Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2719

1References herein are to the Clean Air Act, as

amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990, Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399 (‘‘the Act’’).

The Act is codified, as amended, at the U.S. Code

in 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2EPA has construed the definition of

nonattainment area to require some material or

significant contribution in a nearby area. The

Agency believes it is reasonable to conclude that

something greater than a molecular impact is

required.

SIP revision will automatically convert

to a final disapproval.

Public comments are solicited on the

requested SIP revision and on USEPA’s

proposed conditional approval. Public

comments received by February 10,

1995 will be considered in the

development of USEPA’s final

rulemaking action.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989, (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604.) Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–690 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 81

[ID–A–94–64; FRL–5137–6]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; State of Idaho

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

as amended in 1990, EPA is authorized

to promulgate redesignation of areas as

nonattainment for the PM–10

(particulate matter with an aerodynamic

diameter of less than or equal to a

nominal ten micrometers) National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). In a prior action, EPA

proposed to redesignate as

nonattainment for PM–10 a portion of

Kootenai County consisting of the City

of Coeur d’Alene. In today’s action, EPA

is requesting public comment on a

proposal to expand the proposed

nonattainment boundary and

redesignate a larger portion of Kootenai

County, Idaho, from unclassifiable to

nonattainment for PM–10. EPA is

proposing that the portion of Kootenai

County outside the exterior boundary of

the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation be

designated nonattainment and classified

moderate for PM–10. Monitored

violations of the PM–10 NAAQS have

been recorded at monitoring sites in

Coeur d’Alene and Post Falls, Idaho.

DATES: All written comments on this

proposal should be submitted by March

13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, U.S. EPA, Air Programs

Development Section (AT–082), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

Information supporting this

rulemaking action can be found in

Public Docket ID–A–94–64 at U.S. EPA,

Air Programs Development Section,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101. The docket may be inspected

from 8 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. on weekdays,

except for legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Body, Environmental Protection

Agency (ATD–082), Air and Radiation

Branch, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, 206/553–0782.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General

EPA is authorized to initiate

redesignation of areas as nonattainment

for PM–10 pursuant to section 107(d)(3)

of the Act 1 on the basis of air quality

data, planning and control

considerations or any other air quality

related considerations the Administrator

deems appropriate. A nonattainment

area is defined as any area that does not

meet, or any area with sources that

significantly contribute to ambient air

quality in a nearby area that does not

meet, the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) (see section

107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act).2 Thus, in

determining the appropriate boundary

for a nonattainment area, EPA considers

not only the areas where the violations

occurred but also nearby areas which

contain sources that could significantly

contribute to such violations.

In the absence of technical

information identifying particular

sources contributing to violations of the

NAAQS, EPA policy for PM–10 is to use

political boundaries associated with the

area where the monitored violations

occurred and in which it is reasonably

expected that sources contributing to

the violations are located (see, for

example, 57 FR 43846 at 43848 (Sept.

22, 1992)). PM–10 nonattainment

boundaries are generally presumed to

be, as appropriate, the county, township

or other municipal subdivision in which

the ambient particulate matter monitors

recording the PM–10 violations are

located. EPA has presumed that this

would include both the areas in

violation of the PM–10 NAAQS and

areas containing sources that

significantly contribute to the

violations. Moreover, EPA tends to

consider and propose more expansive

nonattainment area political boundaries

to ensure that sources contributing to

the nonattainment problem are

considered in the State’s technical

evaluation and analysis of the area’s air

quality problem. However, a boundary

other than a county perimeter or other

municipal boundary may be more

appropriate. Affected States and Tribes

may submit information demonstrating

that, consistent with section

107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, a boundary
2720 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

3Several comments in addition to the comment

from the State of Idaho were received in response

to EPA’s September 22, 1992 proposal to

redesignate the City of Coeur d’Alene

nonattainment. The thrust of these comments is that

there was no air quality problem in the City of

Coeur d’Alene and that the area should not be

redesignated. EPA’s preliminary response to these

comments is that available monitoring data,

summarized in this notice and contained in the

public docket, reveals PM–10 NAAQS violations in

the area and supports the redesignation of the City

of Coeur d’Alene and an expansion of the

nonattainment area to include the rest of Kootenai

County, excluding the Coeur d’Alene Indian

Reservation. However, EPA will give full

consideration to the comments submitted on EPA’s

September 22, 1992, proposal, as well as any

additional comments submitted by these or other

commenters, before taking final action on this

proposal.

other than a county perimeter or other

municipal boundary is more

appropriate. Additional guidance on

this issue is provided in the PM–10

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Development Guideline (EPA–450/2–

86–001).

On September 22, 1992, after notice to

the State of Idaho, EPA proposed that

the City of Coeur d’Alene be

redesignated nonattainment for PM–10

based on monitored violations of the

PM–10 NAAQS, at the Lakes Middle

School monitoring site, located within

the Coeur d’Alene city limits (see 57 FR

43846). Before EPA took final action on

that proposal, the State notified EPA

that additional violations of the PM–10

NAAQS had been recorded in the

neighboring City of Post Falls and

requested that the boundary of the

nonattainment area be expanded. In

today’s action, EPA is proposing to

redesignate the entire County of

Kootenai, except for that portion located

within the exterior boundary of the

Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation, as

nonattainment for PM–10.

II. Background for PM–10

On July 1, 1987, EPA revised the

NAAQS for particulate matter (52 FR

24643), by replacing total suspended

particulate as the indicator for

particulate matter with a new indicator

called PM–10 that includes only those

particles with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers. At the same time, EPA set

forth regulations for implementing the

revised particulate matter standards and

announced EPA’s SIP development

policy elaborating PM–10 control

strategies necessary to assure attainment

and maintenance of the PM–10 NAAQS

(see generally 52 FR 24672). EPA

adopted a PM–10 SIP development

policy dividing all areas of the country

into three categories based upon their

likelihood of violating the revised

NAAQS: (1) Areas with a strong

likelihood of violating the PM–10

NAAQS and requiring substantial SIP

adjustment were placed in Group I; (2)

areas that might well have been

attaining the PM–10 NAAQS and whose

existing SIP’s most likely needed less

adjustment were placed in Group II; (3)

areas with a strong likelihood of

attaining the PM–10 NAAQS and,

therefore, needing adjustments only to

the preconstruction review program and

monitoring network were placed in

Group III (52 FR at 24679–24682).

Pursuant to sections 107(d)(4)(B) and

188(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended

in 1990, areas previously identified as

Group I (55 FR 45799 (Oct. 31, 1990))

and other areas which had monitored

violations of the PM–10 NAAQS prior to

January 1, 1989 were designated

nonattainment and classified as

moderate for PM–10 by operation of law

on November 15, 1990. Formal

codification in 40 CFR Part 81 (1992) of

these areas was announced in a Federal

Register notice dated November 6, 1991

(56 FR 56694) and supplemented on

November, 30, 1992 (57 FR 56762). All

other areas of the country, including

Kootenai County, were designated

unclassifiable for PM–10 by operation of

law on November 15, 1990 (see section

107(d)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act).

III. Today’s Action

As stated above, EPA is authorized to

initiate redesignation of areas from

unclassifiable to nonattainment for PM–

10 pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the

Act on the basis of air quality data,

planning and control considerations or

any other air quality related

considerations the Administrator deems

appropriate. Pursuant to section

107(d)(3), EPA is today proposing to

redesignate the entire County of

Kootenai, except for that portion located

within the exterior boundaries of the

Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation, as

nonattainment for PM–10.

On January 31, 1991, EPA notified the

State of Idaho pursuant to Section

107(d)(3) of the Act that Kootenai

County (City of Coeur d’Alene)

appeared to be violating the PM–10

NAAQS and requested the State to

submit a proposed designation and

boundary description for this area. On

March 6, 1991, the State notified EPA

that the City of Coeur d’Alene had

measured violations of the PM–10

NAAQS and requested that the area

within the city limits of Coeur d’Alene

be redesignated nonattainment. EPA

notified the public on April 22, 1991 of

the reported violations and the letter

from the state (see 56 FR 16274) and

proposed to redesignate the City of

Coeur d’Alene as nonattainment for

PM–10 on September 22, 1992 (see 57

FR 43846). EPA requested public

comment on all aspects of that proposal

‘‘including the appropriateness of the

proposed designations and the scope of

the proposed boundaries’’ (see 57 FR at

43853).

In September and October of 1992,

additional violations of the PM–10

NAAQS were recorded at a second air

quality monitoring site in the City of

Post Falls, approximately six miles west

of the Coeur d’Alene monitoring site.

During the public comment period on

EPA’s proposal to redesignate the City

of Coeur d’Alene as nonattainment, the

State of Idaho commented that the

September and October 1992 violations

had occurred and requested that the

boundary of the proposed

nonattainment area be expanded to

include the entire County of Kootenai.

The State also requested that, in light of

this new information, EPA provide

further opportunity for public comment

on the boundary of the proposed

nonattainment area.

Based on the information provided by

the State of Idaho and available air

monitoring data, EPA is proposing that

the entire County of Kootenai, except for

that portion located within the exterior

boundaries of the Coeur d’Alene Indian

Reservation, be redesignated

nonattainment for PM–10. Two

monitored 24-hour PM–10

concentrations above the level of the

NAAQS were recorded in 1989 and

1990 at the Lakes Middle School

monitoring site, located within the city

limits of Coeur d’Alene, resulting in

expected exceedences of 7.5 and 2.04,

respectively (refer to 40 CFR Part 50,

Appendix K on procedures to calculate

expected exceedences). There have been

no reported 24-hour PM–10

concentrations above the level of the

NAAQS within the City of Coeur

d’Alene since 1990. Three monitored

24-hour PM–10 concentrations above

the NAAQS were recorded at the Post

Falls monitoring site during 1992,

resulting in expected exceedences of 20

(see 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix K). There

have been no reported 24-hour PM–10

concentrations above the level of the

NAAQS since 1992. There have been no

reported violations of the annual PM–10

standard in Kootenai County.

EPA is requesting public comment on

its proposal to expand the

nonattainment area to ensure that the

views of all those interested in the

proposed redesignation be considered.3

The table below indicates how EPA is

proposing to revise the PM–10
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2721

4Under Federal and EPA Indian policy, EPA

treats Federally-recognized Indian tribes as

sovereign authorities with the independent

authority for Reservation affairs and not as political

subdivisions of States. See April 29, 1994

Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Government-toGovernment Relations with Native American Tribal

Governments,’’ 59 FR 22,951 (May 4, 1994); ‘‘EPA

Policy for the Administration of Environmental

Programs on Indian Reservations’’ at p. 2

(November 8, 1984), reaffirmed by Administrator

Carol M. Browner in a Memorandum issued on

March 14, 1994; and 54 FR 43956 (Aug. 25, 1994)

(‘‘Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and

Management’’). Before EPA will recognize a State’s

attempt to regulate sources within the exterior

boundaries of a reservation for purposes of a Clean

Air Act program, the State must affirmatively

establish that it has the legal authority to regulate

such sources. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(E)(i)

(each implementation plan must provide necessary

assurances that the State will have adequate

authority under State law to carry out such

implementation plan); 42 U.S.C. § 7661a(b)(5) (State

must demonstrate that it has adequate authority to

issue and enforce permits for all sources required

to have a permit under Title V); see also

Washington Department of Ecology v. EPA, 752

F.2d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1985) (upholding EPA’s

finding that the State offered no independent

authority for claiming jurisdiction over Tribal lands

and affirming EPA’s associated disapproval of that

portion of the State RCRA program covering Tribal

lands).

designation for a portion of Kootenai

County, Idaho, in 40 CFR 81.313 from

unclassifiable to nonattainment.

Designated area Designation date Designation type Classification date Classification type

Kootenai County (part)—The County

of Kootenai excluding that portion

located within the exterior boundary of the Coeur d’Alene Indian

Reservation.

Proposing ................... Nonattainment ........... Proposing .......................... Moderate.

EPA proposes that the Coeur d’Alene

Indian Reservation be excluded from the

nonattainment area because EPA

currently has no evidence suggesting

that air quality on the Reservation is in

violation of the PM–10 NAAQS or that

sources on the Reservation significantly

contribute to PM–10 violations in

nearby areas. Further, EPA’s policy,

which generally presumes PM–10

nonattainment boundaries to be

concurrent with political boundaries,

would weigh against including the

Reservation as part of the Kootenai

County nonattainment area or

establishing the Reservation as its own

nonattainment area in the absence of

evidence that there is an air quality

problem on the Reservation or that

sources on the Reservation contribute

significantly to violations on nearby

State lands. Thus, EPA proposes, for

purposes of this action, that the area of

Kootenai County over which the State

has regulatory authority govern the

determination of political boundaries

for the nonattainment area.4 EPA

specifically requests the State of Idaho,

the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and the public

to comment on the exclusion of the area

within the exterior boundaries of the

Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation from

the nonattainment area.

EPA notes that the State of Idaho and

local governments in Kootenai County

have made a joint commitment to

develop and implement control

measures for area sources of PM–10 in

Kootenai County, such as agricultural

field burning, open burning, residential

woodburning and winter road sanding,

beginning in September 1994 and no

later than June 1995, regardless of EPA’s

final action on this proposed

redesignation. EPA encourages the State

to adopt any such control measures and

submit them to EPA as part of the State

Implementation Plan so that if they are

federally approved, they will be

federally enforceable. EPA will closely

monitor the State’s progress in

curtailing PM–10 emissions and will

consider such progress, any relevant

submittals from the State and any

federally-enforceable controls on PM–10

emissions in taking final action on this

proposed redesignation.

The technical information supporting

the redesignation request and the

boundary selection are available for

public review at the address indicated at

the beginning of this notice.

IV. Implications of Today’s Action

EPA is proposing to redesignate the

County of Kootenai, excluding the area

within the boundaries of the Coeur

d’Alene Indian Reservation, from

unclassifiable to nonattainment for PM–

10. If Kootenai County, or a portion

thereof, is redesignated nonattainment

for PM–10 when EPA takes final action

on today’s proposal, then the area will

be classified as ‘‘moderate’’ by operation

of law (see section 188(a) of the Act).

Areas designated nonattainment are

subject to the applicable requirements of

Part D, Title I of the Act. Within 18

months of the redesignation, the State

would therefore be required to submit to

EPA an implementation plan for the

nonattainment area containing, among

other things, the following provisions:

(1) Provisions to assure that reasonably

available control measures (including

reasonably available control technology)

will be implemented within four years

of re-designation, (2) a permit program

meeting the requirements of section 173

of the Act governing the construction

and operation of new and modified

major stationary sources, (3) either a

demonstration (including air quality

modeling) that the plan will provide for

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than the end of the sixth calendar year

after the area’s designation as

nonattainment, or a demonstration that

attainment by such date is

impracticable, (4) quantitative

milestones which are to be achieved

every three years until the area is

redesignated attainment and which

demonstrate reasonable further progress,

as defined in section 171(1) of the Act,

toward timely attainment, and (5)

provisions to assure that the control

requirements applicable to major

stationary sources of PM–10 also apply

to major stationary sources of PM–10

precursors, unless EPA determines that

such sources do not contribute

significantly to PM–10 levels which

exceed the NAAQS in the area (see, e.g.,

sections 188(c), 189(a), 189(c), 189(e) &

172(c) of the Act). EPA has issued

detailed guidance on the statutory

requirements applicable to moderate

PM–10 nonattainment areas (see 57 FR

13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070

(April 28, 1992)).

If EPA ultimately redesignates any

area as nonattainment in taking final

action on this notice, EPA will establish

a date by which the State must submit

the contingency measures required by

section 172(c)(9) of the Act (see 57 FR

13498 at 13510–12 and 13543–44).

Section 172(b) provides that such date

shall be no later than three years from

the date of the nonattainment

designation. EPA believes that 18

months provides a reasonable amount of

time for the development of contingency

measures. Thus, if EPA finalizes a

nonattainment designation for this area,

EPA would likely establish a schedule

requiring that contingency measures be

submitted with the other Part D
2722 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 11, 1995 / Proposed Rules

requirements described above within 18

months from such designation.

V. Request for Public Comment

EPA is, by this notice, proposing that

the PM–10 designation for Kootenai

County, excluding the area within the

exterior boundaries of the Coeur

d’Alene Indian Reservation, be revised

from unclassifiable to nonattainment.

On September 22, 1992, EPA previously

provided notice and opportunity for

public comment on a proposed PM–10

nonattainment designation for the City

of Coeur d’Alene, which is located

within Kootenai County (see 57 FR

43846). In response to comments from

the State of Idaho on that proposal, EPA

is now providing an additional

opportunity for public comment on the

expansion of the boundaries to include

all of Kootenai County, excluding the

area within the exterior boundaries of

the Coeur d’Alene Indian Reservation.

EPA is requesting public comment on

all aspects of this proposal including the

appropriateness of the proposed

designation and the scope of the

proposed boundary. Written comments

should be submitted to EPA at the

address identified above by March 13,

1995.

VI. Administrative Review

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

for proposed rules subject to notice and

comment rulemaking an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis describing

the impact of the proposed rule on small

entities. 5 U.S.C. 603–604. The

requirement for preparing such analysis

is inapplicable, however, if the

Administrator certifies that the

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities (see 5 U.S.C.

605(b)). Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

The redesignation proposed in this

notice does not impose any new

requirements on small entities.

Redesignation is an action that affects

the status of a geographical area and

does not impose any regulatory

requirements on sources. To the extent

that the State must adopt new

regulations, based on an area’s

nonattainment status, EPA will review

the effect those actions have on small

entities at the time the State submits

those regulations. The Administrator

certifies that the approval of the

redesignation action proposed today

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this action from Executive Order 12866

review.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671g.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: December 28, 1994.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–699 Filed 1–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 21, 94, and 101

[WT Docket No. 94–148; FCC 94–314]

Microwave Fixed Radio Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: By this action, the

Commission proposed to simplify the

rules for the common carrier and private

operational fixed microwave services

that are currently contained in separate

Parts of the Commission’s Rules, and to

consolidate those rules into a new Part.

The key objectives of this action are to

restructure the fixed microwave rules so

that they are easier for the public to

understand and use, to conform similar

rule provisions to the maximum extent

possible, to eliminate redundancy, and

to remove obsolete language from the

Commission’s Rules. The Commission is

also reviewing the need for and impact

of certain regulatory requirements and

policies for the common carrier and

private operational fixed microwave

services.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before February 3, 1995. Reply

comments must be submitted on or

before February 21, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert James, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 634–

1706.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No.

94–148, FCC 94–314, adopted December

9, 1994, and released December 28,

1994. 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 NW., Washington,

DC. The complete text of this decision

also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street

NW., Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of the Order

1. Common carrier microwave

services and private operational fixed

microwave services share many of the

same frequency bands and use

substantially the same equipment. As a

result of recent changes that are

discussed below, the interference

standards, antenna standards, and

coordination procedures for private and

common carrier fixed microwave

services have further converged. This

rulemaking is an effort to conform filing,

processing, operational, and technical

requirements for services that are

technically similar and, thereby, to gain

significant economies and alleviate

confusion to the public.

2. Communications services that use

the microwave spectrum for fixed

services include common carriers

(currently regulated by Part 21 of the

FCC Rules), common carrier multiple

address systems (Part 22), broadcasters

(Part 74), cable TV operators (Part 78),

and private operational fixed users

(currently regulated by Part 94). The

radio frequency spectrum is allocated

among these services on either a shared

or an exclusive basis. When different

service users have similar needs, they

are sometimes required to share

spectrum bands.

3. Of the services listed above, the

common carrier and private operational

fixed microwave users are the most

similar in technical requirements and

share the most frequency bands. The

convergence of the common carrier and

private operational fixed microwave

technical standards has occurred over

the last decade as a result of several

rulemaking proceedings. See Second

Report and Order in GEN Docket No.

79–188, 48 FR 50322 (1983); Third

Report and Order in GEN Docket No.

82–334, 52 FR 07136 (1987); Third

Report and Order in GEN Docket No.

82–243, 56 FR 34149 (1991); and First

Report and Order in PR Docket No. 83–

426, 50 FR 13338 (1985). Recently, a

further convergence of these two

services occurred as a result of the

reallocation of five bands above 3 GHz