Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27423

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, EPA has determined that this

rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 10, 1995.

Peter Caulkins,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office

of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. In § 180.205, paragraph (a) is

amended in the table therein by adding

and alphabetically inserting entries for

the raw agricultural commodities

lentils, lentil forage, and lentil hay, to

read as follows:

§ 180.205 Paraquat; tolerances for

residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Lentils ........................................ 0.3

Lentil, forage ............................. 0.1

Lentil, hay ................................. 0.4

* * * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–12745 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[GEN Docket No. 90–314, FCC 95–167]

Unlicensed Personal Communications

Services; Radio Frequency Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By this action, the

Commission affirms its designation of

UTAM, Inc., to manage the transition of

the 1910–1930 MHz band from the

Private Operational Fixed Microwave

Service to unlicensed Personal

Communication Service (PCS)

operations. Further, the Commission

accepts UTAM’s plan for the relocation

of fixed microwave operations from this

spectrum and the deployment of

unlicensed PCS devices. The

Commission is requiring UTAM to

submit reports at six-month intervals on

the progress of the plan’s

implementation. UTAM’s management

of the transition of the 1910–1930 MHz

band will help to ensure that new and

innovative unlicensed PCS devices,

such as wireless PBX equipment,

wireless messaging systems, wireless

local area networks, and a broad range

of data communication products, are

made available as rapidly as possible

without disrupting fixed microwave

service.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Means, Office of Engineering

and Technology, New Technology

Development Division, (301) 725–1585,

extension 206.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Fourth

Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC

95–167, adopted April 19, 1995, and

released May 12, 1995. The full text of

this decision is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room

230), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC. Copies may also be purchased from

the Commission’s duplicating

contractor, International Transcription

Services, at (202) 857–3800 or 2100 M

Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037.

Summary of the Memorandum Option

and Order

1. This Fourth Memorandum Opinion

and Order affirms its designation of

UTAM, Inc., to manage the transition of

the 1910–1930 MHz band from the

Private Operational Fixed Microwave

Service to unlicensed Personal

Communication Service (PCS)

operations. Further, the Commission

accepts UTAM’s plan for the relocation

of fixed microwave operations from this

spectrum and the deployment of

unlicensed PCS devices. The

Commission is requiring UTAM to

submit reports at six-month intervals on

the progress of the plan’s

implementation.

2. The 1910–1930 MHz band is

currently occupied by 383 fixed pointto-point microwave links. In the Second

Report and Order, 58 FR 59174,

November 8, 1993, the Commission

designated UTAM as the coordinator for

the transition of the unlicensed PCS

band from the fixed microwave service

to unlicensed PCS, conditioned on

UTAM’s submission and the

Commissions acceptance of: (1) A

funding plan that is equitable to all

prospective manufacturers of

unlicensed devices, and (2) a plan for

‘‘band clearing’’ that will permit the

implementation of nomadic devices

and, in particular, nomadic data PCS

devices, as promptly as possible.

3. On August 1, 1994, UTAM, Inc.,

submitted its plan for managing the

transition of the 1910–1930 MHz band

to use by unlicensed PCS operations.

The UTAM plan describes UTAM’s

organization and governance, financing

plan, bank clearing plan, coordination

procedures, protection of proprietary

information, dispute resolution

procedures and UTAM’s plans for

ending its coordination role and

dissolving itself.

4. We find that UTAM’s cost and

revenue projections are reasonable.

These projections appear to be based on

conservative estimates and to allow for

situations where a revenue source may

develop somewhat slowly. While we

recognize that there is always some

uncertainty in making such projections,

we are convinced that there will

eventually be sufficient revenues to

totally fund relocation of the microwave

incumbents. It seems fair to assume the

PCS licensees will bear approximately

half the cost of relocating the incumbent

microwave links in the 1910–1930 MHz

band, since these links are paired with

links in the licensed PCS spectrum. We

agree with UTAM that its estimate of the

cost for relocating each link is

conservative, which should provide

some margin if UTAM is faced with

relocating more links than it anticipates.

We do not agree with arguments that the

relocation of links would be disrupted

if there are funding shortfalls. We note,

in particular, that UTAM will not

initiate relocation negotiations until

adequate funding is available. Further,
27424 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

we believe that UTAM is taking

adequate steps to control interference so

as to avoid the need to relocate

microwave links prematurely. We also

see no need to require UTAM to

establish a contingency fund for such

situations. We are satisfied that the BIS

study provides a reasonable estimate of

unlicensed PCS device deployment and

takes due account of demand that may

be satisfied through other equipment or

services. Even if demand for unlicensed

PCS devices does not fall within the

range predicted by the BIS study, or if

licensed PCS penetration lags or

negotiations with incumbents take

longer than anticipated, the safeguards

included in the plan ensure that the

only consequence will be that band

clearing will simply take longer. With

regard to concerns about equity in the

band clearing process, we agree with

UTAM that the plan clearly indicates

that donated funds may be designated

for clearing any part of the spectrum

that the donor chooses and will be

credited as an advance against the

donor’s clearing fees. Thus, no company

interested in clearing the asynchronous

band segment for deployment of

nomadic products will be forced to

subsidize coordination activities.

5. We believe that UTAM’s band

clearing plan is workable and

appropriate. While we understand

concerns for the need to make spectrum

available for nomadic operations

promptly, we also recognize the

practical difficulties UTAM faces in

clearing the 1910–1930 MHz band. We

believe that UTAM has devised a

workable strategy for expediting

nomadic device deployment given the

existing constraints, such as the need to

fund and negotiate the relocation of the

incumbent microwave links, and the

fact that incumbent public safety

licensees are not required to relocate for

five years. While we are sympathetic to

desires for a more rapid deployment

scheme for nomadic data devices in this

spectrum, none is apparent. We believe

that the only way to make the band fully

available to nomadic devices is to

completely clear it. The most effective

way to do so is to enable non-nomadic

devices to be deployed so that fees from

such deployment can be used to

complete the band clearing process as

rapidly as possible. While we share

doubts regarding the potential of the

‘‘wedge’’ clearing approach to make

significant amounts of spectrum

available to nomadic devices prior to

complete band clearing, this approach

appears to be the soundest plan given

the constraints. As an alternative for

those developers of nomadic devices

whose needs could be accommodated

by the UTAM plan, we note that we

recently allocated additional spectrum

at 2390–2400 MHz for unlicensed data

PCS devices, and this spectrum will not

require clearing. We believe that the

immediate needs of unlicensed nomadic

data PCS devices can be accommodated

in this spectrum. Operation in the 2390–

2400 MHz band will not require

participation in UTAM and will not be

governed by the UTAM plan.

6. With regard to concerns about

deployment of nomadic devices prior to

complete band clearing, we addressed

this matter in the Memorandum

Opinion and Order in this proceeding,

59 FR 32830, June 24, 1994. We stated

therein that when we have determined

that spectrum is available, or will soon

be available, for deployment of nomadic

devices, we will issue a Public Notice

announcing the date upon which we

will begin accepting and processing

applications for certification of such

devices. We believe that this plan will

adequately ensure that nomadic

operations do not cause interference to

fixed microwave operations. We believe

UTAM’s commitment to voluntarily

address the concerns of the incumbent

microwave community regarding

coordination with PCS licensees to

negotiate microwave relocations on a

system-wide basis where possible and

appropriately will further the relocation

process. Such system-wide coordination

and negotiation activities will promote

more rapid availability of spectrum and

minimize the relocation burden for

incumbent microwave licensees. We

believe that is neither necessary nor

practical for the Commission to require

such system-wide negotiations.

Similarly, we believe that UTAM has

adequately responded to concerns about

clearing priorities and updating of the

zone status.

7. We believe that UTAM has

adequately responded to the concerns

that have been raised about its

coordination procedures. Its explanation

that appropriate adjustments have

already been incorporated into the TIA

Bulletin 10F criteria and stated

intention to coordinate system deployed

in Zone 1 areas at maximum system

capacity appear to adequately address

the concerns of the microwave

community. We also note that UTAM is

taking steps to respond to the concerns

of HP and other manufacturers

regarding the necessity for advance

warning for ‘‘stop deployment’’ orders.

We are similarly convinced that UTAM

will be gathering sufficient information

to monitor manufacturer compliance

with its LVP and to expeditiously locate

any source of interference, should it

occur. We disagree that we intended

that UTAM develop and specify a

standard procedure or specific

technology to prevent unauthorized

deployment of unlicensed PCS devices.

In fact, we previously stated that we

would allow UTAM broad flexibility in

establishing the means it uses to fulfill

its responsibility for ensuring that

unlicensed devices do not interfere with

existing microwave operations. We

continue to believe that this is the

appropriate approach. We believe that

the standards for disablement

mechanisms outlined in the plan, with

the clarifications provided by UTAM in

its response to the comments, will

adequately protect incumbent

microwave operations from potential

interference caused by unauthorized

relocation of unlicensed devices. We

also agree with UTAM that further

requirements would not prevent those

who wish to intentionally violate the

rules from doing so.

8. Regarding enforcement, we believe

that the requirements of Section

15.307(b) of the Commission’s rules are

adequate to ensure manufacturers’

compliance with the procedures

established by UTAM, and that no

additional rules are necessary or

desirable. We fully intend to take

appropriate enforcement action against

parties that violate the rules and

procedures we have established with

regard to operation in the unlicensed

spectrum at 1910–1930 MHz. We further

believe that the clarifications UTAM

provides regarding its dispute resolution

procedures remove any confusion over

UTAM’s intent to work in good faith to

resolve any disputes that may arise.

9. We find that UTAM has provided

adequate and sufficient information to

satisfy the conditions laid out in the

Second Report and Order. As explained

above, we believe that UTAM has

adequately addressed all of the relevant

issues. We find no merit in arguments

that UTAM’s authorization should be

revoked or limited. While Apple

challenges UTAM’s governance, it offers

no specifics as to how the governance

procedures should be changed or

otherwise improved. Further, we

disagree that it is necessary or desirable

to identify an alternative entity at this

time to manage the band transition

should UTAM cease operation. We note

that no alternative to UTAM has been

suggested or come forward. Therefore,

we are reaffirming UTAM has the

coordinator for the transition of the

1910–1930 MHz band from fixed

microwave services to use by

unlicensed PCS.

10. We do not believe it is necessary

to require UTAM to submit a revised
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27425

plan that includes the additional

information presented in its reply

comments. We recognize that, to some

extent, the plan and details of its

implementation are a work in progress.

Accordingly, we believe the appropriate

course of action is to monitor UTAM’s

implementation of the plan. We are

requiring UTAM to furnish biannual

reports on its progress in implementing

the plan. The first report will be due

July 1, 1995, and every six months

thereafter. The reports should provide

an update on the status of the financial

and band clearing plans, the extent of

incumbent microwave relocation, and

the extent of unlicensed PCS device

deployment. Additionally, the reports

should provide updated projections of

future band clearing and unlicensed

PCS implementation based on the best

and most current data available at the

time the report is prepared. We also are

requiring that the report provide

information on any problems or

difficulties encountered in

implementing the plan and how they

are being resolved.

Ordering Clauses

11. Accordingly, It Is Ordered,

pursuant to sections 4(i), 7(a), 302,

303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a),

302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r),

that UTAM, Inc. is designated to

coordinate and manage the transition of

the 1910–1930 MHz band from the

Private Operational Fixed Microwave

Service to unlicensed PCS operations. It

Is Further Ordered, that UTAM, Inc.,

shall submit to the Commission reports

on its progress in implementing its plan

beginning on July 1, 1995, and every six

months thereafter. It Is Further Ordered,

that Part 15 is amended as shown to

remove the conditions attached to

UTAM’s designation as the coordinator

for unlicensed PCS operations in the

1910–1930 MHz band.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15

Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Part 15 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY

DEVICES

1. The authority citation for part 15

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 4, 302, 303, 304, and 307

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303,

304, and 307.

2. Section 15.307(a) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 15.307 Coordination with fixed

microwave service.

(a) UTAM, Inc., is designated to

coordinate and manage the transition of

the 1910–1930 MHz band from Private

Operational-Fixed Microwave Service

(OFS) operating under part 94 of this

chapter to unlicensed PCS operations.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–12704 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 672 and 675

[Docket No. 900833–1095; I.D. 051595I]

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska;

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands Area; Bycatch Rate

Standards for the Second Half of 1995

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Pacific halibut and red king crab

bycatch rate standards; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces Pacific

halibut and red king crab bycatch rate

standards for the second half of 1995.

Publication of these bycatch rate

standards is required under regulations

implementing the vessel incentive

program. This action is necessary to

implement the bycatch rate standards

for vessel operators who participate in

the Alaska groundfish trawl fisheries

under the incentive program. The intent

of this action is to reduce prohibited

species bycatch rates and promote

conservation of groundfish and other

fishery resources.

DATES: Effective 12:01 a.m., Alaska local

time (A.l.t.), July 1, 1995, through 12

midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1995.

Comments on this action must be

received at the following address no

later than 4:30 p.m., A.l.t., June 30,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to Ronald J. Berg, Chief,

Fisheries Management Division, NMFS,

P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–

1668, Attn: Lori Gravel; or be delivered

to 709 West 9th Street, Federal Building,

Room 401, Juneau, AK.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan J. Salveson, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

domestic groundfish fisheries in the

exclusive economic zone of the Bering

Sea and Aleutian Islands management

area (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA)

are managed by NMFS according to the

Fishery Management Plan for the

Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea

and Aleutians Islands and the Fishery

Management Plan for Groundfish of the

Gulf of Alaska (FMPs). The FMPs were

prepared by the North Pacific Fishery

Management Council under the

authority of the Magnuson Fishery

Conservation and Management Act. The

FMPs are implemented by regulations

for the U.S. fisheries at 50 CFR parts

672, 675, and 676. General regulations

that also pertain to the U.S. fisheries

appear at 50 CFR part 620. Regulations

that establish observer coverage

requirements are set out at 50 CFR part

677.

Regulations at §§ 672.26 and 675.26

implement a vessel incentive program to

reduce halibut and red king crab

bycatch rates in the groundfish trawl

fisheries. Under the incentive program,

operators of trawl vessels may not

exceed Pacific halibut bycatch rate

standards specified for the BSAI and

GOA midwater pollock and ‘‘other

trawl’’ fisheries, and the BSAI yellowfin

sole and ‘‘bottom pollock’’ fisheries.

Vessel operators also may not exceed

red king crab bycatch standards

specified for the BSAI yellowfin sole

and ‘‘other trawl’’ fisheries in Bycatch

Limitation Zone 1 (defined in § 675.2).

The fisheries included under the

incentive program are defined in

regulations at §§ 672.26(b) and

675.26(b).

Regulations at §§ 672.26(c) and

675.26(c) require that halibut and red

crab bycatch rate standards for each

fishery included under the incentive

program be published in the Federal

Register. The standards are in effect for

specified seasons within the 6-month

periods of January 1 through June 30,

and July 1 through December 31. For

purposes of calculating vessel bycatch

rates under the incentive program, 1995

fishing months were specified in the

Federal Register on January 12, 1995

(60 FR 2905).

Halibut and red king crab bycatch rate

standards for the first half of 1995 also

were published in the Federal Register

on January 12, 1995. As required by

§§ 672.26(c) and 675.26(c), the Director,

Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional

Director), has established the bycatch

rate standards for the second half of

1995 (July 1 through December 31).