WPC@ 2B-V Z\3|cle)CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)P"Sh5^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxir{icx{8Aui{x`xoYi{xxxl888SS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>A.SSxSSJJSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxSxSxSrSrSrS{SiSiSiSiSxSxSxSxSxS{S{SS.SSSSz]SSuSiSiSk2g/a{S{SxSxSxoSoSZ?YSYSiSiSiS{S{S{S{SxxSkI8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8JDDSSSSSS;SSSS;88VVS++SSffSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxWxxS唔S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SxS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxxfi]f]oJiAlJ{SxJ8.uJo]]{JoSxJxf`SfSSiJxJofx]fffxi{8SxxxfJffff88SSSSx{SSSxxxf8`SJ8HP LaserJet IIISiHPLASIII.PRSC\  P6QHMCP2  HZB 3|C CG Times (Scalable)CG Times Bold (Scalable)CG Times Italic (Scalable)X8wC;,[hXw P7XPY7zC;,sXz_ p^7XDPG,{4 P7P77TT7T72t7[[[[_[e*B`_.wRTTn[Cfx`xWlRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*7\TT/77T_*7*/TTTTTTTTTT77___TxoxxofAToxfx\oxxxxo7/7aT7T\J\J7T\/7\/\T\\JA7\TxTTJB%BW7TTTT7\777TT:T7A7xx*7TTTT%T7}2T_7}TB[227`Z*727T}}}TxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf\TTTTTTxJJJJJ////T\TTTTT[T\\\\T\Wx/c81,c P7PX8wC;,[hXw P7XPY7zC;,sXz_ p^7X[DPG,{4 P7PZBPG,'_ p^7&\6uC;,-/3Xu&_ x$&7XXV"G($,hG P7hP*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTT2 Z  v p HP LaserJet IIISi PostScript)HPLAIIPO.WRSC\  P6Q,D,D2 LPa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . 2!k0kva6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` 2tS a BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  2   >a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# 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#((# 2pa7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right 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. ׃  2)^a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   27%a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2$3 e$y$Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  2=*#^'$d,(%(&)FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 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&@@    2Z.'Xo*(1*)1+*1)-HEADERHeader A - Appearance'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   21+1.,n/-X+0.0LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ăFOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X 24/i610d11j22m2HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 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   293E44-6580768h8INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math Invoice3 ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo 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$002<798Xs;9[;:[&<INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle8SMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:2G?;[<<[==[i=>=LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2$A?py?@q?AeZ@Be@Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g?` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g@  . Document[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gA  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gB  2CCVADpAEYBFBDocument[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gC*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gD  ` ` ` Right Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gE8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gFA@` ` `  ` ` ` 2TFGCHMDIDJEDocument[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gG0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gHJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` Right Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gIS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ\` ` `  @hhh hhh 2IKFLEGM HNHRight Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gKe` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gLn` ` `  hhh@  Right Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gMw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gNF    ׃  2LOIPOJQJRpKTechnical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gO&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gP&#$  . Technical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gQ*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gR''(   2NS7LTLU{MVNTechnical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gS&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gT4+$,     Technical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gU&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gV&/0  . 2]Wv NX-[Y[Z~?\MACNormalW;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#footnote tex#X'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#referenceY;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1Z&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#2b[i]\ X_]e`^&aheader2[I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output File\W r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Document]iޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#FCC/5+x(:twFCC Letterhead 8/5+RK+W Pw'/5f—+W b^/0' __ #:\  PP#*BEFORE THE *#\  PP#Federal Communications Commission#:\  PP#MЃ *WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554  #:\  PP#2m@bp(f@f@i"5@^2BRdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BB!BBPRBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdBdBBBdNdz8zRdddBRoNoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddndddddddTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)WP MultinationalA Roman (TT)"5@^2Boddȧ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BB!BBPRBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNBNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldBddddddd<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5@^dC2CCdECCCCCCCN;WBCBGI5I5SE\>WB_R\RLVJI<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<(((<*((((((($(((((((<(N;WBCBGI5I5SE\>WB_R\RLVJI]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]](1< > ܞ "Sh5^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȲdxN`xoȐCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddddddddCddddddddo8dddddϐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddxoddddddodddddddddood8doddrddoddN8ooddddoNododdddooooȐdYCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"Ȑdsd岲dCCȐzȲxCddodȐȅdCdYdsȐ`ȐȐȮzȐUvŐdȐddCCCCŐzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC"`H2 : ^GPoxxPPPxPPPPxxxxxxxxxxPPkP]PPPxxPkxkxkPxxCCxCxxxxY]CxxxxkkxkxxxxxxPxxxxxxxxxCkkkkkkkkkkPCPCPCPCxxxxxxxxxxkxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxCxxxxxxxxxHCxxxxxx[xxxxxxxxxxjPxxPPPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxPkbbxxxxxxTxxxxTPP||x>>xxxxxP|x!T"x}xxPPxPxxxxPxkxofxkkPPPPk]kxkPCkkxkxxxkkPxkPPxxxxxxxPxkP"`H2 : ^GPoxxPPPxPPPPxxxxxxxxxxPPx]sPPPxxPxkkTxCPCxk]PxxxkxxxxxxxxxPxxxxxxxxCxxxxxkkkkk]C]C]C]CxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxCxxxxxxx]Cxxxx]xxxxxxkPxxPPPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxPxffxxxxxxTxxxxTPPx>>xxxxxPxT"xxxPPxPxxxxPxkxsfxxxPPPPk]kkk]Ckkxkxxxkk]xkPPxxxxxxxPxkP2\L "Sh5^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCȰdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYddddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdddddxdxdxdxddddddddd8ddddddddododp8p8xddddxdxddLddddodododddddodpLCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"Ȑddd尰dCCȐzȰxCdzdodȐȅdCdYdsȐ]ȐȐȧzȐUvŐdȐYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC"Sh5^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx:J2J2H2H2YHC2C26&6262?2?2?2J2J2J2J2^HH2@,!22!!!WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHHH222!,))22X222YY2#2222Y#!!442Ydd22==Ld2d2H2;SS88Y!42^x#"ddddHHddd2Hdd4HHYYddd2YYddd Y2!!dddddH=dYHHHHHHHHHHx!d2H282YdHdC2!2H,29HNAddHHHHHHHHHHddddd.dHHHHdddddddddddddddddddHHddddddSC=NdHddd+;HHHHddddddHHH2HHdHHdddHHH,HHHH,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!HHH!HHH!HHH!HHHHHHHHHHHHHH=?8=8C,?'A,J2H,!F,C8[8J,C2H,H=92=22?,H,C=H8N===H?J!2HHH=,====!!2222HJ222HHH=!92,!d2R>"Sh5^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sddoxd`xx8Jo]oxdxdS]xdd]]888SS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS??.SJoJJ?JSJSSSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.dSdSdSdSdSooJdJdJdJdJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JdSxSxSxS]JxSdSdSdSdSoSoSoSxSdSdSdSdSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSS/SSSSSSSoS]S]S]/]/doSoSxSxSodSdSS?SSSS]S]S]SxSxSxSxSo]S]?8SS888WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNxxxSSS8SMMSSSSSS;SSSS;88SSS..SSffSSxSYSS8SS;"xxSxSxxS哓S88xfxxxxxxxxxxx8SfS]SxoS8SxJS`xlxxxxxxxxxxMxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxJxxxxJxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxxfff]f]oJfA]JxSxJ8.oJo]]oJoSxJxffSfSS]J]Joff]fffffx8Sx]]fJffff88SSSSfxSSS]]]f8`SJ8 Y-  #Xw P7[hXP#$//MO&O, Applications for A and B Block Broadband PCS Licenses, FCC 96140//$ $/ 1.115, Application for reveiw of action taken pursuant to delegated authority/$ FOR RECORD ONLY  `i Ԑ Y-TP `i   0xx#XP\  P6Q[hXP#  0(#(#Xx` `  hh@hppFCC 96140  c_< -Before the  #XP\  P6Q[hXP#FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554  Y -T P  Yd -In the Matter of hh@h) x` `  hh@h)  Y6 -Applications for A and B Block Broadbandh)ppFile Nos. 00001CWL95  Y-PCS Licenses` `  hh@h)ppthrough 00099CWL95;  Y-x` `  hh@h) Call Signs KNLF 204  Y-x` `  hh@h)ppthrough KNLF 302 (#(#X #XP\  P6Q[hXP##XP\  P6Q[hXP#  X- T  c~< MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER  X-TP  Yx- x Adopted: March 28, 1996 @hpp Released: April 1, 1996 By the Commission:  Y-  Y-  I. INTRODUCTION ă x1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed on July 21, 1995 by the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, Percy E. Sutton, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (collectively "Petitioners"), and an  Y-erratum filed by Petitioners on August 24, 1995, seeking review of an Order by the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (the "Bureau") granting the applications filed by the auction winners of 99 broadband Personal Communications Services ("PCS") licenses for the  YQ"-A and B block frequencies.#Xu&_ x$&7/3XX##X PjQ[hXP# Q" Y$-ԍ Applications for A and B Block Broadband PCS Licenses#Xw P7[hXP#, #C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#File Nos. 00001CWL95 through 00099 zP%-CWL95; DA #C\  P6QP#951411, (Wireless Telecom. Bur. June 23, 1995) ("A and B Block Order"). #C*f9 xQX##C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#  #XP\  P6Q[hXP##Xw PE37[hXP##XP\  P6Q[hXP#In a #XP\  P6Q[hXP#separate pleading, Petitioners seek review of a Bureau  Y:#-Order that declined to stay the licensing of the A and B block winners until the licensing of":#C0*((c$"  Y-the ultimate winners of the C block auction.v Yy-ԍ Deferral of Licensing of MTA Commercial Broadband PCS, Memorandum Opinion and Order#Xw P7[hXP#, #C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#DA 95 Yb-1410, 1995 WESTLAW 379480 (Wireless Telecom. Bur. June 23, 1995)#X PjQ[hXP#.v#Xu&_ x7/3XX# #XP\  P6Q[hXP#We address that by a separate order adopted  Y-today; i#XP\  P6Q[hXP##Xw PE37[hXP##XP\  P6Q[hXP##XP\  P6Q[hXP#n t#XP\  P6Q[hXP#his #XP\  P6Q[hXP#Order, we deal exclusively with Petitioners' Application for Re#XP\  P6Q[hXP#view of the A  Y-and B Block Order.   Y-  Y-] II. BACKGROUND ă x x2. On May 12, 1995, Petitioners filed a Petition to Deny the applications of the eighteen winning bidders in the A and B block auction. Petitioners alleged that the Commission violated Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j), by failing to provide adequate opportunities for minorities to acquire PCS licenses in the A and  Y -B blocks.I  zP -ԍ Petition to Deny at 910.I Petitioners further alleged that this failure to provide incentives has allowed a few dominant carriers to divide A and B block PCS licenses in an unlawful territorial allocation  Y -in violation of the antitrust laws. Z zP-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX##C*f9 xQX##x PjQP##C*f9 xQX# Id #f&_ x/2QX##C*f9 xQX##c P7P##C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#at 1012. Petitioners contended that the distribution of licenses in the top markets indicated a pattern of collusion by these carriers to "dominate the wireless  Y -telephone industry, both PCS and cellular.":  zP`-ԍ Id. at 13.: x` ` x3. The Bureau dismised the Petition to Deny. First, the Bureau concluded that Petitioners had failed to demonstrate standing under Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act and applicable Commission precedent. Then, treating the petition as an informal objection, the Bureau further held that Petitioners had failed to show that a grant of the A and B block licenses would be inconsistent with the public interest. It rejected Petitioners' contention that the Commission had failed to comply with 47 U.S.C. 309(j) and deemed that contention "a belated attempt to revisit the Commission's auction rules for licensing of  Y-the A and B blocks."-~ zP#-ԍ #C*f9 xQX#A and B Block Order#b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX##c P7P##C\  P6QP# #C\  P6QP#at 6.- The Bureau also rejected Petitioners' argument that the major bidders  Y-colluded to allocate territory among themselves. zP-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Id.#c P7P##C\  P6QP# #C\  P6QP#at 7. x  Y-}  III. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES à  Y- x#XP\  P6Q[hXP#4. Petitioners present the same contentions before the Commission that were  Yk-previously rejected by the Bureau. They allege that the Commission has failed to comply with its statutory mandate to provide adequate opportunities for minorities to bid for PCS  Y=-licenses.1= xP&-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX##C\  P6QP# Application of Review#c P7P##C\  P6QP# #C\  P6QP#at 68.1 Petitioners also repeat their allegation that the Commission "appears to have allowed the dominant carriers to divide the PCS licenses in an unlawful territorial"&2 0*((Z"  Y-allocation."  zPy-ԍ Id .#b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX##c P7P##C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#at 9. Petitioners further dispute the Bureau's conclusion that Petitioners' lacked  Y-standing to raise the issues presented in its Petition to Deny. Z zP-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Id. #C\  P6QP##c P7P##C\  P6QP#a#C\  P6QP#t 35. x5. In opposition, Western PCS Corporation ("Western") alleges that Petitioners' Application for Review is procedurally defective because it does not specify the factors that  Y-warrant Commission review.  zP* -ԍ Western #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Opposition #c P7P##C\  P6QP#at 5. Further, Wirelessco, L.P. and Phillieco, L.P. argue that  Yv-Petitioners lacked standing. v~ zP -ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#See e.g., #c P7P##C\  P6QP#Wirelessco, L.P. and Phillieco, L.P., #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Opposition #c P7P##C\  P6QP#at 4.  Several parties asserted that Petitioner's petition claimed no acts of misconduct by them and that the petition should, therefore, not affect their license  YH-grant. H zP -ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#See, e.g., #C\  P6QP#American Portable Telecommunications, Inc.#C*f9 xQX# Opposition #c P7P##C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#at 12.#c P7P#Ѫ Pacific Telesis Mobile Services ("Pacific Telesis") accuses Petitioners of improperly  Y1-seeking reconsideration of prior rulemaking proceedings.q1 zP-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#See #C\  P6QP#Pacific Telesis Mobile Services #C*f9 xQX#Opposition#c P7P# #C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#at 78.q Pacific Telesis also argues that  Y -the Commission fully complied with its statutory mandate by providing for the rapid  Y -deployment of services without undue administrative delay. K  zP-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Id#c P7P#.#C\  P6QP# #C\  P6QP#at 10. Finally, several parties contend  Y -that the Bureau properly rejected Petitioners' claims of collusion.!  zPz-ԍ Wireless, L.P. and Phillieco, L.P. #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Opposition #c P7P##C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#at 11.! x  X - s IV. DISCUSSION  Y-x 6. We agree with Western that Petitioners' Application for Review is procedurally defective and must be dismissed. Section 1.115(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.115(b)(2), requires Applications for Review to: x x specify with particularity, from among the following, the factors which x warrant Commission consideration of the questions presented: x` ` (i) The action taken pursuant to delegated authority is in x conflict with statute, regulation, case precedent, or established x` ` Commission policy. x` ` (ii) The action involves a question of law or policy which has x` ` not previously been resolved by the Commission. "eo 0*(("Ԍx` ` (iii) The action involves application of precedent or policy x` ` which should be overturned or revised. x` ` (iv) An erroneous finding as to an important or material question x` ` of fact. x` ` (v) Prejudicial procedural error. Petitioners' pleading is defective because it fails to "specify with particularity" any of the  Y1-above subsections as grounds for granting its Application for Review.#C\  P6QP#b18 Y -ԍ #C*f9 xQX#See Chapman S. Root Revocable Trust#Xw P7[hXP##XP*f9 xQ/3XX#,#XP\  P6Q[hXP# #XP\  P6Q[hXP##C\  P6QP#8 FCC Rcd 4223, 4224 (1993). ("Chapman").b#XP\  P6Q[hXP# The Commission  Y -held in Chapman that a party that fails to identify one of the above factors in support of an  Y -application for review will have its application dismissed.N { zP1-ԍ Id. at 4224.N Accordingly, #Xu&_ x$&7/3XX##Xu&_ x$&7/3XX##Xw P7[hXP##XP\  P6Q[hXP#we are dismissing Petitioners' Application for Review because it does not comply with 47 C.F.R.  1.115(b)(2). Although we are dismissing Petitioners' pleading, we briefly will address the issues raised therein. x7. T#XP\  P6Q[hXP#he Bureau held that Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the A and #XP\  P6Q[hXP#B Block licensees on a blanket basis as it seeks to do here. We agree. To establish standing to file a petition to deny, the petitioners must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that g#XP\  P6Q[hXP#rant of the  YM-subject application would cause them to suffer a direct injury.M  zP -ԍ AmericaTel Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd 3993, 3995 (1994) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 733 (1972)). T#XP\  P6Q[hXP#he premise of Petitioners' standing argument is that the award of licenses to the A and B block applicants threatens their interests (or those of their members) as potential C block licensees as well as the interests of the public. We find, as did the Bureau, that these allegations are too contingent and speculative to support the required finding of a direct injury causally linked to the challenged action. First, there is no certainty that Petitioners or any of their members will in fact participate in the C block auction or that they will win licenses if they do. Both of these events must occur for any injury to even be possible. Second, we have previously held that  Y-the mere fact that a petitioner has applied to be a licensee in the same service does not confer  Y~-standing.\~g zP!-ԍ See Pittsburgh Partners, L.P., 10 FCC Rcd 2715 (1994), para. 4 (mere status as applicant in one proceeding in the FM broadcast service does not confer standing as a party in interest in another proceeding in  zP(#-the FM broadcast service ); WIBF Broadcasting, 17 FCC 2d 876, 877 (1969) (same).   YP-x8. In their Application for Review, Petitioners rely on the holding in#Xu&_ x$&7/3XX# #XP*f9 xQ/3XX#United Church  Y;-of Christ v. FCC#Xw P7[hXP##XP\  P6Q[hXP#F;  Yw'-ԍ 359 F.2d 994, 1005 (D.C. Cir. 1966) #Xu&_ x$&7/3XX##XP*f9 xQ/3XX##C*f9 xQX##XP*f9 xQ/3XX##Xw P7[hXP##XP\  P6Q[hXP#("UCC").F #XP\  P6Q[hXP#for the proposition that they have standing as representatives of the public";> 0*((="  Y-interes#XP\  P6Q[hXP#t.  zPy-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Application for Review#c P7P# #C\  P6QP#at 4.#c P7P#  As #Xu&_ x$&7/3XX##XP\  P6Q[hXP#Pacific Telesis #Xw P7[hXP##XP\  P6Q[hXP#p#XP\  P6Q[hXP#oints out, in#Xu&_ x$&7/3XX# UCC#Xw P7[hXP# #XP\  P6Q[hXP#there were specific allegations by the party filing the petition to deny that the broadcast station in question was ignoring the needs of a  Y-major segment of the listening audience.:Z zP-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#See #C\  P6QP#Pacific Telesis #C*f9 xQX#Opposition #c P7P##C\  P6QP#at 56.: #XP\  P6Q[hXP#In this case, Petitioners make no allegations and no party has submitted any evidence that the A and B block licensees will fail to provide adequate service to any segment of the population. Petitioners' major complaint appears to be that they would have preferred entities other than the successful bidders to have received the A and B block licenses. This is not sufficient to support a petition to deny. Petitioners fail to demonstrate how they will be harmed, either as consumers or potential bidders, by the granting of licenses to the A and B block winners. Accordingly, we conclude, as did the Bureau, that Petitioners have not alleged sufficient facts in this case to demonstrate that it has  Y -standing to challenge the A and B block licenses.Z  xP-ԍ We agree with the Bureau that a potential PCS bidder could allege facts sufficient to establish standing to challenge another PCS application by showing that grant of that application would cause them demonstrable  zPI-injury. #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#See A & B Block Order#c P7P# #C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#at 5.  Y -x ` ` x9. Petitioners repeat the argument previously made to the Bureau that the Commission failed to adopt specific provisions in the A and B block auction, which  Y -Petitioners contend is a violation of Section 309(j) of the Act.   zP-ԍ #C*f9 xQX#Application for Review #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX##c P7P##C\  P6QP#at 910.  Pacific Telesis points out in opposition that Petitioners fail to address the Bureau's holding that this argument constitutes  Y-an untimely petition for reconsideration of the Commission's broadband PCS auction rules  Y{-rather than a valid basis for a petition to deny.]{ zP-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX##C\  P6QP#Pacific Telesis #C*f9 xQX#Opposition#c P7P##C\  P6QP# #C\  P6QP#at 78.] We agree. The Bureau properly concluded that the purpose of the petition to deny process is to assess challenges to applicants' qualifications to be Commission licensees. Petitioners' statutory argument does not address licensee qualifications, however, but challenges the structure of the A and B block auction itself. We agree with the Bureau that Petitioners' argument was not a valid petition to deny, but was instead a belated attempt to revisit the Commission's auction rules for licensing of  Y-the A and B blocks. In the #XP*f9 xQ/3XX#Fifth Report and Order #XP\  P6Q[hXP#in Docket No. 93253, the Commission  Y-decided against making special provisions for designated entities on the A and B blocks.2  zP!-ԍ  Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, Competitive Bidding, Fifth Report and  zP"-Order,  PP Docket No. 93253, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5536 (1994),  5. We determined that this approach fully complied with Section 309(j) and affirmed this  Y-conclusion on reconsideration more than ten months before Petitioners filed their petition.  zP%-ԍ Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, Competitive Bidding, Fifth Memorandum  zP&-Opinion and Order, PP Docket No. 93253, 10 FCC Rcd 403, 412414 (1994),  1016.  Petitioners' attempt to challenge the rules again through the petition to deny process is"0*(("  Y-therefore untimely and procedurally improper. zPy-ԍ See Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, PP Docket No. 93252, FCC 95263 p. 2,  2 (adopted June 23, 1995).  x x10. Petitioners also reiterate their allegation that the dominant carriers have divided  Y-the PCS licenses in an unlawful territorial allocation.0" zP-ԍ #c P7P##b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Application for Review#c P7P# #C\  P6QP##C\  P6QP#at 9.0 We agree with the Bureau that Petitioners have failed to provide evidence supporting this allegation or otherwise to  Y-demonstrate that a grant of the A and B block applications would be inconsistent with the public interest. Under Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  309 (d)(1), parties filing a petition to deny must make specific allegations of fact sufficient to  YH-show that a grant of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public  Y3-interest, convenience, and necessity.3 zP-ԍ Astroline Comm. Co. L.P. v. FCC, 857, F.2d 1556, 1561 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (quoting 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1)). Except where official notice may be taken, such allegations must be supported by affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the facts  Y -alleged.C   xP-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).C Section 309(d)(2) states that if the pleadings and affidavits fail to raise substantial and material questions of fact and the Commission concludes that grant of the application  Y -would be in the public interest, the Commission shall deny the petition.C!  xP=-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2).C x x11. In support of their claim of territorial allocation both before the Bureau and now before the Commission, Petitioners allege only that three companies AT&T Wireless PCS, PCS Primeco, and WirelessCo won 61% of the A and B block licenses. Petitioners suggest that this constitutes "circumstantial evidence" that is not only enough to support a  YM-petition to deny, but "a jury verdict finding a conspiracy which violates antitrust laws.""ME  zPC-ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#Application for Review #c P7P##C\  P6QP#at 1113. A petition to deny must "contain specific allegations of fact sufficient to show . . . that a grant  Y-of the application would be prima facie inconsistent with [the public interest]."#  zP-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1); See also Stone v. FCC, 466 F.2d 316, 32122 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Where the Commission finds that such a showing has not been made, it may refuse the petition to deny on the basis of "a concise statement of the reasons for denying the petition, which statement  Y-shall dispose of all substantial issues raised by the petition."C$i  xP#-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  309(d)(2).C In this instance, we find that petitioners' allegation of territorial allocation does not constitute a showing that the grant to  Y-the A and B block winners was prima facie inconsistent with the public interest.  We agree with the Bureau that Petitioners have failed to raise a substantial or material question of fact  Y-based on these allegations. First, Petitioners offer no grounds for denying the applications of" $0*(("  Y-the fifteen auction winners other than AT&T, PCS Primeco, and WirelessCo. Second, with respect to these latter three applicants, Petitioners fail to provide any factual evidence of collusion. Contrary to Petitioners' contention that the Bureau improperly required a "smoking gun," we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Petitioners must provide a modicum of a factual showing that collusion occurred particularly in an auction that lasted over three months and resulted in aggregate winning bids of nearly $8 billion by 18 different parties. Petitioners introduce no evidence showing that AT&T, PCS Primeco, WirelessCo,  Y_-or any other A or B block winner has violated any of the Commission's rules, including the  YH-collusion rules or the rules regarding aggregation of PCS spectrum. We also agree with Western that the bidding patterns were determined to a large degree by the desire of individual applicants to acquire national wireless footprints and/or to acquire markets  Y -complementing their existing telecommunications holdings.1%  zP| -ԍ #b&_ x$&7X##C*f9 xQX#See #C\  P6QP#Western #C*f9 xQX#Opposition #c P7P##C\  P6QP#at 21.1 We therefore find Petitioners' allegation of collusion to be without merit.  X - V. CONCLUSION x  Y- x12. For the reasons discussed above, we are dismissing Petitioners' Application for Review for failure to comply with Section 1.115(b)(2) of our rules. Although our action renders further discussion unnecessary, we agree with the Bureau's disposition of the issues Petitioners raised in their original Petition to Deny.  Y-x` `  d V. ORDERING CLAUSE  Y-x x13. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Section 1.115(b)(2) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.115(b)(2), that the Application for Review filed by  Y-Petitioners on July 21, 1995, IS DENIED x x` `  hh x` ` hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhWilliam F. Caton  Y!-x hhActing h@Secretary x