82_FR_28921 82 FR 28800 - Proceedings of the Copyright Royalty Board; Violation of Standards of Conduct

82 FR 28800 - Proceedings of the Copyright Royalty Board; Violation of Standards of Conduct

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 121 (June 26, 2017)

Page Range28800-28801
FR Document2017-13277

The Copyright Royalty Judges seek reply comments regarding a proposed new Copyright Royalty Board rule that would authorize the Judges to bar, either temporarily or permanently, certain individuals and entities from participating in proceedings before the Judges.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 121 (Monday, June 26, 2017) 
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28800-28801]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13277]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Royalty Board

37 CFR Part 350

[Docket No. 17-CRB-0013 RM]


Proceedings of the Copyright Royalty Board; Violation of 
Standards of Conduct

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges seek reply comments regarding a 
proposed new Copyright Royalty Board rule that would authorize the 
Judges to bar, either temporarily or permanently, certain individuals 
and entities from participating in proceedings before the Judges.

DATES: Comments are due no later than July 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The proposed rule is posted on the agency's Web site 
(www.loc.gov/crb) and at Regulations.gov (www.regulations.gov). 
Interested parties may submit comments via the Copyright Royalty 
Board's electronic filing system, eCRB, at https://app.crb.gov. 
Commenters must register to use the system prior to filing comments. 
Those who choose not to submit comments electronically should see How 
to Submit Comments in the

[[Page 28801]]

Supplementary Information section below for online and physical 
addresses and further instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Blaine, Program Specialist, at 
(202) 707-7658 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 20, 2017, the Copyright Royalty 
Judges (Judges) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking 
comments on a proposed rule that would authorize the Judges to bar, 
either temporarily or permanently, certain individuals and entities 
from participating in proceedings before the Judges.\1\ In response to 
the notice, the Judges received five comments, including two joint 
comments, from people and entities that regularly participate in 
proceedings before the Judges.\2\ The comments and the proposal are 
available on the CRB Web site and in eCRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 82 FR 18601.
    \2\ The Judges received a joint comment from a group referring 
to itself as ``The Allocation Phase Parties,'' which are Program 
Suppliers, Joint Sports Claimants, Commercial Television Claimants, 
Public Broadcasting Service, Settling Devotional Claimants, Canadian 
Claimants Group, and National Public Radio. The Judges also received 
a joint comment from a group referring to itself as Music Community 
Participants, which are SoundExchange, Inc., the Recording Industry 
Association of America, Inc., the American Association of 
Independent Music, the American Federation of Musicians of the 
United States and Canada, the Screen Actors Guild--American 
Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Alliance of Artists 
and Recording Companies, Inc., and the National Music Publishers' 
Association. The Judges also received comments from Raul Galaz and 
from Worldwide Subsidy Group, LLC, dba Independent Producers Group. 
The Judges also received a comment from David Powell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some of the comments were supportive of the proposal or 
certain aspects of it, others were critical and raised a number of 
issues with the proposal, including the scope of the proposal, 
potential abuses of the proposed provisions, the Constitutionality of 
some of the proposed provisions, and whether the proposal is even 
necessary. The Judges seek reply comments responding directly to issues 
that commenters raised regarding the proposal. While the Judges will 
review and consider all comments they receive on the proposal, they 
request that commenters limit their comments at this point to issues 
that other commenters raised in the initial round of comments, 
including ways to address criticisms that some commenters raised with 
respect to the proposal. Some commenters that criticized the proposal 
suggested alternative language that might remedy perceived shortfalls 
in the Judges' proposal. The Judges request comments on those 
proposals, or welcome alternative suggestions the Judges might adopt to 
address those perceived shortfalls, including the pros and cons of 
choosing any proposed alternative approach. In light of some of the 
negative comments, the Judges also seek comment on whether, on balance, 
the remedies currently available to the Judges for addressing ethical 
lapses of participants and counsel are adequate or preferable to the 
remedial rule the Judges proposed. In particular, the Judges seek 
detailed comments regarding the incidents to which the Judges 
referredin the notice proposing the provision (or others that 
commenters are aware of to which the Judges did not refer) and how 
remedies currently available were used to address those incidents and 
whether or not the extant remedies (e.g., discovery sanctions or loss 
of the presumption of validity regarding claims) adequately addressed 
those incidents or whether gaps in the current remedial framework might 
lead to future incidents that could compromise public confidence in the 
CRB ratemaking and royalty distribution system.

Solicitation of Comments

    The Judges seek reply comments on the proposed new rule that 
respond to comments that the Judges received in response to the initial 
notice of proposed rulemaking.

How To Submit Comments

    Interested members of the public must submit comments to only one 
of the following addresses. If not submitting online, commenters must 
submit an original of their comments, five paper copies, and an 
electronic version in searchable PDF format on a CD.
    Online: https://app.crb.gov or http://www.regulations.gov; or
    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.

    Dated: June 21, 2017.
Suzanne M. Barnett,
Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2017-13277 Filed 6-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1410-72-P

28800 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Proposed Rules E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act applies, and provide a reason for each approximate position 39°17′W23″ N., The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act suggestion or recommendation. 074°34′W31″ W. near Ocean City, NJ. of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires We encourage you to submit (c) Regulations. Federal agencies to assess the effects of comments through the Federal (1) The general safety zone regulations their discretionary regulatory actions. In eRulemaking Portal at http:// found in § 165.23 apply to the safety particular, the Act addresses actions www.regulations.gov. If your material zone created by this temporary section. that may result in the expenditure by a cannot be submitted using http:// (2) Under the general safety zone State, local, or tribal government, in the www.regulations.gov, contact the person regulations in § 165.23, persons may not aggregate, or by the private sector of in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION enter the safety zone described in $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or CONTACT section of this document for paragraph (b) of this section unless more in any one year. Though this alternate instructions. authorized by the COTP or the COTP’s proposed rule would not result in such We accept anonymous comments. All designated representative. an expenditure, we do discuss the comments received will be posted (3) To request permission to enter the effects of this rule elsewhere in this without change to http:// safety zone, contact the COTP or the preamble. www.regulations.gov and will include COTP’s representative on marine band any personal information you have radio VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). F. Environment provided. For more about privacy and All persons and vessels in the safety We have analyzed this proposed rule the docket, visit http:// zone must comply with all lawful orders under Department of Homeland www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. or directions given to them by the COTP Security Management Directive 023–01 Documents mentioned in this NPRM or the COTP’s designated representative. and Commandant Instruction as being available in the docket, and all (d) Effective and enforcement period: M16475.lD, which guide the Coast public comments, will be in our online This section will be enforced from 9:30 Guard in complying with the National docket at http://www.regulations.gov p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 22, 2017. Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 and can be viewed by following that Benjamin A. Cooper, U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the preliminary determination that this you go to the online docket and sign up Port Delaware Bay. action is one of a category of actions that for email alerts, you will be notified [FR Doc. 2017–13206 Filed 6–23–17; 8:45 am] do not individually or cumulatively when comments are posted or a final BILLING CODE 9110–04–P have a significant effect on the human rule is published. environment. This proposed rule List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 involves a safety zone which is limited in size and duration. Normally such Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation LIBRARY OF CONGRESS actions are categorically excluded from (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Copyright Royalty Board further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of Commandant Instruction Waterways. 37 CFR Part 350 M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of For the reasons discussed in the Environmental Consideration preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to [Docket No. 17–CRB–0013 RM] supporting this determination is amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: available in the docket where indicated Proceedings of the Copyright Royalty under ADDRESSES. We seek any PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION Board; Violation of Standards of comments or information that may lead AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS Conduct to the discovery of a significant AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, environmental impact from this ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Library of Congress. proposed rule. ACTION: Proposed rule. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; G. Protest Activities 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges The Coast Guard respects the First Department of Homeland Security Delegation seek reply comments regarding a Amendment rights of protesters. No. 0170.1. proposed new Copyright Royalty Board Protesters are asked to contact the ■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0541 to read as rule that would authorize the Judges to person listed in the FOR FURTHER follows: bar, either temporarily or permanently, INFORMATION CONTACT section to certain individuals and entities from coordinate protest activities so that your § 165.T05–0541 Safety Zone; Nights in Venice Fireworks, Beach Thorofare, Ocean participating in proceedings before the message can be received without Judges. jeopardizing the safety or security of City, NJ. people, places, or vessels. (a) Definitions. As used in this DATES: Comments are due no later than section, designated representative July 26, 2017. V. Public Participation and Request for means a Coast Guard Patrol ADDRESSES: The proposed rule is posted Comments Commander, including a Coast Guard on the agency’s Web site (www.loc.gov/ We view public participation as petty officer, warrant or commissioned crb) and at Regulations.gov essential to effective rulemaking, and officer on board a Coast Guard vessel (www.regulations.gov). Interested sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS will consider all comments and material and or on board another Federal, State, parties may submit comments via the received during the comment period. or local law enforcement vessel assisting Copyright Royalty Board’s electronic Your comment can help shape the the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay filing system, eCRB, at https:// outcome of this rulemaking. If you with enforcement of the safety zone. app.crb.gov. Commenters must register submit a comment, please include the (b) Location. The following area is a to use the system prior to filing docket number for this rulemaking, safety zone: All the waters of Beach comments. Those who choose not to indicate the specific section of this Thorofare within a 600 foot radius of the submit comments electronically should document to which each comment fireworks launch platform in see How to Submit Comments in the VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Jun 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 121 / Monday, June 26, 2017 / Proposed Rules 28801 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section on those proposals, or welcome Dated: June 21, 2017. below for online and physical addresses alternative suggestions the Judges might Suzanne M. Barnett, and further instructions. adopt to address those perceived Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: shortfalls, including the pros and cons [FR Doc. 2017–13277 Filed 6–23–17; 8:45 am] Anita Blaine, Program Specialist, at of choosing any proposed alternative BILLING CODE 1410–72–P (202) 707–7658 or crb@loc.gov. approach. In light of some of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April negative comments, the Judges also seek 20, 2017, the Copyright Royalty Judges comment on whether, on balance, the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (Judges) published a notice in the remedies currently available to the AGENCY Federal Register seeking comments on a Judges for addressing ethical lapses of proposed rule that would authorize the participants and counsel are adequate or 40 CFR Part 52 Judges to bar, either temporarily or preferable to the remedial rule the [EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0760; FRL–9963– permanently, certain individuals and Judges proposed. In particular, the 69 Region 5] entities from participating in Judges seek detailed comments proceedings before the Judges.1 In regarding the incidents to which the Approval and Promulgation of Air response to the notice, the Judges Judges referredin the notice proposing Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; received five comments, including two the provision (or others that CFR Update joint comments, from people and commenters are aware of to which the Judges did not refer) and how remedies AGENCY: Environmental Protection entities that regularly participate in currently available were used to address Agency (EPA). proceedings before the Judges.2 The comments and the proposal are those incidents and whether or not the ACTION: Proposed rule. available on the CRB Web site and in extant remedies (e.g., discovery sanctions or loss of the presumption of SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection eCRB. Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a While some of the comments were validity regarding claims) adequately addressed those incidents or whether request submitted by the Indiana supportive of the proposal or certain Department of Environmental aspects of it, others were critical and gaps in the current remedial framework might lead to future incidents that could Management on December 13, 2016, to raised a number of issues with the revise the Indiana state implementation proposal, including the scope of the compromise public confidence in the plan (SIP). The submission revises and proposal, potential abuses of the CRB ratemaking and royalty distribution updates the Indiana Administrative proposed provisions, the system. Code definition of ‘‘References to the Constitutionality of some of the Code of Federal Regulations,’’ from the Solicitation of Comments proposed provisions, and whether the 2013 edition to the 2015 edition. proposal is even necessary. The Judges The Judges seek reply comments on DATES: Comments must be received on seek reply comments responding the proposed new rule that respond to directly to issues that commenters or before July 26, 2017. comments that the Judges received in raised regarding the proposal. While the ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, response to the initial notice of Judges will review and consider all proposed rulemaking. identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– comments they receive on the proposal, OAR–2016–0760 at https:// they request that commenters limit their How To Submit Comments www.regulations.gov or via email to comments at this point to issues that blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments Interested members of the public must submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the other commenters raised in the initial submit comments to only one of the online instructions for submitting round of comments, including ways to following addresses. If not submitting comments. Once submitted, comments address criticisms that some online, commenters must submit an cannot be edited or removed from commenters raised with respect to the original of their comments, five paper Regulations.gov. For either manner of proposal. Some commenters that copies, and an electronic version in submission, EPA may publish any criticized the proposal suggested searchable PDF format on a CD. comment received to its public docket. alternative language that might remedy perceived shortfalls in the Judges’ Online: https://app.crb.gov or http:// Do not submit electronically any proposal. The Judges request comments www.regulations.gov; or information you consider to be U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, Confidential Business Information (CBI) 1 82 FR 18601. P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024– or other information whose disclosure is 2 The Judges received a joint comment from a 0977; or Overnight service (only USPS restricted by statute. Multimedia group referring to itself as ‘‘The Allocation Phase submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be Parties,’’ which are Program Suppliers, Joint Sports Express Mail is acceptable): Copyright Claimants, Commercial Television Claimants, Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, accompanied by a written comment. Public Broadcasting Service, Settling Devotional Washington, DC 20024–0977; or The written comment is considered the Claimants, Canadian Claimants Group, and official comment and should include National Public Radio. The Judges also received a Commercial courier: Address package discussion of all points you wish to joint comment from a group referring to itself as to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of make. EPA will generally not consider Music Community Participants, which are Congress, James Madison Memorial SoundExchange, Inc., the Recording Industry comments or comment contents located Association of America, Inc., the American Building, LM–403, 101 Independence outside of the primary submission (i.e. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Association of Independent Music, the American Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559– on the web, cloud, or other file sharing Federation of Musicians of the United States and 6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier system). For additional submission Canada, the Screen Actors Guild—American Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE., and D Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the methods, please contact the person Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, Inc., Street NE., Washington, DC; or identified in the FOR FURTHER and the National Music Publishers’ Association. Hand delivery: Library of Congress, INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the The Judges also received comments from Raul Galaz and from Worldwide Subsidy Group, LLC, dba James Madison Memorial Building, LM– full EPA public comment policy, Independent Producers Group. The Judges also 401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., information about CBI or multimedia received a comment from David Powell. Washington, DC 20559–6000. submissions, and general guidance on VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Jun 23, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1


Document Created: 2018-11-14 10:10:39
Document Modified: 2018-11-14 10:10:39
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionProposed rule.
DatesComments are due no later than July 26, 2017.
ContactAnita Blaine, Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or [email protected]
FR Citation82 FR 28800 
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR