
    Commission to participate in Auction No. 34 was applied toward its
    down payment obligation, and the company made an additional payment
    that brought its total deposit up to the down payment amount of
    \$78,600 by September 20, 2000. However, Silver Palm failed to
    submit its long-form application by the September 20, 2000,
    deadline.

4.  On October 4, 2000, Silver Palm filed its long-form application and
    requested a waiver of Section 1.2107(c) of the Commission's rules,
    which provides that winning bidders will be deemed to have defaulted
    if they fail to timely submit the required long-form application or
    establish good cause for any late-filed submission.[^8] Asking the
    Commission to allow it to submit its long-form application after the
    deadline, Silver Palm claimed that it missed the long-form deadline
    due to inadvertence and unawareness of the deadline.[^9] On April
    10, 2002, the former Commercial Wireless Division granted Silver
    Palm's request for waiver of Section 1.2107(c).[^10] The Division
    found that some flexibility was appropriate on the Commission's part
    because Silver Palm had previously complied with all filing
    requirements associated with Auction No. 34, had timely met its down
    payment requirements, and had submitted its long-form application
    soon after the filing deadline. Under these circumstances, the
    Division concluded that the post-auction licensing process had not
    been significantly delayed or materially adversely affected.[^11]

5.  On August 30, 2002, the Bureau released a Public Notice announcing
    it was ready to grant Silver Palm's long-form application "upon the
    full and timely payment of the remaining balance" of Silver Palm's
    winning bids by September 16, 2002.[^12] Consistent with Section
    1.2109(a), the *Prepared to Grant Public Notice* also indicated that
    if Silver Palm failed to pay the balance of its winning bid(s) in a
    lump sum by the September 16, 2002, deadline, it would be permitted
    to pay the remaining balance by September 30, 2002, along with a
    late fee equal to 5 percent of the amount due.[^13] Finally, the
    *Prepared to Grant Public Notice* warned that "a winning bidder ...
    who fails to pay the balance of its winning bid(s) by the late
    payment deadline of September 30, 2002, will be in default and
    subject to applicable default payments."[^14] Silver Palm did not
    submit the remaining balance of its winning bids by September 30,
    2002, and therefore defaulted on its obligation under the
    Commission's rules.[^15]

6.  On July 23, 2004, Silver Palm filed the Petition we consider here.
    Silver Palm contends that its failure to meet the Commission's
    payment deadline "resulted wholly from inadvertence" and that it was
    "unaware of the release of" the *Prepared to Grant Public
    Notice*.[^16] Silver Palm asserts that its counsel at the time did
    not notify it of the release, nor did Silver Palm receive a copy of
    the public notice from the Commission.[^17] Additionally, Silver
    Palm contends that acceptance of late payment and reinstatement of
    its application are warranted under Commission precedent. It argues
    that the Commission has previously waived timely compliance with the
    final payment deadline where the applicant's failure to meet that
    deadline was entirely inadvertent.[^18] Finally, Silver Palm argues
    that reinstatement of its long-form application would serve the
    public interest because it would provide service to the public more
    expeditiously than would be the case if the Commission reauctioned
    the Licenses.[^19]

# DISCUSSION

7.  Section 1.2109(a) of the Commission's rules requires that winning
    bidders pay the balance of their winning bids in a lump sum by the
    deadline established by public notice. If a winning bidder fails to
    pay the balance of its winning bid in a lump sum by that deadline,
    it will be allowed to make payment within ten business days after
    the payment deadline, provided that it also pays a late fee equal to
    5 percent of the amount due. When a winning bidder fails to pay the
    balance of its winning bid and the late fee by the late payment
    deadline, it is considered to be in default on its license and
    subject to the applicable default payments.[^20] Section 1.2109(c)
    of the Commission's rules provides that a winning bidder that fails
    to remit the balance of its winning bid in a timely manner will be
    deemed to have defaulted, its application will be dismissed, and it
    will be liable for the applicable payment in 47 C.F.R. §
    1.2104(g).[^21]

8.  To obtain a waiver of Section 1.2109(a), Silver Palm must show: (i)
    that the underlying purpose of the rule would not be served, or
    would be frustrated, by its application in this particular case, and
    that the grant of the requested waiver would be in the public
    interest; or (ii) that the unique facts and circumstances of the
    particular case render application of the rule inequitable, unduly
    burdensome, or otherwise contrary to the public interest, or that
    the applicant has no reasonable alternative.[^22] As explained
    below, we find that Silver Palm has failed to meet this standard.

9.  The Commission's competitive bidding rules promote a number of
    statutory purposes, including the development and rapid deployment
    of new technologies and services for the benefit of the public and
    the efficient and intensive use of spectrum.[^23] To achieve these
    objectives, the rules are designed to provide for an auction and
    licensing process that assigns licenses only to serious, financially
    qualified bidders that are able to use the spectrum effectively and
    efficiently.[^24] As the Commission has explained, its competitive
    bidding rules are intended to protect the integrity of this process
    by ensuring that the provision of reliable service to the public is
    not undermined by winning bidders financially incapable of paying
    the amounts they bid, constructing systems, and providing
    service.[^25] As the Commission has further stated, "We have
    determined that timely payments of auction obligations are the
    manner in which we can be assured of the financial qualifications,
    and thus the seriousness, of a winning bidder."[^26]

10. In establishing the ten-day late payment period provided for in
    Section 1.2109(a), the Commission determined that ten days would
    "provide an adequate amount of time to permit winning bidders to
    adjust for any last-minute problems."[^27] The Commission also
    concluded that a lengthier late payment period "could threaten the
    integrity, fairness, and efficiency of the auction process."[^28] In
    establishing the requirement of a 5 percent late fee, the Commission
    found, *inter alia,* that such a fee would deter bidders from making
    late payments.[^29]

11. The default and application dismissal provisions of Section 1.2109
    ensure that entities financially unable to pay their winning bids
    and provide service do not unfairly acquire licenses that might have
    been won by other auction participants. In so doing, these
    provisions also function to deter insincere bidding by entities that
    are not prepared to use the spectrum efficiently and effectively. As
    the Commission has stated, "the default provisions are critical for
    maintaining the integrity of the auction process by discouraging
    insincere bidding and ensuring that licenses end up in the hands of
    those parties that value them the most and have the financial
    qualifications necessary to construct operational systems and
    provide service.[^30] Finally, as the Commission has also explained,
    the default payment rules deter winning bidders from delaying
    payment in order to give themselves time to decide whether to accept
    the assignment of a license, which would also be detrimental to
    other bidders and the efficient and fair functioning of the auction
    process.[^31]

12. Silver Palm has not established that the underlying purpose of the
    Commission's rules would not be served by enforcement of the final
    payment deadline, default, and application dismissal provisions of
    Section 1.2109 in this case. Silver Palm does not dispute that it
    failed to make the required payments by the deadline established
    under the Commission's rules but argues that its failure to do so
    was inadvertent. More specifically, Silver Palm states that it was
    unaware of the *Prepared to Grant Public Notice.*[^32] In a
    declaration submitted with the Petition, Silver Palm's president
    states that, had he been aware that the company was required to pay
    the remaining balance by September 30, 2002, it would have been
    ready to make the payment on that date.[^33] Silver Palm further
    argues that its "obvious financial commitment to the SMR sector,"
    which it claims to have demonstrated by making the previous required
    payments on the Licenses and timely submitting all payments
    associated with two other FCC auctions, leaves no doubt that it is
    qualified to be a Commission licensee.[^34]

13. We find, however, that Silver Palm has not shown that it was
    financially qualified to acquire the Licenses. Silver Palm claims to
    have missed the final payment deadline because it was unaware of the
    Public Notice that announced the deadline, but it did not submit its
    final payment once it became aware that the payment was due and,
    indeed, has never submitted this payment. Under these circumstances,
    its assertion that it would have been ready to make the payment on
    September 30, 2002, if it had been aware of the deadline is
    unconvincing. Furthermore, in light of the circumstances of this
    case, i.e., Silver Palm's failure to submit its long-form
    application on time combined with its subsequent failure to submit
    its final payment once it became aware that it was due, we find that
    neither Silver Palm's timely down payment nor any particular conduct
    in other Commission auctions is sufficient to demonstrate that it is
    qualified to acquire the Licenses.

14. We also disagree with Silver Palm's assertion that the instant case
    is similar to cases in which the Commission has granted waivers of
    final payment deadlines or second down payment deadlines. Silver
    Palm cites two cases, *Hickory Telephone* and *Wireless,* in which
    the Commission granted partial waivers of second down payment
    deadlines to auction winners that missed the deadlines
    inadvertently.[^35] In these cases*,* the auction winners had
    submitted upfront payments to participate in the auctions in
    question that exceeded the amounts of their down payments. They did
    not make their down payments because they assumed incorrectly that
    the Commission would retain sufficient funds from their upfront
    payments to cover the down payments. Upon realizing their
    delinquency, they submitted their down payments in full. The
    Commission found in each of these cases that a waiver was warranted
    because the winning bidder had previously complied with Commission
    rules, it had made a good faith effort to make payment on time, and
    there was no indication in the record that there had been a
    deliberate effort to delay payment.[^36]

15. In contrast, Silver Palm has not previously complied with all of the
    rules applicable to Auction No. 34, as it failed to timely file its
    long-form application. Silver Palm has also not demonstrated good
    faith by making its final payment once it became aware of its
    default. Moreover, we cannot find that there has been no effort on
    Silver Palm's part to delay making its payment. In light of its
    earlier claim that it missed the long-form deadline because it was
    unaware of a Commission Public Notice, its current assertion that it
    missed the final payment deadline for the same reason suggests that
    Silver Palm may have attempted to avoid the payment deadline. We
    would expect a financially qualified entity acting in good faith
    that misses one deadline due to inadvertence to be particularly
    diligent in avoiding missing a second. We need not decide, however,
    whether Silver Palm missed its final payment deadline because of
    simple negligence or because it wished to delay its payment.[^37]
    Given its failure to submit its final payment at all, we cannot find
    that Silver Palm is financially qualified to acquire the Licenses.
    We therefore conclude that a waiver of Silver Palm's final payment
    deadline would undermine rather than serve Section 1.2109's purpose
    of preventing financially unqualified entities from unfairly
    acquiring licenses.[^38] As a result, a waiver in this case would
    also undermine the rule's purpose of deterring insincere bidding in
    the future.

16. We also disagree with Silver Palm's argument that reinstatement of
    its long-form application would serve the public interest because
    Silver Palm would provide service to the public more expeditiously
    than would be the case if the Commission reauctioned the
    Licenses.[^39] Any benefit that might be realized by waiving the
    deadline for Silver Palm's final payment and reinstating its
    long-form application is speculative at best. Any such benefit is
    also outweighed by the harm to the public interest that would be
    caused by granting a waiver of payment obligations to an entity that
    has failed to demonstrate that it is qualified to be a Commission
    licensee.

# CONCLUSION 

17. Silver Palm has failed to demonstrate that the underlying purposes
    of Section 1.2109 would be frustrated by its application in this
    instance; that unique facts or circumstances render application of
    the rule inequitable or unduly burdensome; or that it would serve
    the public interest to waive enforcement of the rule. We conclude
    that to grant a waiver in this case would undermine the rule's
    purposes of preventing financially unqualified entities from
    unfairly acquiring licenses and deterring insincere bidding in the
    future.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 309,
    and Section 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.925, that
    Silver Palm Communications, Inc.'s Petition for Reconsideration of
    Notice of Interim Default Payment Obligations for Auction No. 34,
    dated July 23, 2004, is DENIED.

19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Silver Palm Communications, Inc.'s
    outstanding debt for the interim default payment is due in full.  If
    Silver Palm Communications, Inc., fails to make full payment within
    31 days of the date of this Order (i.e., by March 19, 2007), the
    Commission will transfer the full amount of the outstanding debt to
    the United States Department of Treasury for debt collection. 

20. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Sections
    0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131 and
    0.331.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Margaret W. Wiener

Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division

[^1]: Petition for Reconsideration of Notice of Interim Default Payment
    Obligations for Auction No. 34, dated July 23, 2004 ("Petition").
    Silver Palm's request for waiver is styled as a petition seeking
    reconsideration of the letter in which the Auctions and Spectrum
    Access Division notified Silver Palm of its interim default payment
    obligations on the Licenses and the dismissal of the FCC Form 601
    application that it had filed for the Licenses following the
    auction. Letter from Rita Cookmeyer, Financial Policy Analyst,
    Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, to Kent S. Foster, Silver Palm Communications, Inc., dated
    June 23, 2004, 19 FCC Rcd 10959 (2004) *("N**otice of Interim
    Default Payment")*. The Licenses are BEA126F (Western Oklahoma, OK),
    BEA126FF (Western Oklahoma, OK), BEA128F (Abilene, TX), BEA129F (San
    Angelo, TX), BEA130F (Austin, - San Marcos, TX), BEA130FF (Austin, -
    San Marcos, TX), BEA134E (San Antonio, TX), BEA134EE (San Antonio,
    TX), BEA173B (Guam and Northern Mariana Islands), and BEA173C (Guam
    and Northern Mariana Islands).

[^2]: Petition at 3.

[^3]: Because we deny Silver Palm's request for waiver of its final
    payment deadline and reinstatement of its FCC Form 601, we also
    affirm the *Notice of Interim Default Payment*'s dismissal of the
    application.

[^4]: 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Service General Category
    (851-854 MHz) and Upper Band (861-865 MHz) Auction Closes, Winning
    Bidders Announced, *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd 17162 (2000)
    ("*Closing Public Notice*").

[^5]: *Id.* at 17163 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2107(b), 1.2104(g)).

[^6]: *Closing Public Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at 17167.

[^7]: *Id.* at Attachment A. Silver Palm qualified as a "very small
    business" for a 35 percent bidding credit. For purposes of the 800
    MHz SMR licenses available in Auction No. 34, a very small business
    was defined as an entity that, together with it affiliates and
    controlling interests, had average gross revenues that were not more
    than \$3 million for the preceding three years. 47 C.F.R. §
    90.910(a).

[^8]: ULS File No. 0000233574, Exhibit F (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.2107(c))
    ("Long-form Waiver Request"). This request was attached to Silver
    Palm's long-form application.

[^9]: Long-form Waiver Request at 1.

[^10]: Silver Palm Communications, Inc., *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd.6606 (CWD
    2002) ("Long-form Waiver Order").

[^11]: *Id.* at 6607 ¶ 8.

[^12]: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces It Is Prepared to
    Grant 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (SMR) General
    Category (851-854 MHz) and Upper Band Auction Licenses Upon Full and
    Timely Payment, *Public Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd 16496, 16496 (2002)
    ("*Prepared to Grant Public Notice*").

[^13]: *Id.* (citing 47 C.F.R. § 1.2109(a)).

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2109.

[^16]: Petition at 3.

[^17]: *Id.*

[^18]: *Id.* at 3-5 (citing Hickory Telephone Company, Inc., *Order,* 12
    FCC Rcd 1528 (WTB 1997) *("Hickory Telephone"),* and The Wireless,
    Inc., *Order,* 12 FCC Rcd 1821 (WTB 1997) *("Wireless")*).

[^19]: Petition at 5-6.

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2109(a).

[^21]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.2109(c).

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.925.

[^23]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3). *See also* H.R. Rep. No. 103-111, at
    253 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 378, 580 (finding that "a
    carefully designed system to obtain competitive bids from competing
    qualified applicants can speed delivery of services, promote
    efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum, prevent
    unjust enrichment, and produce revenues to compensate the public for
    the use of the public airwaves.").

[^24]: Abundant Life, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd
    4006, 4009 ¶ 8 (2002) ("*Abundant Life III*"). *See also*
    Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding*, Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2375
    ¶ 160 (1994) ("*Second Report and Order*"); Mountain Solutions LTD,
    Inc*.*, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 21983, 21990 ¶ 14
    (1998), *review denied in part and dismissed in part, Mountain
    Solutions LTD, Inc. v. FCC*, 197 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

[^25]: BDPCS, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 17590,
    17598-99 ¶ 15 (2000) (citing *Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at
    2381 ¶ 190).

[^26]: *Abundant Life III*, 17 FCC Rcd at 4009 ¶ 8 (citing BDPCS, Inc.,
    12 FCC Rcd 3230, 3235 ¶ 8 (1997), *recon. denied in part and granted
    in part*, 12 FCC Rcd 15341 (1997)). *See also* In re Application of
    Delta Radio, Inc*.*, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd
    16889, 16896-97 ¶ 19 (2003) ("Timely auction payments are the
    principal way we determine whether a winning bidder is financially
    qualified to build out the permit being auctioned."); Licenses of
    21st Century Telesis, Inc. for Facilities in the Broadband Personal
    Communications Services, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    25113, 25123-24 ¶ 22 (2000) ("Insisting that licensees demonstrate
    their ability to pay . . . is essential to a fair and efficient
    licensing process, is fair to all participants in our auctions,
    including those who won licenses in the auctions and those who did
    not, and fosters the promotion of economic opportunity and
    competition in the marketplace."), *recon. denied,* Licenses of 21st
    Century Telesis Joint Venture and 21st Century Bidding Corporation
    for Facilities in the Broadband Personal Communications Services,
    *Order on Reconsideration,* 16 FCC Rcd 17257 (2001), *petition
    dismissed in part and denied in part,* *21st Century Telesis Joint
    Venture v. FCC*, 318 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2003); WSS, LLC,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 21 FCC Rcd 6635, 6637 ¶ 6 (WTB/ASAD
    2006) *("WSS")* ("Prompt payment of auction obligations is an
    objective indicator that a winning bidder is financially able to
    meet its obligations and intends to provide service to the
    public.").

[^27]: Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules -- Competitive
    Bidding Procedures, *Third Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 429-30 ¶ 95 (1997)
    *("Part 1 Third Report and Order")*.

[^28]: *Id*.

[^29]: *Id.*

[^30]: Winstar Broadcasting Corp., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd 6126, 6132 ¶ 15 (2002).

[^31]: *Id.*

[^32]: Petition at 2-3, 5.

[^33]: *Id.,* Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Kent S. Foster).

[^34]: Petition at 5.

[^35]: Petition at 4-5 (citing *Hickory Telephone,* 12 FCC Rcd 1528 (WTB
    1997), and *Wireless,* 12 FCC Rcd 1821 (WTB 1997)). Prior to 1998,
    the Commission allowed qualified small businesses that won licenses
    in certain services to pay their down payments in two installments
    and to pay the remaining balance of their winning bids in quarterly
    installments over the initial term of the license. The down payment
    rule at issue in *Hickory Telephone* and *Wireless* was 47 C.F.R. §
    90.811 (1997). The waivers granted in these cases were partial
    because the Commission waived the payment deadlines subject to a 5
    percent late fee. In December 1997, the Commission suspended the use
    of installment payments and at the same time amended the final
    payment provisions of Section 1.2109(a) to provide for the current
    ten-day late payment period and 5 percent late fee for final
    payments. *Part 1* *Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 397-401,
    428-30 ¶¶ 38-43, 93-95. The amended rule became effective March 16,
    1998. Since the amendment of the rule, a waiver of the final payment
    deadline has been granted in only two cases, *WSS* and Radio Layne,
    LLC, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* DA 07-596 (rel. Feb. 7, 2007)
    *("Radio Layne")*. In *WSS*, the auction winner made payment four
    days before the deadline but paid less than the full amount. Within
    days of discovering its error, it remitted the balance of the amount
    due. The Auctions and Spectrum Access Division found that WSS's
    partial payment ahead of the deadline and its remittance of its full
    payment and late fee within days of recognizing its error mitigated
    the concern that it might not have the capital to pay for the
    licenses and provide service to the public. The Division also found
    that there was no indication in the record that WSS's final payment
    shortage was part of a deliberate effort to delay its payment.
    *WSS,* 21 FCC Rcd at 6638 ¶ 7. In *Radio Layne,* the auction winner
    submitted its final payment one day late and did not pay the late
    fee within the late payment period because of its mistaken belief
    that its final payment had been received by the deadline. The
    Auctions and Spectrum Access Division found in light of these
    circumstances that Radio Layne had demonstrated its financial
    qualifications to be a Commission permittee and that there was no
    deliberate effort on its part to delay payment. *Radio Layne,* DA
    07-596, at ¶ 13.

[^36]: *Hickory,* 12 FCC Rcd at 1530-31 ¶¶ 7-8; *Wireless,* 12 FCC Rcd
    at 1823-24 ¶¶ 7-8. In *Pacific Wireless,* another case in which a
    waiver of a second down payment deadline was granted, and to which
    Silver Palm refers, the auction winner initiated procedures to make
    its payment by wire transfer on the date of the deadline, and the
    payment was received a few days late. In light of these
    circumstances, the Video Services Division of the former Mass Media
    Bureau found that Pacific Wireless had made a good faith effort to
    comply with the payment deadline and that there was no indication it
    had sought to deliberately delay payment of the amount due. Pacific
    Wireless Cable Inc., *Order,* 12 FCC Rcd 9767 (MMB/Video Serv. Div.
    1997) *("Pacific Wireless").*

[^37]: Silver Palm states that it did not receive a copy of the
    *Prepared to Grant Public Notice* from the Commission. Petition at
    3. The Commission is not, however, required to send copies of such
    public notices to license applicants. It is every applicant's
    responsibility to be familiar with the Commission's rules and to
    monitor Commission announcements relevant to its application. Both
    Section 1.2109(a) and the *Closing Public Notice* had clearly put
    Silver Palm on notice that its final payment deadline would be
    established by public notice. *Closing Public Notice,* 15 FCC Rcd at
    17164. Moreover, the former Commercial Wireless Division had
    explicitly emphasized in granting Silver Palm's request for waiver
    of the long-form deadline that "Silver Palm was on notice that it
    was responsible for complying with the Commission\'s processing
    rules." Long-form Waiver Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 6608 ¶ 9.

[^38]: Silver Palm asserts that the Commission has previously found that
    the timely submission of second down payments and final payments is
    less important in demonstrating an applicant's financial
    qualifications than the timely submission of upfront payments and
    initial down payments. Petition at 3-4 (citing *Pacific Wireless,*
    12 FCC Rcd at 9770 ¶ 8). The Commission's findings on this issue do
    not, however, excuse Silver Palm's failure to rectify its
    delinquency once it was aware of it or, indeed, to submit its final
    payment at all.

[^39]: Petition at 5-6.