Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 52677

acres of the Site. The cap was installed

between November 1995 and May 1996.

In preparation for the final cap profile,

clean backfill material was applied on

top of the waste, and the backfill was

graded to the appropriate elevations per

the design specifications. A synthetic

drainage net, a half foot sand layer and

an eighty millimeter High Density

Polyethylene (HDPE) were placed on

top of the backfill. This allowed for

installation of gas vents into the

constructed sand layer. The vents

extend up through the cap and are used

to monitor for gas breakthrough using

carbon canister detection units. This

system was devised in order to

determine if any residual treated waste

beneath the cap is breaking down and

causing formation of gas. The purpose of

the system is to enable contingency

plans to be implemented if gas is

detected.

A two foot clay layer was installed

and compacted in 8-inch lifts on top of

the gas vent layer. On top of this clay

layer a geotextile and HDPE were

installed prior to covering the whole

area with one foot of topsoil. The

topsoil, which is the exposed portion of

the cap, was seeded with vegetation that

is intended to anchor the topsoil during

rainfall events. To complete the cap, the

carbon canisters were attached to the

gas vents.

As part of the landfill construction,

perforated stainless steel pipes wrapped

with a filter fabric were laid in along the

bottom, beneath the waste layers. There

are various PVC pipe stands which stick

up through the cap that are attached to

the piping beneath the landfill. These

pipe stands are checked on a regular

basis (once every three months) for their

integrity, as well as to see if any liquids

have collected into the pipe system.

This system is known as a leachate

collection system. The leachate

(leachate is any water that percolates

through the landfill) can be collected

and analyzed.

The responsible parties constructed

the remedy at the Site to meet

performance standards specified in the

ROD. The remedy implemented to

address the contamination at the Site

has achieved the remedial action

objectives and the remediation goals

described in the ROD. EPA and the

LDEQ have determined that the remedy

which includes long-term groundwater

monitoring as well as an inspection and

maintenance program for the Site is

performing as designed, and is

operational and functional. No

additional treatment or other measures

to restore ground-or surface-water

quality have been identified as being

required.

C. Characterization of Risk

Continued monitoring of groundwater

demonstrates that no significant risk to

public health or the environment is

posed by the hazardous materials

remaining at the Site. Based on the

successful remedial actions addressing

the hazardous materials on-site, the

monitoring results of operation and

maintenance (O & M) activities to date,

and the public health consultation by

the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR), EPA verifies

the implemented Site remedy is

protective of human health and the

environment.

D. Community Involvement

Public participation activities have

been satisfied as required in CERCLA

Subsection 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k),

and in CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C.

9617. Documents in the deletion docket

on which EPA relied for

recommendation of the Site deletion

from the NPL have been made available

to the public in the two information

repositories the location of which is

identified above.

E. Proposed Action

In consultation with the LDEQ, EPA

has concluded that responsible parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required at the Site

(neither the CERCLA-required five-year

reviews, nor operation and maintenance

of the constructed remedy is considered

further response action for these

purposes), that all appropriate Fundfinanced response actions under

CERCLA have been implemented, and

that no further response action by

responsible parties is appropriate.

Moreover, EPA, in consultation with

LDEQ, has determined that Site

investigations show that the Site now

poses no significant threat to public

health or the environment;

consequently, EPA proposes to delete

the Site from the NPL.

Dated: September 25, 1997.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA

Region 6.

[FR Doc. 97–26528 Filed 10–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 15, 73, 74, and 76

[ET Docket No. 97–206; FCC 97–340]

Technical Requirements To Enable

Blocking of Video Programming Based

on Program Ratings

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making (‘‘NPRM’’), the

Commission proposes to amend its rules

to require that most television receivers

be equipped with features that enable

viewers to block the display of video

programming with a common rating.

Furthermore, the Commission proposes

to amend its rules to ensure the ratings

information that is associated with a

particular video program is not deleted

from transmission by broadcast

television stations, low power television

stations, television translator and

booster stations, and cable television

systems. The Commission also proposes

that similar requirements should be

placed on other services that can be

used to distribute video programming to

the home, such as Multipoint

Distribution Services (MDS) and Direct

Broadcast Satellite Service (DBS). This

action is taken in response to the

Parental Choice in Television

Programming requirements contained in

section 551 (c), (d), and (e) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Pub.

L. No. 104–104, 111 Stat. 56), which

amended sections 303 and 330 of the

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.

303 and 330). The proposals contained

in this NPRM are intended to give

parents the ability to block video

programming that they do not want

their children to watch.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before November 24, 1997, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

December 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neal McNeil, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket 97–

206, FCC 97–340, adopted September

25, 1997 and released September 26,

1997. The full text of this document is

available for inspection and copying

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919

M Street, NW, Washington, DC. The

complete text of this document also may

be purchased from the Commission’s
52678 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1 5 U.S.C. 603.

2Pub. L. 104–104, 111 Stat. 56 (1996).

3See 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

4 15 U.S.C. 632.

5 13 CFR 121.201, (SIC) Code 3663.

6U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of

Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, SIC

Code 3663 (issued may 1995).

duplication contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

1. In the Telecommunications Act of

1996 (the Telecommunication Act),

Congress determined that parents

should be provided ‘‘with timely

information about the nature of

upcoming video programming and with

the technological tools that allow them

easily to block violent, sexual, or other

programming that they believe harmful

to their children * * *.’’ Accordingly,

Congress (1) mandated the inclusion in

most new television receivers of the socalled ‘‘V-chip’’ technology, which will

enable viewers to block the display of

all programs with a common rating, and

(2) authorized the Commission to

‘‘Prescribe * * * guidelines and

recommended procedures for the

identification and rating of (such) video

programming, * * *’’ if distributors of

video programming do not establish

acceptable voluntary procedures within

one year.

2. With respect to V-chip technology,

section 551(c) of the

Telecommunications Act directs the

Commission to adopt rules requiring

that any ‘‘apparatus designed to receive

television signals that are shipped in

interstate commerce or manufactured in

the United States and that have a

picture screen 13 inches or greater in

size (measured diagonally) * * * be

equipped with a feature designed to

enable viewers to block display of all

programs with a common rating * * *.’’

Section 551(d) states that the

Commission must ‘‘require that all such

apparatus be able to receive the rating

signals which have been transmitted by

way of line 21 of the vertical blanking

interval * * *.’’ That provision also

instructs the Commission to oversee

‘‘the adoption of standards by industry

for blocking technology,’’ and to ensure

that blocking capability continues to be

available to consumers as technology

advances.

3. With respect to the ratings, the

Telecommunications Act directs the

Commission to establish a program

ratings system, but only if the

Commission determines that

distributors of video programming have

not: (1) Established voluntary rules for

rating video programming that contains

sexual, violent, or other indecent

material about which parents should be

informed before it is displayed to

children, and such rules are ‘‘acceptable

to the Commission;’’ and (2) agreed

voluntarily to broadcast signals that

contain ratings of such programming.

Distributors of video programming were

given 1 year from the date of enactment

of the Telecommunications Act, until

February 8, 1997, to meet these

requirements.

4. The Commission Is adopting this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to begin

the process of requiring television

manufacturers to include blocking

technology in their television receivers

and to ensure that any ratings

information that is provided with video

programming is transmitted to the

television receiver intact and without

disruption by any broadcast, cable

television, or other video programming

distribution service.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

5. As required by section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act,1 the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the expected significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (Notice). Written

public comments are requested on the

IRFA. Comments must be identified as

responses to the IRFA and must be filed

by the deadlines for comments on the

Notice provided above. The Secretary

shall send a copy of this Notice,

including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

A. Need for and Objectives of the

Proposed Rules

6. The proposed rules are intended to

address the Parental Choice in

Television Programming requirements

contained in section 551(c) and 551(d)

of the Telecommunications Act of

1996.2 Congress has determined that

parents should be provided ‘‘with

timely information about the nature of

upcoming video programming and with

the technological tools that allow them

to block violent, sexual, or other

programming that they believe harmful

to children. Accordingly, Congress (1)

mandated the inclusion in most new

television receivers of the so-called ‘‘Vchip’’ technology, which will be capable

of reading program ratings and blocking

programming, if requested, and (2)

authorized the Commission to establish

a rating system and rules requiring the

transmission of program ratings if

distributors of video programming do

not establish acceptable voluntary

procedures within one year.

B. Legal Basis

7. The proposed action is taken

pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(f), 303(r),

303(v), 303(x), and 330(c) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(f),

303(v), 303(x), and 330(c).

C. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply

8. For the purposes of this Notice, the

RFA defines a ‘‘small business’’ to be

the same as a ‘‘small business concern’’

under the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.

632, unless the Commission has

developed one or more definitions that

are appropriate to its activities.3 Under

the Small Business Act, a small business

concern is one that: (1) Is independently

owned and operated; (2) is not

dominant in its field of operation; and

(3) meets any additional criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration (SBA).4

9. The Commission has not developed

a definition of small entities applicable

to V-chip technology. Therefore, we will

utilize the SBA definition applicable to

manufacturers of Radio and Television

Broadcasting and Communications

Equipment. According to the SBA’s

regulations, television equipment

manufacturers must have 750 or fewer

employees in order to qualify as a small

business concern.5 Census Bureau data

indicates that there are 858 U.S.

companies that manufacture radio and

television broadcasting and

communications equipment, and that

778 of these firms have fewer than 750

employees and would be classified as

small entities.6 The Census Bureau

category is very broad, and specific

figures are not available as to how many

of these firms are manufacturers of

television equipment. However, we

believe that many of the companies that

manufacture television equipment will

be affected by this rulemaking may

qualify as small entities. We seek

comments to this IRFA regarding the

number of small entities to which the

proposed rule pertains.

10. According to SBA regulations, a

computer manufacturer must have 1,000

or fewer employees in order to qualify

as a small entity. Census Bureau data

indicates that there are 1716 firms that

manufacture electronic computers. Of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 196 / Thursday, October 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 52679

those, 659 have fewer than 500

employees and qualify as small entities.

The remaining 57 firms have 500 or

more employees; however, we are

unable to determine how many of those

have fewer than 1,000 employees and

therefore also qualify as small entities

under the SBA definition.

11. This proposal will begin the

process of requiring television

manufacturers to include blocking

technology in their television receivers

and to ensure that any ratings

information that is provided with video

programming is transmitted to the

television receiver intact and without

disruption by any broadcast, cable

television, or other television program

distribution services.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements

12. The Commission’s rules require

television receivers to be verified for

compliance with applicable FCC

technical requirements. See 47 CFR

15.101, 15.117, and 2.951, et seq.

Documentation concerning the

verification must be kept by the

manufacturer or importer. The rules

ultimately adopted in this proceeding

will require that television receivers

comply with industry-developed

standards for blocking display of video

programming based on program ratings.

However, verification testing regarding

program blocking is not necessary

because compliance with the industrydeveloped standards, and the associated

Commission rules, can be determined

easily during the television receiver

design process. The Commission may,

of course, ask manufacturers and

importers to document upon occasion

how a particular television receiver

complies with the program blocking

requirements.

E. Significant Alternatives to Proposed

Rules Which Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities and

Accomplish Stated Objectives

13. Section 330(c)(4) of the Act directs

the Commission to consider the

existence of appropriate alternative

blocking technologies and to amend its

rules to permit, as an alternative to the

ratings-based approach, use of a

technology that: (1) ‘‘Enables parents to

block programming based on identifying

programs without ratings’’; (2) ‘‘is

available to consumers at a cost which

is comparable’’ to the cost of ratingsbased technology; and (3) ‘‘will allow

parents to block a broad range of

programs on a multichannel system as

effectively and as easily’’ as ratingsbased technology. At this time, we are

not aware of any such alternative

blocking technologies. Accordingly, we

invite comment regarding the existence

of such alternate blocking technologies

and whether it would be appropriate to

permit them at this time in lieu of

ratings-based blocking technology. In

order to evaluate possible alternative

blocking technologies, we solicit

information regarding the cost of any

alternative blocking technology as well

as the cost of implementing ratingsbased technology pursuant to EIA–608.

14. Section 303(x) of the Act makes it

clear that the program blocking

requirements were intended to apply to

any ‘‘apparatus designed to receive

television signals’’ that has a picture

screen of 13 inches or larger. We believe

that the program blocking requirements

we are proposing should apply to any

television receiver (including personal

computers) meeting the screen size

requirements, regardless of whether it is

designed to receive video programming

that is distributed only through cable

television systems, MDS, DBS, or by

some other distribution system.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

15. None.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 15

Communications equipment,

Computer technology.

47 CFR Part 73

Communications equipment,

Television.

47 CFR Part 74

Communications equipment,

Television.

47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–26700 Filed 10–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE31

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period on Proposed Endangered

Status for the Illinois Cave Amphipod

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) provides notice that the

comment period is reopened on the

proposal to list the Illinois cave

amphipod (Gammarus acherondytes) as

endangered, pursuant to Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended. The

Service is reopening the comment

period to allow members of the public

additional time to submit comments on

this proposal.

DATES: The reopened comment period

on the proposal will close on December

8, 1997. Comments must be received by

the Service on or before that date in

order to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning the proposal should be sent

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Ecological Services Field Office, 4469

48th Avenue Court, Rock Island,

Illinois. Comments and materials

received will be available for public

inspection by appointment during

normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard C. Nelson, Field Supervisor,

Illinois Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone 309/793–5800;

facsimile 309/793–5804).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 28, 1997, the Service

proposed to add the Illinois cave

amphipod (amphipod) to the list of

endangered and threatened animals (62

CFR 40319). The amphipod is

historically known from six

underground cave streams in St. Clair

and Monroe Counties in southwestern

Illinois. Recent searches for the

amphipod indicate that it may exist in

only three cave streams in Monroe

County, all within a 10-mile radius of

Waterloo, Illinois. The cause of the

amphipod’s decline in geographic range

and in the number of populations is

believed to be deteriorating water

quality in the cave streams which it