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

58256 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the impact of such systems on the

commercial availability of navigation

devices.

D. Other Factors

4. In addition to the specific requests

for comments set forth above, we also

request comments regarding other

factors that commenters believe may be

impeding or affecting achievement of

the goals of Section 629. For example,

recent articles indicate that retail

availability of equipment has been

slowed by market participants’ failure to

achieve mutually beneficial business

arrangements. We seek comment as to

what additional actions, if any, the

Commission should initiate to achieve

the statutory objective of competition in

the navigation devices market.

II. Administrative Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis

5. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the

possible significant economic impact on

small entities by the possible policies

and rules that would result from this

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(Notice). Written public comments are

requested on this IRFA. Comments must

be identified as responses to the IRFA

and must be filed by the deadlines for

comments on the Notice. The

Commission will send a copy of the

Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

6. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules. The navigation devices

rules were adopted to implement

Section 629 of the Communications Act.

They are designed to assure the

commercial availability from retail

outlets of equipment used to access

service from multichannel video

programming systems. In adopting these

rules, the Commission indicated that it

would monitor the development of the

commercial availability of navigation

devices and on reconsideration stated

that it would commence a proceeding in

the year 2000 to review the effectiveness

of the rules and consider any necessary

changes. In this proceeding, we

undertake that review. This Notice is

designed to seek comment on the

Commission’s navigation devices rules

and to elicit comment on whether any

changes to the current rules are

necessary in order to promote

commercial availability.

7. Legal Basis. Authority for this

proposed rulemaking is contained in

Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 629 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

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

549.

8. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities to Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply. The IRFA

directs the Commission to provide a

description of and, where feasible, an

estimate of the number of small entities

that will be affected by the proposed

rules. The IRFA defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small business

concern’’ under section 3 of the Small

Business Act. Under the Small Business

Act, a small business concern is one

which: (1) Is independently owned and

operated; (2) is not dominant in its field

of operation; and (3) satisfies any

additional criteria established by the

Small Business Administration

(‘‘SBA’’). Nationwide, as of 1992, there

were approximately 275,801 small

organizations. Rules adopted in this

proceeding could apply to

manufacturers of DTV equipment,

including television receivers, set-top

boxes and ‘‘point of deployment’’

modules. Distributors of this equipment,

including retailers of consumer

electronics equipment and, in the case

of ‘‘point of deployment’’ modules,

cable operators, would also be affected.

9. Cable Systems. The SBA has

developed a definition of small entity

for cable and other pay television

services, which includes all such

companies generating $11 million or

less in revenue annually. This definition

includes cable systems operators, closed

circuit television services, direct

broadcast satellite services, multipoint

distribution systems, satellite master

antenna systems and subscription

television services. According to the

Census Bureau, there were 1,323 such

cable and other pay television services

generating less than $11 million in

revenue that were in operation for at

least one year at the end of 1992.

10. The Commission has developed

its own definition of a small cable

system operator for the purposes of rate

regulation. Under the Commission’s

rules, a ‘‘small cable company,’’ is one

serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers

nationwide. Based on our most recent

information, we estimate that there were

1,439 cable operators that qualified as

small cable system operators at the end

of 1995. Since then, some of those

companies may have grown to serve

over 400,000 subscribers, and others

may have been involved in transactions

that caused them to be combined with

other cable operators. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 1,439

small entity cable system operators that

may be affected by the decisions and

rules proposed in this Notice.

11. The Communications Act also

contains a definition of a small cable

system operator, which is ‘‘a cable

operator that, directly or through an

affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer

than 1% of all subscribers in the United

States and is not affiliated with any

entity or entities whose gross annual

revenues in the aggregate exceed

$250,000,000.’’ The Commission has

determined that there are 66,690,000

subscribers in the United States.

Therefore, we found that an operator

serving fewer than 666,900 subscribers

shall be deemed a small operator, if its

annual revenues, when combined with

the total annual revenues of all of its

affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in

the aggregate. Based on available data,

we find that the number of cable

operators serving 666,900 subscribers or

less totals 1,450. Although it seems

certain that some of these cable system

operators are affiliated with entities

whose gross annual revenues exceed

$250,000,000, we are unable at this time

to estimate with greater precision the

number of cable system operators that

would qualify as small cable operators

under the definition in the

Communications Act.

12. Small Manufacturers. The SBA

has developed definitions of small

entity for manufacturers of household

audio and video equipment (SIC 3651)

and for radio and television

broadcasting and communications

equipment (SIC 3663). In each case, the

definition includes all such companies

employing 750 or fewer employees.

13. Electronic Equipment

Manufacturers. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small entities

applicable to manufacturers of

electronic equipment. Therefore, we

will utilize the SBA definition of

manufacturers of Radio and Television

Broadcasting and Communications

Equipment. According to the SBA’s

regulations, a TV equipment

manufacturer must have 750 or fewer

employees in order to qualify as a small

business concern. Census Bureau data

indicates that there are 858 U.S. firms

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.

The Census Bureau category is very

broad, and specific figures are not

available as to how many of these firms

are exclusive manufacturers of

television equipment or how many are

independently owned and operated. We

conclude that there are approximately

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules 58257

778 small manufacturers of radio and

television equipment.

14. Electronic Household/Consumer

Equipment. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small entities

applicable to manufacturers of

electronic equipment used by

consumers, as compared to industrial

use by television licensees and related

businesses. Therefore, we will utilize

the SBA definition applicable to

manufacturers of Household Audio and

Visual Equipment. According to the

SBA’s regulations, a household audio

and visual equipment manufacturer

must have 750 or fewer employees in

order to qualify as a small business

concern. Census Bureau data indicates

that there are 410 U.S. firms that

manufacture radio and television

broadcasting and communications

equipment, and that 386 of these firms

have fewer than 500 employees and

would be classified as small entities.

The remaining 24 firms have 500 or

more employees; however, we are

unable to determine how many of those

have fewer than 750 employees and

therefore, also qualify as small entities

under the SBA definition. Furthermore,

the Census Bureau category is very

broad, and specific figures are not

available as to how many of these firms

are exclusive manufacturers of

television equipment for consumers or

how many are independently owned

and operated. We conclude that there

are approximately 386 small

manufacturers of television equipment

for consumer/household use, but in any

event, no more than 410 are small

entities.

15. Computer Manufacturers. The

Commission has not developed a

definition of small entities applicable to

computer manufacturers. Therefore, we

will utilize the SBA definition of

Electronic Computers. 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 716 firms that

manufacture electronic computers and

of 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. We conclude

that there are approximately 659 small

computer manufacturers.

16. Small Retailers. The Commission

has not developed a definition of small

entities applicable to retail sellers of

navigation devices. Therefore, we will

utilize the SBA definition. The 1992

Bureau of the Census data indicate:

there were 9,663 U.S. firms classified as

Radio, Television, and Consumer

Electronic Stores (SIC 5731), and that

9,385 of these firms had $4.999 million

or less in annual receipts and 9,473 of

these firms had $7.499 million or less in

annual receipts. Consequently, we

tentatively conclude that there are

approximately 9,663 such small retailers

that may be affected by the decisions

and rules proposed in this Notice.

17. Description of Projected

Reporting, Recordkeeping and other

Compliance Requirements. At this time,

it is not expected that the proposed

actions will require any additional

recordkeeping or compliance

requirements. We seek comment on

whether others perceive a need for

extensive recordkeeping.

18. Steps Taken to Minimize

Significant Impact on Small Entities,

and Significant Alternatives Considered.

The RFA requires an agency to describe

any significant alternatives that it has

considered in reaching its proposed

approach, which may include the

following four alternatives: (1) The

establishment of differing compliance or

reporting requirements or timetables

that take into account the resources

available to small entities; (2) the

clarification, consolidation, or

simplification of compliance or

reporting requirements under the rule

for small entities; (3) the use of

performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,

for small entities.

19. Parties have requested that we

consider accelerating the date on which

the prohibition of integrated devices

goes into effect. We have sought

comment on this issue and will examine

the effect on businesses and small

entities that such a change would entail.

We have also sought comment on other

suggestions that would facilitate the

development of a commercial

marketplace for navigation devices. We

will consider and examine the effect of

those suggestions on businesses and

small entities as well. Should

commenters disagree with any of our

conclusions, we welcome comments

suggesting ways in which any perceived

burden upon small entities could be

mitigated.

20. Federal Rules Which Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict with the

Commission’s Proposals. None.

B. Ex Parte Rules

21. Subject to the provisions of 47

CFR 1.1203 concerning ‘‘Sunshine

Period’’ prohibitions, this proceeding is

exempt from ex parte restraints and

disclosure requirements, pursuant to 47

CFR 1.1204(b)(1).

C. Filing of Comments and Reply

Comments

22. Interested parties may file

comments on or before November 15,

2000, and reply comments on or before

December 18, 2000. Comments may be

filed using the Commission’s Electronic

Comment Filing System (‘‘ECFS’’) or by

filing paper copies. Comments filed

through the ECFS can be sent as an

electronic file via the Internet to

<http://www.fcc/e-file/ecfs.html>.

Generally, only one copy of an

electronic submission must be filed. If

multiple docket or rulemaking numbers

appear in the caption of this proceeding,

however, commenters must transmit

one electronic copy of the comments to

each docket or rulemaking number

referenced in the caption. In completing

the transmittal screen, commenters

should include their full name, Postal

service mailing address, and the

applicable docket or rulemaking

number. Parties may also submit an

electronic comment by Internet e-mail.

To get filing instructions for e-mail

comments, commenters should send an

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should

include the following words in the body

of the message, ‘‘get form<your e-mail

address.’’ A sample form and directions

will be sent in reply.

23. Parties who choose to file by

paper must file an original and four

copies of each filing. If participants

want each Commissioner to receive a

personal copy of their comments, an

original plus nine copies must be filed.

If more than one docket or rulemaking

number appears in the caption of this

proceeding commenters must submit

two additional copies for each

additional docket or rulemaking

number. All filings must be sent to the

Commission’s Secretary, Magalie Roman

Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The

Cable Services Bureau contact for this

proceeding is Thomas Horan at (202)

418–7200, TTY (202) 418–7172, or at

thoran@fcc.gov.

24. Parties who choose to file by

paper should also submit their

comments on diskette. Parties should

submit diskettes to Thomas Horan,

Cable Services Bureau, 445 12th Street

NW., Room 4–A817, Washington, DC

20554. Such a submission should be on

a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM

compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and

Microsoft Word, or compatible software.

The diskette should be accompanied by

a cover letter and should be submitted

in ‘‘read only’’ mode. The diskette

58258 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Proposed Rules

should be clearly labeled with the

party’s name, proceeding (including the

lead docket number in this case [CS

Docket No. 97–80]), type of pleading

(comments or reply comments), date of

submission, and the name of the

electronic file on the diskette. The label

should also include the following

phrase ‘‘Disk Copy—Not an Original.’’

Each diskette should contain only one

party’s pleadings, preferably in a single

electronic file. In addition, commenters

must send diskette copies to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20036.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

25. This document may result in

information collection(s) subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of

1995. If an information collection

results, it will be submitted to the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) for

review under the PRA.

III. Ordering Clause

26. Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r),

and 629 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 USC 154(i),

303(r), and 549, notice is given of the

proposals described in this FNPRM.

27. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this FNPRM, including the IFRA, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–24902 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG14

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period and Notice of Availability of

Draft Economic Analysis on Proposed

Critical Habitat Designation for the

Great Lakes Breeding Population of

the Piping Plover

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule, reopening of

comment period and notice of

availability of draft economic analysis;

correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

closing date of the comment period

listed in a document published in the

Federal Register on September 19, 2000,

regarding the reopening of the comment

period and notice of availability of draft

economic analysis for proposed critical

habitat designation for the Great Lakes

breeding population of the piping

plover. This clarification provides the

correct date for the closing of the

comment period on the proposed

critical habitat designation for the Great

Lakes breeding population of the piping

plover and the draft economic analysis

for the proposed critical habitat

designation.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Ragan @ (612) 713–5157.

Correction

In the document announcing the

reopening of the comment period and

notice of availability of draft economic

analysis for proposed critical habitat

designation for the Great Lakes breeding

population of the piping plover, 65 FR

56530 in the issue of September 19,

2000, make the following correction in

the DATES section. On page 56530 in the

3rd column, correct the date by when

comments must be received from

‘‘October 19, 2000’’ to ‘‘November 20,

2000.’’

Dated: September 21, 2000.

T.J. Miller,

Acting, Assistant Regional Director,

Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling,

Minnesota.

[FR Doc. 00–24759 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P