Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 3205 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request; 

Nondiscrimination Compliance 

Information Reporting 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is submitting this Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Administration 

and Management (OASAM)-sponsored 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public 

comments on the ICR are invited. 

DATES: The OMB will consider all 

written comments that agency receives 

on or before February 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under 30-day Review—Open 

for Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. 

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether 

the collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Department, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) if the 

information will be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of 

the agency’s estimates of the burden and 

cost of the collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (4) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information collection; and 

(5) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony May by telephone at 202–693– 

4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or 

by email at DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Department of Labor collects the 

Nondiscrimination Compliance 

Information Reporting data to help 

ensure a recipient of certain DOL 

Federal financial assistance programs 

does not discriminate in the 

administration, management, or 

operation of programs and activities. 

Information collections covered by this 

ICR include: 

• A grant applicant providing 

assurance that the applicant is aware of 

and, as a condition of receipt of Federal 

financial assistance, agrees to comply 

with the assurance requirements; 

• a DOL funds recipient maintaining 

a record of E.O. characteristics data and 

a log of any E.O. complaints for 

activities under an applicable DOL 

funded program; 

• a person who believes a relevant 

E.O. requirement may have been 

violated filing a complaint with either 

the funds recipient or with the DOL 

Civil Rights Center; 

• a State periodically filing a plan 

outlining administrative methods the 

State will use to ensure funds are not 

used in a discriminatory manner; and 

• a DOL funds recipient posting 

required notices. 

For additional substantive 

information about this ICR, see the 

related notice published in the Federal 

Register on November 12, 2020 (85 FR 

71946). 

This information collection is subject 

to the PRA. A Federal agency generally 

cannot conduct or sponsor a collection 

of information, and the public is 

generally not required to respond to an 

information collection, unless the OMB 

approves it and displays a currently 

valid OMB Control Number. In addition, 

notwithstanding any other provisions of 

law, no person shall generally be subject 

to penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information that does not 

display a valid OMB Control Number. 

See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. 

DOL seeks PRA authorization for this 

information collection for three (3) 

years. OMB authorization for an ICR 

cannot be for more than three (3) years 

without renewal. The DOL notes that 

information collection requirements 

submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs 

receive a month-to-month extension 

while they undergo review. 

Agency: DOL–OASAM. 

Title of Collection: Certification and 

Qualification To Examine, Test, Operate 

Hoists and Perform Other Duties. 

OMB Control Number: 1225–0077. 

Affected Public: Businesses or other 

for-profits institutions. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Respondents: 69,603. 

Total Estimated Number of 

Responses: 56,425,453. 

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 

350,450 hours. 

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs 

Burden: $0. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). 

Dated: January 8, 2021. 

Anthony May, 

Management and Program Analyst. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00699 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2019–03] 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Update to Compendium of U.S. 

Copyright Office Practices, Third 

Edition. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

releasing an update to its administrative 

manual, the Compendium of U.S. 

Copyright Office Practices, Third 

Edition. 

DATES: The updated version of the 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices, Third Edition is available on 

the Office’s website as of January 28, 

2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of 

Copyrights and Director of Registration 

Policy and Practice, by email at rkas@

copyright.gov; Catherine Zaller 

Rowland, Associate Register of 

Copyrights and Director of Public 

Information and Education, by email at 

crowland@copyright.gov; or Regan A. 

Smith, General Counsel and Associate 

Register of Copyrights, by email at 

regans@copyright.gov. All can be 

reached by telephone at 202–707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices, Third Edition 

(‘‘Compendium’’) is the administrative 

manual of the U.S. Copyright Office. It 

‘‘explains many of the practices and 

procedures concerning the Office’s 

mandate and statutory duties under title 

17 of the United States Code.’’ 37 CFR 

201.2(b)(7). ‘‘It is both a technical 

manual for the Copyright Office’s staff, 

as well as a guidebook for authors, 

copyright licensees, practitioners, 

scholars, the courts, and members of the 

general public.’’ Id. The Office 

conducted a comprehensive revision of 

the Compendium beginning in 2011, 

which it released as the Third Edition 

in December 2014. 79 FR 78911 (Dec. 

31, 2014). The Third Edition was 

revised in 2017 to ensure that its 

contents were consistent with case law 

and Office practices. 82 FR 45625 (Sept. 

29, 2017). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3206 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 

1See https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/ 

compendium-draft.pdf. 

2The comments can be found at https://

regulations.gov/document/COLC-2019-0001-0001/ 

comment. 

3American Society of Media Photographers 

Comment at 2–3 (May 31, 2019); Copyright Alliance 

Comment at 2–5 (May 31, 2019); Digital Media 

Licensing Association Comment at 2–3 (May 31, 

2019); Graphic Artists Guild Comment at 2–3 (May 

31, 2019); Kernochan Center Comment at 1–2 (May 

30, 2019); National Music Publishers’ Association 

Comment at 2 (May 31, 2019); National Press 

Photographers Association Comment at 3–6 (May 

31, 2019); North American Nature Photography 

Association Comment at 2–3 (May 31, 2019); 

Shaftel & Schmelzer Comment at 2–3 (May 30, 

2019). 

The Office released the latest draft 

revision to the Compendium on March 

15, 2019 (the ‘‘Public Draft’’). The Office 

posted the Public Draft on its public 

website and invited comments until 

May 31, 2019. The draft included 

proposed revisions to the sections 

discussing useful articles to reflect the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Star 

Athletica v. Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 

1002 (2017), as well as to reflect 

rulemakings the Office conducted in the 

intervening months since the last 

revision. It provided information 

regarding the new group registration 

options for unpublished works, 

unpublished photographs, published 

photographs, and serial, newspaper, and 

newsletter issues. It discussed the new 

deposit requirements for literary 

monographs, printed music, and 

photographic databases, as well as the 

changes to regulations governing use of 

the Single Application and Standard 

Application forms and technical 

upgrades to the electronic registration 

system. It also clarified certain Office 

practices, including under what 

circumstances the Office communicates 

with applicants, attempts to correct 

deficiencies in an application, registers 

claims with annotations, and refuses 

registration. An archived copy of the 

Public Draft is available on the Office’s 

website.1

The Office received twenty-four 

comments on the Public Draft.2 After 

carefully reviewing these comments, the 

Office decided to further revise a 

number of sections of the Public Draft. 

The result is a final update (the ‘‘Final 

Version’’), which is discussed in detail 

below. Additionally, the Final Version: 

reflects the adoption of the Music 

Modernization Act in October 2018, the 

Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act 

in October 2018, and the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2020; the Supreme Court’s recent 

decisions in Georgia v. 

Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 

1498 (2020), and Fourth Estate Public 

Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 

139 S. Ct. 881 (2019); the Second 

Circuit’s May 2020 decision in Sohm v. 

Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 

2020); as well as rulemaking activity 

that post-dated the Public Draft, 

including changes to the fee schedule 

and to regulations regarding registration 

of architectural works, the group 

registration option for short online 

literary works, group registration 

options for serials, newspapers, and 

newsletters, and changes in Office 

practices regarding the group 

registration option for unpublished 

works. A complete list of all sections 

that have been added, amended, 

revised, or removed is available on the 

Office’s website at https://

www.copyright.gov/comp3/ 

revisions.html, along with redlines that 

provide a direct comparison between 

the Final Version and the 2017 version 

of the Third Edition of the 

Compendium. 

Key revisions to the Public Draft 

reflected in the Final Version are as 

follows: 

1. Correspondence and Refusals 

Many of the comments regarding the 

Public Draft related to changes in 

language providing examiners with 

greater discretion to correspond with 

the applicant regarding deficiencies in 

an application or to refuse registration.3

Commenters expressed concern that 

these revisions signaled a change in the 

Office’s procedures that would provide 

fewer opportunities for applicants to 

correct problems in their applications. 

Some commenters feared that an undue 

focus on examining applications 

efficiently could come at the expense of 

providing adequate customer service to 

applicants. 

The Office has demonstrated a 

commitment to providing assistance to 

applicants as they navigate the 

registration process, including by 

publishing the Compendium and 

Circulars, providing a variety of other 

guidance documents on the Office’s 

website, and through the Office of 

Public Information and Education. 

Examiners have always had discretion 

to correspond with applicants or refuse 

registration in appropriate cases. In the 

vast majority of cases, where the issues 

in an application can be fixed, 

Examiners have corresponded—and will 

continue to correspond—with the 

applicant to request a clarification or to 

correct information on the application. 

However, correspondence is not 

always the preferred way to address 

issues. Correspondence can require a 

great deal of resources in certain 

situations and may not be productive. 

For example, if an applicant submits the 

incorrect form, transferring the 

application onto the correct form may 

require collecting additional fees or a 

different deposit, which cannot be done 

simply through correspondence. Other 

times, an applicant may make the same 

mistake repeatedly, despite guidance 

from the Office. In these situations, 

examiners need discretion to cease or 

forego correspondence and refuse 

registration. As explained in sections 

608, 1702, and 1703 of the 

Compendium, if an application is 

refused, the applicant will be informed 

in writing of the refusal, will receive an 

explanation of the basis for the refusal, 

and will have the option to appeal the 

refusal. 

To explain how the Office handles 

correspondence and refusals, and to 

address the concerns described above 

expressed by commenters, the Office 

has revised numerous sections of the 

Compendium. First, the Office further 

revised several sections in Chapter 600 

to clarify how an examiner will respond 

to a variance in an application. The 

Office uses the term ‘‘variance’’ to refer 

to any instance in which registration 

materials submitted by an applicant 

provide conflicting information. Section 

603 explains that there are four types of 

variances: immaterial; material but 

resolvable by reviewing the registration 

materials; material but potentially 

resolvable through correspondence; and 

material and not resolvable. The Office 

added definitions of the terms 

‘‘variance,’’ ‘‘material,’’ and 

‘‘immaterial’’ to the Glossary and added 

links to the sections in which those 

terms are used throughout Chapter 600. 

The Office removed the term 

‘‘deficiencies’’ from sections 603.2(C) 

and 605.3(D) and replaced it with the 

term ‘‘variances.’’ Similarly, the term 

‘‘substantial variance’’ was replaced 

with ‘‘material variance’’ in sections 

610.6(B), 610.6(D)(1), 610.6(D)(4), 

613.10(B), 613.10(E)(1)(b), and 618.8(E). 

Second, the Office revised sections 

603 and 603.2(C) to explain that only in 

‘‘exceptional cases’’ will the examiner 

refuse registration based on material 

variances. Sections 618.1, 618.4(A), 

618.8(A)(1), 618.8(A)(7), 618.8(D), 

619.13(K), 621.8(C)(2), 621.9(F), and 

621.9(H)(2) have been updated to 

identify specific situations in which the 

Office will typically correspond with an 

applicant. 

Third, the Office provided 

representative examples of exceptional 

circumstances in which an examiner 

will refuse registration without 

providing the applicant an opportunity 

to correct or clarify information in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 3207 

4North American Nature Photography 

Association Comment at 2–3. 

5National Music Publishers’ Association 

Comment at 2. 6See https://www.copyright.gov/eco/updates/ecoupdates.pdf. 7See https://www.copyright.gov/eco/help-filetypes.html. 

8Copyright Alliance Comment at 7; Digital Media 

Licensing Association Comment at 4; Graphic 

Artists Guild, Inc. Comment at 3; National Press 

Photographers Association Comment at 5; Shaftel & 

Schmelzer Comment at 2. 

application. Section 603.2(C) provides 

examples of an applicant who 

repeatedly omits required information 

despite multiple reminders from the 

Office that the information is required, 

and an applicant who submits the 

wrong form and filing fee. Other 

examples of instances in which an 

examiner will refuse registration appear 

in sections 618.8(C), 618.8(C)(6), 

618.8(D), 618.8(D)(4), 621.9(E)(6), 

621.9(F), and 621.9(F)(4), which clarify 

that the Office will refuse registration if 

the claim appears to be limited to 

uncopyrightable or de minimis material 

or if there appears to be no basis for 

asserting a valid claim in the work. 

Fourth, in response to the public 

comments discussed above, the Office 

revised several sections 204.3 and 609.1 

of the Compendium to state that an 

examiner ‘‘may,’’ instead of ‘‘will,’’ 

refuse registration if the applicant has 

not satisfied the formal and legal 

requirements for registration or if the 

applicant selects the wrong version of 

the Standard Application. 

Fifth, some revisions addressed 

important group registration issues. It 

can be particularly important for 

examiners to have the discretion to 

refuse registration when applicants fail 

to comply with the requirements for 

group registrations. The Copyright 

Office imposes requirements for group 

registration options to streamline the 

examination of multiple works within 

one application. Group registration 

options are not practicable unless 

applicants comply with the basic 

requirements for those options. 

Nevertheless, the Office has revised the 

Compendium to allow examiners 

discretion to correspond with applicants 

in appropriate circumstances. In 

response to comments from the North 

American Nature Photography 

Association,4 the Office revised section 

1105.3 to clarify that examiners may 

refuse registration if the applicant failed 

to satisfy the eligibility requirements for 

a particular option or may correspond if 

they determine the problem can easily 

be addressed. Similarly, changes to 

section 1114.1 clarify that if a 

photographer submits more than 750 

photographs in connection with an 

application for group registration of 

photographs, the Office may register the 

first 750 photographs listed in the 

application and remove the rest of the 

photos from the claim, or may refuse 

registration. 

Finally, the Office carefully 

considered a proposal relating to proper 

deposits but determined that the 

proposal would not be beneficial to the 

copyright system. The National Music 

Publishers’ Association expressed 

concern about an examiner’s discretion 

to refuse to register a work if the deposit 

was submitted in the wrong format, as 

discussed in section 625.2(B).5 The 

Office cannot register a work unless a 

proper deposit has been submitted. See 

section 204.3. Nor can the Office 

examine a work unless it is submitted 

in a form that can be opened and 

displayed by the Office’s system. The 

Office added new technology to the 

electronic system in December 2017 that 

prevents the submission of deposits in 

an incorrect format except in cases 

where the applicant uploads the deposit 

on a zip file or submits an electronic 

application and mails a physical copy 

that contains unacceptable file formats.6

The Office also updated the automated 

emails sent in response to applicants 

when they submit applications and the 

instructions on the deposit submission 

screen to indicate that deposits must be 

submitted in an acceptable file format, 

with a link to the list of acceptable 

formats.7 In light of these 

improvements, the Office believes it is 

appropriate to refuse registration if an 

applicant submits a deposit in an 

incorrect format. 

2. New Topics Reflecting Court 

Decisions 

The Public Draft has been updated in 

light of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. 

Wall-Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 

(2019), which held that the owner of a 

copyright for a U.S. work must have 

received a registration decision from the 

Office prior to instituting a claim for 

infringement in a U.S. court. Prior to 

this decision, the Office had maintained 

in the Compendium that this was the 

correct reading of the Copyright Act 

rather than the ‘‘application rule,’’ 

which would have required only the 

submission of an application to register 

the copyright. The Court confirmed that 

the Office’s interpretation was correct. 

The Compendium was revised in 

several places to delete references to 

courts that applied the ‘‘application 

rule.’’ Several sections in Chapter 1600 

were also revised to reflect the Supreme 

Court’s discussion of preregistration in 

the Fourth Estate decision. 

The Public Draft has also been revised 

to account for the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Georgia v. 

Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 

1498 (2020), regarding the government 

edicts doctrine. Section 313.6(C)(2) was 

revised in light of the Court’s holding 

that any ‘‘work that [a] judge or 

legislator produces in the course of his 

[or her] judicial or legislative duties is 

not copyrightable.’’ Id. at 1506. This 

section has also been revised to include 

several quotations from the decision 

that explain the Court’s reasoning. 

Section 717 was also revised in light of 

the Court’s decision to clarify that 

annotated codes or compilations of legal 

documents may be copyrightable if they 

contain sufficient original authorship 

and were prepared by a private party or 

non-lawmaking official not acting under 

the control of a legislative or judicial 

body. 

The Office also revised the Public 

Draft to account for the Second Circuit’s 

May 2020 decision in Sohm v. 

Scholastic Inc., 959 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 

2020), holding that a registration for a 

collective work may cover the 

component works in certain 

circumstances even if the authors and 

titles of those works are not listed in the 

application. The Office added a citation 

to this case in section 613.10(F) and 

removed the citation to Muench v. 

Houghton Mifflin, a decision from the 

Southern District of New York that was 

abrogated by the decision in Sohm. 

3. THREAD–ID 

When an examiner sends an email 

concerning an application, the Office 

assigns a ‘‘THREAD ID’’ to that 

communication. Several commenters 

objected to the sections in the Public 

Draft that indicated that a claim would 

be closed if an applicant did not include 

the THEAD–ID in the body of an email 

replying to email correspondence from 

the examiner. Commenters suggested 

that it should be sufficient if the 

THREAD–ID or case number is included 

either in the subject line of a response 

email or the body of the response 

message.8 While the Office understands 

this concern, the current system 

requires the inclusion of the THREAD– 

ID in the body of an email reply for the 

Office to be able to connect 

correspondence received from 

applicants with the relevant claims. As 

mentioned in a recent Statement of 

Policy and Notification of Inquiry 

regarding registration modernization, 

the Office intends to simplify the system 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3208 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 

9 85 FR 12704, 12711 (Mar. 3, 2020). 

10Shaftel & Schmelzer Comment at 2–3. 

11 Graphic Artists Guild, Inc. Comment at 3–4; 

National Press Photographers Association Comment 

at 10–11; North American Nature Photography 

Association Comment at 4. 

12 84 FR 66328 (Dec. 4, 2019). 

13National Press Photographers Association 

Comment at 7–9; American Society of Media 

Photographers Comment at 3. 

14National Press Photographers Association 

Comment at 8. 

15 17 U.S.C. 115. 

16 Daniel Ballard Comment at 1 (June 3, 2019). 

17The Office is not aware of any instances in 

which it has instructed an applicant seeking to 

register a work that has already been registered to 

remove the name of a co-author or co-claimant from 

an application, but it would be happy to discuss 

any such instances with applicants. 

18National Music Publishers’ Association 

Comment at 2–3; Copyright Alliance Comment at 7. 

for claims and correspondence when 

designing the next system.9

In response to public comments, the 

Office updated sections 605.3(A), 605.4, 

and 605.6(B) in the Final Version to 

clarify that the THREAD–ID must be 

included in the body, not the subject 

line, of any email reply from an 

applicant in order to connect the reply 

with the appropriate record. In 

November 2019, the Office also 

amended its correspondence templates 

so that all outgoing emails contain a 

clear warning at the beginning of the 

message instructing applicants that the 

THREAD–ID must be included in the 

body of any reply and explaining that 

the examiner will not receive the reply 

if the applicant does not comply with 

these instructions. The amended text 

found in all outgoing emails can be 

found in section 605.4 of the Final 

Version. The Office believes the revised 

text in the Compendium and in outgoing 

correspondence provide clear notice to 

applicants about the requirement to 

include the THREAD–ID in all email 

correspondence with examiners. 

4. No Replies 

One commenter urged the Office to 

reconsider its practice of closing a claim 

if there has been no response to written 

correspondence from the Office within 

forty-five days. The commenter noted 

that the original message could have 

been caught in a spam filter or 

overlooked by the applicant due to a 

variety of circumstances. The 

commenter requested that the Office call 

and send a second email to each 

applicant who has not responded to 

written correspondence within thirty 

days.10

It would be burdensome for the Office 

to call and send an email to every 

applicant who has not responded to 

written correspondence and technical 

constraints do not allow for that process 

to be automated within the current 

system. The Office will consider 

whether to include that functionality in 

the next system. Applicants bear the 

responsibility of providing the Office 

with accurate contact information and 

monitoring their email inboxes for 

correspondence. In the event that an 

applicant’s failure to reply to written 

correspondence was caused by 

extraordinary circumstances outside the 

applicant’s control, the applicant may 

use the process outlined in section 

605.8 of the Compendium to request 

that a claim be reopened. 

5. Publication 

Several commenters requested 

additional guidance in the Compendium 

regarding the distinction between 

published and unpublished works.11

The Office issued a Notification of 

Inquiry in December 2019 seeking 

comments from the public about 

possible strategies through which the 

Office can provide additional guidance 

regarding the determination as to 

whether a work has been published, 

particularly in the online context.12 The 

Office is in the process of reviewing the 

71 comments and reply comments it 

received in response to that Notification 

to determine the appropriate next steps. 

In the meantime, as suggested by 

commenters,13 the Office has provided 

additional examples of published and 

unpublished works in various sections 

of the Compendium. Specifically, the 

Office added several examples to 

sections 1114.1, 1114.5, and 1114.6(G) 

to clarify that both the distribution of 

photographs and the offering of one or 

more copies of a photograph to someone 

for the purpose of further distribution or 

public display constitute publication. 

These new examples should also assist 

applicants in determining the date of 

first publication of their photographs. 

One of the examples explicitly discusses 

the scenario raised by the National Press 

Photographers Association (‘‘NPPA’’) in 

which a photographer posts 

photographs in a password-protected 

site with authorization for clients to 

download and distribute the 

photographs, and clarifies that this 

constitutes publication. The Office also 

revised section 1906.1, as requested by 

NPPA, to clarify that sending an image 

to any client, as opposed to only 

newspapers, magazines or websites, 

with a license authorizing further 

distribution constitutes publication.14

The Office revised the definition of 

‘‘copies’’ and ‘‘phonorecords’’ in the 

Glossary to clarify that they include the 

singulars ‘‘copy’’ and ‘‘phonorecord,’’ so 

that distributing a single copy or 

phonorecord of a work can constitute 

publication. The Office made a similar 

revision to sections 1905 and 1905.1, 

which discuss distribution to the public. 

The Office also revised section 1008.3 to 

clarify that streaming is a performance, 

which may not constitute publication of 

the streamed work absent the 

distribution or offering of copies of the 

work, including for purposes of 

furthering the performance or 

enjoyment of the work.15

The Office declined the request of one 

commenter to revise language in section 

1906.1 that ‘‘[o]ffering a work directly to 

the public constitutes publication where 

the offeror has completed all the steps 

necessary for distribution to the public, 

such that the only further action 

required is an offeree’s action in 

obtaining a copy or phonorecord.’’ 16

This sentence in section 1906.1 and the 

examples that follow focus on defining 

what constitutes an offer. The definition 

of publication in the statute and the 

language in the surrounding paragraphs 

of this section of the Compendium make 

it sufficiently clear that an offer to 

distribute copies of a work only 

constitutes publication if the purpose is 

for the copies to be further distributed, 

publicly performed, or publicly 

displayed. 

6. Duplicate Submissions 

Two commenters raised a concern 

regarding perceived inconsistent 

implementation of the Office’s policy to 

not knowingly issue multiple 

registrations for the same claim, 

described in section 602.4(E) of the 

Compendium. Because the system does 

not allow the public to access 

information about pending applications, 

more than one music publisher may 

attempt to register the same composition 

without knowing that another 

application was filed previously. The 

commenters claimed that, in this 

situation, the Office has refused some 

applications and directed applicants to 

seek a supplementary registration that 

identifies additional authors and 

claimants, while the Office has 

instructed other applicants to remove 

the co-author/co-claimant identified on 

the first application from the second 

application, which results in the same 

work being registered twice.17 The 

commenters requested that applicants in 

this situation be permitted to file 

applications for supplementary 

registrations at no cost.18

The Office is aware that multiple 

registrations for the same work can be 

issued if the examiner is not aware of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 3209 

19 Kernochan Center Comment at 2. 

20 Id. at 2–3; Daan Erikson Comment at 1–2 (May 

31, 2019). 

21 Kernochan Center Comment at 2. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. at 3. 

24 Daan Erikson Comment at 2. 

25 17 U.S.C. 101 (defining ‘‘useful article’’). 

26 Daan Erikson Comment at 1–2. 

27See id. at 2. 

28 Kernochan Center Comment at 3. 

29 Id. at 2. 

30 Id. at 3–4. 

31Shaftel & Schmelzer Comment at 4. 

32See 85 FR 37341 (June 22, 2020). 

the prior registration at the time of the 

examination. There are also adverse 

claims, in which a second applicant 

claims to be the true author or owner of 

the copyright rather than the first 

applicant. If the examiner is aware of 

the prior registration and the applicant 

claims to be a co-claimant, the examiner 

should generally advise the applicant to 

seek a supplementary registration to 

identify additional authors and 

claimants, which would require 

payment of an additional fee. 

Additionally, recordation can be used to 

establish the filer’s co-ownership in the 

previously registered work. To the 

extent the application is filed by a new 

owner after a transfer from a previous 

owner, that is established in the public 

catalog by recording the transfer rather 

than amending the registration. 

7. Copyright Protection and Other 

Forms of Legal Protection 

As suggested by the Kernochan 

Center,19 the Office revised sections 

310.11, 905, and 924.5 to clarify that a 

work may be eligible for copyright 

protection, regardless of whether it may 

or may not be protected by other forms 

of legal protection. 

8. Useful Articles and Works of Artistic 

Craftsmanship 

Chapter 900 of the Compendium has 

been updated to reflect the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Star Athletica v. 

Varsity Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017). 

In providing new guidance for claims 

involving useful articles, the chapter 

also addresses claims concerning works 

of artistic craftsmanship. In light of our 

new guidance, the Kernochan Center 

and attorney Daan Erikson requested 

additional guidance on how to 

determine whether a work is a useful 

article.20

In reviewing Chapter 900, the 

Kernochan Center noted that ‘‘there are 

no examples of useful articles that in 

their entirety might be perceived as 

[pictorial, graphic, or sculptural] 

works.’’ 21 It advised the Office ‘‘to say 

up front that separability analysis 

doesn’t apply to the entire shape of the 

article.’’ 22 In consideration of this 

comment, the Office revised several 

sections, including sections 924, 924.2, 

924.3(B), 924.3(E), 924.3(F), and 925.3, 

to confirm that copyright does not 

protect the overall shape of a useful 

article. Rather, copyright protects the 

design features that can be conceptually 

separated from a useful article. 

In addition, the Office revised the 

draft to provide guidance on how to 

determine whether an item has an 

intrinsic utilitarian function and thus 

should be treated as a ‘‘useful article.’’ 

The Compendium makes clear that the 

Office does not consider the intended 

use of articles in industry when 

deciding whether a design is 

copyrightable. The Kernochan Center 

probed, however, ‘‘[d]oesn’t ‘intended 

use’ bear on whether the article has an 

‘intrinsic utilitarian purpose’?’’ 23 In 

response, the Office revised sections 

924.1 and 924.3(D) to confirm that when 

determining whether an article has an 

intrinsic utilitarian function, the Office 

focuses on the inherent, observable 

characteristics of the article, but will not 

consider the subjective intent or 

subjective reaction of any person in 

relation to that article. The Office also 

expanded sections 911, 920.2, 924.1, 

and 924.3(A) to list additional examples 

of two- and three-dimensional useful 

articles and confirmed that templates, 

stencils, and many costume designs are 

useful articles.24

Even if an article has an intrinsic 

utilitarian function, it will not 

necessarily be considered a useful 

article. Copyright law defines a useful 

article as ‘‘an article having an intrinsic 

utilitarian function that is not merely to 

portray the appearance of the article or 

to convey information.’’ 25 In response 

to a comment,26 the Office revised 

several sections to explain that certain 

articles, including maps, x-rays, and 

technical drawings, are not useful 

articles because their only utilitarian 

function is to convey information. 

The Office has made other revisions 

to clarify the two-step test to determine 

whether the design of a useful article 

may be eligible for copyright 

protection.27 Regarding the first prong, 

the Compendium further explains that 

the artistic feature that is extracted must 

‘‘qualify as a nonuseful pictorial, 

graphic, or sculptural work on its own.’’ 

Star Athletica, 137 S. Ct. at 1013. 

Because prior to the imaginary removal 

of the feature the work was a useful 

article and the removed feature must not 

be a useful article, at least some portion 

of the useful article must remain in the 

viewer’s mind after the artistic feature 

has been imaginatively removed from 

the article. The Kernochan Center asked 

the Office to confirm whether ‘‘‘some 

portion’ needs to remain physically or 

imaginatively,’’ and, ‘‘if the latter,’’ 

whether the Office is adopting the test 

proposed in Kieselstein Cord v. 

Accessories by Pearl.28 632 F.2d 989 (2d 

Cir. 1980). The Office revised the 

Compendium to specify that the 

Supreme Court explicitly declined to 

adopt alternate tests that had previously 

been applied by lower courts, and 

therefore the Office only applies the 

separability test set forth in Star 

Athletica, 137 S. Ct. at 1010–12. The 

Kernochan Center also suggested 

revisions to sections 924.3(A) and (B), 

which the Office adopted for clarity.29

In addition to revising chapter 900 to 

provide additional guidance on useful 

articles, the Office also revised several 

sections addressing works of artistic 

craftsmanship. The Kernochan Center 

requested clarification on how the 

Office distinguished a useful article 

from a work of artistic craftsmanship.30

In response, the Office revised sections 

925.1, 925.2, and 925.3 to modify the 

definition of works of artistic 

craftsmanship, add context from 

legislative history and examples of 

works with mechanical or utilitarian 

aspects, and provide additional 

information about the test the Office 

uses to determine if a work of artistic 

craftsmanship is copyrightable. The 

Office also clarified in section 908.1 that 

jewelry may be registered as works of 

artistic craftsmanship in certain 

circumstances (such as earrings, 

necklaces, rings), but jewelry designs 

affixed to useful articles are subject to 

the separability test. 

9. Puppets 

Shaftel & Schmelzer suggested that 

the Compendium explicitly address 

how puppets are examined and whether 

applicants should classify them as 

works of artistic craftsmanship or 

sculptures.31 The Office edited several 

sections of the Compendium, including 

sections 503.1(B), 618.4(C), 808.11(D), 

904, 910, to clarify that toys, dolls, 

stuffed animals, and puppets are 

typically treated as three-dimensional 

sculptural works. 

10. Short Online Literary Work 

The Final Version includes several 

sections that discuss the short online 

literary work group registration option, 

which was announced in the Federal 

Register on June 22, 2020.32 Sections 

1111.1 through 1111.7(R) discuss the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3210 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 

33See 84 FR 16784 (Apr. 23, 2019). 

34See 84 FR 60917 (Nov. 12, 2019). 

35See 85 FR 31981 (May 28, 2020). 

36See 84 FR 60918 (Nov. 12, 2019). 

37National Press Photographers Association 

Comment at 5–6. 

38 Id. at 7. 

eligibility requirements for this group 

registration option, as well as the filing 

fee and deposit requirements, and 

provide guidance on completing the 

application. The Office revised sections 

1407 and 1802 to add the new 

procedure for correcting or amending 

the information in a registration for 

short online literary works. This group 

registration option is also now listed as 

one of the available group registration 

options in numerous sections of the 

Compendium. 

11. Architectural Works 

The Final Version reflects the new 

requirements for registering 

architectural works, as described in the 

final rule published on April 23, 2019.33

Section 503.1(B) includes updated 

examples of what constitutes an 

architectural work. Sections 609.2, 

618.4(B), 619.13(E) and 1509.3(D) have 

been updated to reflect the requirement 

to submit an online application and 

provide a digital deposit when applying 

to register an architectural work. 

Sections 1404 and 1411 clarify that 

paper applications may not generally be 

used to register architectural works and 

describe the procedure for requesting a 

waiver to permit a paper application. 

12. Group Newspapers 

The Office amended several parts of 

section 1108 to reflect the changes to the 

regulations for the group registration 

option for newspapers that were 

finalized in November 2019.34 The 

Office revised sections 1108.5 and 1116 

to reflect the requirement to upload 

digital deposits and the phase-out of the 

option to submit microfilm as a deposit. 

The Office also updated section 

1108.5(B) to explain the new procedure 

for requesting special relief from the 

digital deposit requirement. 

13. Group Newsletters 

The Final Version reflects the changes 

to the group registration option for 

newsletters, as described in the final 

rule published in May 2020.35 The 

Office revised sections 1109 and 1116 

and the Glossary to remove the 

requirement that newsletters be 

published at least two days per week to 

qualify for this registration option. 

Section 1109.5(B) was edited to clarify 

that special characters should not be 

included in the file name for the 

deposits. Section 1109.5(D) was updated 

to reflect the new procedure for 

requesting special relief from the digital 

deposit requirement. 

14. Group Serials 

The Office amended the Public Draft 

to reflect the changes to regulations for 

the group registration option for serials 

that were finalized in November 2019.36

The Office revised several parts of 

sections 1107.5, 1107.6, 1116 and the 

Glossary to reflect the requirement to 

upload digital deposits and the phaseout of paper applications and physical 

deposits. The Office also updated 

section 1107.5(B) to explain the new 

procedure for requesting special relief 

from the digital deposit requirement. 

15. Group Photographs 

The NPPA requested clarification 

regarding a few points relating to group 

registration options for photographs. 

First, with respect to registration of a 

group of published photographs, the 

NPPA requested that the Compendium 

state more clearly that each photograph 

in the group must have been first 

published in the same calendar year, 

and that the applicant must specify the 

date each photograph was first 

published.37 The Office revised section 

1114.1 of the Compendium to make that 

point more clearly. 

NPPA also requested clarification on 

the title and file names for specific 

photographs.38 The Office revised 

section 1114.6(A) to specify that the title 

and file name for a particular 

photograph can be the same or different 

and that the file names provided with 

the list of titles must correspond to the 

file names included in the deposit. It is 

essential that the applicant provide title 

and file names and that each file name 

correspond to the file name of a 

photograph included in the deposit. If 

there is a discrepancy between the file 

names listed in the application and/or 

title list and those included in the 

deposit, section 1114.6 provides that the 

examiner may ask the applicant to 

exclude certain photographs from the 

claim or may refuse registration for the 

entire group, depending on the scope of 

the discrepancy. 

16. Unpublished Works 

The Office recently created a new 

group registration option for 

Unpublished Works. Since it issued the 

Public Draft, the Office developed new 

practices relating to the most common 

problems it has observed relating to 

these applications. The new practices 

are reflected in sections 1106, 1106.2, 

1106.4, 1106.5, 1106.5(B), and 

1106.5(E). 

Specifically, sections 1106.4 and 

1106.5(B) explain that, if the titles 

provided in the application do not 

match the file names shown in the 

deposit, the examiner may remove the 

mismatched titles and files from the 

record. These sections also include new 

examples that illustrate this practice. 

Section 1106.5(B) explains that if the 

applicant fails to provide titles of the 

works, the examiner may correspond 

with the applicant or may refuse 

registration. It also indicates that if an 

applicant provides a ‘‘collection’’ title 

(in addition to providing separate titles 

for each work), the collection title will 

be removed. 

Section 1106 has been revised to 

specify that if any of the works are 

uncopyrightable, the examiner will 

refuse to register those works and issue 

a registration for any remaining works 

in the group, rather than requesting 

permission to remove the 

uncopyrightable works. This section 

also provides that applicants may 

appeal the examiner’s decision. 

Section 1106.2 explains that an 

application for a group registration for 

unpublished works must be filed using 

the online application designated for a 

‘‘Group of Unpublished Works.’’ This 

section has been revised to clarify that 

if an applicant attempts to use the 

Standard Application or a paper 

application to register a group of 

unpublished works, the examiner may 

register the first copyrightable work 

listed in the application or the first 

copyrightable work uploaded to the 

electronic registration system. The 

examiner may notify the applicant that 

the registration extends only to the title 

listed in the certificate and explain how 

the remaining works may be registered. 

The examiner may also add an 

annotation stating that the registration 

only extends to the title listed in the 

certificate and remove the titles and 

deposits for the remaining works from 

the record. 

The Office removed the language in 

section 1106.4 that encouraged 

applicants to submit their files in a zip 

folder. The Office has determined that 

PA/SR claims account for the majority 

of GRUW submissions, and it is difficult 

to examine these claims if they are 

submitted in a zip folder. 

Sections 1802.4 and 1802.7(C) were 

revised to clarify that a supplementary 

registration may not be used to 

transform a registration for a group of 

unpublished works into a registration 

for a single published work. This is 

similar to the rule that applies to a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 3211 

39 Graphic Artists Guild Comment at 4. 

40Shaftel & Schmelzer Comment at 4. 

41Copyright Alliance Comment at 6. 

42National Music Publishers’ Association 

Comment at 4. 

43See 83 FR 2371 (Jan. 17, 2018). 

44Engine Advocacy Comment at 8–11 (May 14, 

2019); Cyberlaw Clinic Comment at 1–8 (May 31, 

2019). 

45Copyright Alliance Comment at 8. 

46See 85 FR 9374 (Feb. 19, 2020). 

registration for an unpublished 

collection. 

In addition to these changes in the 

Compendium, the Office plans to create 

a new landing page with links to a new 

circular, a set of FAQs, video tutorials, 

and help text for this new group 

registration option. The Office believes 

these new practices and updated 

materials will clarify the application 

procedures for this group registration 

option, making it easier for applicants to 

comply with the requirements. 

17. Unpublished Collections 

Chapter 1100 of the Compendium 

notes in several places that the 

unpublished collections registration 

option was eliminated as of March 15, 

2019. Graphic Artists Guild commented 

that visual artists used that registration 

option frequently in the past and 

requested that the note regarding its 

elimination appear as a separate section 

for ease of reference.39 The Office added 

section 1106.6, which discusses the 

elimination of the unpublished 

collections registration option in detail. 

The Office also added cross-references 

in section 901 to the sections in the 

Compendium discussing the group 

registration option for unpublished 

works, as well as all other available 

registration options for visual art 

works.40

18. Collective Works 

The Copyright Alliance criticized the 

description of the originality 

requirement for compilations in section 

312.2 of the Compendium, which states 

that the Office ‘‘generally will not 

register a compilation containing only 

two or three elements, because the 

selection is necessarily de minimis.’’ 

The Copyright Alliance claims the 

Office relies on this language to refuse 

to register compilations containing 

fewer than four works.41

The Office has not revised this section 

of the Compendium. Section 312.2 

clearly states that a compilation is 

registrable if there is ‘‘some minimal 

degree of creativity’’ in the selection, 

coordination, or arrangement of the 

component materials. The Office 

believes it is helpful to inform the 

public that, in general, the selection of 

fewer than four elements will not satisfy 

the originality requirement. However, 

the Office does not have a bright line 

rule, either in the Compendium or in 

practice, regarding the number of works 

that must be included in a compilation 

to be registrable. Each application is 

examined individually to determine if 

the work displays the requisite 

originality. 

19. Sound Recording/Recorded Work 

Section 1104 discusses the option to 

register a sound recording and a musical 

work embodied in that recording in one 

application with one filing fee. It 

explains that if the Office determines 

the works are eligible to be registered in 

one application, it will issue one 

certificate of registration for both works 

with a registration number beginning 

with the prefix SR or SRu, depending on 

whether the works are published or 

unpublished. NMPA expressed concern 

that the policy of registering a sound 

recording and a musical work with only 

an SR registration number may confuse 

those seeking to locate a musical work 

copyright owner and suggested that the 

Office grant two separate registration 

numbers in this situation, one for the 

sound recording and one for the musical 

work.42 The Office appreciates this 

concern, but longstanding regulations 

only permit the Office to issue one 

registration based on one application. 

Applicants who want to have separate 

registration numbers for a sound 

recording and the musical work may 

submit separate applications on Form 

PA and Form SR. 

20. Musical Works 

The Final Version includes changes to 

the sections discussing the deposit 

requirements for musical works, which 

were updated in January 2018.43 The 

Office revised Circular 50 (Musical 

Compositions) to reflect this change 

prior to releasing the Public Draft, but 

it inadvertently failed to make similar 

edits to the Compendium. Several parts 

of section 1509.2 were updated to 

explain that ‘‘best edition’’ copies are 

required if a musical work is published 

in printed form, but are not required if 

the work is published solely on 

phonorecords or in a motion picture. 

21. Artificial Intelligence 

Engine Advocacy and the Cyberlaw 

Clinic offered suggestions for evaluating 

the registrability of works created using 

artificial intelligence.44 The Office 

recognizes that the increasing use of 

artificial intelligence in developing 

creative works raises important 

copyright issues. This is an evolving 

area of copyright law, and the Office is 

participating in and monitoring 

discussions on these issues. For 

example, the Office held a symposium 

with the World Intellectual Property 

Organization (WIPO) entitled Copyright 

in the Age of Artificial Intelligence in 

February 2020. The Office has no plans 

to amend the relevant sections of the 

Compendium at this time. 

22. Statutory Developments 

The Copyright Alliance noted that the 

Public Draft did not mention many new 

procedures the Office has established 

under the Music Modernization Act, 

including procedures for filing 

schedules for pre-1972 sound 

recordings, notices of noncommercial 

use, or opt-outs, and that references to 

pre-1972 sound recordings are 

inaccurate or out of date.45 The Office 

is considering updating the 

Compendium to reflect all changes 

made in response to the passage of the 

Music Modernization Act, including 

new procedures adopted by the Office 

in connection with pre-1972 sound 

recordings and other procedures noted 

by the Copyright Alliance. Those 

changes would be made in a future 

revision of the Compendium. In the 

meantime, the Office added the Music 

Modernization Act to the list of major 

copyright legislation, explained that it 

provides remedies for unauthorized use 

of pre-1972 sound recordings if certain 

schedules are filed, revised its 

discussion of preemption, and provided 

a link to the Copyright Office’s web page 

discussing pre-1972 sound recordings. 

Sections 102.5, 102.7, 202.1, 313.5, 608, 

803.5(D), 1702. 

The Final Version adds the Marrakesh 

Treaty to the list of copyright treaties 

the United States has ratified in sections 

102.7 and 2004.1. And section 

313.6(C)(1) indicates that certain literary 

works created by civilian faculty 

members of U.S. military academies and 

institutions are not ‘‘U.S. Government 

Works,’’ based on the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. 

23. Other Issues 

The Office revised various sections of 

the Public Draft to reflect new fees or 

new terminology added to the fee 

schedule adopted on February 19, 

2020.46 The Office made a number of 

additional changes in the Final Version 

to ensure that the contents are 

consistent with regulatory requirements 

and that the Compendium is internally 

consistent. These changes include 

revisions to: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
3212 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 9 / Thursday, January 14, 2021 / Notices 

• Section 611.2(B) to use language 

that matches language used in the eCo 

application; 

• section 617.3 to clarify that an 

organization need not provide its 

country of citizenship if it has 

completed the domicile space; 

• section 618.4 to remove language 

suggesting that ‘‘direction’’ is an 

acceptable authorship statement for a 

dramatic work; 

• section 609 to clarify that Form SE 

may not be used to register an 

unpublished serial and to clarify which 

administrative classes the Office has 

established for registration purposes; 

• sections 607, 1509.1(F) and 

1509.1(F)(4)(b) to clarify that a computer 

program containing trade secrets may be 

registered with object code, but the 

applicant must include at least ten 

pages of source code in the deposit; 

• sections 1010.3 and 1010.4 to 

clarify that, although digital uploads are 

preferred, physical deposits for claims 

involving online works may be sent to 

the Office by a commercial carrier, such 

as FedEx or UPS; 

• section 1509.2(B)(4) to summarize 

the deposit requirements for sound 

recordings first published in a foreign 

country; 

• sections 624.3, 1802.8(B)(6) and 

1802.9(F) to explain that a typed or 

printed signature will be accepted on a 

paper application; 

• section 625.3 to clarify that if there 

is a ‘‘short fee,’’ the effective date of 

registration will be the date the full fee 

is received; 

• section 1807.4(B) to clarify that if 

the payment for a registration 

application ‘‘bounces,’’ the Office will 

cancel the registration and notify the 

applicant, as required by regulation; 

• sections 618.4(A), 1010.4, and 

1508.1 to reflect technical upgrades that 

have been made to the eCO system; and 

• various sections to reflect a new 

format used for annotating registration 

certificates and to include commonlyused annotations. 

The Final Version also corrects 

typographical errors and errors in 

citations or cross-references, replaces 

outdated terminology, and makes 

formatting changes. The Table of 

Authorities has been updated to reflect 

new citations used in or removed from 

the Compendium. Finally, the Office 

has added references to additional court 

decisions that have cited the 

Compendium since the 2017 version 

was released. 

Dated: January 8, 2021. 

Shira Perlmutter, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00604 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: 21–001] 

Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially 

Exclusive Patent License 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant a 

partially exclusive patent license. 

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice of 

its intent to grant an exclusive, coexclusive or partially exclusive patent 

license in the United States of America 

to practice the invention(s) described 

and claimed in U.S Patent No. 9,023,642 

B2, Method and Apparatus for a 

Miniature Bioreactor System for LongTerm Cell Culture to Brand Labs USA, 

LLC, having its principal place of 

business in Pompano Beach, Florida. 

The fields of use may be limited. NASA 

has not yet made a determination to 

grant the requested license and may 

deny the requested license even if no 

objections are submitted within the 

comment period. 

DATES: The prospective exclusive may 

be granted unless NASA receives 

written objections including evidence 

and argument, no later than January 29, 

2021 that establish that the grant of the 

license would not be consistent with the 

requirements regarding the licensing of 

federally owned inventions as set forth 

in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing 

regulations. Competing applications 

completed and received by NASA no 

later than January 29, 2021 will also be 

treated as objections to the grant of the 

contemplated exclusive, co-exclusive or 

partially exclusive license. Objections 

submitted in response to this notice will 

not be made available to the public for 

inspection and, to the extent permitted 

by law, will not be released under the 

Freedom of Information Act. 

ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the 

prospective license may be submitted to 

Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, 

MS AL, NASA Johnson Space Center, 

2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 

77058. Phone (281) 483–4871. Facsimile 

(281) 483–6936. Email: jsc-patentof@

mail.nasa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Walter Ugalde, Technology Transfer and 

Commercialization Office/XT1, Johnson 

Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, (281) 

483–8615. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice of intent to grant an exclusive, 

co-exclusive or partially exclusive 

patent license is issued in accordance 

with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 

404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these 

inventions have been assigned to the 

United States of America as represented 

by the Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

The prospective license will comply 

with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 

and 37 CFR 404.7. 

Information about other NASA 

inventions available for licensing can be 

found online at http://

technology.nasa.gov. 

Helen M. Galus, 

Agency Counsel for Intellectual Property. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00610 Filed 1–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice: (21–002)] 

Notice of Intent To Grant a Partially 

Exclusive License 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant 

partially exclusive patent license. 

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice of 

its intent to grant a partially exclusive 

patent license in the United States to 

practice the inventions described and 

claimed in U.S. Patent No. 7,075,295 B2 

for an invention titled ‘‘Magnetic Field 

Response Sensor for Conductive 

Media,’’ NASA Case Number LAR– 

16571–1; U.S. Patent No. 7,589,525 B2 

for an invention titled ‘‘Magnetic Field 

Response Sensor for Conductive 

Media,’’ NASA Case Number LAR– 

16571–2; U.S. Patent No. 7,759,932 B2 

for an invention titled ‘‘Magnetic Field 

Response Sensor for Conductive 

Media,’’ NASA Case Number LAR– 

16571–3; U.S. Patent No. 7,086,593 B2 

for an invention titled ‘‘Magnetic Field 

Response Measurement Acquisition 

System,’’ NASA Case Number LAR– 

16908–1; U.S. Patent No. 7,047,807 B2 

for an invention titled ‘‘Flexible 

Framework for Capacitive Sensing,’’ 

NASA Case Number LAR–16974–1; U.S. 

Patent No. 7,159,774 B2 for an invention 

titled ‘‘Magnetic Field Response 

Measurement Acquisition System,’’ 

NASA Case Number LAR–17280–1; U.S. 

Patent No. 8,430,327 B2 for an invention 

titled ‘‘Wireless Sensing System Using 

Open-Circuit, Electrically-Conductive 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES