Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules 3685

1The Librarian did adopt a zero rate for

retransmission of network signals to unserved

households located within the local markets of

network stations. Id.

guidance of general applicability

provide for other methods of

demonstrating evidence of tip income.

* * *

(2) * * * In addition, an electronic

system maintained by the employer that

collects substantially similar

information as Form 4070A may be used

to maintain such daily record, provided

the employee receives and maintains a

paper copy of the daily record. * * *

* * * * *

Michael P. Dolan,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 98–1548 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. RM 98–1]

Satellite Carrier Compulsory License;

Definition of Unserved Household

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress is opening a

rulemaking proceeding to determine the

permissibility, under the satellite

compulsory license, of satellite carriers

retransmitting over-the-air broadcast

network stations to subscribers who

reside within the local markets of those

stations.

DATES: Initial comments should be

received no later than February 25,

1998. Reply comments are due March

27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, an original

and ten copies of comments and reply

comments should be addressed to:

David O. Carson, General Counsel,

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel

(CARP), P.O. Box 70977, Southwest

Station, Washington, DC 20024. If hand

delivered, an original and ten copies of

comments and reply comments should

be brought to: Office of the Copyright

General Counsel, James Madison

Memorial Building, Room LM–403, First

and Independence Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20559–6000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or

William Roberts, Senior Attorney,

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel

(CARP), P.O. Box 70977, Southwest

Station, Washington, DC 20024.

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Fax: (202)

707–8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 23, 1997, the Copyright Office

received a petition for rulemaking from

EchoStar Communications Corporation

(‘‘EchoStar’’) requesting that the Office

confirm that a satellite carrier’s local

retransmission of network stations to

subscribers who reside in those station’s

local markets is permissible under the

compulsory license granted by 17 U.S.C.

119. Three organizations, the

Association of Local Television Stations

(‘‘ALTV’’), Network Affiliated Stations

Alliance (‘‘NASA’’), and the National

Association of Broadcasters (‘‘NAB’’),

filed oppositions to EchoStar’s request

for a rulemaking. The petition and

oppositions are available for inspection

and copying at the Copyright Office in

Room LM 458, James Madison Memorial

Building, 101 Independence Avenue,

SE., Washington, DC.

Opening of This Proceeding

EchoStar’s petition is not the first

time that the Copyright Office has been

called upon to decide whether it is

permissible under section 119 for

satellite carriers to retransmit network

stations to subscribers who reside

within the local markets of those

stations. In the summer of 1996, the

Office received a letter from American

Sky Broadcasting (‘‘ASkyB’’) requesting

the Office issue a declaratory ruling that

such local-into-local retransmissions

were permissible under section 119. By

letter dated August 15, 1996, the Office

informed ASkyB that it would not issue

a declaratory ruling or formally resolve

the matter. The Office did state that if

ASkyB filed a Statement of Account and

royalty fee for local-into-local

retransmissions of network signals, the

Office would not question the

sufficiency of the filing or return it. See

Letter of the Acting General Counsel to

William Reyner, August 15, 1996.

ASkyB did not petition the Office for a

rulemaking proceeding.

One year later, the issue of local-intolocal retransmissions of network signals

arose again in the context of the

adjustment of the section 119 royalty

rates. In Docket No. 96–3 CARP SRA,

ASkyB argued to the Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP)

charged with the task of adjusting the

section 119 rates that local-into-local

retransmissions were permissible under

the terms of the statute, and that the

royalty rate for such retransmissions

should be zero. The CARP declined to

adopt ASkyB’s zero royalty request

because it determined that it lacked

subject matter jurisdiction to do so.

Report of the CARP at 48 (August 29,

1997). The CARP considered section

119(a)(2)(B), which provides that the

satellite compulsory license is ‘‘limited

to secondary transmissions to persons

who reside in unserved households,’’

and examined the section 119(d)(10)

definition of an ‘‘unserved household.’’

The CARP concluded that:

[N]etwork signals generally may not be

retransmitted to the local coverage area of

local network signals. The separate rate

request of ASkyB is explicitly intended to

apply to retransmission of network signals to

served households. Section 119 does not

provide a compulsory license for those

retransmissions. Hence, we lack subject

matter jurisdiction to set a rate for local

retransmissions of local network signals.

CARP Report at 48. The CARP did

acknowledge, however, that there could

be subscribers who resided within a

network station’s local market that fell

within the CARP’s interpretation of an

‘‘unserved household,’’ but the CARP

identified these as being ‘‘rare

instances.’’ Id.

The Librarian of Congress, reviewing

the CARP’s decision under an arbitrary

or contrary to the Copyright Act

standard, accepted the CARP’s

determination stating that he could not

‘‘unequivocally say that the Panel’s

decision is arbitrary or contrary to law.’’

62 FR 55742, 55753 (October 28, 1997).

The Librarian reached this decision

because he found the statute to be silent

on the issue of local-into-local

retransmissions. Id. The Librarian did

state, however, that although the statute

was silent, the Copyright Office

‘‘retain[ed] the authority to conduct a

rulemaking proceeding to determine the

permissibility of local retransmission of

network signals to served households,

regardless of the Panel’s determination

in this proceeding.’’ Id.1

Authority for a Rulemaking Proceeding

As stated in the Librarian’s review of

the CARP decision, the Copyright Office

believes that it has the authority to

gather information and conduct a

rulemaking to resolve whether localinto-local retransmission of network

signals is permissible under section 119.

The Office has determined in the past,

in the context of the section 111 cable

compulsory license, whether certain

retransmissions were subject to

statutory licensing. See 57 FR 3284

(January 29, 1992) (determining that

retransmissions of broadcast signals by

satellite carriers and Multichannel

Multipoint Distribution Services were

not eligible for the section 111 license);

62 FR 18705 (April 17, 1997)

(determining that retransmissions of
3686 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 16 / Monday, January 26, 1998 / Proposed Rules

broadcast signals by Satellite Master

Antenna Television systems were

eligible for section 111 licensing). The

authority to issue a determination in

this proceeding is derived from the

Office’s rulemaking authority under 17

U.S.C. 702.

The objections to EchoStar’s petition

filed by ALTV, NASA and NAB all

counsel against the Copyright Office

opening a rulemaking proceeding at this

time, preferring instead to resolve the

matter through legislation. There is no

question that legislative resolution of

the issue of local-into-local

retransmissions of network stations

under section 119 is the best solution.

The Office has recommended to

Congress that section 119 be clarified to

allow local-into-local retransmission.

Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright

Office, A Review of the Copyright

Licensing Regimes Covering

Retransmission of Broadcast Signals

119–120 (August 1, 1997). In the

meantime, however, the Office believes

that it should exercise its duties and

responsibilities under section 702 of the

Copyright Act and open this

rulemaking.

Issues for Public Comment

As presented by Echostar’s petition,

the question of whether local-into-local

retransmissions of network signals is

permissible turns on the interpretation

to be afforded the definition of an

‘‘unserved household.’’ Section

119(a)(2)(B) provides that the satellite

compulsory license for retransmission

of network signals is ‘‘limited to

secondary transmissions to persons who

reside in unserved households.’’ Section

119(d)(10) defines an ‘‘unserved

household’’ as:

a household that—

(A) cannot receive through the use of a

conventional outdoor rooftop receiving

antenna, an over-the-air signal of grade B

intensity (as defined by the Federal

Communications Commission) of a primary

network station affiliated with that network,

and

(B) has not, within 90 days before the date

on which that household subscribes, either

initially or on renewal, to receive secondary

transmissions by a satellite carrier of a

network station affiliated with that network,

subscribed to a cable system that provides

the signal of a primary network station

affiliated with that network.

17 U.S.C. 119(d)(10).

In interpreting the ‘‘unserved

household’’ definition, the primary

question is: Was it the intention of

Congress to prevent all satellite

retransmissions of a network station

when a subscriber can receive an offthe-air grade B intensity signal of the

local network station, or was Congress

attempting to exclude only distant

network stations of the same network

that might be imported by a satellite

carrier into the local affiliate’s market?

Is there anything in the legislative

history that offers guidance on this

question? If not, does subsection (B)’s

prevention of satellite retransmission

when a subscriber is receiving the local

network station via cable have any

bearing on this issue?

If local-into-local retransmissions of

network stations are permissible under

section 119, how should a network

station’s local market be defined? Is the

local market definition in section

119(d)(11) appropriate, or should some

other measure be used?

In addition, the Copyright office is

interested in receiving comment as to

what impact, if any, local-into-local

retransmissions of network stations by

satellite would have on retransmission

consent and other provisions and

requirements of the Communications

Act, 47 U.S.C. ch. 5.

The Copyright Office welcomes and

encourages comments as to these

questions, and well as any other matters

that commenting parties may deem

relevant.

Dated: January 21, 1998.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 98–1795 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–31–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[OPP–00473C; FRL–5767–3]

Antimicrobial Rule Development;

Stakeholder Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Meetings.

SUMMARY: The Antimicrobials Division

(AD) of the Office of Pesticide Programs

of EPA is continuing its series of

stakeholder meetings to obtain views

about the antimicrobial rule that is

being developed. The rule is being

revised in accordance with principles

set forth in the Food Quality Protection

Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–170). To

ensure that all interested parties can

obtain information about activities

related to developing this rule, EPA, in

its discretion, has opened a docket in

advance of the rule’s proposal. This

docket includes, but is not limited to, a

summary of major discussions at

stakeholder meetings, as well as copies

of any documents distributed at these

meetings.

DATES: The next stakeholder meetings

will take place on Tuesday, February 3,

1998, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m.; and

Thursday, March 26, 1998, from 2 p.m.

to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway (Crystal

Mall #2) in Room 1126 (‘‘Fishbowl’’),

Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Barbara Mandula (7510W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1, 2800

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA, (703) 308–

7378, fax: (703) 308–8481; e-mail:

mandula.barbara@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice announces a series of public

meetings to ensure that all parties

interested in policies, issues, and

regulatory actions affecting

antimicrobial pesticides can obtain

information about ongoing activities.

Additionally, a public record has been

established for these meetings under

docket number ‘‘OPP–00473.’’ The

docket is available for inspection from

8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The

public record is located in Rm. 119 of

the Public Information and Records

Integrity Branch, Information Resources

and Services Division (7502C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA. Copies of EPA

documents may be obtained by

contacting: Public Information and

Records Integrity Branch, Information

Resources and Services Division

(7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Antimicrobial pesticides.

Dated: January 15, 1998.

Frank Sanders,

Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 98–1767 Filed 1–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F