Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30579

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE #20, FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

[Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facility Section: 2]

State Site name City/County NPL

Gr 1

FL ...... Tyndall Air Force Base .............................................................................. Panama City ................................................................. 5/6

VA ..... Sewells Point Naval Complex .................................................................... Norfolk ........................................................................... 5/6

1Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the final NPL.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Air pollution control, Chemicals,

Environmental Protection, Hazardous

materials, Intergovernmental relations,

Natural resources, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Waste

treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: June 6, 1996.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 96–15033 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 87–75; FCC 96–161]

Provision of Aeronautical Services via

the Inmarsat System

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted

restrictions on use of the Inmarsat

system for aeronautical services in the

U.S. in Aeronautical Services Order II.

In a Further Notice of Proposed Rule

Making (FNPRM), the Commission is

examining the prior restrictions and

seeking comment on alternative

arrangements. In the FNPRM the

Commission proposed to establish the

scope of permissible uses of Inmarsat

aeronautical services in the United

States. The Commission has generally

promoted competition in satellite

communications in both the

international and U.S. domestic

markets. Due to spectrum availability

constraints in the L-band it was

necessary to propose limits on the use

of Inmarsat aeronautical services in the

United States. The spectrum in which

mobile satellite services (MSS) will

operate is limited and appears

insufficient to meet the stated spectrum

requirements for the North American

coverage area for American Mobile

Satellite Corporation, Inmarsat and

three other countries developing MSS

systems—Canada, Mexico and Russia.

In the future, the Commission may

permit entry by Inmarsat into the U.S.

domestic aeronautical market—but not

until the U.S. has ensured sufficient

spectrum for domestic needs without

interference to communications links.

The intended effect of this proceeding is

to establish the manner in which

Inmarsat aeronautical services will be

available in the U.S. consistent with

competition policies and spectrum

availability.

DATES: Comments are due July 17, 1996;

reply comments are due August 16,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga

Madruga-Forti, International Bureau,

Satellite and Radiocommunication

Division, Satellite Policy Branch, (202)

418–0766.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in CC

Docket 87–75, Provision of Aeronautical

Services via the Inmarsat System,

Commission 96–161, adopted April 9,

1996, released May 9, 1996. The

Commission is considering adopting

geographical restriction to Inmarsat

aeronautical services similar to those

established in Aeronautical Services

Order II, 54 FR 33224 (August 14, 1989).

The complete text of this FNPRM is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

Commission Reference Center, 1919 M

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

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

I. Introduction

In this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, the Commission initiated a

further notice of proposed rulemaking

concerning the geographic restrictions

on the domestic use of Inmarsat-based

aeronautical satellite services adopted

in Aeronautical Services Order II, 54 FR

33224 (August 14, 1989). The

Commission identified three possible

models for geographic limitations: (1)

Decline to authorize Inmarsat

aeronautical services in U.S. airspace;

(2) Authorize Inmarsat aeronautical

services in the U.S. for aircraft in

international flight up to the first port of

entry and from the last port of departure

from the U.S.; and (3) Authorize

Inmarsat aeronautical services in the

U.S. for all international flights

including the domestic legs of

international flights. Analysis and

comment should consider the reliability

and quality of communications and the

Commission’s desire to promote

competition. Furthermore, in order to

ensure continuity of service the

Commission granted those parties

already authorized to provide Inmarsat

aeronautical mobile satellite service to

aircraft in international flight special

temporary authority to provide service

to aircraft in domestic flight.

II. Background

In 1987, the Commission initiated a

rulemaking to determine how

aeronautical mobile satellite service

(‘‘AMSS’’) via Inmarsat would be

provided in the United States. In

Aeronautical Services Order II, the

Commission authorized COMSAT to

provide Inmarsat aeronautical services

to United States aeronautical earth

stations for aircraft in flight: (1) from the

United States to a foreign point; (2) from

a foreign point into the United States;

and (3) between any two foreign points.

The Commission also specified that

aircraft in flight between two U.S.

domestic points may use only the

domestic mobile satellite system for

satellite communications to the extent

the coverage area of that system permits.

3. We have generally promoted

competition in satellite communications

in both the international and U.S.

domestic markets. The circumstances

presented here pose certain limitations

on the extent to which we can achieve

a fully competitive U.S. market for MSS

systems in the L-band. The spectrum in
30580 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1The circumstances under which Inmarsat may

offer domestic services within the U.S. are also a

subject under consideration in a notice of proposed

rulemaking on the provision of domestic service by

non-U.S. satellites. See Amendment of the

Commission’s Regulatory Policies to Allow NonU.S. Licensed Space Stations to Provide Domestic

and International Satellite Service in the United

States, Commission 96–210, adopted May 9, l996,

released May 14, l996. Inmarsat could only enter

the domestic aeronautical MSS market in

accordance with the rules and policies adopted in

this rulemaking as well as any rules or policies that

may be adopted in the broader proceeding. We also

defer consideration of NTIA’s request in its

comments for initiation of a Further NPRM on the

issue of direct access to Inmarsat by multiple

providers. This direct access issue is a part of a

broader review of U.S. satellite policy by relevant

agencies.

2See e.g., Motorola Satellite Communications,

Inc. Order and Authorization, 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 2268

(International Bureau, released January 31, l995);

Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P., 10 F.C.C. Rcd.

2333 (International Bureau, released January 31,

l995); TRW, Inc. Order and Authorization, 10 F.C.C.

Rcd. 2263 (International Bureau, released January

31, l995).

3Article 8 of the Inmarsat Convention provides,

in general, that in order to ensure technical

compatibility and avoid economic harm to the

Inmarsat system, a Party shall notify Inmarsat

before the Party uses separate space segment

facilities for maritime purposes. The Ninth

Assembly of the Inmarsat Assembly of Parties

decided that no system which falls within the scope

of Article 8 of the Convention shall be deemed to

cause significant economic harm to the

organization.

which the MSS systems will operate is

limited and appears insufficient to meet

the stated spectrum requirements for the

North American coverage area for

AMSC, Inmarsat and three other

countries developing MSS systems—

Canada, Mexico, and Russia. In seven

years of negotiations, the five systems

have been unable to successfully

complete coordination to operate the

same frequencies on a co-coverage basis

in North America and the surrounding

geographical area. The five systems are

vying for access to 33 MHz of spectrum

in each direction but have claimed

requirements for significantly more than

that amount. Moreover, this problem is

complicated because the current designs

of the MSS systems do not permit

sharing frequencies in the same

geographic area or adjacent areas.

Inmarsat claims a need for exclusive use

of considerable spectrum over the

continental United States (CONUS) for

its maritime and other services.

However, AMSC likely will have to use

noncontiguous spectrum segments and

share some of these segments with other

MSS systems. We have two specific

concerns about permitting Inmarsat to

provide aeronautical services in the

United States under these

circumstances: (1) Inmarsat may claim

additional spectrum needs over CONUS

in order to provide this service; and (2)

AMSC may receive technical

interference from proximate Inmarsat

channels and not be able to operate on

those channels assigned to it.

4. We want competition in the U.S.

market, but the first step is to ensure

sufficient spectrum for the U.S.

domestic MSS system to become an

effective competitor. This will require

successful completion of the current

coordination process. Any policy that

we propose here for aeronautical

services must not exacerbate this

situation or complicate ongoing

negotiations. Therefore, we propose an

approach similar to that in our l989

Aeronautical Services Order II. That is,

we propose that Inmarsat continue to

provide primarily international AMSS

to the United States. We may, at a future

date, permit entry by Inmarsat into the

U.S. domestic aeronautical market—but,

we will not propose to do so until we

have successfully coordinated sufficient

spectrum for the U.S. licensed domestic

MSS system.1

5. We do not propose to adopt a

policy that takes into account the

economic impact on the AMSC system

of Inmarsat entry into the U.S.

aeronautical service market. AMSC

already faces competition from other

U.S. satellite systems such as

Qualcomm’s OmniTracs service and

Orbcomm’s land mobile and maritime

services. It will eventually face

competition from low earth orbit (LEO)

systems recently authorized by the

Commission.2 There does not appear to

be any reason to single out Inmarsat’s

economic impact on the AMSC system.

Moreover, Inmarsat does not consider

economic impact in evaluating the

provision of aeronautical and land

mobile services by non-Inmarsat

satellite systems, and no longer

considers it for competing maritime

services.3 The United States has been in

the forefront of the effort to ensure that

Inmarsat does not use economic impact

analysis to prevent or discourage

competition in the provision of

international satellite services.

6. Accordingly, in this FNPRM, we

seek comment on the circumstances in

which we should permit the use of

Inmarsat aeronautical satellite services

in the United States. We tentatively

conclude that due to spectrum

availability constraints, we must limit

the scope of Inmarsat aeronautical

services in the United States pending

completion of current negotiations. We

believe that this approach will ensure

that the available spectrum is adequate

to serve the United States public interest

in the provision of aeronautical satellite

services. We specifically request parties

disputing our spectrum analysis to

submit detailed comments addressing

this issue. We seek comment on our

tentative conclusion and on defining the

scope of Inmarsat aeronautical service.

7. Initially, we identify three possible

models for establishing geographic

limitations:

1. Decline to authorize the use of

Inmarsat aeronautical services in U.S.

airspace.

2. Authorize the use of Inmarsat

aeronautical services, both safety and

APC, via U.S. earth stations for aircraft

in international flight: (a) from the

United States to a foreign point; and (b)

from a foreign point into the United

States.

3. Authorize the use of Inmarsat

aeronautical services, both safety and

APC, via U.S. earth stations for aircraft

in international flight: (a) from the

United States to a foreign point; (b) from

a foreign point into the United States;

and (c) on domestic legs of international

flights.

8. We seek comment on the

definitions of the scope of service

proposed in this FNPRM and we invite

additional or alternative proposals. We

believe that this approach is necessary

to ensure the development of a United

States domestic MSS-AMSS(R) system

that has sufficient reliable spectrum to

meet the needs of the public, including

safety needs. We propose to adopt one

of the definitions of the scope of

Inmarsat aeronautical services discussed

above as reasonable to fulfill this

objective.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis

9. Pursuant to Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared the following

initial regulatory flexibility analysis

(‘‘IRFA’’) of the expected impact of

these proposed policies and rules on

small entities. Written public comments

are requested on the IRFA. These

comments must be filed in accordance

with the same filing deadlines as

comments on the rest of the Further

NPRM, but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the regulatory flexibility

analysis. The Secretary shall cause a

copy of the FNPRM, including the

initial regulatory flexibility analysis, to

be sent to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with

Section 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96–354,

94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.

(1981).

10. Reason for Action. This FNPRM

proposes to establish regulations

establishing geographical boundaries for
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30581

the use of Inmarsat aeronautical services

in the United States.

11. Objectives. To propose rules to

govern the use of Inmarsat-based

aeronautical services in the United

States.

12. Legal Basis. Authority as proposed

for this rulemaking is contained in the

provisions of the Communications Act,

47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 303(r), 403, and

405.

13. Description, Potential Impact and

Number of Small Entities Affected.

None.

14. Reporting, Record Keeping and

Other Compliance Requirements. None.

15. Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict with this Rule.

None.

16. Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing Impact on Small Entities

and Consistent with Stated Objectives.

None.

Paperwork Reduction Act

17. This NPRM contains a proposed

information collection. The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) to

comment on the information collections

contained in this NPRM, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law No. 104–13. Public and

agency comments are due at the same

time as other comments on this NPRM;

OMB notification of action is due

August 16, 1996. Comments should

address: (a) whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Commission, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Procedural Provisions

18. This is a non-restricted notice and

comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex

Parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided they are disclosed as

provided in 47 CFR § 1.1206(a).

19. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415

and 1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before July 17, 1996

and reply comments on or before

August 16, 1996. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

plus four copies of all comments, reply

comments and supporting comments. If

you want a Commissioner to receive a

personal copy of your comments and

reply comments you must file an

original plus nine copies. You should

send comments and reply comments to

the Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Comments and reply comments will be

available for public inspection during

regular business hours in the

Commission Public Reference Center,

Room 239, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20554.

20. Written comments by the public

on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due July 17,

1996 and reply comments on or before

August 16, 1996. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before August 16,

1996. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-

17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC

20503 or via the Internet to fain—

t@al.eop.gov. For additional information

concerning the information collections

contained in this NPRM contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217.

Ordering Clauses

21. Accordingly, it is further ordered

that the Secretary shall send a copy of

this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with

paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Public Law No. 96–354,

94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et. seq.

(1981).

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–15268 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 92–77, FCC 96–253]

Billed Party Preference for O+

InterLATA Calls

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted a

Second Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment

on tentative conclusions that it should

establish benchmarks for the rates that

consumers are asked to pay for operator

service calls reflecting what consumers

expect to pay for those calls and require

that, if consumers will be charged rates

above the benchmarks, the operator

service provider (OSP) offering services

through payphones and other aggregator

locations disclose the applicable charges

for the call to the consumer orally before

connecting the call. The NPRM also

seeks comment on what benchmark

rates the Commission should establish,

as well as on an alternative that would

require all OSPs to disclose their rates

orally on all operator service calls. The

NPRM also solicits comment on

whether the FCC should forbear from

applying informational tariff filing

requirements for interstate operator

services, and, if not, on proposed rules

and a waiver policy with respect to the

filing of such tariffs. Finally, the

Commission seeks comment on the best

means to remedy the problem of high

rates charged by some carriers that serve

phones in prisons that are used by

inmates to make collect calls. The

proposed rule changes are intended to

enable consumers to make better

informed decisions whether to use a

particular OSP when making a call from

a payphone or other aggregator location

away from home.

DATES: Written comment by the public

on the Second Further Notice of

Proposed RuleMaking and the proposed

and/or modified information collections

are due July 17, 1996. Reply comments

are due on August 16, 1996. Written

comments by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/

or modified information collections are

due on or before August 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M St. N.W.,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the Secretary, a

copy of any comments on the

information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications