Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10001

cover BLM’s costs of processing certain

documents relating to its minerals

programs. The primary purpose of this

rule is to charge those who benefit from

these minerals programs, rather than the

general public, the costs of BLM

minerals documents processing. In

response to public requests for

additional time, BLM extends the

comment period 60 days from the

original comment period closing date of

February 13, 2001, to the extended

comment period’s closing date of April

16, 2001.

DATES: Send your comments to BLM on

or before April 16, 2001 to assure BLM

will consider them in preparing the

final rule.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments to the

Bureau of Land Management

Administrative Record, Room 401 LS,

1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC

20240, or hand deliver comments to the

Bureau of Land Management

Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620

L Street, NW., Washington DC. For

information about filing comments

electronically, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section under ‘‘Electronic

access and filing address.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions about fluid minerals (oil, gas,

geothermal resources) call Kermit

Witherbee at (202) 452–0335. For

questions about solid minerals,

including coal, Durga Rimal at (202)

452–0372. If you require a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD), you may call the Federal

Information Relay Service at 1–800–

877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m. Eastern time, Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing Address

You can view an electronic version of

this proposed rule at BLM’s Internet

home page: www.blm.gov. You can also

comment via the Internet at:

WOComment@wo.blm.gov. Please

include ‘‘Attention: AC64’’ and your

name and return address in your

Internet message. If you do not receive

a confirmation from our system that we

have received your Internet message,

contact us directly at (202) 452–5030.

Written Comments

Written comments on the proposed

rule should:

A. Be specific;

B. Be confined to issues pertinent to

the proposed rule;

C. Explain the reason for any

recommended change; and

D. Reference the specific section or

paragraph of the proposal you are

addressing.

The BLM may not necessarily

consider or include in the

Administrative Record for the final rule

comments which BLM receives after the

close of the comment period (See DATES)

or comments delivered to an address

other than those listed above (See

ADDRESSES).

You can review comments, including

names, street addresses, and other

contact information of respondents at

this address during regular business

hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

If you are an individual respondent you

may request confidentiality. If you

request that BLM consider withholding

your name, street address, and other

contact information (such as: Internet

address, FAX or phone number) from

public review or from disclosure under

the Freedom of Information Act, you

must state this prominently at the

beginning of your comment. BLM will

honor requests for confidentiality on a

case-by-case basis to the extent allowed

by law. BLM will make available for

public inspection in their entirety all

submissions from organizations or

businesses, and from individuals

identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses.

Dated: February 6, 2001.

Piet deWilt,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and

Minerals Management.

[FR Doc. 01–3739 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 00–39; FCC 01–24]

Broadcast Services; Radio Stations,

Television Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission explores the issues and

concerns raised by parties regarding

DTV reception capability, and we

propose to require that certain types of

new television sets have the capability

to demodulate and decode over-the-air

DTV signals by a date certain. We also

seek comment on how best to

implement such a requirement,

including alternatives for phasing-in

DTV reception capability in a manner

that would minimize costs for both

manufacturers and consumers. Finally,

we propose to adopt labeling

requirements with respect to television

receivers that are not capable of

receiving over-the-air broadcast

television signals but, instead, are

intended for use only with cable

television reception.

DATES: Comments are due by April 6,

2001; reply comments are due by May

7, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Holberg, or Mania Baghdadi, Mass

Media Bureau, Policy and Rules

Division, (202) 418–2120 or Alan

Stillwell or Bruce Franca, Office of

Engineering and Technology, (202) 418–

2470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (‘‘FNPRM’’) in

MM Docket No. 00–39, FCC 01–24,

adopted January 18, 2001, and released

January 19, 2001. The complete text of

this document is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street,

SW., Washington, DC. and may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service (202) 857–3800, 445 12th Street,

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC.

The FNPRM is also available on the

Internet at the Commission’s website:

http://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making

I. Background

1. In the Commission’s digital

television proceeding (MM Docket No.

87–268) we repeatedly indicated our

intent to hold periodic reviews of the

progress of the conversion to digital

television and to make such mid-course

corrections as were necessary to ensure

the success of that conversion. In the

Fifth Report and Order, 62 FR 26966,

May 16, 1997 (‘‘5R&O’’), we stated that

we would conduct such a review every

two years. We commenced this, the first,

periodic review, with a Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (‘‘NPRM’’),

adopted March 6, 2000 (65 FR 15600,

March 23, 2000). In that NPRM we

stated that the conversion is progressing

and that television stations are working

hard to convert to digital television. We

invited comment on several issues that

we considered essential to be resolved

in order to ensure that progress

10002 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

continued and that potential sources of

delay were eliminated. In a Report and

Order (‘‘R&O’’), also adopted January

18, 2001, in this proceeding we resolved

a number of issues raised in the initial

NPRM. We also adopted this FNPRM in

order to solicit comment on the issues

of whether and, if so, how to implement

a DTV receiver requirement, whether to

require labels on all DTV receivers

designed for use only with a signal

source other than broadcast (e.g., cable,

DBS, etc.), and whether to update our

current DTV standard to reflect

amendments to the ATSC DTV Standard

that have been made since we

substantially incorporated that standard

into our rules.

II. Discussion

2. In response to the NPRM in this

proceeding, a number of parties have

argued that the Commission should

require digital reception capability in all

receivers, aside from particular

performance thresholds. Their

comments also implicated the accurate

identification and marketing of receivers

with various capabilities. In addition,

consumer advocates have complained

that any requirement that all receivers

contain digital reception capability

places an undue burden on consumers,

and particularly low-income consumers.

These comments have raised pertinent

questions on which we will seek further

information and comment to develop a

full record on the current pertinence of

such recommendations.

3. DTV Receiver Standards—DTV

Demodulation Requirement. The NAB

and the NABA submit that the

Commission should adopt rules

requiring every new television receiver

sold to include the capability to receive

DTV signals. The NAB states that this

requirement is needed because market

forces are not working to effect DTV

receiver penetration except at an

extremely slow pace. It observes that

current DTV receivers are not in the

marketplace in great numbers and

existing sales volume of DTV receivers

will not support the timely conversion

and recovery of spectrum envisioned by

the Commission and Congress. The NAB

and the NABA argue a requirement that

new TV receivers be capable of tuning

DTV channels is therefore needed to

push the transition along quickly. They

specifically propose that the

Commission require all new television

receivers thirteen inches and greater in

diagonal screen size to be capable of

receiving all frequencies allocated by

the Commission to television

broadcasting, including all NTSC and

all DTV channels. Although the NAB

and NABA conclude the increased

burden on consumers is temporary and

thus acceptable, other commenters have

concluded otherwise. The Consumer

Federation of America (CFA) argued

that a tuner requirement would place a

burden on consumers, especially lowincome consumers who ‘‘may

potentially be priced out of the market.

***’’ CFA also stated that ‘‘[w]ithout

more programming it is clear that there

will not be a timely and complete

transition to digital television. * * *’’

4. The NAB argues that the

Commission has authority for such

action under the All Channel Receiver

Act (ACRA), and that there is precedent

in the all channel television receiver

rules. It observes that the Senate Report

accompanying that legislation noted

three points in favor of promoting UHF

receivers that are equally applicable to

DTV: (1) That this is a unique situation;

(2) while there will be an increased cost,

it is expected that this will be

substantially reduced once the benefits

of mass production are fully realized;

and (3) in any event, the relatively slight

increase in cost will be a small price to

pay for the unlocking of the * * *

valuable UHF channels. The NAB

submits that there are obvious parallels

to DTV. It states that the DTV process

is a unique transition of the entire

television system to digital technology.

The NAB and NABA state that while the

price the public will pay to purchase an

all channel receiver will initially be

higher, the costs of such receivers will

fall substantially as production

increases. And finally, they state that

the higher costs will be a small price to

pay for ‘‘unlocking’’ the valuable DTV

channels and, in addition, unlocking the

valuable NTSC channels to be returned

for public benefit and use.

5. In addition, in their reply

comments CEA and Thomson argue that

the ACRA does not provide the

Commission authority to require DTV

tuners in every set. They argue that in

passing the ACRA, Congress only

intended to ensure the viability of UHF

broadcasting and that it did not foresee

or intend to accommodate new modes of

broadcasting, particularly digital

broadcasting. CEA further argues that

Congress explicitly considered but

rejected empowering the Commission

generally to set receiver standards.

Thomson argues that in the DTV

proceeding, the Commission itself

acknowledged the ACRA’s narrow scope

in this area when it found that the Act

does not mandate the manufacture of socalled dual-mode receivers, i.e.,

receivers capable of receiving both

analog and DTV signals.

6. As NAB, NABA and other

commenters observe, DTV receivers are

not yet available in the market in large

quantities, and certainly not in

sufficient volume to support a rapid

transition to an all-digital broadcast

television service. We request comment

on whether a requirement to include

DTV reception capability in certain new

television sets could help to develop the

production volumes needed to bring

DTV prices down to where they are

more attractive to consumers and

thereby promote the more rapid

development of high DTV set

penetration. In particular, we seek

comment on whether we should require

that certain types of TV sets have the

capability to demodulate and decode

over-the-air DTV signals. Under such a

requirement, TV sets would have to

provide useable picture and sound

commensurate with their video display

and audio capabilities when receiving

any of the recognized ATSC video

formats. Such a requirement would not

necessitate full HDTV capability in TV

sets. For example, a TV set that had only

NTSC level display capabilities would

only have to be able to demodulate and

decode DTV signals and present them at

a standard definition display level

equivalent to its NTSC capabilities. This

capability would reduce reliance on

analog television transmissions. We are,

however, concerned about the potential

impact of such a requirement on

consumers, especially low-income

consumers. We therefore seek comment

on the initial projected costs of such a

requirement as well as realistic

estimates of those costs over time. We

also seek comment on consumer

television receiver purchasing patterns,

especially those of low-income

consumers.

7. We request comment on how best

to implement DTV reception capability

requirements, if we were to adopt them.

We recognize that consumer electronics

manufacturers would need time to

implement such a requirement. The cost

of DTV receiver components is still

relatively high and it would not be

economically feasible at this point to

include DTV capability in smaller

screen receivers, i.e., 20 inches or less.

In this regard, we understand the cost

considerations associated with

including DTV reception capability in

TV sets now, and do not wish to impose

undue costs on consumers or disrupt TV

set pricing structure or the availability

of TV receivers to consumers. One

approach to minimize the impact of

such a requirement would be to phase

it in over time to take advantage of

declining costs associated with

electronics manufacturing volumes and

apply the requirement initially only to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10003

receivers with large screen sizes, e.g., 32

inches and above. Such receivers are

typically higher priced units where the

cost of DTV components would be a

smaller percentage of the cost of a

receiver. Each manufacturer would be

required to include DTV capability in an

increasing percentage of the large screen

units it markets each year. For example,

in the first year of the requirements, 20

percent or some other percentage of

each manufacturer’s large screen models

would be required to have DTV receive

capability and this percentage would

increase on some schedule in

subsequent years. Separate set-top DTV

receiver could be included in meeting

the reception capability requirements.

As the costs of components decrease,

the requirement for DTV reception

capability could be applied to more

units each year by reducing the

threshold screen size and by increasing

the portion of units that would have to

comply. We seek comment on what

would be an appropriate minimum

screen size for an initial requirement

and the schedule for extending such

requirements to other receivers. We also

request comment on the cost

implications of DTV reception

capability requirements for both

consumers and manufacturers.

8. We further request comment on

whether any DTV reception capability

requirements we might adopt should be

based on percentages of the models

marketed by each manufacturer, rather

than units of production. In addition,

we invite interested parties to submit

other plans that would result in new TV

receivers being equipped with DTV

capability that would result in

widespread penetration of TV receivers

in households to enable the transition

from analog to digital TV service

consistent with the intent of Congress in

47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14), and a discussion of

the likely effectiveness of such

alternative plans.

9. With regard to our authority to

establish requirements for DTV receiver

capabilities, we observe that 47 U.S.C.

303(s), as noted above, provides the

Commission with authority to require

that television receivers be capable of

adequately receiving all frequencies

allocated by the Commission to

television broadcasting. While Congress

in 1962 did not anticipate the advent of

digital television service, a plain

language reading of this section does not

limit our authority to analog television

receivers, nor does it limit our authority

to channels in the UHF band. Inasmuch

as the frequencies allocated to television

broadcasting now include those

channels allotted for DTV service, 47

U.S.C. 303(s) provides the Commission

with authority to require that television

receivers be capable of adequately

receiving those channels. Moreover, the

ACRA’s legislative history suggests that

Congress’ reasoning in enacting the

statute supports such a conclusion. We

seek comment on how to construct any

DTV tuner requirement consistent with

any relevant statutory authority,

including 47 U.S.C. 303(s) and any other

relevant sections of the

Communications Act.

10. Receiver Labeling. Turning to

another issue concerning digital

television receivers, we observe that

television receivers could be marketed

that do not have the capability to

receive over-the-air broadcast signals.

For example, receivers intended only for

use in receiving cable or direct

broadcast satellite service might not

include the capability to tune over-theair broadcast television signals. While

we are not aware of any such receivers

that are being marketed at this time,

such devices would be permissible

under our rules. In this regard, the allchannel reception provisions of 47 CFR

15.117(b) would not apply to receivers

that did not have any capability for

receiving broadcast signals. We expect

that consumers will continue to expect

that all digital television receivers will

be able to receive over-the-air digital

broadcast signals and that

manufacturers therefore will continue to

equip all television receivers with this

capability. If, however, manufacturers

do at some point chose to produce

receivers that can be used with digital

cable systems but cannot receive digital

broadcast signals, we believe that

consumers should be so notified prior to

purchase. We therefore intend to

explore this question and possible

Commission responses. We seek

comment on whether any manufacturers

are producing or plan to produce digital

television receivers that can receive

digital cable transmissions but are

incapable of receiving digital broadcast

signals off-the-air. We also seek

comment on whether the Commission

should require any digital television

receivers that cannot receive off-the-air

digital broadcast signals to carry a label

informing consumers of this limitation

on the receivers’ functionality. Parties

supporting such a labeling requirement

may wish to propose labels keeping in

mind our goals of ease of understanding

for consumers and low cost and ease of

compliance for manufacturers.

11. Update of the DTV Standard. As

indicated above, there has been an

update to the ATSC DTV Standard since

1996, when we adopted it. When we

incorporated most of the ATSC DTV

Standard into our rules by reference, we

made reference to the version of that

Standard which was the most recent

iteration of the Standard at that time.

Specifically, we incorporated by

reference ‘‘ATSC Digital Television

Standard, 16 Sep 95.’’ However, as

commenters noted, this standard has

been updated since we incorporated it

into our rules. Accordingly, we seek

comment on whether we should revise

our rules to include reference the March

16, 2000, amendment to the standard.

Commenters favoring revision should

specify whether we should refrain from

incorporating any parts of this update,

as we did with regard to the eighteen

video format constraints in the original

ATSC DTV Standard. Additionally, we

specifically do not plan on considering

in regard to updating the standard

comments urging us to amend the

standard with regard to its 8 VSB

modulation component, or to

fundamentally change the standard in

any other way such as, for example, by

prohibiting its use of interlaced

scanning, changing the audio

component of the standard, or altering

its frame aspect ratios.

III. Conclusion

12. At the outset of this proceeding

we stated that the conversion to digital

is progressing and television stations are

working hard to convert to DTV. The

comments we received in response to

the NPRM have mostly further

confirmed our initial impressions. We

believe that the conversion is, indeed,

making progress and that the actions we

are taking, and proposing, herein will

hasten this transition. Particularly, our

choice of an early channel election for

commercial licensees and our decision

not to require replication of NTSC

service should well conduce to allowing

stations to make plans and purchase

equipment at the earliest practicable

times. We believe that specific receiver

performance standards are neither

necessary nor useful at this time but we

are inclined that a mandatory phase-in

of a DTV reception capability in

receivers will best ensure the rapid

progress of the transition at a reasonable

cost to consumers. We will continue to

monitor the progress toward the DTV

conversion and will in future reviews

take those actions needed to accomplish

a smooth transition by December 31,

2006.

IV. Administrative Matters

13. Comments and Reply Comments.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,

interested parties may file comments on

or before April 6, 2001, and reply

comments on or before May 7, 2001.

Comments may be filed using the

10004 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper

copies. See Electronic Filing of

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,

63 FR 24,121 (1998).

14. Comments filed through ECFS can

be sent as an electronic file via the

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of

an electronic submission must be filed.

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 via 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.

15. Parties who choose to file by

paper must file an original and four

copies of each filing. All filings must be

sent to the Commission’s Secretary,

Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554.

16. Parties who choose to file paper

should also submit their comments on

diskette. These diskettes should be

addressed to: Wanda Hardy, Paralegal

Specialist, Mass Media Bureau, Policy

and Rules Division, Federal

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street, SW., 2–C221,

Washington, DC 20554. Such a

submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible

format using Word 97 or compatible

software. The diskette should be

accompanied by a cover letter and

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the commenter’s name,

proceeding (including the lead docket

number in this case (MM Docket No.

00–39), type of pleading (comment or

reply comment), 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 sent diskette copies to the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, SW., CY–B402,

Washington, DC 20554.

17. Comments and reply comments

will be available for public inspection

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Federal

Communications Commission, 445

Twelfth Street, SW., CY–A257,

Washington, DC 20554. Persons with

disabilities who need assistance in the

FCC Reference Center may contact Bill

Cline at (202) 418–0270, (202) 418–2555

TTY, or bcline@fcc.gov. Comments and

reply comments also will be available

electronically at the Commission’s

Disabilities Issues Task Force web site:

www.fcc.gov/dtf. Comments and reply

comments are available electronically in

ASCII text, Word 97, and Adobe

Acrobat.

18. This document is available in

alternative formats (computer diskette,

large print, audio cassette, and Braille).

Persons who need documents in such

formats may contact Martha Contee at

(202) 4810–0260, TTY (202) 418–2555,

or mcontee@fcc.gov.

19. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding

will be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding, subject to the

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex

parte presentations are permissible if

disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are

generally prohibited. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description or the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Additional rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set

forth in section 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

20. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. With respect to this FNPRM,

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) is contained. As

required by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission

has prepared an IRFA of the possible

economic impact on small entities of the

proposals contained in this FNPRM.

Written public comments are requested

on the IRFA. Comments on the IRFA

must be filed in accordance with the

same filing deadlines as comments on

the FNPRM, and must have a distinct

heading designating them as a response

to the IRFA.

21. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission

has prepared this present Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in this FNPRM.

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 FNPRM provided

above. The Commission will send a

copy of the FNPRM, including this

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration

(SBA). See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition,

the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries

thereof) will be published in the Federal

Register.

22. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules. Beginning in 1987, the

Commission undertook to bring the

most up-to-date technology to broadcast

television. That resulted in several

Commission decisions including those

adopting a digital television (DTV)

standard, DTV service rules, and a Table

of DTV Allotments. The Table of DTV

Allotments provides each existing

television broadcaster with a second

channel on which to operate a DTV

station for the transition period after

which one of its channels will revert to

the government for use in other services.

The transition deadline established by

Congress is December 31, 2006. The

Commission is permitted to extend that

deadline on a market-by-market basis if

more than 15 percent of viewers will be

left without service from (1) a digital

television receiver; (2) an analog

television receiver equipped with a

digital/analog converter; or (3) a multichannel video provider that carries local

broadcast stations. The Commission is

issuing this FNPRM to explore whether

a requirement to include DTV reception

capability in new television sets would

help develop the production volumes

needed to bring DTV receiver prices

down quickly to where they are more

attractive to consumers and thereby

promote the more rapid development of

high DTV set penetration, enabling

compliance with the statutory transition

deadline.

23. Legal Basis. This FNPRM is

adopted pursuant to sections 1, 2(a),

4(i), 7, and 303 of the Communications

Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157,

and 303.

24. Description and Estimate of the

Number of Small Entities To Which the

Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA

directs agencies to provide a description

of, and, where feasible, an estimate of

the number of small entities that may be

affected by the proposed rules, if

adopted. The RFA defines the term

‘‘small entity’’ as having the same

meaning as the terms ‘‘small business,’’

‘‘small organization,’’ and ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction.’’ In addition,

the term ‘‘small business’’ has the same

meaning as the term ‘‘small business

concern’’ under section 3 of the Small

Business Act. A small business concern

is one which: (1) Is independently

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 10005

owned and operated; (2) is not

dominant in its field of operation; and

(3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the SBA.

25. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the

statutory definition of a small business

applies ‘‘unless an agency, after

consultation with the Office of

Advocacy of the [SBA] and after

opportunity for public comment,

establishes one or more definitions of

such term which are appropriate to the

activities of the agency and publishes

such definition(s) in the Federal

Register.’’ A ‘‘small organization’’ is

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise

which is independently owned and

operated and is not dominant in its

field.’’ Nationwide, as of 1992, there

were approximately 275,801 small

organizations. ‘‘Small governmental

jurisdiction’’ generally means

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school districts, or

special districts with a population of

less than 50,000.’’ As of 1992, there

were approximately 85,006 local

governments in the United States. This

number includes 38,978 counties, cities,

and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96

percent, have populations of fewer than

50,000. The Census Bureau estimates

that this ratio is approximately accurate

for all governmental entities. Thus, of

the 85,006 governmental entities, we

estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are

small entities.

26. Rules adopted in this proceeding

could apply to manufacturers of DTV

receiving equipment and, particularly,

television receivers. The SBA has

developed a definition of small entity

for manufacturers of household audio

and video equipment (SIC 3651). This

includes all such companies employing

750 or fewer employees. 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 indicate 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,

and particularly television receivers, 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 even, no more than 410 are

small entities.

27. Description of Projected

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements. At this time,

we do not expect that the proposed

rules would impose any additional

recordkeeping or recordkeeping

requirements. However, compliance

may require the manufacture of some

types of DTV capable receivers. While

this would have an impact on

manufacturers of television receivers, it

will be similarly costly for both large

and small manufacturers and, in any

event, the cost will ultimately be borne

by the consumer. We seek comment on

whether others perceive a need for

extensive recordkeeping.

28. 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 (among

others): (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.

29. The FNPRM recognizes that if the

Commission were to require DTV

reception capability in new television

receivers that action would pose new

burdens on consumer electronics

manufacturers, especially in the initial

period when production volumes are

relatively low. The FNPRM further

observes that the cost considerations

associated with DTV reception

capability are such that it could not be

economically feasible at this point in

time to include DTV capability in

smaller screen receivers, i.e., 20 inches

or less. We believe that as production

increases, the price and size of the

components needed for DTV reception

will decline substantially, so that the

incremental cost of including that

capability in TV receivers will

eventually become low. In addition, as

the goal of this effort is to convert

broadcast television service to digital

operation, all television receivers will

have to be able to receive DTV service

at the end of the transition.

30. In order to minimize the impact of

a DTV reception capability requirement

on manufacturers, if the Commission

were to conclude that one were needed,

the FNPRM suggests a plan by which the

requirement would first apply to

receivers with large screen sizes, i.e., 32

inches or larger. Larger screen receivers

generally are more expensive units, so

that the additional cost of

manufacturing them with DTV

capability would be a much lower

percentage of the total cost than it

would for smaller screen units. As

discussed, the requirement would apply

to only a small portion of larger screen

receivers at first; over time the

percentage of units that would have to

have DTV reception capability would

increase and the requirement would

also be extended to smaller screen units

in the same incremental manner. To

minimize the impact on manufacturers,

receivers would only be required to

have the capability to receive and

decode over-the-air DTV signals. Thus,

TV sets subject to the requirement

would only have to provide useable

picture and sound commensurate with

their video and sound capabilities when

receiving any of the recognized ATSC

video formats. The requirement as

proposed would not mandate full HDTV

capability in TV sets. We also requested

comment on whether we should base a

requirement on percentages of the

models marketed by each manufacturer,

rather than units of production. This

should benefit small entities by

allowing them to provide DTV

capability in their larger receivers, with

a higher profit margin, rather than

requiring them to provide such

capability across their product line

including sets where the market is more

price conscious and price sensitive.

31. The FNPRM also solicits comment

on a proposal to require receiver

manufacturers to label as such

television sets that are not capable of

receiving over-the-air DTV broadcasts

but which, instead are intended for

digital use only in conjunction with

cable television and/or broadcast

satellite reception. This proposed

requirement is intended to provide the

consuming public with easily

understandable information concerning

10006 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the capabilities of the receivers being

purchased.

32. The principal alternatives for

minimizing the impact of the transition

on manufacturers include plans that

would relax the schedule for the

percentages of units required to comply.

The FNPRM requests comments on this

proposal and also invites interested

parties to submit alternatives. The

labeling proposal will be made as

simple and inexpensive to comply with

as possible to minimize the impact on

small entity producers. Comments on

how it may be made even simpler are

solicited.

33. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules. None.

34. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis. This FNPRM may contain

either proposed or modified information

collections. As part of our continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we

invite the general public to take this

opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in

this FNPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996.

Public and agency comments are due at

the same time as other comments on the

FNPRM. Comments should address: (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) ways to enhance the quality, utility,

and clarity of the information collected;

and (c) ways to minimize the burden of

the collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

In addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Room C–1804, Washington, DC 20554,

or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and

to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk

Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

II. Ordering Clauses

35. Pursuant to the authority

contained 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i),

157 and 303, this FNPRM is adopted.

36. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this FNPRM, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.

Shirley Suggs,

Chief, Publications Branch.

[FR Doc. 01–3638 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P