Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 60413 

1 17 U.S.C. 407, 407(b). 

2 Id. at 101. 

3 Id. at 408(b)(2). Section 408(b) also sets out the 

deposit requirements for the registration of 

unpublished works (id. at 408(b)(1)), works first 

published outside of the United States (id. at 

408(b)(3)), and contributions to collective works (id. 

at 408(b)(4)). 

4 Id. at 408(b). Although section 408 states that 

copies deposited pursuant to the mandatory deposit 

provision in section 407 may be used to satisfy the 

registration deposit requirement in section 408, in 

practice, the Office treats copies of works submitted 

for registration as satisfying the mandatory deposit 

requirement (assuming the deposit requirements are 

the same), and not vice versa. 37 CFR 202.19(f)(1), 

202.20(e); see Registration of Claims to Copyright 

Deposit Requirements, 43 FR 763, 768 (Jan. 4, 1978). 

5 17 U.S.C. 704(b), 704(d). Deposits of works 

submitted under either sections 407 and 408 are 

‘‘property of the United States Government’’ and 

can be used by the Library for its collections. Id. 

at 704(a), 704(b). 

(d)(4) are claimed pursuant to (k)(1) and 

(k)(2). 

(C) Subsection (e)(1). Additionally, 

records within this system may be 

properly classified pursuant to 

executive order. The collection of 

information pertaining to the use of 

government information technology and 

data systems may include classified 

records, and it is not always possible to 

conclusively determine the relevance 

and necessity of such information in the 

early stages of a collection. In some 

instances, it will be only after the 

collected information is evaluated in 

light of other information that its 

relevance and necessity can be assessed. 

Further, disclosure of classified records 

to an individual may cause damage to 

national security. Additionally, in the 

collection of information for 

investigatory or law enforcement 

purposes it is not always possible to 

conclusively determine the relevance 

and necessity of particular information 

in the early stages of the investigation or 

adjudication. In some instances, it will 

be only after the collected information 

is evaluated in light of other information 

that its relevance and necessity for 

effective investigation and adjudication 

can be assessed. Collection of such 

information permits more informed 

decision-making by the Department 

when making required investigatory or 

law enforcement determinations. 

Accordingly, application of exemptions 

(k)(1) and (2) may be necessary. 

(D) Subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H). 

These subsections are inapplicable to 

the extent exemption is claimed from 

subsections (d)(1) and (2). 

(E) Subsection (e)(4)(I). To the extent 

that this provision is construed to 

require more detailed disclosure than 

the broad, generic information currently 

published in the system notice, an 

exemption from this provision is 

necessary to protect national security, 

the confidentiality of sources of 

information and to protect the privacy 

and physical safety of witnesses and 

informants. Accordingly, application of 

exemptions (k)(1) and (2) may be 

necessary. 

(F) Subsection (f). The agency’s rules 

are inapplicable to those portions of the 

system that are exempt. Accordingly, 

application of exemptions (k)(1) and (2) 

may be necessary. 

(iv) Exempt records from other 

systems. In the course of carrying out 

the overall purpose for this system, 

exempt records from other systems of 

records may in turn become part of the 

records maintained in this system. To 

the extent that copies of exempt records 

from those other systems of records are 

maintained in this system, the DoD 

claims the same exemptions for the 

records from those other systems that 

are entered into this system, as claimed 

for the prior system(s) of which they are 

a part, provided the reason for the 

exemption remains valid and necessary. 

Dated: August 24, 2023. 

Aaron T. Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18681 Filed 8–31–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 202 

[Docket No. 2023–3] 

Access to Electronic Works 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking 

to update its regulation governing 

electronic deposits of published works 

submitted to the Office that have been 

selected for addition to the collections 

of the Library of Congress. The current 

regulation permits the Library to collect 

and provide limited on-site access to 

groups of newspapers electronically 

submitted for registration, as well as 

electronic serials and books submitted 

for mandatory deposit. The proposed 

rule expands the categories of electronic 

deposits covered by the regulation with 

the same limitations on access as are 

currently in place. The proposed 

changes are part of ongoing steps by the 

Library and the Office to encourage the 

submission of works in electronic form 

and reduce the need for copyright 

owners to deposit physical copies. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on October 2, 2023. Reply 

written comments must be received no 

later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

October 16, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government 

efficiency, the Copyright Office is using 

the regulations.gov system for the 

submission and posting of public 

comments in this proceeding. All 

comments are therefore to be submitted 

electronically through regulations.gov. 

Specific instructions for submitting 

comments are available on the 

Copyright Office website at https://

www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/ 

edeposit-access. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 

General Counsel, by email at meft@

copyright.gov or telephone at 202–707– 

8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Copyright Act provides two 

sources of materials that can be selected 

by the Library of Congress for its 

collections. The first is the ‘‘mandatory 

deposit’’ requirement set forth in section 

407 of title 17. Under section 407, 

owners of copyright-protected works 

published in the United States must 

generally deposit two complete copies 

of the best edition of the work ‘‘for the 

use or disposition of the Library of 

Congress.’’ 1 ‘‘The ‘best edition’ of a 

work’’ is defined as ‘‘the edition, 

published in the United States at any 

time before the date of deposit, that the 

Library of Congress determines to be 

most suitable for its purposes.’’ 2 The 

Office’s regulations, including § 202.19 

and Appendix B of part 202, set forth 

rules and criteria for the different types 

of works subject to mandatory deposit. 

The second source of materials is 

section 408, which requires applicants 

seeking to register the copyright in 

published works to provide the Office 

with ‘‘two complete copies or 

phonorecords of the best edition.’’ 3 To 

avoid the duplication of deposits, 

section 408 specifies that copies or 

phonorecords deposited under section 

407 ‘‘may be used to satisfy the deposit 

provisions’’ of section 408 if they ‘‘are 

accompanied by the prescribed 

application and fee.’’ 4 Registration 

deposits are ‘‘available to the Library of 

Congress for its collections,’’ and items 

not selected by the Library are retained 

by the Office for a period of time.5

Both sections 407 and 408 grant the 

Register of Copyrights broad regulatory 

authority to specify the nature of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
60414 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

6 Id. at 407(c); id. at 408(c)(1). 

7 37 CFR 202.20(c)(2)(i). 

8 Id. § 202.19(c) (listing ‘‘categories of material 

[that] are exempt from the deposit requirements of 

section 407’’). 

9 Mandatory Deposit of Published Electronic 

Works Available Only Online, 75 FR 3863, 3869 

(Jan. 25, 2010); 37 CFR 202.19(c)(5). The interim 

rule codified the Office’s preexisting practice of not 

demanding copies of electronic-only works such as 

website content. See Mandatory Deposit of 

Electronic Books and Sound Recordings Available 

Only Online, 81 FR 30505, 30506 (May 17, 2016). 

Under the interim rule and current regulations, 

copyright owners are not obligated to deposit 

electronic-serials unless and until the Office 

affirmatively makes a demand. See 37 CFR 

202.24(a). 

10 Mandatory Deposit of Electronic-Only Books, 

85 FR 71834 (Nov. 12, 2020). 

11See, e.g., Group Registration of Contributions to 

Periodicals, 82 FR 29410 (June 29, 2017); Group 

Registration of Photographs, 83 FR 2542 (Jan. 18, 

2018); Group Registration of Newspapers, 83 FR 

4144, 4146 (Jan. 30, 2018); Group Registration of 

Serials, 84 FR 60918 (Nov. 12, 2019); Group 

Registration of Newsletters, 85 FR 31981 (May 28, 

2020); Group Registration of Short Online Literary 

Works, 85 FR 37341 (June 22, 2020); Liberalizing 

the Deposit Requirements for Registering a Single 

Issue of a Serial Publication, 87 FR 43744 (July 22, 

2022). 

12 37 CFR 202.4(e)(6)(ii) (for group newspaper 

deposits, ‘‘[t]he issues must be submitted in a 

digital form, and each issue must be contained in 

a separate electronic file’’). 

13 Id. § 202.18. 

14 Id. § 202.18(d). The process for becoming a 

registered researcher is available at https://

www.loc.gov/rr/readerregistration.html. 

15 Id. § 202.18(b); id. § 202.18(d) (‘‘Authorized 

user’ means Library of Congress staff, contractors, 

and registered researchers, and Members, staff and 

officers of the U.S. House of Representatives and 

the U.S. Senate for the purposes of this section.’’). 

16 Id. § 202.18(a). 

17 Id. 

18See 75 FR 3863, 3865 (explaining that ‘‘the 

Library is currently developing technological 

systems that will allow it to ingest electronic works, 

including those available exclusively online, and 

maintain them in formats suitable for long-term 

preservation’’). 

19Neither the current regulation nor the proposed 

changes allow access to unpublished works in 

electronic form. See also 37 CFR 201.23 (governing 

the transfer of unpublished deposits to the Library 

of Congress, requiring the Library maintain 

‘‘appropriate safeguards against unauthorized 

copying or other unauthorized use of the deposits 

which would be contrary to the rights of the 

copyright owner’’). 

20Letter from Shira Perlmutter, Reg. of 

Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office, Sen. Thom Tillis, 

Ranking Member, S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 

Subcomm. on Intell. Prop. at 7 (Dec. 1, 2022) (‘‘Best 

Edition Study’’). 

21 Id. at 13. 

22The rule will not affect the Library’s inability 

to provide public access to unpublished electronic 

required deposits, including the ability 

to exempt certain works from the 

deposit requirements.6 Using this 

authority, the Register has permitted the 

deposit of only one copy instead of two 

for certain classes of works submitted 

for registration.7 Similarly, the Register 

has issued regulations exempting 

specific categories of works from the 

mandatory deposit requirements.8

The Office also has used its regulatory 

power in sections 407 and 408 to 

accommodate the submission of 

electronic deposits instead of physical 

deposits in certain cases. With respect 

to section 407, the Office issued an 

interim rule in 2010 generally 

exempting electronic works that are 

‘‘available only online’’ from the 

mandatory deposit requirement, with a 

limited exception for electronic-only 

serials.9 The Office revised this rule in 

2020 to require the mandatory deposit 

of electronic-only books in response to 

an affirmative demand under section 

407(d).10 To date, the Office’s 

regulations for registration deposits 

have generally required or preferred the 

deposit of physical copies. Recently, 

however, the Office created new flexible 

registration options across a number of 

categories that either permit or require 

the submission of electronic copies 

depending on the work.11 For example, 

in 2018, the Office issued a final rule 

with respect to the group registration of 

newspaper issues, which states that 

deposits ‘‘must be submitted in a digital 

form.’’ 12

Under its current regulation, the 

Office places strict limits on access to 

electronic deposits selected by the 

Library of Congress for its collections.13

Electronic deposits received by the 

Library from the Office can only be 

accessed by specific authorized users at 

limited locations, and only two such 

users may access a particular deposit at 

a time. ‘‘Authorized users’’ are defined 

as (i) Members of the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the U.S. Senate, as 

well as their officers and staff, (ii) the 

Library of Congress’s staff and 

contractors, and (iii) registered 

researchers who are authorized to use 

the Library of Congress’s public reading 

rooms and the collections that are 

accessible there.14 Authorized users 

may access the Library’s electronic 

collections only on the Library’s 

premises at terminals connected to a 

secure network.15 The only exception to 

the on-site requirement is for Library 

staff, who are permitted to access 

electronic deposits ‘‘off-site as part of 

their assigned duties via a secure 

connection.’’ 16 These limitations on 

access would not be changed by the 

proposed rule. 

Although the Copyright Act provides 

that the Library may select any deposit 

received by the Office, current 

regulations authorize the Library’s 

acquisition of only two types of 

electronic deposits: those received 

through mandatory deposit pursuant to 

section 407 and those submitted for 

group registrations of newspapers.17

When the regulations were enacted, 

technical limitations prevented the 

Library from selecting and transferring 

other types of electronic copies to its 

collections. As a result of technical 

developments since that time, the 

Library has systems now capable of 

ingesting and preserving online-only 

serials deposited under section 407.18 In 

addition, technical development of the 

Office’s electronic registration system 

(‘‘eCO’’) now provides the ability for the 

Library to select and transfer other 

electronic deposits to its collections. 

The Library’s selection decisions will 

remain limited, however, to registration 

deposits for group newspapers and 

mandatory deposits for eSerials and 

eBooks absent amendment of the 

Office’s regulations. The proposed rule 

will expand the electronic deposits of 

published works that the Library can 

select.19

As the Office reported to Congress in 

December 2022, the Library is 

‘‘increasing its focus on collecting works 

in digital form.’’ 20 The proposed rule 

expands the Library’s ability to select 

and transfer to its collections additional 

categories of published works in 

electronic form submitted to the Office. 

Accordingly, it provides the regulatory 

authority necessary for the Library to 

meet this goal, while maintaining the 

current limits on public access to the 

works. Additional intended 

beneficiaries of the proposed rule will 

be those copyright owners who wish to 

satisfy their deposit requirements under 

sections 407 and 408 through the 

submission of electronic rather than 

physical deposits. 

II. Proposed Rule 

The Library and Office propose to 

expand the current regulations 

governing the transfer of electronic 

deposits for the Library’s collections. As 

the Office’s recent study on the best 

edition requirement explained, the 

Library has determined that in many 

cases its collections needs can be met 

using electronic deposits of textual 

works,21 and it is studying other types 

of works for which that is true. 

A. The Proposed Rule’s Expansion of 

Existing Categories 

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

updates the regulation governing the 

addition of electronic copyright deposits 

to the Library’s collections. Specifically, 

the proposed rule will expand the 

Library’s authority to select electronic 

deposits of published works for addition 

to its collections.22 This change is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 60415 

deposits submitted to the Office for copyright 

registration. 23U.S. Library of Congress, Digital Collections 

Strategy Overview 2022–2026 at 4–5 (Oct. 2021) 

(‘‘Digital Collections Strategy’’), https://

www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/

Digital%20Collections%20Strategy%20Overview_

final.pdf. 

24 Id. at 1. 

25 Id. at 1–2. 

26 Id. at 4 (Library plans to ‘‘[w]ork with the 

Copyright Office to explore and strategically plan 

the possible implementation of regulatory updates’’ 

that help ‘‘[e]xpand the depth and breadth of digital 

content acquisition via the Copyright Office.’’). 

27To be clear, the Office does not plan to require 

applicants to submit electronic deposits. Instead, 

applicants will choose whether to submit an 

electronic or physical deposit. Applicants who 

prefer to submit physical copies will have the 

ability to do so. See Best Edition Study at 8 (Office 

plans to ‘‘provide digital options for additional 

types of works, although deposits in physical form 

will still be permitted.’’). 

28Best Edition Study: Notice and Request for 

Public Comment, 87 FR 33836, 33839 (June 3, 2022) 

(‘‘[w]hile the submission of e-copies as opposed to 

print copies for purposes of registration would pose 

some difficulties in terms of service to Congress and 

other user groups, having access to e-copies of the 

content will be beneficial in the long term’’); see 

also Best Edition Study at 5–7 (discussing Office’s 

efforts to reduce burden on copyright owners from 

compliance with the best edition requirement, 

particularly from submission of physical best 

edition copies). 

29The current average processing time for 

registrations with uploaded digital deposits is 1.2 

months if no correspondence is needed, or 3.3 

months in cases of correspondence. Registrations 

with physical deposits are much longer—an online 

application with a physical deposit takes an average 

of 2.7 months to resolve with no correspondence or 

6.6 months with correspondence. Updated 

registration processing times can be found on the 

Office’s website at https://www.copyright.gov/ 

registration/docs/processing-times-faqs.pdf. 

30 In addition to the time consumed by mail 

delivery, physical deposits consume additional 

resources to process. Copyright deposits, like all 

material sent to the Capitol Complex, are first 

redirected offsite to be screened and 

decontaminated for possible pathogens. Once the 

deposit has been screened and delivered to the 

Office, the Materials Control and Analysis Division 

(‘‘MCAD’’) manually matches the deposit to the 

corresponding application. To facilitate this 

process, applicants are supposed to include a 

‘‘shipping slip’’ containing a barcode generated by 

eCO for tracking purposes. But many applicants 

omit the shipping slip with their deposits, requiring 

MCAD to correspond with the applicant, obtain the 

application case number, search for the application 

in the electronic registration system, and manually 

generate a new shipping slip and barcode. 

Electronic deposits bypass all of these steps and 

avoid the rare occasions where a deposit either does 

not reach the Office at all or is misplaced. 

31The Office cannot certify copies of works 

transferred to the Library’s collection. Its 

regulations provide that the Office will make a 

certified copy of a registered work if it is needed 

for litigation or other legitimate purposes, provided 

it has retained a copy of that work. 37 CFR 

201.2(d)(2). But the Office cannot issue a certified 

copy of a work transferred to the Library or another 

institution. See U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium 

of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, secs. 2405.3, 

2409.5 (3d ed. 2021) (‘‘Compendium (Third)’’). 

32 17 U.S.C. 704(c). 

effected by replacing the current 

regulatory language limiting this 

authority to electronic deposits received 

through group newspaper registrations 

and mandatory deposits with language 

encompassing all published works 

covered by the following existing 

regulations: §§ 202.4 (d) through (g) and 

(i) through (k) (certain group 

registrations), 202.19 (deposit of 

published copies or phonorecords for 

the Library of Congress), 202.20 (deposit 

of copies and phonorecords for 

copyright registration). 

The proposed rule does not alter the 

current strict limits on access to these 

works after their selection and 

acquisition by the Library: electronic 

deposits covered by the proposed rule 

will be available only to authorized 

users on the Library’s premises via a 

secure system. Library staff will 

continue to have authorization for 

remote access, but only through a secure 

server and network limited to serving 

the Library. In all cases, access to any 

individual electronic deposit received 

under sections 407 and 408 will be 

limited to two simultaneous authorized 

users. 

B. The Library’s Digital Collections 

Strategy 

As part of its Digital Collections 

Strategy, the Library is making a gradual 

shift towards an ‘‘e-preferred’’ approach, 

in which digital formats will be 

preferred over traditional physical 

formats across its major acquisitions 

streams, including deposits received 

from the Office.23 Because of the 

increased prevalence of digital content, 

the Library’s plan encompasses ‘‘all 

aspects of born digital collecting and 

curation, end-to-end.’’ 24 This will 

involve policies and workflows that 

support digital content acquisition and 

curation, developing ‘‘an agile technical 

infrastructure [to] allow for the routine 

and efficient acquisition of desired 

digital materials,’’ and establishing and 

implementing appropriate methods to 

‘‘ensure that rights-restricted digital 

content remains secure.’’ 25 A key 

component of the Library’s strategy is 

expanding the acquisition for its 

collections of digital content deposited 

with the Copyright Office.26 But before 

the Library can begin to make 

operational changes, it must have the 

legal authority to do so. The Office’s 

proposed regulatory amendment will 

further this goal. 

The proposed rule is designed to offer 

long-term benefits to the Library and its 

authorized users by expanding its 

collections of digital content. By 

reducing the need for physical deposits, 

the revised rule is also intended to 

benefit copyright owners. When the 

Library’s needs can be met with digital 

copies, the Office will be able to provide 

additional opportunities for applicants 

to submit electronic deposits with their 

registration materials.27 This will lower 

the overall cost for applicants who 

would otherwise need to produce and 

mail physical copies to the Office, and 

will be particularly helpful for small 

businesses and independent creators 

who may have limited resources.28

In turn, the Office’s Registration 

Program will benefit from the expansion 

of copyright owners’ ability to submit 

electronic deposits. The Office spends 

significantly more time and resources to 

process registrations with physical 

deposits than those with electronic 

ones.29 The most significant reason for 

this disparity is the time required to 

receive mailed deposits. When an 

application includes an electronic 

deposit, the Office can typically review 

the registration file as soon as it is 

assigned. But when an applicant mails 

physical copies, it may take weeks or 

longer for the deposit to reach the Office 

and be connected with the 

corresponding application.30 Because 

the effective date of a registration is the 

date that the Office receives the 

application, filing fee, and deposit in 

proper form, the delay associated with 

physical deposits can cause copyright 

applicants to have an effective date 

much later than the date they submitted 

an electronic application through eCO. 

The proposed rule will pave the way for 

the Office to increase opportunities for 

electronic deposits, and will allow 

copyright owners to avoid the delays 

caused by physical deposits and benefit 

from faster decisions and earlier 

effective dates of registration. 

Finally, the rule will provide 

significant benefits to the Office’s 

retention and preservation of works. 

Currently, the Library often acquires all 

physical copies of the registration 

deposits for its collections, and no 

copies are retained by the Office. If a 

selected work is subsequently needed in 

connection with litigation or another 

records request, the Office must seek to 

retrieve a copy from the Library.31 By 

contrast, digital deposits can be used by 

the Library for its needs without 

affecting the Office’s records. When a 

digital copy of a work is uploaded into 

the electronic registration system, the 

copy automatically becomes part of the 

Office’s administrative record. If the 

Library selects an electronically 

submitted work, the Office can retain a 

digital ‘‘record’’ copy,32 meaning that 

work would remain available for the 

applicable retention period as an Office 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
60416 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

33The Office retains published deposit materials 

for a period of twenty years. Compendium (Third) 

sec. 1510.1 (‘‘Published deposit materials are 

currently stored for twenty years.’’). If the Office 

closes a file for a published work without issuing 

a registration or refuses to register the work, the 

deposit materials are retained subject to the 

disposition schedules set by the National Archives 

and Records Administration. Id. 

34 Digital Collections Strategy at 4. 

35 Mandatory Deposit of Electronic-Only Books, 

85 FR 38806, 38812, n.88 (June 29, 2020). 

36See id. at 38811–14 (detailed explanation of the 

Library’s IT security improvements and upgrades). 

37Best Edition Study at 18. 

38See id. at 16–19. 

39 Id. at 17–18. 

40 Id. at 19–20. 

41 Id. at 18. 

42U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress, 

CPMC Public Meeting (Mar. 2, 2023), https://

www.loc.gov/item/webcast-10761/. 

43 Id. 

44Library staff have limited offsite access to 

deposits ‘‘as part of their assigned duties via a 

secure connection.’’ 37 CFR 202.18(a). This allows 

employees working remotely to fulfill work duties 

but does not permit access for other purposes. 

45Access to Rights-Restricted Content, Library of 

Congress, https://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/ui/en_US/ 

htdocs/help/eDepositAccess.html (Access to rights 

restricted content is available on dedicated Stacks 

terminals located in Library reading rooms.). While 

onsite, Library staff may also access these materials 

through their workstations. 

record.33 Digital copies are also easier to 

track, store, and retrieve than physical 

copies, allowing the Office to more 

readily provide a copy for use in 

litigation or in responding to other 

public records requests. 

Ultimately, the proposed rule will 

provide significant benefits by reducing 

the Office’s and Library’s reliance on 

physical deposits and their 

accompanying logistical challenges. In 

addition, it will support the Library’s 

strategic objective to ‘‘[e]xpand the 

depth and breadth of digital content 

acquisition via the Copyright Office.’’ 34

C. Information Technology and Security 

Considerations 

The Office recognizes that because 

this rule expands the Library’s authority 

to select and transfer to its collections 

electronic deposits of published works 

submitted for registration, copyright 

owners may have questions about the 

Library’s information technology (‘‘IT’’) 

security practices. The security of 

electronic deposits is a shared priority 

of copyright owners, the Office, and the 

Library. The Library is committed to 

‘‘the need to ensure the security of the 

digital content in [its] care’’ 35 and takes 

careful steps to address concerns about 

the protection of electronic copyright 

deposits. Critically, it employs the same 

level of encryption to protect copyright 

deposits as other highly sensitive 

information it holds, such as 

congressional material.36 The Office is 

not aware of any security threats to date 

with respect to the eSerials and eBooks 

that have been submitted for mandatory 

deposit. In the last decade, the Library 

has received tens of millions of digital 

files from copyright owners,37 and it 

reports that there have been no known 

instances of a breach in its security or 

theft from its digital collections. 

The Office encourages commenters to 

review its recent policy study on the 

best edition requirements, which 

addressed IT security concerns in 

connection with the storage of 

electronic deposits.38 As that study 

explains, the Library has invested 

substantially in its IT security capacity 

in recent years, including centralizing 

IT security under a Chief Information 

Officer and enacting policies and 

practices to secure Library and Office 

data.39 The Library also obtains ongoing 

public feedback on its practices in part 

through the Copyright Public 

Modernization Committee (‘‘CPMC’’) 

and a vulnerability disclosure 

program.40

The proposed rule’s expansion of the 

categories of published electronic 

deposits that will be available for the 

Library’s selection, combined with the 

current limits on access, will not 

increase the risk that these deposits will 

be stolen or misused. Any electronic 

registration deposits that are added to 

the Library’s collections will be 

protected by the same technical 

measures that currently secure 236 

million electronic serials and 1.2 

million e-books.41 These security 

measures are extensive—at a recent 

CPMC meeting, the Library’s Chief 

Information Officer detailed the 

continuous security measures for 

eDeposit material. Among other steps, 

the data is protected both at rest and in 

transit, with over 300 IT security 

controls.42 These controls are subject to 

repeated testing per the Library’s 

continuous monitoring schedule.43

Just as with current treatment of 

electronic deposits, access will be 

restricted to authorized users as defined 

in the regulation and only permitted on 

the Library’s physical premises, with a 

narrow exception for Library staff 

working offsite over a secure 

connection.44 This limited onsite access 

for authorized users occurs through 

computer terminals located in the 

Library’s reading rooms.45 The reading 

room terminals are not connected to the 

internet, have USB and other ports 

disabled, and are under the supervision 

of Library staff. 

The Library takes seriously its 

responsibilities as a steward of the 

cultural works in its collections, 

including safeguarding deposits 

received from the Office. The Office is 

confident that the current security 

measures and practices provide robust 

security for electronic deposits in the 

Library’s collection. To the extent there 

remain comments or questions about the 

security of deposits, the Office is 

prepared to address them in the final 

rule. 

III. Conclusion 

As the Library implements its Digital 

Collections Strategy, it will increase the 

digital works held in its collections, 

including through the selection of 

digital deposits submitted to the 

Copyright Office. The proposed rule 

facilitates this by providing the Library 

the authority to select and transfer 

digital deposits for all types of 

published works submitted to the Office 

through the registration process. Access 

to these materials will remain limited 

and subject to the existing regulation’s 

restrictions. These changes will help the 

Library fulfill its mission as the Nation’s 

library and the research arm of 

Congress. 

The Copyright Office welcomes 

public feedback and seeks comments on 

the regulatory amendments presented in 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as 

well as related issues discussed within. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202 

Claims, Copyright. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Copyright Office proposes 

amending 37 CFR part 202 as follows: 

PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND 

REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO 

COPYRIGHT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 202 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702. 

■ 2. Amend § 202.18 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), removing ‘‘Access 

to electronic works received under 

§ 202.4(e) and § 202.19’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘Access to published 

electronic works received under 

§ 202.4(d) through (g), § 202.4(i) through 

(k), § 202.19, or § 202.20’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a), removing ‘‘only to 

authorized users at Library of Congress 

premises’’ and adding in its place ‘‘at 

Library of Congress premises only to 

authorized users’’; 

■ c. In paragraph (b), removing ‘‘Access 

to each individual electronic work 

received under § 202.4(e) and § 202.19’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘Access to each 

individual electronic work received 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 

section’’; and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 169 / Friday, September 1, 2023 / Proposed Rules 60417 

■ d. In paragraph (c), removing 

‘‘electronic works received under 

§ 202.4(e) and § 202.19’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘electronic works received 

pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 

section’’. 

Dated: August 24, 2023. 

Suzanne V. Wilson, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2023–18664 Filed 8–31–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Parts 17 and 51 

RIN 2900–AR61 

Determining Eligibility for Domiciliary 

Care 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

medical regulations and State Veterans 

Home (State home) regulations. VA 

proposes to update the criteria used by 

VA in determining whether a veteran 

has no adequate means of support 

relative to eligibility for domiciliary 

care, and to shift the focus of the 

regulatory language from the veterans’ 

ability to pursue substantially gainful 

employment to a broader consideration 

of available support systems and 

medical conditions or disabilities that 

might impact the veteran’s ability to live 

independently. In addition, we propose 

amending our State home regulations to 

implement VA’s authority to waive 

certain eligibility requirements for 

receipt of State home domiciliary care 

per diem. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

VA on or before October 31, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted through www.regulations.gov. 

Except as provided below, comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period will be available at 

www.regulations.gov for public viewing, 

inspection, or copying, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We post the comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period on the following 

website as soon as possible after they 

have been received: http://

www.regulations.gov. VA will not post 

on Regulations.gov public comments 

that make threats to individuals or 

institutions or suggest that the 

commenter will take actions to harm an 

individual. VA encourages individuals 

not to submit duplicative comments. We 

will post acceptable comments from 

multiple unique commenters even if the 

content is identical or nearly identical 

to other comments. Any public 

comment received after the comment 

period’s closing date is considered late 

and will not be considered in the final 

rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Burden, Ph.D., National Mental 

Health Director, Mental Health 

Residential Rehabilitation and 

Treatment Programs (11MHSP), 

Veterans Health Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 

20420; (540) 819–1190 (This is not a 

toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

1710(b)(2) of title 38, United States Code 

(U.S.C.) authorizes VA to provide 

needed domiciliary care to veterans 

whose annual income does not exceed 

the applicable maximum annual rate of 

VA pension and to veterans VA 

determines have no adequate means of 

support. Historically, domiciliary care 

in VA has primarily been focused on 

delivering care to older residents who 

cannot live independently but who do 

not require admission to a nursing 

home, although the scope of domiciliary 

care provided by VA has expanded over 

the decades to meet the changing needs 

of veterans. 

The term domiciliary care is defined 

in § 17.30(b) of title 38, Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), which reflects the 

two alternative models of domiciliary 

care VA is authorized to provide to 

eligible veterans. Domiciliary care is 

defined at § 17.30(b)(1)(i) to mean the 

furnishing of a temporary home to a 

veteran, embracing the furnishing of 

shelter, food, clothing, and other 

comforts of home, including necessary 

medical services. This model focuses on 

the needs of veterans eligible for VA 

domiciliary care who cannot live 

independently but who do not require 

admission to a nursing home. While VA 

retains the authority to directly provide 

domiciliary care under this model, it 

currently pays a per diem to State 

homes to provide this model of 

domiciliary care to eligible veterans. 

The statutory authority for the payment 

program is set forth at 38 U.S.C. 1741– 

43. VA has published regulations 

governing this program at 38 CFR part 

51. VA regulates eligibility for VA 

payment of State home domiciliary care 

per diem at § 51.51. 

The second model for providing 

domiciliary care is defined in 

§ 17.30(b)(1)(ii). There, domiciliary care 

is defined to mean the furnishing of a 

day hospital program consisting of 

intensive supervised rehabilitation and 

treatment provided in a therapeutic 

residential setting for residents with 

mental health or substance use 

disorders and co-occurring medical or 

psychosocial needs such as 

homelessness and unemployment. This 

model focuses on the needs of veterans 

eligible for domiciliary care and who are 

receiving care through VA’s Mental 

Health Residential Rehabilitation 

Treatment Program, including 

Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans 

Program; General Domiciliary; 

Domiciliary Substance Use Programs; 

and Domiciliary Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder Programs. Today, a VA 

domiciliary consists of intensive 

supervised rehabilitation and treatment 

provided in a therapeutic residential 

setting that is aligned with VA medical 

facilities. 

Veterans must meet the eligibility 

criteria found in 38 CFR 17.46(b) as well 

as §§ 17.47(b)(2) and 17.47(c) to receive 

domiciliary care in a VA domiciliary. 

Per § 17.46(b) domiciliary care may be 

furnished when needed to any veteran 

whose annual income does not exceed 

the maximum annual rate of pension 

payable to a veteran in need of regular 

aid and attendance, or any veteran who 

VA determines had no adequate means 

of support. There is an additional 

requirement in that paragraph that the 

veteran must be able to perform certain 

listed activities related to self-care. In 

turn, 38 CFR 17.47(b)(2) addresses how 

VA determines whether a veteran has no 

adequate means of support for purposes 

of eligibility for domiciliary care. 

Finally, 38 CFR 17.47(c) establishes that 

to be provided domiciliary care, the 

veteran must have a disability, disease, 

or defect which is essentially chronic in 

type and is producing disablement of 

such degree and probable persistency as 

will incapacitate from earning a living 

for a prospective period. Eligibility 

criteria found in §§ 17.46 and 17.47 are 

applicable to domiciliary care provided 

by VA in residential rehabilitation 

treatment venues. The same eligibility 

criteria generally are reflected in current 

38 CFR 51.51 and are applicable to State 

home domiciliary veterans for purposes 

of per diem payment eligibility. 

We propose multiple changes to our 

regulations. Initially, we propose to 

make a technical change in part 17 to 

remove the word domiciliary from a 

regulation that does not address 

domiciliary care. VA also proposes 

amending both Part 17 and 51 

regulations that address how VA 

determines whether a veteran has no 

adequate means of support for purposes 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1