********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************
                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                      Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                )
                                )
WELLS RURAL ELECTRIC COMPANY    )  FCC File Nos. 729481, 729482, 729483, 
                                )  729484, 729485, 729486
Private Operational Fixed Microwave )
Radio Service Applications for Licenses for) 
Station WPNF319, West Wendover, Nevada, )
Station WPNF320, Wells, Nevada  )
Station WPNF321, Wells, Nevada, )
Station WPNF322, Carlin, Nevada, )
Station WPNF323, Carlin, Nevada, )
and Station WPNG774, Wells, Nevada )


                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION


   Adopted:  September 22, 1999         Released:  September 23, 1999

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


                         I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.  Wells Rural Electric Company (Wells) seeks reconsideration of the action of the Licensing and
Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) imposing a secondary status condition on the licenses for the above-
captioned fixed microwave service (FMS) stations operating in the 2 GHz band.  For the reasons set forth
below, we deny the petition and affirm the Branch's action.  

                         II.  BACKGROUND

     2.  On January 16, 1992, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposing to
reallocate portions of the 2 GHz band from FMS to emerging technology services (ET), including the personal
communications services (PCS).  The Commission stated that it intended to reaccommodate the FMS licensees
in a manner that would be most advantageous for the incumbent users, least disruptive to the public and most
conducive to the introduction of new services.  Accordingly, first, to preserve the availability of the existing
vacant 2 GHz spectrum, the Commission proposed that all new facilities in the 2 GHz band be licensed on a
secondary basis.  Second, rather than immediately clearing the 2 GHz band of the incumbent FMS users, the
Commission proposed that the incumbents be permitted to continue to occupy the band on a co-primary basis
with the ET licensees for a significant length of time, by the end of which the incumbents were to relocate to
another portion of the spectrum.  The Commission also proposed to provide the ET licensees with the option
of requiring the FMS incumbents to relocate sooner and paying the additional costs caused by the earlier
relocation.  One practical effect of the Commission's proposal was that incumbent FMS licensees that were
authorized on a primary basis would have the costs of relocating to other bands paid for by the new ET
licensees if the ET licensees forced them to relocate.  On the other hand, FMS licensees that were authorized
on a secondary basis would be treated differently.  In a First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
Rule Making, released October 16, 1992, the Commission generally adopted its proposals.    

     3.  On April 25, 1996, the Commission adopted regulations refining the licensing policy regarding
FMS systems in the 2 GHz band.  Under the current rules, new stations, extensions of existing networks and
major modifications of stations licensed prior to January 16, 1992, will be licensed on a secondary basis. 
Primary status will be granted for a limited number of technical changes.  All other minor modifications will
render the modified license secondary unless the FMS licensee justifies primary status and the modification
does not add to the relocation costs to be paid by the new PCS licensees.

     4.  Wells is a member-owned not-for-profit electric utility providing electrical power to over 4000
customers in Nevada.  In 1989, Wells established a seven-station FMS system in the 2 GHz band.  Wells
states that the system is critical to its utility operations.  For example, the system carries back-haul traffic
from Wells' land mobile and 900 MHz Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition operations, thereby
facilitating Wells' real-time monitoring and control activities, and its inspection, maintenance and emergency
response activities.  Wells also uses its 2 GHz system to carry internal voice and data communications and
to provide reserve capacity to the municipal and county public safety entities in Elko County, Nevada.

     5.  In 1995, Wells modified one of the stations in its system (WNEX332) and received a new license
with an expiration date of February 27, 2001.  The licenses for the remaining six stations retained their
original expiration date of April 28, 1994.  Wells inadvertently failed to renew the licenses for these six stations
and thus the authorizations expired.  Over two years later, on August 29, 1996, Wells filed applications to
reinstate the licenses for the six stations.  Wells was then issued new licenses and new call signs for the
stations, effective July 25, 1997.  In accordance with the Commission's rules, the new licenses contained a
condition that the stations' operations were secondary to ET licensees.  On August 22, 1997, Wells timely
filed a petition seeking reconsideration of the action imposing the secondary status condition.  Wells argues
that secondary status is inappropriate because the new licenses do not constitute an extension of Wells' system
but rather the return to licensed status of previously authorized stations whose licenses had inadvertently been
allowed to expire.  Wells also argues that secondary status should not be imposed because it may require
Wells (rather than an ET licensee) to pay the cost of relocating Wells' operations to another frequency band. 

                         III.  DISCUSSION

     6.  Licenses for stations in the 2 GHz band are automatically forfeited without further notice upon their
expiration unless an application for renewal has been filed with the FCC.  It is undisputed that Wells did not
timely file renewal applications for the six stations at issue; and, as a result, the licenses expired.  At the time
Wells applied for reinstatement of the expired licenses, requests for reinstatement had to be filed within thirty
days of the licenses' expiration.  Wells' request, made over two years after the licenses had expired, was
therefore untimely.  Thus, we conclude that Wells' licenses were properly not reinstated and the Branch
correctly issued new licenses for the subject stations.  Pursuant to Section 101.81 of the Commission's Rules,
all new stations in the 2 GHz band are authorized on a secondary basis to ET systems.  Consequently, we
conclude that under the circumstances presented here, Wells' new station licenses were properly accorded
secondary status.

     7.  Moreover, we are not persuaded by Wells' contentions that grants of primary status are warranted
here.  Wells argues that it should not receive secondary status because its stations had previously been
authorized and that, therefore, their authorization as new stations does not really represent an extension of its
system.  The Rules, however, provide no such exception and, even were we inclined to find one, we believe that
a lapse of two years is a factor weighing significantly against granting Wells' request.  Nor does the fact that
the licenses' expiration was inadvertent persuade us that the new licenses should be granted primary status. 
Rather, both of these arguments go to the question of whether the licenses should have been reinstated.  Having
decided that the licenses were properly not reinstated and were instead correctly issued as new licenses, Section
101.81 of the Rules does not permit us to grant the stations primary status.  Wells also argues that secondary
status might require it to pay for the cost of relocating its stations to another frequency band if relocation is
necessary.  That, however, is exactly the result the Commission intended for new stations.  Accordingly, we
conclude that this contention also does not provide a sufficient basis for granting primary status to Wells' new
licenses.

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     8.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934,
47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Sections 1.106 and 101.69 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, 101.69,
the petition for reconsideration filed by Wells Rural Electric Company on August 22, 1997, IS DENIED.  

     9.  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




D'wana R. Terry
Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau