## 28767 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules

28A1212, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2010 was done): Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, change the GFI relay position and do certain bonding resistance measurements, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737–28A1212, Revision 2, dated October 18, 2012.
(j) Maintenance Program Revision

Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance program by incorporating Airworthiness Limitation 28– AWL–22 of Boeing 737–100/200/200C/300/ 400/500 AWL and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6–38278– CMR, Revision August 2012. The initial compliance time for the actions specified in AWL 28–AWL–22 of Boeing 737–100/200/ 200C/300/400/500 AWL and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), Document D6–38278–CMR, Revision August 2012, is within 1 year after accomplishing the installation required by paragraph (g), (h), or (i) of this AD, or within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(k) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD.
(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov

.

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/ certificate holding district office.

(m) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Georgios Roussos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917– 6482; fax: 425–917–6590; email: georgios.roussos@faa.gov

.

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8,

2013. Jeffrey E. Duven, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2013–11694 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**



### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

**Federal Aviation Administration**

**14 CFR Part 39**

**[Docket No. FAA–2013–0420; Directorate Identifier 2011–NM–241–AD]** 

**RIN 2120–AA64**



### Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing **Company Airplanes**

**AGENCY** 

### : Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

**ACTION** 

### : Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

**SUMMARY** 

### : We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747– 400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a disbonded doubler and a skin crack in section 41 of the fuselage, and multiple reports of cracked or missing fastener heads. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin, discrepant fasteners, and for disbonds at the doublers; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require a terminating repair for repair doublers. We are proposing this AD to prevent rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane due to such disbonding and subsequent cracking of the skin panels.

**DATES** 

### : We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 1, 2013.

**ADDRESSES** 

### : You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Fax: 202–493–2251. • Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680; Internet https:// www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.
Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is in the

**ADDRESSES** 

### section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** 

### : Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6428; fax: 425–917–6590; email: Nathan.P.Weigand@faa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** 

### :

Comments Invited

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the **ADDRESSES** 

### section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 2013–0420; Directorate Identifier 2011– NM–241–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those

comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov , including any


## 28768 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules

personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

We have received a report of a disbonded doubler and a 10-inch crack found at 21,800 total flight cycles in the skin in section 41 of the fuselage; and two reports of cracked or missing fastener heads found on four airplanes. Cracked and/or missing fastener heads were found at station (STA) 480 and STA 520 between stringers S–8 and S– 10 on airplanes with 10,529 and 10,531 total flight cycles. Also, missing fastener heads were found between STA 400 and 420 at stringer S–24AL on airplanes with 28,153 and 28,319 total flight cycles.

Fatigue cracks can start in the body skin at fastener holes where internal doublers have disbonded from the skin panel. Fatigue cracks that are not found and repaired could extend with continued use of the airplane and could cause a rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity.

Relevant Service Information

We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http:// www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA–2013–0420. Terminating Action for Other ADs

• Accomplishing the requirements of this proposed AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2006–20–02, Amendment 39– 14771 (71 FR 56861, September 28, 2006).

• Accomplishing the requirements of this proposed AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f), (k), and (l) of AD 2006–24–02, Amendment 39– 14831 (71 FR 67445, November 22, 2006).

• Accomplishing the requirements of this proposed AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f) and (i) of AD 2006–24–05, Amendment 39–14834 (71 FR 68434, November 27, 2006).

FAA’s Determination

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Proposed AD Requirements

This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under ‘‘Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information’’.

The phrase ‘‘related investigative actions’’ might be used in this proposed AD. ‘‘Related investigative actions’’ are follow-on actions that: (1) Are related to the primary actions, and (2) are actions that further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

In addition, the phrase ‘‘corrective actions’’ might be used in this proposed
AD. ‘‘Corrective actions’’ are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

• In accordance with a method that

we approve; or

• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.
Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 98 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:



### E STIMATED 

### C OSTS

Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators

Inspections ...... 878 work-hours × $85 per hour = $74,630 per inspection cycle. $0 $74,630 per inspection cycle ......... $7,313,740 per inspection cycle.



### We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.
Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency’s authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,


## 28769 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

**PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES** 

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

**§ 39.13 [Amended]**

■ 

### 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):
The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA– 2013–0420; Directorate Identifier 2011–
NM–241–AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by July 1, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD affects AD 2006–20–02, Amendment 39–14771 (71 FR 56861, September 28, 2006); AD 2006–24–02, Amendment 39–14831 (71 FR 67445, November 22, 2006); and AD 2006–24–05, Amendment 39–14834 (71 FR 68434, November 27, 2006).
(c) Applicability

This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 747–300, 747–400, 747–400D, 747–400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes; certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012.
(d) Subject

Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/ Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by a disbonded doubler and a skin crack in section 41 of the fuselage, and multiple reports of cracked or missing fastener heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity of the airplane due to such disbonding and subsequent cracking of the skin panels.
(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(g) Repetitive Skin Panel, Fastener, and Doubler Inspection

At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, except as required by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(3) of this AD: Do the applicable inspections (including detailed, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and low frequency eddy current (LFEC)) for any cracking of the fuselage skin, for discrepant fasteners, and for disbonds at the doublers; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, except as provided by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed those specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012. Options provided in Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2011, for accomplishing the disbond inspection are acceptable for the corresponding requirements of this paragraph provided that the inspection is done at the applicable times in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22,

2011.

(1) Replacing a skin panel, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, is an acceptable alternative to doing the service repair manual (SRM) skin panel repairs and the repetitive skin panel inspections specified in tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, for only the skin panel that has been replaced.

(2) Accomplishment of the terminating repair identified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, terminates the repetitive inspections identified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, for only the area on which the terminating repair has been done.
(h) Terminating Action for Repairs

For airplanes identified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012: At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, do the terminating action for the repair doubler, including doing an open hole HFEC inspection for skin cracks at the fastener holes common to the inspection area and an inspection for disbond of the internal doubler; and as applicable, replacing the existing external repair doubler with a new extended external repair doubler, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, except as provided by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD. Accomplishment of the terminating action identified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, terminates the repetitive inspections identified in tables 4 and 5 of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, for only areas on which the terminating action has been done.

(i) Exceptions to Certain Service Information
Instructions

This paragraph specifies exceptions to certain instructions in Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012.

(1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, specifies a compliance time after the ‘‘original issue date of this service bulletin,’’ this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747– 53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, specifies to contact Boeing for special repair instructions, this AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD.

(3) The Condition column of paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 2, dated February 22, 2012, refers to certain conditions ‘‘as of the original issue date of this service bulletin.’’ This AD, however, applies to the airplanes with the specified condition as of the effective date of this AD.
(j) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747–53A2747, Revision 1, dated October 12, 2011, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(k) Terminating Action for Other ADs

(1) Accomplishing the requirements of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of AD 2006–20– 02, Amendment 39–14771 (71 FR 56861, September 28, 2006).

(2) Accomplishing the requirements of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f), (k), and (l) of AD 2006–24–02, Amendment 39–14831 (71 FR 67445, November 22, 2006).

(3) Accomplishing the requirements of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (f) and (i) of AD 2006–24–05, Amendment 39–14834 (71 FR 68434, November 27, 2006).
(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in the Related Information section of this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager


## 28770 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules

1 After the Memorandum Opinion was delivered, the CRJs noted an error in the second sentence of the last paragraph on the last page of the Memorandum Opinion. The Register clarified the error with the CRJs.

The original sentence erroneously stated: ‘‘As such, the proposed ‘‘detail requirements’’ do not encroach upon the Register’s authority with respect to statements of account as provided in 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(5).’’

The corrected sentence, as it now appears in the Memorandum Opinion below, states:

‘‘As such, the proposed ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ does not encroach upon the Register’s authority with respect to statements of account as provided in 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(5).’’ of the local flight standards district office/ certificate holding district office.

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(m) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356; phone: 425–917–6428; fax: 425– 917–6590; email: Nathan.P.Weigand@faa.gov.

(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, Seattle, WA 98124–2207; telephone 206– 544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766–5680;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221.

Issued in Renton, WA, on May 8, 2013. Jeffrey E. Duven, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2013–11687 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**



### LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

**U.S. Copyright Office**

**37 CFR Part 385**

**[Docket No. 2011–3 CRB]**



### Scope of the Register of Copyright’s **Exclusive Authority Over Statements of Account Under the Section 115**  **Compulsory License**

**AGENCY** 

### : U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

**ACTION** 

### : Order.

**SUMMARY** 

### : The Copyright Royalty Judges, acting pursuant to statute, referred material questions of substantive law to the Register of Copyrights concerning the scope of the Register of Copyright’s exclusive authority over Statements of Account under the section 115 Compulsory License. Specifically, the Copyright Royalty Board requested a decision by the Register of Copyrights regarding ‘‘whether the detail requirements set forth in 37 CFR as proposed § 385.12(e) (existing) and proposed § 385.22(d) (new) as well as the confidentiality requirement proposed for §§ 385.12(f) and 385.22(e) encroach upon the exclusive statutory domain of the Register under § 115 of the Act.’’ The Register of Copyrights responded in a timely fashion by delivering a Memorandum Opinion to the Copyright Royalty Board on May 1, 2013.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** 

### : Stephen Ruwe, Attorney Advisor, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707–

8366.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** 

### : In the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, Congress amended Title 17 to replace the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (‘‘CARP’’) with the Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘CRJs’’). One of the functions of the CRJs is to make determinations and adjustments of reasonable terms and rates of royalty payments as provided in sections 112(e), 114, 115, 116, 118, 119 and 1004 of the Copyright Act. The CRJs have the authority to request from the Register of Copyrights (‘‘Register’’) an interpretation of any material question of substantive law that relates to the construction of provisions of Title 17 and arises out the course of the proceeding before the CRJs. See 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(A)(ii).

On April 17, 2013, the CRJs delivered to the Register: (1) An Order referring material questions of substantive law; and (2) a brief filed with the CRJs by Settling Participants (identified below in the Register’s Memorandum Opinion). The CRJs’ delivery of the request for an interpretation triggered the 14-day response period prescribed in section 802 of the Copyright Act. This statutory provision states that the Register ‘‘shall deliver to the Copyright Royalty Judges a written response within 14 days after the receipt of all briefs and comments from the participants.’’ See 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(A)(ii). The statute also requires that ‘‘[t]he Copyright Royalty Judges shall apply the legal interpretation embodied in the response of the Register of Copyrights if it is timely delivered, and [that] the response shall be included in the record that accompanies the final determination.’’ Id. On May 1, 2013 the Register responded in a Memorandum Opinion to the CRJs that addressed the material questions of law. To provide the public with notice of the decision rendered by the Register, the Memorandum Opinion is reproduced in its entirety, below. 1

Dated: May 9, 2013. Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights. Before the U.S. Copyright Office Library of Congress Washington, DC 20559 In the Matter of) Mechanical and Digital

Phonorecord Delivery Rate Adjustment Proceeding

Docket No. 2011–3 CRB (Phonorecords II)

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MATERIAL QUESTIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE LAW
I. Procedural Background

On May 17, 2012, the Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘CRJs’’) published for comment in the Federal Register proposed regulations for the section 115 compulsory license, which were the result of a settlement submitted to the CRJs on April 11, 2012. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Mechanical and Digital Phonorecord Delivery Compulsory License, Docket No. 2011–3 CRB Phonorecords II, 77 FR 29259 (May 17, 2012). The proposed regulations included ‘‘detail requirements’’ for 37 CFR 385.12(e) and 385.22(d), which would require statements of account filed by licensees to include each step of the royalty calculations, the type of licensed activity engaged in (in certain cases), and the number of plays or downloads. The proposed regulations also included a ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ for 37 CFR 385.12(f) and 385.22(e), which would require copyright owners to maintain statements of account that they receive under the license to be maintained in confidence. Id.

The ‘‘detail requirements’’ provision proposed for § 385.12(e) states: Accounting. The calculations required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be made in good faith and on the basis of the best knowledge, information and belief of the licensee at the time payment is due, and subject to the additional accounting and certification requirements of 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(5) and § 201.19 of this title. Without limitation, a licensee’s statements of account shall set forth each step of its calculations with sufficient information to allow the copyright owner to assess the accuracy and manner in which the licensee determined the payable royalty pool and per-play allocations (including information sufficient to