Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 66663 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ 

air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see the 

ADDRESSES section for the address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the Northwest 

Mountain Regional Office of the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Air Traffic 

Organization, Western Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D 

airspace at Santa Monica Municipal 

Airport, CA, to accommodate IFR 

aircraft departing and arriving at the 

airport. This action, initiated by FAA’s 

biennial review of the Santa Monica 

Municipal Airport airspace area, and 

based on the results of a study 

conducted by the Los Angeles Visual 

Flight Rules (VFR) Task Force, and the 

Los Angeles Class B Workgroup, would 

enhance the safety and management of 

IFR operations at the airport. Class D 

airspace designations are published in 

paragraph 5000, of FAA Order 7400.9V, 

dated August 9, 2011, and effective 

September 15, 2011, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class D airspace designation 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in this Order. 

The FAA has determined this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) 

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106, describes the authority for 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

amend this proposal for controlled 

airspace at Santa Monica Municipal 

Airport, Santa Monica, CA. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, and effective 

September 15, 2011 is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA D Santa Monica, CA [Amended] 

Santa Monica Municipal Airport, CA 

(Lat. 34°00′57′′ N., long. 118°27′05′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL 

within a 2.7-mile radius of Santa Monica 

Municipal Airport, and within 1.5 miles each 

side of the 047° bearing from the airport 

extending from the 2.7-mile radius to 4.6 

miles northeast, and that airspace beginning 

at the intersection of the 2.7-mile radius and 

287° bearing from the airport to lat. 34°01′43′′ 

N., long. 118°31′49′′ W.; to lat. 33°59′06′′ N., 

long. 118°32′16′′ W.; to lat. 33°58′47′′ N., 

long. 118°31′43′′ W.; to lat. 33°58′04′′ N., 

long. 118°31′42′′ W.; to lat. 33°58′04′′ N., 

long. 118°30′25′′ W.; to lat. 33°57′00′′ N., 

long. 118°28′41′′ W.; to the intersection of the 

168° bearing from the airport and the 2.7- 

mile radius of the airport. This Class D 

airspace area is effective during the specific 

dates and times established in advance by a 

Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time 

will thereafter be continuously published in 

the Airport/Facility Directory. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 

20, 2011. 

John Warner, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27807 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0394; FRL–9483–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Consumer Products and AIM Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Illinois’ volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emission limits for consumer 

products and architectural and 

industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings 

and incorporate this new rule into the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

State of Illinois. However, there are four 

specific paragraphs in this rule with 

deficiencies that EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve, based on a State 

commitment to address the deficiencies 

no later than one year from the date of 

EPA’s conditional approval. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0394, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 886–4447. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

0394. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Anthony 

Maietta at (312) 353–8777 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

or maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Background 

III. Conditions for Approval 

IV. What sources are affected by this 

proposed action? 

V. What is EPA’s proposed action? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

Consumer products are a wide array 

of sprays, gels, cleaners, adhesives, and 

other chemically formulated products 

that are purchased for personal or 

institutional use and that emit VOC 

through their use, consumption, storage, 

disposal, destruction, or decomposition. 

AIM coatings are paints, varnishes, and 

other similar coatings that are meant for 

use on external surfaces of buildings or 

other outside structures and that emit 

VOC through similar means to 

consumer products. 

On April 7, 2010, the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(Illinois EPA) submitted to EPA a 

request to approve into the Illinois SIP 

Part 223, ‘‘Standards and Limitations for 

Organic material Emissions for Area 

Sources’’ of Title 35 of the IAC (35 IAC 

223). The purpose of the rule is to limit 

VOC emissions by requiring reductions 

in the VOC content of consumer 

products and AIM coatings. 35 IAC 223 

consists of 34 new chapters, and is 

divided into three subparts (a subpart 

for general provisions and one subpart 

each for consumer products and AIM 

coatings rules). Part 223 includes the 

following components for control of 

VOC from consumer products and AIM 

coatings: 

(1) VOC emissions limits, reporting 

requirements, and labeling requirements 

for consumer products and AIM 

coatings sold, supplied, offered for sale, 

or manufactured in Illinois. 

(2) Specific limitations for the sale, 

supply, offered for sale, use, or 

manufacture for sale of aerosol 

adhesives, floor wax strippers, products 

containing ozone-depleting compounds, 

and charcoal lighter material. 

(3) Test methods for determining 

compliance with these rules and for 

determining specific aspects of affected 

products or coatings. 

(4) Alternative compliance plans for 

any manufacturer of consumer products 

that has been granted an alternative 

compliance plan agreement by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

(5) A special analysis method for 

Methacrylate Traffic Marking Coatings. 

(6) Special recordkeeping 

requirements for consumer products 

that contain perchloroethylene or 

methylene chloride. 

(7) Additional labeling requirements 

for aerosol adhesives, adhesive 

removers, electronic cleaners, electrical 

cleaners, energized electrical cleaners, 

and contact adhesives. 

(8) Exemptions for consumer products 

produced for sale outside of Illinois, 

consumer products whose VOC 

emission limits are governed by other 

rules, and innovative consumer 

products as defined by CARB. 

(9) Incorporation by reference: The 

State is incorporating by reference a 

number of materials. These 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 66665 

incorporations by reference include test 

methods from the American Society for 

Testing and Materials, EPA, CARB, the 

Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District, and the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District to determine VOC 

content in a number of the product 

categories subject to limits in Illinois’ 

new rule. Also incorporated by 

reference are EPA and the California 

Code of Regulations (CCR) VOC 

standards for consumer products. 

Illinois also incorporated by reference 

the CCR innovative products exemption 

and the alternate control plan. These 

incorporations by reference help 

persons or companies subject to Illinois’ 

new 35 IAC Part 223 to comply with the 

VOC limits contained therein. 

The rules that Illinois adopted and 

submitted to EPA for approval are based 

on existing CARB regulations and model 

rules developed by the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) for consumer 

products and AIM coatings. The OTC 

has developed model rules for several 

consumer products and AIM coatings 

VOC source categories which OTC 

member states (Illinois is not an OTC 

member state) have signed a 

memorandum of understanding to 

adopt. For consumer products, the 

CARB regulations and OTC model rule 

that Illinois based their rule on are at 

least as stringent, and in some cases 

more stringent than, EPA’s national 

consumer products rule, ‘‘National 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission 

Standards for Consumer Products,’’ 40 

CFR Part 59, Subpart C. For AIM 

coatings, the OTC model rule that 

Illinois’ rule is based upon is also at 

least as stringent, and in some cases 

more stringent than, EPA’s AIM coatings 

rule, ‘‘National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for 

Architectural Coatings,’’ at 40 CFR Part 

59 Subpart D. 

III. Conditions for Approval 

A rule-by-rule review of Illinois’ 

submittal showed that four paragraphs 

contained errors. Paragraph (6)(A) of 35 

IAC 223.205 erroneously provides two 

high-volatility organic material limits 

for aerosol-based antiperspirants when 

there should be both a high- and 

medium-volatility limit for this category 

based on the OTC model rule. Paragraph 

(6)(B) of 35 IAC 223.205 erroneously 

provides two medium-volatility organic 

material limits for non aerosol-based 

antiperspirants when there should be 

both a high- and medium-volatility limit 

for this category based on the OTC 

model rule. 

Paragraph (17)(A) of 35 IAC 223.205 

erroneously provides two high-volatility 

organic material limits for aerosol-based 

deodorants when there should be both 

a high- and medium-volatility limit for 

this category based on the OTC model 

rule. Paragraph (17)(B) of 35 IAC 

223.205 erroneously provides two 

medium-volatility organic material 

limits for non aerosol-based deodorants 

when there should be both a high- and 

medium-volatility limit for this category 

based on the OTC model rule. 

On September 2, 2011, Illinois sent 

EPA a letter committing to amend these 

paragraphs to display the correct limits 

and limit categories and submit revised 

rules to EPA within one year of our final 

rulemaking. Under section 110(k)(4) of 

the CAA, EPA may conditionally 

approve a portion of a SIP revision 

based on a commitment from a state to 

adopt specific enforceable measures by 

a date certain that is no more than one 

year from the date of conditional 

approval. In this action, we are 

proposing to approve a portion of the 

SIP revision that Illinois has submitted 

on the condition that the specified 

deficiencies in the SIP revision are 

corrected as discussed in Illinois’ 

September 2, 2011, letter. If this 

condition is not fulfilled within one 

year of the effective date of final 

rulemaking, the conditional approval 

will automatically revert to disapproval, 

as of the deadline for meeting the 

conditions, without further action from 

EPA. EPA would subsequently publish 

a notice in the Federal Register 

informing the public of a disapproval. If 

Illinois submits final and effective rule 

revisions correcting the deficiencies, as 

discussed above, within one year from 

this conditional approval becoming 

final and effective, EPA will publish a 

subsequent notice in the Federal 

Register to acknowledge conversion of 

the conditional approval to a full 

approval. 

IV. What sources are affected by this 

proposed action? 

Anyone who sells, supplies, offers for 

sale, or manufactures consumer 

products and AIM coatings in Illinois is 

affected by this proposed action. 

Because of the wide adoption of OTC 

model rules for consumer products and 

AIM coatings by California, OTC states, 

and other Midwestern states, Illinois 

expects that some of the reductions from 

adoption of these rules have already 

been realized. This is because of 

existing nationwide compliance with 

the OTC model rules by many of the 

largest manufacturers of these products. 

However, because so many states have 

adopted these rules, and many major 

manufacturers already comply with 

these rules, the burden on affected 

sources will be minor. EPA agrees with 

Illinois’ view. 

Illinois held two public hearings on 

its proposed rule, took public comment 

on the proposed rule and also contacted 

approximately 600 entities listed as 

potentially affected by the rules to 

provide these sources an opportunity for 

comment on the proposed rule. While 

very few of the potentially affected 

entities responded, it is clear that 

Illinois made an effort to inform them of 

the proposed rules. 

IV. What is EPA’s proposed action? 

We propose to conditionally approve 

paragraphs (6)(A), (6)(B), (17)(A), and 

(17)(B) of 35 IAC 223.205, based on a 

commitment from the State sent on 

September 2, 2011 to correct this rule 

within one year of our final rulemaking. 

If the State fails to make this correction 

within the allowed one year period as 

discussed above, this conditional 

approval will revert to disapproval. 

We propose to approve and 

incorporate in to the Illinois SIP the rest 

of the State’s April 7, 2010, submittal, 

that is, the remainder of 35 IAC Part 

223, because VOC limits in these rules 

are at least as stringent as, and in many 

cases are more stringent than, EPA’s 

existing limits for these sources. 

Therefore, approval of these rules will 

strengthen the Illinois SIP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
66666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L.104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: October 18, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27810 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 11–169; PP Docket No. 00– 

67; FCC 11–153] 

Basic Service Tier Encryption 

Compatibility Between Cable Systems 

and Consumer Electronics Equipment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, we propose 

a new rule to allow cable operators to 

encrypt the basic service tier in alldigital systems, provided that those 

cable operators undertake certain 

consumer protection measures for a 

limited period of time in order to 

minimize any potential subscriber 

disruption. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

November 28, 2011. Submit reply 

comments on or before December 12, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Brendan Murray, 

Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418– 

2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 11–153, 

adopted on October 13, 2011 and 

released on October 14, 2011. The full 

text of this document is available for 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. This document will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request these 

documents in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. With this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), we seek comment 

on whether to retain the basic service 

tier encryption prohibition for all-digital 

cable systems. As discussed below, we 

tentatively conclude that allowing cable 

operators to encrypt the basic service 

tier in all-digital systems will not 

substantially affect compatibility 

between cable service and consumer 

electronics equipment for most 

subscribers. At the same time, however, 

we recognize that some consumers 

subscribe only to a cable operator’s 

digital basic service tier and currently 

are able to do so without using a set-top 

box or other equipment. Similarly, there 

are consumers that may have a set-top 

box on a primary television but access 

the unencrypted digital basic service 

tier on second or third televisions in 

their home without using a set-top box 

or other equipment. Although we expect 

the number of subscribers in these 

situations to be relatively small, these 

consumers may be affected by lifting the 

encryption prohibition for all-digital 

cable systems. Accordingly, we 

tentatively conclude that, any operators 

of all-digital cable systems that choose 

to encrypt the basic service tier must 

comply with certain consumer 

protection measures for a limited period 

of time in order to minimize any 

potential subscriber disruption. 

2. In the Cable Television Consumer 

Protection and Competition Act of 1992 

(1992 Cable Act), Congress recognized 

that compatibility problems between 

cable service and consumer electronics 

equipment were limiting and/or 

precluding the operation of premium 

features of consumer equipment and 

were affecting the ability of consumer 

equipment to receive cable 

programming. Section 624A of the Act 

was added by Section 17 of the 1992 

Cable Act to address this issue. 

Specifically, section 624A requires the 

Commission to issue regulations to 

assure compatibility between consumer 

electronics equipment and cable 

systems. In 1994, the Commission 

implemented the requirements of 

section 624A. As part of that 

implementation, the Commission added 

§ 76.630(a) to its rules. Section 76.630(a) 

of the Commission’s rules prohibits 

cable operators from scrambling or 

encrypting signals carried on the basic 

tier of service. The Commission 

determined that this rule would 

significantly advance compatibility by 

ensuring that all subscribers would be 

able to receive basic tier signals ‘‘in the 

clear’’ and that basic-only subscribers 

with cable-ready televisions would not 

need set-top boxes. The Commission 

concluded that ‘‘[t]his rule also will 

have minimal impact on the cable 

industry in view of the fact that most 

cable systems now generally do not 

scramble basic tier signals.’’ 

3. Subsequent to the Commission’s 

adoption of the encryption ban, cable 

operators began to upgrade their 

systems to offer digital cable service. 

More recently, cable operators’ 

transition to more efficient all-digital 

systems has freed up spectrum to offer 

new or improved products and services 

like higher-speed Internet access and 

high definition programming. As a 

result of this digital transition, most 

cable subscribers now have at least one 

cable set-top box or CableCARD device 

in their homes. As cable operators began 

to transition programming on their cable 

programming service tier (CPST) to 

digital, many program carriage 

agreements required cable operators to 

encrypt that programming as a 

condition of carriage. Encryption refers 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS