WPC$! 2BJZ Courier3|a ix6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 5SiPCL) (Additional)HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\d&wX@2'6<F ZK3|a Times New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicHP LaserJet 5SiPCL) (Additional)HPLAS5SI.PRSC\  P6Q\d&wP"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\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\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Qu&P#"i~'^'-5CCph---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``S-%-=C-;C;C;-CC%%C%hCCCC-3%CC`CC;@@H-#H=---#------C-C%`;`;`;`;`;uWX;S;S;S;S;-%-%-%-%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`A`C`C`CKC`;`;`;X;X;XHX;`TS;S;S;S;`C`C`C`H`C`H`C-%-C---C]KHH`CS%S5S-S-S%`CO`C`C`C`Cu`X-X-X-K3K3K3KHS8S%S=`C`C`C`C`C`C}``HS;S;S;`CS-`CK3S-`CT#CC,,W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0PP0=C-;CCCCC%+eeC(+eeCe(--;;C..PCCPe0PP0OmmKK-;Cp("XXXXee{CePMHCKPPC"i~'^'-KCCp---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC--KKKC}`X``XShh3ChX}`hSh`KX````X-%-MC-CK;K;-CK%-K%pKCKK;3-KC`CC;55E-#EM---#------C-K%`C`C`C`C`C``;X;X;X;X;1%1%1%1%`KhChChChC`K`K`K`K`C`C`KgChC`C`CQK`C`C`C`;`;`E`;`cX;X;X;X;hChChChEhChKhM3%3K3-3KlKEEhKX%Xg\\>>>\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\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^ %,77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%7%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&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(AZZ>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"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\\nBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^ %.77\V%%%7K%7777777777%%KKK7eDDIODDOO%0I>\IODOD7>OD\D>>**.7%77070770O7777**70I00*,,;%;.%%%%%%%%%7%7D7D7D7D7D7aII0D0D0D0D0%%%%I7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7>0D7O7O7O7>0O7D7D7D7D7I0I0I;I0OBD0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7T7;;I0>>(>%>#>I7@I7I7O7O7gID*D*D*7*7*7*;;>(>>.O7O7O7O7O7O7\I>;>*>*>*O7>%I77*>%>7B77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(BB(97*77777l7#TT7!#TT7T!%%>>7a&&Bn77lBTn(nBB(;TT77a%>7\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7KlBBn7"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/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+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;         2"! S' X   P S'#G\  P6G;مP#  #&J\  P6Qu&P#Federal Communications Commission`}(#cDA 991227 ă   yx}dddy PPb Before the Federal Communications Commission  S'"2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  S4'In re Applications of #&J\  P6Qu&P#)ppCC Docket No. 91142  S')  S' xBRAVO CELLULAR hhCq)pp  *xxX  S'` `  hhCq)ppFile No. 10673CLP579A89  Sh'For Facilities in the Domestic Public Cellularq)  S5'Telecommunications Radio Service on)  S'Frequency Block A, in Market 579)  S'North Carolina 15 Cabarrus)  S ')  Si 'CENTAUR PARTNERSHIPhhCq)ppFile No. 10720CLP631A89  S6 ')  S 'For Facilities in the Domestic Public Cellular )  S 'Telecommunications Radio Service on)  S 'Frequency Block A, in Market 631hhCq)  Sj'South Carolina 7 Calhoun)  S7'` `  hhCq )  S'EJM CELLULAR PARTNERShhCq)ppFile No. 10116CLP721A89 ` `  hhCq)  S'For Facilities in the Domestic Public Cellularq)  Sk'Telecommunications Radio Service onhhCq)  S8'Frequency Block A, in Market 721 hhCq)  S'Wyoming 4 Niobara hhCq) ` `  hhCqq)  S'EJM CELLULAR PARTNERShhCq)ppFile No. 10567CLP596A89 ` `  hhCq)  S9'For Facilities in the Domestic Public Cellularq)  S'Telecommunications Radio Service onhhCq)  S'Frequency Block A, in Market 596,hhCq)  S'Oklahoma 1 CimarronhhCq)  S:'m ORDER \  S'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: Є yO'ԍRequest at 2.> Following this discovery, Petitioners filed their request to rescind the authorizations.  S'P III. Discussion  S' " 5. Petitioners argue that the Commission's June 3, 1997 Order did not grant the four applications  Sm' xand that the Order specifically stated that they were not grantable on the then state of the record.BmЄ {O%&'ԍId. at 3. B They  xgnote that the Commission told the D.C. Circuit that Petitioners would be permitted to participate in any":,l(l(,,"  S' xauction the Commission might ultimately hold if the court reversed the Commission's decision in Algreg.  xPetitioners complain that the Bureau's action, if permitted to stand, will effectively dismiss their competing  S' x<applications.@ Є {O'ԍId. at 4.@ They observe that certain filings by the applicants claiming that Algreg granted their  xapplications may have confused the Bureau and caused it to believe that the June 3 Order granted the  S6' xapplication and permitted issuance of the authorizations.B 6ZЄ {O0'ԍId. at 56.B Finally, Petitioners state that the Commission  S'must rule on two pending petitions for reconsideration before it can grant the four applications.@ Є {O 'ԍId. at 8.@  "6. Centaur and EJM filed an opposition to the request on May 19, 1998. First, they asked the  Sj' xCommission to issue public notices of the grants. j~Є yO ' " ԍRequest for Public Notice of Grants and Opposition to Request for Rescission of Authorizations ("Opposition") at 2. Turning to the merits, they claimed that Petitioners  xlacked standing. Centaur and EJM noted that Petitioners failed to intervene in the hearing proceeding to  xdetermine if an improper risk sharing had occurred, did not file timely petitions to deny after applicants  S' xwere announced as the lottery winners, and did not seek reconsideration of Algreg. Instead, they went  xDdirectly to court and had their appeal dismissed for failure to participate in the administrative proceedings.  xRCentaur and EJM conclude that because the Commission has told the D.C. Circuit that all other  S9 ' xtparticipants in the initial lottery would be eligible to participate in an auction should Algreg be reversed,  S ' xthe Petitioners are suffering no cognizable injury as a result of the Bureau's action.@  Є {O}'ԍId. at 4.@ The opposition  xfurther contends that the Bureau staff could have reasonably concluded that public notices were not  S ' xtnecessary in view of the de facto grants in Algreg.@ h  {O'ԍId. at 5.@ Finally, the opposition states that while a pending  xpregrant petition to deny restrains the FCC from issuing a license, a posthearing petition to deny does  S<'not.@< Є {O'ԍId. at 6.@  "7. Bravo also submitted an opposition on May 19, 1998. It too urged the issuance of a public  S' xQnotice, although it said that there was no statutory requirement compelling the issuance of one. Є yO'ԍOpposition to Request for Rescission of Authorizations ("Bravo Opposition") at 3. Turning  xto the merits, Bravo argued that the applicants failed to demonstrate how they were injured by the  xBureau's action in light of the fact that they would be permitted to participate in a future auction should  S ' xthe D.C. Circuit ultimately overturn the Commission's order in Algreg.C Є {O#'ԍId. at 4, 6.C Bravo agrees with Centaur and  x&EJM that the filing of two petitions for reconsideration did not prevent the Commission from granting  S'authorizations to the above parties.@Є {O&'ԍId. at 4.@    "@,l(l(,,X"Ԍ "yԙ8. In their reply, Petitioners reiterate that the Bureau could not have issued authorizations under  x7the then circumstances and that Bravo, Centaur and EJM were really seeking special temporary operating  S' xauthority.Є yO'ԍReply to Oppositions to Request for Rescission of Authorizations ("Reply") at 3. They argue that the Commission must actually grant an application before it issues an  Sg' xauthorization to operate a radio facility@gXЄ {O_'ԍId. at 3.@ and repeat their previous contention that the Commission must  S4' xrule on the pending petitions for reconsideration before the Bureau can grant the applications.@4Є {O'ԍId. at 4.@ Finally,  xPetitioners argue that they have standing because the Bureau's action has effectively dismissed their applications.  Sh' "89. We agree with Petitioners that the Commission's June 3, 1997 order in Algreg did not grant  x*the four applications in question. Rather, the Commission specifically remanded those applications to the  xBureau with instructions to obtain additional information and then, if that information resolved the  S' xoutstanding ownership questions, to grant them on an expedited basis.N|Є yO'ԍ12 FCC Rcd at 8189,  100.N Thus, the authorizations  xindicating that the Bureau granted the four applications on June 3, 1997, were in error. The Commission  xcorrected that error by issuing a Public Notice on November 27, 1998, clarifying the dates the applications  S7 'were actually granted.KB7 Є {O' xE ԍSee Public Notice, Report No. CWS999, released November 27, 1998. The Commission reissued the authorizations with the grant dates below:  yO=' File Number` `  Callsignhh]MarketApplicant&Grant Dates   yO'10116CLP189` `  KNKQ449hh]721AEJMpp&10/21/97  yO'10567CLP189` `  KNKQ447hh]596AEJMpp&10/21/97  yO'10673CLP189` `  KNKQ443hh]576ABravopp&11/6/97   X  yO]'10720CLP189` `  KNKQ453hh]631ACentaurpp&1/7/98K  "10. We disagree with Petitioners' contention that two pending petitions for reconsideration  x@prohibit the granting of the four applications and subsequent authorizations. It is true that the filing of  xa petition to deny bars the granting of applications pending resolution of that petition. However, a  S8' x&pending petition for reconsideration does not preclude the Commission from granting an application.QZ8Є {O' " ԍSee, 47 C.F.R.  1.106 (n). In Open Media Corporation, 8 FCC Rcd 4070,4072  11 (1993), the filing of  x a petition for reconsideration did not preclude the issuance of a grant. Rather, the applicant simply proceeds at its own risk. Q  xSection 106(n) specifically states that absent a stay or other Commission action, the mere filing of a  x*petition for reconsideration does not prevent an order from taking effect. Thus, the pending petitions for  S'reconsideration in Algreg did not prevent the Bureau from issuing the four authorizations.  "11. Finally, we deny Pending Petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration. The petition claims to  xbe seeking reconsideration of the grant of the above applications as reflected in the Public Notice of"8,l(l(,,"  S' xNovember 27, 1998.?Є yOh'ԍPetition at 1.? In fact, the Public Notice did not grant the above applications but merely clarified the date on which the Bureau granted those applications.  Sg'{P IV. Conclusion  S' " 12. The Commission's June 3, 1997 Order in Algreg did not grant the four applications in  xquestion and the Bureau acted improperly by indicating a June 3, 1997 grant date for the above four  xapplications. However, the Public Notice of November 27, 1998 corrected that error. The pending  xreconsideration petitions do not prevent us from granting the above applications and issuing subsequent  xDauthorizations. We also deny Pending Petitioners' Petition for Reconsideration of the November 27, 1998 Public Notice and dismiss the applicants' Motion to Strike SoCalled Statement for the Record as moot.  S '= V. Ordering Clauses  Sj '  "13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act  xof 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Sections 0.331 and 1.41 of the Commission's rules, 47  x}C.F.R.  0.331 and 1.41, the Request for Rescission of Authorizations filed by Castle Trust, Orbit  xpCellular, RSA Cellular Partners, Schuylkill Mobile Fone, Inc., B. Scott Reardon III, Skyline Cellular Partners, Sunrise Trust, and Walker Trust on May 6, 1998, IS DENIED.  "14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act  xtof 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Sections 0.331 and 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47  x&C.F.R.  0.331 and 1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Castle Trust, Orbit Cellular, RSA  xCellular Partners, Schuylkill Mobile Fone, Inc., B. Scott Reardon III, Skyline Cellular Partners, Sunrise Trust, Walker Trust, and Turnpike Cellular Partners on December 28, 1998, IS DENIED  "15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of  x1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), the Motion to Strike So Called Statement for the Record, filed by  xBravo Cellular, LLC, Centaur Partnership, and EJM Cellular Partners on July 22, 1998, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.  ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqWilliam W. Kunze ` `  hhCqDeputy Chief, ` `  hhCqCommercial Wireless Division  S!'` `  hhCqWireless Telecommunications Bureau  Sp"'