60398 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

D of the Accomplishment Instructions in 

Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory 

Service Bulletin No. 80–0289, Revision 1, 

dated January 11, 2011. 

(2) If false in-flight BAG DOOR indications 

have not occurred, within 165 hours TIS after 

the effective date of this AD or within the 

next 60 days after the effective date of this 

AD, whichever occurs first, do the following 

actions: 

(i) Inspect the baggage door and the 

baggage door locking mechanism and do the 

necessary corrective actions following Parts 

A and B of the Accomplishment Instructions 

in Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory 

Service Bulletin No. 80–0289, Revision 1, 

dated January 11, 2011. 

(ii) If after the inspection required by 

paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, the baggage 

door adjustment procedure was not required 

or was required and was done successfully, 

inspect the screws on the locking device on 

the door handle with the proper tightness. 

Take any necessary corrective actions after 

applying a thread locker following Part D of 

the Accomplishment Instructions in Piaggio 

Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service 

Bulletin No. 80–0289, Revision 1, dated 

January 11, 2011. 

(iii) If after the inspection required by 

paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, the baggage 

door adjustment was required and was not 

done successfully, within the next 165 hours 

TIS after the effective date of this AD or 

within the next 60 days after the effective 

date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do 

the following actions: 

(A) Modify the locking mechanism 

following the Accomplishment Instructions 

in Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Service 

Bulletin No. 80–0223, Revision 1, dated July 

31, 2009. 

(B) Inspect the screws on the locking 

device installed on the door handle for 

proper tightness and correct as necessary 

after applying a thread locker following Part 

D of the Accomplishment Instructions in 

Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory 

Service Bulletin No. 80–0289, Revision 1, 

dated January 11, 2011. 

(3) If the inspections specified in Piaggio 

Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service 

Bulletin No. 80–0289, dated November 11, 

2010, and the modification, if required, 

specified in Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. 

Service Bulletin No. 80–0223, Revision 1, 

dated July 31, 2009, were done before the 

effective date of this AD, we will allow 

‘‘unless already done’’ credit to comply with 

the actions required in this AD. After the 

effective date of this AD, you must use 

Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory 

Service Bulletin No. 80–0289, Revision 1, 

dated January 11, 2011, to comply with this 

AD. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/ 

or service information as follows: No 

differences. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4144; fax: (816) 329– 

4090; e-mail: mike.kiesov@faa.gov. Before 

using any approved AMOC on any airplane 

to which the AMOC applies, notify your 

appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the 

FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), 

or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, a Federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to, nor 

shall a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with a collection of 

information subject to the requirements of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that 

collection of information displays a current 

valid OMB Control Number. The OMB 

Control Number for this information 

collection is 2120–0056. Public reporting for 

this collection of information is estimated to 

be approximately 5 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, 

completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. All responses to this collection 

of information are mandatory. Comments 

concerning the accuracy of this burden and 

suggestions for reducing the burden should 

be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

AES–200. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2011–0132, 

dated July 12, 2011; Piaggio Aero Industries 

S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 80–0223, 

Revision 1, dated July 31, 2009; Piaggio Aero 

Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin 

No. 80–0289, dated November 11, 2010; and 

Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. Mandatory 

Service Bulletin No. 80–0289, Revision 1, 

dated January 11, 2011, for related 

information. For service information related 

to this AD, contact Piaggio Aero Industries 

S.p.A–Airworthiness Office, Via Luigi 

Cibrario, 4–16154 Genova-Italy; phone: +39 

010 6481353; fax: +39 010 6481881; e-mail: 

airworthiness@piaggioaero.it; Internet: http:// 

www.piaggioaero.com/#/en/after-sales/ 

service-support. You may review copies of 

the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on 

September 20, 2011. 

Wes Ryan, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25006 Filed 9–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. RM 2011–7] 

Exemption to Prohibition on 

Circumvention of Copyright Protection 

Systems for Access Control 

Technologies 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office is preparing to conduct 

proceedings in accordance with 

provisions added by the Digital 

Millennium Copyright Act which 

provide that the Librarian of Congress, 

upon the recommendation of the 

Register of Copyrights, may exempt 

certain classes of works from the 

prohibition against circumvention of 

technological measures that control 

access to copyrighted works. The 

purpose of this rulemaking proceeding 

is to determine whether there are 

particular classes of works as to which 

users are, or are likely to be, adversely 

affected in their ability to make 

noninfringing uses due to the 

prohibition on circumvention. This 

notice requests written comments from 

all interested parties, including 

representatives of copyright owners, 

educational institutions, libraries and 

archives, scholars, researchers and 

members of the public, in order to elicit 

evidence on whether noninfringing uses 

of certain classes of works are, or are 

likely to be, adversely affected by this 

prohibition on the circumvention of 

measures that control access to 

copyrighted works. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than December 1, 

2011. A notice of proposed rulemaking 

will be published in December 2011 that 

will identify proposed classes of works 

and solicit comments on those proposed 

classes, which will be no later than 

February 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The Copyright Office 

strongly prefers that comments be 

submitted electronically. A comment 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60399 

page containing a comment form will be 

posted on the Copyright Office Web site 

at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ 

comment-forms. The online form 

contains fields for required information 

including the name and organization of 

the commenter, as applicable, and the 

ability to upload comments as an 

attachment. To meet accessibility 

standards, all comments must be 

uploaded in a single file in either the 

Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) 

format that contains searchable, 

accessible text (not an image); Microsoft 

Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format 

(RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a 

scanned document). The maximum file 

size is 6 megabytes (MB). The name of 

the submitter and organization should 

appear on both the form and the face of 

the comments. All comments will be 

posted publicly on the Copyright Office 

Web site exactly as they are received, 

along with names and organizations. If 

electronic submission of comments is 

not feasible, please contact the 

Copyright Office at 202–707–8380 for 

special instructions. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for information 

about requirements and formats of 

submissions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David O. Carson, General Counsel, 

Copyright GC/I&R, PO Box 70400, 

Washington, DC 20024–0400. 

Telephone: (202) 707–8380; telefax: 

(202) 707–8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Copyright Office 

announces the initiation of a rulemaking 

to determine whether there are any 

classes of copyrighted works for which 

noninfringing uses are, or in the next 

three years are likely to be, adversely 

affected by the prohibition on 

circumvention of technological 

measures that control access to 

copyrighted works. See 17 U.S.C. 

1201(a)(1)(C). 

1. Mandate for Rulemaking Proceeding 

The Digital Millennium Copyright 

Act, Public Law 105–304 (1998), 

amended title 17 of the United States 

Code to add Chapter 12, which among 

other things prohibits circumvention of 

access control technologies employed 

by or on behalf of copyright owners to 

protect their works. Specifically, 

subsection 1201(a)(1)(A) provides, inter 

alia, that ‘‘No person shall circumvent 

a technological measure that effectively 

controls access to a work protected 

under this title.’’ 

Subparagraph (B) limits this 

prohibition. It provides that prohibition 

against circumvention ‘‘shall not apply 

to persons who are users of a 

copyrighted work which is in a 

particular class of works, if such 

persons are, or are likely to be in the 

succeeding 3-year period, adversely 

affected by virtue of such prohibition in 

their ability to make noninfringing uses 

of that particular class of works under 

this title’’ as determined in this 

rulemaking. 

Subparagraph (C) provides that every 

three years, the Librarian of Congress, 

upon the recommendation of the 

Register of Copyrights (who is to consult 

with the Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information of the 

Department of Commerce) must ‘‘make 

the determination in a rulemaking 

proceeding for purposes of 

subparagraph (B) of whether persons 

who are users of a copyrighted work are, 

or are likely to be in the succeeding 3- 

year period, adversely affected by the 

prohibition under subparagraph (A) in 

their ability to make noninfringing uses 

under this title of a particular class of 

copyrighted works.’’ The Librarian, on 

the recommendation of the Register, has 

thus far made four such determinations. 

This notice announces the 

commencement of the fifth rulemaking 

proceeding under section 1201(a)(1)(C). 

The exemptions promulgated by the 

Librarian in the first rulemaking were in 

effect for the 3-year period from October 

28, 2000, through October 28, 2003. See 

Exemption to Prohibition on 

Circumvention of Copyright Protection 

Systems for Access Control 

Technologies, 65 FR 64556, 64564, 

published in the Federal Register 

October 27, 2000 (hereinafter Final Reg. 

2000). On October 28, 2003, the 

Librarian of Congress published the 

second determination as to classes of 

works to be exempted from the 

prohibition. Exemption to Prohibition 

on Circumvention of Copyright 

Protection Systems for Access Control 

Technologies, 68 FR 62011, 62013, 

published in the Federal Register 

October 31, 2003 (hereinafter Final Reg. 

2003). The four exemptions created in 

the second anticircumvention 

rulemaking remained in effect for a 3- 

year period. On November 27, 2006, the 

Librarian of Congress published the 

third determination. Exemption to 

Prohibition on Circumvention of 

Copyright Protection Systems for Access 

Control Technologies, 71 FR 68472, 

68480, published in the Federal 

Register November 27, 2006 (hereinafter 

Final Reg. 2006). The six exemptions 

established in the third 

anticircumvention rulemaking remained 

in effect until August 6, 2010. On 

August 6, 2010, the Librarian of 

Congress published the fourth 

determination, which will remain in 

effect until the conclusion of the next 

rulemaking. Exemption to Prohibition 

on Circumvention of Copyright 

Protection Systems for Access Control 

Technologies, 75 FR 47464, published 

in the Federal Register August 6, 2010 

(hereinafter Final Reg. 2010). All four of 

the previous determinations by the 

Librarian of Congress were made upon 

the recommendation of the Register of 

Copyrights following extensive 

rulemaking proceedings. 

2. Background 

Title I of the Digital Millennium 

Copyright Act was, inter alia, the 

congressional fulfillment of obligations 

of the United States under the WIPO 

Copyright Treaty and the WIPO 

Performances and Phonograms Treaty. 

For additional information on the 

historical background and the legislative 

history of Title I, see Exemption to 

Prohibition on Circumvention of 

Copyright Protection Systems for Access 

Control Technologies, 64 FR 66139, 

66140 (1999) [http://www.loc.gov/ 

copyright/fedreg/1999/64fr66139.html]. 

Section 1201 of title 17 of the United 

States Code prohibits two general types 

of activity: (1) The conduct of 

‘‘circumvention’’ of technological 

protection measures that control access 

to copyrighted works and (2) trafficking 

in any technology, product, service, 

device, component, or part thereof that 

protects either ‘‘access’’ to a copyrighted 

work or that protects the ‘‘rights of the 

copyright owner,’’ if that device or 

service meets one of three conditions. 

The first type of activity, the conduct of 

circumvention, is prohibited in section 

1201(a)(1). The latter activities, 

trafficking in devices or services that 

circumvent ‘‘access’’ or ‘‘the rights of 

the copyright owner,’’ are contained in 

sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) 

respectively. In addition to these 

prohibitions, section 1201 also includes 

a series of section-specific limitations 

and exemptions to the prohibitions of 

section 1201. 

A. The Anticircumvention Provision at 

Issue 

Subsection 1201(a)(1) applies when a 

person who is not authorized by the 

copyright owner to gain access to a work 

does so by circumventing a 

technological measure put in place with 

the authority of the copyright owner to 

control access to the work. See Report 

of the House Committee on Commerce 

on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 

of 1998, H.R. Rep. No. 105–551, pt. 2, 

at 36 (1998) (hereinafter Commerce 

Comm. Report). 

That section provides that ‘‘No person 

shall circumvent a technological 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60400 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

measure that effectively controls access 

to a work protected under this title.’’ 17 

U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) (1998). 

The relevant terms are defined: 

(3) As used in this subsection— 

(A) to ‘‘circumvent a technological 

measure’’ means to descramble a 

scrambled work, to decrypt an 

encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, 

bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a 

technological measure, without the 

authority of the copyright owner; and 

(B) a technological measure 

‘‘effectively controls access to a work’’ 

if the measure, in the ordinary course of 

its operation, requires the application of 

information, or a process or a treatment, 

with the authority of the copyright 

owner, to gain access to the work. 17 

U.S.C. 1201(a)(3). 

B. Scope of the Rulemaking 

The statutory focus of this rulemaking 

is limited to one subsection of section 

1201: the prohibition on the conduct of 

circumvention of technological 

measures that control access to 

copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C. 

1201(a)(1)(C) [http://www.copyright.gov/ 

title17/92chap12.html#1201]. The 

Librarian of Congress has no authority 

to limit either of the anti-trafficking 

provisions contained in subsections 

1201(a)(2) or 1201(b). 17 U.S.C. 

1201(a)(1)(E). Moreover, for a proposed 

exemption to be considered in this 

rulemaking, there must be a causal 

connection between the prohibition in 

1201(a)(1) and the adverse effect on 

noninfringing uses. 

This rulemaking addresses only the 

prohibition on the conduct of 

circumventing measures that control 

‘‘access’’ to copyrighted works, e.g., 

decryption or hacking of access controls 

such as passwords or serial numbers. 

The structure of section 1201 is such 

that there exists no comparable 

prohibition on the conduct of 

circumventing technological measures 

that protect the ‘‘rights of the copyright 

owner,’’ e.g., the section 106 rights to 

reproduce, adapt, distribute, publicly 

perform, or publicly display a work. 

Circumventing a technological measure 

that protects these section 106 rights of 

the copyright owner is governed not by 

section 1201, but rather by the 

traditional copyright rights and the 

applicable limitations in the Copyright 

Act. For example, if a person having 

lawful access to a work circumvents a 

measure that prohibits printing or 

saving an electronic copy of an article, 

there is no provision in section 1201 

that precludes this activity. Instead, it 

would be actionable as copyright 

infringement of the section 106 right of 

reproduction unless an applicable 

limitation applied, e.g., fair use. The 

trafficking in, inter alia, any device or 

service that enabled others to 

circumvent such a technological 

protection measure may, however, be 

actionable under section 1201(b). 

On the other hand, because there is a 

prohibition on the act of circumventing 

a technological measure that controls 

access to a work, and since traditional 

Copyright Act limitations are not 

defenses to the act of circumventing a 

technological measure that controls 

access, Congress chose to create the 

current rulemaking proceeding as a 

‘‘fail-safe mechanism’’ to monitor the 

effect of the anticircumvention 

provision in section 1201(a)(1)(A). 

Commerce Comm. Report, at 36. This 

anticircumvention rulemaking is 

authorized to monitor the effect of the 

prohibition against ‘‘access’’ 

circumvention on noninfringing uses of 

copyrighted works. In this triennial 

rulemaking proceeding, effects on 

noninfringing uses that are unrelated to 

section 1201(a)(1)(A) may not be 

considered. 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C). 

C. Burden of Proof 

In the first rulemaking, the Register 

concluded from the language of the 

statute and the legislative history that a 

determination to exempt a class of 

works from the prohibition on 

circumvention must be based on a 

showing that the prohibition has or is 

likely to have a substantial adverse 

effect on noninfringing uses of a 

particular class of works. (The meaning 

of the phrase ‘‘class of works’’ is 

described in section E of this Notice of 

Inquiry.) It was determined that 

proponents of an exemption bear the 

burden of proof that an exemption is 

warranted for a particular class of works 

and that the prohibition is presumed to 

apply to all classes of works unless an 

adverse impact has been shown. See 

Commerce Comm. Report, at 37 and see 

also, Final Reg. 2000, 65 FR at 64558. 

The ‘‘substantial’’ adverse effect 

requirement has also been described as 

a requirement that the proponent of an 

exemption must demonstrate ‘‘distinct, 

verifiable, and measurable impacts,’’ 

and more than ‘‘de minimis impacts.’’ 

See Final Reg. 2003, 68 FR at 62013. 

Whatever label one uses, proponents of 

an exemption bear the burden of 

providing sufficient evidence under this 

standard to support an exemption. How 

much evidence is sufficient will vary 

with the factual context of the alleged 

harm. Further, proof of harm is never 

the only consideration in the 

rulemaking process, and therefore the 

sufficiency of the evidence of harm will 

always be relative to other 

considerations, such as, the availability 

of the affected works for use, the 

availability of the works for nonprofit 

archival, preservation, and educational 

purposes, the impact that the 

prohibition has on criticism, comment, 

news reporting, teaching, scholarship, 

or research, the effect of circumvention 

on the market for or value of 

copyrighted works, and any other 

relevant factors. 

In order to meet the burden of proof, 

proponents of an exemption must 

provide evidence either that actual harm 

currently exists or that it is ‘‘likely’’ to 

occur in the ensuing 3-year period. 

Actual instances of verifiable problems 

occurring in the marketplace are 

generally necessary in order to prove 

actual harm. The most compelling cases 

of actual harm will be based on firsthand knowledge of such problems. 

Circumstantial evidence may also 

support a claim of present or likely 

harm, but such evidence must also 

reasonably demonstrate that a measure 

protecting access was the cause of the 

harm and that the adversely affected use 

was, in fact, noninfringing. ‘‘Likely’’ 

adverse effects may also support an 

exemption. This standard of 

‘‘likelihood’’ requires proof that adverse 

effects are more likely than not to occur. 

Claims based on ‘‘likely’’ adverse effects 

cannot be supported by speculation 

alone. See Staff of House Committee on 

the Judiciary, 105th Cong., Section-bySection Analysis of H.R. 2281 as Passed 

by the United States House of 

Representatives on August 4, 1998, 

(hereinafter House Manager’s Report), at 

6, (an exemption based on ‘‘likely’’ 

future adverse impacts during the 

applicable period should only be made 

‘‘in extraordinary circumstances in 

which the evidence of likelihood is 

highly specific, strong and 

persuasive.’’). Conjecture alone is 

insufficient to support a finding of 

‘‘likely’’ adverse effect. Final Reg. 2000, 

65 FR at 64559. Although a showing of 

‘‘likely’’ adverse impact will necessarily 

involve prediction, the burden of 

proving that the expected adverse effect 

is more likely than other possible 

outcomes rests firmly on the proponent 

of the exemption. 

The identification of existing or likely 

problems is not, however, the end of the 

analysis. In order for an exemption of a 

particular class of works to be 

warranted, a proponent must show that 

such problems justify an exemption in 

light of all of the relevant facts. The 

identification of isolated or anecdotal 

problems will be generally insufficient 

to warrant an exemption. Similarly, the 

mere fact that the digital format would 

be more convenient to use for 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60401 

1See infra for a discussion of proposals raised 

after the initial comment period has expired. 

2 If a comment includes attached material that 

appears to be protected by copyright and there is 

no indication that the material was attached with 

permission of the copyright owner, the attached 

material will not be placed on the Office’s Website. 

If such a material is available on the Internet, the 

comment should identify where the material may 

be found. 

noninfringing purposes is generally 

insufficient factual support for an 

exemption. Further, purely theoretical 

critiques of section 1201 cannot satisfy 

the requisite showing. House Manager’s 

Report, at 6. Proponents of exemptions 

must show sufficient harm to warrant an 

exemption from the default rule 

established by Congress—the 

prohibition against circumvention. 

There is a presumption that the 

section 1201 prohibition will apply to 

any and all classes of works, including 

previously exempted classes, unless a 

new showing is made that an exemption 

is warranted. Final Reg. 2000, 65 FR at 

64558. Exemptions are reviewed de 

novo and prior exemptions will expire 

unless sufficient new evidence is 

presented in each rulemaking that the 

prohibition has or is likely to have an 

adverse effect on noninfringing uses. 

The facts and argument that supported 

an exemption during any given 3-year 

period may be insufficient within the 

context of the marketplace in a different 

3-year period. Similarly, proposals that 

were not found to justify an exemption 

in any particular rulemaking could find 

factual support in the context and on 

the record of another rulemaking. 

Evidence in support or in opposition 

to an exemption should be contained in 

the initial comments or, after 

publication of the proposed classes in 

the Federal Register, in the comments 

on the proposed exemptions. The 

purpose of this rulemaking is to survey 

interested parties in the digital 

environment to discover whether 

section 1201(a)(1) is adversely affecting 

noninfringing uses of particular classes 

of copyrighted works. The proposals 

received in the initial comments will 

frame the inquiry throughout the rest of 

the rulemaking process. The comments 

submitted in response to this Notice of 

Inquiry will be posted on the Copyright 

Office Web site shortly after submission, 

and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

identifying the classes of works 

proposed will be published in the 

Federal Register shortly thereafter.1 The 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will 

invite copyright owners and other 

interested parties to offer their 

comments in support of or opposition to 

the proposed classes. Comments 

responsive to the proposed classes may 

also propose modest refinements to the 

proposed classes and supply additional 

evidence, but may not propose 

completely new classes of works. Since 

opponents to exemptions have only one 

comment period to provide written 

responses to the exemptions proposed, 

opponents should have sufficient notice 

of the exemptions to be addressed in the 

rulemaking. Copyright owners and other 

interested parties, however, should be 

vigilant in monitoring classes proposed 

in the initial comment period that may 

implicate their interests as such classes 

may be further refined in the ensuing 

rulemaking process. 

The Office will post all of the 

comments, hearing transcripts, and 

other relevant material in this 

rulemaking proceeding, as the Office 

has done since the inception of this 

rulemaking proceeding, on the 

Copyright Office’s Web site at: http:// 

www.copyright.gov/1201.2

The Copyright Office will also 

conduct a series of hearings on the 

proposed exemptions in the Spring, in 

Washington DC and possibly in 

California. These hearings will offer 

proponents and opponents of 

exemptions an opportunity to present 

arguments and answer questions from 

the Register and her staff. These 

hearings—the time, date and subject 

matter of which will be announced early 

in 2012—will not provide a forum in 

which to raise new proposals or to 

submit wholly new evidence. Evidence 

that demonstrates how a technological 

measure operates and affects 

noninfringing uses as well as evidence 

that is responsive to earlier disputes 

raised in the comment process is 

welcomed, and is encouraged, at these 

hearings. However, the hearings may 

not be used as a vehicle for surprise or 

to present untimely proposals. 

The Register is also likely to pose 

post-hearing questions to specific 

parties or witnesses that participated in 

the rulemaking proceeding. These 

questions have historically sought 

clarification of legal and factual 

questions, including specific requests to 

explain the operation of a technological 

measure at issue. Such post-hearing 

questions should not be construed as a 

general public post-hearing comment 

phase—there simply will not be 

sufficient time to consider another 

round of general public comments 

before the announcement of the newly 

exempted classes—but rather are 

invitations addressed to specific 

witnesses who have offered testimony 

on an issue to provide further 

clarification in response to specific 

questions from the Register. The 

questions and the responses to the 

questions will be posted on the 

Copyright Office’s website after the 

responses have been received. 

D. Availability of Works in Unprotected 

Formats 

Other statutory considerations must 

also be balanced with evidence of 

adverse effects attributable to the 

prohibition. In making her 

recommendation to the Librarian, the 

Register is instructed to consider the 

availability for use of copyrighted 

works. 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C)(i). This 

inquiry demands that the Register 

consider whether ‘‘works’’ protected by 

technological measures that control 

access are also available in the 

marketplace in formats that are 

unprotected. The fact that a ‘‘work’’ (in 

contrast to a particular ‘‘copy’’ of a 

work) is available in a format without 

technological protection measures may 

be significant because the unprotected 

formats might allow the public to make 

noninfringing uses of the work even 

though other formats of the work would 

not. For example, in the first 

rulemaking, many users claimed that 

the technological measures on motion 

pictures contained on Digital Versatile 

Disks (DVDs) restricted noninfringing 

uses of the motion pictures. A balancing 

consideration was that the record 

revealed at that time that the vast 

majority of these works were also 

available in analog format on VHS tapes. 

Final Reg. 2000, 65 FR at 64568. Thus, 

the full range of availability of a work 

for use is necessary to consider in 

assessing the need for an exemption to 

the prohibition on circumvention. 

Another consideration relating to the 

availability for use of copyrighted works 

is whether the measure supports a 

distribution model that benefits the 

public generally. For example, while a 

measure may limit the length of time 

that a work may be accessed (timelimited) or may limit the scope of access 

(scope-limited), e.g., access to only a 

portion of work, those limitations may 

benefit the public by providing ‘‘usefacilitating’’ models that allow users to 

obtain access to works at a lower cost 

than they would otherwise be charged 

were such restrictions not in place. If 

there is sufficient evidence that 

particular classes of works would not be 

offered at all without the protection 

afforded by technological protection 

measures that control access, this 

evidence must be considered. House 

Manager’s Report, at 6. Accord, Final 

Reg. 2000, 65 FR at 64559. Thus, the 

Register’s inquiry must assess any 

benefits to the public resulting from the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60402 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3Proponents of an exemption may do so in their 

comments proposing exemptions. Opponents of an 

exemption should do so in their comments filed in 

response to the forthcoming Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

prohibition as well as the adverse effects 

that may be established. 

E. The Scope of the Term ‘‘Class of 

Works’’ 

Section 1201 does not define a critical 

term for the rulemaking process: a 

‘‘class of works.’’ With respect to this 

issue and others, commenters should 

familiarize themselves with the 

Register’s recommendation and the 

Librarian’s determination in the first 

rulemaking and in the subsequent three 

rulemakings, since many of the issues 

which were unsettled at the start of the 

first rulemaking have been addressed 

and developed in the four 

determinations. While the approach 

taken in resolving the issues raised in 

these rulemakings may continue to 

develop in this and subsequent 

proceedings, interested parties should 

assume that the standards developed 

thus far will continue to apply in the 

current proceeding. Of course, 

commenters may argue for adoption of 

alternative approaches,3 but a 

persuasive case will have to be made to 

warrant reconsideration of previous 

decisions regarding interpretation of 

section 1201. 

In the first rulemaking, the Register 

elicited views on the scope and meaning 

of the term ‘‘class of works.’’ After 

review of the statutory language, the 

legislative history and the extensive 

record in the proceeding [see Final Reg., 

65 FR at 64557 for a description of the 

record in the last rulemaking 

proceeding], the Register reached 

certain conclusions on the scope of this 

term. [For a more detailed discussion, 

see Final Reg., 65 FR at 64559.] 

The Register found that the statutory 

language required that the Librarian 

identify a ‘‘class of works’’ primarily 

based upon attributes of the works 

themselves, and not by reference to 

some external criteria such as the 

intended use or the users of the works. 

The phrase ‘‘class of works’’ connotes 

that the shared, common attributes of 

the ‘‘class’’ relate to the nature of 

authorship in the ‘‘works.’’ Thus a 

‘‘class of works’’ was intended to be a 

‘‘narrow and focused subset of the broad 

categories of works of authorship * * * 

identified in section 102.’’ Commerce 

Comm. Report, at 38. The starting point 

for a proposed exemption of a particular 

class of works must be the section 102 

categories of authorship: literary works; 

musical works; dramatic works; 

pantomimes and choreographic works; 

pictorial, graphic and sculptural works; 

motion pictures and other audiovisual 

works; sound recordings; and 

architectural works. 

This determination is supported by 

the House Manager’s Report which 

discussed the importance of 

appropriately defining the proper scope 

of the exemption. House Manager’s 

Report, at 7. The legislative history 

stated that it would be highly unlikely 

for all literary works to be adversely 

affected by the prohibition and 

therefore, determining an appropriate 

subcategory of the works in this 

category would be the goal of the 

rulemaking. Id. 

Therefore, the Register concluded that 

the starting point for identifying a 

particular ‘‘class of works’’ to be 

exempted must be one of the section 

102 categories. Final Reg., 65 FR at 

64559–64561. From that starting point, 

it is likely that the scope or boundaries 

of a particular class would need to be 

further limited to remedy the particular 

harm to noninfringing uses identified in 

the rulemaking. 

In the first anticircumvention 

rulemaking, the Register recommended 

and the Librarian agreed that two 

classes of works should be exempted: 

(1) Compilations consisting of lists of 

websites blocked by filtering software 

applications; and 

(2) Literary works, including 

computer programs and databases, 

protected by access control mechanisms 

that fail to permit access because of 

malfunction, damage or obsoleteness. 

While the first class exempted fits 

comfortably within the approach to 

classification discussed above, the 

second class includes the entire 

category of literary works, but narrows 

the exemption by reference to attributes 

of the technological measures that 

controls access to the works. 

In the 2006 rulemaking, the Register 

determined that a further refinement of 

the approach to determining a particular 

class of works was warranted. Even 

though a class must begin, as its starting 

point, by reference to one of the 

categories of authorship enumerated in 

section 102 of the Copyright Act (or 

some subset thereof), that class should 

be further tailored to address the harm 

(actual or likely) alleged. The proper 

tailoring of a class will depend on the 

specific facts, but in some cases, the 

most appropriate manner of further 

tailoring the category or sub-category 

may be to limit the class in relation to 

particular uses or users. 

The impetus for this refinement was 

a proposed exemption for film and 

media studies professors. The 

proponents of the exemption 

demonstrated that the reproduction and 

public performance of short portions of 

motion pictures or other audiovisual 

works in the course of face-to-face 

teaching activities of a film or media 

studies course would generally 

constitute a noninfringing use. The 

proponents further demonstrated that 

the digital version of the motion 

pictures distributed on DVDs was not 

merely a preferred format, but that the 

digital version of these works was the 

only version of the work that met the 

pedagogical needs of the film and media 

studies professors. The proponents of 

the exemption also demonstrated that 

their otherwise noninfringing uses of 

the digital versions of these motion 

pictures were adversely affected by the 

prohibition on circumvention of 

technological measures protecting 

access to these works, because the 

Content Scrambling System (CSS) 

contained on most commercially 

released DVDs was an access control 

system that prevented the making of a 

compilation of film clips for classroom 

use. Although opponents of the 

exemption demonstrated a DVD player 

that was alleged to meet the pedagogical 

needs of educators, the device presented 

obstacles for classroom use that were 

found to be more than a mere 

inconvenience for a subset of users— 

film and media studies professors. 

The proponents met their burden of 

proving that section 1201(a)(1) was 

adversely affecting film and media 

studies educators’ ability to engage in 

noninfringing uses for the ensuing 3- 

year period and that no reasonable 

substitute for the pedagogically 

beneficial digital content was available 

or likely to become available in the next 

three years. The opponents of the 

proposal expressed concern that if the 

proposed class of works—audiovisual 

works included in the educational 

library of a college or university’s film 

or media studies department and that 

are protected by technological measures 

that prevent their educational use—was 

based only on attributes of the work 

itself, the exemption would necessarily 

exempt a much broader range of uses 

than those in which the film professors 

wished to engage. Moreover, copyright 

owners were concerned that such an 

exemption would create public 

confusion about the circumstances in 

which circumvention was appropriate. 

Given the expanse of such a class of 

works and the adverse effects that could 

occur as a result of confusion about the 

class, copyright owners argued that 

overall harm of such an exemption 

would outweigh the marginal benefits to 

this subset of educators. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60403 

The Register concluded that a further 

refinement of the scope of a class of 

works was the proper balance to the 

valid concerns of both educators and 

copyright owners. By delineating the 

class in relation to the relevant 

noninfringing use proven to be, or likely 

to be, adversely affected by the 

prohibition on circumvention, film and 

media studies educators’ needs could be 

met while leaving the statutory 

prohibition against circumvention intact 

for that class with respect to other uses. 

In the fourth rulemaking concluded in 

2010, similar refinements were made to 

certain classes of works. See 37 CFR 

201.40(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4). 

In all proposed exemptions, the 

starting point for a class of works must 

be a section 102 category of authorship, 

or a subset thereof. That category or 

subset should then be tailored by other 

criteria as appropriate under the 

particular facts presented. The goal is to 

fashion an exemption that is neither too 

narrow nor too broad to remedially 

address the evidence of present and 

likely harm. An appropriately fashioned 

exemption will assist users and 

copyright owners alike, by temporarily 

suspending the prohibition on 

circumvention for appropriately tailored 

adversely affected classes, while 

preserving the prohibition in all other 

classes. 

The exemptions published for each 

three-year period are temporary and 

expire when the succeeding 

determination of the Librarian of 

Congress is published. This rulemaking 

will examine adverse effects existing in 

the marketplace or likely to exist in the 

next three-year period to determine 

whether any exemptions to the 

prohibition on circumvention of 

technological protection measures that 

effectively control access to copyrighted 

works are warranted by the evidence 

raised during this rulemaking. 

F. Considerations To Address Within a 

Comment 

This notice requests written 

comments from all interested parties 

wishing to propose a class of works for 

exemption from the prohibition on 

circumvention. In addition to the 

necessary showing discussed above, in 

order to make a prima facie case for a 

proposed exemption, certain critical 

points should be established. First, a 

proponent should identify the 

technological measure that is the 

ultimate source of the alleged problem, 

and the proponent should explain how 

the technological measure effectively 

controls access to a copyrighted work. 

Second, a proponent must specifically 

explain what noninfringing activity the 

prohibition on circumvention is 

preventing. In addition to describing the 

activity, the proponent should provide a 

factual basis for a determination that the 

technological measure has had or is 

likely to have a substantial adverse 

effect on noninfringing uses; 

demonstrating only isolated instances of 

relatively minimal adverse effects is not 

likely to meet the proponent’s burden. 

Third, a proponent should establish that 

the prevented activity is, in fact, a 

noninfringing use under current law. A 

proponent should also demonstrate why 

the access-protected copy of a work is 

needed for the noninfringing use and 

why alternate means of engaging in the 

noninfringing uses (including use of 

available copies of the work in 

unprotected formats), if they exist, are 

an insufficient substitute for 

accomplishing the noninfringing use. 

The nature of the Librarian’s inquiry 

is further delineated by the statutory 

areas to be examined by the Register of 

Copyrights: 

(i) The availability for use of 

copyrighted works; 

(ii) the availability for use of works for 

nonprofit archival, preservation, and 

educational purposes; 

(iii) the impact that the prohibition on 

the circumvention of technological 

measures applied to copyrighted works 

has on criticism, comment, news 

reporting, teaching, scholarship, or 

research; 

(iv) the effect of circumvention of 

technological measures on the market 

for or value of copyrighted works; and 

(v) such other factors as the Librarian 

considers appropriate. 17 U.S.C. 

1201(a)(1)(C). 

These statutory considerations require 

examination and careful balancing. The 

harm identified by a proponent of an 

exemption must be balanced with the 

harm that would result from an 

exemption. In some circumstances, the 

adverse effect of a proposed exemption 

in light of these considerations may be 

greater than the harm posed by the 

prohibition on circumvention of works 

in the proposed class. Perhaps the 

proper balance can be resolved by 

carefully tailoring the scope of the class, 

but ultimately, the determination of the 

Librarian must take all of these factors 

into account. 

3. Written Comments 

In the first rulemaking, the Register 

determined that the burden of proof is 

on the proponent of an exemption to 

come forward with evidence supporting 

an exemption for a particular class of 

works. In this fifth triennial rulemaking, 

the Register shall continue with the 

procedure adopted in the second, third 

and fourth rulemakings: Comments 

submitted in the initial comment period 

should be confined to proposals for 

exempted classes. They should 

specifically identify particular classes of 

works adversely affected by the 

prohibition and provide evidentiary 

support for the need for the proposed 

exemptions (see section F above). 

Proponents should present their 

entire case in their initial comments. A 

proponent of a particular class of works 

will not be permitted to submit an 

additional comment in support of that 

class in response to the December notice 

of proposed rulemaking unless, at least 

15 days before the deadline for 

comments in response to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the proponent has 

submitted a written request for 

permission to submit an additional 

comment demonstrating good cause to 

permit the submission of the comment, 

and the Copyright Office has approved 

the submission of the comment. The 

purpose of this requirement is to 

provide for the orderly presentation of 

evidence and arguments, and to permit 

both proponents and opponents to 

present their best cases. 

For each particular class of works that 

a commenter proposes for exemption, 

the commenter should first identify that 

class, followed by a summary of the 

argument in favor of exempting that 

proposed class. The commenter should 

then specify the facts and evidence 

providing a basis for this exemption. 

This factual information should ideally 

include the technological measure that 

controls access and the manner in 

which this technological measure 

operates to control access to a 

copyrighted work. Finally, the 

commenter should state any legal 

arguments in support of the exemption, 

including the activity that is claimed to 

be noninfringing, the legal basis for this 

claim, and why this noninfringing 

activity cannot be accomplished in 

other ways. The legal argument should 

include an analysis of the factors set 

forth in 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C), 

discussed above. This format of class/ 

summary/facts/argument should be 

sequentially followed for each class of 

work proposed as necessary. 

As discussed above, the best evidence 

in support of an exemption would 

consist of concrete examples or specific 

instances in which the prohibition on 

circumvention of technological 

measures protecting access has had or is 

likely to have an adverse effect on 

noninfringing uses. It would also be 

useful for the commenter to quantify the 

adverse effects in order to explain the 

scope of the present or likely problem. 

As noted above, demonstrating only 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60404 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

isolated instances of relatively minimal 

adverse effects is not likely to meet the 

proponent’s burden. 

Comments subsequently submitted in 

response to exemptions proposed in the 

first round of comments should provide 

factual information and legal argument 

addressing whether or not a proposed 

exemption should be adopted. Since the 

comments in this second round are 

intended to be responsive to the initial 

comments, commenters must identify 

which proposal(s) they are responding 

to, whether in opposition, support, 

amplification or correction. As with 

initial comments, these responsive 

comments should first identify the 

proposed class or classes to which the 

comment is responsive, provide a 

summary of the argument, and then 

provide the factual and/or legal support 

for their argument. This format of class/ 

summary/facts and/or legal argument 

should be repeated for each comment 

responsive to a particular proposed 

class of work. 

All comments must, at a minimum, 

contain the legal name of the submitter 

and the entity, if any, on whose behalf 

the comment was submitted. If persons 

do not wish to have their address, 

telephone number, or email address 

publicly displayed on the Office’s 

website, comments should not include 

such information on the document itself 

but should only include the legal name 

of the commenter. The Office strongly 

prefers that all comments be submitted 

in electronic form and the electronic 

form will provide a place to provide the 

required information separately from 

the attached comment submission. 

However, anyone who cannot submit 

comments electronically may contact 

the Copyright Office at 202–707–8380 

for special instructions. Electronic 

comments successfully submitted 

through the Office’s website will 

generate a confirmation receipt to the 

submitter. 

4. Submission of Comments 

The Copyright Office’s Web site will 

contain a submission page at: http:// 

www.copyright.gov/1201/commentforms. Approximately thirty days prior 

to the deadline for submission of 

comments, the form page will be 

activated on the Copyright Office Web 

site allowing information to be entered 

into the required fields, including the 

name of the person making the 

submission, mailing address, telephone 

number, and email address. There will 

also be non-required fields for, e.g., the 

commenter’s title, the organization that 

the commenter is representing, whether 

the commenter is likely to request to 

testify at public hearings and if so, 

whether the commenter is likely to 

prefer to testify in Washington, DC, or 

at a location in California. Commenters 

will also be required to fill in two 

additional fields: (1) The proposed class 

or classes of copyrighted work(s) to be 

exempted, and (2) a brief summary of 

the argument(s). 

All comments submitted 

electronically must be sent as an 

attachment, and must be in a single file 

in either Adobe Portable Document File 

(PDF) format (preferred), Microsoft, 

WordPerfect, Rich Text Format (RTF), or 

ASCII text file format. There will be a 

browse button on the form that will 

allow submitters to attach the comment 

file to the form and then to submit the 

completed form to the Office. 

The personal information entered into 

the required fields on the form page will 

not be publicly posted on the Copyright 

Office website, but the Office intends to 

post on its website the name of the 

proponent, the proposed class and 

possibly the summary of the argument, 

as well as the entire, attached comment 

document. Only the commenter’s name 

is required on the comment document 

itself and a commenter who does not 

want other personal information posted 

on the Office’s Web site should avoid 

including other personal information on 

the comment itself. Except in 

exceptional circumstances, changes to 

the submitted comment will not be 

allowed and it will become a part of the 

permanent public record of this 

rulemaking. 

Comments will be accepted for a 

period of 30 days, and a form will be 

placed on the Copyright Office Web site 

30 days prior to the deadline for 

submission. Initial comments will be 

accepted from November 2, 2011, until 

December 1, 2011, at 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time, at which time the 

submission form will be removed from 

the website. The deadline for the second 

round of comments will be announced 

in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

be published in December, and will 

probably be early in February 2012. 

5. Hearings 

As mentioned above, after the 

conclusion of the comment periods, the 

Register intends to hold public hearings 

in the Spring. The dates and locations 

of the hearings in, have not yet been 

determined, although at a minimum 

hearings will be conducted in 

Washington DC and, possibly, in 

California. A separate notice providing 

details about all hearings in this 

rulemaking proceeding will be 

published at a later time in the Federal 

Register and on the Copyright Office’s 

website. In order to assist the Copyright 

Office in identifying the number of days 

for hearings, the comment form page 

will contain non-required fields asking 

whether the commenter is likely to 

request to testify and if so, in which 

location. Formal requests to testify will 

be solicited early in 2012. 

As noted above, following the 

hearings, the Copyright Office may 

request additional information from 

parties who have been involved in the 

rulemaking process. Such requests for 

responses to questions will take the 

form of a letter from the Copyright 

Office and will be addressed to 

particular parties involved in an issue in 

which more information is sought. 

These inquiries will include deadlines 

based on when the requests for 

information are sent. After the receipt of 

all responses to all inquiries from the 

Copyright Office, the Office will post 

the questions, the parties to whom the 

questions were sent, and the responses 

on the Copyright Office’s website. 

6. Process for Untimely Submissions 

Based on Exceptional or Unforeseen 

Circumstances 

To provide sufficient flexibility in this 

proceeding in the event that unforeseen 

developments occur after the deadlines 

for the filing of initial comments, a 

person wishing to propose an 

exemption for a particular class of 

works after the specified deadline for 

initial comments may petition the 

Register to consider an additional 

exemption. A petition, including 

proposed new classes of works to be 

exempted, must be in writing and must 

set forth the reasons why the 

information could not have been made 

available earlier and why it should be 

considered by the Register after the 

deadline. A petition must also be 

accompanied by a comment that meets 

the requirements for initial comments 

set forth in section 3 above. Any person 

wishing to submit a petition should 

contact the Copyright Office at 202– 

707–8380 for further information on 

how to submit the petition. Such 

petitions will be granted only when the 

Office has been satisfied that late 

submission is justified due to 

exceptional or unforeseen 

circumstances. Exceptional or 

unforeseen circumstances generally 

require that the proposal be based upon 

information that did not exist at the 

time of the comment periods. A person 

wishing to file any other untimely 

submission (e.g., a comment in response 

to a proposed class of works) may also 

petition the Register to consider such 

submission, but such untimely 

submissions will be disfavored. The 

Register will make a determination 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60405 

whether to accept a petition based on 

the stage of the rulemaking process at 

which the request is made and the 

merits of the petition. A substantively 

meritorious petition may be denied if 

the petition comes so late in the process 

that adequate notice and comment 

cannot be accommodated within the 

statutory time frame of the rulemaking 

process. The mere fact that an interested 

party was unaware of this proceeding or 

of any particular exemptions proposed 

in this proceeding is not a valid 

justification for a late submission. If a 

petition is accepted, the Register will 

publish the proposal in the Federal 

Register and announce deadlines for 

comments. If a petition is denied, the 

Register will set forth the reasons for the 

denial in a letter to the petitioner. All 

petitions and responses will become 

part of the public record in this 

rulemaking process. 

Dated: September 23, 2011. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25106 Filed 9–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0561; FRL–9469–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara 

Air Pollution Control District, 

Sacramento Municipal Air Quality 

Management District and South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Santa Barbara Air 

Pollution Control District (SBAPCD), 

Sacramento Municipal Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD) and 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from solvent cleaning machines and 

solvent cleaning operations and oil and 

gas production wells. We are proposing 

to approve local rules to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by October 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0561, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http:// 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3576, borgia.adrianne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: SBAPCD Rule 321, ‘‘Solvent 

Cleaning Machines and Solvent 

Cleaning’’, SMAQMD Rule 466, 

‘‘Solvent Cleaning’’, SCAMQD Rule 

1171, ‘‘Solvent Cleaning Operations’’ 

and SCAMQD Rule 1148.1, ‘‘Oil and 

Gas Production Wells.’’ In the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving these local 

rules in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe these 

SIP revisions are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: September 7, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24689 Filed 9–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 160 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0076] 

RIN 1625–AB60 

Inflatable Personal Flotation Devices 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On March 30, 2011, the Coast 

Guard published a direct final rule that 

notified the public of the Coast Guard’s 

intent to harmonize structural and 

performance standards for inflatable 

recreational personal flotation devices 

(PFDs) with current voluntary industry 

consensus standards, and to slightly 

modify regulatory text in anticipation of 

a future rulemaking addressing the 

population for which inflatable 

recreational PFDs are approved (76 FR 

17561). As discussed below, we have 

received an adverse comment on the 

direct final rule, and have withdrawn 

the direct final rule in a notice of 

withdrawal published separately in this 

issue of the Federal Register. The Coast 

Guard seeks comment on the issues 

raised by the commenters and proposes 

to make the same changes to the current 

regulatory text, as modified below. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS