**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Weblink Wireless, Inc.           | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Petition for Reconsideration of  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| DA 01-1143                       | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: December 6, 2002 Released: December 6, 2002**

By the Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

# Introduction

1.  We have before us two Petitions for Reconsideration,[^1] requesting
    reconsideration of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
    ("Bureau") order[^2] dismissing Weblink Wireless, Inc.'s ("Weblink")
    request for retroactive bidding credits for the narrowband Personal
    Communications Service ("PCS") licenses it won in the nationwide and
    regional narrowband PCS auctions in 1994. For the reasons set forth
    below, we deny Weblink's Petition, affirm the Bureau's *Order,* and
    dismiss the Myers Lazrus Petition.

# Background

2.  Weblink[^3] was the high bidder on one license in the nationwide
    narrowband PCS auction ("Auction No. 1") that concluded on July 29,
    1994 and five licenses in the regional narrowband PCS auction
    ("Auction No. 3") that concluded on November 8, 1994.[^4] At that
    time, Commission rules provided bidding credits for designated
    entities.[^5] In Auction No. 1, Commission rules provided a 25%
    bidding credit for women- and/or minority-owned businesses on three
    of the ten available licenses in that auction.[^6] None of the
    winning bidders in that auction, including Weblink, qualified for
    the 25% bidding credit offered to women- and/or minority-owned
    businesses.[^7] Weblink was the winner of one of the three licenses
    for which a bidding credit would have been available for women-
    and/or minority-owned businesses.[^8] In Auction No. 3, Commission
    rules provided a 40 % bidding credit for women- and/or
    minority-owned businesses on 10 out of the 30 available
    licenses.[^9] Weblink did not qualify for the bidding credit offered
    in Auction No. 3. At the close of Auction No. 3, women- and/or
    minority-owned entities won all of the ten licenses for which a
    bidding credit could be applied.[^10]

3.  In 1995 the Supreme Court decided *Adarand Constructors v.
    Pena*,[^11] in which it held that any federal program wherein the
    "government treats any person unequally because of his or her race"
    must satisfy the "strict scrutiny"[^12] constitutional standard of
    review. In response to the Court's holding, but without rendering a
    decision on the constitutionality of its designated entity rules,
    the Commission decided to refrain in the future from providing
    bidding credits to women- and/or minority-owned businesses until it
    developed a record that would provide the evidentiary support
    necessary to withstand strict scrutiny review.[^13]

4.  In its June 2000 Request, Weblink sought a 25% reduction/bidding
    credit for the license won in Auction No. 1 and a 40%
    reduction/bidding credit for the licenses won in Auction No. 3.[^14]
    The Bureau, pursuant to delegated authority, dismissed Weblink's
    request.[^15] The Bureau observed that Weblink did not file the
    Request until approximately six years had passed since the
    Commission had promulgated the rules for the nationwide and regional
    narrowband PCS auctions, the auctions had concluded, and the
    Commission had awarded the licenses to Weblink.[^16] The Bureau
    found that Weblink had waived its challenge and, therefore, the
    Bureau dismissed its request.[^17]

5.  Weblink now challenges the Bureau's *Order* arguing that the waiver
    doctrine is inapplicable to its request for retroactive bidding
    credits and also alleging that the Commission in prior orders has
    found bidding credits for women and minorities to be
    unconstitutional in the context of the 218-219 MHz service.[^18]
    Weblink argues that the principle of finality does not operate to
    limit the principle of retroactivity and, therefore, the waiver
    doctrine should not preclude the retroactive application of
    *Adarand* to the results of Auction Nos. 1 and 3.[^19] Myers Lazrus
    Technology Law Group ("Myers Lazrus") similarly contends in its
    Petition that the Commission should give *Adarand* full retroactive
    effect with respect to Auction Nos. 1 and 3.[^20]

# Discussion

**A. Weblink**

6.  By statute, Congress limited the Commission's jurisdiction to review
    petitions for reconsideration to those filed within a specific
    time.[^21] Sections 1.106(f) and 1.429(d) of the Commission's rules
    implement this statutory mandate and require that a petition for
    reconsideration be filed within thirty days from the date of public
    notice of the Commission's action.[^22] Weblink's initial Request
    filed in 2000 operated as nothing more than an untimely petition for
    reconsideration of the competitive bidding rules adopted for Auction
    Nos. 1 and 3. As the Bureau noted, Weblink did not file the Request
    until approximately six years had passed since the Commission had
    promulgated the rules for the nationwide and regional narrowband PCS
    auctions, Auction Nos. 1 and 3 had concluded, and the Commission had
    awarded the licenses to Weblink.[^23] Accordingly, the Bureau
    appropriately dismissed Weblink's Request.[^24]

7.  Weblink's specific arguments in support of its Petition do not meet
    the standards for reconsideration required under the Commission's
    rules.[^25] Weblink continues to argue that the waiver doctrine does
    not preclude retroactive application of *Adarand* to the auction
    results in Auction Nos. 1 and 3, citing to a Supreme Court case and
    an appellate case, both of which held that judicial decisions were
    applicable retroactively. Weblink cites to the Supreme Court's
    decision in *Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxatio*n[^26] to support
    its argument that the Commission should grant its request for a
    remedial bidding credit on the grounds that judicial precedent
    normally has retroactive as well as prospective effect.[^27] In
    *Harper*, the Virginia Department of Taxation had refused to
    retroactively apply the Supreme Court's holding in *Davis v.
    Michigan Department of Treasury*,[^28] which invalidated a
    particular taxation practice in Michigan, to a judicially contested
    Virginia taxation scheme in spite of its being on review at the same
    time as *Davis*.[^29] In *Harper*, the Court held "\[w\]hen this
    Court applies a rule of federal law to the parties before it, that
    rule is the controlling interpretation of federal law and must be
    give full retroactive effect in all cases still open on direct
    review, regardless of whether such events predate or postdate
    announcement of the rule."[^30] In this instance, Weblink had no
    pending claims at the time *Adarand* was adjudicated. Accordingly,
    the *Harper* decision is inapplicable and does not excuse Weblink's
    failure to seek relief for over six years.

8.  Weblink also cites to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's
    decision in *National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC*[^31] to
    support its claim for a bidding credit.[^32] In *NAB*, broadcasters
    sought review of several Commission orders denying refunds of fees
    paid under the Commission's 1970 fee schedule (which had been
    challenged earlier in the U.S. Supreme Court and remanded to the
    Commission for further proceedings). The D.C. Circuit held that the
    broadcasters were not barred from suing for refunds in spite of
    their failure to appeal from an earlier decision upholding the
    validity of the fees because they justifiably relied on statements
    by the Commission to the effect that action on refunds would be
    taken by the Commission on its own initiative.[^33] The appellate
    court further held that the Supreme Court decision holding such fees
    invalid was applicable retroactively and that the broadcasters were
    entitled to the return of funds collected illegally.[^34] The facts
    presented by Weblink are not analogous to those in *NAB*. Weblink
    does not allege, and the record does not support, that the
    Commission ever stated that it would refund funds submitted to pay
    for the licenses won at Auctions Nos. 1 and 3 or that the *Adarand*
    decision required that the Commission issue a remedial bidding
    credit or refund to the winning bidders in those auctions.[^35]
    Therefore, Weblink cannot establish any reasonable reliance on
    Commission decisions to support its six-year delay in filing its
    refund request. We find NAB does not support Weblinks's request for
    a retroactive bidding credit and therefore, no reason to reverse the
    decision in the Bureau's *Order.*

9.  In its Petition, Weblink once again relies upon *Graceba Total
    Communications, Inc. v. FCC*[^36] to support its argument that the
    constitutional nature of its claim excuses the untimely nature of
    Weblink's original Request and precludes application of the waiver
    doctrine.[^37] We reiterate our earlier decision that Weblink's
    argument misconstrues the court's findings.[^38] The D.C. Circuit's
    decision in *Graceba* relied on its decision in *Meredith
    Corporation v. FCC* [^39] in which it stated that the Commission has
    an obligation to address "properly presented" constitutional
    claims.[^40] In *Graceba*, the D.C. Circuit found that Graceba's
    claim was properly, *i.e.,* timely, presented.[^41] As the Bureau
    has already observed, Weblink has had numerous opportunities on
    other occasions to challenge the bidding credits offered in Auction
    Nos. 1 and 3 in a timely fashion but it failed to do so.[^42] In
    fact, after no minority- or women-owned entities won licenses in the
    nationwide narrowband PCS auction, Weblink filed comments supporting
    both bidding credits and entrepreneur blocks for women and
    minorities participating in the subsequent regional narrowband PCS
    auction.[^43] Weblink's request filed in 2000 was not timely and
    thus did not constitute a properly presented constitutional claim.
    Weblink's case is analogous to the facts in *Community Teleplay*,
    where the Bureau found that Community Teleplay had neglected
    numerous procedural opportunities to challenge the IVDS bidding
    credits and, therefore waived its right to a constitutional
    challenge on the grounds that its filing was untimely.[^44]
    Similarly, the Bureau appropriately dismissed Weblink's untimely
    request.

    **B. Myers Lazrus**

10. Myers Lazrus, a law firm filing on its own behalf, requests
    reconsideration of the Bureau's *Order*.[^45] Although Myers Lazrus
    did not previously participate in the Weblink proceeding, it asserts
    standing to participate in the reconsideration under Section
    1.106(b)(1) of the Commission's rules and, alternatively, under the
    third party standing doctrine.[^46] As we explain below, Myers
    Lazrus has failed to establish standing under Section 1.106(b) and
    its alternative third party standing argument is inapplicable in
    this instance.

11. To establish standing to file its Petition under Section 1.106(b)(1)
    of the Commission's rules, Myers Lazrus must show that its interests
    are adversely affected by the action taken by the Bureau and that it
    did not have the opportunity to participate in the earlier stages of
    the proceeding.[^47] To determine if a party's interests have been
    adversely affected, the Commission frequently relies upon the
    three-pronged standing test under which a party must establish: (1)
    a distinct and palpable personal injury-in-fact that is (2)
    traceable to the respondent's conduct and (3) redressable by the
    relief requested.[^48]

12. Myers Lazrus bases its claim of standing on the Bureau's description
    of the Commission's grant of a retroactive bidding credit in the
    218-219 MHz service as non-remedial. Myers Lazrus alleges this
    description has injured it by affecting the contractual relationship
    between the law firm and its client, the Ad Hoc Coalition.
    Specifically, Myers Lazrus alleges that its compensation for
    services was based on the achievement of a remedial action in the
    218-219 MHz service.[^49] Myers Lazrus suggests that if the Bureau's
    characterization of a Commission level order is not revised it may
    have to return the funds paid for its services.[^50] Myers Lazrus
    also alleges that the Bureau's *Order* interferes with its ability
    to develop contingency fee agreements with prospective narrowband
    PCS clients.[^51]

13. The issues raised by Myers Lazrus stem from a fee dispute between an
    attorney and its client. This is not a matter regulated by the
    Commission and therefore does not form a redressable injury for
    which the Commission may provide relief. The Commission has a
    long-standing practice of not addressing matters related to private
    contractual agreements.[^52] The Commission has previously observed,
    "private disputes are beyond our regulatory jurisdiction and must be
    resolved in a local court of competent jurisdiction."[^53] By
    failing to articulate how its interests have been adversely affected
    in a manner cognizable by the Commission, Myers Lazrus does not
    establish any of the elements for standing under Section
    1.106(b)(1).

14. With respect to the third party standing alternative argument, we
    note that it has been generally disfavored by the Commission.[^54]
    This is not surprising because third-party standing contravenes a
    basic prudential principle that a party "generally must assert his
    own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief
    on the legal rights or interests of third parties."[^55] Myers
    Lazrus has failed to provide a basis to diverge from this principle
    here. Although we are not persuaded by Weblink's arguments, clearly
    nothing has prevented Weblink, or any other nationwide or regional
    narrowband PCS licensee from pursuing the particular claim at issue
    here.[^56] Thus, it would be inappropriate to recognize third party
    standing in this instance.

15. In essence, Myers Lazrus is using the Petition for Reconsideration
    of the Weblink *Order* as an opportunity to re-argue the issues
    raised by its request for a determination that it is entitled to a
    "common fund award" in connection with the 218-219 MHz service and
    the regional and nationwide narrowband PCS services.[^57] The
    request was denied initially and we affirmed on
    reconsideration.[^58] Myers Lazrus currently has an application for
    review of the order on reconsideration pending with the Commission.
    Accordingly, a petition for reconsideration of the Weblink *Order*
    is an inappropriate vehicle for a collateral attack on the *Common
    Fund Orders*.[^59] We, therefore, dismiss the Myers Lazrus Petition
    for lack of standing.[^60]

# ORDERing clauseS

16. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the
    Petition for Reconsideration filed by Weblink Wireless, Inc. on June
    4, 2001, IS HEREBY DENIED.

17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by
    Myers Lazrus Technology Group on June 4, 2001, IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

18. These actions are taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section
    0.331 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 0.331.

19. It is FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order will be sent to the
    Weblink Wireless, Inc., its representatives, and Myers Lazrus
    Technology Law Group by certified mail, return receipt requested.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Kathleen O'Brien Ham

Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: Petition for Reconsideration, filed by WebLink Wireless, Inc. on
    June 4, 2001 ("Petition"). Petition for Reconsideration, filed by
    Myers Lazrus Technology Law Group on June 4, 2001 ("Myers Lazrus
    Petition"). On June 18, 2001, Weblink filed a Response to Myers
    Lazrus's Petition for Reconsideration ("Weblink Response").

[^2]: Weblink Wireless, Inc Request for a Remedial Bidding Credit,
    *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 9420 (2001) ("*Order*").

[^3]: At the time of its participation in Auction No. 1 and Auction No.
    3, Weblink was known as Pagemart Wireless, Inc. Pagemart Wireless,
    Inc. changed its name to WebLink Wireless, Inc. on December 1, 1999.
    Pagemart Wireless, Inc. participated in Auction Nos. 1 and 3,
    through its subsidiary Pagemart II, Inc. Petition at 1, n.1;
    *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 9421, n.8 and n.14.

[^4]: "Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of Ten Nationwide
    Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total \$617,006,674," *Public
    Notice*, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994) ("*Nationwide Narrowband
    PCS Closing PN*"); "Narrowband PCS Nationwide Auction Winners,"
    *Public Notice*, PNWL 94-009, Report No. PCS-NB-94-1 (rel. Aug. 17,
    1994) ("*Nationwide Narrowband PCS Accepted for Filing PN*");
    "Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of 30 Regional
    Narrowband (PCS) Licenses; Winning Bids Total \$490,901,787,"
    *Public Notice*, PNWL 94-27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994) ("*Regional
    Narrowband PCS Closing PN*").

[^5]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \--
    Competitive Bidding and Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish New Narrowband Personal Communication Services, PP Docket
    No. 93-253*, Second Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2398-2400
    (1994) (*"Competitive Bidding Second Report and Order*");
    Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \--
    Competitive Bidding and Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish New Narrowband Personal Communication Services, PP Docket
    No. 93-253, *Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 2941 (1994)
    ("*Competitive Bidding Third Report and Order"*).

[^6]: *Competitive Bidding Third Report and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd at 2970 ¶
    72.

[^7]: *Nationwide Narrowband PCS Closing PN; Nationwide Narrowband PCS
    Accepted for Filing PN.* *Regional Narrowband PCS Closing PN*; "FCC
    Announces the Receipt of Down Payments from The High Bidders in the
    Auction of 30 Regional Narrowband PCS Licenses," *News Release*
    (rel. Nov. 29, 1994) ("*November 29^th^ News Release*").

[^8]: *Nationwide Narrowband PCS Closing PN; Nationwide Narrowband PCS
    Accepted for Filing PN.*

[^9]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \--
    Competitive Bidding and Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish New Narrowband Personal Communication Services, PP Docket
    No. 93-253, *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking*, 10 FCC Rcd 175, 201 ¶ 58, 215-16 ¶ 87
    (1994).

[^10]: *Regional Narrowband PCS Closing PN*; *November 29^th^ News
    Release.*

[^11]: *Adarand v. Pena*, 515 U.S. 200 (1995).

[^12]: "\[A\]ll racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal,
    state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing
    court under strict scrutiny. In other words, such classifications
    are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that
    further compelling governmental interests." *Id*. at 227.

[^13]: Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    *Competitive Bidding, Tenth Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 19,974,
    19,975-19,977, ¶¶ 1-3 (1996) ("*Competitive Bidding Tenth Report and
    Order*"); *see* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, *Sixth Memorandum Opinion
    and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd
    19,341, 19,369 ¶ 67 (1996) (proposed rules for the then-planned
    second IVDS auction)

[^14]: Weblink Request for Remedial Bidding Credit and Refund, filed
    June 8, 2000 ("Request").

[^15]: *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 9425.

[^16]: *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 9422-23.

[^17]: Under the doctrine of waiver, a party with sufficient opportunity
    to raise a challenge in a timely manner, but who fails to do so, is
    deemed to have waived the challenge and is precluded from waiving it
    in subsequent proceedings. *Adelphia Communications Corp. v. FCC*,
    88 F.3d 1250, 1256 (D.C. Cir. 1996); *Northwestern Indiana Telephone
    Co., Inc. v. FCC*, 872 F.2d 465, 470 (D.C. Cir. 1989); In the Matter
    of Community Teleplay, Inc., et. al., *Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 12,426,
    12,428 ¶ 5 (WTB 1998) ("*Community Teleplay"*); *Jerome Thomas
    Lamprecht*, 7 FCC Rcd 6794, 6794 (1992).

[^18]: Petition at 3-5. In the *218-219 MHz Third Order on
    Reconsideration*, the Commission provided a detailed history of the
    Commission's actions in the 218-219 MHz Service. Amendment of Part
    95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide Regulatory Flexibility in
    the 218-219 MHz Service, *Third Order on Reconsideration of the
    Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 17 FCC Rcd 8520,
    8521-8526, ¶¶ 2-13 (2002)("*218-219 MHz Third Order on
    Reconsideration*"). In light of our determination regarding the
    untimely nature of Weblink\'s actions, we see no reason to
    substantively explain how Weblink has mischaracterized the
    Commission\'s reasoning regarding the basis for the Commission's
    decision to eliminate bidding credits previously offered to women-
    and minority-owned businesses in the 218-219 MHz Service.  We note,
    however, that Weblink\'s characterization is not in line with the
    Commission\'s statements in that order.  *Id*.

[^19]: Petition at 3-5.

[^20]: Myers Lazrus Petition at 13-15.

[^21]: 47 U.S.C. § 405 (limiting the Commission's power to consider
    petitions for reconsideration to those filed within 30 days from
    public notice of the order, decision, report or action complained
    of); *see also Reuters Limited v. FCC*, 781 F.2d 946, 951-52 (D.C.
    Cir. 1986) (narrowly construing judicially created "extraordinary
    circumstances" exception to statutory time limit for filing
    petitions for reconsideration.)

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.106(f), 1.429.

[^23]: *Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at 9422-9424 ¶¶ 6-7.

[^24]: Letter to Thomas Gutierrez, Esq. from Kathleen O'Brien Ham,
    Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 17 FCC Rcd 13,289
    (2002) (denying request by Instapage Network Ltd. for remedial
    bidding credit for license won at Auction No. 3) ("*Instapage
    Letter*").

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1) (2001).

[^26]: *Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation*, 509 U.S. 86 (1993)
    ("*Harper*").

[^27]: Petition at 4.

[^28]: *Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury*, 489 U.S. 803 (1989)
    ("*Davis*").

[^29]: *Harper,* 509 U.S. 86.

[^30]: *Harper,* 509 U.S. at 97.

[^31]: *National Association of Broadcasters v. FCC*, 554 F.2d 1118
    (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("*NAB*").

[^32]: Petition at 4-5.

[^33]: *NAB*, 554 F.2d at 1127.

[^34]: *Id*.

[^35]: *See, e.g.,* In the Matter of Associated Broadcasters Licensee of
    KVEO-TV, Brownsville, Texas Request for Return of Forfeiture
    Payment, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 3324, 3329)
    (1997) (denying request that the Commission recalculate its
    forfeiture payment on the grounds that party failed to make a timely
    challenge to a Notice of Apparent Liability, stating that
    "\[u\]nlike the facts of *NAB v. FCC*, Associated points to no
    instance where the Commission suggested that it would issue refunds
    to parties who paid forfeitures imposed using the Policy Statement."
    )

[^36]: *Graceba Total Communications, Inc. v. FCC*, 115 F.3d 1038 (D.C.
    Cir. 1997).

[^37]: Petition at 5.

[^38]: *Order,* 16 FCC Rcd at 9424-25, ¶¶ 6-7.

[^39]: *Meredith Corp. v. FCC*, 809 F.2d 863 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

[^40]: *Id.* at 869-870.

[^41]: 115 F.3d 1038, 1041.

[^42]: *Order,* 16 FCC Rcd at 9422-9423 ¶6 (noting that Weblink had the
    opportunity to file comments objecting to the constitutionality of
    the proposed bidding credit rules in the proceedings resulting in
    the *Competitive Bidding Second Report and Order, Competitive
    Bidding Third Report and Order,* and the *Narrowband Third
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, but did not do so).

[^43]: Comments of Pagemart, Inc., In the Matter of Implementation of
    Section 309(j) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding
    Narrowband PCS, PP Docket No. 93-253 (filed September 16, 1994);
    *see also* *Competitive Bidding Third Report and Order,* 10 FCC Rcd
    at 201 ¶ 58 (Commission increased the bidding credit to 40 percent
    because women- and minority-owned bidders did not win any licenses
    in the nationwide narrowband PCS auction).

[^44]: *Community Teleplay*, 13 FCC Rcd 12,428.

[^45]: In its June 18, 2001 Response to the Myers Lazrus Petition for
    Reconsideration, Weblink stated that Myers Lazrus does not represent
    Weblink and was not authorized to file a Petition for
    Reconsideration on its behalf. Weblink Response at 1.

[^46]: Myers Lazrus Petition at 1-5. In order to assert third party
    standing: (1) the litigant must have suffered injury in fact, thus
    giving him or her sufficiently concrete interest in outcome of issue
    in dispute; (2) the litigant must have close relation to the third
    party; and (3) there must exist some hindrance to third party\'s
    ability to protect his or her own interests**.** *Powers v. Ohio*,
    499 U.S. 400, 411 (1991).

[^47]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(b)(1) provides that "any party to the
    proceeding, or any other person whose interests are adversely
    affected by any action taken by the Commission or by the designated
    authority, may file a petition requesting reconsideration of the
    action taken."

[^48]: *See* AT&T Corp., Complainant, v. Business Telecom, Inc.,
    Defendants, *Order on Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 21,750,
    21,753-21,754 ¶ 7 (2001); Chris C. Hudgins, *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 7941 (2001).

[^49]: Myers Lazrus Petition at 2.

[^50]: *Id.*

[^51]: *Id.* at 3.

[^52]: *See State Street Bank and Trust Company v. Arrow
    Communications*, 833 F.Supp. 41 (U.S.D.C. D.Mass. 1993) (court
    noting that objection of unsecured creditor of licensee to the
    assignment of license is a private matter outside Commission
    jurisdiction.)

[^53]: *Id*., at 45 (*citing* In re: KMJC-FM, Clinton, Iowa, Assignment
    of License, File No. BALH-921008HF, *Letter Ruling* (Feb. 25,
    1993)); *see also Banks Broadcasting Company*, 60 Rad. Reg. 2d (P &
    F) 1454 (1986) ("*Banks*"). *Banks* concerned an attempt to involve
    the Commission in a private dispute between the petitioners and
    their Board of Directors. The Commission rejected their arguments,
    finding that the petitioners failed to show that their interests had
    been adversely affected where their argument was premised upon the
    assumption that the modification of a Commission order would cause
    licensees to terminate an existing agreement and negotiate a more
    favorable one).

[^54]: Application of G & S Television Network, Inc. for Authority to
    Construct and Operate A Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service
    Station on F-Group Channels at Phoenix, Arizona, *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order*, 7 FCC Rcd 4509 (1992) (stating that party filing
    petition to deny impermissibly asserted third party standing).

[^55]: *Warth v. Seldin*, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975).

[^56]: *See, e.g., Instapage Letter*, n.23 *supra*.

[^57]: *See* Petition for Order to Declare a Common Fund, filed by Hill
    & Welch and Myers Keller Communications Law Group on March 8, 2000;
    *compare with* Myers Lazrus Petition.

[^58]: Hill and Welch and Myers Keller Communications Law Group, Request
    for Attorney Fees in Connection with 218-219 MHz Service Proceeding
    and Regional Narrowband PCS Service, *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 2432
    (2000), *aff'd on recon*, Hill and Welch and Myers Keller
    Communications Law Group, Request for Attorney Fees in Connection
    with 218-219 MHz Service Proceeding and Regional Narrowband PCS
    Service, *Order on Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 9485 (2001)
    ("*Common Fund Orders*").

[^59]: In this instance, the expense of time and resources to address
    what appear to be frivolous arguments is a detriment to the public
    interest.  We therefore put Myers Lazarus and any others similarly
    disposed on notice, that we are prepared to impose abuse of process
    remedies should meritless petitions be filed in the future.  *See*
    Commission Taking Tough Measures against Frivolous Pleadings,
    *Public Notice*, FCC No. 96-42, 11 FCC Rcd 3030 (1996).

[^60]: *See* Applications of No Wire, LLC, *Order on Reconsideration*,
    15 FCC Rcd 10,257 (2000).