FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987 Page: 86
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Communications Commission Record
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re Applications of
OF COLORADO, INC.
File Nos. 21075-CD-P-83
For construction permits for new
one-way Public Land Mobile
Service stations operating on
158.10 MHz at Boulder and Fort
ORDER ON REVIEW
Adopted December 18, 1986; Released: January 9, 1987
By the Commission:
1. RAM Mobile Communications of Colorado, Inc.
(RAM) has filed an application seeking review of the
action taken by the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, in
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration,
Mimeo No. 5035, released June 10, 1985 (Reconsideration
Order ). RAM has also requested that the Commission
take official notice of the Common Carrier Bureau's
decision in Intrastate Radiotelephone, Inc. of San Francisco,
Mimeo No. 5583, released July 8, 1985 (Intrastate).
2. On December 27, 1982, RAM filed construction
permit applications for new one-way public land mobile
service (PLMS) stations to operate on frequency 158.10
MHz at Castle Rock, Golden, Fort Collins, and Boulder,
Colorado. RAM's applications were mutually exclusive
with those of two other parties: Big Sandy Telecommunications,
Inc. ("Big Sandy"), File No. 24749-CD-P-2-82
filed October 12, 1982 and placed on public notice on
October 27, 1982; and American Paging, Inc. ("American
Paging"), File No. 20900-CD-P-4-83 filed December 8,
1982 and placed on public notice on December 22, 1982.
3. The Common Carrier Bureau accepted RAM's Castle
Rock and Golden applications for filing by public notice
on January 19, 1983. In separate letters dated December
30, 1982, however, the Bureau returned RAM's Fort
Collins and Boulder applications for failure to demonstrate
interference-free operation within 125 miles as is
required when the height-power limitations of Section
22.505 are exceeded along any radial.
4. On January 13, 1983, RAM filed its Petition for
Reconsideration of Staff Action and For Acceptance of
Applications Nunc Pro Tunc and retendered its Fort
Collins and Boulder aplications with corrective amendments.
RAM conceded that its interference analyses
should have extended to 125 miles. RAM's pleading asserted,
however, that there were no co-channel stations
between 75 and 125 miles, and argued that the interference
analyses submitted, therefore, had taken into account
all stations that RAM was required to consider.
RAM also argued that separate processing of its two
returned applications would be administratively inefficient
and that the requested nunc pro tune acceptance of
such applications would not prejudice any party. RAM
suggested that it would be equitable under these circumstances
for the Bureau to reconsider its prior action
and accept the retendered Boulder and Fort Collins applications
nunc pro tunc.
5. In a Public Notice, Mimeo No. 2221, issued January
29, 1985, the Commission scheduled the RAM, Big
Sandy, and American Paging applications for a February
22 lottery. The Public Notice indicated that the Commission
would defer acting on RAM's request for reinstatement
until after it conducted the RAM/Big
Sandy/American Paging lottery. If RAM were the winner
of the lottery, the Commission would address RAM's
request at that time; otherwise it would dismiss it as moot.
6. The Commission held the lottery on February 22 as
scheduled. RAM's three applications (i. e., those other
than Fort Collins)' were selected first. American Paging's
applications were selected second. and Big Sandy's applications
were selected third. See Public Notice, Mimeo
No. 2814. issued February 26. 1985.
7. RAM's request for nunc pro tune acceptance of its
Boulder and Fort Collins applications was denied in the
Reconsideration Order, supra. In denying RAM's Petition
for Reconsideration, the Bureau specifically rejected
RAM's arguments that separate processing of RAM's
Boulder and Fort Collins applications would be administratively
inefficient and that nunc pro tune acceptance of
the rejected applications would not prejudice any party.
8. In its Application for Review, RAM argues that the
Bureau erred in asserting that granting of the relief requested
by RAM: (1) would delay disposition of the RAM
applications which had been accepted for filing, placed on
public notice, and tentatively selected in the lottery; and
(2) would prejudice mutually exclusive applicants which
had been selected below RAM in the lottery. RAM argues
that each of its applications must be processed separately,
so there would be no administrative delay. RAM further
argues that no party could be prejudiced because the
mutually exclusive applications of Big Sandy and American
Paging will be denied so long as the Commission
grants RAM's Castle Rock and Golden applications that
were selected first in the lottery. Finally, RAM argues that
both Commission broadcast application precedent and the
Bureau's Intrastate decision support RAM's position that
it should be permitted to cure the deficiencies in its
Boulder and Fort Collins applications through amendments
without being required to refile its applications and
return to the beginning of the processing line.
9. After careful consideration of the facts and arguments
presented, we have concluded that the action of the
Common Carrier Bureau was correct, and we will affirm
the Reconsideration Order. RAM's Application for Review
will be denied.
10. The Reconsideration Order responded solely to the
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 2, No. 1, Pages 1 to 409, January 5 - January 16, 1987, book, January 1987; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1597/m1/93/: accessed February 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.