Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59953 

with its Data Initiative (29 CFR 

1904.41). 

OSHA is also proposing to revise 

Section 1904.39, which currently 

requires an employer to report to OSHA, 

within eight hours, all work-related 

fatalities and in-patient hospitalizations 

of three or more employees. The 

proposed rule would require an 

employer to report to OSHA, within 

eight hours, all work-related fatalities 

and all work-related in-patient 

hospitalizations; and within 24 hours, 

all work-related amputations. 

This regulation was developed in 

accordance with the principles of 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563. Executive Order 12866 

requires that OSHA estimate the 

benefits, costs, and net benefits of 

proposed regulations. The Agency 

estimates the regulation will cost 

approximately $8.5 million, on an 

annualized basis. As discussed 

elsewhere in this preamble, the Agency 

believes the annual benefits, while 

unquantified, are significantly in excess 

of the annual costs. 

Background 

On June 22, 2011 OSHA proposed to 

update Appendix A to Subpart B of its 

Injury and Illness Recording and 

Reporting regulation. See 76 FR 36414. 

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) also contained a proposed 

requirement to report to OSHA, within 

eight hours, all work-related fatalities 

and all work-related in-patient 

hospitalizations; and within 24 hours, 

all work-related amputations. The 

comment period for the NPRM ran 

through September 20, 2011. On 

September 16, 2011 OSHA received a 

request to extend the comment period 

through October 20, 2011. The National 

Automobile Dealers Association 

requested this extension to provide 

them more time to evaluate the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics injury and illness 

data used for the proposed industry 

exemption analysis. OSHA has agreed to 

this request. The docket is being 

reopened for comment for an additional 

30 days. 

Public Submissions 

OSHA invites comment on all aspects 

of the proposed rule. OSHA specifically 

encourages comment on the questions 

raised in the issues and potential 

alternatives sections of this preamble. 

Interested persons must submit 

comments by October 28, 2011. The 

Agency will carefully review and 

evaluate all comments, information, and 

data, as well as all other information in 

the rulemaking record, to determine 

how to proceed. 

You may submit comments in 

response to this document (1) 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal e-rulemaking portal; (2) by fax; 

or (3) by hard copy. All submissions 

must identify the Agency name and the 

OSHA docket number (Docket No. 

OSHA–2010–0019) or RIN (RIN No. 

1218–AC50) for this rulemaking. You 

may supplement electronic submissions 

by uploading document files 

electronically. If, instead, you wish to 

mail additional materials in reference to 

an electronic or fax submission, you 

must submit three copies to the OSHA 

docket office (see ADDRESSES section). 

The additional materials must clearly 

identify your electronic comments by 

name, date, and docket number, so 

OSHA can attach them to your 

comments. 

Because of security-related 

procedures, the use of regular mail may 

cause a significant delay in the receipt 

of submissions. For information about 

security procedures concerning the 

delivery of materials by hand, express 

delivery, messenger or courier service, 

please contact the OSHA docket office 

at (202) 693–2350 (TTY (877) 889– 

5627). 

Access to Docket 

Comments in response to this Federal 

Register notice are posted at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, the Federal erulemaking portal. Therefore, OSHA 

cautions individuals about submitting 

personal information such as social 

security numbers and birthdates. 

Although submissions are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index, some 

information (e.g., copyrighted material) 

is not publicly available to read or 

download through that Web site. All 

comments and exhibits, including 

copyrighted material, are available for 

inspection and copying at the OSHA 

docket office. Information on using 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

comments and access dockets is 

available on that Web site. Contact the 

OSHA docket office for information 

about materials not available through 

the Web site and for assistance in using 

the Internet to locate docket 

submissions. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register document are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

document, as well as news releases and 

other relevant information, also are 

available at OSHA’s Web page at http:// 

www.osha.gov. For specific information 

about OSHA’s Recordkeeping rule, go 

the Recordkeeping page on OSHA’s Web 

page. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction of Dr. David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. It is 

issued under Sections 8 and 24 of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 

U.S.C. 657, 673), 5 U.S.C. 553, and 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 4–2010 (75 

FR 55355, 9/10/2010). 

Signed at Washington, DC, on September 

22, 2011. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24779 Filed 9–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. RM 2011–6] 

Designation of Agent To Receive 

Notification of Claimed Infringement 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is 

issuing this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to solicit public comment 

on proposals to update its interim 

regulations governing the designation by 

online service providers of agents to 

receive notifications of claimed 

copyright infringement as provided for 

in the Copyright Act. 

DATES: Written comments are due 

November 28, 2011. Reply comments 

are due December 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The Copyright Office 

strongly prefers that comments be 

submitted electronically. A comment 

page containing a comment form is 

posted on the Copyright Office Web site 

at http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ 

NPR. The online form contains fields for 

required information including the 

name and organization of the 

commenter, as applicable, and the 

ability to upload comments as an 

attachment. To meet accessibility 

standards, all comments must be 

uploaded in a single file in either the 

Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) 

format that contains searchable, 

accessible text (not an image); Microsoft 

Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format 

(RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a 

scanned document). The maximum file 

size is 6 megabytes (MB). The name of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59954 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the submitter and organization should 

appear on both the form and the face of 

the comments. All comments will be 

posted publicly on the Copyright Office 

Web site exactly as they are received, 

along with names and organizations. If 

electronic submission of comments is 

not feasible, please contact the 

Copyright Office at 202–707–8125 for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Kasunic, Deputy General 

Counsel, Copyright Office, GC/I&R, P.O. 

Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Fax: (202) 

707–8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In 1998, the Online Copyright 

Infringement Liability Limitation Act 

(Title II of the Digital Millennium 

Copyright Act, Pub. L. 105–304, 112 

Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998)) amended 

chapter 5 of the Copyright Act, Title 17 

of the United States Code, to provide 

limitations on liability for online service 

providers relating to material on their 

systems. With respect to material 

residing, at the direction of a user, on a 

system or network controlled or 

operated by or for the service provider, 

the limitations of liability under section 

512 are available only if the service 

provider has satisfied certain 

conditions, one of which is the 

designation of an agent to receive 

notification of claimed copyright 

infringement to the Copyright Office, 

and through the service provider’s Web 

site in a publicly accessible location. 

The Copyright Office is required to 

maintain an online directory of 

designated agents. 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(2). 

Although this takedown notification 

process is detailed in subsection 512(c) 

and is a condition precedent for the 

limitations of liability under that 

subsection, the notification process and 

the elements of notification set forth in 

subsection 512(c)(3) are also referenced 

in subsections 512(b) and (d), relating to 

system caching and information 

location tools respectively. 

Because that Act was effective on its 

date of enactment and a procedure to 

enable the designation of agents needed 

to be in place immediately thereafter, 

the Copyright Office issued, without 

opportunity for comment, interim 

regulations governing the designation by 

service providers of agents to receive 

notifications of claimed infringement. 

63 FR 59233 (Nov. 3, 1998). The Office 

made clear that the interim regulations 

would be replaced by more complete 

regulations to be promulgated following 

notice and opportunity for comment. 

The interim regulations have functioned 

satisfactorily for many years, but issues 

have arisen with respect to the currency 

and accuracy of the information in the 

directory, and the Office also intends to 

implement an electronic process by 

which service providers may designate 

agents to receive notifications of 

claimed infringement and an electronic 

database to search for designated agents 

of online service providers. This notice 

provides a general overview of the 

Office’s vision for the new system and 

seeks public comment on proposed 

rules that would govern the submission 

and updating of information relating to 

designated agents. 

Discussion 

Electronic Filing. The Copyright 

Office is developing an online 

submission form to be used by service 

providers to designate their respective 

agents to receive notifications of 

claimed copyright infringement. If a 

service provider chooses to designate an 

agent, it will be required to utilize the 

online procedure to submit the required 

information to the Copyright Office. 

Service providers that have already 

designated an agent under the interim 

regulations will be required to file new 

designations. A submission that does 

not provide information for each 

required field, or that provides 

information identified as inappropriate 

(e.g., a phone number field that is 

completed with all zeros), will be 

automatically rejected. Once this 

electronic system is adopted, the Office 

will no longer accept paper 

submissions, including documents 

entitled ‘‘Interim Designation of Agent 

to Receive Notifications of Claimed 

Infringement,’’ as it did pursuant to the 

interim regulations. Given that online 

service providers, by definition, operate 

in an online environment, the Office 

does not anticipate that an electroniconly designation procedure would be 

burdensome to submitters. Moreover, an 

exclusively electronic process is integral 

to an increase in efficiency and a 

reduction of costs in the system. 

In order to access the electronic 

designation of agent form, the Office 

proposes to require service providers to 

establish accounts with the Copyright 

Office, obtaining a username and 

password, through the Copyright 

Office’s Web site. There would be no 

charge for establishing an account. The 

account must be used in order to 

periodically validate designation 

information or to make changes to 

designation information. The account 

will serve as a means of authenticating 

the person or entity entitled to validate 

or amend a service provider’s 

designation of agent information. The 

Office seeks comment on this 

requirement. 

While the Copyright Office is willing 

to consider allowing a service provider 

to delegate this responsibility to an 

agent or other designee, there may be 

reasons to be concerned about the 

accuracy of amendments or validations 

of existing designation information that 

are not provided by the service provider 

itself. If the designated agent were 

permitted to do so, the service provider 

nevertheless would bave to assume all 

responsibility for the acts of the agent. 

The Office seeks public comment on the 

costs and/or benefits of allowing service 

providers to delegate, to persons other 

than their employees, responsibility for 

maintaining their designated agent 

information. The current proposed 

regulation requires that the designation, 

or any validation or updating of the 

information in the designation as 

described below, be submitted by the 

service provider itself. 

Periodic Validation. A small random 

sampling of a portion of the current 

directory reveals that a number of 

existing designations are associated 

with businesses that have ceased 

operations. Although the interim 

regulations require a service provider 

that ceases operations to notify the 

Copyright Office by certified or 

registered mail, few online service 

providers have complied with this 

requirement. Similarly, although the 

Office is unable to discern the precise 

percentage of designations that contain 

outdated information, the number of 

amended designations that the Office 

does receive suggests that many 

designations probably are outdated, and 

it is likely that a sizable portion of paper 

designations contain information that is 

no longer accurate. In order to help 

maintain the accuracy and utility of the 

directory of designated agents, the 

Office proposes that each entity that has 

filed a designation of agent using the 

online template be required, either 

annually, every two years, or at some 

other regular interval, to validate the 

information set forth in its designation 

to insure that the directory remains 

accurate. If any information is no longer 

accurate, the validation process would 

enable the responsible party to amend 

the designation to correct any outdated 

information. Any revision in a service 

provider’s designation of an agent 

would create a new record, or version, 

within the Copyright Office’s database. 

Through the use of ‘‘versioning’’ of the 

records, the Copyright Office will be 

able to provide a record indicating what 

information was in the directory for a 

particular service provider on any given 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59955 

date. Such information could become 

important in litigation in order to 

ascertain whether a service provider 

was in compliance with the 

requirements of the statute at a 

particular point in time. Prior versions 

of a designation will constitute public 

records that may be obtained from the 

Copyright,Office, e.g., when needed for 

use in litigation. The Office requests 

comments on whether such prior 

versions should also be made accessible 

via the Office’s public Web site. In 

determining whether to make prior 

versions available via the Web site, 

consideration should be given to the 

possible additional cost of constructing 

a system that provides this form of 

access (a cost that would most likely be 

reflected in greater fees), the potential 

for confusion (i.e., whether a person 

seeking current information about a 

service provider’s designated agent 

might inadvertently end up with the 

information from a prior version), and 

the benefit of being able to gain 

immediate access to such information. 

The Office’s online system would 

automatically generate, at specific 

periods of time (e.g., 30 and 60 days) 

prior to the date on which a service 

provider is required to validate the 

information in its designation, e-mails 

to the e-mail address designated by the 

service provider for the validation 

process as well as to the designated 

agent’s e-mail address. These e-mails 

would contain a link to a login screen 

and allow the service provider to log in 

and validate or amend the information 

associated with the service provider’s 

account. The service provider would be 

required to click on the link or 

otherwise log into its account, review 

the designation of agent information, 

and then either validate the existing 

information or amend the information 

no later than the specified deadline for 

validation. Should the service provider 

fail to validate or amend its designation 

within the allotted time, the designation 

would expire and be removed from the 

directory, and the service provider 

would be notified of that fact. A service 

provider whose designation has been 

removed but who desires to receive the 

benefits of section 512 would be 

required to file a new designation of an 

agent or, possibly, to reactivate and 

validate the expired designation. A fee 

would be assessed for both validation 

and amendment for purposes of cost 

recovery. The proposed rule specifies 

that a service provider must validate the 

information relating to its designated 

agent at least every two years, but the 

Office invites comment as to the 

appropriate time period. 

As is discussed further below 

(‘‘Contact Information for the Service 

Provider’’), the Copyright Office 

proposes to require the submission of 

the service provider’s e-mail address as 

well as the e-mail address of the 

designated agent. This is necessary in 

order for the Office to transmit reminder 

notices of validation deadlines. 

However, only the designated agent’s email address will be made publicly 

accessible through the online directory. 

The service provider’s e-mail address 

will be maintained for Office 

correspondence only. 

The Office proposes to also require 

contact information for the person filing 

the designation if that information is 

different from contact information for 

the online service provider, to be used 

in case the Office has any questions 

regarding the designation or the 

designated agent. The Office invites 

comments as to whether such 

information should be displayed in the 

online directory. Moreover, because of 

the likelihood that over time, a person 

responsible for the filing and updating 

of a designation may no longer be 

employed by the service provider, the 

proposed regulation would require 

alternate name and contact information 

for another person connected with the 

service provider in the event that the 

person filing the designation cannot be 

contacted. 

Amending a Designation. The new 

online filing system will permit a 

service provider to amend the 

information in its designation of agent at 

any time, and not only during the 

validation process. It is anticipated that 

any amendments will appear in the 

online directory no later than 24 hours 

after they are entered by the service 

provider. The prior version of the 

designation will be archived by the 

Office as an official record, but as noted 

above, the information contained in that 

prior version is likely to be removed 

from the online database. 

Currently, the interim regulations 

require a service provider to submit an 

entire new designation if any of its 

information has changed. This 

requirement has created some confusion 

and has led to the unintentional 

elimination of some information 

because some service providers 

submitted only the new or changed 

information (e.g., the name of a recently 

purchased Web site), erroneously 

believing that it would supplement 

rather than supplant the original 

designation. The Copyright Office seeks 

to prevent this confusion by permitting 

the service provider to make changes 

only in those fields that contain out of 

date information. The current 

information will be the starting point for 

any changes. For instance, in the field 

identifying alternative name(s) of the 

service provider (including DBAs), it 

will be possible to add to the existing 

list of names or remove names, or both. 

It is anticipated that upon amendment 

of the form, and prior to its submission, 

the software will generate a preview 

feature to allow the user to see all of the 

information that will be contained in 

the new record. 

Amendment of a designation will 

require the payment of a fee (to be 

determined) and will generate an e-mail 

from the Office to the old e-mail address 

and any new e-mail address(es) 

provided as a means of reducing the 

likelihood of unauthorized changes. 

Even though there will be a fee 

associated with amending a designation 

in the Copyright Office’s directory, it is 

prudent for online service providers to 

maintain current and accurate 

information, since courts may find that 

incorrect or outdated information 

constitutes a material failure to comply 

with the statutory requirements 

necessary for invoking the limitations 

on liability in section 512. See, e.g., 

Ellison v. Robertson, 189 F. Supp. 2d 

1051, 1057–1058 (C.D. Cal. 2002), aff’d 

in part and rev’d in part and remanded, 

357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, 

the Copyright Office requests comment 

on whether it should set the fee for 

interim amendments below the fee for 

periodic validation in order to 

encourage the timely provision of 

accurate information. 

The Office also intends the 

amendment process to serve as a means 

of correcting any mistakes in a previous 

submission. However, as with all 

amendments, a fee will be required to 

correct any mistakes and the previous 

designation containing the mistakes will 

be maintained in the Office’s archived 

records. 

Overlapping Designations. A related 

issue has periodically arisen when one 

service provider transfers a Web site to 

another service provider, but fails to 

notify the Office of the change. The 

result is that when the buyer files its 

designation of agent and lists the 

purchased Web site as an alternative 

name, both the seller’s and the buyer’s 

designations include that Web site in 

the directory. This can create confusion 

for copyright owners who find two 

different agents identified in the 

directory for the same service provider. 

This problem exists with the current 

directory. (See, e.g., the various 

designations for ‘‘Altavista,’’ at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/ 

a_agents.html) The Office can conceive 

of two options in such situations. First, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59956 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the two designations can both exist in 

the online directory until the time for 

the validation of the old designation, at 

which time the old designation would 

expire. In the meantime, persons 

seeking the identity of and contact 

information for a service provider’s 

agent may find two inconsistent listings 

for the service provider’s designated 

agent and might have to suffer the 

inconvenience of serving a notice of 

claimed infringement on both the old 

and the new designated agent. 

Alternatively, it might be required that 

the seller, who has control of the 

existing entry in the online directory of 

designated agents, amend the 

designation to identify the buyer as the 

new service provider and identifying 

the new agent (or confirming that the 

existing agent is continuing in that role). 

The Office seeks public comment on 

these alternatives and any other 

alternatives that might address this 

issue. 

Of course, situations may arise (and 

have already arisen) in which two 

different service providers have the 

same name. This is particularly likely 

with respect to alternative names (i.e., 

other names by which a service provider 

is doing business). See, e.g., the two 

entries for ‘‘CUA’’ at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/ 

c_agents.html. While the Office is not 

aware of any filings by two different 

service providers with the same 

corporate name, it is certainly 

conceivable that there might be an XYZ 

Corporation in Alaska and an unrelated 

XYZ Corporation in Maine, each of 

which operates as an online service 

provider. Each would be entitled to file 

a designated agent. For that reason, the 

Office is inclined to conclude that it 

should play no role in ‘‘policing’’ the 

submission of potentially conflicting 

information designating the agents for 

service providers with the same name. 

At the same time, the Office 

recognizes the possibility of fraudulent 

(or negligent) filings and solicits 

comment on whether and how it might 

resolve such situations without having 

to engage in the adjudication of disputes 

over who has the right to designate an 

online service provider’s agent. 

Alternatively, problems caused by 

overlapping designations could possibly 

be eliminated if the organizing principle 

of the directory were to be shifted to 

focus on service provider’s web address. 

See the discussion below (‘‘Possible 

Alternative Organizing Principle for 

Directory: Designation of Web 

Address’’). 

Mandatory Re-filing. As the Office 

makes the transition to an electronic 

filing system, it will be necessary that 

all service providers refile (and, if 

necessary, update) their previously filed 

designations of agents to receive 

notifications of claimed infringement. 

The Office proposes the requirement for 

two reasons: (1) As noted above, due to 

the passage of years since it was created, 

the current directory contains out-ofdate information, including information 

about service providers that no longer 

exist, and (2) the current directory 

consists of a list of service providers 

with a link, for each service provider, to 

a pdf file of the paper ‘‘Interim 

Designation of Agent to Receive 

Notifications of Claimed Infringement’’ 

or ‘‘Amended Interim Designation of 

Agent to Receive Notifications of 

Claimed Infringement’’ that was 

submitted to the Office by the service 

provider. The new directory will consist 

of a database to be populated with data 

entered online by the service provider 

itself. In order to ensure that the 

database contains accurate, up-to-date 

information, and in order to avoid 

requiring Copyright Office personnel to 

key in the information from the existing 

directory, creating additional costs that 

would have to be passed on to service 

providers and creating the potential for 

errors as the information is keyed into 

the directory, the Office proposes to 

place the burden of supplying complete, 

up-to-date information on service 

providers, who are in the best position 

to ensure that the new directory consists 

of complete and accurate information. 

Upon adoption of the electronic 

system, an approximately one year 

transition period will begin. During the 

transition period, the existing papergenerated database will be maintained. 

At the same time, the new designated 

agent database will begin to be 

populated and no new paper 

designations will be accepted. During 

the transition period, a listing in either 

database will satisfy the requirements of 

section 512(c)(2) and parties seeking to 

locate a service provider’s designated 

agent will need to search both 

databases. Approximately one year after 

the effective date of the final rule, all 

paper-submitted designations will 

become invalid and only those 

designations contained in the new 

electronically-submitted directory will 

satisfy the statutory requirement for 

designating an agent with the Copyright 

Office. 

Filing Fee. The Copyright Office will 

establish fees to file, validate, or amend 

a designation of agent to receive 

notifications of claimed copyright 

infringement. In each instance, a new 

record, or version, will be created, 

including when a preexisting record is 

simply validated. The Office will 

conduct a cost study as it builds the 

online system to determine the 

appropriate fee or fees and then will 

publish an additional notice of 

proposed rulemaking to seek comments 

on the proposed fees. Such fee(s) will 

also be incorporated into the Office’s 

general fee schedule set forth at 37 CFR 

201.3. The online filing fee may be less 

than the current $105 fee for a paper 

filing due to the likely decrease in 

human labor required to manually input 

and cross-reference the information to 

the online directory of designated agents 

appearing on the Copyright Office’s Web 

site, but it is likely that part of the fee, 

during an initial period of time, will be 

used to recoup the costs of building the 

new online system. Since a validation or 

an amendment will result in a 

replacement of the prior version, there 

is likely to be a fee associated with these 

transactions, but the fees for amendment 

and/or validation may be lower than the 

initial filing fee. The cost study will also 

examine the additional cost associated 

with indexing multiple alternative 

names for a single service provider. 

Based on a random sampling of a 

portion of the designations, the Office 

concludes that the majority of service 

providers list five or fewer alternative 

names, but that a significant remainder 

list fifty to as many as three thousand 

alternative names. While the Office is 

inclined to continue to make it possible 

for service providers to list as many 

alternative names as they deem relevant 

in order to enhance the utility of the 

directory, those service providers with 

larger numbers of alternative names 

should pay their proportionate share of 

the indexing cost. Therefore, the Office 

contemplates continuing to charge an 

additional fee for alternative names of 

the online service provider. Currently, 

the Copyright Office charges $30 for 

each group of ten (or fewer) alternative 

names, but for technical reasons it is 

preferable to charge at least a nominal 

fee for each alternative name. 

Content. The Office proposes that the 

information required from service 

providers through the online 

submission process should be, for the 

most part, the same as that currently 

required on the paper designations 

under the interim regulation. Under the 

proposed regulatory amendment, a 

service provider would be required to 

state its full legal name, its physical 

street address, its e-mail address (a new 

requirement; see the discussion below), 

all alternative names under which it 

does business, and the name, address, 

telephone number, and e-mail address 

of the agent designated to receive 

notification of claimed infringement. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59957 

The Office is inclined to continue to 

require that the e-mail address be 

submitted in traditional format (e.g., 

userid@domain.com) so that it can 

automatically verify the authenticity of 

the address and return e-mails to that 

address. Some concern has been 

expressed in the past about displaying 

the agent’s e-mail address on the 

Office’s Web site, and suggestions have 

been made to the Office to display email addresses as text (e.g., userid at 

domain dot com) in order to reduce 

automated harvesting and spam 

software programs from locating service 

providers’ e-mail addresses. While the 

Copyright Office is sympathetic to this 

problem, it is a fact of the Internet that 

online users and online service 

providers must resolve by their own 

means. Translating working e-mail 

addresses into text and vice versa would 

require additional programming costs 

and may create additional problems for 

the system. Moreover, the whole point 

of the database is to make it easy to 

locate a service provider’s designated 

agent and to serve a notification of 

claimed infringement on that agent. On 

balance, it seems that there is more to 

be said for facilitating such notifications 

by providing an operable e-mail address 

than for requiring someone who wishes 

to send such a notification to key in the 

address in each case. Accordingly, the 

Office is not inclined to alter e-mail 

addresses within the database, but 

solicits comments from the public on 

this issue. 

Service Provider Identity and 

Alternative Names. In addition to the 

legal name of the individual or 

corporation meeting the statutory 

definition of a service provider, the 

Office allows the service provider to list 

any alternative names (including DBAs) 

that would enable a copyright owner to 

identify the service provider and its 

agent. The Copyright Office leaves the 

determination of what alternative names 

to include up to the service provider, 

but the information provided should 

reasonably identify the service provider. 

Agent’s Identity. Under the interim 

regulation, the Office initially required 

the online service provider to identify 

the proper name of the designated agent 

to whom notifications of alleged 

copyright infringement are to be sent. 

However, as a result of concerns that 

personnel changes could inadvertently 

render a designation of agent obsolete, 

the Office has subsequently allowed 

service providers to designate a specific 

position or a particular title (e.g., 

Copyright Manager, VP legal affairs, or 

General Counsel) rather than an 

individually named person as its agent. 

The Office is inclined to allow such 

designations in the proposed rule, but is 

not inclined to permit a service provider 

to designate an entity generally (e.g., 

law firm or copyright management 

agency) as its agent. The Office is 

concerned that notices of claimed 

infringement addressed to a general 

entity, rather than a natural person or 

specific title, will be overlooked or not 

attended to in a timely fashion. This 

concern is reduced when a service 

provider designates a specific position 

or title at an entity or a natural person 

as its agent, particularly when that role 

is associated with a specific e-mail 

address. 

Section 512(c)(2)(A) specifies that the 

limitation of liability under subsection 

(c) is contingent on substantially 

providing ‘‘the name, address, phone 

number and electronic mail address of 

the agent.’’ The legislative history 

explains that: ‘‘The substantial 

compliance standard in subsections 

(c)(2) and (c)(3) are intended to be 

applied so that technical errors (such as 

misspelling a name, supplying an 

outdated area code if the phone number 

is accompanied by an accurate address, 

or supplying an outdated name if 

accompanied by an e-mail address that 

remains valid for the successor of the 

prior designated agent or agent of a 

copyright owner) do not disqualify 

service providers and copyright owners 

from the protections afforded under 

subsection (c). It is expected that the 

parties will comply with the functional 

requirements of the notification 

provisions—such as providing sufficient 

information so that a designated agent 

or the complaining party submitting a 

notification may be contacted 

efficiently—in order to ensure that the 

notification and take down procedures 

set for in this subsection operate 

smoothly.’’ Staff of House Committee on 

the Judiciary, 105th Cong., Section-BySection Analysis of H.R. 2281 as Passed 

by the United States House of 

Representatives on August 4, 1998, 

(Rep. Coble) (Comm. Print 1998), at 31– 

32. Accord: Report of the House 

Committee on Commerce on the Digital 

Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, H.R. 

Rep. No. 105–551, pt. 2, at 56 (1998). 

The only judicial decision to address 

whether Congress’s use of the word 

‘‘name’’ requires a personal name or 

may be interpreted broadly to 

encompass a position or title, in dictum, 

stated that ‘‘[n]othing in the DMCA 

mandates that service providers must 

designate the name of a person as 

opposed to a specialized department to 

receive notifications of claimed 

infringement.’’ Hendrickson v. eBay 

Inc., 165 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1092, fn. 13 

(C.D. CA 2001). 

The Office invites public comment on 

the question of whether an online 

service provider must provide the actual 

name of a natural person or whether the 

name of a specific position or title will 

satisfy this requirement. 

The Office is also inclined to permit 

a service provider to designate as an 

agent a position or individual within the 

service provider’s organization itself 

rather than requiring the agent to be an 

unrelated third party. Since there are 

arguably both benefits and drawbacks to 

having a third party or an internal 

representative serve as the agent, the 

Office is inclined to permit each service 

provider to make the decision that best 

suits its needs. The Office is not, 

however, inclined to permit the 

designation of multiple agents, as doing 

so would unjustifiably complicate the 

statutory process. Although the Office is 

sensitive to the concern that multiple 

agents would be helpful in case of 

personnel turnover, the Office believes 

that the ability to name a position or 

title rather than an individual 

adequately addresses this issue. 

Contact Information for the Service 

Provider. The statute addresses some of 

the information a service provider must 

provide to the Copyright Office, but also 

authorizes the Register of Copyrights to 

determine any additional contact 

information that is deemed appropriate. 

Under the current interim regulation, 

the service provider is required only to 

provide its legal name and permitted to 

provide alternative names used by the 

service provider. The Office is inclined 

to require the service provider to 

provide an e-mail address in order to 

send validation notifications to the 

service provider as well as the 

designated agent. This information is 

sought for the benefit of the service 

provider so that it is directly on notice 

of the impending validation 

requirement and potential expiration of 

its designated agent’s listing with the 

Copyright Office. Since the service 

provider will be required to create an 

account in order to use the online 

system, the service provider will also be 

required to use that account to validate 

or amend the designation. Therefore, it 

is necessary to have a means of 

contacting the service provider. 

However, this e-mail address will not be 

posted in the Copyright Office’s 

directory of designated agents, but 

rather used by the Office for the 

maintenance of the designated agent 

listing. 

Contact Information for the 

Designated Agent. The statute requires 

the online service provider to provide 

the telephone number and e-mail 

address of the designated agent. This 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59958 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

information is central to the 

requirements of 512(c)(2) and it is 

particularly important that it be kept 

current. See, e.g., Ellison v. Robertson, 

189 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1057–1058 (C.D. 

Cal. 2002), aff’d in part and rev’d in part 

and remanded, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 

2004). A fax number may be provided, 

but is optional information that 

supplements, but does not supersede 

the requirement of listing a telephone 

number and e-mail address for the 

designated agent. 

Service Provider’s and Agent’s 

Address. The Office proposes to change 

its rules to permit a post office box to 

serve as a designated agent’s address. 

The Office proposes this change due to 

concerns raised about an agent’s 

privacy, particularly where the agent’s 

only address is a home address. 

However, the Office proposes not, as a 

matter of course, to permit a post office 

box to serve as the address for a service 

provider, as it can be important that 

copyright owners are able to physically 

locate the service provider, e.g., for 

service of process. The Register of 

Copyrights may waive this prohibition 

in exceptional circumstances upon 

written request from the service 

provider. 

The Office is also taking this 

opportunity to clarify that a designated 

agent’s address can be outside of the 

United States; because a copyright 

owner is permitted to give notice of 

claimed infringement via e-mail, the 

copyright owner bears no additional 

expense or burden in giving notice to an 

agent located in a foreign country. The 

Office also permits a service provider to 

list a foreign address for itself. Although 

the limitations on liability in the United 

States Copyright Act may not apply to 

a particular foreign entity, the Office 

believes that if a U.S. court finds cause 

to assert jurisdiction over a foreign 

service provider pursuant to the U.S. 

Copyright Act, then no reason exists 

why the Copyright Office’s regulations 

should prohibit that service provider 

from having filed a designation of agent 

as a condition precedent to receiving the 

benefits of the limitations of liability 

afforded by section 512. 

Signature. The Office proposes to 

eliminate the requirement of an actual 

signature, which has been a requirement 

for the paper designations that have 

been submitted up to now. Because all 

online filings will require the creation of 

an online account as well as payment 

via pay.gov with a credit card, a 

checking account, or a Copyright Office 

deposit account, the online system will 

be able to reasonably verify and 

authenticate the identity of the person 

submitting, validating or amending the 

designation of agent filing. The person 

submitting the designation will also be 

required to provide contact information 

and attest to his or her authority to file 

on behalf of the subject service provider. 

Related Service Providers. The 

Copyright Office solicits comments as to 

whether related service providers (e.g., 

parent and subsidiary companies) 

should be permitted to file a single, joint 

designation of agent to receive 

notifications of claimed infringement. 

Under the interim regulations, related 

companies are considered separate 

entities and thus required to file 

separate designations. The Office has 

received occasional complaints from 

service providers about the inefficiency 

of this practice. The Office is receptive 

to any process which eases the burden 

on service providers without sacrificing 

clarity and usefulness of the online 

directory, and is inclined to permit 

related service providers to file a joint 

designation. However, it may be that 

any efficiency gained by a joint filing 

would be undercut should changes to a 

designation become necessary. For 

example, if one of the related companies 

were to change its address, agent or one 

of its Web site alternative names, then 

the joint designation would have to be 

revised and perhaps even severed to 

account for the then-current information 

of each of the related companies. In 

contrast, if each company had 

maintained its own designation, then a 

change at one company would only 

affect one designation. 

If the Office permits joint 

designations, the service providers 

named on a joint designation would be 

required to have and state a legally 

recognized relationship (e.g., parent/ 

subsidiary). Informal teaming 

arrangements would not be acceptable 

for a joint filing. The person submitting 

the designation would be required to 

certify that this requirement had been 

satisfied and that he or she has the 

authority of each service provider 

named on the joint designation to make 

the submission on each service 

provider’s behalf. The Office will 

examine as part of its cost study 

whether there is any additional cost 

associated with processing a joint 

designation. If such a fee is imposed, it 

will be incorporated into the Copyright 

Office’s general fee schedule. The Office 

requests comments on this proposed 

change and any information that would 

weigh in favor of or against such a 

change. The Copyright Office is 

particularly interested in knowing 

whether the benefits of such a change 

for an online service provider are 

outweighed by other considerations. 

Possible Alternative Organizing 

Principle for Directory: Designation of 

Web Address. As noted above, one 

possible means of minimizing the 

number of overlapping designations 

would be to require that a separate 

designation be filed for each web 

address. Since all or almost all service 

providers operate via Web sites, and 

since in most if not all cases a single 

web address will be used by only one 

service provider, requiring that a 

separate designation be submitted for 

each web address could effectively 

prevent all or almost all such 

duplicative designations. Since each 

web address is unique, providing that a 

designation of the agent for a particular 

web address will not be changed 

without the consent of the service 

provider currently identified in that 

designation in the Office’s database 

should insure against contradictory 

entries in the directory. Moreover, it 

may well be that Web addresses are the 

principal means by which persons 

identify service providers. A substantial 

portion of the names currently used in 

the directory of agents consists of web 

domains. 

The Office seeks comment on whether 

requiring a separate designation for each 

web address is the preferable means of 

organizing the directory. If so, a further 

question arises as to whether service 

providers should continue to be able to 

identify additional names by which they 

are known, which would be searchable 

in the directory. Conceivably, the web 

address is the primary or even the only 

name that a person searching the 

directory would need to ascertain who 

the designated agent of a service 

provider is. 

However, further thought needs to be 

given to what is meant by ‘‘web 

address.’’ As a general proposition, this 

would be the basic domain (e.g., loc.gov, 

google.com, or verizon.net) We 

recognize the possibility that 

sometimes, multiple service providers 

will use the same domain, but in such 

cases it is our understanding that each 

service provider would be using a 

different subdomain (e.g., 

thomas.loc.gov).or folder (e.g., loc.gov/ 

crb). The Office seeks comments on the 

extent to which subdomains and folders 

are used by separate service providers, 

and whether separate designations of 

agents should be permitted for 

subdomains and for Uniform Resource 

Locators (‘‘URLs’’) of folders within a 

domain. 

If using web addresses as the 

organizing principle for the directory 

makes sense, the Office also seeks 

comment on whether, as an alternative 

to a web address, a service provider 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 59959 

could in appropriate circumstances 

identify itself by reference to the name 

of the ‘‘app’’ through which it offers 

online services. By ‘‘app,’’ we refer to 

‘‘an application, typically a small, 

specialized program downloaded onto 

mobile devices.’’ See http:// 

dictionary.reference.com/browse/app 

(definition of ‘‘app’’). While it is the 

Office’s impression that as a general 

proposition, any app currently will be 

associated with a particular Web site, 

further information about the current 

and likely future usage of apps as online 

services will assist the Office in fleshing 

out the requirements for the new online 

directory. 

The Copyright Office invites 

comments on any and all aspects of the 

proposed regulations and of the 

proposed new system for processing 

online service provider agent 

designations discussed above. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, General provisions. 

Proposed Regulation 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Copyright Office proposes to amend 37 

CFR part 201 as follows: 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

2. Revise § 201.38 to read as follows: 

§ 201.38 Designation of Agent To Receive 

Notification of Claimed Infringement. 

(a) General. This section prescribes 

the rules under which service providers 

may provide the Copyright Office with 

designations of agents to receive 

notification of claimed infringement 

pursuant to section 512(c)(2) of title 17 

of the United States Code, as amended. 

(b) Electronic Filing. Service providers 

choosing to submit to the Copyright 

Office a designation of agent to receive 

notification of claimed infringement 

must do so by establishing an account 

on the Copyright Office’s Web site and 

then utilizing the applicable online 

template. Paper submissions and 

amendments made pursuant to the 

interim regulation for the designation of 

will no longer be accepted. A service 

provider that has filed a paper 

designation of an agent under the 

interim regulation and desires to remain 

in compliance with section 512(c)(2) 

must resubmit its designation of agent 

using the online template within one 

year after [the effective date of this 

amendment]. On [DATE one year after 

the effective date of this amendment], 

designations that were submitted prior 

to [The effective date of this 

amendment] shall expire. 

(c) Content. All required template 

fields must be completed in order for 

the submission to be submitted to the 

Copyright Office. The person submitting 

the designation of agent to receive 

notification of claimed infringement 

must provide: 

(1) The full legal name and physical 

street address of the service provider 

and, if desired, any related entity that 

has a legally recognized relationship 

with the service provider and that 

shares the same physical street address. 

A post office box will not be accepted, 

unless in exceptional circumstances and 

upon written request by the service 

provider, the Register of Copyrights 

determines that the circumstances 

warrant a waiver of this requirement; 

(2) Alternative names, if any, under 

which the service provider, and any 

related entity, is doing business; The 

service provider should include any 

names that it expects members of the 

public would be likely to use if engaging 

in a search in the Copyright Office’s 

electronic directory for its designation 

of an agent to receive notification of 

claimed infringement. 

(3) The name of the agent (either an 

individual, a specific position, or a title) 

designated to receive notification of 

claimed infringement. An agent may be 

a third party or an employee of the 

service provider, but must be a natural 

person or a position occupied by an 

individual, rather than a business or 

office name. Multiple agents may not be 

named; 

(4) The physical mail address (street 

address or post office box), telephone 

number, and e-mail address of the agent 

designated to receive notification of 

claimed infringement; 

(5) An e-mail address of the online 

service provider for receipt of e-mail 

notifications from the Copyright Office 

regarding the recurring validation 

process or amendments to the service 

provider’s directory information; 

(6) The full legal name, title, physical 

mail address, telephone number, and email address of the person submitting 

the designation of agent on behalf of the 

service provider. 

(7) The full legal name, title, physical 

mail address, telephone number, and email address of another person affiliated 

with the service provider, who can be 

contacted by the Copyright Office in the 

event that the person who submitted the 

designation of agent cannot be 

contacted. 

(8) An attestation by the person 

submitting the designation of agent that 

he or she has the appropriate authority 

of the service provider, including any 

related entities listed, if applicable, to 

submit the designation of agent on its or 

their behalf. 

(d) Directory of Designated Agents. 

For a period of one year after the 

effective date of this regulation, the 

Copyright Office will maintain two 

directories of designated agents which 

in combination will satisfy the 

requirements of section 512(c)(2): the 

directory consisting of notifications 

submitted before [the effective date of 

this amendment] (the ‘‘old directory’’) 

and the directory consisting of 

notifications submitted electronically on 

or after [the effective date of this 

amendment] (the ‘‘new directory’’). 

During this transition period, any new 

designation of an agent must be 

submitted via the electronic submission 

process, and only designations 

submitted via that process may be 

amended. The directories of designated 

agents will be available on the 

Copyright Office’s Web site at: http:// 

www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/. One year 

after the effective date of this regulation, 

the old directory will no longer be 

accessible through the Copyright 

Office’s Web site and will no longer 

satisfy the requirements of section 

512(c)(2). 

(e) Validation. 

A service provider that has filed a 

designation of agent on or after [INSERT 

the effective date of this amendment] is 

required either to validate the accuracy 

of the information contained in its 

designation or to amend the information 

as appropriate and validate the accuracy 

of the amended information within two 

years after the later of (1) The filing of 

the designation of agent or (2) the most 

recent amendment of the designation 

that has been submitted by the service 

provider. If a service provider does not 

validate or amend its designation within 

that two-year period, the designation of 

agent will expire and will be removed 

from the Office’s directory. 

(f) Amendment. 

At any time after a service provider 

has designated an agent with the 

Copyright Office, the service provider 

may amend the filing online to correct 

or update information. The Copyright 

Office will maintain all versions of 

electronic designations, including 

validations or amendments, for 

evidence in litigation, but only the 

current information in the directory will 

be available online. 

(g) Fees. 

The Copyright Office’s general fee 

schedule, located at section 201.3 of 

title 37 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, sets forth the applicable 

fees for the online filing of a service 

provider’s designation of agent to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
59960 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

receive notification of claimed 

infringement, periodic validation or 

amendment thereof, as well as the fee 

for the listing of alternative names. 

Dated: September 21, 2011. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24780 Filed 9–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 261 

[EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0312; SW FRL–

9472–6] 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System; Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste; Withdrawal of 

proposed rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Because EPA has discovered 

additional information which we 

believe is pertinent for consideration in 

this decision, we are withdrawing the 

proposed rule to grant an exclusion for 

Republic Services, Inc./BFI Gulf West 

Landfill (Gulf West) located in Anahuac, 

TX, published on January 28, 2011. This 

notice removes the proposed rule 

published in 76 FR 5110 (January 28, 

2011) for public review and comment. 

FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL INFORMATION

CONTACT: Michelle Peace by mail at U.S. 

EPA Region 6, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division, Corrective Action 

and Waste Minimization Section (6PD– 

C), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, 

by phone at (214) 665–7430 or by e-mail 

at peace.michelle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because 

EPA has discovered additional 

information pertinent to the final 

disposition of the petition, we are 

withdrawing the proposed rule for 

Republic Services, Inc./BFI Gulf West 

Landfill (Gulf West) located in Anahuac, 

TX, published on January 28, 2011 (76 

FR 5110). EPA subsequently received 

information after the comment period 

which highlighted several deficiencies 

in the data submitted by Gulf West. EPA 

will return the December 2009 petition 

submitted by Gulf West. No further 

action will be taken on this petition. A 

new petition will be required for this 

waste stream. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

waste, Recycling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

6921(f). 

Dated: September 14, 2011. 

Carl E. Edlund, 

Division Director, Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24984 Filed 9–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1220] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on 

the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) 

Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed 

BFE modifications for the communities 

listed in the table below. The purpose 

of this proposed rule is to seek general 

information and comment regarding the 

proposed regulatory flood elevations for 

the reach described by the downstream 

and upstream locations in the table 

below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are 

a part of the floodplain management 

measures that the community is 

required either to adopt or to show 

evidence of having in effect in order to 

qualify or remain qualified for 

participation in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, 

these elevations, once finalized, will be 

used by insurance agents and others to 

calculate appropriate flood insurance 

premium rates for new buildings and 

the contents in those buildings. 

DATES: Comments are to be submitted 

on or before December 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The corresponding 

preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map 

(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each 

community is available for inspection at 

the community’s map repository. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. FEMA–B–1220, to Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail) 

luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail) 

luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) proposes to make 

determinations of BFEs and modified 

BFEs for each community listed below, 

in accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and also are 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in those 

buildings. 

Comments on any aspect of the Flood 

Insurance Study and FIRM, other than 

the proposed BFEs, will be considered. 

A letter acknowledging receipt of any 

comments will not be sent. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This proposed rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review. This proposed 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This proposed rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS