Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Shelby County Waiver

Download Options

Released: January 23, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)
SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA
)
File No. 0004776280
)
Request for Waiver of Sections 90.35(a) and
)
90.205(d)(2) of the Commission’s Rules
)

ORDER

Adopted: January 23, 2012

Released: January 23, 2012

By the Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
Shelby County, Alabama (Shelby, or the County) filed an application1 and associated
Waiver Requests to use certain Industrial/Business (I/B) Pool frequencies for a trunked public safety radio
communications system,2 and to operate at greater power than permitted by Part 90 rules.3 Shelby seeks
waiver relief pursuant to Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules.4 We grant the Waiver Requests in part
and as conditioned herein.

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
Shelby states that it “is in the process of upgrading its radio system to a new five-site
system that will provide improved communications capabilities to first responders throughout the
county.”5 Shelby plans to implement “a VHF, P25, digital, trunked radio system which will support all
Shelby County, Alabama first responders, public safety agencies and other essential government entity
functions.”6 Although Shelby’s application contains frequencies from the Public Safety Pool, it also


1 See File No. 0004776280 (filed June 22, 2011, amended July 26, 2011, August 12, 2011, October 26, 2011, and
November 8, 2011).
2 See File No. 0004776280, attached Letter from Alan S. Tilles, Jeffrey W. Rubin, Schulman Rogers Gandal Pordy
& Ecker to David Furth, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (filed Jan. 13, 2011) (I/B
Waiver Request). Shelby seeks authority to operate on 10 frequencies from the I/B Pool: 159.6600, 152.9000,
160.050, 160.1100, 159.8700, 159.9000, 151.5800, 152.9900, 159.9750, and 160.1250 MHz. We note that Shelby
replaced frequency 160.0425 MHz with 160.050 MHz (see File No. 0004776280, amended November 8, 2011).
Shelby also applied for 14 Public Safety Pool frequencies.
3 See File No. 0004776280, attached “Request for Waiver Section 90.205(d)” (Power Limit Waiver Request). The
power limit waiver applies to both the I/B Pool frequencies and the Public Safety Pool frequencies on the
application.
4 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.925. See Power Limit Waiver Request at 1; I/B Waiver Request at 1.
5 I/B Waiver Request at 1.
6 Id.

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

contains frequencies from the I/B Pool because “there [are] not sufficient VHF, public safety pool
frequencies available.”7
3.
In support of its application and Waiver Requests, Shelby submitted a frequency search
from the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) stating that
“there are no Public Safety VHF high band (150-170 MHz) frequencies available for assignment, except
those [public safety frequencies] currently on the application.”8 Shelby “investigated using 700 MHz
public safety pool frequencies but determined that a 700 MHz system would require many more tower
sites, thereby making a 700 MHz system logistically and financially unfeasible.”9 Therefore, the County
requests a waiver of Section 90.35(a) of the Commission’s rules “to allow Shelby to become licensed for
certain Industrial/Business Pool frequencies.”10
4.
Shelby asserts that “[t]he system has been designed to provide on-street coverage, as well
as, in-building coverage” but “[u]nfortunately, due to the height of our Location 2, Pelham, the ‘Safe
Harbor Table’ would allow only 1.58 watts ERP [effective radiated power].”11 The County states that it
“will be inadequate to accomplish the inbuilding coverage that is needed and desired” since
“[c]alculations suggest that a minimum of 60 watts ERP will be required.”12 Therefore, the County
“requests a waiver of Section 90.205(d)(2) to permit 60 watts ERP on all three Part 90, FB8 channels.”13
Although Shelby confined its request for waiver of power limits to location 2, we note that Shelby
actually requires a waiver for repeaters at fixed locations 1, 2, 4, and 5 as illustrated in the table below.
Accordingly, we consider waiver of our rules as indicated below on our own motion with respect to those
additional sites.
Location
Proposed
Maximum allowable
Section 90.205(d)
ERP (watts)
ERP (watts)14
waiver needed?
1
60
18
Yes
2
60
1.76
Yes
3
60
87
No
4
50
34
Yes
5
40
17
Yes


7 Id.
8 See File No. 0004776280, attached Letter from Carol DiCaro, AFC Processor/Licensing Assistant, APCO
International, to Federal Communications Commission (filed June 21, 2011).
9 I/B Waiver Request at 1.
10 Id.
11 Id. See also 47 C.F.R. § 90.205(d) Table 1. Commission staff calculated a slightly higher allowable ERP of 1.76
watts for Location 2 by using the allowable ERP equation in 47 C.F.R. § 90.205(d), footnote 3, which states that:
“[w]hen the actual antenna HAAT is greater than the reference HAAT, the allowable ERP will be reduced in
accordance with the following equation: ERPallow = ERPmax * (HAATref / HAATactual)2.” Shelby’s Location 2 radius
is 13 kilometers; ERPmax is 178 watts; HAATref is 15 meters; and HAATactual is 151 meters.
12 Power Limit Waiver Request at 1.
13 Id. FB8 is a station class code for Centralized Trunked Relay, which is defined as a repeater operating within a
centralized trunked radio system which has exclusive use of the designated frequency within a given geographic
area.
14 See supra note 11 for the allowable ERP equation.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

5.
In support of its Waiver Requests, Shelby also submitted letters of concurrence from
Shelby County Board of Education, Station WPWW617, co-channel with each of the proposed I/B Pool
frequencies; Alabaster Water Board, Station WNCL866, for co-channel I/B Pool frequency 159.870
MHz; and Town of Vincent, Alabama, Station WNUS292, for co-channel Public Safety Pool frequency
155.415 MHz.15
6.
On September 8, 2011, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) placed
Shelby’s Waiver Requests and associated application on public notice.16 The Bureau sought comment
generally on the request, and also sought “comment on whether the 700 MHz public safety band would
provide a viable alternative, particularly since the digital transition date has passed and in the light of the
Commission’s actions to facilitate a 700 MHz nationwide, interoperable broadband public safety
network.”17 In addition, the Bureau sought comment on whether “Shelby could upgrade its radio trunked
system and improve interoperability by using frequencies in the 700 MHz public safety band, rather than
upgrade using I/B frequencies.”18
7.
The Bureau received one comment from the Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA) in
opposition.19 EWA states that “[a] public safety application that seeks channels from the
Industrial/Business Pool must be examined carefully to ensure that (i) there are no public safety
frequencies that are better suited for the proposed use; (ii) the application has been properly coordinated
for the system parameters proposed; and (iii) the applicant has a clear understanding of the VHF
Industrial/Business Pool spectrum environment and is prepared to cooperate and coordinate in its use of
the spectrum as required by the FCC rules.”20 EWA argues that “the application submitted by APCO
states only that there are no public safety pool frequencies available for Columbiana, Alabama (Location
1).”21 EWA also states that “[t]here is no frequency availability analysis provided for the County’s four
other primary, fixed locations, [e]ven as to Location 1, the APCO report does not include contour


15 See File No. 0004776280, attached Letter from RS/AAA to Federal Communications Commission (filed June 22,
2011); two Letters from Randy Fuller, Superintendent, Shelby County Schools to Shelby County Alabama, Attn:
Phil Burns (dated June 20, 2011, October 24, 2011); Letter from Pete Lucas, Manager, Alabaster Water Board to
Sheriff Chris Curry, Shelby County Sheriff’s Office (dated June 14, 2011); and Letter from Max A. Roper,
Communications Liaison, Town Of Vincent Police Department to Shelby County AL, Attn: Phil Burns (filed
August 12, 2011).
16 See Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on Request for Waiver Filed by Shelby
County, Alabama to Operate a Trunked Public Safety Communications System Using Certain Industrial/Business
Pool Frequencies in the 150-170 MHz Band, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 12756 (PSHSB 2011) (Public Notice).
17 Id. at 12758 citing Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz
Band, PS Docket No. 06-229; Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting
Federal State and Local Public Safety Communications Requirements through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-
86, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (700 MHz Second Report and Order).
18 Public Notice at 3.
19 See Letter from Mark E. Crosby, President/CEO, Enterprise Wireless Alliance to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission (filed September 28, 2011) (EWA Comments).
20 Id. at 1-2.
21 Id. at 2.
3

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

evaluations, only distance calculations.”22 EWA asserts that the APCO “report shows that frequencies
151.1825, 151.2425, 151.4525, 159.2925 and 159.4275 MHz have licensees, such as the State of
Mississippi, within a specified search radius, but does not explain why those frequencies are not available
for use by the County even though, according to EWA’s calculation, the State of Mississippi’s border is
137 km from the County’s proposed system.”23 Furthermore, EWA “conducted a review of the public
safety spectrum at the County’s proposed locations and identified frequencies 170.575, 171.425, 171.475,
171.575 and 172.375 MHz as available for exclusive use (FB8/MO8) operations at all of the County’s
fixed and mobile sites with no co-channel or adjacent channel licensees located within 100 miles.”24
8.
In addition, EWA states its “review of the Industrial/Business certified frequencies
indicates that not all appear to comply with the frequency coordination requirements of FCC Rule Section
90.187, and, more specifically, with the FCC’s mandated coordination policy for mobiles in centralized
trunked system operations.”25 Specifically, EWA cites four issues:
(a) “the proposed interfering contour of 160.0425 MHz at location 2 overlaps the service contour
of WNXR937 on 160.035 MHz;
(b) the proposed interfering contour of 160.110 MHz at location 4 overlaps the service contour of
WQBF548 on 160.110 MHz;
(c) the interfering contour of 159.975 MHz at location 10 overlaps the service contour of
WQNK824 on 159.975 MHz; and
(d) the interfering contour of 160.125 MHz at location 10 overlaps the service contour of
WPWG735 on 160.125 MHz.”26
9.
Shelby filed reply comments stating that the 150-159 MHz frequencies that EWA
suggested are “not available for Shelby’s use, as there is a 7.5 kHz adjacent channel licensee” to each
frequency. 27 Besides the geographic proximity of these adjacent channel licensees, we infer that Shelby’s
operation on the EWA-suggested frequencies would cause interference to the adjacent channel incumbent
licensees only 7.5 kHz away due to mutual bandwidth overlap, which would not be resolved by the
narrowbanding of all VHF licenses by January 1, 2013.28 Regarding the 170-172 MHz frequencies that
EWA suggested, Shelby states that “the Commission is without authority to waive Limitation 49, as these


22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. These frequencies are allocated for Federal use and are assigned on a secondary basis to licensees engaged in
forest firefighting and conservation activities. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.20(d)(49), 90.2659(c). MO8 is a station class
code for Centralized Trunked Mobile, which is a mobile or hand-held transceiver operating in a centralized trunked
radio system within an exclusive geographic area.
25 EWA Comments at 2.
26 Id. Shelby’s locations 2 and 4 are fixed sites for repeater stations. Location 10 is a mobile service area centered
at fixed site location 5 with a radius of 28 kilometers. See File No. 0004776280. All the incumbent stations have
mobile units on the given frequencies.
27 See Letter from Alan S. Tilles, Esquire, Counsel to Shelby County, Alabama, Schulman Rogers Gandal Pordy &
Ecker to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed November 7, 2011) (Shelby
Reply Comments) at 3.
28 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.209(b). See infra para. 12 for further discussion on the EWA-suggested frequencies.
4

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

particular frequencies are controlled by NTIA [the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration].”29 As we discuss in more detail below, Shelby also made several amendments in
response to EWA’s finding of four potential interference issues.30 In addition, Shelby provided APCO’s
frequency availability analyses for the four other primary, fixed locations.31

III.

DISCUSSION

10.
Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules provides that to obtain a waiver of the
Commission’s rules, a petitioner must demonstrate either that: “(i) [t]he underlying purpose of the rule(s)
would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case, and that a grant of the
waiver would be in the public interest;32 or (ii) [i]n view of unique or unusual factual circumstances of the
instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome or contrary to the public
interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.”33 Applicants seeking a waiver face a high hurdle
and must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances that warrant a waiver.34 We evaluate the
Waiver Requests using the first prong of Section 1.925 below. We proceed with analyses of each rule for
which Shelby requests waiver.
11.
Section 90.35(a). The Commission consolidated the private land mobile radio services
below 800 MHz into the I/B and Public Safety Pools in 1997 to increase spectrum efficiency, increase
licensee flexibility to manage the spectrum more efficiently, and reduce administrative burdens on users
as well as the Commission.35 The Commission maintained a separate Public Safety Pool (as opposed to a
single pool covering all users) to maintain the integrity of the critical functions of the users included
within this pool.36 According to Shelby, “there is not sufficient VHF, public safety pool frequencies
available.”37 We examine whether Shelby has sufficiently exhausted VHF public safety frequency
options to determine whether the underlying purpose of rule 90.35(a), which codifies eligibility for the
I/B pool, would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the instant case.
12.
Regarding EWA’s suggestion that frequencies 151.1825, 151.2425, 151.4525, 159.2925
and 159.4275 MHz are preferable, Shelby states that these are “not available for Shelby’s use, as there is


29 Id. at 4.
30 See Shelby Reply Comments at 4, attached Contour Studies.
31 See File No. 0004776280, attached Letter from Carol DiCaro, APCO International, to Alan Tilles, Shulman
Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker, P.A. (dated October 3, 2011).
32 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3)(i).
33 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3)(ii).
34 WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969), aff’d, 459 F.2d 1203 (1973), cert. denied, 409 U.S.
1027 (1972) (citing Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1968)); Birach
Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1414, 1415 (2003).
35 See Replacement of Part 90 By Part 88 To Revise the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the
Policies Governing Them and Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignments Policies of the Private Land
Mobile Services, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14307, 14315 ¶ 15 (1997).
36 Id. at 14316 ¶ 16. See also West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources/State Trauma Emergency
Care System, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 12566, 12568 at ¶ 9 (PSHSB PD 2010) (West Virginia Order).
37 I/B Waiver Request at 1.
5

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

a 7.5 kHz adjacent channel licensee” to each frequency.38 Section 90.187(b)(2)(i) considers stations that
have assigned frequencies up to 7.5 kHz removed from proposed frequencies as “affected licensees” for
trunking applicants proposing 12.5 kHz bandwidth, which is the applicable bandwidth classification for
the County.39 Our analysis indicates that Shelby’s interfering contours would overlap the service contours
of all of the 7.5 kHz adjacent channel incumbent licensees that APCO identified, even if Shelby were to
reduce power to conform to Section 90.205. Thus, these affected licensees would be subject to
objectionable interference if Shelby were to operate on the frequencies suggested by EWA.40
Accordingly, we believe that the County has exhausted the public safety pool frequencies.
13.
Next, regarding EWA’s suggestion of frequencies 170.575, 171.425, 171.475, 171.575
and 172.375 MHz, Shelby states that “the Commission is without authority to waive Limitation 49, as
these particular frequencies are controlled by NTIA.”41 As we noted above, these frequencies are
allocated for Federal use and are assigned on a secondary basis only to licensees engaged in forest
firefighting and conservation activities.42 Because operations on these frequencies are secondary to
Federal users, we find that these frequencies are technically unsuitable for an exclusive use, trunked
system as proposed by the County. We conclude that Shelby has exhausted the VHF public safety
frequencies raised by EWA.
14.
As part of our analysis, we note that in 2010, the Bureau’s former Policy Division (now
the Policy and Licensing Division) stated that “future non-I/B Pool eligible applicants seeking waivers to
deploy multiple I/B Pool channels on a wide-area basis will be expected to demonstrate that a grant of
their application(s) would not result in an inadequate supply of I/B channels in the relevant geographic
areas for future I/B Pool eligible applicants.”43 We find that Shelby has made this demonstration. Given
the Shelby County Board of Education’s concurrences and its long-standing authorization for the I/B
frequencies at issue,44 a grant of Shelby’s application would not deplete any I/B frequencies from the
available I/B Pool in the geographic area. For this reason, Shelby states that its application “does not
make such spectrum more encumbered.”45 Therefore, we conclude, subject to our review of the four
potential interference issues below, that the underlying purpose of Section 90.35(a) would not be served
or would be frustrated by application to the present case.


38 Shelby Reply Comments at 3.
39 The County proposes 8 kHz bandwidth. See File No. 0004776280. 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b)(2)(i) determines the
frequency separation of affected stations based on the proposed bandwidth of trunked stations in three categories: 25
kHz, 12.5 kHz, and 6.25 kHz. We round the County’s bandwidth up and find that 12.5 kHz is the applicable
proposed bandwidth for determining the frequency separation of affected stations. See 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b)(2)(i).
40 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b)(2)(iii) states, “[o]bjectionable interference is considered to exist when the interference
contour … of the proposed station intersects the service contour … of an existing station.”40
41 Shelby Reply Comments at 4.
42 See supra note.24. Moreover, 47 C.F.R. § 90.265(c)(5) would require the applicant to obtain a letter of
concurrence from the United States Department of Agriculture.
43 See West Virginia Order, 25 FCC Rcd 12566, 12568 at n. 23.
44 See license for Station WPWW617.
45 Shelby Reply Comments at 4.
6

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

15.
Section 90.205(d)(2). The underlying purpose of this rule is to ensure that applicants
“request and use no more than the actual power necessary for satisfactory operation.”46 Shelby states that
“Section 90.205(d)(2) provides that deviations from the table can be permitted where it is shown that the
37 dBuV/m service contour will not extend beyond the requested service area.”47 Shelby’s proposed
system was “designed to provide on-street coverage, as well as, in-building coverage.”48 Given that
Shelby specifies that it must have the requested power to provide in-building coverage, we are persuaded
that in-building coverage is a prerequisite for satisfactory operation of Shelby’s system. We note that the
Shelby County Board of Education, Alabaster Water Board and Town of Vincent agree “to accept and/or
mutually work [with Shelby County] to cure any interference resulting from reduced separation between
the systems.”49 Thus, as a general matter, and subject to our review of the four potential interference
issues below, we find that the underlying purpose of the rule would not be served by application to the
instant case.
16.
Next, we address power limitations associated with the four specific issues raised by
EWA. Because Shelby proposes a trunked system, we apply the criteria of Section 90.187(b)(2) of the
Commission’s rules50 to determine whether the incumbent stations identified by EWA would be subject to
objectionable interference if Shelby were to operate at the proposed power levels. Section
90.187(b)(2)(iii) states, “[o]bjectionable interference is considered to exist when the interference contour
… of the proposed station intersects the service contour … of an existing station.”51
17.
For EWA’s issue (a), which states that “the proposed interfering contour of 160.0425
MHz at location 2 overlaps the service contour of WNXR937 on 160.035 MHz,” Shelby proposes to use
60 watts ERP at location 2 even though the Safe Harbor Table would only permit 1.76 watts ERP.52 After
EWA noted this objection, Shelby swapped frequency 160.0425 MHz with a new frequency, 160.050
MHz, due to “initial error in selection.”53 Accordingly, Shelby submitted a second letter of concurrence
from incumbent licensee Shelby County Board of Education.54 Given this swap, Station WNXR937,
licensed to Fabarc Steel, is no longer an affected station in accordance with Section 90.187(b)(2)(iii)(B).55
Since Shelby’s operation at location 2 on frequency 160.050 MHz has concurrence from the Shelby
County Board of Education and would not interfere with any other incumbent licensees, we find that the
underlying purpose of the rule limiting ERP would not be served and permit 60 watts at location 2 as
requested.


46 47 C.F.R. § 90.205.
47 Power Limit Waiver Request at 1.
48 Id.
49 See supra note 15.
50 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b)(2).
51 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b)(2)(iii).
52 See table supra.
53 Shelby Reply Comments at 4.
54 See File No. 0004776280, attached Letter from Randy Fuller, Superintendent, Shelby County Schools to Shelby
County Alabama, Attn: Phil Burns (dated October 24, 2011).
55 See 47 C.F.R. § 90.187(b)(2)(iii)(B).
7

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

18.
For EWA’s issue (b), which indicates that “the proposed interfering contour of 160.110
MHz at location 4 overlaps the service contour of WQBF548 on 160.110 MHz,” Shelby proposes to
operate on frequency 160.110 MHz at location 4 using 50 watts ERP even though Section 90.205(d)
would permit only 34 watts ERP.56 Shelby submitted a contour plot for frequency 160.110 MHz
purporting to demonstrate that there would be no contour overlaps with incumbent Station WQBF548,
licensed to EAI Corp.57 However, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau’s (Bureaus) previously advised the Land Mobile Communications Council
(LMCC) that “[i]f the existing station is a mobile-only operation, then the mobile should be studied at the
edge of the mobile area of operation specified on the license.”58 Shelby did not plot a service contour for
a mobile unit for Station WQBF548 at the edge of its service area. We performed our own contour
analysis of Shelby’s operation on location 4 on frequency 160.110 MHz at 50 watts ERP, and Shelby’s
interference contour overlaps the service contour of a Station WQBF548 mobile unit placed at the edge of
the service area closest to Shelby County. On the other hand, we found that location 4 limited to 34 watts
ERP eliminates overlap with the Station WQBF548 mobile unit. Based on our results, we find that
application of the rule limiting ERP to 34 watts would protect the incumbent license, Station WQBF548.
Accordingly, we find that Shelby has not met its burden under the first prong of Section 1.925.
Moreover, under the second prong of Section 1.925, the protection of the incumbent license by
application of the rule is an equitable outcome that serves the public interest. We also find 34 watts ERP
to be a reasonable alternative because it represents less than a 3 dB reduction in power relative to the
requested 50 watts ERP. Accordingly, we find that Shelby has not met its burden under the second prong
of Section 1.925 either. Thus, we decline to waive Section 90.205(d) in this case, and we condition
operation on frequency 160.110 MHz at location 4 limited to 34 watts ERP consistent with Section
90.205(d).59
19.
EWA’s issues (c) and (d) involve Shelby’s location 10, which is a mobile area centered at
the location 5 repeater site.60 For issue (c), in which EWA suggests “the interfering contour of 159.975
MHz at location 10 overlaps the service contour of WQNK824 on 159.975 MHz,” Shelby states that it
has “removed this frequency from its application”61 to eliminate any interference with incumbent Station
WQNK824, licensed to Level 5 Motorsports. We conclude that issue (c) is now moot. For issue (d), in
which EWA argues that “the interfering contour of 160.125 MHz at location 10 overlaps the service
contour of WPWG735 on 160.125 MHz,” Shelby states that “there is no greater chance of interference
from the County’s operation” on location 10 with 160.125 MHz frequency because “the County’s
proposed operation on this frequency is wholly encompassed within the original contour of the Board of


56 See table supra.
57 See Shelby Reply Comments at 3, attached Contour Study.
58 See Letter from Fred Campbell, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Derek Poarch, Chief, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Ralph A. Haller, President, Land
Mobile Communications Council, 23 FCC Rcd 4714 (WTB PSHSB 2008) at 3 note 22 (WTB-PSHSB Letter to
LMCC).
59 Although we intend for this restriction to reduce the interfering contour on frequency 160.110 MHz, we
understand that Shelby would have to reduce the actual power for frequency 155.415 MHz as well at location 4
since the two frequencies share the same antenna. However, we waive Section 90.205(d) to permit 50 watts ERP for
frequency 155.415 MHz at location 4.
60 See File No. 0004776280.
61 Shelby Reply Comments at 4.
8

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

Education license,” Station WPWW617.62 However, in the WTB-PSHSB Letter to LMCC, the Bureaus
stated, “to avoid trunked systems from causing interference to existing stations operating in a shared
environment, affected station calculations must be determined with mobile units located at the edge of
their associated base station’s service contour.”63 Shelby’s analysis failed to plot a location 10 mobile
unit at the edge of the location 5 service area as well as any contours for Station WPWG735, licensed to
Arab City Schools. We performed our own contour analysis conforming to the Bureaus’ guidance. With
location 5 operating at the requested 40 watts ERP, we placed a hypothetical Shelby mobile unit along the
location 5 service contour closest to Station WPWG735. The resulting mobile interfering contour
overlaps Station WPWG735’s mobile service contour located at the edge of the associated base station
service contour closest to Shelby. Thus, we agree with EWA’s findings on this issue, and find that
Shelby’s proposed operation may cause objectionable interference to Station WPWG735. However, we
may mitigate potential interference by restricting mobile units from operating in areas closest to Station
WPWG735. The requested operating area of Shelby mobile units at location 10 extends 28 kilometers
from the location 5 site64 and extends into Jefferson and St. Clair Counties to the north. Because these
counties are closer to Station WPWG735 and are not part of Shelby County, we impose a condition that
location 10 mobile units on frequency 160.125 MHz may operate only within Shelby County.
20.
Public Interest. Based upon the record, we find that Shelby has demonstrated that partial
grant of the waiver, as indicated above, would be in the public interest. Granting the instant application
and request as conditioned herein will allow Shelby to upgrade “its radio system to a new five-site system
that will provide improved communications capabilities to first responders throughout the county.”65 We
find it significant that “[t]he new, VHF, P25 system will be available for use by all Shelby County,
Alabama public safety agencies and the following agencies have already committed to utilizing the
system, the City of Alabaster Fire and Rescue, the City of Calera Police Department, the City of Chelsea
Fire and Rescue, the City of Harpersville Police Department, the City of Vincent Police Department, the
Shelby County 911 Center, the Shelby County Administration Office, the Shelby County Board of
Education, the Shelby County EMA and the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department.”66 Moreover, several
other agencies “have agreed to utilize the new system as funding becomes available.”67 We therefore find
that partial grant of Shelby’s Waiver Requests as conditioned herein is in the public interest.

IV.

CONCLUSION

21.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Shelby has made a sufficient showing for a
partial grant of its requested waivers under Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules. Moreover, we find
that Shelby’s amendments and the special conditions we apply herein resolve the four potential
interference issues raised by EWA. We therefore grant a waiver of Section 90.35(a) to permit Shelby to
use the proposed I/B Pool frequencies and grant in part, to the extent indicated herein, a waiver of Section
90.205(d) to use the proposed power levels at locations 1, 2, 4 (for frequency 155.415 MHz only), and 5


62 Id.
63 WTB-PSHSB Letter to LMCC, 23 FCC Rcd at 4716.
64 See File No. 000477280.
65 Power Limit Waiver Request at 1.
66 I/B Waiver Request at 2.
67 Id.
9

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-76

to provide in-building coverage.68 However, we limit the power on frequency 160.110 MHz at location 4
to 34 watts ERP. Furthermore, we condition the license grant that mobile units at location 10 on
frequency 160.125 MHz may operate only within Shelby County.

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

22.
Accordingly, WE ORDER pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.925(b)(3) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §
1.925(b)(3), that the Waiver Requests, as amended, associated with File No. 0004776280 filed by Shelby
County, Alabama ARE GRANTED IN PART, to the extent indicated herein.
23.
WE FURTHER ORDER that File No. 0004776280 SHALL BE PROCESSED consistent
with this Order and the Commission’s rules.
24.
We take this action under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.191 and 0.392 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Thomas J. Beers
Chief, Policy and Licensing Division
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau


68 Shelby does not require a power level waiver for location 3. See supra note 59; we waive Section 90.205(d) to
permit 50 watts ERP for frequency 155.415 MHz at location 4.
10

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.