WPC 2BJZ Courier3|fpx6X@KX@HP LaserJet 4 PostScript RM 8010HPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhh"\{X@26 ZFL3|fHP LaserJet 4 PostScript RM 8010HPLA4POS.PRSx  @hhhh"\{X@ S- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#&J\  P6Qx&P#"S^.=K\\===\g.=.3\\\\\\\\\\33gggQzzpf=Gpfzfpp=3=V\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\=G3\\\\QX%Xc=.============\3QQQQQzzQpQpQpQpQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\f\QQzQzQzQzQ\pQpQpQpQ\\\\\\\=\=\===\G=\p3p=p=p=p3\\\\\z=z=z=fGfGfGfGp=p=p=\\\\\pQpQN@.S\=Q\\\\\39\7\7!3QQ\==\\ff=Q7tggeeggoo.Ig2[-Kye1pe~e\e~2? LLQL H "S^.=f\\===\i.=.3\\\\\\\\\\==iii\zzpG\zpfzz=3=k\=\fQfQ=\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\QH(H_=.============f3\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\f\\\\pf\\QQQQfzQzQzQzQ\\\\\ffGfGfG=Gf\=fz3z=z=z=z3fff\\QQQfGfGfGfGz=z=z=ffff\zQzQN@.c\=\\\\\\7=\7\733\\\==\\ff=\7tiieeiioo.Ii2[-Kye1pe~efe~"S^%-77\V%%%7>%7777777777>>>1eOIIOC=OO%+OCbOO=OI=COOhOOC%%47%17171%777V7777%+77O77155<%%%n%%%%%%%%%%7O1O1O1O1O1bII1C1C1C1C1%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O1O7O7O7O7O7=7O1O1I1I1I1I1O7C1C1C1C1O7O7O7O7O7O7O7%7%7%%%7+%O7CC%C%C%CO7O7O7O7O7bOI%I%I%=+=+=+=+C%C%C%O7O7O7O7hOO7C1C1N'27%177777"SS7!TT7S!117n%%77l==n%1ni!t>><<>>mBBs,>[N6-msTN[TTTH_<1CPashore, such as the San Juan Capistrano (near San Clemente) school bus fleet.x* {O-  #]\  PCP#эxId. at 2. Service to the school bus fleet was the primary basis for a request by Orion for special temporary  x,authority (STA) to operate the San Clemente station pending review of its application for full authorization, which  xJwas denied on the grounds that a potential customer's desire for service before the applicant's underlying application  xZis granted is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an STA. Letter from David E. Horowitz, Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, to Fred Daniel, Orion Telecom (Oct. 30, 1997). We find that Mount  xWilson is not a suitable location, due to the terrain between Mount Wilson and the coastal areas Orion  xintends to serve. A location that would provide unsatisfactory coverage to the intended service area is not  x suitable, even if its potential for interference to television reception is less than that of the proposed  S6 -location.6 * * {O-#]\  PCP#эxSee Watercom Order at 14.  S - ` x8.` ` Orion further argues that Santa Catalina Island also is not suitable.Z * yO,-  #]\  PCP#эxSupplement at 2. Orion also states that before it filed the subject applications, it was denied permission to  {O- xlocate a station on the island, id., and that only after it filed the subject applications was it informed that a station might be placed there, Second Supplement at 2.  It states that the  x[island is so far offshore that, in order to compensate for the high noise environment of receivers on shore  xLand along the coast and provide adequate service to the coastal and inland areas Orion seeks to serve, the  S7- xstation would have to operate at high power.p7* yO-#]\  PCP#эxSupplement at 45.p Orion maintains, however, that a highpower station in that  xlocation would interfere with Orion's other Southern California stations because the signal would reach  S- xvessels anywhere from Point Conception to the Mexican border.in* {O"-#]\  PCP#эxId. at 23.i KCOP contends that intrasystem  S- x/interference could be prevented by using a directional antenna.r* yO>%-#]\  PCP#эxReply to Supplements at 4.r Orion also states that a highpower  Sk- xjstation on Santa Catalina Island would have an increased potential for interference to television reception"k,l(l(,,"  S- xon the island.o* yOh-#]\  PCP#эxSecond Supplement at 2.o We find that Santa Catalina Island is not a more suitable location than those proposed  xjby Orion. We conclude that, on balance, the potential negative characteristics of a highpower station on  xthe island, to both Orion's operations and to television viewers on the island, are greater than the potential  xnegative characteristics of lowpower stations at Newport Beach and San Clemente, without concomitant  xbenefits. Based on the record before us, we conclude Orion has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that Newport Beach and San Clemente are the only suitable locations for the AMTS service it seeks to provide.  S- ` x9.` ` Plan to control interference. KCOP argues that Orion's plan to control interference is  Si- xinadequate.piX* yOa -#]\  PCP#эxPetition to Deny at 34.p The applications state that Orion plans to install channels in reverse order of frequency,  S6- xNinstalling the highest frequencies (i.e., those farthest away from the Channel 13) first, and moving  x.downward in frequency only as required by subscriber demand, and that Orion agrees to investigate any  xviewer complaints, and make such adjustments to television receivers as may be necessary to eliminate  S - xinterference caused by its operations. * yO&-#]\  PCP#эxNewport Beach application at 11; San Clemente application at 11. KCOP argues that such a plan to control interference has been  xdeemed adequate only when the proposed AMTS station is colocated with the potentially affected  S8 - xtelevision station.8 x* {OP-  #]\  PCP#эxPetition to Deny at 4 (citing Fred Daniel d/b/a Orion Telecom, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 5764, 5767 (WTB Private Wireless Div. 1996)). In response, Orion notes that it will employ antennas at each site that will direct a  xmajority of the radiation away from nearby residences, and, as noted above, that it does not anticipate  S -operating the stations with more than 10 watts ERP.h * yOD-#]\  PCP#эxSupplement at 4.h  Sl- ` 4x 10.` ` Orion notes that a substantial amount of the area of potential interference from the  xproposed stations is within the area of potential interference from its Santiago Peak station, and that there  S- xhave been no complaints of harmful interference from that station.j!b * yO-#]\  PCP#эxOpposition at 3. j KCOP replies that the lack of  xMcomplaints is not conclusive, because Santiago Peak is in a remote area, while the proposed Newport  S- xBeach and San Clemente stations are in urban areas, and thus pose a greater potential for interference.h" * yO2-#]\  PCP#эxReply at 45. h  xOrion also states that it does not anticipate any harmful interference from the proposed stations, because  xmost television antennas in the Los Angeles area already are oriented toward Mount Wilson and the  S- x[proposed AMTS stations are off the axis of the directional receiving antennas tuned to KCOP.# * yO)"-#]\  PCP#эxNewport Beach application at 11; San Clemente application at 11. KCOP  xzresponds that the proposed stations are on the axis of antennas of viewers southsoutheast of Mount  S-Wilson.x$* yOS%-#]\  PCP#эxPetition to Deny at App. at 12.x  S;- ` x 11.` ` Section 80.215(h)(3) of the Commission's Rules originally provided that AMTS stations";$,l(l(,,"  xwithin 169 kilometers (105 miles) of a Channel 13 TV station "will normally be authorized only if the  S- xapplicant's engineering plan has sufficiently limited the interference contour so that it contains fewer than  S- x100 residences."%* {O-#]\  PCP#эxSee former rule 47 C.F.R.  81.134(j)(3) (1982). The rule also permitted the Commission "in a particular case" to authorize facilities  x-for which this condition was not met on the basis of a showing that the proposed site was the only suitable  xLlocation, the applicant has a plan to control interference, and the applicant agrees to make any necessary  S- xadjustments to TV receivers.a&Z* {O-#]\  PCP#эxId.a Thus, it appears that the Commission intended to approve applications for  S- x?AMTS stations posing potential interference to more than 100 residences only under exceptional  xcircumstances, and the stringency of the plan to control interference had to be commensurate with the  Sh- xLnumber of potentially affected residences.'Zh* {O -  M#]\  PCP#эxSee IWCS Order, 84 FCC 2d at 897 (stations within 105 miles of a Channel 13 TV station or 80 miles of  xa Channel 10 TV station "will be authorized only on the basis of an engineering determination of the potential interference area together with an indication of the relatively unpopulated nature of this area"). The current rule provides that such proposed stations "will  xjbe authorized if the applicant's plan has limited the interference contour(s) to fewer than 100 residences"  xor if the applicant shows that the proposed site is the only suitable location, the applicant has a plan to  S- xcontrol interference, and the applicant agrees to make any necessary adjustments to TV receivers.u(* yO}-#]\  PCP#эx 47 C.F.R.  80.215(h)(3).u While  xthe language of the current rule is slightly different, we do not interpret such difference to be substantively  Si -significant because the revision of the rule was solely editorial.T)i * yO-  {#]\  PCP#эxReorganization and Revision of Parts 81 and 83 of the Rules to Provide a New Part 80 Governing the  {Oo-Maritime Services, Report and Order, 60 Rad. Reg. (P & F) 1550, FCC 8641, at  14, 19 (rel. Apr. 25, 1986).T  S - ` x 12.` ` We agree with KCOP that Orion's plan to control interference does not merit  xunconditional grant of the applications. While the Commission has granted applications for AMTS  xjstations with more than 100 residences within their interference contours and a television station's Grade  Sj- x-B contour, those cases did not involve nearly as many residences as Orion's proposed stations.*j * {O-#]\  PCP#эxSee, e.g., Watercom Order at  7 n.7 (296 and 489 residences). The areas  xof potential interference from the proposed Newport Beach and San Clemente stations would encompass  xhundreds of thousands of residences. We believe that involvement of so extraordinary a number of  xMresidences requires an extraordinary plan to control interference. Moreover, Orion's "ordinary" plan,  xwhich is similar to its plan for stations colocated with television stations, simply does not suffice. We  xbelieve that a plan commensurate with such a potential for interference would include a more concrete and  S8- xLextensive commitment to seek out instances of interference (e.g., by direct mailing or advertising through  xprint or video media), and a tighter deadline for ceasing operations in the event of interference than the  x90day requirement in our rules. Because Orion's plan contains no such commitments, we decline to grant  xthe applications in full. We agree with KCOP, however, that the applications can be granted if the stations  Sm- xare not permitted to operate with more than 10 watts ERP.w+m * yO$-#]\  PCP#эxResponse to Supplements at 56.w The reduction in power level reduces the  xarea of potential interference to the point where we believe that Orion's proposed plan, in conjunction with  xthe requirements in our rules, will provide adequate protection against potential harmful interference to television reception."+,l(l(,,"Ԍ S-ԙ IV. CONCLUSION ă  S- ` x 13.` ` After carefully reviewing Orion's applications and the pleadings filed in this proceeding,  xwe find that Orion has demonstrated that the proposed sites are the only suitable locations, and has agreed  xto make any necessary adjustments to TV receivers. We also find that the plan to control harmful  x<interference to television reception set forth in the applications, which is the same plan Orion has proposed  xin cases where far fewer residences were at risk of interference, is inadequate to control the interference  xthat could be caused by the proposed stations operating at full power. We do, however, find such plan  xto be adequate to control the potential interference if the stations do not exceed 10 watts ERP. Therefore,  xLthe applications will be granted subject to the condition that the stations' ERP not exceed 10 watts along any radial.  S - %K  V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  S6 - ` 2x 14.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i) and 303(r)  x\of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i) and 303(r), and Sections 1.958,  x1.962, 1.971, 80.215, and 80.475 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.958, 1.962, 1.971, 80.215,  S - x[80.475, the Petition to Deny filed by KCOP Television, Inc. IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN  xLPART, and the applications filed by Fred Daniel d/b/a Orion Telecom for authorization to construct and  xoperate Automated Maritime Telecommunications System stations at Newport Beach and San Clemente,  S- xMCalifornia, File Nos. 851426 & 851427, ARE GRANTED ON THE CONDITION that the effective radiated power of each station shall not exceed 10 watts along any radial.  Sk- ` x15.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that KCOP's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time filed  xon January 29, 1998, and Orion's Motion to Accept Unauthorized Pleading filed on February 3, 1998, ARE GRANTED.  S- ` Px16.` ` 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.  S9-  S- ` x17.` ` For further information contact Scot Stone, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, at (202) 4180680. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  S;- =h x` `  hh   S -x` `  hhD'wana R. Terry x` `  hhChief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division x` `  hhWireless Telecommunications Bureau