**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | File Nos.                    |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| NEXTEL LICENSE HOLDINGS 4, INC.  | ** | 0000248634; 0000248636;      |
|                                  |    | 0000310011; 0000310015;      |
| NEXTEL WIP LICENSE CORP.         | *  | 0000310023; 0000310116;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000310120; 0000310135;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000310141; 0000310145;      |
|                                  |    | 0000310147; 0000310149;      |
|                                  | *  | 0000310150; 0000310153;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000310155; 0000310157;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000310163; 0000310165;      |
|                                  |    | 0000310166; R496692;         |
|                                  | *  | R496697;                     |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** | R496700; R496732; R496791;   |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  | R497000                      |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** | File Nos.                    |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  | 0000252586; 0000281204;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000270617; 0000270828;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000270831; 0000270865;      |
|                                  |    | 0000288956; 0000291537;      |
|                                  | *  | 0000311350; 0000311358;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000311380; 0000311381;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000311389; 0000311411;      |
|                                  |    | 0000311413; 0000311433;      |
|                                  | *  | 0000311434; 0000311435;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000311451; 0000311455;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000311456; 0000311458;      |
|                                  |    | 0000311461; 0000311463;      |
|                                  | *  | 0000311466; 0000311468;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000311469; 0000311471;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000311487; 0000311502;      |
|                                  |    | 0000311529; 0000311551;      |
|                                  | *  | 0000311574; 0000311590;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000311609; 0000311629;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000311650; 0000311669;      |
|                                  |    | 0000311688; 0000311704;      |
|                                  | *  | 0000311718; 0000311721;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000311724; 0000311726;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000311728; 0000311729;      |
|                                  |    | 0000311730; 0000311731;      |
|                                  | *  | 0000311733; 0000311734;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000311736; 0000311738;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000311742; 0000311743;      |
|                                  |    | 0000311744; 0000352453;      |
|                                  | *  | 0000352733; 0000359416;      |
|                                  | *) | 0000359420; 0000590708;      |
|                                  | ** | 0000598162; 0000598167;      |
|                                  |    | C033501; C033819             |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
|                                  |    |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: April 12, 2002 Released: April 16, 2002**

By the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

1.  This order addresses multiple pleadings, each entitled "Petition to
    Deny Application for Authorization" (collectively, "Petitions"),
    filed by Supreme Radio Communications, Inc. ("Supreme") on April 13,
    17, 19, 23, 25 and 27, 2001, May 3, 2001 and October 5, 2001.[^1]
    The Petitions were filed against the above-captioned applications
    for minor modifications ("Notifications") and applications for
    renewal ("Renewal Applications," and, collectively with
    Notifications, "Applications") filed by either Nextel WIP License
    Corp. ("Nextel WIP") or Nextel License Holdings 4, Inc. ("Nextel
    Holdings," and, collectively with Nextel WIP, "Nextel").[^2] In the
    Petitions, Supreme alleges that the Applications are defective and
    requests that we set aside those Applications that may have been
    granted and dismiss those Applications that remain pending.[^3] For
    the reasons set forth below, we find that 54 of Supreme's Petitions
    are untimely filed and are hereby dismissed as procedurally
    defective. We also find that Supreme presents no evidence to support
    its argument that the Applications should be set aside or dismissed,
    and therefore we deny Supreme's 42 timely-filed Petitions. For the
    same reasons, as discussed below, we would deny the late-filed
    Petitions on the merits even if they were not procedurally
    defective.

**I. BACKGROUND**

2.  Nextel is an incumbent wide-area 800 MHz licensee for multiple
    stations located throughout the United States. Nextel filed six
    Renewal Applications on September 6, 2000. Nextel also filed
    multiple Notifications of minor system modifications, between August
    2000 and September 2001, pursuant to section 90.693 of the
    Commission's rules, which permits incumbent 800 MHz licensees to
    add, remove, or modify transmitter sites within the composite 22
    dBuV/m field strength contour ("22 dBu Contour") of their existing
    systems by filing a notification of such modification with the
    Commission within 30 days after the modification. [^4] In addition,
    section 90.693 requires that a minor modification comply with the
    Commission's co-channel separation rules set forth in sections
    90.621(b)(4)-(6), which govern the permissible distance between
    co-channel systems to protect against interference.[^5] Virtually
    all of Nextel's Notifications were filed pursuant to Nextel's
    existing incumbent 800 MHz wide-area authorizations. Nextel is also
    the 800 MHz geographic area licensee in certain Basic Economic Areas
    ("BEA").[^6] Accordingly, some of the Notifications were filed as
    site-by-site applications located within one of Nextel's existing
    geographic license areas pursuant to its BEA authorization in that
    particular market.[^7]

3.  Supreme is the geographic area licensee of channel block A in BEA
    101 in the Peoria, Illinois area and is also the licensee of call
    sign WNGS881, an incumbent 800 MHz authorization in East Peoria,
    Illinois. Supreme's Petitions against the Notifications are for the
    most part substantively identical and essentially allege that
    Nextel's Notifications are defective because they do not contain
    sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with Commission
    rules regarding 800 MHz system modification. In addition, Supreme
    contends that Nextel's filings do not comply with the co-channel
    separation criteria in section 90.621(b)(4) of the Commission's
    rules.[^8]

4.  On April 25, 2001, Nextel WIP filed a Motion for Extension of Time
    to respond to the Petitions, and Supreme filed an Opposition to
    Motion for Extension of Time on May 1, 2001. On May 4, 2001, Nextel
    WIP filed a second Motion for Extension of Time,[^9] which Supreme
    opposed on May 10, 2001.[^10] On May 17, 2001, Nextel Holdings filed
    25 Oppositions to Petition for Reconsideration. On May 30, 2001,
    Nextel WIP filed an Opposition ("Opposition") and a Motion to
    Consolidate.[^11] On June 5, 2001, Supreme filed a Reply to
    Opposition to Petition to Deny Applications for Authorization.

5.  On September 12 and 20, 2001, Nextel filed three additional
    Notifications, against which Supreme on October 5, 2001 also filed
    additional Petitions.[^12] In response, on November 2, 2001, Nextel
    filed an Opposition and a Motion to Consolidate the additional three
    Petitions filed by Supreme with the earlier-filed Petitions. On
    November 15, 2001, Supreme filed a Reply to Opposition to Petition
    to Deny Application for Authorization and Motion to Consolidate.

6.  Nextel argues that Supreme's Petitions are procedurally defective in
    that they were improperly filed as Petitions to Deny. Specifically,
    Nextel contends that the Petitions: 1) should have been filed as
    petitions for reconsideration, as the Notifications were not
    required to be placed on public notice as accepted for filing and
    are not subject to petitions to deny; and 2) were filed in most
    cases more than thirty days after the Public Notice of the grant of
    the Notifications and are therefore untimely filed even if the
    Commission assumes, *arguendo*, that such pleadings were properly
    considered as petitions for reconsideration.[^13] Nextel also argues
    that, with the exception of 15 Petitions, Supreme does not have
    standing under section 1.106 of our rules[^14] to challenge the
    Notifications, because it fails to identify an ownership interest in
    any incumbent SMR station within 70 miles of Nextel's modified
    facilities and therefore has not alleged injury or even the
    potential for injury.[^15]

7.  Nextel also suggests that the Petitions are substantively identical
    and can be divided into three basic categories: 1) Petitions in
    which Supreme is an incumbent licensee alleging that Nextel's
    proposed modifications would result in Nextel operating a co-channel
    system from a site located less than 70 miles from Supreme's
    incumbent station under call sign WNGS881; 2) Petitions in which
    Supreme is a geographic area licensee under call sign WPLM219
    alleging that Nextel's proposed modifications would result in a
    Nextel authorized site located within Supreme's geographic area;
    and 3) Petitions in which Supreme is a geographic area licensee
    under call sign WPLM219 alleging that Nextel's proposed
    modifications would result in a Nextel authorized site located
    outside Supreme's geographic area, but within 70 miles of the
    authorized service area represented by Supreme's geographic area
    license.[^16]

8.  Nextel further argues that Supreme has failed to meet its burden of
    showing any substantial or material question of fact and that Nextel
    has provided all technical parameters required by the relevant Part
    90 rules. Nextel asserts that it relied upon either its geographic
    area license authority or certain 22 dBu Contours of its many
    incumbent authorizations to justify its modifications, not on a
    "nationwide footprint" as Supreme alleges.[^17] Nextel submits that
    Commission rules do not require additional engineering to justify
    its modified footprint and also disputes Supreme's claim that notice
    of short-spacing is required, because in most cases Supreme is the
    geographic area licensee and lacks any site-specific station within
    70 miles of a Nextel modified site. For Supreme's Petitions filed
    May 3, 2001, in which Supreme is an existing incumbent licensee,
    Nextel argues that Supreme has not alleged any failure by Nextel to
    provide notice.[^18]

**II. DISCUSSION**

**A. Procedural Matters:**

**1. Motions:**

9.  Nextel WIP filed two motions to consolidate Supreme's
    Petitions.[^19] We agree with Nextel WIP that it would be
    administratively more convenient and in the public interest to
    consolidate our consideration of Supreme's virtually identical
    Petitions filed against Nextel WIP Notifications. We therefore grant
    Nextel WIP's Motions to Consolidate. For the same reasons, on our
    own motion we will consolidate our consideration of all of Supreme's
    Petitions filed against Nextel Holdings' Applications.

10. Nextel WIP filed four motions for extension of time pursuant to
    section 1.46 of the Commission's rules. [^20] Nextel WIP states that
    additional time to file an opposition was necessary to review and
    prepare answers to the substantial number of Petitions.[^21] Supreme
    opposed the motions for extension of time,[^22] arguing that Nextel
    WIP was late in filing its second motion for extension of time
    because the Commission had not granted Nextel WIP's May 30, 2001
    Motion to Consolidate.[^23] As discussed above, we grant Nextel
    WIP's Motions to Consolidate, and therefore on our own motion we
    will treat Nextel WIP's May 30, 2001 Opposition as timely filed.
    Accordingly, we will dismiss Nextel WIP's Motions for Extension of
    Time as moot.

**2. Timing of Petitions:**

11. Section 1.933(d) of our rules provides in relevant part that
    applications or notifications concerning minor modifications to
    authorizations need not be placed on public notice as accepted for
    filing prior to grant.[^24] We therefore agree with Nextel that the
    Notifications are not subject to petitions to deny and that an
    objection to the Notifications filed prior to grant should have been
    submitted as an informal objection pursuant to section 1.41 of our
    rules.[^25] A challenge filed after the grant of the Notifications
    should have been submitted as a petition for reconsideration.
    However, we do not consider the failure merely to label a pleading
    correctly necessarily to be a fatal procedural flaw. To do so would
    elevate form over substance.[^26] Accordingly, we will treat a
    Supreme Petition filed prior to the grant of a Notification as an
    informal objection, and we will treat a Supreme Petition filed after
    public notice of a grant as a petition for reconsideration under
    section 1.106 of our rules.[^27]

12. However, under Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended ("Act"), and section 1.106 (b) of the Commission's rules, a
    petition for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of the
    date upon which public notice is given of the action complained
    of.[^28] Of the 96 Petitions filed by Supreme against the
    Notifications, 48 of them were filed after the applicable 30-day
    deadline,[^29] and Supreme has not presented any argument as to why
    it failed to file petitions for reconsideration within the required
    timeframes.

13. We also find the six Petitions filed against the Renewal
    Applications to be untimely, because they were filed after the
    applicable deadline to file a petition to deny, which was October
    12, 2000, thirty days after the *Accepted for Filing PN* was
    released. [^30]

14. Moreover, we note that the Petitions that we dismiss as untimely
    filed are virtually identical to the Petitions that were timely
    filed. We deny the timely-filed Petitions on the merits, as set
    forth below. Accordingly, for the same reasons we also would deny
    Supreme's untimely Petitions, even if they were not procedurally
    defective and we were to address them on the merits.

    **3. Standing:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
15. Nextel claims as to all but 15 of the Petitions that Supreme has
    failed to establish standing[^31] to challenge the Applications by
    demonstrating that it is a "party in interest" as required by
    Section 309(d)(1) of the Act.[^32] Nextel does not dispute Supreme's
    right to file objections to Nextel's Notifications where Supreme is
    an incumbent 800 MHz licensee. Nextel only challenges Supreme's
    right to file objections in instances in which Supreme, as a
    geographic area licensee, questions Nextel's contour containment and
    asserts an alleged right to co-channel separation protection.[^33]

16. Petitions to deny are not permitted to be filed against the
    Notifications Nextel filed. More importantly, there is no standing
    requirement to file an informal objection pursuant to section 1.41
    of the Commission's rules.[^34] As to those Petitions we choose to
    treat as informal objections, therefore, the issue of standing need
    not be addressed in order for those Petitions to be considered. As
    to the remaining Petitions, to which Nextel's standing argument
    applies, we need not decide whether Nextel's theory of standing is
    correct with respect to stations for which Supreme holds a
    geographic area license and claims co-channel separation protection,
    because we fully consider all of the arguments raised by Supreme in
    its Petitions and find them to be without merit, as discussed below.
    Accordingly, as we deny Supreme's requested relief, Nextel's
    standing argument is moot.[^35]

    **B. Substantive Issues:**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
17. In the Petitions, Supreme argues that the Notifications failed to
    comply with section 90.693[^36] and are therefore defective.
    Specifically, Supreme asserts that: 1) Nextel failed to demonstrate
    that the stations it adds or modifies fall within Nextel's "original
    footprint;"[^37] 2) even if Nextel were to prove that the stations
    are within Nextel's original footprint, the Commission should
    require construction information to ensure that the stations were
    indeed constructed in a timely manner and, if not, Nextel's stations
    cancelled automatically;[^38] 3) Nextel has failed to provide any
    engineering data to demonstrate that its modifications do not expand
    beyond Nextel's 22 dBu Contour;[^39] and 4) Nextel failed to comply
    with the Commission's co-channel separation rules set forth in
    sections 90.621(b)(4)-(6), which govern the permissible distance
    between co-channel systems to protect against interference.[^40]

18. We first note that some of Nextel's Notifications were filed
    pursuant to section 90.683(a)(1), rather than section 90.693.[^41]
    Section 90.683(a)(1) permits a geographic area licensee to add or
    modify a site anywhere within its authorized EA (Economic Area)
    without having to seek the Commission's approval or having to file a
    notification, so long as the geographic area licensee provides
    co-channel separation protection to existing incumbent
    licensees.[^42] As to those Notifications that were filed pursuant
    to geographic area authority, Supreme's allegation that they fail to
    comply with section 90.693 is without merit, because rule 90.693
    only applies to incumbent SMR licensees.[^43]

19. Most of Nextel's Notifications, however, were filed pursuant to
    section 90.693 of the Commission's rules, which allows incumbent 800
    MHz licensees to add, remove, or modify transmitter sites within the
    composite 22 dBu Contour of their existing systems by filing a
    notification of such modification with the Commission within 30 days
    after the modification.[^44] In addition, section 90.693 requires
    that the modification comply with the Commission's co-channel
    separation requirements set forth in sections 90.621(b)(4)-(6),
    which govern the permissible distance between co-channel systems to
    protect against interference.[^45]

20. We now address whether the Notifications failed to comply with
    section 90.693 of our rules, *i.e*., whether Nextel should have
    furnished additional information to establish that the modifications
    did indeed fall within its 22 dBu Contour. Supreme alleges in the
    Petitions that Nextel's Notifications "appear to rely on a footprint
    created via its pre-auction wide-area ESMR filings."[^46] Supreme
    argues that Nextel must demonstrate that the specific channels at
    issue in this proceeding were included in the earlier filings as
    part of the footprint. We disagree.

21. In the *800 MHz SMR First Report and Order*, the Commission required
    applicants with Extended Implementation ("EI") authority to
    rejustify the grant of such authority in order to retain the extra
    period of time to construct facilities.[^47] Nextel complied with
    these requirements, and the Bureau found in the *Rejustification
    Order*[^48] that Nextel successfully rejustified its EI
    authorization. Accordingly, Nextel's failure to rejustify its
    footprint in the Notifications does not deem the Notifications
    defective. To the extent that Supreme argues otherwise, we conclude
    that it is seeking untimely review of applications granted to Nextel
    pursuant to *Fleet Call* or other grants of EI authority ("ESMR
    grants"), some of which were granted more than 10 years ago.[^49]

22. Supreme also argues that even if the channels were part of the
    wide-area ESMR grants, we should require Nextel to demonstrate that
    the stations whose contours encompass Nextel's proposed new sites
    are constructed and, if so, that they were timely constructed.
    Supreme argues that if we were to find that the stations were not
    timely constructed or not constructed at all, the channels cancelled
    automatically.[^50]

23. Supreme misinterprets our rules regarding notifications of minor
    modifications. First, we do not require applicants that are seeking
    to make a minor modification to include in their notifications
    construction information relating to the stations they seek to
    modify.[^51] Second, in the *Fresno Remand Order,* the Commission
    altered the construction requirements for incumbent wide-area
    licensees in the 800 MHz SMR service.[^52] The Commission concluded
    in the *Fresno Remand Order* that SMR licensees granted EI authority
    are sufficiently similar to geographic area licensees that they
    should have similar flexibility with respect to construction
    requirements.[^53] Under the more flexible geographic area license
    requirements, an eligible incumbent EI licensee is able to leave
    certain sites and frequencies unconstructed for potential future
    use.[^54] We note that Nextel has elected to be treated as a
    geographic area licensee for construction purposes. Therefore, even
    if we were to find that a particular Nextel site is not constructed,
    it would not have automatically cancelled in all cases for failure
    to timely construct.

24. Supreme further contends that the information supplied in the
    Notifications is insufficient to establish that the modifications
    are indeed minor, permissive modifications.[^55] Our rules do not
    require that incumbents provide an engineering exhibit corroborating
    that a proposed modification is within its 22 dBu Contour. Rather,
    incumbent licensees are permitted to modify or add sites so long
    as: 1) the site modification falls within the 22 dBu Contour; and 2)
    the incumbent complies with applicable co-channel separation
    criteria.[^56] By filing its Notifications pursuant to rule 90.693,
    Nextel is in fact certifying that it complies with both elements of
    the rule.[^57] In this case, Supreme has the burden of proof either
    to present material evidence that Nextel's proposed modifications do
    not comply with the rules or to present sufficient and material
    information to raise a question as to the validity of Nextel's
    representations.[^58] Supreme's Petitions fail to present either,
    and, accordingly, Supreme has failed to carry its burden in this
    case. Indeed, Supreme does not actually claim or provide any
    evidence that Nextel's modifications are beyond its 22 dBu Contour,
    nor does it contend that Nextel has made misrepresentations to the
    Commission. Supreme even concedes that "it is possible that Nextel's
    proposed use of the subject channels is wholly within the
    rules."[^59] Rather, Supreme, without presenting any evidence,
    merely asserts that the information Nextel furnished in the
    Notifications is insufficient to assess "whether the Notification
    violates Section 90.693."[^60] Accordingly, we find that Supreme's
    unsupported assertion that Nextel has failed to establish that its
    modified or added sites are within its 22 dBu Contour is
    insufficient to justify setting aside Nextel's Notifications as
    defective.

25. We next address whether the Notifications complied with the
    Commission's co-channel separation criteria set forth in section
    90.621(b)(4), as required by section 90.693.[^61] Supreme alleges
    that Nextel's proposed modifications "short-space" Supreme's sites,
    in violation of section 90.621(b)(4).[^62]

26. As discussed above, Supreme holds 800 MHz authorizations as both a
    geographic area licensee and an incumbent licensee. Supreme's claim,
    applicable to 81 of the Petitions, that it is entitled to co-channel
    separation protection and notice as a geographic licensee, is
    without merit. There is no provision in our rules requiring *800 MHz
    incumbent licensees* either to afford geographic area licensees
    co-channel separation protection or to provide notice of
    short-spacing.[^63] Instead, *geographic* *area licensees* are
    required to afford co-channel separation protection, to all
    co-channel systems within their licensing area.[^64] Our rules and
    precedent make it clear that only incumbents, and not geographic
    area licensees, are afforded such co-channel separation
    protection.[^65] The applicable co-channel separation rule, section
    90.621(b), specifically excludes geographic area licensees from
    co-channel separation protection by providing, in relevant part,
    that: "\[s\]tations authorized on frequencies listed in this
    subpart, *except for* . . . EA based and MTA based SMR systems, will
    be afforded protection solely on the basis of fixed distance
    separation criteria."[^66] Furthermore, section 90.683 of our rules
    requires geographic area licensees to afford protection, in
    accordance with section 90.621(b), to all previously authorized
    co-channel stations *that are not associated with another EA
    licensee*.[^67] Accordingly, we find without merit Supreme's claim
    *as a geographic area licensee* that sites within its EA, including
    unconstructed potential sites, are entitled to co-channel separation
    protection from Nextel.

27. Fifteen Petitions, however, involve stations for which Supreme is an
    incumbent licensee, rather than a geographic area licensee. For
    these 15 Petitions, we agree that such stations are entitled to
    co-channel separation protection, in accordance with the rules
    discussed above.[^68] However, all 15 of the Petitions that Supreme
    filed as an incumbent were late-filed and, as explained earlier, are
    dismissed as procedurally defective.[^69] In any event, after review
    of our records, we would conclude that 12 of Nextel's Notifications
    and the one Renewal Application that are subject to those 15
    Petitions fully comply with Commission rules and that two of the
    Notifications are defective. As discussed below, we set aside on our
    own motion the two defective Notifications and will require Nextel
    to re-file such Notifications with complete information.

28. As to the 12 Petitions that pertain to those 12 Notifications,[^70]
    we would conclude that Supreme's argument that Nextel failed to
    comply with section 90.621(b)(4) in the relevant Notifications is
    incorrect. Section 90.621(b)(4) provides that incumbents seeking to
    establish short-spaced sites must include in their notifications a
    listing of all new or modified sites that are short-spaced in
    relation to co-channel stations of other incumbent licensees and
    also must indicate for each site whether the short-spacing is 70 to
    55 miles or less than 55 miles. For sites in the 70-55 mile
    category, the incumbent must list all co-channel stations within 70
    miles and list the Effective Radiated Power ("ERP") and Directional
    Height Above Average Terrain ("DHAAT") of each co-channel station
    and of the incumbent's new or modified station.[^71] Nextel included
    all the required short-space information in all 12 of the
    Notifications in this category, and Supreme presents no other basis
    for asserting that those 12 Notifications are defective.

29. As to the only Renewal Application in this category, File No.
    R496791***,*** Nextel seeks renewal only, not a modification, with
    respect to call sign KNRU482, which was originally granted on
    October 31, 1995 for the site specified in Supreme's Petition.[^72]
    Supreme alleges that the required short-space information was not
    provided. Nextel, however, is not required to provide short-spacing
    information to renew its previously-granted authorization, and
    therefore we would deny Supreme's Petition on the merits even if it
    were not dismissed as late-filed.

30. Finally, we address on our own motion each of the remaining two
    Notifications, File Nos. 0000311468 and 0000310141. As to the
    remaining two corresponding Petitions, each of which alleges that
    Nextel's Notification fails to comply with rule 90.621(b)(4)
    co-channel separation information requirements, we note again that
    they were untimely filed and hence are being dismissed hereby as
    procedurally defective. A review of our records, however, indicates
    that Nextel's modification in each case results in a station located
    less than 70 miles from Supreme's incumbent call sign WNGS881. While
    Nextel has failed in each case to include Supreme as a co-channel
    licensee in its co-channel separation exhibit, we note that Nextel
    is in fact required to provide the required short-space information
    with its Notification.[^73] Therefore, on our own motion we will set
    aside and dismiss the grants of File No. 0000311468 and File No.
    0000310141 and require Nextel to re-file its Notifications with all
    required information within 30 days after the release date of this
    Order. We also grant Nextel special temporary authority ("STA") on
    our own motion to continue operations at the modified sites. In the
    event that Nextel fails to submit within 30 days after the release
    date of this Order notifications that comply with Commission rules,
    the STA will be terminated and we will require Nextel to cease all
    operations at the modified sites.

IV\. ORDERING CLAUSES

31. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154 (i), and
    section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331, the
    Request to Withdraw Petition to Deny Application for Authorization
    filed by Supreme Radio Communications, Inc. on June 6, 2001 is
    hereby GRANTED.

32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154 (i), and
    section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331, the
    Motions to Consolidate filed by Nextel WIP License Corp. on May 30,
    2001 and November 2, 2001 are hereby GRANTED.

33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154 (i), and
    section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331, the
    Motions for Extension of Time filed by Nextel WIP License Corp. on
    April 25, 2001, May 4, 2001, May 9, 2001 and May 16, 2001 are hereby
    DISMISSED.

34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and
    sections 0.331 and 1.106(f) of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
    0.331, 1.106(f), the Petitions to Deny Authorization filed by
    Supreme Radio Communications, Inc. against the above-captioned
    applications in File Nos. 0000248636; 0000270831; 0000270865;
    0000291537; 0000310011; 0000310015; 0000310116; 0000310120;
    0000310135; 0000310141; 0000310141; 0000310147; 0000310149;
    0000310150; 0000310165; 0000310166; 0000311358; 0000311380;
    0000311389; 0000311411; 0000311411; 0000311455; 0000311455;
    0000311456; 0000311461; 0000311463; 0000311466; 0000311466;
    0000311468; 0000311469; 0000311502; 0000311529; 0000311529;
    0000311551; 0000311718; 0000311721; 0000311724; 0000311724;
    0000311726; 0000311729; 0000311731; 0000311733; 0000311734;
    0000352453; 0000352733; 0000359416; 0000359420; C033819; R496692;
    R496697; R496700; R496732; R496791; and R497000 are hereby
    DISMISSED.

35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and
    sections 0.331, 1.41 and 1.106 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §§ 0.331, 1.41, 1.106, the Petitions to Deny Authorization filed by
    Supreme Radio Communications, Inc. against the above-captioned
    applications in File Nos. 0000248634; 0000270617; 0000270828;
    0000288956; 0000310023; 0000310145; 0000310153; 0000310155;
    0000310157; 0000310163; 0000311350; 0000311358; 0000311381;
    0000311413; 0000311433; 0000311434; 0000311435; 0000311451;
    0000311458; 0000311471; 0000311487; 0000311574; 0000311590;
    0000311609; 0000311629; 0000311650; 0000311669; 0000311688;
    0000311704; 0000311728; 0000311730; 0000311731; 0000311733;
    0000311736; 0000311738; 0000311742; 0000311743; 0000311744;
    0000590708; 0000598162; 0000598167; and C033501 are hereby DENIED.

36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154 (i), and
    section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331, the
    grant of the above-captioned application for minor modification File
    No. 0000310141 is hereby set aside and dismissed, and Nextel License
    Holdings 4, Inc. is hereby instructed to re-file its application
    within 30 days after the release date of this Order, as discussed in
    the body of this Order.

37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154 (i), and
    section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331, the
    grant of the above-captioned application for minor modification File
    No. 0000311468 is hereby set aside and dismissed, and Nextel WIP
    License Corp. is hereby instructed to re-file its application within
    30 days after the release date of this Order, as discussed in the
    body of this Order.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Linda C. Ray
>
> Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch
>
> Commercial Wireless Division
>
> Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: Supreme filed a total of 97 Petitions: 15 Petitions on April 13,
    2001; 11 Petitions on April 17; 12 Petitions on April 19; 11
    Petitions on April 23; 14 Petitions on April 25; 16 Petitions on
    April 27; 15 Petitions on May 3, 2001; and 3 Petitions on October 5,
    2001.

[^2]: Although Supreme filed a total of 97 Petitions, Nextel only filed
    88 Applications (81 Notifications, 6 Renewal Applications and, as
    discussed below, one assignment application). Supreme filed two
    Petitions each against 9 of Nextel's Notifications. In those cases,
    Supreme claimed that it was necessary to file 2 Petitions because
    certain of Nextel's modifications allegedly affected Supreme's
    rights both as an incumbent licensee and as a geographic area
    licensee.

    On June 6, 2001, Supreme filed a Request to Withdraw Petition to
    Deny Application for Authorization ("Withdrawal Request"), asking to
    withdraw the Petition filed against File No. 0000252586, which, as
    Supreme acknowledged, was an assignment application, not a
    modification application. *See* Reply to Opposition to Petition to
    Deny Application for Authorization, filed by Supreme on June 5,
    2001, at 5 n.3. In the Withdrawal Request, Supreme further
    acknowledges that the arguments raised in the Petition are not
    applicable to that particular filing by Nextel. As the Petition
    apparently was mistakenly filed against File No. 0000252586, we will
    grant the Withdrawal Request.

[^3]: Seventy-six Notifications and six Renewal Applications have been
    granted; five Notifications remain pending.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.693.

[^5]: *Id*.; 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4)-(6).

[^6]: Nextel is the geographic area licensee in several markets adjacent
    to Supreme's BEA 101, including BEA 64, 68, 97, 102, and 103.

[^7]: Nextel, when modifying to add a site as a geographic licensee, is
    not required under section 90.683 to seek prior Commission approval
    or to file a Notification and is permitted to add or modify a site
    anywhere in their licensed area. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.683(a)(1).
    However, Nextel voluntarily chose to file the Notifications "merely
    to promote increased internal and external accountability, given the
    large number of stations that comprise Nextel WIP's network." *See*
    Opposition, filed by Nextel WIP on May 30, 2001, at 7.

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4).

[^9]: Nextel WIP filed a total of three additional Motions for Extension
    of Time in which to reply to Supreme's Petitions. Nextel's
    additional motions were filed on May 4, 2001, May 9, 2001 and May
    16, 2001, and each requests an extension of time until May 18, 2001
    to respond.

[^10]: Supreme also filed a third Opposition to Motion for Extension of
    Time on June 1, 2001.

[^11]: Nextel Holdings filed one substantive opposition, File No.
    0000310155, and in all its other oppositions incorporated that
    pleading by reference. Nextel WIP's Opposition filed on May 30, 2001
    listed all the file numbers that had been subject to Supreme's
    Petitions filed through May 3, 2001 against Nextel WIP
    Notifications. While references herein to Nextel's Opposition are to
    Nextel WIP's May 30, 2001 Opposition, Nextel Holdings' substantive
    opposition raises virtually the same arguments that are raised in
    Nextel WIP's Opposition.

[^12]: *See* Petitions filed against File Nos. 0000590708; 0000598162;
    and 0000598167.

[^13]: *See* Opposition at 4.

[^14]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106. Nextel does not raise the standing issue as to
    the 15 Petitions that Supreme filed as an incumbent licensee. *See
    infra* paragraphs 15-16 (discussing standing).

[^15]: *See* Opposition at 5.

[^16]: *Id*. at 3.

[^17]: *Id*. at 6.

[^18]: *Id*. at 7.

[^19]: *See supra* paragraphs 4-5.

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.46. *See supra* paragraph 4 and note 9.

[^21]: *See* Motion for Extension of Time, filed by Nextel on May 16,
    2001, at 2.

[^22]: *See supra* paragraph 4.

[^23]: *See* Supreme's Opposition to Motion for Extension of Time, filed
    May 10, 2001 at 2.

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.933(d). We note, however, that six of
    Nextel's filings are Renewal Applications that were listed on
    Accepted for Filing Public Notices. *See* File Nos. R496692;
    R496697; R496700; R496732; R496791; and R497000. All of these
    Renewal Applications were listed in the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau's September 12, 2000 Accepted for Filing PN ("*Accepted for
    Filing PN*").

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.41.

[^26]: *See* Minnesota PCS Limited Partnership, *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 126,
    127, ¶ 4 (CWD 2002) ("*Minnesota PCS*") ("The Commission, however,
    is not bound by the title that a filing party gives a pleading.").

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106.

[^28]: 47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b).

[^29]: The 10 Petitions filed on April 23, the 13 Petitions filed on
    April 25, the 15 Petitions filed on April 27 and the 14 Petitions
    filed on May 3, 2001 all addressed Nextel Notifications listed in
    the March 21 grant Public Notice; the 30 day-deadline was April 20,
    2001.

[^30]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.939(a)(2) (requiring that petitions to deny
    be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice
    listing the application as accepted for filing). The Petitions filed
    against the 6 Renewal Applications were filed on April 19, April 23,
    April 25, April 27 and May 3, 2001.

[^31]: *See* Opposition at 5.

[^32]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1) (providing that any "party in
    interest" may file a petition to deny any application).

[^33]: *See* Opposition at 5.

[^34]: *See* 47 C.F.R § 1.41 ("Except where formal procedures are
    required under the provisions of this chapter, requests for action
    may be submitted informally.").

[^35]: *See* Applications of AirGate Wireless, L.L.C., *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 11,827, 11,844, ¶ 36 (CWD 1999).

[^36]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.693.

[^37]: *See* Petitions at 2.

[^38]: *See* *id*. at 3.

[^39]: *See* *id.* at 5.

[^40]: *See* *id.* at 6.

[^41]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.683(a)(1), 90.693.

[^42]: *See* 47 C.F.R § 90.683(a)(1).

[^43]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.693(a)*.*

[^44]: *See* *id*.

[^45]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4)-(6).

[^46]: *See* Petitions at 2.

[^47]: *See* In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s
    Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, Implementation of Sections
    3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act - Regulatory Treatment of
    Mobile Services, GN Docket No 93-252, Implementation of Section
    309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket
    No. 93-253, *First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order and
    Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 1463,
    1525, ¶ 111 (1995) ("*800 SMR First Report and Order*"). Initially,
    the Commission granted multi-year extended implementation periods to
    SMR licensees by waiver when the licensees met the waiver standard
    by demonstrating that their proposed systems differed sufficiently
    from conventional systems to make normal construction standards
    inapplicable. *See* Fleet Call, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 6 FCC Rcd 1533, 1534, ¶ 11 (1991) ("*Fleet Call*"). In 1993,
    the Commission amended [section
    90.629](http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS90.629&FindType=L)
    of the rules to allow SMR applicants to request up to five years to
    construct systems that required extended implementation because of
    wide-area coverage, size, or complexity. *See* Amendment of Part 90
    of the Commission's Rules Governing Extended Implementations
    Periods, *Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 3975-76, ¶ 6 (1993)*.*

[^48]: *See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, Implementation of Sections
    3(n) and 322 of the Communications Act - Regulatory Treatment of
    Mobile Services, GN Docket No 93-252, Implementation of Section
    309(j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket
    No. 93-253, *Order,* 13 FCC Rcd 1533, 1537, ¶ 9 (WTB 1997)
    ("*Rejustification Order*"), *Order on Reconsideration*, 12 FCC Rcd
    18,349 (WTB 1997).

[^49]: *See* In the Matter of Nextel Communications, Inc., *Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd 281, 284, ¶ 8 (WTB 1998) (finding that Nextel had complied
    with the requirements to rejustify its EI authority and finding no
    reason to grant petitioner's untimely request to review applications
    granted more than two years previously) ("*Nextel Order*")*.*

[^50]: *See* Petitions at 4*.*

[^51]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.693.

[^52]: *See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, *Memorandum Opinion and Order
    on Remand*, 14 FCC Rcd 21,679 (1999) ("*Fresno Remand Order*"). The
    action was taken in response to the order by the United States Court
    of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in *Fresno Mobile
    Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission*, 165 F.3d 965
    (D.C. Cir. 1999), which remanded for further consideration the
    Commission's prior decision to maintain the requirement that
    incumbent licensees who received EI authorization had to construct
    and operate all sites at all frequencies within a certain period or
    lose the unconstructed frequencies.

[^53]: *See* *Fresno Remand Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 21,686, ¶ 12
    (recognizing that EI licensees may have constructed their systems in
    accordance with the requirements in place at the time, *i.e*.,
    site-by-site, frequency-by-frequency, the Commission gave eligible
    wide-area licensees the option of complying with the terms of their
    EI authorization or applying the more flexible Economic Area ("EA")
    construction requirements to their wide-area systems).

[^54]: *Id.* at 21,686, ¶ 13.

[^55]: *See* Petitions at 5.

[^56]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.693.

[^57]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.65 (a) ("Each applicant is responsible for
    the continuing accuracy and completeness of the information
    furnished in a pending application."). *See also* FCC Form 601
    General Certification Statements (3) ("The applicant certifies that
    all statements made in this application and in the exhibits,
    attachments, or documents incorporated by reference are material,
    are part of this application, and are true, complete, correct, and
    made in good faith.").

[^58]: *See* *Minnesota PCS*, 17 FCC Rcd at 129, ¶ 8 (finding that the
    petitioner's arguments were based either on sheer speculation or
    reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the Commission's rules and
    precedent and failed to raise any material and substantial question
    of fact that would warrant an evidentiary investigation of the
    applications at issue); *Nextel Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at 284 ¶ 8
    (dismissing the petition on the merits because petitioner's
    arguments provided "no factual basis" and were based on "meager
    anecdotal information").

[^59]: Petitions at 4.

[^60]: *Id*. at 5.

[^61]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.621(b)(4), 90.693.

[^62]: *See* Petitions at 6.

[^63]: We note that the notice requirement only applies to incumbent
    licensees seeking to add or modify a site to be located less than 55
    miles from a co-channel station. In such cases, a waiver of section
    90.621(b)(4) is also required. *See* 47 C.F.R § 90.621(b)(4).
    Supreme does not claim that Nextel has added or modified a station
    to be located less than 55 miles from a Supreme station. If an
    incumbent station is located less than 70, but more than 55, miles
    from a co-channel licensee, the incumbent is only required to comply
    with the technical parameters of the short-space chart located in
    section 90.621(b)(4) and is not required to provide notice to the
    short-spaced co-channel licensee.

[^64]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.683(a)(1); *see also* *800 MHz First Report
    and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 1516, ¶ 92.

[^65]: *See* In The Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s
    Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, RM-8117, RM-8030, RM-8029,
    Implementation of Sections 3(N) and 332 of the Communications Act --
    Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, GN Docket No. 93-252,
    Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, *M**emorandum Opinion and
    Order on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC Rcd 17,556, 17,574, ¶ 30 (1999)
    ("Because geographic area licensees were afforded maximum
    flexibility to add or modify any site within their licensed area, we
    adopted a strict interference protection criteria to ensure that
    geographic area licensees do not interfere with existing incumbent
    operations.").

[^66]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b) (emphasis added).

[^67]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.683(a)(1).

[^68]: *See supra* paragraph 26.

[^69]: *See* *supra* paragraphs 12-13.

[^70]: Those 12 Petitions relate to File Nos. 0000310141; 0000311358;
    0000311380; 0000311455; 0000311456; 0000311466; 0000311529;
    0000311724; 0000311731; 0000311733; 0000311734; and 0000352733.

[^71]: *See* In the Matter of Nextel Licensee Holdings 4, Inc. *Order*,
    14 FCC Rcd 6985, 6988, ¶ 9 (WTB 1999) (clarifying the information
    that should be listed in the Notifications when the applicant seeks
    to short-space).

[^72]: The Universal Licensing System ("ULS") database lists FCC File
    No. R496791 as requesting a "renewal/modification," and on ULS,
    Nextel appears to add a site located at Mendota, Illinois. In fact,
    certain technical limitations of our conversion from the earlier
    legacy database to the current ULS database required the Licensing
    and Technical Analysis Branch to list electronically filed
    renewal-only applications as "renewal/modification." This
    circumstance may have contributed to Supreme's confusion in assuming
    that Nextel had added a new site to its existing system, when in
    fact Nextel seeks only renewal of a previously-granted facility.

[^73]: Nextel admits in its Opposition that the Petition filed against
    File No. 0000311468 is correct in that the minor modification does
    result in its station being located within 70 miles of Supreme's
    incumbent co-channel station. Nextel claims that Supreme's call sign
    WNGS881 was inadvertently omitted from the short-space report.
    Nextel further asserts that the location of the modified site falls
    within the parameters of the short-space table requirement of
    section 90.621, but it does not provide supporting documentation.
    *See* Opposition at 7 n.17.