WPCH{ 2MBVRKZ3|j3 y.X80,-.X\  P6G;P"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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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""a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheading"0\ E A.  FOOTNOTEFootnote - Appearance#PHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and Boldldedd$+. 24%q1&2'X3(1v3DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and Date% X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style off&@@    HEADERHeader A - Appearance'LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5( 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   28)14*1 6+1;7,nl8LEGAL 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   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14+ 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a Document,K\ * ă2:-X 9.d9/i90dN:FOOTERFooter A - Appearanced-BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indented.N X HEADING 33rd Heading Level/| XHIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold Large0B*d. 2?1j:2N;3Em=4->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   INVOICE 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   2zD58@68IA7B8X"DINVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math Invoice5:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math Macro6z 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math Invoice7+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal Typestyle82F9[D:[E;[bE<[ESMALLSmall Typestyle9FINEFine Typestyle:LARGELarge Typestyle;EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle<2 I=[JF>F?p(H@qHVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle=ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header>+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   Document[8]'Eg%Document StyleE O  O g% W4I O g?` ` ` Document[4]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O g@  . 2KAe;IBeICJDpJDocument[6]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gA  Document[5]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gB  Document[2]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gC*    Document[7]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gD  ` ` ` 2ME:KFKGgLHLRight Par[1]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gE8 @  Right Par[2]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gFA@` ` `  ` ` ` Document[3]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gG0     Right Par[3]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gHJ` ` ` @  ` ` ` 2PIMJNK5OLORight Par[4]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gIS` ` `  @  Right Par[5]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gJ\` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gKe` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gLn` ` `  hhh@  2SMPNQOyRPRRight Par[8]Eg%Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersO g% W4I O gMw` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Document[1]'Eg%Document Style W4A O g% W4I O gNF    ׃  Technical[5]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gO&!"  . Technical[6]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gP&#$  . 2*VQSRQTSTTzUTechnical[2]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gQ*%&    Technical[3]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gR''(   Technical[4]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gS&)*   Technical[1]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gT4+$,     2[dU\VVVWv fWXcTechnical[7]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gU&-.  . Technical[8]Eg%Technical Document Style O g% W4I O gV&/0  . MACNormalW;     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<    #:}D4P XP#,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP#footnote tex#X'p #FxX  Pg9CXP#2iYdZ~ e[if\ hreferenceY;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1Z&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2[I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output File\W r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2{]Fif jKmu\wFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded Document]iޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN~ {O&$ԍId. at 11.A According to NatTel, because DCR's" &,-(-(ZZ"  $control group is not composed entirely of minorities and women, the certifications contained in  $its applications concerning its status as a minority and womanowned business are  X0misrepresentations.D'~ {OK$ԍId. at 1718.D   X0 p! 12. NatTel also alleges that Westinghouse, which currently has a 5.37 percent fully $diluted equity interest in PCI, is an "attributable investor" in DCR and, as such, DCR did not  Xv0 $qualify as a "small business" for the C block PCS auctions.D(vZ~ {O $ԍId. at 1923.D Because Westinghouse had total  $assets of $16.7 billion in 1995 and gross revenues of $12 billion in 1992 and 1993, NatTel  $contends that Westinghouse's position as an "attributable investor" would have invalidated DCR's  $claim to be a small business and would have disqualified it from participation in the C block PCS  X 0auctions.) ~ yO$ p!xԍSection 24.709 of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R.  24.709) sets forth the Commission's criteria for determining whether an entity qualifies as a "small business" and may participate in the C block PCS auctions.  X 0 p! 13. Moreover, NatTel argues that Westinghouse has de facto control over DCR.K* D~ yO$ԍNatTel Petition at 1923. K NatTel  $submits that control is evidenced by the fact that Westinghouse is a member of DCR's auction  X 0 $committee.A+ ~ {OE$ԍId. at 20.A NatTel argues that as a "passive investor" Westinghouse should not have a role in  X 0 $Ximportant corporate decisions.:, f ~ {O$ԍId.: NatTel also notes that Westinghouse has veto power over a  X0 $change of control of PCI and that this fact alone demonstrates that Westinghouse has both de  X}0 $facto and de jure control over DCR.D-} ~ {O&$ԍId. at 2123.D NatTel additionally argues that Westinghouse's prior  Xh0criminal convictions render DCR unqualified as a PCS licensee.D.h ~ {O$ԍId. at 2325.D    X:0 p!@ 14. Finally,    NatTel argues that DCR's short form application (FCC Form 175) was  X#0 $incomplete and defective and that it should have been returned by the Commission's staff.D/#~ {O"$ԍId. at 2530.D  $lNatTel asserts that DCR filed its short form application electronically and the exhibit footnotes  X0 $were not converted from WordPerfect to ASCII and were unreadable.:0~ {OT&$ԍId.: NatTel argues that this"@0,-(-(ZZ"  X0error was material and rendered DCR's application unacceptable for filing.:1~ {Oy$ԍId.:   X0 p!P15. In its Opposition, DCR argues that NatTel does not have standing to challenge DCR's  $hvarious C block PCS applications, as NatTel has not shown that it is a "party in interest" as  X0 $required by Section 309(d)(1) of the Act.G2Z~ yO$ԍDCR Opposition at 14.G With respect to NatTel's substantive arguments, DCR  $argues that it has complied with the foreign ownership limitations set forth in Section 310(b)(4)  Xv0 $of the Act.B3v~ {O $ԍId. at 47.B DCR contends that the Commission should not treat its "call option" to reacquire  $\Teleconsult's shares as fully exercised since, in the context of foreign ownership, the Commission  XH0has consistently not treated such options as exercised.:4H|~ {Ou$ԍId.:  X 0 p!|16. In its a!yRepons a!y Response a!y  a!ye  to First Supplement, DCR rejects NatTel's allegation that Masa  X 0 $controls Teleconsult.Y5 ~ yO$ԍDCR Response to First Supplement at 34.Y DCR states that NatTel has mistakenly read PCI's SEC Form S1 filing  X 0 $to mean that Masa has provided the financing for Teleconsult to acquire its shares of PCI.:6 ~ {O;$ԍId.: DCR  $states that, while Masa loaned money to Teleconsult, the loan was issued approximately a year  $after Teleconsult had already acquired its stock in PCI, and the Masa loan agreement specifically  $|bars Teleconsult from using the proceeds to make investments in other businesses, including  X0PCI.:70 ~ {Oq$ԍId.:  Xb0 p!17. Further, DCR defends its status as a minority and womanowned business. DCR  $contends that NatTel has misread the Commission's rules with respect to the level of minority  $and female ownership that is required to claim credit as a minority and/or womanowned business  X0 $lin the C block PCS auctions.C8 ~ {O $ԍId. at 710.C DCR also argues that Daniel C. Riker does not have control over  X0DCR.A9T ~ {O #$ԍId. at 10.A   X0 p!18. DCR additionally asserts that NatTel has misread the Commission's rules with respect"9,-(-(ZZ"  X0 $to whether Westinghouse has an attributable interest in DCR.D:~ {Oy$ԍId. at 1013.D DCR argues that Westinghouse's  $5.37 percent fully diluted interest is not attributable and, contrary to NatTel's claims, there is no  X0 $Pevidence that Westinghouse has de facto control over DCR.D;Z~ {O$ԍId. at 1112.D DCR concludes that, since  $Westinghouse does not have an attributable interest in DCR, there is no reason to consider its  X0prior criminal convictions..<Z~ {OC $ p!<ԍId. at 13. Moreover, as DCR reported in its Response, it will be repurchasing Westinghouse's stock in  $November 1996, which would moot any concern over Westinghouse's possible control of DCR. DCR Response at 1 n.1..  p!19. Finally, DCR points out that the error contained in its short form (FCC Form 175)  $application was minor and immaterial and that the Commission permitted DCR an opportunity  XJ0 $to amend its application, which it did prior to the C block auction.U=J~ yO $ԍDCR Opposition at 1314.U DCR explains that the  $,footnotes to the exhibits included with its short form application were inadvertently not converted  X 0 $\from WordPerfect to ASCII form.D> ~ {Ok$ԍId. at 1314.D DCR contends that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau  $did not err when it permitted DCR to amend its short form application to correct such a minor  X 0error.@? 0 ~ {O$ԍId.@  p!20. In its Reply, NatTel argues that it is a party in interest with respect to DCR's  $|applications because NatTel would not have had to bid an additional $51,000 in the American  X0 $Samoa market had DCR been properly denied access to the C block PCS auctions.E@ ~ yO$ԍNatTel Reply at 13.E In its  $Petition to Deny, DCR also claims that it "lost out on opportunities to acquire markets due to  Xd0DCR's mutually exclusive application."KAdR ~ yOg$ԍNatTel Petition at 3, n.3.K  X60 III. DISCUSSION  X0 A. Standing  X0  X0 p!X21.  As an initial matter, we find that NatTel has failed to demonstrate the requisite  $standing to make a blanket challenge to all of DCR's C block PCS applications. NatTel has not  $dshown that it is a "party in interest" as required by Section 24.830(a)(3) of the Commission's"A,-(-(ZZH"  X0 $<rulesMB~ yOy$ԍ47 C.F.R.  24.830(a)(3).M and Section 309(d)(1) of the ActJCX~ yO $ԍ47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).J with respect to all of the markets for which DCR was  $the winning bidder. While NatTel argues that it lost out on opportunities to acquire PCS licenses  $due to DCR's mutually exclusive application, we find that NatTel's participation in the C block auction was severely limited by its upfront payment of only $50,000. ` `  X0 p!<22. Under the Commission's rules, in order for a party to participate in an auction for  $a particular C block PCS market, it must submit an upfront payment that is equal to the sum of  $l$0.015 multiplied by the population of market ("pop") and the amount of megahertz ("MHz") for  XH0 $`which it intends to bid.GDH~ yO $ԍ47 C.F.R.  24.706.G Based on its $50,000 upfront payment, NatTel was only eligible to bid  X10 $in markets with a cumulative population of 111,111 or less.E1x~ yOZ$ԍThe population figure can be derived as follows: $0.015 X 30 MHz X 111,111 = $50,000. Of the 43 markets for which DCR  $was the winning bidder, only four of these had populations of 111,111 or less Adrian,  $xMichigan (population 91,476), Michigan City, Indiana (population 107,066), Pittsburgh, Kansas  $(population 90,934) and Northern Marianas Islands (population 43,000). NatTel bid on only one  $|of those markets: Northern Marianas Islands. Because NatTel could have bid in only four of  $the markets for which DCR was the winning bidder, NatTel has, at best, demonstrated that it is  X 0a party in interest with respect to those four markets.mFZ ~ {O`$ p!ԍSee Albuquerque Indian Rights v. Lujan, 930 F.2d 49, 56 (D.C. Cir. 1991), where the Court held that, in  $Torder for a party to show standing to challenge the award of an employment position, the party must actually have been in the pool of applicants for the position.m   Xy0 p!P23. NatTel also argues that it has standing to challenge all of DCR's applications because  $Hit would have been able to win the auction for the American Samoa market with a lower winning  $bid had DCR not been allowed to participate in the C block auctions. We find that this alleged  $injury is based upon a hypothetical event that is too speculative to support the requisite finding  X0 $Hof "a direct injury causally linked to the challenged action."G* ~ {O$ԍAlbuquerque Indian Rights v. Lujan, 930 F.2d at 54.ppXą Because it has not shown an injury  $in fact, NatTel lacks the requisite standing to file a blanket Petition to Deny all of DCR's C block  X0 $lPCS applications.H ~ {O\"$ p!8ԍSee CONN2 Partnership, 9 FCC Rcd 3295, 3297 (1994) (quoting Orange Park Florida TV, Inc. v. FCC, 811 F. 2d 664, 670 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). Nevertheless, because we conclude that NatTel is a partyininterest in four  X0 $of DCR's markets, we will consider NatTel's substantive arguments to the extent they affect those markets.  X0 " H,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0 B. DCR's Level of Foreign Ownership   X0 p!24. NatTel argues that DCR's percentage of foreign ownership is inconsistent with the  $<foreign ownership limitations set forth in Section 310(b)(4) of the Act. We disagree. The fact  $that PCI holds a "call option" to reacquire the shares of Teleconsult does not support such a  $finding. While Section 24.709(b)(7) of the Commission's rules does provide that stock options  $lwill generally be treated as fully exercised for the purposes of determining eligibility as a small  $business, Commission precedent is clear that with respect to foreign ownership questions, an  $option held by a foreigner to buy stock in a licensee or the parent of a licensee is not cognizable  X10 $until it is exercised.I\1~ {O $ p!ԍSee WWORTV, Inc., 6 FCC Rcd. 6569, 657172 n.13 (1991) (citing Data Transmission Co., 52 FCC 2d  {Ot $ $h439 (1975)); see also Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 8452 (1995) (citing Univision Holdings, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 6672, 6674 (1992)).  The Commission does not treat options as exercised in those cases where  $there is a redemption or savings clause contained in the applicant's corporate charter which would  $allow it to redeem foreign shares to ensure continued compliance with Section 310(b)(4) of the  X 0 $Act in the event such an option were exercised.J^ ~ {O$ p!8ԍSee BBC License Subsidiary, L.P., 10 FCC Rcd 10968 (1995); Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd  {OS$ $$8452, 8513 (1995) (citing Data Transmission Co., 44 FCC Rcd 2d 935 (1974)); Univision Holdings, Inc., 7 FCC  {O$Rcd at 6674; McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., 4 FCC Rcd 3784, 3790 (1989). Because PCI's corporate charter contains such  $a redemption provision, the existence of the call option is not an obstacle to a grant of DCR's  X 0applications.CKZ ~ {O$ p!ԍSee DCR Opposition at 6 and Attachment. For similar reasons, we find that foreign lenders holding options  $to acquire DCR stock in exchange for financing DCR's startup costs should not effect our calculation of DCR's foreign ownership.C  X0 p!|25. Similarly, we find that the fact that 94.9 percent of the stock of Masa, a former  $stockholder of PCI, was owned by foreigners is irrelevant. Masa has sold its interest in PCI to  $MTI BVI, Inc., a foreign corporation and MTI's interest in PCI is fully accounted for within the 25 percent limit established by Section 310(b)(4).  p!26. We also find no support for NatTel's allegation that Teleconsult is a representative  X0 $,of foreigners and should be treated as 100 percent foreign owned.^L4 ~ {O$ԍSee NatTel First Supplement at 3.^ NatTel's erroneous allegation  $that Masa provided the financing for Teleconsult to acquire its share in PCI was apparently based  $`upon a misreading of PCI's SEC Form S1 filing. We find no other evidence that Masa controls Teleconsult. ` `  X0    C. DCR's Status as a Minority and WomanOwnedBusiness   Xe0 p!x27. As an initial matter, it should be noted that the issue of whether DCR is a minority  XN0 $$and/or womanowned business is no longer relevant, given the Commission's  Sixth Report and"N L,-(-(ZZH"  X0 $Order ,@M~ {Oy$ p!ԍImplementation of  309 of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93253, Sixth  {OC$Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 136 (1995), aff'd sub nom., Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F. 3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1996).@ in which the Commission concluded that the C Block auction rules would be race and  $gender neutral. Nevertheless, because NatTel has alleged that DCR's minority and womanowned  $Lbusiness certifications were false and constituted misrepresentations, a full evaluation of its allegations is warranted.  X0 p!|28. NatTel's claim that Daniel C. Riker, a nonminority male, has assumed de facto  Xz0 $control over DCR is unfounded. In Ellis Thompson Corporation,PNz$~ {OO $ p!ԍEllis Thompson Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd 7138 (1994) (citing Intermountain Microwave, 24 Rad. Reg. 983  {O $(1963)) (Ellis Thompson Corporation); see also Ellis Thompson Corporation, 10 FCC Rcd 12554 (A.L.J. 1995).P the Commission outlined the  Xe0 $`criteria (known as the Intermountain Microwave factors) for determining whether a transfer of  $Hcontrol has occurred. Those criteria are: (1) Does the party have unfettered use of all facilities  $xand equipment; (2) who controls daily operations; (3) who determines and carries out the policy  $`decisions; (4) who is in charge of employment, supervision and dismissal of personnel; (5) who  $is in charge of the payment of financing obligations, including expenses arising out of operations;  X 0 $x(6) who received monies and profits derived from the operation of the facilities?tO ~ {O%$ԍEllis Thompson Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd at 713839.t We find that  X 0 $ none of the matters raised by NatTel, when examined under these six criteria, support a finding that Daniel Riker controls DCR.  X0 p!29. Mr. Riker holds only 16.13 percent of the voting stock of PCI, DCR's parent  $company, and is one of three members of DCR's control group. According to DCR, this control  Xj0 $`group will have control over all of DCR's major management decisions.oPj~ yO-$ԍDCR Application Exhibit E at 6, as amended September 25, 1996.o NatTel has not shown  $that Mr. Riker has the ability to override the authority of the other members of the control group  $in order to exercise sole control of the daily operations of DCR's PCS systems. Similarly,  $NatTel has not produced any evidence that Mr. Riker alone has determined and carried out  $DCR's policy decisions. The allegation that Mr. Riker sent correspondence to other potential  $PCS licensees on behalf of the corporation, by itself, does not demonstrate that Mr. Riker controls  X0 $DCR's policy decisions. As one of PCI's officers and directors, Mr. Riker may be involved in  $8PCI's corporate affairs, but NatTel has not shown how Mr. Riker will be able to use these  X0 $ positions to control DCR's daytoday operations or policy making.eQ~ {O"$ԍSee J. Roger Wollenberg, 17 FCC 2d 288 (1969).e NatTel has not produced  $any evidence to suggest that Mr. Riker will control access to DCR's facilities or that he will have  $control over key personnel decisions. DCR has stated that its control group will have control  Xm0 $over the employment of senior executives.oRm4 ~ yOR&$ԍDCR Application Exhibit E at 6, as amended September 25, 1996.o Furthermore, there is no evidence that Mr. Riker  XV0 $has controlled DCR's financing or that Mr. Riker will receive more than his pro rata share of"V R,-(-(ZZ"  $monies derived from DCR's operations. In sum, NatTel has not shown that Riker has or will be  X0able to individually dominate DCR's corporate affairs.|S~ {Ob$ԍSee Fox Television Stations, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 852, 8514 (1995).|  X0 p!830. In addition, NatTel has misread Commission rules and decisions in an effort to show  $lthat DCR was not qualified as a minority and/or womanowned business for competitive bidding  $purposes. Section 24.720(c) of the rules states that a business owned by members of minority  $groups and/or women is an entity: (1) in which the qualifying investor members of the applicant's  $dcontrol group are members of minority groups and/or women, and (2) that complies with the  $requirements of Sections 24.709(b)(3) and (b)(5) or Sections 24.709(b)(4) and (b)(6) of the  X10 $,rules.JT1Z~ yO< $ԍ47 C.F.R.  24.720(c).J When the Commission revised its competitive bidding rules, it did so to permit applicants  $to claim credit as a minority and/or womanowned business, as long as 30 percent of the  $Lapplicant's total equity was held by principals of the control group who are minorities and/or  X 0 $women.U ~ {O$ p!`ԍSee Implementation of  309(d) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, Fifth Memorandum  {OQ$Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 403, 440 (1994)("Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order"). In this case, at least 30 percent of DCR's total equity is so held.5VX F~ yO$ p!ԍThe fact that Janis Riker may hold an irrevocable proxy to vote 9% of Teleconsult's shares is, therefore,  $not relevant since this would not effect the minimum levels of minority and/or woman ownership within DCR's control group.5 NatTel has not  $|produced any evidence to rebut the Commission's presumption that control of DCR is vested  X 0 $other than in its shareholders as a whole.W f ~ {O$ԍSee William S. Paley, 1 FCC Rcd 1025, 1026 (1986) (subsequent history omitted). Because NatTel has not shown that DCR's minority  $and female ownership certifications were false, we find that there is no support for NatTel's allegation that DCR misrepresented its ownership structure to the Commission.   Xb0 D. Westinghouse's Interest in DCR  X40 p!P31. NatTel alleges that Westinghouse's 5.37 percent fullydiluted equity interest in DCR  $is "attributable" with respect to determining whether DCR is a "small business" and qualified to  $participate in the C block PCS auction. We do not agree. Westinghouse holds less than 25 percent of the fullydiluted equity of DCR. Section 24.709(b)(3) of the rules states that:  X0 pXthe gross revenues and total assets of a person or entity that holds an interest in  X0 pthe applicant (or licensee), and its affiliates, shall not be considered so long as: .  X0 ph. . Such person or entity, together with its affiliates, holds only nonattributable  X0 pequity equalling no more than 25 percent of the applicant's . . . total equity . . .  Xm0 psuch person or entity is not a member of the applicant's . . . control group; and  XX0 p. . . The applicant . . . has a control group that complies with the minimum equity  p0requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of this section, and, if the applicant . . . is a"C W,-(-(ZZ,"  X0corporation, owns at least 50.1% of the applicant's . . . voting interests....X~ {Oy$ p!$ԍ47 C.F.R.  24.709(b)(3); see also the Commission's definitions of attributable interests set forth at 47 C.F.R.  24.720(j).    $xBecause Westinghouse holds less than 25 percent of the fullydiluted equity of DCR and DCR's  $control group complies with the minimum equity requirements of the rules, we find that  $|Westinghouse's interest is not attributable for the purposes of determining whether DCR is a small business.  X_0 p!32. As for NatTel's allegation that Westinghouse has assumed de facto control of DCR,  XJ0 $the matters raised by NatTel, when examined under the six criteria set forth in Ellis Thompson  X50 $Corporation, do not support such a finding. The corporate provisions that NatTel cites as  $demonstrative of Westinghouse's control are rights typically granted to minority shareholders to  $Hprovide a certain level of protection for their investment and do not provide Westinghouse with  $a means of assuming control of DCR. For example, the fact that Westinghouse is one of four  $members on DCR's auction committee is not dispositive proof that Westinghouse will be able  $(to control DCR's policy making or daily operations. In previous cases, the Commission has  X 0 $found that membership on a corporate committee does not rise to the level of de facto control.Y "~ {O$ԍSee News International, PLC, 97 FCC 2d at 357; William S. Paley, 1 FCC Rcd 1025 (1986).  $Similarly, the fact that Westinghouse may be able to veto a change of control by DCR is of no  $Dconsequence. The Commission has found such a provision to be an appropriate means of  Xj0 $permitting a minority investor to protect its investment.FZ\j~ {O$ p!ԍSee News International, PLC, 97 FCC 2d at 35766; Data Transmission Co., 44 FCC 2d 935, 9367 (1974);  {O$ $MCI Telecommunications Corp., 9 FCC Rcd 3960 (1994); Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 448.F Because Westinghouse does not  $exercise control over DCR, we find that there is no reason to consider its prior criminal convictions.  X0  E. DCR's Short Form Application  X0  p! 33. NatTel's next argument is that DCR's short form applications were defective and  X0 $pshould have been returned without consideration. We find that  DCR's short form application  $(contained a minor error that was not material and that did not warrant its return. Contrary to  $lNatTel's contentions, the Commission does not enforce a letter perfect standard with respect to  X0 $$PCS short form applications.[~ {O #$ p!tԍSee Implementation of  309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, GN Docket No. 93252,  {O#$Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2377 (1994) ("Second Report and Order"). We find that DCR's application contained a minor error similar  Xm0 $Dto a typographical error, which applicants are permitted to correct under the Commission's rules.T\m4 ~ {OR&$ԍSee 47 C.F.R.  24.822(b).T  $According to DCR's explanation, the footnotes to the exhibits included with DCR's short form"V \,-(-(ZZl"  X0 $application were mistakenly not translated from WordPerfect code to ASCII code.v]~ {Oy$ԍSee DCR Opposition at 1314 and "Declaration of James Titzell."v After being  $notified by the Commission of this error, DCR was permitted an opportunity to correct it, and  X0 $lit promptly did so prior to the beginning of the C block auction. ^Z~ yO$ p!8ԍThis error was noted in a letter to Mr. James E. Titzell of DCR, dated November 21, 1995, from the Chief of the Auctions Division and DCR was permitted an opportunity to resubmit its short form application.  To have returned DCR's short  $form application for such a minor, immaterial error would have been contrary to the  X0Commission's rules and stated policy._~ {O $ p!ԍSee  24.822(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  24.822(b), and Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 2377.  p!!34. Furthermore, we find that DCR's September 25, 1996, amendment to its application  $was minor and did not affect its qualifications as a prospective licensee. The fact that PCI has  $issued additional shares of stock does not affect DCR's qualifications because the overall equity  $$percentages of PCI's stockholders have not changed substantially. Similarly, the fact that Masa  $sold its interest to MTI BVI, Inc., a foreign corporation with identical ownership, does not affect  $DCR's qualifications because MTI BVI, Inc., only has a 20.45 percent interest in DCR and DCR's foreign ownership is still within the 25 percent limit. ` `  X 0} IV. CONCLUSION ă  p!"35. Having reviewed the applications, the amendments and the pleadings filed in this  $matter, we conclude that grant of the subject applications, as amended, will serve the public  $ interest, convenience, and necessity, and that NatTel has not sufficiently alleged facts establishing  $|that grant of the applications would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and  X40necessity.         Therefore, we deny NatTel's Petition and grant DCR's applications.  p!#36. The grant of DCR's applications is expressly conditioned on payment within five (5)  X0 $business days of the release of this Order of the remaining portion of the 10 percent down  $(payments due on each of the licenses. Payment of the remainder of the amount due on each  $`license will be made in quarterly installments in accordance with Parts 1 and 24 of the  $4Commission's rules. For each license granted, DCR PCS, Inc., will receive from the United  $States Department of Treasury an original note documenting its installment payment obligations  $and a security agreement a!ycommemmoratin a!y commemorating a!y  a!yg  the Commission's security interest in the license in the  $event of default. The notes and security agreements will include instructions on the completing,  $$signing, and return of the documents to the Treasury Department. The grant of DCR's  $applications is expressly conditioned on timely execution and return of the notes and security agreements in accordance with these instructions. " _,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X0` ` 6 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X0 p!$37. Accordingly, pursuant to our authority under Section 309(d)(2) of the  $Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 309(d)(2), IT IS ORDERED that the  $Petition to Deny filed by National Telecom PCS, Inc., IS DENIED and that the applications of  $|DCR PCS, Inc., for broadband PCS C block licenses listed in Appendix A attached hereto are GRANTED, subject to the conditions set forth above. ` `  p!%38. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority as set forth in Section 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331.   X 0` `  ,hhh FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   X 0  ` `  ,hhhMichele C. Farquhar ` `  ,hhhChief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau"y_,-(-(ZZ$"  X0 XX в #Xj\  P6G;+XP#APPENDIX A ă Applications of DCR PCS, Inc., for broadband PCS C block licenses.  X0 Market   Call Sign   File Number   Name  ppX Y ddx!(^fY    B005KNLF48700182CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B033uKNLF488u00283CWL96uDCR PCS, INC.dB046LKNLF489L00286CWL96LDCR PCS, INC.;B067#KNLF490#00288CWL96#DCR PCS, INC.B071KNLF49100290CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B078 KNLF492 00293CWL96 DCR PCS, INC.B090 KNLF493 00296CWL96 DCR PCS, INC. B101 KNLF494 00298CWL96 DCR PCS, INC.n B109V KNLF496V 00302CWL96V DCR PCS, INC.E B112- KNLF495- 00300CWL96- DCR PCS, INC. B140KNLF49700304CWL96DCR PCS, INC. B145KNLF49800306CWL96DCR PCS, INC. B153KNLF49900308CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B169KNLF50000310CWL96DCR PCS, INC.xB190`KNLF502`00314CWL96`DCR PCS, INC.OB1927KNLF503700316CWL967DCR PCS, INC.&B195KNLF50400318CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B209KNLF50500320CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B219KNLF50600322CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B223KNLF50700324CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B225jKNLF508j00326CWL96jDCR PCS, INC.YB243AKNLF509A00328CWL96ADCR PCS, INC.0B245KNLF51000330CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B255KNLF51100332CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B257KNLF51200334CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B260KNLF51300336CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B294tKNLF514t00338CWL96tDCR PCS, INC.cB308KKNLF515K00340CWL96KDCR PCS, INC.:B310"KNLF516"00342CWL96"DCR PCS, INC.B320KNLF51700344CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B332KNLF51900348CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B349KNLF52000350CWL96DCR PCS, INC.B355~ KNLF521~ 00352CWL96~ DCR PCS, INC.mB380U!KNLF522U!00354CWL96U!DCR PCS, INC.D B394,"KNLF526,"00362CWL96,"DCR PCS, INC.!B403#KNLF523#00356CWL96#DCR PCS, INC.!B419#KNLF524#00358CWL96#DCR PCS, INC."B426$KNLF525$00360CWL96$DCR PCS, INC.#B443%KNLF527%00383CWL96%DCR PCS, INC.w$B444_&KNLF528_&00384CWL96_&DCR PCS, INC.N%B4526'KNLF5296'00387CWL966'DCR PCS, INC.%&B490 (KNLF501 (00312CWL96 (DCR PCS, INC.&B493(KNLF518(00346CWL96(DCR PCS, INC."'_-Y)Y)..//"*'