Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices 5627

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

Individual subjects and research staff.

SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS

OF THE ACT:

None.

[FR Doc. 97–2996 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[FRL–5685–6]

Notice of Proposed Assessment of

Clean Water Act Class I Administrative

Penalty to Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc.

and Opportunity To Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed

administrative penalty and opportunity

to comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is providing notice of a

proposed administrative penalty

assessment for alleged violations of the

Clean Water Act. EPA is also providing

notice of opportunity to comment on the

proposed assessment.

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1319(g), EPA is

authorized to issue orders assessing

civil penalties for various violations of

the Act. EPA may issue such orders after

the commencement of either a Class I or

Class II penalty proceeding. EPA

provides public notice of the proposed

assessment pursuant to 33 U.S.C.

1319(g)(4)(a).

Class I proceedings under section

309(g) are conducted in accordance with

the proposed ‘‘Consolidated Rules of

Practice Governing the Administrative

Assessment of Class I Civil Penalties

Under the Clean Water Act’’ (‘‘Part 28’’),

published at 56 FR 29,996 (July 1, 1991).

The procedures through which the

public may submit written comment on

a proposed Class I order or participate

in a Class I proceeding, and the

procedures by which a Respondent may

request a hearing, are set forth in the

proposed Consolidated Rules. The

deadline for submitting public comment

on a proposed Class I order is thirty

days after publication of this notice.

On the date identified below, EPA

commenced the following Class I

proceeding for the assessment of

penalties:

In the Matter of Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc.,

Tulsa, OK, Docket No. CWA–309–IX–FY96–

16; filed on January 24, 1996 with Mr. Steven

Armsey, Regional Hearing Clerk, U.S. EPA,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744–1389;

proposed penalty of $11,600, for discharges

of pollutants from the Black Mesa Coal Slurry

Pipeline to waters of the U.S. in Mohave

County, Arizona without authorization of a

valid NPDES permit. EPA and Black Mesa

Pipeline, Inc. have agreed to a proposed

Consent Agreement in which Black Mesa

Pipeline, Inc. shall pay the civil penalty of

$11,600.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Persons

wishing to receive a copy of EPA’s

proposed Consolidated Rules, review

the complaint or other documents filed

in this proceeding, comment upon the

proposed assessment, or otherwise

participate in the proceeding should

contact the Regional Hearing Clerk

identified above. The administrative

record for this proceeding is located in

the EPA Regional Office identified

above, and the file will be open for

public inspection during normal

business hours. All information

submitted by the respondent is available

as part of the administrative record,

subject to provisions of law restricting

public disclosure of confidential

information. In order to provide

opportunity for public comment, EPA

will issue no final order assessing a

penalty in these proceedings prior to

thirty (30) days after the date of

publication of this notice.

Dated: January 28, 1997.

Karen Schwinn,

Acting Director, Water Division.

[FR Doc. 97–2997 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Network Reliability and Interoperability

Council Meeting

January 31, 1997.

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public

Law 92–463, as amended, this notice

advises interested persons of a meeting

of the Network Reliability and

Interoperability Council (‘‘Council’’) to

be held at the Federal Communications

Commission in Washington, D.C.

DATES: Tuesday, February 25, 1997 at

1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Room 856, 1919 M Street,

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Keegan, Federal Officer, at (202)

418–2323.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Council was established by the Federal

Communications Commission to bring

together leaders of the

telecommunications industry and

telecommunications experts from

consumer and other organizations to

explore and recommend measures that

will assure optimal reliability and

interoperability of, and accessibility and

interconnectivity to, the public

telecommunications networks.

The agenda for the meeting is as

follows: the Council will hear reports of

focus groups 1 and 2 on their progress

to date in addressing the issues assigned

to them by the Council at the Council’s

last meeting. The Council also will hear

a report on network reliability from the

Network Reliability Steering Committee,

and will hear the status of

implementation of the Network

Reliability Council’s recommendations

for interoperability testing. The Council

may discuss other matters brought to its

attention.

Members of the general public may

attend the meeting. The Federal

Communications Commission will

attempt to accommodate as many

people as possible. However,

admittance will be limited to the seating

available. Members of the public may

submit written comments to the

Council’s designated Federal Officer

before the meeting.

Federal Communications Commission

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2921 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

[CS Docket No. 96–133, FCC 96–496]

Annual Assessment of the Status of

Competition in the Market for the

Delivery of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice; Third annual report to

Congress.

SUMMARY: Section 628(g) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 548(g), requires the

Commission to report annually to

Congress on the status of competition in

markets for the delivery of video

programming. On January 2, 1997, the

Commission released its third such

annual report (‘‘1996 Report’’). The 1996

Report contains data and information

that summarize the status of

competition in markets for the delivery

of video programming and updates the

Commission’s two prior reports. The

1996 Report is based on publicly

available data, filings in various

Commission rulemaking proceedings,

and information submitted by

commenters in response to a Notice of

Inquiry in this docket, summarized at 61

FR 34409 (July 2, 1996).
5628 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcia A. Glauberman, Cable Services

Bureau (202) 416–1184 or Rebecca

Dorch, Office of General Counsel (202)

418–1868.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s 1996

Report in CS Docket No. 96–133, FCC

96–496, adopted December 26, 1996,

and released January 2, 1997. The

complete text of the 1996 Report is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

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

20554, and may also be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service

(‘‘ITS, Inc.’’), (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington,

D.C. 20037. In addition, the complete

text of the 1996 Report is available on

the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/Cable/WWW/csb.html or at

thttp://www.fcc.gov/ogc/articles.html

Synopsis of the 1996 Report

1. In the 1996 Report the Commission

reviews provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (‘‘1996

Act’’) that affect competition in markets

for the delivery of video programming.

The Commission reports on information

about cable industry performance and

the status of competitive entry by other

multichannel video programming

distributors (‘‘MVPDs’’). The

Commission also provides information

about structural issues affecting

competition, such as horizontal

concentration, vertical integration and

technological advances. It further

examines potential obstacles to the

emergence of competition and reports

on competitive responses by industry

players that are beginning to face

competition from other MVPDs.

2. In the 1996 Report the Commission

notes that the 1996 Act embodies

Congress’ intent to promote a ‘‘procompetitive national policy framework’’

and eventual deregulation of markets for

the delivery of video programming.

Several of the 1996 Act’s provisions are

intended to remove barriers to

competitive entry in video programming

markets and establish market conditions

that promote the process of competitive

rivalry. Many provisions of the 1996

Act, and the Commission’s actions to

implement them, have the potential for

fostering increased competition in

markets for the delivery of video

programming.

3. At present, however, incumbent

franchised cable systems are still the

primary distributors of multichannel

video programming. Although other

MVPDs continue to increase their share

of subscribers in many local markets for

the delivery of video programming,

these markets generally remain highly

concentrated, and structural conditions

are still in place that could permit the

exercise of market power by incumbent

cable systems. Nationwide, non-cable

MVPDs now serve 11% of total MVPD

subscribers, with cable operators

retaining a share of 89%, down from

91% last year. Notwithstanding this

decrease in cable systems’ share of total

MVPD subscribers, the actual number of

cable subscribers continues to increase.

4. Key Findings:

• Status of competition. It remains

difficult to predict the extent to which

competition from MVPDs using noncable delivery technologies will

constrain cable systems’ ability to

exercise market power in the future. In

a growing but still very limited number

of instances, incumbent cable system

operators face competition from wired

MVPDs offering similar services. In

addition there has been a substantial

increase in subscribership to direct

broadcast satellite (DBS) providers

offering differentiated services.

However, it remains difficult to

determine the extent to which markets

for the delivery of video programming

will be characterized by vigorous rivalry

among many MVPDs offering closely

substitutable services, or instead will be

dominated by a few providers facing

less vigorous rivalry from other MVPDs

offering highly-differentiated or niche

programming services.

• Industry growth. The cable industry

has continued to grow in terms of the

number of subscribers, penetration,

average system channel capacity, the

number of programming services

available, revenues, audience ratings

and expenditures on programming since

the Commission’s previous report in

1995.

• Horizontal concentration.

Nationally, horizontal concentration

among the top cable multiple system

operators (MSOs) has continued to

increase, but still remains within the

moderately concentrated range

according to standard measures of

industry concentration. If all MVPDs are

included for consideration, national

concentration falls just above the

threshold of the moderately

concentrated range. In addition, cable

MSOs, through acquisitions and trades,

continue to increase regional clustering,

which now accounts for service to

approximately 50% of all cable

subscribers.

• Promotion of entry and

competition. Several of the 1996 Act’s

provisions are intended to remove

barriers to entry and to promote

competition in markets for the delivery

of video programming. The Commission

has adopted rules implementing the

provision creating open video systems

and the provision preempting certain

local restrictions on reception devices,

including antennas and dishes for

reception of over-the-air broadcast,

wireless cable and DBS signals.

• Vertical integration. Vertical

integration of national programming

services between cable operators and

programmers declined from last year’s

total of 51% to just 44% this year, due

largely to the sale of Viacom’s cable

system assets. In addition, of the 16

programming services that were

launched since the Commission’s

previous report, 10 are not vertically

integrated. Access to programming

remains one of the critical factors for

successful development of competitive

MVPDs.

• Technological advances.

Technological advances are occurring

that will permit MVPDs to increase both

quantity of service (i.e., an increased

number of channels using the same

amount of bandwidth or spectrum

space) and types of offerings (e.g.,

interactive services). MVPDs continue to

pursue new system architectures,

upgraded facilities, use of increased

bandwidth and deployment of digital

technology.

Ordering Clauses

5. This 1996 Report is issued pursuant

to authority contained in Sections 4(i),

4(j), 403 and 628(g) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 403

and 548(g).

It is Ordered that the Secretary shall

send copies of this 1996 Report to the

appropriate committees and

subcommittees of the United States

House of Representatives and the

United States Senate.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2907 Filed 2–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

* * * * *

FEDERAL REGISTER NUMBER: 97–02490.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE & TIME:

Thursday, February 6, 1997, 10:00 a.m.,

meeting open to the public.

This Meeting Will Not Convene Until 12:00

Noon

* * * * *