44368 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Form 3’’ cable systems are those with semiannual gross receipts, as defined by statute, greater 

than $527,600. See 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B), (E), & (F). 

2The proposed sports programming surcharge 

would also apply to an ‘‘eligible collegiate sports 

event’’ as that term is defined in the proposed 

regulations. Eligible collegiate sports events are 

limited to games that involve certain Division I 

football or men’s basketball teams. Proposed Rule 

387.2(e)(5). 

3The Act permits the Register of Copyrights 

(Register) to review for legal error the Judges’ 

resolution of a material question of substantive law 

under the Act ‘‘that underlies or is contained in a 

final determination’’ by the Judges. See 17 U.S.C. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carissa Doody, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine, Food and Drug 

Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 240–402–6283, 

carissa.doody@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), 

notice is given that a food additive 

petition (FAP 2300) has been filed by 

the Zinpro Corp., 10400 Viking Dr., 

Suite 240, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. The 

petition proposes to amend Title 21 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in 

Feed and Drinking Water of Animals (21 

CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use 

of chromium DL-methionine as a 

nutritional source of chromium in cattle 

feed. 

The potential environmental impact 

of this action is being reviewed. To 

encourage public participation 

consistent with regulations issued under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is 

placing the environmental assessment 

(EA) submitted with the petition that is 

the subject of this notice on public 

display at the Dockets Management Staff 

for public review and comment (see 

DATES and ADDRESSES). FDA will also 

place on public display any 

amendments to, or comments on, the 

petitioner’s EA without further 

announcement in the Federal Register. 

If, based on its review, the Agency 

finds that an environmental impact 

statement is not required and this 

petition results in a regulation, the 

notice of availability of the Agency’s 

finding of no significant impact and the 

evidence supporting that finding will be 

published with the regulation in the 

Federal Register in accordance with 21 

CFR 25.51(b). 

Dated: September 15, 2017. 

Anna K. Abram, 

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, 

Legislation, and Analysis. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20195 Filed 9–21–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4164–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

37 CFR Part 387 

[Docket No. 15–CRB–0010–CA–S (Sports 

Rule Proceeding)] 

Adjustment of Royalty Rates for 

Statutory Cable Retransmission 

License 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

solicit reply comments on the legal 

issue of the purported reach of the 

proposed rules relating to a cable system 

license royalty surcharge for 

retransmission of broadcasts of certain 

professional sports events. 

DATES: Reply comments are due on or 

before October 23, 2017. Surreplies from 

original commenters are due on or 

before November 1, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may make replies and 

surreplies, identified by docket number 

15–CRB–0010–CA–S (Sports Rule 

Proceeding), 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, five paper copies, and an 

electronic version on a CD. All 

submissions must include the CRB’s 

name and docket number. All 

submissions received will be posted 

without change to eCRB on https://

app.crb.gov including any personal 

information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, 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 

(Sports Rule Proceeding). For 

documents not yet uploaded to eCRB 

(because it is a new system), go to the 

agency Web site at http://www.crb.gov/ 

or contact the CRB Program Specialist. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, 

by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email 

at crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In May 

2017, the Copyright Royalty Judges 

(Judges) published notice of an agreed 

settlement and proposed rules to adjust 

royalties payable by certain cable 

system operators for a license to 

retransmit broadcast sports 

programming (the Sports Surcharge 

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

Specifically, the rules as proposed 

would be applicable to ‘‘Form 3’’ cable 

systems 1 retransmitting ‘‘eligible 

professional sports events.’’ The 

proposed rules define ‘‘eligible 

professional sports event’’ as a game 

involving member teams of Major 

League Baseball, the National Basketball 

Association, the National Football 

League, the National Hockey League, 

and the Women’s National Basketball 

Association.2

The Copyright Act (Act) directs that 

the Judges provide (1) an opportunity to 

comment to nonparticipants who would 

be bound and (2) an opportunity to 

comment and object to participants who 

would be bound. See 11 U.S.C. 

801(b)(7)(A)(i). The Judges may decline 

to adopt an agreement as a basis for 

statutory terms and rates for 

‘‘participants that are not parties to the 

[settlement] agreement,’’ if a participant 

objects to the agreement and the Judges 

conclude that the settlement ‘‘does not 

provide a reasonable basis for setting’’ 

rates or terms. Id. at § 801(b)(7)(A)(ii). 

The statutory language does not 

prohibit the Judges from considering 

whether the proposed provisions are 

contrary to statutory law. See [Register 

of Copyrights] Review of Copyright 

Royalty Judges Determination, Docket 

no. 2009–1, 74 FR 4537, 4540 (Jan. 26, 

2009) (Register’s Opinion).3 In the cited 

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 183 / Friday, September 22, 2017 / Proposed Rules 44369 

802(f)(1)(D). Decisions of the Register are binding as 

precedent upon the Judges in proceedings 

subsequent to the Register’s opinion. Id. 

4The Joint Sports Claimants (JSC) consists of 

Major League Baseball, the National Basketball 

Association, the National Football League, the 

National Hockey League, and the Women’s National 

Basketball Association. 

5MLS asserted without evidence that it made 

‘‘attempts to join the JSC ‘‘on a formal basis,’’ but 

that it had ‘‘not yet been recognized as a JSC 

member.’’ MLS Comment at 2. 

6See Notice of Participant Groups . . . and 

Scheduling Order, Consolidated Proceeding No. 14– 

CRB–0010–CD (2010–13) (Nov. 25, 2015), Ex. A. By 

its terms, this order limited application of the 

agreed participant groups to the proceeding in 

which it was adopted. The Judges nonetheless 

consider the categories informative for purposes of 

determining distribution in the present proceeding. 

opinion, the Register concluded that 

‘‘nothing in the statute limits the 

[Judges] from considering comments 

filed by non-participants if those 

nonparticipant commenters argue that 

the proposed provisions are contrary to 

statutory law.’’ Id. According to the 

Register’s Opinion, which is binding 

precedent for the Judges, the Judges may 

decline to adopt portions of the agreed 

regulations that would be ‘‘contrary to 

the provisions of the applicable 

license(s) or otherwise contrary to 

statutory law.’’ Id. 

The Judges received two comments on 

the proposed rules before the June 

deadline. Joint Sports Claimants (JSC),4

participants and the proponents of the 

settlement, supported adoption of the 

final rule and offered a correction of a 

misstated cross reference within the 

rule. 

Major League Soccer, L.L.C. (MLS) 

also commented. In the present 

proceeding, MLS did not file a Petition 

to Participate; thus MLS is a not a 

participant.5 Nonetheless, MLS states 

that it would be ‘‘[a]ffected by these 

proposed rules and their terms.’’ MLS 

Comment at 2. MLS contends that, even 

though it is not a participant in this 

proceeding, it clearly meets the [Judges’] 

description of ‘Joint Sports Claimants’ 6

in that MLS owns copyrights in ‘‘live 

telecasts of professional teams’ sports 

broadcasts by U.S. and Canadian 

television stations. . . .’’ Id. As MLS 

asserted in its comment, the definition 

of ‘‘eligible professional sports event’’ 

‘‘unfairly excludes MLS, and any other 

[unnamed] eligible, professional league 

that broadcasts live team sports.’’ Id. at 

3. In its comment, MLS contends that its 

omission results in unfair treatment. Id. 

at 2, 4. 

According to MLS, ‘‘[s]ince JSC are 

representatives for, and custodians of 

the funds of, all programs falling within 

that agreed [Joint Sports Claimants] 

category, [JSC] should represent the 

interests of the entire category, not only 

those it deems members. The benefits of 

the regulation should apply to a [sic] 

who fall into the Joint Sports Claimants 

category.’’ Id. at 3. 

Although MLS generally states that 

adoption of the proposal would be 

unfair or inequitable to MLS and certain 

other omitted professional leagues that 

broadcast live team sports, MLS does 

not expressly contend that the proposal 

is ‘‘contrary to the provisions of the 

applicable license(s) or otherwise 

contrary to statutory law,’’ which, under 

the Register’s Opinion, would permit 

the Judges to decline to adopt portions 

of the agreed regulations. In the interests 

of developing a more complete record to 

support the Judges’ decision, however, 

the Judges seek further comment 

specifically addressing the issue of 

whether they must adopt the rules as 

contained in the settlement agreement 

and published for comment in May 

2017, consistent with Section 

801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act, or 

whether any provision in the proposed 

rules is contrary to the provisions of the 

applicable license(s) or otherwise 

contrary to statutory law. 

The Judges hereby solicit Reply 

Comments limited to legal analysis of 

the issue as the Judges express it. Any 

party in interest may file Reply 

Comments addressing the issue the 

Judges present in this Notice. 

Commenters that believe any provision 

of the proposed rules is contrary to the 

provisions of the applicable license(s) or 

otherwise contrary to statutory law 

should specify the provision or 

provisions in question, explain why the 

provision(s) is contrary to the applicable 

license or applicable statutory law, and 

provide supporting legal analysis. Reply 

commenters should focus particular 

attention on whether any entities not 

expressly addressed in the proposal 

would nonetheless be bound by the 

rates and terms of the proposal or 

otherwise affected by the proposed rules 

and how, if at all, the affect should 

dictate action by the Judges. If any 

entities other than those expressly 

included in the proposed provisions are 

bound by the proposal, are the Judges 

effectively adopting a zero sports 

surcharge rate with respect to those 

entities? If so, what factors justify the 

different rates for the entities that would 

have a zero rate from those that would 

receive the proposed sports surcharge 

rate? 

Any commenter may thereafter file 

Surreply Comments addressing 

specifically the legal analysis of a party 

or parties filing Reply Comments. 

Dated: September 18, 2017. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20190 Filed 9–21–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R01–OW–2017–0528; FRL–9967–82– 

Region 1] 

Ocean Disposal; Temporary 

Modification of an Ocean Dredged 

Material Disposal Site in 

Massachusetts Bay 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

temporary modification of the currentlydesignated Massachusetts Bay Dredged 

Material Disposal Site (MBDS) pursuant 

to the Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). 

The purpose of this temporary site 

modification is to allow for the 

environmental restoration of a particular 

area adjacent to the currently-designated 

MBDS (Potential Restoration Area) by 

temporarily expanding the boundaries 

of the existing MBDS. The temporary 

expansion is a circular area that 

contains the Potential Restoration Area, 

which includes most of the historic 

Industrial Waste Site (IWS). Decades 

ago, the IWS was used for the disposal 

of barrels containing industrial, 

chemical and radioactive waste, as well 

as for the disposal of munitions, 

ordnance, construction equipment, and 

contaminated dredged material. The 

proposed modification of the disposal 

site boundary will enable the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) to place 

suitable dredged material from Boston 

Harbor generated during the Deep Draft 

Navigation Project at the Potential 

Restoration Area in order to cover the 

barrels and other wastes disposed there 

in the past. The Deep Draft Navigation 

Project includes maintenance dredging 

in the inner harbor, which includes the 

expansion of a confined aquatic 

disposal (CAD) cell and will generate 

approximately 1 million cubic yards 

(cy) of dredged material, as well as 

improvement dredging of the main ship 

channel, which will generate 

approximately 11 million cy of dredged 

material. The existing MBDS will 

continue to be used for disposal of other 

dredging projects as usual. The 

expansion area would be permanently