63626 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices

their study topics for 2000 and for Leslie

Kramerich, the acting Assistant

Secretary for the Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration, to update

members on employee benefits

legislative and regulatory activities.

Departing members also will be

awarded certificates of appreciation.

Members of the public are encouraged

to file a written statement pertaining to

topics the Council studied for the year

by submitting 20 copies on or before

November 6, 2000 to Sharon Morrissey,

Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory

Council, U.S. Department of Labor,

Suite 5677, 200 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Individuals or representatives of

organizations wishing to address the

Advisory Council should forward their

requests to the Executive Secretary or

telephone (202) 219–8753. Oral

presentations will be limited to ten

minutes, time permitting, but an

extended statement may be submitted

for the record. Individuals with

disabilities, who need special

accommodations, should contact Sharon

Morrissey by November 6 at the address

indicated.

Organizations or individuals may also

submit statements for the record

without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of

such statements should be sent to the

Executive Secretary of the Advisory

Council at the above address. Papers

will be accepted and included in the

record of the meeting if received on or

before November 6, 2000.

Signed at Washington, DC this 19th day of

October 2000.

Leslie Kramerich,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Pension and

Welfare Benefits Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–27262 Filed 10–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–29–M

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

[Docket No. 000522150–0287–02]

RIN No. 0660–ZA13

Report to Congress Pursuant to

Section 104 of the Digital Millennium

Copyright Act

AGENCIES: The United States Copyright

Office, Library of Congress; and the

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration, United

States Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright

Office and the National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration announce a public

hearing on the effects of the

amendments made by title 1 of the

Digital Millennium Copyright Act,

(‘‘DMCA’’) and the development of

electronic commerce on the operation of

sections 109 and 117 of title 17, United

States Code, and the relationship

between existing and emerging

technology and the operation of such

sections.

DATES: The public hearing will be held

in Washington, DC on Wednesday,

November 29, 2000, from 9:30 a.m. to 5

p.m. Requests to testify must be

received by the Copyright Office and the

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration by 5:00

p.m. E.S.T. on November 24, 2000, and

accompanied by a one page summary of

the intended testimony.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be

held at the Library of Congress, James

Madison Building, 101 Independence

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20540,

Room LM–414. Any member of the

public wishing to attend and requiring

special services, such as sign language

interpretation or other ancillary aids,

should contact the Library of Congress

or the National Telecommunications

and Information Administration at least

five (5) working days prior to the

hearing by telephone or electronic mail

at the respective contact points listed

immediately below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jesse M. Feder or Marla Poor, Office of

Policy and International Affairs, U.S.

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

(202) 707–8350; or Jeffrey E.M. Joyner,

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration (202) 482–

1816. E-mail inquiries regarding the

hearings may be sent to jfed@loc.gov,

mpoor@loc.gov, or jjoyner@ntia.doc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 5,

2000, the Copyright Office and the

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration published a

Notice of Inquiry seeking comments in

connection with the effects of the

amendments made by title 1 of the

DMCA and the development of

electronic commerce on the operation of

sections 109 and 117 of title 17, United

States Code, and the relationship

between existing and emerging

technology and the operation of such

sections. 65 FR 35673 (June 5, 2000).

That Federal Register Notice was

intended to solicit comments from

interested parties on those issues. For a

more complete statement of the

background and purpose of the inquiry,

please see the Notice of Inquiry which

is available on the Copyright Office’s

website at: http://www.loc.gov/

copyright/fedreg/65fr35673.html.

In response to the Notice of Inquiry,

the Copyright Office and the National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration received 30 initial

written comments and 16 replies (to the

initial comments) that conformed to the

requirements set forth in the Notice of

Inquiry. The comments and replies have

been posted on the Office’s website; see

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/

studies/dmca/comments/ and http://

www.loc.gov/copyright/reports/studies/

dmca/reply/, respectively.

Requirements for persons desiring to

testify: A request to testify must be

submitted in writing to the Copyright

Office and to the National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration. All requests to testify

must include:

• The name of the person desiring to

testify;

• The organization or organizations

represented by that person, if any;

• Contact information (address,

telephone, and e-mail); and

• A one page summary of the

intended testimony.

This request may be submitted in

electronic form. The Copyright Office

and the National Telecommunications

and Information Administration will

notify all persons wishing to testify of

the expected time of their appearance,

and the maximum time allowed for their

testimony.

All requests to testify must be

received by 5 E.S.T. on November 24,

2000.

Time limits on testimony at public

hearings: There will be time limits on

the testimony allowed for speakers. The

time limits will depend on the number

of persons wishing to testify.

Approximately one week prior to the

hearings, the Copyright Office and the

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration will notify

all persons submitting requests to testify

of the precise time limits that will be

imposed on oral testimony. Due to the

time constraints, the Copyright Office

and the National Telecommunications

and Information Administration

encourage parties with similar interests

to select a single spokesperson to testify.

File Formats: Requests to testify may

be submitted in electronic form in one

of the following formats:

1. If by electronic mail: Send to

‘‘104study@loc.gov’’ and

‘‘104study@ntia.doc.gov’’ a message

containing the name of the person

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices 63627

requesting to testify, his or her title and

organization (if the submission is on

behalf of an organization), mailing

address, telephone number, telefax

number (if any) and e-mail address. The

message should also identify the

document clearly as a request to testify.

The one page summary of the intended

testimony must be sent as a MIME

attachment, and must be in a single file

in either: (1) Microsoft Word Version 7.0

or earlier; (2) WordPerfect 7 or earlier;

(3) Rich Text File (RTF) format; or (4)

ASCII text file format.

2. If by regular mail or hand delivery:

Send to Jesse M. Feder, Policy Planning

Advisor, Office of Policy and

International Affairs, U.S. Copyright

Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box

70400, Southwest Station, Washington,

DC 20024; and to Jeffrey E.M. Joyner,

Senior Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel,

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration (NTIA),

Room 4713, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Please include two copies of the one

page summary of the intended

testimony, each on a 3.5-inch writeprotected diskette, labeled with the

name of the person making the

submission and, if applicable, his or her

title and organization. Either the

document itself or a cover letter must

also identify the document clearly as a

request to testify and include the name

of the person making the submission,

his or her title and organization (if the

submission is on behalf of an

organization), mailing address,

telephone number, telefax number (if

any) and e-mail address (if any). The

document itself must be in a single file

in either (1) Microsoft Word Version 7.0

or earlier; (2) WordPerfect Version 7 or

earlier; (3) Rich Text File (RTF) format;

or (4) ASCII text file format.

Background: On October 28, 1998, the

DMCA was enacted into law (Pub. L.

No. 105–304, 112 Stat. 2860). Section

104 of the DMCA directs the Register of

Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary

for Communications and Information of

the Department of Commerce to submit

to the Congress no later than 24 months

after the date of enactment a report

evaluating the effects of the

amendments made by title 1 of the Act

and the development of electronic

commerce and associated technology on

the operation of sections 109 and 117 of

title 17, United States Code, and the

relationship between existing and

emerging technology and the operation

of those sections.

The objective of title I of the DMCA

was to revise U.S. law to comply with

two World Intellectual Property

Organization (WIPO) Treaties that were

concluded in 1996 and to strengthen

protection for copyrighted works in

electronic formats. The DMCA

establishes prohibitions on the act of

circumventing technological measures

that effectively control access to a work

protected under the U.S. Copyright Act,

and the manufacture, importation,

offering to the public, providing or

otherwise trafficking in any technology,

product, service, device, component or

part thereof which is primarily designed

or produced to circumvent a

technological measure that effectively

controls access to or unauthorized

copying of a work protected by

copyright, has only a limited

commercially significant purpose or use

other than circumvention of such

measures, or is marketed for use in

circumventing such measures. The

DMCA also makes it illegal for a person

to manufacture, import, offer to the

public, provide, or otherwise traffic in

any technology, product, service,

device, component or part thereof

which is primarily designed or

produced to circumvent a technological

measure that effectively protects a right

of a copyright owner in a work

protected by copyright, has only a

limited commercially significant

purpose or use other than

circumvention of such measures, or is

marketed for use in circumventing such

measures. In addition the DMCA

prohibits, among other actions,

intentional removal or alteration of

copyright management information and

knowing addition of false copyright

management information if these acts

are done with intent to induce, enable,

facilitate or conceal a copyright

infringement. Each prohibition is

subject to a number of statutory

exceptions.

Section 109 of the Copyright Act, 17

U.S.C. 109, permits the owner of a

particular copy or phonorecord lawfully

made under title 17 to sell or otherwise

dispose of possession of that copy or

phonorecord without the authority of

the copyright owner, notwithstanding

the copyright owner’s exclusive right of

distribution under 17 U.S.C. 106(3).

Commonly referred to as the ‘‘first sale

doctrine,’’ this provision permits such

activities as the sale of used books. The

first sale doctrine is subject to

limitations that permit a copyright

owner to prevent the unauthorized

commercial rental of computer

programs and sound recordings.

Section 117 of the Copyright Act, 17

U.S.C. 117, permits the owner of a copy

of a computer program to make a copy

or adaptation of the program for archival

purposes or as an essential step in the

utilization of the program in

conjunction with a machine. In

addition, pursuant to an amendment

contained in title III of the DMCA,

section 117 permits the owner or lessee

of a machine to make a temporary copy

of a computer program if such copy is

made solely by virtue of the activation

of a machine that lawfully contains an

authorized copy of the computer

program, for purposes of maintenance or

repair of that machine.

Specific Questions: The principal

purpose of the hearing is to inquire into

points made in the written comments

submitted in this proceeding, and not to

raise new issues for the first time.

Specifically, the public hearing will

(and therefore the one page summary of

intended testimony must) focus on the

following questions:

• What are the policy justifications

for or against an amendment to Section

109 to include digital transmissions,

and what specific facts can you provide

to support your position? What

problems would an amendment to

Section 109 address? What problems

would an amendment to Section 109 not

address? What problems would an

amendment to Section 109 create? What

problems would be averted by leaving

this section unchanged? What would be

the likely impact on authors and other

copyright owners of an amendment to

Section 109 modeled on Section 4 of

H.R. 3048, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997),

and what is the basis for your

assessment?

• Please explain in detail the impact

an amendment to Section 109 to include

digital transmissions would have on the

following activities of libraries with

respect to works in digital form: (1)

Interlibrary lending; (2) use of works

outside the physical confines of a

library; (3) preservation and (4) receipt

and use of donated materials. To what

extent would an amendment to section

109 fail to have an impact on these

activities? Please explain whether and

how these activities should and can be

accommodated by means other than

amendment of Section 109?

• What are the policy justifications

for or against an exemption to permit

the making of temporary digital copies

of works that are incidental to the

operation of a device in the course of a

lawful use of a work, and what specific

facts can you provide to support how

such an exemption could further or

hinder electronic commerce and

Internet growth? What problems would

it address and what problems would a

broad exemption not address? What

problems would such an exemption

create? How would your assessment

differ if an exemption were limited to

63628 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 206 / Tuesday, October 24, 2000 / Notices

temporary digital copies of works that

are incidental to the operation of a

device in the course of an authorized

use of the work?

• What are the policy justifications

for or against an expansion to the

archival copy exception in section 117

to cover works other than computer

programs, and what specific facts can

you provide to support for your view?

Would such an expansion of section 117

further or hinder electronic commerce

and Internet growth? What problems

would such a statutory change address

and not address? What problems would

such an expansion create?

• What are the policy justifications

for or against expressly limiting the

archival copy exception in section 117

to cover only those copies that are

susceptible to destruction or damage by

mechanical or electrical failure? What

problems would such a statutory change

address and not address? What

problems would such a change create?

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights, United States

Copyright Office.

Kathy D. Smith,

Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications

and Information Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–27293 Filed 10–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Notice of Solicitation of Public Interest

AGENCY: Executive Office of the

President, Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), Office of Federal

Procurement Policy (OFPP).

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of public

interest.

SUMMARY: OFPP is developing a new

initiative to fundamentally examine the

manner by which the Government

develops and applies incentives to its

contractual vehicles, and is seeking

information and advice that would

advance this effort.

COMMENTS DUE DATE: Comments and

information regarding the proposed

initiative must be received on or before

December 26, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Comments and information should be

sent to Stanley Kaufman, Deputy

Associate Administrator, OMB, OFPP,

725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC

20503. He can be reached electronically

at skaufman@omb.eop.gov or by phone

at 202–395–6810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Procurement reform initiatives such

as the Federal Acquisition Streamlining

Act of 1994, the Federal Acquisition

Reform Act of 1996, the Information

Technology Management Reform Act of

1996, and Performance-Based Service

Contracting are significantly changing

the way the Government acquires

supplies and services, moving from a

process-oriented, rules-based, risk

avoidance culture to one emphasizing

performance outcomes, business

judgment, streamlined procedures, and

risk management.

The rules-based culture constrained

contracting officials’ flexibility to serve

as business advisors focusing on the

overall business arrangements. While

the cited acquisition reforms provided

contracting officers increased

flexibilities in negotiations and

communication with contractors,

research by the Army and studies by

OFPP and industry found that

innovative contracting methods are

being used insufficiently, and effective

incentives exist which are not being

considered.

Consideration of incentives typically

was limited to the fee portion of

contracts to the detriment of other

incentives that contractors would find

more appropriate and meaningful, such

as a consistent revenue flow and the

promise of future business. In addition,

incentives too often focused on the

process of the work to be performed vs.

the outcomes, thereby rewarding

unnecessary and/or even

counterproductive behavior.

Furthermore, profit is not an effective

incentive for non-profit entities such as

universities and research laboratories.

As a result, contractors often did not

provide their best solutions and

Government requirements were not

fulfilled in as timely, quality-related,

and cost-effective manner as possible.

II. The Project

OFPP is looking to develop a new

contracting paradigm that will

encourage acquisition officials to

develop joint objectives with contractors

and effectively incentivize both parties

to create ‘‘win/win’’ business

arrangements.

In pursuing this project, OFPP would

like to pull together any experiences

and literature regarding non-fee type

incentives. Consultation with the

private, non-profit, and public sectors is

hereby sought. A review of current

policy, regulatory and statutory

guidance will be conducted to

determine any barriers to achieving the

project’s objective and the need for any

additional guidance to facilitate

compliance.

Accordingly, OFPP is seeking ideas,

recommendations, practices, lessons

learned, etc. on what works in industry,

the non-profit environment, and state

and local governments. Such

information tailored to specific

industries (e.g., manufacturing, services,

construction), subsets of industries (e.g.,

information technology, advisory and

assistance services, environmental

remediation), types of contractors (e.g.,

universities, small businesses) and types

of endeavors (e.g., research and

development) would be welcomed. We

also would welcome any studies or

literature that analyzes, assesses, or

validates these practices, as well as

information on relevant training courses

and materials.

In examining this information and

developing any policy initiative, we will

consider approaches that would

fundamentally restructure our

contractual relationships to

accommodate improving our business

arrangements, and so would welcome

any appropriate recommendations as

well as the identification of any

impediments (legal, regulatory or

policy). OFPP welcomes written

comments and materials, and is willing

to meet with individual companies,

associations, and other organizations to

hear their views and recommendations.

OFPP is concurrently surveying Federal

agencies to ascertain any ongoing

innovative practices that could be used

in this initiative.

We are also considering a public

meeting to facilitate the exchange of

information between the Government

and general public to explore this issue

if sufficient interest exists. Topics could

include: developing alternative

incentive strategies; providing

recommendations; sharing best practices

and lessons learned; reviewing existing

literature; and identifying barriers and

potential benefits and disadvantages for

both agencies and contractors.

Expressions of interest in such a

meeting would be appreciated.

Kenneth J. Oscar,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–27117 Filed 10–23–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P