P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

146) lll-A-7 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 12:31:58 PM Sheet 146 of 148 
P.2 

TTl-Ar "7 

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 222 / Friday, November 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules 58497 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 202 

[Docket No. 96-6] 

"Best Edition" of Published 

Copyrighted Works for fhe Collections 

of fhe Library of Congress 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the 

Library of Congress is proposing 

amendments to the regulations 

regarding the deposit of the "best 

edition" of published motion pictures. 

The purpose of the proposed rule is to 

remove the "most widely distributed 

gauge" as a selection factor of the "best 

edition" and add new videotape formats 

to the prioritized list of material 

preferences based on current industry 

practices. 

DATES: Comments should be received on 

or before December 6, 1996. 

ADDRESSES: If sent BY MAIL, ten copies 

of written comments should be 

addressed to Marilyn J. Kretsinger, 

Acting General Counsel, Copyright GC/ 

I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, 

Washington, D.C. 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-

8366. If BY HAND, ten copies should be 

brought to: Office of the General 

Counsel, Copyright Office, James 

Madison Memorial Building, Room LM407, First and Independence Avenue, 

S.E., Washington, D.C. 20540. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General 

Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R,- P.O. Box 

70400, Southwest Station, Washington, 

D.C. 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. 

Telefax: (202) 707-8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections 

407 and 408 of title 17, United States 

Code, require that for published works 

the copies or phonorecords deposited in 

the Copyright Office be of the "best 

edition." "The 'best edition' of a work 

is the edition, published in the United 

States, at any time before the date of 

deposit, that the Library of Congress 

determines to be most suitable for its 

purposes," 17 U.S.C. 101. 

"When two or more editions of the 

same version of a work have been 

published, the one of the highest quality 

is generally considered to be the 'best 

edition'." 37 CFR 202. APP. B. The 

Copyright Office has published 

regulations that set out the Library's 

specific criteria on what is the best 

edition. See generally 37 CFR 202.19, 

202.20 and Appendix B to Part 202 — 

"Best Edition" of Published 

Copyrighted Works for the Collections 

of the Library of Congress. These 

regulations give the selection criteria to 

be applied in determining the best 

edition of each of several types of 

materials, these criteria list formats in 

descending order of importance. Id. The 

criteria for "Motion Pictures" is set forth 

in 37 CFR 202, APP. B HI. 

For a number of years, the Library of 

Congress has used "gauge in which 

most widely distributed" as a high 

ranking preference in its selection of 

both film print and videotape. At its 

inception, this criterion permitted the 

Library to acquire copies that met the 

Library's standards for archival quality 

while working to the benefit of the 

motion picture industry as well. Copies 

originally deposited to meet this 

criterion were typically 35mm prints 

rather than the more limited 70mm 

prints and

 3/V' videotapes rather than 

the 2" videotape broadcast medium. 

Over the years, the application of this 

criterion began to work against the 

archival interests of the Library. The 

primary reason for this change has been 

the wide use of VHS W videotape. For 

the last ten years, when two or more 

tape gauges have been distributed, the 

VHS VE" videotape typically has been 

the most widely distributed and 

therefore under the Library's criteria, 

the best edition. The Library does not 

consider this particular V2" gauge to 

represent an acceptable archival quality 

medium. The Library has concluded 

that use of the "most widely distributed 

gauge" in the area of film prints is now 

detrimental to the interests of the 

Library of Congress. 

During this same period, the 1" 

videotape became the industry standard 

as the broadcast gauge, and the 2" gauge 

became almost obsolete. The 1" gauge is 

less expensive and bulky than the 2" 

gauge and is an excellent archival 

medium. At this time, therefore, the 1" 

format is the highest quality format in 

the videotape medium. 

The television industry is currently 

widely using several new W videotape 

formats, including the Betacam and the 

D-2 cassette, because of their high 

quality. These formats were not 

available when the best edition criteria 

were developed. The Library has 

determined that both of these formats 

meet its archival standards and are 

superior to the

 3U" videotape. 

The Office is, therefore, proposing to 

amend its regulations to remove the 

"gauge in which most widely 

distributed" as a criterion in Appendix 

B, in and to add the new high quality 

videotape formats. 

List of Subjects In 37 CFR Part 202 

Claims, Copyright. 

Proposed Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Copyright Office amends 37 CFR part 

202 in the manner set forth below: 

PART 202—[AMENDED] 

Appendix B to Part 202—"Best Edition" 

of Published Copyrighted Works for the 

Collections of the Library of Congress 

1. The authority citation for part 202 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

2. In part 202. Appendix B, "III. 

Motion Pictures" is revised to read as 

follows: 

* * * # * 

III. Motion Pictures 

Film medium is considered a better 

quality than any other medium. The 

formats under "film" and "videotape" 

are listed in descending order of 

preference: 

A. Film: 

1. Preprint material with special 

arrangement. 

2. 35mm positive prints. 

3. 16mm positive prints. 

B. Videotape: j 

1. One-inch open reel tape2. Betacam cassette. 

3. D-2 cassette. 

4. Videodisc. 

Three-quarter inch cass Jtte 

One-half inch VHS cassette.uo 

CM 

€r3 <rx 

Dated: November 4, 1996 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights. 

Approved by: 

James H. Billington, 

The Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 96-29199 Filed 11-

BILUNG CODE 1410-30-P 

r.i 

i < i 

t >. . 

LU 

8 

Q 

rr 

< 

< 

14-96: 8:45 am] 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[AD-FRL-5652-1] 

Prevention of Significant Deferiorafion 

(PSD) and Nonaffainmenf New Source 

Review (NSR); Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking; 

clarification and corrections. 

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

clarification and corrections to the 
P.3 

58498 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 222 / Friday, November 15, 1996 / Proposed Rules 

proposed rulemaking, the NSR Reform 

rulemaking, which was published 

Tuesday, July 23, 1996 (61 FR 38249). 

The NSR Reform rulemaking proposes 

to revise regulations for the approval 

and promulgation of implementation 

plans, and the requirements for 

preparation, adoption, and submittal of 

implementation plans governing the 

NSR programs mandated by parts C and 

D of title I of the Clean Air Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel deRoeck, Information Transfer 

and Program Integration Division, MD12, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 

(919) 541-5593, telefax (919) 541-5509. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Clarification 

The EPA proposed the Clean Unit 

exclusion as a simplified applicability 

test for changes to existing emissions 

units that already are well controlled. 

See 61 FR 38255-38258. The proposal is 

intended to require that in order for an 

existing emissions unit to qualify as a 

"clean unit" the unit must have a 

federally enforceable emissions limit 

that "is comparable" to the best 

available control technology or lowest 

' achievable control technology 

requirements for that type of unit, 

whichever would otherwise be 

applicable to the proposed change. The 

relevant regulatory language is 

contained in proposed 

§51.165(a)(l)(v)(C) (20) through (13) of 

the nonattainment NSR rules, 

§§ 51.166(b) (2) (iii) (L) (i) through (4), 

and 52.21 (b)(2) (iii) (L) (I) through (4) of 

the PSD rules, and is referenced in 

§ 52.24(f) of the statutory restriction on 

new sources (construction ban). In each 

rule, EPA intended that eligibility for 

the clean unit exclusion is to be 

contingent upon several criteria being 

satisfied. However, in the proposed 

language in § 51.165 it may not be clear 

to the reader that each of the criteria 

under paragraphs (a)(l)(v)(C)(I0) 

through (a)(l)(v)(C)(13) must be satisfied 

in order for an emissions unit to qualify 

for the exclusion. Because of a problem 

with the overall structure of the 

regulations at § 51.165, it is not feasible 

to make a simple correction without 

first restructuring the overall regulation. 

Instead, for purposes of interpreting and 

commenting on the proposal the reader 

is advised to read the "Clean Unit" 

exemption as provided in 

§§ 51.166(b) (2) (iii) (L) (1) through (4) and 

52.21(b)(2)(iii)(L) (1) through (4) (as 

corrected below) for the correct 

interpretation of the proposed 

exclusion. The EPA is considering the 

most effective way to restructure 

§ 51.165 to correct the problem, and 

intends to make the necessary 

restructuring at the time of 

promulgation of final rulemaking. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the preamble and 

proposed amendments to the 

regulations at §§51.166 and 52.21, 

contain errors which are misleading and 

are in need of clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication on July 

23, 1996 of the proposed regulations 40 

CFR 51.166 and 52.21, which were the 

subject of FR Doc. 96-17544, are 

corrected to read as follows: 

Correction to Preamble 

1. On page 38258, in the first column, 

in section II.C.4., Description of the 

Clean Facility Proposal, in the third 

sentence, the reference 

"§§51.165(a)(l)(v)(C)(II)," is corrected 

to read "§§51.165(a)(l)(v)(C)(14),". 

§51.166 [Corrected] 

2. On page 38330, in the second 

column, in §51.166, paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(L)(2)(iii), the last line is 

corrected by removing the period (".") 

and adding a semicolon (";"). 

3. On page 38330, in the second 

column, in § 51.166, paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(L)(3), the last line is corrected 

by adding the word "and" after the 

semicolon. 

4. On page 38330, in the second 

column, in §51.166, paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(L)(4), the last line is corrected 

by removing the text "; and" and adding 

a period ("."). 

§52.21 [Corrected] 

5. On page 38337, in the third 

column, in §52.21, paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(L)(2)(iii), the last line is 

corrected by removing the period (".") 

and adding a semicolon (";"). 

6. On page 38337, in the third 

column, in §52,21, paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(L)(3), the last line is corrected 

by adding the word "and" after the 

semicolon. 

7. On page 38337, in the third 

column, in § 52.21, in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii)(L)(4), the last line is corrected 

by removing the text "; and" and adding 

a period ("."). 

Dated: November 8, 1996. 

Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 96-29356 Filed 11-14-96; 8:45 am] 

BILUNG CODE 6560-50-P 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[IN72-1b; FRL-5647-8] 

Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve two State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision requests submitted by the 

State of Indiana on March 14, 1996, and 

June 17, 1996. The state requested 

redesignation of portions of Marion, 

LaPorte, and Wayne Counties and all of 

Vigo County to attainment for S02. In 

the Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State's 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

agency views this as a noncontroversial 

SIP revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this proposed 

rule, no further activity is contemplated 

in relation to this rule. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by December 16, 1996. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision 

request are available for inspection at 

the following address: Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. pt is 

recommended that you telephone Ryan 

Bahr at (312) 353-4366 before visiting 

the Region 5 Office.) 

Written comments should be sent to: 

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation 

Development Section, Air Programs 

Branch AR-18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Bahr at (312) 353-4366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

information provided in the Direct Final 

action of the same title which is located 

in the Rules and Regulations Section of 

this Federal Register. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 -767 lq. 

2,