80_FR_78493 80 FR 78252 - Distribution of Cable and Satellite Royalty Funds

80 FR 78252 - Distribution of Cable and Satellite Royalty Funds

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 241 (December 16, 2015)

Page Range78252-78253
FR Document2015-31629

The Copyright Royalty Judges are soliciting comments on a motion by Independent Producers Group for a partial distribution of royalty funds.

Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015) 
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78252-78253]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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: [email protected]; or
    Online: Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal ``Regulations.gov'' at: 
http://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 [email protected].

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 http://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

78252 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Notices address the Committee. If more than 10 submit an original, five paper copies, Royalties (Sept. 25, 2015) (‘‘MPAA requests are received, we will select a and an electronic version on a CD. Opposition’’). representative sample to speak and the Email: crb@loc.gov; or MPAA does not object to IPG’s remainder will be permitted to file Online: Use the Federal eRulemaking request with respect to cable royalties, written statements. Individuals with Portal ‘‘Regulations.gov’’ at: http:// subject to IPG signing a pay-back disabilities who need accommodations www.regulations.gov. agreement as contemplated by Section should also contact Mr. Berthiaume at U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act.2 the email address or phone number P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024– MPAA does, however, oppose IPG’s above. 0977; or request regarding satellite royalties Organizations or members of the Overnight service (only USPS Express because, according to MPAA (1) IPG has public wishing to submit a written Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty not yet established its entitlement to statement may do so by submitting their Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC receive a share of satellite royalties, and statement on or before January 8, 2016, 20024–0977; or (2) the 0.20% percentage share of the to www.acicieid.org/comments. Written Commercial courier: Address package Program Suppliers Category royalties statements, with nine copies, may also to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of that IPG seeks is either equivalent to or be submitted to Mr. Berthiaume, Congress, James Madison Memorial greater than the total royalty award that Advisory Committee on Increasing Building, LM–403, 101 Independence MPAA proposed for IPG for some of the Competitive Integrated Employment for Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559– 2000–2009 satellite funds. MPAA Individuals with Disabilities, U.S. 6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier Opposition at 1–2. MPAA also states Department of Labor, Suite S–1303, 200 Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE. and D that it has concerns, which it contends Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, Street NE., Washington, DC; or the Judges share, ‘‘not only about IPG’s DC 20210. Hand delivery: Library of Congress, ability, but also its willingness, to Please ensure that any written James Madison Memorial Building, LM– disgorge funds, should the need arise.’’ submission is in an accessible format or 401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Id. at 4, quoting Order Denying IPG the submission will be returned. Washington, DC 20559–6000. Motion For Partial Distribution, Docket Further, it is requested that statements FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nos. 2008–2 CRB CD 2000–03 (Phase II), not be included in the body of an email. Lakeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by 2008–1 CRB CD 1998–99 (Phase II), Statements deemed relevant by the telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email at 2012–6 CRB CD 2004–09 (Phase II) and Committee and received on or before crb@loc.gov. 2012–7 CRB SD 1999–2009 (Phase II) at January 8, 2016 will be included in the 6 (Feb. 11, 2014). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On IPG counters that the ‘‘touchstone as record of the meeting. Do not include September 18, 2015, Worldwide any personally identifiable information to whether a party may seek and be Subsidy Group LLC dba Independent advance distributed [sic] royalties has (such as name, address, or other contact Producers Group (‘‘IPG’’) filed with the information) or confidential business been determined to be whether such Copyright Royalty Board Judges party has established itself as a information that you do not want (‘‘Judges’’) a Motion for Partial publicly disclosed. ‘legitimate’ claimant, and whether Distribution of 2004–2009 Cable adverse parties can set forth a Jennifer Sheehy, Royalties and 2000–2009 Satellite ‘reasonable’ objection to such advance Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Royalties (‘‘IPG Motion’’) pursuant to distribution.’’ IPG Reply at 5. IPG Disability Employment Policy. Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright contends that for each year from 2000– [FR Doc. 2015–31615 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am] Act. Motion for Partial Distribution of 2009 it maintains cable and satellite BILLING CODE 4510–FK–P 2004–2009 Cable Royalties and 2000– claims that survived all claims-hearing 2009 Satellite Royalties, Docket Nos. challenges and to which even MPAA 2012–6 CRB CD 2004–2009 (Phase II) has assigned a value. IPG contends that and 2012–7 CRB SD 1999–2009 (Phase those facts establish IPG as a LIBRARY OF CONGRESS II) (consolidated); see 17 U.S.C. ‘‘legitimate’’ claimant entitled to a 801(b)(3)(C). partial distribution of satellite royalties. Copyright Royalty Board IPG seeks a 0.20% share of royalties Id. [Docket Nos. 2012–6 CRB CD 2004–2009 from the Phase I Program Suppliers IPG also disputes MPAA’s contention (Phase II) and 2012–7 CRB SD 1999–2009 Category for the years 2004–2009 for that the partial distribution percentage (Phase II)] cable and 2000–2009 for satellite.1 The that IPG seeks is equivalent to or greater Motion Picture Association of America, than the total royalty award that MPAA Distribution of Cable and Satellite Inc. (‘‘MPAA’’) opposes, in part, IPG’s proposed for IPG for some of the 2000– Royalty Funds requested partial distribution. MPAA Opposition, in Part, to Independent 2 In its opposition, MPAA provides what it calls AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Producer Group’s Motion for Partial a ‘‘good faith estimate of the dollar amounts of the Library of Congress. shares requested’’ by IPG for cable royalties. MPAA Distribution of 2004–2009 Cable ACTION: Notice requesting comments. Royalties and 2000–2009 Satellite Opposition at 2–3. MPAA does not explain the methodology it used to derive the estimates. In its SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges reply, IPG questions the accuracy of MPAA’s 1 MPAA and IPG settled all remaining Phase II estimates, which IPG states are ‘‘substantially lower are soliciting comments on a motion by controversies regarding 1999 satellite royalties in than what was previously reported by the MPAA Independent Producers Group for a the Program Suppliers Category, and the Judges to IPG to be the Program Supplier share of such partial distribution of royalty funds. ordered a final distribution of those royalties. Order royalty pools.’’ Independent Producer Group’s tkelley on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES Directing Final Distribution of 1999 Satellite Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Distribution DATES: Comments are due on or before Royalty Funds Except Devotional Share, Docket No. of 2004–2009 Cable Royalties and 2000–2009 January 15, 2016. 2008–5 CRB SD 1999–2000 (Jun. 19, 2013) and Satellite Royalties (‘‘IPG Reply’’) at 1–2 (Oct. 1, ADDRESSES: Interested claimants must Order Granting In Part Motion for Final Distribution 2015). MPAA, in turn, filed a motion to strike IPG’s of the 1998 and 1999 Cable Royalty Funds and the reply which motion the Judges denied because it submit comments to only one of the 1999 Satellite Royalty Funds, Docket Nos. 2008–1 was not ripe. MPAA Motion to Strike IPG’s Reply following addresses. Unless responding CRB CD 98–99 and 2008–5 CRB SD 1999–2000 (Jan. . . . (Oct. 6, 2015); Order Denying MPAA Motion by email or online, claimants must 31, 2013). to Strike IG’s Reply (December 10, 2015). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Dec 15, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM 16DEN1

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 2015 / Notices 78253 2009 satellite funds, arguing that If the Judges determine that IPG is an Federal Register of a permit application MPAA’s ‘‘unfounded assertion . . . is ‘‘established claimant’’ for the first time received. The permit was issued on simply inaccurate . . .’’ Id. at 6.3 for any fund, are there safeguards (in December 11, 2015 to: Lastly, IPG discounts the above- addition to the pay-back agreement) the Joseph Wilson, Penguin Films, Ltd. quoted passage from the Judges’ Judges can and should employ to ensure Permit No. 2016–022 February 11, 2014 Order Denying IPG that IPG is able and willing to disgorge Nadene G. Kennedy, Motion for Partial Distribution regarding in the event of overpaid funds? Which safeguards would be appropriate or Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of the Judges’ concerns about IPG’s ability Polar Programs. and willingness to disgorge funds necessary? How long should they last [FR Doc. 2015–31637 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am] should the need arise. IPG contends that and how would they be enforced? If the Judges determine that IPG is BILLING CODE 7555–01–P the Judges’ concern expressed in that order (which IPG contends was entitled to the partial distribution it ‘‘unwarranted’’) ‘‘was inspired by requests, what methodology should the Judges use to determine the dollar NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION nothing more than inflammatory rhetoric of the [Settling Devotional amount to which IPG is entitled? Would Notice of Permits Issued Under the Claimants].’’ IPG Reply at 7. it be necessary for the Judges (or the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 Before authorizing a partial Licensing Division of the Copyright distribution of royalty funds requested Office, or both) to have access to all AGENCY: National Science Foundation. under Section 801(b)(3)(C) of the applicable Phase I confidential ACTION: Notice of permits issued under Copyright Act, the Judges must first agreements to make the necessary the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, publish a notice in the Federal Register calculations or is another means Public Law 95–541. seeking responses to the request to available? Commenters should consider ascertain whether any claimant entitled what special calculations would have to SUMMARY: The National Science to receive such royalty fees has a be made to determine IPG’s share of the Foundation (NSF) is required to publish reasonable objection to the proposed various subfunds (Basic, Syndex and notice of permits issued under the distribution. This Notice seeks 3.75%) in addition to calculating Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. comments on whether any interested interest on (and deductions of This is the required notice. claimant asserts a reasonable objection applicable expenses against) funds FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to IPG’s request. The Judges must deposited with the Licensing Division. Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, receive written objections detailing the The issues and questions set forth Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, existence and extent of any entity’s above are not necessarily exhaustive. National Science Foundation, 4201 objection(s) by the end of the comment Commenters may address any other Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. period. The Judges will not consider any issues or questions that they believe are Or by email: ACApermits@nsf.gov. objections with respect to the partial relevant to the pending Motion. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On distribution motion that come to their The Copyright Royalty Board has November 9, 2015 the National Science attention after the close of that period. posted IPG’s Motion at http:// Foundation published a notice in the In particular, the Judges seek www.loc.gov/crb. Federal Register of a permit application comment on whether IPG should be Dated: December 10, 2015. received. The permit was issued on considered an ‘‘established claimant’’ Jesse M. Feder, December 10, 2015 to: for purposes of receiving a partial U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge. Vincent J. LiCata Permit No. 2016–017 distribution of royalties, and, if so, for [FR Doc. 2015–31629 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am] what years and for which Phase I Nadene G. Kennedy, BILLING CODE 1410–72–P categories, and for which funds. For Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of example, assuming for the sake of Polar Programs. argument that IPG is deemed an [FR Doc. 2015–31591 Filed 12–15–15; 8:45 am] NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ‘‘established claimant’’ with respect to BILLING CODE 7555–01–P the Phase I Program Suppliers Category Notice of Permits Issued Under the for cable for a particular year, does that Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 status carry over to other Phase I NUCLEAR REGULATORY categories (e.g., Devotionals, Joint AGENCY: National Science Foundation. COMMISSION Sports, etc.)? Does it carry over to all ACTION: Notice of permits issued under years? If not, to which years does the the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, [Docket Nos. 50–244 and 72–67; NRC–2015– Public Law 95–541. 0249] ‘‘established claimant’’ status apply? Moreover, does the status of an Exelon Generation Company, LLC; established cable claimant (or claimant SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant representative) carry over to satellite royalties, as IPG contends, or only to notice of permits issued under the AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory cable royalties? Does the reverse also Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. Commission. apply (i.e., is an ‘‘established claimant’’ This is the required notice. ACTION: Finding of no significant impact for purposes of satellite also an FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: with associated environmental ‘‘established claimant’’ for cable)? Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, assessment; final issuance. Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, tkelley on DSK9F6TC42PROD with NOTICES 3 The Judges note that MPAA proposed a Program National Science Foundation, 4201 SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suppliers satellite share allocation to IPG of 0.20% Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Commission (NRC) is issuing an in 2002 and 0.13% in 2004. For the eight remaining Or by email: ACApermits@nsf.gov. environmental assessment (EA) and years in controversy, MPAA proposed shares higher SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On finding of no significant impact (FONSI) than 0.20%. MPAA-Represented Program Suppliers’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law November 5, 2015 the National Science related to a request to amend Renewed at 7 (Aug. 17, 2015). Foundation published a notice in the Facility Operating License No. DPR–18, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Dec 15, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\16DEN1.SGM 16DEN1


Document Created: 2015-12-16 01:01:26
Document Modified: 2015-12-16 01:01:26
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionNotice requesting comments.
DatesComments are due on or before January 15, 2016.
ContactLakeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at [email protected]
FR Citation80 FR 78252 
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR