*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 7412.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  644 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 

 In  the  Matter  of 
 DENNIS  ENYEART 
 Conventional  Business  Station  WPRL897, 
 Santa  Inez,  California 

 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 

 FCC  File  No.  A059522 

 ORDER  ON  RECONSIDERATION 
 Adopted:  March  9,  2001  Released:  March  13,  2001 
 By  the  Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau: 
 1.  Introduction.  James  A.  Kay,  Jr.,  (Kay)  has  filed  a  petition  for  reconsideration  1  of  a 
 decision  by  the  Licensing  and  Technical  Analysis  Branch  of  the  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless 
 Division  (Branch)  granting  the  above-  captioned  application  to  Dennis  Enyeart  (Enyeart).  For  the  reasons 
 stated  below,  we  deny  Kays  petition. 

 2.  Background.  Kay  is  authorized  to  operate  Trunked  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  Station 
 WNJA610  in  the  Northridge,  California  area  on  a  primary  basis  on  frequency  pair  810/  855.8125  MHz.  2 
 On  November  13,  2000,  the  Branch  authorized  Enyeart  to  operate  Station  WPRL897  in  the  Santa  Inez, 
 California  area  on  frequency  pair  810/  855.8125  MHz  at  four  sites:  three  primary  sites  in  Santa  Inez  and 
 one  secondary  3  site  in  Santa  Barbara.  The  Santa  Barbara  facility  is  authorized  to  operate  on  frequency 
 855.8125  MHz  and  subject  to  the  condition  that  it  not  cause  interference  to  co-  channel  users  in  an  adjacent 
 communications  area. 

 3.  On  December  13,  2000,  Kay  requested  reconsideration  of  the  Branchs  action  authorizing 
 Station  WPRL897.  Kay  alleges  that  Enyearts  Santa  Barbara  site  does  not  afford  Kays  Oat  Mountain 
 primary  site,  authorized  under  Call  Sign  WNJA910,  the  requisite  seventy-  mile  co-  channel  protection.  4  Kay 
 contends  that  Enyearts  Santa  Barbara  facility,  located  sixty-  three  miles  from  Kays  Oat  Mountain  site, 
 should  not  have  been  coordinated  and  the  application  should  not  have  been  granted.  5  Therefore,  Kay 
 requests  that  we  set  aside  the  station  grant  and  dismiss  Enyearts  underlying  application.  6 

 1  Petition  for  Reconsideration  (filed  Dec.  13,  2000)  (Petition). 
 2  Id.  at  1. 
 3  Secondary  operations  refer  to  operations  that  may  not  cause  interference  to  operations  authorized  on  a 
 primary  basis  and  are  not  protected  from  interference  from  those  primary  operations.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.7. 
 4  Petition  at  1.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    90.621. 

 5  Petition  at  1. 
 6  Id. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  644 
 2 
 4.  Discussion.  Kay  alleges  that  Enyearts  Santa  Barbara  facility  does  not  afford  Kays  Oat 
 Mountain  primary  site  the  requisite  co-  channel  protection.  Based  on  the  record  before  us,  we  disagree. 
 Enyearts  Santa  Barbara  site  was  authorized  to  operate  on  a  secondary,  non-  interference  basis  in  the  800 
 MHz  band.  Secondary  sites  may  be  forced  to  terminate  operations  should  a  co-  channel  licensee  locate  a 
 station  within  seventy  miles  of  the  secondary  site,  and  interference  occurs  as  a  result.  7  It  has  been  the 
 Commissions  policy  to  license  secondary  facilities  in  the  800  MHz  band  solely  as  an  adjunct  to  primary 
 facilities.  8  Further,  we  reiterate  that  secondary  operations  may  not  cause  interference  to  primary 
 operations. 

 5.  There  is  no  evidence  in  the  record  indicating  that  Enyeart  has  failed  to  meet  the 
 condition  imposed  on  the  Santa  Barbara  facility.  Nor  is  there  any  allegation  or  objective  documented 
 evidence  in  Kays  petition  that  Enyearts  secondary  operations  have  caused  interference  to  Kays  primary 
 operations  or  any  other  co-  channel  users  in  an  adjacent  communications  area.  Accordingly,  we  deny  Kays 
 reconsideration  request.  We  nonetheless  remind  Enyeart  that  the  Santa  Barbara  facility  may  be  forced  to 
 terminate  operations  should  it  cause  interference  to  co-  channel  users  in  adjacent  communications  areas. 
 Finally,  we  remind  Enyeart  that  his  secondary  operations  are  not  protected  from  interference  caused  by 
 primary  operations. 

 6.  Conclusion.  For  the  reasons  set  forth  above,  we  find  no  basis  for  reversing  the  Branchs 
 decision.  The  Branchs  action  is  consistent  with  the  facts  presented  and  Commission  precedent. 
 Therefore,  we  deny  the  petition. 

 7.  Ordering  Clauses.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  and  405  of 
 the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  405,  and  Section  1.106  of  the 
 Commission's  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.106,  that  the  petition  for  reconsideration  submitted  by  James  A.  Kay, 
 Jr.,  on  December  13,  2000  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,  0.331. 

 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 

 Dwana  R.  Terry 
 Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau 

 7  See  Roger  Dickinson  d/  b/  a  Portable  Walkie  Talkies  to  Go,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  15  FCC 
 Rcd  4845,  4850    15  (2000)  (Dickinson).  See  also  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  90  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to 
 Provide  for  the  Use  of  200  Channels  Outside  the  Designated  Filing  Areas  in  the  896-  901  MHz  and  935-  940  MHz 
 bands  allotted  to  the  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  Pool,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  PR  Docket  No.  89-  553,  4 
 FCC  Rcd  8673,  8674    6  (1989). 

 8  Dickinson,  15  FCC  Rcd  at  4850    15. 
2