2696 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices 

(3) Agency form number, if any, and 

the applicable component of the 

Department of Justice sponsoring the 

collection: Form DOJ–361. Facilities and 

Administrative Services Staff, Justice 

Management Division, U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

(4) Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as a brief 

abstract: Primary: American Citizens. 

Other: Federal Government. The 

information collection will be used by 

the Department to identify individuals 

requesting certain records under the 

Privacy Act. Without this form an 

individual cannot obtain the 

information requested. 

(5) An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 69,000 

respondents will complete each form 

within approximately 30 minutes. 

(6) An estimate of the total public 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated total 

of 34,500 annual burden hours 

associated with this collection. 

If additional information is required 

contact: Jerri Murray, Department 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Justice Management Division, 

Policy and Planning Staff, Two 

Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 

Suite 3W–1407B, Washington, DC 

20530. 

Dated: January 9, 2014. 

Jerri Murray, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00493 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–CW–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2014–1] 

Strategic Plan for Recordation of 

Documents 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office is requesting public comment on 

proposed key elements relevant to 

reengineering the function of recording 

documents pertaining to copyright 

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 205. In a separate 

notice that will be published soon, the 

Office will also announce a series of 

public hearings on these elements, 

scheduled shortly after the end of the 

comment period on this Notice of 

Inquiry. The elements have been 

developed with the aid of previous 

comments obtained during the Office’s 

two-year Special Projects process, 

particularly the Special Project on 

Technical Upgrades to Registration and 

Recordation Functions. (That Project’s 

Notice of Inquiry and the comments 

received in response are available at 

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/

technical_upgrades/.) 

In particular, the Office is seeking 

comment and holding public hearings 

on the following elements: (1) A guided 

remitter responsibility model of 

electronic recordation; (2) the use of 

structured electronic documents that 

contain their own indexing information; 

(3) the linking of recordation records to 

registration records; (4) the use of 

standard identifiers, and other metadata 

standards, in recorded documents and 

the catalog of such documents; and (5) 

potential additional incentives to record 

documents pertaining to copyrights. 

Further explanation of these elements is 

to be found below in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this Notice. 

The Office appreciates in particular 

comments from parties who record 

documents and the professionals who 

assist them in doing so; from parties 

experienced with electronic recordation 

in other areas, such as that of real 

property; from those who maintain 

databases of copyrighted works for 

licensing or other purposes; from those 

who have developed or are developing 

metadata standards for copyright 

management purposes; and from those 

who use the Copyright Office’s catalog 

and collection of recorded documents 

for any purpose. 

DATES: Comments on the Notice of 

Inquiry and Requests for Comments are 

due on or before March 15, 2014. The 

Office will hold public hearings on the 

east and west coasts following the close 

of the public comment period on dates 

to be determined. 

ADDRESSES: All comments shall be 

submitted electronically. A comment 

page containing a comment form is 

posted on the Copyright Office Web site 

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

recordation. The Web site interface 

requires submitters to complete a form 

specifying name and organization, as 

applicable, and to upload comments as 

an attachment via a browse button. To 

meet accessibility standards, all 

comments must be uploaded in a single 

file in either the 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 

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 202–707–8350 for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Brauneis, Abraham L. 

Kaminstein Scholar in Residence, by 

email at USCOrecordation@loc.gov, or 

call the U.S. Copyright Office by phone 

at 202–707–9536. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Since 1870, the Copyright Office has 

recorded documents pertaining to 

copyright, such as assignments, 

licenses, and grants of security interests 

in works under copyright. It has 

accepted such copyright-related 

documents from remitters for 

recordation; returned documents 

marked as recorded to remitters; made 

copies of those documents permanently 

available for public inspection; and 

ensured the preparation of indexes to 

assist the public in finding relevant 

documents. Congress has encouraged 

the recordation of copyright-related 

documents by bestowing certain legal 

advantages on recorded documents. In 

some cases, such as that of notices of 

terminations of transfer, it has required 

the filing of documents as a condition 

of their legal effectiveness. A principal 

purpose of these incentives and 

requirements is to ensure that those who 

are interested in licensing, purchasing, 

or gaining security interests in works 

under copyright can learn of the current 

state of the titles in those works. Thus, 

the Copyright Office has an important 

interest in ensuring that the public 

record of copyright transactions is as 

complete and as accurate as possible. 

In 1870, documents remitted for 

recordation arrived at the Copyright 

Office in paper form, and Copyright 

Office employees prepared index or 

catalog entries for those documents by 

manually transcribing selected 

information from the documents. 

Almost 150 years later, that is still the 

case. Many other aspects of the 

recording process have changed. 

Recorded documents used to be 

manually transcribed in full; they now 

are scanned and stored electronically. 

The index to recorded documents used 

to appear in the front of bound volumes 

or on index cards; it is now maintained 

as part of an online electronic database 

known as the Copyright Office Catalog, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices 2697 

which also contains copyright 

registration records. Yet documents 

must still be remitted for recordation in 

paper form, and Office employees must 

still read and interpret those documents 

and manually transcribe selected 

information from them to create catalog 

entries in the Copyright Office Catalog. 

In this respect, the Copyright Office’s 

document recordation service has 

lagged behind its copyright registration 

service. The Office began accepting 

registration applications online in July 

2008, but for budgetary reasons it 

dropped plans to reengineer recording 

services. Thus, modernizing and 

improving recordation services is a top 

concern of the Copyright Office. 

II. Discussion 

Over the past two years, the Copyright 

Office has sought comments on 

technological upgrades to the 

recordation function, and has held 

focused discussions with copyright 

owners, users of copyright records, 

technical experts, public interest 

organizations, lawyers, and professional 

and industry associations. Participants 

in that process have expressed a number 

of serious concerns about the current 

recordation system, and have offered a 

variety of helpful suggestions for 

improvement. 

A. Leading Concerns About 

Recordation. The most prominent 

recurring concerns about document 

recordation are cost, processing time, 

inconvenience of remitting, and 

cataloguing inaccuracies. 

1. Cost. Because recordation has 

remained labor-intensive while many 

other Copyright Office functions have 

increased in efficiency, recordation has 

become relatively more expensive. 

While for many decades the basic 

recordation and registration fees were 

the same, the most basic recordation fee 

is now over two times that of the most 

basic registration fee. That fee difference 

is a direct result of estimates of the cost 

of performing those services. 

Stakeholder comments reveal serious 

concerns about the fee level for 

recordation. They also reveal that high 

fees have deterred some from recording 

documents altogether, and have caused 

others to take actions that leave 

significant gaps in the public record. 

Those actions include recording 

transfers for large numbers of works 

without specifically identifying them, 

and submitting new registrations for 

previously registered works in the name 

of assignees rather than recording 

transfer documents. 

2. Processing Time. Many who remit 

documents to be recorded have also 

expressed serious concerns about the 

time needed for processing remitted 

documents. They have noted that it can 

take a year or longer for the Copyright 

Office to return a remitted document 

marked as recorded, and that it can take 

even longer for information about the 

document to become available online in 

the Copyright Office Catalog. Comments 

have suggested that the longest delays 

are caused by the need to transcribe 

manually the titles of works to which a 

remitted document pertains. 

3. Inconvenience of Remitting. 

Document remitters have also expressed 

concerns about the difficulty and 

inconvenience of remitting documents 

for recordation, and about the mismatch 

between Copyright Office requirements 

and their own business practices. Many 

remitted documents are originally 

produced electronically in a word 

processing format, and could easily be 

saved in a cross-platform format such as 

Adobe Portable Document Format and 

transmitted electronically to the 

Copyright Office for recording. Other 

documents could be scanned and 

transmitted electronically. However, the 

Copyright Office currently only accepts 

paper documents, so document 

remitters must print all documents and 

send them in paper form to the 

Copyright Office, which increases the 

labor and cost involved in recording. 

The Copyright Office also currently 

requires an actual ‘‘wet’’ signature on 

either the remitted document or on an 

accompanying certification. Some 

copyright transactions are now 

accomplished with electronic 

signatures, and remitters must therefore 

prepare special versions of the 

documents with actual signatures on 

paper solely for purposes of recording. 

This also contributes to the difficulty 

and cost of recording. 

4. Cataloging Inaccuracies. The 

existing system of preparing Copyright 

Office Catalog records for recorded 

documents through manual 

transcription from paper documents 

also results in significant numbers of 

inaccuracies in those records. 

Commenters have complained about 

such inaccuracies as typographical 

errors in names and titles; incorrectly 

transcribed registration numbers; 

incorrectly transcribed dates; and 

incorrect indexing of titles under ‘‘the’’ 

and other articles. Such inaccuracies 

can cause users of the Catalog to miss 

documents relevant to their concerns, or 

to gain mistaken impressions of the 

nature of those documents. 

B. Concerns regarding the optimum 

identification of works to which 

recorded documents pertain. 

Stakeholders have expressed a number 

of related concerns regarding how works 

are identified in recorded documents. 

These include concerns about whether 

documents concerning particular works 

can be located at all; whether document 

records can be linked to registration 

records pertaining to the same works; 

and whether Copyright Office records 

can be integrated with information 

about works derived from other sources. 

1. Identification of works to which 

recorded documents pertain. Given 

current requirements, incentives, and 

practices, it is sometimes very difficult 

to identify specific works the ownership 

of which is affected by recorded 

documents. Under current law and 

regulations, documents will be accepted 

for recordation whether or not they 

identify particular works the ownership 

of which they affect. A document will 

be rejected for lack of work 

identification only if the omission of an 

identifier renders the document 

incomplete on its face—when, for 

example, the document refers to a list of 

title in an Appendix that is missing. 

Sections 205(c) and 205(d) of the 

Copyright Act do create incentives to 

identify a work to which a document 

pertains by title or registration number. 

Section 205(c) provides that a recorded 

document provides constructive notice 

of the facts stated in it only if the 

document or an attachment 

‘‘specifically identifies the work to 

which it pertains so that, after the 

document is indexed by the Register of 

Copyrights, it would be revealed by a 

reasonable search under the title or 

registration number of the work.’’ 17 

U.S.C. 205(c). Section 205(d) provides 

that only those transfers recorded in 

such a manner to give constructive 

notice under section 205(c) will be 

protected against conflicting transfers. 

17 U.S.C. 205(d). 

Commenters have questioned the 

usefulness of these incentives in 

practice. Fewer than half of the works 

that have been specifically identified in 

recorded documents since 1978 are 

identified by registration number. While 

virtually all specifically identified 

works are identified by title, there is no 

requirement that a title be unique. 

Moreover, many works are not generally 

known by the titles that are submitted 

as identification. The titles submitted 

for photographs, for example, are often 

no more than strings of digits, which are 

not helpful for search purposes. 

2. The linking of document records 

with registration records. Since 1978, 

document remitters have identified by 

copyright registration number almost 

four million works affected by remitted 

documents. However, remitters have 

submitted those registration numbers in 

many different formats, which often 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2698 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices 

differ in matters of spacing, 

hyphenation, and other punctuation 

from the official format used by the 

Copyright Office. Each registration 

number is transcribed into the 

Copyright Office Catalog in exactly the 

format in which that the remitter 

submitted it, and document specialists 

do not verify that the number submitted 

is a valid registration number. As a 

result, the Copyright Office Catalog does 

not contain links between recorded 

documents and registrations, and even 

valid registration numbers found in 

document records may need to be 

reformatted before they can be used to 

locate related registration records. This 

can render it more difficult to make a 

positive identification of a work affected 

by a recorded document, and to locate 

all documents affecting title in a work. 

3. Integration of Copyright Office 

records with information about works 

from other sources. There are many 

privately maintained databases that 

contain information about large 

numbers of works under copyright. 

These include databases maintained by 

various types of rights management 

organizations such as ASCAP, BMI, 

SESAC, the Copyright Clearance Center, 

the Harry Fox Agency, and Art 

Resource; by companies that own and 

license large numbers of copyrighted 

works, such as Getty Images and Corbis; 

and by music identification app 

developers such as Shazam, Midomi, 

and SoundHound. None of the records 

contained in these databases is currently 

linked to registration or document 

records in the Copyright Office Catalog. 

The lack of such links means that users 

of the privately-maintained databases 

cannot easily find Copyright Office 

records about the works represented in 

those databases, and users of the 

Copyright Office Catalog cannot easily 

find licensing information contained in 

the privately-maintained databases, thus 

making Copyright Office records less 

commercially useful and relevant. 

Links between databases are impeded 

due to the lack of common work 

identifiers and metadata standards. 

Although some recorded documents 

may include standard work identifiers 

such as International Standard Musical 

Work Codes (ISWCs) and International 

Standard Text Codes (ISTCs), document 

records in the Copyright Office Catalog 

do not include these numbers. 

Registration records in the Copyright 

Office Catalog may include standard 

work identifiers, but only about a 

million of them do, out of over 

seventeen million records, and many of 

these codes do not strictly speaking 

represent works. Rather, they represent 

physical deposits, such as books 

identified by International Standard 

Book Numbers (ISBNs). 

C. Concerns about the Sufficiency of 

Statutory Incentives to Record 

Transactions. Existing statutory 

incentives to record documents 

pertaining to copyright are limited to 

protection against conflicting transfers 

and nonexclusive licenses under 

conditions specified by section 205(d) of 

the Copyright Act, provision of 

constructive notice under section 205(c) 

of the Act, and under the interpretation 

of some courts, perfection of security 

interests in registered works. In 1989, 

Congress removed the requirement to 

record any documents in the chain of 

title from a work’s author to an owner 

of that work as a precondition of that 

owner filing an infringement action. 

Commenters have questioned whether 

the remaining incentives to record are 

sufficient to induce parties to significant 

copyright transactions to disclose them, 

and thus to ensure that those who are 

interested in licensing, purchasing, or 

gaining security interests in works 

under copyright can learn of the current 

state of titles in those works. 

III. Subjects of Inquiry 

In response to the concerns 

articulated above, the Copyright Office 

is currently considering several specific 

elements of a strategic plan for 

improvement of recordation services, 

and for improvement of the quality of 

copyright information provided to the 

public through recordation. The Office 

is particularly interested in comments 

on the following key elements: 

1. A Guided Remitter Responsibility 

Model of Electronic Recordation. As 

noted above, the high cost and long 

processing time currently associated 

with copyright document recordation 

stem in large part from a process in 

which recordation specialists must read 

paper documents and manually 

transcribe selected information from 

them to electronic catalog records that 

become part of the Copyright Office 

Catalog. Electronic submission of such 

information by remitters could certainly 

reduce the time need to process a 

document for recordation. However, 

checking information submitted 

electronically by remitters against each 

remitted document itself would still be 

a time-consuming process. Remitted 

documents do not come in any 

particular format, and there is no single 

standard for the language used in those 

documents or the order in which 

documents use language with legal 

effect. As a result, recordation 

specialists would still have to spend 

substantial time reading and 

interpreting the documents to check 

submitted catalog entry information, 

such as the names of the two or more 

parties to the transaction, the role of the 

parties as grantors or recipients of the 

interests being transferred, the nature of 

the interests that are being transferred, 

and the titles, registration numbers, or 

other identifiers of the works in which 

interests are being transferred. 

Because of the process of comparing 

submitted catalog information against 

each individual remitted document is 

irreducibly time-consuming, the 

Copyright Office is considering adopting 

a model under which remitters would 

be responsible in the first instance for 

the accuracy of the catalog information 

that they submit electronically. 

Recordation specialists would not check 

that information against remitted 

documents on a case-by-case basis, but 

would rather engage in systemic quality 

control, performing targeted spot checks 

and continuously refining predictive 

models of which inaccuracies were 

likely to occur in which types of 

documents. 

While remitters might be worried that 

inadvertent errors would go 

uncorrected, electronic submission of 

information allows for a variety of types 

of guidance that would greatly reduce 

the number of inaccuracies entering the 

Copyright Office Catalog. For example, 

when a limited number of answers to a 

question are valid, electronic forms can 

provide enumerations such a dropdown boxes or buttons, rather than 

empty fields, to eliminate entries that 

are invalid or contain typographical 

errors. Many entries can be validated 

against lists of valid values or templates 

of valid formats, and rejected or 

questioned if the entries are not found 

in the lists or entered in valid formats. 

Crucial information can be required to 

be entered twice, and consistency 

between the entries can be checked. 

Parties that record documents 

frequently could carefully enter 

repeated information such as names and 

addresses once, and then access that 

stored information when recording 

subsequent documents, to ensure 

consistency between catalog entries. 

Such a guided remitter responsibility 

model could reduce the cost of 

recordation to a small fraction of the 

current cost. Electronic recordation fees 

would be reduced accordingly. Paperbased recordation would continue to be 

available, but the fee would likely be a 

multiple of several times that of 

electronic recordation. 

The Copyright Office is seeking 

comments on this model of electronic 

recordation. Comments are welcome, 

not only on features that are unique to 

this particular model, but on features 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices 2699 

that are common to electronic 

recordation more generally, and that 

would require statutory or regulatory 

amendment. These include the 

acceptance of electronic signatures and 

the protection of personally identifiable 

information. 

2. Structured Electronic Documents. 

The Copyright Office is also considering 

whether to adopt standards for and 

accept structured electronic documents 

in which tagged indexing or cataloging 

information is integrated into the 

documents themselves. Such documents 

contain several linked layers or folders. 

The name of a granting party displayed 

in the sentence that grants an interest in 

a copyrighted work, for example, is 

drawn from a field that identifies that 

name as a granting party name for 

cataloguing purposes. 

Many government agencies that 

record documents conveying interests in 

real property have adopted standards for 

and are accepting such structured 

electronic documents. However, many 

of those agencies record millions of 

documents a year, whereas the 

Copyright Office currently records fewer 

than 15,000 documents a year, though 

those documents represent transactions 

involving several hundred thousand 

works. Moreover, a relatively small 

number of intermediaries—banks and 

title insurance companies—are involved 

in almost every real estate transaction, 

which makes the adoption and 

implementation of standards relatively 

easy, while fewer copyright transactions 

seem to involve such intermediaries. 

The Copyright Office is seeking 

comments on the feasibility of adopting 

standards for and accepting structured 

electronic documents pertaining to 

copyright. 

3. Linking of Document Records to 

Registration Records. The Office is 

considering whether it should link 

records of documents pertaining to 

registered works to the registration 

records for those works. In particular, it 

is seeking comments on whether it 

should require by regulation that 

document remitters provide registration 

numbers in a standardized format for all 

registered works to which their 

documents pertain. 

4. Use of Standard Identifiers and 

Other Metadata Standards. The Office is 

considering whether it should adopt 

incentives or requirements with respect 

to the provision of standard identifiers, 

such as International Standard Musical 

Work Codes and International Standard 

Audiovisual Numbers, in recorded 

documents. Comments are welcome 

regarding the degree to which the 

provision of such identifiers would aid 

in uniquely identifying affected works 

and in linking Copyright Office Catalog 

information about works to other 

sources of information about such 

works. Comments are also welcome on 

whether such incentives or 

requirements might be more appropriate 

or helpful with regard to some types of 

works than with regard to others. The 

Office is also considering whether it 

should adopt or ensure compatibility 

with metadata standards more broadly, 

and welcomes comments on the utility 

of metadata standards and on particular 

metadata projects that it should 

consider. 

5. Additional Statutory Incentives to 

Record Documents Pertaining to 

Copyright. A number of academic 

commentators have proposed that 

Congress create additional incentives or 

requirements for recording documents 

pertaining to copyright. Congress could 

reinstate the requirement, dropped in 

1989, of recording all documents in the 

chain of title from the author to the 

current owner of copyright as a 

precondition of filing in infringement 

lawsuit. It could also condition the 

provision of certain remedies, such as 

statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, 

on the recordation of any and all 

documents that transferred ownership 

of works to those eligible to sue for 

infringement at the time infringement 

commenced. Perhaps the broadest 

proposal is to provide that no transfer of 

a copyright interest will be valid unless 

a note or memorandum of that transfer 

is recorded with sufficient description 

of the interest granted and identification 

of the parties from and to whom the 

interest is granted. The Copyright Office 

is seeking comment on the benefits and 

costs of such proposals, and on their 

compatibility with the treaty 

commitments of the United States. 

Dated: January 10, 2014. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00638 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

Notice of Intent To Audit 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Public notice. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

announce receipt of five notices of 

intent to audit the 2010, 2011, and 2012 

statements of account submitted by 

Sirius XM Radio, Inc.; IMUV, Inc.; 

Crystal Media Networks; Pandora 

Media, Inc.; LoudCity LLC concerning 

the royalty payments made by each 

pursuant to two statutory licenses. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

LaKeshia Keys, Program Specialist, by 

telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email at 

crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Copyright Act, title 17 of the United 

States Code, grants to copyright owners 

of sound recordings the exclusive right 

to perform publicly sound recordings by 

means of certain digital audio 

transmissions, subject to limitations. 

Specifically, this right is limited by two 

statutory licenses. The section 114 

license allows the public performance of 

sound recordings by means of digital 

audio transmissions by nonexempt 

noninteractive digital subscription 

services and eligible nonsubscription 

services. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). The section 

112 license allows a service to make any 

necessary ephemeral reproductions to 

facilitate the digital transmission of the 

sound recording, including the 

ephemeral recordings made by entities 

that transmit performances of sound 

recordings to business establishments, 

subject to the limitations set forth in 

section 114(d)(1)(C)(iv), to facilitate 

such transmissions. 17 U.S.C. 112(e). 

The section 112 license also provides a 

means by which a transmitting entity 

with a statutory license under section 

114(f) may make more than one 

phonorecord permitted under the 

exemption set forth in section 112(a). Id. 

Licensees may operate under these 

licenses provided they pay the royalty 

fees and comply with the terms set by 

the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges). 

The rates and terms for the section 112 

and 114 licenses are set forth in 37 CFR 

parts 380 (eligible nonsubscription 

services (webcasters)), 382 (preexisting 

subscription services and preexisting 

satellite digital audio radio services), 

383 (new subscription services), and 

384 (business establishments). As part 

of the terms set for these licenses, the 

Judges designated SoundExchange, Inc., 

as the organization charged with 

collecting the royalty payments and 

statements of account submitted by the 

various eligible services and distributing 

the royalties to the copyright owners 

and performers entitled to receive such 

royalties under the section 112 and 114 

licenses. 37 CFR 380.4(b), 382.13(b), 

383.4(a), and 384(b). As the designated 

Collective, SoundExchange may 

conduct a single audit of a licensee for 

any calendar year for the purpose of 

verifying their royalty payments. Id. at 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES