**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | > WT Docket 02-55               |
|                                  | * |                                 |
| Improving Public Safety          | ) |                                 |
| Communications in the 800 MHz    | * |                                 |
| Band                             | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
| Petitions for Waiver of          | * |                                 |
| Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and      | * |                                 |
| Reading, Pennsylvania            | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
| Petitions for Waiver of Rockdale | * |                                 |
| County, Newton County, City of   |   |                                 |
| Covington, Walton County, and    | * |                                 |
| Spalding County, Georgia         | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
|                                  |   |                                 |
+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

THIRD memorandum opinion and ORDER

**Adopted: September 11, 2007 Released: September 12, 2007**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps and Tate
issuing separate statements.

# introduction

1.  In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we find that Sprint
    Corporation (Sprint) has not met the December 26, 2006,
    eighteen-month benchmark for clearing Channel 1-120 incumbents as
    required by the 800 MHz rebanding process. In that connection, we
    deny the portion of Sprint's Petition for Reconsideration that
    sought "clarification" of the eighteen-month benchmark.[^1] Although
    we do not impose fines or forfeitures on Sprint for not meeting the
    benchmark, we establish additional benchmarks to ensure timely
    clearing of the Channel 1-120 band by all incumbent licensees,
    including Sprint itself. We also require Sprint to provide monthly
    reports on its channel-clearing efforts. In addition, we clarify the
    30-month rebanding benchmark, which requires all 800 MHz licensees
    that must reband to have "commenced" reconfiguration of their
    systems by December 26, 2007.[^2]

2.  We also address several petitions by NPSPAC licensees to extend
    their rebanding deadline until after incumbent analog broadcasters
    operating in their area on TV Channel 69 have vacated the spectrum
    as part of the DTV transition. We grant petitioners' requests in
    part and will allow them to delay the commencement of their base
    station infrastructure retuning until March 1, 2009, after the
    Channel 69 incumbents in their area have vacated the spectrum.

# BACKGROUND

3.  In the *800 MHz Report and Order*, the Commission ordered the
    rebanding of the 800 MHz band to resolve interference between
    commercial and public safety systems in the band.[^3] In that
    *Order*, the Commission required Sprint to complete retuning of
    Channel 1-120 licensees (*i.e.*, licensees operating in the
    806-809/851-854 MHz band) in twenty NPSPAC regions within eighteen
    months of the start of the 36-month rebanding period.[^4] In the
    *800 MHz Supplemental Order*, the Commission modified this benchmark
    to require Sprint to relocate all Channel 1-120 incumbents other
    than Sprint and SouthernLINC in "the first twenty NPSPAC Regions the
    Transition Administrator has scheduled for band
    reconfiguration."[^5] The Commission also required Sprint to have
    initiated retuning negotiations with all NPSPAC licensees in the
    same twenty regions by the eighteen-month benchmark date.[^6]

4.  *Petition for Reconsideration.* In a Petition for Reconsideration
    filed in January 2006, Sprint requested that we "clarify" the nature
    of the eighteen-month rebanding benchmark.[^7] Sprint objected to
    using the TA's Regional Prioritization Plan (RPP)[^8] as the basis
    for identifying the twenty regions in which Channel 1-120 clearing
    must occur by the benchmark date.[^9] Sprint argued that the RPP is
    too rigid and "front loaded" with large markets. Sprint also noted
    that under the RPP, there are fifteen NPSPAC regions in Wave 1 and
    twenty-two in Wave 2, making it unclear which regions would be
    considered the "first" twenty for benchmark purposes.[^10]
    Accordingly, Sprint sought "clarification" that it would have
    discretion to select the 20 NPSPAC regions that would count towards
    the benchmark.[^11]

5.  In June 2006, various public safety organizations filed a letter in
    partial support of Sprint's petition.[^12] While supporting Sprint's
    objections to the use of the RPP to determine the benchmark regions,
    the June 2006 Public Safety Letter did not support allowing Sprint
    to choose the regions unilaterally. Instead, the letter proposed
    that "there should be sufficient flexibility for the TA to work with
    the stakeholders to ensure that the 1-120 channels are retuned in at
    least twenty regions within eighteen months in a manner that
    reflects the Commission's goals of addressing areas with significant
    interference problems as early as possible, ensuring that Sprint
    Nextel and all other parties remain on track towards expeditious
    reconfiguration of the 800 MHz band, and avoiding disruption to
    critical public safety communications systems."[^13]

6.  *Sprint Benchmark Compliance Showing.* On January 26, 2007, Sprint
    filed a report with the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
    on the status of 800 MHz band reconfiguration and the steps Sprint
    had taken to meet the eighteen-month benchmark.[^14] In its report,
    Sprint stated that as of the December 26, 2006, benchmark date, it
    had completed clearing and relocation of all Channel 1-120
    incumbents, other than Sprint and SouthernLINC, in 26 of 55 NPSPAC
    regions, including seven Wave 1 regions, sixteen Wave 2 regions, two
    Wave 3 regions, and one Wave 4 region.[^15] Sprint also stated that
    in nine additional NPSPAC regions, it had completed Frequency
    ReconfigurationAgreement (FRA) negotiations with all Channel 1-120
    incumbents, and that 93 percent of these incumbents had been cleared
    from Channels 1-120 and relocated to other portions of the 800 MHz
    band.[^16] Finally, Sprint stated that it had commenced negotiations
    with all NPSPAC licensees in 37 NPSPAC regions. Sprint contended
    that its performance should be deemed sufficient to meet the
    benchmark requirements.[^17]

7.  On March 6, 2007, the Bureau requested that the TA certify that
    Sprint had completed the rebanding activities described in the
    Sprint Report.[^18] The Bureau noted that although the *800 MHz
    Report and Order* directed the TA to "certify" that Sprint had met
    the eighteen-month benchmark, Sprint's petition for reconsideration
    seeking clarification of the benchmark was pending with the
    Commission. The Bureau concluded that while this petition was
    pending, it would not be appropriate for the TA to draw any legal
    conclusions regarding whether Sprint's rebanding activities were
    sufficient to meet the benchmark. Instead, the Bureau requested that
    TA certify only that Sprint had completed the rebanding activities
    described in the Sprint Report.[^19]

8.  On March 20, 2007, the TA filed its certification of Sprint's
    performance.[^20] The TA found that in the 26 NPSPAC regions claimed
    by Sprint to have been cleared of Channel 1-120 incumbents as of
    December 26, 2006, it was able to certify clearing of all incumbents
    except one licensee in Region 25 (Montana).[^21] With respect to the
    one licensee, the TA indicated that it had no reason to dispute
    Sprint's assertion that the licensee's Channel 1-120 frequencies
    were cleared, but that it could not certify clearance without
    written confirmation from the licensee.[^22] The TA also found that
    Sprint had initiated negotiations with most NPSPAC licensees in the
    37 regions it identified, but that Sprint had failed to contact a
    total of twelve NPSPAC licensees in five regions to initiate
    negotiations by the benchmark date.[^23]

# Discussion

## Eighteen Month Benchmark

### Petition for Reconsideration

9.  As a threshold matter, we deny Sprint's request to redefine the
    eighteen-month benchmark as proposed in its Petition for
    Reconsideration. In its petition, Sprint asserts the right to decide
    unilaterally which regions will count towards compliance with the
    benchmark. Although characterized as a request for "clarification,"
    Sprint's petition in fact seeks a substantive change to the
    benchmark definition, which was never intended to allow Sprint to
    select regions unilaterally for benchmark compliance purposes. In
    substance, therefore, Sprint's request constitutes a request for
    reconsideration, and as such, it is procedurally defective because
    it is untimely. Sprint filed its petition on this issue in response
    to the Commission's October 2005 *Memorandum Opinion and Order.*
    However, the Commission last modified the eighteen-month benchmark
    in the December 2004 *800 MHz Supplemental Order*, and did not
    modify or otherwise address the benchmark issue in the *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order* or any other subsequent order.[^24] Thus,
    Sprint's request to modify the eighteen-month benchmark is
    time-barred because Sprint did not seek reconsideration of the issue
    in response to the *800 MHz Supplemental Order*.[^25]

10. Even if we were to consider Sprint's request on the merits, we
    continue to believe that the eighteen-month benchmark as defined in
    the *800 MHz Supplemental Order* should be retained. The Commission
    adopted the eighteen-month benchmark requirement because clearing
    Channel 1-120 incumbents is a prerequisite to relocating NPSPAC
    incumbents into this portion of the band from the former NPSPAC
    band. The eighteen-month benchmark also permits the Commission to
    assess the pace of band reconfiguration midway through the process
    and, if necessary, take corrective actions to ensure continued
    progress. The Commission charged the TA with establishing a
    relocation schedule "prioritizing the regions on the basis of
    population" and authorized the TA to move up in priority those
    regions "encountering unusually severe amounts of unacceptable
    interference."[^26] Given the importance of Channel 1-120 clearing
    to the overall progress of rebanding, the Commission concluded that
    the eighteen-month benchmark should track the priorities established
    by the TA in determining the region-by-region timetable for
    rebanding. By contrast, allowing Sprint the unilateral discretion to
    pick twenty regions for purposes of benchmark compliance would
    undermine the purpose of the benchmark by allowing band
    reconfiguration to occur on a piecemeal basis without any clear
    criteria. Additionally, adopting Sprint's proposal would undermine
    the Commission's ability to enforce Sprint's rebanding obligations
    and take corrective action if reasonable progress has not been
    made.[^27]

### Sprint's Compliance With the Eighteen Month Benchmark

#### Clearing of Channels 1-120 in First 20 Regions

11. We now review the Sprint Report and the TA's certification to
    determine whether Sprint has met the eighteen-month benchmark as
    defined in the Commission's orders. As noted above, the first
    benchmark requirement is that Sprint must have relocated all
    non-Sprint, non-SouthernLINC incumbents from Channels 1-120 in the
    "first twenty NPSPAC Regions that the Transition Administrator has
    scheduled for band reconfiguration."[^28] We define the "first
    twenty" regions as including all fifteen regions included in Wave 1
    of the TA's RPP timetable. At the time the TA established the RPP,
    the TA stated that it selected regions for Wave 1 that had the
    highest priority for rebanding due to their high population and the
    relative frequency of interference complaints in these regions.[^29]
    Therefore, their inclusion in the eighteen-month benchmark is
    particularly critical to the rebanding process. In addition to the
    fifteen Wave 1 markets, we define the "first twenty" regions as
    including five Wave 2 regions. Because there are twenty-two regions
    in Wave 2, and the TA did not distinguish among them in the Wave 2
    portion of the RPP, we conclude that Sprint may meet this element of
    the benchmark by showing that it has cleared any five Wave 2 regions
    in addition to the fifteen Wave 1 regions.

12. Based on the record before us, we conclude that Sprint has not met
    this element of the eighteen-month benchmark because as of the
    benchmark date, it had not fully cleared Channel 1-120 incumbents in
    all fifteen Wave 1 regions.[^30] Sprint acknowledges that as of the
    benchmark date, it had completed clearing in only seven of the
    fifteen regions.[^31] In six other Wave 1 regions, Sprint states
    that as of the benchmark date, it had entered into FRAs with all
    Channel 1-120 licensees, but that 15 out of 216 licensees in those
    regions had not cleared their channels.[^32] In the two remaining
    Wave 1 regions, Region 19 (New England) and Region 20 (Washington
    DC/Northern Virginia/Baltimore), Sprint acknowledges that out of 59
    Channel 1-120 licensees, eight had not signed FRAs and eleven had
    not cleared their channels as of the benchmark date.[^33]

13. Sprint contends that even though it did not clear Channel 1-120
    incumbents in eight of fifteen Wave 1 regions by the benchmark date,
    it has made "substantial progress" in each of these regions, and
    that some of the delays in clearing are beyond its control.[^34]
    Sprint asserts that once it has signed an FRA with a licensee, it
    typically has no direct involvement in the physical retuning process
    and cannot compel the licensee to complete retuning in a timely
    manner.[^35] Sprint also notes that it did not negotiate FRAs with
    some licensees in Regions 19 and 20 because disputed issues were
    referred from mediation to the Public Safety and Homeland Security
    Bureau for resolution.[^36] Finally, Sprint notes that a number of
    public safety licensees in the National Capital Region portion of
    Region 20 are taking more time to plan and implement retuning due to
    their complex interoperability arrangements.[^37]

14. We recognize that not all aspects of the rebanding process are
    within Sprint's control, and that Sprint may have made substantial
    progress towards meeting some of the benchmark elements even if it
    did not meet them. The fact remains, however, that Sprint did not
    clear all Wave 1 Channel 1-120 incumbents by the eighteen-month date
    as the Commission required. Moreover, Sprint has not asserted that
    all of the delays were beyond its control. Finally, Sprint's
    contention that some delays are beyond its control is not relevant
    to the factual issue of whether it has met the benchmark, but goes
    to the issue of whether the Commission should take enforcement
    action against Sprint, an issue we address below.[^38]

#### Initiation of Negotiations With NPSPAC Licensees

15. The second element of the eighteen-month benchmark requires Sprint
    to have initiated retuning negotiations with all NPSPAC licensees in
    the first twenty regions on the TA's schedule.[^39] In support of
    this element, Sprint reports that as of the benchmark date, it had
    initiated negotiations with all licensees in 37 NPSPAC regions,
    including all fifteen Wave 1 regions and all nineteen Wave 2
    regions.[^40] Sprint notes that by the benchmark date, it was in
    mediation with all Wave 1 NPSPAC licensees that had not reached
    agreement, thus exceeding the benchmark requirement that
    negotiations be initiated in these regions.[^41] With respect to
    Wave 2 and 3 NPSPAC licensees, Sprint states that it was in active
    negotiations with most NPSPAC licensees and that it had sent letters
    to all licensees that were not already in negotiations. Sprint
    reports that 88 of 137 Wave 2 and 3 licensees contacted had
    responded by the benchmark date, thus meeting the definition of
    "initiated" negotiations.[^42]

16. We conclude that Sprint has met this element of the eighteen-month
    benchmark. The *800 MHz Supplemental Order* required that Sprint
    initiate negotiations with NPSPAC licensees in the same twenty
    regions that were the subject of the first benchmark element
    discussed above.[^43] The record indicates that Sprint has initiated
    negotiations with NPSPAC licensees in all fifteen Wave 1 regions and
    in twenty-two additional Wave 2 and Wave 3 regions \-- substantially
    more than the five additional Wave 2 regions needed to meet this
    benchmark element. Sprint's report indicates that as of the
    benchmark date, a total of 39 NPSPAC licensees in Waves 2 and 3 had
    not responded to Sprint's initial contact. In addition, the TA's
    review revealed twelve Wave 2 and Wave 3 licensees that Sprint
    evidently had not contacted as of the benchmark date.[^44] However,
    even if regions in which these licensees are located are not counted
    for benchmark purposes, Sprint has initiated negotiations in more
    than the twenty required regions.

#### Enforcement of Benchmark Obligations

17. In the *800 MHz Report and Order*, the Commission stated that if
    Sprint failed to meet the eighteen-month benchmark "for reasons that
    \[Sprint\], with the exercise of due diligence could reasonably have
    avoided, the Commission may consider and exercise any appropriate
    enforcement action within its authority, including assessment of
    monetary forfeitures or, if warranted, license revocation."[^45] We
    find Sprint's failure to clear Channel 1-120 licensees from all Wave
    1 regions as required by the benchmark to be a matter of
    considerable concern. However, Sprint's report also indicates that
    it has made progress in clearing Channel 1-120 in many Wave 2 and
    Wave 3 regions, and that it has made some additional progress in
    Wave 1 since the benchmark date.[^46]

18. In light of these factors, we will defer consideration for the time
    being of whether Sprint should be subject to monetary forfeitures or
    license revocation for failure to meet the benchmark. Instead, we
    believe it is more important to ensure that Sprint and all other
    interested parties focus on taking additional steps that are
    necessary to complete rebanding in a reasonable, prudent, and timely
    manner. We therefore conclude that it is in the public interest for
    us to adopt additional benchmarks to ensure that Sprint supports
    continued progress in rebanding and a smooth transition for critical
    public safety communications systems. Establishing such benchmarks
    will also provide important guidance to all stakeholders and will
    enhance our ability to monitor and enforce progress as rebanding
    moves into its later stages.

## Additional Benchmarks

19. The rebanding process is divided into two broad stages of activity:
    the clearing and relocation of Channel 1-120 incumbents (Stage 1),
    followed by the relocation of NPSPAC incumbents to the vacated
    Channel 1-120 spectrum (Stage 2). Thus, timely completion of Stage 1
    is essential to clear the Channel 1-120 band so that NPSPAC
    relocation can move forward. To date, the focus of our Stage 1
    requirements has been on clearing incumbents other than Sprint and
    SouthernLINC from Channels 1-120. This continues to be an important
    goal that must be completed in the near future. In addition,
    however, Sprint must clear its own operations and those of Southern
    LINC from Channels 1-120 before NPSPAC relocation can occur. We
    therefore adopt new benchmarks that address both issues.

### Completion of Channel 1-120 Clearing of Non-Sprint, Non-SouthernLINC Incumbents

20. First, with limited exceptions noted below, we require Sprint to
    complete relocation of all non-Sprint, non-SouthernLINC Channel
    1-120 incumbents in all regions in Waves 1 through 3, and in the
    non-border regions of Wave 4, by December 26, 2007. We believe this
    is a reasonable benchmark based on Sprint's assertion that it has
    made substantial progress in clearing Channel 1-120 incumbents in
    those regions where clearing was not completed by the eighteen-month
    benchmark date. We also note that the TA's most recent quarterly
    report indicates that as of June 30, 2007, 97 percent of all Channel
    1-120 licensees in Waves 1-3 have negotiated FRAs with Sprint, and
    92 percent of all Channel 1-120 licensees in Waves 1-3 have
    physically cleared their channels.[^47]

21. We will exclude from this benchmark those Stage 1 licensees that
    also have NPSPAC facilities and that have elected to relocate both
    their Channel 1-120 and NPSPAC facilities in Stage 2.[^48] Such
    coordinated relocation of Stage 1 and Stage 2 facilities belonging
    to the same licensee is consistent with the objective of reasonable,
    prudent, and timely rebanding. We will also not require Sprint to
    complete Stage 1 clearing in Puerto Rico by the benchmark date,
    because the Puerto Rico band plan is currently being revised.[^49]
    Finally, as discussed below, beginning on October 1, 2007, we will
    require Sprint to provide a monthly update on its progress toward
    completing Channel 1-120 clearing.

### Clearing of Channels 1-120 by Sprint and SouthernLINC

22. We also impose benchmarks with respect to the clearing of Channel
    1-120 spectrum used by Sprint and SouthernLINC. These benchmarks are
    essential to clear the Channel 1-120 spectrum for timely relocation
    by NPSPAC, and to eliminate any incentive for Sprint to delay
    rebanding in order to continue using 800 MHz spectrum designated for
    public safety as part of its own network. We are concerned that
    there has been uncertainty in some FRA negotiations regarding
    Sprint's preparedness to clear its Channel 1-120 operations. In one
    case involving the City of New York that was referred to the Public
    Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Sprint took the position in FRA
    negotiations that it was not required to offer a firm date for
    making spectrum available to a relocating NPSPAC licensee.[^50] In
    the *New York* case, the Bureau held that Sprint must either make
    spectrum available on the date requested by the licensee or offer an
    alternative date.[^51] Although Sprint has accepted the Bureau's
    decision in that particular case, Sprint's apparent reluctance to
    relinquish spectrum, coupled with its failure to meet the
    eighteen-month benchmark, highlights the need for a clear path to
    implementation of our rebanding orders and rules. We therefore take
    this opportunity to affirm the Bureau's *New York* holding more
    broadly and expand upon it.

23. First, we affirm that FRAs between Sprint and relocating NPSPAC
    licensees must provide for timely clearing of the necessary spectrum
    by Sprint to facilitate NPSPAC relocation. The *800 MHz Report and
    Order* requires Sprint to cease using Channel 1-120 channels to
    accommodate NPSPAC relocation.[^52] To ensure that this clearing
    process occurs in a timely manner, in any case in which a NPSPAC
    licensee requests access to spectrum in the new NPSPAC band because
    it requires the spectrum for testing purposes or to commence
    operations, Sprint must clear the necessary channels within 90 days
    of the request. For any request made on or after January 1, 2008,
    Sprint must clear the necessary spectrum within 60 days of the
    request.[^53]

24. We recognize that imposing this requirement will require Sprint to
    implement channel swaps and other adjustments to its own network,
    which could have an impact both on Sprint's network capacity and on
    other NPSPAC licensees in the area. We emphasize that the spectrum
    requirements of NPSPAC licensees take precedence over Sprint network
    capacity issues, and that Sprint is responsible for ensuring that
    other NPSPAC licensees do not experience harmful interference as a
    result of Sprint's own network modifications. Sprint has had ample
    opportunity to plan for these contingencies: it has been on notice
    since the *800 MHz Report and Order* of the need to vacate its
    Channel 1-120 spectrum to accommodate relocating NPSPAC
    licensees.[^54] The Commission has also established mechanisms that
    enable Sprint to prepare for and mitigate spectrum shortfalls it may
    experience in accommodating rebanding by other licensees, *e.g*., by
    providing access to 900 MHz spectrum and crediting Sprint for the
    cost of constructing additional cell sites to increase
    capacity.[^55]

25. Second, we affirm that the Commission's orders require Sprint to
    vacate the *entire* Channel 1-120 band, other than in Wave 4 border
    areas, by the end of the 36-month transition period on June 26,
    2008.[^56] The *800 MHz Report and Order* stated that "we require
    Nextel to vacate all of its spectrum holdings below 817 MHz/862 MHz"
    as part of the transition process.[^57] This also requires Sprint to
    clear all of SouthernLINC's Channel 1-120 holdings by June 26, 2008,
    and provide for SouthernLINC's relocation to comparable spectrum. We
    emphasize that Sprint must clear its Channel 1-120 holdings by the
    June 2008 deadline regardless of whether all NPSPAC licensees in a
    given region are prepared to relocate within that time frame.

26. We disagree with Sprint\'s contention that requiring it to vacate
    spectrum by June 2008 \"would seriously harm public safety\" and
    \"squander scarce spectrum resources.\"[^58] To the contrary,
    Sprint's timely spectrum clearing achieves important public interest
    objectives in this proceeding. First, it will eliminate the risk of
    harmful interference to relocating NPSPAC licensees that could
    otherwise result from Sprint continuing to operate in the band after
    NPSPAC relocation has begun. Second, it will simplify and expedite
    the transition process, because NPSPAC licensees will not need to
    coordinate their relocation with Sprint to avoid such interference
    but can move into fully cleared spectrum. Third, it will make the
    new NPSPAC band available for new public safety facilities. Finally,
    expediting NPSPAC relocation will afford Sprint access more quickly
    to the 821-824/866-869 MHz band being vacated by NPSPAC licensees.

27. Nevertheless, in the event that we grant any NPSPAC licensee a
    waiver allowing it to relocate to the new NPSPAC band after June 26,
    2008, we will allow Sprint to petition to remain temporarily on the
    Channel 1-120 channels that it would otherwise have to vacate to
    accommodate the NPSPAC system. In any such petition, Sprint must
    demonstrate that public safety will not be adversely affected by the
    extension, that it has no reasonable alternative, and that the
    extension is otherwise in the public interest. Any extension granted
    to Sprint under this procedure will require Sprint to relinquish the
    channels on 60 days notice by the NPSPAC licensee as described in
    paragraph 23 above. We also emphasize that Sprint may not under any
    circumstances remain on any Channel 1-120 channel once the
    corresponding channel in the 821-824/866-869 MHz band becomes
    available to it. For example, if a channel in the 821-824/866-869
    MHz band is currently unoccupied by a NPSPAC licensee, and the
    channel becomes available to Sprint after June 26, 2008, Sprint may
    not continue to use the corresponding Channel 1-120 channel, even
    though the channel is not needed to accommodate a relocating NPSPAC
    licensee.

### Clearing of Interleaved, Guard Band, and Expansion Band Channels by Sprint

28. We affirm that our orders in this docket also require Sprint to
    vacate all of its remaining spectrum in the interleaved portion of
    the 800 MHz band, as well as the Expansion Band and Guard Band, by
    June 26, 2008, except in Wave 4 border areas, regardless of any
    other rebanding contingency.[^59] Sprint has already vacated some
    spectrum in these portions of the band to accommodate relocation of
    Stage 1 licensees from Channels 1-120. Prior to June 26, 2008,
    Sprint may continue to use its spectrum in the interleaved, Guard,
    and Expansion Bands to the extent it is not needed for relocation of
    other licensees. However, Sprint must clear this remaining spectrum
    by the end of the transition on June 26, 2008 because the channels
    that Sprint vacates will revert to the Commission for re-licensing,
    and public safety will have exclusive access to the vacated
    interleaved channels for a three-year period after rebanding is
    completed in each region.[^60] Sprint's timely relinquishment of
    these spectrum rights therefore accomplishes important public
    interest objectives by reducing the potential for interference and
    increasing the amount of 800 MHz spectrum available for public
    safety use. Moreover, as in the case of Channels 1-120, the
    Commission has enabled Sprint to prepare for and mitigate spectrum
    shortfalls by providing Sprint access to 900 MHz spectrum and
    crediting Sprint for the cost of constructing additional cell sites
    to increase its network capacity.[^61]

### Monthly Reporting Requirements

29. To assist in monitoring and enforcing each of the band-clearing
    conditions imposed on Sprint, as set forth above, we require that
    beginning on October 1, 2007, Sprint file monthly reports with the
    TA and PSHSB on its clearing of the Channel 1-120 spectrum. These
    reports are intended to provide specific, verifiable information to
    allow us to monitor Sprint's progress and determine whether it is in
    compliance with each of the benchmarks and conditions of this order,
    as well as with other applicable provisions of the 800 MHz rebanding
    rules.

30. Specifically, Sprint must include the following information in each
    monthly report with respect to clearing of Channels 1-120. This
    information must be provided separately for each NPSPAC region:

    \(1\) The number of non-Sprint, non --SouthernLINC licensees that
    have been cleared from Channels 1-120, and the number that remain to
    be cleared;

    \(2\) For each region in which SouthernLINC operates, the number of
    SouthernLINC channels in the Channel 1-120 band that have been
    cleared, and the number that remain to be cleared;

    \(3\) The number of Channel 1-120 channels that are being used by
    Sprint in its own network, and the number of Channel 1-120 channels
    that Sprint has vacated; and

    \(4\) The identity of each NPSPAC licensee that has requested that
    Sprint vacate Channel 1-120 channels, the date of the licensee's
    request, the number of channels that Sprint has been asked to
    vacate, and the date proposed by the licensee for Sprint to vacate
    the specified channels.

31. These monthly reports by Sprint will assist the Commission in
    monitoring Sprint's compliance with its Stage 1 implementation
    obligations, but will also provide important information relevant to
    the progress of Stage 2 rebanding of NPSPAC licensees. This
    reporting requirement is imposed as a separate condition on Sprint's
    licenses as modified in the Commission's orders in this proceeding.
    To the extent that Sprint fails to satisfy this reporting
    requirement, the Commission may consider any appropriate enforcement
    action within its authority, including but not limited to revocation
    of Sprint's modified licenses. Sprint also remains subject to all
    prior requirements and license conditions adopted in this
    proceeding.

## 30-Month Benchmark

32. In addition to the eighteen and 36-month reconfiguration deadlines
    established by the Commission in this proceeding, the *800 MHz
    Report and Order* established a 30-month benchmark for the 800 MHz
    rebanding process. Specifically, the Commission required that all
    800 MHz systems "must have commenced reconfiguration within 30
    months of the Commission *Public Notice* announcing the start date
    of reconfiguration in first NPSPAC region."[^62] Under the rebanding
    schedule, this 30-month date falls on December 26, 2007. To ensure
    that all parties take the necessary steps to meet this benchmark, we
    provide the following guidance.

33. In a companion Public Notice adopted today, we have adopted new
    timelines for non-border area NPSPAC licensees to complete planning
    and FRA negotiations and to begin rebanding implementation.[^63]
    Licensees who are in compliance with these timelines as of December
    26, 2007 will be deemed to be in compliance with the 30-month
    benchmark.[^64] We will apply the benchmark to all Wave 1-3
    licensees and to all Wave 4 licensees that have received frequency
    assignments from the TA as of the release date of this order.
    However, we will not apply this benchmark to Wave 4 licensees that
    have not received frequency assignments because their systems are in
    border regions affected by ongoing negotiations with Canada and
    Mexico. We will establish an appropriate implementation benchmark
    for Wave 4 licensees at a later date.

34. We direct the TA to submit a report to the Public Safety and
    Homeland Security Bureau by January 15, 2008 regarding whether the
    30-month benchmark as defined above has been met. The TA report
    should certify whether all covered licensees have complied with the
    timelines set forth in the Public Notice, and identify all cases in
    which the timelines have not been met.

## Rebanding in Markets With Channel 69 Incumbents

35. Two NPSPAC licensees in eastern Pennsylvania and four NPSPAC
    licensees in the Atlanta, Georgia area have filed requests for
    extension of the June 26, 2008 rebanding deadline based on their
    proximity to incumbent full power analog TV broadcasters WFMZ-TV and
    WUPA, operating on Channel 69 (800-806 MHz) in Allentown,
    Pennsylvania and Atlanta, respectively.[^65] These NPSPAC licensees
    (collectively, Petitioners) express concern that if they retune to
    the new NPSPAC band (806-809 MHz) before the February 17, 2009 DTV
    transition date, they will receive out-of-band emission (OOBE)
    interference on their new NPSPAC channels from the Allentown and
    Atlanta Channel 69 incumbents. For the reasons set forth below, we
    grant Petitioners' requests in part and will allow them to delay the
    commencement of their infrastructure retune until March 1, 2009,
    after the Channel 69 incumbents have vacated the spectrum. However,
    we direct Petitioners to proceed with (and Sprint to pay for)
    planning and other preparatory rebanding activity (*e.g*.,
    replacement and reprogramming of mobiles) that can occur prior to
    the DTV transition date.

### Background

36. The adjacency of TV Channel 69 to the low end of the 800 MHz band
    creates the potential for OOBE interference by full power analog
    Channel 69 broadcasters to 800 MHz systems that use the lower
    portion of the 806-809 MHz portion of the band in the vicinity of
    the broadcast transmitter. The 806-809 MHz band is used for
    mobile-to-base transmission and mobile-to-mobile transmission. Thus,
    where an 800 MHz base station receiver is located in close proximity
    to a full power Channel 69 transmitter, the broadcast signal may
    interfere with the base station's ability to receive transmissions
    from mobile radios on the system, particularly when the mobile
    signal is attenuated because the mobile is transmitting at some
    distance from its associated base station. The potential for
    interference also exists for mobile-to-mobile communications when
    the mobiles are in close proximity to a full power Channel 69
    transmitter.[^66]

37. In 1991, the Commission addressed this potential for interference by
    Channel 69 broadcasters to 800 MHz systems by requiring Channel 69
    licensees to construct their facilities to protect previously
    existing 800 MHz facilities from OOBE interference, *e.g.*, through
    use of directional antennas, filters, and similar measures.[^67] The
    Commission further stated that where a Channel 69 station "is
    authorized and operating prior to the authorization and operation of
    the land mobile facility, . . .\[it\] must attenuate its emissions
    within the frequency range 806 to 809 MHz if necessary to permit
    reasonable use of the adjacent frequencies by land mobile
    licensees."[^68]

38. Petitioners contend that despite these measures, their NPSPAC public
    safety operations could be susceptible to interference from Channel
    69 transmissions when they complete rebanding and begin operating in
    the 806-809 MHz band. In particular, they contend that some of their
    base stations are located close enough to a Channel 69 transmitter
    to be affected, particularly when they use channels at the lower end
    of the 806-809 MHz band.[^69] Also, they note that rebanding will
    result in one of the NPSPAC mutual aid channels moving to 806.125
    MHz, immediately adjacent to Channel 69.[^70] Accordingly,
    Petitioners seek to postpone their rebanding until WFMZ and WUPA
    have vacated Channel 69 in February 2009 as part of the DTV
    transition. Specifically, the Pennsylvania Petitioners seek an
    extension until the later of (1) six months after completion of a
    Frequency Relocation Agreement with Sprint with regard to mutual aid
    channels, or (2) official notification to the Commission that WFMZ
    has ceased operation on Channel 69.[^71] The Georgia Petitioners
    seek a complete suspension of their rebanding negotiations with
    Sprint until September 2008.[^72]

39. The Georgia Technology Authority (GTA), a NPSPAC licensee operating
    in the Atlanta area as well as other parts of Georgia, opposes the
    Georgia Petitioners' extension request. GTA argues that there are
    numerous personnel already working on rebanding and that the
    economic cost of idling these persons and their organizations is too
    high to justify postponing the rebanding process.[^73] GTA also
    argues that allowing the licensees that have sought extensions to
    delay their rebanding while other Georgia licensees move forward
    will jeopardize interoperability between the two groups of licensees
    during the extension period.[^74] In lieu of an extension, GTA
    proposes to undertake an interference study in the Atlanta area, at
    Sprint's expense, to determine the feasibility of rebanding while
    WUPA is still operating on Channel 69, and the possible use of
    interference mitigation methods such as filters or enhancing the
    strength of the public safety signal.[^75]

### Discussion

40. Parties seeking a waiver must demonstrate either that: (i) the
    underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be
    frustrated by application to the present case, and that a grant of
    the waiver would be in the public interest; or (ii) in view of
    unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant case,
    application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome,
    or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no
    reasonable alternative.[^76] We conclude that the waiver standard
    has been met in this case.

41. As a threshold matter, we agree with Petitioners that due to their
    systems' close proximity to the WFMZ and WUPA Channel 69
    transmitters, they could experience harmful interference to some of
    their operations if they retune to their new NPSPAC replacement
    channels before WFMZ and WUPA vacate Channel 69. Petitioners have
    base stations located near the Channel 69 transmitter sites, and
    some of their replacement channels will be close to the 806 MHz band
    edge. In addition, Petitioners may receive interference if they
    attempt to use the new NPSPAC mutual aid channel at 806.125 for
    mobile-to-mobile communications near the broadcast transmitter.
    Although the existing Part 73 rules require Channel 69 broadcasters
    to limit out-of-band emissions into the 800 MHz band, NPSPAC
    licensees could be more susceptible to these emissions than
    pre-rebanding licenses on the same frequencies. Prior to rebanding,
    the 806-809 MHz segment of the band was occupied by a mix of
    industrial, public safety, and commercial licensees, including
    Sprint, which used a significant amount of spectrum in the band for
    its cellular-architecture network. In the post-rebanding
    configuration, the 806-809 MHz segment will be the exclusive domain
    of NPSPAC licensees, which typically operate communication systems
    that employ high-site architecture---a form of architecture that is
    more susceptible than cellular-architecture systems to broadcast
    interference. NPSPAC licensees are more likely to conduct
    mobile-to-mobile communications that would be susceptible to
    interference.

42. Given the possibility of interference, we do not believe requiring
    Petitioners to retune by the June 2008 deadline would serve the
    underlying purpose of the rule. The purpose of the 36-month
    rebanding timeline is to ensure timely abatement of interference to
    800 MHz public safety systems from other 800 MHz commercial systems
    that use incompatible cellular architecture.[^77] However, in the
    800 MHz rebanding proceeding, the Commission did not consider the
    impact that Channel 69 incumbents might have on rebanding 800 MHz
    licensees operating in the vicinity of the incumbents' transmitters.
    We conclude that in this limited set of circumstances, requiring
    Petitioners to adhere to the June 2008 rebanding deadline would
    frustrate rather than further the purpose of the rule by
    unnecessarily exposing them to broadcast interference.

43. We also conclude that a waiver is in the public interest because
    alternative methods for mitigating potential interference from full
    power Channel 69 transmissions are costly and uncertain. In theory,
    the interference risk to Petitioners would be reduced if the Channel
    69 incumbents reduced power or installed filters to limit the OOBE
    impact of their broadcast signals. Alternatively, Petitioners could
    add base stations in the vicinity of the broadcast transmitters,
    thus reducing the attenuation of mobile signals resulting from
    distance to the nearest base station. However, all of these methods
    impose significant costs either on the Channel 69 incumbent or the
    public safety licensee, and even if these methods were used, they
    might not be sufficient to eliminate interference in the immediate
    vicinity of a full power broadcast transmitter.

44. In contrast, an extension avoids the need to spend substantial
    resources to mitigate a potential interference problem that is
    inherently temporary. Once the Channel 69 incumbents vacate their
    spectrum in February 2009, they will no longer pose an interference
    risk to Petitioners' systems. This extension also has only a limited
    effect on the overall timetable for NPSPAC rebanding. Petitioners
    are uniquely affected by this interference issue because they
    operate in close proximity to full-power Channel 69 broadcasters,
    whereas the vast majority of NPSPAC licensees operate in areas where
    there is no full power Channel 69 incumbent or the incumbent is more
    distant, and therefore such licensees do not need to delay
    rebanding. In addition, as discussed below, the Georgia and
    Pennsylvania Licensees do not need to postpone all rebanding
    activity until after the February 2009 transition date, but only the
    final retuning of their base stations to the new channels.

45. While we are allowing Petitioners to delay final retuning to the new
    NPSPAC band, these licensees can take other preparatory rebanding
    steps well before February 2009 while continuing to operate on their
    existing NPSPAC channels. In this respect, we disagree with those
    Petitioners who advocate postponing all rebanding activity until
    mid-2008.[^78] Petitioners have received their new frequency
    assignments from the Transition Administrator, and can therefore
    complete planning and negotiation of FRAs with Sprint. They can also
    proceed with replacing and reprogramming their mobile and portable
    radios so that they are capable of operating on the new NPSPAC band.
    In short, the record indicates no reason why Petitioners cannot
    complete all aspects of rebanding except the retuning of the system
    infrastructure (and any post-retuning work that may be required,
    *e.g.*, removal of pre-rebanding channels) prior to February 2009.

46. We disagree with GTA's contention that an extension is too costly
    and will impair interoperability for NPSPAC licensees in the Atlanta
    area. [^79] It is true that an extension may increase some rebanding
    costs, *e.g*., due to increases in equipment and labor costs, or due
    to NPSPAC licensees needing to expand their systems on pre-rebanding
    channels during the transition period. However, these costs will be
    fully covered by Sprint, and we do not anticipate that delay of a
    few months will have a significant impact. As the Georgia
    Petitioners note, public safety systems plan their budgetary cycles
    well in advance so that the likelihood of an unanticipated dramatic
    change in a public safety network is highly unlikely.[^80]
    Similarly, grant of an extension will not jeopardize
    interoperability. As the Georgia Petitioners point out, Sprint will
    maintain the five NPSPAC mutual aid channels in both the new and old
    NPSPAC bands until all rebanding within the region is complete.[^81]
    Moreover, if necessary, the TA can require, and Sprint must provide
    for, dedication of additional channels and facilities to support
    continued interoperability between Petitioners' systems and more
    other NPSPAC systems.

47. We have made it abundantly clear that we expect band reconfiguration
    to move forward expeditiously.[^82] Therefore, we will only extend
    the implementation deadline to allow the applicants to begin
    infrastructure retuning in March 2009. We also see no need to
    undertake an interference study in the Atlanta area as proposed by
    GTA.[^83] Because Petitioners do not have to complete rebanding or
    commence operations on their new frequencies until the broadcasters
    have vacated Channel 69, such a proposed study at Sprint's expense
    will serve no useful purpose.

48. Finally, we delegate authority to the Public Safety and Homeland
    Security Bureau to consider future requests by 800 MHz licensees to
    extend the 36-month deadline as it applies to the rebanding of their
    particular systems.[^84] We direct the Bureau to subject such
    extension requests to a high level of scrutiny. Licensees submitting
    requests to the Bureau will be expected to demonstrate that they
    have worked diligently and in good faith to complete rebanding
    expeditiously, and that the amount of additional time requested is
    no more than is reasonably necessary to complete the rebanding
    process.

# ordering clauses

49. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(f),
    309, 316, 332, 337 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(f), 309, 316, 332, 337 and 405,
    this Third Memorandum Opinion and Order IS HEREBY ADOPTED.

50. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by
    Sprint Nextel Corporation, on January 27, 2006 IS DISMISSED to the
    extent described herein.

51. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of its 800 MHz and 1.9
    GHz modified licenses, Sprint Corporation shall comply with the
    benchmarks and reporting requirements set forth herein.

52. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 800 MHz Transition Administrator, on
    January 15, 2008, shall submit a report on the progress of band
    reconfiguration to the extent described herein.

53. 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 C.F.R. § 1.925 that the
    Requests for Waiver submitted by the Cities of Bethlehem and
    Reading, Pennsylvania, and Covington, Georgia, and the Counties of
    Rockdale, Newton, Walton, and Spalding, Georgia, in the
    above-captioned proceeding ARE GRANTED to the extent described
    herein.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

Re: *Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band;
Petitions for Waiver of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Reading,
Pennsylvania; Petitions for Waiver of Rockdale County, Newton County,
City of Covington, Walton County, and Spalding County, Georgia, WT
Docket No. 02-55, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order*.

*FCC Announces Supplemental Procedures and Provides Guidance for
Completion of 800 MHz Rebanding, WT Docket No. 02-55, Public Notice*.

My goal for 800 MHz rebanding has been for it to proceed as quickly and
effectively as possible. In light of that goal, the Commission has
devoted significant resources to 800 MHz rebanding by working closely
with all 800 MHz stakeholders -- public safety, Sprint Nextel, equipment
vendors, and the Transition Administrator -- to resolve contested issues
and expedite the pace of rebanding activity. To date, the Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau has issued over 25 orders and public
notices resolving disputes and provides guidance to negotiating
licensees that we expect to help speed ongoing negotiations.

While the Commission has hoped to be further along, we are committed to
ensuring that 800 MHz rebanding is completed in a timely manner while,
at the same time, protecting full continuity of public safety operations
during the transition.  Today's actions demonstrate that commitment.
Among other things, the Order finds that Sprint has not met its 18-month
benchmark for clearing Channel 1-120 incumbents as required by the 800
MHz rebanding process, and imposes new benchmarks on Sprint, including
monthly reports on its channel-clearing efforts, to bring the process
back on track. The order also reaffirms Sprint's obligation to vacate
its remaining spectrum in Channels 1-120, as well as other portions of
the 800 MHz band that are to be made available to public safety, in
accordance with prior Commission orders.

As the companion Public Notice makes clear, the obligation to complete
the rebanding process does not fall on Sprint alone, but requires all
stakeholders to redouble their efforts. The Commission will continue to
do its part to ensure that the 800 MHz rebanding process is completed in
a timely and efficient manner, minimizing the burden on public safety,
and preserving public safety's ability to operate during the transition.
To do otherwise would abdicate our responsibility at a time when it is
more important than ever to ensure that first responders have the
communications capabilities they need to provide for the safety of our
nation and its citizens.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

Re: *Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band;
Petitions for Waiver of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Reading,
Pennsylvania; Petitions for Waiver of Rockdale County, Newton County,
City of Covington, Walton County, and Spalding County, Georgia, WT
Docket No. 02-55, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order*.

*FCC Announces Supplemental Procedures and Provides Guidance for
Completion of 800 MHz Rebanding, WT Docket No. 02-55, Public Notice*.

 

            The two items we release today make clear that the
Commission remains committed to bringing the 800 MHz rebanding process
to a successful close and is more than willing to wade into the gritty
details to encourage this result.  Our goal has always been, and
remains, to resolve the dangerous interference between commercial and
public safety users as quickly as possible while still protecting
ongoing operations in this band. 

 

            The two items we release today make clear that both sides of
the table in the ongoing negotiations---industry and public
safety---bear equal measures of responsibility to move forward
expeditiously.  We will not tolerate commercial users remaining in their
existing section of the band too long, nor will we grant requests for
extension from public safety users that have not acted diligently and
expeditiously to move this process along.

 

            I thank Chief Poarch and the Bureau for their hard work on
these items.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

Re: *Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band;
Petitions for Waiver of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and Reading,
Pennsylvania; Petitions for Waiver of Rockdale County, Newton County,
City of Covington, Walton County, and Spalding County, Georgia, WT
Docket No. 02-55, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order*.

*FCC Announces Supplemental Procedures and Provides Guidance for
Completion of 800 MHz Rebanding, WT Docket No. 02-55, Public Notice*.

As with our decision today on Enhanced 911 services, these two items on
rebanding the 800 MHz band are both timely and important. The goal of
this rebanding is to minimize interference between public safety and
commercial users in this band. The public safety community uses this
spectrum to fulfill its critical mission of protecting the lives,
health, and property of all Americans, and to help ensure homeland
security. Once rebanding is complete, public safety will be able to use
this spectrum more effectively to support its mission, while commercial
providers will be able to serve customers more effectively.

It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the transition continues on
schedule. I believe the guidelines established in these items will help
in that regard, and I urge all the parties involved in this effort to
continue to work to complete this rebanding.

I thank the staff of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau for
their work on this important item.

[^1]: *See* Petition for Reconsideration filed by Sprint Nextel
    Corporation on January 27, 2006 (Sprint Petition). The *800 MHz*
    *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order* deferred to this *Order*
    assessing Sprint's compliance with the eighteen-month benchmark
    consideration of Sprint's Petition relative to the eighteen-month
    benchmark. *Infra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.677(a).

[^3]: Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT
    Docket 02-55, et al., *Report and Order, Fifth Report and Order,
    Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 14969,
    15021-45, 15069 ¶¶ 88-141, 189 (2004) as amended by Erratum, 19 FCC
    Rcd 19651 (2004)*,* and Erratum, 19 FCC Rcd 21818 (2004) (*800 MHz
    Report and Order*)*; Supplemental Order and Order on
    Reconsideration*, 19 FCC Rcd 25120 (2004) (*800 MHz Supplemental
    Order*); *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 16015 (2005) as
    amended by Erratum, 20 FCC Rcd 18970 (2005); and *Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 10467 (2007).

[^4]: *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15130 ¶ 346.

[^5]: *800 MHz Supplemental Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25143 ¶ 53. The
    36-month reconfiguration period began on June 27, 2005. Accordingly,
    the eighteen-month benchmark date was December 26, 2006.

[^6]: *Id*.

[^7]: *Id. at* 25143-44 ¶¶ 51-55*.*

[^8]: *See* Regional Prioritization Plan of the 800 MHz Transition
    Administrator, WT Docket No. 02-55, filed January 31, 2005 (RPP).
    The TA's band reconfiguration schedule may be viewed at
    [www.800ta.org](http://www.800ta.org/). The WTB approved the TA's
    plan on March 11, 2005. *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    Approves the Basic Reconfiguration Schedule Put Forth in the
    Transition Administrator's 800 MHz Regional Prioritization Plan,
    *Public Notice*, 20 FCC Rcd 5159 at Appendix (WTB 2005).

[^9]: Sprint Petition at 15-16.

[^10]: *Id.* at 17.

[^11]: *Id.* at 15-16. Preferred Communications opposed Sprint's
    request, arguing that Sprint should not be allowed to "cherry pick"
    regions for purposes of meeting the benchmark. Opposition to Sprint
    Nextel Corporation Petition for Reconsideration, filed March 23,
    2006, by Preferred Communication Systems, Inc. (Preferred
    Opposition) at 6.

[^12]: *See* *Ex Parte* Letter dated June 1, 2006, from Association of
    Public Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.,
    International Association of Chiefs of Police, International
    Association of Fire Chiefs, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major
    Counties Sheriffs Association, National Sheriffs Association to
    Catherine W. Seidel, Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, FCC, WT Dkt. No. 02-55 (June 2006 Public Safety Letter).

[^13]: *Id.* at 2.

[^14]: Progress Report dated January 26, 2007, from Lawrence R. Krevor,
    Vice President -- Spectrum Sprint Nextel Corporation and James B.
    Goldstein, Director -- Spectrum Reconfiguration, Sprint Nextel
    Corporation, to David L. Furth, Associate Chief, Public Safety and
    Homeland Security Bureau (Sprint Report).

[^15]: *Id.* at 2.

[^16]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^17]: *Id.* at 8-9.

[^18]: Letter dated March 6, 2007, from David L. Furth, Associate Chief,
    Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, to Robert B. Kelly and
    Brett S. Haan, WT Docket 02-55, 22 FCC Rcd 4465.

[^19]: *Id*. at 1.

[^20]: Letter dated March 20, 2007 from Brett Haan, 800 MHz Transition
    Administrator, LLC to David L. Furth, Associate Bureau Chief, Public
    Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, WT Docket 02-55 (TA
    Certification).

[^21]: *Id.* at 3.

[^22]: *Id.*, Schedule A.

[^23]: *Id.*, Schedule B.

[^24]: *See 800 MHz Supplemental Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25143-44 ¶ 53.

[^25]: The *800 MHz Supplemental Order* became final on February 8,
    2005. Therefore, petitions for reconsideration of the *Supplemental
    Order* were time-barred after March 10, 2005. *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    405(a) (Section 405 specifies in part that a "petition for
    reconsideration must be filed within thirty days from the date upon
    which public notice is given of the order \... complained of").

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.676(4). The TA may also "direct that adjoining
    regions be reconfigured simultaneously when conditions so require."
    *Id*.

[^27]: *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15130 ¶ 347.

[^28]: *See 800 MHz Supplemental Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25143 ¶ 53.

[^29]: RPP at 21.

[^30]: Sprint Report at 2.

[^31]: *Id*.

[^32]: *Id.* at 4-5. The six regions are Region 28 (Eastern
    Pennsylvania), Region 54 (Great Lakes/Chicago), Region 8 (New York
    Metropolitan Area), Region 6 (Northern California), Region 35
    (Oregon), and Region 42 (Southern Virginia).

[^33]: *Id.* at 5.

[^34]: *Id.* at 4.

[^35]: *Id.*

[^36]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^37]: *Id.* at 6-7.

[^38]: *See* paras. 17-18, *infra.*

[^39]: "Initiated" as the term is used here means, at a minimum,
    contacting the NPSPAC licensee in writing, and with at least one
    oral two-way communication, setting out the proposed schedule of
    relocation, with proposed dates for each element thereof, and
    requesting from the NPSPAC licensee, within a date certain, a
    written, itemized estimate of the cost of reconfiguring its
    system(s). *See 800 MHz Supplemental Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25143 ¶
    53.

[^40]: Sprint Report at 8.

[^41]: *Id*.

[^42]: *Id*.

[^43]: *See 800 MHz Supplemental Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 25143 ¶ 53.

[^44]: TA Certification, Schedule B.

[^45]: *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 14987 ¶ 28.

[^46]: Sprint Report at 5, n.9.

[^47]: 800 MHz Transition Administrator, LLC Combined Quarterly Progress
    Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2007, filed August 31, 2007.

[^48]: For example, Fairfax County has both Channel 1-120 and NPSPAC
    facilities, and has elected to reband all of these facilities in
    Stage 2.

[^49]: Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT
    Docket 02-55, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd
    10467 (2007) at ¶ 32-33 (directing TA to provide recommendations for
    revised Puerto Rico band plan within 60 days of effective date of
    the order).

[^50]: State of New York, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd
    8540, 8543 ¶ 6 (PSHSB 2007).

[^51]: *Id.* at ¶ 6.

[^52]: *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15073-74 ¶ 198 (as part
    of relocation process in each region Sprint will "shut\[\] down its
    General Category channels" to enable NPSPAC relocation).

[^53]: These timelines will also apply to requests by NPSPAC licensees
    for Channel 1-120 channels currently used by SouthernLINC. In such
    cases, Sprint must provide SouthernLINC with replacement spectrum in
    accordance with their agreement.

[^54]: *Id.*

[^55]: *Id.* at 15079 ¶ 207; *800 MHz Supplemental Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    25150 ¶ 69.

[^56]: Because Sprint has not received replacement spectrum assignments
    from the TA in border areas, we will address its spectrum-clearing
    obligations in these areas at a later date.

[^57]: *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 14977 ¶ 11.

[^58]: Sprint Ex Parte Letter, filed September 6, 2007, at 1-2.

[^59]: The interleaved portion of the 800 MHz band at 809-815
    MHz/854-860 MHz consists of interleaved public safety,
    Business/Industrial Land Transportation (B/ILT) and SMR channels.
    Sprint must also vacate the Expansion Band and the Guard Band
    portions of the 800 MHz band, which are located at 815-816/860-861
    MHz and 816-817/861-862 MHz, respectively, except in the Southeast
    region.

[^60]: *Id*. Public safety will also have priority access to other ESMR
    vacated spectrum in the interleaved band.

[^61]: *Id.* at 15079 ¶ 207; *800 MHz Supplemental Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at
    25150 ¶ 69.

[^62]: *800 MHz Report and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15075 ¶ 201. 47 C.F.R.
    § 90.677(a) ("Relocation will commence according to the schedule set
    by the Transition Administrator but all systems must have commenced
    reconfiguration within thirty months of release of a Public Notice
    announcing the start date of reconfiguration in the first NPSPAC
    region.").

[^63]: *See* "FCC Announces Supplemental Procedures and Provides
    Guidance for Completion of 800 MHz Rebanding," *Public Notice*, WT
    Docket No. 02-55, FCC 07-168 (released September 12, 2007) (*800 MHz
    Procedures Public Notice*).

[^64]: The 30-month benchmark also applies to Stage 1 incumbents
    relocating from Channels 1-120. However, the requirement that these
    licensees "commence" reconfiguration by December 26, 2007 is
    effectively superseded by the separate requirement that they
    complete rebanding by the same date, as discussed in Section III.B.1
    above. *See* paragraphs 20-21, *supra.*

[^65]: The Cities of Bethlehem and Reading, Pennsylvania (collectively,
    Pennsylvania Petitioners) have filed waiver requests based on their
    proximity to station WFMZ-TV in Allentown, PA. *See* Request for
    Waiver of the City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, filed May 30,
    2007(Bethlehem Waiver Request); Request for Waiver of the City of
    Reading, Pennsylvania, filed July 10, 2007 (Reading Waiver Request).
    In Georgia, Rockdale County, Newton County, the City of Covington,
    Walton County, and Spalding County (collectively, Georgia
    Petitioners) have filed waiver requests based on their proximity to
    station WUPA in Atlanta, GA, *See* Request for Limited Waiver of
    Rockdale County, Georgia, filed April 10, 2007 (Rockdale Waiver);
    Request for Limited Waiver of the City of Covington and Newton
    County, Georgia, filed March 29, 2007 (Covington/Newton Waiver
    Request); Request for Limited Waiver of Walton County, Georgia,
    filed May 16, 2007 (Walton Waiver Request); Request for Limited
    Waiver of Spalding County, Georgia, filed April 26, 2007 (Spalding
    Waiver Request).

[^66]: Public safety licensees frequently rely on mobile-to-mobile
    communications (*i.e.*, communications that are not relayed through
    a base station) for interoperability on mutual aid channels.

[^67]: Resolution of Interference Between Channels 14 and 69 and
    Adjacent-channel Land Mobile Operations, *Report and Order*, MM
    Docket No. 87-465, 6 FCC Rcd. 5148 (1991).

[^68]: 47 CFR § 73.687(e)(3).

[^69]: For example, Bethlehem notes that one of its transmitter sites is
    located approximately two miles from the Channel 69 transmitter. It
    also points out that some of its replacement channels are close to
    the 806 MHz band edge. Bethlehem Waiver Request at 2.

[^70]: *See*, *e.g*., Reading Waiver Request at 2.

[^71]: Reading Waiver Request at 5, Bethlehem Waiver Request at 4.

[^72]: Covington/Newton Waiver Request at 2, Rockdale Waiver Request at
    2, Spalding Waiver Request at 2, Walton Waiver Request at 2.

[^73]: Letter, dated April 19, 2007 from Peter Tannenwald, Esq. and
    Ramsey L. Woodworth, Esq., Counsel for Georgia Technology Authority
    to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 2 (GTA Letter).

[^74]: *Id.*

[^75]: *Id.* at 3.

[^76]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3).

[^77]: *800 MHz Report and Order,* 19 FCC Rcd at 14972 ¶ 2.

[^78]: Reading Waiver Request at 3-4, Bethlehem Waiver Request at 3.

[^79]: *See* GTA Letter at 3.

[^80]: *See* Letter dated May 3, 2007 from Mike Smith, Director
    Covington-Newton County 911 Communications; Carolyn Hunter,
    Director, Rockdale County 911 Communications; Wendra Williams,
    Director, Walton County 911 Communications and Eddie Freeman,
    Chairman, Spalding County Board of Commissioners to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 3 (Opposition to GTA Letter). If there are
    incremental changes to the system, such as construction of new base
    stations or the purchase of additional mobile or portable units
    during the interim period, these changes can be accommodated through
    change orders.

[^81]: *Id.*

[^82]: Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 9818 (2007) (*Rebanding
    Cost Clarification Order*), Joint Statement of Chairman Kevin L.
    Martin and Commissioners Michael J. Copps, Jonathan S. Adelstein,
    Deborah Taylor Tate and Robert M. McDowell (Joint Statement).

[^83]: *See* GTA Letter at 3.

[^84]: The Bureau will review such requests in accordance with the
    guidance provided in the companion *800 MHz Procedures Public
    Notice* that we adopt today. *See 800 MHz Procedures Public Notice*
    at 5-6. We note that this delegation is not limited to waiver
    requests based on proximity to Channel 69 broadcasters.