### 70373 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

entities during rulemaking. The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: None. Due to the fact that the bridge has been a fixed bridge for 6 years, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 3. Collection of Information

This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520.).

4. Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

5. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the **FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATION CONTACT** section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels. 6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 7. Taking of Private Property

This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. 8. Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. 9. Protection of Children

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

10. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. 11. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under that order because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

12. Technical Standards

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

Under figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

**PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS** 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. Revise the introductory text and paragraph (a) of § 117.751 to read as follows:

**§ 117.751 Shark River (South Channel).**

The draws of the S71 Bridge, mile 0.8, and the Railroad Bridge, mile 0.9, both at Avon, operate as follows:

(a) The bridges operate as one unit. The owners shall provide signal systems so connected that the operator of either bridge may simultaneously notify the operator of the other bridge. The operator of the first bridge to be passed shall be responsible for observing the approach vessels, for receiving and acknowledging signals, and for coordinating the opening of the other draw.

* * * * *

Dated: October 25, 2012. Steven H. Ratti, Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012–28127 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–04–P**

**LIBRARY OF CONGRESS**

**Copyright Royalty Board**

**37 CFR Part 386**

**[Docket No. 2012–8 CRB Satellite COLA]**

**Cost of Living Adjustment to Satellite Carrier Compulsory License Royalty**  **Rates**

**AGENCY :**  Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.


### 70374 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 227 / Monday, November 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

1 Program Suppliers and Joint Sports Claimants comprised the Copyright Owners, while DIRECTV, Inc., DISH Network, LLC and National Programming Service, LLC, comprised the Satellite Carriers.

2 The most recent CPI–U figures are published in November of each year and use the period 1982– 1984 to establish a reference base of 100. The index for October 2011 was 226.421, while the figure for October 2012 was 231.414. **ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Copyright Royalty Judges announce a cost of living adjustment (‘‘COLA’’) of 2.2% in the royalty rates paid by satellite carriers under the satellite carrier compulsory license of the Copyright Act. The COLA is based on the change in the Consumer Price Index from October 2011 to October
2012.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: January 1, 2013.

Applicability Dates: These rates are applicable for the period January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist. Telephone: (202) 707–7658. Email: crb@loc.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The satellite carrier compulsory license establishes a statutory copyright licensing scheme for the retransmission of distant television programming by satellite carriers. 17 U.S.C. 119. Congress created the license in 1988 and has reauthorized the license for additional five-year periods, most recently with the passage of the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, (‘‘STELA’’), Public Law 111–
175.

The Copyright Royalty Judges adopted as final the rates for the section 119 compulsory license for the period 2010– 2014 after publication in the Federal Register of the rates, as proposed by Copyright Owners and Satellite Carriers, 1 yielded no objections. See 75 FR 53198 (August 31, 2010). Section 119(c)(2) requires the Judges annually to adjust these rates ‘‘to reflect any changes occurring in the cost of living adjustment (for all consumers and for all items) [‘‘CPI–U’’] published * * * at least 25 days before January 1.’’ Id. Today’s notice fulfills this obligation.

The change in the cost of living as determined by the CPI–U during the period from the most recent index published before December 1, 2011, to the most recent index published before December 1, 2012, is 2.2%. 2 Rounding to the nearest cent, the royalty rates for the secondary transmission of broadcast stations by satellite carriers for private home viewing and viewing in commercial establishments are 27 cents and 54 cents per subscriber per month, respectively. List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 386

Copyright, Satellite, Television. Final Regulations

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 386 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

**PART 386—ADJUSTMENT OF ROYALTY FEES FOR SECONDARY**  **TRANSMISSIONS BY SATELLITE CARRIERS** 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 386 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 119(c), 801(b)(1).

■ 2. Section 386.2 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (b)(2)(iv) as follows:

**§ 386.2 Royalty fee for secondary transmission by satellite carriers.** 
* * * * *

(b)(1) * * * (iv) 2013: 27 cents per subscriber per month;

* * * * *

(2) * * * (iv) 2013: 54 cents per subscriber per month;

* * * * *

Dated: November 19, 2012. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
[FR Doc. 2012–28507 Filed 11–23–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 1410–72–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS** 

**38 CFR Part 9**

**RIN 2900–AO30**

**Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance—Stillborn Child Coverage** 

**AGENCY :**  Department of Veterans Affairs.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This final rule amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) regulations in order to provide that, if a stillborn child is otherwise eligible to be insured by the SGLI coverage of more than one servicemember under SGLI dependent child coverage, the child would be insured by the coverage of the child’s SGLI-insured biological mother. This final rule will provide consistency in payment determinations involving SGLI stillborn child coverage. **DATES :**  Effective Date: This final rule is effective December 26, 2012.

Applicability Date: This final rule will apply to claims for SGLI proceeds filed on or after December 26, 2012.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Monica Keitt, Attorney-Advisor, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office and Insurance Center (310/290B), P.O. Box 8079, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101, (215) 842–2000, Ext. 2905. (This is not a toll free number.)

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On January 31, 2012, VA published in the Federal Register (77 FR 4734) a proposed rule to provide that, if a stillborn child is insured by the SGLI coverage of more than one servicemember, the SGLI proceedswould be paid to the child’s SGLIinsured mother. We provided a 60-day public-comment period, which ended on April 2, 2012, and received comments from five individuals.

Section 1967(a)(4)(B) of title 38, United States Code, prohibits an insurable dependent who is a child from being insured at any time under the SGLI coverage of more than onemember, i.e., more than one SGLIinsured parent. If a child is otherwise eligible to be insured by the coverage of more than one member, under section 1967(a)(4)(B) the child is insured by the coverage of the member whose eligibility for SGLI occurred first, ‘‘except that if that member does not have legal custody of the child, the child shall be insured by the coverage of the member who has legal custody of the child.’’ Congress, however, did not indicate whether this provision is applicable to a stillborn child. VA therefore proposed to fill the gap left by Congress subjecting the coverage of a stillborn child to the limitation that an insurable dependent who is a child may not be insured at any time by the insurance coverage of more than one member. We further proposed that a stillborn child of two SGLI-covered parents will always be insured under the mother’s coverage because state laws do not address legal custody of a stillborn.

Two commenters wrote in support of the proposed rule. Three of the commenters raised issues regarding the proposed rule.

One commenter stated that the rule does not take into account a case in which a stillborn child’s parents are the same sex and urged flexibility in the rule so as not to prejudice homosexual couples. The premise of this comment, that a stillborn child could have parents of the same sex, is mistaken. VA has