Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1661
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Application of 
GARNETT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #365
For Renewal of License for Educational 
Broadband Service Station WLX335
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.  0005177897
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
Adopted:  October 16, 2012 Released:  October 17, 2012
By the Deputy Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we grant Garnett Unified School District #335 
(“Garnett”) a waiver of the Commission’s rule requiring that a licensee file its renewal application before 
its license expires.  While Garnett had filed a timely application to renew Station WLX335, the 
application had been dismissed because Garnett failed to respond to a notice of return.  While the original 
dismissal was correct, we find that it is in the public interest to grant a waiver to allow processing of a 
second, late-filed application to renew Station WLX335 and thus allow Garnett to continue providing 
educational broadband services.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Garnett operates Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”) Station WLX335 on the D-
group channels in Garnett, Kansas.  Garnett has constructed a wireless network that provides coverage to 
Garnett’s campus, its administration facility, and its adjacent athletic and recreational facilities.1  
3. On October 20, 2011, Garnett timely notified the Commission that it had constructed 
Station WLX3352 as required under Section 27.14(o) of the Commission’s Rules3 and that it was using 
the station for educational purposes.4 Thus, Garnett met the deadline applicable to all EBS licensees to 
demonstrate substantial service on or before November 1, 2011. 5 Unfortunately, although Garnett timely 
filed its Construction Notification, it did so confidentially, and the public was unable to review it to 
determine whether Garnett had met the substantial service and educational use requirements applicable to 
EBS licenses.
  
1 File No. 0004921621 (filed Oct. 20, 2011) (“Construction Notification”).
2 Id.
3 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(o).
4 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.1203, 27.1214.
5 See National EBS Association and Catholic Television Network, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 
4021 (WTB 2011).
Federal Communications Commission DA-12-1661 
2
4. On November 14, 2011, Garnett timely filed an application to renew Station WLX335, 
which was scheduled to expire on February 6, 2012.6 Under the Commission rules, licensees may file a 
renewal application 90 days before the license expires.7  
5. On January 26, 2012,8 the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) returned 
Garnett’s First Renewal Application because Garnett was required to disclose the owners of Station 
WLX335 by filing FCC Form 602 and did not do so.9 The First Renewal Notice of Return indicated that 
Garnett must file Form 602 within 60 days (on or before March 26, 2012) or its First Renewal 
Application would be dismissed.10
6. Two months later, on March 17, 2012, the Bureau returned the Garnett’s Construction 
Notification because Garnett had filed it originally as a confidential document that could not be viewed by 
the public.11 The construction notification Notice of Return requested that Garnett re-file the substantial 
service notification so that it could be viewed by the public and to redact only confidential information, if 
any.12 The Construction Notification Notice of Return stated that Garnett must file a construction 
notification that is viewable by the public within 60 days (on or before May 17, 2012) or its construction 
notification would be dismissed.13
7. On April 17, 2012, the Bureau dismissed Garnett’s First Renewal Application because 
Garnett did not respond to the First Renewal Notice of Return.14  
8. On April 24, 2012, Garnett timely responded to the Construction Notification Notice of 
Return by re-filing its Construction Notification in a publicly viewable format.15 Also on April 24, 2012, 
Garnett filed the Second Renewal Application seeking to renew its application to operate Station 
WLX33516 and an associated request17 to waive Section 1.949(a) of the Commission’s rules, which 
requires licensees to file their renewal applications before their license expiration date.18
9. On July 3, 2012, the Bureau returned Garnett’s Second Renewal Application because 
Garnett had again failed to file Form 602.19 The Second Renewal Application Notice of Return directed 
Garnett to file Form 602 within 60 days (on or before September 4, 2012) or its Second Renewal 
  
6 File No.  0004952711 (filed Nov. 14, 2011) (“First Renewal Application”).
7 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a).
8 Notice of Return, Ref. No. 5301908 (Jan. 26, 2012) (“First Renewal Application Notice of Return”).
9 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.913(a)(2).
10 First Renewal Application Notice of Return.
11 Notice of Return, Ref. No. 5333759 (Mar. 17, 2012) (“Construction Notification Notice of Return”).
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Notice of Dismissal, Ref. No. 5355969 (Apr. 17, 2012).  The Bureau gave public notice of the dismissal of the 
Renewal Application on April 18, 2012.  See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Market-Based Applications 
Action, Report No. 7695, Public Notice (Apr. 18, 2012) at 1.
15 Construction Notification, Amendment (filed Apr. 24, 2012).
16 File No. 0005177897 (filed Apr. 24, 2012) (“Second Renewal Application”).
17 Second Renewal Application, Waiver Request.
18 47 C.F.R. § 1.949(a).
19 Notice of Return, Ref. No. 5403921 (Jul. 3, 2012) (“Second Renewal Application Notice of Return”) at 1-2.
Federal Communications Commission DA-12-1661 
3
application would be dismissed.20 On August 23, 2012, Garnett timely responded to the Second Renewal 
Application Notice of Return by filing Form 602.21
III. DISCUSSION
10. Although Garnett timely filed its application to renew Station WLX335, we conclude that 
the dismissal of Garnett’s First Renewal Application was proper.  Under Section 1.934(c) of the 
Commission’s Rules, we properly dismissed Garnett’s First Renewal Application because Garnett failed 
to respond to our First Renewal Application Notice of Return on or before March 26, 2012, the date 
indicated in the First Renewal Application Notice of Return.22 Generally, the Bureau sends a Notice of 
Return to applicants when additional information is necessary for the Bureau to process the application.  
Moreover, Notices of Return plainly state that “[i]f you do not file an amendment to your application 
within 60 days of the date on the top of this letter, your application will be dismissed.”23 In this case, the 
First Renewal Application Notice of Return requested that Garnett disclose the owners of Station 
WLX335 by filing Form 602 on or before March 26, 2012.  Garnett did not do so and thus its First 
Renewal Application was properly dismissed.
11. The pertinent question before us, however, is whether to grant Garnett’s request to waive 
Section 1.949(a) of the Commission’s rules to allow consideration of its Second Renewal Application.  
The Commission may grant a waiver request if it is shown that: (i) the underlying purpose of the rules(s) 
would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and that a grant of the 
requested waiver would be in the public interest; or (ii) in view of the unique or unusual factual 
circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or 
contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.24 We conclude that it is in 
the public interest to grant Garnett’s Waiver Request because Garnett has shown that in view of its unique 
factual circumstances applying Section 1.949(a) to its case is contrary to the public interest.  While there 
is precedent for refusing to reinstate renewal applications when an applicant fails to offer a justification 
for failing to respond to a return letter,25 based upon the totality of the circumstances of this case, we find 
that Garnett has shown that in view of the its unique factual circumstances, it is in the public interest to 
grant its Waiver Request and allow processing of its Second Renewal Application.26 Although Garnett 
did not timely respond to the First Renewal Application Notice of Return, it has otherwise been diligent 
in complying with the Commission’s rules.  It timely filed its First Renewal Application and Construction 
Notification, timely responded to the Construction Notification Notice of Return, constructed Station 
WLX335, and is providing wireless educational service to its students, faculty, and staff.  We also note 
that although the Notices of Return concerned two separate matters, both concerned the license to operate 
Station WLX335, were sent to Garnett close-in-time, and could easily be confused by Garnett, which 
timely responded to one Notice of Return and not the other.  Under these specific circumstances, while 
  
20 Second Renewal Application Notice of Return at 1.
21 Second Renewal Application, Amendment (filed Aug. 23, 2012).  See Form 602, Garnett Unified School District 
#365, File No. 0005363358 (filed Aug. 22, 2012, amended Aug. 24, 2012).
22 47 C.F.R. § 1.934(c).  Under Section 1.934(c) of the Commission’s Rules, an application may be dismissed when 
the applicant fails “to respond substantially within a specified time period to official correspondence or requests for 
additional information.”
23 See First Renewal Application Notice of Return.
24 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b).
25 See RAM Technologies, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 10919 (WTB PS&PWD 2001).
26 See Somerville Independent School District, Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC Rcd 6063 (WTB BD 2012) 
(renewal application reinstated despite failure to respond to notice of return where two notices of return had been 
sent around the same time and licensee had otherwise been diligent in complying with the Commission’s rules).
Federal Communications Commission DA-12-1661 
4
we expect Garnett to exercise greater care in the future, we find that it is not in the public interest for 
Garnett to lose its license for this isolated failure.  
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERING CLAUSES
12. The decision to dismiss Garnett’s First Renewal Application was correct.  However, 
based upon the information provided in the Waiver Request, we have decided to grant a waiver to allow 
processing of Garnett’s Second Renewal Application.  Accordingly, we grant Garnett’s Waiver Request.
13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 405, and Sections 1.925 and 1.949 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.925, 1.949, the Waiver Request filed by Garnett Unified School 
District #365 on April 24, 2012 IS GRANTED.
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), 309, and Section 1.949 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 
C.F.R. § 1.949, that the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the application filed by Garnett Unified 
School District #365 for renewal of license of Educational Broadband Service Station WLX335 (File No.
0005177897) in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order and the Commission’s rules and 
policies.
15. These actions are taken under designated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 
of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131, 0.331.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
John J. Schauble
Deputy Chief, Broadband Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau