31992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Notices 

1This group included the Program Suppliers 

(commercial entertainment programming), Joint 

Sports Claimants (professional and college sports 

programming), National Association of Broadcasters 

(‘‘NAB’’) (commercial television programming), 

Commercial Television Claimants (local 

commercial television programming), Broadcaster 

Claimants Group (U.S. commercial television 

stations), American Society of Composers, Authors 

and Publishers (‘‘ASCAP’’) (musical works included 

in television programming), Broadcast Music, Inc. 

(‘‘BMI’’) (same), Public Television Claimants 

(noncommercial television programming), Public 

Broadcasting Service (‘‘PBS’’) (same), National 

Public Radio (‘‘NPR’’) (noncommercial radio 

programming), Canadian Claimants (Canadian 

television programming), and Devotional Claimants 

(religious television programming). 

2The joint recommendation was submitted by 

DIRECTV, the National Cable Television 

Association, and a group representing certain 

copyright owners, namely, the Program Suppliers, 

Joint Sports Claimants, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, the 

Public Television Claimants, the Canadian 

Claimants Group, the Devotional Claimants, and 

NPR. 

meeting. If a request is made without 

advance notice, LSC will make every 

effort to accommodate the request but 

cannot guarantee that all requests can be 

fulfilled. 

Dated: May 29, 2014. 

Katherine Ward, 

Executive Assistant to the Vice President for 

Legal Affairs and General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12905 Filed 5–30–14; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office, Library of Congress 

[Docket No. 2012–5] 

Verification of Statements of Account 

Submitted by Cable Operators and 

Satellite Carriers 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of public roundtable. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office 

will host a public roundtable 

concerning a new procedure to allow 

copyright owners to audit the 

Statements of Account and royalty 

payments that cable operators and 

satellite carriers deposit with the Office. 

The roundtable is intended to elicit 

specific information concerning the 

topics listed in this notice. The Office is 

especially interested in hearing from 

accounting professionals with 

experience and expertise in auditing 

procedures and statistical sampling 

techniques. 

DATES: The public roundtable will be 

held on July 9, 2014 beginning at 10:00 

a.m. at the address listed below. 

Requests to participate in the roundtable 

discussion must be submitted in writing 

no later than June 26, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The public roundtable will 

take place in the Office of the Register 

of Copyrights, LM–403 of the Madison 

Building of the Library of Congress, 101 

Independence Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20559. The Office strongly prefers 

that requests to participate in the 

discussion be submitted electronically 

using the form which will be posted on 

the Office’s Web site at http://

www.copyright.gov/docs/soaaudit/

public-roundtable/. If electronic 

submission is not feasible, please 

contact the Office at (202) 707–8350 for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General 

Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights, by email at jcharlesworth@

loc.gov, or by telephone at 202–707– 

8350; Erik Bertin, Assistant General 

Counsel, by email at ebertin@loc.gov, or 

by telephone at 202–707–8350; or 

Sarang V. Damle, Special Advisor to the 

General Counsel, by email at sdam@

loc.gov, or by telephone at 202–707– 

8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Satellite Television Extension 

and Localism Act of 2010 (‘‘STELA’’) 

directed the Register of Copyrights to 

establish a new procedure to allow 

copyright owners to audit the 

Statements of Account (‘‘SOAs’’) and 

royalty fees that cable operators and 

satellite carriers file with the U.S. 

Copyright Office (the ‘‘Office’’). See 17 

U.S.C. 111(d)(6), 119(b)(2). Cable 

operators and satellite carriers file SOAs 

and deposit royalties every six months 

in order to obtain the benefits of the 

statutory licenses that allow for the 

retransmission of over-the-air broadcast 

signals. 

On January 31, 2012, a group of 

copyright owners filed a Petition for 

Rulemaking and provided the Office 

with proposed language for the new 

audit procedure.1 See Petition at 1–4. 

On June 14, 2012, the Office published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking that set 

forth its initial proposal for this new 

procedure (the ‘‘First NPRM’’), which 

was based, in part, on audit regulations 

that the Office has adopted in the past, 

as well as the petition that the Office 

received from the copyright owners. See 

77 FR 35643 (June 14, 2012). 

The Office received extensive 

comments from groups representing 

copyright owners, cable operators, and 

individual companies that use the 

statutory licenses. The Office carefully 

studied these comments and revised its 

proposal based on the suggestions it 

received. On May 9, 2013 the Office 

issued a second notice of proposed 

rulemaking setting forth a revised 

proposal for the audit procedure (the 

‘‘Second NPRM’’), which was largely 

based on a joint recommendation that 

the Office received from certain 

stakeholders.2 See 78 FR 27137 (May 9, 

2013). Once again, the Office received 

extensive comments. 

On December 26, 2013, the Office 

issued an interim rule that establishes 

one aspect of the audit procedure (the 

‘‘Interim Rule’’). See 78 FR 78257 (Dec. 

26, 2013). Specifically, the Interim Rule 

allows copyright owners to initiate an 

audit by filing a notice with the Office 

and by delivering a copy of that notice 

to the statutory licensee that will be 

subject to the procedure. See id. at 

78257. The Office also explained that it 

was in the process of reviewing the 

comments submitted in response to the 

Second NPRM. See id. at 78258. 

After analyzing the latest round of 

comments, the Office has decided to 

revisit several issues that were 

identified and discussed in the First and 

Second NPRMs. In addition, the Office 

has identified some new issues that 

were not addressed in any of the 

comments. These issues are described in 

Sections II.A through II.E below. Many 

of them are overlapping in the sense 

that there may be a common solution for 

multiple issues. 

The public roundtable is intended to 

elicit specific information on these 

designated topics, preferably from 

individuals with experience and 

expertise in accounting. At this time, 

the Office is seeking input only on the 

topics specifically mentioned in this 

notice. Following the roundtable, the 

Office expects to issue another notice of 

proposed rulemaking (the ‘‘Third 

NPRM’’), which will set forth a revised 

proposal for the audit procedure. The 

Third NPRM will address various issues 

that the parties raised in response to the 

Second NPRM, as well as relevant input 

that the Office receives during the 

roundtable. The Third NPRM will be 

published in the Federal Register and 

copyright owners, cable operators, 

satellite carriers, accounting 

professionals, and other interested 

parties will be given an opportunity to 

submit written comments at that time. 

II. Topics for the Public Roundtable 

A. Concerns Regarding Backlogs of 

Pending Audits 

As noted above, the proposed rule set 

forth in the Second NPRM borrows 

heavily from the joint recommendation 

that the Office received from certain 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Notices 31993 

3 In the case of an audit involving an MSO the 

copyright owners would be permitted to audit up 

to thirty percent of the MSO’s systems and for each 

of those systems the auditor would be permitted to 

review up to six SOAs from the previous six 

accounting periods. 

stakeholders. After studying the 

comments received in response to the 

Second NPRM, the Office is concerned 

that the audit procedure contemplated 

by this rule could lead to significant 

backlogs in pending audits. 

This concern arises out of the 

interplay of several provisions of the 

proposed rule and the probable timeline 

for conducting most audits. First, the 

proposed rule limits the number of 

SOAs that may be audited at one time. 

Licensees may be subject to only one 

audit during a calendar year, and each 

audit may involve no more than two 

SOAs. See 78 FR at 27152. For multiple 

system operators (‘‘MSOs’’), each audit 

may cover a sample of no more than ten 

percent of the MSO’s systems, and the 

audit of each system may involve no 

more than two SOAs filed by each 

system. Id. at 27153. Significantly, the 

Second NPRM made clear that if a 

single audit spanned multiple years, the 

licensee would not be subject to any 

other audits during those years. For 

example, if an auditor initiated an audit 

in 2013, and delivered his or her final 

report in 2014, the licensee could not be 

subject to any other audits in calendar 

year 2013 or 2014, because the licensee 

would already be subject to an audit 

during those years. See id. at 27143. If 

copyright owners wished to audit 

additional SOAs filed by that licensee, 

they would have to wait until calendar 

year 2015 to review those statements. 

These limitations come with a safety 

valve of sorts: if the auditor concludes 

that there was a net aggregate 

underpayment of five percent or more, 

the copyright owners could audit all of 

the SOAs that the licensee filed during 

the previous six accounting periods.3 Id. 

at 27153. But while this expanded audit 

was taking place copyright owners 

would be barred from commencing a 

separate audit of other SOAs filed by 

that licensee (e.g., more recently filed 

SOAs that were not included in the 

current audit). 

Second, under the Interim Rule, a 

copyright owner may preserve the right 

to audit a particular SOA so long as it 

files a notice of intent within three years 

after the last day of the year in which 

that statement was filed. 37 CFR 

201.16(c)(1). Notably, however, the 

Interim Rule and the proposed rule do 

not specify a precise deadline by which 

a copyright owner must commence the 

actual audit. Likewise, the Office did 

not propose any deadline for the 

completion of a full audit, although the 

proposed rule included a detailed 

description of the steps necessary to 

complete the audit and provided several 

interim deadlines for completing some 

of those steps. 

The Office offered these proposals on 

the assumption that most audits could 

be completed within a single calendar 

year. But that may not be a realistic 

assumption in some cases, especially 

where the copyright owners conduct an 

expanded audit or where a licensee fails 

to cooperate with an auditor’s requests 

for documentation in a timely manner. 

If an audit is not completed in the 

expected time frame, a backlog of 

pending audits could easily develop. 

For instance, if copyright owners 

initiate an audit of a cable operator’s 

SOAs for the 2014–1 and 2014–2 

accounting periods during calendar year 

2015, those audits would have to be 

fully completed by December 31, 2015 

if copyright owners want to audit the 

operator’s SOAs for the 2015–1 and 

2015–2 accounting periods in calendar 

year 2016. But if the audit of the 2014 

SOAs extended into January of 2016, the 

fact that an operator would be subject to 

no more than one audit per calendar 

year would force the copyright owners 

to wait until the start of 2017 to begin 

the audit of the 2015 SOAs. And if the 

audit of the 2015 SOAs did not 

conclude by December 31, 2017, 

copyright owners would have to wait 

until 2019 to initiate a new audit 

involving no more than two of the seven 

other SOAs that the operator filed in 

2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. At the same 

time, the copyright owners could 

indefinitely preserve the right to audit 

those seven SOAs under the Interim 

Rule by timely filing notices of intent 

within the applicable three-year 

deadline. See 37 CFR 201.16(c)(1). 

The problem of backlogs appears 

especially acute in the case of MSOs. 

Under the proposed rule, copyright 

owners are permitted to file notices of 

intent to audit the SOAs filed by all of 

the cable systems owned by an MSO, 

but in any given year they may audit 

only ten percent of those systems. As a 

result, backlogs would occur 

immediately and it could conceivably 

take decades for copyright owners to 

verify all of the statements that they 

wish to review for a given period. 

Such backlogs would obviously place 

an undue burden on both copyright 

owners and licensees. Copyright owners 

should be able to audit an SOA within 

a reasonable amount of time after it is 

filed, but this may not be possible if 

there are many pending audits in the 

queue. In such cases, copyright owners 

may feel obligated to file notices of 

intent to audit on a routine basis in 

order to preserve the option of auditing 

a particular licensee, even if they do not 

expect to proceed with the audit in the 

foreseeable future. At the same time, the 

licensee might be required to maintain 

records related to SOAs for many years 

before an audit gets underway, which 

creates administrative burdens and 

could increase the risk that records may 

be lost or damaged in the interim. 

The Office would like to discuss the 

concerns described above, and is 

interested in hearing stakeholders’ 

views on possible safeguards against 

such backlogs. We believe there are a 

number of solutions that, individually 

or taken together, could help mitigate 

these concerns. One possibility is to set 

precise deadlines for starting and 

completing each audit. Once a notice 

has been filed with the Office, should 

the auditor be required to begin his or 

her review within a specified period of 

time? If so, should the deadline be one 

month, three months, six months, or 

some other time period? If the auditor 

does not proceed with the audit in a 

timely manner, should the copyright 

owners lose the opportunity to audit the 

SOAs identified in the notice of intent 

to audit? Once the audit begins, should 

the auditor be required to complete his 

or her review within a specified period 

of time? Should the licensee be 

penalized (for example, by allowing the 

commencement of a concurrent audit) if 

the auditor determines that the licensee 

did not reasonably cooperate with his or 

her requests and that this compromised 

the auditor’s ability to complete the 

audit within the time allowed? 

Another possibility is to loosen the 

restrictions on the number of SOAs that 

may be included in each audit or the 

number of separate audits that can take 

place at any given time. Would it be 

more efficient to allow the copyright 

owners to audit more than two SOAs at 

a time? If the typical audit may require 

more than twelve months, would it be 

preferable if the licensee were subject to 

no more than one audit at a time, rather 

than no more than one audit per 

calendar year? Are there circumstances 

where it might make sense to allow 

audits to overlap? 

We are particularly interested in 

hearing potential solutions to the 

problem of MSOs. In the case of an 

audit involving an MSO, would it be 

reasonable to apply the auditor’s 

findings to SOAs filed by other systems 

that were not included in the audit? In 

other words, if the auditor discovers an 

underpayment or overpayment in the 

SOAs filed by ten percent of the MSO’s 

Form 2 and Form 3 systems, is it 

reasonable to assume that the auditor 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
31994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Notices 

4See AICPA, Clarified Statements on Auditing 

Standards AU–C Section 200.01, available at http:// 

www.aicpa.org/Research/Standards/AuditAttest/

DownloadableDocuments/AU-C-00200.pdf. 

5See AICPA, Statements on Standards for 

Attestation Engagements at Section 101.01, 

available at http://www.aicpa.org/Research/

Standards/AuditAttest/DownloadableDocuments/

AT-00101.pdf. 

6See 37 CFR 201.30 (verification of SOAs filed 

under Section 1003(c)); 37 CFR 380.6 and 380.7 

(verification of royalty payments made by 

commercial and noncommercial webcasters under 

Sections 112(e) and 114); 37 CFR 380.15 and 380.16 

(verification of royalty payments made by 

broadcasters under Sections 112(e) and 114); 37 

CFR 380.25 and 380.26 (verification of royalty 

payments made by noncommercial educational 

webcasters under Sections 112(e) and 114); 37 CFR 

382.6 and 382.7 (verification of royalty payments 

made by nonexempt preexisting subscription 

services under Sections 112(e) and 114); 37 CFR 

382.15 and 382.16 (verification of royalty payments 

made by preexisting satellite digital audio radio 

services under Sections 112(e) and 114); 37 CFR 

384.6 and 384.7 (verification of royalty payments 

made by business establishment services under 

Section 112(e)). 

7 37 CFR 380.6(f) and 380.7(f) (royalty payments 

made by commercial and noncommercial 

webcasters). Similar language appears in the 

regulations governing the verification of royalty 

payments made by broadcasters (37 CFR 380.15(f) 

and 380.16(f)), noncommercial educational 

webcasters (37 CFR 380.25(f) and 380.26(f)), 

preexisting satellite digital audio radio services (37 

CFR 382.15(f) and 382.16(f)), and business 

establishment services (37 CFR 384.6(f) and 

384.7(f)). 

would find similar discrepancies in the 

SOAs filed by the other systems owned 

by that MSO? What accounting 

methods, if any, could be used to 

extrapolate findings for one system to 

the other systems? Should the final rule 

specify the methods that may be used 

for this purpose? Should an MSO be 

given the opportunity to include a larger 

sample of systems in the audit if it is 

concerned that statistical sampling may 

yield unreliable results? If the auditor is 

allowed to audit more than two SOAs 

and/or to apply his or her findings to 

multiple cable systems, would there be 

any need to allow copyright owners to 

expand the scope of the initial audit to 

preceding periods as contemplated by 

the Second NPRM? 

In addition, there may be other 

possibilities for avoiding potential 

backlogs that the Office has not 

considered, and we welcome other ideas 

that could mitigate the significant 

concern that the audit process could lag 

far behind periods for which review 

may be sought. 

B. The Proper Auditing Standard 

The proposed rule set forth in the 

Second NPRM specifies that the audit 

must be conducted ‘‘according to 

generally accepted auditing standards.’’ 

78 FR at 27151. Guidance from the 

American Institute of Certified Public 

Accountants (‘‘AICPA’’) indicates that 

‘‘generally accepted auditing standards’’ 

are those that are used by accountants 

to audit corporate financial statements.4

In modern accounting practice, are 

‘‘generally accepted auditing standards’’ 

the proper standards to apply to the 

audits contemplated here? Or is there an 

alternative approach, such as 

‘‘attestation standards,’’ that might be 

more appropriate? 5

C. Limitation on Ex Parte 

Communications 

The Second NPRM contains a detailed 

provision governing ex parte 

communications. Specifically, the 

provision bans ex parte 

communications regarding the audit 

between the selected auditor and the 

participating copyright owners, except 

in certain narrow circumstances. The 

Office included this provision based on 

the joint stakeholder’s recommendation 

and with the understanding that this 

provision was intended to maintain the 

independence of the auditor. See 78 FR 

at 27151. We note, however, that such 

a restriction does not appear in other 

audit regulations promulgated by the 

Copyright Office or the Copyright 

Royalty Board.6 Could this restriction 

create inefficiencies in the audit process 

by preventing copyright owners from 

communicating with the auditor 

without first coordinating with the 

licensee? Is this restriction consistent 

with the relevant professional standards 

for auditors? Are the concerns that 

prompted the joint stakeholders to 

recommend this provision already 

addressed by those professional 

standards? 

D. Disputing the Facts and Conclusions 

Set Forth in the Auditor’s Report 

Section 111(d)(6) of the Copyright Act 

directs the Office to issue regulations 

that ‘‘require a consultation period for 

the independent auditor to review its 

conclusions with a designee of the cable 

system,’’ ‘‘establish a mechanism for the 

cable system to remedy any errors 

identified in the auditor’s report,’’ and 

‘‘provide an opportunity to remedy any 

disputed facts or conclusions.’’ 17 

U.S.C. 111(d)(6)(C). 

The Second NPRM proposed to 

implement this directive by requiring 

the auditor to prepare a written report 

setting forth his or her conclusions, to 

consult with the licensee for a period of 

thirty days, and, if the auditor agreed 

that a mistake had been made, to correct 

the report before delivering it to the 

copyright owners. See 78 FR at 27144– 

45. If the auditor and the licensee are 

unable to resolve their disagreements, 

the proposed rule states that the 

licensee may prepare a written response 

within fourteen days thereafter, which 

would be attached as an exhibit to the 

auditor’s final report. Id. 

After further analysis, the Office is 

concerned that this may be unduly 

restrictive, in part due to the time 

constraints imposed by the proposed 

rule. The Office would like to know 

whether the auditor and licensee should 

have more flexibility in conducting this 

phase of the audit to increase the 

possibility that points of disagreement 

can be resolved. For instance, the 

Copyright Royalty Board adopted audit 

regulations for royalty payments made 

under Sections 112(e) and 114 that 

simply state, ‘‘the auditor shall review 

the tentative written findings of the 

audit with the appropriate agent or 

employee of the Licensee being audited 

in order to remedy any factual errors 

and clarify any issues relating to the 

audit; [p]rovided that an appropriate 

agent or employee of the Licensee 

reasonably cooperates with the auditor 

to remedy promptly any factual errors or 

clarify any issues raised by the audit.’’ 7

Should the Office consider a similar 

approach for audits involving cable 

operators and satellite providers? If so, 

how might such an approach impact the 

timing and completion of audits? 

If the Office retains the approach set 

forth in the Second NPRM, should the 

licensee be given an opportunity to 

review the initial draft of the auditor’s 

report before the consultation period 

begins? Is thirty days a sufficient 

amount of time for the consultation 

period? Should the auditor provide the 

licensee with a revised draft of the 

report at the end of the consultation 

period reflecting any errors or mistakes 

that have been corrected? If the licensee 

disagrees with the conclusions set forth 

in the revised draft, should the licensee 

be given an opportunity to prepare a 

written response, and if so, is fourteen 

days a sufficient amount of time to 

prepare that response? Should the 

auditor be given more than five days to 

prepare the final draft of his or her 

report? 

E. Cost of the Audit Procedure 

The Office would appreciate input on 

two issues related to the cost of the 

audit procedure. First, the proposed rule 

set forth in the Second NPRM states that 

if the auditor discovers a net aggregate 

underpayment of more than ten percent, 

the statutory licensee shall pay the 

copyright owners for the cost of the 

audit. See 78 FR at 27152. If, however, 

‘‘the statutory licensee provides the 

auditor with a written explanation of its 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 106 / Tuesday, June 3, 2014 / Notices 31995 

good faith objections to the auditor’s 

report pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of 

this section and the net aggregate 

underpayment made by the statutory 

licensee on the basis of that explanation 

is not more than [ten] percent and not 

less than [five] percent, the costs of the 

auditor shall be split evenly between the 

statutory licensee and the participating 

copyright owners.’’ Id. 

The Office is inclined to keep the 

provision providing for cost shifting 

where the auditor concludes there was 

a net aggregate underpayment of more 

than ten percent. But after further 

analysis, we question whether the 

provision providing for cost splitting 

should be included in the final rule. 

Under the proposed rule, the 

determination of whether there has been 

a net aggregate underpayment would be 

based on the auditor’s final report, i.e., 

after the auditor has evaluated the 

licensee’s ‘‘written explanation of its 

good faith objections’’ to the initial 

report. If the auditor considered and 

rejected those objections, it is unclear 

why they should gain renewed 

significance for the purpose of 

allocating costs. Would it make more 

sense to adopt a simple rule that the 

copyright owners would pay the audit 

costs if the final report concludes that 

the underpayment is ten percent or less, 

and the licensee would pay the cost if 

the final report concludes that the 

underpayment is more than ten percent 

(with the qualification that the licensee 

would never be required to pay costs 

that exceed the amount of the 

underpayment identified in the final 

report)? 

Second, the proposed rule states that 

‘‘if a court, in a final judgment (i.e., after 

all appeals have been exhausted) 

concludes that the statutory licensee’s 

net aggregate underpayment, if any, was 

[ten] percent or less, the participating 

copyright owner(s) shall reimburse the 

licensee, within [sixty] days of the final 

judgment, for any costs of the auditor 

that the licensee has paid.’’ 78 FR at 

27152. In the Second NRPM the Office 

assumed that if the licensee disagrees 

with the auditor’s conclusions, the 

licensee might seek a declaratory 

judgment of non-infringement and an 

order directing the copyright owners to 

reimburse the licensee for the cost of the 

audit. See 78 FR at 27149. Do the parties 

in fact expect to be engaged in this sort 

of litigation as an outgrowth of the audit 

process? Do stakeholders anticipate that 

a royalty underpayment or overpayment 

would be addressed in a federal 

infringement (or non-infringement) 

action? Have the stakeholders given any 

thought to whether or how the statute of 

limitations might affect such claims? 

Should the appropriate remedy in any 

such proceeding, including 

reimbursement of audit costs, be left to 

the court? 

In any event, if it is necessary to 

include a provision requiring the 

copyright owners to reimburse the 

licensee, we are interested in the 

stakeholders’ views on alternate ways in 

which this might be accomplished, 

given the concerns expressed by some 

commenters about the potential 

difficulty of recovering costs from 

multiple copyright owners in the event 

an auditor’s findings are overturned. See 

AT&T Second Comment at 2; ACA 

Second Comment at 3–4. If the licensee 

disagrees with the auditor’s 

conclusions, should the licensee place 

the cost of the audit procedure into 

escrow pending the resolution of any 

litigation between the licensee and the 

copyright owners? Should the licensee 

be required to release those funds to the 

copyright owners if the parties fail to 

take legal action within a specified 

period of time? If so, what would be a 

reasonable amount of time for the funds 

to remain in escrow? 

III. Requests To Participate in the 

Public Roundtable 

The Office invites copyright owners, 

cable operators, satellite carriers, 

accounting professionals, and other 

interested parties to participate in the 

public roundtable to address these 

issues. The Office is particularly 

interested in hearing from accounting 

professionals with experience and 

expertise regarding auditing procedures 

and statistical sampling techniques. The 

Office encourages parties that share 

interests and views to designate 

common spokespeople to discuss the 

topics listed in this notice. The Office 

also encourages copyright owners and 

licensees to confer with each other prior 

to the meeting to identify common 

ground or areas of disagreement 

concerning these issues. 

Persons wishing to participate in the 

discussion should submit a request 

electronically no later than June 26, 

2014 using the form posted on the 

Office’s Web site at http://

www.copyright.gov/docs/soaaudit/

public-roundtable/. If electronic 

submission is not feasible, please 

contact the Office at (202) 707–8350 for 

special instructions. Seating in the room 

where the roundtable will be held is 

limited and will be offered first to 

persons who submitted a timely request 

to participate. To the extent available, 

observer seats will be offered on a firstcome, first-served basis on the day of 

the meeting. 

Parties do not need to submit written 

comments or prepared testimony in 

order to participate in the public 

roundtable. However, the Office 

strongly encourages participants to 

familiarize themselves with the Notices 

of Proposed Rulemaking and the Interim 

Rule that the Office issued in this 

proceeding, as well as the questions 

presented in this notice and the 

comments that have been submitted to 

date. 

Dated: May 28, 2014. 

Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12755 Filed 6–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 

BOARD 

Sunshine Act Meetings: June 2014 

TIME AND DATES: All meetings are held 

at 2:00 p.m.: Tuesday, June 3; 

Wednesday, June 4; Tuesday, June 10; 

Wednesday, June 11; Thursday, June 12; 

Tuesday, June 17; Wednesday, June 18; 

Thursday, June 19; Tuesday, June 24; 

Wednesday, June 25; Thursday, June 26. 

PLACE: Board Agenda Room, No. 11820, 

1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 

20570. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Pursuant to 

§ 102.139(a) of the Board’s Rules and 

Regulations, the Board or a panel 

thereof will consider ‘‘the issuance of a 

subpoena, the Board’s participation in a 

civil action or proceeding or an 

arbitration, or the initiation, conduct, or 

disposition . . . of particular 

representation or unfair labor practice 

proceedings under section 8, 9, or 10 of 

the [National Labor Relations] Act, or 

any court proceedings collateral or 

ancillary thereto.’’ See also 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(10). 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Henry Breiteneicher, Associate 

Executive Secretary, (202) 273–2917. 

Dated: May 30, 2014. 

William B. Cowen, 

Solicitor. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12864 Filed 5–30–14; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7545–01–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Upon Written Request, Copies Available 

From: Securities and Exchange 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES