Distribution of Cable and Satellite Royalty Funds, 78252-78253 [2015-31629]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
78252
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Notices
address the Committee. If more than 10
requests are received, we will select a
representative sample to speak and the
remainder will be permitted to file
written statements. Individuals with
disabilities who need accommodations
should also contact Mr. Berthiaume at
the email address or phone number
above.
Organizations or members of the
public wishing to submit a written
statement may do so by submitting their
statement on or before January 8, 2016,
to www.acicieid.org/comments. Written
statements, with nine copies, may also
be submitted to Mr. Berthiaume,
Advisory Committee on Increasing
Competitive Integrated Employment for
Individuals with Disabilities, U.S.
Department of Labor, Suite S–1303, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20210.
Please ensure that any written
submission is in an accessible format or
the submission will be returned.
Further, it is requested that statements
not be included in the body of an email.
Statements deemed relevant by the
Committee and received on or before
January 8, 2016 will be included in the
record of the meeting. Do not include
any personally identifiable information
(such as name, address, or other contact
information) or confidential business
information that you do not want
publicly disclosed.
Jennifer Sheehy,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of
Disability Employment Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–31615 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FK–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
[Docket Nos. 2012–6 CRB CD 2004–2009
(Phase II) and 2012–7 CRB SD 1999–2009
(Phase II)]
Distribution of Cable and Satellite
Royalty Funds
Copyright Royalty Board,
Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice requesting comments.
AGENCY:
The Copyright Royalty Judges
are soliciting comments on a motion by
Independent Producers Group for a
partial distribution of royalty funds.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
January 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Interested claimants must
submit comments to only one of the
following addresses. Unless responding
by email or online, claimants must
tkelley on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
submit an original, five paper copies,
and an electronic version on a CD.
Email: crb@loc.gov; or
Online: Use the Federal eRulemaking
Portal ‘‘Regulations.gov’’ at: https://
www.regulations.gov.
U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board,
P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024–
0977; or
Overnight service (only USPS Express
Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty
Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC
20024–0977; or
Commercial courier: Address package
to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of
Congress, James Madison Memorial
Building, LM–403, 101 Independence
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559–
6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier
Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE. and D
Street NE., Washington, DC; or
Hand delivery: Library of Congress,
James Madison Memorial Building, LM–
401, 101 Independence Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20559–6000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lakeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by
telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email at
crb@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 18, 2015, Worldwide
Subsidy Group LLC dba Independent
Producers Group (‘‘IPG’’) filed with the
Copyright Royalty Board Judges
(‘‘Judges’’) a Motion for Partial
Distribution of 2004–2009 Cable
Royalties and 2000–2009 Satellite
Royalties (‘‘IPG Motion’’) pursuant to
Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright
Act. Motion for Partial Distribution of
2004–2009 Cable Royalties and 2000–
2009 Satellite Royalties, Docket Nos.
2012–6 CRB CD 2004–2009 (Phase II)
and 2012–7 CRB SD 1999–2009 (Phase
II) (consolidated); see 17 U.S.C.
801(b)(3)(C).
IPG seeks a 0.20% share of royalties
from the Phase I Program Suppliers
Category for the years 2004–2009 for
cable and 2000–2009 for satellite.1 The
Motion Picture Association of America,
Inc. (‘‘MPAA’’) opposes, in part, IPG’s
requested partial distribution. MPAA
Opposition, in Part, to Independent
Producer Group’s Motion for Partial
Distribution of 2004–2009 Cable
Royalties and 2000–2009 Satellite
1 MPAA and IPG settled all remaining Phase II
controversies regarding 1999 satellite royalties in
the Program Suppliers Category, and the Judges
ordered a final distribution of those royalties. Order
Directing Final Distribution of 1999 Satellite
Royalty Funds Except Devotional Share, Docket No.
2008–5 CRB SD 1999–2000 (Jun. 19, 2013) and
Order Granting In Part Motion for Final Distribution
of the 1998 and 1999 Cable Royalty Funds and the
1999 Satellite Royalty Funds, Docket Nos. 2008–1
CRB CD 98–99 and 2008–5 CRB SD 1999–2000 (Jan.
31, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Royalties (Sept. 25, 2015) (‘‘MPAA
Opposition’’).
MPAA does not object to IPG’s
request with respect to cable royalties,
subject to IPG signing a pay-back
agreement as contemplated by Section
801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act.2
MPAA does, however, oppose IPG’s
request regarding satellite royalties
because, according to MPAA (1) IPG has
not yet established its entitlement to
receive a share of satellite royalties, and
(2) the 0.20% percentage share of the
Program Suppliers Category royalties
that IPG seeks is either equivalent to or
greater than the total royalty award that
MPAA proposed for IPG for some of the
2000–2009 satellite funds. MPAA
Opposition at 1–2. MPAA also states
that it has concerns, which it contends
the Judges share, ‘‘not only about IPG’s
ability, but also its willingness, to
disgorge funds, should the need arise.’’
Id. at 4, quoting Order Denying IPG
Motion For Partial Distribution, Docket
Nos. 2008–2 CRB CD 2000–03 (Phase II),
2008–1 CRB CD 1998–99 (Phase II),
2012–6 CRB CD 2004–09 (Phase II) and
2012–7 CRB SD 1999–2009 (Phase II) at
6 (Feb. 11, 2014).
IPG counters that the ‘‘touchstone as
to whether a party may seek and be
advance distributed [sic] royalties has
been determined to be whether such
party has established itself as a
‘legitimate’ claimant, and whether
adverse parties can set forth a
‘reasonable’ objection to such advance
distribution.’’ IPG Reply at 5. IPG
contends that for each year from 2000–
2009 it maintains cable and satellite
claims that survived all claims-hearing
challenges and to which even MPAA
has assigned a value. IPG contends that
those facts establish IPG as a
‘‘legitimate’’ claimant entitled to a
partial distribution of satellite royalties.
Id.
IPG also disputes MPAA’s contention
that the partial distribution percentage
that IPG seeks is equivalent to or greater
than the total royalty award that MPAA
proposed for IPG for some of the 2000–
2 In its opposition, MPAA provides what it calls
a ‘‘good faith estimate of the dollar amounts of the
shares requested’’ by IPG for cable royalties. MPAA
Opposition at 2–3. MPAA does not explain the
methodology it used to derive the estimates. In its
reply, IPG questions the accuracy of MPAA’s
estimates, which IPG states are ‘‘substantially lower
than what was previously reported by the MPAA
to IPG to be the Program Supplier share of such
royalty pools.’’ Independent Producer Group’s
Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Distribution
of 2004–2009 Cable Royalties and 2000–2009
Satellite Royalties (‘‘IPG Reply’’) at 1–2 (Oct. 1,
2015). MPAA, in turn, filed a motion to strike IPG’s
reply which motion the Judges denied because it
was not ripe. MPAA Motion to Strike IPG’s Reply
. . . (Oct. 6, 2015); Order Denying MPAA Motion
to Strike IG’s Reply (December 10, 2015).
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
tkelley on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Notices
2009 satellite funds, arguing that
MPAA’s ‘‘unfounded assertion . . . is
simply inaccurate . . .’’ Id. at 6.3
Lastly, IPG discounts the abovequoted passage from the Judges’
February 11, 2014 Order Denying IPG
Motion for Partial Distribution regarding
the Judges’ concerns about IPG’s ability
and willingness to disgorge funds
should the need arise. IPG contends that
the Judges’ concern expressed in that
order (which IPG contends was
‘‘unwarranted’’) ‘‘was inspired by
nothing more than inflammatory
rhetoric of the [Settling Devotional
Claimants].’’ IPG Reply at 7.
Before authorizing a partial
distribution of royalty funds requested
under Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the
Copyright Act, the Judges must first
publish a notice in the Federal Register
seeking responses to the request to
ascertain whether any claimant entitled
to receive such royalty fees has a
reasonable objection to the proposed
distribution. This Notice seeks
comments on whether any interested
claimant asserts a reasonable objection
to IPG’s request. The Judges must
receive written objections detailing the
existence and extent of any entity’s
objection(s) by the end of the comment
period. The Judges will not consider any
objections with respect to the partial
distribution motion that come to their
attention after the close of that period.
In particular, the Judges seek
comment on whether IPG should be
considered an ‘‘established claimant’’
for purposes of receiving a partial
distribution of royalties, and, if so, for
what years and for which Phase I
categories, and for which funds. For
example, assuming for the sake of
argument that IPG is deemed an
‘‘established claimant’’ with respect to
the Phase I Program Suppliers Category
for cable for a particular year, does that
status carry over to other Phase I
categories (e.g., Devotionals, Joint
Sports, etc.)? Does it carry over to all
years? If not, to which years does the
‘‘established claimant’’ status apply?
Moreover, does the status of an
established cable claimant (or claimant
representative) carry over to satellite
royalties, as IPG contends, or only to
cable royalties? Does the reverse also
apply (i.e., is an ‘‘established claimant’’
for purposes of satellite also an
‘‘established claimant’’ for cable)?
3 The Judges note that MPAA proposed a Program
Suppliers satellite share allocation to IPG of 0.20%
in 2002 and 0.13% in 2004. For the eight remaining
years in controversy, MPAA proposed shares higher
than 0.20%. MPAA-Represented Program Suppliers’
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
at 7 (Aug. 17, 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Dec 15, 2015
Jkt 238001
If the Judges determine that IPG is an
‘‘established claimant’’ for the first time
for any fund, are there safeguards (in
addition to the pay-back agreement) the
Judges can and should employ to ensure
that IPG is able and willing to disgorge
in the event of overpaid funds? Which
safeguards would be appropriate or
necessary? How long should they last
and how would they be enforced?
If the Judges determine that IPG is
entitled to the partial distribution it
requests, what methodology should the
Judges use to determine the dollar
amount to which IPG is entitled? Would
it be necessary for the Judges (or the
Licensing Division of the Copyright
Office, or both) to have access to all
applicable Phase I confidential
agreements to make the necessary
calculations or is another means
available? Commenters should consider
what special calculations would have to
be made to determine IPG’s share of the
various subfunds (Basic, Syndex and
3.75%) in addition to calculating
interest on (and deductions of
applicable expenses against) funds
deposited with the Licensing Division.
The issues and questions set forth
above are not necessarily exhaustive.
Commenters may address any other
issues or questions that they believe are
relevant to the pending Motion.
The Copyright Royalty Board has
posted IPG’s Motion at https://
www.loc.gov/crb.
Dated: December 10, 2015.
Jesse M. Feder,
U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2015–31629 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
78253
Federal Register of a permit application
received. The permit was issued on
December 11, 2015 to:
Joseph Wilson, Penguin Films, Ltd.
Permit No. 2016–022
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of
Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015–31637 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Permits Issued Under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under
the Antarctic Conservation of 1978,
Public Law 95–541.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) is required to publish
notice of permits issued under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.
This is the required notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer,
Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755,
National Science Foundation, 4201
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
Or by email: ACApermits@nsf.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 9, 2015 the National Science
Foundation published a notice in the
Federal Register of a permit application
received. The permit was issued on
December 10, 2015 to:
Vincent J. LiCata Permit No. 2016–017
SUMMARY:
Nadene G. Kennedy,
Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of
Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015–31591 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
Notice of Permits Issued Under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978
National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Notice of permits issued under
the Antarctic Conservation of 1978,
Public Law 95–541.
AGENCY:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) is required to publish
notice of permits issued under the
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.
This is the required notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer,
Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755,
National Science Foundation, 4201
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
Or by email: ACApermits@nsf.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
November 5, 2015 the National Science
Foundation published a notice in the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–244 and 72–67; NRC–2015–
0249]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC;
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Finding of no significant impact
with associated environmental
assessment; final issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an
environmental assessment (EA) and
finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
related to a request to amend Renewed
Facility Operating License No. DPR–18,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM
16DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78252-78253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31629]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
[Docket Nos. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-2009 (Phase II) and 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-
2009 (Phase II)]
Distribution of Cable and Satellite Royalty Funds
AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice requesting comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges are soliciting comments on a
motion by Independent Producers Group for a partial distribution of
royalty funds.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Interested claimants must submit comments to only one of the
following addresses. Unless responding by email or online, claimants
must submit an original, five paper copies, and an electronic version
on a CD.
Email: crb@loc.gov; or
Online: Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal ``Regulations.gov'' at:
https://www.regulations.gov.
U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC
20024-0977; or
Overnight service (only USPS Express Mail is acceptable): Copyright
Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or
Commercial courier: Address package to: Copyright Royalty Board,
Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-403, 101
Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. Deliver to:
Congressional Courier Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE. and D Street NE.,
Washington, DC; or
Hand delivery: Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial
Building, LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-
6000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lakeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by
telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at crb@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 18, 2015, Worldwide Subsidy
Group LLC dba Independent Producers Group (``IPG'') filed with the
Copyright Royalty Board Judges (``Judges'') a Motion for Partial
Distribution of 2004-2009 Cable Royalties and 2000-2009 Satellite
Royalties (``IPG Motion'') pursuant to Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the
Copyright Act. Motion for Partial Distribution of 2004-2009 Cable
Royalties and 2000-2009 Satellite Royalties, Docket Nos. 2012-6 CRB CD
2004-2009 (Phase II) and 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 (Phase II)
(consolidated); see 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(3)(C).
IPG seeks a 0.20% share of royalties from the Phase I Program
Suppliers Category for the years 2004-2009 for cable and 2000-2009 for
satellite.\1\ The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.
(``MPAA'') opposes, in part, IPG's requested partial distribution. MPAA
Opposition, in Part, to Independent Producer Group's Motion for Partial
Distribution of 2004-2009 Cable Royalties and 2000-2009 Satellite
Royalties (Sept. 25, 2015) (``MPAA Opposition'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MPAA and IPG settled all remaining Phase II controversies
regarding 1999 satellite royalties in the Program Suppliers
Category, and the Judges ordered a final distribution of those
royalties. Order Directing Final Distribution of 1999 Satellite
Royalty Funds Except Devotional Share, Docket No. 2008-5 CRB SD
1999-2000 (Jun. 19, 2013) and Order Granting In Part Motion for
Final Distribution of the 1998 and 1999 Cable Royalty Funds and the
1999 Satellite Royalty Funds, Docket Nos. 2008-1 CRB CD 98-99 and
2008-5 CRB SD 1999-2000 (Jan. 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPAA does not object to IPG's request with respect to cable
royalties, subject to IPG signing a pay-back agreement as contemplated
by Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act.\2\ MPAA does, however,
oppose IPG's request regarding satellite royalties because, according
to MPAA (1) IPG has not yet established its entitlement to receive a
share of satellite royalties, and (2) the 0.20% percentage share of the
Program Suppliers Category royalties that IPG seeks is either
equivalent to or greater than the total royalty award that MPAA
proposed for IPG for some of the 2000-2009 satellite funds. MPAA
Opposition at 1-2. MPAA also states that it has concerns, which it
contends the Judges share, ``not only about IPG's ability, but also its
willingness, to disgorge funds, should the need arise.'' Id. at 4,
quoting Order Denying IPG Motion For Partial Distribution, Docket Nos.
2008-2 CRB CD 2000-03 (Phase II), 2008-1 CRB CD 1998-99 (Phase II),
2012-6 CRB CD 2004-09 (Phase II) and 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 (Phase II)
at 6 (Feb. 11, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In its opposition, MPAA provides what it calls a ``good
faith estimate of the dollar amounts of the shares requested'' by
IPG for cable royalties. MPAA Opposition at 2-3. MPAA does not
explain the methodology it used to derive the estimates. In its
reply, IPG questions the accuracy of MPAA's estimates, which IPG
states are ``substantially lower than what was previously reported
by the MPAA to IPG to be the Program Supplier share of such royalty
pools.'' Independent Producer Group's Reply in Support of Motion for
Partial Distribution of 2004-2009 Cable Royalties and 2000-2009
Satellite Royalties (``IPG Reply'') at 1-2 (Oct. 1, 2015). MPAA, in
turn, filed a motion to strike IPG's reply which motion the Judges
denied because it was not ripe. MPAA Motion to Strike IPG's Reply .
. . (Oct. 6, 2015); Order Denying MPAA Motion to Strike IG's Reply
(December 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IPG counters that the ``touchstone as to whether a party may seek
and be advance distributed [sic] royalties has been determined to be
whether such party has established itself as a `legitimate' claimant,
and whether adverse parties can set forth a `reasonable' objection to
such advance distribution.'' IPG Reply at 5. IPG contends that for each
year from 2000-2009 it maintains cable and satellite claims that
survived all claims-hearing challenges and to which even MPAA has
assigned a value. IPG contends that those facts establish IPG as a
``legitimate'' claimant entitled to a partial distribution of satellite
royalties. Id.
IPG also disputes MPAA's contention that the partial distribution
percentage that IPG seeks is equivalent to or greater than the total
royalty award that MPAA proposed for IPG for some of the 2000-
[[Page 78253]]
2009 satellite funds, arguing that MPAA's ``unfounded assertion . . .
is simply inaccurate . . .'' Id. at 6.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Judges note that MPAA proposed a Program Suppliers
satellite share allocation to IPG of 0.20% in 2002 and 0.13% in
2004. For the eight remaining years in controversy, MPAA proposed
shares higher than 0.20%. MPAA-Represented Program Suppliers'
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 7 (Aug. 17,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, IPG discounts the above-quoted passage from the Judges'
February 11, 2014 Order Denying IPG Motion for Partial Distribution
regarding the Judges' concerns about IPG's ability and willingness to
disgorge funds should the need arise. IPG contends that the Judges'
concern expressed in that order (which IPG contends was
``unwarranted'') ``was inspired by nothing more than inflammatory
rhetoric of the [Settling Devotional Claimants].'' IPG Reply at 7.
Before authorizing a partial distribution of royalty funds
requested under Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act, the Judges
must first publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking responses
to the request to ascertain whether any claimant entitled to receive
such royalty fees has a reasonable objection to the proposed
distribution. This Notice seeks comments on whether any interested
claimant asserts a reasonable objection to IPG's request. The Judges
must receive written objections detailing the existence and extent of
any entity's objection(s) by the end of the comment period. The Judges
will not consider any objections with respect to the partial
distribution motion that come to their attention after the close of
that period.
In particular, the Judges seek comment on whether IPG should be
considered an ``established claimant'' for purposes of receiving a
partial distribution of royalties, and, if so, for what years and for
which Phase I categories, and for which funds. For example, assuming
for the sake of argument that IPG is deemed an ``established claimant''
with respect to the Phase I Program Suppliers Category for cable for a
particular year, does that status carry over to other Phase I
categories (e.g., Devotionals, Joint Sports, etc.)? Does it carry over
to all years? If not, to which years does the ``established claimant''
status apply? Moreover, does the status of an established cable
claimant (or claimant representative) carry over to satellite
royalties, as IPG contends, or only to cable royalties? Does the
reverse also apply (i.e., is an ``established claimant'' for purposes
of satellite also an ``established claimant'' for cable)?
If the Judges determine that IPG is an ``established claimant'' for
the first time for any fund, are there safeguards (in addition to the
pay-back agreement) the Judges can and should employ to ensure that IPG
is able and willing to disgorge in the event of overpaid funds? Which
safeguards would be appropriate or necessary? How long should they last
and how would they be enforced?
If the Judges determine that IPG is entitled to the partial
distribution it requests, what methodology should the Judges use to
determine the dollar amount to which IPG is entitled? Would it be
necessary for the Judges (or the Licensing Division of the Copyright
Office, or both) to have access to all applicable Phase I confidential
agreements to make the necessary calculations or is another means
available? Commenters should consider what special calculations would
have to be made to determine IPG's share of the various subfunds
(Basic, Syndex and 3.75%) in addition to calculating interest on (and
deductions of applicable expenses against) funds deposited with the
Licensing Division.
The issues and questions set forth above are not necessarily
exhaustive. Commenters may address any other issues or questions that
they believe are relevant to the pending Motion.
The Copyright Royalty Board has posted IPG's Motion at https://www.loc.gov/crb.
Dated: December 10, 2015.
Jesse M. Feder,
U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2015-31629 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
