Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re Applications of ) ) COOK INLET/VOICESTREAM PCS L.L.C.) File No. 0000012949 (Markets B071, B078, B101, B109, B225) B260, B294, B332, B355, B380, B419,) B443 and B452) ) ) ) and ) ) OPCS THREE, L.L.C. ) File No. 0000012978 (Markets B005, B033, B112, B145, B169) B209, B223, B308, B310, B394 and B403)) ORDER Adopted: October 4, 1999 Released: October 4, 1999 By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: 1. In this Order, we dismiss National Telecom PCS, Inc.'s (National Telecom) Petitions to Deny (Petitions) and Consolidated Supplement to Petitions to Deny (Supplemental Petition) the above-captioned long form applications (FCC Form 601) filed by Cook Inlet/VoiceStream PCS L.L.C. (Cook Inlet) and OPCS Three, L.L.C. (OPCS Three), winning bidders in Auction 22, the C, D, E and F block broadband PCS license auction that closed on April 15, 1999 (Auction 22). National Telecom requests that we grant its Petitions because of its pending claims against the original holder of the licenses at issue, DCR PCS, Inc. (DCR PCS). For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the Petitions and Supplemental Petition. 2. DCR PCS was the high bidder for 43 licenses in the C block auction that concluded on May 6, 1996. On November 4, 1996, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) denied National Telecom's Petition to Deny DCR PCS's long form applications and granted DCR PCS 43 C block licenses, including those in the above-captioned markets. On November 27, 1996, National Telecom filed an Application for Review of the Grant Order, which is currently pending before the Commission. In its Application for Review, National Telecom requests that the Commission stay the effectiveness of the Grant Order because, it argues, DCR PCS violated the foreign ownership requirements of the Communications Act and the Commission's anti-collusion rules, and the Bureau failed to fully evaluate de facto control issues. On March 25, 1997, National Telecom filed an action under the Sherman Antitrust Act against DCR PCS and its parent company, Pocket Communications, Inc. (Pocket), alleging antitrust violations. On March 31, 1997, DCR PCS and Pocket filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.  101 et seq., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Maryland. During the bankruptcy proceeding, DCR PCS timely elected, under the C Block Restructuring Orders, to exercise its right to return a majority of its C block licenses to the Commission, including the licenses at issue. The DCR PCS elections were approved by the bankruptcy court. On May 5, 1999, Cook Inlet and OPCS Three, winning bidders for the above-captioned markets in Auction 22, filed their long form applications. On June 3, 1999, National Telecom filed its Petitions. On June 30, 1999, National Telecom filed its Supplemental Petition. 3. We find that National Telecom lacks standing to file a petition to deny against the above- captioned applications. Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act, as amended, permits any "party in interest" to file a petition to deny any application. To establish standing, a petitioner must allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that grant of the subject application would cause the petitioner to suffer a direct injury. The petition must further demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury and the challenged action. To demonstrate a causal link, a petitioner must establish that: (a) the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action; and (b) the injury would be prevented or redressed by the relief requested. As stated above, National Telecom has a pending Application for Review against DCR PCS's original license grant application and a pending antitrust claim against DCR PCS. However, these pending claims do not vest National Telecom with standing to challenge the applications of Cook Inlet and OPCS Three. DCR PCS returned the above-captioned licenses to the Commission prior to Auction 22. National Telecom did not participate in this auction and, therefore, has no claim to the licenses. Thus, a grant of the licenses to Cook Inlet and OPCS Three would cause National Telecom no direct injury. Moreover, the denial of such a grant would not redress any injury to National Telecom because such a denial would merely return the licenses to the Commission. Thus, National Telecom lacks standing to file its Petitions and Supplemental Petition. 4. Even if we were to assume that National Telecom has standing, its Petitions and Supplemental Petition must be denied on the merits. National Telecom argues that, because of its pending Application for Review and antitrust action against DCR PCS, Cook Inlet and OPCS Three may not obtain free and clear title to the licenses, but must take the licenses subject to National Telecom's prior claims. In its Supplemental Petition, National Telecom also argues that the above-captioned applications must be denied because Cook Inlet and OPCS Three have violated the Commission's anti-collusion rules. 5. We disagree. National Telecom's alleged antitrust claim is filed against DCR PCS, which no longer holds the licenses at issue and is not a party here. Moreover, a grant of National Telecom's Application for Review would not accord National Telecom any right to the licenses. Therefore, because these pending claims are against DCR PCS, which has returned the licenses for the above-captioned markets to the Commission, the outcome of the claims has no bearing on Cook Inlet's and OPCS Three's right to obtain the licenses. Finally, we have found no evidence of collusion by either Cook Inlet or OPCS Three. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and sections 0.331, 1.2108 and 24.830 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 1.2108 and 24.830, the Petitions to Deny filed by National Telecom PCS, Inc., on June 3, 1999, and the Consolidated Supplement to Petitions to Deny filed by National Telecom PCS, Inc., on June 30, 1999, in the above-referenced proceedings, ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau