**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

# Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

LANDLINX COMMUNICATIONS )

)

Petition for Reconsideration of Grant of License )

for Call Sign WPMP955 filed by )

California State Automobile )

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted: December 28, 1999 Released: January 3, 2000**

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

1.  *Introduction.* On November 30, 1998, the California State
    Automobile Association, Inc. (CSAA) submitted a petition for
    reconsideration of the October 30, 1998 action by the Licensing and
    Technical Analysis Branch (Branch), Public Safety and Private
    Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau),
    granting Landlinx Communications (Landlinx) a license for Call Sign
    WPMP955. [^1] Based on the record in this proceeding, we deny CSAA's
    petition.

2.  *Background.* Landlinx applied for authorization to operate five
    mobile units throughout Utah on twenty frequencies in the 150-174
    MHz band, including frequency 150.935 MHz, to demonstrate the
    products in its communications business.[^2] CSAA, a not-for-profit
    organization providing emergency road services, filed an informal
    objection against Landlinx's application on August 18, 1998.[^3]
    CSAA stated that Landlinx's use of frequency 150.935 MHz could
    potentially cause congestion that would harm CSAA's co-channel
    operations in the Salt Lake City area.[^4] CSAA argued that its
    operations should be protected from interference because impairing
    its operations was contrary to the public interest, and because the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1997 mandated such protection.[^5] Finally,
    CSAA contended that authorizing Landlinx to use twenty frequencies
    would be inconsistent with Section 90.135(e) of the Commission's
    Rules, which provides, "Normally only one frequency . . . will be
    assigned for mobile service operations by a single applicant in a
    given area. The assignment of an additional frequency . . . will be
    made only upon a satisfactory showing of need . . . ."[^6]

3.  In consideration of CSAA's objection, the Branch returned the
    application to the Industrial Telecommunications Association (ITA),
    the certified frequency coordinator for this application, on
    September 16, 1998, and asked ITA to respond to CSAA's
    objection.[^7] On October 26, 1998, ITA re-certified the
    application, and returned it to the Commission for processing.[^8]
    ITA also responded to CSAA's objection, arguing that CSAA's
    complaints were too speculative to merit action, particularly given
    that Landlinx would be operating statewide, not just in Salt Lake
    City.[^9] ITA also stated that the Balanced Budget Act did not alter
    the current licensing rules, under which frequency 150.935 is a
    shared frequency.[^10] Finally, ITA contended that the application
    did not violate Section 90.135(e) because Landlinx sought to use the
    frequencies throughout the state, rather than only "in a given
    area."[^11] Based on the record, the Branch granted Landlinx's
    application on October 30, 1998. CSAA requested reconsideration of
    the Branch's action on November 30, 1998.

4.  *Discussion.* In its petition for reconsideration, CSAA repeats the
    arguments it made in its objection. We conclude that the Branch
    correctly decided the matters raised below. CSAA in effect argues
    that the Branch should have denied Landlinx's application to use
    frequency 150.935 MHz, rather than allow the possibility that
    Landlinx's operations might cause congestion that interferes with
    CSAA's operations. In this connection, we note that under the
    Commission's Part 90 rules frequency 150.935 MHz is available on a
    shared basis only and will not be assigned for the exclusive use of
    any licensee.[^12] ITA determined that no alternative frequencies
    were available for Landlinx's use.[^13] Therefore, we conclude that
    the application was properly coordinated, and CSAA must share the
    frequency with Landlinx. In the event of actual interference to
    CSAA's operations (as opposed to potential interference based on
    CSAA's worst case scenario of how Landlinx might use the
    frequency[^14]), we remind the parties that they both have an
    obligation to attempt to resolve the problem by mutually
    satisfactory arrangements.[^15]

5.  We disagree with CSAA's contention that the Balanced Budget Act
    changes this conclusion. Section 309(j)(2) of the Communications Act
    pertains to the Commission's competitive bidding authority, which is
    not an issue in this matter.[^16] We none the less note that
    implementation of the Balanced Budget Act is the subject of a
    current Commission rulemaking proceeding.[^17] Until the Commission
    takes action in that proceeding to change its rules, the current
    Part 90 rules remain in effect until such time.[^18]

6.  Finally, we agree with ITA that grant of Landlinx's application was
    not inconsistent with Section 90.35(e) of the Commission's
    Rules,[^19] because Landlinx did not propose to operate only in a
    single area. Further, we note that CSAA has not provided an adequate
    basis sufficiently supporting its speculation that Landlinx's
    operations will be concentrated in the Salt Lake City area.[^20]

7.  Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to the authority of
    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, the request filed by the California State
    Automobile Association on November 30, 1998, for reconsideration of
    the October 30, 1998, license grant to Landlinx **IS DENIED**.

8.  This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
    0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131 and
    0.331.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

D'wana R. Terry

Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: *See* CSAA Petition for Reconsideration (filed November 30, 1998)
    (Petition).

[^2]: *See* Application FCC File No. C002966.

[^3]: *See* Letter from Peter Fuerst, CSAA, to Mary Shultz, Chief,
    Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private
    Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (filed August
    18, 1998) (Objection).

[^4]: *Id.* at 2.

[^5]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(e).

[^7]: *See* Letter from Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, Private
    Wireless and Public Safety Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau to ITA (September 17, 1998)

[^8]: *See* Letter from Mark E. Crosby, ITA, to Mary Shultz, Chief,
    Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private
    Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (filed October
    26, 1998) (ITA Letter).

[^9]: *Id.* at 2-4.

[^10]: *Id.* at 3.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(a).

[^13]: ITA Letter*.* at 2.

[^14]: *See* Petition at 5.

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(b).

[^16]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2).

[^17]: *See* Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the
    Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making*, WT Docket No. 99-87, 14 FCC Rcd 5206 (1999).

[^18]: *See* Rules Adopted in the Refarming *Second Report and Order*
    (PR Docket No. 92-235) to Go into Effect October 17, 1997, *Public
    Notice*, 13 FCC Rcd 8040, 8040 (WTB 1997).

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.35(e).

[^20]: *See* Petition at 4.