38240 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

The airspace 

within R– 

4105 is excluded 

during 

times of 

use. 

T–218 Stonyfork, PA (SFK) to Sparta, NJ (SAX) [New] 

Stonyfork PA 

(SFK) 

VOR/DME (Lat. 41°41′43′′ N., long. 077°25′12′′ W.) 

LAAYK, PA WP (Lat. 41°28′33′′ N., long. 075°28′57′′ W.) 

Sparta, NJ 

(SAX) 

VORTAC (Lat. 41°04′03′′ N., long. 074°32′18′′ W.) 

T–221 MAZIE, PA to Binghamton, NY (CFB) [New] 

MAZIE PA FIX (Lat. 40°19′20′′ N., long. 075°06′35′′ W.) 

Allentown, 

PA (FJC) 

VORTAC (Lat. 40°43′36′′ N., long. 075°27′17′′ W.) 

LAAYK, PA WP (Lat. 41°28′33′′ N., long. 075°28′57′′ W.) 

Binghamton, 

NY (CFB) 

VORTAC (Lat. 42°09′27′′ N., long. 076°08′11′′ W.) 

T–291 LOUIE, MD to Albany, NY (ALB) [Amended] 

LOUIE, MD FIX (Lat. 38°36′44′′ N., long. 076°18′04′′ W.) 

BAABS, MD WP (Lat. 39°19′51′′ N., long. 076°24′41′′ W.) 

Harrisburg, 

PA (HAR) 

VORTAC (Lat. 40°18′08′′ N., long. 077°04′10′′ W.) 

Selinsgrove, 

PA (SEG) 

VORTAC (Lat. 40°47′27′′ N., long. 076°53′03′′ W.) 

Milton, PA 

(MIP) 

VORTAC (Lat. 41°01′24′′ N., long. 076°39′55.W.) 

MEGSS, PA FIX (Lat. 41°11′13′′ N., long. 076°12′41′′ W.) 

LAAYK, PA WP (Lat. 41°28′33′′ N., long. 075°28′57′′ W.) 

Delancey, 

NY (DNY) 

VOR/DME (Lat. 42°10′42′′ N., long. 074°57′25′′ W.) 

Albany, NY 

(ALB) 

VORTAC (Lat. 42°44′50′′ N., long. 073°48′11′′ W.) 

T–295 LOUIE, MD to Princeton, ME (PNN) [Amended] 

LOUIE, MD FIX (Lat. 38°36′44′′ N., long. 076°18′04′′ W.) 

BAABS, MD WP (Lat. 39°19′51′′ N., long. 076°24′41′′ W.) 

Lancaster, 

PA (LRP) 

VORTAC (Lat. 40°07′12′′ N., long. 076°17′29′′ W.) 

Wilkes-Barre, 

PA (LVZ) 

VORTAC (Lat. 41°16′22′′ N., long. 075°41′22′′ W.) 

LAAYK, PA WP (Lat. 41°28′33′′ N., long. 075°28′57′′ W.) 

SAGES, NY FIX (Lat. 42°02′46′′ N., long. 074°19′10′′ W.) 

SASHA, MA FIX (Lat. 42°07′59′′ N., long. 073°08′55′′ W.) 

Keene, NH 

(EEN) 

VORTAC (Lat. 42°47′39′′ N., long. 072°17′30′′ W.) 

Concord, NH 

(CON) 

VORTAC (Lat. 43°13′11′′ N., long. 071°34′32′′ W.) 

Kennebunk, 

ME (ENE) 

VORTAC (Lat. 43°25′32′′ N., long. 070°36′49′′ W.) 

BRNNS, ME FIX (Lat. 43°54′09′′ N., long. 069°56′43′′ W.) 

Bangor, ME 

(BGR) 

VORTAC (Lat. 44°50′30′′ N., long. 068°52′26′′ W.) 

Princeton, 

ME (PNN) 

VOR/DME (Lat. 45°19′45′′ N., long. 067°42′15′′ W.) 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 

2013. 

Ellen Crum, 

Acting Manager, Airspace Policy & ATC 

Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15283 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. 2013–5] 

Authentication of Electronic 

Signatures on Electronically Filed 

Statements of Account 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office 

(‘‘Copyright Office’’ or ‘‘Office’’) is 

reengineering certain processes in its 

Licensing Division to enable cable 

systems operating under the statutory 

license governing the secondary 

transmission of over-the-air television 

broadcast signals to file Statements of 

Account electronically. As part of that 

process, the Office plans to adopt an 

identity authentication process that will 

allow for the use of electronic 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38241 

1E-Authentication Guidance for Federal 

Agencies, [OMB 04–04], § 1.3 (Dec. 16, 2003). 

2According to Section 106(5) of the Electronic 

Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act 

(known as ‘‘ESIGN’’), an electronic signature is 

defined as ‘‘an electronic sound, symbol, or process, 

attached to or logically associated with a contract 

or other record and executed or adopted by a person 

with the intent to sign the record.’’ ESIGN, 15 

U.S.C. 7006(5) (2000). Under Section 2 of the 

Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UTEA), the 

term ‘‘electronic signature means an electronic 

sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically 

associated with a record and executed or adopted 

by a person with the intent to sign the record.’’ 

Unif. Elec. Transactions Act § 2 (1999). 

signatures. The Office proposes 

revisions to specific rules to account for 

the changes associated with the 

implementation of an electronic 

Statement of Account filing system and 

seeks public comment on the proposed 

process and regulatory changes to 

accommodate the use of electronic 

signatures. 

DATES: Comments due July 26, 2013. 

Reply comments July 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: All comments and reply 

comments shall be submitted 

electronically. A comment page 

containing a comment form is posted on 

the Copyright Office Web site at 

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/digsig. 

The Web site interface requires 

submitters to complete a form 

specifying name and organization, as 

applicable, and to upload comments as 

an attachment via a browser button. To 

meet accessibility standards, all 

comments must be uploaded in a single 

file in either the Portable Document File 

(PDF) format that contains searchable, 

accessible text (not an image); Microsoft 

Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format 

(RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a 

scanned document). The maximum file 

size is 6 megabytes (MB). The name of 

the submitter and organization should 

appear on both the form and the face of 

the comments. All comments will be 

posted publicly on the Copyright Office 

Web site exactly as they are received, 

along with names and organizations. If 

electronic submission of comments is 

not feasible, please contact the 

Copyright Office at 202–707–8380 for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Zizzi, Office of the General 

Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 

70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: 

(202) 707–8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Section 111 of the Copyright Act 

(‘‘Act’’), title 17 of the United States 

Code (‘‘Section 111’’), provides cable 

operators with a statutory license to 

retransmit a performance or display of 

a work embodied in a primary 

transmission made by a television 

station licensed by the Federal 

Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’). 

Cable system statutory licensees are 

required to file Statements of Account 

(‘‘SOAs’’) and pay royalty fees to the 

Copyright Office. SOAs contain 

information on a cable operator’s 

channel line-ups and gross receipts for 

the sale of cable service to the public. 

Payments made under the cable 

statutory license are remitted semiannually to the Office, which invests the 

royalties in United States Treasury 

securities pending distribution of the 

funds to those copyright owners who 

are entitled to receive a share of the fees. 

Since 2007, the Copyright Office has 

been implementing plans to reengineer 

the workflow of its Licensing Division 

(‘‘Division’’) for the administration, 

processing, and recordkeeping of 

electronically filed SOAs and related 

documents. The goals of this ongoing 

effort are manifold: (1) To facilitate the 

timely processing of SOAs; (2) to enable 

the Division to better manage its royalty 

investment accounts; (3) to expedite the 

availability of SOAs and other records 

for public inspection; and (4) to better 

control costs for those who participate 

in the statutory licensing system. 

One of the key reengineering efforts is 

to digitize the royalty fee collections 

process. The Office is in the process of 

configuring and deploying a commercial 

off the shelf (‘‘COTS’’) computer 

software package as part of an overall 

business process reengineering effort. 

The COTS package will support the 

development of an efficient electronic 

system for filing, managing, and 

retrieving Statements of Account, 

royalty payments, notices, amendments, 

and other documents related to the work 

of the Licensing Division. The COTS 

package will provide the Office with the 

capability to automate the reengineered 

processes and provide a platform for 

managing stakeholders’ needs online. 

The Office has named the new 

electronic filing system ‘‘eLi’’ (‘‘eLi’’ or 

‘‘Electronic Licensing’’). 

Central to the success of eLi is the 

establishment of a robust identity 

authentication system for the 

preparation and electronic filing of 

SOAs. This authentication will be 

accomplished through an electronic 

signature process. An authentication 

system for electronic filings is necessary 

because: (1) It establishes the identity of 

the individual(s) preparing the form; (2) 

it establishes the identity of the 

individual charged with the 

responsibility of certifying and signing 

the SOA during a secure online session; 

(3) it creates an electronically signed 

record in a format that accurately 

reflects the information provided by the 

cable system as submitted at the time of 

the electronic signing; and (4) it helps 

protect digital documents from 

tampering. In establishing eLi, the 

Office must revise its regulations to 

allow for the use of electronic signatures 

as the means of verifying the identity of 

the individual signing the SOA 1 and 

linking that individual to a specific 

electronic record.2 The Office requests 

comments on proposed regulations 

governing the electronic signature 

process for filing cable Statements of 

Account. 

II. Background 

A. Levels of Authentication 

Today, cable companies may utilize a 

number of employees in the preparation 

of an SOA. The Office’s regulations, 

however, require that the document be 

signed by a person of authority, i.e., an 

owner, partner, or officer of the 

company who, by signing, certifies that 

the information in the SOA is complete 

and accurate. 37 CFR 201.17(3)(14). For 

eLi filings, the Office seeks to adopt an 

identity authentication method that will 

identify each person involved in the 

preparation of the SOA, authenticate the 

identity of the person certifying the 

statement by his or her electronic 

signature on the document, and secure 

the information provided in the certified 

document. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) manual, E-Authentication 

Guidance for Federal Agencies, [OMB 

04–04], describes the four levels of 

identity assurance currently used for 

electronic transactions filed with the 

federal government that require 

authentication. In choosing which 

assurance level is appropriate to 

authenticate a particular kind of 

electronic government transaction, the 

agency must consider the risk factors 

involved and the level of security 

required for that transaction. Under the 

OMB framework, Level 1 provides the 

lowest security assurance and Level 4 

provides the highest, with Levels 2 and 

3 providing a mix of security and ease 

of access to protected documents. 

Level 1 authentication methods do 

not require identity proofing, but they 

must provide some assurance that the 

party who electronically signed a 

protected document is the same 

individual who transmitted it. Level 1 

methods allow a wide range of available 

authentication technologies to be 

employed and permit the use of any 

token methods of Levels 2, 3, or 4. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38242 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3See Electronic Authentication Guideline, NIST 

Publication 800–63–1, version 800–63–1 (December 

2011) (‘‘NIST Publication 800–63–1’’) at vii, http:// 

csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800–63–1/SP– 

800–63–1.pdf. 

4 Id. at vii-viii. 

5 Id. at viii. 

6 Id. 

7Level 3 authentication is prevalent among 

financial institutions. IDManagement.gov, Trust 

Framework Provider Adoption Process (TFPAP) For 

Levels of Assurance 1, 2, and non-PKI 3 28–36, 

http://www.idmanagement.gov/documents/ 

TrustFrameworkProviderAdoptionProcess.pdf. In 

2005, the Federal Financial Institutions 

Examination Council (‘‘FFIEC’’) provided guidance, 

indicating that commercial banking/brokerage 

businesses have been using out of band 

authentication for years. Federal Financial 

Institutions Examination Council, Authentication in 

an Internet Banking Environment 11, http:// 

ithandbook.ffiec.gov/media/28059/frb-sr_05_19.pdf. 

The FFIEC gave U.S. banks until the end-of-year 

2006 to implement two factor authentication, which 

is part of the level 3 authentication system. 

Slashdot, Banks to use two factor authentication by 

end of 2006. http://it.slashdot.org/story/05/10/19/ 

2340245/Banks-to-Use-2-factor-Authentication-byEnd-of-2006. 

8Among other government entities, the General 

Services Administration (‘‘GSA’’), the Internal 

Revenue Service (‘‘IRS’’), the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, and the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office have implemented level 3 for 

authentication purposes. The submission page for 

the GSA states that all submitted digital 

authentication certificate(s) must be level 3. General 

Services Administration eOffer/eMod, http:// 

eoffer.gsa.gov/eoffer_docs/aces_information.htm. 

The IRS requires level 3 or level 4 authentication. 

IRS Remote Access for Data Centers, http:// 

www.irs.gov/privacy/article/0,,id=208067,00.html. 

Internal Revenue Service, Modernized e-File (MeF) 

Guide for Software Developers and Transmitters 

171, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4164.pdf. 

The Drug Enforcement Administration asserted 

that ‘‘the use of . . . Assurance Level 3 identity 

proofing and two-factor authentication . . . will 

provide security commensurate with the current 

paper-based prescription system, and will meet 

statutory obligations of the CSA.’’ Drug 

Enforcement Administration, E-Authentication Risk 

Assessment for Electronic Prescriptions for 

Controlled Substances 32, http:// 

www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/ecomm/e_rx/ 

risk_assessment_dea_218.pdf. 

In 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office clarified that Level 3 authentication was 

needed for submission of documents other than an 

initial application. United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Legal Framework For EFS-Web 4, 

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/ 

guidance/legalframework_2008.pdf. 

9Title 18 U.S.C. 1001 states as follows: 

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, 

whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of 

the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the 

Government of the United States, knowingly and 

willfully—(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by 

any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) 

makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 

statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses 

any false writing or document knowing the same to 

contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 

statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, 

imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense 

involves international or domestic terrorism (as 

defined in Section 2331), imprisoned not more than 

8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense 

under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or Section 

1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed 

under this Section shall be not more than 8 years. 

10A key fob is a small hardware device with 

built-in authentication mechanisms. The key fob 

controls access to network services and 

information. The user identifies his or her cell 

phone and/or email address to be used with the fob 

and the system to which he or she is accessing 

stores the information along with the user ID and 

other details. 

11A digital certificate is an electronic document 

that uses a digital signature to bind a public key 

with an individual using such information as the 

name of a person or an organization. The certificate, 

obtained from Microsoft, VeriSign, or other firm, 

can be used to verify that a public key belongs to 

an individual. 

12USB Tokens are designed to securely store an 

individual’s digital identity. These portable tokens 

plug into a computer’s USB port either directly or 

using a USB extension cable. When users attempt 

to login to applications via the desktop, VPN/ 

WLAN or Web portal, they will be prompted to 

enter their unique PIN number. If the entered PIN 

number matches the PIN within the USB Token, the 

Successful authentication requires that 

the electronic signer prove, through a 

secure authentication protocol, that he 

or she controls the token. The method 

does not permit plain text passwords to 

be transmitted across a network, nor 

does it require cryptographic methods 

that block offline analysis by 

eavesdroppers. Thus, at Level 1, longterm shared authentication secrets may 

be revealed to verifiers.3

Level 2 provides single factor remote 

network authentication. Successful level 

2 authentication requires that the 

individual prove, through a secure 

authentication protocol that utilizes 

approved cryptology, that he or she 

controls an access token, such as a 

password or a PIN number. This kind of 

authentication method is designed to 

prevent security threats such as 

eavesdropper and online guessing 

attacks. However, the single 

authentication token is vulnerable to 

compromise via replay, on-line 

guessing, and verifier impersonation.4

Level 3 identity authentication will 

provide appropriate security for 

authentication of electronic signatures 

on Statements of Account. Level 3 

provides multi-factor remote network 

authentication. At this level, identity 

proofing procedures require verification 

of identifying materials and 

information. Level 3 authentication is 

based on proof of possession of a key or 

a one-time password through a 

cryptographic protocol. As the second 

step, it requires cryptographic strength 

mechanisms that protect the primary 

authentication token (secret key, private 

key or one-time password).5

Level 4 authentication generally 

applies only to those systems managing 

access to highly sensitive information. 

Level 4 is structured to provide the 

highest practical remote network 

authentication assurance. Level 4 

authentication is based on proof of 

possession of a key through a 

cryptographic protocol. Only ‘‘hard’’ 

cryptographic tokens are allowed. Level 

4 also requires strong cryptographic 

authentication of all parties and all 

sensitive data transfers between the 

parties.6

The Copyright Office has conducted 

an internal assessment of the protocols 

necessary to secure and certify 

electronically filed Statements of 

Accounts. The Office notes that SOAs 

are made readily available to the public 

for inspection, and has concluded that 

once filed, cable system SOAs and 

related documents do not contain highly 

sensitive or confidential information. 

Based upon these findings, the Office 

has determined that it need not 

implement the most exacting security 

protocol for the authentication of the 

electronic signatures, meaning that 

Level 4 would be unnecessarily 

burdensome, given the low security risk. 

At the same time, the Office has 

determined that it is necessary to 

implement an authentication 

mechanism that guarantees that a 

particular individual has performed a 

certain task. Unfortunately, neither 

Level 1 nor Level 2 authentication will 

provide sufficient ‘‘proof’’ to link an 

individual to a specific filing. 

The Office does believe that Level 3 

authentication methods are well suited 

for the authentication of electronic 

signatures on SOAs and related 

documents. Level 3 methods are utilized 

by financial institutions 7 and 

government agencies 8 that have found 

level 3 methods to provide sufficient 

security for their work products and 

operating environments. The Office 

believes that a two-step authentication 

process will provide the necessary 

balance between ensuring the security 

of the information provided by the cable 

operator in the SOA while allowing 

remote authentication of the identity of 

the individual who has legitimate access 

to sign and certify the SOA. ‘‘Twofactor’’ authentication, integral in the 

Level 3 security framework, provides 

the required level of confidence 

necessary to establish in a consistent 

and secure manner the connection 

between the signing individual and his/ 

her action as it relates to electronically 

filed SOAs. Moreover, this level of 

identity authentication provides 

safeguards against fraud consistent with 

the criminal provisions under title 18 of 

the United States Code.9

There are different methods for 

implementing a ‘‘two-factor’’ Level 3 

authentication process, and each has its 

strengths and weaknesses. In this 

category are key fobs,10 digital 

certificates,11 USB tokens,12 smart 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38243 

appropriate digital credentials are passed to the 

network and access is granted. PIN numbers stored 

on the token are encrypted for added security. 

13A smart card, chip card, or integrated circuit 

card is any pocket-sized card with embedded 

integrated circuits. Smart cards support multiple 

authentication factors (PIN, fingerprint template, 

digitally signed photo), and provide a way to 

digitally sign and encrypt security documents, other 

data, communications and transactions. Smart chipbased credentials allow individuals to use their 

identities safely, quickly and widely and trust that 

their personal information remains private. 

14Biometrics are technologies used for measuring 

and analyzing a person’s unique characteristics. 

There are two types of biometrics: behavioral and 

physical. Behavioral biometrics are generally used 

for verification while physical biometrics can be 

used for either identification or verification. 

Fingerprint biometrics are common for digital 

authentication purposes and are best for devices 

such as cell phones, USB flash drives, notebook 

computers and other applications where price, size, 

cost and low power are key requirements. 

15A ‘‘hash’’ is a unique and permanent code or 

value generated from the contents of an electronic 

document at the time of submission. 

16 ‘‘A ‘‘man-in-the-middle attack,’’ also known as 

a bucket brigade attack, fire brigade attack, or 

sometimes a Janus attack, is a form of active 

eavesdropping in which the attacker (an 

impersonator) makes independent connections with 

the victims and relays messages between them, 

making them believe that they are talking directly 

to each other over a private connection. In fact, 

though, the entire conversation is controlled by the 

attacker, who intercepts all messages between the 

two victims and injects new messages. 

17Under the Information Technology 

Management Reform Act (Pub. L. 104–106), the 

Secretary of Commerce must approve standards and 

guidelines for Federal computer systems that are 

developed by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (‘‘NIST’’). See NIST Publication 

800–63–1, http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/ 

nistpubs/800–63–1/SP–800–63–1.pdf. These 

standards and guidelines are issued by NIST as 

Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) for 

government-wide use. NIST develops FIPS when 

there are compelling Federal government 

requirements, such as for security and 

interoperability, and there are no acceptable 

industry standards or solutions. 

cards,13 biometrics,14 out of band 

options, and virtual tokens. After 

considering cost factors, ease of use, 

infrastructure constraints, and the level 

of security provided, the Office expects 

to pursue either an out of band option 

or a virtual token option for digital 

authentication purposes. The Office’s 

proposal is guided by the knowledge 

that banks, insurance companies, and 

federal agencies (i.e., the Internal 

Revenue Service) have implemented 

these two methods and have found them 

to be effective. 

Virtual tokens. A virtual token is a 

hash 15 of unique system characteristics 

paired with the standard username and 

password. Virtual tokens work by 

sharing the token generation process 

between a Web site and the individual’s 

computer. They have the advantage of 

not requiring the distribution of 

additional hardware or software. In 

addition, since the user’s computer 

communicates directly with the 

authenticating Web site, virtual tokens 

are resistant to ‘‘man-in-the-middle 

attacks’’ 16 and similar forms of online 

fraud. In most respects, virtual tokens 

function like the fob (physical) token 

noted above, but without the added 

costs. Some of the benefits of a virtual 

token authentication method are that 

the measure is simple to implement, its 

software is easy to configure, and 

neither the Office nor the user would 

require special equipment. However, a 

key drawback to using virtual tokens for 

identity authentication related to SOA 

forms is that with this method, 

authentication can only be implemented 

from previously identified computers 

connected at a specific site. 

Out of Band (Email/SMS). Out of 

band authentication is a security 

confirmation system that provides an 

added layer of protection to validate 

certain transactions. It uses a separate, 

discrete pathway (‘‘out of band’’) to 

authenticate an individual’s identity 

while performing online transactions. It 

can be performed either by text 

messaging or by email. When a user logs 

into a particular Web site, a numeric 

code is sent via Short Messaging Service 

(‘‘SMS’’) to either a cell phone or email 

address on record. Upon receiving the 

code, the user must to enter it on a 

secure Web page to verify his 

authenticity. 

Some of the benefits of out of band 

authentication techniques are: (1) They 

are easy to implement; (2) the software 

is simple to configure; and (3) they do 

not require specialized equipment. 

Another key benefit of out of band 

authentication is that unlike virtual 

tokens, out of band options do not 

require a participant to use the same 

computer at the same location, and 

therefore are more practical for some 

operators who have several different 

individuals working on a particular 

SOA. Out of band security is tied to a 

specific user but is not tied to a specific 

computer at a particular physical site. 

Because of this flexibility, the Office 

believes that the out of band option may 

be a more workable approach to 

implementing electronic signatures for 

most operators. 

The SOA signature authorization 

method adopted by the Office must also 

comply with the Federal Information 

Processing Standards (‘‘FIPS’’). FIPS are 

standards developed by the United 

States federal government for use in 

computer systems by all non-military 

government agencies and by 

government contractors.17 The levels of 

the digital authentication discussed 

above, which are known as 

cryptographic modules, are outlined in 

FIPS 140.2. Based on the Office’s 

understanding of virtual tokens and out 

of band methods, the Office tentatively 

concludes that these Level 3 

authentication methods conform to 

FIPS. 

B. Proposed Identity Authentication 

Procedure 

Access to eLi will be predicated on 

security-based user roles that allow each 

cable operator to control who has the 

authority to prepare various elements of 

the SOA. Cable operators have advised 

the Office that under the filing system 

currently in place, often the person who 

signs/certifies the paper SOA is not the 

same person or persons charged with 

doing other preliminary tasks related to 

the preparation of the SOA and the 

issuance of the required royalty 

payment. Under either of the proposed 

Level 3 electronic identity 

authentication systems, each person 

needing access to the document during 

the preparation phase would be able to 

gain access to the body of the SOA 

document, while the system would only 

give electronic access to the certification 

page of the SOA to the person of 

authority who was pre-designated by 

the cable operator to be the signer. 

Regardless which authentication 

method is ultimately chosen, 

‘‘approval’’ of an SOA will mean the 

simultaneous certification and signing 

of the document by the appropriate 

official. 

The Office envisions that the digital 

authentication and signing process 

would work with either a virtual token 

or an out of band system. In closely 

evaluating the two systems, we 

concluded that the out of band option 

would be the more practical one, and 

propose adopting that option. Under 

either Level 3 option, the person(s) 

responsible for preparing an SOA on 

behalf of a cable system would be able 

to log onto eLi using a previously 

established user name and password, 

and the system would authenticate each 

one as a ‘‘preparer.’’ The same 

procedure would be followed by any 

reviewer of the ‘‘draft’’ SOA, such as a 

company officer or attorney. 

After the preparers and reviewers 

have produced a completed version of 

the body of the SOA in eLi, the person 

charged with signing and certifying the 

document on behalf of the cable system 

would follow a different procedure to 

electronically approve and sign the 

document. The signer could be a person 

who prepared the document or could be 

someone else with statutory authority to 

sign it. Like others with access to the 

SOA, he or she would log onto eLi using 

a previously established user name and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38244 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

18 If we adopt an out of band authentication 

method, the authentication code would be sent via 

email correspondence to the signer’s pre-identified 

mailbox. 

19An S-signature is a signature, made by 

electronic or mechanical means, that is inserted 

between forward slash marks. 

20 ‘‘Related documents’’ would include 

attachments related to the SOA submission and 

documents submitted in response to a request from 

the Licensing Division. 

password, and the system would 

‘‘identify’’ him or her as the signer 

authorized to complete the certification 

process. ELi would then send the signer 

a code that provides access for a virtual 

token or out of band authentication of 

the signer’s identity.18 Once the signer 

has successfully completed the 

authentication process, he or she would 

then follow a procedure to obtain, 

electronically approve, and 

electronically sign the final version of 

the SOA. 

The Copyright Office anticipates that 

the system will display a ‘‘notice of 

consent to electronic records,’’ and the 

signer would have to ‘‘accept’’ the terms 

of the notice of consent. Once accepted, 

the system would display the SOA for 

approval. The signer would have the 

opportunity to review the SOA, enter an 

‘‘S-signature’’ 19 and his title, and then 

complete the transaction by entering a 

‘‘key’’ to indicate that the SOA is being 

electronically signed. 

ELi is being designed to save the 

details about the electronic signature 

process for each SOA filed. It will use 

the electronic ‘‘key’’ to generate hash 

from the contents of the electronically 

filed SOA. The hash of the SOA will 

help ensure that the approved SOA is 

not changed after approval. The 

electronically-signed document will 

identify the signer of the document, the 

date the document was signed, and the 

information provided at the time of 

submission. 

C. Proposed Regulations 

To effectuate the process for 

electronic identity authentication as a 

part of eLi, the Office proposes new 

regulations governing the electronic 

signing and certification process. 

Currently, Section 201.17(e)(14) 

provides that each Statement of Account 

filed under Section 111 shall contain 

the handwritten signature of the owner 

of the cable system or a duly authorized 

agent of the owner, if the owner is not 

a partnership or a corporation; or a 

partner, if the owner is a partnership; or 

an officer of the corporation, if the 

owner is a corporation. The signature 

must be accompanied by (1) the printed 

or typewritten name of the person 

signing the SOA; (2) the date of 

signature; (3) if the owner of the cable 

system is a partnership or a corporation, 

the title or official position held in the 

partnership or corporation by the person 

signing the SOA; (4) certification of the 

capacity of the person signing; and (5) 

a declaration of the veracity of the 

statements of fact contained in the SOA 

and the good faith of the person signing 

in making such statement of fact. 

Under eLi, an electronic signature 

will be substituted for the handwritten 

signature, and the other requirements 

will remain in place for filing a SOA. 

ELi will include a two step 

authentication procedure to identify the 

person completing the certification 

process. As explained above, the person 

with authority to certify the accuracy of 

the information in and sign the SOA 

will access the certification Section of 

the SOA using the two step 

authentication process, approve the 

form, provide his or her title or official 

position in the organization, and sign 

the form using an electronic ‘‘Ssignature.’’ This process will also apply 

to the filing of SOA amendments. 

1. Purpose and Scope 

The proposed Section will be placed 

at the end of Section 201.17(e) as a new 

Section (e)(15), because the electronic 

signatures on an electronically filed 

SOA will be considered part of the 

contents of the SOA. Proposed Section 

201.17(e)(15) sets forth the purpose and 

scope of the new authentication and 

signature protocol. The regulation 

addresses the criteria under which the 

Office will consider electronic records 

and electronic signatures to be 

trustworthy, reliable, and generally 

equivalent to handwritten signatures 

executed on paper. The regulation 

applies to SOA records and related 

documents 20 in electronic form that are 

created, modified, maintained, archived, 

retrieved, or transmitted, under any 

records requirements set forth in 

Section 201.17. Where electronic 

signatures meet the other requirements 

of Sections 201.17(d) and (e), the Office 

will consider the electronic signatures 

to be equivalent to full handwritten 

signatures, initials, and other general 

signings required by Copyright Office 

regulations. Electronic records that meet 

the requirements of this regulation may 

be used in lieu of paper records unless 

paper records are specifically required. 

2. Definitions 

Proposed Section 201.17(e)(15)(i) 

would codify terms and definitions 

pertinent to electronic document 

authentication and electronic signatures 

on SOAs. The Office has created six 

new definitions: 

(A) ‘‘Authentication’’ is a 

cryptographic or other secure electronic 

technique that allows the Copyright 

Office to authenticate the identity of an 

individual who signs and certifies a 

Statement of Account or related 

documents and to determine that the 

Statement or related documents were 

not altered, changed, or modified during 

their transmission to the Copyright 

Office. 

An ‘‘electronic signature’’ is a 

signature based upon cryptographic 

methods of originator authentication, 

computed by using a set of rules and a 

set of parameters such that the identity 

of the signer and the integrity of the data 

can be verified. 

A ‘‘handwritten signature’’ is the 

scripted name or legal mark of an 

individual handwritten by that 

individual on a document or other 

writing and executed or adopted with 

the present intention to authenticate the 

signed document or other writing. 

A ‘‘password,’’ is confidential 

authentication information composed of 

a string of characters. 

The term ‘‘token’’ refers to an item 

necessary for user identification when 

used for the authentication of a 

signature. 

3. Signature Parameters 

Proposed Section 201.17(e)(15)(iv) 

sets forth the functional requirements 

for tying the signer with the 

electronically filed SOAs. The Office 

proposes that electronically signed 

electronic records shall contain 

information that clearly indicates the 

following: (1) The printed name of the 

signer; (2) the date and time the 

signature was executed; and (3) the title 

of the signee. 

The proposed regulation also specifies 

that each electronic signature is unique 

to one individual and shall not be 

reused by, or reassigned to, anyone else 

within the cable system. 

4. Authentication Protocols 

Proposed Section 201.17(e)(15)(v) 

establishes authentication components 

and controls for a Level 3 authentication 

protocol. Level 3 authentication requires 

at least a two factor authentication 

process and is based on proof of 

possession of a cryptographic key. 

Typically, a key may be used only 

during a limited time period, i.e., up to 

30 minutes. Each SOA must contain the 

signature of the appropriate certifying 

official. In some instances, one person 

will be responsible for signing multiple 

cable SOAs. The proposed system will 

allow a signing official to use a single 

electronic signature that automatically 

applies multiple signature time stamps 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38245 

to a batch of SOAs submitted by the 

multiple system operator (‘‘MSO’’) 

during a single session, as explained 

below. In this way, a series of SOA 

submissions and electronic signings are 

made with one ‘‘signing’’ executed and 

initiated by the individual during one 

continuous period of controlled system 

access while the key remains valid. If 

the key’s validity expires before all of 

the multiple SOAs are electronically 

signed with time stamps, a new key may 

be requested to complete the 

certification and signing process. 

Section (e)(15)(iii) provides that if the 

signing individual executes one or more 

electronic signings that are not 

performed during a single, continuous 

period of controlled system access, the 

signer must reinitiate the authentication 

process to proceed with the signing. 

5. Batch Submissions 

Proposed Section 201.17(e)(15)(vi) 

addresses the submission of multiple 

SOAs by the same cable operator in one 

group or ‘‘batch’’ filing. The Office 

proposes that eLi be configured to 

enable a cable operator to choose to file 

multiple SOAs with a single ‘‘submit’’ 

key. The single electronic signature by 

the appropriate individual would be 

automatically applied to all SOAs in the 

batch with a separate recognizable 

electronic signature stamp and time 

stamp for each individual SOA 

comprising the batch. The proposed rule 

specifically states that batch or bulk 

filings of electronically filed Statements 

of Account would be permitted so long 

as the cable operator complies with 

paragraphs (3) and (4) of the regulation. 

D. Other Rule Revisions 

The shift from a paper filing system 

to an electronic filing system 

necessitates an examination of existing 

rules to see what needs to be changed 

to facilitate the transition. The Office 

has identified the following regulations 

as being in need of updating. There may 

be other rules that may be affected by 

the switch to electronic filing, but it is 

difficult to predict all conceivable 

changes at this time. 

1. Accounting Periods and Deposits 

Section 201.17(c)(2) establishes rules 

regarding accounting periods and the 

depositing of royalties under the cable 

statutory license. This rule needs to be 

updated to reflect the advent of 

electronic filing. The rule contains a 

reference SOAs being ‘‘physically 

received,’’ which implies that a hard 

copy version of SOAs must be 

submitted to the Office. An update is 

necessary to remove the term 

‘‘physically’’ from the regulation, to 

reduce any confusion. 

2. Forms 

Section 201.17(d)(1) explains where 

the public may obtain a physical copy 

of the Statement of Account form. This 

reference has been in the Office’s 

regulations since 1978, but is irrelevant 

in an e-filing environment. During the 

transition to all-electronic filing, the 

Office proposes to retain this portion of 

the regulation to accommodate any 

remitters who may need to use the 

current SOA forms rather than 

immediately file on the new online 

filing system. The SOA forms are 

currently available either at 

www.copyright.gov or by contacting the 

Licensing Division at: Library of 

Congress, U. S. Copyright Office, 

Licensing Division, 101 Independence 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20557– 

6400. The Office proposes amending the 

regulation to reflect this different 

procedure for obtaining hard copy SOA 

forms, and anticipates that such forms 

will ultimately be phased out. 

3. Handwritten Signatures 

Section 201.17(e)(14) sets forth the 

handwritten signature requirements for 

cable systems filing hard copy 

Statements of Account. The Office 

understands, as explained above, that 

even after the transition to an e-filing 

system, there will for some time remain 

certain instances in which cable 

operators will need to file physical 

versions of the SOA forms. For example, 

paper filings may still be necessary 

where cable operators must back-file 

SOAs for accounting periods that ended 

before eLi becomes operational (i.e., 

covering an accounting period such as 

January 1–June 30, 2011). The Office 

anticipates that there will be very few 

instances in which this mode of filing 

will still be warranted. Nevertheless, the 

Office proposes to maintain the current 

handwritten signature requirements, but 

modify Section 201.17(e)(14) to include 

a reference to the new electronic 

signature requirements. 

4. Copies of Statements of Account 

Current Section 201.17(l) requires 

cable operators to file an original and 

one copy of a Statement of Account 

with the Licensing Division. The Office 

proposes to retain this requirement to 

address those limited instances where 

paper filings are still necessary. 

However, the Office plans to amend this 

rule to clarify that when a licensee files 

a SOA via eLi, only one electronic form 

need be filed with the Licensing 

Division because digital copies can 

easily be made if the situation so 

warrants. This will reduce unnecessary 

filings and work burdens. 

5. Signatures and Certifications Related 

to Corrections, Supplemental Payments, 

and Requests for Refunds 

Current Section 217.17(m) outlines 

the procedures to be followed by a cable 

operator who seeks to correct a SOA, 

submit a supplemental royalty fee 

payment for deposit, or request a refund 

of royalty fees already paid. Section 

217.17(m)(3)(iii)(B) outlines the 

procedure to be followed where the 

operator’s calculation of the royalty fee 

payable for a particular accounting 

period was incorrect, and the amount 

deposited in the Copyright Office for 

that period was either too high or too 

low. The regulation requires the cable 

operator to submit an affidavit or 

statement that indicates that the 

corrected information is signed and 

certified as made in good faith under 

penalty of perjury. The affidavit or 

statement must describe the reasons 

why the royalty fee was improperly 

calculated and include a detailed 

analysis of the proper royalty 

calculations. The Licensing Division has 

accepted under this provision amended 

SOAs that have been signed and 

certified by the appropriate party in 

Space O of the statement, because the 

certification language in Space O is the 

equivalent of a sworn affidavit or 

statement in accordance with Section 

1746 of title 28 of the United States 

Code. 

The Office posits that it would be 

appropriate to retain this provision for 

requests to correct the royalty 

calculations made in SOAs that were 

not filed and signed electronically, so 

long as such statements are still 

accepted by the Office. However, the 

Office proposes to amend the regulation 

to codify the Division’s current practice 

of accepting the filing of a signed and 

certified amended SOA in lieu of the 

sworn affidavit or statement required by 

the regulation, so long as the amended 

statement (with any pertinent 

attachments), describes the reasons why 

the royalty fee was improperly 

calculated and includes a detailed 

analysis of the proper royalty 

calculations. 

The Office has also determined that 

for SOAs that were originally filed and 

signed under the eLi system, the 

electronic signature verification process 

will satisfy the signature and 

certification requirements set out in the 

current Section 201.17(m)(3)(iii). As 

with paper submissions, the Office 

would require that electronic amended 

Statements of Account include, either 

on the amended statement itself or in an 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38246 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

attached document, an explanation of 

why the royalty fee was improperly 

calculated and a detailed analysis of the 

proper royalty calculations. 

IV. Conclusion 

The Office hereby seeks comment 

from the public on issues raised in this 

Notice related to the authentication of 

electronically filed Statements of 

Accounts, the establishment of 

proposed rules for electronic signatures, 

and the concomitant rule changes 

necessary to implement the new 

proposed regulations. If an interested 

party identifies any additional pertinent 

issues related to the authentication of 

electronic signatures on SOA forms that 

have been filed on eLi, the Office 

encourages the party to bring those 

matters to its attention. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright. 

Proposed Regulation 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office proposes 

to amend part 201 of title 37 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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: 

■ a. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (c)(2), the last sentence of 

(d)(1), paragraphs (e)(14) introductory 

text and (e)(14)(iii)(A) and (B); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (e)(15); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (l) and 

(m)(3)(iii)(B). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 201.17 Statements of Account covering 

compulsory licenses for secondary 

transmissions by cable systems. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Upon receiving a Statement of 

Account and royalty fee, the Copyright 

Office will make an official record of the 

actual date when such statement and fee 

were received in the Copyright Office. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * Copies of Statement of 

Account forms are available online at 

www.copyright.gov/forms or upon 

request to the Library of Congress, 

Copyright Office, Attn: 111 Licenses, 

101 Independence Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20559. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(14) The handwritten or electronic 

signature of: 

(iii) * * * 

(A) The printed name of the person 

signing the Statement of Account; 

(B) The date of signature, for 

handwritten signatures on statements 

that are not filed electronically, or, the 

electronically created date and time 

stamp for electronically filed and signed 

statements. 

* * * * * 

(15) For signatures on and 

certification of Statements of Account, 

each statement must include either a 

handwritten signature or an electronic 

signature of a person designated in 

paragraph (e)(14) of this section. Signing 

the Statement of Account signifies that 

the signer has examined the statement 

and certifies that all statements of fact 

contained therein are true, complete, 

and correct to the best of the signer’s 

knowledge, information, and belief, and 

are made in good faith. 

(i) For purposes of this section: 

(A) Authentication is a cryptographic 

or other secure electronic technique that 

allows the Copyright Office to 

authenticate the identity of an 

individual who signs and certifies a 

Statement of Account or related 

documents and to determine that the 

statement or related documents were 

not altered, changed, or modified during 

their transmission to the Copyright 

Office. 

(B) An electronic signature means a 

signature based upon cryptographic 

methods of originator authentication, 

computed by using a set of rules and a 

set of parameters such that the identity 

of the signer and the integrity of the data 

can be verified. Each electronic 

signature shall be unique to one 

individual and shall not be reused by, 

or reassigned to, anyone else. 

(C) A handwritten signature is the 

scripted name or legal mark of an 

individual handwritten by that 

individual on a document or other 

writing that is executed or adopted with 

the present intention to authenticate the 

signed document or other writing. The 

scripted name or legal mark, while 

conventionally applied to paper, may 

also be applied to other devices that 

capture the name or mark. 

(D) A password is confidential 

authentication information composed of 

a string of characters. 

(E) A token is an item necessary for 

user identification when used for the 

authentication of a signature. 

(ii) Each electronic signature shall 

require electronic authentication. 

Electronic authentication shall require 

use of both an identification code and 

a password to obtain a random 

generated key for access to the 

Statement of Account for the purpose of 

signing the statement. 

(iii) When an individual executes one 

or more electronic signings not 

performed during a single, continuous 

period of controlled system access, each 

new electronic signing or signings shall 

require the signer to reinitiate the 

authentication process. 

(iv) Electronically signed records shall 

include information that clearly 

indicates: 

(A) The printed name of the signer; 

(B) The date and time the signature 

was executed; and 

(C) The title of the signer. 

(v) Each Statement of Account must 

contain the signature of the appropriate 

certifying official. The verification of the 

electronic signature of that official must 

be accomplished by use of an 

authentication system determined by 

the Register of Copyrights. The 

electronic signature authentication 

process shall be based upon the signer/ 

certifier’s proof of possession of a 

cryptographic key that would provide 

that person with access to the 

certification page of the document being 

electronically signed. 

(vi) A cable official of a multiple 

system operator may, during a single 

period of controlled system access, use 

a single electronic signature to sign/ 

certify multiple Statements of Account 

so long as the official complies with 

paragraphs (3) and (4) of this Section. 

Once such official electronically signs 

the certification page of the first in a 

series of related statements, the 

electronic licensing system will in the 

same signing session automatically 

apply multiple electronic signatures and 

time stamps to some or all of the 

statements in the batch. If the 

cryptographic key expires before all of 

the multiple statements are 

electronically signed and time stamped, 

to complete the batch certification and 

signing process the official must request 

a new key and begin a new period of 

controlled system access. 

* * * * * 

(l) Copies of Statements of Account. If 

a licensee files a Statement of Account 

electronically, the licensee shall file one 

electronic copy of the Statement of 

Account with the Licensing Division of 

the Copyright Office. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) In the case of a request filed under 

paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this Section, 

where the royalty fee was miscalculated 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 123 / Wednesday, June 26, 2013 / Proposed Rules 38247 

and the amount deposited in the 

Copyright Office was either too high or 

too low, 

(1) If the original Statement of 

Account was not filed and signed 

electronically, the request must be 

accompanied by an affidavit under the 

official seal of any officer authorized to 

administer oaths within the United 

States, a statement in accordance with 

Section 1746 of title 28 of the United 

States, made and signed in accordance 

with paragraph (e)(14) of this Section. In 

the alternative, the cable operator may 

choose to file an amended Statement of 

Account signed and certified in Space O 

of the amended statement. The affidavit, 

statement, or amended Statement of 

Account shall describe the reasons why 

the royalty fee was improperly 

calculated and include a detailed 

analysis of the proper royalty 

calculations. If the filing official chooses 

to file an amended Statement of 

Account, this additional information 

may be included on the Statement of 

Account itself or may be set out in a 

written document attached to the 

Statement of Account. 

(2) If the original Statement of 

Account was filed and signed 

electronically, the filing official of the 

cable system shall electronically sign 

and file in accordance with paragraph 

(e)(15) of this Section an amended 

Statement of Account. The amended 

statement shall include on the amended 

statement itself, or in an attached 

written document, an explanation of 

why the royalty fee was improperly 

calculated and a detailed analysis of the 

proper royalty calculations. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 18, 2013. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2013–15016 Filed 6–25–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0338; FRL–9827–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of 

the Wheeling Area to Attainment of the 

1997 Annual Standard for Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; Supplemental. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a supplement 

to its proposed approval of Ohio’s 

request to redesignate the Ohio portion 

of the Wheeling, West Virginia-Ohio, 

area to attainment for the 1997 annual 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS or standard) for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5). This 

supplemental proposal revises and 

expands the basis for proposing 

approval of the state’s request, in light 

of developments since EPA issued its 

initial proposal on November 30, 2012. 

This supplemental proposal addresses 

the effects of a January 4, 2013, decision 

of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia (DC Circuit or 

Court) to remand to EPA two final rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 

In this supplemental proposal, EPA is 

also proposing to approve a supplement 

to the emission inventories previously 

submitted by Ohio. EPA is proposing 

that the inventories for ammonia and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), in 

conjunction with the inventories for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), direct PM2.5, and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) that EPA 

previously proposed to approve, meet 

the comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). EPA is seeking comment only 

on the issues raised in its supplemental 

proposal, and is not re-opening for 

comment other issues raised in its prior 

proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0338, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-Mail: Blakley.Pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0338. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of this document, ‘‘What Should I 

Consider as I Prepare My Comments for 

EPA?’’ 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Anthony 

Maietta, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS