Copyright Office Fees, 72788-72791 [2012-29229]
Download as PDF
72788
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
32 CFR Part 157
[DoD–2008–OS–0075; RIN 0790–AI33]
Reduction of Use of Social Security
Numbers in the Department of Defense
Department of Defense.
Notice addressing comments
received on the proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Department of Defense
(DoD) published a proposed rule
concerning the reduction of the use of
social security numbers (SSN) in the
Department on March 3, 2010 (75 FR
9548). The Department published the
proposed rule because it intended to
apply the SSN reduction policies and
procedures to entities that contract with
the Department. However, it has been
determined that the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) or another contract vehicle is
a more appropriate way to apply these
policies and procedures to these
entities; therefore, a final rule in title 32
of the Code of Federal Regulations will
not be published. DoD will publish
internal guidance in an Instruction that
will not contain language regarding
contract companies since that guidance
will be provided as noted above in a
DFARS rule or other contract vehicle.
This notice is being published to
address the public comments received
concerning the proposed rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Sam Yousef, 571–372–1939.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Seven sets
of comments were received on the
proposed rule and are addressed below.
All comments are available upon
request.
One commenter said that leave forms
of military members or the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) Form 71
(Request for Leave or Approved
Absence) for civilian employees should
not include SSNs in whole or in part. As
part of the ongoing review to reduce or
eliminate the use of SSNs, the
Department will review the forms to
document leave usage by military
members and will reduce or eliminate
the use of SSNs on these forms as
appropriate. The civilian employee
leave form, OPM Form 71, was revised
in September 2009, and requires the
individual’s Employee Number or only
the last four digits of the SSN.
One commenter expressed concern
that the SSN is required in order to
receive treatment at medical facilities on
military installations and that the SSN
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
is printed on identification cards. Other
commenters noted that due to the
widespread use of SSNs on military
installations, individuals are at risk for
identity theft. The Department of
Defense takes the security and
protection of its personnel’s Personally
Identifiable Information (PII) very
seriously. In order to reduce the use of
the SSN and to better protect the
identity of its members, the Department
developed and released ‘‘Business
Practice Changes to Allow the Removal
of Social Security Numbers from DoD
Identification (ID) Cards’’ in January
2009 and in November 2012 released an
‘‘Updated Plan for the Removal of Social
Security Numbers (SSNs) from
Department of Defense (DoD)
Identification (lD) Cards,’’ that consisted
of a comprehensive three-phased plan to
reduce or eliminate SSN use on DoD ID
cards:
—Phase 1 of the updated plan requires
removal of SSNs from DoD ID Cards
and began with removal of the
dependent’s SSN from Dependent ID
cards in December 2008. Phase 1 will
be complete in December 2012.
—Phase 2 of the plan began replacement
of the SSN with the DoD ID Number
and started in June 2011. Phase 2 will
be complete in June 2015.
—Phase 3 of the plan will remove SSNs
from ID card barcodes and is
scheduled to begin in the 4th Quarter
of Calendar Year 2012 and will take
four years to complete.
A commenter, while also expressing
concern with the use of SSNs for
identification and record keeping
purposes, recommended that secure
methods be used when transmitting
information that includes SSNs. The
Department requires that the Privacy
Act be complied with when storing or
transmitting information that contains
PII. Secured communication methods
are required to be used when
transmitting PII.
Another commenter also expressed
concern with the extensive use of SSNs
by DoD and recommended that an
alternative identification number be
used in lieu of the SSN. Another
commenter recommended replacing the
SSN with the DoD Electronic Data
Interchange Personal Identifier (EDI–PI).
Directive Type Memorandum (DTM)
07–015, ‘‘DoD Social Security Number
(SSN) Reduction Plan’’ and DoD
Instruction 1000.30, ‘‘Reduction of
Social Security Number (SSN) Use
Within DoD,’’ which supersedes DTM
07–015, require the DoD Forms
Management Officer and the DoD
Component Forms Management Officers
to review SSN use and justifications on
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
new and existing forms in their
respective activities to reduce or
eliminate the use of SSNs wherever
possible. Additionally, these policies
require the review and justification of
SSN use in new and existing systems
and to eliminate the use of SSNs
wherever possible. The DoD ID Number,
the common name for the EDI–PI, is
identified by both policies as the
primary alternative for the SSN. It is
intended to support replacement of the
SSN in most DoD processes and
business needs. The DoD ID Number
shall only be used for DoD business
purposes. This may include transactions
that include entities outside DoD, so
long as individuals are acting on behalf
of or in support of the Department of
Defense. The DoD ID Number shall not
be used to replace the SSN in any case
where the SSN is required by law. All
individuals eligible to receive DoD
benefits, such as commissary, exchange,
Morale, Welfare and Recreation or
TRICARE purchased care, will, in
addition to the DoD ID Number, receive
a DoD Benefits Number that will be
used to facilitate medical care in lieu of
the SSN to the greatest extent
permissible.
Dated: December 3, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012–29504 Filed 12–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Parts 201 and 203
[Docket No. 2012–1]
Copyright Office Fees
Copyright Office, Library of
Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Copyright Office has
further revised its proposed fee
schedule for filing cable and satellite
statements of account following
feedback from interested parties in
response to a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on March 28,
2012. The modified fee schedule set
forth below reflects an updated
calculation of the cost of providing
services.
DATES: Comments must be received in
the Copyright Office no later than 5 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST) on January
7, 2013. Reply comments must be
received in the Copyright Office no later
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
(EST) on January 22, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted electronically. A comment
page containing a comment form is
posted on the Copyright Office Web site
at https://www.copyright.gov/docs/
newfees/comments/. 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 browse button. To meet accessibility
standards, all comments must be
uploaded in a single file not to exceed
six megabytes (MB) in one of the
following formats: the Adobe 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 form and face of the
comments must include both the name
of the submitter and the organization.
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:
Megan Rivet, Budget Analyst, or Melissa
Dadant, Senior Advisor for Operations
and Special Projects, at (202) 707–8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2010,
Congress enacted the Satellite
Television Extension and Localism Act
(‘‘STELA’’), Public Law 111–175, 124
Stat. 1218, which, for the first time,
granted authority to the Copyright
Office to establish fees for the filing of
statements of account (‘‘SOAs’’)
pursuant to the section 111, 119, and
122 statutory licenses for cable and
satellite users. Prior to 2010, the cost of
processing such statements and
associated royalty payments was funded
solely by the royalty fees collected for
the benefit of the copyright owners
under the statutory licenses. STELA
added a new provision to Title 17 that
permits the Office to apportion up to 50
percent of the cost of processing the
SOAs and royalty payments to
licensees. More specifically, 17 U.S.C.
708(a) provides that the fees charged to
licensees for the filing of SOAs ‘‘shall be
reasonable and may not exceed one-half
of the cost necessary to cover reasonable
expenses incurred by the Copyright
Office for the collection and
administration of the statements of
account and any royalty fees deposited
with such statements.’’
On March 28, 2012, the Copyright
Office published a Notice of Proposed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
Rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) as the initial step
in adopting new fees for various
services, including the registration of
claims, recordation of documents,
special services, processing of requests
for records pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act, and Licensing Division
services, including the new fees for
filing of cable and satellite SOAs. See 77
FR 18742 (March 28, 2012). Fees were
proposed in accordance with the
procedure set forth in the Copyright Act,
which provides that the Register of
Copyrights may, by regulation, adjust
fees for certain enumerated services
based upon a study of costs incurred by
the Copyright Office. See 17 U.S.C.
708(b).
Generally speaking, the Office has
conducted a study of costs every three
years. In each case, and in the case here,
the Office is acutely aware of its
obligations as an agency of the federal
government, including the mandate to
establish sound fiscal policies and
develop a responsible budget. At the
same time, the Office is cognizant of its
responsibilities to both copyright
owners and users of copyrighted works.
Ultimately, the Office must price its
services in a manner that is fair to the
parties and conducive to wellfunctioning programs and
recordkeeping. Indeed, elsewhere the
Copyright Act indicates that fees ‘‘shall
be fair and equitable and give due
consideration to the objectives of the
copyright system.’’ 17 U.S.C. 708(b)(4).
In response to the NPR, the Office
received 138 comments on the proposed
fees, three of which specifically
addressed the new fees for filing cable
and satellite SOAs. The Office received
individual comments from the
American Cable Association (‘‘ACA’’)
and the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association
(‘‘NCTA’’), and a joint comment from
Program Suppliers, Joint Sports
Claimants, Commercial Television
Claimants, Music Claimants, Canadian
Claimants Group, National Public
Radio, Broadcaster Claimants Group,
and Devotional Claimants (collectively,
‘‘Copyright Owners’’).
NCTA expressed the concern that the
proposed fees sought to recover costs for
services ‘‘that go beyond what is
reasonably necessary to administer the
license and reflect[] expenses incurred
in the past that are unlikely to recur in
the future.’’ NCTA Comments at 2. ACA
requested the Office to provide a waiver
of fees for cable operators experiencing
financial hardship. See generally ACA
Comments.
Copyright Owners, on the other hand,
argued that the proposed fees failed to
recover half of the actual operating costs
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72789
of the cable and satellite program, and
also questioned the Office’s
methodology, specifically why actual
costs were not the starting point for
analysis. See generally Copyright
Owners’ Comments.
In light of the comments received
from affected stakeholders, and because
the fees for filing cable and satellite
SOAs are being set for the first time, the
Office conducted further analysis of
those fees. As explained below, it
performed a second study, using a
revised methodology to more precisely
capture the cost of providing the
services in question.
New Cost Study for Setting Cable and
Satellite SOA Filing Fees
The original cost study for the Office’s
administration of the cable and satellite
statutory licenses used the additive
model employed in previous cost
studies for peripheral fee services. This
method focuses on the desk time of
dedicated employees, in other words,
how much time they spend performing
activities involved in processing a
typical service request. While effective
in analyzing services that can be
measured by short intervals of time, it
is sometimes not as successful in
determining the cost of a more complex
task, such as the processing of an entire
SOA. At the same time, managing the
cable and satellite SOAs is a major
program of the Office and comprises the
greatest portion of staff time and related
resources in comparison to
administering the other statutory
licenses.
In its reexamination of SOA program
costs, the Office applied a traditional
methodology that it has used to assess
the costs of its services in other areas,
such as copyright registration. This
methodology calculates the full cost of
the activity in question—in this case,
the entire SOA program, including the
receipt and administration of the SOAs
and royalty fees deposited with such
statements—based on actual
expenditures and all costs directly or
indirectly associated with these
functions. The revised methodology
identifies staffing costs for each
particular program service and
apportions non-personnel costs either
directly to the services they support or,
in the case of administrative and other
indirect costs, in proportion to the staff
costs previously identified. Staffing
costs not associated directly or
indirectly with any of the program
services, along with a commensurate
proportion of non-personnel costs, are
excluded from the model.
The revised methodology is more
complete because it accounts for all
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
72790
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
relevant staff time, whether associated
directly with a program service or
indirectly, and includes all staff,
including administrative and
managerial staff, and all relevant nonpersonnel costs. Because it is allinclusive, it covers costs incurred where
the standard workflow path cannot be
followed, as well as exceptional cases
that involve time-intensive research or
problem resolution, for example, cases
where electronic funds transfer
payments need to be matched with a
SOA received much earlier or later than
the payment or without a remittance
advice. It also covers non-routine staff
effort. For instance, during the period
under review, the Office revised work
procedures and forms, and updated its
internal information systems, to
facilitate its implementation of STELA.
The Office expects these types of
administrative and technical upgrades
to continue to occur during the life of
the SOA program.
In conducting the second cost study,
the Office applied a three-year average
of non-personnel costs to address
concerns that an aberrant year may have
an undue impact on the proposed fees.
The Office considered reengineering
efforts of the Licensing Division in the
area of statutory licenses and the rise of
associated costs in 2011. The
administrative and technical
enhancements are integral to the SOA
program. However, in order to mitigate
the impact of higher than usual costs in
2011, the 2011 costs have been averaged
with costs from 2010 and 2009 to
achieve a balanced representation of the
overall, ongoing cost of the SOA
program, including periodic and
technical upgrades.
Finally, in both the initial and revised
cost studies, the Office excluded
approximately 75 percent of salaries for
staff who work in the Fiscal Section of
the Licensing Division. The Office did
so because much of the work of these
employees is dedicated to royalty
management functions that serve
copyright owners (e.g., production of
financial statements, reconciliations,
investments, and distributions); the 75
percent exclusion is meant to fairly
account for this fact.
Revised Fees for Cable and Satellite
Statements of Account
In the initial cost study, the Office
analyzed the processing of cable SA1,
SA2, and SA3 SOAs and satellite SOAs
independently. In performing the
revised study, it was evident that many
of the program costs are common to
both cable and satellite filings, in
particular the fiscal management and
information technology costs, and thus
should be shared by both types of filers.
Based on its further evaluation of the
program costs for the collection and
administration of the cable and satellite
SOAs and the royalty fees deposited
with such statements, the Office
continues to propose a tiered fee
schedule corresponding to the filing of
the different types of SOAs. The fees for
licensees who file a cable SA1 or SA2
form remain unchanged from the initial
proposal, $15 for the filing of a SA1
form and $20 for the filing of a SA2
form. Such fees are reasonable in light
of the minimal amount of processing
required and the typical royalty
payments associated with such
statements, which are substantially
lower than royalties associated with
SA3 filings. See 17 U.S.C. 708(b) (fees
established by the Register for cable and
satellite SOAs are to be ‘‘reasonable’’).
Additionally, following its review of the
totality of SOA program costs, as
described above, the Office proposes to
establish both the cable SA3 filing fee
and satellite filing fee at $725. The
Office believes that $725 is a reasonable
fee in light of the second cost study and
substantial royalty payments associated
with these SOAs.
Moreover, at the proposed levels, the
fees collected from licensees filing
SOAs should in the aggregate approach,
but not exceed, 50 percent of the
Office’s reasonable expenses to
administer the cable and satellite SOA
program, as determined in the more
recent study conducted by the Office.
Based on projected filings, the expected
annual fee recovery will be
approximately $1.77 million, or
approximately 47 percent of the
estimated $3.74 million total annual
SOA program cost.
Schedule of Revised Proposed Fees
The chart below sets forth the
proposed fees for filing cable and
satellite SOAs:
SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED FEES
[Administration of statutory licenses]
Proposed new fee
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
(1) Processing of a statement of account based on secondary transmissions of primary transmissions pursuant to § 111:
(i) Form SA1 ...........................................................................................................................................................................
(ii) Form SA2 ..........................................................................................................................................................................
(iii) Form SA3 .........................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Processing of a statement of account based on secondary transmissions pursuant to §§ 119 and 122
The Office believes that, as revised,
the proposed fees are appropriate based
on the reasonable expenses incurred in
the processing of cable and satellite
SOAs and managing the associated
royalty payments. Moreover, the fees are
set to approach one-half the costs,
without exceeding one-half, in order
that owners and users of copyrighted
works share the burden of supporting
the cable and satellite SOA program. An
outcome where program costs are
shared relatively equally by owners and
users is consistent with the mandate of
STELA, as well as the objectives of the
copyright system.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
Waiver of Filing Fees
ACA suggests that the Office
‘‘establish a streamlined waiver process
for smaller cable operators where
payment of the filing fee would result in
a financial hardship.’’ ACA Comments
at 2. While the Office understands
ACA’s rationale for this request, the law
appears to preclude this option.
Section 708(a) requires that ‘‘fees
shall be paid to the Register of
Copyrights’’ for filing a cable SOA. The
statute also instructs the Register to fix
said fees based on relevant costs. To this
end, the Office conducted a cost study,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$15
20
725
725
taking into account that cable
companies that file SA1 and SA2 forms
benefit from the statutory licensing
scheme, yet generate revenues
considerably lower than the cable
systems that file the SA3 form.
Accordingly, the Office is proposing
significantly lower fees to ensure that
they are reasonable under the
circumstances.
To the extent the suggestion of ACA
is that nothing in the law expressly
prevents the Register from creating
exceptions or waivers to the general fee,
the Office notes that Congress has set
forth express authority for the Register
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 235 / Thursday, December 6, 2012 / Proposed Rules
to waive fees elsewhere in section 708.
Section 708(c) grants the Register
discretion to waive fees for United
States agencies and their employees, but
only ‘‘in occasional or isolated cases
involving relatively small amounts.’’
Such express and limited authority in
the area of waivers suggests that
Congress would have created a clear
exception or waiver of the kind
suggested by ACA had it so desired.
Moreover, no such waivers exist with
respect to other fee requirements,
including for example, for registrations
of individual claimants. The Office
welcomes further comment on whether
the statute provides authority to the
Register to establish a waiver process
where payment of the filing fee would
result in a financial hardship and
whether, in general, waivers of this kind
should be permissible.
Technical Amendments
The Office will adopt technical
amendments as needed to conform
existing regulations to the changes
proposed in this notice.
Request for Comments
As noted above, the Copyright Office
is publishing the revised proposed fee
schedule for these particular fees to
provide the public with an opportunity
to comment.
Dated: November 29, 2012.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2012–29229 Filed 12–5–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 121018563–2563–01]
RIN 0648–XC311
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands; 2013 and 2014
Harvest Specifications for Groundfish
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes 2013 and
2014 harvest specifications,
apportionments, and prohibited species
catch (PSC) allowances for the
groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Dec 05, 2012
Jkt 229001
and Aleutian Islands (BSAI)
management area. This action is
necessary to establish harvest limits for
groundfish during the 2013 and 2014
fishing years, and to accomplish the
goals and objectives of the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area. The intended effect
of this action is to conserve and manage
the groundfish resources in the BSAI in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act.
Comments must be received by
January 7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2012–0210, by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal
www.regulations.gov. To submit
comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal,
first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon,
then enter NOAA–NMFS–2012–0210 in
the keyword search. Locate the
document you wish to comment on
from the resulting list and click on the
‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on that line.
• Mail: Address written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O.
Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668.
• Fax: Address written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Fax comments to 907–
586–7557.
• Hand delivery to the Federal
Building: Address written comments to
Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Deliver comments to
709 West 9th Street, Room 420A,
Juneau, AK.
Instructions: Comments must be
submitted by one of the above methods
to ensure that the comments are
received, documented, and considered
by NMFS. Comments sent by any other
method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered. All comments received are
a part of the public record and will
generally be posted for public viewing
on www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address) submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72791
Do not submit confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive or
protected information. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect,
or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Electronic copies of the Alaska
Groundfish Harvest Specifications Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), and the Supplemental
IRFA prepared for this action may be
obtained from https://
www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska
Region Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The final 2011
Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation (SAFE) report for the
groundfish resources of the BSAI, dated
November 2011, is available from the
North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (Council) at 605 West 4th
Avenue, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK
99501–2252, phone 907–271–2809, or
from the Council’s Web site at https://
alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc. The
draft 2012 SAFE report for the BSAI will
be available from the same sources in
November 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steve Whitney, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal
regulations at 50 CFR part 679
implement the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Management Area
(FMP) and govern the groundfish
fisheries in the BSAI. The Council
prepared the FMP and NMFS approved
it under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). General
regulations governing U.S. fisheries also
appear at 50 CFR part 600.
The FMP and its implementing
regulations require NMFS, after
consulting with the Council, to specify
annually the total allowable catch (TAC)
for each target species category, the sum
of which must be within the optimum
yield (OY) range of 1.4 million to 2.0
million metric tons (mt) (see
§ 679.20(a)(1)(i)). Section 679.20(c)(1)
further requires NMFS to publish
proposed harvest specifications in the
Federal Register and solicit public
comments on proposed annual TACs
and apportionments thereof, PSC
allowances, prohibited species quota
(PSQ) reserves established by § 679.21,
seasonal allowances of pollock, Pacific
cod, and Atka mackerel TAC, American
Fisheries Act allocations, Amendment
80 allocations, and Community
Development Quota (CDQ) reserve
E:\FR\FM\06DEP1.SGM
06DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 235 (Thursday, December 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72788-72791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29229]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Parts 201 and 203
[Docket No. 2012-1]
Copyright Office Fees
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office has further revised its proposed fee
schedule for filing cable and satellite statements of account following
feedback from interested parties in response to a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on March 28, 2012. The modified fee schedule set
forth below reflects an updated calculation of the cost of providing
services.
DATES: Comments must be received in the Copyright Office no later than
5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on January 7, 2013. Reply comments
must be received in the Copyright Office no later
[[Page 72789]]
than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on January 22, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted electronically. A comment page
containing a comment form is posted on the Copyright Office Web site at
https://www.copyright.gov/docs/newfees/comments/. 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 browse button. To meet accessibility standards, all comments must
be uploaded in a single file not to exceed six megabytes (MB) in one of
the following formats: the Adobe 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 form and face of the comments must
include both the name of the submitter and the organization. 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: Megan Rivet, Budget Analyst, or
Melissa Dadant, Senior Advisor for Operations and Special Projects, at
(202) 707-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 2010, Congress enacted the Satellite
Television Extension and Localism Act (``STELA''), Public Law 111-175,
124 Stat. 1218, which, for the first time, granted authority to the
Copyright Office to establish fees for the filing of statements of
account (``SOAs'') pursuant to the section 111, 119, and 122 statutory
licenses for cable and satellite users. Prior to 2010, the cost of
processing such statements and associated royalty payments was funded
solely by the royalty fees collected for the benefit of the copyright
owners under the statutory licenses. STELA added a new provision to
Title 17 that permits the Office to apportion up to 50 percent of the
cost of processing the SOAs and royalty payments to licensees. More
specifically, 17 U.S.C. 708(a) provides that the fees charged to
licensees for the filing of SOAs ``shall be reasonable and may not
exceed one-half of the cost necessary to cover reasonable expenses
incurred by the Copyright Office for the collection and administration
of the statements of account and any royalty fees deposited with such
statements.''
On March 28, 2012, the Copyright Office published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``NPR'') as the initial step in adopting new fees
for various services, including the registration of claims, recordation
of documents, special services, processing of requests for records
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, and Licensing Division
services, including the new fees for filing of cable and satellite
SOAs. See 77 FR 18742 (March 28, 2012). Fees were proposed in
accordance with the procedure set forth in the Copyright Act, which
provides that the Register of Copyrights may, by regulation, adjust
fees for certain enumerated services based upon a study of costs
incurred by the Copyright Office. See 17 U.S.C. 708(b).
Generally speaking, the Office has conducted a study of costs every
three years. In each case, and in the case here, the Office is acutely
aware of its obligations as an agency of the federal government,
including the mandate to establish sound fiscal policies and develop a
responsible budget. At the same time, the Office is cognizant of its
responsibilities to both copyright owners and users of copyrighted
works. Ultimately, the Office must price its services in a manner that
is fair to the parties and conducive to well-functioning programs and
recordkeeping. Indeed, elsewhere the Copyright Act indicates that fees
``shall be fair and equitable and give due consideration to the
objectives of the copyright system.'' 17 U.S.C. 708(b)(4).
In response to the NPR, the Office received 138 comments on the
proposed fees, three of which specifically addressed the new fees for
filing cable and satellite SOAs. The Office received individual
comments from the American Cable Association (``ACA'') and the National
Cable & Telecommunications Association (``NCTA''), and a joint comment
from Program Suppliers, Joint Sports Claimants, Commercial Television
Claimants, Music Claimants, Canadian Claimants Group, National Public
Radio, Broadcaster Claimants Group, and Devotional Claimants
(collectively, ``Copyright Owners'').
NCTA expressed the concern that the proposed fees sought to recover
costs for services ``that go beyond what is reasonably necessary to
administer the license and reflect[] expenses incurred in the past that
are unlikely to recur in the future.'' NCTA Comments at 2. ACA
requested the Office to provide a waiver of fees for cable operators
experiencing financial hardship. See generally ACA Comments.
Copyright Owners, on the other hand, argued that the proposed fees
failed to recover half of the actual operating costs of the cable and
satellite program, and also questioned the Office's methodology,
specifically why actual costs were not the starting point for analysis.
See generally Copyright Owners' Comments.
In light of the comments received from affected stakeholders, and
because the fees for filing cable and satellite SOAs are being set for
the first time, the Office conducted further analysis of those fees. As
explained below, it performed a second study, using a revised
methodology to more precisely capture the cost of providing the
services in question.
New Cost Study for Setting Cable and Satellite SOA Filing Fees
The original cost study for the Office's administration of the
cable and satellite statutory licenses used the additive model employed
in previous cost studies for peripheral fee services. This method
focuses on the desk time of dedicated employees, in other words, how
much time they spend performing activities involved in processing a
typical service request. While effective in analyzing services that can
be measured by short intervals of time, it is sometimes not as
successful in determining the cost of a more complex task, such as the
processing of an entire SOA. At the same time, managing the cable and
satellite SOAs is a major program of the Office and comprises the
greatest portion of staff time and related resources in comparison to
administering the other statutory licenses.
In its reexamination of SOA program costs, the Office applied a
traditional methodology that it has used to assess the costs of its
services in other areas, such as copyright registration. This
methodology calculates the full cost of the activity in question--in
this case, the entire SOA program, including the receipt and
administration of the SOAs and royalty fees deposited with such
statements--based on actual expenditures and all costs directly or
indirectly associated with these functions. The revised methodology
identifies staffing costs for each particular program service and
apportions non-personnel costs either directly to the services they
support or, in the case of administrative and other indirect costs, in
proportion to the staff costs previously identified. Staffing costs not
associated directly or indirectly with any of the program services,
along with a commensurate proportion of non-personnel costs, are
excluded from the model.
The revised methodology is more complete because it accounts for
all
[[Page 72790]]
relevant staff time, whether associated directly with a program service
or indirectly, and includes all staff, including administrative and
managerial staff, and all relevant non-personnel costs. Because it is
all-inclusive, it covers costs incurred where the standard workflow
path cannot be followed, as well as exceptional cases that involve
time-intensive research or problem resolution, for example, cases where
electronic funds transfer payments need to be matched with a SOA
received much earlier or later than the payment or without a remittance
advice. It also covers non-routine staff effort. For instance, during
the period under review, the Office revised work procedures and forms,
and updated its internal information systems, to facilitate its
implementation of STELA. The Office expects these types of
administrative and technical upgrades to continue to occur during the
life of the SOA program.
In conducting the second cost study, the Office applied a three-
year average of non-personnel costs to address concerns that an
aberrant year may have an undue impact on the proposed fees. The Office
considered reengineering efforts of the Licensing Division in the area
of statutory licenses and the rise of associated costs in 2011. The
administrative and technical enhancements are integral to the SOA
program. However, in order to mitigate the impact of higher than usual
costs in 2011, the 2011 costs have been averaged with costs from 2010
and 2009 to achieve a balanced representation of the overall, ongoing
cost of the SOA program, including periodic and technical upgrades.
Finally, in both the initial and revised cost studies, the Office
excluded approximately 75 percent of salaries for staff who work in the
Fiscal Section of the Licensing Division. The Office did so because
much of the work of these employees is dedicated to royalty management
functions that serve copyright owners (e.g., production of financial
statements, reconciliations, investments, and distributions); the 75
percent exclusion is meant to fairly account for this fact.
Revised Fees for Cable and Satellite Statements of Account
In the initial cost study, the Office analyzed the processing of
cable SA1, SA2, and SA3 SOAs and satellite SOAs independently. In
performing the revised study, it was evident that many of the program
costs are common to both cable and satellite filings, in particular the
fiscal management and information technology costs, and thus should be
shared by both types of filers.
Based on its further evaluation of the program costs for the
collection and administration of the cable and satellite SOAs and the
royalty fees deposited with such statements, the Office continues to
propose a tiered fee schedule corresponding to the filing of the
different types of SOAs. The fees for licensees who file a cable SA1 or
SA2 form remain unchanged from the initial proposal, $15 for the filing
of a SA1 form and $20 for the filing of a SA2 form. Such fees are
reasonable in light of the minimal amount of processing required and
the typical royalty payments associated with such statements, which are
substantially lower than royalties associated with SA3 filings. See 17
U.S.C. 708(b) (fees established by the Register for cable and satellite
SOAs are to be ``reasonable''). Additionally, following its review of
the totality of SOA program costs, as described above, the Office
proposes to establish both the cable SA3 filing fee and satellite
filing fee at $725. The Office believes that $725 is a reasonable fee
in light of the second cost study and substantial royalty payments
associated with these SOAs.
Moreover, at the proposed levels, the fees collected from licensees
filing SOAs should in the aggregate approach, but not exceed, 50
percent of the Office's reasonable expenses to administer the cable and
satellite SOA program, as determined in the more recent study conducted
by the Office. Based on projected filings, the expected annual fee
recovery will be approximately $1.77 million, or approximately 47
percent of the estimated $3.74 million total annual SOA program cost.
Schedule of Revised Proposed Fees
The chart below sets forth the proposed fees for filing cable and
satellite SOAs:
Schedule of Proposed Fees
[Administration of statutory licenses]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed new fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Processing of a statement of account based on
secondary transmissions of primary transmissions
pursuant to Sec. 111:
(i) Form SA1..................................... $15
(ii) Form SA2.................................... 20
(iii) Form SA3................................... 725
(2) Processing of a statement of account based on 725
secondary transmissions pursuant to Sec. Sec. 119
and 122
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office believes that, as revised, the proposed fees are
appropriate based on the reasonable expenses incurred in the processing
of cable and satellite SOAs and managing the associated royalty
payments. Moreover, the fees are set to approach one-half the costs,
without exceeding one-half, in order that owners and users of
copyrighted works share the burden of supporting the cable and
satellite SOA program. An outcome where program costs are shared
relatively equally by owners and users is consistent with the mandate
of STELA, as well as the objectives of the copyright system.
Waiver of Filing Fees
ACA suggests that the Office ``establish a streamlined waiver
process for smaller cable operators where payment of the filing fee
would result in a financial hardship.'' ACA Comments at 2. While the
Office understands ACA's rationale for this request, the law appears to
preclude this option.
Section 708(a) requires that ``fees shall be paid to the Register
of Copyrights'' for filing a cable SOA. The statute also instructs the
Register to fix said fees based on relevant costs. To this end, the
Office conducted a cost study, taking into account that cable companies
that file SA1 and SA2 forms benefit from the statutory licensing
scheme, yet generate revenues considerably lower than the cable systems
that file the SA3 form. Accordingly, the Office is proposing
significantly lower fees to ensure that they are reasonable under the
circumstances.
To the extent the suggestion of ACA is that nothing in the law
expressly prevents the Register from creating exceptions or waivers to
the general fee, the Office notes that Congress has set forth express
authority for the Register
[[Page 72791]]
to waive fees elsewhere in section 708. Section 708(c) grants the
Register discretion to waive fees for United States agencies and their
employees, but only ``in occasional or isolated cases involving
relatively small amounts.'' Such express and limited authority in the
area of waivers suggests that Congress would have created a clear
exception or waiver of the kind suggested by ACA had it so desired.
Moreover, no such waivers exist with respect to other fee requirements,
including for example, for registrations of individual claimants. The
Office welcomes further comment on whether the statute provides
authority to the Register to establish a waiver process where payment
of the filing fee would result in a financial hardship and whether, in
general, waivers of this kind should be permissible.
Technical Amendments
The Office will adopt technical amendments as needed to conform
existing regulations to the changes proposed in this notice.
Request for Comments
As noted above, the Copyright Office is publishing the revised
proposed fee schedule for these particular fees to provide the public
with an opportunity to comment.
Dated: November 29, 2012.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2012-29229 Filed 12-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P