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

1After 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28771 

2The National Music Publishers’ Association, 

Inc., the Songwriters Guild of America, the 

Nashville Songwriters Association International, 

the Church Music Publishers Association, the 

Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., 

the Digital Media Association, CTIA—The Wireless 

Association, RealNetworks, Inc., Rhapsody 

International Inc., Cricket Communications, Inc., 

and Rdio, Inc. 

demonstrate whether and how a minimum 

royalty or subscriber-based royalty floor 

pursuant to § 385.13 does or does not apply) 

and, for each offering reported, also indicate 

the type of licensed activity involved and the 

number of plays of each musical work 

(including an indication of any overtime 

adjustment applied) that is the basis of the 

per-work royalty allocation being paid. 

Id. at 29267. 

Section 385.22(d), which is proposed for 

Subpart C of the Settelement, is nearly 

identical to § 385.12(e), except for immaterial 

changes to conform it to its placement in 

proposed Subpart C. 

The ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ 

proposed for §§ 385.12(f) and 385.22(e) 

states: 

Confidentiality. A licensee’s statements of 

account, including any and all information 

provided by a licensee with respect to the 

computation of a subminimum, shall be 

maintained in confidence by any copyright 

owner, authorized representative or agent 

that receives it, and shall solely be used by 

the copyright owner, authorized 

representative or agent for purposes of 

reviewing the amounts paid by the licensee 

and verifying the accuracy of any such 

payments, and only those employees of the 

copyright owner, authorized representative 

or agent who need to have access to such 

information for such purposes will be given 

access to such information; provided that in 

no event shall access be granted to any 

individual who, on behalf of a record 

company, is directly involved in negotiating 

or approving royalty rates in transactions 

authorizing third party services to undertake 

licensed activity with respect to sound 

recordings. A licensee’s statements of 

account, including any and all information 

provided by a licensee with respect to the 

computation of a subminimum, shall not be 

used for any other purpose, and shall not be 

disclosed to or used by or for any record 

company affiliate or any third party, 

including any third-party record company. 

Id. at 29262. 

After considering the proposed Settlement 

regulations and the comments received in 

response to them, on March 27, 2013, Chief 

Copyright Royalty Judge Suzanne Barnett 

proposed material questions of substantive 

law for referral to Register of Copyrights and 

invited participants to submit briefs to 

accompany the referral of questions to the 

Register of Copyrights, pursuant to the terms 

of 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(A)(ii). The referral 

asked ‘‘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.’’ CRJ Order Referring Material Question 

of Substantive Law, Docket No. 2011–3 CRB 

(Mar. 27, 2013). After receiving a brief filed 

jointly by the Settling Participants 2 regarding 

whether proposed terms encroach upon the 

exclusive statutory domain of the Register, 

the Chief Copyright Royalty Judge delivered 

the referred questions and the Settling 

Participants brief to the Register on April 17, 

2013. 

The Register understands that the referred 

inquiry, quoted above, poses the following 

two questions: 

(1) Whether the ‘‘detail requirements’’ 

proposed for 37 CFR 385.12(e) and 385.22(d) 

encroach upon the exclusive statutory 

domain of the Register under section 115 of 

the Copyright Act; and 

(2) Whether the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ proposed for 37 CFR 385.12(f) 

and 385.22(e) encroach upon the exclusive 

statutory domain of the Register under 

section 115 of the Copyright Act. 

As required by 17 U.S.C. 802(f)(1)(A)(ii), 

the Register hereby responds to the CRJs. 

II. Statutory Authority in Section 115 and 

Chapter 8 of Title 17 

Prior to 1995, copyright law empowered 

the Copyright Royalty Tribunal and, 

subsequently, the Copyright Arbitration 

Royalty Panels (‘‘CARPs’’) and the Librarian 

of Congress, to set only the rates applicable 

to the section 115 license. This authority was 

modified in 1995 by the Digital Performance 

Right in Sound Recording Act of 1995 in 

which Congress added provisions to section 

115 for ‘‘digital phonorecord deliveries.’’ The 

CARPs were authorized to set ‘‘reasonable 

terms and rates of royalty payments’’ for 

digital phonorecord deliveries (‘‘DPDs’’), and 

these rates and terms were subject to 

modification by the Librarian upon 

recommendation by the Register of 

Copyrights. The same legislation authorized 

the Librarian to ‘‘establish requirements by 

which copyright owners may receive 

reasonable notice of the use of their works 

. . ., and under which records of such use 

shall be kept and made available by persons 

making digital phonorecord deliveries.’’ 17 

U.S.C. 115(c)(3)(D) (1996). With respect to 

physical phonorecords, the CARPs’ authority 

was limited to setting rates; there was no 

statutory authorization to set ‘‘terms.’’ See 17 

U.S.C. 801(b)(1) (1996). However, the 

Register of Copyrights had the authority to 

issue regulations concerning payment. 

Section 115(c)(5) provided (and continues to 

provide), in pertinent part: 

Each monthly payment shall be made under 

oath and shall comply with requirements that 

the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by 

regulation. The Register shall also prescribe 

regulations under which detailed cumulative 

annual statements of account, certified by a 

certified public accountant, shall be filed for 

every compulsory license under this section. 

The regulations covering both the monthly 

and the annual statements of account shall 

prescribe the form, content, and manner of 

certification with respect to the number of 

records made and the number of records 

distributed. 

17 U.S.C. 115(c)(5). 

In 2004, Congress passed the Copyright 

Royalty and Distribution Reform Act 

(‘‘CRDRA’’). This legislation created the CRJs 

and empowered them to set ‘‘terms and rates 

of royalty payments’’ under section 115. See 

17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1). It also amended section 

115 to provide that the CRJs had authority to 

set ‘‘reasonable rates and terms of royalty 

payments’’ for use of works under the license 

as well as ‘‘requirements by which records of 

such use shall be kept and made available.’’ 

17 U.S.C. 115(c)(3)(D). However, the statutory 

provisions authorizing the Register to 

regulate notice of intention to obtain the 

section 115 license and requirements 

regarding monthly payment and monthly and 

annual statements of account remained in 

place. Copyright Royalty and Distribution 

Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–419, 118 

Stat. 2341 (2004). 

III. Register’s Determination in Response to 

Previously Referred Question 

On August 8, 2008, the Register responded 

to the CRJs Referred Questions regarding the 

division of authority in the administration of 

section 115. The Register determined that 

Congress intentionally split the 

administration of the license between the 

CRJs and the Register of Copyrights. The 

result of this division of authority is that the 

CRJs may issue regulations that supplant 

currently applicable regulations, including 

those heretofore issued by the Librarian of 

Congress, solely in the areas of notice of use 

and recordkeeping. 17 U.S.C. 803(c)(3). 

However, the scope of the CRJs’ authority in 

the areas of notice of use and recordkeeping 

for the section 115 license must be construed 

in light of Congress’ more specific delegation 

of responsibility to the Register of 

Copyrights, which includes the authority to 

issue regulations regarding notice of 

intention to obtain the section 115 license as 

well as those regarding monthly payment and 

monthly and annual statements of account. 

Register’s Division of Authority Decision, 

Docket No. RF 2008–1 CRB, 73 FR 48396 

(Aug. 19, 2008); see 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1) and 

115(c)(5). 

The Register recounted that in the CRDRA, 

Congress amended section 115(c)(3)(D) to 

authorize the CRJs to ‘‘establish requirements 

by which copyright owners may receive 

reasonable notice of the use of their works 

under this section, and under which records 

of such use shall be kept and made available 

by persons making digital phonorecord 

deliveries.’’ Register’s Division of Authority 

Decision, Docket No. RF 2008–1 CRB, 73 FR 

48396, 48397 (Aug. 19, 2008). The CRDRA 

also added a new section 803(c)(3), which 

allowed the CRJs to ‘‘specify notice and 

recordkeeping requirements of users of the 

copyrights at issue that apply in lieu of those 

that would otherwise apply under 

regulations.’’ 17 U.S.C 803(c)(3). The Register 

acknowledged that on its face it may appear 

as if the CRJs are empowered to supplant all 

current regulations in the area of notice and 

recordkeeping. However, the Register noted 

that the CRJs’ authority to issue regulations 

in the areas of notice and recordkeeping must 

be construed in light of the specific grants of 

responsibility over the section 115 license to 

the Register of Copyrights. Register’s Division 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
28772 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

of Authority Decision, Docket No. RF 2008– 

1 CRB, 73 FR 48396, 48397–98 (Aug. 19, 

2008) (citing Simpson v. United States, 435 

U.S. 6, 15 (1978)). 

The Register concluded that the CRJs’ 

authority to issue regulations on notice of use 

and recordkeeping is limited by the Register’s 

specific grant of authority to issue regulations 

regarding statements of account. The Register 

acknowledged that that it may be conceivable 

that the CRJs may determine that licensees 

should be required to provide some 

information related to notice of use that is 

not addressed in either the notice of 

intention to obtain the section 115 license or 

the statements of account. The Register noted 

that if the CRJs are able to identify such 

information that is not addressed in either 

the notice of intention to obtain the section 

115 license or the statements of account, then 

the CRJs may require that a licensee include 

that type of information in a notice of use 

(but not in the statement of account) to be 

served on the copyright owner. Additionally, 

the Register noted that a recommendation by 

the CRJs to the Register to amend the 

regulations governing statements of account 

to include additional information 

presumably would likely meet with a 

favorable response. Id. at 48398. 

IV. Summary of Parties’ Arguments 

In the sole brief submitted in relation to the 

referral of questions to the Register, the 

Settling Participants acknowledge that, 

pursuant to section 115(c)(5), the Register has 

authority to set requirements for the form, 

content, and manner of certification of 

statement of account. They note the 

Register’s current regulations includes a 

requirement that ‘‘[e]ach step in computing 

the monthly payment, including the 

arithmetical calculations involved in each 

step, shall be set out in detail in the Monthly 

Statement.’’ Brief of Settling Participants, 

Docket No. 2011–3 CRB Phonorecords II 

(Apr. 5, 2013) at 8–12, citing 37 CFR 

201.19(e)(4)(iii). 

The Settling Participants conclude that 

because the proposed ‘‘detail requirements’’ 

are consistent with the Register’s current 

statement of account regulations the ‘‘detail 

requirements’’ do not encroach on the 

Register’ authority. They also acknowledge 

the Register’s 2008 Division of Authority 

Decision. But they argue that the Division of 

Authority Decision was directed toward 

proposed terms that would have been 

inconsistent with and would have 

supplanted the Register’s rules regarding 

statements of account. They assert that 

therefore that the Division of Authority 

Decision should not properly be read to 

preclude regulations proposed as part of a 

settlement that are wholly consistent with 

and merely amplify and clarify the 

application of the Register’s regulations to 

specific fee calculations. Brief of Settling 

Participants, Docket No. 2011–3 CRB 

Phonorecords II (Apr. 5, 2013) at 8–12. 

The Settling Participants also acknowledge 

the Register’s statements regarding division 

of authority in the Register’s 2009 Review of 

the CRJs’ previous determination of rates and 

terms for the section 115 license stating that 

the ‘‘CRJ s cannot alter requirements issued 

by the Register regarding statements of 

account.’’ Id. at 10 (citing Review of 

Copyright Royalty Judges Determination, 

Docket No. 2009–1, 74 FR 4537, 4543 (Jan. 

26, 2009)). 

The Settling Participants then consider the 

question of what should happen to effectuate 

accounting when the CRJs properly adopt a 

new rate structure different than that 

contemplated by the statement of account 

regulations. They acknowledge the Register’s 

prior answer to such a concern as stated in 

the 2008 Division of Authority Decision. 

There, the Register offered that the CRJs had 

two options: first, ‘‘require that a licensee 

include that type of information in a notice 

of use (but not in the statement of account)’’ 

or second, make ‘‘a recommendation... to the 

Register to amend the regulations governing 

statements of account to include additional 

information.’’ Id. at 11 (citing 73 FR at 

48,398). Despite the Register’s recitation of 

the two options, the Settlement Participants 

opine that it does not appear that the Register 

had in mind the possibility of an entirely 

new rate structure. Id. They assert that while 

in theory having the Register update the 

statement of account regulations may seem 

like a better alternative, waiting for the 

Register to issue new statement of account 

regulations will require an inconvenient lag 

time before appropriate statement of account 

regulations can be effectuated. The Settling 

Participants conclude that while the Register 

is authorized to set forth statement of account 

regulations, it is most consistent with the 

overall operation of the section 115 license 

to allow the CRJs to specify additional data 

elements to be included in statements of 

account, and that the Register should find 

such detail requirements permissible. Id. 

The Settling Participants again 

acknowledge the Register’s express statutory 

grant of authority is to prescribe the ‘‘form, 

content, and manner of certification.’’ Id. at 

13, citing 17 U.S.C. 115(c)(5). However, they 

state that while the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ might in some sense be 

considered to relate to statements of account, 

the ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ does not 

have anything to do with the form, content 

or manner of certification of statements of 

account. They conclude therefore that the 

‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ does not does 

not encroach on the Office’s power with 

respect to statements of account as provided 

in section 115(c)(5). The Settling Participants 

accurately state that the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ does not add to, subtract from 

or otherwise alter the content of the 

statement, modify the form of the statement, 

or affect certification, in any way. The 

Settling Participants assert that the 

‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ merely 

specifies what a copyright owner may do (or 

not do) with information in a statement of 

account after that statement has been 

prepared and served in accordance with the 

Office’s regulations. Id. 

The Settling Participants further elaborate 

their views that the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ was an integral part of the 

Settlement which represents a 

comprehensive compromise, designed to 

protect sensitive business information, and 

that all parties agreed the provision was in 

the best interests of all participants, the 

industry generally, and the public. They state 

that the ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ does 

not add to or subtract from, modify or change 

the timing or manner of service of statements 

of account, in any way and that such entirely 

additional and non-intrusive provisions do 

not in any way impinge on the Office’s 

unique power to prescribe the form, content 

and manner of certification of statements of 

account. The Settling Participants also 

address concerns that the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ may impede litigation by 

noting that use of statements of account in 

litigation could be accommodated by being 

shielded from disclosure via a protective 

order. Id. at 13–14. 

The Settling Participants conclude by 

offering that the Register should conclude 

that the CRJs have authority to adopt both the 

‘‘detail requirements’’ and the 

‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ as part of the 

Settlement. They also state that if the Register 

does not agree with their recommendation, 

then the Copyright Office should incorporate 

the provisions into its statement of account 

regulations, and the Register should 

announce the intention to do so as part of the 

Register’s decision on this referral. Id. at 16. 

IV. Register’s Determination 

A. Whether the ‘‘detail requirements’’ 

proposed for 37 CFR 385.12(e) and 385.22(d) 

encroach upon the exclusive statutory 

domain of the Register under section 115 of 

the Act. 

As the Settling Participants acknowledge, 

pursuant to section 115(c)(5), the Register has 

authority to set requirements for the form, 

content, and manner of certification of 

statement of account. The ‘‘detail 

requirements’’ proposed for 37 CFR 385.12(e) 

and 385.22(d) clearly attempt to set forth 

requirements addressing the content that 

licensees must include in statements of 

account, as opposed to requirements 

addressing the content that licensees must 

include in a notice of use. As such, the 

proposed ‘‘detail requirements’’ encroach 

upon the exclusive statutory domain of the 

Register to issue regulations regarding 

statements of account set forth in 17 U.S.C. 

115(b)(1) and 115(c)(5). 

The proposed ‘‘detail requirements’’ 

represent an encroachment on the Register’s 

authority regardless of whether or not they 

conflict with the Register’s current 

regulations for statements of account. The 

Settling Participants accurately state that the 

Register’s current regulations include a 

requirement that ‘‘[e]ach step in computing 

the monthly payment, including the 

arithmetical calculations involved in each 

step, shall be set out in detail in the Monthly 

Statement.’’ 37 CFR 201.19(e)(4)(iii). This 

provision is consistent with the ‘‘detail 

requirements’’ proposed for 37 CFR 385.12(e) 

and 385.22(d). The fact that the ‘‘detail 

requirements’’ are consistent with the 

Register’s current regulations does not 

diminish the Register’s exclusive authority 

regarding statements of account. 

While the Register is reluctant to state an 

intended outcome in its ongoing rulemaking 

regarding amendments to the regulations 

regarding statements of account, the Register 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 95 / Thursday, May 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28773 

is actively considering the possibility of 

including in the Office’s updated regulations 

provisions that would enhance or expand 

upon the details required for including all 

steps in rate calculation. See Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, Mechanical and 

Digital Phonorecord Delivery Compulsory 

License 77 FR 44179 (July 27, 2012). 

B. Whether the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ proposed for 37 CFR 385.12(f) 

and 385.22(e) encroach upon the exclusive 

statutory domain of the Register under § 115 

of the Act. 

As the Settling Participants accurately set 

forth, the ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ does 

not address the form, content, and manner of 

certification of statements of account. 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). Furthermore, the Register is 

not aware that the ‘‘confidentiality 

requirement’’ conflicts with any other 

authority reserved for the Register. However, 

the Register also notes that it is unclear 

whether the CRJs have any independent 

authority to issue regulations such as the 

proposed ‘‘confidentiality requirement’’ 

which would impose obligations on a 

copyright owner with regard to what he or 

she is able to do with a statement of account 

received by a licensee. The Register, suggests 

that the question of whether the CRJs have 

authority to issue regulations imposing 

requirements on what a copyright owner (as 

opposed to a licensee) may do (or not do) 

with information in a statement of account 

after that statement has been prepared and 

served in accordance with the Office’s 

regulations, represents a novel question of 

law that may be separately referred to the 

Register. If such a novel question is referred 

to the Register, the Register submits that the 

participants should be afforded an 

opportunity to brief that specific issue, which 

was not adequately addressed in the 

participants’ brief on the instant referral. If 

such a novel question is referred, the Register 

encourages the participants to cite specific 

sources supporting the view that the CRJs 

enjoy such authority. 

May 1, 2013. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11560 Filed 5–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0066; FRL– 9814–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Adoption of Control 

Techniques Guidelines for 

Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts 

Which Includes Pleasure Craft Coating 

Operations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Maryland State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) on January 10, 

2013. The SIP revision consists of a new 

regulation pertaining to control of 

volatile organic compound emissions 

from pleasure craft coating operations. 

This action is being taken under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0066 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0066, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0066. 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. EPA Action 

II. Background 

III. SIP Revision Submitted by the State of 

Maryland 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

I. EPA Action 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to Maryland’s SIP which were 

submitted by MDE on January 10, 2013. 

The SIP revision submittal adopts the 

requirements as recommended by EPA’s 

control technique guidelines (CTG) for 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Plastic 

Coating (MMPPC) operations and as 

recommended by trade associations 

representing the pleasure craft industry. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1