Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Establishes Post-Reconfiguration 800 MHz Band Plan for the U.S.-Canada Border Regions, 20602-20605 [E9-10324]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20602
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
contain any proposed 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). The Commission will send a
copy of the Report and Order in this
proceeding 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).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
■ As stated in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends
47 CFR Part 73 as follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority for Part 73 continues
to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
§73.202
[Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
Allotments under Hawaii, is amended
by adding Channel 264C2 at Kihei.
■
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. E9–10322 Filed 5–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 90
[WT Docket No. 02–55; DA 09–442]
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau Establishes PostReconfiguration 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:59 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 https://
www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available
on the Commission’s Web site at
https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:59 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20603
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
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
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
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
20604
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161,
303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).
2. In Section 90.619, Table C3 in
paragraph (c)(2), Table C5 of paragraph
■
§ 90.619 Operations within the U.S./Mexico
and U.S./Canada border areas.
(c)(5) and the introductory text, Table
C7 of paragraph (c)(7), and paragraph
(c)(11) introductory text are revised to
read as follows:
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
*
*
TABLE C3—ASSUMED AVERAGE TERRAIN ELEVATION (AATE) ALONG THE U.S.-CANADA BORDER
Assumed average terrain elevation
Longitude (F)
(° West)
Latitude (W)
(° North)
United States
Feet
65 ≤ F < 69 ..............................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
69 ≤ F < 73 ..............................................
73 ≤ F < 74 ..............................................
74 ≤ F < 78 ..............................................
78 ≤ F < 80 ..............................................
’’ ................................................................
80 ≤ F < 90 ..............................................
90 ≤ F < 98 ..............................................
98 ≤ F < 102 ............................................
102 ≤ F < 108 ..........................................
108 ≤ F < 111 ..........................................
111 ≤ F < 113 ..........................................
113 ≤ F < 114 ..........................................
114 ≤ F < 121.5 .......................................
121.5 ≤ F < 127 .......................................
F ≥ 127 .....................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
W < 45 ......................................................
45 ≤ W < 46 ..............................................
W ≥ 46 ......................................................
All ..............................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
W < 43 ......................................................
W ≥ 43 ......................................................
All ..............................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
’’ ................................................................
54 ≤ W < 56 ..............................................
56 ≤ W < 58 ..............................................
58 ≤ W < 60 ..............................................
60 ≤ W < 62 ..............................................
62 ≤ W < 64 ..............................................
64 ≤ W < 66 ..............................................
66 ≤ W < 68 ..............................................
68 ≤ W < 69.5 ...........................................
W ≥ 69.5 ...................................................
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Stations authorized to operate
within 30 kilometers of the center city
Metres
0
300
1000
2000
500
250
250
500
600
1000
1500
2500
3500
4000
5000
3000
0
0
500
0
4000
1600
1000
750
1500
0
coordinates listed in Table C5 may
operate according to the band plan for
Canada
Feet
0
91
305
609
152
76
76
152
183
305
457
762
1066
1219
1524
914
0
0
152
0
1219
488
305
228
457
0
Metres
0
300
1000
1000
500
250
250
500
600
1000
1500
2500
3500
3500
4000
3000
0
0
1500
2000
2500
1600
2000
750
500
0
0
91
305
305
152
76
76
152
183
305
457
762
1066
1066
1219
914
0
0
457
609
762
488
609
228
152
0
Canadian Border Regions 7A and 7B as
indicated below.
TABLE C5—CITIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO FALL WITHIN CANDIAN BORDER REGION 7
Coordinates
Location
Latitude
Akron, Ohio .............................................................................................................
Youngstown, Ohio ...................................................................................................
Syracuse, New York ...............................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
41°05′00.2″ N
41°05′57.2″ N
43°03′04.2″ N
Longitude
Canadian border
region
81°30′39.4″ W
80°39′01.3″ W
76°09′12.7″ W
7A
7A
7B
(7) * * *
TABLE C7—GENERAL CATEGORY 806–821/851–866 MHZ BAND CHANNELS IN THE CANADA BORDER REGIONS
General category
channels where 800
MHz high density
cellular systems
are prohibited
Canada border region
Regions 1, 4, 5 and 6 ......................................................................................................
Region 2 ...........................................................................................................................
Region 3 ...........................................................................................................................
Regions 7A and 8 ............................................................................................................
Region 7B ........................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:59 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
261–560
231–620
321–500
231–260, 511–550
511–550
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
General category channels
where 800 MHz high density
cellular systems
are permitted
561–710
621–710
509–710
None
None
05MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
(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
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 537 and 552
[GSAR Amendment 2009–03; GSAR Case
2008–G510 (Change 29)Docket 2008–0007;
Sequence 4]
RIN 3090–AI54
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation; GSAR Case
2008–G510; Rewrite of GSAR Part 537,
Service Contracting
AGENCIES: General Services
Administration (GSA), Office of the
Chief Acquisition Officer.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The General Services
Administration (GSA) is amending the
General Services Administration
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) by
revising the text addressing service
contracting. This rule is a result of the
General Services Administration
Acquisition Manual (GSAM) rewrite
initiative undertaken by GSA to revise
the GSAM to maintain consistency with
the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR), and to implement streamlined
and innovative acquisition procedures
that contractors, offerors, and GSA
contracting personnel can utilize when
entering into and administering
contractual relationships. The GSAM
incorporates the GSAR as well as
internal agency acquisition policy.
DATES: Effective Date: June 4, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For
clarification of content, contact Michael
O. Jackson, Procurement Analyst, at
(202) 208–4949. For information
pertaining to status or publication
schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat (VPR), Room 4041, GS
Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202)
501–4755. Please cite Amendment
2009–03, GSAR case 2008–G510
(Change 29).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
22:59 May 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
A. Background
An Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) with request for
comments on all parts of the GSAM was
published in the Federal Register at 71
FR 7910 on February 15, 2006. No
comments were received on Part 537.
However, internal review comments
have been incorporated as appropriate.
A proposed rule for the regulatory
portion of the GSAM was published in
the Federal Register at 73 FR 32276 on
June 6, 2008. In addition, GSA
Acquisition Letter V–05–11, entitled,
‘‘Exclusion of Leases or Leasehold
Interest in Real Property from the Use of
Performance-Based Contracting,’’ dated
June 6, 2005, was incorporated into
Subpart 537.102–70. The public
comment period for the proposed rule
on GSAR Part 537 closed on August 5,
2008, and four (4) comments were
received from one (1) commenter.
The Rewrite of Part 537
This final rule contains the revisions
made to GSAR Subpart 537, Service
Contracting. The rule revises GSAR
Subpart 537 to address the text at GSAR
537.101, Definitions; GSAR 537.110
Solicitation provisions and contract
clauses; provision GSAR 552.237–70,
Qualifications of Offerors; and clause
GSAR 552.237–73, Restriction on
Disclosure of Information. The language
in GSAR 537.101, Definitions, is
removed from inclusion in the GSAR.
This language clarifies the definition for
‘‘contracts for building services’’ for
contracting officers; therefore, this
language is being incorporated as nonregulatory GSAM language. In addition,
because these definitions may have
impact beyond the agency, GSAM
537.201, Definitions, is being made
regulatory with deletions in the
definitions where the GSAM language
was redundant with the FAR. GSAR
clauses 552.237–71, Qualifications of
Employees and 552.237–72, Prohibition
Regarding ‘‘Quasi-Military Armed
Forces’’ are retained with no changes,
except minor edits to correct clause
prescription references.
GSAR 537.102–70 was written to
incorporate the policy that GSA
contracting activities are not required to
use performance-based acquisition
(PBA) methods for leases and leasehold
interests in real property from GSA
Acquisition Letter V–05–11, dated June
6, 2005.
Discussion of Comments
A proposed rule was published in the
Federal Register at 73 FR 32276 on June
6, 2008. The comment period closed
August 5, 2008, and four (4) comments
were received from one (1) commenter.
Also, GSA Acquisition Letter V–05–11,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
20605
published on June 6, 2005, was
incorporated in the final rule.
Comment 1: One commenter
responded that GSAM 552.237–70
clause is misleading in that it refers to
‘‘qualifications’’ within the same
context that it discusses determinations
of ‘‘responsibility’’ which the
commenter believes are two totally
different requirements with separate
applications and procedures. The
commenter believes this clause is
inappropriate for the reasons cited
below.
• The issues of ‘‘financial resources’’
and ‘‘performance capability’’ both fall
under FAR 9.1’s responsibility
standards. Conversely, ‘‘qualifications’’
go to the ‘‘quality’’ of the service that
must ‘‘be addressed in every source
selection through consideration of one
or more non-cost evaluation factors such
as past performance, compliance with
solicitation requirements, technical
excellence, management capability,
personnel qualifications, and prior
experience’’ and references FAR
15.304(c)(2) and FAR 15.202(a).
Consequently, factors dealing with
‘‘comparable contracts,’’ ‘‘experience,’’
and ‘‘competency in performing
comparable…contracts’’ fall under the
realm of quality or qualifications as
outlined in FAR 15 rather than FAR 9.1
responsibility standards. Qualifications
must be ‘‘evaluated’’ as part of the
technical factors, and related standards/
criteria that are outlined in the RFP/
solicitation.
• Since ‘‘qualifications’’ must be
specifically addressed in the RFP, as
required under FAR 15.3’s Source
Selection procedures, and responsibility
standards are already addressed in FAR
9.1, the commenter recommends GSA
delete this clause on the basis that it is
inappropriate, ambiguous, impractical,
and unnecessary.
• If the clause is retained, the
commenter questions its applicability
only to building service contracts. The
commenter’s position is that
qualifications and responsibility matters
could apply to all contracts including
supply, construction, A–E, as well as all
professional services. If retained, the
commenter recommends that GSA
consider moving the clause under
GSAM 509.2 to align with FAR 9.2’s
‘‘Qualifications Requirements.’’
Response: Nonconcur. The
information summarizes the
requirements for the performance of
building service contracts that is not
found in other parts of the FAR and
GSAM. The GSA position is that the
FAR and GSAM coverage is adequate for
responsibility and qualifications
matters.
E:\FR\FM\05MYR1.SGM
05MYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 5, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20602-20605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://www.bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at
https://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
