********************************************************    
                         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 Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.

Application for a new 800 MHz Trunked Radio
System, Memphis, Tennessee

)
)
)
)
)
)




FCC File No. A047712



                    ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

   Adopted:  January 29, 2001           Released: February 2, 2001

By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau:

1.     Introduction.  On May 17, 2000, Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest) filed a petition for
reconsideration (Petition) of the action by the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch), Public
Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau dismissing the above-captioned
application for a new authorization in the 800 MHz Land Mobile Radio Service.  For the reasons discussed
below, we deny the Petition.
2.     Background.  On October 19, 1999, Northwest filed an application for a new 800 MHz trunked
radio system at Memphis, Tennessee.  The application requested a waiver of the co-channel spacing
requirements contained in Section 90.621(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules, as well as a waiver of the
Commission's "intercategory sharing freeze."  On January 4, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy) filed
a petition to deny Northwest's application, alleging that the waiver request was incomplete and that the
waiver standard was not met.  On January 19, 2000, Northwest requested an extension of time in which to
file its opposition, and on February 9, 2000, Northwest timely filed an opposition to Entergy's petition to
deny.  Entergy filed its reply to the opposition on February 17, 2000.
3.     Before a decision resolving these pleadings was issued, the Branch dismissed Northwest's
application and waiver request for failing to adequately protect existing co-channel licensees.  Specifically,
the Branch noted that Section 90.621(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules requires an analysis of interference
potential from mobile transmitters to existing co-channel base station receivers.  Because the interference
study was not included with Northwest's waiver request, the Branch dismissed the application without
prejudice, in accordance with Section 1.925 of the Commission's Rules.  As a result, Entergy's petition to
deny was dismissed as moot.
4.     On May 17, 2000, Northwest filed the instant petition seeking reconsideration of the dismissal
of its application.  On May 30, 2000, Entergy filed an opposition, and on June 9, 2000, Northwest filed
its reply.
5.     Discussion.  We affirm the Branch's ruling dismissing Northwest's application.  Section
90.621(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules states:
     Upon an applicant's specific request to the Commission or a frequency coordinator, co-
     channel stations may be separated by less than 113 km (70 mi) by meeting certain
     transmitter ERP and antenna height criteria.  The following Table indicates separations
     assignable to such co-channel stations for various transmitter power and antenna height
     combinations.  The minimum separation permitted is 88 km (55 mi).  Applicants will
     provide the Commission with a statement that the application is submitted for consideration
     under the Table, a list of all co-channel stations within 113 km (70 mi), and the DHAATs
     and ERPs for these stations and the applicant's proposed station.  Applicants seeking to be
     licensed for stations located at distances less than those prescribed in the Table are required
     to secure a waiver and must submit with the application, in addition to the above, an
     interference analysis, based upon any of the generally-accepted terrain-based propagation
     models, that shows that co-channel stations would receive the same or greater interference
     protection than provided in the Table.  Requests for separations less than 88 km (55 mi)
     must also include an analysis of interference potential from mobile transmitters to existing
     co-channel base station receivers.  Applicants seeking a waiver must submit with their
     application a certificate of service indicating that concurrent with the submission of the
     application to the Commission or a coordinator, all co-channel licensees within the
     applicable area were served with a copy of the application and all attachments thereto. 
     Licensees thus served may file an opposition to the application within 30 days from the
     date the application is filed with the Commission.
Northwest's original application and waiver request did not include the mobile unit interference analysis
required by Section 90.621.  In fact, Northwest did not provide an interference analysis until it filed its
opposition to Entergy's petition to deny.  In Park City Mountain Resort, 14 FCC Rcd 17178 (WTB PSPWD
1999), we affirmed the Branch's dismissal of an application because the applicant had failed to serve its
application upon co-channel licensees, as required by Section 90.621(b)(4).  We rejected Park City's
argument that its application should be reinstated because it cured the defect by serving the co-channel
licensees after the Branch dismissed its application.  Similarly, in this case, Northwest's application and
waiver request were clearly deficient as originally filed.  Consistent with our holding in Park City, we
believe Northwest's submission of a mobile interference study in its opposition to Entergy's petition to deny
did not cure that deficiency.  Accordingly, we affirm the Branch's dismissal of Northwest's application
without prejudice.
6.     Further, we note that the Branch's action still affords Northwest the opportunity to file a new
application with a mobile interference study.  As a result, we take this opportunity to point out that the
mobile interference study Northwest submitted with its opposition to Entergy's petition to deny is deficient
in several respects.  Specifically, the Northwest engineering study (i) fails to indicate which propagation
model was used in calculating Entergy's coverage contours; (ii) does not include reference points or
coordinates in the coverage contour drawings; (iii) is based upon Entergy's actual licensed facilities instead
of the maximum power (ERP) of 1000 watts that is to be assumed when determining if interference
protection exists; and (iv) fails to list certain assumptions used in the coverage contour drawing (e.g., what
correction factors were used in constructing the contours).  Consequently, the coordinates used in the
analysis do not provide sufficient information as to whether the mobiles are operating within the requested
service area of operation, or whether operation from other locations within that service area would cause
harmful interference to Entergy's stations.  If we considered the merits of Northwest's interference
submission, we would conclude that the engineering analysis fails to establish that there will be no harmful
interference to Entergy's operations.  Accordingly, if Northwest chooses to file a new application for the
facilities in question, the mobile interference study it submits with that application should cure those
defects.  We also note that the Commission has held that a shortage of spectrum cannot be considered a
unique or unusual circumstance that, standing alone, would warrant a waiver of our Rules.  Moreover,
Northwest has not addressed the issue of whether it has a reasonable alternative in fulfilling its spectrum
needs.  In the absence of any showing to the contrary, we would presume that other reasonable possibilities
exist for Northwest to meet its communications needs.  Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Branch's
dismissal of Northwest's application because the Branch correctly concluded that the application was
defective.
7.     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and Sections 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.106,
Northwest Airlines, Inc.'s Petition for Reconsideration filed May 17, 2000, IS DENIED.
8.     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