**Before the**

# Federal Communications Commission

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In re Applications of ) CC Docket No. 91-142

)

Bravo Cellular ) File No.: 10673-CL-P-579-A-89

)

For Facilities in the Domestic Public )

Cellular Telecommunications Radio )

Service on Frequency Block A in )

Market 579 -- North Carolina 15-Cabarrus )

)

)

Centaur Partnership ) File No.: 10720-CL-P-631-A-89

)

For Facilities in the Domestic Public )

Cellular Telecommunications Radio )

Service on Frequency Block A in )

Market 631 -- South Carolina 7-Calhoun )

)

)

EJM Cellular Partners ) File No.: 10116-CL-P-721-A-89

)

For Facilities in the Domestic Public )

Cellular Telecommunications Radio )

Service on Frequency Block A in )

Market 721 -- Wyoming 4-Niobarra )

)

)

EJM Cellular Partners ) File No.: 10567-CL-P-596-A-89

)

For Facilities in the Domestic Public )

Cellular Telecommunications Radio )

Service on Frequency Block A in )

Market 596 -- Oklahoma 1-Cimmaron )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: February 29, 2000 Released: March 1, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

1.  On December 28, 1998, Castle Trust, Orbit Cellular, RSA Cellular
    Partners, Schuykill Mobile Fone, Inc., Scott Reardon, Skyline
    Cellular Partners, Sunrise Trust, Walker Trust, and Turnpike
    Cellular Partners (collectively "Castle Trust") filed a petition for
    reconsideration ("Petition") of the grant of the above-captioned
    applications.[^1] For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the
    Petition.

2.  The instant Petition is yet another in a long series of pleadings
    filed in what is commonly referred to as the *Algreg*
    proceeding.[^2] The *Algreg* proceeding, which relates to the
    above-captioned applications, among others, has a lengthy and
    complicated procedural history.[^3] In *Algreg II,* the Commission
    found that the entities that comprise Castle Trust were not
    permitted to file petitions for reconsideration in this
    proceeding.[^4] Specifically, the Commission noted that they were
    not parties to the proceeding, which would have allowed them to file
    petitions for reconsideration as of right according to Commission
    rules,[^5] and that they "failed to show why it was not possible for
    them to participate in the earlier stages of this proceeding as
    required" by Commission rules.[^6] Moreover, the Commission added,
    "\[a\]t no stage of the proceedings did . . . Castle Trust seek
    party status, despite opportunities to do so."[^7] For the same
    reasons as the Commission set forth in *Algreg II*, we also dismiss
    the instant Petition.

3\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 0.331
and 1.106(b)(1) of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331 and
1.106(b)(1), the Petition filed by Castle Trust on December 28, 1998, is
DISMISSED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William W. Kunze

Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: The applications were granted by the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau on remand from the Commission under *Algreg Cellular
    Engineering*, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8148 (1997)
    (*Algreg I*). Public Notice, Report No. CWS-99-9 (rel. Nov. 27,
    1998).

[^2]: *Algreg Cellular Engineering*, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Order on Reconsideration, CC Docket No. 91-142, 1999 WL 824638 (FCC
    October 18, 1999) (*Algreg II*).

[^3]: *Algreg I* and *Algreg II* describe the procedural history in
    detail, and we need not repeat those discussions here*.*

[^4]: *Algreg* II, 1999 WL 824638 at ¶ 19.

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1).

[^6]: ^?^ *Algreg II*, 1999 WL 824638 at ¶ 19. Section 1.106(b)(1) of
    the Commission's rules allows non-parties to file petitions for
    reconsideration, but it provides that, "\[i\]f the petition is filed
    by a person who is not a party to the proceeding, it shall state
    with particularity the manner in which the person's interests are
    adversely affected by the action taken, *and shall show good reason
    why it was not possible for him to participate in the earlier stages
    of the proceeding*." 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1) (emphasis added)*.*

[^7]: *Algreg II*, 1999 WL 824638 at ¶ 19.