Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62811 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 6, 2016, and 

effective September 15, 2015, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

AGL IN D Grissom ARB, IN [Amended] 

Peru, Grissom Air Reserve Base, IN 

(Lat. 40°38′53′′ N., long. 086°09′08′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL 

within a 5.8 mile radius of Grissom ARB. 

This Class D airspace is effective during the 

specific dates and times established in 

advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective 

date and time will thereafter be continuously 

published in the Chart Supplement. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 30, 

2016. 

Walter Tweedy, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

ATO Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2016–21709 Filed 9–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0302; Amdt. No. 93– 

101] 

RIN 2120–AK84 

Extension of the Requirement for 

Helicopters To Use the New York North 

Shore Helicopter Route; Technical 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an 

error, whereby the applicability of a 

regulation was extended instead of its 

effectivity. Consequently, a section of 

the pertinent regulation was relocated in 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

and all remaining provisions of the 

regulation inadvertently expired. 

However, the entire regulation was 

intended to be extended for four years 

in the final rule published on July 25, 

2016 (Doc. No. 2016–17427, 81 FR 

48323), which became effective on 

August 7, 2016. 

DATES: This action becomes effective on 

September 13, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Kenneth Ready, Airspace 

and Rules Team, AJV–113, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3396; email kenneth.ready@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption 

Without Prior Notice 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies 

to dispense with notice and comment 

procedures for rules when the agency 

for ‘‘good cause’’ finds that those 

procedures are ‘‘impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ Under this section, an agency, 

upon finding good cause, may issue a 

final rule without seeking comment 

prior to the rulemaking. 

Section 553(d)(3) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act requires 

that agencies publish a rule not less 

than 30 days before its effective date, 

except as otherwise provided by the 

agency for good cause found and 

published with the final rule. 

This document is correcting an error 

that is in 14 CFR part 93. This 

correction will not impose any 

additional restrictions on the persons 

affected by these regulations. 

Furthermore, any additional delay in 

making the regulations correct would be 

contrary to the public interest. 

Accordingly, the FAA finds that (i) 

public comment on these standards 

prior to promulgation is unnecessary, 

and (ii) good cause exists to make this 

rule effective in less than 30 days and 

upon its publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Background 

On July 25, 2016, the FAA published 

a final rule extending the requirement 

an additional four years for pilots 

operating civil helicopters under Visual 

Flight Rules (VFR) to use the New York 

North Shore Helicopter Route when 

operating along the north shore of Long 

Island, New York. The final rule 

extended the expiration date of the 

applicability, rather than the effectivity, 

to August 6, 2020. Consequently, that 

error in the final rule resulted in the 

inadvertent removal of Subpart H of part 

93 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). This final rule 

corrects that error and reinstates the 

provisions of Subpart H, extending 

those provisions to August 6, 2020. 

Technical Amendment 

This technical amendment will 

correct the current error of § 93.101 

being moved to Subpart G, § 93.103 

expiring, and Subpart H being reserved. 

Because this action results in no further 

substantive change to 14 CFR part 93, 

we find good cause exists under 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this technical 

amendment effective in less than 30 

days and upon its publication in the 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93 

Air traffic control, Airspace, 

Navigation (air). 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of Title 14 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC 

RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 93 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 

40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 

44719, 46301. 

■ 2. Add subpart H consisting of 

§ 93.103 to read as follows: 

Subpart H—Mandatory Use of the New 

York North Shore Helicopter Route 

§ 93.103 Helicopter operations. 

(a) Unless otherwise authorized, each 

person piloting a helicopter along Long 

Island, New York’s northern shoreline 

between the VPLYD waypoint and 

Orient Point, shall utilize the North 

Shore Helicopter route and altitude, as 

published. 

(b) Pilots may deviate from the route 

and altitude requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section when necessary for 

safety, weather conditions or 

transitioning to or from a destination or 

point of landing. 

§ 93.101 [Transferred to Subpart H] 

■ 3. Transfer § 93.101 from subpart G to 

subpart H. 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
62812 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1The ‘‘Phase I Parties’’ are the Program Suppliers, 

Joint Sports Claimants, Public Television 

Claimants, Commercial Television Claimants, 

Music Claimants, Canadian Claimants Group, 

National Public Radio, and Devotional Claimants. 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703, in 

Washington, DC, on September 7, 2016. 

Lirio Liu, 

Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2016–21963 Filed 9–12–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

37 CFR Part 387 

[Docket No. 15–CRB–0010–CA] 

Adjustment of Cable Statutory License 

Royalty Rates 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 26, 2016, the 

Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) 

published for comment proposed 

regulations governing royalty rates and 

terms for the distant retransmission of 

over-the-air television and radio 

broadcast stations by cable television 

systems to their subscribers. The 

participants in the proceeding 

concluded their negotiations and asked 

for readoption of the cable rate 

regulations without change. The Judges 

accepted the negotiated settlement and 

did not propose any substantive changes 

to the participants’ proposed rates and 

terms. However, the Judges’ proposed 

regulations updated terms, moved the 

rules to the chapter of the CFR that 

includes other applicable rules of the 

Copyright Royalty Board, and proposed 

certain other non-substantive changes to 

make the rules easier to read. The 

Judges received comments from the 

Phase I parties on the proposed changes 

and finding the suggested revisions 

therein clarified the rule, accepted all of 

the proposed changes. 

DATES: Effective: September 13, 2016. 

Applicability date: January 1, 2015, 

through December 31, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: The final rule is also posted 

on the agency’s Web site (www.loc.gov/ 

crb). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kimberly Whittle, Attorney Advisor, by 

telephone at (202) 707–7658, or by 

email at crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On April 26, 2016, the Copyright 

Royalty Judges (Judges) published for 

comment in the Federal Register 

proposed regulations governing royalty 

rates and terms for the distant 

retransmission of over-the-air television 

and radio broadcast stations by cable 

television systems to their subscribers 

for the period 2015–2019. See 81 FR 

24523. The proposal was the result of a 

settlement between the National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association, the 

American Cable Association, and a 

group referring to itself as the ‘‘Phase I 

Parties.’’ 1 The settlement proposed that 

the extant rates, terms, and gross 

receipts limitations remain unchanged 

through 2019. See 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B) 

and 37 CFR 256.2(c)–(d). The notice 

included a request for comments from 

interested parties as required by 17 

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

The Judges received the following 

comments on the substance of the 

proposal from the Phase I Parties: 

Proposed § 387.1, second sentence. The 

proposed language ‘‘. . . a cable system 

entity may engage in the activities set forth 

in 17 U.S.C. 111’’ appears to be vague and 

overly broad as compared to the scope of the 

Section 111 statutory license that is limited 

to ‘‘secondary transmissions to the public by 

a cable system of a performance or display 

of a work embodied in a primary 

transmission made by a broadcast station’’ 

under certain conditions that are set forth in 

17 U.S.C. 111(c). Accordingly, the Phase I 

Parties suggest the above-quoted language of 

proposed § 387.1 be changed to ‘‘. . . a cable 

system shall be subject to a statutory license 

authorizing secondary transmissions of 

broadcast signals to the extent provided in 17 

U.S.C. 111.’’ 

Proposed § 387.2(a). The proposed 

language, ‘‘the royalty fee rates for secondary 

transmission by cable systems are those 

established by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B)(i)–(iv), 

as amended,’’ is potentially ambiguous in 

light of the express limitation at the 

beginning of Section 111(d)(1)(B) that: 

‘‘Except in the case of a cable system whose 

royalty fee is specified by subparagraph (E) 

or (F).’’ This limitation means that the royalty 

rates in subsections (i)–(iv) of Section 

111(d)(1)(B) apply to only one class of cable 

systems—those with semi-annual gross 

receipts of $527,600 or more (commonly 

known as ‘‘Form 3 systems’’)—not to all 

‘‘cable systems’’ as the general reference in 

proposed § 387.2(a) now suggests. 

Accordingly, the Phase I Parties suggest that 

the above-quoted language of proposed 

§ 387.2(a) be modified to incorporate the 

statutory limitation, perhaps by revising the 

language to state ‘‘. . . by cable systems 

not subject to § 387.2(b) of these regulations 

. . . ’’ 

Proposed § 387.2(b). The use of ‘‘alternate 

tiered rates’’ in the title and body of this 

section is potentially confusing because these 

rates are not ‘‘alternate’’ rates that might 

apply to any cable system, but a separate set 

of rates, established by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(E) 

and (F), that apply to cable systems with less 

than $527,600 in semi-annual gross receipts 

(commonly known as ‘‘Form 1⁄2 systems’’). In 

addition, use of the phrase, ‘‘tiered rates,’’ 

could cause some confusion because monthly 

subscriber fees for cable service are almost 

universally based on ‘‘tiered’’ bundles of 

programming services and rates. 

Accordingly, the Phase I Parties suggest that 

the title of proposed § 387.2(b) be changed to 

‘‘Rates for Certain Classes of Cable Systems,’’ 

and the words ‘‘alternate tiered’’ be deleted 

from the text of the regulation. 

Proposed § 387.2(e). The language, 

‘‘Computation of royalty fess shall be 

governed by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(C),’’ is 

potentially confusing because it might be 

read to suggest that any and all aspects of the 

royalty fee computation can be determined 

by reference to Section 111(d)(1)(C). While 

that paragraph identifies the computation to 

be used in some specific situations that might 

apply to some Form 3 systems, it does not 

address how some other key components 

(e.g., gross receipts and distant signal 

equivalent values) of the royalty fee 

calculation are determined, or how the 3.75 

percent rate and syndicated exclusivity 

surcharge are computer. Accordingly the 

Phase I Parties suggest that either § 387.2(e) 

be deleted in its entirety or it be rewritten to 

state: ‘‘Computation of royalty fees shall be 

governed by 17 U.S.C. 111(d) and 111(f), and 

37 CFR 201.17.’’ 

Comments of the Phase I Parties on 

Proposed Rule at 1–3 (May 17, 2016). 

In addition to seeking comments on 

the proposed settlement, the Judges also 

solicited comments on the Judges’ 

proposed relocation of the regulations to 

37 CFR part 387, which includes other 

applicable rules of the Copyright 

Royalty Board. The Judges likewise 

solicited comments on certain nonsubstantive changes to the regulations to 

make them easier to read. The Judges 

received no comments on the editorial 

proposals. 

The Judges’ authority to adopt 

proposed settlements as statutory rates 

and terms is codified in Section 

801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act. That 

provision of the Act authorizes the 

Judges to adopt as a basis for statutory 

terms and rates an agreement 

concerning such matters reached among 

‘‘some or all of the participants’’ in a 

proceeding ‘‘at any time during the 

proceeding’’ except that the Judges must 

provide an opportunity to comment on 

the agreement to those that would be 

bound by the agreement. 17 U.S.C. 

801(b)(7)(A)(i). In light of the statutory 

requirements regarding adoption of 

settlements and the absence of any 

opposition to the proposed settlement, 

the Judges find that the proposed 

settlement (along with the revisions 

proposed by the settling parties in their 

comments), which leaves the current 

rates and terms unchanged and adjusts 

the regulatory language to improve 


Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES