Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band; County of Chester, PA and Sprint Nextel Corporation; City of Chesapeake, VA and Sprint Nextel Corporation, 6235-6236 [E9-2568]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 08–132,
adopted January 26, 2009, and released
January 29, 2009. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center at Portals II, CY–
A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
will also be available via ECFS (https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII,
Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This
document may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone
1–800–478–3160 or via e-mail https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and Braille), send an e-mail
to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY). This document does not contain
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
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). Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
The Commission will send a copy of
this Report and Order 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).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television, Television broadcasting.
■ For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as
follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
§ 73.622
[Amended]
2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments
under New Mexico, is amended by
adding DTV channel 12 and removing
DTV channel 20 at Clovis.
■
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Feb 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
Federal Communications Commission.
Clay C. Pendarvis,
Associate Chief, Video Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. E9–2572 Filed 2–5–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[WT Docket No. 02–55; FCC 08–276]
Improving Public Safety
Communications in the 800 MHz Band;
County of Chester, PA and Sprint
Nextel Corporation; City of
Chesapeake, VA and Sprint Nextel
Corporation
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: On December 23, 2008, the
Commission addressed the June 25,
2008 request by Sprint Nextel
Corporation (Sprint) to defer the 800
MHz rebanding financial ‘‘true-up’’
process until after rebanding is
completed. The Commission concluded
that the true-up should be deferred until
additional progress in rebanding has
occurred, and therefore postponed the
true-up date from December 26, 2008 to
July 1, 2009. The Commission also
directed the 800 MHz Transition
Administrator (TA) to file a report by
May 1, 2009, with its recommendation
on whether the true-up should be
conducted on July 1, 2009 or postponed
to a later date.
DATES: Effective February 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy
Ragsdale, Policy Division, Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau, (202)
418–0838; John Evanoff, Policy
Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Fourth
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
08–276, released on December 23, 2008.
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)
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6235
378–3160 or (202) 863–2893, facsimile
(202) 863–2898, or via e-mail at https://
www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available
on the Commission’s Web site at
https://www.fcc.gov.
In the 800 MHz Report and Order, 69
FR 67823, November 22, 2004, the
Commission ordered rebanding of the
800 MHz band to resolve interference
between commercial and public safety
systems in the band. The Commission
required that band reconfiguration in
non-border regions be completed in 36
months. The Commission further
ordered the TA to perform a financial
reconciliation or ‘‘true-up’’ six months
after the 36-month transition period
ended, i.e., 42 months after the start of
rebanding. The purpose of the true-up is
to assess Sprint’s total creditable
rebanding costs for both 800 MHz
rebanding and relocating of Broadcast
Auxiliary Service (BAS) licensees in the
1.9 GHz band, and to compare these
costs to the value of the 1.9 GHz
spectrum that the Commission awarded
to Sprint. If the value of the 1.9 GHz
spectrum exceeds Sprint’s creditable
costs, Sprint must pay the difference to
the U.S. Treasury as an ‘‘anti-windfall’’
payment. The 36-month rebanding
period established by the 800 MHz
Report and Order expired on June 26,
2008. Accordingly, under the currently
applicable timetable, the true-up must
occur no later than six months after that
date, or by December 26, 2008.
On December 23, 2008, the
Commission addressed the June 25,
2008 request by Sprint Nextel
Corporation (Sprint) to defer the 800
MHz rebanding financial ‘‘true-up’’
process until after rebanding is
completed. The Commission concluded
that the true-up should be deferred until
additional progress in rebanding has
occurred, and therefore postponed the
true-up date from December 26, 2008 to
July 1, 2009. The Commission also
directed the 800 MHz Transition
Administrator (TA) to file a report by
May 1, 2009, with its recommendation
on whether the true-up should be
conducted on July 1, 2009 or postponed
to a later date.
The Commission also addressed
several pending petitions for
reconsideration or review of prior
rebanding orders and public notices.
First, the Commission denied two
petitions that seek reconsideration of its
decision in the Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 72 FR 39756, July
20, 2007, in this proceeding requiring
parties to bear their own costs in
rebanding-related litigation before the
Commission. Second, the Commission
exercised its discretion to treat two
pending petitions for de novo review
E:\FR\FM\06FER1.SGM
06FER1
6236
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 24 / Friday, February 6, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
filed by Sprint against Chesapeake,
Virginia, and Chester County,
Pennsylvania, as applications for review
for purposes of resolving questions of
law, and the Commission allowed the
parties to file oppositions and replies as
provided under the Commission’s
application for review procedures.
Third, the Commission denied a
petition for reconsideration that alleges
that the Commission’s Public Notice
released on September 12, 2007, 72 FR
55208, September 28, 2007, to expedite
the rebanding process imposed
unreasonable new regulatory burdens
on 800 MHz licensees. Finally, the
Commission delegated authority to the
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau) to develop a
rebanding plan for the U.S. Virgin
Islands based on a proposal submitted
by the TA.
Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis required by section 604 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604,
is included in Appendix A of the Fourth
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
The Fourth Memorandum Opinion
and Order 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 burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198.
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). Consistent with
what we describe below, we certify that
the actions in this Fourth Memorandum
Opinion and Order will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Because the Commission’s decision is
limited to reporting requirements
applicable to Sprint and the TA and
affects no other entity, and because the
Commission’s decision concerning
Sprint merely extends the status quo,
the Commission certifies that its
decision will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. All other
issues do not raise regulatory flexibility
issues because the Commission’s actions
deny petitions for reconsideration, defer
action on certain petitions for de novo
review and afford certain parties an
opportunity to file oppositions and
replies as provided under our
application for review procedures, or
internally delegate authority, and
therefore do not raise any regulatory
flexibility issues. The Commission will
send a copy of the Fourth Memorandum
Opinion and Order, including a copy of
this Final Regulatory Flexibility
Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA, and will be
published in the Federal Register.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–2568 Filed 2–5–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a
regulatory flexibility analysis be
prepared for notice-and-comment
rulemaking 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
13:50 Feb 05, 2009
Jkt 217001
50 CFR Part 216
[Docket No. 0808041027–9041–02]
RIN 0648–AX08
Taking and Importing Marine
Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to Space Vehicle and Test
Flight Activities from Vandenberg Air
Force Base (VAFB), California
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: NMFS, upon application from
the U.S. Air Force (USAF), is issuing
regulations to govern the unintentional
taking of marine mammals, by
harassment, incidental to launching
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
space launch vehicles, intercontinental
ballistic and small missiles, and aircraft
and helicopter operations at VAFB for
the period February 2009 through
February 2014. The USAF’s activities
are considered military readiness
activities pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as
amended by the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA).
These regulations, which allow for the
issuance of ‘‘Letters of Authorization’’
(LOAs) for the incidental take of marine
mammals during the described activities
and specified time frames, prescribe the
permissible methods of taking and other
means of effecting the least practicable
adverse impact on marine mammal
species and their habitat, as well as
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
DATES: Effective February 7, 2009,
through February 7, 2014.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the USAF’s
application, which contains a list of
references used in this document, and
NMFS’ Final Environmental Assessment
(EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) may be obtained by
writing to P. Michael Payne, Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resource,
National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910–3225, by telephoning the contact
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, or on the Internet at: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#applications.
Documents cited in this final rule may
also be viewed, by appointment, during
regular business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Candace Nachman, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext.
156, or Monica DeAngelis, Southwest
Regional Office, NMFS, (562) 980–3232.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary)
to allow, upon request, the incidental,
but not intentional taking of small
numbers of marine mammals by U.S.
citizens who engage in a specified
activity (other than commercial fishing)
within a specified geographical region if
certain findings are made and either
regulations are issued or, if the taking is
limited to harassment, notice of a
proposed authorization is provided to
the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
may be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
E:\FR\FM\06FER1.SGM
06FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 24 (Friday, February 6, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6235-6236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2568]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[WT Docket No. 02-55; FCC 08-276]
Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band;
County of Chester, PA and Sprint Nextel Corporation; City of
Chesapeake, VA and Sprint Nextel Corporation
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 23, 2008, the Commission addressed the June 25,
2008 request by Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) to defer the 800 MHz
rebanding financial ``true-up'' process until after rebanding is
completed. The Commission concluded that the true-up should be deferred
until additional progress in rebanding has occurred, and therefore
postponed the true-up date from December 26, 2008 to July 1, 2009. The
Commission also directed the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA) to
file a report by May 1, 2009, with its recommendation on whether the
true-up should be conducted on July 1, 2009 or postponed to a later
date.
DATES: Effective February 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy Ragsdale, Policy Division, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0838; John Evanoff,
Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth
Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 08-276, released on December 23,
2008. 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
https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web
site at https://www.fcc.gov.
In the 800 MHz Report and Order, 69 FR 67823, November 22, 2004,
the Commission ordered rebanding of the 800 MHz band to resolve
interference between commercial and public safety systems in the band.
The Commission required that band reconfiguration in non-border regions
be completed in 36 months. The Commission further ordered the TA to
perform a financial reconciliation or ``true-up'' six months after the
36-month transition period ended, i.e., 42 months after the start of
rebanding. The purpose of the true-up is to assess Sprint's total
creditable rebanding costs for both 800 MHz rebanding and relocating of
Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) licensees in the 1.9 GHz band, and to
compare these costs to the value of the 1.9 GHz spectrum that the
Commission awarded to Sprint. If the value of the 1.9 GHz spectrum
exceeds Sprint's creditable costs, Sprint must pay the difference to
the U.S. Treasury as an ``anti-windfall'' payment. The 36-month
rebanding period established by the 800 MHz Report and Order expired on
June 26, 2008. Accordingly, under the currently applicable timetable,
the true-up must occur no later than six months after that date, or by
December 26, 2008.
On December 23, 2008, the Commission addressed the June 25, 2008
request by Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) to defer the 800 MHz
rebanding financial ``true-up'' process until after rebanding is
completed. The Commission concluded that the true-up should be deferred
until additional progress in rebanding has occurred, and therefore
postponed the true-up date from December 26, 2008 to July 1, 2009. The
Commission also directed the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA) to
file a report by May 1, 2009, with its recommendation on whether the
true-up should be conducted on July 1, 2009 or postponed to a later
date.
The Commission also addressed several pending petitions for
reconsideration or review of prior rebanding orders and public notices.
First, the Commission denied two petitions that seek reconsideration of
its decision in the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 72 FR 39756,
July 20, 2007, in this proceeding requiring parties to bear their own
costs in rebanding-related litigation before the Commission. Second,
the Commission exercised its discretion to treat two pending petitions
for de novo review
[[Page 6236]]
filed by Sprint against Chesapeake, Virginia, and Chester County,
Pennsylvania, as applications for review for purposes of resolving
questions of law, and the Commission allowed the parties to file
oppositions and replies as provided under the Commission's application
for review procedures. Third, the Commission denied a petition for
reconsideration that alleges that the Commission's Public Notice
released on September 12, 2007, 72 FR 55208, September 28, 2007, to
expedite the rebanding process imposed unreasonable new regulatory
burdens on 800 MHz licensees. Finally, the Commission delegated
authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB or
Bureau) to develop a rebanding plan for the U.S. Virgin Islands based
on a proposal submitted by the TA.
Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis required by section 604
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604, is included in
Appendix A of the Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order.
B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order 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 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 Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-
comment rulemaking 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). Consistent with what we describe below, we
certify that the actions in this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
Because the Commission's decision is limited to reporting
requirements applicable to Sprint and the TA and affects no other
entity, and because the Commission's decision concerning Sprint merely
extends the status quo, the Commission certifies that its decision will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. All other issues do not raise regulatory flexibility issues
because the Commission's actions deny petitions for reconsideration,
defer action on certain petitions for de novo review and afford certain
parties an opportunity to file oppositions and replies as provided
under our application for review procedures, or internally delegate
authority, and therefore do not raise any regulatory flexibility
issues. The Commission will send a copy of the Fourth Memorandum
Opinion and Order, including a copy of this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2568 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P