Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 65609 

74For example, would there be questions about 

how to apply PCAOB AS 4105 and AS 6101, Letters 

for Underwriters and Certain Other Requesting 

Parties. 

75See Rule 415, Item 12(a) of Part I of Form S– 

1 [17 CFR 239.11], and Item 12(a) of Part I of Form 

S–3 [17 CFR 239.13]. 

76See 17 CFR 230.3–12. 

quarterly or mandatory semi-annual 

model) affect the ability of investors, 

analysts, and other market participants 

to compare results among companies, 

especially if companies in the same 

industry report on different schedules? 

Would companies that choose to report 

more frequently suffer adverse 

competitive consequences if peer 

companies choose to report less 

frequently (e.g., because relative 

performance and/or estimates of 

expected future cash flows would be 

measured on a less frequent basis)? 

Alternatively, would companies that 

choose to report more frequently benefit 

from their provision to investors of more 

and more timely information about 

historical results? 

40. What are the accounting and 

auditing changes that would be 

necessary for a flexible reporting 

frequency model (rather than a 

mandatory quarterly or mandatory semiannual model)? For example, would 

there be concerns with how to apply 

ASC 270 Interim Reporting in U.S. 

GAAP or certain Regulation S–X 

disclosure requirements in a flexible 

reporting frequency model? Would there 

be concerns with how to apply auditing 

standards 74 in relation to interim 

financial information, including 

procedures performed in relation to 

letters for underwriters and certain 

other requesting parties, in a flexible 

reporting frequency model? 

41. What other topics may raise 

concerns or questions with application 

under a flexible reporting model, and 

what are those concerns or questions? 

Do these concerns and questions exist in 

the current quarterly reporting model 

and would they still exist with a 

mandatory semi-annual model? 

42. Are existing U.S. GAAP 

taxonomies used for XBRL reporting 

appropriate for a flexible reporting 

frequency model? 

43. Should we limit such flexibility in 

reporting frequency to a particular 

group of companies as an initial step 

before considering whether to provide 

such an option to all companies? If so, 

which group of companies and why? 

Should any potential election by a 

company be limited to a specific period 

of time? 

44. How would a move to either a 

mandatory or optional semi-annual 

reporting model affect the current rules 

of self-regulatory organizations and 

national securities exchanges? For 

example, would exchanges still require 

quarterly reporting as a requirement of 

listing, as they did prior to 1970 when 

Form 10–Q was adopted? 

45. How would a move to either a 

mandatory or optional semi-annual 

reporting model affect a company’s 

ability to comply with current rules 

relating to Securities Act offerings? For 

example, given that Form 10–Q is often 

incorporated by reference into certain 

registration statements under the 

Securities Act,75 how would a company 

that reports semi-annually ensure that a 

registration statement currently in use 

does not contain a material omission of 

information? For example, how would 

an issuer ensure that a shelf registration 

statement on Form S–3 remains current? 

Under a flexible approach, would 

companies nonetheless elect to maintain 

a quarterly reporting model to avoid 

concerns about keeping their Securities 

Act registration statements current? 

How would companies meet the 

requirements regarding the age of 

financial statements 76 under Regulation 

S–X with respect to new registration 

statements under such an approach? 

How would a change in reporting 

frequency impact the Commission’s 

integrated disclosure regime, including, 

for example, determining issuer 

eligibility and the speed by which a 

company may offer securities? How 

would a change in reporting frequency 

impact companies who use reports filed 

in the United States to satisfy state or 

international reporting requirements? 

46. Are there additional approaches 

that we should consider to better 

facilitate the dissemination of timely 

periodic information to investors and 

other market participants? 

IV. Closing 

This request for comment is not 

intended to limit the scope of 

comments, views, issues or approaches 

to be considered. In addition to 

investors and companies, the 

Commission welcomes comment from 

other market participants, in particular 

statistical, empirical and other data from 

commenters that may support their 

views and/or support or refute the views 

or issues raised. 

By the Commission. 

Dated: December 18, 2018. 

Eduardo A. Aleman, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27663 Filed 12–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket Number USCG–2018–0388] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Ground; Sabine Pass, TX 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

amend the anchorage regulations for the 

Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine Pass, TX 

anchorage ground for the navigational 

safety of vessels entering and exiting a 

new liquefied natural gas terminal 

mooring basin being constructed on the 

eastern waterfront of the Sabine Pass 

Channel. This proposed rulemaking 

would reduce the overall size of the 

existing anchorage. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before January 22, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2018–0388 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Mr. Scott K. 

Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, 

U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409–719– 

5086, email: Scott.K.Whalen@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

LNG Liquefied natural gas 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

In 1967, the Secretary of the Army 

transferred responsibility for certain 

functions, power, and duties to the 

Secretary of Transportation. Among the 

responsibilities transferred to the 

Secretary of Transportation was 

establishment and administration of 

water vessel anchorages. On December 

12, 1967, the regulations for the Sabine 

Pass Anchorage Ground were 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
65610 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

republished in 33 CFR part 110, without 

change, under this new authority (32 FR 

17726). The regulations for the Sabine 

Pass Channel Anchorage Ground in 

Sabine, TX are contained in 33 CFR 

110.196. 

The legal basis and authorities for this 

notice of proposed rulemaking are 

found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 33 CFR 1.05–1, 

and Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1, which 

collectively authorize the Coast Guard 

to propose, establish, and define 

regulatory anchorages. As reflected in 

title 33 CFR 109.05, the Commandant of 

the U.S. Coast Guard has delegated the 

authority to establish anchorage grounds 

to U.S. Coast Guard District 

Commanders. 

As discussed earlier, administration 

of the Sabine Pass Anchorage Ground 

was originally transferred to the Coast 

Guard in 1967. Under 33 CFR 110.196, 

the anchorage ground is ‘‘for the 

temporary use of vessels of all types, but 

especially for naval and merchant 

vessels awaiting weather and tidal 

conditions favorable to the resumption 

of their voyages.’’ In 2006, Cheniere 

Energy began construction of a liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) terminal on the 

eastern waterfront of the Sabine Pass 

Channel, immediately north and 

adjacent to the Sabine Pass Channel 

Anchorage Ground. On October 3, 2006, 

the Coast Guard published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking proposing to 

reduce the area of the Sabine Pass 

Anchorage Ground by 800 feet on the 

north end of the anchorage in order to 

reduce the risk of collision between 

anchored vessels and berthing and 

unberthing vessels at Cheniere’s 

terminal, as well as to reduce the risk of 

grounding by providing a larger 

maneuvering area for vessels calling 

Cheniere’s terminal (71 FR 58330). Both 

comments we received during that 

rulemaking process supported the 

proposed reduction on the basis of 

enhancing navigation safety. One 

commenter noted that ‘‘the anchorage 

was infrequently used and would have 

minimal impact on the economy.’’ On 

January 5, 2007, the Coast Guard 

published the final rule reducing the 

overall size of the anchorage consistent 

with the proposal (72 FR 463). 

On November 8, 2017, we received a 

request from Sabine Pass LNG L.P. to 

disestablish the Sabine Pass Anchorage 

Ground in its entirety. The request 

states that the anchorage is rarely used 

and its disestablishment would not 

significantly impact vessels that use the 

area. 

On June 15, 2018, the Coast Guard 

published a notice of inquiry; request 

for comments asking for public 

comments in response to Sabine Pass 

LNG’s request to disestablish the 

anchorage ground titled Anchorage 

Ground; Sabine Pass, TX (83 FR 27932). 

There, we explained that our data 

showed that the anchorage is utilized an 

average of 27 times each year by shallow 

draft vessels (for example, tows, 

dredges, and work boats) for shortening 

tow or for use as a staging area for local 

work projects such as dredging, and that 

deep draft vessels have not made use of 

the anchorage in the last decade. In 

particular, we requested public input on 

whether there remains a need for a 

regulated anchorage in this area, and if 

so, to what extent and for what purpose; 

if a reduction in size of the anchorage 

would meet current and anticipated 

industry needs; or if options other than 

disestablishment should also be 

considered. 

In response to the above inquiry, the 

Coast Guard received three comments. 

One commenter observed that the 

navigation channel and the anchorage 

overlapped, and expressed concern that 

the elimination of the anchorage ground 

would reduce the federally maintained 

channel and have a negative impact on 

maritime activities. The Coast Guard 

consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and confirmed that although 

overlapping, the elimination of the 

anchorage ground would not alter the 

dimensions of the federal channel. 

Therefore, there would be no reduction 

in the dimensions of the federal channel 

by the disestablishment or the reduction 

of the anchorage. 

One comment was filed after the 

deadline, but we have added it to the 

notice of inquiry; request for comments 

online docket folder. That commenter 

requested additional time to comment 

in order to study the effect that the 

removal of the anchorage ground might 

have on its proposed upstream facility. 

That commenter will have an additional 

period to present their comment during 

the comment period provided in this 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 

One commenter expressed support for 

maintaining anchorages generally, and 

listed pros and cons for maintaining this 

anchorage ground. The Coast Guard 

agrees that even occasional, or limited 

use of the anchorage supports 

maintaining a portion of the anchorage, 

and that reducing the size of the 

anchorage would both provide for the 

safety of vessels using Cheniere’s 

terminal, as well as the needs of the 

maritime community. 

The purpose of this proposed 

rulemaking is to reduce the overall 

dimensions of the Sabine Pass Channel 

anchorage ground. This action would 

provide for the safe navigation of vessels 

entering and exiting Cheniere Energy’s 

new vessel berth while retaining a 

portion of the anchorage for use by 

those vessels that continue to use the 

anchorage grounds. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

Cheniere Energy is constructing a new 

LNG mooring basin on the eastern 

waterfront of the Sabine Pass Channel. 

This facility is located immediately 

south and adjacent to the existing 

mooring basin. Due to the angle that the 

terminal berth lays relative to the 

channel, vessels intending to berth at or 

depart the LNG terminal would have to 

utilize a portion of the existing 

anchorage to swing the vessels into 

position for mooring. Vessels anchored 

in the existing anchorage would be at an 

increased risk for being struck by an 

arriving or departing vessel. 

In order to reduce this risk, the Coast 

Guard proposes to reduce the overall 

size of the anchorage area. This action 

would reduce the possible conflict 

associated with vessels that may anchor 

too close to the entrance of the LNG 

terminal. It would also provide a larger 

maneuvering area for vessels arriving to 

or departing from the LNG terminal, 

which consequently would reduce the 

possibility of a grounding or collision 

with another vessel in the area. 

Vessel Traffic Service data indicates 

that the anchorage ground described in 

33 CFR 110.196 is no longer used for the 

anchoring of large sea-going vessels, but 

that it is used infrequently by a handful 

of smaller vessels each year. The Coast 

Guard believes that those vessels that 

have been using the anchorage would be 

able to continue anchoring in the 

remaining portion of the anchorage area. 

This proposed rule would move the 

‘‘long side,’’ also known as the channel 

side, shoreward and adjacent to the 

federal channel, shortening this side 

from 5,000 feet to approximately 2,725 

feet. No other changes to the anchorage 

would be made. In order to eliminate 

confusion regarding the geographic 

boundary of the proposed anchorage, 

the current description would be 

replaced with geographic coordinates 

that would define the boundary of the 

anchorage. The proposed coordinates of 

the anchorage would be: 

Latitude Longitude 

29°43′59.0′′ N 93°52′08.1′′ W 

29°44′06.8′′ N 93°51′57.6′′ W 

29°43′53.0′′ N 93°51′47.1′′ W 

29°43′36.7′′ N 93°51′50.9′′ W 

A chart depicting the proposed 

boundaries is included in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. The 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 65611 

above coordinates would be the new 

west, north, east, and south corners of 

the anchorage, respectively. 

The regulatory text we are proposing 

appears at the end of this document. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13771 directs agencies 

to control regulatory costs through a 

budgeting process. This NPRM has not 

been designated a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ under Executive 

Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), and 

pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on current information, which 

indicates that the anchorage area is 

rarely used, and that the overall 

reduction in anchorage area would not 

significantly impact those vessels 

desiring to use the anchorage. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and have determined that it is 

consistent with the fundamental 

federalism principles and preemption 

requirements described in Executive 

Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

involves the reduction of size of the 

Sabine Pass Channel anchorage ground. 

It is categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L59(b) of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, visit https://

www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice. 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

website’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110 

Anchorage grounds. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
65612 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1See 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1). 

2See generally 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5), 202.4. 

3H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 154 (1976), reprinted 

in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5770. 

4 Id. 

5 Id. 

6 81 FR 86634 (Dec. 1, 2016). 

7 Id. at 86635. 

8See 37 CFR 202.4(b)(3). 

9See 81 FR at 86638–39. 

10See id. at 86639. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows: 

PART 110—ANCHORAGE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 110 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 

1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. In § 110.196, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 110.196 Sabine Pass Channel, Sabine 

Pass, TX. 

(a) The anchorage area. The water 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following coordinates: 

Latitude Longitude 

29°43′59.0′′ N 93°52′08.1′′ W 

29°44′06.8′′ N 93°51′57.6′′ W 

29°43′53.0′′ N 93°51′47.1′′ W 

29°43′36.7′′ N 93°51′50.9′′ W 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 3, 2018. 

Paul F. Thomas, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Eighth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27699 Filed 12–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 202 

[Docket No. 2018–12] 

Group Registration of Short Online 

Literary Works 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

proposing to create a new group 

registration option for certain types of 

literary works. To qualify for this 

option, each work must contain at least 

100 but no more than 17,500 words. The 

works must be created by the same 

individual, and that individual must be 

named as the copyright claimant for 

each work. The works must all be 

published online within a threecalendar-month period. If these 

requirements have been met, the 

applicant may submit up to 50 works 

with one application and one filing fee. 

The applicant must complete the online 

application designated for a ‘‘literary 

work’’ and upload a digital copy of each 

work. The Office will examine each 

work to determine if it contains a 

sufficient amount of creative 

authorship, and if the Office registers 

the claim, the registration will cover 

each work as a separate work of 

authorship. The Office invites comment 

on this proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be made in 

writing and must be received in the U.S. 

Copyright Office no later than February 

19, 2019. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government 

efficiency, the Copyright Office is using 

the regulations.gov system for the 

submission and posting of public 

comments in this proceeding. All 

comments are therefore to be submitted 

electronically through regulations.gov. 

Specific instructions for submitting 

comments are available on the 

Copyright Office website at https://

www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/ 

shortonline-literaryworks. If electronic 

submission of comments is not feasible 

due to lack of access to a computer 

and/or the internet, please contact the 

Office using the contact information 

below for special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and 

Associate Register of Copyrights; Robert 

J. Kasunic, Associate Register of 

Copyrights and Director of Registration 

Policy and Practice; Erik Bertin, Deputy 

Director of Registration Policy and 

Practice; or Cindy Paige Abramson, 

Assistant General Counsel, by telephone 

at 202–707–8040, or by email at regans@

copyright.gov, rkas@copright.gov, 

ebertin@copyright.gov, and ciab@

copyright.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

When Congress enacted the Copyright 

Act, it authorized the Register to specify 

by regulation the administrative classes 

of works for the purpose of seeking a 

registration and the deposit required for 

each class. Congress also gave the 

Register the discretion to allow groups 

of related works to be registered with 

one application and one filing fee.1 This 

procedure is known as group 

registration.2

As the legislative history explains, 

allowing ‘‘a number of related works to 

be registered together as a group 

represent[ed] a needed and important 

liberalization of the law.’’ 3 Congress 

recognized that requiring separate 

applications ‘‘where related works . . . 

are published separately’’ may impose 

‘‘unnecessary burdens and expenses on 

authors.’’ 4 Congress provided ‘‘a group 

of poems by a single author’’ as one 

example of ‘‘a group of related works’’ 

that would be suitable for group 

registration.5 When large numbers of 

literary works are included in one 

submission, however, information about 

each work may not be adequately 

captured. Therefore, group registration 

options require careful balancing of the 

need for an accurate public record and 

the need for an efficient method of 

facilitating the examination of each 

work. 

II. Petition for Rulemaking 

This proposed rulemaking stems from 

a petition submitted in response to an 

earlier rulemaking. On December 1, 

2016 the Office initiated a rulemaking to 

update the regulation that governs the 

group registration option for 

contributions to periodicals (‘‘GRCP’’).6

In its proposal, the Office explained that 

GRCP may be used to register works that 

are first published in a periodical.7 For 

purposes of registration, a ‘‘periodical’’ 

is defined as a collective work that is 

published on an established schedule in 

successive issues that are intended to be 

continued indefinitely, such as a 

newspaper, magazine, newsletter, and 

other similar works.8 The Office 

explained that an electronic publication 

could be considered a periodical if it is 

fixed and distributed online or via email 

as a self-contained work, such as a 

digital version of a tangible newspaper, 

magazine, or newsletter.9 But works that 

are first published on a website cannot 

be registered under GRCP, because 

websites are typically updated on a 

continual basis, the updates are not 

distributed as discrete, self-contained 

issues, and they do not contain 

numerical or chronological designations 

that distinguish one update from the 

next. As such, websites are not 

considered ‘‘periodicals’’ for purposes 

of registration.10

In responding to the proposed rule for 

GRCP, the National Writers Union 

(NWU), the American Society of 

Journalists and Authors (ASJA), the 

Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of 

America, Inc. (SFWA), and the Horror 

Writers Association (HWA) (collectively 

‘‘Petitioners’’) jointly submitted a 

petition for a rulemaking to create a new 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1