Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules 34409

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William H. Johnson,

Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–16819 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 96–133, FCC 96–265]

Annual Assessment of the Status of

Competition in the Market for the

Delivery of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: The Commission is required

to report annually to Congress on the

status of competition in the market for

the delivery of video programming

pursuant to Section 628(g) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended. On June 12, 1996, the

Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry

to solicit information from the public for

use in preparing the competition report

that is to be submitted to Congress in

December 1996. The Notice of Inquiry

will provide parties with an opportunity

to submit comments and information to

be used in conjunction with publicly

available information and filings

submitted in relevant Commission

proceedings to assess the extent of

competition in the market for the

delivery of video programming.

DATES: Comments are due by July 19,

1996, and reply comments are due by

August 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marcia Glauberman, Cable Services

Bureau, (202) 418–7200, or Jeffrey

Lanning, Office of the General Counsel,

(202) 418–1880.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Inquiry in CS Docket No. 96–133, FCC

96–265, adopted June 12, 1996, and

released June 13, 1996. The complete

text of this Notice of Inquiry 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

(202) 857–3800, 1900 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20054.

Synopsis of the Notice of Inquiry

1. Section 628(g) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended (‘‘Communications Act’’), 47

U.S.C. § 548(g), requires the

Commission to deliver an annual report

to Congress on the status of competition

in the market for the delivery of video

programming. The Commission

submitted its first two reports to

Congress in September 1994 and

December 1995, respectively.

2. The Notice of Inquiry (‘‘NOI’’ ) is

designed to solicit comments and

information that the Commission can

use to prepare its 1996 Competition

Report. Specifically, the NOI requests

information on the cable industry,

existing and potential competitors to

cable systems, barriers to entry by new

competitors, technological advances and

the effects of the 1996 Act on

competition in the market for the

delivery of video programming. The

Commission expects to use the

information that is submitted by

commenters to supplement publicly

available information and relevant

comments that have been filed in other

Commission proceedings. The NOI

highlights a wide range of competitive

issues, and offers parties an opportunity

to submit comments on these issues, as

well as any other information they

believe is relevant to an evaluation of

competition in the market for the

delivery of video programming.

3. The NOI begins with an overview

of the 1996 Act, including a summary of

the provisions that may promote

competition among multichannel video

programming distributors (‘‘MVPDs’’).

These provisions include: (1) repeal of

the cable-telco cross-ownership ban; (2)

creation of the open video system

(‘‘OVS’’) option for local exchange

carrier (‘‘LEC’’) entry into the market for

the delivery of video programming; (3)

deregulation of small cable systems; (4)

expansion of the definition of effective

competition; and (5) elimination under

a number of circumstances of the

uniform cable service rate structure

requirement for similarly situated

subscribers.

4. The NOI then seeks information

and comment on the status of the

different MVPDs that serve subscribers

in the market for the delivery of video

programming and the changes that have

occurred in the past year. The MVPDs

include cable television (including

overbuilds), multipoint multichannel

distribution service (‘‘MMDS’’ or

‘‘wireless cable’’), direct broadcast

satellites (‘‘DBS’’) and home satellite

dishes (‘‘HSDs’’), and satellite master

antenna television (‘‘SMATV’’) systems.

The Commission also seeks information

on potential rivals for incumbent cable

systems, such as open video systems

built by LECs.

5. The NOI asks a variety of questions

concerning each of these video service

providers and solicits information

regarding barriers to entry and the

nature of the services they provide. The

NOI also indicates that the Commission

intends to examine the effects on

competition of broadcast television

service, video cassette recorders

(‘‘VCRs’’) and interactive video and data

services (‘‘IVDS’’).

6. The Commission observes that

there are technological advances that

may affect the structure of the market

for the delivery of video programming.

In this regard, the NOI solicits

information on digital compression,

hybridization of different transmission

media, and developments in set-top

boxes and switched digital services.

7. In the NOI, the Commission

requests comment on the structure of

the market for the delivery of video

programming and the effect of this

structure on competition. The

Commission expects to explore the

status of horizontal concentration and

vertical integration in the cable

television industry and to analyze the

market structure conditions that may

affect competition in the market for the

delivery of video programming.

Information is requested also to help the

Commission evaluate the effects on

competition of the Commission’s

program access, program carriage,

channel occupancy, and leased

commercial access rules.

8. The NOI also requests comment on

the current effects of actual or potential

competition in local markets where

consumers have, or soon will have, a

choice between MVPDs. The

Commission further requests

information on any existing or potential

impediments to entry into the market

for the delivery of video programming.

Finally, comment is sought on the

outlook for competition in the future.

Administrative Matters

Ex Parte

9. There are no ex parte or disclosure

requirements applicable to this

proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR

§ 1.1204(a)(4).

Comment Dates

10. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR

§§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties

may file comments on or before July 19,

1996, and reply comments on or before
34410 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Proposed Rules

August 19, 1996. To file formally in this

proceeding, participants must file an

original and four copies of all

comments, reply comments and

supporting comments. If participants

want each Commissioner to receive a

personal copy of their comments, an

original plus ten copies must be filed.

Comments and reply comments should

be sent to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239) of the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

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

Ordering Clauses

11. This Notice of Inquiry is issued

pursuant to authority contained in

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

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76

Cable television.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16817 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195

[Docket No. PS–94; Notice 5]

RIN 2137–AB38

Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration (RSPA); Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to Form

a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.

SUMMARY: RSPA proposes to establish a

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of

1990 and the Federal Advisory

Committee Act of 1992 to develop a

recommended rule on the qualification

of personnel performing certain safetyrelated functions for pipelines subject to

49 CFR Parts 192 and 195. The

Committee will adopt its

recommendations through a negotiation

process. The Committee will be

composed of persons who represent the

interests affected by the rule, such as gas

pipeline operators, hazardous liquid

and carbon dioxide pipeline operators,

members of state and federal

governments, and persons from the

public sector. The purpose of this NOI

is to invite interested parties to submit

comments on the issues to be discussed

and the interests and organizations to be

considered for representation on the

Committee.

DATES: RSPA must receive written

comments and requests for

representation or membership by

August 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted in duplicate to the RSPA

Dockets Office, attention Verdell

Simpkins, Room 8421, Nassif building,

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400

7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366–2036, or

Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366–0918,

regarding the subject matter of this NOI;

or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366–4453, for

copies of this NOI or other material in

the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

An NPRM titled ‘‘Qualification of

Pipeline Personnel’’ was published on

August 3, 1994 (Docket No. PS–94; 59

FR 39506). The NPRM proposed

qualification standards for personnel

who perform, or supervise persons

performing, regulated operation,

maintenance, and emergency-response

functions. The purpose of the NPRM

was to improve pipeline safety by

requiring operators to assure the

competency of affected personnel

through training, testing, and periodic

refresher training.

Written comments to the NPRM.

RSPA received 131 comments to the

docket that expressed a wide variety of

interests and concerns. Commenters

stated that the NPRM was too

prescriptive and that the many

references to training requirements

should be modified to place the focus of

the NPRM on actual qualification, not

the methods of achieving it. Most

commenters asserted that the NPRM

should have proposed a more general

approach of broad requirements for

persons performing ‘‘safety related’’

functions. Following review of the

extensive comments to the NPRM,

RSPA decided that a regulatory process

other than traditional rulemaking would

better address the issues surrounding

operator qualifications.

Advisory Committees

The Technical Pipeline Safety

Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the

Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline

Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC)

were established by statute to evaluate

proposed pipeline safety regulations.

The committees are required to report

on the technical feasibility,

reasonableness, and practicability of the

proposals.

Following consideration of the issues

of this proposed rulemaking, both the

TPSSC and THLPSSC expressed their

disapproval of the NPRM. Instead the

Committees presented several motions

calling for amendments to the proposal.

Those motions generally reflected

written comments submitted to the

Qualification of Pipeline Personnel

proposed rulemaking.

Petition for Withdrawal

On December 1, 1995, the American

Gas Association (AGA), the American

Public Gas Association (APGA), and the

Southern Gas Association (SGA) filed a

petition for withdrawal of the August 3,

1994, NPRM and offered an alternative

proposal.

Notice of withdrawal of NPRM

Along with this NOI, RSPA is

publishing elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register a document

withdrawing the NPRM in Docket No.

PS–94. RSPA briefly indicated the

negotiated rulemaking process was an

alternative method of rulemaking for

use in this regulatory action. RSPA

contends that a negotiated rulemaking

process will provide the appropriate

level of communication among

interested parties that is needed to

resolve the controversies surrounding

the qualification issues.

II. Regulatory Negotiation

It can be difficult for an agency to

craft effective regulatory solutions to

certain problems. In the typical

rulemaking process, the participants

often develop adversarial relationships

that prevent effective communication

and creative solutions. The exchange of

ideas that may lead to solutions

acceptable to all interested groups often

does not occur in the traditional notice

and comment system. As the

Administrative Conference of the

United States (ACUS) noted in its

Recommendation 82–4:

Experience indicates that if the parties in

interest were to work together to negotiate

the text of a proposed rule, they might be

able in some circumstances to identify the

major issues, gauge their importance to the

respective parties, identify the information

and data necessary to resolve the issues, and

develop a rule that is acceptable to the

respective interests, all within the contours

of the substantive statute.