**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
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]

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 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]

**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.

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

[^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.

[^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).

[^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.

[^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-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.