WPCaO 2MBVRKZ3|j 7jC:,Xj\  P6G;XP"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdHP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRSXj\  P6G;\nnWXP2  <K3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd2 ZRKF HP LaserJet 4HPLAS4.PRSXj\  P6G;\nnWXP I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDddddddI?~I@iKA^Lreference>;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1?&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2@I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3AF` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2BON_Ofooter!B!!#d\  PCP# X-   $//MO&O,IVDS payment deadlines,DA96622//$ $/95.816Competitive bidding proceedings/$  X-x` `  hh@Before the   DA 96622 [ FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 ă  X_-In the Matter of  hh@) x` `  hh@)  X1-Interactive Video and Data Servicehh @)  X - (IVDS) Licenses hh@) x` `  hh@)  X -Requests to Extend Payment hh@)  X -Deadline ` `  hh@)  X- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ă  Xb- xAdopted: April 19, 1996 Released: By the Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:  X- MI. INTRODUCTION ă  X-x 1. Interactive Partners of America (IPA), Albert D. Ervin (Ervin), and Eagle Interactive Partners, L.P. (Eagle), three winning bidders in the IVDS auction held on  X-July 2829, 1994, request reconsiderationvT X#-ԍ IPA filed a Petition for Reconsideration (IPA Petition) on May 25, 1995, and a Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration (IPA Supplement) on July 2, 1995; Ervin filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Ervin Petition) on May 25, 1995, a Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration (Ervin Supplement) on June 1, 1995, and an Erratum to Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration (Ervin Supplement Erratum) on June 2, 1995; and Eagle filed a Petition for Reconsideration (Eagle Petition) on May 30, 1995. of our Order\T Xa -ԍ Order, DA 95907, 10 FCC Rcd 4520 (1995). \ denying their waiver requests for  X-extension of the IVDS final down payment deadline.ZT X"-ԍ The deadline date was either January 25, 1995, or March 7, 1995, depending on when the particular license was issued. For a discussion of IVDS auction procedures and  X$-timetables, see Fourth Report and Order (Fourth R&O), PP Docket No. 93253, 9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994). Z Similarly, winning bidder Styles "g' 0*0*0*"Ԍ X-Interactive, Inc. (SII), requests reconsideration of our Letter denying its waiver request.Uz< Xy-ԍ We will refer to the four parties collectively as "Petitioners." SII filed its waiver  Xb-request on April 14, 1995, two business days prior to adoption of the referenced Order. The  XM-Bureau denied SII's request by Letter dated August 8, 1995 (Letter). SII filed a Petition for Reconsideration (SII Petition) on September 6, 1995. SII also filed, on June 30, 1995, a request for waiver of the deadline for its initial interest amount payment; this second request is mooted by our present decision. U No pleadings either in support or opposition have been filed in response to these petitions for reconsideration. For the reasons provided below, we conclude that the petitions should be denied.  X-  X-g II. BACKGROUND ă  Xa-x 2.  The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) found that petitioners had failed to show good cause for waiver of Section 95.816(c)(4) of the Commission's Rules,  X3-47 C.F.R.  95.816(c)(4).T3 < X-ԍ Order at 452021; Letter at 2.T Section 95.816(c)(4) requires that winning bidders who are  X -eligible as "small businesses"  < X-ԍ Under the Commission's competitive bidding rules for IVDS, a "small business" is  Xs-defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than $6 million net worth and after federal income taxes has no more than $2 million in annual profits for the previous  XE-two years. See 47 C.F.R.  95.816(d)(3); Second Report and Order (Second R&O), PP Docket No. 93253, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 239596 (1994).  to pay their winning bid amount in installments and elect to do so must submit the remainder of their down payment within five (5) business days of  X -the grant of their license application. < X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  90.816(c)(4). The installment payment option permits winning bidders to pay their down payments in two segments half of the payment five days after the auction closes, and the other half of the down payment five days after the application is granted.  Xn-See Fourth R&O at 2340. The second half of the down payment must bring the amount on  XY-deposit with the government up to 20 percent of the winning bid amount.   The Bureau concluded that difficulties in the procurement of funds even if unexpected as alleged by Petitioners, do not support waiver  X -of the down payment deadline. The Bureau noted that the Second Report and Order in the competitive bidding docket indicated that the requirement of a full and timely down payment is intended to ensure that winning bidders have the financial capability to attract capital for  X}-the rapid deployment and efficient operation of their systems.C}k< X$-ԍ Second R&O at 2381.C Requirement of a down payment, the Bureau noted, ultimately helps deter defaults by discouraging insincere bidders from winning licenses solely with the expectation that after the auction they can "shop" their "80*((*"Ԍ X-winning bid in a late effort to obtain financing.> < Xy-ԍ Order at 4520.> Finally, the Bureau stated that Petitioners could have taken reasonable precautions, such as securing backup financing, to ensure that  X-funds were available for a timely down payment in the event of unanticipated difficulties.? {< X-ԍ Id. at 452021.?  X- III. PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION ă  X-  Xv-x 3. IPA Petition. IPA requests that the Bureau refer its Petition for Reconsideration to the Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  1.104(b), 1.106(a)(1). IPA asserts that the  XJ-Bureau is rigidly adhering to the payment requirement< J.< X) -ԍ IPA Petition at 3.< and by doing so has effectively decided that no cause will be sufficient to warrant waiver of the payment rules in auction  X -cases.;  < X-ԍ Id. at 23.; IPA contends that this, in effect, is a policy decision that case precedent and the  X -Commission's own rules prohibit.9  < XH-ԍ Id. at 3.9 Given the fact that the Bureau combined all the requests together in denying them, with little specific discussion of each individual case, IPA asserts  X -that the Bureau failed to give IPA's waiver request the "hard look" required by WAIT Radio  X -v. FCC.7 E < X-ԍ 418 F. 2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972). IPA asserts that the Bureau's refusal to grant waivers in deserving cases violated the bidders' due process rights in that they were provided no notice of this policy. IPA Petition at 4.7 IPA also submits that its partners were committed to the IVDS venture and that the loss of financial commitment was completely unforeseeable. IPA further argues that it would not have pursued the IVDS venture by participating in the auction if it thought the financial commitments were questionable. IPA notes that it saw no necessity to obtain backup  Xh-financing because it did not believe the commitments were questionable.<h < X-ԍ IPA Petition at 4.< Moreover, asserts IPA, because the auction process was new, and the value of the IVDS licenses had not previously been tested, obtaining backup financing from a lending institution or elsewhere  X#-would have been nearly impossible.;#{< XO#-ԍ Id. at 45.; ".0*(("Ԍ X-ԙx 4. To further support its petition for reconsideration, IPA argues that grant of a waiver of the payment rule would pose far less of a delay in delivery of service to the public  X-than would holding another auction.9< XK-ԍ Id. at 5.9 In opposition to the Bureau's assertion that grant of a waiver will undermine the integrity of the auction, IPA asserts that the Commission has already waived an auction rule the oneyear build out requirement mandated by 47 C.F.R.  X- 95.833(a).4{< X-ԍ Id. 4 The oneyear "build out" waiver will result in slower delivery of IVDS services, whereas, states IPA, its waiver request would not undermine the Commission's goal  X_-of rapid deployment of IVDS.4_.< X> -ԍ Id. 4 IPA submits that the special circumstances of its case warrant a deviation from the general rule, and that it is currently prepared to make its final  X1-down payment of $100,000 and will do so upon grant of its waiver request.1< X-ԍ IPA is willing to pay interest on the $100,000 down payment from January 7, 1995, to  X-a reasonable date specified by the Commission. Id. at 6 & n.8. In a  X -supplemental pleading, IPA cites Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver }< XH-ԍ Memorandum Opinion and Order, Daniel R. Goodman, Receiver; Dr. Robert Chan,  X3-Petition for Waiver of Sections 90.633(c) and 1.1102 of the Commission's Rules (Goodman), 10 FCC Rcd 8537 (1995). as an additional basis for  X -granting a limited waiver of the IVDS down payment deadline.>  < X-ԍ IPA Supplement at 1.> In that case, the Commission extended by four months the time within which certain Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees could construct their facilities. The Commission based its decision, in part, on the fact that while the waiver was pending, the construction/operation deadline for all  X -Part 90 licensees was extended from eight to twelve months.C < X-ԍ Goodman at 854849.C   X{-x 5. Ervin Petition. Ervin also alleges that he has been denied due process because the  Xf-Bureau failed to accord his waiver request the required "hard look.">fh< X!-ԍ Ervin Petition at 2.> In this connection, Ervin asserts that the Bureau treated his waiver contentions perfunctorily and, thereby, in  X8-effect, adopted a "no waiver" policy regarding payment rules.98< X%-ԍ Id. at 3.9 As the Commission never intended to apply the inflexible policy adopted by the Bureau, asserts Ervin, the Bureau's"!0*(("  X-action is an abuse of discretion.3< Xy-ԍ Id.3 Petitioner asserts that the Bureau failed to consider the  X-unique facts and circumstances of his case, i.e., that his source of partial financing a private  X-individual reneged on a firm preauction commitment of finances.3{< X-ԍ Id.3 Ervin submits that, although he was unable to meet the down payment deadline of March 7, 1995, he informed  X-the Bureau that he was willing and able to satisfy his obligation on April 7, 1995.9.< X -ԍ Id. at 4.9 The fact that he was able to obtain alternative financing in fewer than thirty (30) days, asserts Ervin, indicates his diligence, good faith, and commitment to deploy an IVDS system in the  Xa-market.9a< X -ԍ Id. at 5.9 Ervin submits that he in no way was postauction "bidshopping" and that a grant,a< X-ԍ If his waiver request is granted, Ervin is willing to pay interest from March 7, 1995, to  X-a reasonable date specified by the Commission. Id. at n.8.  XJ-rather than a denial, of his waiver request would ensure rapid deployment of IVDS systems.J0 < X+-ԍ Ervin Petition at 56. In support of his waiver request, Ervin cites the Bureau's action  X-in waiving 47 C.F.R.  95.833(a). See generally text accompanying n.18, supra.  X - x 6. In support of his waiver request, Ervin also cites the Goodman decision, contending that the objectives of the down payment rule applicable to IVDS licensees are virtually identical to those underlying the SMR construction/operation deadline rule waived by the  X -Commission in Goodman.B < XV-ԍ Ervin Supplement at 23.B These objectives, states Ervin, are to ensure that spectrum is used  X -efficiently and to promote the rapid deployment of services to the public.9! }< X-ԍ Id. at 2.9 Ervin submits that the limited relief he seeks would not undermine or compromise the purpose of the down  X-payment rule.9"0< Xw -ԍ Id. at 4.9 Further, Ervin notes that grant of his request would eliminate the need to re X-auction his license and the delays that such a procedure would engender.3#< X#-ԍ Id.3 Finally, he asserts "##0*(("Ԍ X-that he has established his bona fides and seeks, unlike the Goodman licensees, to deploy  X-service rather than to dispose of his license.$< Xd-ԍ Ervin submits that the Goodman petitioners acquired their licenses primarily as a form  XO-of investment. He further alleges that none of the Goodman petitioners have the financial resources to construct SMR facilities, and that Mr. Goodman, as Receiver, is in the process of  X#-negotiating and finalizing the sale and assignment of the licenses in issue. Id. at 2.  X-  X-x7. Eagle Petition. Eagle requests a waiver and leave to cure defects in the filing of its down payment for two of the fifteen licenses for which it was the winning bidder in the  X-IVDS auction.@%:< X| -ԍ Eagle Petition at 12.@ Eagle alleges that Dennis Henry, the President, Treasurer and a 51 percent shareholder of Eagle, failed to use the funds made available to him for timely payment of the two down payments and, without authority, petitioned the Commission for a twelveday  XL-extension of time within which to make these payments.9&L< X-ԍ Id. at 3.9 Eagle further states that, in view of these developments, negotiations have commenced to remove Mr. Henry from his positions at  X -Eagle.9' < Xm-ԍ Id. at 4.9 Thus, Eagle argues that under the circumstances it has acted with great care and  X -diligence, warranting a waiver of the down payment deadline.9( Q < X -ԍ Id. at 6.9 In this its first opportunity to explain the circumstances to the Commission Eagle stresses that failure to submit timely payments was not due to any voluntary decision by the partnership management, but rather  X -was the result of an officer breaching his fiduciary duty.)  < Xw-ԍ Id. at 7. Attached to Eagle's Petition is an unsworn affidavit by Andrea Keesee, Eagle's Vice President and holder of 49% of Eagle's voting stock, attesting to the above facts. Eagle asserts that as long as it pays any reasonable interest and penalties, no other parties whether they were involved in  X-the IVDS auction or not will be prejudiced.;*< X-ԍ Id. at 78.; Finally, Eagle contends that grant of its  X}-request for reconsideration will save scarce resources and help speed service to the public.9+}S< X!-ԍ Id. at 8.9  XO- x8. SII Petition. SII requests a waiver for the single license that it won, and has placed funds in escrow sufficient to pay its second down payment and initial installment  X#-payment amount.,#< X&-ԍ SII Petition at 2 n.2; SII, "Notification of Interest Deposit," filed January 11, 1996. SII states that the "deceit and fraud" of some bidders "caused the party"#,0*((e" supplying SII's needed financing to reassess whether this was a prudent investment because of  X-doubts as to the viability of this new service."<-< Xb-ԍ SII Petition at 3.< Like IPA and Ervin, SII argues that the Bureau failed to give its request a "hard look," and asserts that a waiver grant would  X-result in quicker service to the public than would holding another auction.:.y< X-ԍ Id. at 11.: Like Ervin, SII  X-states that it did not intend to engage in "bid shopping."</,< X -ԍ Id.at 1112.< SII also argues that the Goodman  X-case provides precedent for granting its request, and supplements Goodman with four  Xz-additional precedents: the "build out" waivers of Section  95.833(a), supra; the preauction waivers that permitted auction applicants to claim small business status after the FCC Form 175 ("short form") application deadline had passed; the waivers that permitted additional time to submit engineering studies, postauction; and what SII characterizes as a  X -"deferral" of the IVDS initial installment payment amount.90 < X-ԍ Id. 510.9 Last, SII argues that obtaining backup financing prior to auction is difficult in an "untested" service such as IVDS, and to expect such additional financing runs counter to statutory mandates to provide opportunities for minority and womenowned businesses to participate in the auctions process and provide  X -IVDS services.=1 < X-ԍ Id. at 1314.=  X-  IV. DISCUSSION ă  Xh-x 9. Contrary to the allegations of IPA, Ervin, and SII, the Bureau evaluated the facts of each waiver request and, on an individual basis, concluded that each of the Petitioners had not shown good cause for waiver of the down payment deadline. To obtain a waiver of the Commission's Rules payment or otherwise a petitioner must demonstrate that its  X -circumstances are unique and that good cause exists to justify the requested relief.2 E < X-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  1.3; Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F. 2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that grant of a waiver in the absence of special circumstances and good cause is improper). However, in none of these three cases are the circumstances unusual. The IPA, Ervin, and SII waiver requests arise out of circumstances that are a result of the licensees' own business decisions.  X- The failure of a financial backer to fulfill its commitment cannot be considered an unforeseen event. This occurs in a myriad of situations and the cautious investor seeks backup financing for what is, in effect, an insurance policy. These petitioners sought and chose the source of their funds to meet their financial obligations in regard to the award of their IVDS license. Certain of IPA's partners reneged on their commitment and the single sources upon which"k 20*((1" Ervin and SII relied failed to meet their financial commitments. Choosing the source(s) for financing a business enterprise is an individual business judgment for which each applicant is  X-responsible.  X- x 10. Generally speaking, failure to comply with Commission rules because of  X-independent business judgments made by the licensee does not warrant grant of rule waivers.V39< X-ԍ See, e.g., P&R Temmer, d/b/a Mobile Communications Service Company (Temmer),  X-93 FCC 2d 1051, para. 33, aff'd sub nom., P&R Temmer v. FCC, 743 F. 2d 918 (D.C. Cir.  X-1984). In Temmer, the Commission denied a waiver request made by an SMR licensee to extend our construction and loading requirements because problems with marketing strategy were not beyond the licensee's control having resulted from independent business  X -judgments made by the licensee.  See also AAT Electronics Corporation, 93 FCC 2d 1034 (1983), in which the Commission denied an extension request because it was within the licensee's control that it failed to market the service aggressively because of equipment uncertainties. V This standard has been applied in a number of different circumstances, such as those involving zoning difficulties, interference from adjacent buildings, equipment delivery  XH-problems, and alleged fraudulent behavior.^4H < X-ԍ See, e.g., Goodman at 8547 & n.58.^ The Robert A. Baker, Receiver (Baker)5H| < Xu-ԍ Memorandum Opinion and Order, No. 64400AL (Common Carrier Bureau), released  X`-April 18, 1986, review denied, Order, FCC 86197, April 21, 1986. case is  X3-an example of the last set of circumstances. In Baker, the Commission affirmed the Common Carrier Bureau's denial of a request for waiver of a cellular application deadline. The Common Carrier Bureau concluded in that case that the individual applicants were responsible for the consequences of their decision to use a mass application preparer, and that compelling circumstances that would justify waiver of the filing deadline had not been presented to the  X -Commission.@6 < X-ԍ Baker at  7.@  X- x 11. Eagle also has failed to substantiate its request for relief. Its rationale for waiver is based on the alleged misdeeds of the partnership's president. Whether Mr. Henry acted appropriately, and within the partnership agreement, is not a matter to be resolved in the  XO-context of this proceeding. Eagle has recourse to other legal remedies to provide redress for  X8-Mr. Henry's alleged improprieties. As was stated in the Baker decision, if applicants have been defrauded, the appropriate remedy is to seek indemnification from the party that has committed the fraud, not belated insertion of the issue into a Commission licensing  X-procedure.>7< Xs&-ԍ Id. at  9.> The Commission's mandate is not to provide relief for business associates, but to  X-allocate and assign radio spectrum to serve the public interest. Nor would Goodman warrant"70*(("  X-granting Eagle's waiver request. In Goodman, we specifically stated that the subject waivers  X-were not being granted to afford relief to unwitting victims,C8< Xd-ԍ Goodman at 854950.C but to place the petitioners in  X-the same posture as other Part 90 Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers.?9{< X-ԍ Id. at 854546.? Here, we also note that Mr. Henry holds 51 percent of the voting stock of the partnership and would likely be one of the beneficiaries of a waiver grant. In the context of Eagle's request, we are not inclined to waive the Commission's rules to mitigate the impact of any alleged improper business decisions. And in any event, we affirm that Eagle has not demonstrated a special circumstance warranting a deviation from the general payment rule, and that granting the requested waiver would not serve the public interest.  X -x  12. IPA submits that because the value of the IVDS licenses had not previously been tested, obtaining backup financing from a lending institution would have been nearly impossible. SII concurs that acquiring alternate sources for financing would have been difficult. The decision whether or not to seek backup financing belonged to IPA and SII, and it appears that no effort was made in this regard. IPA and SII are in the same posture as the other IVDS applicants who participated in the July 1994 IVDS auction. They too bid by auction procedures for licenses for spectrum allocated for use in an emerging technology. The very nature of the auction process is to determine the value of a license. IPA and SII had the option to continue bidding or not during the course of the auction. As to Ervin's assertion that he secured the equivalent of backup financing from a local bank in record time  X6-(less than thirty days),>:6.< X-ԍ Ervin Petition at 7.> unfortunately, the financing was not provided within the required time under the Commission's rules. In regard to IPA, Ervin, and SII's assertion that  X- permitting an extension of time within which to make a down payment will provide service more quickly than reauctioning an IVDS license, while this may be true in an individual case, the overall effect of permitting late payments will be a delay in service to the  X-publicatlarge.;c< XS-ԍ Contrary to Ervin's allegation, the Bureau did not conclude that he "shopped" his bid.  X<-The Bureau merely commented in the Order that the requirement that down payments be made on a timely basis discourages insincere bidders from winning licenses solely with the expectation that postauction they can "shop" their winning bid in a late effort to obtain financing. Although not finding that "shopping" occurred, the Bureau also did not find that special circumstances and good cause had been shown to warrant a waiver of the payment  X#-deadline. See Order at 452021.  "g ;0*(("Ԍ X-ԙx  13. IPA, Ervin, and SII cite the Goodman case in support of their waiver requests.  X-However, Goodman is inapposite because the underlying service rule for which the Goodman petitioners sought waiver had been changed during the pendency of their waiver requests  X-not the situation in the instant cases. The Goodman petitioners were given four additional months twelve months in all to construct their stations because we adopted a uniform twelvemonth construction period for SMRs licensed in the General Category and all CMRS  X|-providers licensed under Part 90 of our Rules.<|< X-ԍ See Third Report and Order, GN Docket No. 93252, PR Docket Nos. 89553, 93144, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 807475 (1994). In the interest of fairness, we granted petitioners the relief necessary to place them in the same posture as other SMR licensees  XN-subject to the twelvemonth rule.C=Nd< Xc -ԍ Goodman at 854849.C In the situation here, we have not modified the requirement for timely completion of the down payment. Entities and individuals interested  X -in bidding at IVDS auctions were clearly informed in the Fourth Report and Order in the competitive bidding docket that timely payments of down payments were expected. The Commission also indicated that IVDS licenses would be conditioned on the timely payment of  X -all monies due.S> < X-ԍ Fourth R&O at 2334.  S Petitioners continue to be reasonably classified with all other IVDS winning bidders and, therefore, required to make their down payments five (5) days after license grant. In fact, fairness requires that these waiver requests not be granted as there is nothing unique in the facts and circumstances proffered in support of the requested waivers.  Xj-x  14. The Bureau's actions waiving 47 C.F.R.  95.833(a)?j< X-ԍ See Order, DA 95481, 10 FCC Rcd 4014 (Wireless Telecom. Bureau 1995); Order, DA 95617, 10 FCC Rcd 4546 (Wireless Telecom. Bureau 1995). were also cited by IPA, Ervin, and SII in support of their requests. Prior to its recent amendment, this regulation required, in part, that each IVDS system licensee make service available to at least 10 percent of the service area population or geographic service area within one year of the grant of the  X-license.@f < X%-ԍ The Commission eliminated the oneyear requirement, while retaining three and fiveyear requirements, because the rule was originally crafted in the context of lottery proceedings and was not wholly appropriate for licenses awarded by competitive bidding.  X!-See Report and Order, WT Docket No. 95131, FCC 95506 (released January 16, 1996). Contrary to IPA's assertion, however, the buildout waivers did not result in delays in service to the public because the affected licensees were still required to satisfy the  X-threeyear and fiveyear construction benchmarks. Furthermore, this rule was waived not for auction licensees, but for certain IVDS lottery licensees because of uncertainty concerning the subject licenses (that is, administrative appeals challenging the lottery process) and the lack of evidence of either speculation or warehousing of IVDS spectrum (the underlying bases for the " @0*((2"Ԍrule). This concern of uncertainty caused by license challenges, especially, is absent in the context of the instant waiver requests.  X-   X-x 15. SII's other cited precedents are inapposite. The few preauction waivers that permitted auction applicants to claim small business status subsequent to the FCC Form 175  X-("short form") application deadlineA< X-ԍ See Order, In re Requests for Waivers in the First Auction of 594 Interactive Video  X-and Data Service Licenses, 9 FCC Rcd 6384, 6386 (Common Carrier Bureau 1994), aff'd,  X-Memorandum Opinion and Order, In re Requests for Waivers in the First Auction of  X -Interactive Video and Data Service Licenses, 10 FCC Rcd 12153 (1995).  were premised on Commission error in printing the application forms; no similar misunderstanding is present here. The waivers that permitted  X_-additional time to submit engineering studies, postauction,<B_<< XL -ԍ Id. at 6386.< were premised on the late notice given of this requirement; again, no such potential unfairness is present here. And the "deferral" of the IVDS initial installment payment amount was actually an administrative  X -action by the Office of Managing Director.C < X-ԍ See Public Notice, "Quarterly Installment Payments for IVDS Auction Licensees to Begin June 30, 1995," Mimeo 53031, released March 29, 1995. Far from being analogous to a waiver, this action merely set a uniform date for affected IVDS licensees to begin installment payments.  X - x 16. SII also argues that to expect auction participants to arrange backup financing or other financial safeguards, preauction, runs counter to statutory mandates. As required by Congress, the Commission has adopted special provisions to ensure that entities designated by statute are afforded an opportunity to participate in IVDS auctions and in the provision of  Xy-IVDS services.wDy < X-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  95.816(d); Fourth Report and Order at 233640.w We do not believe, however, that these statutory mandates are inconsistent with our expectation that auction participants should exercise financial prudence.  X4-x 17. Finally, while noting a previous denial of requests to extend the IVDS initial  X-down payment deadline,E> < X -ԍ Order at 4521, citing Order, In re Requests for Waivers in the First Auction of 594  X -Interactive Video and Data Service Licenses, 9 FCC Rcd 6384, 638586 (Common Carrier  X!-Bureau 1994), aff'd, Memorandum Opinion and Order, In re Requests for Waivers in the First  X"-Auction of Interactive Video and Data Service Licenses, 10 FCC Rcd 12153 (1995).  the Bureau at no time enunciated a "no waiver" policy regarding IVDS payments. It merely explained the rationale for requiring full and timely down  X-payments, i.e., to ensure that winning bidders have the financial capability to attract capital to  X-rapidly deploy their systems and operate them in an efficient manner.>F< X='-ԍ Order at 4520.> " eF0*(("Ԍ X-ԙ  x` `  V. ORDERING CLAUSE  X-x 18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, under the authority of Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Interactive Partners of America, Eagle Interactive Partners, L.P., Albert D. Ervin, and Styles, Interactive, Inc., ARE DENIED.  X_-  XH-x` `  hh FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMichele C. Farquhar x` `  hhActing Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau