WPC) 2BJZ Courier3|j QSx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si 5202criptHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\$YX@216FF ZK3|j  X-Њ#Xj\  P6G;ynXP#HP LaserJet 5Si 5202criptHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\$YX@"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDdDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2 >cKKK7 CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman ItalicCourier Italic"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddxHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN4credit for [its] down payment on that license.">n O]4ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#See ClearComm's Correction at p. 2 and Original FAQs at p. 9.#x6X@`7X@#ѿ The Erratum to FAQs stated that the Original  X)4FAQs were incorrect and advised that "[p]repayment credit includes a 70 percent credit for [a  X4licensee's] down payment on any license [it] surrender[s] under the affordability exception." O4ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#ClearComm Correction at p. 2 and Erratum to FAQs at p. 2 .#x6X@`7X@#  X4Although the Commission's Order on Reconsideration correctly stated the formula contained  X4in the Erratum to FAQs, ClearComm erroneously relied upon the Original FAQs' formula.  X4Based on its reading of the Original FAQs, ClearComm states that it was unaware that licensees would receive prepayment credit from the down payment associated with the spectrum returned to the Commission by licensees using the "affordability" exception under the prepayment option.  Xb4In addition to its erroneous reliance on the Original FAQs, ClearComm argues that prepayment of the disputed BTAs is the only option permissible under Commission rules or"M 0*((" that is mathematically feasible. According to ClearComm, its only option was to prepay the disaggregated license acquisition costs for the Eureka, CA BTA and the Visalia, CA BTA.  X4We agree in many respects with ClearComm's analysis of its election, and find that its June 8,  X41998 submission was defective. The Reconsideration Order specified that when electing under the affordability option, licensees must prepay as many BTA licenses in the MTA as the prepayment credit will allow. Pursuant to Section 24.819 of the Commission's Rules (47 C.F.R.  24.819), waiver of a provision of the PCS rules is appropriate only when a party demonstrates either that the underlying purpose of the rule will not be served, or would be frustrated, by its application in a particular case, and that grant of the waiver is otherwise in the public interest, or that the unique facts and circumstances of a particular case render application of the rule inequitable,  X 4unduly burdensome or otherwise contrary to the public interest. j  Og 4ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#47 C.F.R.  24.819(a)(1)(i) and (ii). See also Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d  {O?'1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied,  yO '409 U.S. 1027 (1972)). #x6X@`7X@#ј We find that the facts and circumstances cited here are of sufficient novelty to warrant a waiver of the June 8, 1998 election. First, the C block election process is a unique  X4occurrence which is unlikely to repeat itself in any other context. Second, ClearComm's  X{4submission reflects its erroneous reliance on the Original FAQs, which contained faulty  Xf4information. Third, we do not believe that the erroneous submission was intended to enhance  XO4ClearComm's position visavis the other licensees, nor do we find that ClearComm intended to delay its ultimate election by submitting an erroneous submission. This waiver request is distinguishable from instances in which a waiver would affect  X4the integrity and efficient functioning of the auctions process. j O4ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP#See, e.g., BDPCS, Inc., Emergency Petition for Waiver of Section 24.711(a)(2) of the Commission's  {Ox'Rules, Memorandum, Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3230, 3235  7 (1997) (Petition for Review granted in  yOB'part for other reasons), 12 FCC Rcd 15341 (1997.#x6X@`7X@#Ѭ A waiver in the election date  X4allowing the changes indicated in ClearComm's Correction and a brief delay in the July 31, 1998 repayment deadline will still permit timely closure in this matter and encourage the licensee to meet its obligations to the Commission. A strict application of the election date here would be unduly burdensome for ClearComm and cause extreme financial hardship. Although we find that rigid enforcement of the June 8, 1998 deadline would not serve the public interest, we caution ClearComm and its counsel that in the future, it should rely upon the Commission's Orders as a primary source of information, and keep current with all Commission and Bureau releases. Accordingly, we hereby grant ClearComm's request for a waiver of the June 8, 1998 election date, and we accept the resubmission based upon ClearComm's June 30, 1998  X4Correction. We further order that ClearComm begin its repayment obligations ten (10)", 0*((" business days from the release date of this letter. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority under Section 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 0.331. ` `  hhCqSincerely, ` `  hhCqE. Rachel Kazan, Chief ` `  hhCqAuction Finance and Market Analysis Branch ` `  hhCqAuctions and Industry Analysis Division ` `  hhCqWireless Telecommunications Bureau cc: Robert Pettit, Esq.  X 4 Wiley, Rein & Fielding