Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Proposed Rules 36509 

1The Joint Sports Claimants are the Office of the 

Commissioner of Baseball, the National Football 

League, the National Basketball Association, the 

Women’s National Basketball Association, the 

Continued 

Under the NPRM, not all operators 

exempted from certification 

requirements would also be exempted 

from the evaluation requirements. 

Proposed § 1926.1427(a)(2) continues 

the existing exemption from the training 

and certification requirements in that 

section for operators of three types of 

equipment: Derricks, sideboom cranes, 

and equipment with a maximum 

manufacturer-rated hoisting/lifting 

capacity of 2,000 pounds or less. In the 

current crane standard, these three types 

of equipment are exempt from all of the 

requirements in § 1926.1427 as the 

result of language in § 1926.1427(a) and 

specific exemptions in §§ 1926.1436(q), 

1440(a), and 1441(a). The proposed rule 

would not, however, exempt employers 

from the requirements in § 1926.1427(f) 

to evaluate the potential operators of 

those types of equipment to ensure that 

they have sufficient knowledge and 

skills to perform the assigned tasks with 

the assigned equipment. Accordingly, 

OSHA proposes to preserve the 

evaluation requirements through the 

revision of the language in 

§ 1926.1427(a) and corresponding edits 

to narrow the exemptions in 

§§ 1926.1436(q), 1440(a), and 1441(a). 

Proposed Section 1926.1427(h)— 

Language and Literacy 

Existing § 1926.1427(h) allows 

operators to be certified in a language 

other than English, provided that the 

operator understands that language. 

Proposed paragraph (h) is nearly 

identical to existing paragraph (h) with 

the exception that it removes the 

reference to the existing qualification 

language in paragraph (b)(2), which has 

been replaced. 

Proposed Sections 1926.1436(q)— 

Derricks, 1926.1440(a)—Sideboom 

Cranes, and 1926.1441(a)—Equipment 

With a Rated Hoisting/Lifting Capacity 

of 2,000 Pounds or Less 

As discussed earlier, OSHA proposed 

to amend paragraphs §§ 1926.1436(q), 

1926.1440(a), and 1926.1441(a) to 

ensure that the evaluation requirements 

in § 1926.1427(f) apply to employers 

using derricks, sideboom cranes, and 

equipment with a rated capacity of 

2,000 pounds or less. 

Type of Review: New. 

Agency: DOL–OSHA. 

Title: Cranes and Derricks in 

Construction: Operator Qualification. 

ICR Reference Number: 201710–1218– 

002. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Annualized Respondents: 117,130. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Annualized Responses: 75,591. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 4,773. 

Response Frequency: Various. 

Total Number of Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $71. 

D. Public Participation—Submission of 

Comments on This Document and 

Internet Access to Comments and 

Submissions 

The agency encourages commenters to 

submit their comments related to the 

agency’s clarification of the information 

collection requirements to the docket for 

this document (Docket Number OSHA– 

2018–0009). For instructions on 

submitting these comments to the 

docket for this document, see the 

sections of this Federal Register 

document titled DATES and ADDRESSES. 

Please note that comments on the 

information collection requirements 

already submitted to the agency in 

response to the NPRM will be 

considered; the public need not 

resubmit those comments in response to 

this solicitation. (See: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=

OSHA-2007-0066-0679.) Please also 

note that the docket for this document, 

Docket Number OSHA–2018–0009, 

exists solely to collect comments on the 

information collection requirements in 

the NPRM. The NPRM and the other 

relevant documents for that rulemaking 

are in Docket Number OSHA–2007– 

0066, available on http://

www.regulations.gov. 

E. Authority and Signature 

Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, directed the 

preparation of this document. The 

authority for this document is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of 

Labor’s Order No. 1–2012 (77 FR 3912). 

Signed at Washington, DC, on July 17, 

2018. 

Loren Sweatt, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15687 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

37 CFR Part 387 

[Docket No. 15–CRB–0010–CA–S] 

Adjustment of Cable Statutory License 

Royalty Rates 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; modified. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

(Judges) publish for comment modified 

proposed regulations to require affected 

cable systems to pay a separate pertelecast royalty (a Sports Surcharge) in 

addition to the other royalties that those 

cable systems must pay under Section 

111 of the Copyright Act. 

DATES: Comments and objections are 

due no later than August 29, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and objections, identified by docket 

number 17–CRB–0001–BER (2019– 

2023), by any of the following methods: 

CRB’s electronic filing application: 

Submit comments online in eCRB at 

https://app.crb.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. 

Instructions: Unless submitting 

online, commenters must submit an 

original, two paper copies, and an 

electronic version on a CD. All 

submissions must include a reference to 

the CRB and this docket number. All 

submissions will be posted without 

change to eCRB at https://app.crb.gov/ 

including any personal information 

provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read submitted background documents 

or comments, go to eCRB, the Copyright 

Royalty Board’s electronic filing and 

case management system, at https://

app.crb.gov/ and search for docket 

number 15–CRB–0010–CA–S. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, 

by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email 

at crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 2, 

2018, the Copyright Royalty Judges 

(Judges) received a motion from the 

Joint Sports Claimants (JSC),1 the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36510 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

National Hockey League, and the National 

Collegiate Athletic Association. 

2Under the January 2017 proposal the cable 

operator’s obligation to pay Sports Surcharge 

royalties was limited to retransmissions of telecasts 

of sports events affiliated with specific JSC 

members. Joint Motion at 5. 

NCTA—The internet and Television 

Association, and the American Cable 

Association, notifying the Judges that 

they reached agreement on a modified 

sports surcharge rule and requesting the 

Judges adopt the rule. Joint Motion of 

the Participating Parties to Suspend 

Procedural Schedule and to Adopt 

Modified Settlement at 1 (Jul. 2, 2018) 

(Joint Motion). The Judges had 

published an earlier version of the 

proposed rule in the Federal Register at 

82 FR 24611 (May 30, 2017) and a 

request for reply and surreply comments 

regarding that version at 82 FR 44368 

(Sept. 22, 2017). 

The moving parties also requested 

that the Judges suspend, pending 

resolution of the Joint Motion, the 

procedural schedule set forth in the 

Order Reinstating Case Schedule dated 

January 18, 2018, and that the Judges 

publish the modified proposed rule 

expeditiously. On July 20, 2018, the 

Judges issued an order suspending the 

proceeding schedule, pending their 

review of the moving parties’ agreement 

and publication of the modified 

proposed rule for public comment. The 

Judges stated that they would defer 

decision on adoption of the settlement 

agreement and termination of the 

proceeding until after they consider 

comments, if any, filed in response to 

publication of the modified proposed 

rule. 

A. Background 

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

Act (the Act), 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B), 

sets forth the royalty rates that ‘‘Form 3’’ 

cable systems must pay to retransmit 

broadcast signals pursuant to the 

Section 111(c) statutory license. Form 3 

systems are those with semi-annual 

‘‘gross receipts’’ greater than $527,600. 

See id. §§ 111(d)(1)(B), (E) & (F); 37 CFR 

201.17(d). Section 801(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act provides: 

In the event of any change in the rules and 

regulations of the Federal Communications 

Commission [‘‘FCC’’] with respect to 

syndicated and sports program exclusivity 

after April 15, 1976, the rates established by 

section 111(d)(1)(B) may be adjusted to 

assure that such rates are reasonable in light 

of the changes to such rules and regulations, 

but any such adjustment shall apply only to 

the affected television broadcast signals 

carried on those systems affected by the 

change. 

17 U.S.C. 801(b)(2)(C). 

Section 804(b)(1)(B) of the Copyright 

Act states that, in ‘‘order to initiate 

proceedings under section 

[801(b)(2)(C)],’’ an interested party must 

file a petition with the Judges requesting 

a rate change within twelve months of 

the FCC’s action. 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(1)(B); 

see H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476 at 178 (1976) 

(right to seek review ‘‘exercisable for a 

12 month period following the date 

such changes are finally effective’’). The 

FCC adopted sports exclusivity rules for 

cable systems in 1975. See Report and 

Order in Doc. No. 19417, 54 F.C.C.2d 

265 (1975) (‘‘Sports Rules’’). The FCC 

repealed the Sports Rules effective 

November 24, 2014. See Sports Blackout 

Rules, 79 FR 63547 (Oct. 24, 2014) 

(Sports Rule Repeal). At the time of the 

Sports Rule Repeal, the Sports Rules 

were codified at 47 CFR 76.111 (2014). 

On November 23, 2015, JSC filed a 

rate adjustment petition pursuant to 

Section 801(b)(2)(C) of the Copyright 

Act. In June 2016 the Judges established 

a procedural schedule for ruling on the 

JSC petition. Order of Bifurcation . . . 

and Scheduling Order (June 2016 

Order). While the moving parties were 

unable to settle this matter during the 

voluntary negotiation period established 

by the June 2016 Order, they continued 

negotiations and agreed that this 

proceeding should be terminated with 

the adoption of a proposed rule. 

Upon motion of the Participants in 

January 2017, the Judges published the 

proposed rule and received comments. 

See 82 FR 24611 (May 30, 2017). The 

Judges then published, in September 

2017, a request for further comments on 

the proposed rule. See 82 FR 44368. 

After reviewing reply and surreply 

comments, they declined to adopt the 

proposed rates and reinstated a case 

schedule. Order Reinstating Case 

Schedule (Jan. 12, 2018). 

In declining to adopt the proposed 

settlement the Judges noted that 

The applicable license in this proceeding 

is the license to retransmit by cable beyond 

the local service area the works of ‘‘any . . . 

owner whose work was included in a 

secondary transmission made by a cable 

system . . . in whole or in part. . . .’’ 17 

U.S.C. 111 (d)(3). [Major League Soccer 

(MLS)] and potentially other professional 

sports leagues are owners of, or represent 

owners of, copyrights to televised 

professional team sports events. The 

regulations proposed by the JSC define an 

‘‘eligible professional sports event’’ to 

include only professional baseball, basketball 

(men and women), football, and hockey. By 

definition, MLS and any other professional 

league scheduling team sports events for 

telecast (and retransmission by those affected 

cable systems) would be ineligible to receive 

any portion of the sports programming 

surcharge negotiated by the JSC and cable 

providers. This proposed regulatory 

configuration provides for licensing royalties 

from Form 3 cable systems for some sports 

leagues to the express exclusion of other 

leagues that own or represent owners of 

protected works. 

As proposed, the regulation for the 

exclusive benefit of Major League Baseball, 

the National Basketball Association, the 

National Football League, the National 

Hockey League, and the Women’s National 

Basketball Association is contrary to the 

applicable section 111 license. The Judges 

decline to adopt the proposed settlement as 

a basis for regulations that would bind nonparticipants to a zero rate. 

Order Reinstating Case Schedule at 2. 

In April 2018, MLS filed a late 

Petition to Participate (PTP) and 

accompanying motion for the Judges to 

accept it. The Judges granted the motion 

and accepted the PTP on July 20, 2018. 

In July 2018, the participants filed a 

modified proposed rule that addressed 

the Judges’ concerns regarding the 

proposed rule. Joint Motion at 4, 8. MLS 

does not object to the modified 

proposed rule. Id. at 2. The Judges 

hereby publish it for comment. 

B. Scope of the Modified Proposed Rule 

According to the moving parties, the 

modified proposed Sports Surcharge 

differs from the January 2017 proposal 

in two key respects: A cable operator’s 

obligation to pay a Sports Surcharge 

royalty is not limited to retransmissions 

of sports events affiliated with specific 

JSC members; 2 and the modified Sports 

Surcharge includes language expressly 

stating that no copyright owner of a 

retransmitted telecast of a sports event 

is precluded from seeking Sports 

Surcharge royalties if the retransmission 

would have been subject to deletion 

under the former FCC Sports Blackout 

Rule. Joint Motion at 2. 

The moving parties also state that 

‘‘nothing in the proposed rule would 

require the Judges to distribute the 

Sports Surcharge royalties’’ only to 

sports organizations whose telecasts 

trigger the ‘‘pay-in’’ obligation. Rather, 

‘‘[t]he determination of the recipients of 

those royalties (and the amount of 

royalties those recipients should 

receive) would be addressed by the 

Judges in future allocation and 

distribution proceedings’’ absent a 

settlement. Id. at 4. As modified, the 

rule draws a bright line between the 

‘‘pay-in’’ methodology by which 

affected cable systems will compute 

their surcharge royalty payment 

obligations and the ‘‘pay out’’ process 

by which those royalty payments are 

distributed. Id. at 5. 

According to the moving parties, the 

modified Sports Surcharge does not 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Proposed Rules 36511 

3See note 1, supra. 

change the previously agreed upon per 

event royalty rate of 0.025 percent of an 

affected cable system’s gross receipts. 

Moreover, the definition of which cable 

systems may have to pay the surcharge 

has not changed (i.e., systems that 

would have been subject to the FCC 

Sports Blackout Rule prior to its repeal). 

Under the modified rule, a cable 

system’s retransmission of a sports 

event telecast that would have been 

subject to deletion under the FCC Sports 

Blackout Rule triggers a Sports 

Surcharge pay-in by the system’s 

operator—as long as the holder of the 

broadcast rights in the event (or its 

agent) provides the affected system: (1) 

Written notice containing information 

comparable to that required to invoke 

the former FCC Sports Blackout Rule; 

and (2) documentary evidence that the 

sports entity giving the notice required 

to trigger the Sports Surcharge pay-in 

provision previously invoked the FCC 

Sports Blackout Rule between January 1, 

2012 and November 23, 2014 (the day 

before the repeal of the rule took effect). 

Joint Motion at 6. 

With respect to certain collegiate 

events, the pay-in rule caps the 

maximum number of events involving a 

specific team that can trigger an affected 

cable system’s surcharge payment 

obligation in a particular accounting 

period based on the largest number of 

events as to which the FCC Sports 

Blackout Rule was invoked by that 

specific sports entity during any of the 

accounting periods occurring during the 

January 1, 2012 through November 23, 

2014 period. Id. at n.12. 

In addition, the Joint Motion proposes 

a new effective date in 2019 and points 

out that the rule proposal can be 

reconsidered in 2020 pursuant to 

statute. Id. at 2 n.6; see 17 U.S.C. 

804(b)(1)(B). 

According to the moving parties, the 

royalty rate reflected in the modified 

proposed rule represents a negotiated 

compromise regarding adoption of a 

royalty surcharge and limiting when 

licensors must pay it, but not regulating 

the method of determining how the 

funds should be distributed. Id. at 6–7. 

The moving parties state that they do 

not intend for the agreed-upon 

methodology for calculating a cable 

system’s pay-in obligation to be 

accorded any precedential effect or to be 

regarded as representing any agreement 

as to the fair market value, now or in the 

future, of the secondary transmission of 

any sports event or of the economic or 

other impact of the repeal of the FCC 

Sports Blackout Rule. Joint Motion at 6. 

The moving parties state that if the 

Judges do not adopt the proposed rule, 

each of the moving parties reserves the 

right to seek to demonstrate that the 

Sports Surcharge originally proposed is 

not contrary to law and/or that the 

Judges should adopt a different rate 

adjustment to account for the repeal of 

the FCC Sports Blackout Rule. Id. at 8 

n.13. 

C. The Judges’ Authority To Adopt the 

Proposed Rule 

According to the moving parties, ‘‘a 

key Congressional objective underlying 

the Judges’ rate-setting authority is the 

promotion of voluntary settlements 

rather than litigation.’’ Id. at 7, citing 

H.R. Rep. No. 108–408 at 24 (2004) 

(referring to the legislative policy of 

‘‘facilitating and encouraging settlement 

agreements for determining royalty 

rates’’). Consistent with that objective, 

the Judges may accept a settlement 

reached by ‘‘some or all of the 

participants’’ in a rate proceeding ‘‘at 

any time during the proceeding.’’ 17 

U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A). 

The Act requires that the Judges 

afford those who ‘‘would be bound by 

the terms, rates or other determination’’ 

in a settlement agreement ‘‘an 

opportunity to comment on the 

agreement.’’ 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). 

The Copyright Royalty Board rules also 

require that the Judges ‘‘publish the 

settlement in the Federal Register for 

notice and comment from those bound 

by the terms, rates, or other 

determination set by the agreement.’’ 37 

CFR 351.2(b)(2). 

D. Solicitation of Comments 

The Judges seek comments on the 

moving parties’ proposal. In particular, 

the Judges seek comment on whether 

the proposal is consistent with Section 

111 of the Copyright Act which 

provides that the applicable license 

granted in that section is the license to 

retransmit by cable beyond the local 

service area the works of ‘‘any . . . 

owner whose work was included in a 

secondary transmission made by a cable 

system . . . in whole or in part. . . .’’ 

17 U.S.C. 111(d)(3), and consistent with 

the Judges’ interpretation of that section 

as elaborated in the Order Reinstating 

Case Schedule. 

In addition to general comments for or 

against the proposal, the Judges seek 

comment on whether the proposed 

provision in section 387.2(e)(9) 

(‘‘Nothing herein shall preclude any 

copyright owner of a live television 

broadcast, the secondary transmission of 

which would have been subject to 

deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout 

Rule, from receiving a share of royalties 

paid pursuant to this paragraph.’’) could 

apply to the secondary transmissions of 

the live television broadcasts of any 

entity other than a current member of 

the JSC.3 In other words, would the 

phrase ‘‘the secondary transmission of 

which would have been subject to 

deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout 

Rule’’ enable any entity beyond the 

current members of the JSC to qualify 

for a share of royalties from the Sports 

Surcharge? If the answer is yes, which 

entities’ transmissions would qualify for 

a share? If the answer is no (i.e., only 

JSC members could qualify), then is the 

current proposal nevertheless still 

consistent with the Section 111 license? 

If so, why? 

Interested parties may comment and 

object to the modified proposed 

regulations contained in this notice. 

Such comments and objections must be 

submitted no later than August 29, 

2018. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 387 

Copyright, Cable television, Royalties. 

Modified Proposed Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, and under the authority of 

chapter 8, title 17, United States Code, 

the Copyright Royalty Judges proposes 

to amend 37 CFR chapter III as follows: 

PART 387—ADJUSTMENT OF 

ROYALTY FEE FOR CABLE 

COMPULSORY LICENSE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 387 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(2), 803(b)(6). 

■ 2. Amend § 387.2 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraph (e) as 

paragraph (f) and 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 387.2 Royalty fee for compulsory license 

for secondary transmission by cable 

systems. 

* * * * * 

(e) Sports programming surcharge. 

Commencing with the first semiannual 

accounting period of 2019 and for each 

semiannual accounting period 

thereafter, in the case of an affected 

cable system filing Form SA3 as 

referenced in 37 CFR 201.17(d)(2)(ii) 

(2014), the royalty rate shall be, in 

addition to the amounts specified in 

paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) of this 

section, a surcharge of 0.025 percent of 

the affected cable system’s gross receipts 

for the secondary transmission to 

subscribers of each live television 

broadcast of a sports event where the 

secondary transmission of such 

broadcast would have been subject to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36512 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 146 / Monday, July 30, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout 

Rule. For purposes of this paragraph, 

(1) The term ‘‘cable system’’ shall 

have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 

111(f)(3); 

(2) An ‘‘affected cable system’’ (i) is a 

‘‘community unit,’’ as the comparable 

term is defined or interpreted in 

accordance with § 76.5(dd) of the rules 

and regulations of the Federal 

Communications Commission in effect 

as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 

76.5(dd) (2014); 

(ii) that is located in whole or in part 

within the 35-mile specified zone of a 

television broadcast station licensed to 

a community in which a sports event is 

taking place, provided that if there is no 

television broadcast station licensed to 

the community in which a sports event 

is taking place, the applicable specified 

zone shall be that of the television 

broadcast station licensed to the 

community with which the sports event 

or team is identified, or, if the event or 

local team is not identified with any 

particular community, the nearest 

community to which a television station 

is licensed; and 

(iii) whose royalty fee is specified by 

17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B); 

(3) A ‘‘television broadcast’’ of a 

sports event must qualify as a ‘‘nonnetwork television program’’ within the 

meaning of 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(3)(A); 

(4) The term ‘‘specified zone’’ shall be 

defined as the comparable term is 

defined or interpreted in accordance 

with § 76.5(e) of the rules and 

regulations of the Federal 

Communications Commission in effect 

as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.5(e) 

(2014); 

(5) The term ‘‘gross receipts’’ shall 

have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 

111(d)(1)(B) and shall include all gross 

receipts of the affected cable system 

during the semiannual accounting 

period except those from the affected 

cable system’s subscribers who reside in 

(i) the local service area of the primary 

transmitter, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 

111(f)(4); 

(ii) any community where the cable 

system has fewer than 1,000 subscribers; 

(iii) any community located wholly 

outside the specified zone referenced in 

paragraph (e)(4) above; and 

(iv) any community where the 

primary transmitter was lawfully carried 

prior to March 31, 1972; 

(6) The term ‘‘FCC Sports Blackout 

Rule’’ refers to § 76.111 of the rules and 

regulations of the Federal 

Communications Commission in effect 

as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.111 

(2014); 

(7) Subject to paragraph (e)(8) of this 

section, the surcharge will apply to the 

secondary transmission of a primary 

transmission of a live television 

broadcast of a sports event only where 

the holder of the broadcast rights to the 

sports event or its agent has provided 

the affected cable system 

(i) Advance written notice regarding 

such secondary transmission as required 

by § 76.111(b) and (c) of the FCC Sports 

Blackout Rule and 

(ii) documentary evidence that the 

specific team on whose behalf the notice 

is given had invoked the protection 

afforded by the FCC Sports Blackout 

Rule during the period from January 1, 

2012, through November 23, 2014; 

(8) In the case of collegiate sports 

events, the number of events involving 

a specific team as to which an affected 

cable system must pay the surcharge 

will be no greater than the largest 

number of events as to which the FCC 

Sports Blackout Rule was invoked in a 

particular geographic area by such team 

during any one of the accounting 

periods occurring between January 1, 

2012, and November 23, 2014; 

(9) Nothing herein shall preclude any 

copyright owner of a live television 

broadcast, the secondary transmission of 

which would have been subject to 

deletion under the FCC Sports Blackout 

Rule, from receiving a share of royalties 

paid pursuant to this paragraph. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Jesse M. Feder, 

Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16175 Filed 7–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS