*Pages 1--15 from  Microsoft Word - 45951.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  re  Applications  of 
 Smith-  Bagley,  Inc.  &  WWC  License  L.  L.  C. 


 Phase  II  Cellular  Unserved  Area  Applications  For  New  Mexico  3  RSA  (Catron) 
 Market  No.  555,  Block  A 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 File  No.  0000997158  File  No.  0000959496 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  February  7,  2005  Released:  February  8,  2005 
 By  the  Assistant  Chief,  Mobility  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  This  Order  addresses  three  petitions  seeking  to  deny  the  above-  captioned  applications.  On  September  20,  2002,  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  (McElroy)  and  WWC  License  L.  L.  C.  (WWC) 


 separately  filed  petitions  to  deny  the  application  of  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  (SBI).  1  On  September  25,  2002,  McElroy  also  filed  a  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  WWCs  above-  captioned  amended  application  and 
 associated  request  for  waiver  of  Section  22.949(  b)(  3)  of  the  Commission  rules  permitting  only  one  Cellular  Geographic  Service  Area  (CGSA)  per  application  (Waiver  Request).  2  For  the  reasons  set  forth 
 below,  we  grant  the  petitions  seeking  to  deny  SBIs  application  and  dismiss  SBIs  application  as  defective.  We  further  deny  McElroys  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  WWCs  application  and  grant 
 WWCs  Waiver  Request. 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  By  statute,  the  Commission  is  required  to  employ  competitive  bidding  procedures  when  choosing  from  among  pending  mutually  exclusive  applications  for  certain  initial  licenses.  3  Under  Part  22 


 of  the  Commissions  rules,  which  governs  site-  specific  application  procedures  for  the  cellular  service,  mutually  exclusive  applications  are  processed  in  filing  groups.  4  If  the  earliest  application  accepted  for 
 filing  is  for  an  initial  authorization,  the  Commission  releases  a  public  notice  initiating  a  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  filing  period  for  competing  applications.  5  The  Commission  may  dismiss  as  defective  any 


 1  Petition  to  Deny,  filed  by  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  (Sept.  20,  2002)  (McElroy  SBI  Petition);  Petition  to 
 Deny,  filed  by  WWC  License  L.  L.  C.  (Sept.  20,  2002)  (WWC  Petition).  2 
 Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  of  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation,  filed  by  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  (Sept.  25,  2002)  (McElroy  Informal  Objection).  See  infra  at    24  (accepting  SBIs  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  WWCs 


 application  as  an  Informal  Objection  to  WWCs  Waiver  Request).  3 
 47  U.  S.  C.    309(  j);  see  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  1,  Subpart  Q,  Competitive  Bidding  Procedures  (implementing  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act,  as  amended).  Two  or  more  pending  applications  are  mutually  exclusive  if  the  grant  of 


 one  application  would  effectively  preclude  the  grant  of  one  or  more  of  the  other  applications.  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  131.  4 
 47  C.  F.  R.    22.131(  b).  5 
 47  C.  F.  R.    22.131(  c)(  iii).  The  rule  section  provides  for  one  exception:  for  Phase  I  unserved  area  applications  in  the  Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service,  a  one-  day  window  filing  group  is  used  (see    22.  949).  Id. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 2 
 mutually  exclusive  application  whose  filing  date  is  outside  the  date  range  for  inclusion  in  the  filing  group.  Mutually  exclusive  applications  that  are  submitted  within  the  filing  group,  however,  are  given  concurrent 
 consideration.  6  The  Commission  then  applies  competitive  bidding  procedures  in  accordance  with  its  competitive  bidding  rules  to  all  of  the  mutually  exclusive  applications  filed  within  the  30-  day  notice  and 
 cut-  off  period.  After  the  auction,  the  Commission  may  grant  the  highest  bidders  application  and  dismiss  the  other  applications  without  prejudice.  7 


 3.  These  rules  governing  filing  groups  for  processing  mutually  exclusive  applications  apply  to  this  proceeding,  which  stems  from  a  letter  issued  on  May  30,  2002,  8  implementing  the  Commissions 
 revocation  of  the  license  granted  to  Alee  Cellular  Communications  (Alee)  for  Station  KNKN271.  9  Alees  license  authorized  cellular  operations  in  the  New  Mexico  3  RSA,  Market  No.  555,  on  Block  A  (New 
 Mexico  3  RSA).  Under  its  license,  Alee  operated  six  cellular  sites  located  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  New  Mexico  3  RSA,  running  in  a  north-  to-  south  direction  along  Interstate  Highway  125.  10  One  day  after  the 
 revocation  of  Alees  license,  on  May  31,  2002,  the  former  Commercial  Wireless  Division  (Division)  11  issued  a  Public  Notice  inviting  interested  parties  to  file  Phase  II  unserved  area  applications  for  the  New 
 Mexico  3  RSA.  12  On  June  4,  2002,  in  response  to  the  Public  Notice,  McElroy  filed  an  application  to  provide  cellular  service  in  New  Mexico  3  RSA  at  ten  proposed  locations.  On  June  12,  2002,  the  Division 
 released  a  public  notice  accepting  McElroys  application  for  filing,  13  and  establishing  a  cut-  off  deadline  of  July  12,  2002,  for  filing  competing  applications.  14 


 4.  Four  additional  interested  parties  filed  competing  applications  within  the  notice  and  cut-off  period  established  by  McElroys  first-  filed  application.  All  of  the  applications  propose  service 
 coverage  similar  to  that  previously  provided  by  Alee,  but  McElroy  and  WWC  also  each  proposed  three  sites  in  their  initial  applications  extending  due  west  of  the  former  Alee  service  area,  including  a  site  at 
 Datil,  New  Mexico.  McElroy  and  WWC  each  proposed  a  site  at  the  Datil,  New  Mexico  location  unaware  that  the  site  had  already  been  licensed  to  SBI  under  Call  Sign  KNKR315  pursuant  to  the  grant  of  a  Phase 
 II  unserved  area  application  that  SBI  filed  in  1998.  The  issues  raised  in  the  three  petitions  that  are  the  subject  of  this  Order  stem  from  errors  made  in  SBIs  license  application  for  Station  KNKR315,  and  the 
 corresponding  error  in  the  status  of  the  station  license  in  the  Commissions  ULS  database  that  remained 


 6  47  C.  F.  R.    22.131(  b). 
 7  47  C.  F.  R.    22.131(  c)(  4)(  ii)(  A). 
 8  Letter  to  Alee  Cellular  Communications  from  Katherine  M.  Harris,  Deputy  Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division, 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  (May  30,  2002).  9 
 In  re  Applications  of  ALGREG  Cellular  Engineering,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  14  FCC  Rcd  18524  18533-  35  (1999),  affd,  Alee  Cellular  Communications  v.  FCC,  slip  op.,  No. 


 99-  1460  (D.  C.  Cir.  Jan.  30,  2001),  rehg  denied,  (D.  C.  Cir.  Apr.  5,  2001),  cert.  denied,  (S.  Ct.  Oct.  9,  2001).  10 
 The  six  sites  were  located  in  three  counties:  Socorro  NM,  Socorro  County  (Location  1);  Cabello  Mountain  NM,  Sierra  County  (Location  2);  Bernardo  NM,  Socorro  County  (Location  3);  Truth  or  Consequences  NM,  Sierra  County 


 (Location  4);  Belen  NM,  Valencia  County  (Location  5);  and  San  Antonio  NM,  Sierra  County  (Location  6).  11 
 In  late  2003,  the  Commissions  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  was  reorganized.  Many  of  the  mobile  radio  services  licensing  issues  formerly  under  the  Bureaus  Commercial  Wireless  Division,  including  Part  22  cellular 


 service  operations,  are  now  under  the  purview  of  the  Bureaus  Mobility  Division.  FCCs  Wireless  Bureau  Announces  Reorganization,  Public  Notice  (rel.  Nov.  24,  2003). 
 12  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Implements  Revocation  of  Cellular  Call  Sign  KNKN271  (NM3  RSA); 
 Phase  II  Unserved  Area  Application  Rules  to  be  Applied,  Public  Notice,  17  FCC  Rcd  10518  (2002).  13 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Site-  by-  Site  Accepted  for  Filing,  Public  Notice,  Report  No.  1201  (June  12,  2002). 


 14  47  C.  F.  R.    22.131(  b)(  3). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 3 
 in  error  until  July  16,  2002,  four  days  after  the  cut-  off  deadline  in  this  proceeding.  The  following  describes  in  detail  the  facts  surrounding  the  history  of  the  license  for  Station  KNKR315,  as  well  as  the 
 status  of  each  application  filed  in  this  proceeding. 
 A.  Smith  Bagley  Inc.  s  License  for  Station  KNKR315    Datil,  New  Mexico 
 5.  On  September  6,  1994,  SBI  filed  a  Phase  I  unserved  area  application  seeking  authority  to  construct  and  operate  a  cellular  site  in  the  New  Mexico  3  RSA  at  Datil,  New  Mexico.  15  On  May  21, 


 1997,  the  Divisions  Licensing  and  Technical  Branch  (Licensing  Branch)  granted  the  application,  assigning  the  license  Call  Sign  KNKR315.  Around  that  same  time,  SBI  was  granted  licenses  to  operate 
 cellular  systems  under  Station  KNKN208  in  the  Arizona  3  RSA,  which  is  the  adjacent  Block  A  cellular  market  west  of  New  Mexico  3  RSA,  and  a  license  for  Station  KNKR316  to  provide  cellular  service  in  the 
 New  Mexico  1  RSA,  which  is  the  adjacent  Block  A  cellular  market  north  of  the  New  Mexico  3  RSA.  While  SBI  constructed  and  is  still  operating  under  its  licenses  for  Stations  KNKN208  and  KNKR316,  16 
 SBI  failed  to  meet  the  construction  and  commencement  of  service  requirements  under  Section  22.946(  a)  of  the  Commissions  rules  17  for  Station  KNKR315  and,  as  a  result,  the  license  automatically  cancelled  on 
 May  21,  1998.  18  The  Divisions  Licensing  Branch  sent  SBI  a  letter  dated  August  7,  1998,  notifying  SBI  of  the  automatic  cancellation  of  its  license  for  Station  KNKR315.  19  As  a  result  of  the  automatic 
 cancellation,  the  status  of  the  license  for  Station  KNKR315  was  entered  into  ULS  as  Terminated. 
 6.  Despite  the  automatic  cancellation  and  associated  notification,  SBI  filed  a  Phase  II  unserved  area  application  on  September  16,  1998,  proposing  to  modify  its  license  for  Station  KNKR315 


 by  adding  a  second  cell  site  northwest  of  Datil,  New  Mexico.  20  SBIs  application  was  granted  on  November  12,  1998.  21  While  granting  the  application  was  substantively  proper,  a  new  call  sign  should 
 have  been  assigned  to  the  license.  SBIs  application,  however,  was  granted  under  Call  Sign  KNKR315  as  requested  in  the  application,  22  but  the  status  of  KNKR315  remained  in  ULS  as  Terminated.  SBI  notified 
 the  Commission  of  the  error  on  July  11,  2002,  through  a  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  McElroys  first-  filed  application  that  it  filed  on  that  day  23  and  the  status  of  SBIs  license  in  ULS  for  Station  KNKR315  was 
 changed  to  Active  on  July  16,  2002. 


 15  File  No.  07639-  CL-  P1-  95. 
 16  The  license  for  Station  KNKR316  was  granted  in  1998,  and  the  license  for  Station  KNKN208  was  granted  in 
 1999,  each  with  ten-  year  license  terms.  17 
 47  C.  F.  R.    22.946(  a).  18 
 47  C.  F.  R.    1.  946(  c)  (formerly  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  144(  b)  (1998)).  19 
 Letter  from  Roger  S.  Noel,  Chief,  Licensing  &  Technical  Analysis  Branch,  Commercial  Wireless  Division  to  J.  Justin  McClure,  Esq.,  Counsel  to  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  (Aug.  7,  1998)  (stating  that  [  a]  review  of  Commission  records 


 indicates  that  an  FCC  Form  489  has  not  been  filed  within  the  12  month  period  for  station  KNKR315  as  required  by  Section  22.  946(  a)  of  the  rules.  In  view  of  the  foregoing  and  pursuant  to  Section  22.  144(  b)  of  the  Commissions 
 rules,  the  authorization  for  station  KNKR315  is  hereby  terminated.);  Public  Notice,  Report  No.  CWS-  98-  46  at  3  (Aug.  20,  1998)  (listing  07639-  CL-  P1-  95,  KNKR315,  555A1,  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  as  terminated  by  letter  effective 
 August  7,  1998).  20 
 File  No.  03925-  CL-  P2-  98.  Letter  from  J.  Justin  McClure,  Esq.,  Counsel  for  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  to  Steven  Weingarten,  Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division  (Sept.  16,  1998). 


 21  Public  Notice,  Report  No.  CWS-  99-  7  (Nov.  12,  1998).  SBI  later  amended  its  license  to  reduce  the  service  area 
 boundary.  The  modification  was  granted  on  April  1,  1999.  22 
 Only  the  site  proposed  in  SBIs  modified  Phase  II  unserved  area  application  is  licensed  under  Station  KNKR315.  23 
 Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny,  filed  by  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  (July  11,  2002)  (SBI  July  11,  2002  Petition). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 4 
 B.  McElroy  Electronics  Corporations  Applications 
 7.  The  ten  cellular  sites  that  McElroy  proposed  in  its  first-  filed  application  included  seven  sites  that  would  provide  service  to  an  area  virtually  identical  to  the  area  formerly  served  by  Alee,  together 


 with  three  sites,  Magdalena,  Datil,  and  Quemado,  extending  due  west  of  the  former  Alee  service  area.  The  Magdalena  site  is  the  eastern-  most  site  and  the  Quemado  site  is  farthest  west,  with  Datil  located 
 between  the  two.  24  According  to  McElroy,  over  the  course  of  the  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  filing  period,  it  discovered  that  SBI  was  licensed  and  operating  under  Station  KNKR315  at  McElroys  proposed  Datil 
 site.  25  On  July  11,  2002,  the  29  th  day  of  the  notice  and  cut-  off  period,  McElroy  amended  its  first-  filed  application  to  delete  the  proposed  Datil  and  Quemado  sites.  McElroy  deleted  the  proposed  Quemado  site 
 from  its  first-  filed  application  because  Commission  rules  limit  each  application  to  one  CGSA,  26  and  without  the  Datil  site,  authority  to  operate  at  Quemado  requires  a  stand-  alone  CGSA.  27  McElroy 
 therefore  separately  filed,  on  the  same  day,  July  11,  2002,  a  Phase  II  unserved  area  application  for  the  Quemado  site.  28  Also  on  July  11,  2002,  SBI  filed  its  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  McElroys  first-  filed 
 application,  alleging  that  McElroys  proposal  would  cause  harmful  interference  to  its  Station  KNKR315  licensed  at  the  Datil  site.  The  Divisions  Policy  and  Rules  Branch  dismissed  SBIs  Petition  to  Deny  as 
 moot  because  McElroy  had  amended  its  application  to  remove  the  potential  interference.  29 
 C.  Commnet  Capital,  LLC  Application  and  ALLTEL  Communications  of  the  Southwest  Limited  Partnership  Application 


 8.  Commnet  Wireless,  LLC  (Commnet)  submitted  the  second-  in-  time  mutually  exclusive  application  on  June  12,  2002,  30  one  day  after  McElroys  application  was  accepted  for  filing.  ALLTEL 
 Communications  of  the  Southwest  Limited  Partnership  (ALLTEL)  filed  a  competing  application  on  July  11,  2002,  the  29  th  day  of  the  notice  and  cut-  off  period.  31  Neither  of  these  applications  proposes  service  at 
 any  of  the  three  western  sites,  Magdalena,  Datil,  or  Quemado,  New  Mexico. 


 24  FCC  601  Main  Form,  File  No.  0000913369.  The  ten  (10)  proposed  locations  included:  Bernardo  NM,  Socorro 
 County  (Location  1);  Caballo  NM,  Sierra  County  (Location  2);  Datil  NM,  Catron  County  (Location  3);  Socorro  NM,  Socorro  County  (Location  4);  Magdalena  NM,  Socorro  County  (Location  5);  Belen  NM,  Valencia  County  (Location 


 6);  Quemado  NM,  Catron  County  (Location  7);  San  Antonio  NM,  Socorro  County  (Location  8);  Socorro  NM,  Socorro  County  (Location  9);  and  Truth  or  Consequences  NM,  Sierra  County  (Location  10). 
 25  SBI  is  authorized  to  operate  at  a  tower  located  approximately  9.  7  miles  northwest  of  Datil  NM,  at  the  location 
 coordinates  of  34-  15-  00.  0  N,  107-  57-  17.0  W.  McElroy  proposed  operations  at  the  exact  same  location.  26 
 47  C.  F.  R.    22.949(  b)(  3).  27 
 In  amending  its  application,  FCC  File  No.  0000913369,  McElroy  also  reduced  power  at  the  Magdalena  site.  28 
 FCC  601  Main  Form,  File  No.  0000959846  (July  11,  2002).  29 
 In  re  Application  of  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  For  Authorization  to  Construct  and  Operate  a  Cellular  Station  in  Market  No.  555,  New  Mexico  RSA  3,  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  23657  (CWD  2002).  In  a  letter  filed  on  July 


 22,  2002,  SBI  acknowledged  that  McElroys  amended  application  fully  protects  SBIs  Datil  site  from  interference  and  voluntarily  withdrew  its  Petition  to  Deny  McElroys  application.  Letter  from  Todd  Slamowitz,  Counsel  for 
 Smith  Bagley,  Inc.,  to  Marlene  Dortch,  Secretary  (July  22,  2002).  30 
 FCC  601  Main  Form,  filed  by  Commnet  Capital,  LLC,  File  No.  0000922001  (June  12,  2002).  Commnets  application  was  accepted  for  filing  on  June  19,  2002,  Public  Notice,  Report  No.  1207  (June  19,  2002). 


 31  FCC  601  Main  Form,  File  No.  0000959430  (July  11,  2002).  ALLTELs  application  was  accepted  for  filing  on 
 July  17,  2002,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Site-  by-  Site  Accepted  for  Filing,  Public  Notice,  Report  No.  1231  at  27  (July  17,  2002)  (July  17,  2002  Public  Notice). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 5 
 D.  WWC  License  L.  L.  C.  s  Application 
 9.  WWC  also  filed  its  competing  application  on  July  11,  2002,  within  the  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  window  established  by  McElroys  first-  filed  application.  WWCs  application  is  virtually  identical 


 to  McElroys  first-  filed  application,  including  proposals  for  the  Magdalena,  Datil,  and  Quemado  sites.  32  On  July  25,  2002,  the  Divisions  Licensing  Branch  returned  WWCs  application  along  with  a  letter 
 directing  WWC  to  amend  its  application  within  60  days  of  the  date  of  the  letter  to  demonstrate  that  its  proposal  would  not  cause  unlawful  interference  to  the  Datil  site  authorized  under  SBIs  license  for  Station 
 KNKR315  (July  25  Letter).  33  In  response,  on  September  5,  2002,  WWC  filed  an  amendment  to  its  application  deleting  the  Datil  site  and  reducing  power  at  its  proposed  Magdalena  and  Quemado  sites.  As 
 in  McElroys  situation,  deleting  the  Datil  site  left  a  gap  in  the  service  area  proposed  in  WWCs  initial  application,  resulting  in  a  distinct  CGSA  for  the  proposed  Quemado  site.  Rather  than  submitting  a 
 separate  application  for  the  Quemado  site,  however,  WWC  requests  waiver  of  Section  22.949(  b)(  3)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  which  permits  only  one  CGSA  per  application.  34  In  the  alternative,  WWC  requests 
 a  waiver  of  the  filing  date  requirement  set  forth  under  Section  22.131(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules  to  allow  it  to  file  a  separate  application  for  the  Quemado  site.  Finally,  WWC  states  that  if  the  Commission 
 denies  its  alternative  waiver  requests,  it  will  withdraw  its  proposed  Quemado  site.  35  On  September  25,  2002,  McElroy  filed  its  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  WWCs  amended  application  as  defective.  36 


 E.  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  s  Applications 
 10.  SBI  filed  its  competing  application  on  July  12,  2002,  the  last  day  of  the  notice  and  cut-  off  period,  proposing  service  that  would  cover  the  area  in  the  New  Mexico  3  RSA  east  of  its  Station 


 KNKR315  located  at  Datil,  New  Mexico.  Specifically,  SBIs  application  proposes  service  at  the  Magdalena  site  in  addition  to  the  area  formerly  covered  by  Alee.  The  application  does  not  propose 
 service  at  the  Quemado  site.  37  Rather,  on  August  14,  2002,  SBI  filed  a  separate  Phase  II  unserved  area  application  for  a  new  cellular  system  at  the  Quemado  site.  38  According  to  SBI,  it  filed  its  Quemado 
 application  within  the  30-  day  period  established  by  McElroys  separately  filed  Quemado  application,  which  was  accepted  for  filing  on  July  17,  2002.  39  On  September  20,  2002,  McElroy  and  WWC  filed 


 32  FCC  601  Main  Form,  File  No.  0000959496  (July  11,  2002).  WWCs  application  proposed  ten  sites,  nine  of 
 which  were  identical  in  location  to  McElroys  proposals.  WWC  did  not  include  the  Bernardo  NM,  Socorro  County  location  proposed  in  McElroys  application.  Rather,  WWC  proposes  a  nearby  site  at  Bosque  NM  in  Socorro  County 


 (Location  1).  WWCs  application  was  accepted  for  filing  on  July  17,  2002.  July  17,  2002  Public  Notice  at  28-  29.  33 
 Letter  to  William  J.  Hackett,  Western  Wireless  Corporation,  from  Michael  A.  Ferrante,  Chief,  Licensing  and  Technical  Analysis  Branch,  Commercial  Wireless  Division  (July  25,  2002). 


 34  FCC  File  No.  0000959496,  at  Ex.  9,  Request  for  Waiver  of  Section  22.  949(  b)(  3)  at  2  (Waiver  Request). 
 35  Waiver  Request  at  3. 
 36  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  1.  WWC  filed  an  opposition  on  October  9,  2002,  Opposition  to  Petition  to 
 Dismiss  or  Deny,  filed  by  WWC  License  L.  L.  C.  (Oct.  9,  2002).  McElroy  filed  a  motion  on  October  17,  2002,  seeking  an  extension  of  time  to  October  28,  2002,  for  filing  its  reply,  Motion  for  Extension  of  Time,  filed  by 


 McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  (Oct.  17,  2002).  Counsel  for  WWC  consented  to  the  extension.  We  therefore  grant  the  motion.  McElroy  filed  its  reply  on  October  28,  2002,  Reply  of  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  to 
 Opposition  to  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny,  filed  by  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  (Oct.  28,  2002)  (McElroy  Informal  Reply). 
 37  FCC  601  Main  Form,  File  No.  0000960815  (July  12,  2002).  SBIs  initial  application  was  also  accepted  for  filing 
 on  July  17,  2002.  July  17,  2002  Public  Notice  at  29-  30.  38 
 FCC  601  Main  Form,  File  No.  0000997158  (Aug.  14,  2002).  SBIs  second  application  was  accepted  for  filing  on  August  21,  2002.  Public  Notice,  Report  No.  1263  (Aug.  21,  2002). 


 39  July  17,  2002  Public  Notice  at  29. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 6 
 individual  petitions  to  dismiss  SBIs  Quemado  application  as  defective,  arguing  that  SBI  filed  the  application  outside  of  the  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  window  established  by  McElroys  first-  filed 
 application.  40 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  Quemado  Application 
 11.  We  dismiss  SBIs  application  proposing  service  at  the  Quemado,  New  Mexico  site  as  defective  because  SBI  filed  the  application  outside  the  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  period  established  by  the 


 public  notice  accepting  McElroys  first-  filed  application  for  filing.  The  Commission  has,  over  time,  adopted  various  cut-  off  rules,  so  called  because  applicants  filing  before  the  deadlines  are  cut  off  from 
 competition  against  late-  filing  parties.  41  The  Commission  has  repeatedly  stated  that  the  cut-  off  period  established  by  the  first-  filed  mutually  exclusive  application  applies  to  all  mutually  exclusive  filings.  42 
 Thus,  once  the  Commission  places  that  initial  application  on  public  notice  as  accepted-  for-  filing,  all  applications  proposing  CGSAs  that  overlap  the  CGSA  proposed  in  that  first-  filed  application  must  be 
 filed  within  the  notice  and  cut-  off  period  established  by  the  first-  filed  application  to  be  given  concurrent  consideration.  This  rule  applies  to  applications  that  are  either  directly  or  indirectly  mutually  exclusive 
 with  the  first-  filed  application.  43  Similarly,  the  cut-  off  deadline  established  by  the  first-  filed  application  applies  to  additional  mutually  exclusive  facilities  proposed  by  the  original  applicant.  44  Section 
 22.131(  c)(  3)(  iii)  of  the  Commissions  rules  states  that  a  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  period  is  used  when 


 40  SBI  filed  a  consolidated  opposition  to  both  petitions  to  deny.  Opposition  to  Petitions  to  Dismiss,  filed  by  Smith 
 Bagley  Inc.  (Oct.  3,  2002)  (SBI  Opposition).  McElroy  and  WWC  separately  filed  replies  to  SBIs  Opposition.  Reply  of  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  to  Opposition  to  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny,  filed  by  McElroy 


 Electronics  Corporation  (Oct.  15,  2002)  (McElroy  SBI  Reply);  Reply  to  Opposition  to  Petitions  to  Dismiss  or  Deny,  filed  by  WWC  License  L.  L.  C.  (Oct.  16,  2002)  (WWC  Reply). 
 41  See  Florida  Institute  of  Technology  v.  FCC,  952  F.  2d  549  (D.  C.  Cir.  1992)  (Florida  Institute)  (explaining  that 
 [  i]  n  response  to  the  holding  in  Ashbacker  Radio  Corp.  v.  FCC,  326  U.  S.  327  (1945)  that  the  Commission  must  afford  a  comparative  hearing  to  mutually  exclusive  applications  for  a  broadcast  license,  the  Commission  established 


 various  cut-  off  rules,  so  named  because  applicants  filing  before  the  deadlines  are  cut  off  from  competition  against  late-  filing  parties). 
 42  In  re  Applications  of  William  G.  Bowles,  Jr.  d/  b/  a  Mid-  Missouri  Mobilfone,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order 
 and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  61  Rad.  Reg.  2d  20  (CCB  1986)  (William  G.  Bowles).  To  ensure  consistent  and  impartial  treatment  of  applicants,  the  Commission  strictly  enforces  its  cut-  off  rules  even  when  enforcement  causes 


 harsh  results  in  particular  cases.  See  Florida  Institute,  952  F.  2d  at  550  (stating  that  to  promote  the  purpose  of  the  cut-  off  rules  and  to  ensure  consistent  and  impartial  treatment  of  applicants,  the  FCC  has  insisted  on  strict 
 enforcement  of  the  rules,  even  when  this  causes  harsh  results  in  particular  cases)  (citing  RKO  General  Inc.  (WNAC-TV),  89  F.  C.  C.  2d  297,  321  n.  96  (1982);  Nazarene  Theological  Seminary  Radio  Corp.  (KTSR),  52  Rad  Reg.  (P&  F) 
 559,  563  (Broadcast  Bur.  1982)).  43 
 Another  way  of  explaining  this  principle  is  to  state  that  the  rule  applies  to  applications  proposing  CGSAs  that  either  directly  or  indirectly  overlap  with  the  CGSA  proposed  in  the  first-  filed  application. 


 44  William  G.  Bowles,  61  Rad.  Reg.  2d  20  (CCB  1986).  In  William  G.  Bowles,  the  Common  Carrier  Bureau 
 dismissed  the  first-  filed  applicants  later-  filed  applications  where  those  later-  filed  applications  were  mutually  exclusive  with  a  competing  application  that  was  filed  within  the  notice  and  cut-  off  period  of  the  original  applicants 


 first-  filed  application,  but  the  original  applicant  filed  its  later  applications  after  the  cut-  off  deadline  of  its  own  first-filed  application.  Id.  at    13.  Similarly,  in  Pacific  Bell,  the  Mobile  Services  Division  rejected  the  original 
 applicants  later-  filed  application  even  after  the  applicant  had  voluntarily  withdrawn  its  first-  filed  application.  In  that  case,  the  later-  filed  application  was  mutually  exclusive  with  a  competing  application  that  was  filed  within  the 
 notice  and  cut-  off  period  of  the  original  applicants  first-  filed  application  and  the  original  applicant  filed  its  second  application  after  the  cut-  off  deadline  established  by  its  first-  filed  application.  In  re  Application  of  Pacific  Bell, 
 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  3  FCC  Rcd  3692  (MSD  1988). 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 7 
 applications  are  filed  for  initial  authorizations.  45  The  Licensing  Branch  placed  McElroys  first-  filed  application  on  public  notice  on  June  12,  2002,  establishing  a  cut-  off  deadline  of  July  12,  2002.  SBI  filed 
 its  Quemado  application  on  August  14,  2002,  33  days  after  the  notice  and  cut-  off  deadline  for  filing  competing  applications. 


 12.  In  dismissing  SBIs  Quemado  application  as  filed  in  an  untimely  manner,  we  reject  SBIs  argument  that  its  Quemado  application  and  McElroys  first-  filed  application  were  never  competing 
 applications.  SBI  explains  that  McElroy  had  amended  its  first-  filed  application  to  delete  its  Quemado  site  so  that  the  CGSA  of  McElroys  amended  first-  filed  application  did  not  overlap  with  the  CGSA  in  SBIs 
 proposed  Quemado  application  at  the  time  SBI  filed  its  Quemado  application.  46 
 13.  SBI  supports  its  argument  that  its  Quemado  application  is  not  untimely  by  citing  to  In  the  Matter  of  Plaincom,  Inc.  47  Relying  heavily  on  the  rule  that  whether  an  application  is  timely  must  be 


 determined  as  of  the  time  of  filing,  not  by  an  event  occurring  after  the  cut-  off  date,  SBI  argues  that  McElroy  withdrew  its  proposed  Quemado  site  from  its  first-  filed  application  before  SBI  filed  its  own 
 Quemado  application.  48  SBI  further  contends  that  the  Commissions  rule  that  the  first-  filed  application,  even  if  subsequently  dismissed,  establishes  the  cut-  off  period  for  all  later  competing  applications  is 
 inapplicable  because  SBI  filed  its  Quemado  application  after,  not  before,  McElroy  amended  its  first-  filed  application  to  delete  its  originally  proposed  Quemado  site.  49  In  Plaincom,  the  Commission  explained  that 
 where  the  first-  filed  application  is  dismissed  after  the  second  application  is  filed,  deeming  the  untimeliness  of  the  second  application  to  be  cured  retroactively  by  the  subsequent  dismissal  of  the  first 
 application  would  deprive  interested  parties  of  the  opportunity  to  file  competing  applications  against  the  second  and  untimely  application.  50  The  Commission  further  explained  that  where  a  first-  filed  application 
 is  dismissed  before  the  untimely  second  application  is  filed,  the  public  notice  listing  the  second  application  as  accepted-  for-  filing  initiates  a  new  notice  and  cut-  off  period,  during  which  competing 


 45  47  C.  F.  R.    22.131(  c)(  3)(  iii). 
 46  SBI  Opposition  at  5-  6. 
 47  In  the  Matter  of  Plaincom,  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  11889  (2000)  (Plaincom). 
 Plaincom  involved  a  first-  filed  application  and  Plaincom,  Inc.  s  competing  application  that  was  filed  several  weeks  after  the  cut-  off  deadline.  The  competing  application  was  dismissed  as  untimely  and  the  first-  filed  application  was 


 subsequently  dismissed  as  defective.  Plaincom,  Inc.  appealed  the  dismissal  of  its  application  up  to  the  Commission,  arguing  that  the  dismissal  of  the  first-  filed  application  cured  the  untimeliness  of  its  own  application.  The 
 Commission  rejected  Plaincom,  Inc.  s  argument.  48 
 SBI  Opposition  at  6-  7  (citing  Plaincom,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  11892,    7).  SBI  takes  the  quote  whether  an  application  is  timely  must  be  determined  as  of  the  time  of  filing,  not  by  an  event  occurring  after  the  cut-  off  date,  from  a  portion 


 of  Plaincom  where  the  Commission  is  summarizing  a  daisy  chain  case,  Leo  V.  Carmody,  In  the  Matter  of  Leo  V.  Carmody,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  4  FCC  Rcd  5459,  5460,    9  (CCB  1989).  Plaincom,  15  FCC  Rcd  at 
 11892,    7.  The  Commission  explicitly  states  that  Carmody  did  not  involve  the  dismissal  of  a  first-  filed  application;  instead,  it  involved  application  of  the  daisy  chain  rule.  Id.  As  the  Commission  explained,  Leo  V. 
 Carmody  filed  an  application  to  provide  service  in  Greenville,  New  York.  The  Greenville  application  was  mutually  exclusive  with  a  previously  filed  application  to  serve  Monticello,  New  York.  Although  both  applications  were  part 
 of  a  daisy  chain,  neither  application  was  the  first-  filed  application.  The  Greenville  application  was  timely  with  respect  to  the  Monticello  application,  but  was  filed  more  than  sixty  days  after  the  cut-  off  date  of  the  first-  filed 
 application.  After  the  Greenville  application  was  filed,  the  Monticello  application  was  dismissed.  Id.  The  Commission  affirmed  in  Plaincom  that  as  a  consequence  of  the  dismissal  of  the  Monticello  application,  the 
 Greenville  application  was  no  longer  part  of  a  daisy  chain  with  the  first-  filed  application,  so  it  did  not  have  to  be  filed  by  the  cut-  off  date  established  by  that  application.  Id.  SBI  provides  no  analysis  on  how  this  case  applies  to  the 
 instant  proceeding  or  any  evidence  that  any  event  occurred  after  the  cut-  off  date  established  by  McElroys  first-  filed  application  that  would  deem  SBIs  Quemado  application  as  filed  in  a  timely  manner. 
 49  SBI  Opposition  at  6. 
 50  Plaincom,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  11893,    9. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 8 
 applications  may  be  filed.  51  Plaincom,  however,  is  inapplicable  in  this  proceeding  because  McElroys  first-  filed  application  has  neither  been  dismissed  nor  withdrawn. 
 14.  Consistent  with  Commission  rules,  the  July  12,  2002  cut-  off  deadline  in  this  proceeding  applies  to  all  applications  that  are  either  directly  or  indirectly  mutually  exclusive  with  McElroys  first-filed 
 application,  including  additional  mutually  exclusive  facilities  proposed  by  McElroy.  Stated  another  way,  once  the  Division  placed  McElroys  first-  filed  application  on  public  notice  as  accepted-  for-  filing,  all 
 applications  proposing  CGSAs  that  overlap  the  CGSA  proposed  in  McElroys  first-  filed  application  must  be  filed  within  the  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  period  established  by  McElroys  first-  filed  application  to  be 
 given  concurrent  consideration.  Commnet,  ALLTEL,  WWC,  and  SBI  individually  filed  initial  applications  meeting  that  requirement. 


 15.  In  addition,  pursuant  to  Commission  rules  that  permit  applicants  to  submit  minor  amendments  to  their  applications,  52  McElroy  amended  its  first-  filed  application  for  the  purpose  of  curing 
 defects  in  its  initial  proposal  that  would  have  caused  unlawful  interference  to  operations  authorized  under  SBIs  license  for  Station  KNKR315  at  Datil,  New  Mexico.  By  curing  the  defects  in  its  application, 
 McElroy  preserved  its  right  to  protection  for  its  application  from  competing  applications  filed  after  the  cut-  off  deadline.  In  addition,  McElroy  filed  a  new  application  for  the  Quemado  site  prior  to  the  cut-  off 
 deadline,  similarly  preserving  its  right  to  protection  for  that  proposed  site  from  competing  applications  filed  after  the  same  cut-  off  deadline.  53  McElroys  amendment  and  application  for  additional  facilities  at 
 the  Quemado  site  did  not  alter  the  cut-  off  deadline  established  by  its  first-  filed  application.  McElroys  actions  merely  preserved  its  ability  to  be  given  concurrent  consideration  with  other  applications  filed  in  a 
 timely  manner  within  that  notice  and  cut-  off  period.  SBI,  on  the  other  hand,  filed  its  Quemado  application  outside  the  notice  and  cut-  off  period  established  by  McElroys  first-  filed  application. 


 16.  While  SBI  contends  that  McElroys  separately  filed  Quemado  application  initiated  a  new  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  period  and  that  its  August  14,  2002  Quemado  application  is  therefore  filed  in  a 
 timely  manner,  54  SBI  raises  a  concern  in  its  Opposition  that  its  Quemado  application  may  be  untimely  filed  in  the  context  of  the  Commissions  daisy  chain  rule  55  because  WWC  filed  an  application  before  the 
 July  12,  2002  cut-  off  deadline  that  also  proposed  a  site  at  Quemado,  New  Mexico.  56  SBI  counters  its  own  contention  arguing  that  WWCs  application  is  so  defective  because  of  the  interference  that  it  would  cause 
 to  SBIs  Station  KNKR315  that  WWCs  application  does  not  warrant  concurrent  consideration  with  SBIs  Quemado  application  and  should  be  dismissed.  57  We  initially  dismiss  SBIs  argument  as  a  late-filed 
 petition  to  deny  WWCs  initial  application.  58  Section  1.939(  a)(  2)  of  the  Commissions  rules 


 51  Id;  see  William  G.  Bowles,  Jr.,  61  Rad.  Reg.  2d  at    13  (stating  that  [  t]  he  subsequent  dismissal  of  the  first-  filed 
 application  does  not  alter  the  applicable  cut-  off  period).  52 
 Minor  amendments  filed  prior  to  a  pending  application  being  designated  for  hearing  or  listed  in  a  public  notice  as  accepted  for  filing  for  competitive  bidding  are  permitted  as  a  matter  of  right  under  Commission  rules.  47  C.  F.  R.   


 1.927.  53 
 See  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  949(  b)(  2)  (providing  that  [  t]  here  is  no  limit  to  the  number  of  phase  II  applications  that  may  be  granted  on  each  channel  block  in  each  market.    [m]  utually  exclusive  applications  are  processed  using  the  general 


 procedures  in    22.  131).  54 
 SBI  Opposition  at  5-  6.  55 
 Formerly  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  31(  c).  56 
 SBI  Opposition  at  7-  9.  57 
 SBI  Opposition  at  7-  9.  58 
 In  its  Opposition,  SBI  explains  that  although  it  was  aware  of  the  defects  in  WWCs  application,  SBI  elected  not  to  file  a  petition  to  deny  at  the  time  WWC  filed  its  application.  SBI  Opposition  at  4.  Specifically,  SBI  stated,  that 


 (continued....) 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 9 
 provides  that  petitions  to  deny  must  be  filed  no  later  than  30  days  after  the  date  of  the  public  notice  listing  the  application  as  accepted  for  filing.  59  WWCs  application  was  accepted  for  filing  on  July  17,  2002, 
 establishing  a  deadline  for  petitions  to  deny  of  August  16,  2002.  SBI  filed  its  Opposition,  which  presents  its  argument  to  dismiss  WWCs  application,  on  October  3,  2002,  77  days  after  WWCs  application  was 
 accepted  for  filing. 
 17.  Moreover,  the  daisy  chain  rule  is  inapplicable  in  this  case  because  SBIs  Quemado  application  is  not  indirectly  mutually  exclusive  with  McElroys  first-  filed  application.  As  we  have 


 already  stated,  the  cut-  off  period  established  by  the  first-  filed  mutually  exclusive  application  applies  to  all  mutually  exclusive  filings.  Under  Commission  rules,  the  CGSA  proposed  in  McElroys  first-  filed 
 application  does  not  shape-  shift  as  events  take  place  during  the  notice  and  cut-  off  period.  The  amendment  of  McElroys  first-  filed  application  did  not  alter  the  CGSA  proposed  in  that  first-  filed 
 application  nor  did  it  alter  the  cut-  off  deadline  in  this  proceeding.  McElroys  first-  filed  application  proposed  a  site  at  Quemado,  New  Mexico;  WWCs  application  proposed  a  site  at  Quemado,  New 
 Mexico;  SBI  filed  an  application  proposing  a  site  at  Quemado,  New  Mexico.  Those  proposals  are  directly  mutually  exclusive.  The  daisy  chain  rule  is  inapplicable. 


 18.  We  note,  however,  that  even  if  the  daisy  chain  rule  were  relevant  in  this  case,  we  would  reject  SBIs  argument  opposing  application  of  the  rule.  SBI  urges  us  to  enforce  [its]  right  to 
 interference-  free  operation  by  dismissing  WWCs  application,  arguing  that  SBIs  Quemado  application  cannot  be  cut-  off  by  an  application  that  is  fundamentally  defective.  60  Commission  policy  and  rules 
 protect  existing  stations  from  unlawful  interference.  61  While  that  type  of  technical  defect  in  an  application  may  result  in  the  dismissal  of  the  application,  an  application  with  a  proposal  that  would  result 
 in  unlawful  interference  or  even  the  dismissal  of  that  application  generally  cannot  cure  the  untimeliness  of  another  application,  62  and  SBI  provides  no  legal  support  to  demonstrate  otherwise. 


 19.  Finally,  SBI  has  held  a  license  for  many  years  to  provide  cellular  service  under  the  Call  Sign  KNKR315  in  the  western  portion  of  the  New  Mexico  RSA  3  market  at  Datil,  New  Mexico.  By 
 stating  in  its  July  11,  2002  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  McElroys  first-  filed  application  that  [  u]  pon  review  of  McElroys  application,  SBI  discovered  that  its  Datil  Site,  operating  under  Call  Sign  KNKR315, 
 had  been  terminated  in  the  Commissions  ULS  database  for  unspecified  reasons,    and  that  each  of  McElroys  proposed  service  contours  for  each  of  its  three  site  locations  at  Datil,  NM,  Quemado,  NM,  and 
 Magdalena,  NM  overlaps  SBIs  existing  authorized  Datil  site,  63  SBI  fully  acknowledges  that  it  was  aware  that  McElroys  first-  filed  application  included  a  proposal  for  the  Quemado  site  and  was  informed 
 about  the  circumstances  in  this  proceeding  in  making  its  decisions  on  when  to  file  its  applications.  64  We 
 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  [  p]  erfectly  aware  that  WWCs  application  was  defective,  and  believing  that  it  had  been  returned,  SBI  did  not 
 consider  a  challenge  to  the  application.  Id.  59 
 47  C.  F.  R.    1.939(  a)(  2).  60 
 SBI  Opposition  at  8-  9.  61 
 47  C.  F.  R.    22.  911-  22.  917.  62 
 An  applicant  might  withdraw  its  first-  filed  application  or  the  Commission  might  dismiss  the  application  before  any  mutually  exclusive  applications  are  filed,  which  could  result  in  a  new  filing  and  a  new  notice  and  cut-  off  period, 


 but  that  is  not  the  situation  in  this  case.  63 
 SBI  July  11,  2002  Petition  at  2.  64 
 We  cannot  disregard  the  diligence  that  each  of  the  five  applicants  has  shown  in  filing  applications  before  the  cut-off  deadline  established  by  McElroys  first-  filed  application.  The  Commission  has  long  recognized  that  diligent 


 applicants  have  a  legitimate  expectation  that  we  will  enforce  the  cut-  off  rules.  See  Florida  Institute  of  Technology  v.  FCC,  952  F.  2d  549,  554  (D.  C.  Cir.  1992)  (stating  that  in  contrast  to  the  applicant  that  filed  after  the  cut-  off  date,  the 
 applicant  that  filed  a  mutually  exclusive  application  in  a  timely  manner  had  at  all  times  complied  with  the  cut-  off  (continued....) 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 10 
 find  that  SBI  filed  its  Quemado  application  in  an  untimely  manner  outside  the  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  period  established  by  McElroys  first-  filed  application.  Accordingly,  we  dismiss  SBIs  Quemado 
 application  as  defective  pursuant  to  Section  1.934(  a)  of  the  Commissions  rules.  65 
 B.  WWC  License  L.  L.  C.  Amended  Application  and  Request  for  Waiver 
 20.  We  next  turn  to  WWCs  amended  application  and  associated  Waiver  Request,  and  McElroys  challenge  to  that  amended  application.  As  we  stated  above,  WWC  filed  its  amended 


 application  on  September  5,  2002,  along  with  a  request  for  waiver  of  Section  22.  949(  b)(  3)  of  the  Commissions  rules,  which  permits  only  one  CGSA  per  application.  In  the  alternative,  WWC  seeks 
 waiver  of  the  filing  date  requirement,  set  forth  under  Section  22.131(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules,  to  allow  WWC  to  file  a  separate  application  for  the  Quemado  site  after  the  cut-  off  deadline  established  by 
 McElroys  first-  filed  application.  66  We  grant  WWC  waiver  of  Section  22.949(  b)(  3).  We  therefore  will  not  consider  WWCs  request  for  waiver  of  Section  22.  131(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules. 


 21.  We  initially  find  that  McElroy  filed  its  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  WWCs  application  in  an  untimely  manner.  Section  1.939(  a)(  2)  provides  that  petitions  to  deny  non-  auctionable  applications 
 must  be  filed  no  later  than  30  days  after  the  date  of  the  public  notice  listing  the  application  or  major  amendment  to  the  application  as  accepted  for  filing.  67  McElroy  reasons  that  Section  1.939(  a)(  2)  is 
 inapposite  regarding  the  timeliness  of  [its]  petition  because  Section  22.131(  b),  the  rule  section  that  governs  this  proceeding  for  granting  one  application  in  a  group  of  mutually  exclusive  applications,  directs 
 the  Commission  to  employ  auction  procedures.  68  The  purpose  of  each  rule  section,  however,  differs  from  the  other  and  the  procedural  requirements  of  Section  1.  939(  a)(  2)  precede  the  procedural  requirements  of 
 Section  22.131(  b).  Section  1.939(  a)(  2)  of  the  Commissions  rules  outlines  those  procedures  used  to  allow  third  parties  to  assist  the  Commission  in  determining  whether  a  non-  auctionable  application  is  defective 
 and  should  be  dismissed  in  the  first  place.  For  applications  that  are  determined  finally  to  be  acceptable  for  filing,  Section  22.131(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules  outlines  the  procedures  used  for  determining 
 whether  applications  are  mutually  exclusive  and,  if  so,  whether  competitive  bidding  will  be  used  to  determine  which  of  those  mutually  exclusive  applications  may  be  granted. 


 22.  We  also  reject  McElroys  arguments  that  its  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  is  timely  because  WWCs  separate  CGSA  constitutes  either  an  initial  authorization  or  a  major  modification  to  an 
 existing  station.  McElroy  first  argues  that  Section  22.131(  d)(  2)(  i)  of  the  Commissions  rules  defines  an  application  for  a  new  station  as  a  request  for  an  initial  authorization  and  that  Section  1.929(  a)  of  the 
 Commissions  rules  defines  an  application  for  an  initial  authorization  as  a  major  action,  initiating  a  new  30-  day  notice  and  cut-  off  period.  69  WWC  did  not  file  an  application  on  September  5,  2002,  for  its 


 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  rules  and,  as  the  Commission  (and  this  court)  has  long  recognized,  such  diligent  applicants  have  a  legitimate 
 expectation  that  the  cut-  off  rules  will  be  enforced  (citing  City  of  Angels  Broadcasting,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  745  F.  2d  656,  663  (D.  C.  Cir.  1984)). 
 65  47  C.  F.  R.    1.934(  a). 
 66  Waiver  Request  at  2. 
 67  47  C.  F.  R.    1.939(  a)(  2). 
 68  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  2-  3.  McElroy  contends  that  WWCs  citing  in  this  proceeding,  specifically  in  its 
 Petition  to  Deny  SBIs  application,  to  the  rules  section  directing  the  Commission  to  use  auctions  when  granting  an  application  in  a  group  of  mutually  exclusive  applications,    demonstrates  that  Section  1.939(  a)(  2)  is  inapposite 


 regarding  the  timeliness  of  McElroys  Petition.  Id.  at  3  (emphasis  in  original).  We  note  that  McElroy  filed  its  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  under  Section  1.939  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.  939.  McElroy  Informal 
 Objection  at  1.  69 
 McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  3  (citing  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  131(  d)(  2)(  i)). 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 11 
 proposed  Quemado  site.  WWC  filed  an  amendment  to  its  initial  application  deleting  the  Datil  site  and  reducing  the  Magdalena  and  Quemado  sites.  The  amendments  also  resulted  in  two  separate  CGSAs, 
 causing  WWC  to  seek  a  waiver  of  the  Commissions  rule  permitting  only  one  CGSA  per  application.  Denial  of  the  waiver  could  result  in  dismissal  of  WWCs  application,  but  the  amendments  are  considered 
 minor  under  Commission  rules  and  do  not  initiate  a  new  pleading  cycle  for  filing  petitions  to  deny.  70 
 23.  For  the  same  reasons,  we  reject  McElroys  contention  that  Section  1.947(  a)  of  the  Commissions  rules  classifies  WWCs  amended  application  as  a  major  modification,  initiating  a  new  30- 


 day  filing  period  for  petitions  to  deny  under  Section  1.939(  a)(  2)  of  the  Commissions  rules.  Section  1.947(  a)  states,  in  relevant  part,  that  a  major  modification  to  an  existing  station  requires  Commission 
 approval.  71  McElroy  argues  that  because  the  amendment  required  under  the  July  25,  2002  letter  sent  to  WWC  implies  that  Commission  approval  is  required,  WWCs  September  5  filing  is  therefore  also 
 classified  as  a  major  amendment  under  Section  1.947(  a).  72  This  argument  is  groundless.  Section  1.947  of  the  Commissions  rules  outlines  procedures  for  filing  and  processing  major  or  minor  modification 
 applications,  not  amendments  to  applications.  The  plain  language  of  the  rule  states  that  major  modifications  require  Commission  approval,  not  that  an  action  requiring  Commission  approval 
 constitutes  a  major  amendment  to  an  application. 
 24.  McElroys  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  is  late-  filed  because  WWCs  application  was  accepted  for  filing  on  July  17,  2002,  establishing  a  deadline  for  filing  petitions  to  deny  on  August  16, 


 2002.  McElroy  filed  its  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  WWCs  application  on  September  25,  2002,  40  days  after  the  deadline,  without  seeking  a  waiver  of  the  deadline.  We,  however,  grant  McElroys  request,  in 
 the  alternative,  to  consider  its  pleading  as  an  informal  objection.  73  Because  Section  1.925  does  not  provide  formal  procedures  for  responding  to  requests  for  waivers,  we  grant  McElroys  request  to  consider 
 its  pleading  as  an  Informal  Objection  to  WWCs  Waiver  Request  under  Section  1.41  of  the  Commissions  rules.  74 


 25.  While  we  grant  McElroys  request,  we  deny  the  Informal  Objection  and  grant  WWC  waiver  of  Section  22.  949(  b)(  3)  of  the  Commissions  rules.  We  may  grant  a  waiver  pursuant  to  Section 
 1.925  of  the  Commissions  rules  if  it  is  shown  that:  (1)  the  underlying  purpose  of  the  rule  would  not  be  served  or  would  be  frustrated  by  application  to  the  instant  case,  and  a  grant  of  the  requested  waiver  would 
 be  in  the  public  interest;  or  (2)  in  view  of  unique  or  unusual  factual  circumstances  of  the  instant  case,  application  of  the  rule  would  be  inequitable,  unduly  burdensome  or  contrary  to  the  public  interest,  or  the 
 applicant  has  no  reasonable  alternative.  75  We  find  that  strict  application  of  Section  22.949(  b)(  3)  in  this  case  would  not  serve  the  underlying  purpose  of  the  rule  and  would  be  contrary  to  the  public  interest. 


 70  Section  1.929  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.  1.929,  lists  the  actions  classified  as  major.  47  C.  F.  R.   
 1.  929(  a).  Any  change  not  specifically  listed  in  Sections  1.  929(  a)  through  (j),  including  the  deletion  and  reduction  of  cell  sites  in  a  pending  application,  is  considered  minor.  Id.    1.929(  k). 


 71  47  C.  F.  R.    1.947(  a). 
 72  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  4. 
 73  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  4,  n.  8;  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  5. 
 74  47  C.  F.  R.    1.41.  Section  1.  41  provides  in  relevant  part,  [  e]  xcept  where  formal  procedures  are  required  under 
 the  provisions  of  this  chapter,  requests  for  action  may  be  submitted  informally.  Id.  75 
 47  C.  F.  R.    1.925. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 12 
 26.  The  Commissions  underlying  purpose  for  permitting  only  one  CGSA  per  application  is  to  promote  administrative  efficiency  in  the  effective  evaluation  of  mutually  exclusive  applications.  76  In 
 proposing  the  rule,  the  Commission  explained  that  multiple  CGSAs  in  the  same  application  could  create  unworkable  mutually  exclusive  applications,  where,  because  of  a  possible  daisy  chain  effect,  it  would  be 
 extremely  difficult  to  determine  which  applications  were  mutually  exclusive.  77  That  concern  is  not  an  issue  with  respect  to  WWCs  amended  application  and  the  other  applications  filed  in  a  timely  manner  in 
 this  proceeding.  WWCs  amended  application  is  virtually  identical  to  McElroys  amended  application  and  separately  filed  Quemado  application.  In  fact,  all  of  the  applications  are  virtually  identical  to  each 
 other,  except  WWC  and  McElroy  each  propose  sites  for  Quemado,  New  Mexico.  None  of  these  proposals  has  created  unworkable  mutually  exclusive  applications  resulting  in  some  daisy  chain  effect 
 that  is  extremely  difficult  to  determine  which  applications  are  in  fact  mutually  exclusive.  The  issues  raised  in  this  proceeding  have  stemmed  entirely  from  the  status  error  reflected  in  SBIs  license  for  Station 
 KNKR315.  Granting  WWCs  request  for  waiver  of  Section  22.949(  b)  does  not  result  in  any  further  delay  in  processing  the  mutually  exclusive  applications  in  this  proceeding. 


 27.  In  finding  that  strict  application  of  the  rule  will  not  serve  the  underlying  purpose  of  Section  22.949(  b)(  3),  we  also  reject  McElroys  argument  that  WWCs  application  should  be  dismissed 
 because  the  circumstances  resulting  in  WWCs  defective  application  are  neither  unique  78  nor  inequitable.  79  According  to  McElroy,  the  circumstances  are  not  unique  because  both  applicants 
 researched  the  same  public  documents  and  submitted  applications  containing  the  same  technical  defects.  80  McElroy  fails,  however,  to  reconcile  its  arguments  with  cases  where  the  Commission  has  granted  waivers 
 to  entities  where  the  same  facts  affect  and  relief  is  applied  to  several  parties  similarly  situated,  sometimes  even  where  the  affected  parties  have  not  sought  waiver  relief.  81 


 76  In  the  Matter  of  Amendment  of  Part  22  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  Filing  and  Processing  of 
 Applications  of  Unserved  Areas  in  the  Cellular  Service  and  to  Modify  Other  Cellular  Rules,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  5  FCC  Rcd  1044,  1045    16  (1990). 


 77  Id.  The  Commission  repeated  its  underlying  purpose  of  efficient  processing  of  applications  in  adopting  the  rule 
 section.  In  the  Matter  of  Amendment  of  Part  22  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Provide  for  Filing  and  Processing  of  Applications  of  Unserved  Areas  in  the  Cellular  Service  and  to  Modify  Other  Cellular  Rules,  Report  and  Order  and 


 Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  6  FCC  Rcd  6185  (1991).  The  cellular  unserved  area  rules  permitting  only  one  CGSA  per  application  were  initially  adopted  in  Section  22.  902(  b)(  4). 
 78  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  7. 
 79  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  7. 
 80  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  7.  WWC  states  that  [  p]  rior  to  filing  its  application,  [it]  researched  thoroughly  to 
 determine  whether  any  licensees  were  operating  or  had  rights  to  operate  within  the  New  Mexico  3    Catron  RSA.  [WWCs]  research  included  a  review  of  the  FCCs  ULS,  paper  and  microfiche  records,  as  well  as  commercially-available 


 databases  such  as  Berry  Best.  [WWC]  determined  that  Smith  Bagley  had  received  an  authorization  for  station  KNKR315,  and  that  the  Commission  had  terminated  the  authorization  for  failure  to  construct  prior  to  the 
 expiration  of  the  construction  period  on  May  21,  1998.  On  September  16,  1998,  Smith  Bagley  filed  an  application  to  modify  its  terminated  station,  but  there  was  no  evidence  in  the  Commissions  records  that  this,  or  any  of  Smith 
 Bagleys  proposals,  had  been  constructed.  In  addition,  ULS  listed  the  authorization  for  station  KNKR315  as  Terminated.    Thus,  [WWC]  reasonably  concluded  that  station  KNKR315  was  not  operational,  and  applied  to  serve 
 the  subject  areas.  Waiver  Request  at  2.  McElroy  states  that  it  researched  the  same  documents  and  sources  mentioned  by  WWC  and  reached  the  same  erroneous  conclusions  before  filing  its  first  application  to  serve  the 
 western  portion  of  New  Mexico  RSA  3.  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  7.  Thus,  according  to  McElroy,  WWCs  claim  that  its  experience  was  somehow  unique  collapses  under  scrutiny.  Id. 
 81  See,  e.  g.,  In  the  Matter  of  National  Exchange  Carrier  Association  Petition  to  Amend  Section  69.  104  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules,  Order  Granting  Petition  for  Rulemaking,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  and  Order  Granting  Interim  Partial  Waiver,  19  FCC  Rcd  13591,  13604  and  n.  99  (2004)  (granting,  in  relevant  part,  partial 


 interim  waiver  of  Section  69.  104  of  the  Commissions  rules  to  all  similarly  situated  rate-  of-  return  carriers,  including  (continued....) 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 13 
 28.  McElroy  also  argues  that  circumstances  in  this  proceeding  are  not  inequitable  because  McElroy  cured  the  defects  in  its  initial  application  prior  to  the  cut-  off  deadline,  while  WWC  did  not, 
 which,  according  to  McElroy,  demonstrates  that  WWCs  errors  in  its  application  are  attributable  to  WWCs  own  acts  and  omissions  and  lack  of  due  diligence.  82  While  choosing  not  to  disclose  how  it 
 discovered  the  defects  in  its  own  application,  83  McElroy  insinuates  that  WWC  could  have  ascertained  the  operational  status  of  KNKR315  simply  by  test-  driving  the  New  Mexico  RSA  3  market.  84  McElroy 
 further  hints  that  WWC  could  have  discovered  the  status  error  through  what  McElroy  deems  to  be  inconsistent  information  regarding  Station  KNKR315  in  the  Commissions  ULS  database.  85  While 
 WWC  or  any  other  applicant  may  have  performed  a  drive-  test  or  interpreted  information  in  the  Commissions  database  in  the  same  way  that  McElroy  might  have  interpreted  the  information,  McElroy 
 fails  again  to  provide  any  legal  basis  on  which  we  would  apply  these  measures  regarding  a  final  determination  for  WWCs  Waiver  Request. 


 29.  Similarly,  McElroys  argument  that  Commission  due  diligence  public  notices  issued  prior  to  an  auction  86  is  also  misplaced.  McElroy  quotes  the  standard  language  from  one  of  these  public  notices 
 as  strongly  encouraging  potential  bidders  to  physically  inspect  any  sites  located  in,  or  near,  the  market  for  which  they  plan  to  bid.  87  McElroy  then  concludes  that  [  t]  he  strong  encouragement    demonstrates 
 that  it  would  have  been  eminently  reasonable  for  WWC    to  inspect  NM  RSA  3  before  filing  its  application.  88  McElroy,  however,  does  not  explain  why  this  standard  language  from  a  due  diligence 
 public  notice  issued  prior  to  auctions  applies  to  WWCs  amended  application  and  request  for  waiver  of  the  Commissions  rule  permitting  only  one  CGSA  per  application. 


 30.  The  due  diligence  public  notices  remind  potential  bidders  in  the  competitive  bidding  process  of  two  things.  The  first  is  that  certain  filings  may  remain  pending  before  the  Commission  after 
 the  auction  closes,  the  resolution  of  which  may  affect  the  availability  of  the  spectrum  in  any  given  market.  Second,  the  Commission  makes  no  representations  or  guarantees  regarding  the  accuracy  or  completeness 


 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  those  that  did  not  formally  request  the  waiver,  that  wish  to  avail  themselves  of  the  waiver);  American  Family 
 Association,  Letter,  19  FCC  Rcd  18681  (Sept.  22,  2004)  (granting  waiver  of  Section  1.2105(  b)(  2)  of  the  Commissions  rules  for  the  petitioners  and  other  similarly  situated  applicants  because  the  circumstances  unique  to 
 Auction  37  compel  grant  of  the  requested  waiver  as  being  in  the  public  interest).  82 
 McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  7.  WWC  argues  that  it  seeks  waiver  of  Section  22.  949(  b)(  3)  of  the  Commissions  rules  because  it  did  not  know,  and  could  not  reasonably  have  known,  prior  to  filing  its  application  that  station 


 KNKR315  was  operational.  Waiver  Request  at  2-  3.  83 
 McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  7-  8;  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  5-  6.  In  response  to  WWCs  statement  in  its  Opposition  that  McElroy  does  not  assert  that  it  was  able  to  determine  the  status  [of  Station  KNKR315]  through 


 publicly  available  information  that  WWC  could  have  accessed,  WWC  Opposition  at  5,  McElroy  simply  reiterates  that  McElroys  success  conclusively  proves  that  WWCs  failure  is  no  basis  for  a  waiver,  McElroy  Informal  Reply 
 at  6.  84 
 McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  7.  85 
 McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  6.  The  inconsistent  information  to  which  McElroy  refers  in  the  ULS  database  is  that  SBI  filed  its  Phase  II  modification  application  several  weeks  after  the  cancellation  date  of  August  7,  1998.  Id. 


 While  McElroy  boasts  that  confronting  exactly  the  same  facts,  it  undertook  additional  research  and  was  able  to  timely  submit  a  fully  compliant  amendment.  Id.  We  note,  however,  that  confronted  with  the  same  facts,  McElroy 
 also  submitted  a  completely  defective  application  in  the  first  place  and  only  corrected  its  defects  after  publicly  filing  that  application. 
 86  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  6-  7. 
 87  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  7. 
 88  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  7. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 14 
 of  information  in  its  databases,  including  the  accuracy  or  completeness  of  information  that  incumbent  licensees  have  provided.  The  public  notices  are  intended  to  seek  out  information  from  the  public  to 
 correct  errors  in  the  Commission  databases  and  to  assist  potential  bidders  in  taking  steps  that  might  help  them  determine  the  actual  value  of  the  white  space  in  the  market  in  which  they  are  bidding.  Importantly, 
 the  Commission  issues  subsequent  due  diligence  public  notices  to  update  information  regarding  both  filings  and  corrections  to  database  information  as  that  information  becomes  available  before  the  auction. 
 We  find  no  reason,  and  McElroy  provides  none,  to  mandate  that  suggestions  intended  to  assist  potential  bidders  in  the  context  of  competitive  bidding  be  used  as  a  pre-  condition  to  eligibility  as  an  applicant  in 
 this  proceeding. 
 31.  Finally,  we  reject  McElroys  argument  that  the  public  notice  accepting  its  Quemado  application  for  filing  established  a  new  cut-  off  deadline  for  WWC  to  amend  the  similar  defects  in  its 


 application.  89  According  to  McElroy,  [  a]  ll  interested  parties  were  given  notice  of  Station  KNKR315s  operational  status  on  July  17,  [2002]  when  the  Public  Notice  accepting  McElroys  re-  filed  Quemado  cell 
 as  a  separate  application  was  released.  90  McElroy  concludes  that  WWC  was  clearly  able  to  amend  its  application  within  the  30  days  of  that  public  notice,  but  that  WWC  never  bothers  to  justify  amending  its 
 application  beyond  that  30-  day  period.  91  McElroys  argument  is  not  only  legally  unfounded,  but  seemingly  at  odds  with  its  opposition  to  SBIs  Quemado  application.  No  Commission  rule  obligated 
 WWC  to  meet  a  30-  day  deadline  based  on  the  public  notice  accepting  McElroys  Quemado  application  for  filing.  In  fact,  the  Commission  has  clearly  stated  that  the  acceptance  of  a  later  application  during  a 
 notice  and  cut-  off  period  does  not  establish  a  later  cut-  off  period.  92  Staff  sent  WWC  the  letter  dated  July  25,  2002,  directing  WWC  to  amend  its  application  to  demonstrate  interference-  free  operation  at  SBIs 
 Datil  site  licensed  as  Station  KNKR315.  The  letter  granted  WWC  sixty  days  within  which  to  submit  its  amendment.  WWC  filed  its  amendment  and  corresponding  waiver  request  20  days  before  that  deadline. 
 WWC  therefore  filed  the  requested  information  in  a  timely  manner.  Significantly,  McElroy  fails  to  explain  why  the  30-  day  period  following  the  release  of  the  public  notice  accepting  its  Quemado 
 application  for  filing  should  apply  to  WWCs  amended  Quemado  site,  but  not  to  SBIs  separately  filed  Quemado  application.  We  therefore  deny  McElroys  Informal  Objection.  We  further  grant  WWCs 
 request  for  waiver  of  Section  22.949(  b)(  3)  of  the  Commissions  rules,  and  accept  for  filing  WWCs  amended  application  filed  on  September  5,  2002,  which  includes  two  separate  CGSAs. 


 32.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i),  303(  r),  and  309(  d)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  309(  d),  and  Sections  0.331  and 
 1.939  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331,  1.939,  the  Petition  to  Deny  filed  by  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  on  September  20,  2002,  and  the  Petition  to  Deny  filed  by  WWC  License  L.  L.  C. 
 on  September  20,  2002,  are  GRANTED. 
 33.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  and  Sections  0.331  and  1.934(  a) 


 of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331,  1.934(  a),  the  Application,  File  Number  0000997158,  filed  by  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  on  August  14,  2002,  is  DISMISSED. 


 34.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i),  303(  r),  and  309(  d)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  309(  d),  and  Sections  0.331  and 


 89  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  5  and  8;  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  8. 
 90  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  8. 
 91  McElroy  Informal  Objection  at  8;  McElroy  Informal  Reply  at  8. 
 92  King  Communications,  Inc.,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  1986  WL  291849  (FCC) 
 (CCB  June  11,  1986). 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  05-  338 
 15 
 1.939  of  the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331,  1.939,  the  Opposition  filed  by  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  on  October  3,  2002,  is  DISMISSED  to  the  extent  described  herein. 
 35.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  and  Sections  0.331  and  1.41  of 
 the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331,  1.41,  the  request  filed  by  McElroy  Electronic  Corporation  on  September  25,  2002,  to  accept  its  Petition  to  Dismiss  or  Deny  as  an  Informal  Objection,  is  GRANTED. 


 36.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  and  Sections  0.331  and  1.41  of 
 the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331,  1.41,  the  Informal  Objection  filed  by  McElroy  Electronic  Corporation  on  September  25,  2002,  is  DENIED. 


 37.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  and  Sections  0.331  and  1925  of 
 the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331,  1.925,  the  Request  for  Waiver  filed  by  WWC  License  L.  L.  C.  on  September  5,  2002,  is  GRANTED  to  the  extent  described  herein. 


 38.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  and  Sections  0.331  and  22.131  of 
 the  Commissions  rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.331,  22.131,  the  Mobility  Division  shall  process  Application  File  Nos.  0000913369  and  0000959846,  filed  by  McElroy  Electronics  Corporation  on  June  4,  2002,  and  July 
 11,  2002,  respectively;  File  No.  0000922001,  filed  by  Commnet  Wireless,  LLC  on  June  12,  2002;  File  No.  0000959430,  filed  by  ALLTELL  Communications  of  the  Southwest  Limited  Partnership  on  July  11, 
 2002;  File  No.  0000960815  filed  by  Smith  Bagley,  Inc.  on  July  12,  2002;  and  File  No.  0000959496  filed  by  WWC  License  L.  L.  C.,  as  amended  on  September  5,  2002,  in  accordance  with  Commission  rules. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Cyndi  Thomas  Assistant  Chief,  Mobility  Division 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau 
15