20958 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletins described

previously.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 143 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 4 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

replacement, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Required

parts will be supplied by the parts

manufacturer at no cost to the operators.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $34,320, or $240 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this proposed AD were not adopted. The

cost impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national Government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Aerospatiale: Docket 2000–NM–203–AD.

Applicability: Model ATR42–200, –300,

–320, and –500 series airplanes; and Model

ATR72 series airplanes; certificated in any

category; except those on which Aerospatiale

Modification 05226 has been accomplished.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent a mechanical failure of the

uplock box mechanisms, which could result

in failure of the associated landing gear to

extend, accomplish the following:

Removal and Replacement

(a) Within 24 months after the effective

date of this AD, remove and replace the three

existing uplock boxes of the main and nose

landing gears with modified uplock boxes in

accordance with the instructions given in

Avions de Transport Regional Service

Bulletins ATR42–32–0090 (for Model

ATR42–200, –300, –320, and –500 series

airplanes) and ATR72–32–1038 (for Model

ATR72 series airplanes), both dated May 19,

2000.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport

Airplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, International Branch, ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

Special Flight Permits

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directives 2000–

189–078(B) and 2000–190–042(B), both dated

May 3, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19,

2001.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–10341 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Parts 252 and 257

[Docket No. RM 2001–3 CARP]

Cable and Satellite Statutory Licenses

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress is clarifying the

requirements for the submission of

claims for royalties under the cable

statutory license, 17 U.S.C. 111, and the

satellite statutory license, 17 U.S.C. 119.

DATES: Comments are due no later than

May 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, an original

and ten copies of comments should be

addressed to: Office of the Copyright

General Counsel, P.O. Box 70977,

Southwest Station, Washington, DC

20024. If hand delivered, an original

and ten copies should be brought to:

Office of the Copyright General Counsel,

James Madison Memorial Building,

Room LM–403, First and Independence

Avenues, SE., Washington, DC 20559–

6000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 20959

1The Copyright Royalty Tribunal eschewed

issuing forms to complete a cable or satellite royalty

claim. When the Tribunal was abolished in 1993,

the Library of Congress subsumed the Tribunal’s

rules, and continued the practice of not printing or

issuing forms.

William J. Roberts, Jr., Senior Attorney

for Compulsory Licenses, Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panel, P.O. Box

70977, Southwest Station, Washington,

DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380.

Telefax: (202) 252–3423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

At issue in this rulemaking

proceeding are the filing requirements

for claiming royalty fees under the cable

statutory license, 17 U.S.C. 111, and the

satellite statutory license, 17 U.S.C. 119.

The cable statutory license permits

cable systems to retransmit to their

subscribers the signals of television and

radio broadcast stations upon semiannual submission of royalty payments

to the Copyright Office. Similarly, the

satellite statutory license permits

satellite carriers to retransmit to their

subscribers the signals of distant

television stations upon semi-annual

submission of royalty payments to the

Copyright Office. The Copyright Office

deposits the received cable and satellite

royalty fees in interest-bearing accounts

with the U.S. Treasury for later

distribution to owners of the

copyrighted broadcast programming

retransmitted by both cable and

satellite. It is the process for filing

claims to these royalty fees that the

Copyright Office is reexamining in this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(‘‘NPRM’’).

Both section 111 and section 119

describe in general terms the process for

filing claims to royalty fees. Section

111(d)(3) provides that cable royalty

fees shall ‘‘be distributed to those

among the following copyright owners

who claim that their works were the

subject of secondary transmissions by

cable systems during the relevant

semiannual accounting period:

(A) Any such owner whose work was

included in a secondary transmission made

by a cable system of a nonnetwork television

program in whole or in part beyond the local

service area of the primary transmitter; and

(B) Any such owner whose work was

included in a secondary transmission

identified in a special statement of account

deposited under clause (1)(A); and

(C) Any such owner whose work was

included in nonnetwork programming

consisting exclusively of aural signals carried

by a cable system in whole or in part beyond

the local service area of the primary

transmitter of such programs.

17 U.S.C. 111(d)(3). Section 111(d)(4)(A)

prescribes the annual process for filing

claims to cable royalties:

During the month of July in each year,

every person claiming to be entitled to

statutory license fees for secondary

transmissions shall file a claim with the

Librarian of Congress, in accordance with

requirements that the Librarian of Congress

shall prescribe by regulation.

Notwithstanding any provisions of the

antitrust laws, for purposes of this clause any

claimants may agree among themselves as to

the proportionate division of statutory

licensing fees among them, may lump their

claims together and file them jointly or as a

single claim, or may designate a common

agent to receive payment on their behalf.

17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(A).

Though different in certain limited

respects, the language regarding royalty

claims appearing in the section 119

license is modeled after the section 111

language. Section 119(b)(3) prescribes

that satellite license royalty fees shall

‘‘be distributed to those copyright

owners whose works were included in

a secondary transmission for private

home viewing made by a satellite carrier

during the applicable 6-month

accounting period and who file a claim

with the Librarian of Congress under

paragraph (4).’’ Paragraph (4)(A)

provides that:

During the month of July in each year, each

person claiming to be entitled to statutory

license fees for secondary transmissions for

private home viewing shall file a claim with

the Librarian of Congress, in accordance with

requirements that the Librarian of Congress

shall prescribe by regulation. For purposes of

this paragraph, any claimants may agree

among themselves as to the proportionate

division of statutory license fees among

them, may lump their claims together and

file them jointly or as a single claim, or may

designate a common agent to receive

payment on their behalf.

17 U.S.C. 119(b)(4)(A).

These are the statutory provisions

governing cable and satellite royalty

claims. The Librarian of Congress has

prescribed the filing requirements for

the submission of cable and satellite

royalty claims. Part 252 of 37 CFR

establishes the filing requirements for

cable claims, while part 257 establishes

the filing requirements for satellite

claims. Of relevance to this NPRM are

the sections of those parts that deal with

the content of the claims filed.

There are no forms for filing a cable

or satellite royalty claim.1 There are,

however, formats for submitting cable

and satellite claims. Section 252.3, 37

CFR, puts forward the required content

of a cable claim:

(a) Claims filed by parties claiming to be

entitled to cable compulsory license royalty

fees shall include the following information:

(1) The full legal name of the person or

entity claiming royalty fees.

(2) The telephone number, facsimile

number, if any, and full address, including a

specific number and street name or rural

route, of the place of business of the person

or entity.

(3) If the claim is a joint claim, a concise

statement of the authorization for the filing

of the joint claim, and the name of each

claimant to the joint claim. For this purpose,

a performing rights society shall not be

required to obtain from its members or

affiliates separate authorizations, apart from

their standard membership affiliate

agreements, or to list the name of each of its

members or affiliates in the joint claim.

(4) For individual claims, a general

statement of the nature of the claimant’s

copyrighted works and identification of at

least one secondary transmission by a cable

system of such works establishing a basis for

the claim. For joint claims, a general

statement of the nature of the joint claimants’

copyrighted works and identification of at

least one secondary transmission of one of

the joint claimants’ copyrighted works by a

cable system establishing a basis for the joint

claim.

(b) Claims shall bear the original signature

of the claimant or of a duly authorized

representative of the claimant.

37 CFR 252.3. The language of § 257.3,

governing the content of satellite claims,

is the same as § 252.3.

History of Claim Requirements

Submission and resolution of cable,

and later satellite, claims originally

vested solely in the Copyright Royalty

Tribunal. It was the Tribunal that first

imposed the filing requirements for both

licenses and decided against issuing

standardized forms. The Library of

Congress inherited the Tribunal’s

regulation upon its dissolution in 1993.

See 58 FR 67690 (December 22, 1993).

As discussed below, the Librarian has

made some changes to the content

requirements for both cable and satellite

claims.

From 1978 to the end of 1993, the

Copyright Royalty Tribunal received

and processed cable claims. Section

302.7(a) of the Tribunal’s regulation

prescribed the content requirements for

those claims:

During the month of July of each year,

every person claiming to be entitled to

compulsory license fees for secondary

transmissions during the preceding calendar

year shall file a claim to such fees in the

office of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal. No

royalty fees shall be distributed to copyright

owners for secondary transmissions during

the specified period unless such owner has

filed a claim to such fees during the

following calendar month of July. For

purposes of this clause claimants may file

claims jointly or as a single claim. Such filing

shall include such information as the

Copyright Royalty Tribunal may require. A

joint claim shall include a concise statement

of the authorization for the filing of the joint

claim. A performing rights society shall not

20960 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

2The Library used the same language for the

satellite royalty claim regulations, 37 CFR 257.

3An exception to this requirement was made for

performing rights societies, such as ASCAP and

BMI. That exception, however, has no application

in this rulemaking proceeding.

be required to obtain from its members or

affiliates separate authorizations, apart from

their standard agreements, for purposes of

this filing and fee distribution.

37 CFR 302.7(a) (1993). Subsection (b)

of that regulation required the full name

and address of the ‘‘person or entity

claiming compulsory license fees,’’

along with identification of at least one

secondary transmission of that person’s

or entity’s program by a cable system.

The purpose of the Tribunal’s

regulations governing the filing of cable

claims is evident: identify who the

claimants are to the royalty pool and

assure that they have asserted a prima

facie claim for section 111 royalties.

While the regulation states that ‘‘every

person claiming to be entitled to

compulsory license fees’’ may file a

claim, the regulation further states that

‘‘[n]o royalty fees shall be distributed to

copyright owners for secondary

transmissions during the specified

period unless such owner has filed a

claim to such fees during the following

calendar month of July.’’ 37 CFR

302.7(a) (1993).

The Tribunal’s regulations for the

filing of satellite claims were adopted

soon after the passage of the Satellite

Home Viewer Act of 1988, which

enacted the section 119 license. Not

surprisingly, the Tribunal copied the

same language it used for the required

content of cable claims. However, with

respect to the submission of a joint

claim, the Tribunal’s regulation

permitted the filing of a joint claim but

did not require a concise statement of

the authorization for the filing of the

joint claim. 37 CFR 309.2 (1993).

When the Tribunal’s responsibilities

were assumed by the Library, the

Library proposed changes to the

regulations for filing cable and satellite

claims.2 Proposed new § 252.2 read:

During the month of July each year, any

party claiming to be entitled to cable

compulsory license royalty fees for secondary

transmissions of one or more of its works

during the preceding calendar year shall file

a claim to such fees with the Copyright

Office. No royalty fees shall be distributed to

a party for secondary transmissions during

the specified period unless such party has

timely filed a claim to such fees. Claimants

may file claims jointly or as a single claim.

59 FR 2550, 2564 (January 18, 1994).

The Library did not state why it

changed slightly the wording of the

former Tribunal’s regulation but did

propose a new § 252.3 which

incorporated some of the same

principles. Section 252.3(a)(3) stated

that ‘‘[i]f the claim is a joint claim, a

concise statement of the authorization

for the filing of the joint claim [is

required]. For this purpose a performing

rights society shall not be required to

obtain from its members or affiliates

separate authorizations, apart from their

standard agreements.’’ 59 FR at 2565.

The Library also proposed § 252.3(e)

which stated that ‘‘[a]ll claimants filing

a joint claim shall make available to the

Copyright Office, other claimants, and,

where applicable, a Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panel, a list of all

individual claimants covered by the

joint claim.’’ 59 FR at 2565.

One commentator to the NPRM, the

Public Broadcasting Service (‘‘PBS’’),

raised concerns about § 252.3(e),

wondering whether, in the case of a

joint claim, each claimant was required

to identify at least one secondary

transmission. The Library responded:

We acknowledge that § 252.3 as proposed

in the NPRM muddies the waters for the

filing of cable royalty claims, and of satellite

royalty claims as well. We are troubled,

however, by changing what had been a

longstanding requirement at the Tribunal for

obliging all claimants to identify at least one

secondary transmission of their copyrighted

works. While such requirement does

undoubtably add to the time and expense

burdens of joint claimants such as PBS, it is

not without purpose. The law states plainly

that cable compulsory license royalties are

only to be distributed to ‘‘copyright owners

who claim that their works were the subject

of secondary transmissions by cable systems

during the relevant semiannual period.’’ 17

U.S.C. 111(d)(3). To support such a claim,

each claimant may reasonably be asked to

identify at least one secondary transmission

of his or her work, thus permitting the

Copyright Office to screen the claims and

dismiss any claimants who are clearly not

eligible for royalty fees. The requirement will

also help to reduce time spent by a CARP

determining which claimants have a valid

claim: if only one secondary transmission is

identified for one of the joint claimants, then

it could not readily be determined if the

other claimants were even eligible for cable

royalties.

In an effort to end this confusion we are

deleting subsection (e) with its requirement

that joint claimants submit a list identifying

all the claimants. Instead, we are amending

subsection (a)(4) to require that each claimant

to a joint claim, other than a joint claim filed

by a performing rights society on behalf of its

members or affiliates, must identify at least

one secondary transmission of his or her

works.

59 FR 23964, 23979 (May 9, 1994).

A hail of protest followed the

Library’s change of the joint claim rule.

Several copyright owner groups,

including Program Suppliers, argued

that a requirement that each joint

claimant submit evidence of a

secondary transmission was

unnecessary and expensive and was not

a practice observed by the CRT. Program

Suppliers went further and argued that

the Copyright Office should refrain from

any examination or screening of claims

as a regular practice, and leave such

activities and eligibility issues to the

claimants to raise through motions

either to the Librarian or the CARPs. 59

FR 63025, 63027 (December 7, 1994).

On reconsideration, the Library

dropped the requirement that each joint

claimant identify a secondary

transmission. The Library noted that

‘‘[t]he amended rule, however, does

require each joint claim to identify all

claimants participating in the joint

claim. Those who are not identified in

the joint claim may not be added to it

after the filing period.’’ Id. at 63028. 3

The amended § 252.3(a)(3) of the rules,

which is the current rule, reads in

pertinent part: ‘‘If the claim is a joint

claim, a concise statement of the

authorization for the filing of the joint

claim, and the name of each claimant to

the joint claim [is required].’’ Id. at

63042. Once again, the same language

was used for satellite claims. See 37

CFR 257.3.

The Need for Change

All in all, the process for filing cable

and satellite claims has worked well

through the years. However, a recent

cable distribution proceeding has

revealed certain infirmities that require

attention. Specifically, we are

reconsidering who may file a cable or

satellite claim, and under what

circumstances a joint claim may be

filed.

Who may file a cable or satellite

royalty claim? In most instances, the

claims received by the Copyright Office

for cable and satellite fees are single

claims filed by a copyright owner who

owns one or more of the exclusive rights

to a program (or more than one program)

that has been retransmitted by a cable

system or satellite carrier and who is

claiming statutory royalties for the

retransmission of that program. Both the

cable and the satellite licenses plainly

state that it is the copyright owner, and

only the copyright owner, whose work

has been retransmitted by a cable

system or satellite carrier who is eligible

to receive a distribution of royalty fees.

17 U.S.C. 111(d)(3) & 119(b)(3).

Consequently, there seems to be no

question that it is acceptable for a

copyright owner of a retransmitted work

to submit the claim for cable or satellite

fees.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules 20961

4Both section 111 and section 119 permit

copyright owners to designate a common agent for

payment of royalty fees. 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(A) &

119(b)(4)(A). We do not interpret this language as

authorizing the filing of placeholder claims. Rather,

this language, ‘‘[claimants] may designate a

common agent to receive payment on their behalf,’’

allows the Library to distribute royalties to someone

other than the copyright owner, provided that the

owner has previously informed the Copyright Office

of the identify of the common agent.

5The one exception to this is allowing performing

rights societies, who literally represent thousands of

copyright owners, to file one claim on behalf of all

their members and affiliates. As discussed above,

the Copyright Royalty Tribunal created this

exception, and the Copyright Office has adopted

this practice.

Is it permissible for someone other

than the copyright owner of the work

identified in the claim to submit the

claim? The Copyright Royalty Tribunal’s

old rules could be read as permitting

only copyright owners and performing

rights societies to file royalty claims.

See 37 CFR 302.7(a) (1993) (‘‘No

royalties shall be distributed to

copyright owners * * * unless such

owner has filed a claim to such fees

during the following calendar month of

July,’’ but performing rights societies are

not required to obtain separate

authorizations from members or

affiliates). The Library’s rules, however,

state that ‘‘any party’’ claiming to be

entitled to cable or satellite royalty fees

may file a claim. 37 CFR 252.2 & 257.2.

‘‘Any party’’ is quite broad and can

include holders of one or more

exclusive rights granted by copyright, as

well as agents and representatives of

copyright owners.

It has come to the attention of the

Library, as part of a recent cable royalty

distribution proceeding, that the current

standard for allowing any party

claiming the cable or satellite fees to file

a claim can produce unintended and

undesirable results. See Order in Docket

No. 2000–2 CARP CD 93–97 (June 22,

2000). Specifically, this language could

be interpreted by the public as allowing

the filing of ‘‘placeholder’’ claims. A

‘‘placeholder’’ claim is a claim filed by

a person who is not a copyright owner,

but who files a cable or satellite claim

in his or her own name, and then later

asserts claims to royalties on behalf of

copyright owners whose works were

retransmitted by a cable system or

satellite carrier. Placeholder claims are

typically filed with the Copyright Office

in the form of single claims, but in

substance they are joint claims. Because

the Copyright Office does not inquire as

to the identity of the person or entity

filing a cable or satellite claim (i.e.

whether that person or entity is a

copyright owner or another party), we

cannot determine whether the claim is

a properly filed single claim, or should

be a joint claim identifying the

appropriate represented copyright

owners.

Placeholder claims run afoul of the

distribution process for cable and

satellite royalties. The law states that

cable and satellite royalties may only be

distributed to copyright owners whose

works were retransmitted by either

cable systems or satellite carriers. 4

Indeed, the purpose of filing claims is

to permit identification of all copyright

owners who are entitled to a

distribution. 5 Placeholder claims make

it impossible to identify the copyright

owners entitled to distribution. Further,

both section 111 and section 119 plainly

state that claims for royalty fees must be

filed in the month of July to be eligible

for distribution. Placeholder claims can

circumvent this requirement by

allowing the filer to enter into

representation agreements with

copyright owners after the July

deadline, and effectively secure a

distribution for those owners who had

not filed timely claims. The Office has

stated previously that it will not allow

joint claims to be amended to add new

parties after the July deadline, because

this would thwart the purpose of the

July filing requirement. 59 FR 63025,

63028 (December 7, 1994). Placeholder

claims produce this result, because the

identity of the copyright owners

represented by the party filing the

placeholder claim will not be known

until Notices of Intent to Participate in

a CARP proceeding are filed.

Presumably, the party filing the

placeholder claim could then sign

representation agreements with

copyright owners who had not filed

their own claims up until that date.

Proposed Rule and Comments

We wish to put an end to placeholder

claims. To this end, we are proposing to

amend parts 252 and 257 of the rules to

clarify that any single claim filed with

the Copyright Office (meaning a claim

containing only one person’s or entity’s

name and address) must be filed in the

name of the copyright owner whose

work was retransmitted by a cable

system or a satellite carrier. The

copyright owner submitting the single

claim must provide the name, address

and signature of the contact person for

the claim, who can be the copyright

owner, an employee of the copyright

owner, an agent, or a duly authorized

representative.

Any claim which is filed for cable or

satellite royalties that purports to cover

more than one copyright owner must be

filed as a joint claim. The joint claim

must identify all copyright owners who

are participating in the joint claim. If a

joint claim omits the name of a

copyright owner, and the joint claim is

not amended to include the name of the

copyright owner prior to the expiration

of the July filing deadline, that

copyright owner will not be considered

to have filed a timely claim.

We note that the practice of filing

placeholder claims, in the context of

joint claims, can also occur. The

Copyright Office may receive, for

example, a joint claim identifying three

entities, only two of which are actually

copyright owners of works retransmitted

by cable or satellite. The third party is

not a copyright holder, but instead

represents current, and possibly future,

copyright owners. The third party has

filed a placeholder claim, which is

inappropriate for the reasons described

above. Consequently, the Library is

proposing to amend its rules to prohibit

the submission of placeholder claims for

both single and joint claims.

All interested parties are requested to

file comments with the Copyright Office

in accordance with the information set

forth in this document. Unless

persuaded otherwise by the

commenters, the Office intends to issue

final rules in time for the submission of

cable and satellite royalty claims in July

of this year.

Statutory Authority

The Library of Congress initiates this

rulemaking proceeding under its

authority to establish regulations for the

submission of cable statutory license

claims and satellite statutory license

claims. 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(A) &

119(b)(4)(A).

List of Subjects

37 CFR Part 252

Copyright, Cable television, Claims.

37 CFR Part 257

Copyright, Satellite television, Claims.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is

proposed that parts 252 and 257 of 37

CFR Chapter II be amended as follows:

PART 252—FILING OF CLAIMS TO

CABLE ROYALTY FEES

1. The authority citation for part 252

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4), 801, 803.

2. Section 252.3 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 252.3 Content of claims.

(a) Single claim. A claim filed on

behalf of a single copyright owner of a

work or works secondarily transmitted

by a cable system shall include the

following information:

20962 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(1) The full legal name and address of

the copyright owner entitled to claim

the royalty fees.

(2) A general statement of the nature

of the copyright owner’s work or works,

and identification of at least one

secondary transmission by a cable

system of such work or works

establishing a basis for the claim.

(3) The name, telephone number,

facsimile number, if any, and full

address, including a specific number

and street name or rural route, of the

person or entity filing the single claim.

(4) An original signature of the

copyright owner or of a duly authorized

representative of the copyright owner.

(b) Joint claim. A claim filed on behalf

of more than one copyright owner

whose works have been secondarily

transmitted by a cable system shall

include the following information:

(1) A list including the full legal name

and address of each copyright owner to

the joint claim entitled to claim royalty

fees.

(2) A concise statement of the

authorization for the person or entity

filing the joint claim. For this purpose,

a performing rights society shall not be

required to obtain from its members or

affiliates separate authorizations, apart

from their standard membership affiliate

agreements, or to list the name of each

of its members or affiliates in the joint

claim as required by paragraph (b)(1) of

this section.

(3) A general statement of the nature

of the copyright owners’ works and

identification of at least one secondary

transmission of one of the copyright

owners’ work or works by a cable

system establishing a basis for the joint

claim and the identification of the

copyright owner of each work so

identified.

(4) The name, telephone number,

facsimile number, if any, and full

address, including a specific number

and street name or rural route, of the

person filing the joint claim.

(5) Original signatures of the

copyright owners to the joint claim or of

a duly authorized representative or

representatives of the copyright owners.

(c) In the event that the legal name

and/or address of the copyright owner

entitled to royalties or the person or

entity filing the claim changes after the

filing of the claim, the Copyright Office

shall be notified of the change. If the

good faith efforts of the Copyright Office

to contact the copyright owner or person

or entity filing the claim are frustrated

because of failure to notify the Office of

a name and/or address change, the

claim may be subject to dismissal.

PART 257—FILING OF CLAIMS TO

SATELLITE CARRIER ROYALTY FEES

3. The authority citation for part 257

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(4).

2. Section 257.3 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 257.3 Content of claims.

(a) Single claim. A claim filed on

behalf of a single copyright owner of a

work or works secondarily transmitted

by a satellite carrier shall include the

following information:

(1) The full legal name and address of

the copyright owner entitled to claim

the royalty fees.

(2) A general statement of the nature

of the copyright owner’s work or works,

and identification of at least one

secondary transmission by a satellite

carrier of such work or works

establishing a basis for the claim.

(3) The name, telephone number,

facsimile number, if any, and full

address, including a specific number

and street name or rural route, of the

person or entity filing the single claim.

(4) An original signature of the

copyright owner or of a duly authorized

representative of the copyright owner.

(b) Joint claim. A claim filed on behalf

of more than one copyright owner

whose works have been secondarily

transmitted by a satellite carrier shall

include the following information:

(1) A list including the full legal name

and address of each copyright owner to

the joint claim entitled to claim royalty

fees.

(2) A concise statement of the

authorization for the person or entity

filing the joint claim. For this purpose,

a performing rights society shall not be

required to obtain from its members or

affiliates separate authorizations, apart

from their standard membership affiliate

agreements, or to list the name of each

of its members or affiliates in the joint

claim as required by paragraph (b)(1) of

this section.

(3) A general statement of the nature

of the copyright owners’ works,

identification of at least one secondary

transmission of one of the copyright

owners’ work or works by a satellite

carrier establishing a basis for the joint

claim, and the identification of the

copyright owner of each work so

identified.

(4) The name, telephone number,

facsimile number, if any, and full

address, including a specific number

and street name or rural route, of the

person filing the joint claim.

(5) Original signatures of the

copyright owners to the joint claim or of

a duly authorized representative or

representatives of the copyright owners.

(c) In the event that the legal name

and/or address of the copyright owner

entitled to royalties or the person or

entity filing the claim changes after the

filing of the claim, the Copyright Office

shall be notified of the change. If the

good faith efforts of the Copyright Office

to contact the copyright owner or person

or entity filing the claim are frustrated

because of failure to notify the Office of

a name and/or address change, the

claim may be subject to dismissal.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

David O. Carson,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 01–10424 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH06

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: Reopening of Public

Comment Period and Notice of

Availability of Draft Economic Analysis

for Proposed Designation of Critical

Habitat for the Kootenai River

Population of White Sturgeon

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

public comment period and notice of

availability of draft economic analysis.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, announce the

availability of the draft economic

analysis for the proposed designation of

critical habitat for the Kootenai River

white sturgeon (Acipenser

transmontanus). We also provide notice

that the public comment period for the

proposal is reopened to allow all

interested parties to submit written

comments on the proposal and draft

economic analysis. Comments

previously submitted during the original

comment period need not be

resubmitted as they will be incorporated

into the public record and will be fully

considered in the final determination on

the proposal.

DATES: The original comment period

ended on February 20, 2001. The

comment period is hereby reopened

until May 29, 2001. We must receive

comments from all interested parties by

the closing date. Any comments that we

receive after the closing date will not be