**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

220 MHz Non-Nationwide Licensees ) File Nos. B000671-685; B000687-744;

) B000746-756; B000758-770;

Applications for Modification ) B000777-796

Filed Electronically After May 1, 1996 )

)

and )

)

Requests for Waiver of Section 90.755(a) )

of the Commission\'s Rules )

**ORDER**

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

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

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  In this Order, we address requests for waiver of Section 90.755(a)
    of the Commission\'s rules filed by certain 220 MHz non-nationwide
    licensees in connection with their late-filed modification
    applications to relocate their authorized base stations. On April 9,
    1997, the Land Mobile Branch[^1] (Branch) denied the waiver requests
    and dismissed the associated modification applications.[^2] On May
    9, 1997, Roamer One, Inc. (Roamer One), joined by the holders of the
    licenses listed on Exhibit 2 (Exhibit 2 Licensees), and Pagers Plus
    Cellular (Pagers Plus), on behalf of the holders of the licenses
    listed on Exhibit 3 (Exhibit 3 Licensees), petitioned for
    reconsideration of the *Denial Order*.[^3] For the reasons discussed
    below, we dismiss both petitions for reconsideration with regard to
    Roamer One and Pagers Plus, deny the Roamer One Petition with regard
    to the Exhibit 2 Licensees, and uphold the dismissal of the
    applications for modification.

    **II. BACKGROUND**

2.  In January 1996, the Commission adopted a modification procedure in
    the *220 MHz Second Report and Order* whereby non-nationwide
    licensees in the 220 MHz service were able to relocate their
    authorized base stations within certain parameters.[^4] Under this
    procedure, a licensee that submitted a letter by March 11, 1996,
    stating its intent to relocate, was required to file its
    modification application by May 1, 1996.[^5] Modification applicants
    had the option of filing electronically or manually.

3.  Roamer One, a manager of 220 MHz systems, contracted with an
    independent company, Pagers Plus, to prepare and file certain 220
    MHz modification applications on behalf of Roamer One\'s clients. On
    March 22, 1996, Pagers Plus began filing these applications
    electronically for Roamer One\'s licensees. Pagers Plus also
    electronically filed modification applications for licensees that
    were not managed by Roamer One.[^6] Pagers Plus claims that in late
    March 1996, it began to encounter problems with filing the
    modification applications electronically, including delays in
    transmitting the applications and applications being dropped during
    transmission.[^7] In particular, Roamer One and Pagers Plus claim
    that the time to submit applications increased from a few minutes
    per application when Pagers Plus began filing on March 22, 1996, to
    over two hours per application on May 1, 1996.[^8] Roamer One and
    Pagers Plus also maintain that several applications were \"dropped
    off\" when the Commission\'s computer disconnected before the
    application was fully submitted.[^9] Roamer One and Pagers Plus
    assert this drop-off required Pagers Plus to resubmit each dropped
    application in its entirety.[^10] Roamer One and Pagers Plus also
    state that during the period preceding the May 1 application
    deadline, Pagers Plus was in constant contact with the Commission\'s
    Data Processing Center, and that the Commission staff recommended
    that, in the event Pagers Plus was unable to complete filing its
    applications by the deadline, it should continue filing applications
    accompanied by requests for waiver.[^11]

4.  Pagers Plus alleges that it failed to complete several filings prior
    to the midnight deadline on May 1, 1996, imposed by section
    90.755(a) of the Commission\'s rules, due to the alleged problems of
    delay and drop-off in submitting the applications.[^12] After the
    May 1 deadline had passed, Pagers Plus continued to file
    applications electronically during the next two days. Each of these
    submissions was accompanied by a request for waiver of the filing
    deadline, which cited the computer transmission problems. Later in
    May, Pagers Plus filed several additional applications.[^13]

5.  On August 21, 1996, Roamer One filed a letter in support of the
    waiver requests.[^14] Roamer One stated that it was filing its
    letter on behalf of the licensees who had filed 111 modification
    applications,[^15] and that it had management agreements with each
    of these licensees.[^16] Roamer One asserted that problems with the
    Commission\'s electronic filing system had prevented Pagers Plus
    from filing all the applications by the deadline and that these
    problems were beyond the control of Pagers Plus.[^17] Roamer One
    characterized the difficulties that Pagers Plus encountered with the
    electronic filing system as unforeseen, widespread, and equally
    experienced by all persons who filed electronically.[^18]

6.  On April 9, 1997, the Branch issued its *Denial Order.*[^19] The
    Branch found that the problems Pagers Plus encountered in filing
    applications were not unforeseeable, widespread, or beyond its
    control.[^20] In particular, the Branch noted that because Pagers
    Plus had experienced problems as early as March 26, 1996, more than
    thirty days prior to the deadline, Pagers Plus could have foreseen
    that it might incur additional problems filing electronically as the
    deadline approached. The Branch also concluded that the problems
    were not widespread because Pagers Plus was the only one of the four
    entities filing electronic applications that reported problems. In
    addition, based on the number of applications Pagers Plus filed in
    the weeks before the deadline, the Branch concluded that Pagers Plus
    had the capability, through \"concerted efforts and judicious use of
    resources,\" to timely file all of the applications.[^21] Moreover,
    the Branch indicated that both Pagers Plus and Roamer One had the
    option to file applications manually.[^22] Concluding that each
    party had failed to act with due diligence, the Branch found no
    reason to grant any waivers, and dismissed the modification
    applications filed after May 1, 1996, as untimely.[^23]

7.  Roamer One and Pagers Plus filed petitions for reconsideration of
    the *Denial Order* on May 9, 1997. In its petition, Roamer One
    states that, although it previously indicated that it had management
    relationships with the holders of each of the 111 licenses
    identified in its original waiver request, it actually had such
    agreements with only a fraction of the applicants.[^24] Accordingly,
    Roamer One\'s Petition is joined by the holders of the twenty-seven
    licenses listed on Exhibit 2, with which Roamer One states that it
    had management agreements. Pagers Plus, by contrast, simply attached
    to its Petition a list of the 81 licenses identified on Exhibit
    3.[^25] Pagers Plus does not indicate that the holders of those
    licenses join its Petition, nor that they have reviewed the Petition
    or endorse its contents.[^26]

    **III. DISCUSSION**

    **A. Standing**

8.  Before we consider the merits of the issues raised by Pagers Plus
    and Roamer One, we must determine whether either party has standing
    to raise these issues. Section 405 of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, allows any party in interest, or any person
    aggrieved or whose interests are adversely affected, to petition for
    reconsideration of an action by a designated authority.[^27]
    Pursuant to Section 1.106 of the Commission\'s rules, if the
    petition is filed by a person who is not a party to the proceeding,
    the petition 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 the non-party to
    participate in the earlier stages of the proceeding.[^28] Therefore,
    to establish standing, Pagers Plus and Roamer One must plead facts
    to establish that each is (1) a party in interest or (2) a person
    aggrieved or whose interests are adversely affected by the *Denial
    Order*.[^29]

9.  In order to qualify as a party in interest, a petitioner for
    reconsideration of a denial of a waiver generally must allege facts
    sufficient to demonstrate that denial of the waiver would cause the
    petitioner to suffer a direct injury.[^30] Claims amounting to a
    \"remote\" or \"speculative\" injury are insufficient to confer
    standing.[^31] In addition, the petitioner must demonstrate a causal
    link \"between the claimed injury and the challenged action.\"[^32]
    To demonstrate a causal link, a petitioner must establish that: (a)
    \"these injuries fairly can be traced to the challenged action\";
    and (b) \"the injury would be prevented or redressed by the relief
    requested.\"[^33]

10. We find that neither Pagers Plus nor Roamer One qualifies as a party
    in interest. The action for which Pagers Plus and Roamer One seek
    reconsideration is the Branch\'s denial of waiver requests by
    Commission applicants and licensees. Although Pagers Plus is the
    application preparation company that filed the applications and
    Roamer One is the manager of some of the affected licensees' 220 MHz
    systems, neither petitioner is a Commission applicant or licensee,
    and neither was a party to any of the modification applications or
    waiver requests that were denied by the Branch. Thus, petitioners
    have failed to demonstrate that either would suffer a direct injury
    by the denial of the waiver requests. However, the 27 licensees who
    joined Roamer One\'s petition do qualify as parties in interest
    because their injuries stem from the dismissal of their modification
    applications. Therefore, we grant standing as to these petitioners
    only. Nevertheless, the remaining discussion equally applies to all
    licensees listed on Exhibit 6 without regard to our finding on
    standing.

    **B. Requests for Waivers**

11. Roamer One argues that the waivers requested in this case are
    warranted because of problems with the Commission\'s electronic
    filing system that were unforeseeable, widespread, and beyond the
    control of Pagers Plus, and because Roamer One and Pagers Plus took
    reasonable steps as an alternative to requesting waivers.[^34]
    Roamer One asserts that the electronic filing system problems that
    Pagers Plus experienced in the days immediately prior to the May 1
    filing deadline were unforeseeable.[^35] Roamer One also asserts
    that these problems were \"widespread,\" because a large percentage
    of the applications that Pagers Plus filed electronically were
    affected.[^36]

12. We are unpersuaded by these arguments. The evidence submitted by the
    petitioners shows that Pagers Plus first experienced difficulties
    with electronic filing as early as March 27, more than a month
    before the filing deadline, and that these problems persisted and
    worsened between then and May 1.[^37] Based on this history, Pagers
    Plus could have reasonably anticipated the possibility that it would
    have difficulty with electronic filing immediately prior to the
    deadline, and that it would be necessary to plan alternative
    measures, such as filing applications manually, to ensure compliance
    with the deadline.[^38]

13. We also reject the contention that the electronic filing problems
    experienced by Pagers Plus were widespread or beyond Pagers Plus'
    control. [^39] First, there is no indication that these problems
    resulted from a technical failure of the Commission's electronic
    filing system.[^40] If such a failure had rendered the electronic
    filing system completely unavailable, or if it repeatedly and
    systematically caused errors and interruptions in transmissions, it
    is reasonable to assume that multiple entities who filed
    electronically would also have complained to Commission staff or
    sought waivers of the Commission\'s rules. Yet Pagers Plus was the
    *only* entity filing 220 MHz applications that complained of
    difficulties with the electronic filing system, while other
    applicants were able to file electronic applications successfully.

14. The record also indicates that the problems experienced by Pagers
    Plus were within its control to solve. The procedures for filing
    modification applications were published in January 1996. Thus,
    licensees had ample time to prepare for electronic filing prior to
    the May 1 deadline. Moreover, even if electronic filing did not
    work, Roamer One or Pagers Plus had the option of manual filing
    available to them. We conclude that it is reasonable to expect that
    Roamer One and Pagers Plus should have had alternative applications
    prepared and ready for filing, given that their \"sole business
    function is to construct and manage 220 MHz SMR systems across the
    country.\"[^41] The fact that they did not do so leads us to
    conclude that neither Roamer One nor Pagers Plus acted with the kind
    of diligence that would warrant a waiver. The Commission has stated
    that \"applicants who wait until the eleventh hour to meet
    Commission deadlines will be held to assume the risk for almost all
    events which may occur to prevent timely filing.\"[^42]

15. Roamer One asserts that manual filing should not have been necessary
    because the burden was on the Commission to officially suspend
    electronic filing or extend the filing deadline under these
    circumstances.[^43] Roamer One likens the situation to instances in
    which the Commission has delayed auction filing deadlines due to
    problems with electronic bidding systems or telephone transmission
    lines during an auction.[^44] We find the instant case is
    distinguishable from those situations because (1) the Commission has
    not suspended electronic filing or extended filing deadlines except
    where the technical problems were with the Commission's own system,
    which was not the case here, and (2) the licensees in this case had
    other options available for submitting their modification
    applications, as opposed to being required to file electronically.
    As mentioned earlier, waiver is granted only if the petitioner
    demonstrates that \"there is no reasonable alternative solution
    within existing rules.\"[^45] This is not the case here because
    filing could have been accomplished manually.

16. Roamer One also argues that waivers should be granted as a matter of
    equity based on alleged statements by Commission staff recommending
    that Pagers Plus continue to file applications after the deadline
    and indicating that the Commission would consider any waiver
    requests.[^46] Whether or not Commission staff gave this advice as
    alleged, it does not support grant of relief to petitioners. First,
    there is no indication that the staff suggested that Pagers Plus had
    no need to consider alternatives such as manual filing. Moreover,
    the evidence submitted by the petitioners shows that the Commission
    staff made clear that the success of any waiver petition was not
    assured.[^47] We do not believe that statements by staff suggesting
    that applicants file waiver requests in order to preserve their
    rights compel a favorable decision as to such requests.[^48]

17. Roamer One concludes with a policy argument that denying waivers in
    this case would result in applicants avoiding electronic filing in
    the future for fear of technical difficulties, thus thwarting the
    Commission\'s goal of encouraging electronic filing.[^49] While the
    Commission does in fact encourage electronic filings, parties
    availing themselves of this method of filing are not excused from
    the requirements of due diligence. As the Commission has stated, the
    purpose of its strict cutoff policy is:[^50]

to assure that all applicants are treated fairly and reasonably in their
dealings with Commission processes and to guarantee that there is an
identifiable point in time when the Commission can close the door to new
applicants, thus assuring that the Commission can effectively and
efficiently fulfill its public interest mandate.

This policy is equally applicable to electronic as to manual filings.

**IV. CONCLUSION**

18. We find, based on the record before us, that unique and compelling
    circumstances do not exist in this case, and that petitioners did
    not take all reasonable steps to avoid the circumstances that led to
    these waiver requests. Therefore, the waivers were properly denied,
    and the applications for modification associated with these waivers
    were properly dismissed. To the extent that any of the waiver
    requests may not have been denied and any applications may not have
    been dismissed by the Branch\'s earlier *Denial Order*, we deny any
    such waiver requests and dismiss any such applications in this
    order.

    **V. ORDERING CLAUSES**

19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), sections
    1.2 and 90.151 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2, 90.151,
    and authority delegated by section 0.331 of the Commission\'s rules,
    47 C.F.R. § 0.331, that the requests for waiver of section 90.755(a)
    of the Commission\'s rules filed by the licensees listed on Exhibit
    6 ARE DENIED.

20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 308(a) and 309(a)
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
    308(a), 309(a), section 90.755(a) of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 90.755(a), and authority delegated by section 0.331 of the
    Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331, that the applications for
    modification of licenses filed by the licensees listed on Exhibit 6
    ARE DISMISSED.

21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405,
    section 1.106 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, and
    authority delegated by section 0.331 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 0.331, that the petition for reconsideration filed on May
    9, 1996, by Roamer One, Inc., and the licensees listed on Exhibit 2
    IS DENIED.

22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405,
    section 1.106 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, and
    authority delegated by section 0.331 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 0.331, that the petition for reconsideration filed on May
    9, 1996, by Pagers Plus Cellular, Inc., on behalf of the licensees
    listed on Exhibit 3 IS DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    William W. Kunze

Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: ^?^ Since the petitions and waiver requests were filed, the Land
    Mobile Branch of the Licensing Division of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau was reorganized as the Licensing and
    Technical Analysis Branch of the Commercial Wireless Division of the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

[^2]: ^?^ *See* Letter of Terry L. Fishel, Chief, Land Mobile Branch, to
    William J. Franklin, attorney for Roamer One, Inc., dated April 9,
    1997 (*Denial Order*). As discussed more fully below, the *Denial
    Order* by its terms addressed 111 waiver requests and modification
    applications identified by Roamer One in a letter filed in support
    of those waiver requests. *See* Letter of William J. Franklin to
    Kelly S. Lawver, Chief, Special Facilities Section, Land Mobile
    Branch, dated August 21, 1996 (Roamer One Waiver Request),
    Attachment A. *See* Exhibit 1 for a list of the 111 applications.

[^3]: ^?^ Petition for Reconsideration, filed by Roamer One on May 9,
    1997 (Roamer One Petition); Petition for Reconsideration, filed by
    Pagers Plus on May 9, 1997 (Pagers Plus Petition). Exhibits 2 and 3
    cover 107 licenses. There are five licenses listed on Exhibit 1 that
    are not included on Exhibit 2 or 3. These are WPCC388, WPCJ747,
    WPCM888, WPCQ624, and WPCX744. In addition, WPDM573 (Feldman) is
    listed on Exhibit 3 but was not included as one of the 111
    modification applications listed in Attachment A to the Roamer One
    Waiver Request.

[^4]: ^?^ Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to Provide for
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, PR Docket No. 89-552, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and
    332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile
    Services, GN Docket No. 93-252, *Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd. 3668 (1996) (*220 MHz Second Report and Order*).

[^5]: ^?^ *Id.* at 3674, ¶ 22. A licensee seeking modification of its
    authorization to relocate its base station was required to file
    either a modification application or a letter certifying to the
    Commission its intent to file a modification application. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 90.755(b). If the licensee filed a letter of intent, it was
    then required to file the modification application by May 1, 1996.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.755(a).

[^6]: ^?^ In the *Denial Order*, the Land Mobile Branch indicated that
    Roamer One also filed modification applications independently of
    Pagers Plus. *Denial Order* at 2, 3 nn.2, 3 & 5. Roamer One states,
    however, that it filed no applications directly. Roamer One surmises
    that this error occurred because Pagers Plus identified Roamer One
    as the contact representative on some of its submissions. *See*
    Roamer One Petition at 4 n.3.

[^7]: ^?^ Roamer One Petition at 2. *See also* Attachments to Roamer One
    Waiver Request.

[^8]: ^?^ Roamer One Petition at 2-3 (citing Roamer One Waiver Request
    at 3 and Attachments B and D).

[^9]: ^?^ *See* Letter of N.J. Lima, Vice President for Engineering,
    Pagers Plus, to Terry L. Fishel, Chief, Land Mobile Branch, dated
    May 2, 1996 (Attachment D to Roamer One Waiver Request).

[^10]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^11]: ^?^ *Id*. *See also* Letter of N.J. Lima, Pagers Plus, to Terry
    L. Fishel, Chief, Land Mobile Branch, dated May 1, 1996.

[^12]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 90.755(a).

[^13]: ^?^ Exhibit 4 lists 18 applications, which were included on
    Exhibit 3, and which were filed late in May 1996. The waiver
    requests for these applications stated that while they had initially
    been submitted electronically on a timely basis, the applications
    had been omitted from the Commission database. *See* Roamer One
    Waiver Request at 2. We note, however, that these applications are
    not specifically addressed in either of the Petitions. Nevertheless,
    in an effort to fully dispose of all issues connected with these
    applications, we will address this issue in this Order.

[^14]: ^?^ Roamer One Waiver Request.

[^15]: ^?^ *Id*. at 1. *See also id*., Attachment A (listing
    applications).

[^16]: ^?^ *Id*. at 1.

[^17]: ^?^ *Id*. at 4.

[^18]: ^?^ *Id.*

[^19]: ^?^ *Denial Order* at 1. The Branch noted that although Roamer
    One identified 111 applications in its letter, the Commission\'s
    records indicate that 120 applications were filed after May 1 by
    Pagers Plus and Roamer One. *Id.* at 3 n.5. *See* Exhibit 6 for the
    Branch\'s list of late-filed applications.

[^20]: ^?^ *Denial Order* at 2-3.

[^21]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^22]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^23]: ^?^ *Id*.

[^24]: ^?^ Roamer One Petition at 2 n.2.

[^25]: ^?^ *See* Pagers Plus Petition, Exhibit 1.

[^26]: ^?^ We note that one license (WPCA523, Nicmar, Nevada, MO) is
    listed on both Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. In addition, one of the
    licenses on Exhibit 3 (WPDM573, Hail Mary Partners, Indianapolis,
    IN) was not included on Attachment A to the Roamer One Waiver
    Request. Five of the licenses identified in the Roamer One Waiver
    Request were not listed on either Roamer One\'s or Pagers Plus\'s
    Petition for Reconsideration.

[^27]: ^?^ 47 U.S.C. § 405; *see* Eagle Radio, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd. 5105, 5106, ¶ 5 (1997); Ray M. Stanfield,
    Receiver and Robeson/Suttles Broadcasting, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd. 3345, 3347, ¶ 5 (1997); San Luis Obispo
    L.P., *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd. 9616, 9617, ¶¶ 3-4 (1996) (*San Luis Obispo*).

[^28]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1).

[^29]: ^?^ *San Luis Obispo*, 11 FCC Rcd.at 9616; Rainbow Broadcasting
    Co., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd. 2839, 2844 n.24
    (1994).

[^30]: ^?^ Application of Wireless Co., L.P., *Order*, 10 FCC Rcd.
    13,233, 13,235, ¶ 7 (1995) (*Wireless Co.*), *citing Sierra Club v.
    Morton*, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972); *see also* Lawrence N. Brandt, 3
    FCC Rcd. 4082 (1988); National Broadcasting Co, 37 FCC 2d 897, 898
    (1972).

[^31]: ^?^ *Wireless Co.*, 10 FCC Rcd. at 13,235-36, ¶ 7-8, *citing*
    KIRV Radio, 50 FCC 2d 1010 (1975) (stating that \"the claim of
    potential economic injury by a mere applicant for a broadcast
    facility is too remote and speculative to show standing as a \`party
    in interest\'\").

[^32]: ^?^ *Wireless Co*., 10 FCC Rcd. at 13,236, ¶ 8, *citing* Duke
    Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U.S. 59,
    72, 78 (1978) (*Duke*).

[^33]: ^?^ *Duke*, 438 U.S. at 74, 81.

[^34]: ^?^ Roamer One Petition at 8-11.

[^35]: ^?^ *Id.* at 8.

[^36]: ^?^ Roamer One Petition at 8-9.

[^37]: ^?^ *See* FCC Modification Record proposed by N.J. Lima, Pagers
    Plus (Attachment B to Roamer One Waiver Request) (noting, *e.g.*,
    data transmission problems on March 27, April 2, and April 10;
    \"higher than normal frequency of problems\" on April 22; and \"more
    and more pronounced\" problems on April 29).

[^38]: ^?^ For example, we note that two late electronically filed
    applications for call signs WPCM411 and WPCQ452 were also filed
    manually in a timely manner.

[^39]: ^?^ *Id.* at 9-10.

[^40]: ^?^ In its original waiver request, Roamer One asserted that
    certain applications were successfully submitted through electronic
    filing prior to May 1, 1999, but later did not appear in the
    Commission database, requiring Pagers Plus to refile the
    applications after the May 1 deadline. Roamer One Waiver Request at
    2. Roamer One asserted that these applications should be considered
    timely because the electronic filing system caused the applications
    to be omitted from the database. Id. Yet Roamer One has failed to
    provide any confirmation of electronic filing to substantiate its
    claim that these modification applications were timely filed. Roamer
    One has also failed to renew this argument in its reconsideration
    petition. Therefore, we uphold the dismissal of those applications
    and the denial of the requests for waiver.

[^41]: ^?^ Roamer One Waiver Request at 1.

[^42]: ^?^ *1985 Public Notice*, 58 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) at 1707. The
    Commission listed several situations (problems with copying
    machines, delivery services, weather, or illness) that, although
    they may be unexpected, are reasonably foreseeable, and warned that
    applicants should allow enough time to meet cutoff deadlines to
    account for such unanticipated delays. *Id.*

[^43]: ^?^ Roamer One Petition at 10-11.

[^44]: ^?^ *Id.* at n.13, 13-14 (citing Auction Notice and Filing
    Requirements for Multipoint Service, 10 FCC Rcd. 10729 (1995)).

[^45]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. § 90.151.

[^46]: ^?^ *See* Roamer One Petition at 3.

[^47]: ^?^ See Letter from N.J. Lima to Terry L. Fishel, Chief, Land
    Mobile Branch, dated May 1, 1996 (\"You did say that there would be
    no guarantee, but in view of the problems caused by the FCC that
    such waivers would be considered.\").

[^48]: ^?^ In any event, statements by individual members of the
    Commission staff are not binding on the Commission, and the
    Commission has specifically held that parties who rely on staff
    advice or interpretations do so at their own risk. *See* In the
    Matter of the Applications of Hinton Telephone Company, 10 FCC Rcd.
    11625, 11637; *see also* AAT Electronics Corp., 53 RR2d 1241,
    1225‑26 (1983), *aff\'d*, P & R Temmer v. FCC, 743 F.2d 918, 931
    (D.C.Cir.1984).

[^49]: ^?^ Roamer One Petition at 16-18.

[^50]: ^?^ *1985 Public Notice*, 58 Rad. Reg. 2d (P&F) at 1707.