Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Notices 65747 

Dated: December 17, 2018. 

Melody Braswell, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27578 Filed 12–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Fee Adjustment for Testing, 

Evaluation, and Approval of Mining 

Products 

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of fee adjustment. 

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health 

Administration (MSHA) announces a 

revised hourly rate for the fees charged 

to applicants and approval holders for 

testing, evaluating, and approving 

products for use in mines. MSHA 

charges a fee to cover the full cost 

(direct and indirect costs) of its services 

associated with the approval program. 

The new hourly rate is $137. 

DATES: MSHA will charge the new 

hourly rate for new approval services 

starting January 1, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis L. Ferlich, Chief, Approval and 

Certification Center (A&CC), 304–547– 

2029 or 304–547–0400 (these are not 

toll-free numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Under the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act), as 

amended, MSHA’s mission is to prevent 

death, disease, and injury from mining 

and promote safe and healthy 

workplaces for the Nation’s miners. 

MSHA approves equipment, materials, 

and explosives for use in mines to 

assure that the products are designed, 

constructed, and maintained so as not to 

cause a fire, explosion, or other 

accident. MSHA’s regulation under 30 

CFR part 5, Fees for Testing, Evaluation, 

and Approval of Mining Products, 

establishes the method the Agency uses 

to calculate the fees needed to recover 

costs for approval services. 

Under 30 U.S.C. 966, MSHA may 

collect and retain up to $2,499,000 of 

fees collected for the approval and 

certification of equipment, materials, 

and explosives for use in mines. 

On July 29, 2015, MSHA published a 

final rule in the Federal Register (80 FR 

45051) that revised the Agency’s 

regulation for administering fees for 

testing, evaluation, and approval of 

products manufactured for use in mines. 

Under the final rule, MSHA revised the 

hourly rate by dividing the total of a 

prior fiscal year’s approval program 

costs (direct and indirect costs) by the 

number of total direct hours spent on 

approval program activities for that 

year. The hourly rate was increased 

from $97 to $121. 

MSHA began charging the existing 

hourly rate on October 1, 2015, for new 

approval applications. 

II. Applicable Fee 

Under 30 CFR 5.50, an hourly rate 

will remain in effect for at least one year 

and be subject to revision at least once 

every three years. MSHA calculates the 

FY 2019 hourly rate using FY 2017 costs 

for baseline data. MSHA has determined 

that as of January 1, 2019, the hourly 

rate will be $137 per hour for services 

on new applications and post-approval 

activities (changes to approvals and 

post-approval product audits). 

• MSHA will process applications 

and post-approval activities postmarked 

before January 1, 2019, under the 

existing FY 2018 hourly rate of $121. 

• MSHA will process applications 

and post-approval activities postmarked 

on or after January 1, 2019, under the 

revised FY 2019 hourly rate of $137. 

This information is available on 

MSHA’s web page at http://

www.msha.gov. 

David G. Zatezalo, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27633 Filed 12–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2018–11] 

Request for Information on 

Designation of Mechanical Licensing 

Collective and Digital Licensee 

Coordinator 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

issuing a notice of inquiry regarding the 

Musical Works Modernization Act, title 

I of the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte 

Music Modernization Act (‘‘MMA’’), 

enacted on October 11, 2018. The MMA 

made significant modifications to the 

compulsory license in section 115 of 

title 17 for making and distributing 

phonorecords of musical works (the 

‘‘mechanical license’’). Among the many 

changes to the section 115 compulsory 

license, the MMA calls for establishing 

a collective to manage a new blanket 

licensing system governing licensed 

uses of musical works by digital music 

providers. The Register of Copyrights is 

directed to designate the mechanical 

licensing collective and the digital 

licensee coordinator that will carry out 

key functions under the new blanket 

license. 

The Office now solicits information to 

identify the appropriate entities to be 

designated. The information received in 

response to this notice of inquiry will be 

publicly posted, and interested 

members of the public may publicly 

comment on the submissions. After 

consideration of the record material, the 

Register will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register setting forth the 

identity of and contact information for 

the mechanical licensing collective and 

digital licensee coordinator, and the 

reasons for the designations. 

DATES: Initial written proposals must be 

received no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on March 21, 2019. 

Written reply comments must be 

received no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on April 22, 2019. 

Following submission of these written 

comments, the Office may provide for 

proponents of written proposals to 

supplement or amend their initial 

submission, in accordance with specific 

instructions established by the Office at 

https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/ 

mma-designations/. The Office reserves 

the option to seek additional public 

input prior to making a designation, to 

be announced by separate notice in the 

future. Rather than reserving time for 

potential extensions of time to file 

comments, commenting parties should 

be aware that the Office has already 

established what it believes to be the 

most reasonable deadlines consistent 

with the statutory deadlines by which it 

must promulgate the regulations 

described in this notice of inquiry. 

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 in response to this notice are 

therefore to be submitted electronically 

through regulations.gov. Specific 

instructions for submitting comments 

are available on the Copyright Office’s 

website at https://www.copyright.gov/ 

rulemaking/mma-designations/. 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
65748 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Notices 

1Public Law 115–264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018). 

2See S. Rep. No. 115–339, at 1–2 (2018) (‘‘The 

current statutory scheme applies inconsistent rules 

that place certain technologies at a disadvantage 

and result in inequitable compensation variances 

for music creators. These inconsistencies have 

drawn criticism that music copyright and licensing 

laws are too difficult to comply with and do not 

adequately reward the artists and professionals 

responsible for creating American music.’’); Report 

and Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1551 by the 

Chairmen and Ranking Members of Senate and 

House Judiciary Committees, at 1 (2018), https://

judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ 

Music-Modernization-Act.pdf (‘‘Conf. Rep.’’); see 

also H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 2 (2018) (detailing 

the House Judiciary Committee’s efforts to review 

music copyright laws). 

3See 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(1), (c)(5) (2017); S. Rep. No. 

115–339, at 3; U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and 

the Music Marketplace 28–31 (2015), https://

www.copyright.gov/policy/musiclicensingstudy/ 

copyright-and-the-music-marketplace.pdf 

(describing operation of prior section 115 license). 

4The MMA retains the ability of record 

companies to obtain an individual download 

license on a song-by-song basis. 17 U.S.C. 115(b)(3) 

(2018). 

5 Id. at 115(d)(3)(B); see also id. at 115(e)(15). The 

MLC will begin to administer the blanket license on 

the ‘‘license availability date,’’ envisioned by the 

statute as January 1, 2021. 

6 Id. at 115(d)(3)(C). The Copyright Office is 

provided with ‘‘broad regulatory authority’’ to 

conduct proceedings as necessary to effectuate the 

statute; in addition to a number of regulations that 

the Register is specifically directed to promulgate, 

the legislative history contemplates that the Register 

will ‘‘thoroughly review’’ policies and procedures 

established by the MLC. H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 

5–6; S. Rep. No. 115–339, at 5; see 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(12). The legislative history further suggests 

that the Register promulgate the necessary 

regulations in a way that ‘‘balances the need to 

protect the public’s interest with the need to let the 

new collective operate without over-regulation.’’ 

H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 14; S. Rep. No. 115–339, 

at 15. 

7 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(7)(D). 

8 Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(i)(IV), (d)(5). 

9 Id. at 115(d)(3)(B)(i). 

10 Id. at 115(d)(3)(B), (d)(3)(D)(iv)–(vi). 

11 Id. at 115(d)(3)(A), (d)(3)(D)(i). 

12 Id. at 115(d)(3)(B)(iii). 

13 Id. at 115(d)(3)(B)(ii); see also H.R. Rep. No. 

115–651, at 6 (noting that continuity is expected to 

be beneficial so long as the designated entity has 

‘‘regularly demonstrated its efficient and fair 

administration,’’ whereas evidence of ‘‘fraud, waste, 

or abuse,’’ or failure to adhere to relevant 

regulations should ‘‘raise serious concerns’’ 

regarding whether re-designation is appropriate), S. 

Rep. No. 115–339, at 5–6 (same). 

14 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(B). 

15 Id. at 115(d)(5)(B)(iii). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and 

Associate Register of Copyrights, by 

email at regans@copyright.gov, Steve 

Ruwe Assistant General Counsel, by 

email at sruwe@copyright.gov, or Jason 

E. Sloan, Assistant General Counsel, by 

email at jslo@copyright.gov. Each can be 

contacted by telephone by calling (202) 

707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On October 11, 2018, the president 

signed into law the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob 

Goodlatte Music Modernization Act 

(‘‘MMA’’).1 Title I of the MMA 

addresses the efficiency and fairness of 

the section 115 mechanical license for 

the reproduction and distribution of 

musical works embodied in digital 

phonorecord deliveries by establishing a 

blanket licensing system governing such 

uses by digital music providers.2 Prior 

to passage of the MMA, a digital music 

provider seeking to use a protected 

musical work was required to either 

obtain a voluntary license from the 

copyright owner to use the work or 

obtain a compulsory license by filing a 

notice of intention to obtain a 

compulsory license on a song-by-song 

basis. A notice of intention could be 

filed with the copyright owner or, under 

certain circumstances in which the 

owner could not be identified, with the 

U.S. Copyright Office.3

The MMA creates a new blanket 

license for the reproduction and 

distribution of musical works by digital 

music providers in the form of digital 

phonorecord deliveries, including 

permanent downloads, limited 

downloads, and interactive streams, and 

eliminates the song-by-song notice of 

intention process for such uses.4 Instead 

of obtaining compulsory licenses on an 

individual song-by-song basis, the MMA 

directs the Office to designate a 

nonprofit entity, the mechanical 

licensing collective (‘‘MLC’’) to 

administer this new blanket-licensing 

system starting in January 2021.5 As set 

forth in more detail below, the MLC, 

through its board of directors and taskspecific committees, will be responsible 

for a variety of duties, including 

collecting and distributing royalties 

from digital music providers, 

establishing a musical works database 

relevant to the new blanket license, and 

administering a process by which 

copyright owners can claim ownership 

of musical works (and shares of such 

works).6

Licensees will bear the reasonable 

costs of establishing and operating the 

new MLC. The Copyright Royalty Judges 

will conduct a proceeding to determine 

the amount of an administrative 

assessment fee to be paid by blanket and 

significant nonblanket licensees for the 

reasonable costs of starting up and 

continuing to operate the new MLC.7 A 

digital licensee coordinator (‘‘DLC’’) 

may be designated to represent digital 

music providers in the administration of 

the license, including by serving as a 

nonvoting board member of the MLC, 

and participating in proceedings before 

the Copyright Royalty Judges to 

determine the administrative 

assessment fee.8 To facilitate public 

comment, this notice sets forth a brief 

explanation of the designation process 

and key functions and responsibilities 

of the MLC, its board and committees, 

and the DLC. 

A. Designation Process 

The statute directs the Register of 

Copyrights to designate the MLC within 

270 days of enactment of the MMA.9 To 

aid in this process, the statute requires 

the Register to publish notice in the 

Federal Register soliciting information 

to assist in identifying the appropriate 

entity to serve as the MLC within 90 

days of enactment. The notice must 

solicit information regarding potential 

board members of the MLC, the 

operations advisory committee, the 

unclaimed royalties oversight 

committee and the dispute resolution 

committee.10

By law, in order to be designated as 

the MLC, the entity should be: 

• A single nonprofit entity that is 

created by copyright owners to carry out 

its statutory responsibilities; 

• Endorsed by and enjoying 

substantial support from musical work 

copyright owners that represent the 

greatest percentage of the licensor 

market for uses of such works in 

covered activities over the preceding 3 

years; 

• Able to demonstrate to the 

Copyright Office that, by the license 

availability date, it will have the 

administrative and technological 

capabilities to perform the required 

functions; and 

• Governed by a board of directors 

that is composed of a mix of voting and 

non-voting members as directed by the 

statute.11

If no entity meets all of these statutory 

criteria, the Register must designate as 

the MLC the entity that most nearly fits 

these qualifications.12 After 5 years, the 

Register will commence a periodic 

review of this designation.13

The Register is also directed to 

designate the DLC not later than 270 

days after the enactment date, following 

substantially the same procedure 

described for designation of the MLC.14

Unlike the MLC, in the event the 

Register is unable to identify an entity 

that fulfills the criteria for the DLC, the 

Register may decline to designate a 

DLC.15

Under the statutory selection criteria, 

the name and affiliation of each board 

member and each committee established 

by the MLC must be solicited by the 

Register as part of the designation 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Notices 65749 

16 Id. at 115(d)(3)(B)(i). 

17H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 5; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 5; Conf. Rep. at 4; see H.R. Rep. No. 115– 

651, at 26 (‘‘This requirement is not waivable by the 

Register and is not subject to the alternate 

designation language.’’); S. Rep. No. 115–339, at 23 

(same). 

18See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(i). 

19 Id. at 115(d)(3)(C)(i)–(iii) (enumerating thirteen 

functions, in addition to permission to administer 

voluntary licenses). 

20 Id. at 115(d)(3)(A)(i)–(iii); see also id. at 

115(d)(3)(B)(iii). 

21 Id. at 115(d)(3)(F). 

22 Id. at 115(d)(2)(A)(iii)(I). 

23 Id. at 115(d)(2)(A)(iii)(II), and (d)(3)(F). 

24 Id. at 115(d)(3)(F), (e)(23). 

25See generally id. at 115(d)(3)(C)(i). 

26 Id. 

27 Id. 

28 Id.; see also id. at 115(d)(3)(L). 

29 Id. at 115(d)(4)(D). 

30 Id. at 115(d)(3)(C)(iii). 

31 Id. at 115(d)(3)(C)(ii). 

32 Id. at 115(d)(3)(C)(i). 

33For the statutory requirements regarding the 

board described in this paragraph, see 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(D)(i). 

process.16 The legislative history states 

‘‘the Register is expected to allow the 

public to submit comments on whether 

the individuals and their affiliations 

meet the criteria specified in the 

legislation; make some effort of its own 

as it deems appropriate to verify that the 

individuals and their affiliations 

actually meet the criteria specified in 

the legislation; and allow the public to 

submit comments on whether they 

support such individuals being 

appointed for these positions.’’ 17

Accordingly, as addressed below, the 

Copyright Office expects interested 

members of the public to comment upon 

the proposed governance board in 

response to this inquiry. 

Similar to the endorsement criteria 

discussed below, the statute does not 

preclude prospective board members, 

vendors, or other affiliates of a 

prospective MLC from being included in 

submissions from multiple competing 

entities. Indeed, based on the statutory 

criteria requiring representative of 

certain publisher or songwriter 

associations to serve as non-voting 

board members, there may be some 

representatives that might logically 

serve on the board of any proposed 

MLC.18 Similarly, while the statutory 

language authorizes the MLC to arrange 

for services of outside vendors, nothing 

suggests that such a vendor must offer 

exclusive services to that MLC 

candidate (let alone one that is yet-to-be 

designated). 

B. MLC Duties and Functions 

The MMA enumerates a number of 

functions for the MLC.19 The MLC must 

be a single nonprofit entity created by 

copyright owners and endorsed by 

musical work copyright owners, and it 

must possess the administrative and 

technological capabilities necessary to 

carry out a wide array of responsibilities 

in administering blanket licenses.20

This administrative role includes 

accepting or rejecting notices of license, 

and exercising authority to terminate 

licenses when the licensee is in 

default.21 The MLC has 30 days to reject 

a notice in writing, listing with 

specificity why such notice was 

rejected, either because it does meet the 

statutory requirements or applicable 

regulations,22 or if the digital music 

provider has had a blanket license 

terminated by the collective within the 

past three years.23 The MLC will also 

accept notices of nonblanket activity; 

that is, a notice that the licensee has 

been engaging in making digital 

phonorecord deliveries of musical 

works without using the blanket license, 

from significant nonblanket licensees.24

For digital music providers that are 

blanket licensees, the MLC will receive 

reports of usage, and collect and 

distribute royalties for covered 

activities.25 A key aspect of the MLC’s 

collection and distribution 

responsibilities includes identifying 

musical works and copyright owners, 

matching them to sound recordings (and 

addressing disputes), and ensuring that 

a copyright owner gets paid as he or she 

should. To that end, the MLC will create 

and maintain a free, public database of 

musical work and sound recording 

ownership information. The MLC will 

administer processes by which 

copyright owners can claim ownership 

of musical works (and shares of such 

works), and by which royalties for 

works for which the owner is not 

identified or located are equitably 

distributed to known copyright owners 

on a market share basis after a required 

holding period. The MLC unclaimed 

royalties oversight committee is tasked 

with establishing policies and 

procedures for such distributions, 

subject to the approval of the MLC 

board of directors. 

To fulfill its responsibilities, the MLC 

is statutorily authorized to invest in 

relevant resources, and arrange for 

services of outside vendors and others, 

to support the activities of the MLC.26

It may engage in legal and other efforts 

to enforce rights and obligations set 

forth under the license, including by 

filing bankruptcy proofs of claims for 

amounts owed under licenses, and by 

acting in coordination with the digital 

licensee coordinator.27 The MLC may be 

audited by copyright owners due 

royalties from the MLC, and so must 

maintain records of its activities and 

engage in and respond to audits.28 And, 

the MLC may audit licensees.29

The MLC may also administer 

voluntary licenses issued by, or 

individual download licenses obtained 

from, copyright owners only for 

reproduction or distribution rights in 

musical works for covered activities and 

the MLC shall charge reasonable fees for 

such services.30 But the MLC may only 

issue blanket licenses for digital uses 

pursuant to section 115(d)(1), and 

administer blanket licenses for 

reproduction or distribution rights in 

musical works for covered activities.31

The MLC is authorized to initiate and 

participate in proceedings before the 

Copyright Royalty Judges to establish 

the administrative assessment that will 

fund the MLC activities. The MLC may 

gather and provide documentation for 

use in proceedings before the Copyright 

Royalty Judges to set rates and terms for 

the section 115 license. And, finally, the 

MLC may initiate and participate in 

proceedings before the Copyright Office 

with respect to the foregoing activities.32

C. MLC Board 

The board of the MLC shall consist of 

14 voting members and 3 nonvoting 

members.33 Ten voting members shall 

be representatives of music publishers 

to which songwriters have assigned 

exclusive rights of reproduction and 

distribution of musical works with 

respect to covered activities, and none 

of which may be owned by, or under 

common control with, any other board 

member. Four voting members shall be 

professional songwriters who have 

retained and exercise exclusive rights of 

reproduction and distribution with 

respect to covered activities with 

respect to musical works they have 

authored. One nonvoting member shall 

be a representative of the nonprofit 

trade association of music publishers 

that represents the greatest percentage of 

the licensor market for uses of musical 

works in covered activities, as measured 

for the 3-year period preceding the date 

on which the member is appointed. One 

nonvoting member shall be the digital 

licensing coordinator, if one has been 

designated, or otherwise, the nonprofit 

trade association of digital licensees that 

represents the greatest percentage of the 

licensee market for uses of musical 

works in covered activities, as measured 

over the preceding 3 full calendar years. 

One nonvoting member shall be a 

representative of a nationally recognized 

nonprofit trade association whose 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
65750 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Notices 

34 Id. 35S. Rep. No. 115–339, at 5. 36 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(ii). 37Statement on Signing the Orrin G. Hatch–Bob 

Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, 2018 Daily 

Comp. Pres. Doc. 692 (Oct. 11, 2018), https://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201800692/pdf/ 

DCPD-201800692.pdf (‘‘MMA Signing Statement’’). 38 Id. 39 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(viii). 40 Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(ii). 

41 Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(iv). 

42 Id. 

43 Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(v). 

44 Id. at 115(d)(3)(J)(ii). 

45 Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(vi). 

46 Id. at 115(d)(3)(K). 

47See generally id. at 115(d)(5)(C). 

48 Id. at 115(d)(2)(A)(i), (d)(6)(A)(i). 

49 Id. at 115(d)(4)(A)(iv). 

50 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(ii)–(iii). 

51 Id. at 115(d)(3)(E)(vi). 

52 Id. at 115(d)(12)(C). 

53The Office is contemplating whether it may aid 

the process to solicit initial public comments on 

some of these issues in advance of the final 

designation. The Office notes, however, that the 

MMA explicitly contemplates that the MLC and 

DLC may participate in such proceedings, and 

would not expect to conclude any proceeding(s) 

without affording that opportunity. See id. at 

115(d)(3)(C)(i)(X), (d)(5)(C)(i)(IV). The Office 

welcomes comment on this question of timing. 

primary mission is advocacy on behalf 

of songwriters in the United States.34

As the legislative history notes, 

‘‘[s]ervice on the Board or its 

committees is not a reward for past 

actions, but is instead a serious 

responsibility that must not be 

underestimated . . . . It has been 

agreed to by all parties that songwriters 

should be responsible for identifying 

and choosing representatives that 

faithfully reflect the entire songwriting 

community on the Board.’’ 35

The MLC board is authorized to adopt 

bylaws for the selection of new directors 

subsequent to the initial designation of 

the MLC.36 The Presidential Signing 

Statement accompanying enactment of 

the MMA states that directors of the 

MLC are inferior officers under the 

Appointments Clause of the 

Constitution, and that the Librarian of 

Congress must approve each subsequent 

selection of a new director.37 It also 

suggests that the Register work with the 

MLC, once designated, to address issues 

related to board succession.38

An individual serving as an officer of 

the MLC may not, at the same time, also 

be an employee or agent of any member 

of the board of directors of the collective 

or any entity represented by a member 

of the board of directors.39

Not later than one year after the date 

on which the MLC is initially 

designated, the MLC shall establish 

publicly available bylaws to determine 

issues relating to the governance of the 

collective. The MLC bylaws shall 

address the length of the term for each 

MLC board member, the staggering of 

the terms of the board members, a 

process for filling a seat on the board 

that is vacated before the end of the set 

term, a process for electing a board 

member, and a management structure 

for daily operation of the collective.40

D. MLC Committees 

The MMA requires the board to 

establish three committees, and the 

Office to solicit names of prospective 

committee members in this notice. The 

statute does not address whether 

members may serve on multiple 

committees or whether members of the 

board may also serve on a committee. 

Operations Advisory Committee. The 

MLC board of directors is required to 

establish an operations advisory 

committee consisting of not fewer than 

six members to make recommendations 

to the board concerning the operations 

of the collective, including the efficient 

investment in and deployment of 

information technology and data 

resources.41 This committee is required 

to have an equal number of members 

who are musical work copyright 

owners, to be appointed by the MLC 

board, and representatives of digital 

music providers, to be appointed by the 

DLC.42

Unclaimed Royalties Oversight 

Committee. The MLC board is required 

to establish and appoint an unclaimed 

royalties oversight committee consisting 

of ten members, five of which shall be 

musical work copyright owners and five 

of which shall be professional 

songwriters whose works are used in 

covered activities.43 This committee is 

responsible for establishing policies 

necessary to undertake a fair 

distribution of unclaimed royalties.44

Dispute Resolution Committee. The 

MLC board of directors is required to 

establish and appoint a dispute 

resolution committee consisting of not 

fewer than 6 members, which shall 

include an equal number of 

representatives of musical work 

copyright owners and professional 

songwriters.45 This committee is 

responsible for establishing policies and 

procedures for copyright owners to 

address disputes relating to ownership 

interests in musical works, which shall 

include a mechanism to hold disputed 

funds pending the resolution of the 

dispute.46

E. The DLC 

The MMA also calls for the 

establishment of a digital licensee 

coordinator (‘‘DLC’’) to carry out key 

functions under the new blanket 

license.47 The DLC is tasked with 

coordinating the activities of the 

licensees. The DLC shall make 

reasonable, good faith efforts to assist 

the MLC in its efforts to locate and 

identify copyright owners of unmatched 

musical works (and shares of such 

works) by encouraging digital music 

providers to publicize the existence of 

the collective and the ability of 

copyright owners to claim unclaimed 

accrued royalties, including by posting 

contact information for the collective at 

reasonably prominent locations on 

digital music provider websites and 

applications and conducting in-person 

outreach activities with songwriters. 

The DLC is authorized to gather and 

provide documentation for, and 

participate in proceedings before, the 

Copyright Royalty Judges to determine 

the administrative assessment to be paid 

by digital music providers. Further, the 

DLC may initiate and participate in 

proceedings before the Copyright Office 

with respect to the blanket mechanical 

license. 

II. Request for Proposals and Related 

Information 

At this time, the Copyright Office 

solicits information to assist in 

identifying the appropriate entities to 

serve as the MLC and DLC. The MMA 

also directs the Register to promulgate 

multiple other regulations with respect 

to the operation of the revamped blanket 

mechanical license and operation of the 

MLC, regarding, inter alia, the form of 

the notices of license and notice of 

nonblanket activity,48 usage reports and 

adjustments,49 information to be 

included in the musical works 

database,50 requirements for the 

usability, interoperability, and usage 

restrictions of that database,51 and the 

disclosure and use of confidential 

information.52 The Office will solicit 

public comment regarding those 

subjects through future notice(s) and 

therefore present commenters should 

focus their statements on information 

relevant to the designation processes.53

A. Mechanical Licensing Collective 

The Office hereby requests proposals 

for designation as the MLC that include 

the identities of all members of a 

proposed board of directors and the 

various committees, along with contact 

information for the collective. Such 

proposals should identify the proposed 

board members’ relevant background 

and affiliations so that interested parties 

can submit comments to the Register 

addressing whether the parties meet the 

statutory requirements set forth in 17 

U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Notices 65751 

54 Id. at 115(d)(3)(J). 

55See Conf. Rep. at 6–7. 

56See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(E)(v). 

57H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 12; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 13. 

58H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 12; S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 13. 

59See Conf. Rep. at 11. 

60 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(H). 

61H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 13 (describing 

required policies, and noting ‘‘[i]t is the intent of 

Congress to ensure that songwriters receive their 

Continued 

The Office requests that proposals for 

the MLC designations include the 

following information, organized by the 

categories below. 

1. Administrative and Technological 

Capabilities 

The following questions are directed 

at identifying an entity that can best 

perform the duties outlined in section 

115(d)(3)(C) of the MMA. 

a. General. The Office requests a 

business plan, including a statement of 

purpose or principles, proposed 

schedule, and available budgetary 

projections, for the establishment and 

operation of the proposed MLC for the 

first five years of its existence. In 

response to the more granular 

information requested below, this plan 

should include a description of the 

intended technological and/or business 

methods for: Establishing and 

maintaining the required musical works 

database; administering the blanket 

license and collecting relevant notices, 

usage reports, and administrative 

assessments from digital music 

providers; administering a process by 

which copyright owners can claim 

ownership of musical works (and shares 

of such works); distributing royalties 

generated from unidentified works 

equitably; collecting and processing 

royalty payments to musical work 

copyright owners; and otherwise 

fulfilling the MLC’s statutory 

obligations. 

b. Ownership Identification, 

Matching, and Claiming Process. The 

Office solicits information tailored to 

the proposed MLC’s ability to identify 

musical works (and shares of such 

works) embodied in particular sound 

recordings, and to locate the copyright 

owners of such musical works, 

including but not limited to: 

• The proposed MLC’s plan for 

matching sound recordings and musical 

works, including plans for developing 

or acquiring initial sets of data; 

• An explanation of how ownership 

information may be populated, 

corrected or updated by various 

stakeholders and how the proposed 

MLC will accommodate submission of 

information that may vary by scale and 

scope depending upon the technical or 

business sophistication of the submitter; 

• Best practices, methodologies or 

expertise (including manual processes), 

that the proposed MLC may employ for 

identification of copyright owners and 

matching of copyrighted works; 

• Intended approaches to 

prioritization of matching efforts 

(including whether and how factors 

such as usage, royalty amounts, genre, 

and vintage of usage of works may guide 

prioritization choices); 

• The proposed MLC’s target goals or 

estimates for matching works in each of 

the first five years, and in the aggregate, 

expressed both in terms of a percentage 

of the market share of musical works in 

covered activities, and in terms of a 

percentage of the works licensed for use 

in covered activity; 

• With consideration of the statutory 

timeframes regarding distribution of 

unclaimed royalties that accrued before 

the license availability date, an 

explanation how the proposed MLC will 

provide adequate opportunity to engage 

in requisite identification and matching 

efforts and for copyright owners to 

search and claim ownership of musical 

works (or shares thereof); 54

• Intended approaches to address 

fraudulent claims, including any 

planned policies or procedures of the 

dispute resolution committee noted 

below, relevant institutional knowledge 

of its board members or prospective 

vendors, and intended documentation 

regarding claims of ownership of works 

or intended technological processes; 

and 

• Any views regarding how the 

proposed MLC intends to interact with 

and address ownership information 

with collective management 

organizations that represent owners of 

comparable and/or associated rights. 

c. Maintenance of Musical Works 

Database. While a well-functioning 

musical works database is presumed to 

be integral to administering the 

matching and claiming process 

described above,55 the Office solicits 

additional information related to the 

creation and operation of this historic 

unified music database, specifically: 

• How the proposed MLC will 

approach interoperability of existing or 

future external databases, systems and 

applications, including the extent to 

which it may adopt or engage with 

existing and future frameworks, 

standards or formats (including open 

standards); 

• The proposed MLC’s plans to 

utilize and interact with existing and 

emerging methods or standards for 

identification of parties and works 

(including hashes and fingerprint 

technologies); 

• An explanation of how the 

proposed MLC will have the capability 

to accept, maintain, and otherwise 

handle large data sets, including 

consideration of the scale of data that 

the MLC will be responsible for 

managing; 

• An explanation of how the 

proposed MLC intends to approach 

access and usage restrictions regarding 

the musical works database, including 

with respect to digital music providers, 

significant nonblanket licensees, 

authorized vendors, and other parties’ 

timely access to data; 56

• An explanation of how the 

proposed MLC will approach other 

information technology issues, 

including security, redundancy, 

privacy, and transparency. 

d. Collection and Distribution of 

Royalties, Including Unclaimed Accrued 

Royalties. The Office seeks information 

related to the proposed MLC’s royalty 

distribution methods and capabilities. 

As the legislative history notes, the MLC 

is required to collect and distribute 

royalties using the information provided 

in usage reports on a specific schedule 

mandated by statute.57 As the history 

further notes, there is an expectation 

that ‘‘[a]ll copyright owners shall have 

their royalties distributed fairly and no 

copyright owner may receive special 

treatment as a result of their position on 

the Board, its committees, or for any 

other reason without a reasonable 

basis.’’ 58 Specifically, the Office 

requests: 

• The proposed MLC’s expected 

competence with efficient and effective 

payment methods, including addressing 

tax and other regulatory documentation 

for various payees and entities; 

• Any planned approaches with 

respect to the collection and 

distribution of royalties collected 

through bankruptcy proceedings; 59

• Information about the proposed 

MLC’s approach to scheduling royalty 

payments to identified copyright 

owners, including whether the entirety 

of unclaimed royalties is intended to be 

distributed simultaneously; 

• Views regarding whether the 

proposed MLC may consider holding 

reserve funds to address claims that may 

only reasonably be identified after the 

statutory holding period, and what if 

any criteria might be used to implement 

any such reserve practices; 60

• Any policies that the proposed MLC 

intends to implement with respect to 

undertaking a fair distribution of 

unclaimed royalties; 61 and 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
65752 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Notices 

fair share of monies distributed to copyright owners 

under subsection (d)(3)(J), while at the same time 

respecting contractual relationships. To that end, 

payments and credits to songwriters shall be 

allocated in proportion to the reported usage of 

individual musical works by digital music 

providers during the relevant reporting periods. The 

50% payment or credit to a songwriter referenced 

in subsection (d)(3)(J)(iv)(II) is intended to be 

treated as a floor, not a ceiling’’); S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 14 (same). 

62 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(A)(iii). 

63 Id. at 115(d)(3)(D)(ix)(II)(bb)(BB). 

64See id. at 115(d)(7)(B). 

65See id. at 115(d)(7)(C): 

66S. Rep. No. 115–339, at 14. 

67 Id. at 5. 

68 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(i)(I). 

• Any other considerations that may 

be relevant with respect to the 

distribution of claimed and unclaimed 

accrued royalties. 

e. Investment in Resources and 

Vendor Engagement. The Office 

understands that proposals for 

designation as the MLC may rely on one 

or more vendors to ‘‘demonstrate to the 

Register of Copyrights that the entity 

has, or will have prior to the license 

availability date, the administrative and 

technological capabilities to perform the 

required functions of the mechanical 

licensing collective.’’ 62 To the extent 

not already provided, the Office 

therefore seeks information about actual 

or potential vendors, including the 

specific functions to be addressed by a 

given vendor, the vendors’ relevant 

experience with clients and projects 

involving similar scale and type, or 

industry-specific knowledge. The Office 

requests, to the extent practicable: 

• The estimated number of employees 

the proposed MLC intends to hire and/ 

or engage through vendors in each of the 

first five years; 

• The names and resumes of any key 

employees that the proposed MLC may 

have engaged to design and operate the 

statutorily required functions of the 

MLC; 

• The contracts the proposed MLC 

has engaged in, or any funds or other 

items of value the proposed MLC has 

exchanged in anticipation of being 

designated as the MLC; 

• Information regarding any conflicts 

of interests, including but not limited to 

disclosure of common ownership or 

other direct or indirect economic 

relationships, or prospective 

relationships, between board members 

of the MLC, their associated publishers 

and/or catalogs, and actual or potential 

vendors; 

• To the extent unaddressed 

elsewhere, information regarding any 

relevant ‘‘request for information’’ or 

‘‘request for proposals’’ issued by the 

proposed MLC and responsive 

submissions to the extent this 

information is relevant to the entity’s 

ability to perform the statutory 

functions of the MLC. 

f. Funding. While the Register’s 

process of designating an MLC is 

separate from the establishment of an 

administrative assessment by the 

Copyright Royalty Judges, 

understanding the proposed funding for 

the MLC (in advance of the 

establishment of the administrative 

assessment) is important to confirming 

that the MLC will be ready to 

adequately perform its required 

functions by the license availability date 

and beyond. Further, the statute 

separately directs the MLC to establish 

procedures to guard against ‘‘abuse, 

waste, and the unreasonable use of 

funds.’’ 63 Accordingly the Office 

requests, for the purposes of this 

designation process only, and without 

prejudice to the future administrative 

assessment proceeding, to the extent 

available: 

• The anticipated annual costs of the 

proposed MLC in each of the first five 

years (or the anticipated range of costs), 

itemized to the extent possible; 

• Information related to the planned 

funding of the MLC operations prior to 

receipt of administrative assessment 

funds, including information that may 

relate to voluntary contributions; 64

• Information related to whether and 

to what extent the proposed MLC may 

take on debt obligations to fund its 

operations, and what collateral may be 

used to secure such debt; and 

• Information regarding whether and 

how the proposed MLC may apply 

unclaimed accrued royalties on an 

interim basis to defray operating costs, 

as well as any accompanying plans for 

future reimbursement of such royalties 

from future collections of the 

administrative assessment, including 

relevant legal considerations and 

guidelines in the event the proposed 

MLC does intend to apply unclaimed 

accrued royalties.65

g. Education and Outreach. The 

Office welcomes information regarding 

how a proposed MLC intends to pursue 

its education and outreach efforts, 

including how it intends to reach 

diverse audiences to ‘‘engage in diligent, 

good-faith efforts to publicize the 

collective and ability to claim 

unclaimed accrued royalties for 

unmatched musical works (and shares 

of such works).’’ 66 Please reference any 

relevant experience of proposed board 

members, personnel, and potential 

vendors. 

2. Governance 

The following questions are directed 

at identifying an entity that can best 

adhere to the required governance 

criteria outlined in section 115(d)(3)(D) 

of the MMA. 

a. Composition. As directed by 

statute, the Office requests: 

• The name and affiliation of each 

member of the board of directors 

described above and in 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(D)(i); 

• The name and affiliation of each 

member of the operations advisory 

committee described above and in 17 

U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(iv); 

• The name and affiliation of each 

member of the unclaimed royalties 

oversight committee described above 

and in 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(v); 

• The name and affiliation of each 

member of the dispute resolution 

committee described above and in 17 

U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(D)(vi); and 

• Proof that the proposed MLC is a 

nonprofit entity, not owned by any 

other entity that is created by copyright 

owners to carry out responsibilities set 

forth in the statute. 

In responding, please also address the 

following topics to explain how these 

individuals, and the respective board or 

committees, meet the statutory criteria: 

• The process and criteria used for 

selection of board and committee 

members; 

• How the proposed songwriter board 

members individually and together 

faithfully reflect the entire songwriting 

community; 67

• How the proposed music publisher 

board members individually and 

together faithfully reflect the entire 

music publisher community; 

• Whether the proposed MLC 

believes that the board members who 

are ‘‘representatives of music publishers 

. . . to which songwriters have assigned 

exclusive rights of reproduction and 

distribution of musical works with 

respect to covered activities’’ 68 could 

include representatives of music 

publishing administrators, where 

copyright ownership interests are not 

transferred to the publisher, but remain 

with the songwriter(s); 

• Whether board members, who are 

either representatives of music 

publishers or professional songwriters, 

intend to license covered activity 

through the proposed MLC, or whether, 

and to what extent, they intend to 

license covered activity directly with 

licensees; and 

• With respect to the unclaimed 

royalties oversight committee, how the 

proposed members possess specific 

insight and knowledge about the types 

of owners and songwriters whose works 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Notices 65753 

69MMA Signing Statement. 

70See H.R. Rep. No. 115–651, at 5 (stressing 

importance of transparency ‘‘to avoid unnecessary 

litigation as well as to gain the trust of the entire 

music community’’); S. Rep. No. 115–339, at 5 

(same). 

71 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(A). 

72Al Kohn & Bob Kohn, Kohn on Music Licensing 

170 (4th ed. 2010) (‘‘An administration agreement 

is an agreement between two or more people that 

provides one of the parties, called the 

administrator, the right to administer the music 

publishing activities . . . relating to the musical 

compositions covered by the agreement, in 

exchange for the payment of an administration fee. 

Unlike an exclusive administrator under a copublishing agreement, the administrator under an 

administration agreement generally does not 

acquire any ownership interest in the compositions 

covered by the agreement.’’). 

73See 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(5)(B)–(C). 

74See id. at 115(d)(5)(C)(i)(I). 

75See id. at 115(d)(5)(C)(iii). 

76 Id. at 115(d)(5)(A)(ii). 

may be susceptible to being unmatched 

and unclaimed. 

The Office notes the Presidential 

Signing Statement accompanying 

enactment of the law indicates an 

expectation that the Register work with 

the MLC, once it has been designated, 

to ensure that the Librarian retains the 

ultimate authority to appoint and 

remove all directors.69 The Office 

invites comment regarding how the 

proposed MLC intends to address issues 

relating to succession of board and 

committee members, and any other 

obligations that may be impacted by this 

statement. 

b. Governance Issues. The Office 

further requests that prospective MLCs 

provide: 

• Draft bylaws or other 

documentation regarding how the MLC 

will ensure that the operations of the 

MLC and its board are transparent and 

accountable; 70

• Information regarding how the 

proposed MLC board may identify and 

approach perceived or actual conflicts 

of interest, including with respect to 

applicable law and/or rules of 

professional responsibility, and the 

selection of board and committee 

members and individual vendors; and 

• Information regarding how the MLC 

may approach confidential information, 

including board and committee 

member’s access to sensitive 

information regarding marketplace 

rivals. 

3. Indicia of Endorsement and Support 

As noted, the MLC must be ‘‘endorsed 

by, and enjoy[] substantial support from, 

musical work copyright owners that 

together represent the greatest 

percentage of the licensor market for 

uses of such works in covered activities, 

as measured over the preceding 3 full 

calendar years. ’’ 71 The Office 

understands that there may be 

conflicting views regarding how the 

‘‘greatest percentage of the licensor 

market’’ should be measured—i.e., in 

market value, or in number of licenses. 

That said, the Office has made a few 

preliminary interpretations regarding 

this clause. For example, because the 

section 115 license applies to uses of 

phonorecords in the United States, the 

relevant market is the United States 

market for making and distributing 

phonorecords of musical works. 

Endorsement may be shown by 

including musical work copyright 

owners located outside the United 

States so long as they control the 

relevant rights to works played or 

otherwise distributed in the United 

States. Similarly, because the statute 

seeks support from ‘‘musical work 

copyright owners,’’ the relevant support 

should come from the parties who have 

a relevant ownership interest in the 

copyright to musical works (or shares of 

such works), in contrast to parties who 

do not possess any ownership interest 

in the musical work but rather the 

ability to administer the works.72

Further, the Office does not read this 

clause as prohibiting a musical work 

copyright owner from endorsing 

multiple prospective MLCs. 

The Office requests that a proposed 

MLC address how it interprets and 

satisfies this endorsement criteria, 

including an explanation of how the 

proposed MLC has calculated and 

documented the endorsement and 

substantial support of the requisite 

number of copyright owners. 

B. DLC and Its Board Members 

The Office hereby requests proposals 

for designation as the DLC that includes 

articles of incorporation, along with 

contact information for the collective. 

The Office requests that proposals 

include a list of proposed board 

members and their relevant background 

and affiliations. The Office further 

requests that proposals for the DLC 

designation include the following 

information: 

• A business plan, including any 

statement of purpose or principles and 

proposed schedule for establishment 

and operation of the proposed DLC in 

the first five years of its existence; 

• A detailed description outlining 

how the proposed DLC has or will have 

the administrative capabilities to 

perform the required functions; 73

• To the extent available, information 

regarding proposed governance 

structure, criteria for membership, and 

any anticipated dues; 74

• Information regarding how the 

proposed DLC intends to address issues 

of confidentiality as it relates to the DLC 

representative on the MLC board; 

• Views whether a single vendor may 

simultaneously provide services 

fulfilling the statutory obligations of the 

DLC and the MLC; 

• Information regarding how the 

proposed DLC intends to pursue its 

outreach efforts, including ‘‘reasonable, 

good-faith efforts to assist the 

mechanical licensing collective . . . by 

encouraging digital music providers to 

publicize the existence of the collective 

and the ability of copyright owners to 

claim unclaimed accrued royalties. ’’ 75

Please reference any relevant experience 

of proposed board members, personnel 

and potential vendors; and 

• Any other information that 

proposed DLC believes is relevant to 

demonstrate it best meets the selection 

criteria. 

Finally, the Office requests that the 

proposed DLC address how it interprets 

and satisfies the criteria that it must be 

‘‘endorsed by and enjoy[] substantial 

support from digital music providers 

and significant nonblanket licensees 

that together represent the greatest 

percentage of the licensee market for 

uses of musical works in covered 

activities, as measured over the 

preceding 3 calendar years. ’’ 76 Please 

include an explanation of how the 

proposed DLC has verified, calculated, 

and documented such endorsement and 

substantial support, including how the 

licensee market was calculated. 

III. Additional Opportunity for Public 

Participation 

Depending on the feedback received, 

the Office may request additional 

information in the form of a public 

notice, directed letters inviting 

prospective MLCs to supplement or 

respond to certain information, or a 

public meeting or hearing. 

The Office will also consider whether 

to utilize informal meetings to address 

discrete issues prior to issuing a 

designation by establishing guidelines 

for ex parte communications. The 

Office’s proceedings typically do not 

include discussions about the substance 

of a proceeding apart from the noticed 

phases of written comments and public 

hearings (although the Office does 

provide procedural guidance to 

participants). But for certain 

proceedings, the Office has determined 

that informal communications with 

participants can be beneficial in limited 

circumstances where the Office seeks 

specific information or follow-up 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
65754 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Notices 

77See, e.g., 82 FR 49550, 49563 (Oct. 26, 2017) 

(identifying guidelines for ex parte communications 

in section 1201 rulemaking); 82 FR 58153, 58154 

(Dec. 11, 2017) (identifying guidelines for ex parte 

communications in rulemaking regarding cable, 

satellite, and DART license reporting practices). 

78See U.S. Copyright Office, Ex Parte 

Communications, https://www.copyright.gov/1201/ 

2018/ex-parte-communications.html. 

regarding the public record.77 Following 

that precedent, in this proceeding, any 

such communication will be so limited. 

The primary means to communicate 

views in the course of the designation 

process will be through the submission 

of written comments. In other words, 

informal communication will 

supplement, not substitute for, the 

written record. While exact guidelines 

governing ex parte communications 

with the Office regarding the 

designation process may be issued at a 

later date on https://www.copyright.gov/ 

rulemaking/mma-designations/, they 

would be similar to those imposed by 

the Office for the recently concluded 

section 1201 proceeding.78 For example, 

the participating party or parties will be 

responsible for submitting a list of 

attendees and written summary of any 

oral communication to the Office, which 

will be made publicly available on the 

Office’s website. In sum, the Office will 

require that all such communications be 

on the record to ensure the greatest 

possible transparency. 

Dated: December 18, 2018. 

Regan A. Smith, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27743 Filed 12–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[18–098] 

Notice of Information Collection 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of information collection. 

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

and respondent burden, invites the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies to take this opportunity to 

comment on proposed and/or 

continuing information collections. 

DATES: All comments should be 

submitted within 30 calendar days from 

the date of this publication. 

ADDRESSES: All comments should be 

addressed to Gatrie Johnson, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

300 E Street SW, Washington, DC 

20546–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument(s) and instructions should 

be directed to Gatrie Johnson, NASA 

Clearance Officer, NASA Headquarters, 

300 E Street SW, JF0000, Washington, 

DC 20546 or email Gatrie.Johnson@

NASA.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The NASA Contractor Financial 

Management Reporting System is the 

basic financial medium for contractor 

reporting of estimated and incurred 

costs, providing essential data for 

projecting costs and hours to ensure that 

contractor performance is realistically 

planned and supported by dollar and 

labor resources. The data provided by 

these reports is an integral part of the 

Agency’s accrual accounting and cost 

based budgeting system. Respondents 

are reimbursed for associated cost to 

provide the information, per their 

negotiated contract price and associated 

terms of the contract. There are no ‘‘total 

capital and start-up’’ or ‘‘total operation 

and maintenance and purchase of 

services’’ costs associated since NASA 

policy requires that data reported is 

generated from the contractors’ existing 

system. The contractors’ internal 

management system shall be relied 

upon to the maximum extent possible. 

Comments submitted in response to this 

notice will be summarized and included 

in the request for OMB approval of this 

information collection. They will also 

become a matter of public record. 

II. Methods of Collection 

NASA collects this information 

electronically and that is the preferred 

manner, however information may also 

be collected via mail or fax. 

III. Data 

Title: NASA Contractor Financial 

Management Reports. 

OMB Number: 2700–0003. 

Type of Review: Renewal of a 

previously approved collection. 

Affected Public: Business or other for 

profit, not-for-profit institutions. 

Average Expected Annual Number of 

Activities: 500. 

Average Number of Responses per 

Activity: 12. 

Annual Responses: 6000. 

Frequency of Responses: Monthly. 

Average Minutes per Response: 540. 

Burden Hours: 54,000. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of NASA, including 

whether the information collection has 

practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

NSA’s estimate of the burden (including 

hours and cost) of the proposed 

collection of information; (3) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including automated 

collection techniques or the use of other 

forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection. 

They will also become a matter of 

public record. 

Gatrie Johnson, 

NASA PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27595 Filed 12–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[18–100] 

Notice of Information Collection 

SUMMARY: The Office of Chief Health 

and Medical Officer (OCHMO), within 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce public 

burden and maximize the utility of 

government information, provides the 

general public and other Federal 

agencies the opportunity to comment on 

an information collection project, as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995. This notice invites 

comment on an information collection 

project titled, ‘‘Electronic Medical 

Record for Implementation of TREAT 

Astronaut Act.’’ The TREAT Astronaut 

Act is subsection 441 within the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Transition 

Authorization Act of 2017 (115th 

Congress, https://www.congress.gov/ 

115/plaws/publ10/PLAW115publ10.pdf). 

The goal is to maintain digital 

medical records of routine health care, 

emergency treatment, and scheduled 

examinations for active or retired 

astronauts in order to develop a 

knowledge base and address gaps in 

services in support of medical 

monitoring, diagnosis and treatment of 

conditions associated with human space 

flight as stated in Public Law 115–10. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1