Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 15391 

1By contrast, the regulations provide 

accommodations for certain harmless errors. 37 CFR 

201.10(e)(1)–(2). 

2 If a document is submitted as a notice of 

termination after the statutory deadline has expired, 

the Office will offer to record the document as a 

‘‘document pertaining to copyright’’ pursuant to 

§ 201.4(c)(3), but the Office will not index the 

document as a notice of termination. Whether a 

document so recorded is sufficient in any instance 

to effect termination as a matter of law shall be 

determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

for grants made in 1978 will begin to 

expire next year. 

Termination provisions provide 

authors with a long-term insurance 

policy on the value of their copyrights. 

The House Report accompanying the 

1976 Copyright Act states that the 

provisions are ‘‘needed because of the 

unequal bargaining position of authors, 

resulting in part from the impossibility 

of determining a work’s value until it 

has been exploited.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 94– 

1476, at 124 (1976). Termination rights 

are put in motion by serving notice on 

the grantee. The notice must state the 

effective date of the termination and 

must be served on the grantee not less 

than two or more than ten years before 

that date. 17 U.S.C. 304(c)(4)(A); 

304(d)(1); 203(a)(4)(A). The Register of 

Copyrights, through regulations, has set 

forth additional core elements that must 

be included in the notice, among them 

a statement as to whether termination is 

being made under section 304(c), 304(d) 

or 203. 37 CFR 201.10(b)(1)(i) and 

(b)(2)(ii). 

Section 304 (c) governs older works, 

specifically works in which a copyright 

was subsisting in its first or renewal 

term as of January 1, 1978. It provides 

for termination of the exclusive or 

nonexclusive grant of a transfer or 

license of the renewal copyright (or any 

right under it) executed before January 

1, 1978. Termination may be exercised 

at any time during a five-year period 

beginning at the end of fifty-six years 

from the date copyright was originally 

secured. Section 304(d) governs a 

smaller subset of pre-78 works for 

which the termination right under 

section 304(c) expired (and was not 

exercised) on or before the effective date 

(October 27, 1998) of the ‘‘Sonny Bono 

Copyright Term Extension Act,’’ which 

extended copyright terms by 20 years. It 

provides for termination of the 

exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a 

transfer or license of the renewal 

copyright (or any right under it) at any 

time during a five-year period beginning 

at the end of 75 years from the date 

copyright was originally secured. 

Section 203 governs grants made 

under the ‘‘new law.’’ It provides for 

termination of the exclusive or 

nonexclusive grant of copyright (or any 

right under copyright) executed on or 

after January 1, 1978 (regardless of 

whether the copyright was secured prior 

to or after 1978). Termination may be 

exercised at any time during a period of 

five years beginning at the end of thirtyfive years from the date of publication 

of the work under the grant or at the end 

of forty years from the date of execution 

of the grant, whichever is earlier. Unlike 

section 304, the termination right in 

section 203 applies only to grants 

executed by authors. Section 203 

terminations may be exercised as of 

January 1, 2013, provided notice has 

been served no less than two years 

prior. 

Once the notice is served, a copy of 

the notice must be recorded with the 

Copyright Office prior to the effective 

date of termination. 17 U.S.C. 

304(c)(4)(A); 304(d)(1); 203(a)(4)(A). 

Upon receipt of the notice, the 

Copyright Office undertakes a review of 

certain facts, including whether the 

notice has been executed in a timely 

manner. Because lateness is a fatal 

mistake 1 under the law, the Office 

reserves the right to refuse recordation 

of a notice of termination if, in the 

judgment of the Office, such notice of 

termination is untimely.2 37 CFR 

201.10(f)(4). 

Subject of Inquiry 

The Copyright Office seeks comment 

on the question of whether and how 

Title 17 provides a termination right to 

authors (and other persons specified by 

statute) when the grant was made prior 

to 1978 and the work was created on or 

after January 1, 1978. For purposes of 

illustration, please note the following 

examples: 

Example 1: A composer signed an 

agreement with a music publisher in 1977 

transferring the copyrights to future musical 

compositions pursuant to a negotiated fee 

schedule. She created numerous 

compositions under the agreement between 

1978 and 1983, some of which were 

subsequently published by the publishertransferee. Several of these achieved 

immediate popular success and have been 

economically viable ever since. The original 

contract has not been amended or 

superseded. 

Example 2: A writer signed an agreement 

with a book publisher in 1977 to deliver a 

work of nonfiction. The work was completed 

and delivered on time in 1979 and was 

published in 1980. The book’s initial print 

run sold out slowly, but because the author’s 

subsequent works were critically acclaimed, 

it was released with an updated cover last 

year and is now a best seller. The rights 

remained with the publisher all along and 

the original royalty structure continues to 

apply. 

Questions 

In order to better understand the 

application of sections 304(c), 304(d) 

and 203 to the grants of transfers and 

licenses discussed above, the Copyright 

Office seeks comments as follows: 

A. Experience. Please describe any 

experience you have in exercising or 

negotiating termination rights for pre1978 grants of transfers or licenses for 

works that were created on or after 

January 1, 1978. 

B. Interpretation. Are the grants of 

transfers or licenses discussed above 

terminable under Title 17 as currently 

codified? If so, under which provision? 

What is the basis for your 

determination? Are there state or federal 

laws other than copyright that are 

relevant? Is delivery of the work by the 

grantor to the grantee relevant to the 

question of termination? Is publication 

relevant? 

C. Recommendations. Do you have 

any recommendations with respect to 

the grants of transfers or licenses 

illustrated above? 

D. Other Issues. Are there other issues 

with respect to the application or 

exercise of termination provisions that 

you would like to bring to our attention 

for future consideration? 

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6936 Filed 3–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0526; FRL–9130–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revision to Control Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions in the Houston/ 

Galveston/Brazoria 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to approve a 

revision to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision 

adds additional requirements to control 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from storage tanks, transport 

vessels and marine vessels in the 

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGB) 1997 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area, which 

consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort 

Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
15392 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Montgomery and Waller counties. 

Specifically, this revision subjects 

owners or operators of VOC storage 

tanks, transport vessels, and marine 

vessels located in the HGB 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area to more 

stringent control, monitoring, and 

recordkeeping requirements. EPA 

proposes to approve the SIP revision 

because it will help lower ozone levels 

in the HGB area by reducing VOC 

emissions. EPA proposes to approve the 

revision pursuant to section 110 and 

part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

214–665–6645; fax number 214–665– 

7263; e-mail address 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as noncontroversial submittal 

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 action no further 

activity is contemplated. 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. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: March 12, 2010. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6794 Filed 3–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 25 

[IB Docket No. 06–154; FCC 10–21] 

Satellite License Procedures 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (Notice), the Commission 

invites comment on several revisions to 

its satellite and earth station licensing 

rules. The intended purpose of this 

proceeding is to clarify and update 

satellite and earth station licensing 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

April 28, 2010. Reply comments are due 

on or before May 13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by IB Docket No. 06–154, by 

any of the following methods: 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th Street, SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

• People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) or 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). Contact the FCC to 

request reasonable accommodations for 

filing comments (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail at: 

FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: 202–418–0530 

or TTY: 202–418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Bell, Satellite Division, 

International Bureau, (202) 418–0741. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, adopted January 

21, 2010 and released January 26, 2010. 

The full text of this Commission 

decision is available for inspection and 

copying during normal business hours 

in the FCC Public Reference Room, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this decision may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. It is 

also available on the Commission’s Web 

site at http://www.fcc.gov. 

Comments may be filed using the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper 

copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

(63 FR 2421 (May 1, 1998)). Comments 

filed through the ECFS can be sent as an 

electronic file via the Internet to 

http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. 

Generally, only one copy of an 

electronic submission must be filed. If 

multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 

appear in the caption of this proceeding, 

however, commenters must transmit 

one electronic copy of the comments to 

each docket or rulemaking number 

referenced in the caption. In completing 

the transmittal screen, commenters 

should include their full name, Postal 

Service mailing address, and the 

applicable docket or rulemaking 

number. Parties may also submit an 

electronic comment by Internet e-mail. 

To get filing instructions for e-mail 

comments, commenters should send an 

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should 

include the following words in the body 

of the message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail 

address>.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in reply. 

Parties who choose to file by paper 

must file an original and four copies of 

each filing. If more than one docket or 

rulemaking number appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, commenters 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: The Notice 

does not contain any proposed new or 

modified information collection(s). 

Summary of Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking: In the Notice, the 

Commission proposes a number of 

revisions to part 25 to eliminate 

provisions that are no longer needed. 

For example, it proposes to amend 

section 25.201, which defines technical 

terms for purposes of part 25, by 

deleting definitions of terms that do not 

appear anywhere else in part 25. It also 

proposes to amend several rule 

provisions in order to eliminate 

redundant or superfluous text. In 

addition to eliminating rules that are no 

longer needed, the Commission seeks to 

clarify a number of provisions in part 25 

to make those requirements easier for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS