Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 97 / Thursday, May 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 23799 

Adoptions Act signed into law on 

October 7, 2008 after the publication of 

the final rule September 26, 2008. For 

example, the new law raises a set of 

questions about whether data 

maintained through the Federal Parent 

Locator Service and the State Parent 

Locator Service are available to assist 

State child welfare agencies in carrying 

out their responsibilities to locate adult 

relatives of children removed from 

parental custody in order to identify 

potential placements. 

The other substantive comment raised 

similar concerns regarding PCAs. In 

particular, the commenter was 

concerned with the PCAs being an 

‘‘agent of the child’’ for the purpose of 

locate requests under section 453 of the 

Social Security Act. The commenter 

believes that the PCA in child support 

matters represents the parent, not the 

child, thus is not ‘‘the agent of the 

child’’ and is not authorized to receive 

any Federal Parent Locator Service 

information from the IV–D agency. The 

commenter also suggested that similar 

to the access provided to title IV Social 

Security Act programs, human service 

programs serving the same family as the 

child support program should have 

clear and unambiguous access to 

Federal information. For example, the 

commenter encouraged the Office of 

Child Support Enforcement to provide 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program access to child support 

information to determine income 

eligibility. 

Response: The Department believes 

that the comments received on the 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on April 15, 2009 [74 FR 17445] 

soliciting comments on the delay in the 

effective date of the rule support the 

delay in the effective date until 

December 30, 2010. While the 

substantive comments on the policies 

contained in the rule were not solicited, 

the delay will provide time for 

Department officials to assess those 

comments as well as review all issues of 

law and policy raised by the rule. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.563, Child Support 

Enforcement) 

Dated: May 18, 2009. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–11936 Filed 5–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 90 

[WP Docket No. 07–100; FCC 09–29] 

Private Land Mobile Radio Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document addresses 

revisions to the Commission’s rules and 

policies regarding private land mobile 

radio (PLMR) services and particularly 

public safety operations. In the Report 

and Order portion of this document, the 

Commission accords primary status to 

4.9 GHz band permanent fixed stations 

that are used to deliver broadband 

service; harmonizes output power 

measurement procedures for 4.9 GHz 

technology with procedures for similar 

devices that are regulated by part 15 of 

the Commission’s rules; and clarifies 

that cross-band repeaters are permitted 

for all public safety systems. The 

Commission makes these changes to 

reduce uncertainty in the rules and 

harmonize the rules. The intended effect 

for public safety licensees is to allow 

additional flexibility, create 

opportunities for public safety users to 

benefit from speedier deployment of 

new technologies in the 4.9 GHz band, 

and lead to expanded use of 4.9 GHz 

broadband networks. The intended 

effect for manufacturers is to allow 

technologies similar to those covered by 

part 15 to be used in the 4.9 GHz band, 

resulting in speedier deployment of new 

technologies in this band. The intended 

effect of the cross-banding rule change 

is to enhance communications among 

public safety agencies operating in 

various frequency bands. 

DATES: Effective June 22, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for locations where the 

public may inspect, copy, or purchase 

hardcopies of the Report and Order and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Eng, Policy Division, Public 

Safety and Homeland Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418– 

0019, TTY (202) 418–7233, via e-mail at 

Thomas.Eng@fcc.gov, or via U.S. Mail at 

Federal Communications Commission, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Report and Order 

portion of the Commission’s Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in WP Docket No. 07–100, 

adopted on April 7, 2009 and released 

on April 9, 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., in person 

at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at 

(202) 488–5300, via facsimile at (202) 

488–5563, or via e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Alternative 

formats (computer diskette, large print, 

audio cassette, and Braille) are available 

to persons with disabilities or by 

sending an e-mail to FCC504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530, TTY 

(202) 418–0432. This document is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

The major decisions in the Report and 

Order are as follows: 

• Amends § 90.1207 of the 

Commission’s rules, which governs 

licensing of the 4.9 GHz band, to grant 

primary status to stand-alone permanent 

fixed links that are used to deliver 

broadband service and permanent fixed 

links that connect 4.9 GHz base and 

mobile stations that are used to deliver 

broadband services, as well as other 

public safety networks using spectrum 

designated for broadband use. 

• Amends § 90.1215 of the 

Commission’s rules to require the same 

output power measurement procedures 

for 4.9 GHz technology as those required 

for devices that use digital modulation 

techniques and are regulated by part 15 

of the Commission’s rules. 

• Continues to permit paging 

operations on Very High Frequency 

(VHF) public safety frequencies. 

• Modifies the existing language in 

§ 90.243(b)(1) to clarify that cross-band 

repeaters are permitted for all public 

safety systems. 

• Declines to amend § 90.20 to 

authorize privately-run metropolitan 

transit systems to use frequencies in the 

Public Safety Pool. 

4.9 GHz Band 

In the earlier Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), 72 FR 35190, June 

27, 2007, in this proceeding, the 

Commission sought comment on two 

proposals by M/A–COM to modify the 

Commission’s rules regarding the 4.9 

GHz band. First, M/A–COM asks the 

Commission for an amendment to 

§ 90.1207(c) that would ‘‘clarify that 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
23800 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 97 / Thursday, May 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

point-to-point and point-to-multipoint 

fixed links in the 4.9 GHz public safety 

networks are co-primary with mobile 

links’’ and ‘‘grant primary status to fixed 

links connecting public safety networks 

with each other using the 4940–4990 

MHz band.’’ Second, M/A-COM 

proposes to add a new § 90.1215(d) 

thereby updating this section 

‘‘consistent with changes the 

Commission * * * made to § 15.407(a) 

of its rules’’ (i.e., reflecting the same 

revised measurement procedures 

adopted by the Commission for devices 

that use digital modulation techniques 

regulated by part 15). 

Primary Status to Certain Fixed Links. 

§ 90.1207 currently provides 4.9 GHz 

licensees with authority to ‘‘operate 

base and mobile units (including 

portable and handheld units) and 

operate temporary (1 year or less) fixed 

stations,’’ but not to ‘‘operate permanent 

fixed point-to-point stations.’’ Further, 

§ 90.2107 provides that ‘‘[l]icensees 

choosing to operate [permanent fixed 

point-to-point stations] must license 

them individually on a site-by-site 

basis’’ and ‘‘will be authorized only on 

a secondary, non-interference basis to 

base, mobile and temporary fixed 

operations.’’ In its petition seeking 

clarifications regarding the 4.9 GHz 

band rules, M/A–COM states that ‘‘the 

Commission did not define * * * [the] 

allocation status of hot spots or 

temporary fixed links, i.e., whether such 

hot spots and links have primary or 

secondary status, and the Commission’s 

part 90 rules do not address the 

allocation status of such links.’’ 

Therefore, M/A–COM states that the 

‘‘present part 90 rules create regulatory 

uncertainty—as they are vague or 

potentially inconsistent with the 4.9 

GHz Third Report and Order, 68 FR 

38635, June 30, 2003—and could 

discourage public safety users and first 

responders from deploying * * * 

broadband networks.’’ M/A–COM states 

that ‘‘public safety users and first 

responders will need integrated 

networks with scalable network 

architectures that allow for dynamic 

routing of traffic over both fixed and 

mobile links,’’ and thus proposes that 

the Commission amend its part 90 rules 

to ‘‘grant primary status to point-topoint and point-to-multipoint fixed 

links that are part of a 4.9 GHz public 

safety network.’’ M/A–COM adds that 

‘‘the Commission should continue to 

grant secondary status to traditional, 

stand-alone point-to-point links for 

purposes such as backhaul.’’ 

The Commission sought comment on 

‘‘M/A–COM’s proposal to expressly 

afford primary status to certain 

permanent fixed links,’’ while also 

asking if, ‘‘given the limited amount of 

spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band, 

permitting fixed operations on a 

primary basis may result in severely 

limiting the spectral availability and 

reliability of both permanent and ad hoc 

mobile networks.’’ The Commission 

asked whether ‘‘adoption of M/A– 

COM’s proposal would compromise the 

ability of public safety agencies to 

utilize the band for temporary ‘incident 

scene’ operations, a use that received 

overwhelming support in the record of 

WT Docket No. 00–32.’’ Finally, the 

Commission asked if the M/A–COM 

proposal would ‘‘provide more flexible 

use of this band,’’ and whether ‘‘such 

flexibility would come at the expense of 

maintaining adequate spectrum for 

mission-critical public safety mobile 

operations.’’ 

Most commenters, including several 

public safety organizations, indicate that 

the Commission should clarify its rules 

to afford primary status to fixed pointto-point and point-to-multipoint links 

operating as part of an integrated 4.9 

GHz public safety broadband network. 

The American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), the Land Mobile 

Communications Council (LMCC), and 

the National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council generally 

support primary status for 4.9 GHz 

permanent fixed links that deliver 

broadband service. 

We find that it is in the public interest 

to clarify whether certain fixed links in 

the 4.9 GHz band are primary or 

secondary in order to facilitate public 

safety broadband use of the band and to 

minimize confusion in the marketplace. 

In this regard, we modify our rules to 

accord primary status to fixed links that 

connect 4.9 GHz base and mobile 

stations that are used to deliver 

broadband service, as well as other 

public safety networks using spectrum 

designated for broadband use. We also 

accord primary status to stand-alone 

permanent fixed 4.9 GHz links that are 

used to deliver broadband service, such 

as a fixed video surveillance link used 

to monitor a high-risk target or 

environment. In contrast, fixed 4.9 GHz 

links that only connect narrowband base 

stations operating in public safety bands 

not designated for broadband (i.e., 

public safety UHF, VHF, narrowband 

700 MHz, and 800 MHz) to other 

networks, or serve to backhaul 

narrowband traffic originating from 

narrowband base stations, will remain 

secondary. We limit primary status to 

fixed links in this manner to preserve 

and ensure the use of the 4.9 GHz public 

safety band in serving broadband needs. 

We believe that proper frequency 

coordination among public safety 

agencies in a given location will ensure 

that different services and technologies 

can operate unimpeded without causing 

interference. We want to make certain 

that public safety can reliably establish 

broadband networks (e.g., permanent or 

temporary hot-spot networks) to 

transmit broadband data without 

concern of interference. Consistent with 

existing rules, permanent fixed point-topoint and to point-to-multipoint links 

accorded primary status must use 

directional antennas with gains over 9 

dBi up to 26 dBi. Permanent fixed links 

used for traditional backhaul that only 

carry narrowband traffic remain 

secondary and must be licensed 

separately, as specified in § 90.1207(d). 

We find that this rule change is 

consistent with the Commission’s vision 

for the 4.9 GHz band and is supported 

by public safety commenters. The 

Commission endeavored to provide 4.9 

GHz band public safety licensees with 

the maximum operational flexibility 

practicable consistent with its vision for 

the 4.9 GHz band. We believe that 

providing primary status for fixed links 

as described above will provide 

additional flexibility for public safety 

and thereby lead to expanded use of 4.9 

GHz broadband networks. Finally, we 

find that the rule change addresses 

concerns about the uncertainty that 

secondary status may introduce in 4.9 

GHz broadband networks utilizing fixed 

point-to-point or point-to-multipoint 

links. In sum, we find that this rule 

change serves the public interest by 

encouraging public safety users to more 

fully utilize the 4.9 GHz band in support 

of broadband communications. 

Next, we address licensing issues for 

primary permanent fixed stations. The 

record in this proceeding contains 

support for licensing all permanent 

fixed stations on an individual, site-bysite basis. This would ensure that 

adequate data is readily available to 

facilitate interference protection and 

resolution. Accordingly, we shall 

license permanent fixed stations, both 

designated as primary or secondary, on 

an individual, site-by-site basis. 

However, as we explain in the Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(published elsewhere in this issue) 

portion of this document, we have 

concerns about ensuring interference 

protection among primary permanent 

fixed stations, and we tentatively 

conclude therein that a more formal 

licensee-to-licensee coordination 

process may be necessary for such 

stations. Accordingly, until the 

Commission resolves a potential new 

coordination requirement, applicants 

seeking primary status for 4.9 GHz 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 97 / Thursday, May 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 23801 

permanent fixed stations must ensure 

that they meet the minimum 

requirements of § 90.1209(b). 

Further, we believe it prudent to 

distinguish between primary permanent 

fixed stations and secondary stations in 

our licensing database. The Commission 

has established station class codes in 

the past to distinguish between 

licensees that are subject to different 

regulatory requirements on the same set 

of frequencies. Similarly, in this 

instance, establishing a new class code 

for primary permanent fixed stations 

will assist interested stakeholders as 

well as the Commission’s licensing staff 

to distinguish between primary and 

secondary permanent fixed stations. 

Accordingly, we delegate to the Chief, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, authority to issue a public 

notice announcing the establishment of 

a new 4.9 GHz primary permanent fixed 

station class code. The public notice 

also will provide licensees holding 

permanent fixed stations with 

instructions for modifying their 

authorizations to reflect the new station 

class code. 

Measurement Procedures. In the 

NPRM, the Commission also proposed, 

as suggested by M/A–COM, to amend 

§ 90.1215 to reflect the same 

measurement procedures adopted by the 

Commission for devices that use digital 

modulation techniques and are 

regulated by part 15 of the rules. 

Specifically, in 2004, the Commission 

modified part 15 to permit the 

determination of a device’s output 

power by using average power 

measurements in addition to the 

existing peak output power 

measurement method. M/A–COM 

proposed replacing the term ‘‘peak 

transmit power’’ with ‘‘maximum 

conducted output power,’’ and adding a 

peak excursion ratio limit. These 

changes would make the measurement 

procedures in §§ 90.1215 and 15.407(a) 

virtually identical. 

We agree with the majority of 

commenters who believe that the 

proposed measurement procedures 

should be adopted to harmonize the 

measurement procedures for similar 

unlicensed devices that use digital 

modulation techniques and operate in 

nearby frequency bands under part 15. 

Given that manufacturers are 

considering technologies similar to 

those covered by part 15 for use in the 

4.9 GHz band, and because parallel 

treatment will speed deployment of new 

technologies in this band for the benefit 

of public safety users, we conclude that 

measurement procedures under the part 

15 rules and the 4.9 GHz rules should 

be consistent. 

Miscellaneous 4940–4990 MHz Band 

Technical Matter. Motorola believes that 

the NPRM contains a typographical 

error in the proposed revision to the text 

of § 90.1215(a). Specifically, Motorola 

observes that the text of the proposed 

change to § 90.1215(a) referred to a peak 

power spectral density limit of 20 dBm 

per megahertz, rather than 21 dBm per 

megahertz, which had been the existing 

requirement. Motorola urges the 

Commission to retain the existing 21 

dBm per megahertz limit in order to 

maximize coverage and robustness of 

public safety transmissions. The 

Commission did not intend to propose 

a change to the 21 dBm per megahertz 

limit, as evidenced by a lack of related 

discussion in the NPRM text. 

Accordingly, we clarify that we are 

retaining the existing 21 dBm per 

megahertz limit. 

Miscellaneous Proposals 

Part 90 Paging on Public Safety VHF 

Frequencies. VHF public safety 

frequencies (150–174 MHz) are used 

primarily for two-way voice 

communications (e.g., mobile dispatch). 

The Commission’s rules, however, also 

allow for paging operations on these 

frequencies. As the Commission 

observed in the NPRM, experience has 

shown that paging and two-way voice 

operations can generally co-exist on the 

same channel in the same area without 

interference, provided the paging 

transmissions are infrequent (low traffic 

volume) and the paging licensee 

monitors the channels before 

transmitting. Experience also has shown 

that the potential for paging to interfere 

with voice operations tends to increase 

as the amount of paging traffic 

increases. 

The Commission previously 

expressed concern about the potential 

incompatibility between high-volume 

paging operations and public safety twoway voice communications operating on 

VHF frequencies. To address the 

possibility of interference in these 

situations, the Commission sought 

comment on whether paging operations 

conducted pursuant to § 90.22 on VHF 

public safety frequencies should be 

restricted, especially on those 

frequencies reserved under the rules for 

mutual aid/interoperability 

communications. 

The majority of commenters 

expressed support for continuing to 

permit paging operations on all VHF 

public safety frequencies. They assert 

that restrictions on paging operations on 

VHF public safety frequencies would 

result in a significant, negative impact 

on the ability of public safety agencies 

to provide mission-critical notifications. 

Other commenters note that search and 

rescue operations have experienced 

similar intolerable interference from 

hospital paging operations, or support 

an elimination of paging on certain 

shared or mutual aid frequencies that 

are monitored by public safety and 

medical personnel. 

We take seriously the potential for 

interference that may result from paging 

operations to two-way public safety 

voice communications. However, the 

record demonstrates substantial reliance 

by fire and EMS departments on the use 

of paging on VHF frequencies. The 

Commission did not receive any specific 

reports in the comments that hospital 

paging systems’ disruption of two-way 

voice communications is a continuing 

problem. Accordingly, based on the 

record before us, we cannot conclude 

that paging operations conducted on 

VHF frequencies pursuant to § 90.22, 

including on specific mutual aid 

channels, represent an interference risk 

to VHF public safety frequencies at this 

time. 

In reaching this decision, we note that 

many of the concerns raised by 

commenters appear to concern paging 

operations permitted under 

§ 90.20(d)(10), which was not the 

subject of the Commission’s inquiry in 

the NPRM. In other words, the 

Commission did not intend to propose 

limiting operations conducted by public 

safety licensees for one-way paging to 

ambulance and rescue squad personnel. 

Regardless, we take no action to restrict 

paging operations in the VHF bands, 

whether conducted pursuant to § 90.22 

or § 90.20(d)(10). The record shows 

paging transmissions to be a proven and 

cost-effective way to recall first 

responders when emergency incidents 

occur. We also find persuasive 

comments from the public safety 

community that prohibiting or 

otherwise restricting paging operations 

on VHF public safety frequencies would 

have a disruptive impact on a number 

of local communities that currently rely 

heavily on existing VHF paging 

operations as integral to their public 

safety operations. We are particularly 

concerned with the potential disruptive 

effects that paging restrictions would 

have on limiting the availability of 

emergency communications or 

hampering the ability of public safety 

entities to provide services in a timely 

manner to the public. 

Rather than impose restrictions on 

paging at this time, we find that 

applications for future paging 

operations should continue to be 

licensed on a case-by-case basis in 

tandem with the frequency coordination 

process. In the absence of a more 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
23802 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 97 / Thursday, May 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

significant likelihood of harmful 

interference involving paging and twoway operations, we are not inclined to 

amend our rules where we believe the 

existing mechanisms provide adequate 

safeguards. We also encourage users of 

VHF public safety frequencies, 

including the mutual aid/ 

interoperability channels, to develop 

and rely on frequency sharing and 

priority access protocols to facilitate 

local and regional emergency 

coordination efforts. 

While we decline to place new 

restrictions on paging operations on 

VHF public safety frequencies, 

including mutual aid/interoperability 

channels, we remain mindful of the 

potential for paging transmissions to 

cause harmful interference to voice 

operations. Accordingly, should specific 

instances of paging interference to twoway voice operations arise on the VHF 

public safety frequencies, including the 

mutual aid/interoperability channels, 

we retain our discretion to revisit this 

issue in the future and to take 

appropriate action as warranted. 

Cross-Banding. Section 90.243(b)(1) 

states that ‘‘in the Public Safety Pool, 

medical services systems in the 150–160 

MHz band are permitted to be crossbanded for mobile and central stations 

operations with mobile relay stations 

authorized to operate in the 450–470 

MHz band.’’ Because one could 

interpret this rule to mean that only 

medical services systems are permitted 

to use cross-band repeaters, the NPRM 

sought comment on a proposal to 

modify the rule to state specifically that 

cross-band repeaters are permitted for 

all public safety systems. 

All commenters who addressed this 

issue agree that § 90.243(b)(1) should be 

amended to clarify that cross-band 

repeaters are permitted for all public 

safety systems. Because the purpose of 

the rule is not limited to medical 

services systems but rather applies to all 

eligible users of the Public Safety Pool, 

we amend the rule accordingly. In this 

respect, we ensure that all users of 

public safety systems may confidently 

employ cross-band repeaters and thus 

enhance communications among public 

safety agencies operating in various 

frequency bands. 

Transit Systems and Toll Roads. 

Under the current rules, only state and 

local governmental entities are eligible 

to hold authorizations in the Public 

Safety Pool. Thus, to the extent 

metropolitan transit systems and toll 

roads are publicly-operated services, 

they are eligible to hold authorizations 

in the Public Safety Pool. However, the 

Commission noted in the NPRM that not 

all metropolitan transit systems and toll 

roads are publicly-owned. Some are 

privately-owned, and operate under 

contracts or similar arrangements with 

governmental entities. Because nongovernmental entities are ineligible to 

hold authorizations for Public Safety 

Pool frequencies, the NPRM sought 

comment on whether § 90.20 should be 

amended to authorize privately-run 

metropolitan transit systems and toll 

road systems to hold authorizations to 

use frequencies in the Public Safety 

Pool. 

The majority of commenters on this 

issue state that private operators of 

transit systems and toll roads should not 

be eligible to hold licenses to operate on 

public safety frequencies. For example, 

according to AASHTO, while private 

operators of transit systems and toll 

roads should be able to use public safety 

frequencies licensed to governmental 

entities via contractual agreement, 

public safety frequencies must remain 

within the control of public entity 

licensees. LMCC points out that the 

Commission’s rules already allow a 

licensee to designate an agent or thirdparty contractor of the licensee as the 

control operator of its station, provided 

that the licensee retains ultimate control 

over the use of the spectrum. On the 

other hand, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation observes that, given the 

‘‘role played and services offered by 

private sector operators of public transit 

systems are indistinguishable from their 

traditional public sector counterparts 

* * * the public or private sector origin 

of the operator of the affected 

infrastructure is immaterial.’’ 

In view of the record before us, we are 

not persuaded to amend § 90.20 to 

permit privately-run metropolitan 

transit systems to be authorized on 

frequencies in the Public Safety Pool. 

Such an amendment to our rules would 

undermine the rationale of the 

Commission in restricting eligibility to 

hold a license in the Public Safety Pool 

in the first place. A chief reason for 

establishing such eligibility in the first 

instance was to assure that those public 

safety entities specifically charged with 

the protection of the life and property of 

the general public have access to 

spectrum. 

The Commission’s other reasons for 

establishing its eligibility requirements 

in the Public Safety Pool were to 

promote interoperability between all 

entities involved in ensuring the safety 

of life by allowing them to communicate 

with one another, and remain consistent 

with other Commission definitions of 

public safety radio services. The 

Commission indicated that restricting 

Public Safety Pool eligibility in this 

manner was not only consistent with 

the Commission’s definition of public 

safety services in other contexts, but 

also with the Public Safety Wireless 

Advisory Committee’s definition of 

public safety, reflected in its Final 

Report. 

Because state and local public 

agencies share similar responsibilities 

when it comes to safety of life and 

protection of property, it is critical that, 

especially during times of emergencies, 

the deployment and use of Public Safety 

Pool frequencies remain within the 

control of these public safety agencies. 

Control is best assured when such 

licenses are held by public safety 

eligibles only. The current rule ensures 

that the continuity and expertise 

underlying the coordination and 

expansion of public safety 

communications systems appropriately 

remain with a region’s state and local 

agencies. Consistent with the view of 

the majority of commenters on this 

issue, we find that the current rule 

ensures that a local or State 

governmental entity exercises 

responsibility and accountability for the 

use of the Public Safety Pool spectrum, 

even if the contract with the private 

entity either expires or terminates, or if 

the private entity itself ceases to exist by 

way of bankruptcy, merger, or other 

organizational change. We therefore 

decline to amend our rules with respect 

to Public Safety Pool eligibility. Because 

we decline to amend § 90.20, we need 

not address the outstanding issues 

raised in the NPRM on this issue 

regarding the administrative criteria to 

be used in the event we decided to 

amend the rule. 

Procedural Matters 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis of the possible 

impact of the rule changes contained in 

the Report and Order portion of this 

Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on small entities. 

The Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

analysis is set forth in Appendix D of 

the Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The 

Commission’s Consumer Information 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

will send a copy of this Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 97 / Thursday, May 21, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 23803 

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document does not contain new 

or modified information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, this document does 

not contain any new or modified 

‘‘information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

Congressional Review Act Analysis 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this Report and Order and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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 

Accordingly, It is ordered, pursuant to 

sections 4(i), 303(r), and 403 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 303(r), and 403, that this Report 

and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby 

adopted. 

It is further ordered that part 90 of the 

Commission’s rules is amended as set 

forth in Appendix B of the Report and 

Order, and that these rules shall be 

effective June 22, 2009. 

It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer Information 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

shall send a copy of this Report and 

Order, including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90 

Communications equipment, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

■ 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: 

Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 

332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 

303(r) and 332(c)(7). 

■ 2. Section 90.243 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 90.243 Mobile relay stations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) In the Public Safety Pool, systems 

operating on any of the public safety 

frequencies listed in § 90.20(c) are 

permitted to be cross-banded for mobile 

stations operations with mobile relay 

stations where such stations are 

authorized. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 90.1207 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 90.1207 Licensing. 

* * * * * 

(d) Permanent fixed point-to-point 

and point-to-multipoint stations in the 

4940–4990 MHz band must be licensed 

individually on a site-by-site basis. Such 

fixed stations that connect 4940–4990 

MHz band base and mobile stations that 

are used to deliver broadband service, as 

well as other public safety networks 

using spectrum designated for 

broadband use, are accorded primary 

status. Primary status is also accorded to 

stand-alone permanent fixed 4940–4990 

MHz band links that are used to deliver 

broadband service. Primary permanent 

fixed point-to-point and point-tomultipoint stations must use directional 

antennas with gains greater than 9 dBi 

up to 26 dBi. Permanent fixed point-topoint stations that do not meet the 

criteria for primary status will be 

authorized only on a secondary, noninterference basis to base, mobile, 

temporary fixed, and primary 

permanent fixed operations. 

■ 4. Section 90.1215 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 90.1215 Power limits. 

* * * * * 

(a)(1) The maximum conducted 

output power should not exceed: 

Channel bandwidth 

(MHz) 

Low power 

maximum 

conducted 

output 

power 

(dBm) 

High 

power 

maximum 

conducted 

output 

power 

(dBm) 

1 ............................ 7 20 

5 ............................ 14 27 

10 .......................... 17 30 

15 .......................... 18.8 31.8 

20 .......................... 20 33 

(2) High power devices are also 

limited to a peak power spectral density 

of 21 dBm per one MHz. High power 

devices using channel bandwidths other 

than those listed above are permitted; 

however, they are limited to peak power 

spectral density of 21 dBm/MHz. If 

transmitting antennas of directional gain 

greater than 9 dBi are used, both the 

maximum conducted output power and 

the peak power spectral density should 

be reduced by the amount in decibels 

that the directional gain of the antenna 

exceeds 9 dBi. However, high power 

point-to-point and point-to-multipoint 

operations (both fixed and temporaryfixed rapid deployment) may employ 

transmitting antennas with directional 

gain up to 26 dBi without any 

corresponding reduction in the 

maximum conducted output power or 

spectral density. Corresponding 

reduction in the maximum conducted 

output power and peak power spectral 

density should be the amount in 

decibels that the directional gain of the 

antenna exceeds 26 dBi. 

(b) Low power devices are also 

limited to a peak power spectral density 

of 8 dBm per one MHz. Low power 

devices using channel bandwidths other 

than those listed above are permitted; 

however, they are limited to a peak 

power spectral density of 8 dBm/MHz. 

If transmitting antennas of directional 

gain greater than 9 dBi are used, both 

the maximum conducted output power 

and the peak power spectral density 

should be reduced by the amount in 

decibels that the directional gain of the 

antenna exceeds 9 dBi. 

(c) The maximum conducted output 

power is measured as a conducted 

emission over any interval of 

continuous transmission calibrated in 

terms of an RMS-equivalent voltage. If 

the device cannot be connected directly, 

alternative techniques acceptable to the 

Commission may be used. The 

measurement results shall be properly 

adjusted for any instrument limitations, 

such as detector response times, limited 

resolution bandwidth capability when 

compared to the emission bandwidth, 

sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true 

maximum conducted output power 

measurement conforming to the 

definitions in this paragraph for the 

emission in question. 

* * * * * 

(e) The ratio of the peak excursion of 

the modulation envelope (measured 

using a peak hold function) to the 

maximum conducted output power 

shall not exceed 13 dB across any 1 

MHz bandwidth or the emission 

bandwidth whichever is less. 

[FR Doc. E9–11908 Filed 5–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with RULES