Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices 12251

1At the time of passage of the Audio Home

Recording Act, the Copyright Royalty Tribunal

conducted DART distribution proceedings. The

Tribunal, however, was eliminated by the Copyright

Royalty Tribunal Reform Act of 1993, Pub.L. No.

103–198, and the authority to distribute DART

funds was given to the CARPs, as administered by

the Librarian of Congress.

applicant’s representative: Myles L.

Tobin, Illinois Central Railroad

Company, 455 North Cityfront Plaza

Drive, 20th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611.

If the notice of exemption contains

false or misleading information, the

exemption is void ab initio.

IC has filed an environmental report

which addresses the abandonment’s

effects, if any, on the environmental or

historic resources. The Commission’s

Section of Environmental Analysis

(SEA) will issue an environmental

assessment (EA) by March 10, 1995.

Interested persons may obtain a copy of

the EA by writing to SEA (Room 3219,

Interstate Commerce Commission,

Washington, DC 20423) or by calling

Elaine Kaiser at (202) 927–6248.

Comments on environmental and

historic preservation matters must be

filed within 15 days after the EA

becomes available to the public.

Environmental, historic preservation,

public use, or trail use/rail banking

conditions will be imposed, where

appropriate, in a subsequent decision.

Decided: February 24, 1995.

By the Commission, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5391 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket Nos. 32476, 32623 and

32624]

Northern Nevada Railroad

Corporation—Construction and

Operation Exemption—White Pine

County, NV; Northern Nevada Railroad

Corporation—Modified Rail

Certificate—Between McGill Junction

and Keystone, NV, and Northern

Nevada Railroad Corporation—

Modified Rail Certificate—Between

Cobre and McGill Junction, NV

The Northern Nevada Railroad

Corporation (Northern Nevada) has

petitioned the Interstate Commerce

Commission (Commission) for authority

to construct and operate a 3.13 mile rail

line in White Pine County, NV. The

Commission’s Section of Environmental

Analysis (SEA) has prepared its

Environmental Assessment (EA) which

analyzes the environmental impacts

associated with this construction project

and related operations over rail lines

between McGill Junction and Keystone,

Nevada and Cobre and McGill Junction,

Nevada. Based on the information

provided and the environmental

analysis conducted to date, this EA

concludes that this proposal should not

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment if the

recommended mitigation measures set

forth in the EA are implemented.

Accordingly, SEA preliminarily

recommends that the Commission

impose on any decision approving the

proposed construction and operation

conditions that would implement the

mitigation measures contained in the

EA.

The EA will be served on all parties

of record as well as all appropriate

Federal, state and local officials and will

be made available to the public upon

request. SEA will consider all comments

received in response to the EA in

making final environmental

recommendations to the Commission.

The Commission will then consider

SEA’s final recommendations and the

environmental record in making its final

decision in this proceeding.

Comments (an original and 10 copies)

and any questions regarding this EA

should be filed with the Commission’s

Section of Environmental Analysis,

Office of Economic and Environmental

Analysis, Room 3219, Interstate

Commerce Commission, Washington,

DC 20423, to the attention of Mr. Harold

McNulty (202) 927–6217. Requests for

copies of the EA should also be directed

to Mr. McNulty.

Date made available to the public:

March 3, 1995.

Comment due date: April 3, 1995.

By the Commission, Elaine K. Kaiser,

Chief, Section of Environmental Analysis,

Office of Economic and Environmental

Analysis.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5390 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. 95–1 CARP DD 92–94]

Ascertainment of Controversy for 1994

Digital Audio Recording Royalty Funds

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Notice with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office directs

all claimants to royalty fees collected for

Digital Audio Recording Devices and

Media (DART) for the 1992 and 1993

Musical Works Fund, and the 1994

Musical Works and Sound Recordings

Funds, to submit comments as to

whether a controversy exists as to the

distribution of these funds. The Office

also announces the deadline for filing

Notices of Intent to Participate in

royalty distribution.

DATES: Written comments due by April

15, 1995. Notices of Intent to Participate

are due May 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, an original

and five copies of written comments

and Notices of Intent to Participate

should be addressed to: Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP), PO

Box 70977, Southwest Station,

Washington, DC 20024. If delivered by

hand, copies should be brought to:

Office of the General Counsel, Copyright

Office, Room LM–407, James Madison

Memorial Building, 101 Independence

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20540. In

order to ensure prompt receipt of these

time sensitive documents, the Office

recommends that the comments and

Notices of Intent to Participate be

delivered by private messenger service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marilyn Kretsinger, Acting General

Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, PO Box

70400, Southwest Station, Washington,

DC 20024. Telephone (202)707–8380.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 28, 1992, Congress

enacted the Audio Home Recording Act.

This Act requires manufacturers and

importers to pay royalties on digital

audio recording devices and media

(DART) that are distributed in the

United States. The royalties are

deposited with the Copyright Office and

distributed by Copyright Arbitration

Royalty Panels (CARPs) 1, convened by

the Librarian of Congress, to interested

copyright parties who file claims with

the Copyright Office each year during

January and February.

The Act provides that the royalties are

to be divided into two funds—the

Sound Recordings Fund, which

accounts for 662⁄3% of the royalties, and

the Musical Works Fund, which

accounts for 331⁄3% of the royalties.

Within each fund, the Act establishes

subfunds. The Sound Recordings Fund

consists of four subfunds: the first of

these—the Nonfeatured Musicians

Subfund—is allocated 25⁄8% of the

Sound Recordings Fund, and the second

subfund—the Nonfeatured Vocalists

Subfund—gets a 13⁄8% share. After the

shares of these two subfunds are
12252 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices

subtracted, two other subfunds—the

Featured Recording Artist Subfund and

the Sound Recording Owners

Subfund—receive 40% and 60%,

respectively, of the remainder. In the

Musical Works Fund, there are two

subfunds—the Publishers Subfund and

the Writers Subfund—which each

receive 50% of that Fund. Thus, the Act

establishes the percentages for each

fund and subfund, but directs the

CARPs, through the process of a

distribution proceeding, to determine

what amount each claimant within a

subfund is entitled to receive.

Accordingly, the Act requires the

Librarian of Congress to ascertain within

30 days after the last day for filing

claims—March 30—whether there are

any controversies among the claimants

as to the proper distribution of the

royalties in their fund and/or subfund.

If there are controversies, then the

Librarian is directed immediately to

convene a CARP or CARPs to decide the

proper distribution.

II. Consolidation of Proceedings

The first proceeding to be initiated

under the new CARP system was the

distribution of the 1992 and 1993 DART

royalties. The 1992 DART distribution

proceeding was begun by the Copyright

Royalty Tribunal, but was suspended

when the Tribunal was abolished and

needed to be started anew. The 1993

DART distribution was begun by the

Copyright Office under the new

authority conferred by the Copyright

Royalty Tribunal Reform Act of 1993.

On March 1, 1994, the Office published

a notice in the Federal Register seeking

comment as to the existence of

controversies in both the 1992 and the

1993 DART funds. 59 FR 9773 (March

1, 1994). The interested copyright

parties reported that there were

controversies in the Sound Recordings

Fund and the Musical Works Fund for

both 1992 and 1993. In addition, several

of the larger claimants to both funds

requested that the Office consolidate the

1992 and the 1993 DART distribution

proceedings with the 1994 DART

distribution proceeding and defer all

consideration of DART distributions

until 1995. After seeking comment on

the request, the Office granted the

motion to consolidate. 59 FR 35762

(July 13, 1994).

Subsequent to the consolidation of

proceedings, the Copyright Office

received notification from the claimants

to the 1992 and 1993 Sound Recordings

Fund that they had reached a

settlement. On December 15, 1994, the

Office issued a distribution order

distributing all of the royalties in the

1992 and 1993 Sound Recordings Fund

to the parties designated in the

settlement agreement. Distribution

Order, Docket No. 94–2 CARP-DD

(December 15, 1994). No settlement has

been reached yet for either the 1992 or

the 1993 Musical Works Fund.

III. Request for Comments and Notices

of Intent To Participate

In accordance with the Copyright

Office’s consolidation order, 59 FR

35762, and 17 U.S.C. 1007, the Librarian

of Congress and the Copyright Office are

beginning distribution proceedings for

the 1992 (Musical Works Fund only),

1993 (Musical Works Fund only), and

1994 (both funds) DART royalties

(collectively the 1992–94 DART

proceeding) by requesting that

interested copyright parties comment as

to the existence of controversies.

Written comments are due by April 5,

1995.

To begin the distribution process for

DART royalties, the pertinent regulation

of the Copyright Office rules, 37 CFR

251.45(a), requires that:

[T]he Librarian of Congress shall, after the

time period for filing claims, publish in the

Federal Register a notice requesting each

claimant on the claimant list to negotiate

with each other a settlement of their

differences, and to comment by a date certain

as to the existence of controversies with

respect to the royalty funds described in the

notice. Such notice shall also establish a date

certain by which parties wishing to

participate in the proceeding must file with

the Librarian a Notice of Intention to

Participate.

See 59 FR 63041 (December 7, 1994).

A. Negotiating settlement. Section

251.45(a) places an affirmative duty on

all claimants to DART royalties to

contact each other and attempt to

negotiate a settlement of their

differences. The claimants to the 1992

and 1993 Sound Recordings Fund have

already negotiated a settlement and

have received a distribution of royalties.

The 1992 and 1993 Sound Recordings

Funds, therefore, are no longer a part of

this DART distribution proceeding. The

Musical Works Funds for 1992 and

1993, and the Sound Recordings Fund

and Musical Works Fund for 1994,

however, are part of this proceeding,

and claimants to these funds are subject

to the negotiation requirement of

§ 251.45(a).

The purpose of the negotiation

requirement is to make all of the

claimants within each fund aware of

each other and to encourage active

participation and open discussion

between them, thereby increasing the

possibility of settlements. The Copyright

Office has compiled a claimant list of all

interested copyright parties who timely

filed a claim or claims for the 1992 and

1993 Musical Works Fund, and 1994

Musical Works and Sound Recordings

Funds. The claimant lists are available

from the Copyright Office at the

addresses provided in this Notice, and

claimants must use these lists in

negotiating settlements with each other

and in reporting on the existence of

controversies to the royalty funds.

B. Comments as to controversies. In

order to determine whether

controversies exist for the 1992–94

DART proceeding, and consequently

whether it will be necessary to convene

a CARP or CARPs to distribute these

royalties, we are asking the claimants to

provide the Office with the following

information: (a) Whether any

controversies exist concerning

distribution of the 1992 and 1993

Musical Works Fund, and the 1994

Musical Works and Sound Recordings

Funds; (b) if controversies do exist, the

particular subfunds for which they

exist; and (c) if settlements have been

made, the identity of all of the claimants

who are covered by the settlement.

After the existence of any

controversies are determined, the Audio

Home Recording Act gives the

Copyright Office 30 days to distribute

those royalties not in controversy. In

addition to the information solicited

above, in order to determine the amount

of royalties not in controversy, we are

asking any claimants who report a

controversy to state how much is in

controversy in each subfund. The

information provided should include

each claimant’s asserted percentage or

dollar claim to the subfund, and a brief

narrative justifying that asserted claim.

C. Notices of Intent to Participate. As

prescribed by § 251.45(a), the Office is

requesting all claimants who expect to

participate in the 1992–94 DART

proceeding to file a Notice of Intent to

Participate with the Copyright Office.

See 59 FR 63041. The Notice of Intent

to Participate must be filed with the

Office by May 5, 1995. Failure of a

claimant to file a timely Notice of Intent

to Participate, or to be represented by

another claimant filing a timely notice,

may subject the claim to dismissal. The

filing of a Notice of Intent to Participate

is thus critical to a claimant being able

to present an effective claim.

IV. DART Deadline

A. DART deadline. The Audio Home

Recording Act establishes several

statutory deadlines to assure the speedy

distribution of DART royalties. Claims

are to be filed by the last day of

February, each year. The existence of

controversies is to be ascertained by

March 30. Distribution of royalties not
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Notices 12253

2The statutory requirement of declaring DART

controversies 30 days after the close of the claims

filing period is obviously a problem that will be

faced annually by the Copyright Office. To correct

for the inequities that this requirement poses, the

Office will be seeking legislative amendment of 17

U.S.C. 1007(b) in the 104th Congress by changing

the phrase ‘‘Within 30 days after the period

established for the filing of claims * * *’’ to ‘‘After

the period established for the filing of claims

* * *’’

in controversy are to be authorized for

distribution within 30 days of the

finding that they were not in

controversy—that is, no later than April

29. Prior to the passage of the Copyright

Royalty Tribunal Reform Act, the

Tribunal was given one year to resolve

any controversies in royalty distribution

after their declaration. As a result of this

one year period, the Tribunal had a

greater amount of time to address

controversies and address issues such as

discovery and collection and

presentation of evidence, and this time

period was reflected in the construction

and operation of the Tribunal’s

procedural and administrative rules.

However, with the passage of the CRT

Reform Act, the time period for

resolving controversies has been cut in

half. This time reduction, along with the

novel demands and requirements of the

CARPs, has required the Copyright

Office to adopt completely new rules

and procedures for distribution of

royalties and has, consequently, made

the meeting of certain statutory

deadlines exceedingly difficult.

Nowhere is this more evident than the

March 30 deadline for declaring DART

distribution controversies.

The Administrative Conference of the

United States has considered the issue

of how agencies should respond to

circumstances that affect their ability to

adhere to schedule, and has issued a

series of recommendations concerning

statutory time limits. 43 FR 27509 (June

26, 1978), 1 CFR 305.78–3. The

Administrative Conference said:

[I]t should be recognized that special

circumstances, such as a sudden substantial

increase in caseload, or complexity of the

issues raised in a particular proceeding, or

the presence of compelling public interest

considerations, may justify an agency’s

failure to act within a predetermined time.

An agency’s departure from the legislative

timetable should be explained in current

status reports to affected persons or in a

report to Congress.

Id. at para. 4.

The Copyright Office has already

faced the difficulties of meeting the

March 30 deadline for declaring DART

controversies and initiating arbitration.

The Office postponed the deadline for

the 1992 and 1993 DART royalties, prior

to the consolidation of these royalties

with the 1994 royalties, because it was

soon after the passage of the CRT

Reform Act and we had not yet

implemented procedural rules for the

CARPs. See 59 FR 9773. Although we

have now adopted final procedural

rules, 59 FR 63025, good cause

nonetheless remains for postponing the

statutory deadline of March 30, 1995,

for declaring controversies and

initiating arbitration for the 1992–94

DART proceeding.

An important facet of the new CARP

procedural rules adopted by the Office

are regulations creating a 45-day

precontroversy discovery period, prior

to initiating arbitration, in which

claimants are directed to exchange their

direct cases, make discovery requests,

file their objections regarding selection

of the arbitrators, and otherwise engage

in precontroversy motions practice. 37

CFR 251.45. Adoption of a

precontroversy discovery period was

strongly urged by all of the

commentators to the Office’s rulemaking

proceeding, see 59 FR 63030, and was

endorsed by Representative William

Hughes, Chairman of the House

Subcommittee on Intellectual Property

and Judicial Administration of the

House Committee on the Judiciary, in

his statement accompanying the House

version of the Copyright Royalty

Tribunal Reform Act. See 139 Cong.

Rec. H10973 (daily ed. Nov. 22,

1993)(‘‘In order to reduce the amount of

actual litigation time, and thereby

reduce expenses, I encourage the

Librarian to promulgate regulations

permitting exchange of information

before the tolling of the 180-day

decision period, and, to the extent

practicable, generally to permit

precontroversy discovery.’’).

There can be no meaningful

precontroversy discovery period under

the current requirement of beginning

DART arbitration within 30 days of

filing the claims. The 45-day

precontroversy discovery period

prescribed in § 251.45(a) could not take

place prior to March 30, since it would

overlap the period for filing claims.

Shortening the period to 30 days

beginning the first day after the filing of

claims would reduce the benefits of

precontroversy discovery enjoyed by

claimants in other proceedings and

deny DART claimants a period in which

to negotiate settlements. Exchange of

direct cases on the first day after the

close of the filing period for claims is

also impossible since the Office will not

have had sufficient time to prepare the

claimant service list, and it is highly

unlikely that most claimants will be

prepared to exchange their direct cases

immediately after the filing period.

There is, therefore, justifiable cause for

postponing the March 30, 1995, date for

determining controversies for the 1992–

94 DART funds to permit proper and

efficient operation of the Office’s

procedural rules.2

In order to assure that there is not a

lengthy delay in distribution of 1992–94

DART royalties, the Office will publish

the precontroversy discovery schedule

in the Federal Register shortly after

receipt of the comments on the

existence of controversies. In addition to

the prehearing schedule, the Office will

also announce the date on which

controversies will be declared, if any,

and arbitration will commence.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

Approved:

James H. Billington,

The Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 95–5329 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc.; Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–

2 and NPF–8 issued to Southern

Nuclear Operating Company (the

licensee) for operation of the Joseph M.

Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

located in Houston County, Alabama.

The proposed amendment would

allow modifications to relocate the

lower level steam generator water level

taps to be made during the upcoming

refueling outages for both units. These

modifications affect the Technical

Specifications associated with the

reactor trip system and the engineered

safety feature actuation system

setpoints.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the