Federal Communications Commission 
In the Matter of 
Applicat~on of Caminita 
Cellular Partnership, Station 
Before the 
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554 
) 
) 
) 
) File No. 06845-CL-MP-95 
Station KNKR222, Bakersfield, California ) 
Phase I Major Modification 
Application for Market No. 97(B) 
Bakersfield, California 
Adopted: June 9, 1999 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
ORDER 
Released: June 9, 1999 
DA 99-1143 
By the Chief, Policy and Rules Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau: 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. In this Order we grant an application filed by Caminita Cellular Partnership ("Caminita") on 
August 10, 1995, for major modification of Caminito's Phase I cellular unserved area license in the 
Bakersfield, California, Metropolitan Service Area, Market No. 97(B) ("Bakersfield MSA"). We also deny 
Fresno MSA Limited Partnership's ("Fresno") Petition to Deny ("Petition") Caminito's application. 
IT.BACKGROUND 
2. To encourage the rapid and efficient expansion of cellular service, the Commission adopted 
regulations in 1987, which permitted initial licensees to offer service to unserved areas in their markets 
without competition for five years after the grant of the first construction permit on each frequency block in 
each MSA or Rural Service Area ("RSA").1 Under this policy, the Commission does not permit third 
parties to file applications for authorizations to serve unserved areas until the initial licensee's five-year 
buildout period has expired. After the five year period has expired, parties seeking to serve any unserved 
areas remaining in a market may file Phase I applications on the 31st day after the expiration of the five 
year period.2 A party whose Phase I application is granted may file for one major modification of its 
license no later than 90 days after the grant of its Phase I initial application.3 
See Amendment of Commission's Rules for Rural Cellular Service, 2 FCC Red. 2306, 2308-09 (1987); 47 
C.F.R. § 22.31 (a)(l )(i)(l 987). 
See 47 C.F.R. § 22.31 which has been recodified as 47 C.F.R. § 22.949(a){l)-{4) (1995). 
47 C.F.R. § 22.949(a)(3). 
9227 
Federal Communications Commission DA 99-1143 
3. Caminito was selected as the Phase I unserved area licensee on Channel Block B in the 
Bakersfield MSA on May 15, 1995. On August 10, I 995, Caminito filed its application for a major 
modification of its license. Specifically, Caminito seeks to relocate its original cell site and to add five new 
cells in its unserved area. Fresno is the original Channel Block B licensee in the Bakersfield MSA. On 
October 2, 1995, Fresno filed a petition to deny Caminito's application. Caminito filed an opposition on 
October 31, 1995, and Fresno filed a reply on November 13, 1995. 
4. Fresno alleges in its petition that Caminito's application is technically deficient because the 
contour of one of Caminito's proposed cells extends into an unserved area in an adjacent cellular market and 
into Fresno's Cellular Geographic Service Area ("CGSA").4 Specifically, Fresno alleges that the contour of 
one of Caminito's proposed cells extends 6. 75 square miles into Fresno's CGSA, which constitutes 6.3% of 
the total contour of the proposed cell.5 This extension would, according to Fresno, violate Section 
22.91 l(d)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules,6 which prohibits a cellular licensee from beginning to operate its 
sites in such a manner as to overlap the contours of the existing CGSA of another system without the other 
licensee's consent.7 Fresno also claims that one of Caminito's proposed cells would extend into Visalia 
MSA.8 Because the Visalia MSA was in Phase I when Caminita filed its application and another licensee 
had received Commission authorization to construct its system in that MSA, Fresno alleges that Caminita 
could not request authorization to serve any unserved area in the Visalia MSA.9 Fresno states that its 
engineering methodology used to determine co-channel interference is state of the art and reliably predicts 
contours using the Commission's required formula for calculating service area boundaries. I 0 Caminita 
responds that its proposed contours conform to the Commission's rules and counters Fresno's allegations 
with an affidavit from its own engineering consultant stating that its proposed contours fully comply with 
Section 22.91 l(d)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules.I I In its reply, Fresno invites the Commission to make 
its own calculations and claims that the controversy will be resolved in Fresno's favor.12 Fresno also 
alleges that Caminito's application fails to disclose the real party in interest to its application, 13 as required 
by Section 22.108 of the Commission's rules.14 
Fresno Petition to Deny at 3 ("Petition"). 
Id at2. 
6 47 C.F.R. § 22.91 l(d)(2)(i). 
Petition at 3. 
Id at4. 
9 Id at4..:5. 
JO Id at 2-3. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.91 l(a). 
II Opposition at 1-2 and Affidavit of Richard L. Vega, Sr. 
12 Fresno's Reply to Opposition at 2 ("Reply"). 
13 Id at 5. 
14 47 C.F.R. § 22.108. 
9228 
Federal Communications Commission DA 99-1143 
ill. DISCUSSION 
5. We dismiss Fresno's allegation that the contour of one of Caminito's proposed cells 
impremissibly intrudes into an unserved area in an adjacent marketl5 because Fresno lacks standing as a 
"party in interest." Section 309(d)(I) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 
22.130(a)(3) of the Commission's rulesl6 require that a petitioner filing a petition to deny_ a major filing 
must be able to demonstrate that it has standing.17 A petitioner must establish that it has suffered a legal 
wrong or has been adversely affected or "aggrieved by agency action" or show "injury in fact" resulting 
from the challenged action.18 Second, the petitioner must show that its interests are "within the zone of 
interests to be protected" or regulated.19 Fresno makes no allegation that it will suffer any injury as a result 
of the alleged incursion into the adjacent market. Therefore, we find that Fresno lacks standing to object to 
cell sites that may extend into the adjacent market. Accordingly, we dismiss Fresno's allegation that one of 
Caminito's cell sites extends into an adjacent market.20 
6. Fresno also alleges that a contour of one of Caminito's cell sites extends into Fresno's CGSA.21 
The Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch conducted an interference study using the coordinates, 
Effective Radiated Power (ERP), and Height Above Average Terrain (HAAT) data submitted by both 
parties. The results of this study reveal that the proposed cell sites will not, in fact, intrude into Fresno's 
CGSA. We therefore reject Fresno's allegation that Caminito's proposed cell site will cause interference in 
itsCGSA. 
15 Petition at 3-4. 
16 47 U.S.C. § 309(d)(l); 47 C.F.R. § 22.130(a)(3). 
17 See BellSouth Mobility, Inc., 3 FCC Red. 6902, 6903 if IO (1988); see also Petition for Rulemaking to 
Establish Standards for Determining the Standing of a Party to Petition to Deny a Broadcast Application, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 82 F.C.C.2d 89, 95-96 if 19 (1980) (hereinafter NAB MO&O). In addition, the petitioner must 
show that grant of the application would be primafacie inconsistent with the public interest. Id 
18 Air Courier Conference of America v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 498 U.S. 517, 523 
(1991)(Air Courier); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984); Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 164 (1970); NAB 
MO&O, 82 F.C.C.2d at 95-96 if 19; see also Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702. 
19 Air Courier, 498 U.S. at 523; Assoc. of Data Processing Services, 397 U.S. at 153; Barlow, 397 U.S. at 164; 
NAB MO&O, 82 F.C.C.2d at 96 if 19 n.50. The zone of interest test denies a right ofreview if the petitioner's interests 
are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes expressed or implicit in the statute or regulation that it 
cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress or the Commission intended to permit the cause of action. Clark v. 
Securities Industry Ass'n., 479 U.S. 388, 399 (1987). 
20 Blasdell Cellular Partners ("Blasdell") is licensed to offer service over Channel block B in that particular 
market. We do not have a petition to deny from Blasdell before us. 
21 Petition at 2. 
9229 
Federal Communications Commission DA 99-1143 
7. Finally, we find that Caminita has complied with Section 22.108 of the Commission's rules, 47 
C.F.R. § 22.108, which requires applications for authorization, assignment of authorization, or consent to 
transfer of control to disclose fully the real party in interest to the application. Here, Caminito seeks a 
modification of its authorized unserved area cellular system, and its application must comply with the 
requirements of Section 22.953(b)22 and not Section 22.108. Because Section 22.953(b) does not require 
the ownership information, we find that Caminito's application is not deficient. Having resolved Fresno's 
objections to Caminito's application for major modification of its unserved area cellular syst~m, we find that 
the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by a grant of the application. 
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 
8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309(a), and 309(d) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and 309(d), and Sections 0.331, 22.130 and 
22.949 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331, 22.130, and 22.949, the Petition to Deny filed by 
Fresno MSA Limited Partnership on October 2, 1995, IS DENIED. 
9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4(i), 309(a), and 309(d) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 309(a), and 309(d), and Sections 0.331 and 
22.949 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.331 and 22.949, the application filed by Caminito Cellular 
Partnership on August I 0, 1995, for a major modification to its authorization for Station KNKR222 IS 
GRANTED. 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 
Paul D'Ari 
Chief, Policy and Rules Branch 
CommerCial Wireless Division 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
22 47 C.F.R. § 22.953(b). That section provides that: "Applications for changes to existing systems need only 
contain the fonn required by paragraph (a)(4) of this section and the exhibits required by paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through 
(a)(5)(iii) of this section." Paragraph (a)(4) requires the same information required for all cellular applications on FCC 
Fonn 40 I. Paragraph (a)(5)(i) requires the preparation of a full-size map. Paragraph (a)(5)(ii) requires a reduced map. 
Paragraph (a)(5)(iii) requires an engineering exhibit to show how the applicant calculated its CGSA and service area 
boundary. 
9230