58252 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

identified in this notice, EPA will

evaluate those changes and may publish

another notice of proposed rulemaking.

If no substantial changes are made other

than those areas cited in this notice,

EPA will publish a Final Rulemaking

Notice on the revisions. The final

rulemaking action by EPA will occur

only after the SIP revision has been

adopted by the District of Columbia and

submitted formally to EPA for

incorporation into the SIP.

III. Proposed Action

EPA is withdrawing the proposed

conditional approval published in the

Federal Register on February 25, 1999,

and is, instead, proposing full approval

of the District of Columbia’s NOX RACT

regulation found in section 805 of Title

20 of the DCMR which was submitted

as a SIP revision by the District of

Columbia on January 13, 1994 and

supplemented on August 28, 2000.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). For

the same reason, this rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant. In reviewing

SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to

approve state choices, provided that

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air

Act. In this context, in the absence of a

prior existing requirement for the State

to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS), EPA has no authority to

disapprove a SIP submission for failure

to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’ issued under the

executive order. This rule, which

proposes approval of the District of

Columbia’s NOX RACT regulation, does

not impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 15, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–24792 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 217–0261; FRL–6878–8]

Approving Implementation Plans;

California State Implementation Plan

Revision, San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited

approval and limited disapproval of two

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

permitting and New Source Review

(NSR) rules for stationary sources. These

rules were submitted as revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). EPA originally proposed full

approval of these rules in the Federal

Register (64 FR 51493) on September

23, 1999. However, based on comments

EPA received on the proposed approval

and further review of the rules, EPA has

determined that the rules as submitted

are not fully approvable. Therefore, EPA

is now proposing a limited approval and

limited disapproval of the rules and

requesting comment on this proposal.

The intended effect of proposing

limited approval and limited

disapproval is to ensure that the

District’s permitting and NSR rules are

consistent with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). EPA is proposing a

limited approval of the rules because

the rules generally strengthen the SIP.

EPA is concurrently proposing a limited

disapproval of the rules because the

rules contain deficiencies which do not

fully meet the CAA requirements for

non-attainment areas and must be

corrected. If EPA finalizes this limited

approval and limited disapproval, EPA’s

final action will incorporate the rules

into the federally approved SIP. EPA

evaluated these rules based on CAA

guidelines for EPA action on SIP

submittals and EPA’s general

rulemaking authority.

DATES: Comments must arrive by

October 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Ed Pike,

Permits Office [AIR–3], Air Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can review and copy the

submitted rules, the existing SIP rules,

and EPA’s Technical Support Document

(TSD) at EPA’s Region 9 office from 8:30

a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

Copies of the submitted rules are also

available for inspection at the following

locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1990 East

Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please call Ed Pike at (415) 744–1211 or

send email to pike.ed@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58253

1See the Technical Support Document for more

information on the Districts’ jurisdiction.

2Please note that other comments were contained

in this letter and will be addressed in EPA’s final

rulemaking.

3Please see August 24, 1999 agreement signed by

Mark Boese, of the District and David Howekamp,

Air Division Director of US EPA Region IX, in the

TSD.

Table of Contents

I. EPA is Proposing Limited Approval and

Limited Disapproval of District Rule

2020, Permit Exemptions, and Rule 2201,

New Source Review

II. How Did EPA Arrive at the Proposed

Action?

A. Previous Proposed Approval

B. New Source Review Rule Offset

Equivalency

C. Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

Applicability

D. Agricultural Exemption

III. Overview of Limited Approval/

Disapproval

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. EPA is Proposing Limited Approval

and Limited Disapproval of District

Rule 2020, Permit Exemptions, and

Rule 2201, New Source Review

EPA today proposes a limited

approval and limited disapproval of

revisions to the California SIP for

District Rules 2020 and 2201. Upon

final action, the rules will replace

existing New Source Review and Permit

Exemption Rules in the following SIPs:

Fresno County, a portion of Kern

County,1 Kings County, Madera County,

Merced County, San Joaquin County,

Stanislaus County, and Tulare County.

Please see the Technical Support

Document for a complete list of the

Rules that will be replaced.

Rule 2020 was adopted by the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (for background

information on the District, please see

64 FR 51493) on September 17, 1998,

and submitted to EPA by the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) on October

27, 1998. Rule 2201 was adopted by the

District on August 20, 1998 and

submitted to EPA by CARB on

September 29, 1998. This proposed

limited approval and limited

disapproval does not include sections

5.9 and 6.0 of Rule 2201, which specify

requirements for title V operating

permits. The title V requirements in

Rule 2201 (based on a prior version of

Rule 2201) were given interim approval

as part of the District’s title V operating

permits program in EPA’s April 24,

1996 rulemaking on that program (see

60 FR 55517 and 61 FR 18083). The

District has not submitted any

substantive changes to the title V

sections of Rule 2201 since that

approval.

II. How Did EPA Arrive at the Proposed

Action?

A. Previous Proposed Approval

On September 23, 1999 (64 FR 51493),

EPA proposed to approve Rules 2020

and 2201 into the California SIP and

provided a 30-day public comment

period. EPA had evaluated these rules

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as well

as EPA’s interpretation of these

requirements in EPA policy guidance

documents. (See the September 23, 1999

proposed rule and the TSD for this

action for a detailed discussion of the

rules and EPA’s evaluation, as well as

the updated information below). EPA

received and reviewed public comment

on its proposed approval and has also

conducted further review of the rule.

Based on the public comment and our

further rule review, we have identified

portions of the rules that do not meet

EPA requirements: (1) The

enforceability of the offset equivalency

tracking system contained in the

proposed rule; (2) the applicability of

the Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate

(LAER) to modified sources; and (3) an

exemption for agricultural sources. As a

whole, District Rules 2020 and 2201 are

an improvement to the permitting rules

currently in the SIP (see page 3 of EPA’s

August 30, 1999 TSD) and strengthen

the SIP. However, EPA has also

determined that these rules do not fully

meet the requirements of the Clean Air

Act and EPA’s regulations because they

contain the three deficiencies listed

above.

B. New Source Review Rule Offset

Equivalency

In September 1999, EPA proposed to

approve the rules based on the District’s

commitment to demonstrate that the

rules would require offsets that are, in

the aggregate, equivalent to federal

offset requirements (See our September

23, 1999 proposed rulemaking in the

Federal Register for more information).

The proposal identified situations

where the District’s offset rule might not

collect as many federally recognized

offsets as required by EPA regulations.

For instance, the District does not adjust

offsets at the time of use, which means

that some emission reductions used to

generate the offsets would not be

surplus to all Clean Air Act

requirements. The September 1999

proposal also identified situations

where the District’s rule would require

more offsets than federal requirements,

such as the requirement for some nonmajor sources to obtain offsets. The

District committed to demonstrate

equivalency by calculating on an annual

basis the quantity of offsets that would

be required under federal nonattainment NSR regulations (i.e. the

quantity of offsets that meet all Clean

Air Act requirements) and the quantity

of offsets required under the District

program. (See the September 23, 1999

proposal and the TSD for more

information on the District’s proposed

equivalency demonstration.)

EPA continues to believe that the

District can adopt and EPA can approve

into the SIP an offset system to show

equivalency with federal offset

requirements. However, a comment

submitted by Adams, Broadwell and

Cordoza on October 25, 1999 states that

the District’s commitment to EPA falls

short of guaranteeing equivalent

offsets.2 EPA agrees with this comment,

but believes that this deficiency in the

equivalency system can be corrected by

a mandatory remedy that is

automatically effective if the annual

demonstration results in a shortfall of

offsets meeting all federal requirements.

Although the District’s Deputy Air

Pollution Control Officer had committed

to initiate rule amendments if the

annual demonstration results in a

shortfall,3 Rule 2201 does not contain a

specific requirement for the District to

remedy any shortfall of offsets in the

equivalency demonstration. Therefore,

rather than finalize full approval of the

rule, EPA is proposing this limited

approval based on a finding that Rule

2201 is deficient because it does not

include a specific and enforceable

remedy for a shortfall in the annual

equivalency demonstration. EPA

believes that the rule must be revised to

contain a mandatory and enforceable

remedy to cure any annual shortfall and

prevent future shortfalls.

The District has suggested adopting a

rule amendment requiring that all new

major sources, and certain

modifications, use offsets that are

surplus at the time of use, if the District

does not demonstrate ‘‘equivalency’’.

EPA believes that amending the rule to

include this enforceable remedy would

correct this rule deficiency, because we

expect that the District would make up

any short-fall in the equivalency

demonstration within twelve months.

C. Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

Applicability

After our September 1999 proposal,

EPA discovered that the District rule

does not under all circumstances

require LAER for modifications to an

emission unit(s). Specifically, the rule

does not require LAER if the

modification causes an increase in

actual emissions but not an increase in

58254 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the emission unit’s permitted emission

rate. EPA’s New Source Review

regulations (40 CFR 51.165) require

LAER for significant emission increases

(for instance, 25 tons per year of volatile

organic compounds or nitrogen oxides)

and require that major sources calculate

emissions changes based on the postproject allowable emissions minus the

pre-project actual emissions. The

District rule, however, requires LAER

(the District’s rule uses the term ‘‘Best

Available Control Technology,’’ which

is defined to be at least as strict as EPA

LAER) for all modified units with an

increase in permitted emissions of

greater than two pounds per day

(section 4 of District Rule 2201). EPA

believes that the District rule would

require LAER for most sources that

trigger federal LAER requirements.

Nevertheless, EPA finds that there is a

deficiency in the rule as currently

written because it could exempt from

LAER some sources that would have

actual emissions increases greater than

the federal significance level, even if the

increase in permitted emission rates did

not exceed two pounds per day.

For example, EPA has reviewed

emissions data for a glass furnace

expansion that was a major modification

based on a comparison of post-project

allowable emissions and pre-project

actual emissions, but which the source

believed was not subject to LAER under

the current District rule. This is because

the source compared their pre-project

potential to emit (the source used

potential to emit because the permit did

not contain source-specific emission

limitations) with the permit limit for the

expanded furnace, rather than

comparing their pre-project actual

emissions to their new allowable

emission rate. In this situation, the new

allowable emission level was

significantly higher than the prior actual

emissions, but not higher than the

source’s estimate of their prior potential

to emit. This could allow a source to

make a major modification (based on

increases in actual emissions at one or

more units), but avoid LAER if it does

not increase its potential to emit. In

addition, determining the ‘‘permitted’’

emission rate is problematic when no

source-specific emission limit exists.

Therefore, EPA is proposing that the

District must amend Rule 2201 to

ensure that sources install LAER if they

are allowed to make a significant

increase in their actual emission rate.

The District has suggested adopting

an amendment to Rule 2201 that

requires that certain modified sources

apply LAER if they are included in the

District’s definition of a title I

modification (Rule 2010). EPA believes

that a rule amendment of this type

would correct this rule deficiency.

D. Agricultural Exemption

The District exemption rule (section

4.1 of Rule 2020) contains an exemption

for agricultural operations. The

exemption generally applies to ‘‘any

equipment used in agricultural

operations in the growing of crops or the

raising of fowl or animals.’’ EPA did not

originally identify this issue as a

deficiency in our original Federal

Register Notice. Upon further review,

however, EPA recognized that this

exemption could apply to major sources

subject to the New Source Review

requirements under the federal Clean

Air Act. Therefore, EPA believes that

the District must remove this exemption

from the District program to receive full

approval.

III. Overview of Limited Approval/

Disapproval

Because of the three deficiencies

identified in this rulemaking, Rules

2020 and 2201 are not approvable

pursuant to section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

CAA, and EPA cannot grant full

approval of the District’s permitting and

NSR program under section 110(k)(3)

and part D. Because the submitted rules

are not composed of separable parts

which meet all the applicable

requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot

grant partial approval of the rules under

section 110(k)(3).

However, EPA may grant a limited

approval of the submitted permitting

and NSR rules (2020 and 2201) under

section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA’s

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The

approval is limited because EPA’s

action also contains a simultaneous

limited disapproval. In order to

strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a

limited approval of the District’s

submitted Rules 2020 and 2201 under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the

CAA.

At the same time, EPA is also

proposing a limited disapproval of

District Rules 2020 and 2201 because

they contain deficiencies and, as such,

the rules do not fully meet the

requirements of part D of the Act. Under

section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator

disapproves a submission under section

110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the submission’s

failure to meet one or more of the

elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval.

Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator:

withholding highway funding and

increasing the offset requirements. The

18 month period referred to in section

179(a) will begin on the effective date of

EPA’s final limited disapproval.

Moreover, the final limited disapproval

triggers the federal implementation plan

(FIP) requirement under section 110(c).

It should be noted that the rules covered

by this proposed rulemaking have

already been adopted by the District.

EPA’s final limited disapproval action

will not prevent the District or EPA

from enforcing these rules.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical,

environmental, and economic factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4). For the same reason,

this proposed rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

rule will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58255

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This proposed rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

New Source Review, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: September 15, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–24941 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 97–80; FCC 00–341]

Commercial Availability of Navigation

Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document seeks

comments regarding rules adopted to

implement Section 629 of the

Communications Act. Section 304 of the

1996 Telecommunications Act, which

became law on February 5, 1996, added

Section 629 to the Communications Act.

Section 629 concerns the commercial

availability of navigation devices. This

document may result in information

collection(s) subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995.

DATES: Comments are due November 15,

2000; reply comments are due December

18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Horan at (202) 418–7200 or via

internet at thoran@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(‘‘FNPRM’’), FCC 00–341, adopted

September 14, 2000; released September

18, 2000. The full text of the

Commission’s FNPRM is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room CY–A257) at its

headquarters, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554, or may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, or

may be reviewed via internet at http://

www.fcc.gov/csb/.

I. Synopsis of the Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

A. Development of OpenCable

Specifications.

1. In this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘Notice’’), we seek

comment on whether the specifications

provided by CableLabs allow consumer

electronics manufacturers to build a

navigation device that provides

consumers a viable alternative to the

equipment provided by their service

provider. In addition, we also seek

comment on whether there are further

steps the Commission should undertake

to ensure compliance with section 629

and achieve the statutory objective of

commercial availability of navigation

devices.

B. Integrated Boxes

2. We seek comment on the extent of

the effect operator provision of

integrated equipment has had on

achieving a competitive market for

commercially available navigation

devices. We seek comment on whether

the 2005 date for the phase-out of

integrated boxes remains appropriate.

Alternatively, we seek comment on

whether it would it be satisfactory to

permit multichannel video

programming distributors (MVPD) or

retail distribution of integrated boxes

after January 1, 2005 if integrated boxes

are also commercially available or for

other reasons necessary to further the

objectives of Section 629. In addition,

we seek comment on the considerations

that factor into a decision regarding the

date of the phase-out of integrated

boxes. For example, would an earlier or

later date create incentives for the

development of a commercial market for

navigation devices? We also seek

comment on the economic impact an

earlier or later date would have on

manufacturers and on MVPDs. In this

regard, we believe the following

information would be beneficial to the

Commission’s analysis: (1) The number

of integrated boxes that MVPDs have

deployed to customers to date; (2) the

number of integrated boxes MVPDs

expect to be deployed in 2003; (3) the

number of orders MVPDs and retailers

have made for non-integrated

equipment; and (4) the number of orders

for integrated boxes MVPDs have placed

since the release of Implementation of

Section 304 of the Telecommunications

Act of 1996: Commercial Availability of

Navigation Devices, 64 FR 29599 (June

2, 1999), and (5) the total cost

differential (including manufacturing,

marketing, research and development,

and distribution costs), if any, between

an integrated box and a host/POD

combination.

C. Obstacles to Commercial

Availability

3. We note that a retail market for

cable modems is developing in certain

regions of the country, while

commenters assert that there are no host

devices available at retail. We seek

comment on this apparent disparity. We

seek comment on any obstacles or

barriers preventing or deterring the

development of a retail market for

navigation devices. We note that cable

systems are in development that utilize

technology outside that of traditional

cable architecture. We seek comment on