WPC+Q 2B3X Z3|I (TT)Times New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)"5^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777C7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSx]AN:*KS7JSSSSS.4}}S2~~S}277JJS77SS7J72N7[[^C`^SS`*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZv7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7~.S^7~SC[227`K*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MXXHPLA5SMX.WRSC\  P6Q,,,c#aP2 *4RDX3|jTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)"qwPy.C8*X/C\  P6QP2I=.X &I\  P6Q&P.2N=.X&N4  pQ&7PC2XXP\  P6QXPSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\nBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&I\  P6Qu&P#"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\nBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\22K KQKK"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$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddxHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxd"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8pdppXLDpdddXP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\4  pG;2Do9_<O?Z?B"5^.=f\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====I=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQzQzQzQ\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\\fGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7N=ddhIih\\i.=f\\3==\h.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==hhh\zzpG\zpfzz=3=j\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=\\\\=f===\\@\=G=.=\\\\(\=7\h=\Id77=ic.=7=\\zzzzGGGGhpf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\d\ffff\f"5^2BQdd$BBdq2B28dddddddddd88qqqYzoBNzoozzB8B^dBYdYdYBdd88d8ddddBN8ddddY`(`l2BBBBPBddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYB8B8B8B8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYzYzYzYdddddPdBdBBBdNdoNNF2ZdBYddddd7>d<d<BBYYdBBddBYBdYzzzzBBBBqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd"5^2BoddȦ8BBdr2B28ddddddddddBBrrrdzNdzoȐB8BtdBdoYoYBdo8Bo8odooYNBodddYO,Oh2BBBBPBdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYdddooPoNoNBNoddȐoNNF2ldBddddddd<d<BBoodBBddBoBddzzzzzzzzzzBBBBozdddddddYYYYY8888dddddddndddddYd"5^(1<"(#L 1 XxPII. BACKGROUND p>"(#L 2 XxPIII. DISCUSSION p>"(#L 9 XxX` ` xA. High Plains' Petition ` p>"(#L 9 XxX` ` xB. Mercury's Petition ` p!(#F 15 XxPIV. CONCLUSION p"(#I 22 XxPV. ORDERING CLAUSES p"(#I 23  X!-m I. INTRODUCTION ׃  Xg#-  x1. On September 22, 1997, High Plains Wireless L.P. (High Plains) filed a petition for  XD$- xNpartial reconsiderationD$ yO&-ԍxHigh Plains' Petition for Partial Reconsideration (Sept. 22, 1997) (High Plains' Petition). of the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Wireless  xTelecommunications Bureau (Bureau) on August 21, 1997, which conditionally granted 23 of  xiMercury PCS II, LLC's (Mercury's) applications for broadband Personal Communications Services"&X, * *,,&" (PCS) D, E, and F block licenses and deferred action on nine other such applications.%~ yOy-  ԍxApplications of Mercury PCS II, LLC for Authority to Construct and Operate Broadband PCS Systems on  {OA-Frequency Blocks D, E, and F, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 971782 (rel. Aug. 21, 1997) (Order).%  xHigh Plains seeks reconsideration of the Bureau's decision, arguing that Mercury's bid signaling  xin the D, E, and F block auction reflects on its character and makes it unfit to be a Commission  X- xlicensee.L"~ yOj-ԍxHigh Plains' Petition at 5.L High Plains also asserts that the Bureau failed to consider the full record with respect  Xt- xto one of Mercury's principals who had knowledge of High Plains' bidding strategy.Ct~ {O -ԍxId. at 710.C On  XQ- xSeptember 23, 1997, Mercury filed a petition for reconsideration of the Bureau's Order,  xjchallenging the addition of conditions to its 23 licenses and requesting immediate action on its  X - x>remaining nine applications.AX D~ yO-  ԍxMercury's Petition for Reconsideration (Sept. 23, 1997) (Mercury's Petition). A list of the 23 licenses  x-previously granted to Mercury is contained in Appendix A and a list of Mercury's nine remaining applications is contained in Appendix B.A According to Mercury, the Commission has granted licenses  xunconditionally to a "multitude" of other applicants who have engaged in conduct similar to its  xxown during the course of Commission auctions, and the Bureau had no basis for treating Mercury  X- xdifferently.Rd ~ yO-ԍxMercury's Petition at ii and 79.R For the reasons stated below, we deny High Plains' Petition for Partial  xReconsideration, grant in part Mercury's Petition for Reconsideration, and grant Mercury's nine remaining applications.  X - II. BACKGROUND ׃  X -  x2. Emergency Motion. During the course of the D, E, and F block auction, which was  xconducted from August 26, 1996, to January 14, 1997, High Plains filed an Emergency Motion  xfor Disqualification with the Commission, alleging that in some of Mercury's bids, Mercury had  x.incorporated threedigit market numbers into the last digits of its bids as a means of sending a  XF- xsignal to High Plains.F ~ yO-#C\  P6QɒP#эxHigh Plains' Emergency Motion for Disqualification at 3 (Nov. 26, 1996). High Plains argued that Mercury's use of such "trailing numbers" was  xLintended as a warning that if High Plains did not cease bidding for the Lubbock, Texas F block  xlicense, Mercury would retaliate by outbidding High Plains for the Amarillo, Texas F block  X- xlicense.B ~ {O"-ԍxId. at 34.B High Plains alleged that this use of trailing numbers violated the Commission's anti xcollusion rule, which prohibits communications between bidders for common markets regarding  xbidding or bidding strategy after the filing of shortform applications and prior to the submission",l(l(,,"  X- xyof down payments.% F~ yOy-  0ԍxThe Commission's anticollusion rule, which is set forth at 47 C.F.R.  1.2105(c), was adopted in the  {OA- xSecond Report and Order in the Competitive Bidding Docket to prevent potential collusive conduct among bidders  xin the Commission's auctions. Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding,  {O- xSecond Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 23862388 (1994). The rule prohibits auction participants from  x"cooperating, collaborating, discussing or disclosing in any manner the substance of their bids or bidding strategies  {Oe- x. . . with other applicants," except in narrowly defined instances not relevant here. See also Public Notice, "Wireless  xTelecommunications Bureau Provides Guidance on the AntiCollusion Rule for D, E, and F Block Bidders," DA 961460 (rel. Aug. 28, 1996).% In response, Mercury argued that, to the best of its knowledge, it had not  xviolated any Commission rule, and that its use of trailing numbers was a common practice  X-utilized by many other participants in the D, E, and F block auction. ~ yOA -#C\  P6QɒP#эxMercury's Opposition to Emergency Motion at 7 (Dec. 6, 1996).   x3. At the close of the auction, High Plains was the high bidder for the Amarillo F block  xlicense and the Lubbock D block license. Mercury was the high bidder for the Lubbock F block  x!license, as well as D, E, and F block licenses in 31 other markets. In light of High Plains'  xallegations and Mercury's response, the Bureau initiated a general investigation to determine the  xextent to which bidders in the D, E, and F block auction might have engaged in bid signaling,  xusing trailing numbers or other means, and whether such activity violated the anticollusion rule.  xIn addition, during the auction the Bureau issued a notice to all D, E, and F block bidders alerting  xthem to High Plains' allegations and inviting them to review the anticollusion rule and assess  X\ - xjwhether they were complying with the letter and spirit of the rule. \ f ~ yOs-  #C\  P6QɒP#эxCommission Announcement No. 47 of the D, E, and F Block Auction, entitled "Signalling Bids" (rel. Dec. 20, 1996). The Bureau also forwarded  x[High Plains' motion to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which commenced a civil investigation  X -into bidding activity in the D, E, and F block auction as well as other Commission auctions.U  ~ yO-ԍxDOJ's investigation remains ongoing.U  X -  x4. High Plains' Petition to Deny. On March 21, 1997, High Plains filed a petition to  x deny all of Mercury's applications, repeating its earlier allegations regarding Mercury's bid  X- xsignaling behavior._ N ~ yO-ԍxHigh Plains' Petition to Deny (Mar. 21, 1997)._ In opposition, Mercury acknowledged that it had used trailing numbers in  Xg- xits bids, but denied that such conduct violated the anticollusion rule.g~ yO -#C\  P6QɒP#эxMercury's Opposition to Petition to Deny (Apr. 8, 1997). In its Order of August  XF- xL21, 1997, the Bureau conditionally granted 23 of Mercury's applications and deferred action on  xthe remaining nine applications. The Bureau determined that the evidence collected to that point  xindicated that bid signaling using trailing numbers had occurred in nine of the markets in which  X- xMercury was the high bidder and not in the other 23.En~ {O%-ԍxOrder,  6.E The Bureau concluded that, since no  xevidence existed that Mercury had engaged in bid signaling in 23 of the 32 markets, "it would",l(l(,,"  xbest serve the public interest to permit construction of facilities necessary to provide a valuable  X- xznew telecommunications service subject to the outcome of the [ongoing investigations]."J~ {OV-ԍxId.,  7. J  xHowever, the Bureau also decided that further investigation was necessary to determine whether  xgrant of the licenses in the nine markets in which bid signaling had occurred would be in the  xZpublic interest and deferred action on those nine applications pending completion of the Bureau's  XQ-investigation.:QZ~ {O\-ԍxId.:  X -  | x5. High Plains' Petition for Partial Reconsideration. In its petition, High Plains argues  xthat grant of the 23 licenses was premature because of the ongoing investigation and the  xKpossibility that the Commission would determine that Mercury's behavior in the nine markets was  xysufficient to render Mercury ineligible to hold these nine licenses. According to High Plains, if  X - xMercury is found to be unfit to hold nine licenses, it is unfit to hold any licenses.vX ~ yO-  ^ԍxHigh Plains' Petition at 5. High Plains points to the September 10, 1997 letter from the Bureau's  xYEnforcement and Consumer Information Division (Enforcement Division) as evidence that the Bureau has launched a full scale investigation into Mercury's fitness to be a Commission licensee.v At the very  xleast, High Plains maintains that the Bureau should have refrained from any action on Mercury's  X9 - xxapplications until completion of the ongoing investigations.C9 ~ {O-ԍxId. at 67. C In addition, High Plains argues that  xit submitted numerous documents demonstrating that William Mounger (Mounger), a member of  xMercury's control group who held an interest in a limited partner of High Plains, had detailed  xknowledge of High Plains' business plans and auction strategy, and it alleges that Mercury used  X- xthis knowledge in sending bid signals in the course of the D, E, and F block auction.C~ {O-ԍxId. at 710.C  xLAccording to High Plains, the Bureau failed to consider this documentation in concluding that  xHigh Plains "failed to present evidence of specific knowledge or communication by Mounger to  XD- xsupport its allegations."\D0 ~ {O%-ԍxId. at 7, citing Order,  8.\ High Plains concludes that all of Mercury's D, E, and F block license  X!-applications should be denied.[! ~ yO-ԍxHigh Plains' Petition at iii, 2, 5, 7, 11.[  X-  {x6. In opposition, Mercury asserts that the Bureau's Order made no determination of any  xjcharacter flaws on Mercury's part and "affirmatively determined that the twentythree Mercury  X- x[applications should be granted, regardless of what is found in [the] investigation."R ~ yO$-ԍxMercury's Opposition to Petition for Partial Reconsideration at 3 (Oct. 7, 1997). Mercury  x<responds to High Plains' argument that the Bureau should defer action on Mercury's applications  xuntil completion of the pending investigation by contending that grant of all of the applications  xLof the 50 parties included in the Bureau's investigation are automatically conditioned upon the".,l(l(,,"  x\outcome of the investigation and to "single out" Mercury for additional penalties would be  X- xarbitrary and capricious.@~ {OV-ԍxId. at 4.@ Finally, Mercury argues that (i) Mounger ceased his involvement in  x the minority limited partner in High Plains in 1994; (ii) minority partners in High Plains were  xjpermitted to receive information regarding High Plains' bidding strategies only if they executed  x certain documents designed to safeguard the bidding strategies, and no Mercury principal  xexecuted such documents or received or used any confidential information from High Plains; and  x\(iii) the correspondence relied on by High Plains as evidence of conveyance of confidential  xinformation provides only general information and fails to satisfy the statute's requirement of  X-specificity.BZ~ {O -ԍxId. at 48.B  X-  x7. Mercury's Petition for Reconsideration. In its petition, Mercury asserts that the  X - xBureau's deferral of action on nine of its applications was unjustified and irrational.K ~ yO-ԍxMercury's Petition at 78.K According  xzto Mercury, there is no need for further investigation or for a hearing because it has already  x-explained all the relevant facts and the issue of whether its bid signaling behavior was a violation  X - xof Section 1.2105(c) is purely a question of law.A |~ {OC-ԍxId. at 10.A Mercury further argues that the decision to  xdefer the grant of its applications was unwarranted because it amounts to disparate treatment of  X - xsimilarly situated applicants, i.e., applicants who engaged in similar conduct.B ~ {O-ԍxId. at 79.B Mercury maintains  xmthat bid signaling is a legitimate strategy in a competitive auction and that even if the  xLCommission determines that bid signaling is prohibited, the rules are too vague to be enforced  Xi- xxat this juncture.@i~ {O-ԍxId. at 6.@ Finally, Mercury seeks expeditious action on its petition so that it may compete  XF-in the marketplace.EF2 ~ {O)-ԍxId. at 1516. E   lx8. In opposition, High Plains argues that the anticollusion rule contains a clear warning  xthat communication of bidding strategies to other bidders is prohibited e#of,  and Mercury's use of  X- x[trailing numbers unquestionably constitutes prohibited communication. ~ yO/"-  {ԍxHigh Plains' Opposition to Mercury's Petition for Reconsideration at 23 (Oct. 7, 1997) (High Plains' Opposition). Further, High Plains  xcontends that Mercury's reliance on the "everyone's doing it" defense is misplaced because the  xZactivities of other parties in the auction are not relevant to whether Mercury acted improperly and  XQ- xviolated the Commission's anticollusion rule.@ Q~ {O'-ԍxId. at 4.@ While High Plains recognizes the need to"Q ,l(l(,,"  xexpeditiously resolve petitions, it submits that "fundamental notions of equity and due process  xmandate that disposition not come at the expense of a thorough investigation into and  X- x.consideration of the issues involved in the Commission's proceeding."@!~ {O3-ԍxId. at 6.@ High Plains opposes  xexpeditious treatment of Mercury's applications if it would compromise the Bureau's ongoing  Xt-investigation.A"tZ~ {O-ԍxId. at 9. A  XQ- III. DISCUSSION ׃  X -x A. High Plains' Petition   X-  x9. Character Issue. In a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NALF) released on  xOctober 28, 1997, the Commission concluded its investigation into the bid signaling behavior of  xMercury in the D, E, and F block auction. The Commission determined that Mercury's use of  x"reflexive bid signaling" a type of bidding that involves a bidder placing a bid in one market  xin which the final three digits of the bid reflect the threedigit BTA number of a second market  xthat the bidder is targeting or that a competitor is targeting was a disclosure of its bidding  xstrategy in violation of the anticollusion rule, and assessed Mercury a forfeiture in the amount  X - xof $650,000.0# ~ yOm-   ԍxApplications of Mercury PCS II, LLC for Facilities in the Broadband Personal Communications Systems  {O5-in the D, E, and F Blocks, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 97388 (rel. Oct. 28, 1997) (NALF).0 Nonetheless, we conclude herein that Mercury is qualified to be a Commission  X- x=licensee. The evaluation of an applicant's character qualifications is not an end in itself, but is  xyinstead a step in the process through which we determine whether the public interest would be  Xg- xzserved by grant of a particular application.$$gF~ {O^-  #C\  P6QɒP#эxSee 47 U.S.C.  307(a) and 309(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; see also In re  {O(- xApplication of Richard Richards, 10 FCC Rcd 3950, 3955 (1995) (the purpose behind the Character Policy Statement  x-is not to pass moral judgment on applicants, but to determine if the public interest will be served by grant of the specific application before us). In order to establish a substantial and material  xquestion of fact regarding Mercury's fitness to be a licensee, the petitioner must establish not only  xthat Mercury violated a Commission rule, but that Mercury's conduct raises sufficient questions  X- x{regarding its character to warrant possible disqualification.0%2 ~ {O-  #C\  P6QɒP#эxSee In the Matter of Policy Regarding Character Qualifications In Broadcast Licensing, Report, Order and  {O- xPolicy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986)  {Ou - xh(hereinafter, Character Policy Statement). Although the policies established in the Character Policy Statement were  xestablished to determine the qualifications of broadcast applicants, they also set forth the analytical framework under  {O"- xwhich the Commission determines character qualifications of nonbroadcast applicants. See Western  {O"- xTelecommunications, Inc., 3 FCC Rcd 6405 (1988) (Character Policy Statement used to evaluate qualifications of  {O#- xmicrowave radio licensees); A.S.D. Answer Service, Inc., 1 FCC Rcd (1986) (Character Policy Statement standards  xLapplied to a domestic public radio service application). Accordingly, we will use the standards outlined in the  {O-%-Character Policy Statement as a guideline in this instance.0 Although violations of the  xCommission's rules may result in forfeitures or other penalties, not all violations necessarily rise"%,l(l(,,"  X- xto the level of disqualifying an applicant.&~ {Oy-  N#C\  P6QɒP#эxSee, e.g., WPOM Radio Partners, Ltd., 6 FCC Rcd 1413,1414 (Audio Services Division, MMB, 1991)  xx(although licensee violated several rules, the allegations made did not raise a substantial question of fact regarding  {O - xithe licensee's fitness to be a Commission licensee); Virginia RSA 6 Cellular Limited Partnership, 6 FCC Rcd 405,  x407 (1991) (while premature construction is a violation of the Commission's rules, it does not warrant inquiry into  yO-the applicant's fitness to be a Commission licensee).  A range of sanctions, short of denying an application,  xare available to the Commission, and in only the most egregious cases should termination of all  X-rights be considered.f'|~ {O-ԍxCharacter Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d at 1228.f   ^x 10. In examining character issues relating to violations of the Commission's rules, we  XQ- xconcentrate on the "truthfulness" and "reliability" of the proposed licensee. (Q~ {O -  #C\  P6QɒP#эxCharacter Policy Statement at 1209 (Commission determined that "the relevant character traits with which it is concerned are those of 'truthfulness' and 'reliability'").  Based on the facts  xpresented, we must determine whether the proposed licensee will be forthright in its future  xidealings with the Commission and utilize its licenses in accordance with the Communications Act,  X- xthe Commission's rules, and its policies.)$h ~ {O-  z#C\  P6QɒP#эxId. (Commission examines whether "the licensee will in the future be likely to be forthright in its dealings  xwith the Commission and to operate its stations consistent with the requirements of the Communications Act and the  {O- xCommission Rules and policies"); see also HHT/Estate of Robert D. Hanna, 8 FCC Rcd 6638, 6638 (Domestic Facilities Division, CCB, 1993).  In order to accord proper weight to the rule violation  xin relation to the licensee's ability to be truthful and reliable in future dealings with the  xCommission as well as its ability to operate the facility in the public interest, we consider the  xnature of the violation, the circumstances surrounding it, and whether the misconduct was isolated  X\ -or recurring and whether it was inadvertent or deliberate.R*\ T ~ {Oa-ԍx Id. at 1210 n.76 and 1226.R   lx 11. The allegations of reflexive bid signaling before us raise serious concerns. The anti xcollusion rule was adopted to protect the integrity and robustness of the Commission's  xcompetitive bidding process, and the conveyance of bidding information among bidders in a  X- x-manner that violates this rule undermines this process.+~ {OD-  ԍxImplementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act Competitive Bidding, Memorandum Opinion  {O -and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7684, 7688 (1994). Nonetheless, there is no indication that  xMercury has shown a lack of truthfulness or reliability in its dealings with the Commission, with  xHigh Plains, or with other applicants or licensees. There is no allegation that Mercury has  xzattempted to deceive or mislead the Commission or other parties participating in the auction  xregarding its actions. To the contrary, Mercury has forthrightly admitted that it used trailing  X- xnumbers as alleged.,B~ yO%-  zԍxWe also note that our investigation has determined that Mercury's reflexive bid signaling activities ceased subsequent to our December 20, 1996 notice alerting the D, E, and F block participants to High Plains' allegations. Moreover, we have no reason to doubt Mercury's assertion that its use of  x=reflexive bid signaling was undertaken in the belief that its behavior was permissible under the",,l(l(,, "  xCommission's rules. While the Commission has concluded that Mercury's use of reflexive bid  xKsignaling during the course of the auction is a violation of the anticollusion rule, there is nothing  xin the record to suggest that Mercury will not deal truthfully with the Commission in the future.  xIn sum, we find that the facts established regarding Mercury's bid signaling activities do not  xdisqualify Mercury from becoming a Commission licensee, and conclude that the public interest  xwill be served by granting the licenses so that the public may be provided with new services as quickly as possible.  X-  @x 12. Mounger. High Plains also contends that the Bureau failed to correctly evaluate  X- xwhether it made a prima facie case with respect to its allegations that Mounger had detailed  x>knowledge of High Plains' business plans and auction strategy and that Mercury used this  X - x\knowledge to send bid signals during the course of the auction.N- ~ yO -ԍxHigh Plains' Petition at 79.N High Plains states that it  xprovided the Bureau with a specific factual basis for its assertions and submitted several letters  xsupporting its allegation that Mounger had detailed knowledge of High Plains' intentions, plans,  X -and strategies.B. X~ {O!-ԍxId. at 89.B   0x 13. Under Section 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, parties filing  xa petition to deny must present allegations that, if true, are sufficient to show that a grant of the  X- x{application would be prima facie inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and  Xk- xnecessity.T/k~ {O-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(1).T A finding of a prima facie case is based on the facts, standing alone, along with  XJ- xxsupported or reasonable inferences.{0J|~ {Ow-ԍxSee North Idaho Broadcasting Company, 8 FCC Rcd 1637, 1639 (1993). { The petitioner bears the burden of pleading sufficient facts  X'- xjto establish a prima facie case and these facts must be supported by an affidavit from persons  X- x-with personal knowledge.1~ {O-  >ԍx See 47 U.S.C.  309(d)(2); see also American Mobilephone, Inc. and RAM Technologies, Inc., 10 FCC Rcd 12,297 (1995). Allegations that are conclusory or are based simply on belief are not  X-sufficient to satisfy this test.2h ~ {O-   ԍxSee generally Gencom, Inc. v. FCC, 832 F.2d 171, 181, n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (general allegations based on information or belief are not sufficient).  X-  x 14. Having thoroughly considered the documents it has submitted, we believe that High  Xz- xlPlains has failed to present a prima facie case. High Plains' allegations rely on facts and  xinferences unsupported by affidavits from persons with personal knowledge. The documents and  xletters submitted by High Plains are not adequate substitutes for the required affidavits from  X- xpersons with personal knowledge.3 ~ {O&-  jԍxSee WFBM, Inc., 47 FCC 2d 1267 (1974) ("allegations of fact, except for those of which official notice may be taken, must also be supported by a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof"). Moreover, High Plains has failed to set forth specific factual"3,l(l(,,1"  xallegations with regard to the alleged behavior of Mounger. Instead, High Plains relies upon  xconclusory and speculative assertions and unsubstantiated opinion that Mounger possessed and  xused knowledge about High Plains' business plans and auction strategy. The letters submitted  x-by High Plains as support for this contention do not provide the necessary evidence. One of the  xletters, which is addressed to "Interest Owners," provides general information about the formation  xof High Plains and its intent to participate in the PCS auction. While another letter provides  xmore detailed information about capital calls approved to fund participation in the auction, High  x-Plains provides no evidence that Mounger received this letter. Moreover, Mounger's knowledge  xof High Plains' plans for the D, E, and F block auction by itself would not be a violation of the  xCommission's rules, and High Plains has presented no evidence that Mounger used any such  xiinformation on behalf of Mercury. In light of the absence of any such evidence or documentation  X - xMsupported by affidavits, we find that High Plains has failed to present a prima facie case of Mounger's having violated the Commission's anticollusion rule.  X - xB. Mercury's Petition   X -  x15. Conditional Grants. Mercury seeks reconsideration of the Bureau's decision to defer  xaction on its nine remaining applications and requests the immediate and unconditional grant of  X- xthese applications.I4~ yO-ԍxMercury's Petition at 1.I Likewise, Mercury requests reconsideration of our decision to place  Xi-conditions upon the 23 licenses already granted.:5iX~ {Or-ԍxId.:   X#-  x16. The Bureau, in its Order, determined that action on nine of Mercury's applications  xshould be deferred because the evidence indicated that Mercury used bid signaling in these  xmarkets and "further investigation [was] necessary to determine whether grant of the nine  X- xinvolved licenses would be in the public interest . . . ."E6~ {OW-ԍxOrder,  6.E The Bureau further noted that since  xthere was no evidence of bid signaling in the remaining 23 markets, a conditional grant of  xMercury's applications for these markets would best serve the public interest by expediting the  XS- xavailability of a valuable new service.:7S|~ {O-ԍxId.: We find no basis for reversing that decision. We do not  xiagree with Mercury's contention that a large number of other applicants have engaged in conduct  xsimilar to its own during the course of the Commission's auctions. As the Commission indicated  xin the NALF, bidding techniques such as jump bidding, bid withdrawals, and retaliatory bidding  xKmay have been used by other bidders to warn or punish competing bidders, but these techniques  xdo not involve such direct and specifically targeted offers of collusion as the reflexive bid  X- xsignaling Mercury engaged in.E8~ {O@%-ԍxNALF,  21.E In light of this important distinction, we do not believe that our  xearlier decision subjected Mercury to unwarranted disparate treatment. Moreover, no petitions  x|to deny alleging bid signaling activities were filed against any other D, E, and F block"; 8,l(l(,,Y"  xparticipants. We note also that, while our investigation into Mercury's reflexive bid signaling  xbehavior has concluded, we are proceeding with our investigation of bid signaling in general,  xjincluding other auction participants who may have engaged in prohibited behavior. Under the  xcircumstances, we believe our action placed Mercury in as equitable a position as possible with  xrespect to other D, E, and F block licensees who were also subject to ongoing scrutiny, while  xpreserving our ability to take action against Mercury, had our investigation revealed that Mercury  X.-did not possess the requisite basic qualifications to remain a Commission licensee.>9Z.~ {O-  /ԍxCharacter Policy Statement at 1225 (allowing an acquisition does not affect the Commission's discretion  xto take action if it is ultimately revealed that the applicant does not possess the basic qualifications to remain a licensee).>  X-  !x17. The Bureau's Order stated that its actions were based upon the continuation of the  xongoing investigation which would lead to a determination of whether Mercury violated the  xCommission's anticollusion rule, whether any violation would implicate Mercury's qualifications  X - xLto be a Commission licensee, and what sanction, if any, would be appropriate.E: ~ {O-ԍxOrder,  7.E As discussed  xMabove, in the NALF released on October 28, 1997, the Commission concluded that Mercury  x=violated the Commission's anticollusion rule and assessed Mercury a forfeiture in the amount  X - xof $650,000.E; |~ {OE-ԍxNALF,  24.E Further, in paragraphs 911 herein, we determined that Mercury's reflexive bid  x=signaling activities did not disqualify Mercury from becoming a Commission licensee. Having  xconcluded our investigation into Mercury's bid signaling activities, we believe that the public  x/interest would best be served by unconditionally granting the remaining nine applications.  xFurthermore, although we do not reverse our earlier decision to place conditions upon Mercury's  x23 previously granted licenses, these conditions no longer exist because they were put in place  xduring the pendency of an investigation that has been concluded. We note that our decision to  xiunconditionally grant the nine previously deferred applications should in no way be construed as  x<prejudging or circumscribing the scope or potential outcome of DOJ's ongoing investigation, and  xwe emphasize that our grant is without prejudice to any future action the Commission may take  x[in light of that investigation. Moreover, Mercury is subject to the ongoing enforcement of the Commission's rules as is any other licensee.  XQ-  x18. Other matters. In order to proceed with the Bureau's investigation into High Plains'  xlallegations of bid signaling, the Enforcement Division, on September 10, 1997, requested  x.additional information from Mercury. On September 17, 1997, Mercury submitted its response  xto the Enforcement Division's letter under seal and, pursuant to Section 0.457(d) of the  x=Commission's rules, requested confidentiality asking that its response be withheld from public  X- xyinspection.R<~ {Oa$-ԍxSee 47 C.F.R  0.457(d).R This response was not made available to High Plains during the pendency of the  xyconfidentiality request. In its opposition to Mercury's petition for reconsideration, High Plains  xOobjects to Mercury's failure to provide High Plains with a copy of its response to the  x[Enforcement Division. According to High Plains, this impairs High Plains' ability to participate"9 <,l(l(,,;"  X-in the reconsideration proceeding.N=~ yOy-ԍxHigh Plains' Opposition at 8.N   ^x19. On October 20, 1997, the Enforcement Division granted Mercury's confidentiality  xrequest in part and denied it in part, treating as confidential Mercury's responses to Questions 5  Xt- xand 6 and Schedules 5 and 6.>tX~ {O}-  ԍxSee Letter to Thomas Gutierrez, Esq., from Howard Davenport, Chief, Enforcement and Consumer Information Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Oct. 20, 1997). In addition, the Enforcement Division determined that the  x]materials treated as confidential were to be disclosed to High Plains under the terms of a  X.- xconcurrently released protective order.?.~ {O -  ԍxSee In the Matter of Applications of Mercury PCS II, LLC for Authority to Construct and Operate Broadband PCS Systems on Frequency Blocks D, E, and F, Protective Order (rel. Oct. 20, 1997). However, this information has not yet been disclosed  xbecause, on October 27, 1997, Mercury filed an Application for Review of the Enforcement  xjDivision's action. Although Mercury's entitlement to confidentiality remains subject to further  x{review, we conclude it has no bearing on the reconsideration issues before us here. The  xjinformation sought by the Enforcement Division pertained to the bid signaling investigation in  xythe NALF proceeding, and is reflected in the NALF adopted by the Commission. To the extent  xMercury's response contains information not provided to High Plains or subject to its review, it  X9 -has not been considered herein.Y@\9 ~ {O-  ԍxSee generally In the Matter of the People of the State of California and the Public Utility Commission of  {O- xKCalifornia to Retain Regulatory Authority over Intrastate Cellular Service Rates, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 7486, 75067508 (1995).Y   x20. Additionally, High Plains argues that Mercury has improperly attempted to influence  X - xthe Commission's deliberative processes through ex parte communications from members of  X- xCongress, and that this effort reflects on Mercury's qualifications to be a Commission licensee.UA0 ~ yO-ԍxHigh Plains' Opposition at 14.U  xDuring the course of this proceeding, the Commission received numerous letters from  x>Congressional offices filed on behalf of Mercury regarding the petition to deny and related  XF- xproceedings.% Bb F ~ {O-  ԍxSee Letter to Reed E. Hundt, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission from Senator Thad Cochran  x(Oct. 1, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman Roger F. Wicker (Sept. 29, 1997); Letter to Chairman  xHundt from Congressman Bob Clement (Sept. 29, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator Fred Thompson  xand Senator Bill Frist (Sept. 25, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator John Ashcroft (Sept. 9, 1997); Letter  xxto Chairman Hundt from Congressman Ron Lewis (Sept. 4, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman  xJohn J. Duncan (Aug. 20, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman Richard H. Baker (Aug. 13, 1997);  xLetter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman Chris John (Aug. 7, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from  xCongressman Spencer T. Bachus, III (Aug. 7, 1997); Letter to Director, Legislative Affairs, Federal Communications  xCommission from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Aug. 5, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator Bob  xxGraham and Senator Connie Mack (Aug. 1, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator John Breaux (Aug. 1,  xh1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman Van Hillearly (July 31, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from  xCongressman F. Allen Boyd, Jr. (July 30, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator Jeff Sessions (July 29,"Q'A,l(l('"  x1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman Bud Cramer (July 28, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from  xCongressman Chip Pickering (July 24, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman Mac Thornberry (July  xY23, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator Richard Shelby (July 23, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from  xCongressman Joe Scarborough (July 22, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman Bob Riley and  xCongressman Robert Aderholt (July 22, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congresswoman Ann M. Northup  xI (July 18, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator Trent Lott and Senator Thad Cochran (July 17, 1997); Letter  xto Chairman Hundt from Congressman Bob Clement (July 15, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator Mitch  xZMcConnell (July 11, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator Fred Thompson (July 11, 1997); Letter to  xChairman Hundt from Congressman Roger F. Wicker (July 9, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Congressman Mike Parker (July 9, 1997); Letter to Chairman Hundt from Senator Bill Frist (May 14, 1997).% In general, these letters expressed concern regarding possible delay in acting on"F ` B,l(l(,,*"  xxMercury's applications, and questioned whether Mercury was being treated similarly to other PCS  X- xapplicants subject to investigations for bid signaling. Pursuant to the Commission's ex parte  x\rules, the Office of the General Counsel responded to the letters, advised the authors of the  X- xCommission's ex parte rules, placed the letters in the public file, and forwarded copies of the letters to the parties.  X2-  x21. We do not find that the submission of ex parte communications by members of  xCongress raises a character issue with respect to Mercury's qualifications as a licensee. To the  xextent that these communications concern the status of proceedings, they are permissible under  x.our rules. To the extent that such communications address the merits, and therefore would be  X- xzconsidered ex parte communications, they have been placed in the record and served on all  X - x.parties as required by the ex parte rules, thus curing any potential violation. In any event, we  Xf - x-do not believe that possible ex parte violations by third parties are attributable to Mercury under  x<the circumstances presented here. Although Mercury could presumably have been more diligent  xin alerting members of Congress to the restricted nature of the proceedings, we do not find that  xaction is warranted on this basis. Nevertheless, we admonish Mercury to exercise great care to  X -ensure that it complies fully with the ex parte rules in the future.  X- IV. CONCLUSION ׃   Ax22. Having reviewed the pleadings filed in this matter, we find no substantial and  xmaterial questions of fact regarding Mercury's basic qualifications to be a Commission licensee  x[in all 32 markets. We conclude that a grant of Mercury's remaining nine applications will serve  xthe public interest, convenience, and necessity. Therefore, we deny High Plains' Petition for  xPartial Reconsideration. Further, we grant in part Mercury's Petition for Reconsideration and grant Mercury's remaining nine applications.  X]-6 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ׃  X:-   x23. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications  x>Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  1.106, the Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed on September 22, 1997, by High Plains Wireless L.P. IS HEREBY DENIED.   1x24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications"h ` B,l(l(,,"  X- x>Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on September 23, 1997, by Mercury PCS II, LLC, IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.  Xt-  1x25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications  XQ- xAct of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Sections 1.2107, 1.2109, 24.708, and 24.716  xzof the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.2107, 1.2109, 24.708, and 24.716, the nine remaining  x?applications of Mercury PCS II, LLC, set forth in Appendix B ARE HEREBY GRANTED.  xGrant of each license set forth in Appendix B is expressly conditioned on Mercury's submission  X- xjof the required payment for each license, as set forth in the Public Notice released on April 28,  X- xN1997,C~ {O -  ԍxPublic Notice," FCC Announces Grant of Broadband Personal Communications Services D, E, and F Block BTA Licenses," DA 97883 (Apr. 28, 1997). within 10 business days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order on  X -Reconsideration. x` `  hh@FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hh@ x` `  hh@Daniel B. Phythyon x` `  hh@Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau"m "C,l(l(,,"  X-) APPENDIX A ĐTPT  Mercury PCS II, LLC Applications Previously Granted TP  XQ-xMarket BlockFile No.@Location  X -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: