$// R&O, Amendment of Section 22.521(b) FCC 94-83 //$ $/ 47 C.F.R.  22.521(b) /$ $/ 47 C.F.R.  22.813(a) /$ Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 FCC 94-83 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Section 22.521(b) ) CC Docket No. 91-121 ) RM 6792 ) CC Docket No. 92-137 of the Commission's Rules to ) RM 7859 amend the table of ) assignments for air-ground ) stations in the Public ) Mobile Service ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: April 6, 1994 Released: By the Commission: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On April 25, 1991, we released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice), in CC Docket No. 91-121, seeking comments on the proposals to reassign channels in the air-ground service in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Seattle, Washington; Washington, D.C.; Grand Canyon and Williams, Arizona; Newark, New Jersey; and Laurel Run, Pennsylvania. Subsequently, on July 1, 1992, we released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), in CC Docket No. 92-137, which proposed allocating working channel 3 (454.850 MHz) to Schaller, Iowa. For the reasons set forth below, we do not adopt the rule proposed in CC Docket No. 92-137 as set forth in the NPRM, and we adopt in part the rules proposed in CC Docket No. 91-121 based upon comments filed in response to the Notice. II. BACKGROUND 2. Air-ground radiotelephone service in the 450 MHz band is a public radio service between base stations and airborne mobile stations. In creating the air-ground service, the Commission adopted the goal of encouraging the provision of a nationwide air-ground service utilizing the minimum amount of spectrum necessary. The Commission recognized that its allocation of 12 air-ground channels would permit nationwide service if the channels were used in sufficiently separate geographic areas. III. DISCUSSION A. Canada's Request 3. The Canadian Government wrote to the Commission informing us that it was receiving interference to its Toronto facility from our allocation of channel 12 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Canadian Government asked the Commission to consider moving channel 10 from Washington, D.C. to Pittsburgh. The Notice proposed reallocating channels as Canada requested. No comments were filed in response to the Notice. To avoid this interference problem, we hereby adopt the proposal as set forth in the Notice, move channel 10 from Washington to Pittsburgh and delete channel 12 from the Pittsburgh area. 4. In its letter, Canada also stated that it anticipated interference from channel 9 in Seattle, should that channel be activated. In the Notice, we proposed to delete channel 9 from Seattle. We hereby adopt that proposal to avoid potential interference and delete channel 9 from Seattle. B. Mtel's Request 5. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies Corp. (Mtel) proposed moving its facility from the Grand Canyon Airport to Williams, Arizona. It proposed this change because of the inefficiency of operation at the Grand Canyon Airport. An engineering review of Mtel's proposed relocation revealed that no co-channel interference would result from the move to Williams, Arizona. We find that the public interest will be served by the change Mtel proposed. Therefore, we hereby amend Section 22.521(b) of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations to delete channel 12 from Grand Canyon, Arizona and assign it to Williams, Arizona. C. All-American's Request 6. All-American Products, Inc. (All-American) proposed reassigning channel 9 from Newark, New Jersey to Laurel Run, Pennsylvania. All-American argued that channel 9 was not in use in Newark, but that it could be used at the Wilkes- Barre/Scranton Airport in Pennsylvania where there is no channel assigned. Pactel Paging filed comments opposing the proposal set forth in the Notice to move channel 9. Pactel argued that the Notice incorrectly assumed that the channel was not in use in the Newark area. However, Pactel points out, NYNEX filed for channel 9 in Kew Gardens, New York, less than 20 miles from Newark. Then, NYNEX transferred all of its air-ground facilities in the New York area to Pactel. Pactel is now operating channel 9 from Kew Gardens, near Newark. We will not reassign channel 9 in Newark to Laurel Run, Pennsylvania because it is currently in use. The frequency was originally assigned to Newark in anticipation of significant demand in the area. In accordance with our expectations, licensees have applied for service in those areas. 7. As an alternative, All-American proposed reassigning channel 2 from Boston to Laurel Run, Pennsylvania. Currently, there are applications pending for service on channel 2 in Boston. While we recognize that some additional service could be provided if we reallocated a frequency to Laurel Run, Pennsylvania, we originally assigned frequencies to the areas of greatest population and greatest general aviation traffic. All-American's petition and comments represent that there are approximately 100,000 airplane take-offs and landings annually in the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton airport. All-American does not refute that many of those are not general aviation flights but are commercial aviation served by a different air-to-ground radiotelephone service. Nor has All-American shown that aircraft in flight over the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area are inadequately served by the nearby air-ground station. Channel 2 was originally assigned to Boston in anticipation of substantial demand for service there. For these reasons, we find that All-American has not justified our reassigning channel 2 from Boston to Laurel Run, Pennsylvania. Therefore, we deny All-American's request for a reassignment of channel 2 from Boston. D. Schaller's Request 8. Schaller Telephone Company (Schaller) requested that we assign channel 3 to Schaller, Iowa. Schaller's petition for rulemaking stated that there would be no co- channel interference problems posed by this allocation, and the NPRM proposed the requested channel assignment. However, Schaller, in its petition and comments, failed to note that channel 3 was already allocated 200 miles away in Minneapolis. Based on its submissions, we are not convinced that Schaller can show interference-free operation vis-a-vis the pending operation in Minneapolis. Our table of allocations does not currently allocate co-channel stations within 400 miles of each other (most co- channel allocations maintain a separation of greater than 500 miles). As noted above, the proposed allocation to Schaller is merely 200 miles from the co-channel allocation in Minneapolis. Analysis by Commission engineers indicates that 200 miles is too close to ensure interference-free operation between co-channel stations. Schaller indicated that the nearest co-channel station was in service more than 500 miles away, which provided sufficient separation to avoid interference problems. 9. Schaller erred in confusing licensed operation of a channel with allocation of a channel. Channel 3 was not licensed in Minneapolis, although it was allocated there. Moreover, before the NPRM was adopted Pactel Paging had filed an application to provide service on channel 3 in Minneapolis. That application is pending, as are applications from four other applicants for channel 3 in Minneapolis. Consequently, Schaller's statement, that the minimum distance channel separation requirement is met, is incorrect. Therefore, we find that the public interest would not be served by granting Schaller's request. We will not allocate channel 3 to Schaller, Iowa. IV. ORDERING PARAGRAPHS 10. Authority for the rule changes adopted herein is contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j) and 303(r) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r). 11. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Section 22.521(b) of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED to reflect the channel assignments set forth in the Appendix to this Order, consistent with the terms of this Report and Order. 12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CC Docket No. 91-121 and CC Docket No. 92-137 ARE HEREBY CONCLUDED. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the rule changes made herein WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days from the date of their publication in the Federal Register. 14. For further information, contact James S. Gumbert ((202) 632-0914), Mobile Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary APPENDIX Part 22 - Public Mobile Service 1. The authority citation for Part 22 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1083, as amended; 47 U.S.C.  154, 303. 2. Section 22.521 is amended by deleting channels and changing locations in paragraph (b) for Seattle, Washington; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Grand Canyon, Arizona and Williams, Arizona to read as follows: 22.521 Air-ground radiotelephone service. * * * * * (b) * * * Location Channel * * * Arizona: Phoenix 2, 8 Williams 12 * * * District of Columbia: Washington 1, 7 * * * Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh 4, 10 * * * Washington: Seattle 1, 2, 5