WPC5 2BJZ Courier3|a >Fx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4Si in room 110_Lpt2HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\^#X@2'6<FK Z3|a Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\20K&K8)K+K-"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNg\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\ yO'  : X'` `  #XP\  P6Q+XP#Federal Communications Commission`)(#[DA 981224 ă   yxdddy :c X  $P  $P  1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)v Before the 0Federal Communications Commission  yO'}YWashington, D.C. 20554 ă   S'cX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: (#Paragraphă I. INTRODUCTIONp2"(#13 ` `  ,!II. CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. METACOMM'S MODIFICATION APPLICATION AND FORM 489 NOTIFICATIONp!(# 518 A. Background p2"(#56 B. Alternative CGSA Determinationp"(# 7 C. Form 489 Notification and Addition of Cell Sitesp!(#812 D. Alleged Misrepresentations by Metacomm pz!(#1318 IV. UNSERVED AREA APPLICATIONS . pz!(#1927 A. Background pz!(#1921 B. Discussion pz!(#2227 ` ` V. CONCLUSIONpp"(#28 VI. ORDERING CLAUSESpz!(#2937  S8'Ԋ  "8,N(N(ZZ7"  S'aI. INTRODUCTION אc d   S'1. In this order, we consider several applications relating to the provision of cellular service in the Wyoming 1 Park Rural Service Area (RSA) (Market No. 718A) and the Montana 8 Beaverhead  S`'RSA (Market No. 530A), together with several related motions and petitions.`f yO'ЍWe note that in addition to the applications, motions, and petitions discussed below, Metacomm has filed a formal complaint alleging that WWC has filed frivolous pleadings and abused the Commission's processes  {OX'in connection with these proceedings, and WWC has filed a crosscomplaint containing similar allegations. See  {O"'Metacomm Cellular Partners v. WWC Holding Co., Inc., File No. WB/ENFF96010 (filed August 19, 1996);  {O'WWC Holding Co., Inc. v. Metacomm Cellular Partners, File No. WB/ENFF96016 (filed October 7, 1996). These formal complaints are not addressed in this Order.  S'2. Metacomm Cellular Partners (Metacomm) is the Frequency Block A cellular licensee in the Wyoming 1 RSA. On September 28, 1994, one day before the expiration of its fiveyear buildout  S'period,IFf {O'ЍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.947 (formerly 47 C.F.R.  22.31(a)(1)(i) and (f), 22.925, and 22.926 (1994)). The  {Op'Commission comprehensively amended and recodified Part 22 of its rules effective January 1, 1995. See  {O:'Revision of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Public Mobile Services, Report and Order, 9 FCC  {O'Rcd. 6513 (1994) (Part 22 Rewrite Order). The rewritten rules apply to all applications that were pending at the time the rules were amended, other than applications for authority to operate the first system on a channel block  {O'in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or RSA market. See 47 C.F.R.  22.959 (pending applications for authority to operate the first cellular system on a channel block in an MSA or RSA market shall be processed under the rules in effect when the applications were filed, unless the Commission determines otherwise). Because none of the applications addressed in this Order seeks authority to operate the first cellular system on a channel block in a market, all of the applications are governed by the rewritten rules. Accordingly, this Order will cite only to the current rules except where the prior rules are relevant. I Metacomm filed an application seeking Commission approval to use an alternative method to  S'determine Metacomm's Cellular Geographic Service Area (CGSA) in the Wyoming 1 RSAff {O'ЍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.911 (formerly 47 C.F.R.  22.903 (1994)). The CGSA is the area within which cellular systems are entitled to protection and within which adverse effects for the purpose of determining  {Oz'whether a petitioner has standing are recognized. Id. Applications for licenses to provide cellular service in unserved areas may be filed only for areas that are outside of a licensed provider's existing CGSA. 47 C.F.R.   yO '22.911(e) (formerly 47 C.F.R.  22.903(d)(4) (1994)). f At the same time, Metacomm filed an FCC Form 489 notifying the Commission of its intent to construct six  SH 'new cell sites. MCII General Partnership (WWC),>XH df yOL'ЍThe MCII General Partnership licenses that are relevant to this proceeding were assigned to WWC Holding Co., Inc. effective November 24, 1995. For purposes of convenience, we will refer to both MCII General Partnership and its successor in interest as "WWC."> which holds licenses to operate cellular service over Frequency Block A in three markets adjoining the Wyoming 1 RSA, including the Montana 8 RSA, petitioned the Commission to deny Metacomm's CGSA modification application. For the reasons discussed below, we grant Metacomm's modification application and dismiss WWC's petition to deny. We find, however, that Metacomm's filing of Form 489 was not an appropriate means of seeking authorization to construct new cell sites. Because the service area of each of these sites expands Metacomm's CGSA, we hold that any service Metacomm has provided from these sites has been unauthorized, and we clarify that Metacomm may not operate these sites in the future unless it obtains"0,N(N(ZZ" proper authorization (for example, if Metacomm seeks and the Commission grants a major modification  S'of Metacomm's Phase I unserved area license to include the area covered by these sites).If {O@'ԍSee infra note 12.I  S'3. On October 12, 1994, Metacomm and WWC both filed Phase I initial applications for authority to expand their cellular systems into unserved areas on Frequency Block A in the Montana 8  S8'RSA.T8Zf {O2'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.949(a).T On October 31, 1994, Metacomm and WWC filed similar applications for unserved areas in the Wyoming 1 RSA. In accordance with the Commission's rules, both licenses were presented for competitive bidding in January 1997. Metacomm submitted the high bid in both markets, and the Auctions Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau accordingly identified Metacomm as the tentative selectee in both markets. WWC filed several petitions challenging Metacomm's applications and seeking reconsideration of the Auctions Division's actions, as well as an "informal request" to cancel the auction. For the reasons discussed below, we find that WWC's arguments are without merit. We therefore grant Metacomm's Phase I unserved area applications, and we dismiss or deny WWC's various petitions.   S '  II. CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS Đc  S'4. On May 28, 1996, WWC filed a Motion to Consolidate Metacomm's modification  S'application with its unserved area applications. Metacomm initially opposed the Motion to Consolidate, principally on the ground that under the Commission's rules the validity of its unserved area applications could not be decided until after the relevant licenses had been auctioned and the tentative  Sh'selectees announced,qhf {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  1.823(b)(3), 1.2108(a).q and therefore consolidation would unnecessarily delay a decision on its  S@'modification application.@~f {O^'ЍSee WWC Motion to Consolidate filed on May 28, 1996; Metacomm Opposition to Motion to Consolidate filed on June 7, 1996; WWC Reply to Opposition to Motion to Consolidate filed on June 19, 1996.  Subsequently, Metacomm changed its position and supported the Motion to  S'Consolidate. f {O'ԍSee Metacomm's April 25, 1997 letter to David Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division. WWC's Motion to Consolidate is granted. Although the Commission does not have a rule specifically addressing consolidation of actions, the standard for consolidation in federal civil  S'proceedings is whether the actions involve a "common question of law or fact." j f {O!'ЍSee Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 42(a); see also Santa Fe International Corp. v. Transcontinental  {O"'Gas Pipe Line Corp., 728 F.Supp. 435 (E.D. Texas 1989). As the matters in this proceeding do involve common questions of law and fact, this standard has been met. Further, we agree with WWC that consolidation of these proceedings is in the public interest, as it will allow us to dispose of this matter in its entirety without further delay. Because Metacomm's unserved area applications are now ripe for resolution, Metacomm's initial arguments against consolidation are moot. " ,N(N(ZZ["Ԍ S'rB III. METACOMM'S MODIFICATION APPLICATION AND FORM 489 NOTIFICATION  S' c  S'A. Background  S`' 5. Metacomm was awarded a Commission license to provide cellular service over  S8'Frequency Block A in the Wyoming 1 RSA on September 29, 1989. On July 28 , 1994, as required by the Commission's rules, Metacomm filed a System Information Update (SIU) showing technical data  S'relevant to determination of its CGSA. &f {OP'ЍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.947(c) (formerly 47 C.F.R.  22. 925 (1994)). Section 22.947(c) requires that the SIU be filed 60 days before the end of a licensee's fiveyear buildout period. One purpose of the SIU is to  {O 'provide notice of the system's coverage area to potential Phase I unserved area applicants. See Part 22  {O 'Rewrite Order, 9 FCC Rcd. at 6531,  90.  On September 28, 1994, one day before the expiration of its fiveyear buildout period, Metacomm filed an amended SIU and a modification application seeking Commission approval to use an alternative method to determine its CGSA covering the Wyoming 1  Sp'RSA.a Zpf {O'ЍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.911(b) (formerly 47 C.F.R.  22.903(b)) (permitting a licensee to file for an alternative determination of its CGSA if its actual coverage departs significantly from that shown if the CGSA is calculated according to the method provided in the Commission's rules).a The Commission placed the modification application on Public Notice on October 28, 1994. pf yO'ԍ#C\  P6QIP#Common Carrier Public Cellular Radio Service Information, Report No. CL958 (October 28, 1994). On November 28, 1994, WWC filed a Petition to Deny Metacomm's modification application.  S 'Metacomm opposed WWC's Petition to Deny,:X h f yO('ЍIn its Opposition, Metacomm raised the issue of standing with regard to WWC's right to challenge Metacom's modification. Modification Petition at 3. Because we are addressing the merits of WWC's arguments, Metacomm's contention against standing is moot.: and WWC filed a Reply.aZ f {OH'ЍSee WWC Petition to Deny Metacomm's Major Modification Application (filed November 28, 1994) ("Modification Petition"); Metacomm Opposition to Petition to Deny (filed December 13, 1994) ("Modification Opposition"); WWC Reply to Opposition (filed December 23, 1994) ("Modification Reply").a Subsequently, WWC filed  S 'a Supplement to its Petition to Deny, which in turn led to several additional responsive pleadings.x f yOB'ЍThe following additional pleadings were filed: WWC Supplement to Petition to Deny Modification Application filed on May 22, 1996; Metacomm Opposition to Supplement to Petition to Deny filed on June 3, 1996; WWC Reply to Opposition to Supplement to Petition to Deny filed on June 13, 1996; Metacomm Motion to Dismiss Supplement to Petition to Deny filed on June 3, 1996; WWC Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed on June 13, 1996; and Metacomm Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed on June 26, 1996. Metacomm also filed Motions for Extension of Time on June 20, 1996 and June 25, 1996, requesting time to file its Reply to the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by WWC.  S '6. Concurrently with its modification application, Metacomm submitted a Form 489  S 'notification to add six cell sites f yO %' x" ԍThe six cell sites are Meeteetse, Lovell, Basin, Cedar Mountain, Dead Indian Hill, and Mount Washburn. File No. 07679CLML94. to its station KNKN312 authorization in the Wyoming 1 RSA. " B,N(N(ZZ[ "  S'Contrary to the correct use of Form 489,If {Oh'ԍSee infra note 29.I the six cell sites had not been constructed when Metacomm submitted the notification to the Commission. On an interior page of the Form 489 submission, Metacomm stated that the cell sites were "proposed." On May 26, 1995, on July 27, 1995, and on September 28, 1995, after the expiration of the buildout period, Metacomm submitted additional Forms 489 notifying the Commission that it had completed construction on four of the six cells: the Meeteetse cell, the Cedar Mountain and Dead Indian Hill cells, and the Mount Washburn cell,  S'respectively.Zf yO 'ЍFile Nos. 05265CLML95, 06508CLML95, 07895CLML95, and 04804CLML96 (Modification), respectively. On September 3, 1996, Metacomm filed a minor modification for the Mount Washburn  S'cell.If yO: 'ԍFile No. 04804CLML96.I Metacomm has not constructed the two remaining cells that it proposed in its Form 489 notification submitted on September 28, 1994.  S' B. Alternative CGSA Determination  S ' 7. Metacomm's modification application requests permission to use an alternative CGSA  S 'determination pursuant to section 22.911(b) of the Commission's rules. Under section 22.911(b), Metacomm may use an alternative CGSA determination if the Commission finds that the CGSA determination method set forth in section 22.911(a) of the Commission's rules produces a CGSA that departs significantly from the geographical area where reliable cellular service is actually provided by Metacomm. Accordingly, Metacomm's request must include a depiction of what Metacomm believes the CGSA should be, accompanied by one or more supporting propagation studies using methods appropriate for the 800900 MHz frequency range, including all supporting data and calculations, or by  S'extensive field strength measurements.TBf yO'Ѝ47 C.F.R.  22.911(b).T Metacomm submitted field strength measurements that were  S'conducted by driving the highways and roads used by the public in the Wyoming 1 RSA. We find that Metacomm's documentation is sufficient to support an alternative CGSA determination under section  Sh'22.911(b).phf {O'ԍSee Metacomm Major Modification Application, Exhibit Six.p  S' C. Form 489 Notification and Addition of Cell Sites 8. At the same time as it submitted its modification application, Metacomm filed an FCC Form 489 purporting to notify the Commission of its proposal to construct six new cell sites in the Wyoming 1 RSA. These cell sites were not yet constructed or operational when Metacomm submitted its Form 489. During the following year, Metacomm constructed and apparently began operating four of these"Pd ,N(N(ZZ"  S'cells.Vf {Oh'ԍSee supra para. 6. V We conclude that to the extent Metacomm's provision of service from these new cells  S'expanded its CGSA, that operation was unauthorized and in violation of the Commission's rules.WZf {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.124(b)(3).W 9. Metacomm argues that its Form 489 submission was an application, and that it has  S`'constructed and operated the new cells under authority granted pursuant to that application.P`f yO'ԍModification Opposition at 79.P This argument misunderstands the nature and function of Form 489. The purpose of Form 489 is to notify  S'the Commission of commencement of service from a station after service has begun.|f {O, 'ЍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.105 (Table B1), 22.142(b) (1997) (formerly 47 C.F.R.  22.9 and 22.9(b)(1) (1994), respectively). Form 489 may not be used to apply for authorization to provide service. For this reason, a Form 489 notification is not placed on public notice, as the Communications Act generally requires of an authorization  S'application.f {O' x< ԍSee 47 U.S.C.  309(b) (subject to certain exceptions, the Commission may not grant an application earlier than thirty days following issuance of public notice of its acceptance). Under the rules that were in effect on September 28, 1994, a cellular licensee was required to submit a Form 489 upon completing construction of any new cell, and service to the public  SJ 'could commence upon the submission of that notification.aJ 0 f {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.9, 22.43 (1994).a Since January 1, 1995, a cellular licensee has been required to submit Form 489 upon adding a new cell to an existing system only if that action changes the boundary of its CGSA, and the notification shall be mailed or delivered no later than 15  S 'days after the modification is made. f {O4'ЍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.142(b)(3), 22.163(e), 22.165(e) (1997). A Form 489 must also be submitted upon  {O'a licensee's satisfaction of its initial requirement to commence service. See 47 C.F.R.  22.946(a). A licensee may also submit a Form 489 notification even when it is not required under the rules. One purpose of submitting a Form 489 when it is not required is to have a new transmitter or other modification appear in the  {OX'Commission's public records and thus be directly protected from interference. See Part 22 Rewrite Order, 9 FCC Rcd. at 6519,  26. 10. Where Commission authorization is required for a cellular licensee to add a new cell site,  SZ'the licensee must seek authorization by filing a Form 600 (formerly Form 401).^Z@f {O:!'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.105 (Table B1). ^ Each of the four sites included in Metacomm's September 28, 1994, Form 489 submission that has been constructed was  S 'constructed and placed in operation after the expiration of Metacomm's fiveyear buildout period.I f {O|$'ԍSee supra para. 6.I Where an initial cellular licensee's fiveyear buildout period has expired, the addition of a cell site is"d,N(N(ZZ"  S'considered a major modification requiring the filing of a Form 600 if it expands the system's CGSA./ f {Oh' x ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.123(g)(2). Because all of the cell sites at issue here were placed in operation after  {O2'December 31, 1994, the rules that were in effect prior to the Part 22 Rewrite Order are not relevant./ Metacomm did not file either a Form 401 or a Form 600 for any of the sites included in its September  S'28, 1994, Form 489.I!$f {Ot'ԍSee supra note 30.I Therefore, to the extent that any of those cells expand Metacomm's CGSA, Metacomm's operation of those cells is not authorized. 11. Based on our engineering analysis, the operation of each of the Meeteetse, Cedar Mountain, Dead Indian Hill, and Mount Washburn cell sites expands Metacomm's service area beyond its CGSA. Because Metacomm did not properly seek or obtain authorization to operate those sites, any service offered from those sites has been in violation of the Commission's rules, and Metacomm may  S'not operate those sites in the future unless it obtains proper authorization.4"Xf yO 'ЍWe are referring this matter to the Bureau's Enforcement and Consumer Information Division to determine whether Metacomm has operated any of these sites in violation of the Commission's rules, and if so, what sanctions should be imposed on Metacomm.4 Further, as the Form 489  Sp'filing is defective, we are returning it to Metacomm pursuant to our rules.W#pf {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.124(b)(3).W We reiterate that Metacomm should not have submitted a Form 489 for its six unconstructed cell sites on September 28, 1994, and that if it wished to begin operating those cells after the end of its fiveyear buildout period, it should have filed a Form 600. 12. We note, however, that by this Order we are granting Metacomm's Phase I application for  S 'authorization to provide service to unserved area on Frequency Block A in the Wyoming 1 RSA.O$ h f {O'ԍSee infra Part IV.O Although Metacomm's Phase I application did not include the areas covered by the sites identified in its September 28, 1994, Form 489 notification, under the Commission's rules Metacomm will have 90 days from the grant of its application to file a Phase I major modification application to add additional  S'unserved areas within the Wyoming 1 RSA to its application.W% f {Oz'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.949(a)(3).W In particular, pursuant to this authority, Metacomm could seek to add to its CGSA the areas covered by the Meeteetse, Cedar Mountain, Dead Indian Hill, and Mount Washburn cell sites. If Metacomm wishes to operate these cell sites pending its filing of a Phase I major modification application and Commission action thereon, it may seek special  S@'temporary authority to do so.Q&@ f {Ol"'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.125.Q   S' D. Alleged Misrepresentations by Metacomm  S' 13. In its Petition to Deny Metacomm's CGSA modification application, WWC asserts that Metacomm intentionally misrepresented and misdepicted its CGSA in its SIU as well as misrepresenting  SP'the status of the facilities in its Form 489 notification submitted on September 28, 1994. Specifically,"P&,N(N(ZZ" WWC alleges that Metacomm's SIU failed to have a clear legend identifying the CGSA, the RSA boundary, any service area extension boundaries, and any other features relevant to the cellular system  S'in violation of former section 22.925 of our rules.'f {O'ЍModification Petition at 19, quoting 47 C.F.R.  22.925(a) (1994) (now codified at 47 C.F.R.  22.949(c)(1)). Instead, WWC states that it had a "confusing" legend showing "Proposed Service Area Boundary Contours" and "Existing Service Area Boundary  S`'Contours."S(`"f yO"'ԍModification Petition at 19.S WWC further states that Metacomm depicted the 32 dBu contours for its three authorized cells at Cody, Worland, and Thermopolis as existing service area boundary contours instead of as  S'"CGSA.":)f {Ob 'ԍId.: WWC also alleges that Metacomm's September 28, 1994, amended SIU map depicted its coverage to include sites that were neither part of its CGSA nor part of any legitimate pending application for authorization under the Commission's rules, namely, the six sites included in its Form  S'489 notification filed on September 28, 1994.:*Df {O|'ԍId.: WWC alleges that Metacomm's goal was to protect the  Sp'area covered by these sites, so it would not be treated as unserved area.:+pf {O'ԍId.: WWC maintains that this evidence raises a substantial and material question of fact as to whether Metacomm's amended SIU map and companion filings the same day were intended to deceive the Commission and to deter  S 'potential unserved area applicants.:, h f {O'ԍId.: 14. WWC further alleges that Metacomm misrepresented in its Form 489 notification that the six cell sites at issue had been constructed, and that Metacomm now seeks to justify its  SX'misrepresentation by claiming that the Form 489 notification was an application and not a notification.W-X f yO'ЍModification Reply at 1112.W  S0'WWC further asserts that Metacomm not only has failed to refute WWC's claims, but has admitted its  S'fraudulent submission of the Form 489 notification. h. f {O2'ԍId. at 10 (citing Modification Opposition).h WWC argues that Metacomm's alleged misrepresentations, taken together, constitute grounds for denying Metacomm's modification  S'application.M/f yOt!'ԍModification Petition at 11.M 15. Under section 22.103 of the Commission's rules, applicants for authorizations in the  S@'public mobile services are required to make full and continuing disclosure as required by section 1.65  S'of the rules, and are forbidden from making misrepresentations.R0f yOd&'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.65, 22.103. R In the conduct of its business, the" <0,N(N(ZZ"  S'Commission must rely on the truthfulness of the representations made by the applicants before it.~1f {Oh'ԍSee e.g., RKO General, Inc. v. FCC, 670 F.2d 217, 231 (D.C. Cir. 1981).~ Consequently, instances of misrepresentation of facts material to the Commission's determinations are  S'wellestablished grounds for the dismissal or revocation of a license.T2\Zf {O' x" ԍSee Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 F.C.C.2d 1179, 1210 (1986),  {Ot' ! aff'd on recon., 1 FCC Rcd. 421 (1986), modified, 5 FCC Rcd. 3252 (1990), recon. granted in part, 6 FCC Rcd. 3448 (1991).T  S`'16. In Fox I, the Commission stated that a lack of candor takes two basic forms: (1) misrepresentation, which involves "false statements of fact"; and, (2) failure to disclose, which involves  S'"concealment, evasion, or other failures to be fully informative."3~f {O0 'ԍSee Fox Television Stations, 10 FCC Rcd. 8452, 8478 (1995) (Fox I). In Algreg Cellular Engineering, the Commission further explained the lack of candor standard. The Commission stated that "[a] finding of lack of candor . . . requires a showing that relevant information has been withheld; that the party in  S'question knew the information was relevant; and that it intended to withhold that information."w4f {OL'ԍSee Algreg Cellular Engineering, 12 FCC Rcd. 8148, 8175 (1997). w  St'Further, a party's "intent to deceive" is an "essential element" of a violation of the duty of candor.5tf {O' x ԍFox I, 10 FCC Rcd. at 8478, quoting Swan Creek Communications v. FCC, 39 F.3d 1217, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 17. We do not find on this record that Metacomm misrepresented or intentionally failed to  S 'disclose relevant facts in either its SIU or its Form 489 notification.6$ f yO'ЍIn its Supplement to Petition to Deny, WWC also asserts that Metacomm violated the Commission's  {O`'rules regarding ex parte communications, 47 C.F.R.  1.1208. Supplement to Modification Petition at 1316. We disagree. Metacomm's 1995 Form 489 filings were authorized under Commission rules and therefore are  {O'excluded from ex parte requirements. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1204(a)(1). With regard to the SIU filing, Metacomm's showing was consistent with the Commission's rules in that the SIU contained a full size  S 'map, a reduced map, and an updated frequency utilization chart.7 f {O4'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.925 (1994) (now codified at 47 C.F.R.  22.949(c)). In addition, although Metacomm did  S 'not use exactly the same terminology employed in our rules,8 zf {O'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.925(a) (1994) (now codified at 47 C.F.R.  22.949(c)(1)). its SIU depicted, with reasonable accuracy and clarity, the relevant cell locations and coverage of the system at the end of the fiveyear  S4'buildout period.94 f yO"'ЍGiven the terrain involved in Metacomm's CGSA, which is highly mountainous, it is expected that there should be some deviations from 100% accuracy. Our staff review revealed no inconsistencies that would indicate misrepresentation of Metacomm's CGSA. Although Metacomm should not have included in its amended SIU additional cell sites for which it did not have proposed modifications pending and the coverage areas of those cell sites, these sites and coverage areas were clearly labelled as proposed. Similarly, in the Form 489 notification, Metacomm stated that the six cell sites were proposed." d9,N(N(ZZU"Ԍ18. We are concerned that Metacomm's improper inclusion of the proposed cell sites in its amended SIU and submission of Form 489 may have been intended to deceive potential unserved area applicants and deter them from filing applications. If there were evidence of such influence or that Metacomm's actions in fact had such effects, we would be prepared to consider any appropriate  S`'remedial action under the Communications Act and the Commission's rules.:`f yO' x ԍWe note that notwithstanding Metacomm's actions, WWC applied for the Market No. 718A unserved area license and bid at auction for that license. As noted above, we intend to investigate whether Metacomm has improperly operated these cell sites without filing a Form  S'600, and whether it should be sanctioned for doing so.I; f {O 'ԍSee supra note 33.I Because Metacomm disclosed in its amended SIU and Form 489 that the sites at issue were proposed, however, the record does not show that it misrepresented or intentionally concealed relevant facts in violation of sections 1.65 and 22.103 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we grant Metacomm's modification application and deny WWC's  Sp'petition to deny that application.<pf yO' x ԍBecause we are denying WWC's Petition to Deny, Metacomm's Motion to Dismiss WWC's Supplement to its Petition to Deny is dismissed as moot.  S '     S 'n  IV. UNSERVED AREA APPLICATIONS  S '  S ' A. Background 19. On October 12, 1994, and October 31, 1994, respectively, Metacomm and WWC filed Phase I applications for cellular unserved area licenses on Frequency Block A in the Montana 8 RSA (Market No. 530A) and the Wyoming 1 RSA (Market No. 718A). The Commission issued a Public Notice identifying the applications of WWC and Metacomm as mutually exclusive and subject to  S'competitive bidding on December 21, 1994, for both Market Nos. 530A and 718A.n= f {Ob'ԍSee Public Notice, Report No. CL9531 (Dec. 21, 1994).n On August 7, 1994, prior to filing its application for Market No. 718A, Metacomm had filed a Phase I unserved area application for Frequency Block B in the Wyoming 1 RSA (Market No. 718B). Metacomm withdrew  S@'that application by letter dated October 27, 1994, to the Chief, Mobile Services Division.>@f yO|' x ЍIn November 1994, the functions of the Mobile Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, were transferred to the Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. The letter was neither signed by an authorized Metacomm representative nor filed with the Commission. On December 29, 1994, the Commission issued a Public Notice identifying all mutually exclusive Phase I  S'unserved area applications in Market No. 718B. Metacomm was not listed as an applicant.n? f {O\#'ԍSee Public Notice, Report No. CL9535 (Dec. 29, 1994).n  Sx'20. On November 8, 1996, the Commission issued a Public Notice which, inter alia, announced the upcoming auction of cellular unserved area licenses for which mutually exclusive PhaseI applications had been filed, identified those entities eligible to apply in each market, and"* ?,N(N(ZZ"  S'directed eligible entities that wished to bid to file an FCC Form 175.d@f {Oh'ԍSee Public Notice, DA 961850 (Nov. 8, 1996).d Metacomm and WWC were listed as eligible entities in both Market Nos. 530A and 718A, and Metacomm was also listed for  S'Market No.718B. On December 11, 1996, WWC filed an Informal Request for cancellation of the Phase I unserved area auction for Market No. 718A on the ground that Metacomm had Phase I applications pending simultaneously in Market Nos. 718A and 718B, in violation of section 22.945 of  S8'the Commission's rules.rA8Zf yO2'ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.945 (formerly 47 C.F.R.  22.921(d) (1994)).r Metacomm opposed WWC's Informal Request, arguing that it had  S'withdrawn its application for Market No. 718B before filing the application for Market No. 718A.Bzf yO 'ЍMetacomm Opposition to Request for Dismissal of Application and for Cancellation of Auction at 12 (December 13, 1996). WWC and Metacomm subsequently elaborated upon their positions in an exchange of  {O* 'letters. See Metacomm Letter to David Furth, Chief, Commercial Wireless Division ("CWD") (January 3, 1997); WWC Letter to David Furth, Chief, CWD (January 7, 1997); Metacomm Letter to Steve Markendorff, Deputy Chief, CWD (January 10, 1997); WWC Letter to Steve Markendorff, Deputy Chief, CWD (January 10, 1997); Metacomm Letter to Steve Markendorff, Deputy Chief, CWD (January 14, 1997); and WWC Letter to Steve Markendorff, Deputy Chief, CWD (January 16, 1997). 21. Meanwhile, on December 20, 1996, the Commission issued a Public Notice identifying  S'those Form 175 applications that were acceptable for filing in the cellular unserved area auction.C, f {Od'ԍSee Public Notice, DA 962162, Report No. Auc9612C (Dec. 20, 1996). Metacomm and WWC were listed for Market Nos. 718A and 530A, but Metacomm was not listed as  SH 'having filed a Form 175 for Market No. 718B.:DH f {O'ԍId.: The Commission did not cancel the auction for Market No. 718A. WWC participated in the January 1997 auction and was outbid by Metacomm in  S 'both Market Nos. 718A and 530A.E P f {O'ЍSee Public Notice, Report No. AUC9712F (Auction No. 12), DA 97153 (Jan. 22, 1997) (identifying Metacomm as the winning bidder in Market Nos. 718A and 530A). On February 24, 1997, the Commission issued a Public Notice  S 'identifying Metacomm as the auction winner and tentative selectee for Market Nos. 718A and 530A.nF f {O'ԍSee Public Notice, Report No. CL9737 (Feb. 24, 1997).n On March 26, 1997, WWC filed its Phase I Petitions to Dismiss or Deny requesting dismissal or denial  S 'of Metacomm's Phase I applications for the unserved areas in Market Nos. 718A and 530A.G <f yO\ 'ЍWWC Petitions to Dismiss or Deny Metacomm's Phase I Unserved Area Applications for the Wyoming 1 Park RSA and the Montana 8 Beaverhead RSA (Market Nos. 718A and 530A) (March 26, 1997) ("Phase I Wyoming Petition" and "Phase I Montana Petition," respectively, or collectively, "Phase I Petitions"); Metacomm Oppositions to Phase I Petitions to Dismiss or Deny (April 9, 1997) ("Phase I Wyoming Opposition" and "Phase I Montana Opposition," or collectively, "Phase I Oppositions"); and WWC Replies to Oppositions (April 21, 1997) ("Phase I Wyoming Reply" and "Phase I Montana Reply," or collectively, "Phase I Replies"). WWC" G,N(N(ZZ[ " also filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its unserved area application for Market No.  S'530A. Hf yO@'ЍWWC Petition for Reconsideration of the Dismissal of its Phase I Unserved Area Application for the Montana 8 Beaverhead RSA (Market No. 530A) (March 10, 1997) ("Montana Reconsideration Petition"). WWC's unserved area applications for both Market Nos. 718A and 530A were dismissed on February 7, 1997.  {O'See Public Notice, Report No. CL9730 (Feb. 7, 1997). WWC did not petition for reconsideration of the Market No. 718A dismissal.   S'  $P B. Discussion  S`'   S8'22. Initially, we note that WWC's Informal Request to cancel the Phase I unserved area license auction for Market No. 718A is moot because that auction has already occurred. In practical effect, WWC's Informal Request is equivalent to a petition to deny Metacomm's Phase I unserved area  S'application.Izf {O 'ԍSee Informal Request at 45 (arguing that Metacomm's application should be dismissed). Under the Commission's rules, a petition to deny a Phase I unserved area application  S'must be filed within 30 days after the date of public notice announcing the tentative selectee.LJ f yOD'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.823(b)(3).L We therefore reasonably treated the Informal Request as a premature petition to deny and declined to address the issues raised until after the auction had occurred. Indeed, WWC has repeated substantially the same issues raised in the Informal Request in its Petitions to Dismiss or Deny Metacomm's applications for the Market Nos. 718A and 530A licenses and in its Petition for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its own application for the Market No. 530A license. We will therefore dismiss the Informal Request but consider the arguments made in the Informal Request and related pleadings in connection with WWC's Petitions to Dismiss or Deny and Petition for Reconsideration. 23. In its Informal Request, Petitions to Dismiss or Deny, Petition for Reconsideration, and related pleadings, WWC makes several arguments as to why Metacomm should not be awarded the cellular unserved area licenses for Market Nos. 718A and 530A. We conclude that all of these arguments are without merit. First, WWC argues that Metacomm is unqualified to be a Commission licensee because it made intentional misrepresentations on its SIU for the Wyoming 1 RSA and its  Sh'Form 489 notification of its proposal to add six new cells.SKhf yO'ԍPhase I Wyoming Petition at 1925.S As discussed above, we reject this argument because it does not appear that Metacomm misrepresented or intentionally concealed relevant  S'facts.[L, f {O 'ԍSee supra paras. 1318. [ 24. Second, WWC asserts that Metacomm violated the Commission's rules by having Phase I  S'applications pending in Market Nos. 718A and 718B simultaneously.SM f yO$'ԍPhase I Wyoming Petition at 1114.S Section 22.945 of the rules precludes an applicant from having an interest in more than one application for authority to operate a new cellular system in the same cellular market, subject to certain exceptions that are not applicable to"P N M,N(N(ZZ"  S'Metacomm.JNf yOh'ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.945(a).J We find that Metacomm did not violate section 22.945 because Metacomm withdrew its Market No. 718B application by letter dated October 27, 1994. WWC contends that Metacomm's withdrawal of its application in Market No. 718B was ineffective because no date stamp appears on the letter, and because the letter did not bear an authorized signature. Although these facts would, in the absence of other evidence that the withdrawal was timely filed and accepted, be relevant, here the Commercial Wireless Division's (Division) Public Notice of December 29, 1994, which did not identify Metacomm as an applicant in Market No. 718B, demonstrates that the Division accepted the timely  S'withdrawal of Metacomm's application.#OXXf yO 'ЍSimilarly, the November 8, 1996, Public Notice listing Metacomm as eligible to apply for the license in Market No. 718B was apparently erroneous and does not convince us that Metacomm's withdrawal of its application was ineffective.# In this regard, we note that neither the absence of a date  S'stamp nor the lack of an authorized signature appears to have violated any of the Commission's rules.PBxf yO 'ЍFormer section 22.6 and former and current section 1.743(a) of the rules require an authorized signature, but only for applications, amendments thereto, and related statements of fact. 47 C.F.R.  22.6, 1.743(a) (1994). Requests for dismissal of applications in the public mobile services are specifically governed by former  yO0'section 22.28 of the rules (now section 22.128(a)), which does not include an express  signature requirement unless the applicant has previously submitted the winning bid in a competitive bidding process or the application has been designated for comparative hearing or selected in a random selection process, or the request to dismiss is made pursuant to an agreement to resolve mutual exclusivity. 47 C.F.R. 22.28(b) (1994) (now codified at 47  {OP'C.F.R.  22.128(a)(3); see also 47 C.F.R.  22.29 (1994) (now codified at 47 C.F.R.  22.129). Finally, even if Metacomm's October 27, 1994, withdrawal letter were ineffective, any violation of section 22.945 was cured when Metacomm failed to file Form 175 for Market No. 718B and did not bid on that license at auction. Under the circumstances, in which any arguable violation of section 22.945 was temporary, was apparently inadvertent, and had no practical effect, we do not believe that such violation should disqualify Metacomm from obtaining a license. 25. Third, WWC argues that Metacomm's applications are defective because it did not provide complete and accurate ownership information as required under the rules that were in effect when  SX'Metacomm filed its Phase I unserved area applications.QX f {Oz'ЍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.13(a)(1)(iv), 22.924(b)(5) (1994). These provisions have since been recodified at sections 22.108(d) and 22.953(a)(5)(v) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.108(d), 22.953(a)(5)(v). Specifically, WWC alleges that Metacomm's original Form 401 filings made in 1994 are defective because Metacomm failed to include its  S'partnership agreements in those filings.yRf yO 'ԍPhase I Wyoming and Phase I Montana Petitions at 34 and 6, respectively.y Moreover, WWC asserts that although Metacomm included  S'the partnership agreements "with its 1997 Form 600 in Exhibit B,"$Slf yO"'ЍPhase I Wyoming and Phase I Montana Petitions at 37 and 11, respectively. We note that Metacomm in fact submitted no Form 600 in 1997 for either Market No. 718A or Market No. 530A. Metacomm was not required to file a Form 600 after it won the unserved area auction because it had already submitted applications  {OD%'for the relevant licenses on Form 401 in 1994. See 47 C.F.R.  22.105, Table B1 (Form 600 is submitted for an application for a new or modified station, major amendment to a pending application, or application for partial assignment of authorization). The partnership agreements that Metacomm discusses were in fact"&R,N(N(&" submitted with the Form 401 filings in 1994.$ those filings are inadequate"XS,N(N(ZZ" because the partnership agreements are missing signature pages for all eighteen partners and because  S'their effective dates cannot be determined.TXf yO'ԍPhase I Wyoming and Phase I Montana Petitions at 3739 and 612, respectively. Further, with respect to Market No.718A, WWC argues that Metacomm's partnership agreement is defective because it fails to reflect current ownership due to  S'a minor change in ownership referenced in Metacomm's cover sheet for Exhibit B.SUf yO'ԍPhase I Wyoming Petition at 3739.S In Market No. 530A, WWC argues that, because Metacomm submitted "equivocal" language describing the Partnership  S8'Agreement in the cover sheet of Exhibit B to its application,V8xf yOP 'ЍPhase I Montana Petition at 12. Herein, WWC quotes Exhibit B to Metacomm's application in part: "The attached agreement is Applicant's most recent executed complete Partnership Agreement. A minor change in the ownership of Applicant has been made since execution of the attached agreement, and the current ownership is accurately reflected in other portions of their application. Certain minor changes to this agreement are contemplated." the Commission could not make a determination as to "which partnership agreement is controlling," or the "operative date" of such  S'agreement, based upon the application.<W( f {O'ԍId.  < 26. WWC's arguments fail because the rules that were in effect in 1994 do not apply to  Sp'Metacomm's applications. Rather, as discussed above, Metacomm's Phase I applications are governed  SH 'by our current rules.NXH f {O'ԍSee supra note 2.N Section 22.953(b) of the Commission's rules provides that "applications for changes to existing systems need only contain the form required by paragraph (a)(4) [of section 22.953]  S 'and the exhibits required by paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iii)."JY L f yO'ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.953(b).J These documents include (1) a fullsize map; (2) a reduced map; and (3) engineering data and methodology used to calculate the CGSA  S 'and service area boundary.VZ f yO$'ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.953(a)(5)(i)(iii).V The unserved areas for which Metacomm has applied in the Wyoming 1 and Montana 8 RSAs are adjacent to Metacomm's existing system in the Wyoming 1 RSA, and Metacomm's applications merely change the contours of that system. A grant of Metacomm's Phase I applications for Market Nos. 718A and 530A will thus be a change to its existing system. Therefore, Metacomm is not required to file ownership information under section 22.953(a)(5)(v) of the  S'Commission's rules,Z[lf {O"'ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  22.953(a)(5)(v).Z and any incompleteness or inaccuracy in providing such ownership information is immaterial to the validity of Metacomm's applications. Moreover, even if the filing of ownership"[,N(N(ZZx" information were required, the alleged defects raised by WWC are correctable by amendment under  S'applicable Commission precedent.\f {O@'ЍSee Florida CellCom, 2 FCC Rcd. 1764,  26 (1987) (holding that clerical errors are correctable,  {O 'including incomplete responses and error in listing corporate officer as alien); Algreg Cellular Engineering, 6 FCC Rcd. 2921, 2926,  2527 (1991) (holding as correctable inconsistency between applicant and person  {O'signing, omission of signer from ownership exhibit, and inadvertent omission of two pages); Johnstown Cellular  {Of'Co., 1 FCC Rcd. 1164, 1165 (1986) (applying Letter Perfect Standard only to initial intake of cellular  {O0'applications, rendering it inapplicable to postlottery review of lottery winners); Rodney A. McDaniel, 2 FCC  {O'Rcd. 5402, 5405 n.2 (1987) (finding Letter Perfect Standard not applicable to technical qualifications). 27. Because all of WWC's objections to Metacomm's applications for Phase I cellular unserved area licenses lack merit, we find that grant of Metacomm's unserved area applications is in the public interest. Accordingly, we grant Metacomm's applications, deny WWC's Petitions to Dismiss  S'or Deny, and deny WWC's Petition for Reconsideration.Y]f yO 'ЍWWC also contends that the dismissal of its applications prior to grant of Metacomm's applications is inconsistent with the Commission's rules and WWC's equitable interest as a timelyfiled applicant on the cutoff  {OT'date, and that reinstatement nunc pro tunc is necessary to protect WWC's equitable interest under the cutoff  {O'rule. Montana Reconsideration Petition at 35. See 47 C.F.R.  22.949 and 22.128. Because we are granting Metacomm's applications, this argument is moot. Y  S'k V. CONCLUSION   c28. We find that Metacomm's requested alternative coverage determination for its CGSA in the Wyoming 1 RSA is proper. Accordingly, Metacomm's modification application will be granted, and WWC's Petition to Deny that application will be denied. In addition, we find that Metacomm's Phase I unserved area applications are proper and will be granted, and WWC's Petitions to Dismiss or Deny those applications and its Petition for Reconsideration of the dismissal of its own application for the Montana8 RSA will be denied. Further, we find that Metacomm did not properly seek or obtain authorization to construct facilities that expanded its CGSA after the end of its fiveyear buildout period in the Wyoming 1 RSA, and it is therefore not authorized to operate those facilities. A copy of  S'this Order should be retained pursuant to section 22.303 of the Commission's rules.G^ f yOp'ԍ47 C.F.R.  22.303.G This action is  S'taken without prejudice to any action the Commission may take on any application by Metacomm for  S'special temporary authority to operate any cells that expand is CGSA.  S@'L VI. ORDERING CLAUSES  c29. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 303(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 303(f), and section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, that the Motion to Consolidate filed by WWC Holding Co., Inc. on May 28, 1996, IS GRANTED. "PX ^,N(N(ZZ"Ԍ30. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(f), 309(a), and 319(a) and (b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(f), 309(a), and 319(a) and (b), and sections 0.331 and 22.911(b) of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331 and 22.911(b), that the application for authority to modify DPCRTS Station KNKN312 serving the Wyoming 1 Park RSA (Market No. 718A) (File No. 07680CLMP94) filed by Metacomm Cellular Partners on September 28, 1994, IS GRANTED. 31. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(f), 309(a), and 319(a) and (b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 303(f), 309(a), and 319(a) and (b), and sections 0.331, 22.130, and 22.911(b) of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 22.130, and 22.911(b), that the Petition to Deny the application for authority to modify DPCRTS Station KNKN312 serving the Wyoming 1  X, Park RSA, filed by MCII General Partnership on November 28, 1994, IS DENIED. 32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 309(d), and sections 0.331 and 22.130(a) of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331 and 22.130(a), that the Motion to Dismiss the Supplement to Petition to Deny filed by Metacomm Cellular Partners on June 3, 1996, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT. 33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 309(a), and 319(a) and (b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 309(a), and 319(a) and (b), and sections 0.331 and 22.949 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331 and 22.949, that the applications of Metacomm Cellular Partners for authority to construct and operate new cellular radiotelephone service facilities on Frequency Block A in the Unserved Areas in the Montana 8 Beaverhead RSA (Market No. 530A) (File No. 07600CLP195) and in the Unserved Areas in the Wyoming 1 Park RSA (Market No. 718A) (File No. 07668CLP195) ARE GRANTED.  34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 309(a) and (d), and 319(a) and (b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 309(a) and (d), and 319(a) and (b), and sections 0.331, 22.130, and 22.949 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 22.130, and 22.949, that the Petitions to Dismiss or Deny the applications of Metacomm Cellular  S'Partners, filed by WWC Holding Co., Inc., on March 26, 1997, ARE DENIED.xx 35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 0.331 and 1.2109 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331 and 1.2109, that Metacomm Cellular Partners shall pay the balance of its winning bids within ten business days of the release of this Order. Failure to comply with this condition will result in the automatic cancellation of the licenses in question. 36. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, that the Informal Request for Dismissal of Applications and for Cancellation of the Scheduled Auctions for Unserved Areas filed by WWC Holding Co., Inc., on December 11, 1996, IS DISMISSED. 37. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 309(a), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 309(a), and 405, and sections 0.331,"&^,N(N(ZZ`%" 1.106, and 22.949 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 1.106, and 22.949, that the Petition for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the application of WWC Holding Co., Inc., for authority to construct and operate new cellular radiotelephone service facilities on Frequency Block A in the unserved area in the Montana 8 Beaverhead RSA (Market No. 530A), filed by WWC Holding Co., Inc., on March 10, 1997, IS DENIED. ` `  ,hh]FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  ,hh]Daniel B. Phythyon ` `  ,hh]Chief, Wireless Telecommunications BureauX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: