Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 1759 

6As the NCTA observed, an operator might be 

entitled to a refund if it incorrectly reported a local 

signal as distant or mistakenly paid royalties for a 

signal that was not carried anywhere on the system. 

See NCTA Reply at 3. 

7As discussed above, STELA is effective as of 

February 27, 2010. The 2010/2 accounting period 

ended on December 31, 2010, and Statements of 

Account for that period were due on March 1, 2011. 

otherwise be entitled to a refund or 

offset 6—but for the fact that it 

calculated its royalty obligation using 

the subscriber group method rather than 

the system-wide method, and as a 

result, underpaid the royalties due 

under the system-wide method—then 

the operator is not entitled to a refund 

or offset under Section 111(d)(1)(D). 

That is indeed the effect of the 

regulation. 

Cable operators presumably use the 

subscriber group method, because it 

lowers the amount of royalties owed 

under the statutory license. Indeed, in 

most of the refund requests at issue in 

this proceeding, the amount owed on 

the Statement of Account would be 

higher if the cable operator used the 

system-wide method instead of the 

subscriber group method to calculate its 

royalty obligation. In such cases, the 

operators are not entitled to a refund or 

offset, because the overpayments 

purportedly shown on their Statements 

of Account would not have occurred but 

for the fact that they calculated their 

royalty obligation using the subscriber 

group method rather than the systemwide method, which was the 

methodology in effect when the 

Statements were filed. 

The NCTA contended that the 

proposed rule is inconsistent with the 

legislative history for the amendment to 

Section 111(d)(1)(D), but the quotes that 

the NCTA cited from the congressional 

debate do not support this view. At best, 

these quotes merely indicate that 

stakeholders disagreed over whether a 

cable operator should be required to pay 

for phantom signals and that the 

legislation was intended to resolve that 

longstanding dispute. The NCTA offered 

no language from the congressional 

debate indicating that Congress 

intended to change the method that 

should be used to calculate royalty 

obligations on Statements filed before 

the date of enactment. Nor is there any 

indication that Congress intended to 

overrule the Office’s longstanding 

practice of declining to issue refunds or 

offsets to cable operators who failed to 

pay for phantom signals. 

Finally, the NCTA contended that the 

proposed rule will cause ‘‘confusion 

and uncertainty’’ regarding the 

treatment of phantom signals. NCTA 

Reply at 2. However, the NCTA 

acknowledged that the instances where 

a cable operator used the subscriber 

group methodology and subsequently 

requested a refund ‘‘are relatively rare,’’ 

NCTA Comment at 1 n.3, and in fact, it 

provided only one example of alleged 

‘‘confusion and delay’’ in its comments. 

Specifically, the NCTA predicted that 

the proposed rule would create 

uncertainty for Statements of Account 

filed for the second accounting period of 

2010, because ‘‘those statements were 

not due until after the effective date of 

STELA, but in some cases were filed 

before that date.’’ NCTA Reply at 2, n.1. 

In fact, the Office did not receive any 

Statements of Account for the 2010/2 

accounting period before the effective 

date of STELA, so the regulation will 

not cause any delay in connection with 

those Statements.7 Moreover, the 

proposed rule draws a bright line that 

eliminates any confusion. Refunds on 

Statements of Account filed prior to the 

2010/1 accounting period are based 

upon calculations of royalty obligations 

under the methodology that attributed 

carriage of a signal throughout the cable 

system rather than on the revised 

methodology adopted under STELA that 

requires calculations to be made based 

on carriage of signals within discrete 

communities. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, General provisions. 

Final Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Copyright Office amends part 201 of 37 

CFR as follows: 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

■ 2. Amend § 201.17 by redesignating 

paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) as 

paragraphs (m)(2) through (5) and 

adding a new paragraph (m)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 201.17 Statements of Account covering 

compulsory licenses for secondary 

transmissions by cable systems. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(1) Royalty fee obligations under 17 

U.S.C. 111 prior to the effective date of 

the Satellite Television Extension and 

Localism Act of 2010, Public Law 111– 

175, are determined based on carriage of 

each distant signal on a system-wide 

basis. Refunds for an overpayment of 

royalty fees for an accounting period 

prior to January 1, 2010, shall be made 

only when all outstanding royalty fee 

obligations have been met, including 

those for carriage of each distant signal 

on a system-wide basis. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 21, 2012. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

Approved by: 

James H. Billington, 

The Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00171 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR PART 52 

[FRL–9767–5] 

Notice of Approval of Clean Air Act 

Outer Continental Shelf Minor Source/ 

Title V Minor Permit Modification 

Issued to Shell Offshore, Inc. for the 

Kulluk Conical Drilling Unit 

AGENCY: United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that 

EPA Region 10 has issued a final 

decision granting Shell Offshore Inc.’s 

(‘‘Shell’’) request for minor 

modifications of Clean Air Act Outer 

Continental Shelf (‘‘OCS’’) Minor 

Source/Title V Permit No. 

R10OCS03000 (‘‘permits’’). The permits 

authorize air emissions associated with 

Shell’s operation of the Kulluk Conical 

Drilling Unit (‘‘Kulluk’’) in the Beaufort 

Sea to conduct exploratory oil and gas 

drilling. 

DATES: January 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The documents relevant to 

the above-referenced permits are 

available for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the following 

address: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, AWT–107, Seattle, WA 

98101. To arrange for viewing of these 

documents, call Natasha Greaves at 

(206) 553–7079. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Natasha Greaves, Office of Air Waste 

and Toxics, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 6th 

Avenue, Suite 900, AWT–107, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA 

Region 10 issued a final decision on the 

minor modifications of the permits on 

September 28, 2012. The modified 

permits also became effective on that 

date, and the 30-day period provided by 

40 CFR 71.11(l) to file with the 

Environmental Appeals Board (‘‘EAB’’) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1760 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1The San Francisco Bay Area PM2.5

nonattainment area includes southern Sonoma, 

Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, San Francisco, 

Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara and the western 

part of Solano counties. 

2The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 35 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on a 3- 

year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. 

a petition to review the minor 

modifications of the permits ended on 

October 29, 2012. Pursuant to section 

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7607(b)(1), judicial review of these final 

permit decisions, to the extent it is 

available, may be sought by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

within 60 days of January 9, 2013. 

On April 12, 2012, EPA issued a final 

decision on the permits which authorize 

air emissions from Shell’s operation of 

the Kulluk in the Beaufort Sea to 

conduct exploratory drilling. Shell 

submitted an application to EPA Region 

10 requesting minor modifications of 

the permits on July 5, 2012. EPA Region 

10 reviewed and issued the requested 

minor modifications of the permits on 

September 28, 2012. 

All conditions of the Kulluk permit, 

issued by EPA on September 28, 2012, 

are final and effective. 

Dated: November 6, 2012. 

Kate Kelly, 

Director, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics, Region 

10. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31649 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0782; FRL–9766–7] 

Determination of Attainment for the 

San Francisco Bay Area 

Nonattainment Area for the 2006 Fine 

Particle Standard; California; 

Determination Regarding Applicability 

of Clean Air Act Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

determine that the San Francisco Bay 

Area nonattainment area in California 

has attained the 2006 24-hour fine 

particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). This 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data showing that this 

area has monitored attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

the 2009–2011 monitoring period. Based 

on the above determination, the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, together with 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, and contingency measures 

for failure to meet RFP and attainment 

deadlines are suspended for so long as 

the area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

8, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0782 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., 

Confidential Business Information). To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, (415) 972–3963, or by email 

at ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65521), 

EPA proposed to determine that the San 

Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area1

has attained the 2006 24-hour NAAQS 2

for fine particles (generally referring to 

particles less than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers in diameter, PM2.5). 

In our proposed rule, we explained 

how EPA makes an attainment 

determination for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS by reference to complete, 

quality-assured data gathered at State 

and Local Air Monitoring Stations 

(SLAMS) and entered into EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) database and by 

reference to 40 CFR 50.13 (‘‘National 

primary and secondary ambient air 

quality standards for PM2.5’’) and 

appendix N to [40 CFR] part 50 

(‘‘Interpretation of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for PM2.5’’). EPA 

proposed the determination of 

attainment for the San Francisco Bay 

Area based upon a review of the 

monitoring network operated by the Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD) and the data collected at the 

10 monitoring sites operating during the 

most recent complete three-year period 

(i.e., 2009 to 2011). Based on this 

review, EPA found that complete, 

quality-assured and certified data for the 

San Francisco Bay Area showed that the 

24-hour design value for the 2009–2011 

period was equal to or less than 35 

m/m3 at all of the monitor sites. See the 

data summary table on page 65523 of 

the October 29, 2012 proposed rule. We 

also noted that preliminary data 

available in AQS for 2012 indicates that 

the San Francisco Bay Area continues to 

attain the NAAQS. 

In our proposed rule, based on the 

proposed determination of attainment, 

we also proposed to apply EPA’s Clean 

Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and thereby suspend the requirements 

for this area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

and contingency measures for so long as 

the area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See pages 65524– 

65525 of our October 29, 2012 proposed 

rule. In proposing to apply the Clean 

Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

we explained how we are applying the 

same statutory interpretation with 

respect to the implications of clean data 

determinations that the Agency has long 

applied in regulations for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and in 

individual rulemakings for the 1-hour 

ozone, PM10 and lead NAAQS. 

Please see the October 29, 2012 

proposed rule for more detailed 

information concerning the PM2.5

NAAQS, designations of PM2.5

nonattainment areas, the regulatory 

basis for determining attainment of the 

NAAQS, BAAQMD’s PM2.5 monitoring 

network, EPA’s review and evaluation 

of the data, and the rationale and 

implications for application of the Clean 

Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed rule provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA’s Final Action 

For the reasons provided in the 

proposed rule and summarized herein, 

EPA is taking final action to determine 

that the San Francisco Bay Area 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with