Adjustment of Royalty Rates for Statutory Cable Retransmission License, 44368-44369 [2017-20190]
Download as PDF
44368
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Carissa Doody, Center for Veterinary
Medicine, Food and Drug
Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 240–402–6283,
carissa.doody@fda.hhs.gov.
Copyright Royalty Board
37 CFR Part 387
Under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)),
notice is given that a food additive
petition (FAP 2300) has been filed by
the Zinpro Corp., 10400 Viking Dr.,
Suite 240, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. The
petition proposes to amend Title 21 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in
Feed and Drinking Water of Animals (21
CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use
of chromium DL-methionine as a
nutritional source of chromium in cattle
feed.
The potential environmental impact
of this action is being reviewed. To
encourage public participation
consistent with regulations issued under
the National Environmental Policy Act
(40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is
placing the environmental assessment
(EA) submitted with the petition that is
the subject of this notice on public
display at the Dockets Management Staff
for public review and comment (see
DATES and ADDRESSES). FDA will also
place on public display any
amendments to, or comments on, the
petitioner’s EA without further
announcement in the Federal Register.
If, based on its review, the Agency
finds that an environmental impact
statement is not required and this
petition results in a regulation, the
notice of availability of the Agency’s
finding of no significant impact and the
evidence supporting that finding will be
published with the regulation in the
Federal Register in accordance with 21
CFR 25.51(b).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: September 15, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning,
Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017–20195 Filed 9–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
[Docket No. 15–CRB–0010–CA–S (Sports
Rule Proceeding)]
Adjustment of Royalty Rates for
Statutory Cable Retransmission
License
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB),
Library of Congress.
ACTION: Request for comments.
AGENCY:
The Copyright Royalty Judges
solicit reply comments on the legal
issue of the purported reach of the
proposed rules relating to a cable system
license royalty surcharge for
retransmission of broadcasts of certain
professional sports events.
DATES: Reply comments are due on or
before October 23, 2017. Surreplies from
original commenters are due on or
before November 1, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may make replies and
surreplies, identified by docket number
15–CRB–0010–CA–S (Sports Rule
Proceeding), by any of the following
methods:
CRB’s electronic filing application:
Submit comments online in eCRB at
https://app.crb.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.
Instructions: Unless submitting
online, commenters must submit an
original, five paper copies, and an
electronic version on a CD. All
submissions must include the CRB’s
name and docket number. All
submissions received will be posted
without change to eCRB on https://
app.crb.gov including any personal
information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to eCRB, the
Copyright Royalty Board’s electronic
filing and case management system, at
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
https://app.crb.gov/ and search for
docket number 15–CRB–0010–CA–S
(Sports Rule Proceeding). For
documents not yet uploaded to eCRB
(because it is a new system), go to the
agency Web site at https://www.crb.gov/
or contact the CRB Program Specialist.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist,
by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email
at crb@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In May
2017, the Copyright Royalty Judges
(Judges) published notice of an agreed
settlement and proposed rules to adjust
royalties payable by certain cable
system operators for a license to
retransmit broadcast sports
programming (the Sports Surcharge
Rules). See 82 FR 24611 (May 30, 2017).
Specifically, the rules as proposed
would be applicable to ‘‘Form 3’’ cable
systems 1 retransmitting ‘‘eligible
professional sports events.’’ The
proposed rules define ‘‘eligible
professional sports event’’ as a game
involving member teams of Major
League Baseball, the National Basketball
Association, the National Football
League, the National Hockey League,
and the Women’s National Basketball
Association.2
The Copyright Act (Act) directs that
the Judges provide (1) an opportunity to
comment to nonparticipants who would
be bound and (2) an opportunity to
comment and object to participants who
would be bound. See 11 U.S.C.
801(b)(7)(A)(i). The Judges may decline
to adopt an agreement as a basis for
statutory terms and rates for
‘‘participants that are not parties to the
[settlement] agreement,’’ if a participant
objects to the agreement and the Judges
conclude that the settlement ‘‘does not
provide a reasonable basis for setting’’
rates or terms. Id. at § 801(b)(7)(A)(ii).
The statutory language does not
prohibit the Judges from considering
whether the proposed provisions are
contrary to statutory law. See [Register
of Copyrights] Review of Copyright
Royalty Judges Determination, Docket
no. 2009–1, 74 FR 4537, 4540 (Jan. 26,
2009) (Register’s Opinion).3 In the cited
1 ‘‘Form 3’’ cable systems are those with semiannual gross receipts, as defined by statute, greater
than $527,600. See 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B), (E), & (F).
2 The proposed sports programming surcharge
would also apply to an ‘‘eligible collegiate sports
event’’ as that term is defined in the proposed
regulations. Eligible collegiate sports events are
limited to games that involve certain Division I
football or men’s basketball teams. Proposed Rule
387.2(e)(5).
3 The Act permits the Register of Copyrights
(Register) to review for legal error the Judges’
resolution of a material question of substantive law
under the Act ‘‘that underlies or is contained in a
final determination’’ by the Judges. See 17 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules
opinion, the Register concluded that
‘‘nothing in the statute limits the
[Judges] from considering comments
filed by non-participants if those
nonparticipant commenters argue that
the proposed provisions are contrary to
statutory law.’’ Id. According to the
Register’s Opinion, which is binding
precedent for the Judges, the Judges may
decline to adopt portions of the agreed
regulations that would be ‘‘contrary to
the provisions of the applicable
license(s) or otherwise contrary to
statutory law.’’ Id.
The Judges received two comments on
the proposed rules before the June
deadline. Joint Sports Claimants (JSC),4
participants and the proponents of the
settlement, supported adoption of the
final rule and offered a correction of a
misstated cross reference within the
rule.
Major League Soccer, L.L.C. (MLS)
also commented. In the present
proceeding, MLS did not file a Petition
to Participate; thus MLS is a not a
participant.5 Nonetheless, MLS states
that it would be ‘‘[a]ffected by these
proposed rules and their terms.’’ MLS
Comment at 2. MLS contends that, even
though it is not a participant in this
proceeding, it clearly meets the [Judges’]
description of ‘Joint Sports Claimants’ 6
in that MLS owns copyrights in ‘‘live
telecasts of professional teams’ sports
broadcasts by U.S. and Canadian
television stations. . . .’’ Id. As MLS
asserted in its comment, the definition
of ‘‘eligible professional sports event’’
‘‘unfairly excludes MLS, and any other
[unnamed] eligible, professional league
that broadcasts live team sports.’’ Id. at
3. In its comment, MLS contends that its
omission results in unfair treatment. Id.
at 2, 4.
According to MLS, ‘‘[s]ince JSC are
representatives for, and custodians of
the funds of, all programs falling within
that agreed [Joint Sports Claimants]
category, [JSC] should represent the
interests of the entire category, not only
802(f)(1)(D). Decisions of the Register are binding as
precedent upon the Judges in proceedings
subsequent to the Register’s opinion. Id.
4 The Joint Sports Claimants (JSC) consists of
Major League Baseball, the National Basketball
Association, the National Football League, the
National Hockey League, and the Women’s National
Basketball Association.
5 MLS asserted without evidence that it made
‘‘attempts to join the JSC ‘‘on a formal basis,’’ but
that it had ‘‘not yet been recognized as a JSC
member.’’ MLS Comment at 2.
6 See Notice of Participant Groups . . . and
Scheduling Order, Consolidated Proceeding No. 14–
CRB–0010–CD (2010–13) (Nov. 25, 2015), Ex. A. By
its terms, this order limited application of the
agreed participant groups to the proceeding in
which it was adopted. The Judges nonetheless
consider the categories informative for purposes of
determining distribution in the present proceeding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:19 Sep 21, 2017
Jkt 241001
those it deems members. The benefits of
the regulation should apply to a [sic]
who fall into the Joint Sports Claimants
category.’’ Id. at 3.
Although MLS generally states that
adoption of the proposal would be
unfair or inequitable to MLS and certain
other omitted professional leagues that
broadcast live team sports, MLS does
not expressly contend that the proposal
is ‘‘contrary to the provisions of the
applicable license(s) or otherwise
contrary to statutory law,’’ which, under
the Register’s Opinion, would permit
the Judges to decline to adopt portions
of the agreed regulations. In the interests
of developing a more complete record to
support the Judges’ decision, however,
the Judges seek further comment
specifically addressing the issue of
whether they must adopt the rules as
contained in the settlement agreement
and published for comment in May
2017, consistent with Section
801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act, or
whether any provision in the proposed
rules is contrary to the provisions of the
applicable license(s) or otherwise
contrary to statutory law.
The Judges hereby solicit Reply
Comments limited to legal analysis of
the issue as the Judges express it. Any
party in interest may file Reply
Comments addressing the issue the
Judges present in this Notice.
Commenters that believe any provision
of the proposed rules is contrary to the
provisions of the applicable license(s) or
otherwise contrary to statutory law
should specify the provision or
provisions in question, explain why the
provision(s) is contrary to the applicable
license or applicable statutory law, and
provide supporting legal analysis. Reply
commenters should focus particular
attention on whether any entities not
expressly addressed in the proposal
would nonetheless be bound by the
rates and terms of the proposal or
otherwise affected by the proposed rules
and how, if at all, the affect should
dictate action by the Judges. If any
entities other than those expressly
included in the proposed provisions are
bound by the proposal, are the Judges
effectively adopting a zero sports
surcharge rate with respect to those
entities? If so, what factors justify the
different rates for the entities that would
have a zero rate from those that would
receive the proposed sports surcharge
rate?
Any commenter may thereafter file
Surreply Comments addressing
specifically the legal analysis of a party
or parties filing Reply Comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44369
Dated: September 18, 2017.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2017–20190 Filed 9–21–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 228
[EPA–R01–OW–2017–0528; FRL–9967–82–
Region 1]
Ocean Disposal; Temporary
Modification of an Ocean Dredged
Material Disposal Site in
Massachusetts Bay
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
temporary modification of the currentlydesignated Massachusetts Bay Dredged
Material Disposal Site (MBDS) pursuant
to the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA).
The purpose of this temporary site
modification is to allow for the
environmental restoration of a particular
area adjacent to the currently-designated
MBDS (Potential Restoration Area) by
temporarily expanding the boundaries
of the existing MBDS. The temporary
expansion is a circular area that
contains the Potential Restoration Area,
which includes most of the historic
Industrial Waste Site (IWS). Decades
ago, the IWS was used for the disposal
of barrels containing industrial,
chemical and radioactive waste, as well
as for the disposal of munitions,
ordnance, construction equipment, and
contaminated dredged material. The
proposed modification of the disposal
site boundary will enable the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to place
suitable dredged material from Boston
Harbor generated during the Deep Draft
Navigation Project at the Potential
Restoration Area in order to cover the
barrels and other wastes disposed there
in the past. The Deep Draft Navigation
Project includes maintenance dredging
in the inner harbor, which includes the
expansion of a confined aquatic
disposal (CAD) cell and will generate
approximately 1 million cubic yards
(cy) of dredged material, as well as
improvement dredging of the main ship
channel, which will generate
approximately 11 million cy of dredged
material. The existing MBDS will
continue to be used for disposal of other
dredging projects as usual. The
expansion area would be permanently
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22SEP1.SGM
22SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44368-44369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20190]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
37 CFR Part 387
[Docket No. 15-CRB-0010-CA-S (Sports Rule Proceeding)]
Adjustment of Royalty Rates for Statutory Cable Retransmission
License
AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges solicit reply comments on the
legal issue of the purported reach of the proposed rules relating to a
cable system license royalty surcharge for retransmission of broadcasts
of certain professional sports events.
DATES: Reply comments are due on or before October 23, 2017. Surreplies
from original commenters are due on or before November 1, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may make replies and surreplies, identified by docket
number 15-CRB-0010-CA-S (Sports Rule Proceeding), by any of the
following methods:
CRB's electronic filing application: Submit comments online in eCRB
at https://app.crb.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.
Instructions: Unless submitting online, commenters must submit an
original, five paper copies, and an electronic version on a CD. All
submissions must include the CRB's name and docket number. All
submissions received will be posted without change to eCRB on https://app.crb.gov including any personal information provided.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic
filing and case management system, at https://app.crb.gov/ and search
for docket number 15-CRB-0010-CA-S (Sports Rule Proceeding). For
documents not yet uploaded to eCRB (because it is a new system), go to
the agency Web site at https://www.crb.gov/ or contact the CRB Program
Specialist.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist,
by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at crb@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In May 2017, the Copyright Royalty Judges
(Judges) published notice of an agreed settlement and proposed rules to
adjust royalties payable by certain cable system operators for a
license to retransmit broadcast sports programming (the Sports
Surcharge Rules). See 82 FR 24611 (May 30, 2017). Specifically, the
rules as proposed would be applicable to ``Form 3'' cable systems \1\
retransmitting ``eligible professional sports events.'' The proposed
rules define ``eligible professional sports event'' as a game involving
member teams of Major League Baseball, the National Basketball
Association, the National Football League, the National Hockey League,
and the Women's National Basketball Association.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Form 3'' cable systems are those with semi-annual gross
receipts, as defined by statute, greater than $527,600. See 17
U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B), (E), & (F).
\2\ The proposed sports programming surcharge would also apply
to an ``eligible collegiate sports event'' as that term is defined
in the proposed regulations. Eligible collegiate sports events are
limited to games that involve certain Division I football or men's
basketball teams. Proposed Rule 387.2(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Copyright Act (Act) directs that the Judges provide (1) an
opportunity to comment to nonparticipants who would be bound and (2) an
opportunity to comment and object to participants who would be bound.
See 11 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). The Judges may decline to adopt an
agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for ``participants
that are not parties to the [settlement] agreement,'' if a participant
objects to the agreement and the Judges conclude that the settlement
``does not provide a reasonable basis for setting'' rates or terms. Id.
at Sec. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii).
The statutory language does not prohibit the Judges from
considering whether the proposed provisions are contrary to statutory
law. See [Register of Copyrights] Review of Copyright Royalty Judges
Determination, Docket no. 2009-1, 74 FR 4537, 4540 (Jan. 26, 2009)
(Register's Opinion).\3\ In the cited
[[Page 44369]]
opinion, the Register concluded that ``nothing in the statute limits
the [Judges] from considering comments filed by non-participants if
those nonparticipant commenters argue that the proposed provisions are
contrary to statutory law.'' Id. According to the Register's Opinion,
which is binding precedent for the Judges, the Judges may decline to
adopt portions of the agreed regulations that would be ``contrary to
the provisions of the applicable license(s) or otherwise contrary to
statutory law.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Act permits the Register of Copyrights (Register) to
review for legal error the Judges' resolution of a material question
of substantive law under the Act ``that underlies or is contained in
a final determination'' by the Judges. See 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(D).
Decisions of the Register are binding as precedent upon the Judges
in proceedings subsequent to the Register's opinion. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judges received two comments on the proposed rules before the
June deadline. Joint Sports Claimants (JSC),\4\ participants and the
proponents of the settlement, supported adoption of the final rule and
offered a correction of a misstated cross reference within the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Joint Sports Claimants (JSC) consists of Major League
Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football
League, the National Hockey League, and the Women's National
Basketball Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major League Soccer, L.L.C. (MLS) also commented. In the present
proceeding, MLS did not file a Petition to Participate; thus MLS is a
not a participant.\5\ Nonetheless, MLS states that it would be
``[a]ffected by these proposed rules and their terms.'' MLS Comment at
2. MLS contends that, even though it is not a participant in this
proceeding, it clearly meets the [Judges'] description of `Joint Sports
Claimants' \6\ in that MLS owns copyrights in ``live telecasts of
professional teams' sports broadcasts by U.S. and Canadian television
stations. . . .'' Id. As MLS asserted in its comment, the definition of
``eligible professional sports event'' ``unfairly excludes MLS, and any
other [unnamed] eligible, professional league that broadcasts live team
sports.'' Id. at 3. In its comment, MLS contends that its omission
results in unfair treatment. Id. at 2, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ MLS asserted without evidence that it made ``attempts to
join the JSC ``on a formal basis,'' but that it had ``not yet been
recognized as a JSC member.'' MLS Comment at 2.
\6\ See Notice of Participant Groups . . . and Scheduling Order,
Consolidated Proceeding No. 14-CRB-0010-CD (2010-13) (Nov. 25,
2015), Ex. A. By its terms, this order limited application of the
agreed participant groups to the proceeding in which it was adopted.
The Judges nonetheless consider the categories informative for
purposes of determining distribution in the present proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to MLS, ``[s]ince JSC are representatives for, and
custodians of the funds of, all programs falling within that agreed
[Joint Sports Claimants] category, [JSC] should represent the interests
of the entire category, not only those it deems members. The benefits
of the regulation should apply to a [sic] who fall into the Joint
Sports Claimants category.'' Id. at 3.
Although MLS generally states that adoption of the proposal would
be unfair or inequitable to MLS and certain other omitted professional
leagues that broadcast live team sports, MLS does not expressly contend
that the proposal is ``contrary to the provisions of the applicable
license(s) or otherwise contrary to statutory law,'' which, under the
Register's Opinion, would permit the Judges to decline to adopt
portions of the agreed regulations. In the interests of developing a
more complete record to support the Judges' decision, however, the
Judges seek further comment specifically addressing the issue of
whether they must adopt the rules as contained in the settlement
agreement and published for comment in May 2017, consistent with
Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act, or whether any provision in
the proposed rules is contrary to the provisions of the applicable
license(s) or otherwise contrary to statutory law.
The Judges hereby solicit Reply Comments limited to legal analysis
of the issue as the Judges express it. Any party in interest may file
Reply Comments addressing the issue the Judges present in this Notice.
Commenters that believe any provision of the proposed rules is contrary
to the provisions of the applicable license(s) or otherwise contrary to
statutory law should specify the provision or provisions in question,
explain why the provision(s) is contrary to the applicable license or
applicable statutory law, and provide supporting legal analysis. Reply
commenters should focus particular attention on whether any entities
not expressly addressed in the proposal would nonetheless be bound by
the rates and terms of the proposal or otherwise affected by the
proposed rules and how, if at all, the affect should dictate action by
the Judges. If any entities other than those expressly included in the
proposed provisions are bound by the proposal, are the Judges
effectively adopting a zero sports surcharge rate with respect to those
entities? If so, what factors justify the different rates for the
entities that would have a zero rate from those that would receive the
proposed sports surcharge rate?
Any commenter may thereafter file Surreply Comments addressing
specifically the legal analysis of a party or parties filing Reply
Comments.
Dated: September 18, 2017.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2017-20190 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-72-P