66758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2011 / Notices 

investigation in these cases would serve 

no purpose since the petitioning group 

of workers cannot be covered by more 

than one certification at a time. 

TA–W–80,427; Coastal Lumber 

Company, Hopwood, PA 

I hereby certify that the 

aforementioned determinations were 

issued during the period of October 11, 

2011 through October 14, 2011. Copies 

of these determinations may be 

requested under the Freedom of 

Information Act. Requests may be 

submitted by fax, courier services, or 

mail to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Office 

of Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA), 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210 or tofoiarequest@dol.gov. 

These determinations also are available 

on the Department’s Web site at 

http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact under 

the searchable listing of determinations. 

Dated: October 20, 2011. 

Michael W. Jaffe, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27847 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Investigations Regarding Certifications 

of Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Petitions have been filed with the 

Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) 

of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and 

are identified in the Appendix to this 

notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, 

the Director of the Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, Employment 

and Training Administration, has 

instituted investigations pursuant to 

Section 221(a) of the Act. 

The purpose of each of the 

investigations is to determine whether 

the workers are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under title II, 

chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations 

will further relate, as appropriate, to the 

determination of the date on which total 

or partial separations began or 

threatened to begin and the subdivision 

of the firm involved. 

The petitioners or any other persons 

showing a substantial interest in the 

subject matter of the investigations may 

request a public hearing, provided such 

request is filed in writing with the 

Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, at the address shown below, 

not later than November 7, 2011. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written comments regarding the 

subject matter of the investigations to 

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, at the address shown below, 

not later than November 7, 2011. 

The petitions filed in this case are 

available for inspection at the Office of 

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

October 2011. 

Michael Jaffe, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

APPENDIX

[20 TAA petitions instituted between 10/10/11 and 10/14/11] 

TA–W Subject firm 

(petitioners) Location Date of institution 

Date of 

petition 

80500 ........... IBM (State/One-Stop) ............................................................... San Francisco, CA .................. 10/11/11 10/07/11 

80501 ........... TT Electronics (Company) ....................................................... Boone, NC .............................. 10/11/11 10/10/11 

80502 ........... LexisNexis (Company) ............................................................. Miamisburg, OH ...................... 10/11/11 10/06/11 

80503 ........... Viam Manufacturing, Inc. (Company) ...................................... Santa Fe Springs, CA ............. 10/11/11 10/06/11 

80504 ........... BASF Corporation (Company) ................................................. Belvidere, NJ .......................... 10/14/11 10/11/11 

80505 ........... Haldex (State/One-Stop) .......................................................... Kansas City, MO ..................... 10/14/11 10/12/11 

80506 ........... JVC–USA Product Return Center (State/One-Stop) ............... McAllen, TX ............................ 10/14/11 10/12/11 

80507 ........... Kerry Ingredients & Flavours (Union) ...................................... Turtle Lake, WI ....................... 10/14/11 10/12/11 

80508 ........... Stateline Warehouse (Workers) ............................................... Ridgeway, VA ......................... 10/14/11 10/07/11 

80509 ........... ON Semiconductor (Company) ................................................ Phoenix, AZ ............................ 10/14/11 10/06/11 

80510 ........... Suntron Corporation (Company) .............................................. Sugar Land, TX ...................... 10/14/11 10/12/11 

80511 ........... Specialty Bar Products Co. (Workers) ..................................... Blairsville, PA .......................... 10/14/11 10/05/11 

80512 ........... Pilgrim’s Pride—Dallas Processing Plant (State/One-Stop) .... Dallas, TX ............................... 10/14/11 09/30/11 

80513 ........... Centurion Medical Products (Workers) .................................... Jeanette, PA ........................... 10/14/11 10/13/11 

80514 ........... Intier Magna (State/One-Stop) ................................................. Shreveport, LA ........................ 10/14/11 10/13/11 

80515 ........... AI Android Industries (State/One-Stop) ................................... Shreveport, LA ........................ 10/14/11 10/13/11 

80516 ........... Travelers (Workers) ................................................................. Elmira, NY ............................... 10/14/11 10/13/11 

80517 ........... AGS Automotive (State/One-Stop) .......................................... Shreveport, LA ........................ 10/14/11 10/13/11 

80518 ........... KV Pharmaceuticals (State/One-Stop) .................................... Bridgeton, MO ......................... 10/14/11 10/13/11 

80519 ........... Verso Paper Corp. (Union) ...................................................... Bucksport, ME ........................ 10/14/11 10/13/11 

[FR Doc. 2011–27846 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2011–10] 

Remedies for Small Copyright Claims 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

undertaking a study at the request of 

Congress to assess whether and, if so, 

how the current legal system hinders or 

prevents copyright owners from 

pursuing copyright infringement claims 

that have a relatively small economic 

value (‘‘small copyright claims’’); and 

recommend potential changes in 

administrative, regulatory, and statutory 

authority to improve the adjudication of 

these small copyright claims. The Office 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2011 / Notices 66759 

1Remedies for Small Copyright Claims, Before the 

Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 

Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th 

Cong. (2006), available at http://frwebgate.

access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_

house_hearings&docid=f:26767.pdf. 

2Remedies for Small Copyright Claims, Before the 

Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 

Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th 

Cong. (2006) (statement of the United States 

Copyright Office), available at http://

www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032906.html. 

3United States Copyright Office, Report on 

Orphan Works 1 (2006), available at http://

www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf. 

4Proposed bills include the Shawn Bentley 

Orphan Works Act of 2008, S. 2913, 110th Cong. 

(2008), which was passed by the Senate; the Orphan 

Works Act of 2008, H.R. 5889, 110th Cong. (2008); 

and the Orphan Works Act of 2006, H.R. 5439, 

109th Cong. (2006). 

thus seeks comment on how copyright 

owners have handled small copyright 

claims and the obstacles they have 

encountered, as well as potential 

alternatives to the current legal system 

that could better accommodate such 

claims. This is a general inquiry and the 

Office will publish additional notices on 

this topic. 

DATES: Comments are due January 16, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: All comments and reply 

comments shall be submitted 

electronically. A comment page 

containing a comment form is posted on 

the Office Web site at http://www.

copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims. 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, submitters must upload 

comments 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 organization. The 

Office will post all comments publicly 

on the Office’s Web site exactly as they 

are received, along with names and 

organizations. If electronic submission 

of comments is not feasible, please 

contact the Office at 202–707–8380 for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Rowland, Counsel, Office of 

Policy and International Affairs, by 

telephone at 202–707–8350 or by 

electronic mail at crowland@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Copyright Act (the ‘‘Act’’), 17 

U.S.C. 101 et seq., protects a wide 

variety of works of authorship, ranging 

from individual articles or photographs 

that may not have a high commercial 

value to motion pictures worth 

hundreds of millions of dollars in the 

marketplace. Copyright owners of all of 

these works may seek remedies under 

the federal Copyright Act in the event of 

infringement. Not all of these copyright 

owners, however, have the same 

resources to bring a federal lawsuit, 

which can require substantial time, 

money, and effort. To the extent an 

infringement results in a relatively small 

amount of economic damage, the 

copyright owner may be dissuaded from 

filing a lawsuit because the potential 

award may not justify the expense of 

litigation. Even where statutory damages 

and attorney fees are possible, they are 

not available until the conclusion of the 

litigation. Moreover, awards of statutory 

damages may be as low as $750 (or, in 

cases of innocent infringement, $200), 

and may not always make the copyright 

owner whole. 

In light of these challenges, the House 

of Representatives’ Subcommittee on 

Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 

Property held a hearing in March 2006 

to learn more about the problems faced 

by small copyright claimants (the 

‘‘Small Claims Hearing’’).1 The hearing 

focused on possible alternative dispute 

resolution systems such as a copyright 

‘‘small claims court’’ or other 

mechanism. The testimony also 

addressed some of the problems that 

small copyright claim owners have with 

the current system, as well as concerns 

about defendants’ rights in an 

alternative system. The Copyright Office 

submitted a statement to the 

Subcommittee regarding the small 

copyright claims issue, noting these 

difficulties, proposing to review 

potential alternatives, and welcoming 

the possibility of further study.2 The 

Copyright Office also identified some of 

these ‘‘small claims’’ challenges in its 

2006 Report on Orphan Works,3 and 

proposed legislation in 2006 and 2008 

addressing orphan works included 

provisions that specifically directed the 

Copyright Office to conduct a study 

addressing remedies for small claims, 

but the legislation ultimately did not 

become law.4

The Chairman of the House Judiciary 

Committee has recently asked the U.S. 

Copyright Office to study the obstacles 

facing small copyright claims disputes, 

as well as possible alternatives. In a 

letter dated October 11, 2011, Chairman 

Lamar Smith requested that the Office 

‘‘undertake a study to assess: (1) The 

extent to which authors and other 

copyright owners are effectively 

prevented from seeking relief from 

infringements due to constraints in the 

current system; and (2) furnish specific 

recommendations, as appropriate, for 

changes in administrative, regulatory 

and statutory authority that will 

improve the adjudication of small 

copyright claims and thereby enable all 

copyright owners to more fully realize 

the promise of exclusive rights 

enshrined in our Constitution.’’ 

The Office therefore seeks comments 

on how parties—both copyright owners 

and those alleged to have infringed— 

view the current system, what their 

experiences with the current system 

have been, and what types of 

alternatives would be helpful and 

viable. 

A. Challenges of the Current Legal 

System 

Currently, copyright owners 

interested in bringing a lawsuit to 

enforce their copyrights must do so in 

federal district courts, which have 

exclusive jurisdiction over copyright 

claims. 28 U.S.C. 1338. This is true 

regardless of the monetary value of the 

copyright claim. Vesting exclusive 

jurisdiction in federal courts is generally 

beneficial because copyright law is 

federal law, and federal courts have 

become familiar with copyright analysis 

and thus should bring a level of 

consistency to copyright cases. 

Additionally, the Act aids some 

copyright claimants by permitting 

awards of reasonable attorney’s fees and 

statutory damages to the prevailing 

party, but a plaintiff may recover 

statutory damages and attorney’s fees 

only if the work was timely registered. 

17 U.S.C. 412, 504, 505. 

Despite the benefits of the current 

system, there are some drawbacks to 

requiring copyright owners and 

defendants to engage in potentially 

extensive federal litigation for all 

copyright disputes. One of the major 

impediments to federal lawsuits is the 

cost of litigation. Although copyright 

owners could proceed pro se in federal 

court, they often need the assistance of 

a lawyer to understand and handle 

federal procedures and substantive law. 

This is especially true because, unlike 

in the state court system, there is no 

streamlined ‘‘small claims’’ process for 

claims with a lower monetary value. If 

a copyright owner hires a lawyer, the 

expenses can add up quickly. 

Contingency fee arrangements are 

relatively rare in copyright lawsuits; 

thus most copyright owners will have to 

pay an hourly fee for representation. 

Lawyers charge hundreds of dollars per 

hour, which could reach a total of tens 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
66760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2011 / Notices 

5Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, March 31, 

2010, Office of Judges Programs, Statistics Division, 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 

Table C–5, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/ 

Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/ 

FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2010/tables/ 

C05Mar10.pdf. The time frame differs significantly 

between districts—from 11.1 months in the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to 

41.2 months in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia. 

or hundreds of thousands of dollars 

when a case does not immediately settle 

and instead requires discovery, motion 

practice, and trial. In fact, one recent 

survey found that, as of 2011, the 

median cost for litigating a copyright 

infringement lawsuit with less than 

$1 million at risk was $350,000. Am. 

Intellectual Prop. Law Ass’n (‘‘AIPLA’’), 

Report of the Economic Survey 2011 35 

(2011). Even if a copyright owner 

proceeds pro se, litigation itself includes 

court costs and fees, which can add up 

to a not insignificant sum. Many 

individual copyright owners simply do 

not have the resources to fund 

expensive litigation. Moreover, even 

though the Act allows some awards of 

attorney’s fees, other costs, and statutory 

damages, these awards are not 

guaranteed—and may not be available at 

all depending on the timeliness of 

copyright registration—and are only 

awarded at the end of litigation, likely 

after a copyright owner has made 

significant out of pocket payment to 

cover legal fees and court costs. 

Additionally, an award of attorney’s 

fees—assuming that it is collectible— 

will not necessarily reimburse the 

copyright owner for all fees expended in 

prosecuting a claim. 

In federal litigation, the period of time 

between the filing of a case and the final 

determination can be lengthy. The 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow 

parties to engage in extensive discovery 

and motion practice, which often take 

far more than a year to complete. In fact, 

the median time for all cases that went 

to trial—not just copyright suits—was 

twenty-three months in 2009–2010.5

This lengthy time frame requires 

litigants to expend energy and effort 

throughout a relatively long period of 

time. This investment of time, not to 

mention the associated expenses, may 

not be feasible for individual authors, 

who may not be able to dedicate 

sufficient time to handle all of the 

litigation burdens. 

B. Potential Alternatives for Small 

Copyright Claims 

The Office is interested in learning 

about alternatives to the current legal 

system that might help alleviate some of 

the burdens associated with pursuing 

small copyright claims. Some 

alternatives were identified at the Small 

Claims Hearing, including: (1) Using the 

current Copyright Royalty Board (a 

panel of administrative law judges 

established under Chapter 8 of Title 17 

that sets rates and terms for statutory 

licenses and decides how to distribute 

certain statutory license royalties); (2) 

creating a federal ‘‘small claims court’’ 

or otherwise streamlining federal 

procedures; (3) developing a staff of 

dedicated administrative law judges to 

specialize in small copyright claims; (4) 

amending the Act to allow state courts 

(including small claims courts) to hear 

small copyright claims; and (5) allowing 

trade associations or other group 

representatives to bring a single, large 

filing on behalf of a sizeable group of 

small copyright owners. While these 

alternatives deserve balanced 

discussion, there may be other 

potentially suitable options that were 

not discussed at the Small Claims 

Hearing. 

There are, of course, a variety of 

issues that require further consideration. 

These include: 

Degree of Difficulty Litigating Small 

Copyright Claims in the Current System: 

Before analyzing various alternatives to 

the current system, it is important to 

further explore the obstacles that the 

district court process presents in small 

copyright claim cases. This would help 

focus future analysis and any potential 

alternative legal processes. 

State Court Involvement: State courts 

do not have expertise in copyright 

jurisprudence. As noted above, Section 

1338 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code vests 

federal courts with exclusive 

jurisdiction over copyright claims. 

Moreover, Section 301 of the Act 

explicitly preempts state claims ‘‘that 

are equivalent to any of the exclusive 

rights within the general scope of 

copyright as specified by section 106 in 

works of authorship that are fixed in a 

tangible medium of expression and 

come within the subject matter of 

copyright as specified by sections 102 

and 103.’’ Thus, state courts are not 

experienced in the nuances of copyright 

law and may not have sufficient 

resources to devote to a claim’s 

intricacies, especially when limited in a 

small claims court context. 

Nevertheless, state courts commonly 

handle small disputes, and thus they 

likely have the structure to handle the 

logistics of such claims. State court 

involvement, however, is only one 

possible avenue to explore and there are 

also several federal options that should 

be considered in the discussion. 

Location of Federal Court/Tribunal: 

Creating a federal ‘‘small claims court’’ 

or administrative judge panel would 

create logistical rather than 

jurisdictional challenges, including 

where the court(s) and panel(s) would 

be located. If there are several courts or 

panels located throughout the country, 

it may provide more convenience to the 

parties, but it may also reduce 

consistency and add to administrative 

costs. Alternatively, if there is only one 

court or panel, the guiding rules could 

allow for liberal use of telephone 

conferences and videoconferences, and 

the procedures could focus more on a 

paper practice with fewer (if any) 

hearings. The court or tribunal could 

also limit the types and amount of 

discovery in the interest of expediency. 

Affiliation With the Copyright Office 

or Copyright Royalty Board: The 

Copyright Office administers the 

Copyright Act, is a substantive expert on 

provisions of copyright law, and has 

statutory responsibilities in both 

litigation and administrative law. It may 

thus be appropriate for the Office to be 

associated with a new process. 

Similarly, the Copyright Royalty Board 

is already proficient in handling 

administrative procedures under the 

Act, and it may have the capability of 

expanding its scope to handle 

additional claims. 

Determination of ‘‘Small’’ Copyright 

Claims: Although many copyright 

owners are concerned about the cost of 

litigating ‘‘small’’ copyright claims in 

federal court, the definition of ‘‘small’’ 

is unclear. Any changes in legal process 

must take a balanced approach to 

determine which claims are deemed 

‘‘small’’ enough to fit into the new 

system. 

Voluntary or Mandatory: A major 

question is whether a new small 

copyright claim process would be 

voluntary or mandatory. Copyright 

owners may want the option of choosing 

which type of court hears a claim, and 

defendants might similarly wish to 

remove a claim filed in a new court or 

panel to federal district court. 

Additionally, the question arises about 

how to appeal an adverse decision—and 

to what court or other body. 

Fair Use: The affirmative defense of 

fair use defense is extremely factspecific and typically requires courts to 

examine decades of judicial precedent. 

The ability to present and have heard a 

fair use defense is therefore a concern. 

Defendants’ Appearance: It has been 

suggested that defendants should not be 

required to appear at a small copyright 

claim proceeding until the copyright 

owner provides a prima facie case of 

infringement. This ostensibly would 

prevent a copyright owner from 

dragging a defendant into a legal 

proceeding without cause. It is unclear 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2011 / Notices 66761 

whether this would be necessary, or 

whether an alternative small copyright 

claims proceeding might instead rely 

upon a rule akin to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11, which requires plaintiffs 

to certify the veracity of the claim. 

Available Remedies: Because a small 

copyright claim process likely would be 

limited to reduce costs and time, it is 

unclear what types of remedies should 

be offered. The Act itself offers a 

number of infringement remedies, 

including injunctions, monetary relief 

(including statutory damages), 

impounding of infringing copies and of 

the articles by means of which 

infringing copies may be reproduced, 

costs and attorney’s fees. Consideration 

should be given to whether an 

alternative small claims process could 

or should provide this whole panoply of 

remedies, and whether the new system 

would also allow preliminary relief to 

prevent impending or continuing 

infringement, similar to a temporary 

restraining order or preliminary 

injunction under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 65. 

These are but a few of the factors to 

analyze before deciding whether to 

move forward with a new small 

copyright claim system, and, if so, what 

that new process might be. 

II. Subjects of Inquiry 

The Office seeks comment on how 

copyright owners and defendants use 

the current legal system for small 

copyright claims, including information 

on the obstacles and benefits of using 

federal district courts. Additionally, the 

Office requests comment on potential 

alternatives for handling copyright 

claims that have a relatively small 

economic value. The Office is interested 

in comment on the logistics of potential 

alternatives, as well as the benefits and 

risks presented by different types of 

processes. 

III. Conclusion 

The Office hereby seeks comment 

from the public on factual and policy 

matters related to the treatment of small 

copyright claims. If there are any 

additional pertinent issues not 

discussed above, the Office encourages 

interested parties to raise those matters 

in their comments. In addition, the 

Office is considering having one or more 

roundtables or formal hearings on the 

matters raised above in the coming 

months. It is also likely that, following 

receipt of the comments in response to 

this Notice, the Office will publish a 

further Notice of Inquiry posing specific 

questions and possibly exploring 

additional alternatives. 

Dated: October 24, 2011. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27824 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 

ADMINISTRATION 

Records Schedules; Availability and 

Request for Comments 

AGENCY: National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of 

proposed records schedules; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA) 

publishes notice at least once monthly 

of certain Federal agency requests for 

records disposition authority (records 

schedules). Once approved by NARA, 

records schedules provide mandatory 

instructions on what happens to records 

when no longer needed for current 

Government business. They authorize 

the preservation of records of 

continuing value in the National 

Archives of the United States and the 

destruction, after a specified period, of 

records lacking administrative, legal, 

research, or other value. Notice is 

published for records schedules in 

which agencies propose to destroy 

records not previously authorized for 

disposal or reduce the retention period 

of records already authorized for 

disposal. NARA invites public 

comments on such records schedules, as 

required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a). 

DATES: Requests for copies must be 

received in writing on or before 

November 28, 2011. Once the appraisal 

of the records is completed, NARA will 

send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff 

usually prepare appraisal 

memorandums that contain additional 

information concerning the records 

covered by a proposed schedule. These, 

too, may be requested and will be 

provided once the appraisal is 

completed. Requesters will be given 30 

days to submit comments. 

ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of 

any records schedule identified in this 

notice by contacting Records 

Management Services (ACNR) using one 

of the following means: 

Mail: NARA (ACNR), 8601 Adelphi 

Road, College Park, MD 20740–6001. 

E-mail: request.schedule@nara.gov. 

Fax: 301–837–3698. 

Requesters must cite the control 

number, which appears in parentheses 

after the name of the agency which 

submitted the schedule, and must 

provide a mailing address. Those who 

desire appraisal reports should so 

indicate in their request. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurence Brewer, Director, National 

Records Management Program (ACN), 

National Archives and Records 

Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, 

College Park, MD 20740–6001. 

Telephone: 301–837–1539. E-mail: 

request.schedule@nara.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each year 

Federal agencies create billions of 

records on paper, film, magnetic tape, 

and other media. To control this 

accumulation, agency records managers 

prepare schedules proposing retention 

periods for records and submit these 

schedules for NARA’s approval, using 

the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for 

Records Disposition Authority. These 

schedules provide for the timely transfer 

into the National Archives of 

historically valuable records and 

authorize the disposal of all other 

records after the agency no longer needs 

them to conduct its business. Some 

schedules are comprehensive and cover 

all the records of an agency or one of its 

major subdivisions. Most schedules, 

however, cover records of only one 

office or program or a few series of 

records. Many of these update 

previously approved schedules, and 

some include records proposed as 

permanent. 

The schedules listed in this notice are 

media neutral unless specified 

otherwise. An item in a schedule is 

media neutral when the disposition 

instructions may be applied to records 

regardless of the medium in which the 

records are created and maintained. 

Items included in schedules submitted 

to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, 

are media neutral unless the item is 

limited to a specific medium. (See 36 

CFR 1225.12(e).) 

No Federal records are authorized for 

destruction without the approval of the 

Archivist of the United States. This 

approval is granted only after a 

thorough consideration of their 

administrative use by the agency of 

origin, the rights of the Government and 

of private persons directly affected by 

the Government’s activities, and 

whether or not they have historical or 

other value. 

Besides identifying the Federal 

agencies and any subdivisions 

requesting disposition authority, this 

public notice lists the organizational 

unit(s) accumulating the records or 

indicates agency-wide applicability in 

the case of schedules that cover records 

that may be accumulated throughout an 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES