*Pages 1--5 from Microsoft Word - 11099.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 1990 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of POOL WELL SERVICES COMPANY, PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Petitions to Set Aside Grant of License of Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc. for New Industrial/ Business Private Land Mobile Radio Station at Meadow Lakes, California and FRESNO MOBILE RADIO, INC. Licensee of Trunked Industrial/ Business Pool Radio Service Station WPPA630, Meadow Lakes, California ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: August 22, 2001 Released: August 24, 2001 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On September 19, 2000, Pool Well Services Co. (PWSC) and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG& E) each submitted a petition seeking revocation of the above- captioned authorization granted to Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc. (Fresno). 1 On October 4, 2000, Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) submitted a petition seeking revocation of the above- captioned authorization. 2 For the reasons set forth below, we deny each of the petitions. However, on our own motion, we initiate a proceeding to modify Fresno’s license to remove the frequencies 153.215/ 159. 600 MHz and 153.515/ 159. 660 MHz. II. BACKGROUND 2. Frequency coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) Services is the process by which a private entity certified by the Commission recommends the most appropriate frequencies for applicants in their designated radio services. 3 In 1986, the Commission adopted 1 Letter dated Sept. 13, 2000, received Sept. 19, 2000 from Jill Gregory, PWSC, to the Office of the Secretary, FCC (PWSC Petition); Letter dated Sept. 18, 2000, received Sept. 19, 2000 from Marilou Ehrenberg, PG& E, to Mary Shultz, Chief, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, PSPWD, WTB (PG& E Petition). 2 Letter dated Oct. 4, 2000, received Oct. 17, 2000 from B. W. Schupbach, SCGC, to Mary Shultz, Chief, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, PSPWD, WTB (SCGC Petition). 3 Frequency Coordination in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Report and Order, PR Docket No. 83- 737, 103 FCC 2d 1093 (1986). 1 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 1990 2 frequency coordination rules and procedures in an effort to maximize service to the public by assuring that the assignment and management of the PLMR spectrum is performed in an efficient and effective manner. 4 The Commission has stated that accurate information is fundamental to its ability to review effectively the frequency recommendations made by frequency coordinators prior to licensing. 5 A fundamental aspect of frequency coordination, in any radio service, is an accurate determination by the frequency coordinator of whether the proposed operations potentially will cause harmful interference to existing co- channel or adjacent channel licensees. 6 3. In 1997, the Commission allowed centralized trunking in the PLMR bands between 150 MHz and 512 MHz. 7 The Commission emphasized that trunking would be permitted only in those areas where exclusivity is recognized by the Commission or where an applicant/ licensee has obtained the consent of all licensees whose service areas overlap a circle with a radius of 70 miles from the proposed trunked system’s base station. 8 In 1999, the Commission provided applicants with an alternate means of obtaining an authorization for a trunked system by obtaining concurrence whenever the 19 dBu (UHF) or 22 dBu (VHF) interference contour from a proposed trunked station intersects the 37 dBu service contour (UHF) or 39 dBu service contour (VHF) of any existing co- channel or adjacent channel station. 9 In 2000, the Commission modified the definition of trunked systems authorized in the 150- 512 MHz bands. 10 4. Fresno filed an application for authorization to operate an Industrial/ Business Pool trunked station in the Meadow Lakes, California area. 11 The Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA), a FCC- certified PLMR frequency coordinator, submitted Fresno’s application, with a frequency recommendation, to the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch) of the Public Safety and Private Wireless Division. 12 On September 24, 1999, the Branch granted Fresno’s application to operate trunked Industrial/ Business Station WPPA630 on frequencies 153.215/ 159. 600 MHz and 153.515/ 159.660 MHz. 13 5. By letters received September 19, 2000, both PWSC and PG& E requested that the Commission set aside the Fresno license grant. 14 By letter received October 17, 2000, SCGC requested 4 Id. at 1094- 95 ¶ 2. 5 Id. at 1148 ¶ 111, 1150 ¶ 116. 6 See generally American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. and American Trucking Association, Inc., Report and Order, DA 01- 1411, ¶¶ 13- 15 (WTB PSPWD rel. June 11, 2001). 7 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, 14337- 38 ¶¶ 56- 59 (1997). 8 Id. 9 Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing Them, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, PR Docket No. 92- 235, 14 FCC Rcd 10922, 10926- 27 ¶¶ 6- 9 (1999). 10 47 C. F. R. § 90. 187. The Commission’s amendment did not change the substance of the rule provision at issue here. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, 47 C. F. R Part 90, Private Land Mobile Radio Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 98- 182, 15 FCC Rcd 16673 (2000). 11 File No. A041559. 12 See FAC # 991870514. 13 See License for Station WPPA630. 14 PWSC Petition, supra, and PG& E Petition, supra. 2 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 1990 3 that the Commission set aside the Fresno license grant. 15 PWSC, PG& E, and SCGC each alleged procedural flaws in the filing of Fresno’s application and cited concerns over potential interference to their respective operations. PWSC cited concerns over potential interference to operation of its Station KCD569 on frequencies 153.215/ 159.600 MHz at Bakersfield, California, and frequencies 153.515/ 159.600 MHz at Coalinga, California. 16 PG& E cited concerns over potential interference to its operations on frequency 153.5150 MHz at Stations KMD565, Sonora, California, KME282, Oakdale, California, and KME687, Newman, California. 17 SCGC cited concerns over potential interference to its operations by SCGC on frequency 153.5300 MHz at Stations WPMB647, Visalia, California, KMF278, Visalia, California, and WNQN782, Coalinga, California. 18 PWSC, PG& E, and SCGC contended that Fresno’s Station WPPA630 does not afford the required co- channel and adjacent- channel interference protection to their facilities. In support of their interference arguments, they each included an interference analysis of the Fresno license as granted, from the International Telecommunications Association, Inc., another FCC- certified PLMR frequency coordinator. 19 Specifically, PWSC, PG& E, and SCGC each argued that the subject authorization was granted in error because Fresno’s operation on frequencies 153.215/ 159.600 MHz and 153.515 MHz does not provide adequate protection to co- channel and adjacent channel licensees. Therefore, they each urged the Commission to set aside the license grant. 6. On January 31 20 and February 15, 2001, 21 the Branch requested that PCIA respond to ITA’s interference analysis of the Fresno station and propose a solution, if the Fresno application had been incorrectly coordinated. By three separate letters, each dated March 12, 2001, PCIA stated that it was possible that it had incorrectly coordinated the Fresno application and proposed as a solution that the Fresno license for Station WPPA630 be modified by removing frequencies 153.215/ 159.600 MHz and 153.515/ 159.660 MHz. 22 III. DISCUSSION 7. We believe that the requests of PWSC, PG& E and SCGC (Petitioners) are most properly characterized as informal requests for Commission action under Section 1.41 of the Commission’s Rules. 23 PWSC, PG& E, and SCGC argue that license set aside is warranted because Fresno’s license was granted in violation of Section 90.187 of the Commission’s Rules. 24 Specifically, PWSC, PG& E and SCGC argue that the Fresno station does not afford the required co- channel and adjacent- channel interference protection. Under these circumstances, they contend, the grant of Fresno’s license should be set aside pursuant to Section 90.187 of the Commission’s Rules. PCIA admits that there may be licenses not accounted for and recommends modifying Fresno’s license by removing the frequencies 153.215/ 159.600 MHz and 153.515/ 159. 660 to resolve the problem. 15 SCGC Petition, supra. 16 PWSC Petition, supra. 17 PG& E Petition, supra. 18 Id. 19 See, PWSC and PG& E’s petitions, supra. 20 The January 31, 2001 Letters from Mary Shultz, Chief, LTAB, to PCIA concerned the complaints of PWSC and SCGC. 21 The February 15 2001 Letter from Mary Shultz, Chief, LTAB, to PCIA dealt only with the complaint of PG& E. 22 Letters from Don Andrew, Communications Specialist, PCIA to Branch (March 12, 2001) (PCIA Letters). 23 47 C. F. R. § 1. 41. 24 See Petitions of PWSC, PG& E, and SCGC, supra. 3 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 1990 4 8. Based upon our analysis, we conclude that the Fresno application should not have been coordinated because the proposed operations did not provide the requisite interference protection to the operations of PWSC, PG& E, or SCGC. We find that initiation of revocation proceedings against Fresno’s station is unnecessary in the instant matter because PCIA has proposed changes to the Fresno license designed to eliminate interference to the earlier- licensed stations. We believe that Section 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 25 provides the appropriate vehicle for resolving this matter. Section 316( a) permits the Commission to modify a station license if the action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity. 26 In this connection, we note that the proposed modification would serve the public interest by preserving the existing coverage areas of affected parties and prevent harmful interference, while not unduly disrupting Fresno’s operations. 9. As discussed above, the coordination of Fresno’s application was defective. Thus, we believe that a modification of the Fresno license to remove the operating frequencies 153.215/ 159.600 MHz and 153.515/ 159. 660 MHz is appropriate to prevent harmful interference to PWSC, PG& E, and SCGC. In accordance with Section 1.87( a) of the Commission’s Rules, 27 we will not issue a modification order until Fresno has received notice of our proposed action and has had an opportunity to interpose a protest. To protest the modification, Fresno must, within thirty days of the release date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, submit a written statement with sufficient evidence to show that the modification would not be in the public interest. The protest must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S. W., Room TW- A325, Washington, D. C. 20554. If no protest is filed, Fresno will have waived its right to protest the modification and will be deemed to have consented to the modification. IV. CONCLUSION 10. For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the grant of Fresno’s application was defective. As a result, we believe that the license grant to Fresno was defective. Accordingly, we propose to modify Fresno’s license for Station WPPA630 to remove frequencies 153.215/ 159.600 MHz and 153.515/ 159. 660 MHz in order to protect co- channel and adjacent channel licensees from harmful interference. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 11. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4( i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. § 154( i), and Section 1.41 of Commission’s Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.41, the Petitions to set aside grant of the license for Station WPPA630, submitted by Pool Wells Services Co. and Pacific Gas and Electric on September 19, 2000 and Southern California Gas Co. on October 4, 2000 ARE DENIED. 12. IT IS PROPOSED, that, pursuant to Sections 4( i) and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U. S. C. §§ 154( i), 316( a), and Section 1.87 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C. F. R. § 1.87, the license for Private Radio Mobile Services Station WPPA630 held by Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc., BE MODIFIED by removing the frequencies 153.215/ 159.600 MHz and 153.515/ 159. 600 MHz. 25 47 U. S. C. § 316. 26 47 U. S. C. § 316( a). Section 316( a) requires that we notify the affected station( s) of the proposed modification( s), the public interest reasons for the action, and afford at least 30 days to respond. 27 47 C. F. R. § 1. 87( a). 4 Federal Communications Commission DA 01- 1990 5 13. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested to Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc., 160 N. Broadway, Fresno, CA 93701. 14. 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 COMMUNICATION COMMISSION D’wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 5