*Pages 1--6 from Microsoft Word - 16284* Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 272 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) DOUGLAS R. THOMPSON d/ b/ a ) File No. C003549 CARA ENTERPRISES, ) MARTIN M. RON ASSOCIATES, INC., ) File No. A022754 MEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC., ) File No. A020352 MERCED COLLEGE, ) File No. A022926 VOGEL BUS COMPANY, INC. ) File No. A020352 ) Petitions for Reconsideration of Grant of ) Private Land Mobile Radio Licenses at ) Various Locations Throughout the United States ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 11, 2000 Released: February 14, 2000 By the Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we address petitions filed by various automobile clubs affiliated with the American Automobile Association (AAA) seeking reconsideration of the grant of private land mobile radio (PLMR) licenses to the above- captioned parties. The petitioners request that the above- captioned licensees be moved to other shared frequencies. Based on the record in this proceeding, we deny the petitions for reconsideration. II. BACKGROUND 2. In 1996, the Commission consolidated the twenty existing PLMR services into two frequency pools, Public Safety and Industrial/ Business (I/ B), and decided that each of the frequency coordinators that were certified to provide coordination services in any of the radio services included in the I/ B pool would be eligible to coordinate any frequency in the I/ B pool. 1 Frequencies that had been assigned to the 1 Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, Second Report and Order, PR Docket No. 92- 235, 12 FCC Rcd. 14307, 14317 ¶ 20, 14328 ¶ 40 (1997). The Commission provided, however, that frequencies formerly allocated exclusively to the Power, Petroleum and Railroad Radio Services would continue to be coordinated only by the relevant coordinator. Id. at 14330 ¶ 42. 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 272 2 Automobile Emergency Radio Service (AERS) and were exclusively coordinated by AAA were included in the I/ B Pool. 2 3. Merced College Application. On May 6, 1998, Merced College (Merced) filed an application for authorization to operate on 150.965 MHz and 159.510 MHz, I/ B Pool frequencies previously allocated to the AERS. 3 The request was coordinated by the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA), one of the I/ B Pool frequency coordinators. The application was granted, for Call Sign WPMH610, Merced, California, on July 29, 1998. On August 28, 1998, the California State Automobile Association, Inc. (CSAA) filed a petition for reconsideration of the license grant. 4 4. Douglas R. Thompson d/ b/ a Cara Enterprises Application. On May 22, 1998, Douglas R. Thompson d/ b/ a Cara Enterprises (Cara) filed an application for authorization to operate on 150.935 MHz and 159.735 MHz, I/ B Pool frequencies previously allocated to the AERS. 5 The request was coordinated by the Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc., one of the I/ B Pool frequency coordinators. The application was granted, for Call Sign WPML666, Salt Lake City, Utah, on September 8, 1998. On October 8, 1998, CSAA filed a petition for reconsideration of the license grant. 6 5. Vogel Bus Company, Inc. Application. On June 4, 1998, Vogel Bus Company, Inc. (Vogel) filed an application for authorization to operate on 150.935 MHz and 158.160 MHz, I/ B Pool frequencies previously allocated to the AERS. 7 The request was coordinated by PCIA. The application was granted, for Call Sign WPMJ727, Roselle and Matawan, New Jersey, on August 14, 1998. On August 31, 1998, AAA North Jersey filed a petition for reconsideration of the license grant. 8 2 Id. at 14317 ¶ 20. 3 FCC File No. A022926 (filed May 6, 1998). 4 California State Automobile Association, Inc. (CSAA) Petition for Reconsideration against Merced College (filed Aug. 28, 1998). 5 FCC File No. C003549 (filed May 22, 1998). 6 CSAA Petition for Reconsideration against Douglas R. Thompson d/ b/ a Cara Enterprises (filed Oct. 8, 1998). Cara argues that CSAA’s petition should be dismissed because it was submitted to the Commission’s licensing facility in Gettysburg, PA. Cara Opposition 2 (filed Oct. 21, 1998). The Commission’s Rules require that petitions for reconsideration be filed with the Office of the Secretary in Washington, D. C., 47 C. F. R. § 1.106( i), and warn persons filing documents with the Commission that filings submitted to the wrong location will not be processed, 47 C. F. R. § 0.401; see also 47 C. F. R. § 1.7 (“ documents are considered to be filed with the Commission upon their receipt at the location designated by the Commission”). Columbia Millimeter Communications, LP, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd. 2782, 2784- 85 ¶ 9 (WTB PSPWD 1999), recon. pending (filed March 10, 1999). In this case, however, CSAA’s petition against Cara raises the same issues as the petitions against the other above- captioned respondents. Because we are addressing those issues on the merits, and denying the petitions on those grounds, we need not resolve Cara’s arguments regarding whether the CSAA petition should be dismissed as improperly filed. We nonetheless admonish parties seeking reconsideration that petitions for reconsideration of actions taken in Gettysburg must be filed with the Secretary, and are subject to dismissal if they are filed elsewhere. 7 FCC File No. A020352 (filed June 4, 1998). 8 AAA North Jersey Petition for Reconsideration against Vogel Bus Company, Inc. (filed Aug. 31, 1998). 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 272 3 6. Martin M. Ron Associates, Inc. Application. On July 11, 1998, Martin M. Ron Associates, Inc. (Martin M. Ron) filed an application for authorization to operate on 452.575 MHz, an I/ B Pool frequency previously allocated to the AERS. 9 The request was coordinated by PCIA. The application was granted, for Call Sign WPIW888, San Francisco, California, on September 23, 1998. On October 23, 1998, CSAA filed a petition for reconsideration of the license grant. 10 7. Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. Application. On July 15, 1998, Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. (Medic) filed an application for authorization to operate on 150.935 MHz, an I/ B Pool frequency previously allocated to the AERS. 11 The request was coordinated by PCIA. The application was granted, for Call Sign WPMM832, Sacramento, California, on September 23, 1998. On October 23, 1998, CSAA filed a petition for reconsideration of the license grant. 12 III. DISCUSSION 8. The petitions for reconsideration make several similar or overlapping arguments, so we shall address them collectively. The petitioners argue that the subject licensees should be moved to more suitable frequencies, so that they do not conflict with the petitioners’ operations. In support of this argument, the petitioners challenge the frequency coordination of each license, including failure to account for interference using the proper contours. They also speculate that the duplex licensees will fail to monitor their base station frequencies prior to transmitting. 9. Interference Contours. Each petitioner states that a primary reason for seeking reconsideration of the subject license grants is that the new station will cause interference to their operations. In this connection, we note that the subject licenses are for frequencies in either the 150- 174 MHz or 450- 470 MHz band, which are available only on a shared basis and not assigned for the exclusive use of any licensee absent a waiver. 13 Additionally, we note that the Commission’s Rules in effect at the time of the subject license grants specified that stations are licensed in these bands based upon a recommendation from a certified frequency coordinator, but did not specify a method for accomplishing the required coordination, such as contour analysis. 14 Therefore, we do not believe that any overlap between petitioners’ and respondents’ coverage areas 15 is necessarily evidence of improper coordination or licensing. 16 We find that the record in this proceeding is devoid of evidence that the subject license grants 9 FCC File No. A022754 (filed July 11, 1998). 10 CSAA Petition for Reconsideration against Martin M. Ron Associates, Inc. (filed Oct. 23, 1998). 11 FCC File No. A020352 (filed July 15, 1998). 12 CSAA Petition for Reconsideration against Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. (filed Oct. 23, 1998). 13 See 47 C. F. R. § 90.173. 14 See 47 C. F. R. §§ 90.173( f), 90.173( i). 15 Some respondent licensees challenge the petitioners’ interference contour overlap studies, based on the way that they were computed. See, e. g., Vogel Bus Company, Inc. Response/ Objection 3 (filed Sept. 17, 1998) (“ Vogel Opposition”). Because we decide this issue on other grounds, we need not resolve these technical disputes. 16 See Landlinx Communications, DA 99- 3038 at ¶ 5. 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 272 4 are inconsistent with or violative of the Commission’s Rules. Thus, we conclude that the petitioners must share these frequencies with respondents. 17 In the event of actual interference to petitioners’ operations (as opposed to potential interference based on predicted contours), we remind all parties involved of their mutual obligations to attempt to resolve the problem. 18 10. Paired Frequencies for Duplex Systems. From the record in this proceeding, it appears that the petitioners use their assigned frequencies in a simplex mode of operation. 19 They note that three of the licensees use their assigned frequencies in pairs for duplex systems. In this regard, the petitioners argue that the respondents “will fail to adequately monitor the transmitting frequency… for communications in progress, as required by Section 90.403( e) of the Commission’s rules.” 20 The petitioners assert that, in order to properly monitor base station frequencies prior to transmitting, such licensees need equipment to monitor both of the paired frequencies, but probably will not install it. 21 We note that the petitioners have failed to show actual interference. As a result, we decline to grant reconsideration based on the petitioners’ speculative concerns regarding potential interference. 22 Therefore, we see no reason to grant the petitions based on a claim of interference due to the interaction of simplex and duplex systems. 23 Again, we remind the parties of their obligation to cooperate in the event of actual interference. 24 17 We note that Cara contests the standing of CSAA to seek reconsideration of its license grant, arguing that CSAA is not a legitimate party- in- interest because its claims of interference are merely speculative, with no examples of direct injury. Cara Opposition at 2- 4. CSAA responds, however, that its original inclusion of an interference contour map was a sufficient showing of direct injury, see CSAA Reply to Opposition of Cara at 3, 4, together with its newer, signed declaration stating that interference is frequent and disruptive, see id. at Attachment B. Because we conclude above that the “injury” of which the petitioners complain is not contrary to our rules, we need not specifically address these standing issues. Cf. ACC- PCS, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. 3449, 3451- 52 ¶¶ 5- 7 (1997) (speculative concern regarding potential interference is not a sufficient reason to deny an application, particularly when the rules are designed to mitigate interference). 18 See 47 C. F. R. § 90.173( b). 19 See, e. g., CSAA Petition against Cara at 5; CSAA Petition against Merced at 4; AAA North Jersey Petition against Vogel at 5. 20 CSAA Petition against Cara at 5; CSAA Petition against Merced at 4; AAA North Jersey Petition against Vogel at 4, 5 (citing 47 C. F. R. § 90.403( e), which requires licensees to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing interference, including monitoring the transmitting frequency for communications in progress). 21 CSAA Petition against Cara at 5, 6; CSAA Petition against Merced at 4, 5; AAA North Jersey Petition against Vogel at 4, 5. 22 Cf. ACC- PCS, 12 FCC Rcd. at 3451- 52 ¶¶ 5- 7. 23 We do note, however, that Vogel’s argument that it is exempt from the monitoring requirement in Section 90.403( e) because its station is a repeater, see Vogel Opposition at 3, is incorrect, as the rule applies to repeaters and transmitters alike. However, despite Vogel’s inaccurate interpretation of the Commission’s Rules, there is still no evidence of actual interference. We take this opportunity to remind all licensees that they have an obligation under our Rules to monitor their transmitting frequency prior to use. 24 We note that CSAA complains of a frequent foreign- speaking operation on the channel shared between CSAA and Vogel, in support of its petition against Vogel. CSAA Petition against Vogel at 4. Vogel responds, however, that all of its operations are in English. Vogel Opposition at 2. CSAA then clarifies that the non- English- 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 272 5 IV. CONCLUSION 11. For the reasons set forth above, we deny the petitions for reconsideration. We are not persuaded that the petitioners have demonstrated any impediment to their shared use of spectrum under the Commission’s Part 90 Rules. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4( i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by California State Automobile Association, Inc. (CSAA) against Medic Ambulance Service, Inc. on October 23, 1998, IS DENIED. 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4( i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by CSAA against Douglas R. Thompson d/ b/ a Cara Enterprises on October 8, 1999, IS DENIED. 14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4( i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by AAA North Jersey against Vogel Bus Company, Inc. on August 31, 1998, IS DENIED. 15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4( i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by CSAA against Martin M. Ron Associates, Inc. on October 23, 1999, IS DENIED. 16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 4( i) and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 405, and Section 1.106 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.106, the petition for reconsideration filed by CSAA against Merced College on August 28, 1998, IS DENIED. 17. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all of the above- captioned license grants ARE AFFIRMED. speaking operation may not be Vogel, and that it is pursuing separate relief from a complaint filed with the Commission. CSAA, Reply to Opposition of Vogel 4, 5 (filed Oct. 22, 1998). We find that this particular matter is irrelevant to the question of whether the grant to Vogel was proper. 5 Federal Communications Commission DA 00- 272 6 18. This action is taken pursuant to delegated authority granted under the provisions of Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. §§ 0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ramona E. Melson Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 6