Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY ) FCC File Nos. 739928 and 739929 ) Request for Reconsideration of Grant of ) Secondary Status for Stations WNES337) Thompsonville, Texas and KCE90 ) Mirando, Texas ) ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION Adopted: October 13, 1999 Released: October 15, 1999 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On August 11, 1998, Houston Pipe Line Company requested reconsideration of the imposition of a secondary status condition on the authorization for fixed microwave service (FMS) Stations WNES337, Thompsonville, Texas and KCE90, Mirando City, Texas. Houston Pipe Line Company (Houston Pipe Line) has operated a 2 GHz microwave system for over fifteen years to support its pipe line operations. For the reasons set forth herein, we grant the request in part and deny in part. II. BACKGROUND 2. The Commission has reallocated portions of the 2 GHz band from FMS to Emerging Technology Services (ET). To facilitate the transition from FMS to ET, the Commission promulgated regulations regarding the future licensing of FMS stations in the 2 GHz band. According to the Commission's Rules, new stations, extensions of existing networks and major modifications of existing stations will be licensed on a secondary basis. Primary status will be granted for a limited number of minor modifications. All other minor modifications will render the modified FMS license secondary to ET systems unless the FMS licensee justifies primary status and the modification does not add to the relocation costs to be paid by the new ET licensees. 3. On January 13, 1998, Houston Pipe Line filed applications for authorization to modify the facilities for Stations WNES337 and KCE90. These modifications consisted of data corrections for both station locations, increasing the beamwidth of Station WNES337 from 4.1 degrees to 4.9 degrees and decreasing the antenna height of Station KCE90 from 235 feet to 217 feet. Effective April 30, 1998, the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch issued modified authorizations for Stations WNES337 and KCE90 with a secondary status condition on each license. Prior to this time, both stations were authorized to operate on a primary basis. 4. On August 11, 1998, Houston Pipe Line requested reconsideration of the imposition of the secondary status condition on Stations WNES337 and KCE90 and re-issuance of these licenses on a primary basis. In a one-page letter, Houston Pipe Line stated that the modifications to its coordinates were data corrections and did not reflect any change in the actual station location. Additionally, Houston Pipe Line notes that the errors in the location data were discovered as it endeavored to comply with antenna structure registration requirements. The letter did not address the other modifications, i.e., changes to beamwidth and antenna height, made to the licenses. III. DISCUSSION 5. Houston Pipe Line's licenses were issued with a secondary status condition on April 30, 1998; however, Houston Pipe Line Company did not seek reconsideration until August 11, 1998. Ordinarily, licensees have only thirty days to seek reconsideration of a condition placed on their licenses. As we decided in Contel Cellular of Nashville, Inc., however, in the case of the secondary status conditions placed on 2 GHz FMS licenses, the language used did not provide sufficient notice to the affected licensees that their licenses were subject to a condition. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Contel Cellular of Nashville, Inc., Houston Pipe Line's request is properly considered on the merits. 6. Houston Pipe Line states that the changes to the stations coordinates merely corrected errors discovered in the course of complying with the antenna structure registration requirement and did not involve a change in the stations' locations. Under the Commission's Rules, secondary status is not applied to data corrections which do not involve a change in the location of an existing facility. 7. However, the reconsideration request addresses neither the increase in beamwidth for Station WNES337 nor the decrease in antenna height for Station KCE90. We turn first to the increase in beamwidth for Station WNES337. Under the rules then in effect, licensees were required to file modification applications for any changes in antenna beamwidth. Changes in beamwidth were not listed either as minor modifications in Section 101.59 of the Commission's Rules or as modifications not requiring prior authorization in Section 101.61 of the Commission's Rules. Nor are changes in beamwidth listed in Section 101.81 of the Rules among the technical changes that an incumbent FMS licensee can make without losing primary status. We therefore conclude that an increase in beamwidth was a major modification under the rules then in effect. We are supported in this conclusion by the fact that the current rules explicitly list an increase in beamwidth by a microwave station as a major modification. Under Section 101.81 of the Commission's Rules, major modifications are authorized only on a secondary basis to ET systems. Accordingly, the license for Station WNES337, which was modified to increase the beamwidth, was properly accorded secondary status. 8. With regard to Station KCE90's change in antenna height, we note that minor changes in antenna height are among the changes provided in Section 101.81 that will be permitted without resulting in secondary status for the incumbent FMS licensee. The rule does not specify what changes in antenna height are "minor." The Commission referred to the list of technical changes in Section 101.81 that will not result in secondary status as a "list of minor technical modifications." There being no indication to the contrary, we conclude that the Commission intended for the items on the list in Section 101.81 that are denominated "minor changes" to be defined in light of the Commission's Rules defining minor modifications. For these purposes, we conclude that all decreases in antenna height should be considered minor changes because Section 101.59(c)(2)(i) of the Commission's Rules, as then in effect, provided that changes in center line height (i.e., antenna height) were considered minor if, inter alia, antenna height was not increased more than ten feet. The current rules are the same. Therefore, we find any decrease in antenna height fits within the parameters of the technical change described in Section 101.81(b) because any decrease in antenna height would be considered a minor modification in accordance with Section 101.59(c)(2)(i) of the Commission's Rules. Since Houston Pipe Line requested modification of the license for Station KCE90 to decrease its antenna height, imposition of a secondary status condition was improper. We therefore find that Houston Pipe Line should not have been accorded secondary status for Station KCE90, and we will re-issue the license with primary status. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 9. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and Sections 1.106 and 101.81 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, 101.81, the Petition for Reconsideration of Houston Pipe Line Company filed on January 13, 1998 IS GRANTED with respect to Station KCE90 and IS DENIED with respect to Station WNES337. The license for Station KCE90 will be re-issued with primary status. 10. 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