Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3019
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Application of
ASTROLINK COMMU1'TICATIONS, [NC.
	
FCC File No. 9506296
to Provide 39 GHz Point-to-Point Microwave
Service in Santa Fe, NM
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
Adopted: December28, 1999
	
Released: December29, 1999
By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless TelecommunicationsBureau:
1. Introduction. We have before us a request from Astrolink Communications, Inc. (Astrolink)
for reconsideration of the decision by the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) to dismiss
an amendment to the above-captioned application to operate a new Point-to-Point Microwave Radio
Service system in the 3 8.6-40.0 GHz (39 GHz) band.' For the reasons set forth below, we deny
Astrolink' s petition for reconsideration.
2. Background On June 15, 1995, Astrolink filed the above-referenced application for
authorization to provide 39 GHz point-to-point microwave service in Santa Fe, NM.2 On August 15,
1995, No Wire LLC (No Wire) timely filed a competing application that was mutually exclusive with the
Astrolink application.
3. In an NPRM and Order released on December 15, 1995, the Commission suspended the
processing of pending mutually exclusive 39 GHz applications and the filing of amendments thereto,
pending the outcome of a rulemaking proceeding affecting this service.4 In a Report and Order and
Second NPRMreleased on November 3, 1997, the Commission announced that it would dismiss, without
prejudice, pending mutually exclusive applications.5
'Letter from E. Ashton Johnston, counsel for Astrolink to Mary M. Shultz, Chief, Licensing and Technical
Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (filed Apr. 5, 1999) (Astrolink Petition).
2FCC File No. 9506296. See Public Notice, Report No. 1141, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Weekly
Receipts and Disposals (rel. June 28, 1995).
3FCC File No. 9508163. See Public Notice, Report No. 1147, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Weekly
Receipts and Disposals (rel. Aug. 9, 1995).
4Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, Notice of
ProposedRule Making and Order, ET Docket No. 95-183, 11 FCC Rcd 4930, 4988-4989 ¶ 123 (1995).
5See Amendment of the Commission'sRules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, Report and
Order and Second Notice of ProposedRulemaking ETDocketNo. 95-183, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, 18641-45w 87-97
(1997).
82
Federal Communications Commission
	
DA 99-3019
4. On September 23, 1998, Astrolink submitted an amendment seeking to reduce its requested
service area in order to eliminate the mutual exclusivity that existed between the subject Astrolink and
No Wire applications.6 On March 3, 1999, the Branch dismissed Astrolink's September 23, 1998
amendment because it was filed after the December 15, 1995 deadline for filing amendments to pending
39 GHz applications. On April 5, 1999, Astrolink requested that the Branch reconsider its dismissal of
the amendment, and retain the amendment pending the resolution of the petitions for reconsideration of
the Report and Order and Second NPRM.8
5. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order released on July 29, 1999, the Commission denied
those petitions for reconsideration and affirmed its 39 GHz licensing policy, including the decision to
dismiss, without prejudice, all pending mutually exclusive 39 GHz applications where mutual exclusivity
was not resolved by December 15, 1995, and all amendments to resolve mutual exclusivity filed on after
December 15, 1995.
6. Discussion. Astrolink argues that its September 23, 1998 amendment should have been held
in abeyance in accordance with the NPRM and Order, rather than dismissed, because the Report and
Order and Second NPRM was the subject of petitions for reconsideration.'° In the Memorandum
Opinion and Order that addressed the outstanding petitions for reconsideration, the Commission upheld
the application processing policy set forth in the Report and Order and SecondNPRM.1' We conclude
that the Commission's action renders Astrolink's argument moot, and we affirm the Branch's dismissal of
Astrol ink's late-filed amendment.
7. 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 Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47
C.F.R. § 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Astrolink on April 5, 1999, IS DENIED. This
action is taken under the delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.13 1, 0.33 1.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
D'wana R. Terry
Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
6Letter from E. Ashton Johnston, counsel for Astrolink, to Microwave Branch, Wireless TelecommunicationBureau
(filed Sept. 23, 1998).
7Letter from Mary M. Schultz, Chief, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless
Division, to E. Ashton Johnston, counsel for Astrolink (Mar. 3, 1999).
8Astrolink Petition at 2.
9See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 95-193, 14 FCC Rcd 12428, 12445-48929-38(1999) (July29
MO&O).
'°Astrolink Petition at 2.
"July29 MO&O, 14 FCC Rcd at 12445-48929-38.
83