48396 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 161 / Tuesday, August 19, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,817] 

JHP Transport LLC, Myerstown, 

Pennsylvania; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on August 5, 

2008, in response to a worker petition 

filed by a company official on behalf of 

workers at JHP Transport LLC, 

Myerstown, Pennsylvania. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 8th day of 

August 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–19183 Filed 8–18–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. RF 2008–1] 

Division of Authority Between the 

Copyright Royalty Judges and the 

Register of Copyrights under the 

Section 115 Statutory License 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Final Order. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty 

Judges, acting pursuant to statute, 

referred material questions of 

substantive law to the Register of 

Copyrights concerning the division of 

authority between the Judges and the 

Register of Copyrights under the section 

115 statutory license. Specifically, the 

Copyright Royalty Board requested a 

decision by the Register of Copyrights 

regarding whether the Judges’ authority 

to adopt terms under the section 115 

license is solely limited to late payment, 

notice of use and recordkeeping 

regulations; and if the answer is no, 

what other categories or types of terms 

may the Judges prescribe by regulation. 

The Register of Copyrights responded in 

a timely fashion by delivering a 

Memorandum Opinion to the Copyright 

Royalty Board on August 8, 2008. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Ruwe, Attorney Advisor, and 

Tanya M. Sandros, General Counsel, 

Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707–

8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Copyright Royalty and Distribution 

Reform Act of 2004, Congress amended 

Title 17 to replace the copyright 

arbitration royalty panel with the 

Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘CRJs’’). One 

of the functions of the CRJs is to make 

determinations and adjustments of 

reasonable terms and rates of royalty 

payments as provided in sections 

112(e), 114, 115, 116, 118, 119 and 1004 

of the Copyright Act. The CRJs have the 

authority to request from the Register of 

Copyrights (‘‘Register’’) an 

interpretation of any material question 

of substantive law that relates to the 

construction of provisions of Title 17 

and arises out of the course of the 

proceeding before the CRJs. See 17 

U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(A)(ii). 

On July 25, 2008, the CRJs delivered 

to the Register: (1) an Order referring 

material questions of substantive law; 

and (2) the Briefs filed with the CRJs by 

the Recording Industry Association of 

America; the Digital Media Association; 

and National Music Publishers’

Association, Inc., the Songwriters Guild 

of America, and the Nashville 

Songwriters Association International. 

The CRJs’ delivery of the request for an 

interpretation triggered the 14–day 

response period prescribed in Section 

802 of the Copyright Act. This statutory 

provision states that the Register ‘‘shall 

deliver to the Copyright Royalty Judges 

a written response within 14 days after 

the receipt of all briefs and comments 

from the participants.’’ See 17 U.S.C. 

802(f)(1)(A)(ii). The statute also requires 

that ‘‘[t]he Copyright Royalty Judges 

shall apply the legal interpretation 

embodied in the response of the Register 

of Copyrights if it is timely delivered, 

and [that] the response shall be 

included in the record that accompanies 

the final determination.’’ Id. On August 

8, 2008, the Register responded in a 

Memorandum Opinion to the CRJs that 

addressed the material questions of law. 

To provide the public with notice of the 

decision rendered by the Register, the 

Memorandum Opinion is reproduced in 

its entirety, below. 

Dated: August 12, 2008 

David O. Carson, 

Associate Register for Policy and 

International Affairs 

Before the 

U.S. Copyright Office 

Library of Congress 

Washington, D.C. 20559 

In the Matter of 

Mechanical and Digital Phonorecord 

Delivery Rate Adjustment Proceeding 

Docket No. RF 2008–1 —————————————————

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

ON MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF 

SUBSTANTIVE LAW 

I. Procedural Background 

On July 25, 2008, under the terms of 

17 U.S.C. § 802(f)(1)(A)(ii), the 

Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘CRJs’’) 

referred to the Register of Copyrights 

material questions of substantive law 

which have arisen in this proceeding. 

The Copyright Royalty Judges included 

briefs from the parties to the proceeding 

that had been submitted in February, 

2008 relating to the authority of the CRJs 

to set terms governing the section 115 

compulsory license. 

After recounting the relevant statutory 

provisions of section 115 and Chapter 8 

of Title 17, the CRJs posed the following 

questions: 

Is the Judges’ authority to adopt terms 

under the section 115 license solely 

limited to late payment, notice of use 

and recordkeeping regulations? If the 

answer is no, what other categories or 

types of terms may the Judges’ prescribe 

by regulation? 

In addition, a footnote to the referral 

indicates that the CRJs are particularly 

interested in knowing whether it is the CRJs 

or the Register that have authority to 

prescribe regulations governing categories or 

types of terms where those categories or 

types of terms are not specifically identified 

or delineated in the statute. 

As required by 17 U.S.C. 

§ 802(f)(1)(A)(ii), the Register hereby 

responds to the CRJs. 

II. Statutory Authority in Section 115 

and Chapter 8 of Title 17. 

Prior to 1995, the copyright law 

empowered the Copyright Royalty 

Tribunal and, subsequently, the 

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels 

(‘‘CARPs’’) and the Librarian of 

Congress, to set only the rates applicable 

to the section 115 license. This 

authority was modified in 1995 by the 

Digital Performance Right in Sound 

Recording Act of 1995 in which 

Congress added provisions to section 

115 for ‘‘digital phonorecord 

deliveries.’’ The CARPs became 

authorized to set ‘‘reasonable terms and 

rates of royalty payments’’ for digital 

phonorecord deliveries (‘‘DPDs’’), and 

these rates and terms were subject to 

modification by the Librarian on 

recommendation by the Register of 

Copyrights. The same legislation 

authorized the Librarian to ‘‘establish 

requirements by which copyright 

owners may receive reasonable notice of 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with NOTICES