Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62373 

1The Office at this time is not allowing for 

electronic submission of requests for 

reconsideration, although it will consider 

implementing such a procedure as part of future 

information technology modernization efforts. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 202 

[Docket No. 2016–6] 

Reconsideration Procedure for 

Refusals To Register: Revised 

Deadlines 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

altering the deadline for submitting 

requests to reconsider refusals to 

register a copyright claim. Previously, a 

reconsideration request had to be 

received by the Office, via mail, no later 

than three months after the Office 

issued its decision to refuse registration. 

This rule has led to confusion, as it can 

be difficult to predict when a request 

will physically be received by the 

Office, particularly given securityscreening-related delays in the 

processing of mail. Accordingly, to 

provide greater certainty to applicants, 

the amended rule provides that 

reconsideration requests only need to be 

postmarked or dispatched no later than 

three months after a refusal is issued. 

DATES: Effective September 9, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Regan A. Smith, Associate General 

Counsel, resm@loc.gov; John R. Riley, 

Attorney-Advisor, jril@loc.gov. Each 

person can be reached by telephone at 

202–707–8040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress 

tasked the Register of Copyrights with 

the responsibility to assess the validity 

of copyright claims submitted for 

registration. 17 U.S.C. 408(a); 410(b). 

While the Office registers the majority of 

copyright claims, in some cases the 

applications do not meet statutory or 

regulatory requirements and, after 

examination, the Office refuses to 

register the claimed works. If an 

applicant disagrees with the Office’s 

determination, he or she may appeal the 

decision within the Office. This 

administrative procedure is known as a 

‘‘request for reconsideration.’’ A first 

request for reconsideration is reviewed 

within the Registration Program. See 37 

CFR 202.5(b)(1)–(3). If the Registration 

Program again refuses to register the 

work, it will send the applicant a 

written notification stating the reasons 

for refusal. 37 CFR 202.5(b)(4). An 

applicant can appeal that refusal via a 

second request for reconsideration to 

the Copyright Office Review Board. See 

37 CFR 202.5(c)(1)–(3). 

The current regulation requires both 

first and second requests for 

reconsideration to be mailed to the 

Copyright Office. 37 CFR 202.5(d).1

Prior to the amendment made here, both 

first and second requests for 

reconsideration would be considered 

untimely if they were received by the 

Copyright Office more than three 

months after the date of the preceding 

refusal to register. See 37 CFR 

202.5(b)(3), (c)(3). This regulation 

permits the Register of Copyrights to 

suspend or waive, in whole or in part, 

the time requirements for submitting a 

request for reconsideration, though only 

upon a showing of good cause. 37 CFR 

202.5(e). 

The Office recognizes that applicants 

requesting reconsideration of a refusal 

to register a copyright claim may benefit 

from a rule that requires an appeal to be 

postmarked within the prescribed time 

period, rather than a deadline based 

upon when the appeal is received by the 

Office. In particular, the Office 

understands that it can be difficult to 

predict how long it will take for a 

reconsideration request to actually be 

received by the Office, particularly 

given security screening related delays. 

Accordingly, the Office has decided to 

adopt a ‘‘mailbox’’ or ‘‘postal’’ rule for 

requests for reconsideration delivered 

by the United States Postal Service or 

dispatched by a commercial carrier, 

courier, or messenger, which will offer 

applicants greater certainty while 

continuing to ensure that appeals are 

considered in a timely fashion. This rule 

will apply to any appeals that are 

postmarked or dispatched after the 

rule’s effective date; for appeals 

postmarked or dispatched prior to that 

date, the previous regulation will apply. 

The Copyright Office is publishing 

this amendment as a final rule without 

first publishing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, as it constitutes a change to 

a ‘‘rule[ ] of agency . . . procedure, or 

practice.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The rule 

does not ‘‘alter the rights or interests of 

parties,’’ but merely ‘‘alter[s] the manner 

in which the parties present themselves 

or their viewpoints to the agency.’’ JEM 

Broad. Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 326 

(D.C. Cir. 1994). Other provisions that 

relate to submissions of reconsideration 

requests remain unaffected. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202 

Copyright, Legal process. 

Final Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office amends 

37 CFR part 202 as follows: 

PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND 

REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO 

COPYRIGHT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 202 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702. 

■ 2. Amend § 202.5 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the 

phrase ‘‘received by the Copyright 

Office’’ and add in its place the phrase 

‘‘postmarked or dispatched by a 

commercial carrier, courier, or 

messenger’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(3), remove the 

phrase ‘‘received in the Copyright 

Office’’ and add in its place the phrase 

‘‘postmarked or dispatched by a 

commercial carrier, courier, or 

messenger’’. 

Dated: September 2, 2016. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

Approved by: 

David S. Mao, 

Acting Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2016–21671 Filed 9–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2016–0313; FRL–9951–87– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2012 Annual Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission from the State of Kansas 

addressing the applicable requirements 

of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 for 

the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 

110 requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP to support the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62374 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

SIPs are commonly referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2016–0313. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 

7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, 

Kansas 66219. Please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Heather Hamilton, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 

(913) 551–7039, or by email at 

Hamilton.heather@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. What is being addressed in this document? 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is being addressed in this 

document? 

EPA is approving the infrastructure 

SIP submission received from the State 

of Kansas on November 25, 2015. The 

infrastructure SIP submission addressed 

the requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 

2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. A Technical 

Support Document (TSD) is included as 

part of the docket to discuss the details 

of this rulemaking. 

The proposal to approve the 

infrastructure SIP submission was 

published on July 11, 2016, in the 

Federal Register. 81 FR 44830. The 

comment period ended August 10, 2016. 

There were no comments on the 

proposal. 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the November 25, 

2015, infrastructure SIP submission 

from the State of Kansas which 

addresses the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable 

to the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

those submissions or referenced in 

Kansas’ SIP, EPA believes that Kansas’ 

SIP meets all applicable required 

elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

with respect to the 2012 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The EPA’s analysis of the submission 

is addressed in a TSD as part of the 

docket. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 

60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 8, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62375 

Dated: August 24, 2016. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR part 

52 as set forth below: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 2. In § 52.870(e) the table is amended 

by adding entry (44) in numerical order 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(44) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ............................... 11/16/15 9/9/16, [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(I) is 

not applicable. [EPA–R07– 

OAR–2016–0313; FRL– ] 

[FR Doc. 2016–21474 Filed 9–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0953; FRL–9950–77– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Infrastructure or Requirements for the 

2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submissions from the State of Texas for 

Ozone (O3) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). These submittals address 

how the existing SIP provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 2008 O3 and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS (infrastructure SIPs or iSIPs). These i-SIPs ensure that the 

State’s SIP is adequate to meet the 

State’s responsibilities under the 

Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0953. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Fuerst, telephone (214) 665– 

6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

The background for this action is 

discussed in detail in our February 8, 

2016, proposal (81 FR 6483). In that 

document we proposed to approve 

elements of SIP submittals from the 

State of Texas for the 2008 O3 and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS. These submittals address 

how the existing SIP provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 2008 O3 and 2010 

NO2 i-SIPs. 

We received comments on the 

proposal submitted jointly from two 

organizations. Our response to the 

comments are below. 

II. Response to Comments 

Comment: We received one set of 

comments—submitted jointly by the 

Sierra Club and Downwinders at Risk— 

on the February 8, 2016 proposal to 

approve certain elements of Texas’s SIP 

submissions for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. These comments are 

provided in the docket for today’s 

rulemaking action. The commenters 

contend that EPA cannot approve the 

section 110(a)(2)(A) portion of Texas’s 

2008 ozone infrastructure SIP 

submission because of Fifth Circuit 

‘‘binding precedent’’ purportedly 

holding this portion of the submission 

must ‘‘prohibit upwind sources in Texas 

from significantly contributing to 

nonattainment in downwind areas’’ in 

Texas. Specifically, the commenters 

contend that there are five coal-fired 

power plants in East Texas that 

‘‘significantly contribute’’ to Dallas-Fort 

Worth’s ozone nonattainment problem 

and that the Texas i-SIP fails to address 

those emissions. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenters that infrastructure SIPs 

must include detailed attainment and 

maintenance plans for all areas of the 

state and must be disapproved if air 

quality data and modeling show current 

and future nonattainment. We believe 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably 

interpreted to require states to submit 

SIPs that reflect the first step in their 

planning for attaining and maintaining 

a new or revised NAAQS and that they 

contain enforceable control measures 

and demonstration that the state has the 

available tools and authority to develop 

and implement plans to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS. 

The commenters suggest that EPA 

must disapprove the Texas ozone 

infrastructure SIP because of the fact 

that areas in Texas have air quality data 

and modeling projections above or 

forecasting above the standard, which 

proves that the infrastructure SIP is 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES