29700 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

800–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

This rule call for no new collection of

information under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–

3520).

Federalism

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13132 and have

determined that this rule does not have

implications for federalism under that

Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those unfunded mandate

costs. This rule will not impose an

unfunded mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this rule and

concluded that under figure 2–1,

paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. A new temporary section 165.T09–

916 is added to read as follows:

§ 165.T09–916 Safety Zone; Milwaukee

River, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

(a) Location: All waters of the

Milwaukee River encompassed by the

following coordinates: from the point of

origin at 43° 02.601 N, 087° 54.831 W;

east along the State Street Bridge to 43°

02.617 N, 087° 54.766 W; south along

the east bank of the Milwaukee River to

43° 02.487 N, 087° 54.756 W; west along

the Kilbourn Street Bridge to 43° 02.506

N, 087° 54.735 W; north along the west

bank of the Milwaukee River next to

Pere Marquette Park back to the point of

origin.

(b) Effective Times and Dates. From

8:30 p.m. until 10:40 p.m. on June 1st

and 2nd, 2001.

(c) Regulations. (1) The general

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23

apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port

Milwaukee or the designated on scene

patrol personnel. Coast Guard patrol

personnel include commissioned,

warrant or petty officers of the U.S.

Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a

U.S. Coast Guard vessel via siren, radio,

flashing light, or other means, the

operator shall proceed as directed.

(3) This safety zone should not

adversely effect shipping. However,

commercial vessels may request

permission from the Captain of the Port

Milwaukee to enter or transit the safety

zone. Approval will be made on a caseby-case basis. Requests must be in

advance and approved by the Captain of

the Port Milwaukee before transits will

be authorized. The Captain of the Port

Milwaukee may be contacted via U.S.

Coast Guard Group Milwaukee on

Channel 16, VHF–FM.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

M.R. DeVries,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port, Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

[FR Doc. 01–13705 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Parts 252 and 257

[Docket No. RM 2001–3A CARP]

Cable and Satellite Statutory Licenses

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress is adopting final

regulations for filing a claim to royalties

collected under the cable statutory

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

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

the new rules, a party who files a joint

claim on behalf of multiple copyright

owners must list the name and address

of each copyright owner to the joint

claim.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel or

Tanya M. Sandros, Senior Attorney for

Compulsory Licenses, Copyright

Arbitration Royalty Panel, P.O. Box

70977, Southwest Station, Washington,

D.C. 20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380.

Telefax: (202) 252–3423.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Each July, persons who are entitled to

statutory license fees collected under

the provisions of the cable statutory

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

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

file a claim with the Copyright Office in

accordance with its regulations in order

to establish their claim to a share of the

royalty fees. See 37 CFR 252.3 and

257.3. Historically, the filing

requirements have been minimal,

requiring only the identification of the

claimant, contact information, a

statement of the nature of the claimant’s

copyrighted work, at least one example

of a secondary retransmission of the

claimant’s work during the previous

calender year, an original signature of

the claimant or a duly authorized

representative of the claimant, and, in

the case of a joint claim, a statement on

the part of the entity filing the claim

that authorization for filing the claim

exists.

On April 26, 2001, the Copyright

Office published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, seeking comment on

proposed amendments which were

offered to clarify that the identity of

each copyright owner must be listed on

each claim. 66 FR 20958 (April 26,

2001). The need for this clarification

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29701

1Both 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 identity of the common agent.

2The 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.

became apparent during a recent cable

royalty distribution proceeding, when a

party filed a claim for cable royalties in

the name of a corporate entity that held

no copyrights to programming which

had been secondarily transmitted by a

cable system during the relevant

calendar year. See Docket No. 2000–2

CARP CD 93–97. The disputed claim

was filed under the current regulations

which allow ‘‘any party’’ claiming to be

entitled to cable fees to make the claim.

During the course of that proceeding,

the Office observed that the language

‘‘any party’’ was quite broad and could

include holders of one or more

exclusive rights granted by copyright, as

well as agents and representatives of

copyright owners. See Order in Docket

No. 2000–2 CARP CD 93–97 (June 22,

2000).

Specifically, the Office found that this

language might plausibly be interpreted

by the public as allowing the filing of a

‘‘placeholder’’ claim. 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 may be 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.1

Indeed, the purpose of filing claims is

to permit identification of all copyright

owners who are entitled to a

distribution.2 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 can 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.

We wish to put an end to placeholder

claims. To this end, we proposed

amendments to parts 252 and 257 of the

rules to clarify that a claim filed with

the Copyright Office must list the name

of each copyright owner covered by the

claim; and today, we are adopting the

proposed amendments as final

regulations. In addition, the amended

rules will also require that a joint claim

specify the name of the copyright owner

for each listed copyrighted work. These

rules shall govern the filing of cable and

satellite claims beginning July 1, 2001.

Comments

The Copyright Office received

comments to its proposed rules from

seven parties: the American Society of

Composers, Authors and Publishers,

Broadcast Music, Inc., and SESAC, Inc.

(collectively, the ‘‘Performing Rights

Organizations’’); the Office of the

Commissioner of Baseball, the National

Basketball Association, the National

Football League, and the National

Hockey League (collectively, the

‘‘Professional Sports Leagues’’); the

Canadian Claimants Group; the National

Association of Broadcasters (‘‘NAB’’);

the Motion Picture Association of

America (‘‘MPAA’’); Worldwide

Subsidy Group (‘‘WSG’’); and Mark J.

Davis (‘‘Davis’’).

The commenters, in general, support

the Office’s endeavor to clarify its rules

to eliminate any opportunity for a

claimant to expand its claim after the

July 31 filing deadline. The Performing

Rights Organizations and the

Professional Sports Leagues support the

proposed modifications to §§ 252.3 and

257.3 of title 37 of the Code of Federal

Regulations without change. The

remaining five commenters agreed with

the proposed amendments but each

sought additional modifications to the

rules and/or clarification of the nature

of the problem that prompted the Office

to amend its rule.

Identification of Copyright Owners

First, the purpose of the filing

requirements is to establish each

copyright owner’s entitlement to the

cable and satellite royalties in

accordance with the provisions set forth

in the law. A fundamental requirement

is to file a claim with the Copyright

Office during the month of July for

royalties collected the prior calendar

year. No claim can be filed without

identifying the copyright owner.

Prior to the recent cable distribution

proceeding, Docket No. 2000–2 CARP

CD 93–97, we had thought the rules had

made it clear that the identity of each

copyright owner must be disclosed.

Consequently, a joint claim had to

include the name of each copyright

owner on whose behalf the claim was

made. Certain parties, e.g. the

Professional Sports Leagues and the

MPAA, who have historically

participated in these proceedings, also

understood this to be the law and saw

no ambiguity in the wording of the

rules.

But what was clear and unambiguous

to these parties and the Office was not

so obvious to new participants. In July

of 1998, the Office received a claim from

a single entity which turned out to be

an agent filing on behalf of a number of

copyright owners. Because the Office

recognized that there were arguably

ambiguities in the regulation at that

time, the Office allowed the claim and

further fact-finding was conducted by a

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel

(‘‘CARP’’) for the purpose of

establishing which copyright owners

and which programs were covered by

the initial filing.

To avoid such problems in the future,

the Office issued proposed rules for the

purpose of clarifying that each claim

must list the name of each copyright

owner on whose behalf the claim is filed

and it must do so during the time period

established by Congress.

Only WSG makes any objection to the

new rules. WSG argues that the

29702 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

3Although this rule change will resolve the

identity of the claimants eligible to seek royalties,

it does not identify which entity will ultimately

represent the interests of the claimant in a

proceeding before the Copyright Office or a CARP.

This is the case because many copyright owners

decide to engage independent counsel or an agent

to negotiate on their behalf only after they file the

initial claim. In these instances, it may not be clear

who represents whom in a distribution proceeding

until notices of intent to participate are filed with

the Office. For example, in the 1997 cable

distribution proceeding, MPAA represented the

interests of over 100 copyright owners but did not

identify itself as the agent of these claimants until

it filed its direct case on their behalf.

proposed rules ‘‘are little more than

another obstacle that could result in the

denial of valid claims.’’ WSG comment

at 4. WSG reaches this conclusion based

upon its analysis of the United States

statutory mechanism for filing claims

for retransmission royalties with

procedures used in Europe, Australia

and Asia. It concludes that the United

States system is more complex,

restrictive, time consuming and

expensive. To make its case, WSG

highlights the statutory requirement that

claims to cable and satellite royalties

must be filed with the Copyright Office

during the month of July each year. It

cites this requirement as an example of

the formalistic restrictions placed on the

copyright owners and seems to urge the

Office to impose fewer restrictions on

the claimants, such as not requiring the

identification of the copyright owner at

the time the claim is filed. Moreover,

WSG argues that the imposition of the

requirement could result in the denial of

a valid claim, especially where the agent

has secured timely and proper authority

to make the filing.

However, we fail to see how an agent

or a copyright owner is disadvantaged

because the agent is required to list the

name of each copyright owner to a joint

claim. First, the agent must know who

his clients are when he files the claim.

Second, an initial claim may be further

amended to add new copyright owners

at any time during the month of July.

Alternatively, the agent can file the

claim on the last day of the filing period

provided that the claim is either hand

delivered to the Copyright Office or it is

sent via first class mail and bears a July

date stamp from the United States Postal

Service. The only requirement is that

the claim be timely filed with the

Copyright Office and that it meet the

minimal filing requirements, including

a complete list of the copyright owners

who are covered by the claim, their

respective addresses and an example of

a secondary transmission of a work

owned by one of the listed copyright

owners. The copyright owner of this

work must be identified.

Adherence to this fundamental filing

requirement will, as MPAA points out,

simplify litigation and reduce the

associated costs. MPAA also contends

that the simple rule change will

facilitate settlement negotiations at an

earlier phase in the distribution process.

Even WSG agrees that the requirement

to list each copyright owner to a joint

claim will allow other parties a

mechanism by which they can ascertain

the extent of the claim and verify that

the party making the claim has the

necessary authority to make the filing.

The name of each copyright owner is

among the most fundamental elements

required to establish a claim to

copyright royalties and there can be no

serious challenge to a rule requiring the

identification of the party who is the

beneficiary of the claim. Thus, we are

adopting the amended rules.3

Address and Contact Information

The proposed rules also require that

a joint claim include the address for

each listed copyright owner. WSG does

not object to the additional requirement,

but it does not agree that the requested

contact information need be filed at the

same time as the initial claim. It argues

that the information may not be readily

available to the party filing the claim,

especially when a first time claimant

decides at the last minute to pursue its

entitlement. For this reason, WSG

proposes that the Office require a

subsequent filing with the address and

contact information for each claimant.

In addition, WSG suggests that this

information be submitted to the

Copyright Office under seal of a

protective order to avoid misuse of the

information.

WSG’s arguments are unavailing on

this point. Undoubtedly, most people

could benefit from more time to meet a

deadline, but the time for completing

the process is limited. Thus, it is

incumbent upon the claimant to begin

the process early enough to gather the

necessary information and submit it to

the Office in a timely manner, either in

his or her own claim or in a joint claim

filed by the copyright owner’s agent.

Moreover, there is no justification for

granting a copyright owner who chooses

to file through an agent more time to

submit the required information than

that allotted to a copyright owner who

submits a single claim in his or her own

name. Identifying the address of a

claimant is a simple matter involving

information that should be readily

available to the person filing the claim.

For this reason, the Copyright Office

rejects WSG’s suggestion that copyright

owners to a joint claim receive

additional time to meet the Office’s

filing requirements. The Office also

rejects the suggestion that the addresses

and contact information for each joint

claimant be submitted under a

protective order. The requested

information is by no means confidential.

Quite the contrary, it is the most

mundane, ordinary variety of

information that is routinely disclosed

in the ordinary course of business.

There is no justification for redacting

such information from a public record.

Program Listings

Two commenters, WSG and Davis,

seek modifications to the rules to

require claimants to identify in their

initial filing all programs for which they

are making a claim. Davis maintains that

the purpose of the claim in July is to

clearly identify the claimants who are

entitled to receive the royalty fees and

the works upon which they base their

claim. Davis argues that the

identification of all programs at the

initial stage of the distribution process

will foster an early resolution of any

outstanding controversies. He believes

that an additional requirement to list all

programs in the initial claim will not

overburden the filer because the

information is readily available from

Cable Data Corporation or readily

accessible from the claimant’s business

records.

WSG supports similar modifications

of the rules because it had difficulty

ascertaining the validity of a claimant’s

entitlement to particular programs in a

recent cable distribution proceeding. It

too believes that a rule requiring

disclosure of the programs owned or

claimed by each claimant would aid in

the just resolution of outstanding

controversies.

Davis and WSG, however, have

formed their opinions based on a single

experience in a Phase II distribution

proceeding which, by its very nature,

required the fact finders to sort out

individual claims and determine the

value of each claimant’s programming.

Lists of programs associated with

particular claimants, however, are not

needed in the early stages of the

distribution process. Historically,

parties have been able to negotiate

settlement agreements between program

categories without the aid of specific

program information. Furthermore,

parties have indicated that, in the case

of a joint claim, it is both unnecessary

and expensive to require the listing of

a single specific program for each

copyright owner listed in the claim. 59

FR 23964 (May 9, 1994).

The Office concludes that before

making a determination on these

proposals, it would be necessary to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29703

explore this issue in a separate

proceeding and provide an opportunity

for comment from other parties.

Parent/Subsidiary Claims

NAB supports the proposed rule

changes, but it seeks clarification of the

rule for filing a joint claim when the

claim is filed in the name of a parent

company on behalf of all its

subsidiaries. It notes that ‘‘group

broadcast station owners sometimes

follow the practice of filing a single

claim on behalf of their entire group of

owned stations,’’ even though the parent

company may only be the beneficial

owner and not the legal owner of the

retransmitted works. NAB comment at

2.

However, it is clear that a claim

which asserts rights to royalties on

behalf of more than a single entity is a

joint claim. Thus, the preceding

example cited by NAB must be

considered a joint claim and as such, it

must list each claimant and include a

concise statement of authorization. On

this point, NAB asserts that the practice

of reciting the relationship between the

parent and the subsidiary should be

sufficient to establish the parent entity’s

authority for filing the claim on behalf

of itself and its subsidiaries and seeks to

codify this understanding by including

additional regulatory language.

Specifically, NAB requests that the

proposed regulation be amended to state

that:

A parent corporation of a copyright owner,

or an entity controlling a copyright owner,

may establish its authorization to file jointly

on behalf of its subsidiary copyright owners

by identifying the nature of the ownership or

control relationship.

NAB comment at 3. The Office,

however, declines to codify this practice

without giving the public an

opportunity to comment on the

proposed changes.

Moreover, what is required under the

final rule is that the person or entity

filing the claim, e.g., the parent

corporation, ascertain whether it has the

authority to file the claim on behalf of

the listed joint claimants and include a

concise statement of the authorization it

has for making such claim. Of course,

this statement is merely a representation

to the Office that the authority for filing

the claim exists and its validity may be

tested at a later point in the distribution

process.

In the event the Office determines that

a parent/subsidiary claim is a joint

claim, NAB makes a second request. It

asks for a liberal amendment policy

under which the parent corporation can

amend its claim to add additional

subsidiaries not listed on the original

claim. It argues that such amendments

do not prejudice other parties because

the original claim would provide notice

to all parties of the scope and nature of

the claim. While NAB suggests that the

Office can offer such relief informally

without a change to its rules, the Office

disagrees.

The final rule requires that, with one

exception, a joint claim list each

copyright owner. The one express

exception—a longstanding one—applies

to performing rights organizations. This

exception to the requirement to list all

copyright owners exists because the

Office has recognized that the

organizations’ standard membership or

affiliate agreements are a proper

indication of authorization. Because the

proposed rule states the circumstances

under which a party need not adhere to

specific filing requirements, the Office

concludes that NAB’s proposal would

require promulgation of a similar

regulation specifically granting liberal

amendment procedures for parent

corporations. Moreover, such change is

beyond the scope of the proposal made

in the current rulemaking proceeding,

and other parties have not had the

opportunity to comment on it. Thus, at

this time the Office cannot entertain the

NAB proposal.

Authorization

The Canadian Claimant Group files a

joint claim annually and ‘‘supports [the

Office’s] efforts to insure the integrity

and transparency of the claims process.’’

Canadian Claimant Group comment at

2. However, it has asked the Office to

amend its rules further and make

written authorizations available for

inspection by other copyright owners

upon request. This suggestion goes

beyond the scope of the Office’s

proposal made in the current

rulemaking proceeding, and the Office

is not prepared to make such a change

without giving other interested parties

an opportunity to comment on the

efficiencies and burdens associated with

the additional requirement.

Statutory Authority

The Library of Congress is adopting

final regulations 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) and 119(b)(4)(A).

List of Subjects

37 CFR Part 252

Copyright, cable television, claims.

37 CFR Part 257

Copyright, satellite television, claims.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Library is amending parts

252 and 257 of 37 CFR Chapter II 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:

(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’ 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

29704 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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).

4. 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’ 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: May 25, 2001.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

James H. Billington,

The Librarian of Congress.

[FR Doc. 01–13787 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 20

International Recorded Delivery

Service

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is adopting

a new fee for international recorded

delivery service.

DATES: The rule is effective on July 1,

2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

A. Reynolds 703–292–3620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 8, 2000, the Postal Service

published a final rule in the Federal

Register (65 FR 77075) adopting

changes in international postal rates,

fees, and mail classifications. The rule

was effective on January 7, 2001. At that

time, the Postal Service noted that

certain international special service fees

were based on the domestic equivalent

service and were subject to change

based on the Board of Governors’

decision about domestic mail.

Recorded delivery service is an

international special service that is

equivalent to the domestic service,

certified mail. Mailers using the service

receive a numbered mailing receipt and

the destination post office retains a

record to establish proof of delivery for

each mailed item. Recorded delivery

items are handled as ordinary mail

during transit. The fee for recorded

delivery is based on the fee for the

equivalent domestic service, certified

mail.

The Postal Rate Commission, in its

recommended decision on R2000–1,

recommended a fee of $1.90 for certified

mail. The Postal Service adopted this

fee, under protest, for certified mail.

Likewise, we set the fee for recorded

delivery at $1.90.

On May 7, 2001, the Board of

Governors adopted a fee of $2.10 for

certified mail; the new rate is effective

on July 1, 2001. Accordingly, we are

changing the fee for recorded delivery

service to $2.10 effective July 1, 2001.

The Postal Service adopts the

following amendments to the

International Mail Manual (IMM),

which is incorporated by reference in

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

(See 39 CFR 20.1.)

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20

Foreign relations.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Postal Service amends 39

CFR Part 20 as follows:

PART 20—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 20

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401,

404, 407, 408.

2. Amend subchapter 360 of the

International Mail Manual (IMM) by

revising section 363 to read as follows:

International Mail Manual (IMM)

* * * * *

Chapter 3 Special Services

* * * * *

360 Recorded Delivery

* * * * *