29270 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

will be liable for any payment due for 

such uses; provided, however, that all 

rights and remedies of the copyright 

owner with respect to unauthorized 

uses shall be preserved. 

(d) Interpretation. The free trial 

royalty rate is exclusively for audio-only 

licensed subpart C of this part activity 

involving musical works subject to 

licensing under 17 U.S.C. 115. The free 

trial royalty rate does not apply to any 

other use under 17 U.S.C. 115; nor does 

it apply to public performances, 

audiovisual works, lyrics or other uses 

outside the scope of 17 U.S.C. 115. 

Without limitation, uses subject to 

licensing under 17 U.S.C. 115 that do 

not qualify for the free trial royalty rate 

(including without limitation licensed 

subpart C of this part activity beyond 

the time limitations applicable to the 

free trial royalty rate) require payment 

of applicable royalties. This section is 

based on an understanding of industry 

practices and market conditions at the 

time of its development, among other 

things. The terms of this section shall be 

subject to de novo review and 

consideration (or elimination altogether) 

in future proceedings before the 

Copyright Royalty Judges. Nothing in 

this section shall be interpreted or 

construed in such a manner as to nullify 

or diminish any limitation, requirement 

or obligation of 17 U.S.C. 115 or other 

protection for musical works afforded 

by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et 

seq. 

§ 385.25 Reproduction and distribution 

rights covered. 

A compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 

115 extends to all reproduction and 

distribution rights that may be necessary 

for the provision of the licensed subpart 

C of this part activity, solely for the 

purpose of providing such licensed 

subpart C of this part activity (and no 

other purpose). 

§ 385.26 Effect of rates. 

In any future proceedings under 17 

U.S.C. 115(c)(3)(C) and (D), the royalty 

rates payable for a compulsory license 

shall be established de novo. 

Dated: May 10, 2012. 

Stanley C. Wisniewski, 

Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11751 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0851, FRL–9673–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Montana; State Implementation Plan 

and Regional Haze Federal 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; corrections. 

SUMMARY: EPA is correcting a proposed 

rule that appeared in the Federal 

Register on April 20, 2012. The 

proposed rule includes the proposed 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address regional haze in the State of 

Montana and the proposed approval of 

revisions to the Montana SIP submitted 

by the State of Montana through the 

Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality on February 17, 2012. We are 

correcting some typographical errors 

and clarifying some information with 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vanessa Hinkle, EPA, Region 8, (303) 

312–6561. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used it means the EPA. 

On April 20, 2012, EPA published the 

proposed rule titled ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

State of Montana; State Implementation 

Plan and Regional Haze Federal 

Implementation Plan’’ (77 FR 23988). 

See docket number EPA–R08–OAR– 

2011–0851. The following corrections 

are made to the proposed rule: 

1. On page 23992, Footnote 7 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘Guidance 

for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze 

Rule, September 2003, EPA–454/B–03– 

005, available at http://www.epa.gov/

ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_

gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘our 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’); and 

Guidance for Tracking Progress Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, (September 

2003, EPA–454/B–03–004, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/

memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, 

(hereinafter referred to as our ‘‘2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance’’).’’ 

2. On page 24002, Footnote 27 is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘ ‘‘Modeling Protocol: Montana Regional 

Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

Support’’, University of North Carolina, 

Contract EP–D–07–102, November 21, 

2011.’’ 

3. On page 24004, Footnote 40 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘Ash Grove 

Update March 2012 (Ash Grove’s letter 

indicates a mean of 14.4 lbs./ton clinker 

and a 99th percentile of 18.6 lb NOX/ton 

clinker. This is significantly greater than 

the 2006 emissions shown in Table 10 

for the Midlothian kilns.).’’ 

4. On pages 24013 and 24014, 

Footnote 75 is amended to read as 

follows: ‘‘BART analysis by Holcim for 

Trident Cement Plant, Three Forks, MT 

(‘‘Holcim Initial Response’’) (July 6, 

2007); Responses to EPA comments on 

BART analysis for Trident Cement Plant 

(‘‘Holcim 2008 Responses’’) (Jan. 25, 

2008); BART analysis by Holcim for low 

NOX burners for Trident Cement Plant 

(‘‘Holcim Additional Response, June 

2009’’) (June 9, 2009); Response to EPA 

letter regarding Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) claims on BART 

analysis for Trident Cement Plant 

(‘‘Holcim Additional Response, August 

2009’’) (Aug. 12, 2009); Response to 

EPA request for NOX and SO2 emissions 

data for 2008–2010 (‘‘Holcim 2011 

Response’’) (June 30, 2011); Response to 

EPA request for emissions and clinker 

production for Holcim pursuant to CAA 

section 114(a) (‘‘Holcim 2012 

Response’’) (Mar. 2, 2012).’’ 

5. On page 24014, in the first column, 

the first sentence of the second 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘We 

identified that the following previously 

described NOX control technologies are 

available: LNB, MKF, FGR, SNCR, and 

SCR.’’ 

6. On page 24018, in Table 52, the 

annual emissions reduction for fuel 

switching option 2 is amended to 31.1 

tpy, the remaining annual emissions for 

fuel switching option 2 is amended to 

19.1 tpy, the annual emissions 

reduction for fuel switching option 1 is 

amended to 16.1 tpy, and the remaining 

annual emissions for fuel switching 

option 1 is amended to 34.1 tpy. 

7. On page 24020, in Table 60, the 

emissions reductions from fuel 

switching option 1 are amended to 16.1 

tpy, the average cost effectiveness for 

fuel switching option 1 is amended to 

14,938 dollars per ton, the emissions 

reduction from fuel switching option 2 

is amended to 31.1 tpy, and the average 

cost effectiveness for fuel switching 

option 2 is amended to 21,211 dollars 

per ton. 

8. On page 24021, in Table 63, the 

average cost effectiveness for fuel 

switching option 2 is amended to 21,211 

dollars per ton, and the average cost 

effectiveness for fuel switching option 1 

is amended to 14,938 dollars per ton. 

9. On page 24023, Footnote 113 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘Baseline 

emissions were determined by averaging 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 29271 

the annual emissions from 2008 through 

2010 as reported to the CAMD database 

available at http://camddataandmaps.

epa.gov/gdm/.’’ 

10. On page 24024, Footnote 123 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘EPA’s 

CCM Sixth Edition, January 2002, EPA/ 

452/B–02–001, Section 1, Chapter 2, p. 

2–21.’’ 

11. On page 24025, Footnote 130 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘ICAC 

February 2008, p. 8.’’ 

12. On page 24031, Footnote 150 is 

amended to read as follows: ‘‘Baseline 

emissions were determined by averaging 

the annual emissions from 2008 to 2010 

as reported to the CAMD database 

available at http://camddataandmaps.

epa.gov/gdm/.’’ 

13. On page 24059, in the first 

column, the second paragraph is 

amended to read, ‘‘We are eliminating 

the four refineries from further 

consideration as a result of consent 

decrees entered into by the owners. 

Under these consent decrees, emissions 

have been reduced sufficiently after the 

2002 baseline so that the Q/D for each 

facility is below 10. Specifically, 

ExxonMobil’s emissions in 2009 of NOX

and SO2 were 1,019 tpy, resulting in a 

Q/D of 6. Cenex’s emissions in 2009 of 

NOX and SO2 were 727 tpy, resulting in 

a Q/D of 5. Conoco’s emissions in 2009 

of NOX and SO2 were 1,087 tpy, 

resulting in a Q/D of 8. Montana 

Refining’s emissions in 2009 of NOX

and SO2 were 122 tpy, resulting in a Q/ 

D of 2. The consent decrees are available 

in the docket.’’ 

14. On page 24063, in the first 

column, the first sentence of the last 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘We are 

relying on CELP’s estimates that SCR 

would take approximately 26 months to 

install and that SNCR would take 16 to 

24 weeks to install.239’’ 

15. On page 24064, the title for the 

last column of Table 162 is amended to 

read, ‘‘Remaining emissions (tpy).’’ 

16. On page 24070, in the third 

column, the fourth sentence of the 

second paragraph is amended to read, 

‘‘This control option is functionally 

equivalent to LSFO in terms of concept 

and control efficiency.’’ 

17. On page 24071, in the first 

column, the second full sentence of the 

first paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘We 

used 85% control for this analysis.’’ 

18. On page 24071, in the first 

column, the sixth sentence of the 

second paragraph is amended to read, 

‘‘We used 70% control for this analysis 

(about a 10% improvement over existing 

controls).’’ 

19. On page 24074, in the third 

column, the first sentence of the fifth 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘We 

identified that the following 

technologies to be available: extending 

the Claus reaction into a lower 

temperature liquid phase (the Sulfreen®

process) and tail gas scrubbing 

(Wellman-Lord, SCOT, and traditional 

FGD processes).’’ 

20. On page 24074, in the third 

column, the first sentence of the sixth 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘In the 

Sulfreen® process, the Claus reaction is 

extended at low temperatures (260 to 

300 °F) to recover SO2 and H2S in the 

tail gas.’’ 

21. On page 24075, in the third 

column, the third paragraph is amended 

to read, ‘‘Both the SCOT and Sulfreen®

processes are feasible; however, in the 

BART Guidelines, EPA states that it may 

be appropriate to eliminate from further 

consideration technologies that provide 

similar control levels at higher cost. See 

70 FR 39165 (July 6, 2005). We think it 

is appropriate to do the same for RP 

determinations. In this case, Sulfreen®

systems reportedly can achieve 98% to 

99.5% sulfur recovery efficiency while 

SCOT can reportedly achieve sulfur 

recovery as high as 99.8% to 99.9%. The 

cost is higher for the Sulfreen® system 

when compared to the SCOT process. 

Because the SCOT process is more 

effective and costs less than the 

Sulfreen® system, the Sulfreen® system 

was not considered further.’’ 

22. On page 24076, in the second 

column, the first sentence of the third 

paragraph is amended to read, ‘‘Plum 

Creek Manufacturing’s Columbia Falls 

Operation, in Columbia Falls, Montana 

consists of a sawmill, a planer, and 

plywood and medium density 

fiberboard (MDF) processes.’’ 

23. On page 24097, the following 

information is added to the third 

column after the second paragraph, ‘‘K. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply 

because this action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).’’ 

24. On page 24097, in the third 

column, under Subpart BB—Montana, 

the first line of number three is 

amended to read, ‘‘3. Add section 

52.1395 to read as follows:’’ On page 

24097, in the third column, under 

Subpart BB—Montana, the first line of 

number three is amended to read, ‘‘3. 

Add section 52.1395 to read as follows:’’ 

25. On page 24098, section 52.1396 

(c)(1) is amended to read, ‘‘The owners/ 

operators of EGUs subject to this section 

shall not emit or cause to be emitted 

PM, SO2 or NOX in excess of the 

following limitations, in pounds per 

million British thermal units (lb/ 

MMBtu), averaged over a rolling 30-day 

period for SO2 and NOX:’’ 

26. On page 24098, section 52.1396 

(c)(2) is amended to read, ‘‘The owners/ 

operators of cement kilns subject to this 

section shall not emit or cause to be 

emitted PM, SO2 or NOX in excess of the 

following limitations, in pounds per ton 

of clinker produced, averaged over a 

rolling 30-day period for SO2 and NOX:’’ 

27. On page 24099, the following is 

added to section 52.1396 (g), ‘‘(5) All 

particulate matter stack test results.’’ 

28. On page 24099, section 52.1396 

(h)(4) is amended to read, ‘‘(4) Owner/ 

operator of each unit shall submit 

results of any particulate matter stack 

tests conducted for demonstrating 

compliance win the particulate matter 

BART limits in section (c) above, within 

60 days after completion of the test.’’ 

29. On page 24100, section 52.1396 

(h)(6) is amended to read, ‘‘(6) Any 

other records required by 40 CFR part 

60, Subpart F, or 40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix F, Procedure 1.’’ 

30. On page 24100, section 52.1396 

(i)(5) is added to read, ‘‘(5) Owner/ 

operator of each unit shall submit semiannual reports of any excursions under 

the approved CAM plan in accordance 

with the schedule specified in the 

source’s title V permit.’’ 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 8, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11967 Filed 5–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 131 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0596; FRL–9670–7] 

RIN 2040–AF41 

Effective Date for the Water Quality 

Standards for the State of Florida’s 

Lakes and Flowing Waters 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed delay of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to extend the 

July 6, 2012, effective date of the ‘‘Water 

Quality Standards for the State of 

Florida’s Lakes and Flowing Waters; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS