Notice of Information Collection, 13310-13311 [2010-5997]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
13310
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
witness in a proceeding to determine
royalty rates to appear and give
testimony or to produce and permit
inspection of documents or tangible
things.’’ 150 Cong. Rec. S10499 (daily
ed. October 6, 2004) (Emphasis added).
The final sentence of the relevant
subparagraph also stated that ‘‘A
Copyright Royalty Judge may not issue
a subpoena under this clause to any
person who was a participant in a
proceeding to determine royalty rates
and has negotiated a settlement with
respect to those rates.’’ Id. However,
these two limitations on the CRJs’
subpoena power were amended on the
Senate floor. The floor amendment
removed the above–referenced final
sentence of the relevant subparagraph,
which would have prevented the CRJs
from issuing a subpoena to any person
who had been a participant in a
proceeding to determine royalty rates
and had negotiated a settlement. The
floor amendment also removed any
indication that a ‘‘witness’’ must be one
‘‘in a proceeding to determine royalty
rates.’’ 150 Cong. Rec. S10590 (daily ed.
October 6, 2004). The fact that these two
restrictions, which are closely analogous
to the one SoundExchange currently
argues for, were not included in the
statute as enacted indicates that
Congress did not intend such
limitations to be placed on the CRJs’
subpoena power.
The cases cited by SoundExchange
are also inapplicable to the current
inquiry. Bobreski v. E.P.A, 284 F.
Supp.2d 67 (D.D.C. 2003) addressed a
statute that specifically withheld any
grant of subpoena authority; United
States v. Iannone, 610 F.2d 943 (D.C.
Cir. 1979) spoke solely to the authority
to subpoena the attendance and
testimony of a witness, versus the mere
authority to subpoena documentary
information; and Peters v. United States,
853 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1988) addressed
limitations on an administrative
agency’s ability to issue a very unique
type of subpoena often referred to as
‘‘‘John Doe’ subpoenas’’ which are
directed in a blanket manner at
unidentified targets. The court observed
that such subpoenas, which are not at
issue here, carry heightened privacy
concerns and it was therefore ‘‘reluctant
to assume the existence of the power to
issue third–party subpoenas directed at
unidentified targets where Congress has
not provided for them specifically, nor
provided procedural safeguards.’’ 853
F.2d 696.
Additionally, the CRJs’ regulations
cited by the parties are not instructive
in answering the referred question. The
question presented to the Register is the
breadth of the CRJs’ statutory authority
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
to issue subpoenas. In answering that
question, the statutory language, as well
as the relevant legislative history and
case law, provide the appropriate
authority. Any limitation adopted
through regulation by the CRJs regarding
their ability to issue subpoenas during
the discovery process prior to the
consideration of the underlying
statutory question cannot inform the
Register’s determination as to the scope
of the CRJs’ subpoena power under the
statute.
Finally, Live355 argues in its reply
brief that the CRJs would not need the
subpoena power provided in the statute
if it extended only to participants and
witnesses identified in a party’s direct
case. It maintains that the subpoena
power would be effectively meaningless
under this interpretation since other
statutory provisions allow the CRJs to
compel testimony from parties and their
witnesses, citing 17 U.S.C.
803(b)(6)(C)(v)–(vii). That observation is
persuasive. The CRJs can order a
participant to provide additional
documentation or testimony under their
authority to conduct the rate setting
proceeding. They do not need subpoena
power to compel compliance from a
participant. The participant can comply
with the order or, should it or its
witnesses fail to do so, the CRJs can
strike the affected portion of the
participant’s testimony. This option is a
powerful enforcement mechanism but it
only can work with participants and
witnesses that voluntarily appear before
the CRJs. Subpoena power, on the other
hand, allows the CRJs to reach
nonparticipants who are not part of the
proceeding and it provides the CRJs
with tools to compel compliance from
persons who are not initially part of the
proceedings. While it is true that, as
SoundExchange points out, the statutory
authority to issue subpoenas is silent
with regard to enforcement, that is
irrelevant to the inquiry at hand. It is
not uncommon for Congress to grant
subpoena authority in a statute that
contains no stated enforcement
mechanism. Where Congress grants
subpoena authority in a statute that
contains no stated enforcement
mechanism, enforcement is achieved
through a U.S. district court, and may be
sought through the assistance of the
United States Attorney’s office. Office of
Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice,
Report to Congress on the Use of
Administrative Subpoena Authorities by
Executive Branch Agencies and Entities,
Pursuant to Public Law 106–544, at 9–
10 (2002), (available at https://
www.usdoj.gov/archive/index–
olp.html).
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
For the above–stated reasons, the
Register concludes that the CRJs do have
the authority to subpoena a witness to
appear and give testimony or to produce
and permit inspection of documents or
tangible things even when that witness
is not a participant in the proceeding
and his or her testimony has not yet
been submitted in the proceeding. This
authority is restricted to instances
where the resolution of the proceeding
would be substantially impaired by the
absence of such testimony or production
of documents or tangible things.
Additionally, Congress expressly
preserved the CRJs’ power to request
information from nonparticipants in
certain cases when the CRJs do not have
the power to issue subpoenas. This
power to request information may be
invoked in those instances where such
testimony is relevant to the resolution of
a material issue of fact, even when its
absence would not substantially impair
the resolution of the proceeding (and,
therefore, a subpoena could not be
issued). The CRJs have not asked for any
determination regarding what may
constitute either substantial impairment
of resolution of the proceeding or
relevance to the resolution of a material
issue of fact, and therefore no guidance
is offered on those questions. It is,
however, pertinent to observe that while
the statute grants the CRJs the authority
to issue subpoenas in certain
circumstances, it does not compel them
to issue subpoenas in any circumstance.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that even
under the broader grant of subpoena
power in the provision initially
introduced in the House, Congress
stated that it ‘‘does not anticipate that
the use of subpoena power will become
a common occurrence’’ and that ‘‘[t]he
CRJs are expected to exercise this power
judiciously and only in those instances
where they believe a subpoena is
necessary to obtain information that the
parties have not provided and that the
judges deem necessary to make their
decision.’’ H.R. Rep. No. 108–408, at 33
(2004).
February 22, 2010
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2010–5806 Filed 3–18–04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–S
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[NOTICE 10–027]
Notice of Information Collection
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 53 / Friday, March 19, 2010 / Notices
ACTION:
Notice of information collection.
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)).
DATES: All comments should be
submitted within 60 calendar days from
the date of this publication.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be
addressed to Brenda Maxwell, Mail
Code JF000, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Washington, DC
20546–0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument(s) and instructions should
be directed to Brenda Maxwell, NASA
PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E
Street, SW., Mail Code JF000,
Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–4616,
Brenda.Maxwell@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
Information collection is required to
evaluate bids and proposals from
offerors to award contracts for required
goods and services in support of
NASA’s mission.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
II. Method of Collection
NASA collects this information
electronically where feasible, but
information may also be collected by
mail or fax.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of NASA, including
14:14 Mar 18, 2010
Jkt 220001
Brenda Maxwell,
NASA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–5997 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 10–029]
Notice of Information Collection
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION:
Notice of information collection.
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)).
DATES: All comments should be
submitted within 60 calendar days from
the date of this publication.
III. Data
Title: NASA acquisition process, bids
and proposals for contracts with an
estimated value more than $500,000.
OMB Number: 2700–0085.
Type of review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions; and
State, Local or Tribal Government.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,148.
Estimated Annual Responses: 1,148.
Estimated Time per Response: 600
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 688,800.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
whether the information collected has
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
NASA’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including automated
collection techniques or the use of other
forms of information technology.
All comments should be
addressed to Brenda Maxwell, Mail
Code JF000, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Washington, DC
20546–0001.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument(s) and instructions should
be directed to Brenda Maxwell, NASA
PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E
Street, SW., Mail Code JF000,
Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–4616,
Brenda.Maxwell@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
Information collection is required to
evaluate bids and proposals from
offerors to award contracts with an
estimated value less than $500,000 for
required goods and services in support
of NASA’s mission.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13311
II. Method of Collection
NASA collects this information
electronically where feasible, but
information may also be collected by
mail or fax.
III. Data
Title: NASA acquisition process, bids
and proposals for contracts with an
estimated value less than $500,000.
OMB Number: 2700–0087.
Type of review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions; and
State, Local or Tribal Government.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
3,772.
Estimated Annual Responses: 3,772.
Estimated Time per Response: 325
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 1,225,900.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of NASA, including
whether the information collected has
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
NASA’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including automated
collection techniques or the use of other
forms of information technology.
Brenda Maxwell,
NASA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–5999 Filed 3–18–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 10–30]
Notice of Information Collection
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Notice of information collection
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)).
E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM
19MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 53 (Friday, March 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13310-13311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5997]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[NOTICE 10-027]
Notice of Information Collection
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
[[Page 13311]]
ACTION: Notice of information collection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)).
DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from
the date of this publication.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Brenda Maxwell, Mail
Code JF000, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington,
DC 20546-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions
should be directed to Brenda Maxwell, NASA PRA Officer, NASA
Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., Mail Code JF000, Washington, DC 20546,
(202) 358-4616, Brenda.Maxwell@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
Information collection is required to evaluate bids and proposals
from offerors to award contracts for required goods and services in
support of NASA's mission.
II. Method of Collection
NASA collects this information electronically where feasible, but
information may also be collected by mail or fax.
III. Data
Title: NASA acquisition process, bids and proposals for contracts
with an estimated value more than $500,000.
OMB Number: 2700-0085.
Type of review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit
institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Government.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,148.
Estimated Annual Responses: 1,148.
Estimated Time per Response: 600 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 688,800.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
NASA, including whether the information collected has practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including
hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including automated collection techniques
or the use of other forms of information technology.
Brenda Maxwell,
NASA PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-5997 Filed 3-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
