Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2004 / Notices 78483

1On November 30, 2004, the President signed 

into law the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Act 

of 2004, Pub. L. 108–419, which eliminates the 

CARP system and replaces it with three permanent 

Copyright Royalty Judges. However, the 2004 Act 

calls for satellite royalty rates to be determined 

‘‘under chapter 8 as in effect on the day before the 

date of enactment of the Copyright Royalty and 

Distribution Act of 2004.’’ 17 U.S.C. 119(c)(1)(F).

Background 

The satellite carrier compulsory 

license establishes a statutory copyright 

licensing scheme for satellite carriers 

that retransmit television broadcast 

signals to satellite dish owners for their 

private home viewing. 17 U.S.C. 119. 

Congress created the license in 1988 

with the passage of the Satellite Home 

Viewer Act of 1988. Congress 

reauthorized the satellite license for 

additional five-year periods in 1994 and 

1999, and the license was slated to 

expire on December 31, 2004. However, 

Congress again reauthorized the satellite 

license for another five years with the 

passage of the Satellite Home Viewer 

Extension and Reauthorization Act of 

2004 (‘‘the 2004 Act’’) (as part of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005), 

Pub. L. 108–447, which was signed into 

law by the President on December 8, 

2004. 

Satellite carriers pay royalties based 

on a flat, per-subscriber, per-month fee. 

These rates were initially set by 

Congress in the Satellite Home Viewer 

Act of 1988 and then later adjusted by 

a three-person arbitration panel 

convened by the former Copyright 

Royalty Tribunal. 57 FR 19052 (May 1, 

1992). When the license was 

reauthorized in 1994, Congress directed 

that the rates be adjusted by the 

Librarian of Congress using the system 

that replaced the Copyright Royalty 

Tribunal, namely, ad hoc Copyright 

Arbitration Royalty Panels (‘‘CARPs’’) 

administered by the Librarian of 

Congress and the Copyright Office. 

Accordingly, the Librarian adjusted the 

rates in 1997. 62 FR 55742 (October 28, 

1997). In the Satellite Home Viewer 

Improvement Act of 1999, which 

reauthorized the license for an 

additional five years, Congress reduced 

the rates set by the Librarian. 

The 2004 Act adopts the rates as 

reduced by Congress in 1999 but calls 

for the amendment of those rates to be 

paid by satellite carriers for the 

secondary transmission of the primary 

analog transmission of network stations 

and superstations. This notice begins 

the process mandated by the statute. 

Voluntary Negotiation Period 

Sections 119(c)(1)(B) of the Copyright 

Act, 17 U.S.C., provides that ‘‘[o]n or 

before January 2, 2005, the Librarian of 

Congress shall cause to be published in 

the Federal Register [notice] of the 

initiation of voluntary negotiation 

proceedings for the purpose of 

determining the royalty fee to be paid by 

satellite carriers * * * under subsection 

(b)(1)(B).’’ This notice initiates the 

voluntary negotiation period. 

The statute provides that ‘‘[w]ithin 10 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register of a notice of the initiation of 

voluntary negotiation proceedings, 

parties who have reached a voluntary 

agreement may request that the royalty 

fees in that agreement be applied to all 

satellite carriers, distributors, and 

copyright owners without convening an 

arbitration proceeding.’’ 17 U.S.C. 

119(c)(1)(D)(ii)(I). In accordance with 

this provision, the voluntary negotiation 

period commences today, December 30, 

2004, and concludes January 10, 2005. 

If a voluntary agreement is reached by 

the end of the negotiation period, the 

parties can request that the Librarian 

publish the agreement for notice and 

comment in accordance with section 

119(c)(1)(D)(ii)(II) and adopt the rates in 

the voluntary agreement if no objections 

are received from a party with a 

significant interest and an intention to 

participate in an arbitration proceeding. 

17 U.S.C. 119(c)(1)(D)(ii)(III). If an 

objection to the voluntary agreement is 

received or if parties are unable to reach 

a voluntary agreement, the statute 

dictates that the rates be determined 

under the current CARP system.1

Therefore, if a CARP proceeding 

becomes necessary, the Library must 

apply the rules and regulations of 37 

CFR part 251. Consequently, should the 

parties be unable to reach a voluntary 

agreement by the end of the voluntary 

negotiation period or should a party 

with a significant interest and an 

intention to participate in an arbitration 

proceeding file an objection to the 

agreement, the Library will publish a 

subsequent notice calling for the filing 

of Notices of Intent to Participate.

Dated: December 27, 2004. 

David O. Carson, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04–28605 Filed 12–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–33–P

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND 

WATER COMMISSION, UNITED 

STATES AND MEXICO 

United States Section; Notice of 

Availability (NOA) of the Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (DSEIS) for Clean Water Act 

(CWA) Compliance at the South Bay 

International Wastewater Treatment 

Plant (SBIWTP), San Diego, California

AGENCY: United States Section, 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission (USIBWC).

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: This announces the 

availability of the DSEIS that assesses 

the potential environmental impacts of 

the construction and operation of a 

range of treatment and disposal 

alternatives for the SBIWTP to achieve 

compliance with the CWA. Situated in 

the United States at the United States/

Mexico border, the SBIWTP treats 

sewage flows originating from the City 

of Tijuana, Mexico and the surrounding 

region and discharges into the Pacific 

Ocean through an ocean outfall. The 

DSEIS considers existing and new 

alternatives that would enable the 

USIBWC to bring the SBIWTP into 

compliance with the CWA and the 

requirements contained in its National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit and to evaluate new 

information on the current discharges of 

advanced primary effluent from the 

SBIWTP through the South Bay Ocean 

Outfall (SBOO), as well as interim 

actions that would continue operations 

of the SBIWTP until the SBIWTP 

achieves CWA compliance. The United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA), Region 9, San Francisco, 

California, is a Cooperating Agency for 

this action.

DATES: Written comments are requested 

by February 28, 2005. The public 

comment period of the DSEIS will end 

60 days after publication of the NOA in 

the Federal Register. 

Public Hearing: A public hearing 

regarding the findings of the DSEIS and 

to take comments on the DSEIS will be 

held at 6:30 pm on Wednesday, 

February 2, 2005 at the San Ysidro 

Middle School (Auditorium), 4345 Otay 

Mesa Road, San Diego.

ADDRESSES: Written comments (no emails or faxes) must be addressed to: 

Mr. Daniel Borunda, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Compliance 

Section, USIBWC, 4171 North Mesa 

Street, C–100, El Paso, Texas 79902. A 

copy of the DSEIS is available at

http://www.ibwc.state.gov and in local 

public libraries in the San Diego area. A 

78484 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2004 / Notices 

limited number of copies will be 

available, if you wish to obtain a copy 

contact Mr. Daniel Borunda at the 

address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Daniel Borunda, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, USIBWC, at (915) 

832–4701, by fax at (915) 832–4167, or 

by mail at the above listed address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 102(2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended, the USIBWC has analyzed the 

impacts of alternatives for SBIWTP to 

achieve compliance with the CWA and 

its NPDES permit. This action is needed 

because the SBIWTP currently operates 

and discharges only at the advanced 

primary level and cannot meet all the 

requirements of the CWA and its NPDES 

permit, including secondary treatment 

requirements. 

This DSEIS also evaluates new 

information on the current discharges of 

advanced primary effluent from the 

SBIWTP through the SBOO, as well as 

treatment and disposal options in 

Mexico to achieve CWA compliance. 

The No Action Alternative and six 

action alternatives are evaluated in the 

DSEIS. The alternatives were developed 

in a manner that would enable 

wastewater flows to be treated in 

compliance with the CWA and the 

SBIWTP NPDES permit. Alternatives 

formulation was the result of a public 

consultation process that included the 

public, regulatory agencies and 

environmental organizations. 

This DSEIS evaluates the following 

seven alternatives: 

1. Alternative 1: No Action (Continue 

operation of SBIWTP as Advanced 

Primary Facility). 

• Option A: With No Future 

Improvements to Mexico’s Existing 

Conveyance Facilities

• Option B: With Future 

Improvements to Mexico’s Existing 

Conveyance Facilities 

2. Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as 

Advanced Primary Facility With 

Treated Flows Conveyed to Mexico for 

Discharge. 

3. Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP 

With City of San Diego Connections 

(Interim Alternative Only). 

4. Alternative 4: Implementation of 

Public Law 106B457, Secondary 

Treatment Facility in Mexico. 

• Treatment Option A: Operation of 

SBIWTP as Advanced Primary Facility, 

Secondary Treatment in Mexico 

• Treatment Option B: Cease 

Operation of SBIWTP, Secondary 

Treatment in Mexico 

• Treatment Option C: Bajagua LLC, 

Proposal—Operation of SBIWTP as 

Advanced Primary Facility, Secondary 

Treatment in Mexico 

• Discharge Option I: Treated Effluent 

Discharged in United States via SBOO 

• Discharge Option II: Treated 

Effluent Discharged in Mexico at Punta 

Bandera 

5. Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment 

in the United States at SBIWTP. 

• Treatment Option A: Completely 

Mixed Aeration (CMA) Ponds at 

SBIWTP 

• Treatment Options B–1 and B–2: 

Activated Sludge Secondary Treatment 

at SBIWTP 

6. Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment 

in the U.S. and in Mexico. 

7. Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/

Shutdown. 

The USIBWC has identified 

Alternative 4, Treatment Option C as the 

preferred alternative in the DSEIS. The 

USIBWC will consider comments on the 

DSEIS to make a final selection of the 

preferred alternative. 

Background 

The original Draft EIS for the SBIWTP 

project (1991) proposed the construction 

of a secondary treatment facility in San 

Diego to achieve secondary treatment 

using an activated sludge technology. 

Based on a 1994 Final EIS and Record 

of Decision (ROD), the USIBWC and the 

USEPA approved the construction of the 

SBIWTP and the connecting SBOO. The 

SBIWTP is on a 75-acre site in south 

San Diego County, California, just west 

of San Ysidro near the intersection of 

Dairy Mart and Monument roads. 

Treated effluent is discharged to the 

Pacific Ocean through the SBOO, a 4.5-

mile long piping system completed in 

January 1999. This outfall extends about 

3.5 miles offshore. 

Pursuant to the completion of an 

Interim Operations Supplemental EIS in 

1996, the USIBWC and USEPA decided 

to operate the SBIWTP as an advanced 

primary treatment facility before 

completion of the necessary secondary 

facilities. This decision would expedite 

the treatment of up to 25 mgd of 

untreated sewage from Tijuana that 

would otherwise have continued to 

pollute the Tijuana River and Estuary, 

as well as coastal waters in the United 

States. 

Before the SBOO was completed in 

January 1999, advanced primary treated 

effluent was discharged through an 

emergency connection to the City of San 

Diego Point Loma Wastewater 

Treatment Plant. The emergency 

connection was used daily in the late 

1980s and 1990s, but it has not been 

used in this manner since the SBIWTP 

started discharging to the completed 

SBOO in January 1999. 

After the release of the May 1994 

Final EIS and ROD and the 1996 

decision regarding interim operation, 

significant additional information 

became available and changed 

circumstances warranted reconsidering 

the best means to complete the SBIWTP 

secondary treatment facilities. The 

USIBWC and USEPA decided to prepare 

a Supplemental EIS to examine new 

information as a settlement to a lawsuit 

that challenged the 1994 Final EIS. 

In January 1998, the USIBWC and the 

USEPA issued the Draft Long Term 

Treatment Options Supplemental EIS to 

re-evaluate the SBIWTP secondary 

treatment options. In October 1998, the 

agencies issued a supplement to the 

1996 Interim Operation Supplemental 

EIS that addressed impacts of the 

advanced primary treatment. This 

supplement disclosed new information 

about the presence of dioxins and acute 

toxicity in the advanced primary 

discharge. This new information was 

incorporated into the Final Long Term 

Treatment Options Supplemental EIS 

released in March 1999. 

In the 1999 ROD for the Long Term 

Treatment Options Supplemental EIS, 

the USEPA and the USIBWC selected 

the CMA pond system at the Hofer 

property as the long-term option for 

secondary treating 25 mgd of 

wastewater at the SBIWTP. However, 

Congress did not fund the construction 

of these secondary treatment facilities 

and the plant has continued to provide 

advanced primary treatment only. 

The specific purpose of the current 

analysis is to determine the 

environmental impacts of the 

alternatives that could accomplish 

compliance with the CWA and the 

SBIWTP NPDES permit. A decision on 

which of the alternatives will be 

implemented in order to achieve 

compliance with the CWA will be made 

by the USIBWC through a process that 

will consider a wide range of factors. 

The factors include, but are not limited 

to, environmental considerations, laws 

and regulations, implications for 

compliance with the CWA, the SBIWTP 

NPDES permit, budget considerations, 

schedule and public concerns. 

A copy of the DSEIS has been filed 

with the USEPA in accordance with 40 

CFR parts 1500–1508 and USIBWC 

procedures. Written comments 

concerning the DSEIS will be accepted 

at the address above until February 28, 

2005.

Dated: December 21, 2004. 

Susan E. Daniel, 

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 04–28378 Filed 12–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–03–P