Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 1998 / Notices 20433

marketplace value. If arbitrations are

surrogates for marketplace value at all,

it is only because they become

necessary where the market has failed—

i.e. the buyer and seller are unable to

negotiate the compensation paid. BMI’s

distribution methodology represents a

consensus approach endorsed by

thousands of BMI’s songwriter and

music publisher members. While there

are undoubtably disgruntled BMI

members who feel, like Cannings, that

the compensation paid is too low, this

is not conclusive evidence that BMI’s

distribution methodology is not

probative evidence of the market value

of cable retransmissions of musical

works. The Panel was well within its

discretion to credit BMI’s distribution

methodology and adopt its approach.

With respect to Cannings’ allegations

of racial bias and discrimination,

Cannings has offered no evidence in

support of these contentions, and the

Register cannot find any evidence in the

record suggesting bias or discriminatory

action. Cannings’ charge of ‘‘impetuous’’

behavior on the part of the Chairman of

the Panel towards him during the prehearing conference neither proves nor

suggests improper behavior, and there is

no supportable reason for overturning

the decision of the Panel on these

grounds. If anything, the Panel was

exceedingly flexible and

accommodating in allowing Cannings to

make his case in this proceeding.

In summary, the Register determines

that the Panel did not act arbitrarily or

contrary to the Copyright Act in valuing

Cannings’ Phase II claim at $63.74, and

recommends that the Librarian adopt

this determination.

2. Interest on Cannings’ Award

Cannings requested that he be

awarded interest on his claim,

calculated from deposit of the 1991

cable royalties. Music Claimants assert

that Cannings is not entitled to interest.

The Panel did not award interest

because it could not find any Copyright

Royalty Tribunal precedent for doing so,

and it could not find any ‘‘supportable

method to award or compute interest.’’

Panel Report at 21.

The Register determines that it was

reasonable for the Panel not to award

Cannings interest on his claim. Under

Tribunal precedent, copyright owners

were not entitled to a distribution of

royalties, or any interest that had

accrued on those royalties, until the

Tribunal affirmatively determined their

entitlement. See 50 FR 6028 (February

13, 1985) (1979–82 cable distribution)

(Tribunal not ‘‘responsible for time

value lost on an allocation which had

not yet been determined’’); 53 FR 7132

(March 4, 1988) (1985 Phase II cable

distribution) (no interest given on dollar

award to Asociacion de Compositores y

Editores de Musica Latinoamericana).

Consequently, there are no established

grounds or methodology for awarding

interest. Because there is no

requirement that the Panel assess

interest in this proceeding, the Register

cannot conclude that the Panel acted

arbitrarily or contrary to the Copyright

Act by not awarding Cannings interest

on his claim.

3. Award to Cannings

By Order dated August 3, 1995, the

Copyright Office distributed the full

amount of the music category’s Phase I

entitlement (4.5% of the total 1991 cable

royalties) to the Music Claimants. Order

in Docket No. 94–3 CARP CD 90–92). As

a result, there were no funds retained to

satisfy any Phase II award against the

Music Claimants’ royalties. However,

the Order required reimbursement

should an overpayment of royalties

occur. The Music Claimants were

overpaid $63.74, the amount of

Cannings’ award. The Register

recommends that, in affirming the

Panel’s award, the Librarian order

Music Claimants to pay Cannings

$63.74 in satisfaction of his claim.

V. Order of the Librarian

Having duly considered the

recommendation of the Register of

Copyrights regarding the Report of the

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel in

the matter of the Phase II controversy for

the distribution of 1991 cable royalty

fees, 17 U.S.C. 111, the Librarian of

Congress fully endorses and adopts her

recommendation to accept the Panel’s

determination. The Librarian also

dismisses the ‘‘supplemental reply’’ of

BMI as untimely.

The Librarian orders that Music

Claimants submit payment to James

Cannings in the amount of $63.74, no

later than May 15, 1998.

Dated: April 20, 1998.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

Approved by:

James H. Billington,

The Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 98–10923 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice: (98–057]

Proposed Information Collection

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of agency report forms

under OMB review.

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, as part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

and respondent burden, invites the

general public and other Federal

agencies to take this opportunity to

comment on proposed and/or

continuing information collections, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)). The reports will be

utilized by the Office of Small and

Disadvantaged Business Utilization as a

method for determining if

developmental assistance provided to

small disadvantaged businesses by

prime contractor’s performance meets

the standards established in NASA

policy. The Agency’s ability to manage

the program effectively would be greatly

diminished without receiving the

described reports, which are part of the

ongoing performance fee evaluation

process.

DATES: All comments should be

submitted on or before June 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Mr. Richard Kall, Code HK,

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Washington, DC 20546–

0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Carmela Simonson, NASA Reports

Officer, (202) 358–1223.

Title: Small Business and Small

Disadvantaged Business Concerns and

Related Contract Provisions NASA FAR

Supplement Part 18–19, SF 295.

OMB Number: 2700–0073.

Type of review: Extension.

Need and Uses: NASA requires

reporting of small disadvantaged

business subcontract awards in order to

meet its Congressionally mandated

goals.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit

institutions.

Number of Respondents: 225.

Responses Per Respondents: 2.

Annual Responses: 450.

Hours Per Request: 13.

Annual Burden Hours: 5,850.

Frequency of Report: Biannually.

Eva L. Layne,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–10949 Filed 4–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M