**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matters of )

)

ANN M. COUGHLIN ) File Nos. D034057, D034058, D033753

d/b/a AFHJ LIMITED PARTNERS, )

)

CALIFORNIA 220 HOLDINGS I, L.C., ) File No. D033751

)

CALIFORNIA 220 HOLDINGS V, L.C., ) File No. D033755

)

CALIFORNIA 220 HOLDINGS VI, L.C., ) File No. D034048

)

CANDICE PARTNERSHIP, ) File No. D033742

)

CLARENCE E. TROEGEL ) File No. D033741

d/b/a STINSON COMMUNICATIONS, )

)

FISHTERRACE PARTNERSHIP, ) File No. D033749

)

PACIFIC COAST 220 HOLDINGS II, L.C., ) File No. D034040

)

SNYDER PARTNERSHIP, ) File No. D033748

)

WASHINGTON 220 HOLDINGS IV, L.C., ) File No. D034030

)

and )

)

S.K. WARREN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ) File No. D033730

)

Petitions for Reconsideration of Denial in Part )

of Modification Applications for )

Various Phase I 220 MHz Licenses )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: January 24, 2000 Released: January 24, 2000**

By the Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

1.  In this order, we address the following petitions for
    reconsideration: Ann M. Coughlin d/b/a AFHJ Limited Partners for
    Stations WPCX411, WPCD292 and WPCV737; California 220 Holdings I,
    L.C. for Station WPCX379; California 220 Holdings V, L.C. for
    Station WPCE542; California 220 Holdings VI, L.C. for Station
    WPCR689; Candice Partnership for Station WPCR249; Clarence E.
    Troegel d/b/a/ Stinson Communications for Station WPCD342;
    Fishterrace Partnership for Station WPCC796; Pacific Coast 220
    Holdings II, L.C. for Station WPCK280; Snyder Partnership, L.C. for
    Station WPFN918; Washington 220 Holdings IV, L.C. for Station
    WPCQ855; and S.K. Warren Communications, Inc. for Station WPBN293
    (collectively, the Petitioners).[^1] Each petition seeks
    reconsideration of the denial in part of a modification application
    for an existing Phase I 220 MHz license. For reasons described
    below, we deny each of the petitions for reconsideration.

2.  Petitioners are Phase I 220 MHz licensees who received Special
    Temporary Authority (STA) from the Commission to relocate their base
    stations from their originally licensed sites and to operate these
    stations at higher levels of effective radiated power (ERP) than
    authorized under their original licenses. Pursuant to the *220 MHz
    Second Report and Order*,[^2] Petitioners submitted modification
    applications seeking permanent relocation to their STA locations
    sites.[^3] In addition to requesting authority to permanently
    relocate to the STA site, Petitioners also requested permanent
    authority to operate at the higher ERP levels authorized under the
    STAs. On June 4, 1996, the former Land Mobile Branch (Branch)
    granted Petitioners' modification applications in part when it
    approved the relocation of each of the base stations, but denied
    Petitioners' requests to operate their stations at the STA ERP
    levels.

3.  Petitioners seek reconsideration of the Branch\'s denial of the
    increases in ERP levels. Petitioners argue that the *220 MHz Second
    Report and Order* authorized the permanent grant of their STAs,
    including the technical specifications associated with those STAs,
    and that the Commission failed to give notice that it would not
    permit permanent changes to ERP at STA sites.[^4] Moreover,
    Petitioners contend that retaining the ERP specified in the original
    license ignores the differences in the antenna height above average
    terrain (HAAT) between the original site and the relocation
    site.[^5]

4.  Since Petitioners filed their petitions for reconsideration, the
    Commission has addressed the issue of non--relocation modifications
    to Phase I 220 MHz licenses in a reconsideration of the *220 MHz
    Second Report and Order.*[^6] Specifically, the Commission has
    stated that "\[t\]he *220 MHz Second Report and Order* did not
    provide for licensees to modify their authorizations for any other
    reason, such as to change their power or antenna height, since. . .
    such a ruling would have gone beyond the specific purpose for which
    the *220 MHz Second Report and Order* was adopted." [^7] While we
    agree with Petitioners that the Commission envisioned the permanent
    grant of STAs in the *220 MHz Second Report and Order,* the grant of
    permanent authorization of the STAs also had to be consistent with
    the underlying intent of the relocation and modification procedures,
    *i.e.*, to provide relief to existing licensees but not to allow
    these licensees to enhance their position in the marketplace.[^8]
    This limitation was especially true considering the Commission's
    decision to take the unusual step of allowing these licensees to
    file modification applications without providing an opportunity for
    other potential applicants to file competing initial
    applications.[^9]

5.  We disagree with the Petitioners\' contention that the Commission
    was required to give notice that it would not permit permanent
    changes to ERP at STA sites. An STA, by definition, is a temporary
    authority, and the Commission\'s granting of an STA does not
    guarantee that the Commission will subsequently grant permanent
    authorization.[^10] Moreover, even if permanent authorization to
    operate at an STA site was granted, there was no guarantee that the
    authorization would be at the STA ERP levels. As to the Petitioners'
    argument that retaining the ERP specified in the original license
    ignores the differences in HAAT between the original site and the
    relocation site, the Commission clarified that licensees seeking to
    relocate were permitted to modify the HAAT from their original
    authorization because it was highly unlikely that licensees who
    relocated their base stations would be able to install their antenna
    at the identical HAAT specified in their original
    authorizations.[^11] However, the Commission pointed out that a
    licensee who relocates would not need to operate at the new site at
    a power level different from the level originally authorized, and
    therefore, maintained that a licensee could relocate its base
    station site and modify its HAAT, but could not modify its ERP.[^12]

6.  We note, however, that the Commission did recognize that the
    economic and technical viability of a licensee's service may rest
    upon the ability of the incumbent licensee to modify its
    authorization (*e.g.*, to relocate its base station, to change the
    ERP or HAAT of its base station).[^13] As a result, the Commission
    decided to allow such modifications to occur as long as these
    modifications do not expand the 38 dBu service contour.[^14]
    Therefore, once a Phase I licensee establishes its 38 dBu service
    contour at its new base station in accordance with the Commission's
    rules for relocation, it can take advantage of the flexibility
    provided in the *220 MHz MO&O*. [^15]

7.  Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 405, and section
    1.106 of the Commission\'s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, IT IS ORDERED
    that the Petition for Reconsideration for Station WPCX411, filed by
    Ann M. Coughlin d/b/a AFHJ Limited Partners on July 8, 1996, the
    Petition for Reconsideration for Station WPCD292, filed by Ann M.
    Coughlin d/b/a AFHJ Limited Partners on July 8, 1996, the Petition
    for Reconsideration for Station WPCV737, filed by Ann M. Coughlin
    d/b/a AFHJ Limited Partners on July 8, 1996, the Petition for
    Reconsideration for Station WPCX379, filed by California 220
    Holdings I, L.C. on July 8, 1996, the Petition for Reconsideration
    for Station WPCE542, filed by California 220 Holdings V, L.C. on
    July 8, 1996, the Petition for Reconsideration for Station WPCR689,
    filed by California 220 Holdings VI, L.C. on July 8, 1996, the
    Petition for Reconsideration for Station WPCR249, filed by Candice
    Partnership on July 8, 1996, the Petition for Reconsideration for
    Station WPCD342, filed by Clarence E. Troegel d/b/a/ Stinson
    Communications on July 8, 1996, the Petition for Reconsideration for
    Station WPCC796, filed by Fishterrace Partnership on July 8, 1996,
    the Petition for Reconsideration for Station WPCK280, filed by
    Pacific Coast 220 Holdings II, L.C. on July 8, 1996, the Petition
    for Reconsideration for Station WPFN918, filed by Snyder
    Partnership, L.C. on July 8, 1996, the Petition for Reconsideration
    for Station WPCQ885, filed by Washington 220 Holdings IV, L.C. on
    July 8, 1996 and the Petition for Reconsideration for Station
    WPBN293, filed by S.K. Warren Communications, Inc. on July 3, 1996
    are DENIED.

8.  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.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William W. Kunze

Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: All petitions for reconsideration, except for S.K. Warren
    Communications, were filed on July 8, 1996. S.K. Warren
    Communications filed its petition on July 3, 1996.

[^2]: *See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to Provider
    for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, PR Docket No. 89-552, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and
    332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile
    Services, GN Docket No. 93-252, *Second Report and Order*, 11 FCC
    Rcd. 3668 (1996) (*220 MHz Second Report and Order*).

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.753(c).

[^4]: *See* Petitions for Reconsideration at 4-5.

[^5]: *Id*. at 7.

[^6]: *See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to Provider
    for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, PR Docket No. 89-552, Implementation of Sections 3(n) and
    332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile
    Services, GN Docket No. 93-252, Implementation of Sections 309(j) of
    the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration*, 13 FCC Rcd.
    14,659 (1998) (*220 MHz MO&O*).

[^7]: *Id.* at 14,647, ¶ 179.

[^8]: *Id.* at 14,648, ¶ 180.

[^9]: *Id*.

[^10]: *Id.* at 14,649, 14,653, ¶¶ 183, 193.

[^11]: *Id.* at 14,648, ¶ 181.

[^12]: *Id*.

[^13]: *Id.* at 14,616, ¶ 97.

[^14]: *Id.* at 14,615-19, ¶¶ 95-106. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 90.745.

[^15]: *220 MHz MO&O* at 14,616-17, ¶ 98.