WPC? 2B<J CourierTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic 3|j0_1HPLAS4.PRS 4x  @\_)^X@226%FK Z 3|PTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`lBdYddBoBBBYYFdBNB2Bdddd(dB7dqBdPn<dYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddHP LaserJet 4_230_1HPLAS4.PRS 4XP\  P6Q\_)^XP2 dvnpkTa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  2k\vtwa5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2   Z  a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 2   S a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# 2Ma8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2[a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   243{3a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)Documentg2fejOPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#P2"$d % &!'X"HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'2'(1#)1N$*1%+1&LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5)f 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11*L 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   2),n(-X(.(/iZ)TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| X2'.0d)1jY*2*3E,HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and Underscored1 V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/margins2u H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  234-Y.58/68071MEMORANDUMMemo Page Format4D.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX 2258X39[!4:[|4;[4NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;28<[d5=[5>6X7EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   ТT7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XPU7nC:,4Xn4  pG;X\5hC:,%Xh*f9 xr G;XX:X (# 2?K'9Kg<J"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd2? X- $// Order, Nextel Communications/OneComm Corporation, DA 95263//$ $/ Transfer of control/$ !RECORD ONLY 0 Before the T FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DA 95263X(#TWashington, D.C. 20554 TP  X1- In the Matter of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  X -Applications of hh@h)  X -NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.@h) x` `  hh@h)  X -For Transfer of Control ofhh@h)  X -ONECOMM CORPORATION, N.A., and@h)  X-CCALL CORP. hh@h)  Xy- T ;ORDER TP  X- x Adopted: February 17, 1995 Released: February 17, 1995  X- By the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:  X-T Table of Contents  X-T j Paragraph  X(#P  Xe-I.xOverviewp!(#E 14  X7-II.xBackground p"(#H58  X -III.xPleadingspu!(#? 915  X-IV.xProcedural IssuespT!(#<1622  X!-V.xDiscussionpT!(#<2344  X#-xA.` ` Impact of Merger on Competition pT!(#<2333 Ã  Xh$-#XP\  P6QXP#  @@ x  XQ%-xB.` ` Transfer of Unconstructed Licenses pT!(#<3439  X#'-xC.` ` Interoperability of EquipmentpT!(#<4041  X (-   X(-xD.` ` Failure to Inform Commission of 1993 Letter of Intent pT!(#<4244"(0*0*0*'"Ԍ X(- "(0*0*0*'"Ԍ X(-VI.xOrdering ClausespV!(#<4547 Ã"(0*0*0*'"  X-I.xOverview  X- x` ` 1. On August 12, 1994, OneComm Corporation, N.A. ("OneComm") submitted an FCC Form 703 application seeking consent to transfer control of certain 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio ("SMR") licenses to Nextel Communications, Inc. ("Nextel") pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  90.153. As part of the same transaction, OneComm also requested consent to transfer control of licenses held by a OneComm affiliate, CCall Corp., to Nextel. These licenses will be transferred as part of a merger in which OneComm will become a whollyowned subsidiary of Nextel.  X -x` ` 2. The Private Radio Bureau ("PRB") solicited comments from the public to  X -assist in determining whether the proposed transfer of control is in the public interest. < X| -ԍ Since the October 3, 1994 Public Notice was issued, responsibility for approving transfers of control in this service has been transferred from PRB to the newly established Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Opponents of the transfer argue that Nextel's spectrum consolidation would not serve the public interest because it would decrease the number of competitors and increase prices. Supporters of the transfer contend that it will enhance competition in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services ("CMRS") market among SMR, cellular, and Personal Communications Services ("PCS") providers. After considering the record, we decide that the public interest is best served by approving the transfer, which we believe will promote competition in the broader CMRS marketplace.  X4-x` ` 3. OneComm's application includes the proposed transfer of unconstructed SMR licenses to Nextel. Although we generally approve the transfer of control, we limit the transfer of authorizations for unconstructed facilities to stations with service contours that do  X-not extend beyond the "footprint" of already constructed facilities.K< X-ԍ See Letter from Ralph A. Haller, Chief, Private Radio Bureau, to Mr. David E. Weisman (Dec. 23, 1992) ("Weisman Letter"), 8 FCC Rcd 143, 144 (1992). Thus, our approval is contingent on a showing by OneComm, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, that all applications for unconstructed facilities being transferred to Nextel have service contours that fall within the footprint of its existing widearea system. Those authorizations for unconstructed stations that fall outside of OneComm's footprint may not be transferred unless  X|-OneComm can establish that they are incidental to the larger transaction.1|< X"-ԍ See Third Report and Order, "Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services," GN Docket No. 93252, 9  X#-FCC Rcd 7988 ("CMRS Third Report and Order") at 8160,  393.1 We further condition the transfer on notification from the parties that the underlying transaction between Nextel and OneComm has been consummated within onehundred eighty days (180) days from the release date of this Order. " n 0*((z"Ԍ X-x` ` 4. In addition, certain authorizations that OneComm proposes to transfer to  X-Nextel have been challenged by various parties. < Xb-ԍ See, e.g., Earl's Petition for Reconsideration (filed Oct. 7, 1994); Clark Petition for Reconsideration and Special Relief (filed Oct. 18, 1994); Idaho Communications Petition for Reconsideration (filed Nov. 18, 1994).  OneComm may transfer such authorizations, but they remain subject to the Bureau's decision on the validity of the underlying authorizations. Therefore, OneComm's successor in interest, Nextel, will receive the assigned  X-licenses subject to challenges against these specific authorizations.M< X -ԍ Challenged authorizations include, but are not limited to, the following call signs: WPEU913, WPEU929, WPEU917, WPEU992, WPEU921, WPER724, WPER756, WPEW598, WPEU933, WPEV200.  Xv- II.x Background  XH-x` ` 5. OneComm is a Denverbased, publiclytraded corporation which owns and operates SMR systems throughout the Western United States. OneComm, formerly CenCall Communications Corporation, was established in 1989 and completed an initial public offering  X -of shares in 1993.o < X-ԍ OneComm Opposition to Earl's Petition for Reconsideration at 1, n. 1.o On May 26, 1994, the company received shareholder approval to change  X -its name formally from CenCall to OneComm Corporation.3 < X-ԍ Id.3 OneComm's services include  X -mobile telephone, alphanumeric paging, and twoway radio service.5 4 < X-ԍ Id. 5 OneComm has implemented advanced digital technology using the Motorola Integrated Radio System ("MIRS") in the Colorado Front Range and the I5 corridor from Seattle, Washington to  X-Portland, Oregon.;  < X(-ԍ Id. at 45.;  Xb- x` ` 6. Nextel is a publiclytraded U.S. corporation, based in Rutherford, New Jersey, which owns numerous subsidiaries that hold SMR licenses throughout the United States. Nextel intends to implement a nationwide, seamless, alldigital integrated network  X-capable of providing services similar to existing cellular and future PCS offerings.G < Xh#-ԍ Motorola Reply Comments at 6.G Nextel currently provides and also expects to continue to offer dispatch service. To complete its nationwide system, Nextel has entered into several agreements to acquire 800 MHz regional"K 0*(( "  X-SMR licenses, one of which is with OneComm. < Xy-ԍ On August 5, 1994 Nextel also entered into an agreement to acquire Dial Page, which  Xb-holds 800 MHz licenses in twelve Southwestern states.  See U.S. v. Motorola, Inc. and Nextel  XM-Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:94CV02331 (Hogan, J.) (D.C., District of Columbia, filed Oct. 27, 1994), Competitive Impact Statement ("CIS") at 8.  X- x` ` 7. In addition to acquiring regional companies, Nextel entered into an "Agreement and Plan of Contribution and Merger" ("Agreement") with Motorola, Inc.  X-("Motorola") on August 4, 1994.G 8< X -ԍ Motorola Reply Comments at 5.G The Agreement involves, inter alia, the transfer of Motorola's SMR licenses to Nextel in exchange for approximately 24% of Nextel's voting stock. In addition, Nextel has agreed to use Motorola's MIRS technology to establish its  Xa-widearea digital network.3 a< X-ԍ Id.3 MIRS can produce approximately a fifteenfold increase in SMR system capacity over an analog system and provide the infrastructure for a seamless  X3-nationwide SMR system.93< X-ԍ Id. at 2.9  X - x` ` 8. The U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") has reviewed the NextelMotorola Agreement, as well as the OneComm and Dial Page transactions, to determine whether Nextel's acquisitions violate U.S. antitrust laws. DOJ approved the Nextel acquisitions in a proposed Final Judgment, subject to Nextel's divestiture of fortytwo 800 MHz channels in  X -Atlanta once the Dial Page transaction is completed. O < X-ԍ U.S. v. Motorola, Inc. and Nextel Communications, Inc., Civil Action No. 94 2331  X-(D.D.C.) ("DOJ Proposed Final Judgment") at 7. The Proposed Final Judgment remains  X}-subject to final approval by the court. Because our analysis in this Order is based on the Commission's own policies and rules, however, our decision to grant OneComm's application  XO-is not conditioned on such approval.  The DOJ Proposed Final Judgment also imposes a cap on the amount of 900 MHz spectrum that may be owned and controlled by  X{-Nextel and Motorola in thirteen specific cities.?{< X -ԍ  Id. at 5.? On October 27, 1994, the United States, Motorola, and Nextel filed a stipulation in the United States District Court for the District of  XM-Columbia consenting to the entry of the Proposed Final Judgment.9MY< XW$-ԍ Id.9 "6 0*((f"  X- III.xPleadings  X-x` ` 9. Pursuant to Section 90.153 of the Commission's rules, PRB issued a Public Notice on October 3, 1994, soliciting comments on OneComm's application for transfer of control to assist in a determination of whether the proposed transfers are in the public interest,  Xv-convenience or necessity.5v< X-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  90.153; see also Public Notice, "Private Radio Bureau Seeks Comments On OneComm Corporation's Request For Commission Consent to Transfer Control  X -to Nextel Communications, Inc.," DA 941087 (Oct. 3, 1994).5 In response to the Public Notice, Clark's Electronics, Teton Communications, Radio Service Company, Zundel's Radio, Business Radio, and Accu Comm (hereinafter collectively "Clark") filed joint comments, and E.F. Johnson Company ("E.F.  X1-Johnson") and Pittencrieff Communications, Inc. ("Pittencrieff") filed individual comments.1M< X/-ԍ See Appendix A for a list of comments, dates filed, and shortform citations used throughout this Order. OneComm, Nextel, Motorola, and Earl's Distributing Company ("Earl's") filed reply  X -comments. Kentec Communications, Inc., et al., ("Kentec") filed a motion for extension of  X -time, which was denied on October 21, 1994.Hz < X-ԍ See Order, DA 941185 (Oct. 21, 1994). We denied the motion for extension of time filed by Kentec Communications, Inc., James A. Kay, Jr., Ron Zahller, and ProTec Mobile Communications, Inc. because the parties were granted sufficient time to prepare comments, and the motion was untimely. Furthermore, we reopened the comment period for one week to enable the parties to comment on additional filings, and therefore Kentec had a second  X-opportunity to submit comments. See n. 22, infra. H  X - x` `  10. On November 3, 1994, OneComm amended its application to include  X -additional licenses omitted in its August 12, 1994 application. + < X-ԍ Amendment of Transfer of Control Application of CCall Corporation, filed Nov. 3, 1994. Also on November 3, 1994, Motorola requested that the record be reopened to include the Proposed Final Judgment between Motorola, Nextel, and the Department of Justice. In consideration of the new filings, we reopened the comment period for one week, from November 1421, 1994, requesting additional comments on OneComm's amended applications and the relevance, if any, of the  X6-DOJ Proposed Final Judgment to the OneComm/Nextel transfer.6< X#-ԍ See Public Notice, DA 941256, "Private Radio Bureau Seeks Further Comment on OneComm Corporation's Request for Commission Consent to Transfer Control to Nextel Communications, Inc.," Nov. 14, 1994 ("Second Notice").  X-x` `  11.  In response to the Second Notice, OneComm and Motorola filed"J0*(("  X-comments. Clark filed two sets of comments relating to the DOJ Proposed Final Judgment  X-after the November 21, 1994 deadline.< Xb-ԍ Preliminary Comments on Proposed Antitrust Final Judgment, filed Nov. 30, 1994 ("Clark Preliminary DOJ Comments") and Clark Comments on Proposed Antitrust Final Judgment, filed Dec. 14, 1994 ("Clark DOJ Comments").  Along with its latefiled comments, Clark filed a Motion to Accept Pleading. Clark claims that we should accept its latefiled comments because the oneweek period that PRB allotted to comment on the DOJ Proposed Final Judgment was insufficient. In addition, Clark asserts that Motorola failed to provide the Commission with two documents that are relevant to this proceeding, namely the Complaint and the Competitive Impact Statement ("CIS"), both of which were filed in District Court  X_-along with the Proposed Final Judgment.q_K< X[ -ԍ Clark Motion to Accept Pleading at 23; Clark DOJ Comments at 2.q Clark provided copies of both of these documents  XH-for the record along with its comments.RH< X-ԍ See Clark DOJ Comments, Exhibit A.R  X -x` `  12. Although typically we do not accept late filings, we agree with Clark that  X -the Complaint and the CIS are relevant to this proceeding.B < Xc-ԍ Clark DOJ Comments at 3.B The additional documents provide the context and reasoning behind the DOJ Proposed Final Judgment. Therefore, we accept Clark's latefiled comments, and we have considered Clark's arguments to the extent they apply to the OneComm transfer of control to Nextel. x` `  13. In a separate but related context, Clark filed a Petition for Reconsideration  Xy-and Special Relief, and Idaho Communications, L. P., et al., ("ICLP") filed a Petition for Reconsideration. Both Clark and ICLP request that we rescind certain OneComm 800 MHz SMR authorizations in light of the proposed transfer to Nextel. ICLP asserts that the Commission granted OneComm two new SMR licenses in violation of the August 9, 1994  X-freeze Order.s` < X0-ԍ See CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 8048,  108.s Although we do not address rescission issues in this Order, we consider the arguments raised by Clark and ICLP to the extent that they relate to the OneComm transfer of  X-control to Nextel. x` `  14. Clark and E.F. Johnson, opponents of the transfer of control, contend that the transfer is not in the public interest because it would permit Nextel to monopolize SMR  X-radio frequencies. < XY%-ԍ See, e.g., Clark Comments at 1,3,7; E.F. Johnson Comments at 57; Earl's Reply Comments at 12. They claim that OneComm's transfer of authorizations for unconstructed facilities to Nextel violates Commission rules. Several commenters also assert that the"~ 0*((P" transfer of control is not in the public interest because Nextel's agreement to use Motorola's MIRS technology will exclude manufacturers other than Motorola from the widearea SMR  X-marketplace.f< XK-ԍ See, e.g., E.F. Johnson Comments; Clark Comments at 8.f Clark's comments on the DOJ Proposed Final Judgment attack both DOJ's and the Commission's definition of the product market. Clark claims that the relevant product  X-market for analyzing competition issues is the 800 MHz SMR market.B{< X-ԍ Clark DOJ Comments at 6.B Clark therefore concludes that Nextel's domination of the 800 MHz SMR market which Clark contends will be exacerbated by Nextel's acquisition of OneComm is anticompetitive and against the  X_-public interest.=_,< X< -ԍ Id. at 1416.= x` ` 15. OneComm, Nextel, Motorola, and Pittencrieff, supporters of the transfer, argue that SMR licensees must be permitted to aggregate spectrum and employ digital technologies in order to compete with both cellular providers and broadband PCS providers. Supporters conclude that the transfer of control is in the public interest because it will promote competition in the CMRS marketplace, thereby increasing the number of services and reducing prices for consumers. Motorola also responded to the equipment issue by stating that it has already agreed to license MIRS technology to other manufacturers under commercially reasonable terms and conditions, so that other manufacturers will not be  Xy-excluded from providing equipment for widearea SMR systems.C y< X -ԍ Motorola Comments at 89.C With respect to the DOJ  Xb-Proposed Final Judgment, OneComm and Motorola argue that the Commission should expeditiously approve the transfer of control because DOJ has already reviewed the antitrust  X4-implications, including the equipment aspects, and has approved the overall transaction.a!4< Xu-ԍ See OneComm DOJ Comments; Motorola DOJ Comments. a  X- IV.xProcedural Issues  X- x A.` ` Request to Consolidate Proceedings  X-x` ` 16.  Background. Clark requests that we consolidate this proceeding with Motorola's request for assignment of licenses to Nextel, which Motorola filed on December 9,  X|-1994.X"|C < Xp$-ԍ See Clark Motion To Consolidate Actions.X Clark claims that both of these transactions involve the same issues and therefore  Xe-should be resolved in one action.9#e < X '-ԍ  Id. at 3.9 Clark also argues that consolidation is appropriate because"e #0*((1"  X-DOJ joined the two transactions in its analysis.$< Xy-ԍ Clark Reply to Oppositions of Motorola and OneComm to Clarks' Motion to Consolidate Actions at 4.  X-x` ` 17. Section 1.227 of the Commission's rules provides for consolidation where  X-"such action will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice."?%b< X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.227.? Section 1.227 further provides that consolidation is appropriate when the same applicant or  X-substantially the same issues are involved.3&< XQ -ԍ Id.3 In the past, the Commission has denied requests for consolidation when the business transactions involved are independent, and neither is  X_-conditioned on the consummation of the other.}'_< X-ԍ See, e.g., In re Comsat/Contel, 2 FCC Rcd 7202 (1987) at 7205,  22.}  X1-x` ` 18. Discussion. We agree with Nextel and Motorola that in this instance  X -consolidation is not appropriate.( y< XD-ԍ Nextel Reply Comments, DA 941567 (filed Jan. 20, 1995) at 7; Motorola Opposition to Motion to Consolidate Actions, DA 941567 (filed Jan. 20, 1995). OneComm and Motorola, the two applicants involved here, are distinct entities. They both happen to have entered into agreements with the same party, Nextel, but the agreements involve different business terms, are structured differently, and are neither interrelated nor dependent on one another. We believe it would not serve the public interest to delay consummation of the OneComm transaction simply because Motorola also requested permission to transfer licenses to Nextel four months later.  Xy-x` ` 19. We also agree with Motorola that, for our purposes, it is irrelevant whether  Xb-or not DOJ considered the transactions together.d)b < X&-ԍ Motorola Opposition to Motion to Consolidate Actions at 2.d The purpose of DOJ's analysis was to examine the cumulative competitive impact of a number of proposed acquisitions by Nextel. DOJ's antitrust analysis is separate from the Commission's duty to ascertain whether a particular transfer or assignment proposal is in the public interest, convenience, and  X-necessity."* < X{"-ԍ See United States v. FCC, 652 F.2d 72, 104 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc) (". . .the Commission's overriding responsibility is not to foster the maximum level of competition in the industry it oversees, but to promote the public interest.")"  X-  X-x` ` 20. Furthermore, although some of the issues overlap between the OneComm and Motorola assignments, the transfer applications also raise distinct issues that are properly"I*0*((" dealt with separately. For example, Clark claims that OneComm failed to inform the Commission of a prior proposed merger with Nextel in violation of Section 1.65 of the  X-Commission's rules.y+< XK-ԍ Clark Comments at 5. See also discussion at  4244, infra.y No such allegations have been made with respect to Motorola. Also, the licenses OneComm seeks to transfer are concentrated mostly in the Northwestern region of the United States, whereas Motorola's licenses are geographically more dispersed. Because different issues are involved, we could grant one application, both applications, or neither application. Therefore, we will determine whether to grant each application in the order in which it was filed, based on the facts current at the time the application is processed.  X1- x B.` ` Request for Special Relief from Technical Interference  X -  X -x` `   21. Clark requests special relief from technical interference, which it claims will be caused to its licensed facilities in Idaho by OneComm/Nextel proposed operations. According to Clark, PRB's Licensing Division ignored the similarity of terrain conditions in Southern Idaho to those of California and Washington both of which are afforded greater cochannel separations because of their mountainous terrain when granting OneComm  X-authorizations.e,{< X-ԍ Clark Petition for Special Relief at 6; ICLP Comments at 5.e  Xb-x` ` 22. We agree with OneComm that the Commission has adopted special rules  XK-for mountainous regions only for California and Washington, not Idaho.-K,< X(-ԍ OneComm Opposition to Petition for Special Relief at 12. See CoChannel Protection Criteria for Part 90, FCC 93450, 8 FCC Rcd. 7293 n. 1 (1993). OneComm is therefore in compliance with the Commission's existing shortspacing rules for Idaho. We also agree with OneComm that the appropriate forum for addressing interference in  X-mountainous areas is a rulemaking proceeding, not a request for special relief.h.< X-ԍ OneComm Opposition to Clark Petition for Special Relief at 12.h Thus, if Clark would like the Commission to change the shortspacing rules for Idaho, Clark should file a petition for rule making requesting a rule change. We will not delay the transfer of control to Nextel because of potential technical interference.  X- V. Discussion  Xe-xA. Impact of Merger on Competitionh  X7-x ` ` 23. Background. The most contentious issue raised in this proceeding involves the impact of the OneComm/Nextel merger on competition. Nextel proposes to build a nationwide, alldigital, integrated mobile communications network which will compete with existing wireless and future PCS offerings. In its quest to establish a nationwide system," y.0*((Z" Nextel has acquired or is in the process of acquiring local and regional SMR systems throughout the United States. In the current transaction, Nextel seeks to acquire  X-approximately 568 OneComm authorizations,/< XK-ԍ See OneComm Form 173 (filed Aug. 12, 1994) and amendment (filed Nov. 3, 1994).  many of which are concentrated in the Pacific  X-Northwest.A0{< X-ԍ OneComm licenses and pending applications are located in the following states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.A Nextel's present system overlaps with OneComm's system in relatively few  X-markets.D1< X< -ԍ See ex parte Letter from Lawrence R. Krevor to David L. Furth, Deputy Chief, Commercial Radio Division, filed by Nextel (Jan. 26, 1995) ("Krevor Letter"). Nextel is currently licensed on fewer than 20 channels in 40 out of 67 markets involved in the OneComm transfer. D If the Dial Page and Motorola transactions are also approved and consummated, Nextel will control more 800 MHz SMR channels in the United States than any other single  Xv-company.32vU < X|-ԍ CIS at 9.3  XH- x ` ` 24. Opponents of the Nextel/OneComm transaction vociferously complain that Nextel's acquisition of such a large percentage of 800 MHz SMR spectrum will prevent independent operators from being able to expand their systems and will result in increased  X -prices, a reduction in the quality of service, and employee layoffs.C3  < X-ԍ Clark DOJ Comments at ii.C Clark's assertions are based on the premise that the 800 MHz SMR market is a discrete product market that offers a  X -lowcost alternative to cellular.:4 < X=-ԍ Id. at 14.: These independent SMR operators conclude that Nextel's  X -dominance of the 800 MHz SMR market will eventually squeeze them out of business.>5 j< X-ԍ Clark Comments at 2.> OneComm, Nextel, and Motorola, on the other hand, argue that Nextel's nationwide network  X-will increase competition within the wireless marketplace as a whole.}6< X\"-ԍ Motorola DOJ Comments at 8; Nextel Reply Comments at 17; OneComm DOJ Comments at 3.}  Xb-x` ` 25. Discussion. When examining a transfer of control under the public interest standard of Section 310(d) of the Communications Act, we consider the effect of the transfer on competition. We agree with OneComm, Nextel, and Motorola that Nextel's"4 60*((" network, if successful, will foster overall competition in the flourishing CMRS marketplace. Increased competition throughout the broader CMRS market serves the public interest because it promotes technological innovation and acts as a check on price increases.  X-x` ` 26. In the CMRS Third Report and Order, the Commission conducted an extensive market analysis of CMRS services to determine how best to protect and encourage  Xx-competition among mobile service providers.~7x< X-ԍ CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 8009,  37 et seq.~ The Commission determined that all CMRS services including paging, SMR, PCS, and cellular are actual or potential competitors with one another, and should therefore be regarded as substantially similar for regulatory  X3-purposes.?83{< X_ -ԍ Id. at  37.? In addition, to prevent CMRS providers from restricting competition by aggregating spectrum, the Commission established a 45 MHz cap for combined PCS, cellular, and SMR licenses classified as CMRS in which an entity may have an attributable interest in  X -any geographic area at any point in time.F9 .< X-ԍ Id. at 8100,  238.F The Commission determined, however, that more stringent limitations on aggregation of SMR spectrum were unnecessary to ensure a competitive CMRS market.  X-x` ` 27. Given the Commission's analysis in the CMRS Third Report and Order, we conclude that Nextel's acquisition of OneComm is procompetitive. The Commission views 800 MHz SMR as just one of many competitive services within the larger CMRS marketplace. Even after the OneComm transfer, Nextel's holdings will be well within the Commission's 45 MHz spectrum cap. In addition, because of the advent of new services and the anticipated deregulation of the cellular industry, Nextel will be forced to compete  X -aggressively with many other providers.: < X-ԍ See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, GN Docket No. 9490, FCC 94202, 59 Fed. Reg. 42,563 (Aug. 18, 1994).  X-x` ` 28. We also reject Clark's contention that the Nextel/OneComm merger would violate antitrust principles. Application of these principles begins with an analysis of the  X-relevant product market in which competition may be threatened.Z;g}< X!-ԍ United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U.S. 441 (1964); United States v. E.I. du  X"-Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U.S. 586 (1957); Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 337 U.S.  X#-293, 299300 n. 5 (1949).  The relevant product market is the "line of commerce" within which a service or product is considered interchangeable with a reasonable substitute, given  X%-consideration of price, use, and quality. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 324 Xo&-25 (1962); United States v. FCC, 652 F.2d 72, 97 (D.C. Cir. 1980); General Electric Co., 4  XZ'-FCC Rcd 8207, 820809 (1989). We also are guided in our analysis of the competitive"Z':0*((@'"  X-effects of the proposed merger by the most recent Department of Justice Federal Trade Commission Horizontal Merger Guidelines, 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH)  13,104 at 20,571  Xb-(1992) ("Guidelines").Z Clark asserts that the" M;0*((R"  X-relevant product market is limited to SMR service at 800 MHz.C<d< X-ԍ Clark DOJ Comments at 14.C OneComm, Nextel, and Motorola, on the other hand, argue for a product market consisting of mobile wireless services  X-as a whole.=< X-ԍ  See Motorola DOJ Comments at 8; Nextel Reply Comments at 17; OneComm DOJ Comments at 3. We find that the evidence presented herein supports the latter conclusion. Contrary to Clark's contentions, licensed 800 MHz SMR is not a selfcontained market;  X-rather, as we concluded in the CMRS Third Report and Order, SMR service is one of many competitive wireless services striving to meet the needs of consumers who desire mobile  Xx-communications.h>x< X-ԍ CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 8012,  43.h Although technical variations exist among wireless services, their functions frequently overlap with one another or functional overlap can be created easily with moderate investment. For example, SMRs have the flexibility to offer interconnected voice or noninterconnected dispatch services. Cellular and PCS providers also have substantial  X -flexibility to offer a multiplicity of wireless services.F?5 d < X1-ԍ Although cellular providers are currently prohibited from providing dispatch service, we have allowed cellular providers to provide dispatchlike services as long as they do not  X-interfere with cellular service. Report and Order, Liberalization of Technology and Auxiliary Service Offerings in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service, 3 FCC Rcd 7033,  70. We have also proposed to eliminate the cellular dispatch prohibition to  X-increase competition in dispatch services. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Eligibility for the Specialized Mobile Radio Services and Radio Services in the 220222 MHz Band and Use of Radio Dispatch Communications, GN Docket No. 9490, FCC 94202, 59 Fed. Reg. 42,563 (Aug. 18, 1994). F For consumers, this results in a wide array of competitive alternatives to choose from, regardless of the service in which a particular provider is licensed. Thus, we reject Clark's view that Nextel should not be viewed as competing with cellular unless it chooses to provide "cellularlike" service. Even if Nextel offers noncellular services such as dispatch, the product market in which it competes includes cellular and PCS as well as other SMR providers. x` ` 29. In addition to determining the product market, antitrust analysis requires examination of the relevant geographic market in which competition potentially is affected by  XM-the transaction.n@Ma< X_%-ԍ The geographic market is the area in which buyers can turn for alternative sources of  XH&-supply, or in which there are sellers who act to restrain the prices charged to those buyers.  X3'-United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 359 (1963); Common Carrier"3'?0*((?'"  X-Services, 95 F.C.C. 2d 554, 573 (1983), rev'd on other grounds, AT&T v. FCC, 978 F.2d 727  X{-(D.C. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3020 (1993).n We received relatively little comment on the definition of the relevant"M f@0*((+" geographic market. Clark states that it generally agrees with DOJ's definition of the  X-geographic market as the area within a 25mile radius of a particular city center.iAf< X-ԍ Clark Preliminary DOJ Comments at 3; see also CIS at 6. i We do not decide this issue, but accept Clark's definition for purposes of our analysis here. While a broader geographic market definition may be more appropriate (e.g. a Major Trading Area), our conclusion is not affected by this issue.  Xv-x` ` 30. Based on the above market definitions, we find the Nextel/OneComm merger to be fully consistent with antitrust principles. We find unpersuasive the claims of opponents that the proposed acquisition will result in increased prices and a reduction in the  X1-quality of service.CB1< X-ԍ Clark DOJ Comments at ii.C If Nextel increases prices and lowers the quality of service, it will lose business; the proposed merger cannot, on that ground, be deemed anticompetitive. Equally unpersuasive is the claim that the proposed merger will eventually squeeze small SMR  X -systems out of business.>C < Xg-ԍ Clark Comments at 2.> The Commission's priority is to protect competition, not  X -competitors, for the benefit of consumers.zD {< X-ԍ H awaiian Telephone Co. v. FCC, 498 F. 2d 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (FCC did not conform to public interest mandate in approving applications where it considered the factor of competition "not in terms primarily as to benefit the public but specifically with the objective of equalizing competition among competitors.")z  X -x` ` 31. In short, we find no evidence to support the view that competition in the mobile services market will be reduced by this merger. In fact, the merger will have relatively little effect on the concentration of SMR spectrum because Nextel's and OneComm's systems do not significantly overlap. For example, in nearly two thirds of the 67 markets in which OneComm holds licenses, Nextel is currently licensed on or controls fewer  X4-than 20 channels prior to the merger.E4 < X -ԍ See Krevor Letter, Attachment entitled "Number of Discrete Licensed Channels Within 25 Miles of the Top 320 U.S. Markets in the OneComm Operating Areas." Thus, the acquisition of OneComm's systems by Nextel in these markets will not materially reduce the availability of spectrum to other  X-potential entrants.QF< X<%-ԍ See Guidelines at 20,5735 to 6.Q More broadly, we agree with the applicants and Motorola that the proposed acquisition will have procompetitive effects in the mobile telecommunications marketplace as a whole by promoting technological innovation and new or improved service" 8F0*((" offerings for consumers, and acting as a check on price increases by other SMRs and cellular  X-carriers.}G< Xb-ԍ Motorola DOJ Comments at 8; Nextel Reply Comments at 17; OneComm DOJ Comments at 3.} x` ` 32. We note that our analysis of the competitive impact of the Nextel/Onecomm merger differs from that of DOJ, which defined the relevant product market  X-as consisting of trunked SMR service in the 800 MHz, 900 MHz, and 220 MHz bands.>Hb< X -ԍ DOJ does not include cellular telephone service in the same product market as SMR because cellular service has historically been more expensive to consumers and also because cellular providers have traditionally been prohibited from offering dispatchtype services. CIS at 6.> Nevertheless, DOJ's analysis also supports our conclusion. Despite its different definition of the product market, DOJ has approved Nextel's combined acquisition of OneComm, Dial  XH-Page, and Motorola subject only to certain restrictions affecting 900 MHz SMRNIH< X-ԍ Nextel and Motorola are restricted in the number of 900 MHz licenses they can hold in the following thirteen cities: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Orlando, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Detroit, and Seattle. DOJ Proposed Final Judgment at 5.N and the divestiture of fortytwo 800 MHz channels in Atlanta after the Dial Page transaction is  X -completed.KJ : < X-ԍ DOJ Proposed Final Judgment at 7.K We agree with DOJ that the Nextel/OneComm merger can be supported on this basis, because Nextel will continue to face competition from 220 MHz, 800 MHz, and 900 MHz providers. We also disagree with Clark's argument that 220 MHz and 900 MHz SMR should be excluded from the relevant product market on the grounds that they are  X -"unlicensed" services. Limiting the product market in this manner ignores the potential for  X -new entry on frequencies that have not been licensed but are available for licensing.  0  Xy- x` `  33.  Clark's real concern appears to be the lack of availability of new spectrum  Xb-for its own growth requirements and those of similarly situated small SMR operators.>Kb < X-ԍ Clark Comments at 9.> Clark ignores the fact, however, that the spectrum licensed to OneComm is already occupied and therefore unavailable to competing service providers. Hence, OneComm's transfer of control to Nextel will not exacerbate any spectrum shortage as Clark contends, nor will denial of OneComm's transfer application provide these entities with the spectrum they desire. The issue of spectrum availability raised by Clark is a serious one, which the Commission is"K0*(("  X-already considering in the context of the 800 MHz SMR widearea licensing proceeding.L< Xy-ԍ Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 94271, 59 Fed. Reg. 60,111 (Nov. 22, 1994). The decisions made in that proceeding to alleviate spectrum scarcity, however, will apply equally regardless of whether OneComm or Nextel holds the licenses at issue here. Therefore, we see no reason to deny the OneComm transfer of control to Nextel on the basis of scarce spectrum.  Xv- xB. Transfer of Unconstructed Licenses  X_-  XH-x` ` !34. Background. OneComm's application includes the proposed transfer of unconstructed SMR licenses to Nextel. Section 90.609 of the Commission's rules prohibits an applicant from assigning or transferring a license to operate a conventional or trunked radio  X -system prior to the completion of construction of the facility.CM d< X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  90.609(b).C Section 90.609 does not apply, however, to the transfer of unconstructed authorizations for lowpower, digital stations  X -that are ancillary to underlying constructed highpower analog SMR licenses if the analog  X -system is being converted to a widearea system.N < X-ԍ Nextel Reply Comments at 89; OneComm Reply Comments at 1112; see, e.g., Sept. 27, 1993 letter from Chief, Private Radio Bureau to Gerald S. McGowan ("McGowan Letter"). Such authorizations for lowpower base stations are not for unconstructed facilities in previously unserved areas; we consider them instead to be components of an existing system that is in the process of being reconfigured.  X{-Therefore, during the initial stages of a conversion, we grant de facto temporary frequency  Xf-exclusivity to a licensee throughout its "footprint."VOf< X-ԍ See Weisman Letter, supra, n. 2.V We have defined the footprint of a system as "the contiguous and overlapping service areas of stations that are (1) constructed  X8-and placed in operation, and (2) currently licensed to or managed by the applicant."3P8M < X6-ԍ  Id.3 We emphasize that the licensee has already been granted exclusivity throughout its footprint, based on the area covered by its constructed and operating base stations.  X-x` ` "35. In addition, the Commission's new rules, which went into effect on January 2, 1995, provide a limited exception to the prohibition against transferring  X-unconstructed stations.mQ < X_%-ԍ See CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 8160,  393.m The CMRS Third Report and Order states that the transfer of unbuilt  X-stations is permitted if the transfer is part of a "bona fide sale of an ongoing business to" Q0*((o"  X-which the licenses are incidental."3R< Xy-ԍ Id.3 The "incidental" exception is embodied in agency case law, which holds that such instances present little risk of speculation. Therefore, legitimate mergers or acquisitions should not be disrupted simply because the acquired company has an  X-unbuilt facility. 7S{< X-ԍ See, e.g., Airsignal International, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 81 FCC 2d  X-472 (1980); In re Applications of James F. Rill, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 86251 (released May 27, 1986) (1986 WL 291785).7 Thus, to the extent that a licensee wants to transfer authorizations that are  X-truly unconstructed e.g. their service contours extend beyond the licensee's existing footprint the licensee may be able to establish that the unconstructed authorizations are incidental to a larger merger or acquisition.  XJ-x` ` #36. Discussion. We agree with OneComm and Nextel that established Bureau  X3-policy permits a licensee to transfer underlying unconstructed SMR licenses with service contours that do not extend beyond the footprint of the analog licenses with which they are  X -affiliated.T < X-ԍ OneComm Reply Comments at 78; Nextel Reply Comments at 67; see also  X-McGowan Letter. In the past, for example, PRB has approved similar transfers of unconstructed widearea SMR stations of Dispatch Communications, Powerfone, and Questar Telecom  X -Communications to Dial Call.PU < X&-ԍ See McGowan Letter, supra.P  X -x` ` $37. We agree with Clark, however, that OneComm has not provided us with enough information to determine whether the service contours of all of its authorizations for  X{-unconstructed facilities are contained within its footprint.@V{Q < X}-ԍ Clark Comments at 56.@ Earl's and Clark both claim that at  Xd-least some of OneComm's authorizations extend beyond OneComm's footprint.vWd < X-ԍ Earl's Reply to OneComm Opposition at 2; Clark Reply to Opposition at 56. v Nextel  XM-states that OneComm's authorizations, "with few exceptions," fall within its footprint.EXM < X -ԍ Nextel Reply Comments at 7.E  X6-OneComm asserts that none of its unconstructed authorizations extend beyond its existing  X-footprint.pYd< X4$-ԍ OneComm Opposition to Petition for Special Relief at 17 and Exhibit C.p Thus, we approve the transfer of unconstructed authorizations with service contours contained within OneComm's existing footprint; however, we condition our approval on a showing by OneComm that the service contour for each unconstructed authorization does not extend beyond OneComm's existing footprint. "Y0*(("Ԍx` ` %38. With respect to those unconstructed authorizations with service contours that extend beyond OneComm's footprint, OneComm may be permitted to transfer them to Nextel under the Commission's new rules if OneComm can establish that they are incidental  X-to a larger transaction.Z< X4-ԍ See CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 8160,  393 and n. 732. Clark argues that the transfer of such a large number of unconstructed channels cannot be considered merely "incidental" to the OneComm/Nextel  X-merger.?[{< X-ԍ Clark Comments at 10.? Again, OneComm has not provided us with enough information to enable us to draw any conclusions about whether it has any unconstructed authorizations outside of its footprint and, if so, whether they are incidental to a larger transaction. x` ` &39. Therefore, we require the following information from OneComm, within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Order, before we will approve the transfer of any authorizations for unconstructed stations: (1) documentation showing the location and service contour of each authorization for an unconstructed facility in relation to the operating analog base station with which it is affiliated; and (2) if any authorizations for unconstructed licenses have contours that extend beyond OneComm's existing footprint, a showing that they are  X -incidental to a larger merger or acquisition. \ ,< X-ԍ Note that the transfer of all licenses, constructed and unconstructed, is contingent upon notification from the parties that the underlying transaction has been consummated within 180 days of the release date of this Order.  Any authorizations for which a showing has not been made will cancel automatically.     Xb- xC. Interoperability of Equipment  X4-x` ` '40. Background. E.F. Johnson requests that the Commission require interoperability between equipment intended for widearea SMR service, so that Nextel's  X-customers are able to employ equipment produced by manufacturers other than Motorola.Q]< Xf-ԍ E.F. Johnson Comments at 5.Q According to E.F. Johnson, Nextel requires its customers to use only MIRS equipment, which  X-incorporates a proprietary closed signalling protocol.9^b < X -ԍ Id. at 2.9 E.F. Johnson asserts that Motorola is unwilling to license MIRS technology under commercially reasonable terms and conditions to  X-other equipment manufacturers.3_ < Xp$-ԍ Id.3 Furthermore, Clark asserts that OneComm's transfer of control to Nextel will increase the use of MIRS throughout the Pacific Northwest, further" _0*((o"  X-limiting the ability of other equipment manufacturers to compete.>`< Xy-ԍ Clark Comments at 8.> Motorola and Nextel both claim that E.F. Johnson mischaracterizes their Agreement, which contains explicit open architecture provisions that will encourage the participation of alternative subscriber and  X-infrastructure equipment manufacturers.ay< X-ԍ Motorola Reply Comments at 45; Nextel Reply Comments at 20, n. 39, citing "Agreement and Plan of Contribution and Merger Among Nextel Communications, Inc., Motorola, Inc., ESMR, Inc. and ESMR SUB, Inc." dated Aug. 4, 1994. Motorola specifically states that it has already made a commitment to make MIRS proprietary technology available to other manufacturers on  X-commercially reasonable terms and conditions.Gb< X: -ԍ Motorola Reply Comments at 5.G  X_-x` ` (41. Discussion. We agree with Nextel that interoperability standards do not directly relate to OneComm's application for transfer of control to Nextel. The Commission  X1-recently considered the interoperability issue in the CMRS Third Report and Order and  X -decided not to adopt interoperability standards for CMRS.yc < Xz-ԍ See CMRS Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 8070,  167.y E.F. Johnson's request that we  X -change this policy is a rulemaking issue that should be addressed in the appropriate rule X -making proceeding.d ` < X-ԍ In the CMRS Third Report and Order, the Commission indicated that it would initiate a rulemaking proceeding on this issue. 9 FCC Rcd at 8070,  168. Our concern here is limited to whether the public interest is served by OneComm's transfer of control to Nextel. Because OneComm already employs MIRS technology, transfer of control to Nextel should not have a dramatic impact on the equipment  X -manufacturing industry.Ze < XV-ԍ OneComm Opposition to Earl's at 45.Z We therefore see no reason to deny or delay the merger on this basis.  Xd-x D. Failure to Inform Commission of 1993 Letter of Intent  XM-  X6-x` ` )42. Background. Clark contends that OneComm violated Section 1.65 of the Commission's rules because it failed to inform the Commission of a prior proposed merger with OneComm that was not consummated. The transaction in question was initiated on October 18, 1993, when Nextel entered into a letter of intent with OneComm to transfer certain SMR assets in exchange for a minority interest in OneComm. Subsequently, the parties renegotiated the merger in the form that is now before us.  X-  X-x` ` *43.  Discussion. We disagree with Clark that OneComm violated Section 1.65 of the Commission's rules by failing to report to the Commission the proposed transfer of"~ e0*((P"  X-control to Nextel within thirty days of entering  QI into  QI the letter of intent.Df< Xy-ԍ Clark Comments at 5.D The general rule, as stated in Section 1.65, requires applicants to apprise the Commission of material changes  X-affecting their pending applications.>gy< X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.65.> Section 1.65 provides in relevant part:  ` [e]ach applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information furnished in a pending application . . . whenever there has been a substantial change as to any . . . matter which may be of decisional significance in a Commission proceeding  X1-involving the pending application . . . .h1*n X -ԍ  Id.; see, e.g., Southern Broadcasting Co., 38 FCC 2d 461, 464 (Rev. Bd. 1972).  `   This rule does not require parties to notify the Commission of a proposed transaction that is  X -still being negotiated.  X -x` ` +44.  As Nextel asserts, the letter's terms and agreements were never finalized because the October 18, 1993 proposed agreement was abandoned in favor of a different  X-transaction entered into on July 13, 1994.Gi< X-ԍ Nextel Reply Comments at 45.G Under the proposed 1993 deal, Nextel planned to  Xy-transfer SMR assets to OneComm.;jy< X-ԍ Id. at 34.; Under the 1994 deal, OneComm is transferring control of its corporate entity to Nextel and becoming a whollyowned subsidiary. Even if the two deals were identical, the parties had no obligation to report a change until after the deal was fully negotiated and ready to be consummated. Standing alone, the letter of intent is not information of "decisional significance" to the Commission, because it neither changed the status of OneComm nor transferred control of OneComm facilities to Nextel. "A j0*(("  X- VI.xOrdering Clauses  X-x` ` ,45.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that OneComm's application seeking  X-consent to transfer control to Nextel is GRANTED to the extent described herein and  X- DENIED in all other respects.  X_-x` ` -46.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OneComm has thirty (30) days from the release date of this Order to make the showings discussed in  39.  X -x` ` .47.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OneComm and Nextel have onehundred eighty days (180) days from the release date of this Order to provide notification that the underlying transaction has been consummated. x` `  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  Regina M. Keeney x` `  Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau "4j0*(("  X-T   X-0 Appendix A T  X-T 9 G079 TRANSFER OF CONTROL  9   X- Comments  Xv-  X_-October 18, 1994 Opposition Comments filed by Clark's Electronics, Teton Communications, Radio Service xCompany, Zundel's Radio, Business Radio, and Accu Comm ("Clark Comments") E.F. Johnson Company ("E.F. Johnson Comments")  X -Kentec Communications, Inc. and ProTec Mobile Communications, Inc., filing jointly (#(#XxMotion For Extension of Time ("Kentec Motion")  X -Pittencrieff Communications, Inc. ("Pittencrieff Comments")  X- Reply Comments  Xy-  Xb-October 25, 1994  XK-Motorola, Incorporated ("Motorola Reply Comments") Nextel Communications, Incorporated ("Nextel Reply Comments") OneComm Corporation ("OneComm Reply Comments")  X-  X- Amendment of Transfer of Control Application of CCall Corp .  X- November 3, 1994  X-Nextel ("Nextel Amendment")  Xe- Proposed Final Judgmen t Between the United States, Motorola, and Nextel  XN-  X7-  November 3, 1994   X -Motorola ("DOJ Proposed Final Judgment")  X -     X- Additional Comments  X-  X - November 21, 1994 Motorola ("Motorola DOJ Comments") OneComm ("OneComm DOJ Comments")  Xh$- LateFiled Comments  X:&-November 30, 1994 Clark, Motion to Accept Pleading; Preliminary Comments on Proposed Antitrust Final"#'j0*((%"  X-Judgment ("Clark Preliminary DOJ Comments")  X-December 7, 1994 Motorola, Opposition to Motion to Accept Pleading  X-December 9, 1994  Xv-OneComm, Opposition and Motion to Strike Motion to Accept Pleading  XH-December 14, 1994 Clark, Additional Comments on Proposed Antitrust Final Judgment ("Clark DOJ Comments")  X -December 20, 1994 Clark, Opposition to OneComm's Motion to Strike  X -January 23, 1995  X - Clark, Response to OneComm's Supplement to its December 9, 1994 Opposition and Motion  X-to Strike Clark's Comments  Xy- Motion to Consolidate Actions  XK-  X4-January 13, 1995  X-Clark Motion to Consolidate Actions  X-  X-January 20, 1995 Nextel Reply Comments (DA 941567) Motorola Opposition to Motion to Consolidate Actions (DA 941567)  X-  X-February 1, 1995 Clark Reply to Oppositions of Motorola and OneComm to Clarks' Motion to Consolidate Actions  X7<   Ex Parte Filing  9   X - 9  January 26, 1995  X-Nextel ("Nextel ex parte")  X- " j0*(("  X-  X-  X- 9 PETITIONS  TO RESCIND ONECOMM AUTHORIZATIONS  9   X- Petitions   Xv-October 7, 1994 Earl's Distributing Inc. and Earl's Wireless Communications ("Earl's Petition")  X1-October 18, 1994  X -Clark, et al., Petition for Special Relief and Comments Requesting Rescission of SMR  X -Authorizations Issued to OneComm ("Clark Petition")  X -  X -November 18, 1994 Idaho Communications Limited Partnership and Radio Service Company, filing jointly, Petition for Reconsideration ("ICLP Petition")  X-  X{-Opposition to Petitions  XM-October 20, 1994 OneComm Opposition to Earl's Petition for Reconsideration ("OneComm Opposition to  X-Earl's")  X-November 2, 1994 OneComm Opposition to Clark Petition for Special Relief ("OneComm Opposition Clark")  X-January 11, 1995  X-OneComm Letter to Rosalind K. Allen Re: ICLP Petition for Reconsideration  Xg- Reply to OneComm Opposition  X9-October 28, 1994 Earl's Distributing Company, Inc. Reply to OneComm Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration ("Earl's Reply to OneComm Opposition")  X-  X-November 21, 1994 Clark Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration ("Clark Reply to OneComm Opposition")  X#-January 24, 1995 ICLP Opposition to OneComm's Informal Response to Petition for Reconsideration (ICLP Reply to OneComm Opposition") X<&-T"<&j0*(($" TT  X-0 Appendix B T  X-Q  Commission Documents Issued In This Proceeding  X-T  X-TPPublic Notice, DA 941087, "Private Radio Bureau Seeks Comments on OneComm Corporation's Request For Commission Consent to Transfer Control to Nextel Communications, Inc." October 3, 1994.  X3-Public Notice, DA 941256, "Private Radio Bureau Seeks Further Comment on OneComm Corporation's Request for Commission Consent to Transfer Control to Nextel Communications, Inc." November 14, 1994.  X -Order, DA 941185, Denying Motion for Extension of Time filed by Kentec Communications,  X -Inc., et al., October 21, 1994.