FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 2, Pages 410 to 642, January 20 - January 30, 1987 Page: 436
ii, 410-642, iii p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Application of
CENTRAL ILLINOIS
CELLULAR LIMITED File No. 35219-CL-P-176-B-86
PARTNERSHIP
For a construction permit to
establish a cellular system
operating on frequency Block B in
the Domestic Public Cellular Radio
Telecommunications Service to
serve the Springfield. Illinois
Metropolitan Statistical Area
ORDER ON RECONSIDERATIONAdopted January 13, 1987;
Released January 21, 1987
By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:
1. Before the Bureau is a petition seeking reconsideration
of the action taken by the Mobile Services Division
("MSD") which found the captioned application for a
wireline cellular license to be defective and which thereby
dismissed the application and its amendment. For the
reasons stated below, we conclude that the action of the
MSD was proper, and, thus, we will deny the petition.
BACKGROUND AND CONTENTIONS
2. On April 10, 1986, the captioned application was
filed for the wireline cellular license in Springfield, Illinois.
and was subsequently ranked first in the wireline
lottery for that market.' On August 26, 1986, the MSD
returned the application as defective.2 The MSD Dismissal
Letter set forth two reasons as grounds for dismissal. The
first was that although the name of the applicant on the
cover of the application was Central Cellular Limited
Partnership ("Central"), the name of the applicant
throughout the body of the application was Springfield
MSA Limited Partnership ("Springfield").3 Thus, according
to the MSD, the application did not conform with
Section 22.913(b)(2) of the rules, which, inter alia, requires
the applicant's name to appear on the cover. The
second reason given by the MSD was that there was an
inconsistency within the application itself; although the
cover of the application states that the application is for
frequency block B (the frequency block reserved for
wireline carriers), Exhibit I of the application states that
"applicant is not directly or indirectly interested in or
affiliated with any entity providing public landline telephone
service." The MSD Dismissal Letter went on to
point out that Exhibit 2 of the application nonetheless
states that the applicant is eligible to apply for frequency
block B since one of applicant's controlling companies
directly provides telephone service. On July 16, 1986, an
amendment to the above-captioned application was filedwhich attempted to correct the two aforementioned deficiencies
but it, too, was dismissed by the MSD Dismissal
Letter.4
3. Springfield asserts that the errors cited by the MSD
do not warrant dismissal of the application because there
were no material omissions and because the defects were
entirely inconsequential and did not interfere with the
Commission's processing efforts. As for the inaccurate
cover. Springfield says that this "technical" error is not in
dispute and that such error should not be fatal because
the application in any event was processed, i.e., it was
assigned a file number, it went through the proper processing
line with the name Central, and the wireline
lottery for the Springfield, Illinois market proceeded as
scheduled. Springfield attempts to distinguish the cover
error from the type of error whereby applications were
returned as unacceptable for filing due to omission of the
market number on the cover or because the market
number did not match the market number on the covers.
Springfield says that from a processing standpoint, the
cover error caused no more burden on the Commission
than would a post-lottery filing under Section 1.65 of the
Commission's rules, apprising the Commission of a
change in partnership name. Springfield argues that the
Commission has reinstated applications which inadvertently
omitted documents or data through clerical error5
in circumstances similar to those presented here, and it
emphasizes that the Springfield application contained no
material omissions.
4. As far as the incorrect statement in Exhibit 1 is
concerned, Springfield says that such inclusion, likewise,
should not render the application fatally defective as it
was in the nature of a "clerical" error. According to
Springfield, there was never any doubt that one of its
principals was in fact affiliated with a wireline telephone
company certified in the Springfield MSA, and such
complete information was presented in its application.
Springfield therefore claims that the MSD could not have
been misled by the inconsistent statement and that such
statement did not affect its processing efforts. Springfield
states that it was correctly assigned a wireline slot in the
lottery, the cover of its application properly indicated that
the application was for frequency block B, and the textual
mistake was completely inconsequential. Springfield mentions
a previous Commission reinstatement of an application
with a defect similar to those contained in
petitioner's application, namely, the Mopsey Partnership
("Mopsey") application,6 which contained signatures that
did not coincide.
5. Moreover, Springfield argues, assuming arguendo the
defects are sufficient to warrant dismissal, it should not be
held accountable because the errors were caused by others
and the errors were beyond its control. According to
Springfield. NewVector, one of the Springfield partners,
retained Spectrum Planning, Inc. ("Spectrum") to complete
and file the application. Springfield contends that
the completed questionnaire given by it to Spectrum
specifically showed that applicant's principals were affiliated
with entities providing landline telephone service in
the Springfield, Illinois MSA, and that Spectrum was
informed of the applicant's correct name to be listed.
Springfield says that it received and signed the application,7
and advised Spectrum of the error concerning affiliation
of applicant regarding telephone service providers,
on or about April 7, 1986 (which was three days prior to
the filing of the application) and could reasonably do no
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 2, Pages 410 to 642, January 20 - January 30, 1987, book, January 1987; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1609/m1/31/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.