because it does 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.
E. 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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.
F. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone encompassing an area in vicinity of Point Mugu, CA. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a), in Table 3–1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. An environmental analysis and checklist supporting this determination and Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email 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.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
■ 2. Add § 165.T11–123 to read as follows:
§ 165.T11–123 Safety Zone; Point Mugu Airshow, Naval Base Ventura County, California.
(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters from the surface to the sea floor consisting of a line connecting the following coordinates: 34°06′27″ N; 119°08′29″ W, 34°06′20″ N; 119°8′13″ W, 34°06′15″ N; 119°8′38″ W, 34°06′06″ N;119°8′26″ W. All coordinates displayed are referenced by North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
Designated representative means a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Los Angeles–Long Beach (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP’s designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, hail Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles–Long Beach on VHF–FM Channel 16 or call at (310) 521–3801. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP’s designated representative.
(3) Upon being hailed by the COTP’s designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
(d) Enforcement period. The temporary safety zone will be enforced from noon to 5 p.m. each day from March 17, 2023, to March 19, 2023.
(e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement date and times for this safety zone via Local Notices to Mariners.
- Dated: March 13, 2023.
R.D. Manning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Los Angeles–Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2023–05391 Filed 3–15–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 202
Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Statement of policy.
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office issues this statement of policy to clarify its practices for examining and registering works that contain material generated by the use of artificial intelligence technology.
DATES: This statement of policy is effective March 16, 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the General Counsel, by email at meft
copyright.gov or telephone at 202–707–8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Copyright Office (the “Office”) is the Federal agency tasked with administering the copyright registration system, as well as advising Congress, other agencies, and the Federal judiciary on copyright and related matters.[1] Because the Office has overseen copyright registration since its origins in 1870, it has developed substantial experience and expertise regarding “the distinction between copyrightable and noncopyrightable works.”[2] The Office
- ↑ See 17 U.S.C. 408 (copyright registration requires delivering deposit, application, and fee to Copyright Office), 701(a) (all administrative functions and duties set out in Title 17 are the responsibility of the Register of Copyrights), 701(b)(2) (the Register’s duties include providing “information and assistance” to Federal agencies and courts on copyright and related matters).
- ↑ Norris Indus. v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 696 F.2d 918, 922 (11th Cir. 1983). For this reason, courts credit the Office’s expertise in interpreting the Copyright Act, particularly in the context of registration. See, e.g., Esquire, Inc. v. Ringer, 591 F.2d 796, 801–02 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (giving “considerable weight” to the Register’s refusal determination); Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468, 480 (6th Cir. 2015) (“the Copyright Office’s expertise in identifying and thinking about the difference between art and function surpasses ours”), aff’d on other grounds, 580 U.S. 405 (2017).
