29908 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

51′W, about 1000 yards east of Jefferson

Beach Marina on June 28, 2001, from

9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

(3) St. Clair Shores Fireworks, St. Clair

Shores, MI. Location: All waters of Lake

St. Clair within a 300-yard radius of the

fireworks barge in approximate position

42° 32′N, 082° 51′W, about 1000 yards

east of Veterans Memorial Park (off

Masonic Rd.), St. Clair Shores, MI on

June 29, 2001, from 10 p.m. to 10:30

p.m.

(4) City of Wyandotte Fireworks,

Wyandotte, MI. Location: The waters off

the breakwall between Oak & Van

Alstyne St., Detroit River bounded by

the arc of a circle with a 300-yard radius

with its center in approximate position

42° 12′N, 083° 09′W on June 29, 2001

from 9:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.

(5) Grosse Pointe Farms Fireworks,

Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. Location: All

waters of Lake St. Clair within a 300-

yard radius of the fireworks barge in

approximate position 42° 23′N, 082°

52′W, about 300 yards east of Grosse

Pointe Farms on June 30, 2001 from 9:30

p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

(6) Grosse Ile Yacht Club Fireworks,

Grosse Ile, MI. Location: The waters off

the Grosse Ile Yacht Club deck, Detroit

River bounded by the arc of a circle

with a 300-yard radius with its center

approximately located at 42° 05′N, 083°

09′W on June 30, 2001 from 9:45 p.m.

to 10:45 p.m.

(7) Sigma Gamma Assoc., Grosse

Pointe Farms, MI. Location: The waters

off Ford’s Cove, Lake St. Clair bounded

by the arc of a circle with a 300-yard

radius with its center in approximate

position 42° 27′N, 082° 52′W on June 25,

2001 from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.

In order to ensure the safety of

spectators and transiting vessels, these

safety zones will be in effect for the

duration of the events. Vessels may not

enter the safety zones without

permission from Captain of the Port

Detroit. If you would like permission,

contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Spectator vessels

may anchor outside the safety zones but

are cautioned not to block a navigable

channel.

Dated: May 25, 2001.

S.P. Garrity,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port Detroit.

[FR Doc. 01–14091 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 110 and 111

[USCG–1999–6096]

RIN 2115–AF89

Marine Shipboard Electrical Cable

Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard amends its

electrical engineering regulations for

merchant vessels by adding alternate

cable standards that are equivalent to

the existing standards. Our purpose is to

revise requirements that create an

unwarranted difference between

domestic rules and international

standards for marine cable.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 5,

2001. The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the rule is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of July 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material

received from the public, as well as

documents mentioned in this preamble

as being available in the docket, are part

of docket USCG–1999–6096 and are

available for inspection or copying at

the Docket Management Facility, U.S.

Department of Transportation, room PL–

401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays. You may also find this

docket on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If

you have questions on this rule, call

Dolores Mercier, Project Manager, Office

of Design and Engineering Standards

(G–MSE), Coast Guard, telephone 202–

267–0658. If you have questions on

viewing the docket, call Dorothy Beard,

Chief, Dockets, Department of

Transportation, telephone 202–366–

5149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

On February 8, 2000, we published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)

entitled ‘‘Marine Shipboard Electrical

Cable Standards’’ in the Federal

Register (65 FR 6111). Following

publication of the NPRM, we received

several requests to hold a public

meeting. In response to these requests,

we scheduled a public meeting for June

28, 2000. We notified the public of the

meeting in a notice of public meeting

and reopening of comment period

published on June 5, 2000 (65 FR

35600). On June 26, 2000, we published

a correction to the notice (65 FR 39334).

On July 27, 2000, we published a notice

to reopen the comment period (65 FR

46143).

Background and Purpose

Since the last revision of our electrical

engineering regulations in 46 CFR

chapter I, subchapter J, (62 FR 23894,

May 1, 1997), we have received a

number of letters concerning the

construction requirements in 46 CFR

111.60–1 and 111.60–3 for cable used

on merchant vessels. Sections 111.60–1

and 111.60–3 allow the use of cables

meeting certain industry standards

listed in those sections. The letters

suggest that there are other cable

standards beside those listed in the two

sections that would provide a level of

performance and safety equivalent to

the listed standards. The Coast Guard

completed equivalency determinations

on UL 1309 (1995); IEC 92–350, 1988,

amendment 1 (1994); and IEC 92–353

(1995–01) and found them to be

equivalent.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

The Coast Guard received 58

comments on the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM). Here, we discuss

first comments of a general nature, then

comments relating to specific sections of

the regulation.

I. General Comments

1. Several commenters liked the

proposed changes to §§ 111.60–1 and

111.60–3. They agreed that the changes

offered the entire maritime industry

more flexibility and increased the

clarity of the regulations without

compromising performance or safety. A

number of comments commended the

Coast Guard’s effort to enhance its

marine shipboard electrical cable

regulation and incorporate industry

standards, both domestic and

international.

2. Eight comments recommended that

the Coast Guard use the new IEC

numbering system for its references to

any IEC standard.

The Coast Guard agrees with these

comments and will change them

throughout 46 CFR as part of a separate

rulemaking.

3. Six comments stated that the Coast

Guard requires marine shipboard

electrical cable to be certified by an

independent laboratory.

The Coast Guard does not require

third-party verification for marine

shipboard electrical cable. The cable

manufacturer may self-certify its cable

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29909

to any of the cable standards listed in

§ 111.60–1(a).

4. Three comments suggested that the

Coast Guard list in 46 CFR all cable

types approved by the Coast Guard as

meeting a particular standard.

If the cable meets a standard accepted

by the Coast Guard, the standard’s

number (e.g., IEC 92–3) appears on the

cable markings. Therefore, there is no

need to also list them in the regulations.

5. Several comments recommended

that the edition of IEEE Std 45

referenced in the existing regulations be

changed from the 1983 edition to the

1998 edition.

As a separate project, we published a

request for comments on January 8,

2001 (66 FR 1283), regarding this

specific recommendation, and we look

forward to receiving additional

comments on this topic under that

notice.

6. Eleven comments stated that IEC

92–3 was an obsolete standard and

should not be referenced in 46 CFR

chapter I, subchapter J.

The Coast Guard still recognizes IEC

92–3 as an acceptable standard,

however it will be reviewed as part of

a future rulemaking.

7. Two comments asked whether

NVIC 2–89, Guide for Electrical

Installation on Merchant Vessels and

Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, will still

be valid with the incorporation of UL

1309 in §§ 111.60–1 and 111.60–3.

NVIC 2–89 is not affected by this

rulemaking.

II. Comments on Specific Sections

Section 111.60–1

1. Six comments agreed with adding

IEC 92–350 and IEC 92–353 to

§§ 111.60–1(a) and 111.60–3. These

comments agree that the current marine

shipboard cable regulations create an

unwarranted differential between

domestic rules and international

standards. Some comments also pointed

out that classification societies, such as

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS)

and Det Norske Veritas (DNV), accept

IEC standards in their regulations.

2. Three comments recommended that

IEC 92–350 not be added to § 111.60–

1(a), as proposed, because IEC 92–353,

which is also added to § 111.60–1(a),

refers to IEC 92–350.

Although IEC 92–350 is referred to in

IEC 92–353, the Coast Guard accepts

only the 1988, amendment 1 (1994),

edition of IEC 92–350. Therefore, IEC

92–350 is listed here and in § 110.10–

1(b) to let the user know which revision

of the standard we recognize.

3. Seven comments disagreed with

adding IEC 92–350 and IEC 92–353 to

§§ 111.60–1 and 111.60–3. The reason

most stated for this disagreement was

that the thickness of the insulation of

the IEC cable is less than the thickness

of cable insulation under IEEE Std 45,

1983.

We agree that the IEC cable does have

thinner insulation and, because of this,

we require the use of the derated

ampacity and temperature table in IEC

92–352 for this cable. We have added

this requirement for all cable

constructed to IEC 93–353 and have

added ‘‘IEC 92–353’’ to §§ 111.60–3(c).

4. Fourteen comments commended

the Coast Guard’s initiative in adding

UL Std 1309 (1995) to §§ 111.60–1(a)

and 111.60–3(a).

5. Five comments stated that cable

constructed to UL 1309 provides for

third-party testing of the cable. UL Std

1309 (1995), in itself, does not require

or guarantee third-party testing (listing

by UL). It is a construction standard to

which a manufacturer may self-certify

its cable. The manufacturer may then

label the cable as meeting UL Std 1309

(1995), section 5(f). Third-party

verification would be initiated if the

cable manufacturer requests that the

testing of the cable to UL Std 1309

(1995) be performed by an independent

laboratory.

6. Three comments recommended that

UL Std 1309 (1995) not be used in the

electrical cable regulations, because

they believe the standard is not an

industry consensus standard.

UL standards are widely recognized

throughout the maritime industry on an

international level.

7. Six comments requested that the

Coast Guard identify only one standard

in § 111.60–1(a) and (b) for the

flammability requirements for marine

shipboard electrical cable.

The current flammability standards

are equivalent to one another. This

allows manufacturers the flexibility to

test their cables to one of the

flammability standards in § 111.60–1(a)

or (b).

8. Two comments stated that the low

smoke zero halogen cable referred to in

IEC 92–353 could not meet the

flammability standards in IEC 332–3, as

required by § 111.60–1(b).

In response to these comments, all

cable must meet the flammability

requirements of § 111.60–1(a) or (b).

9. Three commenters were concerned

that the temperature ratings for Type T/

N cable would be changed.

Before this rulemaking, the Coast

Guard accepted, based on an

equivalency determination, Type T/N

cable that carried a rating of 75 °C or 90

°C. Both of these ratings for Type T/N

cable are listed in UL 1309. Therefore,

ratings for these cables are not affected

by this rulemaking.

10. Two comments noted that, though

we now allow, in § 111.60–1(a), the use

of cable meeting UL Std 1309 or IEC 92–

350, we do not have installation

requirements for those cables.

Section 111.60–5(a) states that each

cable installation must meet (1) IEEE

Std 45 sections 20 (except 20.11) and

22; or (2) IEC 92–3 and paragraph 8 of

IEC 352.

Section 111.60–3

11. Six comments pointed out that

Type T/N cable can not meet the

application standards listed in UL Std

1309 (1995), as proposed in § 111.60–

3(b), because that standard is a

construction and testing standard.

We agree with these comments and

will not make the proposed change to 46

CFR 111.60–3(b). For application

purposes, Type T/N cable must meet the

section 19 of IEEE Std 45, 1983, for

Type T insulation.

Incorporation by Reference

The Director of the Federal Register

has approved the material in § 110.10–

1(b) for incorporation by reference

under 5 U.S.C. 552 and 1 CFR part 51.

Copies of the material are also available

from the sources listed in that section.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

Order. The Office of Management and

Budget has not reviewed it under that

Order. It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We

expect the economic impact of this rule

to be so minimal that a full Regulatory

Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the

regulatory policies and procedures of

DOT is unnecessary.

The rule is intended to provide a

greater choice in the type of shipboard

cable by allowing the use of cable made

to standards other than those specified

in the current regulations. This will

increase the number of choices for

vessel owners without increasing costs.

In addition, it will benefit vessel owners

by enhancing competition within the

cable industry.

We received three comments

indicating that the proposed rule would

significantly increase the cost of doing

business for U.S. cable manufacturers.

The comments expressed concern that

foreign cable would be more cost

29910 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

advantageous for shipyards and

installers.

This rule is intended to harmonize the

Coast Guard’s cable requirements with

those of classification societies and

international performance-based

standards. It does not add additional

requirements for U.S. cable

manufacturers nor restrict them from

also manufacturing cable to the newly

added standards. The cable currently

produced by U.S. manufacturers that

meets the other standards listed in

§§ 111.60–1(a) (i.e., IEEE Std 45, IEC 92–

3, MIL–C–24640A, or MIL–C–24643A)

will still be acceptable for shipboard

use. Consequently, we disagree that this

rule will increase the costs of doing

business for U.S. cable manufacturers.

However, this rule does add alternatives

to the existing standards that will be

accepted. End users will gain flexibility

from having more purchasing options. If

end users, such as small businesses, are

able to save money from having

additional options due to increased

competition, the cost savings to them

would be considered an economic

benefit of this rulemaking.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we considered

whether this rule will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The term

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their

fields, and governmental jurisdictions

with populations of less than 50,000.

As discussed in the Regulatory

Evaluation section of this preamble,

there are no costs associated with this

rule. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection

of information under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520).

Federalism Summary Impact Statement

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13132, Federalism.

This rule amends the regulations on

vessel design and construction. In

particular, it provides vessel owners

with additional options in the choice of

cable used on their vessels.

It is well settled that States may not

regulate in categories reserved for

regulation by the Coast Guard. It is also

well settled that all of the categories

covered in 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703(a),

7101, and 8101 (design, construction,

alteration, repair, maintenance,

operation, equipping, personnel

qualification, and manning of vessels),

as well as casualty reporting and other

categories where Congress has intended

the Coast Guard to be the sole source of

a vessel’s obligations, are within the

field foreclosed from State regulation.

(See the decision of the Supreme Court

in the consolidated cases of United

States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke,

529 U.S. 89, 120 S. Ct. 1135 (March 6,

2000).)

This entire rule falls into the field

encompassed by 46 USC 3306 and

3703(a), where, by operation of law,

State regulation is precluded. For this

reason, consultation under section 6 of

the Executive Order would not be

meaningful and, therefore, is

unnecessary.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions not specifically

required by law. In particular, the Act

addresses actions that may result in the

expenditure by a State, local, or tribal

government, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector of $100,000,000 or more

in any one year. Though this rule will

not result in such an expenditure, we do

discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere

in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal

implications under Executive Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments. Rules

with tribal implications have substantial

direct effects on one or more Indian

tribes, on the relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes.

Environment

We have considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraphs (34)(d) and (e), of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1C,

this rule is categorically excluded from

further environmental documentation.

This rule concerns the equipping of, and

carriage requirements for, vessels. A

‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’

is available in the docket where

indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 110

Incorporation by reference, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Vessels.

46 CFR Part 111

Incorporation by reference, Vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46

CFR parts 110 and 111 as follows:

PART 110—GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 110

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1509; 43 U.S.C. 1333;

46 U.S.C. 3306, 3307, 3703; E.O. 12234, 45

FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 277; 49 CFR

1.45, 1.46; § 110.01–2 also issued under 44

U.S.C. 3507.

2. In § 110.10–1(b), in the entries for

‘‘International Electrotechnical

Commission’’ and ‘‘Underwriters

Laboratories, Inc.,’’ revise the

introductory text and add, in numerical

order, new standards IEC 92–350, IEC

92–353, and UL 1309 to read as follows:

§ 110.10–1 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

* * * * *

International Electrotechnical

Commission (IEC) 3, rue de Varembe,

Geneva, Switzerland. (Also available

from ANSI—address above.)

* * * * *

IEC 92–350, Electrical Installations in

Ships, Part 350: Low-Voltage Shipboard

Power Cables—General Construction

and Test Requirements, 1988,

Amendment 1 (1994) .111.60–1

* * * * *

IEC 92–353, Electrical Installations in

Ships, Part 353: Single and Multicore

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29911

Non-radial Field Power Cables with

Extruded Solid Insulation for Rated

Voltages 1 kV and 3 kV, Second edition,

1995–01—111.60–1, 111.60–3

* * * * *

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)

12 Laboratory Drive, Research Triangle

Park, NC 27709–3995.

* * * * *

UL 1309, Standard for Marine

Shipboard Cable, First edition, July 14,

1995—111.60–1, 111.60–3

* * * * *

PART 111—ELECTRIC SYSTEMS—

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3. The authority citation for part 111

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703; 49 CFR

1.46.

4. In § 111.60–1, revise paragraphs (a)

and (b) and the introductory text of

paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 111.60–1 Cable construction and testing.

(a) Each marine shipboard cable must

meet all of the construction and

identification requirements of either

IEEE Std 45, IEC 92–3, IEC 92–350, IEC

92–353, UL 1309, MIL–C–24640A, or

MIL–C–24643A (incorporated by

reference, see § 110.10–1 of this

chapter), and the respective

flammability tests contained in them

and be of a copper stranded type.

Note to Paragraph (a): MIL–C–915 cable is

acceptable only for repairs and replacements

in kind. MIL–C–915 cable is no longer

acceptable for alterations, modifications,

conversions, or new construction. (See

§ 110.01–3 of this chapter).

(b) Each cable constructed to IEC 92–

3 or IEC 92–353 must meet the

flammability requirements of IEC 332–3,

Category A.

(c) Electrical cable that has a

polyvinyl chloride insulation with a

nylon jacket (Type T/N) must meet UL

1309 or must meet the requirements for

polyvinyl chloride insulated cable in

section 18 of IEEE Std 45. If meeting the

requirements for polyvinyl chloride

insulated cable in IEEE Std 45, section

18, the following exceptions apply—

* * * * *

5. In § 111.60–3, revise paragraphs (a)

and (c) to read as follows:

§ 111.60–3 Cable application.

(a) Cable constructed according to

IEEE Std 45 must meet the cable

application provisions of section 19 of

IEEE Std 45. Cable constructed

according to IEC 92–3, IEC 92–353, or

UL 1309 must meet the provisions of

section 19 of IEEE Std 45, except 19.6.1,

19.6.4, and 19.8. Cable constructed

according to IEC 92–3 and IEC 92–353

must comply with the ampacity values

of IEC 92–352, Table 1.

* * * * *

(c) Cable constructed according to

IEEE Std 45 must be derated according

to Table A6, Note 6, of IEEE Std 45.

Cable constructed according to IEC 92–

3 or IEC 92–353 must be derated

according to IEC 92–352, paragraph 8.

MIL–C–24640A and MIL–C–24643A

cable must be derated according to MIL–

HDBK–299(SH).

Dated: March 30, 2001.

R.C. North,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant

Commandant for Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 01–13706 Filed 6–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 24

[GEN Docket No. 90–314, ET Docket No.

92–100 and PP Docket No. 93–253; FCC

01–135]

Amendment of the Commission’s

Rules To Establish New Personal

Communications Services,

Narrowband PCS; Implementation of

Section 309(j) of the Communications

Act—-Competitive Bidding,

Narrowband PCS

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal

Communications Commissions (FCC)

modifies existing narrowband Personal

Communications Services (PCS) rules in

three ways. With this document, the

FCC channelizes and licenses the one

megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum

heretofore held in reserve, rechannelizes 712.5 kilohertz of

previously channelized spectrum for

which licenses have not been auctioned,

and adopts a narrowband PCS channel

band plan that includes both

nationwide and Major Trading Areas

(MTA) licenses. The document also

addresses the petitions for

reconsideration filed responding to the

Narrowband PCS Second Report and

Order/Second Further Notice. These

actions resolve remaining issues to

prepare for future license auctions, of

the remaining narrowband PCS

spectrum.

DATES: Effective August 3, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wilbert E. Nixon, Jr., Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)

418–7240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Federal

Communications Commission’s Third

Report and Order and Order On

Reconsideration, FCC 01–135, in GEN

Docket No. 90–314, ET Docket No. 92–

100 and PP Docket No. 93–253, adopted

on April 19, 2001 and released on May

3, 2001. The full text of this Third

Report and Order and Order On

Reconsideration is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20554. The

complete text may be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037. The full text

may also be downloaded at:

www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are

available to persons with disabilities by

contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418–

0260 or TTY (202) 418–2555.

Synopsis of Third Report and Order on

Reconsideration

I. Introduction

1. In this order, we adopt further

modifications to our existing

narrowband Personal Communications

Services (PCS) rules, in three major

respects. First, we will channelize and

license the one megahertz of

narrowband PCS spectrum that has

heretofore been held in reserve. Second,

we will re-channelize 712.5 kilohertz of

previously channelized spectrum for

which licenses have not been auctioned.

Third, we adopt a narrowband PCS

channel band plan that includes both

nationwide and Major Trading Areas

(MTA) licenses. In adopting these new

rules, we also address the petitions for

reconsideration filed in response to the

Narrowband PCS Second R&O/Second

Further Notice, (65 FR 35843–35901,

June 6, 2000). The action we take today

resolves the remaining issues

concerning narrowband PCS in

preparation for auctioning licenses for

the remaining narrowband PCS

spectrum in the near future

II. Discussion

2. In this order, we address in turn (1)

the licensing of the reserve spectrum, (2)

the band plan for the reserve and other

remaining spectrum for which licenses

have not been auctioned, including

channel size and services area size for

all licenses and (3) eligibility

restrictions for response channels and