******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word 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 Communication Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Applications of ) ) QUESTAR INFOCOMM INC. ) FCC File Nos. 9706836 and 9706837 ) To Modify Fixed Microwave Radio Stations ) WPJE663, Salt Lake City, UT and ) WPJE825, Salt Lake City, UT ) ORDER Adopted: December 16, 1999 Released: December 17, 1999 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Western Tele-Communications, Inc. (WTCI) has petitioned the Commission for denial of the above- captioned applications filed by Questar InfoComm Inc. (Questar) for fixed microwave radio station facilities. In addition, WTCI requests that conditional authority for Questar to operate such facilities be cancelled. For the reasons set for the below, we grant the WTCI Petition. II. BACKGROUND 2. On May 1, 1998, Microwave Planning, Inc. (MPI), an entity used by Questar for frequency coordination services, circulated its initial frequency coordination of the facilities sought in the above- captioned applications. Comsearch, a frequency coordinator used by WTCI, responded on May 15, 1998, citing cases of potential interference. MPI replied on May 21, 1998, denying that there was any potential interference. On May 27, 1998, Comsearch notified MPI that at least five cases of interference remained unresolved. 3. On June 5, 1998, Questar filed the above-captioned applications seeking to add 6093.45 MHz to a link from Farnsworth Peak (Station WPJE663) to Salt Lake City (Station WPJE825), and 6345.49 MHz to a link from Salt Lake City (Station WPJE825) to Farnsworth Peak (Station WPJE663). The applications included a statement from MPI that there were no unresolved interference problems. 4. On July 23, 1998, WTCI filed its Petition. O Questar has filed an Opposition, to which WTCI replied. III. DISCUSSION 5. WTCI contends that Questar's channel plan is inconsistent with and will cause interference to WTCI's operation of its Salt Lake City facilities. Specifically, WTCI contends that Questar's proposal would create a "bucking" path to WTCI's Salt Lake City-Farnsworth path, and would effectively eliminate its protected growth channel on its Salt Lake City-Herriman path. WTCI further contends that it notified Questar of these conflicts and Questar did not resolve them. WTCI also argues that because Salt Lake City is an area of frequency congestion, Questar should be required to use Standard A antennas rather than the proposed Standard B antennas. In response, Questar argues that WTCI has erred in its calculations and is incorrect regarding the alleged "bucking" condition. Questar contends that there is no interference issue, and further contends that a Standard A antenna is unnecessary. 6. Section 101.103(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules provides, in pertinant part: Proposed frequency usage must be prior coordinated with existing licensees . . . . Coordination must be completed prior to filing an application for regular authorization . . . . All applicants and licensees must cooperate fully and make reasonable efforts to resolve technical problems and conflicts . . . . Applicants should make every reasonable effort to avoid blocking the growth of systems as prior coordinated . . . . In the event that technical problems are not resolved, an explanation must be submitted with the application. Section 101.103(d)(2) details coordination procedure guidelines, and includes the following requirements: (iv). . . . Every reasonable effort should be made by all applicants, permittees and licensees to eliminate all problems and conflicts. . . . (vii) All technical problems that come to light during coordination must be resolved unless a statement is included with the application to the effect that the applicant is unable or unwilling to resolve the conflict and briefly the reason therefor; (xii) Any frequency reserved by a licensee for future use in the bands subject to this part must be released for use by another licensee, permittee or applicant upon a showing by the latter that it requires an additional frequency and cannot coordinate one that is not reserved for future use. 7. Having reviewed the entire record in this matter, we conclude that Questar has not complied with Sections 101.103(d)(1) and (2) of the Commission's Rules. While Questar admits that a conflict exists over whether WTCI would incur interference from Questar's proposed operations, Questar's pending applications do not contain any statement disclosing the technical conflict. The Part 101 rules mandate that technical problems must either be resolved, or the applicant must state that it is unable or unwilling to resolve the conflict, and provide the reasons for its inability or unwillingness to resolve the conflict. As a result, we conclude that Questar should have resolved the technical conflict before filing its applications, or at least disclosed the issue in the applications. We also note that the Commission's rules require applicants to utilize Standard A antennas in areas of frequency congestion. We conclude that Questar's proposed facilities are in an area of frequency congestion, so the use of a Standard B antenna in such area is inappropriate. 8. Further, we note that Section 101.31(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules permits a qualified applicant to begin conditional operations while its application for permanent authorization is pending. The first qualification is that frequency coordination has been successfully completed. Because we find that Questar has not successfully completed frequency coordination with WTCI, Questar does not qualify for conditional authorization under this rule. 9. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Questar's subject applications should be dismissed. In addition, any conditional authority under which Questar is currently operating is hereby cancelled. If Questar is still interested in pursuing the proposed modifications, it must comply with the Commission's Rules concerning frequency coordination. IV. CONCLUSION 10. For the reasons stated above, WTCI's Petition is granted. Questar's applications will be dismissed for failure to complete the frequency coordination process set forth in the Commission's Rules. We also find that Questar does not qualify for conditional authority. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. Pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 309, and 312 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 309, and 312, and Sections 1.939 and 101.43(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.939 and 101.43(a), IT IS ORDERED that WTCI's Petition to Deny and for Cancellation of Conditional Authority filed on July 23, 1998, IS GRANTED. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that applications File Nos. 9706836 and 9706837, filed by Questar on June 5, 1998, WILL BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Questar's conditional authority to operate the system proposed therein IS CANCELLED effective upon the release date of this Order. 13. This action is taken pursuant to the authority delegated by Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.131 and 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau