[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20602-20605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10324]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[WT Docket No. 02-55; DA 09-442]
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Establishes Post-
Reconfiguration 800 MHz Band Plan for the U.S.-Canada Border Regions
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document the Federal Communications Commission's
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau), on
delegated authority, addresses a petition for reconsideration of the
reconfigured 800 MHz band plan established for the U.S.-Canada border
in the Second Report and Order and, on its own motion, clarifies and
corrects certain rules established in the Second Report and Order.
DATES: Effective July 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445-12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Marenco, Policy Division, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0838.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Fourth Memorandum
Opinion and Order, DA 09-442, released on February 25, 2009. The
complete text of this document is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.
This document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or (202) 863-
2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail at http://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.fcc.gov.
1. In a July 2004 Report and Order, the Commission reconfigured the
800 MHz band to eliminate interference to public safety and other land
mobile communication systems operating in the band, 69 FR 67823,
November 22, 2004. However, the Commission deferred consideration of
band reconfiguration plans for the border areas, noting that
``implementing the band plan in areas of the United States bordering
Mexico and Canada will require modifications to international
agreements for use of the 800 MHz band in the border areas.'' The
Commission stated that ``the details of the border plans will be
determined in our ongoing discussions with the Mexican and Canadian
governments.''
2. In a Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, adopted in May 2007,
the Commission delegated authority to PSHSB to propose and adopt border
area band plans once agreements are reached with Canada and Mexico, 72
FR 39756, July 20, 2007.
3. In July 2007, the U.S. and Canada reached an agreement on a
process that will enable the U.S. to proceed with band reconfiguration
in the border region. Consequently, on November 1, 2007, PSHSB issued a
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeking comment on
specific proposals for reconfiguring the eight U.S.-Canada border
regions, 72 FR 63869, November 13, 2007. The Commission received ten
comments and eight reply comments in response to the FNPRM.
4. On May 9, 2008, PSHSB issued a Second Report and Order (Second
R&O) establishing reconfigured band plans in the U.S.-Canada border
regions, 73 FR 33728, June 13, 2008. The band plans adopted in the
Second R&O are designed to separate--to the greatest extent possible--
public safety and other non-cellular licensees from licensees that
employ cellular technology in the band.
5. On July 14, 2008, Sprint filed a Petition for Clarification
seeking reconsideration of certain portions of the 800 MHz Second R&O.
6. Consequently, on February 25, 2009, PSHSB issued a Fourth
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Fourth MO&O) addressing Sprint's
petition. In this Fourth MO&O, PSHSB also clarifies and corrects
certain rules established in the 800 MHz Second R&O.
Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
7. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification required by section
604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604, is included in
Appendix A of the Fourth MO&O.
B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
8. The Fourth MO&O does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. Therefore it does not contain any new or
modified ``information burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
9. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)
requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' The RFA generally defines ``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 the
Fourth MO&O will have no significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
[[Page 20603]]
10. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the FNPRM in WT Docket 02-55, 72 FR
63869, November 13, 2007. In the FNPRM, the PSHSB sought written public
comment on proposals to reconfigure the 800 MHz band along the U.S.-
Canada border, including comment on the IRFA. Based upon the comments
in response to the FNPRM, PSHSB established a new band plan for the 800
MHz band along the U.S.-Canada border in the Second R&O and included a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA'') in that order, 73 FR
33728, June 13, 2008.
11. The Fourth MO&O clarifies portions of the Second R&O and
addresses a petition for reconsideration of the Second R&O filed by
Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint). Interested parties were afforded
notice and opportunity to comment on the petition for reconsideration.
See 73 FR 43753 and 73 FR 45103.
12. Border Area Region 3 Band Plan. In its petition, Sprint states
that the ``allocation'' of eight public safety pool channels above
815.75/860.75 MHz in Region 3 (Ohio/Michigan) along the U.S.-Canada
border is both unnecessary and needlessly complicating for rebanding.
In this proceeding, the Bureau had adopted a band plan for Region 3
which included over 300 channels for public safety in the lower portion
of the band and an additional eight channels for public safety in the
upper portion of the band immediately above 815.75/860.75 MHz. Sprint
avers that the Bureau created enough spectrum ``slots'' to accommodate
all existing public safety entities in the bottom of the band in this
region. Consequently, Sprint seeks clarification that the Bureau
intended to assign the eight channels above 815.75/860.75 MHz to the
public safety pool, if, and only if, those channels are necessary for
retuning public safety licensees that cannot be accommodated at the
lowermost portion of the band. The State of Michigan (Michigan) opposes
Sprint's proposal to modify the Region 3 band plan. Michigan notes that
the Bureau's decision to provide a small allocation of non-NPSAC public
safety channels above 815.75/860.75 MHz was in direct response to
comments from public safety entities who advised the Bureau that these
additional channels were needed to maintain post-rebanding spectrum
comparability. For instance, Michigan notes that any attempt to
accommodate non-NPSAC licensees in the 806-809 MHz/851-854 MHz portion
of the band could seriously jeopardize the ``smooth'' migration of the
NPSPAC licensees to this portion of the band.
13. The Bureau agrees with Michigan on this issue and, in the
Fourth MO&O, declines to make the change to the Region 3 band plan
proposed by Sprint. The Bureau indicates that the eight 25 kHz spaced
channels above 815.75/860.75 MHz will be needed to accommodate non-
NPSPAC public safety licensees relocating from the new NPSPAC band
(806-809/851-854 MHz). Without these channels, the Bureau is concerned
that additional non-NPSPAC public safety licensees will be forced to
remain in the new NPSPAC band further complicating the relocation of
NPSPAC licensees to this portion of the band. Since the Bureau is
electing to make no change to the Region 3 band plan, we certify that
our decision here will have no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
14. Requests for Planning Funding. In its petition, Sprint seeks
clarification that the Bureau did not intend to change the existing
process for the submitting and handling of Requests for Planning
Funding (RFPF) when the Bureau created its timeline for planning,
negotiation and mediation for licensees along the U.S.-Canada border to
complete planning. Sprint notes that pursuant to the current policies
established by the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA), licensees are
to submit RFPFs first to the TA and then, once they are deemed
acceptable for processing, to Sprint. Consequently, in the Fourth MO&O,
the Bureau clarifies that it had no intention of modifying the TA's
policy for submission and handling of RFPFs and specifies that border
area licensees who intend to seek planning funding should first submit
RFPFs to the TA for approval before submitting them to Sprint in
accordance with the TA policy. Because the Bureau is making no change
to the TA's existing policy, we certify that this clarification will
have no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
15. Clarifications and Corrections to Section 90.619(c). In the
Second R&O, the Bureau updated Section 90.619(c) to reflect the new 800
MHz band plan along the U.S.-Canada border. In the Fourth MO&O, the
Bureau makes certain clarifications and corrections to Section
90.619(c). Specifically, in Table C3 of Section 90.619(c), the Bureau
corrects the range for certain assumed average terrain elevation levels
along the U.S.-Canada border. The Bureau also modifies Table C5 of
Section 90.619(c) to clarify that licensees operating within 30
kilometers of certain cities along the U.S.-Canada border are exempt
from sharing primary spectrum with Canada but subject to the power and
antenna height limits which apply to all licensees operating along the
border. Furthermore, the Bureau corrects a typo in Table C7 of Section
90.619(c) which lists channels available for licensing in the General
Category along the U.S.-Canada border. We certify that none of these
clarifications or corrections will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Report to Congress
16. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth MO&O, including
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to be sent
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Ordering Clauses
17. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 332
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 332,
this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order is adopted.
18. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's
rules set forth in the rule changes are adopted, effective July 6,
2009.
19. It is further ordered that the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification required by section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 604, and as set forth in Appendix A herein is adopted.
20. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90
Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
David Furth,
Acting Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
Rule Changes
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 90 as follows:
PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act of
[[Page 20604]]
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
0
2. In Section 90.619, Table C3 in paragraph (c)(2), Table C5 of
paragraph (c)(5) and the introductory text, Table C7 of paragraph
(c)(7), and paragraph (c)(11) introductory text are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 90.619 Operations within the U.S./Mexico and U.S./Canada border
areas.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
Table C3--Assumed Average Terrain Elevation (AATE) Along the U.S.-Canada Border
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed average terrain elevation
---------------------------------------------------
Longitude ([Phi]) ([deg] West) Latitude ([Omega]) United States Canada
([deg] North) ---------------------------------------------------
Feet Metres Feet Metres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65 <= [Phi] < 69.................... [Omega] < 45.......... 0 0 0 0
''.................................. 45 <= [Omega] < 46.... 300 91 300 91
''.................................. [Omega] >= 46......... 1000 305 1000 305
69 <= [Phi] < 73.................... All................... 2000 609 1000 305
73 <= [Phi] < 74.................... ''.................... 500 152 500 152
74 <= [Phi] < 78.................... ''.................... 250 76 250 76
78 <= [Phi] < 80.................... [Omega] < 43.......... 250 76 250 76
''.................................. [Omega] >= 43......... 500 152 500 152
80 <= [Phi] < 90.................... All................... 600 183 600 183
90 <= [Phi] < 98.................... ''.................... 1000 305 1000 305
98 <= [Phi] < 102................... ''.................... 1500 457 1500 457
102 <= [Phi] < 108.................. ''.................... 2500 762 2500 762
108 <= [Phi] < 111.................. ''.................... 3500 1066 3500 1066
111 <= [Phi] < 113.................. ''.................... 4000 1219 3500 1066
113 <= [Phi] < 114.................. ''.................... 5000 1524 4000 1219
114 <= [Phi] < 121.5................ ''.................... 3000 914 3000 914
121.5 <= [Phi] < 127................ ''.................... 0 0 0 0
[Phi] >= 127........................ 54 <= [Omega] < 56.... 0 0 0 0
''.................................. 56 <= [Omega] < 58.... 500 152 1500 457
''.................................. 58 <= [Omega] < 60.... 0 0 2000 609
''.................................. 60 <= [Omega] < 62.... 4000 1219 2500 762
''.................................. 62 <= [Omega] < 64.... 1600 488 1600 488
''.................................. 64 <= [Omega] < 66.... 1000 305 2000 609
''.................................. 66 <= [Omega] < 68.... 750 228 750 228
''.................................. 68 <= [Omega] < 69.5.. 1500 457 500 152
''.................................. [Omega] >= 69.5....... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(5) Stations authorized to operate within 30 kilometers of the
center city coordinates listed in Table C5 may operate according to the
band plan for Canadian Border Regions 7A and 7B as indicated below.
Table C5--Cities That Are Considered To Fall Within Candian Border Region 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinates
Location ----------------------------------------------------- Canadian border
Latitude Longitude region
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akron, Ohio............................ 41[deg]05[min]00.2[sec] N 81[deg]30[min]39.4 7A
[sec] W
Youngstown, Ohio....................... 41[deg]05[min]57.2[sec] N 80[deg]39[min]01.3 7A
[sec] W
Syracuse, New York..................... 43[deg]03[min]04.2[sec] N 76[deg]09[min]12.7 7B
[sec] W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(7) * * *
Table C7--General Category 806-821/851-866 MHz Band Channels in the
Canada Border Regions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General category
General category channels where
channels where 800 800 MHz high
Canada border region MHz high density density cellular
cellular systems are systems are
prohibited permitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regions 1, 4, 5 and 6.......... 261-560 561-710
Region 2....................... 231-620 621-710
Region 3....................... 321-500 509-710
Regions 7A and 8............... 231-260, 511-550 None
Region 7B...................... 511-550 None
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20605]]
* * * * *
(11) In Canada Border Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, the following
General Category channels are available for licensing to all entities
except as described below in paragraphs (c)(11)(i) and (c)(11)(ii): in
Regions 1, 4, 5 and 6, channels 261-560; in Region 2, channels 231-620
and in Region 3, channels 321-500.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-10324 Filed 5-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P