Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 19509

1See In re Redevelopment of Spectrum to

Encourage Innovation in the Use of New

Telecommunications Technologies (Emerging

Technologies), ET Docket 92–9, 57 FR 5993,

February 19, 1992; First Report and Order and

Second NPRM of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 92–

437, 7 FCC Rcd. 6886 (1992), 57 FR 49020, October

29, 1992; Second Report and Order, FCC 93–350,

8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993), 58 FR 49220, September 22,

1993; Third Report and Order and Memorandum

Opinion and Order, FCC 93–351, 8 FCC Rcd 6589

(1993), 58 FR 46547, September 2, 1993;

Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 94–60, 9

FCC Rcd 1943 (1994), 59 FR 19642, April 25, 1994;

Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 94–

303, 9 FCC Rcd. 7797 (1994), 59 FR 65501,

December 20, 1994.

2 In re Amendment of Section 2.106 of the

Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz

for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket

No. 95–18, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC

Rcd 3230, 3233 (1995), 60 FR 11644, March 2, 1995.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Issued: April 14, 1997.

Richard W. Krimm,

Executive Associate Director, Mitigation

Directorate.

[FR Doc. 97–10266 Filed 4–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–05–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 2

[ET Docket No. 95–18; FCC 97–93]

2 GHz for Use by the Mobile Satellite

Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By this action, the

Commission allocates 70 megahertz of

spectrum at 1990–2025 MHz and 2165–

2200 MHz to the Mobile-Satellite

Service (MSS), to become available

January 1, 2000. In order to make this

spectrum available for MSS use, we are

modifying the current Broadcast

Auxiliary Service (BAS), Cable

Television Relay Service (CARS), and

Local Television Transmission Service

(LTTS) allocation at 1990–2110 MHz by

providing an allocation instead at 2025–

2130 MHz and proposing to

rechannelize these latter services at 2

GHz, from seven channels of 17- and 18-

megahertz bandwidths to seven

channels of 15-megahertz bandwidth.

This allocation will allow the United

States to participate in global MSS

systems and realize the benefits to

consumers of such systems. The 70

megahertz will also provide sufficient

bandwidth for the operation of multiple

service providers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean White, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2453.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s First

Report and Order, ET Docket 95–18,

FCC 97–93, adopted March 13, 1997,

and released March 14, 1997. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and

also may be purchased from the

Commission’s duplication contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Summary of the First Report and Order

1. In the Report and Order, the

Commission allocates 70 megahertz of

spectrum at 1990–2025 MHz and 2165–

2200 MHz to the Mobile-Satellite

Service (MSS), effective January 1, 2000.

In order to make this spectrum available

for MSS use, we are modifying the

current Broadcast Auxiliary Service

(BAS), Cable Television Relay Service

(CARS), and Local Television

Transmission Service (LTTS) allocation

at 1990–2110 MHz by providing an

allocation instead at 2025–2130 MHz

and proposing to rechannelize these

latter services at 2 GHz, from seven

channels of 17- and 18-megahertz

bandwidths to seven channels of 15-

megahertz bandwidth. We are proposing

reaccommodation of existing BAS and

Fixed Service (FS) operations in the

1990–2025 MHz, 2110–2130 MHz, and

2165–2200 MHz bands in accordance

with the policies we established in our

Emerging Technologies proceeding.1 We

defer action on technical parameters

and licensing issues for MSS in the 2

GHz band. Finally, we dispose of a

related pioneer’s preference request

filed by Celsat America, Inc. (Celsat).

A. Spectrum Allocation

2. We find that it is in the public

interest to allocate spectrum at 2 GHz to

MSS. We note that the

Radiocommunication Sector of the ITU

estimates that up to 206 megahertz of

additional spectrum will be needed for

MSS by the year 2005. We believe that

MSS would also provide another option

for mobile communications, and would

provide communications to underserved

areas, such as rural and remote areas

where PCS, cellular, and other mobile

services are less feasible. There is

clearly substantial interest in providing

MSS communications in the 2 GHz

band, as demonstrated by the ten

commenters who indicated they plan to

provide mobile satellite service in the 2

GHz band.

3. We further find that it is in the

public interest to allocate the full 70

megahertz at 1990–2025 MHz (uplink)

and 2165–2200 MHz (downlink) to MSS

as proposed, rather than a lesser

amount. Because of the projected need

for more MSS spectrum internationally,

WRC–95 reallocated the 2010–2025

MHz portion to MSS in Region 2,

effective January 1, 2005. As we stated

in the NPRM 2, we believe that any 2

GHz MSS allocation should be as

consistent as possible with the WARC–

92 and WRC–95 allocations. This will

help ensure truly universal service. In

making our domestic allocation,

therefore, we are supporting

international plans for MSS in the 2

GHz band. We believe that this

allocation will allow the United States

to participate in global MSS systems

and realize the benefits to consumers of

such systems. A 70 megahertz will also

provide sufficient bandwidth for the

operation of multiple service providers.

4. Much of the spectrum for the

proposed reallocation was identified as

appropriate spectrum for reallocation to

emerging technologies, such as MSS, in

our Emerging Technologies proceeding.

Some parties complain of scarcity of

replacement spectrum in the 6 and 11

GHz bands for 2 GHz incumbents. In our

Emerging Technologies proceeding,

however, we reallocated the 1850–1990,

2110–2150, and 2160–2200 MHz bands

from FS to emerging technologies, a

total of 220 megahertz. We made a total

of 2,480 megahertz of spectrum

available for relocated FS licensees in

the 4, 6, 10, and 11 GHz bands. Even

though some of the higher-frequency

spectrum is shared with other services,

we believe that there is enough

spectrum in those bands to

accommodate relocation of the

incumbents of 220 megahertz of

spectrum, including the existing 2110–

2130 MHz and 2165–2200 MHz FS

licensees.

B. Relocation of Existing 1990–2025

MHz Band Services

5. The 1990–2025 MHz band is part

of the 1990–2110 MHz band that is

currently allocated to BAS, CARS, and

LTTS. For this proceeding, we will

collectively term these services BAS,

and any changes in our regulatory

structure applicable to BAS will be

equally applicable to CARS and LTTS.

We will treat CARS and LTTS in the

same manner as BAS because both

CARS and LTTS are authorized users of

the 1990–2025 MHz band, and have

invested in equipment to use the band,

as has BAS. In the NPRM, we observed
19510 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

that sharing between MSS and BAS is

not feasible. We therefore proposed to

add 35 megahertz of spectrum to the

upper end of the BAS band at 2110–

2145 MHz and to relocate BAS

incumbents currently occupying 1990–

2025 MHz to 2110–2145 MHz. This

proposal would provide BAS with the

same amount of spectrum it currently

has. As possible alternatives, we

inquired into the feasibility of requiring

BAS incumbents to adopt more

spectrally efficient technology to

operate in the remaining 85 megahertz

at 2025–2110 MHz, or into the

feasibility of moving all BAS operations

to a higher frequency band. We further

proposed requiring MSS providers to

bear the cost of relocating the BAS

incumbents.

6. Based on the record, we conclude

that it is necessary to relocate BAS in

order to accommodate MSS in the 1990–

2025 MHz band. As we indicated in the

NPRM, and the commenting parties

agree, BAS and MSS cannot share the

spectrum without unacceptable mutual

interference. Therefore, to reallocate the

1990–2025 MHz band to MSS, it will be

necessary to clear this band of BAS.

7. We reject Motorola’s suggestion

that we remove BAS from the 2 GHz

band entirely. We agree with

commenters who point out that the 2

GHz band has ideal propagation

characteristics for mobile services

including BAS, which must transmit

along unengineered paths from

unpredictable locations.

8. BAS currently operates with 17-and

18-megahertz wide channels. Comments

from both MSS interests and

broadcasting interests lead us to believe

that BAS may not need channels this

wide, especially in light of the fact that

advances in radio technology since the

current channelization of BAS was

established could make it possible for

BAS to transmit contribution-quality

signals in somewhat narrower channels.

On the other hand, we do not agree with

the position of the MSS community that

we should reduce BAS to 12-and 13-

megahertz channels and mandate a

switch to digital transmission. We

believe that a reduction of five

megahertz per channel is too severe to

permit FM analog contribution-quality

BAS signals, and we do not believe that

this is the appropriate proceeding to

determine whether or when BAS should

convert to digital format in conjunction

with the development of digital

television. Some representatives of both

industries, however, agree that BAS may

be able to operate with 15-megahertz

channels. We conclude that the best

solution for BAS relocation is to reduce

the BAS band at 2 GHz from 120 to 105

megahertz, and relocate the band from

1990–2110 MHz to 2025–2130 MHz.

This would allow the resultant BAS

band to be divided into seven channels

of 15 megahertz each, thus retaining the

current capacity of the BAS band. This

solution is more spectrum-efficient than

our primary proposal in the NPRM of

simply relocating the 120-megahertz

BAS band upward by 35 megahertz, and

also more feasible than our alternate

proposal of reducing the BAS band to 85

megahertz. Further, this solution will

require the relocation of FS users from

only 20 megahertz at 2110–2130 MHz,

rather than 35 megahertz at 2110–2145

MHz, as in our primary proposal.

However, we merely note here that a

BAS band of 105 megahertz will allow

seven BAS channels. Rather than

mandating channels in the new band,

we explore possible alternate

channelizations in the Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (Further NPRM),

released March 14, 1997.

9. Relocating BAS will require

retuning of BAS equipment, and in

many if not most cases replacing

equipment or retrofitting equipment to

allow improved intermediate frequency

bandpass and adjacent-channel

rejection, as pointed out by SBE.

Because the new BAS band is in the

same region of the spectrum as the

current BAS band, we anticipate that no

new facilities will need to be

constructed. We do not foresee that

there will be any need physically to

relocate or rebuild any facilities. We are

confident that the reaccommodation of

BAS operations can be accomplished by

simply replacing or retrofitting current

equipment. The cost of all steps

necessary for clearing the 1990–2025

MHz band for MSS operations will be

borne by MSS operators. The Further

NPRM proposes rules and policies for

clearing the 1990–2025 MHz band for

MSS.

C. Relocation of Existing 2165–2200

MHz Band Services

10. The 2165–2200 MHz band is

currently allocated to private and

commercial FS, but has been reserved

for emerging technologies, such as MSS.

In the NPRM, we stated that five higher

bands have already been allocated

during our Emerging Technologies

proceeding for reaccommodation of the

FS incumbents. We inquired whether

sharing between MSS and FS would be

feasible, and whether FS incumbents

should be relocated. Finally, we

proposed to require that MSS pay the

costs of relocating FS incumbents,

where necessary. The majority of

commenters advocate applying the

Emerging Technologies rules adopted in

ET Docket 92–9.

11. We will provide for MSS sharing

with, and any necessary relocation of,

FS incumbents in accordance with the

policies set forth in our Emerging

Technologies proceeding. It is our

policy to encourage spectrum sharing

between emerging technologies services

and incumbent 2 GHz FS operations

whenever technically feasible. Our rules

do not require relocation of incumbents

unless and until the incumbents will

receive harmful interference from, or

cause harmful interference to, a new

technology service. COMSAT and LQP

have provided studies indicating that

sharing is possible on at least a shortterm basis. At the same time, Motorola

and some FS service representatives

have criticized these studies, claiming

that they fail to account for important

factors. MSS and FS industry groups are

currently working under the auspices of

TIA to resolve differences over sharing

models and adopt a set of mutually

agreed sharing criteria. We encourage

these efforts, and will consider the

product of these efforts for inclusion in

our rules as the standard for evaluating

the likelihood of unacceptable MSS/FS

interference. MSS cannot begin

operations until its spectrum is cleared

of all FS licensees who would receive

harmful interference from MSS, but

MSS will not be required to relocate any

FS incumbent with whom it can

successfully share spectrum. If a

specific FS operation does not receive

unacceptable levels of interference until

several years after the beginning of MSS

operations, MSS will not be required to

relocate the FS licensee until that

interference occurs. Where sharing

proves infeasible, however, we will

allow the MSS operator to relocate the

incumbent FS operation to bands above

5 GHz. We will address the precise

mechanism for relocation in the Further

NPRM.

D. Technical Parameters for MSS

Systems

12. We are deferring consideration of

these technical issues until after we

have accepted applications for system

licenses in these bands. We are not

persuaded by arguments for or against

restricting use of the spectrum

exclusively to either GSO or LEO

systems. Either system can provide

global coverage, and while a GSO

system offers many advantages for

domestic-only systems, we do not wish

to rule out innovative designs before

they are submitted. Further, as Motorola

pointed out, in our proceeding to

license Big LEO systems, we concluded

that there was no support for a finding
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 19511

3 In re Amendment of Section 2.106 of the

Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz

for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket

No. 95–18, NPRM of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC

Rcd 3230, 3233 (1995), 60 FR 11644, March 2, 1995.

4Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)

(Subtitle II of the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996; 5 U.S.C. § 601 et

seq).

5See MSTV Comments at 17; CBT Comments at

7.

6See API Comments at 12–14; AAR Comments at

2–5; APCO Comments at 2–3; BellSouth Comments

at 3–4; UTC Comments at 1–2.

7See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

8 15 U.S.C. § 632.

that CDMA is inherently superior to

TDMA as an access method. We believe

that the market will be the best judge of

the relative desirability of different

access methods. We also believe that we

will be in a better position to determine

whether and what power limits we

should adopt and to evaluate Celsat’s

proposal for a hybrid PCS/MSS system

after we have received license

applications and supporting

documentation. Finally, we will address

feeder link spectrum in proceedings

addressing those bands.

E. Licensing by Competitive Bidding

13. We will defer the decision on

whether to license MSS in these bands

by competitive bidding until after we

have accepted applications for

licensing. As many commenters point

out, we will not know if there is mutual

exclusivity until we receive license

applications. At that point, we will

decide whether engineering solutions or

other methods may solve mutual

exclusivity, and if not, precisely how we

will structure auctions.

F. Disposition of Celsat’s Pioneer’s

Preference Request

14. Our pioneer’s preference rules

were established to provide a means of

extending preferential treatment in our

licensing processes to parties that

demonstrate their responsibility for

developing new communications

services and technologies. A party

awarded a pioneer’s preference receives

the right to obtain a license to operate

in the service that it has innovated,

using the design and technologies upon

which its award is based. The pioneer’s

preference rules ensure that innovators

have an opportunity to participate either

in new services which they take a lead

in developing or in existing services

which they substantially enhance. A

pioneer’s preference applicant must

persuade us that its proposal is

innovative, has merit, and that it is the

original developer of the innovation at

issue.

15. Under the pioneer’s preference

rules, a necessary condition for the

award of a preference is that the

applicant demonstrate that it has

developed the capabilities or

possibilities of a new technology or

service, or demonstrate that it has

brought the technology or service to a

more advanced or effective state. A

preference is granted only if the service

rules adopted are a reasonable

outgrowth of the applicant’s proposal

and lend themselves to the grant of a

preference. The applicant must also

demonstrate that the new technology or

service is technically feasible by

submitting either the summarized

results of an experiment or a technical

showing. Finally, preferences are not

granted casually. Rather, each applicant

has a significant burden to persuade us

that its proposal is innovative.

16. We deferred action on Celsat’s

pioneer’s preference request until final

action had been taken in the pioneer’s

preference review proceeding, ET

Docket No. 93–266. Action has now

been completed in that proceeding;

accordingly, we herein take action on

Celsat’s pioneer’s preference request.

We find that Celsat’s pioneer’s

preference request fails to meet the

pioneer’s preference criteria. We find

Celsat’s proposal insufficiently

innovative to warrant a pioneer’s

preference, and we find that Celsat has

not demonstrated the technical

feasibility of its proposal.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

17. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5

U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was

incorporated into the Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in ET

Docket No. 95–18.3 The Commission

sought written public comment on the

proposals in the NPRM, including the

IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA,

as amended by the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996.4

A. Need for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rule

18. In this Report and Order the

Commission allocates 70 megahertz of

spectrum for use by the Mobile-Satellite

Service (MSS). The proposals adopted

herein comport with international

actions at the 1995 World

Radiocommunications Conference and

provide needed spectrum for mobile

satellite communications.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised

by the Public Comments in Response to

the IRFA

19. No comments were submitted in

direct response to the IRFA. The

Association for Maximum Service

Television, et al (MSTV) and Creative

Broadcast Techniques, Inc. and the New

Vision Group, Inc. (CBT) assert that

licensees in the Broadcast Auxiliary

Service (BAS) and the Local

Transmission Television Service

(LTTS), many of whom may be small

entities, must be compensated for the

costs of relocation, if they are required

to relocate from spectrum being

reallocated to MSS.5 Similarly, The

American Petroleum Institute (API), the

Association of American Railroads

(AAR), BellSouth Corporation

(BellSouth), and UTC insist that Fixed

Service (FS) licensees, many of whom

may be small entities, must be

compensated for the costs of relocation,

if they are required to relocate from

spectrum being reallocated to MSS.6

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities Subject to

Which the Rules Will Apply

20. For the purposes of this Report

and Order, the RFA defines a small

business as identical to a small business

concern under the Small Business Act,

15 U.S.C. 632, unless the Commission

has developed one or more definitions

that are appropriate to its activities.7

Under the Small Business Act, a small

business concern is one that: (1) Is

independently owned and operated; (2)

is not dominant in its field of operation;

and (3) meets any additional criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration (SBA).8 The rules

adopted in this Report and Order will

apply to BAS, LTTS, Cable Television

Relay Service (CARS), and FS licensees,

and satellite communications

companies.

(a) BAS, LTTS, and Cable Television

Relay Service (CARS) Licensees

This service involves a variety of

transmitters, generally used to relay

broadcast programming to the public

(through translator and booster stations)

or within the program distribution chain

(from a remote news gathering unit back

to the station). It also includes

Instructional Television Fixed Service

stations, which are used to relay

programming to the home or office,

similar to that provided by the cable

television systems. The Commission has

not developed a definition of small

entities applicable to Broadcast

Auxiliary Service, Local Television

Transmission Service or Cable

Television Relay Service. Therefore, the

applicable definition of small entity is

the definition under the Small Business

Administration (SBA) rules applicable

to radiotelephone companies. SBA has
19512 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

9 13 CFR 121.201 Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Code 4812.

10 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Code 4899.

11U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications, and Utilities, UC92–S–1, Subject

Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 2D,

Employment Size of Firms: 1992, SIC Code 4899

(issued May 1995).

12See ‘‘Financing the Final Frontier: Funding

Commercial Space Activities’’ Bear Stearns, Global

Space & Satellite Finance Report.

13See GN Docket 96–113.

defined a small business for Standard

Industrial Classification (SIC) category

4812 (Radiotelephone Communications)

to be small entities when they have

fewer than 1500 employees.9

(b) Fixed Service Licensees

This Report and Order pertains to

fixed service microwave licensees. The

Commission has not developed a

definition of small entities applicable to

Fixed Service microwave licensees.

Therefore, the applicable definition of

small entity is the definition under the

Small Business Administration (SBA)

rules applicable to radiotelephone

companies. This definition provides

that a small entity is a radiotelephone

company employing fewer than 1,500

persons. Census Bureau data indicates

that there are 1,164 radiotelephone

companies with fewer than 1500

employees, that might qualify as small

entities if they are independently owned

and operated. Since the Regulatory

Flexibility Act amendments were not in

effect until the record in this proceeding

was closed, the Commission was unable

to request information regarding the

number of small businesses that would

be affected by this action.

(c) Satellite Communications Services

The Commission has not developed a

definition of small entities applicable to

satellite communications licensees.

Therefore, the applicable definition of

small entity is the definition under the

Small Business Administration (SBA)

rules applicable to Communications

Services ‘‘Not Elsewhere Classified.’’

This definition provides that a small

entity is one with $11.0 million or less

in annual receipts.10 According to

Census Bureau data, there are 848 firms

that fall under the category of

Communications Services, Not

Elsewhere Classified. Of those,

approximately 775 reported annual

receipts of $11 million or less and

qualify as small entities.11

21. Describing and estimating the

number of small entities these rules will

impact is made difficult by a number of

factors. First of all, information from the

Satellite Industry Association and

financial analysts who specialize in this

market indicate that there are few firms

that could be traditionally thought of as

small businesses. They point to to the

fact that this is a capital intensive

industry that requires ‘‘significant

partner funding and/or contract

commitments prior to approaching

commercial financing sources.’’ 12

22. There are however, a number of

firms who identify themselves as small

entities including: Columbia Corp.,

CTA, Mobile Communications

Holdings, Inc. (MCHI), Orion, TelQuest

Ventures, L.L.C., and possibly others.

Several of these companies have

submitted comments to the

Commission’s Section 257 proceeding to

identify and eliminate market entry

barriers for small businesses.13

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirement

23. The rules adopted in this Report

and Order do not specify details of the

process by which BAS, LTTS, CARS,

and FS licensees will be relocated.

Therefore, the rules impose no

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance requirements.

E. Significant Alternatives and Steps

Taken to Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on a Substantial

Number of Small Entities Consistent

With Stated Objectives

24. MSS licensees in the 2 GHz band

will be required to bear the cost of

relocating and rechannelizing BAS,

LTTS, and CARS licensees in the 2 GHz

band. Any MSS licensee in the 2 GHz

band will be required to bear the cost of

relocating any FS licensee with which it

cannot share spectrum or which must be

relocated to clear spectrum for BAS. The

Commission considered the alternative

of requiring BAS, LTTS, CARS, and FS

licensees to bear the cost of relocating

themselves, but rejected this alternative

as unfairly burdensome on BAS, LTTS,

CARS, and FS licensees.

F. Report to Congress

25. The Commission will send a copy

of this FRFA, along with this Report and

Order, in a report to Congress pursuant

to the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA

is published in this document.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 2

Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rules Changes

Part 2 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 2

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 4, 302, 303, and 307 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307,

unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 2.106, the Table of

Frequency Allocations, is amended as

follows:

a. Remove the existing entries for

1980–2200 MHz.

b. Add entries in numerical order for

1980–2200 MHz.

c. In the International Footnotes

under heading I, add in numerical order

footnotes S5.388, S5.389A, S5.389B,

S5.389C, S5.389D, S5.389E, S5.389F,

S5.391, S5.392, and S5.392A.

d. In the International Footnotes

under heading II, remove footnotes

747A and 750A.

e. Revise non-Government footnotes

NG118 and NG153.

The revisions and additions read as

follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 19513

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.

International table United States table FCC use designators

Region 1—

allocation MHz

Region 2—

allocation MHz

Region 3—

allocation MHz

Government Non-Government

Rule part(s) Special-use

frequencies Allocation MHz Allocation MHz

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

* * * * * * *

1980–1990 1980–1990 1980–1990 1980–1990 1980–1990

FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED MICROWAVE (101)

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE

MOBILE–SATELLITE (Earthto-space)MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earthto-space)MOBILE–SATELLITE (Earthto-space)PERSONAL

COMMUNICATIONS (24)

S5.388 S5.389A

S5.389F

S5.388 S5.389A

S5.389B

S5.388 S5.389A

1990–2010 1990–2010 1990–2010 1990–2010 1990–2010

FIXED FIXED FIXED MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earthto-space)AUXILIARY

BROADCASTING (74)

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE CABLE TELEVISION (78)

MOBILE–SATELLITE (Earthto-space)MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earthto-space)MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earthto-space)SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

(25)

S5.388 S5.389A

S5.389F

S5.388 S5.389A S5.388 S5.389A US111 US111

2010–2025 2010–2025 2010–2025 2010–2025 2010–2025 AUXILLIARY

BROADCASTING (74)

FIXED FIXED FIXED CABLE TELEVISION (78)

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE MOBILESATELITTE

(Earth-to-space)

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

(25)

MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earthto-space)SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

(25)

S5.388 S5.388 S5.389C

S5.389D

S5.389E

S5.388 US111 US111

2025–2110 2025–2110 2025–2110 2025–2110 2025–2110

SPACE OPERATION (Earth-tospace) (spaceto-space)SPACE OPERATION (Earthto-space)

(space-tospace)

SPACE OPERATION (Earthto-space)

(space-tospace)

FIXED AUXILIARY

BROADCASTING (74)

EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (Earthto-space)

(space-to-space)

EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (Earthto-space)

(space-tospace)

EARTH

EXPORATIONSATELLITE

(Earth-to-space)

(space-to

space)

MOBILE CABLE TELEVISION (78)

FIXED FIXED FIXED

MOBILE S5.391 MOBILE S5.391 MOBILE S5.391

SPACE RESEARCH (Earthto-space)

(space-to-space)

SPACE RESEARCH

(Earth-to-space)

(space to

space)

SPACE RESEARCH

(Earth-to-space)

(space-tospace)

S5.392 S5.392 S5.392 US90 US111

US219 US222

US90 US111

US219 US222

NG23 NG118

2110–2120 2110–2120 2110–2120 2110–2120 2110–2120

FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED AUXILIARY

BROADCASTING (74)
19514 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

International table United States table FCC use designators

Region 1—

allocation MHz

Region 2—

allocation MHz

Region 3—

allocation MHz

Government Non-Government

Rule part(s) Special-use

frequencies Allocation MHz Allocation MHz

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE CABLE TELEVISION (78)

SPACE RESEARCH (deep

space) (Earth-tospace)

SPACE RESEARCH (deep

space) (Earthto-space)

SPACE RESEARCH (deep

space) (Earthto-space)

FIXED MICROWAVE (101)

PUBLIC MOBILE

(22)

S5.388 S5.388 S5.388 US111 US252 US111 US252

NG23 NG118

2120–2130 2120–2130 2120–2130 2120–2130 2120–2130

FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED AUXILIARY

BROADCASTING (74)

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE CABLE TELEVISION (78)

Moible-Satellite

(space-to-Earth)

FIXED MIRCOWAVE (101)

PUBLIC MOBILE

(22)

S5.388 S5.388 S5.388 NG23 NG118

2130–2150 2130–2150 2130–2150 2130–2150 2130–2150

FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED MICROWAVE (101)EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE PUBLIC MOBILE

(22)

Mobile-Satellite

(space-to-Earth)

S5.388 S5.38 S5.388 NG23 NG153

2150–2160 2150–2160 2150–2160 2150–2160 2150–2160

FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED DOMESTIC PUBLIC FIXED (21)

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE FIXED MICROWAVE (101)

Mobile-Satellite

(space-to-Earth)

S5.388 S5.388 S5.388 NG23

2160–2165 2160–2165 2160–2165 2160–2165 2160–2165

FIXED FIXED FIXED FIXED DOMESTIC PUBLIC FIXED (21)EMERGING

TECHNOLOGIES

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE FIXED MICROWAVE (101)

MOBILE-SATELLITE (spaceto-Earth)PUBLIC MOBILE

(22)

S5.388 S5.392A S5.388 S5.389C

S5.389D

S5.389E

S5.388 NG23 NG153

2165–2170 2165–2170 2165–2170 2165–2170 2165–2170

FIXED FIXED FIXED MOBILE-SATELLITE (spaceto-Earth)FIXED MICROWAVE (101)

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE PUBLIC MOBILE

(22)

MOBILE-SATELLITE (spaceto-Earth)SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

(25)

S5.388 S5.392A S5.388 S5.389C

S5.389D

S5.389E

S5.388 NG23
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 77 / Tuesday, April 22, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 19515

International table United States table FCC use designators

Region 1—

allocation MHz

Region 2—

allocation MHz

Region 3—

allocation MHz

Government Non-Government

Rule part(s) Special-use

frequencies Allocation MHz Allocation MHz

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

2170–2200 2170–2200 2170–2200 2170–2200 2170–2200

FIXED FIXED FIXED MOBILE-SATELLITE (spaceto-Earth)FIXED MIRCOWAVE (101)

MOBILE MOBILE MOBILE PUBLIC MOBILE

(22)

MOBILE-SATELLITE (spaceto Earth)MOBILE-SATELLITE (spaceto Earth)MOBILE-SATELLITE (spaceto Earth)SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

(25)

S5.388 S5.389A

S5.389F

S5.392A

S5.388 S5.389A S5.388 S5.389A NG23

* * * * * * *

International Footnotes

* * * * *

I. New ‘‘S’’ Numbering Scheme

* * * * *

S5.388 The bands 1885–2025 MHz and

2110–2200 MHz are intended for use, on a

worldwide basis, by administrations wishing

to implement the future public land mobile

telecommunication systems (FPLMTS). Such

use does not preclude the use of these bands

by other services to which these bands are

allocated. The bands should be made

available for FPLMTS in accordance with

Resolution 212 (Rev.WRC–95).

S5.389A The use of the bands 1980–2010

MHz and 2170–2200 MHz by the mobilesatellite service is subject to coordination

under Resolution 46 (Rev.WRC–95)/No.

S9.11A and to the provisions of Resolution

716 (WRC–95). The use of these bands shall

not commence before 1 January 2000;

however the use of the band 1980–1990 MHz

in Region 2 shall not commence before 1

January 2005.

S5.389B The use of the band 1980–1990

MHz by the mobile-satellite service shall not

cause harmful interference to or constrain the

development of the fixed and mobile services

in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador,

the United States, Honduras, Jamaica,

Mexico, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and

Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.

S5.389C The use of the bands 2010–2025

MHz and 2160–2170 MHz in Region 2 by the

mobile-satellite service shall not commence

before 1 January 2005 and is subject to

coordination under Resolution 46 (Rev.WRC–

95)/No. S9.11A and to the provisions of

Resolution 716 (WRC–95).

S5.389D In Canada and the United States

the use of the bands 2010–2025 MHz and

2160–2170 MHz by the mobile-satellite

service shall not commence before 1 January

2000.

S5.389E The use of the bands 2010–2025

MHz and 2160–2170 MHz by the mobilesatellite service in Region 2 shall not cause

harmful interference to or constrain the

development of the fixed and mobile services

in Regions 1 and 3.

S5.389F In Algeria, Benin, Cape Verde,

Egypt, Mali, Syria and Tunisia, the use of the

bands 1980–2010 MHz and 2170–2200 MHz

by the mobile-satellite service shall neither

cause harmful interference to the fixed and

mobile services, nor hamper the development

of those services prior to 1 January 2005, nor

shall the former service request protection

from the latter services.

S5.391 In making assignments to the

mobile service in the bands 2025–2110 MHz

and 2200–2290 MHz, administrations shall

take into account Resolution 211 (WARC–

92).

S5.392 Administrations are urged to take

all practicable measures to ensure that spaceto-space transmissions between two or more

non-geostationary satellites, in the space

research, space operations and Earth

exploration-satellite services in the bands

2025–2110 MHz and 2200–2290 MHz, shall

not impose any constraints on Earth-to-space,

space-to-Earth and other space-to-space

transmissions of those services and in those

bands between geostationary and nongeostationary satellites.

S5.392A Additional allocation: in Russia,

the band 2160–2200 MHz is also allocated to

the space research service (space-to-Earth) on

a primary basis until 1 January 2005. Stations

in the space research service shall not cause

harmful interference to, or claim protection

from, stations in the fixed and mobile

services operating in this frequency band.

* * * * *

Non-Government (NG) Footnotes

* * * * *

NG118 Television translator relay

stations may be authorized to use frequencies

in the 2025–2130 MHz band on a secondary

basis to stations operating in accordance with

the Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *

NG153 The 2145–2150 MHz and 2160–

2165 MHz bands are reserved for future

emerging technologies on a co-primary basis

with the fixed and mobile services.

Allocations to specific services will be made

in future proceedings.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–9827 Filed 4–21–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 7

[Docket No. OST–96–1430]

RIN 2105–AC58

Public Availability of Information

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Department of Transportation

revises its regulations implementing the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5

U.S.C. 552. This revision updates

organizational changes since the last

revision and streamlines the regulations

in order to make the regulations more

useful.

DATES: This rule is effective June 23,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dorothy A. Chambers, Chief, FOIA

Division, Office of the General Counsel,

C–12, Department of Transportation,

Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202)

366–4542, FAX (202) 366–7152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

President instituted a Regulatory

Review initiative for the reinvention of

regulations by eliminating duplicate,

redundant, or unnecessary language and

revising regulations to meet the needs of

users. In response to this initiative, we

reviewed Part 7 and are revising it to

update and streamline information on

public availability of information. We