Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules 20199

video programming provider making use of a

common carrier video platform from being treated

as an operator of a cable system for purposes of

section 111 of title 17, United States Code.’’

6 During the legislative process of the

Telecommunications Act, proposals were

considered to specifically address telephone

company eligibility for 17 U.S.C. 111. Such

amendments, however, were not included in the

Telecommunications Act.

Recent Filings

Although telephone entry into the

cable business was under consideration

at the FCC for some time before

enactment of the Telecommunications

Act, the Copyright Office has not

considered such entry in terms of the

cable compulsory license.6 As noted

above, through agency interpretation

and legislative amendment, the section

111 license is available to traditional

wired cable systems, wireless cable

systems, and SMATV systems. The

Office now must consider the eligibility

of open video systems.

For the second accounting period of

1995, the Copyright Office has received

statements of account and royalty filings

from three systems identifying

themselves as video dialtone operators.

Interface Communications Group, Inc.

identifies itself as a ‘‘video dialtone

system being conducted by U.S. West

Communications, Inc. in Omaha,

Nebraska.’’ California Standard

Television Corp. identifies itself as a

video dialtone programmer whose

‘‘physical facilities’’ are owned by

Pacific Bell. And Anchor Pacific Corp.

also identifies itself as a video dialtone

programmer whose ‘‘physical facilities’’

are owned by Pacific Bell.

These three filings represent the first

claims of eligibility under 17 U.S.C. 111

by an open video system (formerly

known as video dialtone). The Office

expects that the number of filings for

future accounting periods will increase,

particularly in light of the

Telecommunications Act. We, therefore,

feel that now is an appropriate time to

open a rulemaking proceeding to

consider the eligibility issue.

Request for Comments

The threshold issue in this

rulemaking proceeding is whether open

video systems are cable systems within

the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 111. The

initial filings we have received appear

to be from independent program

providers leasing access on an open

video system created by a telephone

company. The Telecommunications Act

now allows telephone companies to act

as program providers as well. We solicit

comment on whether both independent

program providers and telephone

companies should be eligible for section

111 and, if so, under what

circumstances. We also seek comment

as to whether a telephone company

providing an open video system, and

not itself engaged in retransmitting

broadcast programming, is eligible for

the passive carrier exemption of section

111(a)(3), and under what

circumstances.

In addressing the threshold eligibility

issue, we request that the commentators

direct their responses to a consideration

of 17 U.S.C. 111 as a whole, as opposed

to solely the section 111(f) definition of

a ‘‘cable system.’’ In the wireless/

SMATV/satellite carrier rulemaking

proceeding some commentators focused

on the section 111(f) definition, and did

not discuss how the rest of section 111

might or might not apply to a particular

system. The Office stated in the 1992

final rules that section 111 must be

interpreted as a whole in determining

whether a particular retransmission

provider is eligible for compulsory

licensing. See 57 FR 3292 (1992)

(‘‘[E]ach part of a section should be

construed in connection with every

other part or section so as to produce a

harmonious whole. Thus, it is not

proper to confine interpretation to the

one section to be construed,’’ citing 2A

Sutherland, Stat. Const. 46.05 (5th ed.

1992)). Consequently, we direct the

commentators’ attention to the

particular applicability of all 17 U.S.C.

111 provisions, particularly the royalty

calculation scheme. In particular, we are

interested in how the 1976 distant

signal carriage and syndicated

exclusivity rules might or might not be

applicable to open video systems. We

are also interested in how an open video

system would apply the 1976 mustcarry rules, plus ADI, to determine

local/distant status, particularly where

there is not an established traditional

wired cable system operating in the

same service area as the open video

system. And, we are interested in

knowing how the ‘‘contiguous

communities’’ provision of the section

111(f) cable definition might or might

not apply to open video systems.

Aside from the threshold eligibility

question, the Office directs the

commentators to practical questions

arising from the filing of statements of

account and payment of royalty fees.

Thus, we request commentators favoring

17 U.S.C. 111 eligibility of open video

systems to detail what changes, if any,

are required in the Copyright Office

statement of account forms to

accommodate open video system filings.

We are especially interested in a

detailed analysis of how an open video

system would calculate its gross

receipts, and what fees and charges

would be included. We also seek

comment as to whether the statement of

account form should require all filers to

identify what type of cable system they

are (SMATV, wireless, traditional wired,

etc.). Finally, we seek comment as to

how current Office policies and

practices, such as application of the

3.75% rate, non-allocation among

subscriber groups, and the

grandfathering of broadcast signals

would apply.

In directing interested parties’

attention to the above-identified issues,

we do not wish to limit the scope or

focus of the comments in any way. We

therefore welcome all comments

regarding application of 17 U.S.C. 111 to

open video systems.

Dated: May 1, 1996.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

Approved by:

James H. Billington,

The Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 96–11226 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 162–2–0002b; FRL–5466–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District, Santa Barbara County

Air Pollution Control District, South

Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

aerospace assembly and component

manufacturing operations, motor

vehicle and mobile equipment coating

operations, crude oil production and

separation, and storage of reactive

organic compound liquids (ROC).

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

In the Final Rules Section of this

Federal Register, the EPA is approving

the state’s SIP revision as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial
20200 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for this 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. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this document. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by June 5,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Daniel A.

Meer, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 92123–1095.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1999

Tuolumne Street, Suite #200, Fresno,

CA 93721.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District, 26 Castilian Drive, B–

23, Goleta, CA 93117.

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen Liu, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3),

Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, Telephone:

(415) 744–1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns the following rules

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

Rule 4602—Motor Vehicle and Mobile

Equipment Coating Operations, Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District (SBCAPCD) Rule 325—Crude

Oil Production and Separation,

SBCAPCD Rule 326—Storage of

Reactive Organic Compound Liquids,

and South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) Rule

1124—Aerospace Assembly and

Component Manufacturing Operations.

California Air Resources Board

submitted the rules to EPA on the

following dates: October 13, 1995,

March 29, 1994, March 29, 1994, and

February 24, 1995, respectively. For

further information, please see the

information provided in the Direct Final

action which is located in the Rules

Section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 18, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11206 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 52

[OH93–1–7290b; FRL–5467–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the Particulate Matter contingency

measures State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of

Ohio on July 17, 1995. This submittal

addresses the Federal Clean Air Act

requirement to submit contingency

measures for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM) for

the areas designated as nonattainment

for the PM National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Contingency measures are emission

reductions which are to be

implemented, with no further action, in

the event that an area fails to meet air

quality standards. In the final rules

section of this Federal Register, the EPA

is approving this action as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because

EPA views this as a noncontroversial

action 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 that direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed 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 the proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this document should

do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before June 5,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State submittal and

EPA’s analysis of it are available for

inspection at: Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Pohlman, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, (312) 886–3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule published in the rules section

of this Federal Register.

Dated: April 19, 1996.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11201 Filed 5–03–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[UT18–1–6778b; FRL–5500–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;

Emission Statement Regulation, Ozone

Nonattainment Area Designation,

Definitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of

the revision to the Utah State

Implementation Plan (SIP) that was

submitted by the Governor of Utah on

November 12, 1993, for the purpose of

implementing an emission statement

program for stationary sources within

the Salt Lake and Davis Counties (SLDC)

ozone nonattainment area. The emission

statement inventory regulation, Utah Air