Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Application of Caminito ) Cellular Partnership, Station ) File No. 06845-CL-MP-95 Station KNKR222, Bakersfield, California ) ) Phase I Major Modification ) Application for Market No. 97(B) ) Bakersfield, California ) ) ORDER Adopted: June 9, 1999 Released: June 9, 1999 By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Order we grant an application filed by Caminito Cellular Partnership ("Caminito") on August 10, 1995, for major modification of Caminito's Phase I cellular unserved area license in the Bakersfield, California, Metropolitan Service Area, Market No. 97(B) ("Bakersfield MSA"). We also deny Fresno MSA Limited Partnership's ("Fresno") Petition to Deny ("Petition") Caminito's application. II. BACKGROUND 2. To encourage the rapid and efficient expansion of cellular service, the Commission adopted regulations in 1987, which permitted initial licensees to offer service to unserved areas in their markets without competition for five years after the grant of the first construction permit on each frequency block in each MSA or Rural Service Area ("RSA"). Under this policy, the Commission does not permit third parties to file applications for authorizations to serve unserved areas until the initial licensee's five-year buildout period has expired. After the five year period has expired, parties seeking to serve any unserved areas remaining in a market may file Phase I applications on the 31st day after the expiration of the five year period. A party whose Phase I application is granted may file for one major modification of its license no later than 90 days after the grant of its Phase I initial application. 3. Caminito was selected as the Phase I unserved area licensee on Channel Block B in the Bakersfield MSA on May 15, 1995. On August 10, 1995, Caminito filed its application for a major modification of its license. Specifically, Caminito seeks to relocate its original cell site and to add five new cells in its unserved area. Fresno is the original Channel Block B licensee in the Bakersfield MSA. On October 2, 1995, Fresno filed a petition to deny Caminito's application. Caminito filed an opposition on October 31, 1995, and Fresno filed a reply on November 13, 1995. . 4. Fresno alleges in its petition that Caminito's application is technically deficient because the contour of one of Caminito's proposed cells extends into an unserved area in an adjacent cellular market and into Fresno's Cellular Geographic Service Area ("CGSA"). Specifically, Fresno alleges that the contour of one of Caminito's proposed cells extends 6.75 square miles into Fresno's CGSA, which constitutes 6.3% of the total contour of the proposed cell. This extension would, according to Fresno, violate Section 22.911(d)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules, which prohibits a cellular licensee from beginning to operate its sites in such a manner as to overlap the contours of the existing CGSA of another system without the other licensee's consent. Fresno also claims that one of Caminito's proposed cells would extend into Visalia MSA. Because the Visalia MSA was in Phase I when Caminito filed its application and another licensee had received Commission authorization to construct its system in that MSA, Fresno alleges that Caminito could not request authorization to serve any unserved area in the Visalia MSA. Fresno states that its engineering methodology used to determine co-channel interference is state of the art and reliably predicts contours using the Commission's required formula for calculating service area boundaries. Caminito responds that its proposed contours conform to the Commission's rules and counters Fresno's allegations with an affidavit from its own engineering consultant stating that its proposed contours fully comply with Section 22.911(d)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules. In its reply, Fresno invites the Commission to make its own calculations and claims that the controversy will be resolved in Fresno's favor. Fresno also alleges that Caminito's application fails to disclose the real party in interest to its application, as required by Section 22.108 of the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION 5. We dismiss Fresno's allegation that the contour of one of Caminito's proposed cells impremissibly intrudes into an unserved area in an adjacent market because Fresno lacks standing as a "party in interest." Section 309(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 22.130(a)(3) of the Commission's rules require that a petitioner filing a petition to deny a major filing must be able to demonstrate that it has standing. A petitioner must establish that it has suffered a legal wrong or has been adversely affected or "aggrieved by agency action" or show "injury in fact" resulting from the challenged action. Second, the petitioner must show that its interests are "within the zone of interests to be protected" or regulated. Fresno makes no allegation that it will suffer any injury as a result of the alleged incursion into the adjacent market. Therefore, we find that Fresno lacks standing to object to cell sites that may extend into the adjacent market. Accordingly, we dismiss Fresno's allegation that one of Caminito's cell sites extends into an adjacent market. 6. Fresno also alleges that a contour of one of Caminito's cell sites extends into Fresno's CGSA. The Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch conducted an interference study using the coordinates, Effective Radiated Power (ERP), and Height Above Average Terrain (HAAT) data submitted by both parties. The results of this study reveal that the proposed cell sites will not, in fact, intrude into Fresno's CGSA. We therefore reject Fresno's allegation that Caminito's proposed cell site will cause interference in its CGSA. 7. Finally, we find that Caminito has complied with Section 22.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  22.108, which requires applications for authorization, assignment of authorization, or consent to transfer of control to disclose fully the real party in interest to the application. Here, Caminito seeks a modification of its authorized unserved area cellular system, and its application must comply with the requirements of Section 22.953(b) and not Section 22.108. Because Section 22.953(b) does not require the ownership information, we find that Caminito's application is not deficient. Having resolved Fresno's objections to Caminito's application for major modification of its unserved area cellular system, we find that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by a grant of the application. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309(a), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 309(d), and Sections 0.331, 22.130 and 22.949 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 22.130, and 22.949, the Petition to Deny filed by Fresno MSA Limited Partnership on October 2, 1995, IS DENIED. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309(a), and 309(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 309(a), and 309(d), and Sections 0.331 and 22.949 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331 and 22.949, the application filed by Caminito Cellular Partnership on August 10, 1995, for a major modification to its authorization for Station KNKR222 IS GRANTED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Paul D'Ari Chief, Policy and Rules Branch Commercial Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau