********************************************************    
                         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 re Application of               )
                                   )
ADAMS TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE        )    File No. 31973-CD-P/ML-96
                                   )
For Additional Paging and Radiotelephone     )
Service Facilities on Frequency 152.84            )
MHz at Quincy, Carthage, and            )
Mt. Sterling, Illinois             )



                             ORDER


   Adopted:  October 20, 1999           Released:  October 20, 1999

By the Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

     1.   This Order denies a petition for reconsideration (Petition), filed by Adams Telephone
Cooperative (Adams) on June 20, 1997, of an action taken by the Commercial Wireless Division's
Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch).  For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition.

     2.   Adams filed the above-captioned application on July 31, 1996.  The Branch dismissed the
application on May 21, 1997, as defective because Adams requested transmitters with an effective radiated
power (ERP) that exceeded the basic power limit of 500 Watts, but did not contain an encompassment
exhibit as required by section 22.559(b) of the Commission's rules.  Section 22.559(b) requires applicants
to file an ecompassment exhibit for applications to operate a transmitter with ERP exceeding the basic
power and height-power limits of section 22.535.  In its Petition, Adams contends that it was not necessary
to submit an encompassment exhibit with its application because section 22.559(b) requires an exhibit only
in instances where the ERP exceeds both the basic power and height-power limits of section 22.535 of the
Commission's rules.    

     3.   We disagree.  The purpose of the rule is to require an applicant proposing a transmitter
that would exceed either basic power limits or the average distance allowed for service contours to
demonstrate that, in either situation, the interfering contour of the proposed transmitter does not expand the
applicant's existing composite interference contour.  To allow an applicant to avoid demonstrating that
exceeding the basic power limits does not expand the applicant's composite interference contour because
the proposed transmitter would not exceed the allowed distance for a service contour would defeat the
purpose of the rule.  Accordingly, consistent with the Commission's standard procedures for processing
paging applications, we find that section 22.559(b) requires an encompassment exhibit for applications to
operate a transmitter with the ERP exceeding the basic power limits of section 22.535(b), as well as for
applications that exceed the height-power limits of  22.535(c).  Because Adams's application requested the
authority to operate transmitters with an ERP that exceeds the basic power limits of section 22.535(b) and
did not contain an encompassment exhibit, the application was defective and properly dismissed by the
Branch.  Accordingly, the Petition is denied. 

     4.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 405, of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 405, and sections 0.331 and 1.106 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.331, 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by Adams Telephone
Cooperative on June 20, 1997, IS DENIED.


                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION



                              
                              Cynthia S. Thomas                  
                                   Deputy Chief, Policy and Rules Branch
                              Commercial Wireless Division
                              Wireless Telecommunications Bureau