********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In re Applications of                           )                     
                              )                                                            
          RADIOFONE NATIONWIDE PCS, L.L.C.   )   FCC File Nos. 0000234903     
                              )
and                           )   and                                 
     
                              )                                                                HARBOR
WIRELESS L.L.C.               )   0000235351      


                             ORDER


Adopted:  January 10, 2001              Released:  January 11, 2001    

By the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

     1.   On November 17, 2000, Small Business in Telecommunications ("SBT") filed substantively
identical Petitions to Deny ("Petitions") against the above-captioned long form applications (FCC Form 601)
of, respectively, Harbor Wireless L.L.C. ("Harbor") and Radiofone Nationwide PCS, L.L.C. ("Radiofone")
(jointly, "Applicants").   Applicants, who were among the winning bidders of the 700 MHz Guard Band
Auction, each claimed that they qualified for a bidding credit as a very small business entity.  In the
Petitions, SBT argues that the personal income of the individual controlling interest holders of Applicants
should have been disclosed and attributed to Applicants for purposes of determining whether Applicants
qualify for a bidding credit as a very small business entity.  For the reasons discussed below, we deny the
Petitions.
 
           2.  As an initial matter, we find that SBT has failed to demonstrate the requisite standing to file
a Petition to Deny.  Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, as amended, permits any "party in interest"
to file a petition to deny an application.  In general, to establish standing, a petitioner must allege sufficient
facts to demonstrate that grant of the subject application would cause the petitioner to suffer a direct injury.
The petition must further demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury and the challenged action. In
the auctions context, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has adopted the general rule that a petitioner,
to establish standing to challenge an application or license in a particular market, must demonstrate that it was
qualified and eligible to bid in that market.

     3.   SBT has failed to establish standing to challenge the instant applications by demonstrating that
it is a "party in interest."  SBT has not shown that it, or any of its members, was a qualified bidder in any of the
markets that Applicants won.  It is insufficient for purposes of standing in the auctions context merely to state,
as SBT does, that "several of [its] members have participated in past auctions." 

4.   Even if SBT had demonstrated standing, its Petitions lack merit.  SBT argues that each
Applicant should have disclosed the personal income of its controlling interest holders for purposes of
determining whether the Applicant qualifies for a bidding credit as a very small business. SBT further
contends that it is not the intent of the Commission's Rules to differentiate between the gross revenues of
an entity and the personal income of an individual.  We disagree.  Under the Commission's Rules, a very
small business is an entity that, together with its controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.  As the Commission has explained when
addressing this issue previously, the personal income of an individual is a part of personal net worth and
therefore is not attributable for inclusion in the gross revenues of the entity seeking a bidding credit. 
Accordingly, Applicants need not disclose the personal income of any of their individual members with
controlling interests, and we therefore deny SBT's Petitions.   

     6.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and sections 0.331, 1.2108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331,
and 1.2108, the Petitions to Deny filed by Small Business in Telecommunications on November 17, 2000 in the
above-captioned proceedings ARE HEREBY DENIED.

 
                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                         Linda C. Ray
                         Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch
                         Commercial Wireless Division
                         Wireless Telecommunications Bureau