61116 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new AD: 

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA–2008– 

1165; Directorate Identifier 2008–NE– 

38–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by 

November 18, 2010. 

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) 

models RB211–Trent 875–17, –Trent 877–17, 

–Trent 884–17, –Trent 884B–17, –Trent 892– 

17, –Trent 892B–17, and –Trent 895–17 

turbofan engines, with high-pressure (HP) 

compressor stage 1–4 shafts, part number 

(P/N) FK32580, installed. These engines are 

installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777 

series airplanes. 

Reason 

(d) European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA) AD 2010–0087, dated May 5, 2010 

(corrected May 6, 2010) states the unsafe 

condition is as follows: 

During manufacture of high-pressure (HP) 

compressor stage 1 discs, a small number of 

parts have been rejected due to a machining 

defect that was found during inspection. 

Analysis of the possibility of less severe 

examples having been undetected and passed 

into service has concluded that action is 

required to reduce the risk of failure. It was 

therefore necessary to reduce the life limit. 

The HP compressor stage 1 disc is part of the 

HP compressor stage 1–4 shaft, P/N FK32580. 

We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of 

the HP compressor stage 1 disc, uncontained 

engine failure, and damage to the airplane. 

Actions and Compliance 

(e) Unless already done, do the following 

actions. 

Multiple Flight Profile Monitoring Parts 

(1) For RB211–Trent 800 engines being 

monitored by ‘‘Multiple Flight Profile 

Monitoring,’’ remove the HP compressor stage 

1–4 shaft, P/N FK32580, before accumulating 

5,580 standard duty cycles (SDC) since-new 

or within 960 SDC from the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs later. 

Heavy Flight Profile Parts 

(2) For RB211–Trent 800 engines being 

monitored by ‘‘Heavy Flight Profile,’’ remove 

the HP compressor stage 1–4 shaft, P/N 

FK32580, before accumulating 5,280 flight 

cycles since new or within 860 flight cycles 

from the effective data of this AD, whichever 

occurs later. 

FAA Differences 

(f) We have found it necessary to not 

incorporate the June 4, 2008 compliance date 

which is in EASA AD 2010–0087, dated May 

5, 2010 (corrected May 6, 2010). We also 

updated the compliance times in the AD 

based on a more recent assessment of the 

unsafe condition. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(g) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, has the authority to approve 

AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the 

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to EASA Airworthiness Directive 

2010–0087, dated May 5, 2010 (corrected 

May 6, 2010), and Rolls-Royce plc Alert 

Service Bulletin No. RB.211–72–AF825, 

Revision 3, dated August 25, 2009 for related 

information. Contact Rolls-Royce plc, P.O. 

Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ; telephone: 

011–44–1332–242424; fax: 011–44–1332– 

245418, for a copy of this service 

information. 

(i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace 

Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 

Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; e-mail: james.lawrence@faa.gov; 

telephone (781) 238–7176; fax (781) 238– 

7199, for more information about this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on 

September 27, 2010. 

Peter A. White, 

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24745 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. RM 2010–3] 

Refunds Under the Cable Statutory 

License 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office seeks comment on 

whether a cable operator may receive 

refunds in situations where it has failed 

to pay for the carriage of distant signals 

on a system–wide basis under the 

Copyright Act, before it was amended to 

allow a cable system to calculate its 

royalty fees on a community–by– 

community basis. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received in the Office of the General 

Counsel of the Copyright Office no later 

than November 3, 2010. Reply 

comments must be received in the 

Office of the General Counsel of the 

Copyright Office no later than 

November 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a 

private party, an original and five copies 

of a comment or reply comment should 

be brought to the Library of Congress, 

U.S. Copyright Office, Room 401, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, 

DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

E.D.T. The envelope should be 

addressed as follows: Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office. 

If delivered by a commercial courier, an 

original and five copies of a comment or 

reply comment must be delivered to the 

Congressional Courier Acceptance Site 

(‘‘CCAS’’) located at 2nd and D Streets, 

NE, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. 

and 4 p.m. The envelope should be 

addressed as follows: Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, 

LM 403, James Madison Building, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, 

DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will 

not accept delivery by means of 

overnight delivery services such as 

Federal Express, United Parcel Service 

or DHL. If sent by mail (including 

overnight delivery using U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail), an original and 

five copies of a comment or reply 

comment should be addressed to U.S. 

Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, 

P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Golant, Assistant General Counsel, and 

Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General 

Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 

70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: 

(202) 707–8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

111 of the Copyright Act (‘‘Act’’), title 17 

of the United States Code (‘‘Section 

111’’), provides cable operators with a 

statutory license to retransmit to the 

public a performance or display of a 

work embodied in a primary 

transmission made by a television 

station licensed by the Federal 

Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’). 

Cable systems that retransmit broadcast 

signals in accordance with the 

provisions governing the statutory 

license set forth in Section 111 are 

required to pay royalty fees to the 

Copyright Office (‘‘Office’’). Payments 

made under the cable statutory license 

are remitted semi–annually to the Office 

which invests the royalties in United 

States Treasury securities pending 

distribution of these funds to those 

copyright owners who are entitled to 

receive a share of the fees. Section 111 

was recently amended by the Satellite 

Television Extension and Localism Act 

of 2010 (‘‘STELA’’), Pub. L. No. 111–175, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61117 

which made some changes to the design 

of the royalty payment structure, as 

noted below. 

Cable operators have long paid 

royalties for the retransmission of non– 

network programming carried by distant 

broadcast television signals under the 

Section 111 statutory license. The 

royalties are based on a percentage of 

gross receipts generated by a cable 

system. Under the licensing framework 

established by Congress in 1976, cable 

operators had to pay for the number of 

distant signals carried, even though 

some such signals were not received or 

made available to every subscriber of a 

particular cable system. Distant 

broadcast signals that were not made 

available on a system–wide basis, but on 

which operators were required to pay 

royalties, have been called ‘‘phantom 

signals.’’ The Copyright Office has been 

aware of the phantom signal situation 

since at least 1983, see NCTA Petition 

for Issuance of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (filed August 22, 1983), but 

the matter has only recently received 

legislative attention. 

Section 104 of STELA, entitled 

‘‘Modifications to Cable System 

Secondary Transmission Rights Under 

Section 111,’’ directly addresses 

phantom signals. Specifically, it amends 

Section 111(d)(1) of the Copyright Act 

which sets forth the methodology for a 

cable operator to calculate royalty fees. 

Cable operators now pay royalty fees 

based on the communities where the 

distant broadcast signal is actually 

offered rather than on a broader cable 

system basis as had been the case since 

1978. 

Specifically, STELA amends 

subparagraph (C) of Section 111(d)(1) to 

state that if a cable system provides 

secondary transmissions of primary 

transmitters to some, but not all, 

communities served by the cable 

system, the gross receipts and distant 

signal equivalent values for each 

secondary transmission may be derived 

on the basis of the subscribers in those 

communities where the cable system 

actually provides such secondary 

transmission. Where a cable system 

calculates its royalties on a community– 

specific (‘‘subscriber group’’) basis, the 

operator applies the methodology in 

Section 111(d)(1)(B)(ii)–(iv) to calculate 

a separate royalty for each subscriber 

group. 

The legislation also amends 

subparagraph (D) of Section 111(d)(1) to 

state that: 

A cable system that, on a statement 

submitted before the date of the 

enactment of the Satellite Television 

Extension and Localism Act of 2010, 

computed its royalty fee consistent with 

the methodology under subparagraph 

(C)(iii), or that amends a statement filed 

before such date of enactment to 

compute the royalty fee due using such 

methodology, shall not be subject to an 

action for infringement, or eligible for 

any royalty refund or offset, arising out 

of its use of such methodology on such 

statement. 

In other words, operators who have 

heretofore based royalty payments on 

subscriber group calculations will not face 

liability for having done so. The amendments 

also make clear that cable operators who 

have paid for phantom signals in the past are 

not entitled to now seek refunds or offsets for 

those payments in any Statement of Account 

period from 2010/1 onward. With regard to 

offsets, cable operators cannot deduct the 

amount they paid for a phantom signal prior 

to STELA (e.g., 2009/1) from the royalties 

they must pay in future Statement of Account 

periods. 

While STELA eliminates the 

possibility of an action for infringement 

against those cable systems that did not 

pay for the carriage of phantom signals 

historically, it did not alter how a cable 

system was to calculate its royalty fee 

obligation for carriage of these signals 

under Section 111 prior to the passage 

of this legislation. Nevertheless, certain 

cable systems have concluded that the 

language which prevents a copyright 

owner from bringing an infringement 

suit against a cable system which had 

computed its past royalty fee obligation 

in a manner consistent with the 

methodology in new Section 

111(d)(1)(D) also nullifies their 

obligation to have paid for carriage of all 

signals on a system–wide basis for the 

accounting periods ending prior to 

January 1, 2010. This approach 

represents one interpretation of the 

effect of the new provision, but it is not 

the only one. A more literal reading of 

the new statutory language is that it 

only shields a cable system from an 

infringement action and that it does not 

erase a cable system’s obligation to have 

paid for the carriage of each distant 

signal on a system–wide basis prior to 

the 2010/1 accounting period. Under the 

latter interpretation, any underpayment 

for carriage of a phantom signal still 

remains even though the operator 

cannot be sued for infringement under 

Section 111. 

We raise this issue because some 

cable systems which, prior to the 2010/ 

1 accounting period, did not pay for 

carriage of phantom signals are now 

requesting refunds in cases where there 

are other non–related issues. In these 

cases, the cable system is just now 

replying to a pending Licensing 

Division initiated letter and is 

requesting a refund for a reporting 

mistake, e.g., identifying a local signal 

as a distant signal for the 2009/2 

accounting period (or an earlier 

accounting period), even though, 

according to the Copyright Office’s 

examination of the statement of account, 

the cable system still has an outstanding 

royalty fee obligation for the 

retransmission of a phantom signal 

during the same period. 

At this time, the Office is not inclined 

to refund any fees for a non–phantom 

reporting error in the case where the 

operator has an outstanding balance 

owed for the carriage of a phantom 

signal without accounting for that 

obligation too because, prior to STELA, 

section 111 required that royalty fees be 

calculated on a system–wide basis. 

Moreover, the language in STELA 

protecting a cable system from an 

infringement suit for failure to make 

these payments prior to the 2010/1 

accounting period does not address a 

cable system’s past obligation to have 

paid the royalty fees owed by the cable 

system at the time it filed the statement 

of accounts. Historically, cable operators 

have been expected to pay for each 

distant signal on a system–wide basis 

and when that did not occur, the Office 

would write to the cable system noting 

the underpayment and record it as an 

outstanding obligation. Moreover, the 

Office would not provide a refund for an 

overpayment for misreporting a local 

signal as a distant signal or similar 

reporting error until the outstanding 

obligation for carriage of the phantom 

signal had been satisfied. Nothing in the 

legislation appears to have altered this 

approach. Nevertheless, in light of the 

requests from certain cable operators, 

we seek comment on whether to offset 

the outstanding balance owed for 

carriage of phantom signals before 

providing a refund for an error 

unrelated to phantom signals that 

occurred in an accounting period prior 

to 2010/1. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR 201 

Copyright 

Proposed Regulation 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office proposes 

to amend part 201 of title 37 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 201 – GENERAL PROVISIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702 

2. Amend section 201.17 by 

redesignating paragraphs (m)(1) through 

(4) as paragraphs (m)(2) through (5) and 

adding a new paragraph (m)(1) to read 

as follows: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

61118 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

§ 201.17 Statements of Account 

covering compulsory licenses for 

secondary transmissions by cable 

systems. 

* * * * * 

(m) Corrections, supplemental 

payments and refunds. 

(1) Royalty fee obligations under 17 

U.S.C. 111 prior to the effective date of 

the Satellite Television Extension and 

Localism Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 111– 

175 are determined based on carriage of 

each distant signal on a system–wide 

basis. Refunds for an overpayment of 

royalty fees for an accounting period 

prior to January 1, 2010, shall be made 

only when all outstanding royalty fee 

obligations have been met, including 

those for carriage of each distant signal 

on a system–wide basis. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 28, 2010 

Tanya Sandros, 

Deputy General Counsel, 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24779 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–S 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS