WPC 2BVWZ 3|I cpi)?xxxXkEXx6X@JQX@HP LaserJet 4MHPLAS4M.WRSx  @,,,&؎X@2-C@S Z@3|I "5@^*8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZ*8888CE8SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo8oE]A]AN:*LS8JSSSSS.4}}S2S}288JJS88SS8J82t8[[[[^ee*C`^.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8DSS88S^*8*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx8Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf8.8NS8JSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS8A.SSxSSJP!PZv**8SJSS8]8****88JJ:S8A8x**x*8SSSS!S8.S^8SC[228`L*824S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff8888xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSSHP LaserJet 4MsecondAdditional)HPLAS4M.WRSC\  P6Q,,,&؎P"5@^.3Do\&==Go.=.o\\\\\\\\\\..oooQppf>=poz`pzzz=o=o\=\eQpX=fk5+f5kdngIN5>5>5>5kddddnnnnzf\pfdzfdon\\QQQpXpXpXfffkkIf>f>=>f=fp5pKkkdzIzK`N`NNo.s\3Q\\\\\==\9o933\\\==\\3\=9t=eeeeooo.Ijo2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.3Do\&==Go.=.o\\\\\\\\\\..oooQppf>=poz`pzzz=o=o\=\eQpX=fk5+f5kdngIN>>>ozof\\\\\\QXXXX5555dkdddddefnnnnfn2S_@ @~ Times New RomanBook Antiqua (TT)Times New Roman (Bold)Times New Roman (Italic)"5@^.=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc.====IK=\\QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\\QQzQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\G\p3pK\\\z=zKfGfGN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7==QQ\==\\=Q=7t=eeeegoo.Ijg2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=K\\!==\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc..=\Q\\=f=....==QQ@\=G=...=\\\\%\=3\g=\Ie77=jS.=79\Qzpppp====gf\QQQQQQzQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\\\ y_' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)X01Í ÍX01Í Í Ҋ#&I7  PT6Q&P#"5@^.=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_.====IK=\f\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\\QQQzQzQzQ\\\\ffIfGfG=Gf\fz3zKff\QQfGfGN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\7==\\\==\\=\=7t=eeeeioo.Iji2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=f\\3==\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_..=\\\\=f=....==\\@\=G=...=\\\\(\=7\i=\Ie77=jc.=7=\\zzzzGGGGipf\\\\\\QQQQQ3333\f\\\\\e\ffff\f2vpfkkAa8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2vtma2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 9   /a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 2F ma5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2VxxHTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . 2E!6 a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   2'w!!3"#a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:4.4/50`6Right Par[4]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers7 )2( )?t )B-S` ` `  @  Right Par[5]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersE )2( )?t )B.\ ` ` `  @hhh hhh Right Par[6]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS )2( )?t )B/e!"` ` `  hhh@ hhh Right Par[7]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersa )2( )?t )B0n#$` ` `  hhh@  291Z72}+838409Right Par[8]?^?bRight-Aligned Paragraph Numberso )2( )?t )B1w%&` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp Technical[1]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B2$9: Technical[2]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B3/;< Technical[3]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B4:=> 2<596:7<;8;Technical[4]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B5E?@ Technical[5]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B6PAB Technical[6]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B7[CD Technical[7]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B8fEF 2o?9<:=;e><>Technical[8]?^?bF0NF2?? )2( )?t )B9qGH Document[1]?^?bDocument StyleNF2??  )2( )?t )B:FIJ   ׃  1S&?%?^?bTechnical Document Style?? )2( )?t )B;&KL  . 2S&?&?^?bTechnical Document Style??% )2( )?t )B<&MN  . 2B=?>=@?@@fA3S&?'?^?bTechnical Document Style??3 )2( )?t )B=*OP    4S&?(?^?bTechnical Document Style??A )2( )?t )B>'QR   5S&?)?^?bTechnical Document Style??O )2( )?t )B?&ST   6S&?*?^?bTechnical Document Style??] )2( )?t )B@4U$V     2DAHBBBCRCD D7S&?+?^?bTechnical Document Style??k )2( )?t )BA&WX  . 8S&?,?^?bTechnical Document Style??y )2( )?t )BB&YZ  . 9S&?3?^?bDocument StyleNF2?? )2( )?t )BCFmn   ׃  10S&?4?^?bDocument StyleNF2?? )2( )?t )BD*op    2FEDFqfEGeEHeEf/;< 18-t o,3P68 GW0=(" o,b3**"(-t o,>Eg:=> 19-t o,4P68 GW0=(" o,b4**"(-t o,>EhE?@ 2b}i|zj%{k{l|20-t o,5P68 GW0=(" o,b5**"(-t o,>EiPAB 21-t o,6P68 GW0=(" o,b6**"(-t o,>Ej[CD 22-t o,7P68 GW0=(" o,b7**"(-t o,>EkfEF 23-t o,8P68 GW0=(" o,b8**"(-t o,>ElqGH 2m}nN~o~pX24-t o,9P68Document Style=(" o,b9**"(-t o,>EmFIJ *  ׃  25-t o,:P68Technical Document Style o,b:**"(-t o,>En&KL  . 26-t o,;P68Technical Document Style o,b;**"(-t o,>Eo&MN  . 27-t o,<P68Technical Document Style o,b<**"(-t o,>Ep*OP    2q&rsOt28-t o,=P68Technical Document Style o,b=**"(-t o,>Eq'QR   29-t o,>P68Technical Document Style o,b>**"(-t o,>Er&ST   30-t o,?P68Technical Document Style o,b?**"(-t o,>Es4U$V     31-t o,@P68Technical Document Style o,b@**"(-t o,>Et&WX  . 2uv;wx32-t o,AP68Technical Document Style o,bA**"(-t o,>Eu&YZ  . 33-t o,HP68Document Style=(" o,bH**"(-t o,>EvFmn *  ׃  34-t o,IP68Document Style=(" o,bI**"(-t o,>Ew*op    35-t o,JP68Document Style=(" o,bJ**"(-t o,>Ex0q r    2yqOze{e%|p36-t o,KP68Document Style=(" o,bK**"(-t o,>Eys t . 37-t o,LP68Document Style=(" o,bL**"(-t o,>Ez uv 38-t o,MP68Document Style=(" o,bM**"(-t o,>E{ wx 39-t o,NP68Document Style=(" o,bN**"(-t o,>E|yz` ` ` 29}p,~IA40-t o,OP68Document Style=(" o,bO**"(-t o,>E}{|` ` ` Format DownlP68Format Downloaded Document,be**"(-t o,>E~U XX    X\ #d6X@7@#Default ParaP68Default Paragraph Font o,bh**"(-t o,>EPP_Equation CaP68_Equation Caption" o,bv**"(-t o,>EPP2ےkc@[@42-t o,wP68_Equation Caption1" o,bw**"(-t o,>EPP43-t o,xP68_Equation Caption2" o,bx**"(-t o,>EPP"5@^%-77\V%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%%,-%77O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O7O1O1I1I1I1C1C1C1O7O7OO7O7O7O7,7%7%%%7+O7CC-O7O7O7bOI%I-=+=+N'27%177777"SS7!TT7S!%%117n%%77ln%1n%!t%<<<<>mBBs,?>[N6Wms[77UUUH_%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155%T7,OOOOOO=7111111I111117777777<7777777"5@^!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006!!!!()!22H,H,H,H,H,YCC,=,=,=,=,!!!!H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H2H2H2H282H2H,H,C,C,C,=,=,=,H2H2HH2H2H2H2(2!2!!!2'H2==)H2H2H2YHC!C)8'8'N#-2!,22222KK2LL2K!!,,2d!!22bd!,d!t!77778c<<!)22SN!!28!2222222222888,\HCCH=8HH!'H=YHH8HC8=HH^HH=!!/2!,2,2,!222N2222!'22H22,006G!2,d22!d8!Y!!,,#2d!b'!HH!22222!L28!L2(7!:-!2KKK,HHHHHHYC====!!!!HHHHHHH8HHHHHH82,,,,,,C,,,,,2222222722222222@ @M\R"5@^*8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZ*8888CE8SSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]JfSxSxSxS]JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS8S888SJoJ].]EoSoSxSofAfESASAN:*WSASSSSSS.4}}S2S}288]]S88SS8]82t8[[[[qee*C`q.wRSSn[Cfx`xWlRx[][ceIfIs`Wx[rriwge*********************************8FSS$88Sq*8*.SSSSSSSSSS88qqqSffoxffxx8Jo]oxfxfS]xff]]A.AFS8SSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSSAA.SJoJJAC.CZv**8S]SS8S8****88]]:S8A8o**]*ASSSS.S8.Sq8SC[228`W*824S}}}Sffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxqxxxxx]fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSJS"5@^.=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic.====IK=\\p\p\p\p\p\zzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQp\\\\fQ\p\p\p\p\zQzQzQpQpQpQ\\\\\\I\=\===\QzQf3fKz\z\\zpGpK\G\GN@.`\G\\\\\\39\7\7==ff\==\\=f=7t=eeee|oo.Ij|2Z\\yeCpj`vZefeloPpPj`e~~tro.................................=M\\'==\|.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==|||\ppzpp=Qzfzpp\fppffG3GM\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\GG3\QzQQGI2Ic..=\f\\=\=....==ff@\=G=z..f.G\\\\2\=3\|=\Ie77=j`.=79\\ppppppzpppp====z|fp\\\\\\\zQQQQQ3333\\\\\\\e\\\\\Q\ n9B8*X6B7  PT6QP0R=.X*K&Rz PQ&P y>I=.X&I7  PT6Q&P, y>N=.X#&N7  pTQ& I%,%X!J,7  PT6QJP B"(!X,(7  PT6Q,Pj !n9C8*X:<C7  xTQXj y>I=.X:,&I7  xTQ&X89:;<=>?[]_{|}~2 y_' X   ) y_' #&I7  PT6Q&P#Federal Communications Commission`~(#cDA 991629 ă   yx}dddy )Qb Before the Federal Communications Commission  y_'&2Washington, D.C. 20554 ă In the Matter of#&J\  P6Q&P#) )  y_'PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )FCC File Nos. 9504714176 and 9506716960 ) Fixed Microwave Radio Service) Applications for Station WNTA286, ) Petaluma, California) and Station KSR41, Cottonwood, California )  y_6 '  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Đ\  y_ 'X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:x nZ 'ԍId., Exhibit 2. >  "5. Beginning in the spring of 1995, PacBell Mobile and PG&E negotiated the relocation of  y_' xPG&E's 2 GHz facilities in order to accommodate PacBell Mobile's PCS operations in the 2 GHz band.L nZ'ԍPacBell Mobile Reconsideration at 1.L  xWhile the licenses for Stations WNTA286 and KSR41 were originally included in the negotiations, they  y_ 'were omitted when it was learned that the stations' new licenses contained a secondary basis condition.  nZ' xk ԍPacific Gas & Electric Company's Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration (PG&E Opposition) (filed Sept. 13, 1996) at 5.  "6. On June 15, 1995, PG&E filed an application to modify the license for Station KSR41. PG&E  xproposed to modify the path to remove a passive repeater station that lay 100 feet away; as a result,  y_ ' xtransmissions would travel directly from Station KSR41 to the receiving station.7  nZ`'ԍId. at 4.7 The Commission  xgranted PG&E a modified license for Station KSR41 effective September 6, 1995. The modified license  xcontained the following language: "This authorization is subject to the rules, procedures, and policies  x@established by the Commission in ET Docket No. 929, which include operation on a secondary, non y_'interference basis. Only frequency path 1895 is subject to this condition."=  nZ$'ԍId., Exhibit 6.=  "R7. TWOTWOOn October 12, 1995, the Commission initiated a new rule making proceeding regarding the  x2 GHz band and stated that while the proceeding was pending, the Commission would process only  y_8' x"applications for minor modifications that would not add to the relocation costs of PCS licensees.8 nZ"' x ԍAmendment to the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation,  nZ#'Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), 11 FCC Rcd 1923, 1926, 1964 (1995).   xLicenses for a limited list of technical changes would be granted primary status, but all other modifications  xwould be permitted only on a secondary basis unless the incumbent made a special showing of need to  xjustify primary status and the modification did not add to the relocation costs. The Commission noted that"h,l(l(,,e"  xthe new list of minor technical modifications was more limited than the modifications listed in the 1992  y_'Public Notice.3 nZ5'ԍId. 3  y_g' "I8. On February 20, 1996, before the end of the negotiations between PG&E and PacBell Mobile,gX nZ_' x ԍIt is our understanding that negotiations were successfully concluded in the spring of 1996. PacBell Mobile Reconsideration at 1.  xPG&E sent the Microwave Branch a letter requesting reconsideration of the assignment of secondary status  y_' xto the licenses for Stations WNTA286 and KSR41.  nZQ ' xt ԍLetter from Carole C. Harris, McDermott, Will & Emery to Michael B. Hayden, Chief, Microwave Branch,  x  Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 20, 1996) (PG&E Reconsideration). Pursuant to an internal  x reorganization of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the Microwave Branch is now part of the Bureau's Public Safety and Private Wireless Division. With regard to Station WNTA286, PG&E stated that  xcit had timely filed its application for license renewal and had sought no modifications to the license.  xgPG&E stated that granting primary status would not undermine any of the goals of the Commission as  xlaid out in the 2 GHz rulemaking proceeding and would not add to the cost of relocating PG&E's  y_5' xfacilities; it would merely permit PG&E to remain whole.95 nZm'ԍId. at 23.9 With regard to Station KSR41, PG&E stated  x7that the modification was minor and therefore, in accordance with Commission policy at the time, should  xnot have resulted in a change of the license to secondary status. Although by removing the repeater  xstation which lay 100 feet away, the azimuth of Station KSR41 changed from 180 degrees to 22.5 degrees,  y_i ' xPG&E stated that the effective azimuth of the path remained the same, i.e., 22.5 degrees.zi (  nZ1'ԍThe azimuth from the repeater station to the destination station was 22.5 degrees.z Moreover,  xaccording to PG&E, the station's licensed EIRP (Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power) decreased by 2.1  xtdB, energy overshoot beyond the passive reflector was eliminated and the cost of PCS relocation was  y_ ' xreduced by $35,000.D  nZ('ԍPG&E Reconsideration at 46.D PG&E stated that had it not modified the station, it would have retained primary  y_ ' xstatus and the new PCS licensee would have faced an additional $35,000 of relocation costs.1 H  nZ'ԍId.1 PacBell  y_j'Mobile states that PG&E did not serve it with a copy of PG&E's reconsideration letter.Vj nZ'ԍSee PacBell Mobile Reconsideration at 2.V  "9. On April 25, 1996, the Commission promulgated new regulations regarding the licensing of  y_' x7FMS systems in the 2 GHz band which substantially adopted the licensing rules proposed in the NPRM.WXh nZ"' x ԍAmendment to the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation,  nZ#' x First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (First Report and Order), 11 FCC Rcd 8825, 886769 (1996); 47 C.F.R.  101.81.W  y_' xkOn May 20, 1996, the Division granted PG&E's request for reconsideration. nZ&' x@ ԍLetter from Robert H. McNamara, Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division to Carole C. Harris, McDermott, Will & Emery (May 20, 1996) (stamped and signed copy of Feb. 20, 1996 PG&E Reconsideration). PG&E's two licenses were",l(l(,,U"  xsubsequently reissued without the secondary status condition. On July 30, 1996, PacBell Mobile filed its  xxreconsideration petition regarding the granting of PG&E's reconsideration request and reinstatement of the  y_' xlicenses to primary status.G nZ'ԍPacBell Mobile Reconsideration.G PacBell Mobile argues that PG&E's request for reconsideration should have  y_g' xbeen dismissed as untimely and that the Commission should have put the request on public notice.7 gX nZ_'ԍId. at 2.7  xpPacBell Mobile also argues that the change in azimuth for Station KSR41 was not a minor technical  y_' xchange and that the renewal application for Station WNTA286 was late.7! nZ 'ԍId. at 3.7 In sum, PacBell Mobile  y_'contends that both licenses were properly given secondary status.1"x nZ 'ԍId.1  y_h'F III. DISCUSSION ă  y_' " 10. Standing. To file a request for reconsideration, a person must either be a party to the  xZproceeding or be one whose interests are adversely affected by the action in question, in which case it  y_ ' xshall show why it was not possible to participate in the proceeding earlier.B#  nZD'ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.106(b). B PacBell Mobile did not file  xan opposition to PG&E's reconsideration petition. Thus, PacBell Mobile's status as a party to this  y_6 ' x3proceeding has not been established by its prior participation herein.$6  nZn' xD ԍSan Luis Obispo Limited Partnership, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Forfeiture Order, 11 FCC Rcd 9616, 9617 (1996). We find, however, that PacBell  x&Mobile is one whose interests are adversely affected by the subject Division action. PacBell Mobile is  xka PCS licensee whose authorized frequencies overlap with the frequencies included in the licenses at issue  xgin this proceeding. As explained above, PacBell Mobile is entitled to require PG&E to relocate its FMS  xfacilities in order to eliminate interference with PacBell Mobile's operations. If PG&E's licenses have co xprimary status, PacBell Mobile must pay PG&E's relocation costs. If PG&E's licenses have secondary  xstatus, however, PG&E must ensure that it does not interfere with PacBell Mobile's operations, and  y_' x"PacBell Mobile need not pay any relocation costs.`%  nZa'ԍSee para. RELOCATION COST2, supra.` Thus, PacBell Mobile's interests are adversely  xaffected by the granting of PG&E's request to reinstate primary status to the subject licenses. We also  xZfind that PacBell Mobile has shown why it did not participate in the proceeding earlier. PacBell Mobile  y_8' x3states that PG&E did not serve it with a copy of its reconsideration letter,L&8  nZX!'ԍPacBell Mobile Reconsideration at 2.L and the we did not issue a  y_' xpublic notice regarding the request.U' nZ#'ԍSee n.NOTICE59, infra. U PacBell Mobile further states that it did not learn of PG&E's  y_' xreconsideration request until after it had been granted.L( nZ&'ԍPacBell Mobile Reconsideration at 2.L Thus, PacBell Mobile contends that it had no"0(,l(l(,,"  x*notice of the proceeding. Accordingly, we find that PacBell Mobile has demonstrated that it has standing to challenge the grant of PG&E's reconsideration request.  y_g' " 11. Timeliness of PacBell's Reconsideration Petition. Parties generally have only thirty days to  y_4' xseek reconsideration of an action taken pursuant to delegated authority.b)4 nZ'ԍ47 U.S.C.  405; 47 C.F.R.  1.104(b), 1.106(f).b This deadline is statutory and  y_' xmay not be waived by the Commission.*X nZ' x ԍStephen E. Powell, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 11925, 11926 (1996) (citing Reuters Ltd.  nZ'v. FCC, 781 F.2d 946, 952 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). In the present case, PG&E's reconsideration petition was  y_' xgranted on May 20, 1996.+ nZ ' x@ ԍLetter from Robert H. McNamara, Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division to Carole C. Harris, McDermott, Will & Emery (May 20, 1996) (stamped and signed copy of Feb. 20, 1996 PG&E Reconsideration). Thus, the last day to file a petition for reconsideration was June 19, 1996., nZv 'ԍSee 47 C.F.R. 1.4(b)(5) (where no public notice is issued, period begins on date appearing on document).  y_' x Since PacBell Mobile did not file its reconsideration petition until July 30, 1996,G- nZ'ԍPacBell Mobile Reconsideration.G we would ordinarily  xbe unable to entertain PacBell Mobile's Petition. However, the Commission may be required to entertain  xa petition for reconsideration filed beyond the thirtyday period where there are "extraordinary  y_'circumstances," such as a lack of notice.u.X(  nZ' x ԍSee, e.g., Morris H. Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d 1086, 109192 (D.C. Cir. 1976); In the Matter of Adelphia  nZ' x Communications Corp, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10759, 10760 (1997); Application of Eagle Radio, Memorandum Opinion  nZZ'and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 5105, 5108 (1997).u We believe that such extraordinary circumstances exist here.  "8 12. As noted above, PacBell Mobile did not have notice of PG&E's filing of its reconsideration  xrequest. We find that PacBell Mobile also did not have notice of the Division's decision until it received  xa copy of that decision from PG&E on July 9, 1996, after the thirtyday period for filing reconsideration  xrequests had expired. Under these unusual circumstances, we find that PacBell Mobile first received  xnotice of the grant of PG&E's Reconsideration request when it received a copy of that grant on July 9,  x*1996, because the FCC had provided notice of such action only to the identified parties to the proceeding  xD-- namely, PG&E. We note that PacBell Mobile filed its Petition soon thereafter, on July 30, 1996, which  xwas within thirty days of its learning of the Division's earlier action. Accordingly, we conclude that we  x may entertain PacBell Mobile's Petition even though it was filed after the thirtyday period set forth in  y_'Section 405 of the Communications Act.f/H  nZ'ԍSee Morris H. Gardner v. FCC, 530 F.2d at 109192.f  " 13. On September 3, 1996, PG&E filed a motion to file a late response to PacBell Mobile's  y_8' x Petition.808 nZ#'ԍPG&E Opposition.8 PacBell Mobile did not oppose the motion. On September 26, 1996, PacBell Mobile filed a  y_' xmotion to file a latefiled reply to PG&E's response,|1h nZ &'ԍReply of Pacific Bell Mobile Services (filed Sept. 26, 1996) (PacBell Mobile Reply).| which PG&E did not oppose. We will grant both  xmotions and accept the filings. As both parties have pointed out, this will ensure that we have the"1,l(l(,,"  y_' x"complete record before us for our consideration.C2 nZh'ԍSee 47 U.S.C. 154(j).C We now turn to the merits of PacBell Mobile's Reconsideration Petition.  y_g' " 14. Timeliness of PG&E's Reconsideration Petition. The language set forth on PG&E's licenses  xfor Stations WNTA286 and KSR41 imposed a condition that the two facilities were to be operated on a  y_' xsecondary basis.d3X nZ'ԍThe language is quoted above in paras. 4 and 6, supra.d PG&E's letter seeking reconsideration came five to seven months after the effective  xkdates of the licenses. PacBell Mobile argues that PG&E's petition was therefore untimely and should have  xkbeen dismissed. PacBell Mobile states that licensees should have the responsibility to seek reconsideration  y_h'promptly and should not be allowed to extend the period to seek reconsideration for several months.o4h nZ 'ԍPacBell Mobile Reconsideration at 2; PacBell Mobile Reply at 12, 45. o  "15. While we recognize that licensees generally have only thirty days to seek reconsideration of  y_' xZa condition placed on their licenses,~5x nZ'ԍ47 C.F.R. 94.41 (as then in effect); 47 C.F.R.  1.945(e); 47 U.S.C.  405.~ we nonetheless note the Division's decision in Contel Cellular of  y_ ' xxNashville, Inc.6  nZD' x< ԍContel Cellular of Nashville, Inc., Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 6302 (WTB PSPWD 1999)  nZ '(Contel). In Contel, the Division determined that the secondary statusconditions placed on certain  xt2 GHz FMS licenses contained language that did not provide sufficient notice to the licensees that their  y_6 ' xtlicenses were subject to a condition.J76 `  nZ6'ԍContel, 14 FCC Rcd 630506. J Virtually identical language was placed on the PG&E licenses at  y_ ' xissue here.p8  nZ'ԍSee paras. 4 and 6, supra; Contel, 14 FCC Rcd at 6304.p Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Contel, the date from which the thirtyday filing  xDrequirement would begin to run had not yet been established in the instant matter. Thus, PG&E's request  y_ 'was timely and was properly considered on its merits.I9  nZ'ԍContel, 14 FCC Rcd at 6304.I  "16. PacBell Mobile also argues that PG&E's request for reconsideration should have been placed  y_' xZon public notice giving PacBell Mobile an opportunity to comment.O: nZ'ԍPacBell Mobile Reconsideration at 2, 4.O PacBell Mobile cites no authority  xfor this proposition, and the Commission does not ordinarily place reconsideration requests regarding  y_' xplicensing actions on public notice.; nZ"' x< ԍWhile the  NOTICE Commission provides public notice of the acceptance of filing of certain applications, the  x acceptance of major amendments and certain minor amendments, and significant Commission actions regarding  x applications, as well as other information which the Commission in its discretion believed to be of public  x significance, it does not provide public notice of the filing of many applications and notices, including the filing of  x applications in the Private Wireless Service, much less petitions for reconsideration regarding conditions placed on  nZ&'licenses in the Private Wireless Service. See 47 C.F.R.  1.933.  In any event, PacBell Mobile has now had a full opportunity to oppose PG&E's reconsideration request. "k;,l(l(,,2"Ԍ y_' "/ԙ17. Station WNTA286. The license for Station WNTA286 was scheduled to expire on March 23,  x1995. While PG&E filed its renewal application on February 14, 1995, the credit card authorization for  xthe renewal fee apparently could not be processed. On March 31, 1995, PG&E resubmitted the application  y_g' xalong with a check for the filing fee. PG&E argues that its March 31 application was accepted nunc pro  y_4' xptunc, and that therefore a secondary status condition should not have been imposed on its license.=<4 nZ'ԍPG&E Opposition at 3.=  xPacBell Mobile cites the Commission's Rules (Section 1.1112) which state that where final payment has  y_' xnot been made, an application submitted after the regulatory deadline will not be given nunc pro tunc  y_' xtreatment.>=X nZ 'ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.1112.> PacBell Mobile argues that therefore PG&E received a new license and imposing the  y_h'secondary status condition was correct.D>h nZ 'ԍPacBell Mobile Reply at 23.D  "A18. We find that neither party is correct. PG&E cites no authority for its argument that its  y_' xapplication was accepted nunc pro tunc. PacBell's citation of Section 1.1112 of the Commission's Rules  xis misplaced because that section provides that the Commission will dismiss an application when a party  xhas not made final payment. Here, PG&E did make final payment and the Commission never dismissed PG&E's application. Accordingly, Section 1.1112 is inapplicable.  "19. Rather, we find that PG&E's license was timely reinstated. During the time at issue, Part 94  xof the Commission's Rules, which governed private operational FMS licenses such as PG&E's, did not  xgcontain any specific provisions regarding the reinstatement of expired licenses. Rather, reinstatements  x were handled as part of the license application and renewal procedures. Section 1.1152 of the Rules,  xkwhich specified the annual regulatory fees and filing locations for the wireless radio services, set forth the  xfee, filing location and form (FCC Form 402) to be used for the reinstatement of Part 94 microwave  y_' xlicenses.?x nZ' x_ ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.1152(2)(a) (1995). We note that the Commission's Rules have specified a fee for the  xo reinstatement of expired licenses for fixed microwave stations at least as far back as 1965, even though the applicable  nZF' x subparts (Part 94 and its predecessors) have not contained any explicit provisions regarding reinstatement. See  x Amendment of Subpart G of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules Relating to the Schedule of Application Filing Fees,  nZ'Report and Order, 1 FCC2d 1349, 1355 (1965).  In addition, the instructions for FCC Form 402, which was used to apply for both new licenses  xand renewals of FMS stations, provided that it also should be used to apply for reinstatements. FCC Form  x3402 stated, in relevant part, "CORRECT FORM: Use FCC Form 402 to apply for an operational fixed  xmicrowave station authorization in the Private Operational Fixed Microwave Radio Service (Part 94). This  y_' xincludes ... reinstatements of expired authorizations."x@(  nZ 'ԍFCC Form 40210, Instructions for Completion of FCC Form 402 (July 1994) at 1. x The instructions also advised applicants how to  y_' x complete the form for reinstatements.9A  nZ"'ԍId. at 23.9 Further, we note that the Commission previously had similar"H A,l(l(,,1"  x}uncodified reinstatement policies with respect to licenses in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services  y_'(PLMRS) and the General Mobile Radio Service. B nZ5' x ԍSee Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Construction, Licensing, and  nZ' xQ Operation of Private Land Mobile Radio Stations, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 5 FCC Rcd 6401, 6402 (1990)  nZ' x7 (PLMRS NPRM) (describing uncodified policy of allowing PLMRS licenses to be reinstated within six months of  x expiration and noting that reinstatement policy is primarily based on application processing policy); Amendment of  xk Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Construction, Licensing, and Operation of Private Land  nZ' x Mobile Radio Stations, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 7297, 7300 & n.32 (1991) (PLMRS Report and Order) (noting  xU that "[c]urrent policy is stated on our application materials"); Amendment of Subparts A and E of Part 95 to Improve  nZ' x the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS), Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 6554, 6562 (1988) (GMRS Report and  nZu ' x Order) (describing uncodified policy of routinely granting applications to reinstate GMRS licenses filed within six  xZ months of the license's expiration). In both the case of PLMRS and GMRS, the Commission later codified the  nZ ' x reinstatement policies (in the case of PLMRS, with changes) when it generally revised the relevant parts. PLMRS  nZ ' x Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 6300 & n.32 (shortening time period to 30 days after the license's expiration date);  nZ ' x GMRS Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd at 6562 (codifying existing policy). With respect to FMS licenses, the  x Commission also codified the reinstatement policy when it revised Part 94 and combined it with Part 21 to establish  x the new Part 101. Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of the Rules to Establish a New Part 101  nZ' x Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13449 (1996). The new  xU Part 101 continued the reinstatement rule provided in Part 21 which gave users 30 days to seek reinstatement of their expired licenses. 47 C.F.R. 101.65(b) (1998).  "20. PG&E's license for Station WNTA286 expired on March 23, 1995. PG&E refiled its  xapplication for renewal on March 31, 1995, within eight days of the expiration of its license. The  xCommission's records show that PG&E's license was, in fact, reinstated and that public notice of the  y_' xreceipt of PG&E's reinstatement application was made on May 12, 1995.C nZ'ԍWireless Telecommunications Bureau, Public Notice, Report No. 1795 (May 12, 1995). The granting of a reinstatement  y_' xrequest generally operates to reinstate and renew the license nunc pro tunc. D 0 nZk' x ԍSee Amendment of Parts 1 and 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning the Construction, Licensing, and  nZ3' x Operation of Private Land Mobile Radio Stations, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd at 730001; see also Danny's Two  nZ' x Way Communications, Inc., d/b/a/ Dan Comm Paging, 9 FCC Rcd 3192, 3193 (1994); T-Com, Inc., 5 FCC Rcd 6691,  nZ'669293 (1990); ULS Reconsideration MO&O at  22.  Therefore, with regard to  xthe proper status of 2 GHz FMS licenses, where a license has been reinstated pursuant to a timely request,  xwe will treat it as though it has been timely renewed. Because PG&E's license for Station WNTA286 was  xtimely reinstated, we conclude that a secondary status condition should not have been placed on the license and, thus, we 'fthe Division correctly granted PG&E's request for reconsideration to remove the condition.  y_i ' "qg21. Station KSR41. At the time PG&E's applications for modification were granted, the  xCommission's policy was that any change in azimuth was a minor change which would not result in the  y_ ' x"gimposition of secondary status.E  nZ"' x ԍTwo Gigahertz Fixed Microwave Licensing Policy, Public Notice, Mimeo No. 23115 (May 14, 1992); ET  nZ#'First Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 689192 (1992). Given that the facility change requested in PG&E's modification  x&application involved only an azimuth change, we agree with the Division that such proposal was not a  xmajor change warranting secondary status. Accordingly, we find that the license for Station KSR41  xshould have been given primary status, and, thus, we correctly granted PG&E's request for reconsideration in this regard. " pE,l(l(,,t"Ԍ "22. PacBell Mobile further argues that because the request for reconsideration was untimely, the  y_' x/Division should have applied the rule at the time the request was filed.LF nZ5'ԍPacBell Mobile Reconsideration at 4.L First, as stated above, we  x7conclude that the request was not untimely because the language placed on the license for Station KSR41  xgwas not sufficiently clear to place PG&E on notice that it was subject to a secondary status condition.  xgSecond, PG&E's request did not stand alone but rather was a request for the Division to reconsider its  xQaction imposing secondary status when it granted the modified license. Thus, we will apply the rules that  xwere in effect and should have been applied when the initial action was taken, rather than rules that were  y_'adopted after that time.;GXX nZ ' x ԍSee generally Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 750, 75657 (D.C. Cir. 1987), aff'd on other  nZ[ ' x grounds, 488 U.S. 204 (1988) (new substantive regulations adopted by agency may be given future effect only). ;  y_5'w) IV. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  y_' "23. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 405 of the  xCommunications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration of Pacific Bell Mobile Services IS DENIED.   y_ ' "+24. 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. `B(#FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  @ D'wana R. Terry  @ Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division  @ Wireless Telecommunications Bureau