FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012 Page: 1,904
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
60. The Commission's orders in this docket assign Port Authority the burden of proving that the
funding it has requested is reasonable, prudent, and the "minimum necessary to provide facilities
comparable to those presently in use" (Minimum Necessary Cost Standard)."6 The Commission
subsequently clarified that the term "minimum necessary cost" does not mean the absolute lowest cost
under any circumstances, but the "minimum cost necessary to accomplish rebanding in a reasonable,
prudent, and timely manner."'h" The Minimum Necessary Cost Standard thus takes into account not only
cost, but all of the objectives of the proceeding, including completing the rebanding process in a timely
and efficient manner and a seamless transition that preserves public safety's ability to operate during the
61. In addition to the Minimum Necessary Cost Standard, our review of the Parties' positions is
informed by the TA Metrics, which are derived from the rebanding costs of licensees that have reached
FRAs with Sprint. At this stage in the rebanding program. the TA Metrics are accorded substantial,
although not dispositive, weight in the assessment of rebanding cost proposals.'68 The TA Metrics
provide a useful measure of cost reasonableness, because they are based on increasingly large amounts of
historical information regarding the cost of rebanding public safety systems. The further a licensee's
costs exceed the TA Metrics, the less likely they are to be deemed reasonable, and the higher the burden
on the licensee to justify its costs with record evidence.69 Here, the Parties agreed to a total rebanding
cost of $2,265,031.75 in their FRA, which at the close of mediation placed Port Authority's
reconfiguration in the 92" percentile of similarly sized systems. Through its Change Notice, Port
Authority seeks an additional $955,865.43, which would bring the total rebanding cost to $3,220,897.18,
placing Port Authority's rebanding in the 99'h percentile. Such a large deviation warrants careful scrutiny
of these disputed costs.70
B. Minimum Necessary Cost
62. Port Authority agrees with Sprint that incumbent licensees may seek reimbursement only of
the minimum necessary costs for comparable facilities"'7 and that only unforeseeable costs may be
recovered through the Change Notice process.'7- However, Port Authority claims that the need to "'split"
its EDACS system was unforeseeable because, after the FRA was executed, the "Port Authority Public
Safety Division ('PAPD') required that the EDACS system be split in order to provide 'comparable
facilities' in that the operational half of the split system would function continuously with the support of a
temporary backup system while the disabled half was being rebanded."'7 Port Authority claims that "this
165 Id; 800 MtHz Supplemental Order, 19 FCC Red at 25152 71.
" Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket 02-55, Memorandum Opinion and
Order. 22 FCC Rcd 9818, 9820 6 (2007) (Rebanding Cost Clarification Order).
'"7 Id. at 9820 !16, 8.
168 See County of Charles. Maryland. WT Docket No. 02-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 12749,
12751 5 (PSHSB 2009) (Charles County MO&O).
',9 .See id, 24 FCC Red at 12751 T5.
?70 City of Manassas. Virginia. WI Docket 02-55, Memorandum Opinion and Order. 22 FCC Red 8526. 8527-28
'"' Port Authority Reply at 7 citing Dallas Fort Worth International Airport Board. WT Docket 02-55. Memorandum
Opinion and Order. 26 FCC Red 1116. 1117 (PSHSB 2011).
172 Port Authority Reply at 6-8.
17 Id. at 8. Port Authority observes that "'lt]his process was then repeated for the initially functioning. non-rebanded
half of the EDACS system while the now rebanded portion was placed in service with the support of the temporary
backup system." Id
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012, book, March 2012; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc94252/m1/45/: accessed March 30, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.