        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0389; FRL-9949-66-Region 2]

        Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; NJ; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: Interstate Transport Provisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove elements of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), 2011 Carbon Monoxide (CO), 2006 Particulate Matter of ten microns or less (PM10), and 2012 Particulate Matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements relating to interstate transport provisions concerning the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) regulations, and visibility protection.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0389 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3702, or by email at Fradkin.Kenneth@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          I. Background
          II. EPA's Review
          III. What action is EPA taking?
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background
        Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. The EPA refers to this type of SIP submission as the “infrastructure” SIP because the SIP ensures that states can implement, maintain and enforce the air standards. Within these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP revision submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an “interstate transport SIP.” Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains two subsections: (D)(i)(I) and (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (commonly referred to as prong 1), or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that infrastructure SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality (prong 3) and to protect visibility (prong 4) in another state.
        On March 12, 2008 (73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008)), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.

        On October 15, 2008 (73 FR 66964 (Nov. 12, 2008)), EPA promulgated a new NAAQS, rolling 3-month average NAAQS for lead. The 2008 lead NAAQS is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3) maximum (not-to-be-exceeded). On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 6474 (Feb. 9, 2010)), EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010)), EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013)), EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for PM2.5 for the annual standard. The revised standard was set at the level of 12µg/m3 calculated as an annual average, which is averaged over a three year period.

        On September 21, 2006 (71 FR 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006)), EPA retained the primary and secondary 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 µg/m3, not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over a 3-year period. The standard was initially promulgated on June 2, 1987 (52 FR 24634 (July 1, 2006)). The PM10 standard was also retained on December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013)). On August 31, 2011, EPA retained the existing primary and secondary standards for CO of 9 ppm as an 8-hour average, and 35 ppm as a 1-hour standard average, neither to be exceeded more than once per year. The standards were initially established on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8186).

        On October 17, 2014 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to address requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (the infrastructure requirements) related to the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Although not specifically required by 110(a)(1) since neither NAAQS was new or revised1

          , the SIP revision also included infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM10 and 2011 CO NAAQS.

            1 EPA notes that, when promulgated, the 2006 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and the 2011 primary CO NAAQS were neither “new” nor “revised” NAAQS—they merely retained, without revision, prior NAAQS for those pollutants. Accordingly, promulgation of these NAAQS did not trigger a new obligation for New Jersey to make infrastructure SIP submissions.

        The submittal addressed all four prongs of the interstate transport requirements. On March 30, 2016, New Jersey withdrew the portion of their submittal addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. EPA subsequently issued a Finding of Failure to Submit to New Jersey.2

            2 81 FR 38963 (June 15, 2016).

        This proposed action pertains only to the portion of the SIP submittal addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prongs 3 and 4). EPA will address the other portions of the October 17, 2014 infrastructure SIP submittal in a separate action.
        II. EPA's Review
        Under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) SIPs are required to have provisions prohibiting emissions that would interfere with measures required to be in another state's SIP under part C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.

        New Jersey's SIP is not approved with respect to the PSD permit program required by Part C of the CAA. As a result, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 have been incorporated into New Jersey's applicable state plan. New Jersey has been delegated authority by EPA to implement 40 CFR 52.21. Although New Jersey has been successfully implementing the program, a state's infrastructure SIP submittal cannot be considered for approvability with respect to prong 3 until EPA has issued final approval of that state's PSD SIP, or, alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that EPA has otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other state's measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove New Jersey's 110(a) submissions for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because New Jersey is currently subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) and does not have a PSD SIP. This disapproval will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation, since the FIP is already in place. This action will have no discernible effect on the current implementation of the PSD program in New Jersey, as the State is already implementing a well-established PSD program through EPA delegation.

        In this action, EPA is proposing that, for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, New Jersey satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility (prong 4). New Jersey addresses visibility protection requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA approved New Jersey's Regional Haze SIP submittal (77 FR 19 (Jan. 3, 2012)) as part of New Jersey's SIP. The regional haze rule requires that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.
        In EPA's approval of New Jersey's Regional Haze Plan, EPA has determined that the plan contains emission reductions needed to achieve New Jersey's share of emission reductions that were determined to be reasonable through the regional planning process. Further, New Jersey's Regional Haze Plan ensures that emissions from the State will not interfere with the Reasonable Progress Goals for neighboring States' Class I areas.
        Thus, New Jersey's approved Regional Haze SIP ensures that emissions from sources within the State are not interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states.
        III. What action is EPA taking?

        EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the October 17, 2014 New Jersey SIP submittal for 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS pertaining to prong 3 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interstate transport of air pollution to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in other states due to the State's lack of a state adopted PSD program. However, the disapproval will not trigger any sanctions or an additional FIP obligation since a PSD FIP is already in place.

        EPA is proposing approval of the portion of the October 17, 2014 New Jersey SIP submittal for 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility (or prong 4).

        EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
        • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

        • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
        • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
        • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

        In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur Dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: July 18, 2016.
          Judith A. Enck,
          Regional Administrator, Region 2.

      [FR Doc. 2016-17710 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [I.D. 070500C]
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fisheries; Bycatch Reduction

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS); notice of availability of Biological Opinion; announcement of scoping meetings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces its intent to prepare an SEIS to address requirements of the Biological Opinion dated June 30, 2000, that was issued pursuant to a formal consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and, relative to fishing activities for Atlantic HMS, to assess the impacts of potential management options on the natural and human environment. The purpose of this notice is to inform the interested public of the intent to prepare the SEIS; announce the availability of, and provide information on, the Biological Opinion; announce that NMFS is considering regulatory and non-regulatory measures to address the requirements of the Biological Opinion for the Atlantic HMS fisheries for the current fishing year and for the long-term; and announce public scoping meetings on issues and management options that NMFS should consider in addressing the requirements of the Biological Opinion and in preparing the SEIS.

          DATES:

          Public scoping meetings will take place in July and August, 2000. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for dates and times of the scoping meetings. Additional scoping meetings may be scheduled at a later date and will be announced in the Federal Register.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments on the proposal to prepare the SEIS and suggestions for the times and locations of additional scoping meetings should be sent to: Rebecca Lent, Chief, Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SF1), Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the locations of the scoping meetings.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Margo Schulze-Haugen or Karyl Brewster-Geisz, 301-713-2347; fax 301-713-1917.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP), Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan, and their implementing regulations found at 50 CFR part 635. The Atlantic shark regulations are issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act)(16 U.S.C. 1801 et
          seq.). The Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and billfish fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et
          seq.) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 et
          seq.).
        Biological Opinion Requirements
        In 1999, the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery exceeded its authorized take of loggerhead sea turtles as set out in the Incidental Take Statement previously issued with the April 23, 1999, Biological Opinion. As required under the ESA, NMFS requested, on November 19, 1999, a re-initiation of consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. On June 30, 2000, NMFS issued a new Biological Opinion that concluded the operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles.
        In order to eliminate the threat of jeopardy, NMFS must address the level of sea turtle takes in the pelagic longline fishery. The Biological Opinion provides a framework for development of reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPAs) designed to remove the threat of jeopardy by reducing the number of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles that are incidentally captured, injured, and killed by pelagic longline gear. The Biological Opinion provides two RPAs that, if implemented, would avoid the jeopardy finding. However, any combination of management measures, regulatory and/or non-regulatory, that have the effect of reducing the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles that are incidentally captured, injured, and killed by pelagic longline gear by 75 percent will meet the requirements of the Biological Opinion. These combinations could include monitoring requirements, gear and/or fishing method modifications, and time/area closures. During the scoping period, NMFS plans to meet with fishery participants, particularly pelagic longline vessel operators who fish the northeast distant water statistical area (Grand Banks), to determine which combination of measures will reduce turtle takes to the required level while mitigating impacts to the industry.
        The Biological Opinion also identified required reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) and terms of conditions (T&Cs) for all HMS fisheries as part of the revised Incidental Take Statement. For example, education and outreach, monitoring requirements, and sea turtle resuscitation requirements were identified for several HMS fisheries. NMFS will work with fishery constituents to implement these required provisions of the Incidental Take Statement.
        Management Measures Under Consideration
        Because of the findings of the Biological Opinion, participants in the HMS fisheries may be required to operate under alternative management measures that may redistribute fishing effort and alter current fishing methods in order to avoid jeopardizing protected species. NMFS will consider regulatory and non-regulatory measures for managing the Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish fisheries consistent with the requirements of the ESA. These measures will address the RPAs, RPMs, and T&Cs identified in the June 30, 2000, Biological Opinion, and may implement time/area closures, gear restrictions, crew training, monitoring and reporting requirements.
        Scoping Meetings
        Scoping for the SEIS will be held in consultation with the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels. Public scoping meetings will be scheduled at times and locations convenient for affected parties. The following scoping meetings have been scheduled:
        Monday, July 31, 2000—Silver Spring, MD, 1-3:30 p.m.
        NMFS, SSMC2, 1325 East-West Highway, Room 2358, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
        Tuesday, August 1, 2000—Barnegat Light, NJ, 7-9:30 p.m.
        Barnegat Light Firehouse, Barnegat, NJ 08006.

        Wednesday, August 2, 2000—Fairhaven, MA, 7-9:30 p.m.
        The Seaport Inn (Holiday Inn), 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719.
        Thursday, August 3, 2000—Islandia, NY, 7-9:30 p.m.
        Islandia Marriott, 3635 Express Drive North, Islandia, NY 11749
        Friday, August 4, 2000—Gloucester, MA, 1-3:30 p.m.
        NMFS Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
        Interested parties should contact Rebecca Lent (see ADDRESSES) regarding suggested times and locations for additional scoping meetings.
        Special Accommodations
        These meetings will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Margo Schulze-Haugen at (301) 713-2347 at least 5 days prior to the hearing date.
        Timing of the Analysis and Tentative Schedule
        Input on the issues to be addressed in preparing the SEIS and potential options for reducing take of protected species in the Atlantic HMS fisheries will be accepted and discussed at the scoping meetings. Given the jeopardy opinion, NMFS must take prompt action to reduce interactions with loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Therefore, NMFS is considering issuing regulations under the emergency provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on an interim basis. In particular, immediate action may be required for the pelagic longline fishery operating on the Grand Banks, an area of high turtle takes during the summer and early fall. These emergency regulations would serve to implement provisional take reduction measures until a more comprehensive approach can be developed under the framework procedures of the HMS FMP, in conjunction with the SEIS. NMFS requests input from vessel captains on both the short term and long term solutions for reducing turtle interactions.

          Dated: July 13, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-18144 Filed 7-13-00; 4:10 pm]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0132]
        Public Meeting of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Motor Vehicles Working Group

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of public meeting.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) was created on February 4, 2011. After private sector consultations and bilateral negotiations, the RCC released the Joint Action Plan on Regulatory Cooperation on December 7, 2011. The Joint Action Plan is a practical first step to increased regulatory cooperation between the United States and Canada. In order to implement the initiatives identified in the Joint Action Plan, bilateral working groups led by senior officials from regulatory agencies have developed work plans with concrete objectives, deliverables and milestones for tangible progress within the RCC's two-year mandate. This notice announces a public meeting of the RCC Motor Vehicles Working Group.

          DATES:
          The public meeting will be held on January 14, 2014. The meeting will start at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m., local time, or until all registered speakers have been heard.

          ADDRESSES:
          The January 14, 2014 public meeting will be held at the Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building, 11th Floor, 477 Michigan Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you would like to attend the public meeting, please contact Lashawn Keeve, NHTSA Office of Rulemaking, by email at lashawn.keeve@dot.gov, by telephone at (202) 366-1740, or by fax at (202) 366-5930. Please contact Ms. Keeve at least ten days before the meeting date of January 14, 2014. Please provide the following information: name, affiliation, address, email address, and telephone number. For other questions regarding the RCC Motor Vehicles Working Group, in the United States, you may contact Mr. Ezana Wondimneh, Chief of the NHTSA International Harmonization Division, by email at ezana.wondimneh@dot.gov, by telephone at (202) 366-0846, or by fax at (202) 366-5930. In Canada you may contact Mr. Merz Rustom, Director, Motor Vehicle Standards, Research and Development at Transport Canada, by email at merz.rustom@tc.gc.ca, by telephone at (613) 998-2268, or by fax at (613) 990-2913.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) was created on February 4, 2011. After private sector consultations and bilateral negotiations, the RCC released the Joint Action Plan on Regulatory Cooperation on December 7, 2011. For more information on the Joint Action Plan on Regulatory Cooperation, see http://www.trade.gov/rcc/rcc-summary.asp. The Joint Action Plan is a practical first step to increased regulatory cooperation between the United States and Canada. In order to implement the initiatives identified in the Joint Action Plan, bilateral working groups led by senior officials from regulatory agencies have developed work plans with concrete objectives, deliverables and milestones for tangible progress within the RCC's two-year mandate.

        The January 14, 2014 public meeting is being held pursuant to the RCC Motor Vehicles Working Group Work Plan. For more information on the Work Plans, see http://www.trade.gov/rcc/documents/Existing-Motor-Vehicle-Safety-Standards.pdf, or http://www.trade.gov/rcc/ for future Work Plans.

          Public Meeting Procedures. The public meeting provides a forum for the public to speak about topics within the mandate of the RCC Motor Vehicles Working Group. In order to comply with the occupancy limits of the meeting space, attendance is limited to 100 persons, and preregistration is required. For space reasons, it is asked that you consider limiting your company's or association's delegation to 3-5 persons. If you would like to attend the public meeting as a speaker or as an observer, please contact the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least ten days before the hearing. Depending on the available space, registration for persons attending the public hearing as observers may be accepted after that date.
        For planning purposes, each speaker should anticipate speaking for approximately ten minutes, although we may need to shorten that time if a large number of people wish to make presentations. Once we learn how many people have registered to speak at the meeting, we will allocate an appropriate amount of time to each participant, allowing time for necessary breaks. In addition, we will reserve a block of time for anyone else in the audience who wishes to give an oral presentation.

        We request that you bring three copies of your statement or other material to the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, we prefer that speakers not use any audio-visual aids or computer slideshows; however, if you plan to use such aids, you must provide those materials in advance of the meeting and notify the contact person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

        NHTSA and Transport Canada will conduct the meeting informally. Presenters wishing to provide supplementary information should submit it to the contact person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
        For security purposes, government-issued photo identification is required to enter the Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building. Non-U.S. citizens may be required to show passports. To allow sufficient time to clear security and enter the building, NHTSA recommends that participants arrive 30 to 60 minutes prior to the start of the event, and that luggage, laptop computers, and personal effects be kept to a minimum.

          David Hines,
          Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 2013-31507 Filed 1-3-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 76
        [CS Docket No. 97-80; FCC 03-89]
        Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document initiates a rulemaking reassessing the retail market for navigation devices and the need for the upcoming July 1, 2006 ban on integrated navigation devices. This reassessment is needed to determine whether the July 1, 2006 ban on integrated navigation devices remains appropriate or is no longer necessary as a result of ongoing industry negotiations for a bidirectional specification for digital cable receivers and products. This rulemaking is initiated pursuant to Section 629 of the Communications Act which directs the Commission to adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability of navigation devices equipment used by consumers to access services from multichannel video programming distributors.

          DATES:
          Comments due February 19, 2004; reply comments are due March 10, 2004. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collections are due February 19, 2004. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed information collection(s) on or before August 18, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:

          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. For further filing information, see
            Supplementary Information.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Susan Mort, 202-418-1043 or smort@fcc.gov. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet at Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov., or at 202-418-0217, and to Kim A. Johson, OMB Desk Officer, Room 102236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to Kim_A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“FNPRM”), FCC 03-89, adopted April 14, 2003; released April 25, 2003. 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, Qualex International, (202) 863-2893, Portals II, Room CY-B402, 445 12th St., SW., Washington, DC 20554, or may be reviewed via Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/mb.

        Paperwork Reduction Act
        The FNPRM portion of this document contains a proposed information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) contained in the FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this FNPRM; OMB notification of action is due August 18, 2003. 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) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) 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 PRA comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov, and to Kim A. Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to Kim_A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov.

          OMB Control Number: 3060-0849.

          Title: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices.

          Form Number: N/A.

          Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

          Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

          Number of Respondents: 215.

          Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes to 40 hours.

          Frequency of Response: Quarterly and semi-annual reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

          Total Annual Burden: 3,384 hours.

          Total Annual Costs: $33,450.
        1. Needs and Uses: The FNPRM initiates a reassessment of the state of the navigation devices market by the Commission prior to January 1, 2005. Pursuant to this reassessment, the Commission shall determine whether the July 1, 2006 ban on integrated navigation devices remains appropriate or whether the ban will no longer be necessary. The state of the navigation devices market will be significantly impacted by ongoing negotiations between the cable and consumer electronics industries for a bidirectional specification for digital cable receivers and products. As a result, the cable and consumer electronics industries are requested to provide the Commission with status reports on these negotiations at 90, 180 and 270 day intervals following release of this FNPRM.
        Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

        2. The Commission initiated its Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices proceeding by notice of proposed rulemaking in CS Docket No. 97-80 (FCC 97-53), 62 FR 10011, March 5, 1997. This action was taken pursuant to Section 629 of the Communications Act which directs the Commission to adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability of navigation devices equipment used by consumers to access services from multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”). Pursuant to this directive, the Commission issued the Report and Order in the above-captioned proceeding establishing, inter alia, a January 1, 2005, deadline for MVPDs to cease deploying new navigation devices that perform both conditional access functions and other functions in a single integrated device. The Commission adopted the requirement to separate the conditional access function from the basic navigation device (the “host device”) in order to permit unaffiliated manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors to commercially market host devices while allowing MVPDs to retain control over their system security. The Commission later issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (“Further Notice and Declaratory Ruling”) (FCC 00-341), 65 FR 58255, September 28, 2000, that sought comment on the effectiveness of the Commission's navigation device rules, including the 2005 prohibition on integrated devices.
        3. Since Section 629 and the Commission's rules were adopted, the cable and consumer electronics industries have made, and continue to make, significant progress in the development of technical standards in this area. However, the commercial market for navigation devices used in conjunction with the distribution of digital video programming remains in its infancy. In an effort to spur the transition to digital television, the cable and consumer electronics industry recently reached a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) on a cable compatibility standard for a unidirectional digital cable television receiver with host device functionality, as well as other unidirectional digital cable products. This standard would allow consumers to directly attach their DTV receivers to cable systems using a point of deployment (“POD”) module and receive one-way cable television services without the need for an external navigation device. The Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“MOU FNPRM”) seeking public comment on the MOU issued in the above-captioned proceeding and in the Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment proceeding.
        4. In its earlier Further Notice and Declaratory Ruling, the Commission had already sought comment, inter alia, on whether the 2005 date for the phase-out of integrated boxes remains appropriate, on what, if any, incentives the requirement creates for the development of a commercial retail market for navigation devices, and on the economic impacts and costs associated with the requirement. In response, the cable industry and set-top box manufacturers generally urged that the 2005 deadline should be eliminated in favor of the continued offering of integrated navigation devices for rent to consumers. Other equipment manufacturing and retail interests urged that the date should be advanced to ensure the timely development of a retail market in host devices. Given the equipment ordering and manufacturing cycles involved, it is necessary at this point to provide guidance as to the Commission's expectations with respect to the 2005 date. Other issues raised in the Further Notice and Declaratory Ruling will be addressed separately at a later time.
        5. Commission action in response to the MOU FNPRM could have a significant impact upon the development of a commercial market in separate host devices. In addition, the cable and consumer electronic industries are in the midst of negotiations on specifications for bidirectional digital cable receivers and products which would permit the receipt of advanced cable television services by direct connection to cable systems. This ongoing process, which we are hopeful will produce results in the near term, could impact the development of technical specifications relating to host devices and POD modules. In light of the ongoing notice and comment cycle relating to the MOU FNPRM, the evolving nature of technical specifications relating to navigation devices, and the imminent business ordering and manufacturing cycles facing MVPDs and consumer electronics manufacturers in anticipation of the pending 2005 prohibition, we hereby extend the deadline concerning the prohibition on integrated devices until July 1, 2006.
        6. This eighteen month extension should provide adequate time for the parties to complete their ongoing negotiations and for the Commission to make a more knowledgeable decision as to any further changes in the compliance date. By January 1, 2005, the Commission shall complete a reassessment of the state of the navigation devices market and determine whether the designated time frame remains appropriate or whether the ban on integrated devices will no longer be necessary. In the interim, the cable and consumer electronics industries are requested to provide the Commission with status reports on their negotiations on specifications for bidirectional digital cable receivers and products at 90, 180 and 270 day intervals following release of this Order. Following submission of the last status report to the Commission, the public shall have thirty days to submit comments on the status reports and whether any further changes in the phase-out date for integrated devices are warranted.
        7. Based upon the record in the above-captioned proceeding and ongoing industry developments, we have concluded that a limited deferral of the date is consistent with the ultimate objectives of this proceeding and our statutory directive to act “in consultation with appropriate industry standard-setting organizations.” We are not persuaded at this point to eliminate the prohibition on integrated devices since future developments in both the marketplace and ongoing industry negotiations may yet dictate a need for this requirement in order to achieve the objectives of Section 629. However, the conclusion of the unidirectional MOU, as well as the ongoing negotiations towards a bidirectional agreement, do reflect progress towards the development of a retail market for consumer electronics equipment with navigation device functionality. As such, we do not believe that advancing the prohibition date, as previously suggested by a number of equipment manufacturing and retail interests, is necessary to further these objectives or would provide sufficient lead time for ordering and manufacturing prior to completion of the next phase of the standardization process.
        8. Authority. This FNPRM is issued pursuant to authority contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
        9. Ex Parte Rules—Non-Restricted Proceeding. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
        10. Accessibility Information. Accessible formats of this FNPRM (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin, of the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at bmillin@fcc.gov.

        11. Comment Information. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before February 19, 2004, and reply comments on or before March 10, 2004. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

        12. Comments filed through the 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. 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, U.S. 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. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
        13. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This FNPRM contains modified information collection(s) subject to the PRA. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection(s) contained in this proceeding.

        14. Written comments by the public on the proposed information collection(s) are due August 18, 2003. Written comments must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget and other interested parties on the proposed information collection(s) on or before August 18, 2003. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to Leslie Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to Leslie.Smith@fcc.gov, and to Kim A. Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to Kim_A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov.

        15. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the proposals addressed in this FNPRM. The IRFA is set forth below. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on the FNPRM, and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
        Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

        16. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”) the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“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 in paragraph 10-11. The Commission will send a copy of this entire, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). In addition, the FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
        17. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. In this FNPRM, we extend our review of the development of the commercial availability of navigation devices in light of ongoing industry negotiations which may affect the technical specifications relating to navigation devices. Our objective is to seek comment on the appropriateness of the new July 1, 2006 ban on integrated devices based upon the status of these negotiations. This objective is commensurate with our statutory directive in Section 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, to act “in consultation with appropriate industry standard-setting organizations” to assure the commercial availability of navigation devices used in conjunction with services provided by multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”).
        18. Legal Basis. The 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.
        19. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which Rules Will Apply. The RFA 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, if adopted. The RFA generally 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 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”).
        20. Cable and Other Program Distribution. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for cable and other program distribution services, which includes all such companies generating $12.5 million or less in revenue annually. This category includes, among others, cable operators, direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) services, home satellite dish (“HSD”) services, multipoint distribution services (“MDS”), multichannel multipoint distribution service (“MMDS”), Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”), local multipoint distribution service (“LMDS”), satellite master antenna television (“SMATV”) systems, and open video systems (“OVS”). According to the Census Bureau data, there are 1,311 total cable and other pay television service firms that operate throughout the year of which 1,180 have less than $10 million in revenue. We address below each service individually to provide a more precise estimate of small entities.
        21. Cable Operators. The Commission has developed, with SBA's approval, our 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. We last estimated that there were 1,439 cable operators that qualified as small cable companies. 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 Order and FNPRM.
        22. The Communications Act, as amended, also contains a size standard for 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 68,500,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 685,000 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 685,000 subscribers or less totals approximately 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.
        23. Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service. Because DBS provides subscription services, DBS falls within the SBA-recognized definition of cable and other program distribution services. This definition provides that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. There are four licensees of DBS services under Part 100 of the Commission's Rules. Three of those licensees are currently operational. Two of the licensees that are operational have annual revenues that may be in excess of the threshold for a small business. The Commission, however, does not collect annual revenue data for DBS and, therefore, is unable to ascertain the number of small DBS licensees that could be impacted by these proposed rules. DBS service requires a great investment of capital for operation, and we acknowledge, despite the absence of specific data on this point, that there are entrants in this field that may not yet have generated $12.5 million in annual receipts, and therefore may be categorized as a small business, if independently owned and operated.
        24. Home Satellite Dish (“HSD”) Service. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD falls within the SBA-recognized definition of cable and other program distribution services. This definition provides that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. The market for HSD service is difficult to quantify. Indeed, the service itself bears little resemblance to other MVPDs. HSD owners have access to more than 265 channels of programming placed on C-band satellites by programmers for receipt and distribution by MVPDs, of which 115 channels are scrambled and approximately 150 are unscrambled. HSD owners can watch unscrambled channels without paying a subscription fee. To receive scrambled channels, however, an HSD owner must purchase an integrated receiver-decoder from an equipment dealer and pay a subscription fee to an HSD programming package. Thus, HSD users include: (1) viewers who subscribe to a packaged programming service, which affords them access to most of the same programming provided to subscribers of other MVPDs; (2) viewers who receive only non-subscription programming; and (3) viewers who receive satellite programming services illegally without subscribing. Because scrambled packages of programming are most specifically intended for retail consumers, these are the services most relevant to this discussion.
        25. Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”), Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (“MMDS”) Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”) and Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”). MMDS systems, often referred to as “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers using the microwave frequencies of the MDS and ITFS. LMDS is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications.
        26. In connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission defined small businesses as entities that had annual average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. The MDS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (“BTAs”). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. MDS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. As noted, the SBA has developed a definition of small entities for pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. This definition includes multipoint distribution services, and thus applies to MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not participate in the MDS auction. Information available to us indicates that there are approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate revenue in excess of $12.5 million annually. Therefore, for purposes of the IRFA, we find there are approximately 850 small MDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
        27. The SBA definition of small entities for cable and other program distribution services, which includes such companies generating $12.5 million in annual receipts, seems reasonably applicable to ITFS. There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in the definition of a small business. However, we do not collect annual revenue data for ITFS licensees, and are not able to ascertain how many of the 100 non-educational licensees would be categorized as small under the SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses.
        28. Additionally, the auction of the 1,030 LMDS licenses began on February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. The Commission defined “small entity” for LMDS licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. An additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding calendar years. These regulations defining “small entity” in the context of LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA. There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses; there were 40 winning bidders. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small LMDS licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
        29. In sum, there are approximately a total of 2,000 MDS/MMDS/LMDS stations currently licensed. Of the approximate total of 2,000 stations, we estimate that there are 1,595 MDS/MMDS/LMDS providers that are small businesses as deemed by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
        30. Satellite Master Antenna Television (“SMATV”) Systems. The SBA definition of small entities for cable and other program distribution services includes SMATV services and, thus, small entities are defined as all such companies generating $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. Industry sources estimate that approximately 5,200 SMATV operators were providing service as of December 1995. Other estimates indicate that SMATV operators serve approximately 1.5 million residential subscribers as of July 2001. The best available estimates indicate that the largest SMATV operators serve between 15,000 and 55,000 subscribers each. Most SMATV operators serve approximately 3,000-4,000 customers. Because these operators are not rate regulated, they are not required to file financial data with the Commission. Furthermore, we are not aware of any privately published financial information regarding these operators. Based on the estimated number of operators and the estimated number of units served by the largest ten SMATVs, we believe that a substantial number of SMATV operators qualify as small entities.
        31. Open Video Systems (“OVS”). Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA-recognized definition of cable and other program distribution services. This definition provides that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators with some now providing service. Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc. (“RCN”) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, DC and other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure us that they do not qualify as small business entities. Little financial information is available for the other entities authorized to provide OVS that are not yet operational. Given that other entities have been authorized to provide OVS service but have not yet begun to generate revenues, we conclude that at least some of the OVS operators qualify as small entities.
        32. Electronics Equipment Manufacturers. Rules adopted in this proceeding could apply to manufacturers of DTV receiving equipment and other types of consumer electronics equipment. The SBA has developed definitions of small entity for manufacturers of audio and video equipment as well as radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment. These categories both include 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 definitions applicable to manufacturers of audio and visual equipment and radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, since these are the two closest NAICS Codes applicable to the consumer electronics equipment manufacturing industry. However, these NAICS categories are broad and specific figures are not available as to how many of these establishments manufacture consumer equipment. According to the SBA's regulations, an 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 554 U.S. establishments that manufacture audio and visual equipment, and that 542 of these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as small entities. The remaining 12 establishments 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. Under the SBA's regulations, a radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturer must also have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business concern. Census Bureau data indicates that there are 1,215 U.S. establishments that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment, and that 1,150 of these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would be classified as small entities. The remaining 65 establishments 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. We therefore conclude that there are no more than 542 small manufacturers of audio and visual electronics equipment and no more than 1,150 small manufacturers of radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment for consumer/household use.
        33. 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 recordkeeping.
        34. 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.
        35. We have sought comment on the appropriateness of the July 1, 2006 prohibition on integrated navigation devices in light of, inter alia, ongoing developments regarding this industry. As a part of this effort, we wish to consider and examine the effect of changing or eliminating the prohibition deadline on small entities. We welcome comments suggesting ways in which any perceived burden upon small entities could be mitigated.
        36. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules. None.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Marlene H. Dortch,
          Secretary.

      [FR Doc. 03-15188 Filed 6-16-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P