*Pages 1--3 from Microsoft Word - 13370.doc* PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418- 0500 Fax- On- Demand 202 / 418- 2830 TTY 202 / 418- 2555 Internet: http:// www. fcc. gov ftp fcc gov DA 01- 2852 December 7, 2001 PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO – MONITORING LEVELS FOR NON- EXEMPT TRUNKED SYSTEMS ON CHANNELS BETWEEN 150- 512 MHZ By this Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) accepts and approves the consensus monitoring levels for non- exempt trunked systems operating on Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) channels between 150- 512 MHz. These monitoring levels were recommended by the Commission’s certified Frequency Advisory Committees (“ FACs” or “coordinators”) for PLMR spectrum. By way of background, in its Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 98- 182 (R& O), the Commission recognized centralized, decentralized and hybrid trunked systems and clarified that the Part 90 monitoring requirements apply to all trunked operations on shared channels. 1 Specifically, the Commission clarified that: x A “trunked radio system” is any radio system employing technology that provides the ability to search two or more available channels and automatically assign a user an open channel. See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 7. x Trunked radio systems operating on PLMR channels between 150- 512 MHz must employ equipment that prevents transmission on a trunked frequency if a signal from another system is present on that frequency. The level of monitoring must be sufficient to avoid causing harmful interference to other systems. See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 187( b). x Exception: A frequency in a trunked radio system is exempt from the monitoring requirements if (1) in the 470- 512 MHz band, and the licensee meets the loading requirements of 47 C. F. R. § 90.313 and has exclusivity in its service area; or (2) the licensee has obtained consent from all “affected licensees” using either the “mileage separation” or “protected contours” procedures under 47 C. F. R. § 90. 187( b)( 2). 1 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review  47 C. F. R. Part 90 - Private Land Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 98- 182, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 16,673, 16, 686 ¶ 25 (2000) (recon. pending) (R& O). 1 Furthermore, the Commission stated that it would rely on the certified FACs to specify a “level” of monitoring and that the FACs must develop and employ uniform procedures concerning the certification of applications proposing trunked systems that require monitoring. 2 On February 2, 2001, the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC), which includes all of the FACs as members, reported on the monitoring standards agreed to by all the coordinators. 3 Subsequently, on June 8, 2001, the Bureau’s Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) asked the LMCC to confirm or correct the Division’s understanding of the FACs’ consensus position, 4 and the LMCC did so on July 31, 2001. 5 Accordingly, we hereby approve and accept the monitoring levels and related criteria as set forth in the Attachment hereto. For further information, contact Mr. Brian Marenco of the Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418- 0838, TTY (202) 418- 7233, or via email to bmarenco@ fcc. gov. Action by the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. – FCC – 2 R& O, 15 FCC Rcd at 16, 686 ¶ 25. 3 Letter from Michele Farquhar, Esq., President, Land Mobile Communications Council, to Thomas J. Sugrue, Esq., Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, dated February 2, 2001. 4 Letter from D’wana R. Terry, Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, FCC, to Michele Farquhar, Esq., President, Land Mobile Communications Council (June 8, 2001). 5 Letter from Robert M. Gurss, Esq., President, Land Mobile Communications Council, to D’wana R. Terry, Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, FCC, dated July 31, 2001 (confirmed that the Division’s understanding of the two levels of monitoring, as restated in the Division’s June 8, 2001 letter, is accurate). 2 Attachment Page 1 of 1 The monitoring levels are as follows: Level 1 Monitoring: The repeater (base station) will monitor the input channel for transmit signals coming from co- channel mobile and portable units. The corresponding repeater output channel will be disabled during the co- channel mobile or portable unit’s transmission. Level 2 Monitoring: The repeater (base station) will monitor the output channel for transmit signals coming from co- channel base stations. The corresponding repeater output channel will be disabled during the co- channel base station’s transmission. The monitoring levels will apply to the following systems: All trunked systems (YG or YW) with an FB2, FB4, FB6 or FB7 station class code (but not FB8) will be subject to the new procedures. FACs will recommend the appropriate level of monitoring using the following uniform procedures: All non- exempt trunked systems: FACs will provide each applicant with a written explanation about the need for employing the appropriate level of monitoring, including a notation that compliance with FAC- recommended monitoring levels does not exempt a licensee from the Commission’s Rules. See, e. g., 47 C. F. R. § 90. 403( e) (licensees have a continuing obligation to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harmful interference). Level 1: All FAC certifications for applications for non- exempt trunked systems will recommend Level 1 monitoring. Level 2: In some cases, due to factors such as topology, geography, congestion levels, or non- standard pairs or unpaired frequencies (many existing licensees in the 150- 174 MHz band employ non- standard pairs or unpaired frequencies), FACs will use their discretion to also recommend Level 2 monitoring to supplement Level 1 monitoring. FACs recognize that Level 2 monitoring will require the applicant/ licensee to purchase additional equipment. As such, FACs will carefully and judiciously recommend this requirement. In cases where Level 2 monitoring is recommended, the FAC will specifically indicate that “Level 2 monitoring” should be added as a “Special Condition” to the license grant. 3