[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 139 (Friday, July 20, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39756-39761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14099]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0 and 90

[WT Docket No. 02-55, ET Docket No. 00-258; ET Docket No. 95-18; RM-
9498; RM-10024--FCC 07-102]


Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, et 
al.

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, clarification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission 
affirms and clarifies various rules governing the 800 MHz band 
reconfiguration process designed to improve public safety 
communications. The Second Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses 
various petitions for reconsideration and clarification asking the 
Commission to revisit certain decisions in the 800 MHz band 
reconfiguration proceeding.

DATES: Effective August 20, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Evanoff, Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0848, or via the Internet at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document summarizes the Second 
Memorandum Opinion and Order in WT Docket No. 02-55, adopted on May 24, 
2007, and released on May 30, 2007. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection on the Commission's Internet site at 
http://www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-
A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of 
this document also may be purchased from the Commission's

[[Page 39757]]

duplication contractor, Best Copy and Printing Inc., Portals II, 445 
12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 488-
5300; fax (202) 488-5563; e-mail [email protected].

Background

    1. In the 800 MHz Report and Order, 69 FR 67823, November 22, 2004, 
the Commission adopted technical and procedural measures to address the 
ongoing and growing problem of interference to public safety 
communications in the 800 MHz band. Specifically, the Commission 
addressed the ongoing interference problem over the short-term by 
adopting technical standards defining unacceptable interference in the 
800 MHz band and detailing responsibility for interference abatement. 
The Commission further determined that solving the interference problem 
for the long-term necessitated reconfiguring the 800 MHz band to 
separate generally incompatible technologies whose current proximity to 
each other is the identified root cause of unacceptable interference. 
Accordingly, the Commission adopted a new band plan for the 800 MHz 
band and established a transition mechanism for licensees in the band 
to relocate to their new spectrum assignments. The Commission 
subsequently issued a Supplemental Order and Order on Reconsideration, 
70 FR 6758, February 8, 2005, making certain clarifications of, and 
changes to, the provisions of the 800 MHz Report and Order and its 
accompanying interference mitigation and band reconfiguration rules. In 
October 2005, the Commission released a Memorandum Opinion and Order 
(800 MHz MO&O), 70 FR 76704, December 28, 2005, making certain further 
changes and clarifications to the 800 MHz interference mitigation and 
band reconfiguration rules. In this Order, we address various petitions 
for reconsideration and clarification of the Commission's 800 MHz MO&O, 
previously unaddressed portions of a petition for reconsideration of 
the 800 MHz Report and Order and a petition for partial waiver of the 
rebanding rules, as well as several petitions dealing with clearing of 
the 1.9 GHz Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) band, including a joint 
petition for declaratory ruling and several petitions for clarification 
or reconsideration.

Discussion

    2. The Second Memorandum Opinion and Order affirms the eligibility 
criteria for relocating licensees to the enhanced specialized mobile 
radio (ESMR) band. In addition to affirming the eligibility criteria 
for relocation to the ESMR band, the order released today also 
clarifies the costs that Sprint Nextel Corp. (Sprint) must pay to 
relocate non-ESMR licensees relocating to the ESMR band.
    3. The Commission also denied petitions seeking to require Sprint 
Nextel to pay licensees' post-mediation litigation costs. The order 
also clarifies procedures that are to be used if there is a shortfall 
of spectrum in the ESMR band and outlines steps for a revised band plan 
and timetable for the Puerto Rico market. It also addresses rebanding 
for Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Gulf of 
Mexico and clarifies the 800 MHz application freeze's impact on 
modification applications. The order also defines limits on Sprint 
Nextel operations that are near public safety channels before the 
transition is completed. The order also denied a petition filed by 
Mobile Relay Associates seeking a partial waiver of the rebanding rules 
to allow it to relocate to the ESMR band. The order also denies a 
petition filed by Charles Guskey as repetitive and untimely.
    4. The order also partially grants petitions asking the FCC to 
require Sprint Nextel to relocate broadcast auxiliary service (BAS) 
facilities associated to translator TV stations or operated by full-
power TV stations on a short-term basis. The Commission said it will 
permit, but not require, the carrier to pay and claim credit for such 
costs. The order also delegates to the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau the authority to adopt rules for the Canadian and 
Mexican border regions once spectrum-sharing agreements between the 
U.S. and those countries are finalized.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    5. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-
and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that 
``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.'' The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In sum, we certify that the rule changes and 
actions in this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    6. ESMR Band Eligibility. In this proceeding the Commission divided 
the 800 MHz band into a cellular portion (ESMR band) and non-cellular 
portion to create spectral separation between incompatible 
technologies. Section 90.614 provides that the cellular portion would 
be reserved for licensees that operate cellular high density systems. 
Several parties sought reconsideration of the eligibility and operating 
requirements applicable to the cellular band arguing that these 
requirements are overly restrictive. In the 800 MHz Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, we clarified eligibility of licensees to relocate to the 
ESMR band to include low-density cellular operations and deferred 
consideration of a petition for reconsideration filed by Richard M. 
Duncan seeking to permit site-based Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
licensees to relocate to the ESMR band. Sprint Nextel Corporation 
sought reconsideration of the provisions of the 800 MHz MO&O that 
clarified and expanded the rights of certain licensees other than 
Sprint and SouthernLINC to relocate to the ESMR band. After careful 
analysis, we find no reason to upset the Commission's balancing of 
interests that led to the revised eligibility criteria for the ESMR 
band contained in the 800 MHz MO&O. Those criteria are designed to 
eliminate potential interference between incompatible technologies and 
to provide ESMR licensees flexibility in managing their systems. Here, 
we affirm the eligibility criteria established in the 800 MHz MO&O for 
relocation to the ESMR band and are taking no action with respect to 
any entity. Therefore, we certify that our decision to deny the Sprint 
and Duncan petitions will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    7. ESMR Band Plan. In some Southeastern markets where both Southern 
LINC and Sprint offer ESMR service, insufficient spectrum exists in the 
816-824/861-869 MHz band segment to accommodate existing ESMR systems. 
To accommodate Sprint and SouthernLINC, the Commission created an 
expanded ESMR band in the Southeast. Sprint sought clarification that 
the 800 MHz Report and Order ``adopted two remedies in the event there 
is insufficient spectrum in the ESMR segment to accommodate all 
eligible licensees in a market: (1) Expanding the ESMR segment and, in

[[Page 39758]]

the event a channel shortfall remained (2) distributing the available 
channels on a pro rata basis among licensees.'' Although we agree with 
Sprint that the Commission has the discretion to apportion ESMR 
spectrum, we find no support for Sprint's contention that licensees 
themselves have similar discretion. We also clarify that under limited 
circumstances, the Commission may apportion the ESMR band pro rata to 
licensees eligible to operate there. Because our decision merely 
clarifies pre-existing rules applicable to the ESMR Band, we have 
adopted no new rule and have taken no other action that affects any 
entity. Therefore, we certify that our decision will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    8. Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rico market presents a unique situation 
that is distinct from other markets. Sprint holds considerably less 
spectrum in Puerto Rico than it does elsewhere, and there are several 
other licensees who have acquired significant EA license holdings in 
Puerto Rico at auction and seek to operate as ESMRs. In addition, 
Puerto Rico has numerous site-based incumbents that will need to be 
relocated to the non-ESMR block. Thus, an alternative band plan is 
appropriate here. Accordingly we provide the 800 MHz Transition 
Administrator (TA) with specific criteria and direct the TA to propose 
an alternative band plan within 60 days of the release of this order, 
including, if necessary, a pro rata distribution of ESMR spectrum. At 
this time, we have no basis for anticipating that any future decision 
by the TA in either proposing an alternative band plan or proposing a 
pro rata distribution would adversely affect any small entities. 
Accordingly, at this time, we certify that our decision will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    9. Furthermore, to the extent that any action taken in the future 
might impose an adverse economic impact in Puerto Rico, that impact 
will be borne by Sprint because Sprint must pay the costs of 800 MHz 
band reconfiguration. Under Small Business Administration criteria, 
Sprint is a large entity. Further, there is no evidence in the record 
that non-Sprint licensees in the Puerto Rico market, including small 
wireless cellular, public safety, governmental entities or other 
wireless entities, would suffer adverse economic consequences.
    10. Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the 
Gulf of Mexico. Sprint asks that we reconsider the Commission's 
decision in the 800 MHz MO&O to require band reconfiguration in areas 
that have no associated NPSPAC region. These areas include American 
Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Gulf of Mexico. 
Because there are no public safety entities in the Gulf of Mexico and 
Sprint does not hold spectrum rights in the Gulf of Mexico, we see no 
risk in the Gulf of the type of interference to public safety systems 
that would require rebanding. However, we deny Sprint's request as it 
relates to Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. We 
believe that funding band reconfiguration in these markets does not 
pose an inequitable burden on Sprint. We take this position because 
Sprint alone will bear the cost of band reconfiguration in Guam, the 
Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Therefore, we certify 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    11. Application Freeze. In the 800 MHz Report and Order, the 
Commission imposed a freeze on the acceptance of 800 MHz applications 
in order to maintain a stable spectral landscape during the band 
relocation process. The Commission stated, however, that de minimis 
modifications to a currently authorized system are not subject to the 
application freeze so long as the modifications are necessary to 
effectuate band reconfiguration. Sprint requests that we broaden this 
exception to the freeze to ``permit certain license modifications * * * 
provided they do not materially diminish public safety's spectral or 
operational expectancies.'' While Sprint fails to define ``spectral or 
operational expectancies'' we agree that some flexibility may be 
appropriate. In this connection, we clarify that licensees may seek a 
waiver of the application freeze. Because grant of such a waiver would 
provide benefits to public safety service providers and to the public 
through improved public safety communications, we believe that only 
benefits will result. Therefore, we certify that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    12. Post-litigation costs. Under the 800 MHz Report and Order, 
Sprint is required to pay the costs of mediation to resolve disputes 
associated with a frequency reconfiguration agreement. The Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau issued a public notice that stated: 
``Licensees that enter mediation with Sprint Nextel are entitled to 
reimbursement of `reasonable, prudent and necessary costs and expenses' 
associated with reaching a mediated frequency reconfiguration 
agreement. However, licensees who fail to reach a mediated agreement 
must bear their own costs associated [with] all further administrative 
or judicial appeals of band reconfiguration issues, including de novo 
review * * * and appeal of any such review before an A[dministrative] 
L[aw] J[udge].'' Some parties have filed petitions for reconsideration 
suggesting that the Commission require Sprint to pay opposing parties' 
litigation costs when they seek de novo review before the Commission of 
issues that have not been resolved by negotiation or TA-sponsored 
mediation. We deny those petitions. Under the Commission's orders in 
this proceeding, Sprint must pay all licensees' reasonable costs of 
negotiation and TA-sponsored mediation, regardless of outcome. This 
ensures that licensees can take full advantage of these mechanisms at 
no cost to themselves, while at the same time encouraging resolution of 
issues by negotiated agreement and mediation rather than litigation. 
However, requiring Sprint to pay its opponents' litigation costs before 
the Commission and beyond would increase the likelihood of litigation 
and add cost and delay to the rebanding process. Moreover, the 
Commission lacks statutory authority to award such costs in cases that 
come before it. While parties that pursue administrative or judicial 
appeals may incur some cost, such cost would be undertaken voluntarily. 
Further, there is no evidence in the record that a substantial number 
of parties will pursue such legal challenges. Therefore, we certify 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    13. NPSPAC Band Operational Restrictions. The Tri-State Radio 
Planning Committee, FCC Region 8 (Region 8) asks us to impose 
operational restrictions on Sprint in two distinct situations: (1) When 
a NPSPAC licensee has moved one or more of its channels to the new 
NPSPAC frequencies and Sprint has not yet completely vacated the former 
General Category channels and (2) when Sprint wishes to commence 
operations in the ESMR band, but has not fully cleared the ESMR band of 
NPSPAC incumbents. Region 8 is concerned that these situations, though 
temporary, could create the risk of harmful interference through the 
interleaving of incompatible technologies that was the genesis of this 
proceeding. To address this risk, Region 8 requests that: (a) We 
require Sprint to cease current operation on any channel 1-120 
frequency within 25 kHz of relocated NPSPAC stations within 88 
kilometers (km), and (b) Sprint not be allowed to begin operations on 
any

[[Page 39759]]

former NPSPAC channel within 88 kilometers of the site of any current 
NPSPAC station which has not been relocated to the new NPSPAC 
frequencies. Region 8 asks that we maintain these limitations in place 
until the entire NPSPAC band has been relocated and all relocated 
licensees have finalized the relocation process. Given that NPSPAC 
communications primarily involve the safety of life and property and 
because interference with these communications could have tragic 
results, we agree with Region 8's concerns. Because these operational 
restrictions apply only to Sprint, a large entity, we certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    14. Charles Guskey Petition. Charles Guskey, a principal of 
Preferred Communications, contends that the 800 MHz MO&O failed to 
adequately address his prior petition for reconsideration of the 800 
MHz Supplemental Order. Guskey contends that: (1) The Commission 
undervalued the 1.9 GHz spectrum by at least a billion dollars, giving 
Nextel a windfall; (2) Preferred be allowed to relocate its General 
Category EA channels (encumbered or not) to clean spectrum in the ESMR 
band; and (3) Puerto Rico needs to be treated as a unique market, and 
Preferred awarded the 1.9 GHz spectrum in Puerto Rico in exchange for 
relocating public safety systems in that market. Because we dismiss the 
Petition as repetitive and untimely, we certify that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    15. Broadcast Auxiliary Service Facilities. We partially grant 
petitions to require Sprint to relocate BAS facilities associated with 
translator television stations or operated by full-power television 
stations on a short-term basis by permitting, but not requiring, Sprint 
to pay and claim credit for the costs incurred in relocating these BAS 
facilities. Some parties have filed petitions for reconsideration and 
clarification urging the Commission to require Sprint to relocate 
secondary BAS translator facilities. We instead permit, but not 
require, Sprint to relocate such facilities and to receive credit for 
such relocations at the ``true-up,'' consistent with Commission 
precedent regarding other secondary BAS stations. Because secondary BAS 
operations can be displaced at any time by primary operations, under 
well-established Commission policy the licensees of such facilities are 
not eligible for mandatory relocation reimbursement. Further, our 
narrow decision to permit Sprint to pay for relocation of secondary BAS 
facilities associated with translator and LPTV stations and short-term 
BAS facilities operating under section 74.24 is limited to the facts 
present here and may not be construed in other contexts as a revision 
of Commission rules and policies affecting stations operating pursuant 
to secondary authorizations. Also, allowing Sprint to pay for 
relocation of these secondary BAS facilities does not in any way alter 
Mobile Satellite Service licensees' obligations concerning the 
relocation of BAS incumbents with primary authorizations. Therefore, 
because our decision to permit such relocation affects only Sprint, a 
large entity, we certify that our decision to provide Sprint 
flexibility in managing BAS relocation will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    16. Southeast Band Plan. In the 800 MHz MO&O, the Commission 
updated Sections 90.617(a), (b) and (d) to reflect the distribution of 
channels between the various categories in the SouthernLINC/Sprint 
markets located in the Southeastern part of the United States. 
Specifically, the Commission modified the band plan for the 
SouthernLINC/Sprint markets to reflect a reduced Expansion Band of one-
half megahertz for those locations within a seventy mile radius of 
Atlanta, Georgia. As a result of this change, there are now two 
different band plans for the SouthernLINC/Sprint markets--one band plan 
for locations outside the seventy mile radius and one band plan for 
locations within a seventy mile radius of Atlanta, Georgia. The 
Commission inadvertently omitted this rule change. In this Second 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission on its own motion revises 
Section 90.617(g) and (h) to add a reference to vacated spectrum in the 
Atlanta market. This rule change is necessary to identify the 
particular spectrum that will be available for public safety and 
critical infrastructure industry use within a 70-mile radius of Atlanta 
and the spectrum that will be available outside that radius. We also 
remove all language from Section 90.617 which indicates that the 
agreement between SouthernLINC and Sprint still needs to be approved by 
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Responsibility over the 800 MHz 
band reconfiguration proceeding has been delegated to the Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau. Because these rule changes are procedural 
in nature and are intended to correct an inadvertent omission and 
reflect organizational changes, we certify that these changes will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    17. Band Plan. On our own motion, we modify section 90.203(i)--
pertaining to equipment certification--to reflect the location of the 
NPSPAC band after band reconfiguration. We also correct the base 
frequency for one of the frequencies listed in the table in section 
90.613. The Commission inadvertently failed to update these sections in 
the 800 MHz Report and Order. Therefore, we correct these inadvertent 
omissions and certify that these changes will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    18. Border Area. Finally, on our own motion, we address 
implementation of 800 MHz band plan rules for the Canadian and Mexican 
border regions. We delegate specific authority to the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau to propose and adopt new 800 MHz band plan 
rules for U.S. primary spectrum in the Canadian and Mexican border 
regions once the relevant agreements with Canada and Mexico are 
finalized. This is similar to authority that has been previously 
delegated to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. We amend therefore 
Section 0.392(e) of our rules to provide the Chief of the Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau with the same delegated authority. Thus 
this rule change is purely procedural in nature and therefore we 
certify that these changes will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we certify that 
the requirements of the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    19. This document does not contain new or modified information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).

Report to Congress

    20. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order, 
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in a report to be sent to Congress 
and the General Accounting Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act. In addition, the Second Memorandum

[[Page 39760]]

Opinion and Order and this final certification will be sent to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Report to Small Business Administration

    21. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Second Memorandum Opinion 
and Order including the Regulatory Flexibility Certification and to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Ordering Clauses

    22. Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 
303(f), 332, 337 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(f), 332, 337 and 405, this Second Memorandum 
Opinion and Order is hereby adopted.
    23. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 
303(f) and (r), 332, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 405, the Request 
for Clarification of Communications & Industrial Electronics, Inc., 
North Sight Communications, Inc. and Ragan Communications, Inc. on 
January 27, 2006 is granted to the extent described herein and denied 
in all other respects.
    24. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration of 
Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, and Order, filed by Richard W. Duncan d/b/a Anderson 
Communications, filed Dec. 22, 2004 is denied to the extent described 
herein.
    25. It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration 
filed by Charles D. Guskey on January 27, 2006, the Petition for 
Partial Reconsideration and Clarification filed by the Safety and 
Frequency Equity Competition Coalition on January 27, 2006; and the 
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Schwaninger & Associates are 
dismissed.
    26. It is further ordered that the Petition for Clarification filed 
by Chair of the NPSPAC Region 8 Regional Planning Committee on March 3, 
2006 is granted.
    It is further ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration filed 
by Sprint Nextel Corporation, on January 27, 2006 is granted in part, 
denied in part, dismissed in part and deferred in part to the extent 
described herein.
    27. It is further ordered that the Petitions for Clarification and/
or Reconsideration filed by the Mohave County Board of Supervisors, the 
Association for Maximum Service Television, Fox Television Stations 
Inc., KTVK Inc., Multimedia Holdings Corporation, Meredith Corporation, 
and Scripps Howard Broadcasting Company on January 27, 2006 are granted 
in part and denied in part to the extent described herein.
    28. It is further ordered that the Petition for Clarification filed 
by Fox Television Stations Inc. and Gray Television Licensee Inc. on 
March 20, 2007 Is granted in part and denied in part to the extent 
described herein.
    29. It is further ordered pursuant to the authority of Section 4(i) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), and 
sections 1.925 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.925 that the Request 
for Waiver submitted by Mobile Relay Associates in the above-captioned 
proceeding on January 24, 2006 is denied.
    30. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's 
Rules as set forth in Appendix B are adopted, effective August 24, 
2007.
    31. It Is Further Ordered that the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, required by Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 604, and as set forth herein is adopted.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 0

    Commission organization.

47 CFR Part 90

    Communications.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Rule Changes

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 and 90 as follows:

PART 0--COMMISSION ORGANIZATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 
225, unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Section 0.392(e) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  0.392  Authority delegated.

* * * * *
    (e) The Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau shall not 
have authority to issue notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of 
inquiry, or reports or orders arising from either of the foregoing 
except such orders involving ministerial conforming amendments to rule 
parts, or orders conforming any of the applicable rules to formally 
adopted international conventions or agreements where novel questions 
of fact, law, or policy are not involved.
* * * * *

PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
3. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 302(c)(7) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).


0
4. Section 90.203(i) is revised to read as follows.


Sec.  90.203  Certification required.

* * * * *
    (i) Equipment certificated after February 16, 1988 and marketed for 
public safety operation in the 806-809/851-854 MHz bands must have the 
capability to be programmed for operation on the mutual aid channels as 
designated in Sec.  90.617(a)(1) of the rules.
* * * * *
0
5. The frequency table in Sec.  90.613 is amended by revising the entry 
for channel 169 listed in Table of 806-824/851-869 MHz Channel 
Designations as follows.


Sec.  90.613  Frequencies available.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Base
                        Channel No.                           frequency
                                                                (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
169........................................................        .2250
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
6. Section 90.617 is amended by revising the undesignated introductory 
text and paragraphs (g) and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  90.617  Frequencies in the 809.75-824/854.750-869 MHz, and 896-
901/935-940 MHz bands available for trunked, conventional, or cellular 
system use in non-border areas.

    The following channels will be available at locations farther then 
110 km (68.4 miles) from the U.S./Mexico border and 140 km (87 miles) 
from the U.S./Canadian border (``non-border areas'').
* * * * *
    (g) In a given NPSPAC region, channels below 471 listed in Tables 2 
and 4B which are vacated by licensees relocating to channels 551-830 
and

[[Page 39761]]

which remain vacant after band reconfiguration will be available as 
indicated in Sec.  90.617(g)(1 through 3). The only exception will be 
for the counties listed in Sec.  90.614(c). At locations greater then 
113 km (70 mi) from the center city coordinates of Atlanta, GA within 
the counties listed in Sec.  90.614(c), the channels listed in Tables 
2A and 4C which are vacated by licensees relocating to channels 411-830 
and which remain vacant after band reconfiguration will be available as 
indicated in Sec.  90.617(g)(1 through 3). At locations within 113 km 
(70 mi) of the center city coordinates of Atlanta, GA, the channels 
listed in Tables 2B and 4D which are vacated by licensees relocating to 
channels 411-830 and which remain vacant after band reconfiguration 
will be available as follows:
    (1) Only to eligible applicants in the Public Safety Category until 
three years after the release of a public notice announcing the 
completion of band reconfiguration in that region;
    (2) Only to eligible applicants in the Public Safety or Critical 
Infrastructure Industry Categories from three to five years after the 
release of a public notice announcing the completion of band 
reconfiguration in that region;
    (3) Five years after the release of a public notice announcing the 
completion of band reconfiguration in that region, these channels 
revert back to their original pool categories.
    (h) In a given 800 MHz NPSPAC region--except for the counties 
listed in Sec.  90.614(c)--channels below 471 listed in Tables 2 and 4B 
which are vacated by a licensee relocating to channels 511-550 and 
remain vacant after band reconfiguration will be available as follows:
    (1) Only to eligible applicants in the Public Safety Category until 
three years after the release of a public notice announcing the 
completion of band reconfiguration in that region;
    (2) Only to eligible applicants in the Public Safety or Critical 
Infrastructure Industry Categories from three to five years after the 
release of a public notice announcing the completion of band 
reconfiguration in that region;
    (3) Five years after the release of a public notice announcing the 
completion of band reconfiguration in that region, these channels 
revert back to their original pool categories.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-14099 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P