Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Request to Revoke the Grant of   | *  |                              |
| the License of                   | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Alon Shatzki for Trunked         |    |                              |
| Industrial/Business Pool Radio   | *  |                              |
| Service Station WPMU363,         | *) |                              |
| Milpitas,                        | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| California                       | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| And                              | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY | *  |                              |
| ASSOCIATION                      | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Request to Modify the License of |    |                              |
| Alon Shatzki                     | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| for Trunked Industrial/Business  | ** |                              |
| Pool Radio Service Station       |    |                              |
| WPMU363, Milpitas,               | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| California                       | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| And                              | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| ALON SHATZKI, INC.               | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Licensee of Trunked              | *  |                              |
| Industrial/Business Pool Radio   | *) |                              |
| Service Station WPMU363,         | ** |                              |
| Milpitas, California             |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: October 20, 2003 Released: October 31, 2003**

By the Commission:

1.  *Introduction.* On November 22, 2002, Alon Shatzki, Inc. (ASI) filed
    an application for review[^1] of an October 23, 2002, decision by
    the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (Division).[^2] The Division's decision
    affirmed the modification of ASI's license for Private Land Mobile
    Radio Station WPMU363, Milpitas, California, by reducing the
    authorized ERP from 185 to 23 watts,[^3] and denied ASI's Petition
    for Reconsideration of the Division's earlier order proposing the
    modification.[^4] For the reasons stated below, we deny ASI's
    application for review.

2.  *Background*. On August 27, 1998, ASI filed an application to
    operate an Industrial/Business Pool trunked station in Milpitas,
    California.[^5] The application was coordinated by the Personal
    Communications Industry Association (PCIA), a FCC-certified
    frequency coordinator.[^6] On January 4, 1999, the Division's
    Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) granted ASI's
    application to operate Station WPMU363 on numerous frequencies, one
    of which is 153.5225 MHz the subject of this proceeding.[^7] Station
    WPMU363's base station was authorized to operate at 185 watts
    effective radiated power (ERP).

3.  On September 19, 2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
    submitted a petition seeking revocation of the license for Station
    WPMU363, on the basis of potential interference from the use of
    frequency 153.5225 MHz to PG&E's Stations KME687 and WPPX407
    operating on frequency 153.5150 MHz in Newman, Fairfield, and
    Oakdale, California.[^8] PG&E argued that ASI should have, but did
    not obtain PG&E's consent as part of ASI's application for this
    frequency.[^9] Upon inquiry from the Branch, the PCIA reviewed its
    records on the Station WPMU363 frequency recommendation, and
    determined that there might be licensees not accounted for in the
    frequency recommendation.[^10] PCIA failed to account for PG&E's
    station operations and, thus, failed to obtain PG&E's consent
    permitting ASI to operate on frequency 153.5225 MHz at 185 watts
    ERP.[^11] In view of this, PCIA suggested reducing the authorized
    ERP for Station WPMU363 to 23 watts.

4.  On December 28, 2001, the Division denied PG&E's request to revoke
    ASI's license, but initiated a proceeding to modify ASI's license
    for Station WPMU363 to reduce the authorized power from 185 watts to
    23 watts ERP.[^12] The Division cited Section 316 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),[^13] as the authority
    for this action.[^14] In accordance with Section 1.87 of the
    Commission's Rules,[^15] the Division provided ASI with notice of
    the proposed license modification and an opportunity to interpose a
    protest.[^16]

5.  On January 25, 2002, ASI filed a petition for reconsideration of the
    Division's action in its December 28, 2001 *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order.*[^17] On the same date, ASI also filed an opposition to the
    proposed license modification.[^18] On October 23, 2002, the
    Division denied ASI's *Reconsideration Petition* and its
    *Opposition,* and modified the license for Station WPMU363 by
    reducing the authorized ERP of the base station from 185 to 23
    watts.[^19]

6.  The instant application for review seeks reversal of the Division's
    October 23, 2002 *Reconsideration Order*. In its application for
    review, ASI contends that the PG&E filing was an untimely petition
    for reconsideration that should not have been considered, and that
    the time limitations of Section 405 of the Act and Section 1.113 of
    the Commission's Rules[^20] preclude the modification action taken
    by the Division.[^21] Further, ASI asserts that the Division lacks
    authority under Section 1.41 of the Commission's Rules[^22] to take
    informal action in this case.[^23]

7.  *Discussion.* We agree with the Division that it has authority to
    modify ASI's license under Section 316 of the Act and Sections 1.41
    and 1.87 of the Commission's Rules.[^24] Section 316 is subject
    neither to the "changed circumstances" limitation of Section 312 of
    the Act[^25] that pertains to license revocations, nor to the time
    limitation on filing reconsideration requests imposed by Section 405
    of the Act.[^26]

8.  ASI argues that the Division lacked authority to modify ASI's
    license, and that the Commission may only act to modify a license
    under Section 316 of the Act if there have been changed
    circumstances since the original grant of the application.[^27] ASI
    is mistaken. Under Section 316 of the Act, the Commission may modify
    a license "if in the judgment of the Commission such action will
    promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity, or the
    provisions of this Act . . . will be more fully complied with."[^28]
    That provision contains no limitation on the time frame within which
    the circumstances underlying the modification must have
    occurred.[^29] While a license may be revoked under Section 312 only
    for conduct occurring after an authorization has been granted, a
    license may be modified under Section 316 for a valid reason whether
    it arose prior to or after the Commission granted the license.

9.  Contrary to ASI's contention,[^30] the initial license grant is not
    entitled to administrative finality because the defect in the
    frequency coordination occurred prior to the license grant. ASI
    provides no basis for that assertion, and that argument is contrary
    to established precedent. There are many Commission decisions
    modifying licenses because of pre-grant defects such as lack of
    consent.[^31] Under the doctrine of administrative finality, the
    courts recognize that the laws governing the Commission establish a
    structure where at some juncture a Commission order becomes final
    beyond its own power to reconsider.[^32] Thus, the courts have held
    that the public interest in finality is dominant over the public
    interest in improving the administrative result upon further
    reflection.[^33] However, as the Commission recently stated, "The
    courts ... also recognize that, although a prevailing . . .
    doctrine, administrative finality is not absolute."[^34] Equity
    doctrines may permit reopening a case to avoid a substantial
    injustice.[^35]

10. Although Section 405 of the Act, as implemented by Sections
    1.106[^36] and 1.113[^37] of the Commission's Rules,[^38] explicitly
    requires that petitions for reconsideration be filed within thirty
    days after public notice of the action is given, Section 316 of the
    Act has no such requirement on modification action. Nor, for that
    matter, is there any time limitation within which to file requests
    for informal action under Section 1.41.

11. ASI further asserts that the Division did not have authority to
    modify ASI's license because its action was solely triggered by the
    complaint filed by PG&E requesting revocation of the license for
    Station WPMU363 due to potential interference to PG&E's
    stations.[^39] ASI contends that the PG&E revocation petition was
    actually a reconsideration request filed fatally late, and cannot be
    resurrected by calling it something other than what it is,[^40]
    *i.e.,* an informal request for agency action pursuant to Section
    1.41 of the Rules. The Division, however, denied the PG&E petition
    for revocation. We find that the Division's action modifying ASI's
    license by reducing the base transmitter power was not tantamount to
    a revocation of ASI's license. Revocation of the subject license
    would have meant that ASI could not operate at all on the designated
    frequency (153.5225 MHz); whereas, modification, in this instance,
    merely means that a change in placement of the base station antenna
    is required for operational parameters comparable to the current
    ones.[^41]

12. We agree with the Division that Section 1.41 provides it with
    jurisdiction to resolve this matter as PCIA informally requested
    that ASI's license be modified and PG&E's pleading can be
    characterized as an informal request for action.[^42] However, the
    Commission may take informal action either at the request of an
    interested party under Section 1.41, or on its own initiative[^43]
    pursuant to Section 1.87 of the Rules[^44] and Section 316 of the
    Act, whether or not a reconsideration request could have been filed
    at an earlier stage in the proceedings.[^45] Since the time period
    to file a reconsideration request elapsed, formal procedures were no
    longer available and, as such, it was appropriate for the Division
    to consider the pleadings of PCIA and PG&E as informal requests and
    take action under Section 1.41.[^46] As previously noted, there is
    no time limit for requesting informal action or license
    modification. Furthermore, not only is there ample precedent for
    considering untimely filed pleadings as informal objections under
    Section 1.41,[^47] but, contrary to ASI's assertion, Global Cellular
    Communications, Inc. (*Global*)[^48] does not support its contention
    that the Division had no authority to take informal action in this
    matter.[^49] In *Global*, the Commission specifically set a filing
    deadline for informal objections.[^50] Having established a formal
    procedure for the orderly filing of Section 1.41 objections, the
    Commission dismissed certain objections as untimely.[^51] That
    situation is not present here. In the instant case, neither a
    specific deadline for informal requests had been set nor a filing
    schedule established. Thus, *Global* is inapplicable to the instant
    case.

13. ASI also cites Spartan Radiocasting Co. (*Spartan*),[^52] to support
    its contention that the Division was without authority to act. In
    *Spartan*, it was noted that a formal procedure existed whereby,
    after an application for hearing was designated, the applicant was
    permitted to file a petition for reconsideration and request that
    the Commission grant the subject application without a hearing. The
    Commission stated that this formal procedure precluded reliance on
    Section 1.41 of the Rules.[^53] Nevertheless, it decided to consider
    the Spartan pleading a further petition for reconsideration as
    Spartan had previously filed pursuant to the established formal
    procedure and had its reconsideration request denied.[^54] The new
    Spartan pleading relied on the same facts as previously provided and
    requested the same procedural relief.[^55] Thus, Spartan had used
    the formal procedure available to it, and had its contentions
    considered not once, but twice. On the other hand, no formal
    procedure had been used by PG&E and its assertions had not yet been
    considered. In view of this, we agree with the Division that the
    *Spartan* decision is distinguishable and not applicable to the
    circumstances present here.

14. We also reject ASI's assertion that the *San Mateo*[^56] case
    supports its arguments.[^57] *San Mateo* is readily distinguishable
    from this case because *San Mateo* discussed the Commission's
    ability to correct ministerial or clerical errors after the period
    established by Section 1.113 of the Commission's Rules for setting
    aside action on the Commission's own motion had expired.[^58] In
    contrast, the instant case deals with the Commission's ability to
    modify a license after license grant pursuant to Section 316 of the
    Act. Nothing in *San Mateo* addressed the Commission's ability to
    modify a license under Section 316 of the Act. Accordingly, while we
    agree with ASI that the grant of the use of the frequency with an
    ERP of 185 watts was not a ministerial error, we ultimately conclude
    that *San Mateo* is inapposite.

15. ASI also objects to the decision to modify the subject license
    because it was made on the suggestion of PCIA without the latter
    having conferred with ASI on the merits of the proposal.[^59] First,
    we note that PCIA weighed in on this matter at the request of
    Division staff.[^60] Next, we observe that having been notified by
    PCIA of PG&E's filing, ASI submitted a letter stating its views.
    Those views were considered by the Division in reaching its decision
    to propose license modification. Further, as required by Section
    1.87 of the Commission's Rules, ASI was provided an opportunity,
    which it took, to protest the proposed modification of its
    license.[^61] In view of this, we conclude that ASI has had a full
    and fair opportunity to present its arguments.[^62]

16. Finally, ASI argues that the modification of its license negatively
    affects its ability to provide communications service to its
    customers.[^63] ASI submits that the reduction of the base
    transmitter power from 185 watts to 23 watts largely vitiates the
    grant of the license for Station WPMY363 by reducing the range of
    the facility.[^64] We reject the argument that the license
    modification will "substantially harm" ASI's customers as
    unsubstantiated**.**[^65] We affirm the Division's finding that ASI
    failed to support this allegation by affidavit of a person or
    persons with personal knowledge thereof[^66] as required by Section
    309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.[^67] Nor, at this
    juncture of the proceeding, has ASI offered any affidavits to
    substantiate its allegations. As noted by the Division, an ERP of 23
    watts can be comparable to ASI's current operational parameters if
    its base station antenna is positioned at an appropriate height and
    elevation.[^68] Using 23 watts ERP, the 37 dBu contour of Station
    WPMU363 extends beyond the licensee's forty kilometer (km) mobile
    service area.[^69] The mobile units can receive an acceptable signal
    level throughout the 40 km mobile service area and the increase to
    185 watts ERP would only extend acceptable signal level beyond the
    authorized 40 km mobile service area.[^70] In view of the foregoing,
    ASI has failed to make a sufficient showing that the modification of
    its license would actually hamper its current operations.[^71]
    Moreover, to the extent the modification may have a minor effect on
    ASI's operations, we affirm the Division's action modifying the
    subject license as nonetheless in the public interest, as required
    by Section 316 of the Act. License modification pursuant to Section
    316 should be undertaken only under those limited and unusual cases
    where, in the light of the circumstances, it is clear that such
    action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
    We agree with the Division that the present case meets the standard
    set forth in Section 316.

17. *Conclusion.* We conclude that the Division's action modifying ASI's
    license for Station WPMU363, has met the public interest,
    convenience and necessity criteria of Sections 309 and 316 of the
    Act. As such, and for the reasons stated above, we deny ASI's
    application for review and affirm the Division's action modifying
    the subject license.

18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 5(c)
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i)
    and 155(c), and Section 1.115 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    1.115, the Application for Review filed by Alon Shatzki, Inc., on
    November 22, 2002 IS DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

[^1]: Application for Review of Alon Shatzki, Inc. (filed Nov. 22, 2002)
    (*AFR*).

[^2]: Alon Shatzki, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration*, 17 FCC Rd 20900 (WTB PSPWD 2002) (*Reconsideration
    Order*).

[^3]: *Id.* at 20907 ¶ 16.

[^4]: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    17 FCC Rcd 98, 101 ¶ 9 (WTB PSPWD 2001) (*MO&O*).

[^5]: File No. A025195 (filed Aug. 27, 1998).

[^6]: Frequency Coordination No. 981270029. Frequency coordination in
    the Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) Services is the process by
    which a private entity certified by the Commission recommends the
    most appropriate frequencies for applicants in designated radio
    services. In 1986, the Commission adopted frequency coordination
    rules and procedures in an effort to maximize service to the public
    by assuring that the assignment and management of PLMR spectrum is
    performed in an efficient and effective manner. *See* Frequency
    Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, *Report and
    Order*, PR Docket No. 83-737, 103 FCC 2d 1093, 1094-95 ¶ 2 (1986)
    (*Frequency Coordination R&O*). The Commission has stated that
    accurate information is fundamental to its ability to review
    effectively the frequency recommendations made by FCC-certified
    frequency coordinators in connection with the Commission's licensing
    determinations. A fundamental aspect of frequency coordination, in
    any radio service, is an accurate determination by a FCC-certified
    frequency coordinator as to whether the proposed operations
    potentially will cause harmful interference to existing co-channel
    or adjacent channel licensees. *See generally* American Mobile
    Telecommunications Association, Inc. and American Trucking
    Association, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 12416,
    12422-23 ¶¶ 13-15 (WTB PSPWD 2001).

[^7]: Station WPMU363 is authorized to operate on frequencies 152.4575,
    153.3425, 153.3575, 153.5225, 157.7175, 160.0125, 160.1175, and
    160.2075 MHz, in addition to 153.5225 MHz.

[^8]: *See* Request to Revoke the License for WPMU363 filed by Pacific
    Gas and Electric Company (filed Sept. 19, 2000) (*Request to
    Revoke*). PG&E is also authorized to operate mobile units throughout
    California on 153.5150 MHz. *See* License for Station KA7177.

[^9]: In 1997, the Commission amended its rules to allow centralized
    trunking in the PLMR bands between 150 MHz and 512 MHz. *See*
    Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile
    Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, *Second
    Report and Order*, PR Docket No. 92-235, 12 FCC Rcd 14307, 14337-38
    ¶¶ 56-59 (1997). The Commission emphasized that trunking would be
    permitted only in those areas where exclusivity is recognized by the
    Commission or where an applicant/licensee has obtained the consent
    of all licensees whose service areas overlap a circle with a radius
    of seventy miles from the proposed trunked system's base station.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.187. In 1999, the Commission provided
    applicants with the alternate of obtaining concurrence whenever the
    19 dBu interference contour (VHF) or 21 dBu interference contour
    (UHF) from a proposed trunked station intersects the 37 dBu service
    contour (VHF) or 39 dBu service contour (UHF) of any existing
    co-channel or adjacent channel station. *See* Replacement of Part 90
    by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and
    Modify the Policies Governing Them, *Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, PR Docket No. 92-235, 14 FCC Rcd 10922, 10926-27 ¶¶ 6-9
    (1999).

[^10]: *See* Request to Modify License by Reducing ERP filed by the
    Personal Communications Industry Association (filed Apr. 2, 2001)
    (*Request to Reduce ERP*).

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *MO&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 101 ¶ 10.

[^13]: 47 U.S.C. § 316.

[^14]: *MO&O,* 17 FCC Rcd at 101 ¶ 9.

[^15]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.87.

[^16]: *MO&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 101 ¶ 10.

[^17]: Alon Shatzki, Inc. Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jan. 25,
    2002).

[^18]: Alon Shatzki, Inc. Opposition to Proposed License Modification
    (filed Jan. 25, 2002) (*ASI Opposition*).

[^19]: *See* *Reconsideration Order,* 17 FCC Rcd at 20906 ¶ 16.

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.113.

[^21]: *AFR* at 4, 6.

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.41.

[^23]: *AFR* at 4.

[^24]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.87.

[^25]: 47 U.S.C. § 312.

[^26]: 47 U.S.C. § 405.

[^27]: *Id.* at 6-7.

[^28]: 47 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1).

[^29]: In contrast, Section 312 of the Act generally limits the grounds
    for license *revocations* to actions that occurred after the license
    was granted or could not reasonably have been known before the
    license was granted. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 312(a), (b).

[^30]: *See AFR* at 8.

[^31]: *See*, *e.g*., License of California Metro Mobile Communications,
    Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 22974 (2002);
    Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc., *Order of
    Modification*, 17 FCC Rcd 599 (WTB PSPWD 2002); Wayne E. Noll,
    *Order of Modification*, 17 FCC Rcd 165 (WTB PSPWD 2002); Excel
    Logistics, *Order of Modification*, 16 FCC Rcd 17629 (WTB PSPWD
    2001); Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc., *Order of Modification*, 16 FCC
    Rcd 19360 (WTB PSPWD 2001); Town Taxi, *Order of Modification*, 16
    FCC Rcd 14820 (WTB PSPWD 2001); Michiana Metronet, Inc., *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 5108 (CCB 1993) (modifying licenses
    that should not have been granted where the error was not caught
    until the license grant had become final).

[^32]: *See* Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 463 F.2d 268, 288
    (D.C. Cir. 1971).

[^33]: *Id.*

[^34]: Advanced Communications Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2926, 2930 ¶ 8 (2003).

[^35]: *Id.*

[^36]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(f) (petitions for reconsideration must be filed
    within thirty days from the date of public notice of the final
    Commission action).

[^37]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.113(a) (action taken on delegated authority may be
    set aside *sua sponte* within thirty days after public notice has
    been given of the action).

[^38]: *See* JPJ Electronic Communications, Inc., *Order on
    Reconsideration*, 16 FCC Rcd 2902, 2904-05 ¶ 5 & n.19 (WTB PSPWD
    2001) (*JPJ*) ("reconsideration under the Section 316 modification
    provision has been fundamentally predicated on a lapse of th\[e\]
    30-day period \[for reconsideration under Section 405(a) of the
    Act\]") (citing Radio Para La Raza, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*,
    40 FCC 2d 1102, 1105 ¶ 8 (1973)), *aff'd*, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order,* 17 FCC Rcd 5512 (2002); Comtex Communications, Inc.,
    *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 11730, 11732 ¶ 6 (WTB PSPWD 2001), *modified on
    other grounds*, 16 FCC Rcd 4784 (WTB PSPWD 2001).

[^39]: *AFR* at 5-6.

[^40]: *AFR* at 3, 5-6.

[^41]: *See* para. 12 *infra.*

[^42]: *Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 20903 ¶ 8.

[^43]: Even had PG&E not filed its *Request to Revoke*, and PCIA not
    filed its *Request to Reduce ERP*, we are authorized under our own
    auspices to propose modification of Shatzki's license if warranted
    by the public interest. *See* Achernar Broadcasting Company,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 7808, 7816 ¶ 17 (2000);
    *see*, *e.g.,* Pacific Gas & Electric Company and California Metro
    Mobile Communications, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd
    15419, 15421 ¶ 8 (WTB PSPWD 2001) (*PG&E-California Mobile*).

[^44]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.87.

[^45]: RKO General, Inc., *Decision*, 1 FCC Rcd 1081, 1082 ¶ 6 (1986);
    Union Broadcasting Corporation, *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 52
    FCC 2d 387 ¶ 3 (1975) (*Union*); California Metro Mobile
    Communications, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd
    112, 113-14 ¶ 7 (WTB PSPWD 2002) (*Metro Mobile*); *JPJ,* 16 FCC Rcd
    at 2903-04, ¶ 5; Colorado RSA 7B(2) Limited Partnership, *Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd 22079, 22081 ¶ 6 (WTB CWD 1998).

[^46]: *Union,* 52 FCC 2d at 387 ¶ 3; *PG&E-California Mobile*, 16 FCC
    Rcd at 15421 ¶ 8; *Metro Mobile*, 17 FCC Rcd at 113-14 ¶¶ 6-7.

[^47]: *Union,* 52 FCC 2d at 387 ¶ 3. In addition to the cases cited in
    note 36, *supra*, numerous petitions to deny have been dismissed as
    untimely but considered as informal objections under 47 C.F.R. §
    1.41. *See, e.g.,* Spectrum Communications, L.C., *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order,* 16 FCC Rcd 17679, 17682-83 ¶ 8 (WTB PSPWD 2001);
    Mountain Microwave, Inc., *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd
    17633, 17636-37 ¶ 8 (WTB PSPWD 2001).

[^48]: Global Cellular Communications, Inc., *Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 8197
    (1993) (*Global*).

[^49]: *AFR* at 5.

[^50]: Public Notice, Commission Announces Lottery to Select Commercial
    Nationwide 220 MHz Band Private Land Mobile Licensees, DA 93-159, 58
    Fed. Reg. 9174 (1993).

[^51]: *Global,* 8 FCC Rcd at 8197 ¶ 3.

[^52]: 2 Rad. Reg. 2d 1095 (1964)

[^53]: *Id.* at 1096 ¶ 5.

[^54]: *Id.*

[^55]: *Id.* at 1095 ¶ 6.

[^56]: County of San Mateo, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd
    16501 (2001) (*San Mateo*).

[^57]: *AFR* at 6-7.

[^58]: *San Mateo*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16503 ¶ 8.

[^59]: *AFR* at 3-4.

[^60]: Frequency coordinators have an ongoing obligation to assist the
    Commission in resolving post-licensing disputes. *Frequency
    Coordination R&O*, 103 FCC 2d at 1107 ¶ 26.

[^61]: *See ASI Opposition* note 16 *supra.*

[^62]: *See* Landlinx Communications, *Second Order on Reconsideration*,
    15 FCC Rcd 24932, 24933-34 ¶ 4 (WTB PSPWD 2000) (although under 47
    C.F.R. § 1.41 there is no requirement for a formal pleading cycle,
    it was held that the opponent had a full and fair opportunity to
    present its objection).

[^63]: *AFR* at 4.

[^64]: *Id.*

[^65]: *AFR* at 4 n.1.

[^66]: *Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 20906 ¶ 15.

[^67]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(1). Section 316(a)(3) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
    316(a)(3), makes any protest of a proposed modification subject to
    Section 309 of the Act.

[^68]: *Reconsideration Order*, 17 FCC Rcd at 20906 ¶ 15.

[^69]: *See* Section 90.205(d) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    90.205(d), which provides for a 37 dBu signal strength at the edge
    of the service area.

[^70]: Actually, using the 23 watts ERP exceeds the 40 km base service
    area and complies with Section 90.205(d) of the Rules. While the
    rules permit ASI to use 185 watts ERP, the base service area would
    exceed 60 km.

[^71]: We also note that ASI has additional frequencies on which it is
    authorized to operate.