Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 60379

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television, Digital television

broadcasting.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.622 [Amended]

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of

Digital Television Allotments under

Illinois, is amended by removing DTV

Channel *33 and adding DTV Channel

*9 at Urbana.

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–25359 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2104; MM Docket No. 00–109; RM–

9899]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Ravenwood, MO; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects a

final rule concerning Radio

Broadcasting Service; Ravenwood, MO

published in the Federal Register on

September 26, 2000, 65 FR 57745.

DATES: Effective October 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We

published a document amending part 73

in the Federal Register of September 26,

2000, 65 FR 57745 (FR Doc. 00–24647).

In that document, the Commission is

correcting § 73.202(b) to reflect a change

in the community in the Table of FM

Allotments from Ravenwood, Florida to

Ravenwood, Missouri. In rule FR Doc.

00–24647, published September 26,

2000, 65 FR 57745, make the following

corrections:

PART 73—[CORRECTED]

§ 73.202 [Corrected]

1. On page 57745, in the third

column, in amendatory instruction 2, in

the second line, correct ‘‘Florida’’ to

read ‘‘Missouri.’’

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–26013 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[PR Docket No. 93–144; FCC 00–288]

Rules To Facilitate Future

Development of SMR Systems in the

800 MHz Frequency Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; compliance deadline

requirement.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission sets forth the construction

requirements that the Commission will

impose on incumbent 800 MHz

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)

commercial licensees operating wide

area systems that include Business and

Industrial/Land Transportation (BI/LT)

channels obtained prior to 1995 through

inter-category sharing. This action is

taken in light of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Remand (Remand Order) and the

appellate court decision, Fresno Mobile

Radio, Inc. v. FCC (Fresno). We will

allow incumbent wide-area 800 MHz

SMR licensees using BI/LT channels an

analogous construction period as we

allowed eligible licensees of the

Remand Order provided that such

eligible licensees satisfy the conditions

described herein and provide the

requisite certification to the

Commission.

DATES: Effective October 11, 2000.

Incumbent wide-area licensees must file

certifications of construction within

fifteen (15) days after the licensee’s

applicable construction deadline or

December 11, 2000, whichever is later.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Gacek, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)

418–1743; for additional information

concerning the information collections

contained in this document contact Judy

Boley at (202) 418–0214, or via the

Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Memorandum Opinion & Order (MO&O)

in PR Docket No. 93–144, adopted

August 2, 2000, and released August 4,

2000, is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center, 445

Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington D.C.

The complete text may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20036 (202) 857–3800.

The document is also available via the

internet at: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/

Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00288.doc.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and

Order

I. Introduction

In this Memorandum Opinion and

Order (MO&O), we set forth the

construction requirements that the

Commission will impose on incumbent

800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio

(SMR) commercial licensees operating

wide area systems that include Business

and Industrial/Land Transportation (BI/

LT) channels obtained prior to 1995

through inter-category sharing. This

action is taken in light of the

Commission’s decision in its

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Remand (Remand Order), 14 FCC Rcd.

21679 (1999), published 65 FR 7751

(Feb. 16, 2000), which responded to the

decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia Circuit (Court)

in Fresno Mobile Radio, Inc. v. FCC

(Fresno), 165 F.3d 965 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

Incumbent wide-area licensees must file

certifications of construction within

fifteen (15) days after the licensee’s

applicable construction deadline or

December 11, 2000, whichever is later.

II. Summary of the Memorandum

Opinion and Order

A. Background

The 800 MHz band is divided into

four channel groups—SMR, General

Category, BI/LT, and Public Safety, each

with its own eligibility rules. 800 MHz

SMR channels are designated for

commercial use, while 800 MHz BI/LT

channels are designated for noncommercial internal use by the licensee.

Prior to 1995, in certain circumstances,

the Commission allowed SMR licensees

to apply for BI/LT channels under intercategory sharing rules, which the SMR

licensee could then use commercially

60380 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

despite the eligibility criteria that

otherwise reserved these channels for

private internal use. Inter-category

sharing by SMR licensees was permitted

if the BI/LT channel sought by the SMR

licensee was unoccupied and if there

were no SMR channels available in the

licensee’s service area.

On December 23, 1999, in response to

a remand of its 800 MHz SMR

Reconsideration Order, 12 FCC Rcd.

9972 (1997), published at 62 FR 41225

(July 31, 1997), by the District of

Columbia Circuit in Fresno, the

Commission released its Remand Order

determining that incumbent 800 MHz

SMR licensees who had obtained

extended implementation (‘‘EI’’)

authority to build wide-area systems

and who were within their extended

construction periods at the time of the

Fresno decision could apply

construction requirements similar to

those given to SMR Economic Area

(‘‘EA’’) licensees in the 800 MHz band.

In the Remand Order, however, we

granted relief only to wide-area

incumbents operating on SMR channels.

We did not address the construction

status of wide-area incumbents

operating on non-SMR channels

obtained through inter-category sharing,

because we concluded that this issue

was beyond the scope of the proceeding.

We indicated that we would determine

the construction requirements for widearea licensees on these channels in WT

Docket No. 99–87, the pending Balanced

Budget Act (BBA) proceeding.

Upon further reflection, the

Commission decided to determine the

construction status of BI/LT channels

used by wide-area 800 MHz SMR

licensees in this proceeding which

responds to the court’s action in Fresno,

rather than in the BBA proceeding. On

March 2, 2000, therefore, we released a

Public Notice seeking comment on

whether we should adopt construction

rules for wide-area incumbent 800 MHz

SMR licensees using BI/LT channels

that would be similar to those adopted

in the Remand Order for wide-area SMR

licensees using SMR channels. We also

requested comment on the applicable

construction requirements (e.g.,

substantial service or population-based)

for wide-area incumbent 800 MHz SMR

licenses using BI/LT channels.

In response to that Public Notice, we

received four comments and one reply

comment. All but one of the

commenters contend that wide-area 800

MHz SMR licenses using BI/LT

channels should receive the same

construction requirements established

by the Remand Order for wide-area

incumbents using SMR channels. Nextel

Communications, Inc. (Nextel) and

Southern Communications (Southern)

maintain that regulatory parity requires

giving wide-area 800 MHz SMR licenses

using BI/LT channels the same flexible

construction requirements as those

given to other CMRS providers because

they provide similar services. The

American Mobile Telecommunication

Association, Inc. (AMTA) maintains that

all channels properly licensed to a

wide-area SMR system under the

Commission’s rules are part of that

system and should be subject to the

same regulatory treatment.

B. Discussion

We conclude that wide-area

incumbent 800 MHz SMR licensees

operating on BI/LT channels are

sufficiently similar to wide-area

incumbent 800 MHz licensees operating

on SMR channels that they should have

the same flexibility with respect to

construction requirements. The record

demonstrates that some of the wide-area

SMR licensees who received EI

authorizations from the Commission are

licensed to operate both on SMR

channels and on BI/LT channels that

they obtained through inter-category

sharing for commercial use. In

Southern’s case, the vast majority of

channels in its wide-area SMR system

are BI/LT channels obtained through

inter-category sharing. The record

further demonstrates that wide-area

SMR licensees such as Southern use

inter-category BI/LT channels

interchangeably with SMR channels,

and that the BI/LT channels licensed on

this basis are used to provide service

that is similar, if not identical, to that

provided on SMR channels by 800 MHz

EA and incumbent wide-area SMR

licensees. Accordingly, we agree with

Southern, AMTA, and other supporting

commenters that wide-area 800 MHz

SMR licensees using BI/LT channels

should be subject to the same

construction requirements given to 800

MHz SMR EA licensees by our rules and

to eligible wide-area SMR licensees by

our Remand Order.

Recognizing that these licensees may

already have constructed their systems

in accordance with the requirements in

place at the time (i.e., site-by-site,

channel-by-channel), we will give

eligible wide-area 800 MHz SMR

licenses using BI/LT channels the

option of complying with the sitespecific construction requirements

associated with their EI authorizations

or applying the EA population coverage

requirements to their wide-area systems.

This option applies only to wide-area

800 MHz SMR licensees using BI/LT

channels obtained through intercategory sharing. We believe that giving

wide-area 800 MHz SMR licenses using

BI/LT channels the choice between

applying site-specific requirements or

the EA coverage requirements will

establish regulatory parity among all

similarly situated wide-area 800 MHz

SMR licensees.

We did not receive any comment on

when the five-year construction period

should begin for BI/LT channels

licensed to wide-area SMR licensees

that elect to apply the EA construction

requirements. We therefore adopt the

framework outlined in the Remand

Order, which begins the construction

period from the licensee’s EI grant date.

Therefore, an eligible wide-area SMR

licensee that elects to apply the EA

construction requirements to its BI/LT

channels must have constructed and

placed into operation a sufficient

number of base stations to provide

coverage to at least two-thirds of the

population of its wide-area system, or

must provide substantial service to the

licensed area, within five years of EI

grant plus the tolling period described.

For all licensees entitled to relief

under this decision, we will add 546

days to their construction periods,

representing the amount of time

between the Fresno decision and the

release of this order. Therefore, the

applicable construction deadline for any

eligible wide-area licensee that elects to

apply the EA coverage requirements

will be five years from the date of EI

grant plus 546 days. Likewise, the

applicable construction deadline for

eligible licensees that do not elect the

EA requirements will be 546 days after

the EI deadline established in the 800

MHz Rejustification Orders, 13 FCC

Rcd. 1533 (WTB: 1997), recon., 12 FCC

Rcd. 18349 (WTB: 1997).

A wide-area SMR licensee that is

eligible for relief under this Order must

certify in a filing with the Bureau that

it has either met the EA construction

requirements, as set out herein, or

complied with the terms of its EI

authorization. In addition to the

certification, if a licensee chooses to

meet the EA requirements for channels

in the lower 230 channels using the

substantial service option, it must

demonstrate in the same filing with the

Bureau how it is providing substantial

service. All filings must be made within

fifteen (15) days after the licensee’s

applicable construction deadline, as

defined supra, or December 11, 2000,

whichever is later.

When determining if an eligible

licensee has met a specific coverage

requirement (i.e., covering two-thirds of

the population), the population should

be measured using the licensee’s widearea ‘‘footprint’’ as established in the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 60381

1 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

2 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 3 5 U.S.C. 601(4).

licensee’s EI rejustification submission.

For this purpose, we adopt the

guidelines in the Remand Order, i.e.,

the licensee should compute the

population covered within its footprint

on a county basis using 1990 U.S.

Census information. In cases in which

the footprint does not align with county

boundaries, the licensee should include

the entire population of the county if

the licensee covers any portion of it.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons given above, any

incumbent wide-area 800 MHz SMR

licensee that uses BI/LT channels

obtained through inter-category sharing

and was still in its construction period

as of the date of the Fresno decision may

choose to apply either the existing siteby-site, channel-by-channel

construction requirements or the

alternative construction requirements

set forth in this MO&O. Eligible

licensees must certify in a filing with

the Commission their compliance with

one of the enumerated requirements

within the later of fifteen days from

their applicable construction

benchmarks, as defined herein, or

December 11, 2000.

IV. Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Analysis

Supplementary Information: This

MO&O contains a modified information

collection, which has been submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

for approval. As part of our continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we

invite the general public to take this

opportunity to comment on the

information collection contained in this

MO&O, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. Public comments should be

submitted to OMB and the Commission,

and are due November 13, 2000.

Comments should address: (a) Whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the Commission,

including whether the information shall

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of

the Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0307.

Title: Rules to Facilitate Future

Development of SMR Systems in the

800 MHz Frequency Band.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 15.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 30 hours.

Frequency of Response: Single

response.

Total Annual Estimated Costs: $6,000.

This cost includes an estimate that

100% of the respondents will hire an

outside consultant at $200 per hour to

prepare the information.

Needs and Uses: The Commission

will use this information to determine

whether wide-area SMR licensees have

complied with the Commission’s 800

MHz construction requirements for their

respective systems.

Address: In addition to filing

comments with the Secretary, a copy of

any comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the

Internet to jboley@fcc.gov; and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725–17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the

Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The order, adopted by the

Commission on August 17, 2000,

contained a Supplemental Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis that is

now being retracted. As part of this

submission we are including a Final

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

in its place. The Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA) requires that an agency

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

for notice and comment rulemakings,

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule

will not, if promulgated, have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’ 1

The RFA directs agencies to provide a

description of and, where feasible, an

estimate of the number of small entities

that may be affected by our rules.2 The

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act. A small

business concern is one which: (1) Is

independently owned and operated; (2)

is not dominant in its field of operation;

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration (SBA). A small

organization is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.’’ 3 More

specifically the Commission has used

the term ‘‘small business’’ in the

wireless auction context as an entity

that, together with its affiliates and

controlling principals, has average gross

revenues not exceeding $15 million for

the preceding three years.

We certify that this memorandum

opinion and order (MO&O) will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small business

entities for the following reasons. First,

the direct effect of this MO&O is to give

eligible wide-area 800 MHz SMR

licensees using BI/LT channels through

inter-category sharing the option of

complying with the site-specific

construction requirements originally

given with their EI authorizations or of

complying with the more liberal EA

population coverage requirements. For

any small entity that would be able to

exercise this new option as its buildout

requirement, we believe there would be

no detrimental impact or economic cost.

In actuality, there might be a positive

benefit to the licensees in this category

in that small entities might find it easier

to satisfy the buildout requirements.

Second, of the nine licensees directly

effected by this order, three belong to

extremely large corporations. Of the

remaining six, all or none could be

small business entities, our data do not

permit a more accurate estimate at this

time. However, as noted above, we

believe that they will not experience a

significant economic impact as a result

of the revisions set forth in this MO&O.

Third, any indirect effects of this

decision will be minimal. Currently,

Commission rules do not allow the

commercial use of BI/LT channels. The

directly effected parties, mentioned

above, obtained their BI/LT channels

prior to 1995. Therefore, they are

allowed to use those channels

commercially. However, since 1995

users of newly available BI/LT channels

are restricted to private mobile service

use—that is, a non-commercial, nonbusiness use. Consequently, even

though the more liberalized build-out

requirement adopted in this MO&O may

lead to fewer channels reverting to the

BI/LT channel pool because the

licensees failed to timely construct,

there will be no impact on small

business entities because any such

60382 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

4 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

5 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

reversionary channels could not be

licensed for commercial purposes.

Accordingly, we certify, pursuant to

Section 605(b) of the RFA, that any

effects flowing from this MO&O will not

have a significant economic impact

upon a substantial number of small

entities, as that term is defined in the

RFA. The Commission will send a copy

of this MO&O, including a copy of this

certification, in a report to Congress

pursuant to SBREFA.4 In addition, the

MO&O and this certification will be sent

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration, and

will be published in the Federal

Register.5

V. Ordering Clauses

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority of section 4(i) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), incumbent

wide-area 800 MHz SMR licensees

eligible for relief as described herein

must comply with the terms of their

extended implementation

authorizations or apply the alternative

construction requirements described

herein.

Incumbent wide-area 800 MHz SMR

licensees eligible for relief as described

herein must certify in a filing with the

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

their compliance with the construction

requirements as described herein within

the later of fifteen days after the

licensee’s applicable construction

deadline or December 11, 2000.

The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, the Reference

Information Center, SHALL SEND a

copy of this MO&O, including the Final

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–25387 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 101

[ET Docket No. 95–18; FCC 00–233]

Allocation of Spectrum at 2 GHz for

Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service;

Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: On August 7, 2000 (65 FR

48174), the Commission published final

rules in the Second Report and Order

and Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order, which revised the rules

governing the 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite

Service. In that document a new CFR

section added in the Fixed Microwave

Service inadvertently carried the same

CFR section number used subsequently

in a final rule published September 7,

2000. This correction renumbers the

section published on August 7, 2000.

DATES: Effective September 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean White, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2453.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

7, 2000 (65 FR 48174), a new § 101.83

entitled ‘‘Reimbursement of relocation

expenses in the 2115–2150 MHz and

2165–2200 MHz bands’’ was added.

However, § 101.83 entitled

‘‘Modification of station license’’ was

added on September 7, 2000 (65 FR

54155). This correction renumbers the

section added on August 7, 2000 as

§ 101.99.

Accordingly, in FR Doc. 00–19478

published on August 7, 2000 (65 FR

48174), make the following corrections:

PART 101—[CORRECTED]

1. On page 48183, in the first column,

in amendatory instruction 16, correct

‘‘§ 101.83’’ to read ‘‘§ 101.99’’.

2. On page 48183, in the first column,

correctly designate ‘‘§ 101.83’’ as

‘‘§ 101.99’’.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–26012 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Parts 172, 173, 177

[Docket No. RSPA–00–7755 (HM–189Q)]

RIN 2137–AD47

Hazardous Materials Regulations:

Editorial Corrections and

Clarifications; Corrections

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; corrections.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to a final rule (RSPA–00–

7755 (HM–189Q)), which was published

in the Federal Register on Friday,

September 29, 2000. That final rule

amended the Hazardous Materials

Regulations (HMR) to correct editorial

errors, make minor regulatory changes

and, in response to requests for

clarification, improve the clarity of

certain provisions in the HMR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles E. Betts, Office of Hazardous

Materials Standards, (202) 366–8553,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 29, 2000, RSPA

published a final rule under Docket

HM–189Q (65 FR 58614) to correct

editorial errors, make minor regulatory

changes and, in response to requests for

clarification, improve the clarity of

certain provisions in the HMR. This

amendment makes minor changes to

correct wording omissions and

typographical errors to the September

29 final rule, which was effective

October 1, 2000.

Because the amendments do not

impose new requirements, notice and

public comment are unnecessary.

Correction

In rule document 00–24633,

beginning on page 58614, in the issue of

Friday, September 29, 2000, make the

following corrections:

PART 172—[CORRECTED]

§ 172.101 [Corrected]

1. On page 58620, in column 3, in

§ 172.101, in paragraph (g), in line two,

correct the wording ‘‘§ 173.248’’ to read

‘‘§ 173.428’’.

2. On page 58624, in § 172.101, in the

table, for the entry ‘‘Organic peroxide

type A, liquid or solid.’’ add the word

‘‘Forbidden’’ to column 3.

3. On the same page, in § 172.101, in

the table, for the entry

‘‘Phenylenediamines (o-, m-, p-)’’ add a

‘‘+’’ in column 1.

§ 172.403 [Corrected]

4. On page 58626, in column 3, in

§ 172.403, in paragraph (a), in line 2,

remove the two asterisks ‘‘**’’

immediately following the two section

symbols.

5. On the same page, in column 3, in

§ 172.403, in paragraph (g)(2), in the last

line, correct the wording ‘‘(uCi))’’ to

read ‘‘(uCi)’’.