You are on page 1of 7

41940 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

relocate incumbents.) In the 24, 2006), the Commission established so, the Commission noted that the
Clearinghouse Order, ET Docket No. 00– procedures for the relocation of Bureau could select more than one
258 and WT Docket No. 02–353, DA 07– Broadband Radio Service (BRS) clearinghouse.6
1120, the FCC’s Wireless operations from the 2150–2160/62 MHz 1. By public notice released on June
Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) band and Microwave Service (FS) 15, 2006 (Clearinghouse PN), 71 FR
requires the AWS clearinghouses to file operations in the 2.1 GHz band, and 38162 (July 5, 2006), the Bureau invited
reports with the FCC and to make adopted cost sharing rules to identify proposals from entities interested in
disclosures between the clearinghouses. the reimbursement obligations for serving as a neutral, not-for-profit
Separately, in a Public Notice issued Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) and clearinghouse responsible for
jointly with the National Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) entrants facilitating cost sharing among entrants
Telecommunications and Information benefiting from the relocation of benefiting from the relocation of
Administration (NTIA), 71 FR 28696 incumbent FS and/or BRS operations. incumbent licensees in the 2.1 GHz
(May 17, 2006), 21 FCC Rcd 4730 The Commission also delegated bands.7 The Clearinghouse PN also
(2006), the FCC set forth procedures for authority to the Wireless sought comment on whether more than
AWS licensees to coordinate with Telecommunications Bureau (WTB or one clearinghouse would be feasible,
Federal Government operators in the 1.7 Bureau) to select one or more entities for and required certifications that the
GHz band, and AWS licenses are the creation and management of a entity would be able and willing to
granted with a special condition that neutral, not-for-profit clearinghouse that work with other clearinghouses if WTB
requires coordination with Federal would facilitate cost sharing among selected more than one, as well as a
operators. AWS and MSS entrants benefiting from certification that the entity is a not-for-
the relocation of FS incumbents in the profit organization and will retain its
Federal Communications Commission.
2110–2150 MHz and 2160–2200 MHz not-for-profit status during the term of
William F. Caton, bands and AWS entrants benefiting its operations. We also sought comment
Deputy Secretary. from the relocation of BRS incumbents on whether proposals that offer to
[FR Doc. E7–14803 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am] in the 2150–60/62 MHz bands.2 Mobile administer cost sharing for both FS and
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P Satellite Service (MSS) operators are BRS relocations are preferable to
required to participate in the proposals that seek to administer cost
clearinghouse for Ancillary Terrestrial sharing for only one of these relocation
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Component (ATC) base stations, see e.g., processes. We received two proposals
COMMISSION 47 CFR 101.82(d), and may elect to and each proposed to administer cost
submit claims for reimbursement to the sharing for both FS and BRS
47 CFR Parts 22, 27 and 101 AWS clearinghouse for FS links relocations.8 Five parties filed
[ET Docket No. 00–258; WT Docket No. 02– relocated due to interference from the
353; DA 07–1120] MSS space-to-Earth operations.3 The date). If a clearinghouse is not selected by that date,
claims for reimbursement and notices of operation
Commission stated that selection would for activities that occurred after the start date but
Service Rules for Advanced Wireless be based on criteria established by the prior to the clearinghouse selection must be
Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bureau, and that the Bureau would submitted to the clearinghouse within thirty
Bands publicly announce the criteria and calendar days of the selection date. See 47 CFR
27.1166.
AGENCY: Federal Communications solicit proposals from qualified parties.4 6 See 47 CFR 27.1178. See also AWS Relocation

Commission. The Commission also instructed the and Cost Sharing Report and Order at para. 107
Bureau to solicit public comment on all (‘‘we delegate to WTB the authority to select one or
ACTION: Final rule; interpretations and more entities to create and administer a neutral,
proposals submitted and, after selecting
general waiver. not-for-profit clearinghouse’’).
the clearinghouse administrator(s), to 7 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

SUMMARY: The Wireless announce the effective date of the cost Opens Filing Window for Proposals to Develop and
Telecommunications Bureau sets forth sharing rules, including the filing Manage the Clearinghouse that will Administer the
requirements for reimbursement claims Relocation Cost Sharing Plan for Licensees in the
details of the duties and responsibilities 2.1 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 6616
of the clearinghouses that will and relocation cost estimates.5 In doing (WTB 2006) (Clearinghouse PN). The notice invited
administer the Commission’s cost- any entity interested in serving as a clearinghouse
sharing plan under the incumbent Fixed Service to Support the Introduction of New to submit a business plan detailing how it would
Advanced Wireless Services, including Third perform the functions of a clearinghouse, including
relocation procedures for the 2110–2200 Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00– the following elements: a description of the entity
MHz band. We also address several 258, Service Rules for Advances Wireless Services proposing to be a clearinghouse and its
matters raised by commenters and issue in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. qualifications; information regarding financial data,
02–353, Ninth Report and Order and Order, 21 FCC including a business plan that addresses how the
interpretations and a general waiver that entity intends to raise start-up funds and how much
Rcd 4473 (2006) (recon. pending) (AWS Relocation
are intended to avoid confusion and and Cost Sharing Report and Order). the entity plans to charge for individual
unnecessary burdens. 2 See AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report transactions; whether the entity is interested in
serving as a clearinghouse for FS relocations, BRS
DATES: The interpretations and general and Order at para. 106–107. The Commission made
no determination at the time as to whether a relocations, or both; a detailed description of
waiver are effective August 1, 2007. accounting methods; a description of how the entity
clearinghouse must provide administration for both
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FS and BRS-related cost sharing. See id. at n.374. intends to remain impartial and how it will prevent
any conflicts of interest; a description of how the
Jennifer Mock, Broadband Division, However, the Commission recognized the
entity intends to address concerns about
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at efficiencies in a clearinghouse administering the
confidentiality and a description of security
cost sharing processes for the relocation of both FS
(202) 418–2483 or via the Internet at and BRS incumbents in the subject bands. See id.
measures the entity will take to safeguard submitted
Jennifer.Mock@fcc.gov. information; a description of how the entity intends
at para. 106. to resolve disputes between parties; and an
3 See AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the assessment of how long it would take the entity to
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

and Order at para. 93–94. become operational. Id.


AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing 4 See id. at para. 83, 107. 8 See CTIA—The Wireless Association
Report and Order,1 71 FR 29818, (May 5 See id. at para. 83, 107. Claims for
Clearinghouse Plan, filed July 17, 2006 (CTIA Plan);
reimbursement are limited to relocation expenses Clearinghouse Proposal of PCIA—The Wireless
1 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules incurred on or after the date when the first AWS Infrastructure Association, filed July 17, 2006 (PCIA
to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and license is issued in the relevant AWS band (start Plan).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 41941

comments related to those proposals, rules and policies adopted in the AWS memorandum of understanding or
and PCIA filed reply comments.9 As Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and agreement with the FCC or other
noted in the Qualification PN,10 two Order. To the extent permitted under governmental entities that would
commenters specifically supported our delegated authority, the instant interfere with or prohibit it from
designating PCIA as a clearinghouse11 Order clarifies the Commission’s cost- performing its duties hereunder.
and one commenter specifically sharing rules and policies, including the
2. Non-Discrimination and Impartiality
supported selecting CTIA.12 Two duties and responsibilities of the
commenters specifically supported clearinghouses delineated therein. In 7. CTIA and PCIA must provide
designating both PCIA and CTIA as accordance with the Commission’s clearinghouse services on a non-
clearinghouses and none of the directive and delegation to the Bureau discriminatory, impartial basis.19
commenters opposed the selection of of authority to establish criteria for, and Specifically, if CTIA or PCIA has a
multiple clearinghouse to select one or more, clearinghouse(s), direct affiliation with a class of
administrators.13 we set forth details of the relocators, licensees, operators, or other
2. On October 4, 2006, the Bureau clearinghouses’ duties and entities that provide services or
concluded that the benefits of having responsibilities below. products to clearinghouse users, the
two or more clearinghouses outweigh 5. In the Qualification PN, the Bureau relationship must not affect the manner
any disadvantages because offering found CTIA and PCIA qualified to serve in which CTIA or PCIA performs
participants a choice increases the as clearinghouses after reviewing each clearinghouse services and the
incentive for all clearinghouses to entity’s overall plan and the responsive treatment of all relocators, licensees, or
operate in an efficient manner, thus record, but the Bureau did not thereby operators must be non-discriminatory.
benefiting the consumers of these rule that all provisions of each plan CTIA and PCIA may only refuse to
services.14 We also found CTIA and were in accordance with the provide clearinghouse services for good
PCIA, the two entities that filed Commission’s rules and policies. cause and must do so as soon as is
proposals, qualified to serve as Rather, the Bureau relied on each practicable after receiving the request
clearinghouse administrators, and we entity’s material representations for service.
advised them to begin preparing their regarding its organization, 3. Multiple Clearinghouses; Data
clearinghouse operations.15 As part of qualifications, start-up financing, Exchange and Related Matters
establishing the criteria for accounting methods, commitment to
clearinghouses, the Bureau also stated provide non-discriminatory and 8. To be qualified, CTIA and PCIA
that it would issue a subsequent Order impartial services, security measures to each had to certify that it would be able
setting forth details of the protect confidential information, and and willing to work with each other and
clearinghouses’ duties and willingness and capability to cooperate other clearinghouses that may be
responsibilities.16 with other clearinghouses in the selected by the FCC in the future.
3. Unless the context requires coordination and sharing of Cooperation among the clearinghouses
otherwise in the paragraphs below and information. Except for these material includes, among other things,
for convenience only, we refer to the representations, we are aware that both exchanging clearinghouse data. As a
‘‘FCC,’’ the ‘‘Bureau’’ and ‘‘WTB’’ plans and their projected general matter, the clearinghouses must
interchangeably. Also, for brevity, we implementation may need to be exchange clearinghouse data in a secure
refer to ‘‘clearinghouse administrator(s)’’ modified at some time(s) during the and timely manner as necessary to
as the ‘‘clearinghouse(s),’’ and our course of the administration of the cost- ensure that: (1) No clearinghouse
references to AWS include MSS/ATC. sharing plan. As such, we do not believe participant is required to provide
A. Duties and Responsibilities of the it is necessary to require either PCIA or
19 CTIA will establish an Advisory Panel made up

Clearinghouses CTIA to submit a revised plan to


of entities from the various affected services, i.e.,
include these administrative details, at BRS, FS, AWS, and MSS, to provide policy
1. Scope; Representations and this juncture. guidance to the clearinghouse and ensure that
Acknowledgments 6. Each clearinghouse will administer parties affected by the cost-sharing and relocation
the cost-sharing plan by, inter alia, processes have an adequate say in the mechanics
4. As a preliminary matter, we of the operations. See CTIA Plan at 2. PCIA plans
emphasize that the duties and determining the cost-sharing obligations to establish the PCIA AWS Clearinghouse as a non-
responsibilities of the clearinghouses of AWS and MSS/ATC entities for the profit subsidiary with its own by-laws and Board
are set forth chiefly in the Commission’s relocation of fixed microwave service of Directors. PCIA, as the incorporator, will select
(FS) incumbents from the 2110–2150 the initial Board of Directors and the Board will
establish the general policies including dispute-
9 Comments were filed by Keller and Heckman MHz and the 2160–2200 MHz bands 17 resolution policies and will examine those policies
LLP (Keller and Heckman), Association for and the cost sharing obligations of AWS from time to time to ensure that they are effective
Maximum Service Television Inc. (MSTV), Sprint entities for the relocation of BRS but will play no role in the actual dispute
Nextel Corporation (Sprint Nextel), T-Mobile USA, resolution process, which will be handled by the
Inc. (T-Mobile), and The Wireless Communications
incumbents from the 2150–2160/62 PCIA AWS Clearinghouse staff and dispute
Association International, Inc. (WCA). PCIA filed MHz band.18 Given the purpose of resolution experts. See PCIA Plan at 10, 15. The
reply comments. establishing a private, industry-based PCIA Plan includes further details by reference to
10 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
cost sharing plan, CTIA and PCIA are the PCIA PCS Microwave Clearinghouse. ‘‘To
Finds CTIA and PCIA Qualified to Administer the ensure fairness, any PCS company that either
each advised that it is responsible for its provides funding or pays a transaction fee becomes
Relocation Cost-Sharing Plan For Licensees in the
2.1 GHz Bands, Public Notice, DA 06–1984 (rel. acts and omissions and that the a member of the PCIA Microwave Clearinghouse.
October 4, 2006) (Qualification PN). Commission and its employees, agents, Membership benefits include participation in the
11 See Qualification PN at 1, citing Keller and and representatives are not responsible election of the board of directors, who set policy
Heckman comments and MSTV comments. around technical and procedural issues associated
or liable for the actions or inaction of a with relocation cost-sharing.’’ PCIA Plan, Exhib. B
12 See Qualification PN at 2, citing T-Mobile
clearinghouse. Additionally, CTIA and at 2. See also PCIA Reply Comments at 2 (‘‘PCIA
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

comments.
13 See Qualification PN at 2, citing Sprint Nextel PCIA each must ensure that neither it is committed to working with all affected
nor any affiliated entity is a party to any constituencies to ensure that the Commission’s
comments at 2–3 and WCA comments at 2–3. relocation cost-sharing rules are implemented in a
14 See Qualification PN at 2.
smooth and efficient manner, on a competitive cost-
15 Id. 17 See 47 CFR 27.1162. effective basis that will benefit all affected
16 Id. 18 See 47 CFR 27.1178. interests’’).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1
41942 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

notices or other information relative to to receive assistance from a particular disputes between the clearinghouses.29
a given link or system to more than one clearinghouse at any time.24 As such, we believe that establishing a
clearinghouse; and (2) each 11. We find CTIA’s distinction bright-line process, under which the
clearinghouse has access to the data unpersuasive. If a party elects to clearinghouses promptly exchange
required to perform its duties. See, e.g., contract with a clearinghouse, the registration data for each relocation, will
47 CFR 27.1168 and 27.1184. In the subject clearinghouse will need access reduce the risk of confusion or disputes
event a clearinghouse makes an error in between the clearinghouses and among
to the relevant registration data in order
the shared data, the erring clearinghouse cost-sharing participants. Furthermore,
to provide meaningful assistance to the
shall be solely responsible for correcting promptly exchanging data for all
party.25 In this connection, we will not
the shared-data error as soon as is registrations also provides an additional
practicable. second guess PCIA’s assessment of the safeguard against data loss because both
9. The record reflects that CTIA and market, based on its experience clearinghouses will have complete and
PCIA disagree as to certain details of the administering the PCS Microwave current data.30
data exchange (and certain operational Clearinghouse, that participants will 13. Cost-sharing notices. PCIA
or business matters related to the seek assistance from a clearinghouse proposes that each clearinghouse should
disputed details of the data exchange).20 before they have reimbursement only issue notices of reimbursement
Although the scope of this disagreement rights.26 CTIA further contends that obligations (cost-sharing notices) to its
has narrowed over the past several requiring the clearinghouses to own customers (i.e., communicate only
months, CTIA and PCIA appear to have exchange registration data will limit with its customers) 31 while CTIA
reached an impasse.21 Accordingly, to competitive opportunities because ‘‘for proposes that each clearinghouse should
move the cost-sharing process forward, the clearinghouses to be competitive, only issue cost-sharing notices on behalf
we conclude that the Bureau must set there must be some differentiation in of its own customers to any AWS
forth additional details that will govern the product offerings and services licensee (which could include
data exchange between the provided.’’27 It is our view that communications to another
clearinghouses in the absence of a competition between the clearinghouses clearinghouse’s customers).32 PCIA also
written agreement between CTIA and should be based on price, speed, and proposed that each clearinghouse
PCIA. quality of service; 28 competition based should exchange, i.e., copy, the other on
10. Registration data. CTIA avers that on one clearinghouse’s superior access all cost-sharing notices, as an additional
a clearinghouse should only be required to data submitted by licensees would check and courtesy, though it
to exchange registration data for a given tend to hamper or eliminate subsequently withdrew this request.33
relocation when an entity that shares in competition. CTIA counters that clearinghouses ‘‘are
the cost of that relocation has paid-in- not to ‘represent’ parties in disputes’’
12. Based on our administrative
full and selected the other clearinghouse and that clearinghouses are not created
experience generally and considering
to administer its downstream ‘‘to recheck the administration of cost-
that CTIA and PCIA reached an impasse
reimbursement rights.22 PCIA counters sharing notifications by other
on this issue after several months of
that the clearinghouses should exchange clearinghouses.’’ 34 PCIA responds that
negotiation, we are concerned that
all registration data in real time so each
requiring the clearinghouses to
clearinghouse has all of the data 29 CTIA claims that its proposal mirrors the
exchange registration data selectively at process used for Wireless Local Numbering
necessary to assist customers at any
the time a contract is established with Portability (WLNP). See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan 19,
stage of the cost-sharing process.23 CTIA 2007, at 2. (CTIA states that the Commission did not
a customer will risk opening a door to
responds that its proposal merely limits require sharing of all data between carriers to
the exchange of registration data and effectuate a change in carrier; ‘‘[r]ather, customers
24 See, e.g., CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 19, 2007,
emphasizes that its approach would not were required to make a valid request of their
Attachment at 2 n.1, citing CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. contracted carrier that they desired to port their
impede a party from entering a contract 5, 2007, at 1 (‘‘[t]here exists no impediment to a number to a new carrier.’’ Id. at n.3, citing
party receiving access to assistance in advance of http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/
20 CTIA and PCIA reported their disagreement in transferring link registration data {between the welcome.html##FAQS.) We note that the cited
October 2006 and the Bureau met with them several clearinghouses]’’). webpage actually states that ‘‘[c]onsumers should
times. CTIA and PCIA also held several private 25 We note that CTIA and PCIA have elected to contact their prospective new carrier, who will start
meetings at which verbal and written proposals use a fee structure under which they will be the porting process. The new carrier will first
were exchanged in an attempt to reach an compensated only when their customers have confirm the consumer’s identity and then make a
agreement. See, e.g., CTIA Ex Parte, filed Oct. 19, received reimbursement. We have no quarrel with porting request of the old carrier.’’ Moreover, WLNP
2006; PCIA Ex Parte, filed Oct. 20, 2006. this approach but find that the timing of the is not analogous to the AWS cost-sharing plan
21 See, e.g., CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 19, 2007, at payments to the clearinghouses should not be a because WLNP requests are initiated by consumers
2–3 (stating that FCC should reject PCIA’s latest determining factor in our decision on when voluntarily and expressly for the purpose of
proposal and that significant differences exist registration data must be exchanged given the contracting with a new carrier whereas most of the
between the clearinghouses); PCIA Ex Parte, filed Commission has not dictated a payment scheme. data filed with the AWS clearinghouses is
Dec. 29, 2006 (describing the disagreement with 26 See, e.g., PCIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 26, 2007, at mandatory, either prior to operation or to preserve
CTIA and stating that PCIA intends to continue 2 (stating that it is not unusual for a cost sharing reimbursement rights under the cost-sharing plan.
advocating for its approach). participant to require assistance from a See also PCIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 4.
30 We emphasize that nothing in this Order
22 See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 5, 2007, at 1; CTIA clearinghouse when the particpant first enters the
Ex Parte filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 1. CTIA also notes cost-sharing process. PCIA explains that assistance, prohibits the clearinghouses from reaching an
that the entity receiving a reimbursement is the among other things, involves providing the agreement that revises the scope or schedule of the
entity contracting with and paying the participant with a better understanding of the FCC’s data exchange, assuming their agreement is
clearinghouse. See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 19, cost-sharing plan, the participant’s role in the consistent with our rules, because our concerns
2007, Attachment at 1. process, and the basis for its obligations. PCIA also regarding disputes would be sufficiently addressed
23 PCIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 1 (‘‘[e]ach notes that the clearinghouse also serves as a body if both clearinghouses have agreed to such
of knowledge regarding cost-sharing procedures and revisions. See para. 8, supra.
AWS licensee is subject to the cost-sharing rules 31 PCIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 11, 2007, at 1.
and thus, should be entitled to assistance from the rules and that the clearinghouse serves as the first-
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

clearinghouse that it selects at any stage of the cost- level of dispute resolution. Id. at 2–3, citing Ninth 32 See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 21, 2006,

sharing process.’’). See also PCIA Ex Parte, filed Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4510, 4532 para. Attachment at 8.
Dec. 29, 2006 (‘‘PCIA disagrees with CTIA’s 68, 122. 33 See PCIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 4.
27 See, e.g., CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 19, 2007,
proposal to allow a participant to elect a 34 CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 19, 2007, at 2. CTIA

clearinghouse only after it has cleared certain Attachment at 2. requests that the Commission reject PCIA’s
hurdles.’’). 28 See PCIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 4. (subsequently withdrawn) proposal that the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 41943

it does not suggest that a clearinghouse clearinghouse participants. Under time.’’ 44 In this connection, we clarify
‘‘represents’’ a party in a dispute, and CTIA’s proposal, the second that merely filing a site notice with a
that a clearinghouse’s assistance 35 can clearinghouse only would receive this clearinghouse does not form a contract
resolve most disputes with an information if its customer between the filer and the clearinghouse
explanation of the cost-sharing rules communicates the contents of any under the Commission’s Rules, though a
and formula, which are objective and notices the participant receives. We clearinghouse is free to offer its services
precise, thereby avoiding any danger of believe this would place an unnecessary to the participant and to present a
a clearinghouse favoring one participant burden on clearinghouse participants, contract.45 We need not provide
over another.36 Finally, CTIA and PCIA particularly when it should be relatively additional details in this Order because
ask us to clarify that cost-sharing notices simple for the clearinghouses to the formation of contracts is generally a
sent by electronic mail satisfy the exchange copies of cost-sharing notices matter of state and local law. However,
requirement that such notices be in electronically. This exchange will we note that the record reflects that
writing.37 ensure that the clearinghouses use the CTIA and PCIA agree that it is a simple
14. We agree with CTIA that each same data and allows for early matter to add a column for participants
clearinghouse should identify cost- resolution of any mistakes or to designate its clearinghouse when
sharing obligations and issue the notices disagreements. filing site notices.46
of reimbursement for obligations owed 16. Site-notice data. CTIA asks us to 19. Finally, CTIA and PCIA agree that
to its customers to give effect to the clarify that § 27.1170’s requirement to there is no need to require site notices
market choice by each entity—relocators file site data ‘‘with the clearinghouse’’ is to include the polarization and emission
and downstream cost-sharers.38 Under a requirement to file such data with designator of the relevant station
PCIA’s proposal, by comparison, both clearinghouses given that we have because this data is not needed for
clearinghouse selections made by the selected two clearinghouses.40 PCIA clearinghouses to determine cost-
relocator and/or the first or second cost- opposes CTIA’s request 41 and urges us sharing obligations.47 CTIA’s and
sharers could be negated by a later cost- to clarify that by filing a site notice with PCIA’s point is well taken, though
sharer’s selection of a different a particular clearinghouse, the filer is modifying § 27.1170 to eliminate this
clearinghouse. Though we agree with data collection is beyond the scope of
thereby selecting that clearinghouse’s
PCIA that a clearinghouse does not the Bureau’s delegated authority.
services including assistance for any
merely notify participants of Nonetheless, given that both
cost-sharing obligations that may be
reimbursements due,39 this is clearinghouses state that requiring new
triggered by the site notice and
undeniably a core function of the entrants to submit this data is
administration of any reimbursement
clearinghouses, and we agree with CTIA unnecessary to administer the cost-
rights that may arise in the future.
that each participant’s selection should sharing plan, we find that good cause
be honored through the date of the 17. We decline both requests for exists for waiving the requirement that
sunset of the cost-sharing plan. We clarification. We find no ambiguity in all site notices include this data in the
recognize that, in some situations, a § 27.1170’s requirement to file with a first instance.48 Accordingly, new
clearinghouse will be issuing/sending clearinghouse; nor is the Commission’s entrants will be required to submit the
cost-sharing notices (for reimbursement intention made ambiguous by WTB’s polarization and/or emission designator
obligations owed to its customers) to selection of multiple clearinghouses of a given station to a clearinghouse
customers of the other clearinghouse. after the rule was adopted in the AWS only upon request.
Finally, we clarify as a general matter Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and 20. Operational matters.
that cost-sharing notices sent by Order. Indeed, the AWS Relocation and Clearinghouses must exchange
electronic mail satisfy the requirement Cost Sharing Report and Order makes registration, site-notice data, and cost-
in Section 27.1170 that such notices be clear that the Commission envisioned sharing notices, electronically at least
in writing. that the Bureau might select multiple once per business day (if a
15. We further believe that clearinghouses.42 clearinghouse has no new data it shall
clearinghouses cannot compete and 18. Regarding PCIA’s request to clarify so indicate) and such data exchange
cannot fully serve their customers if that participants select their shall include, but is not limited to, both
they do not possess complete clearinghouse by filing site notices, we the registration data required under 47
information. Because a clearinghouse agree that each stakeholder should have CFR 27.1166 and 1182, and the site-
may send a notice on behalf of its own a choice of which clearinghouse to notice data required by and copies of
customer to a customer of the other use—independent of other filers’ cost-sharing notices issued under 47
clearinghouse, the second clearinghouse choices relative to a given relocation.43 CFR 27.1170 and 27.1186. We direct
needs to be informed of the contents of Indeed, although CTIA and PCIA CTIA and PCIA, within ten (10)
the cost-sharing notice in order to disagree as to timing, CTIA also calendar days of the release of the
complete its records. We believe that ‘‘advocates permitting participants to instant Order, to establish the exact
this can most readily be accomplished switch their clearinghouse at any technical format of these required data
by requiring each clearinghouse to copy exchanges and to report jointly to the
the other clearinghouse on all cost- 40 See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 7, 2007, at 2, Bureau that such an agreement has been
sharing notices because this method quoting 47 CFR 27.1170. ‘‘Inasmuch as the FCC has
will be more convenient for authorized two clearinghouses * * * the rule is 44 See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 19, 2007,
ambiguous as to whether filing with one Attachment at 2.
clearinghouse is sufficient * * * .’’ Id., CTIA Ex 45 We understand that all or most site notices (as
clearinghouses provide courtesy copies of cost- Parte. well as registrations) will be filed online.
sharing notifications. Id. at 2–3. 41 See PCIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 2. 46 See PCIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 3;
35 See note 26, supra.
42 See, e.g., 47 CFR 27.1162 (WTB will select one CTIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 19, 2007, Attachment at
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

36 See PCIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 3.


or more entities to operate as a * * * 3.
37 See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 7, 2006, at 1;
clearinghouse(s).’’ See also 47 CFR 27.1166(a) (‘‘[t]o 47 See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 7, 2006, at 2;
PCIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 2. obtain reimbursement, an AWS relocator * * * PCIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 2.
38 See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 21, 2006, must submit documentation * * * to the 48 See 47 CFR 1.3 (any provision of the rules may
Attachment at 8. clearinghouse * * * .’’). be waived by the Commission on its own motion
39 See PCIA Ex Parte, filed Jan. 26, 2007, at 2. 43 See PCIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 3. for good cause shown).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1
41944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

reached.49 The Bureau expressly clearinghouse for resolution.51 To the adopted by the FCC will be effective on
reserves the right to revisit this matter extent that disputes cannot be so the same date that the rule amendments
in the future, if the public interest so resolved, the clearinghouse shall and/or FCC decisions are effective and
requires. encourage the parties to use expedited we advise CTIA and PCIA that a petition
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for reconsideration of the AWS
4. Confidential (Sensitive Commercial) procedures, such as binding arbitration, Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and
Information mediation, or other ADR techniques. To Order is pending before the FCC in ET
21. With respect to the issue of the extent that disputes cannot be Docket No. 00–258 and WT Docket No.
maintaining the confidentiality of resolved using ADR and one or all 02–353. Nothing in the instant Order
information, both PCIA and CTIA assert parties seek to bring the dispute to the limits or otherwise prejudices the
FCC for resolution, the clearinghouse Commission’s actions in that
that they will collect and disseminate
shall cooperate with the parties and the proceeding(s) and we reserve the
only that information which is essential
FCC in attending any status discretion to add or delete
to the performance of the clearinghouse
conference(s) called by the staff and in clearinghouse selections at a later date
functions and will execute
producing whatever reports or records if circumstances indicate that such
confidentiality agreements with all
that are necessary for FCC resolution of action is warranted.
participating entities. Such procedures
the dispute.52 The initial FCC point of
adequately ensure the necessary 7. No Assignment or Transfer; Notice of
contact is: Chief, Broadband Division,
confidentiality. We continue to believe Impairment
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
that designating multiple clearinghouses FCC. In the event a mistake is made by 25. The FCC’s clearinghouse
is the appropriate approach and believe a clearinghouse, it shall be responsible selections, i.e., the selections of CTIA
that the safeguards instituted by both for correcting the mistake as part of any and PCIA, may not be sold, assigned, or
PCIA and CTIA will adequately protect dispute resolution. transferred to any party without the
participants from the inadvertent release prior written approval of the FCC.
of any confidential information. We 6. Term; Suspension or Termination Except as explicitly provided herein, the
reserve the right, however, to review at 24. The FCC anticipates that, once instant Order does not provide and shall
any time, the safeguards instituted by selected, a clearinghouse will continue not be construed to provide any third
both clearinghouses to protect the its operation until after the sunset date party with any remedy, claim, liability,
confidentiality of certain information. for all relevant AWS bands. However, reimbursement, cause of action or other
Should breach of confidentiality issues the FCC’s selection of CTIA or PCIA right or privilege. In addition, CTIA and
develop, we will take the appropriate may be terminated by the FCC for cause PCIA must agree to report to the FCC,
steps to rectify the situation. at any time, upon sixty (60) days written within thirty (30) days of an occurrence,
5. Dispute Resolution notice, or suspended for up to 90 days, of any matters that could reasonably be
upon ten (10) days written notice. expected to impair its ability to perform
22. The Wireless Communications Should the FCC give notice of the duties authorized under this
Association International (WCA) termination due to a breach or violation, Agreement, including, but not limited
emphasizes in comments filed in the subject clearinghouse will have sixty to, a filing for bankruptcy or any legal
response to the Clearinghouse PN that (60) days from the date notice is or administrative proceeding that may
the role of the clearinghouses is limited effective to cure such breach or bear upon CTIA’s or PCIA’s ability to
to administration of cost sharing among violation. Should the FCC give notice of perform the duties of a clearinghouse
the AWS and MSS licensees who will suspension due to a breach or violation, under the Commission’s rules and
benefit from the relocation of BRS and the subject clearinghouse will have ten policies or the instant Order.
other incumbents in the 2.1 GHz band.50 (10) days from the date the notice is
8. Activity Reports and Special Reports
Put differently, WCA avers that the effective to cure such breach or
to the FCC
clearinghouses do not administer the violation. A breach or violation is a
failure of a clearinghouse to perform its 26. As noted above, we are aware that
BRS relocation rules. We are unaware of
duties and responsibilities in both plans and their projected
any claim by CTIA, PCIA, or other
accordance with the Commission’s rules implementation may need to be
commenters that suggest that the
and policies and/or the instant Order. A modified at some time(s) during the
clearinghouses will administer BRS
clearinghouse also may terminate its course of the administration of the cost-
relocation. As such, we note that there
service after ninety (90) days written sharing plan. In this connection, we find
does not appear to be any dispute on
notification to the FCC; however, this it appropriate to monitor both PCIA’s
this point.
provision does not absolve the and CTIA’s implementation of their
23. We also note that the clearinghouse of any private contractual plans and require that both parties
Commission’s rules provide that obligations. Notifications required by submit reports to the Commission at six-
‘‘disputes arising out of the cost sharing this paragraph must be provided by month intervals. The first report will be
plan, such as disputes over the amount Certified Mail—Return Receipt due on July 31, 2007 (covering the
of reimbursement required, must be Requested. However, changes associated period from the release date of the
brought in the first instance to the with rule amendments or decisions instant Order through June 30, 2007),
and every six months thereafter, e.g., the
49 We note that CTIA and PCIA have already 51 See 47 CFR 27.1172 and 27.1188 (emphasis second report will cover July 1, 2007,
agreed upon the specific data format and structure added). See also 47 CFR 27.1178 (the through December 31, 2007, and will be
to be included in the exchange of site-notice data. clearinghouse(s) will administer the cost-sharing
See CTIA Ex Parte, filed October 19, 2006. plan by inter alia, determining the cost sharing
due on January 31, 2008. The reports
50 See WCA comments at 3 (the process of moving obligation of AWS entities for the relocation of BRS must include an update on the number
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

BRS incumbents in the 2.1 GHz band, including the incumbents from the 2150–2162 MHz band). of links relocated, the amounts paid to
reimbursement of displaced BRS incumbents for 52 We note that CTIA and PCIA are each required
relocate these links, updated cost and
their relocation costs, is a separate process from the to follow the conditions and terms of any separate
allocation of responsibility for those costs among agreement (MOU) concerning the resolution of
revenue projections, and any
multiple AWS licensees who benefit from the interference complaints that it may have with the adjustments to existing fee structures.
relocation). Commission. We also reserve the right at any time to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 41945

inspect the records of or require share costs on a per license basis, we conduct an interference analysis and
additional information or reports from note that the cost-sharing obligations that the agency must provide the
CTIA and/or PCIA. established by the Commission’s cost- necessary information within 30 days of
sharing plan merely serves as defaults. the request.66 However, T-Mobile
B. Requests for Clarification
As in the PCS cost sharing rules, parties contends that the current procedures do
1. Definition of Triggering ‘‘Entity’’ remain free to enter into private cost- not specify how the information is to be
Under the Cost-sharing Formula sharing arrangements that alter some or shared, for example, whether it must be
27. CTIA and PCIA request a all of these default obligations.60 in electronic format and what file format
clarification that—for a given relocated 2. BAS in the 2025–2110 MHz Band should be used.67 As such, T-Mobile
link—a triggering ‘‘entity’’ is a states that it would like the affected
29. The Association for Maximum federal agencies to begin to create a
‘‘license,’’ not a ‘‘licensee’’ 53 and, based
Service Television (MSTV) notes in ready database of microwave system
on discussions with stakeholders, CTIA
comments filed in response to the information to facilitate the exchange of
states that this is the way that carriers
Clearinghouse PN that ‘‘first-in-time’’ data as soon as possible.68 Additionally,
would prefer to have the matter
TV Broadcast Auxiliary operations will T-Mobile is concerned that Federal
handled.54 CTIA notes that parties
continue to operate in the portion of the agencies will not be prepared to respond
sought clarification of this matter
spectrum from 2025 to 2110 MHz to the quantity of requests they may
previously and avers that the
(adjacent to the 2110–2025 band).61 receive at the close of the auction.69
Commission’s response leaves the
MSTV urges that all clearinghouses Accordingly, T-Mobile requests that the
matter ambiguous.55
28. In the AWS Relocation and Cost fully inform all new adjacent channel Commission and NTIA also clarify the
Sharing Report and Order, the AWS licensees of their responsibility to repercussions for federal agencies that
Commission addressed a similar protect ‘‘first-in-time’’ primary adjacent do not provide the necessary
proposal 56 by noting that the cost- channel operations. MSTV states that information within the 30-day time
sharing formula already explicitly states this practice will ensure that all parties limit they have established.70
that the pro rata reimbursement formula are fully aware of their responsibilities 31. We find that T-Mobile’s request is
is based on the number of entities that with regard to the protection of adjacent beyond the scope of the Clearinghouse
would have interfered with the link. channel operations.62 MSTV notes that PN and raises matters that are not
Accordingly, the Commission found PCIA has pledged to work closely with within the scope of the Commission’s
that the need for a clarification had not it to ensure that adjacent channel TV directive and delegation to the Bureau
been demonstrated in the record before broadcast auxiliary operations are taken
of authority to select one or more
it.57 Given this procedural history, we into account and MSTV has pledged to
clearinghouse(s) and to set forth details
note that the deadline for petitions for work similarly with all
of the clearinghouses’ duties and
reconsideration of the AWS Relocation clearinghouses.63 Although not within
responsibilities. Accordingly, we do not
and Cost Sharing Report and Order was the scope of the Commission’s cost-
reach T-Mobile’s request herein.
June 23, 2006,58 and that the requested sharing plan, we applaud and encourage
clarification is beyond the scope of the these private efforts to inform licensees C. Thirty-day Deadline for Submitting
authority that the Commission delegated of their obligations under the Claims and Notices to Clearinghouse for
to the Bureau to select clearinghouses.59 Commission’s rules. Activities That Occurred Between
Therefore, we decline to clarify the rule 3. Procedures for Federal Coordination November 29, 2006 and the
as requested herein. Regarding CTIA’s and Relocation Clearinghouse ‘‘Selection Date’’
statement that carriers would prefer to 30. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), in 32. Claims for reimbursement are
comments filed in response to the limited to relocation expenses incurred
53 See CTIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 7, 2006, at 2;
Clearinghouse PN, asks the Commission on or after November 29, 2006 (the
PCIA Ex Parte, filed Dec. 21, 2006, at 2. ‘‘start date’’) 71 and, to obtain
54 Id., CTIA Ex Parte. and NTIA to clarify the procedures for
55 Id., CTIA Ex Parte, citing AWS Relocation and AWS deployments in the 1.7 GHz reimbursement under the cost-sharing
Cost Sharing Report and Order. band.64 T-Mobile notes that the plan, an AWS relocator or MSS/ATC
56 AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and
Commission will be able to grant relocator must submit documentation of
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4511–12 para. 71 and n.244, licenses prior to the relocation of federal the relocation agreement to the
citing T-Mobile’s and PCIA’s comments in response clearinghouse within 30 calendar days
to the Fifth Notice in ET Docket No. 00–258. (T- government operations in the 1710–
Mobile sought a ruling that a new entrant may only 1755 MHz band and that the of the date a relocation agreement is
trigger a cost sharing obligation for a relocated link Commission and NTIA have released signed with an incumbent.72 In
only once per license, regardless of the size of the procedures that must be followed when addition, prior to initiating operations
license. PCIA stated that numerous disputes arose for a newly constructed site or modified
as to why larger area licensees did not trigger an
AWS licensees deploy services in this
obligation for each BTA where sites were in the band.65 T-Mobile states that these existing site, an AWS entity or MSS/
proximity box and urged the Commission to affirm procedures require new licensees to ATC entity is required to file a notice
a ‘‘one license—one trigger rule.’’ Id., n.244. contact the appropriate federal agency containing site-specific data with the
57 AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report and
to obtain the necessary information to
Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4516–17 para. 80, citing 47 66 T-Mobile comments at 4.
CFR 24.243 (PCS cost-sharing formula). See also 47 67 Id.
CFR 27.1164 and 27.1180 (AWS cost-sharing 60 See
AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report at 5.
and Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 4509–4510, 4531 para. 68 Id. at 4–5.
formula for FS and BRS relocations, respectively).
58 The AWS Relocation and Cost Sharing Report 67, 123. 69 Id.
61 MSTV comments at 1–2. 70 Id.
and Order was published in the Federal Register
62 Id.
on May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29818) and the deadline 71 See 47 CFR 27.1166(a), defining the ‘‘start

for filing petitions for reconsideration or 63 Id. at 2. date’’ as the date when the first AWS license is
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

clarification was thirty-days thereafter. See 47 CFR 64 T-Mobile comments at 4–5. issued in the relevant AWS band. See also Wireless
1.429(d). 65 The Federal Communications Commission and Telecommunications Bureau Grants Advanced
59 See 47 CFR 27.1162 and 27.1178. See also 47 the National Telecommunications and Information Wireless Service Licenses, public notice, 21 FCC
CFR 1.429(a) (‘‘[w]here the action was taken by the Administration—Coordination Procedures in the Rcd 13883 (2006) (announcing the grant of the first
Commission, the petition will be acted on by the 1710–1755 MHz Band, public notice 21 FCC Rcd AWS licenses on November 29, 2006).
Commission’’). 4730 (2006). 72 See 47 CFR 27.1166(a)(1) and 27.1182(a).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1
41946 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 147 / Wednesday, August 1, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

clearinghouse.73 The clearinghouse FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
filing requirements do not take effect COMMISSION § 73.202 [Amended]
until a clearinghouse is selected.74
Registrations and notices for activities 47 CFR Part 73 ■2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
that occurred after the start date but Allotments under Tennessee, is
[DA 07–3153; MB Docket No. 05–273; RM–
prior to the clearinghouse selection date 11273; RM–11307] amended by adding Englewood,
must be submitted to a clearinghouse Channel 250A.
within 30 calendar days of the selection Radio Broadcasting Services; Federal Communications Commission.
date.75 We clarify that the selection date Charleston and Englewood, TN John A. Karousos,
for calculating the initial 30-day AGENCY: Federal Communications Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
deadline under these rules will be the Commission. Bureau.
date that the instant Order, or a ACTION: Final rule. [FR Doc. E7–14932 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am]
summary thereof, is published in the BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Federal Register, i.e., August 1, 2007. SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the
We further clarify that any registrations request of Englewood Wireless, allots
or notices submitted to a clearinghouse Channel 250A at Englewood, Tennessee, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
on or after November 29, 2006, need not as the community’s first local FM COMMISSION
be resubmitted merely because a service. Channel 250A can be allotted to
Englewood, Tennessee, in compliance 47 CFR Part 73
clearinghouse received them prior to the
selection date.76 with the Commission’s minimum [DA 07–3156; MM Docket No. 99–275; RM–
distance separation requirements with a 9704]
II. Ordering Clauses site restriction of 13.4 km (8.3 miles) at
the following reference coordinates: 35– Radio Broadcasting Services; Keno,
33. It is ordered that CTIA—The 21–05 North Latitude and 84–36–18 OR
Wireless Association (CTIA) and West Longitude.
PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure AGENCY: Federal Communications
DATES: Effective August 27, 2007. Commission.
Association (PCIA) are each selected ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
pursuant to 47 CFR 27.1162 and ACTION: Final rule, dismissal of petition
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., for reconsideration.
27.1178, to serve as a neutral, not-for- Washington, DC 20554.
profit clearinghouse to administer the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUMMARY: This document dismisses a
Commission’s cost-sharing plan in Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) Petition for Reconsideration filed by
accordance with the Commission’s 418–2180. Renaissance Community Improvement
rules, policies, and the instant Order. Association, Inc. directed against the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
34. It is further ordered that CTIA and synopsis of the Commission’s Report dismissal of its Petition for Rule Making
PCIA shall submit to the Wireless and Order, MB Docket No. 05–273, proposing the allotment of Channel
Telecommunications Bureau reports on adopted July 11, 2007, and released July 235A at Keno, Oregon. With this action,
progress in implementing their 13, 2007. The full text of this this proceeding is terminated.
respective plans beginning July 31, 2007 Commission decision is available for ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
(for the period beginning today, i.e., inspection and copying during normal Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
March 8, 2007, and ending on June 30, business hours in the FCC Reference Washington, DC 20554.
2007), and every six months thereafter Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
until the services of the clearinghouses Street, SW., Room CY–A257, Robert Hayne, Media Bureau, (202) 418–
are no longer needed. Washington, DC 20554. The complete 2177.
text of this decision also may be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
35. This action is taken under
purchased from the Commission’s synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion
delegated authority pursuant to duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
§§ 0.131, 0.331, 27.1162, and 27.1178 of and Order in MM Docket No. 99–275,
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., adopted July 11, 2007, and released July
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 0.131, Room CY–B402, Washington, DC,
0.331, 27.1162 and 27.1178. 13, 2007. The full text of this decision
20554, (800) 378–3160, or via the is available for inspection and copying
Federal Communications Commission. company’s Web site, http:// during normal business hours in the
Joel D. Taubenblatt, www.bcpiweb.com. The Commission FCC Reference Information Center at
Chief, Broadband Division, Wireless
will send a copy of this Report and Portals ll, CY–A257, 445 12th Street,
Telecommunications Bureau. Order in a report to be sent to Congress SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
and the Government Accountability complete text of this decision may also
[FR Doc. E7–14872 Filed 7–31–07; 8:45 am]
Office pursuant to the Congressional be purchased from the Commission’s
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). copy contractor, Best Copying and
List of Subjects in 47 CFR part 73 Printing, Inc. 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http://
■ As stated in the preamble, the Federal www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is
Communications Commission amends not subject to the Congressional Review
73 See
47 CFR Part 73 as follows: Act. (The Commission is, therefore, not
47 CFR 27.1170 and 27.1186.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES

74 See 47 CFR 27.1162, 27.1166(a) and 27.1178. required to submit a copy of this Report
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
75 Id. and Order to GAO, pursuant to the
SERVICES
76 The Bureau found CTIA and PCIA qualified to Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
serve as clearinghouses on October 4, 2006. See ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 73 801(a)(1)(A), because the petition for
note 15, supra and accompanying text. continues to read as follows: reconsideration was dismissed.)

VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:44 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM 01AUR1

You might also like