```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55633-55636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22233]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

U.S. Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. 2014-04]

Changes to Recordation Practices

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is amending its regulations for the 
recordation of copyright transfers and other documents. The rule is 
intended to reduce the amount of time the Office requires to process 
certain types of documents submitted for recordation and help to 
alleviate remitter concerns regarding the receipt of documents for 
processing. To these ends, the revised regulations encourage remitters 
to include a cover sheet with the documents they submit for processing; 
allow remitters to submit long title lists in electronic format; and 
provide remitters with the option to request return receipts that 
acknowledge that the Office has received a submission.

DATES: Effective October 17, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, General 
Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at 
jcharlesworth@loc.gov or by telephone at 202-707-8350; or Sarang V. 
Damle, Special Advisor to the General Counsel, by email at sdam@loc.gov 
or by telephone at 202-707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 16, 2014, the Copyright Office published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') setting forth proposed regulatory 
amendments designed to speed processing of documents submitted for 
recordation under section 205 of title 17 of the United States Code. 
See 79 FR 41470. The NPRM encompassed three recommended changes to the 
Office's recordation regulations. First, the NPRM proposed amending the 
regulations to reflect the fact that the Office has created a 
Recordation Document Cover Sheet (Form DCS) to assist with the 
processing of documents submitted for recordation under section 205. As 
the NPRM explained, remitters are not required to use Form DCS unless 
they are requesting a return receipt, but use of the form is encouraged 
to facilitate better recordkeeping and communication between the Office 
and remitters. Id. at 41471. Second, the NPRM proposed a rule to permit 
(but not require) the submission of electronic lists of titles of 
copyrighted works associated with remitted documents, where such lists 
include 100 or more titles. Id. at 41471-72. The NPRM noted that 
submission of lengthy title lists in electronic format would speed 
processing of documents by eliminating the need for manual 
transcription of titles into the Office's Public Catalog. Id. at 41471. 
Third, the NPRM specified a procedure by which a remitter could receive 
a return receipt indicating that the Office had received a document 
submitted for recordation. Id. at 41472.
    Five comments were received in response to the NPRM.\1\ The Motion 
Picture Association of America, Inc. (``MPAA'') and Barbara Jones-Binns 
endorsed the proposed amendments in full, and had no further 
suggestions.\2\ Author Services, Inc., also supported the proposed 
rule, but stated it would be interested if, as a ``next step,'' the 
Office would ``move towards being able to submit the titles of 
documents electronically for less than 100 titles.'' \3\ Finally, the 
Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (``RIAA'') submitted 
comments that were largely supportive of the proposed rule, but 
contained three substantive concerns that are addressed in more detail 
below.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All comments received in response to the NPRM can be found 
on the Copyright Office's Web site at http://copyright.gov/rulemaking/recordation-practices/docket2014-4/comments/.
    \2\ See Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc., Comments Submitted in 
Response to U.S. Copyright Office's July 16, 2014 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014) (``MPAA Comments''); Barbara Jones-Binns, 
Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright Office's July 16, 
2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014).
    \3\ Author Services, Inc., Comments Submitted in Response to 
U.S. Copyright Office's July 16, 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Aug. 11, 2014).
    \4\ Recording Industry Ass'n of Am., Inc., Comments Submitted in 
Response to U.S. Copyright Office's July 16, 2014 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Aug. 15, 2014) (``RIAA Comments''). The Office received 
an additional comment regarding return receipts for electronic 
deposits submitted as part of registration, an issue that is outside 
the scope of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Final Rule

    No commenter opposed the provisions of the proposed rule relating 
to Form DCS (section 201.4(b)) or the procedures for obtaining a return 
receipt (section 201.4(f)). Accordingly, those provisions of the 
proposed rule are adopted in the final rule without alteration.
    With respect to the proposed rule for submission of electronic 
title lists, commenters universally endorsed the basic approach of 
allowing remitters to file electronic lists of 100 or more titles, and 
expressed no concerns regarding the format or submission requirements 
for electronic title lists. For example, the RIAA ``commend[ed] the 
Office for its proposal'' and ``agree[d] that [it] should relieve the 
Office of some of the burden of cataloging recordations of copyright 
documents involving large numbers of titles and expedite the processing 
of such documents.'' RIAA Comments at 2.
    With respect to the suggestion of Author Services, Inc. that the 
Office consider allowing submission of electronic title lists 
containing fewer than 100 titles as a ``next step,'' at this time the 
Office finds that ``electronic submission will prove more efficient 
only when indexing 100 or more titles,'' 79 FR at 41472. This view is 
based on the fact that, when a document pertains to 100 or fewer 
titles, the Office can create the basic record of the document and 
manually transcribe all of the titles in a single sitting, and make the 
record immediately available in the Public Catalog. As a result, while 
use of an electronic title list is expected to result in a much shorter 
turnaround time than manual processing of documents pertaining to 100 
or more titles, the same cannot be said with respect to documents 
pertaining to fewer than 100 titles.
    The RIAA offered three substantive comments on the proposed rule 
for submission of electronic title lists. First, it expressed concern 
with the rule's specification that remitters would be legally 
responsible for errors in the electronic title lists. RIAA Comments at 
2-5. Second, it urged the Office to implement a process of quality 
control checks for electronic title lists. Id. at 2. Third, and 
finally, it suggested that the Office specify a mechanism for 
correction of errors in electronic title lists. Id. at 5. We address 
each comment in turn.

1. Remitter Responsibility for Inaccuracies in Electronic Title Lists

    The RIAA disagreed with the proposed rule's specification that 
remitters would bear the legal

[[Page 55634]]

consequences of any discrepancies between a paper document and the 
electronically formatted titles with respect to whether there is 
effective constructive notice or priority under 17 U.S.C. 205. RIAA 
Comments at 2-5; see 79 FR at 41473. Section 201.4(c)(4)(iii) of the 
proposed rule stated that the Office will rely on the electronic list 
of titles for purposes of indexing recorded documents in the Public 
Catalog and the remitter will bear the consequences of any inaccuracies 
in the electronic list in relation to the recorded document, including 
with respect to whether there is effective constructive notice or 
priority under 17 U.S.C. 205(c). For example, omission of a title from 
the electronic list such that the title is not properly indexed may 
affect the ability to claim that the public had constructive notice 
with respect to that title, even if the title appears in the paper 
document. If a title appears in the electronic list but is not included 
in the paper document that is actually recorded, the paper document 
will control (79 FR at 41473).
    As relevant here, section 205(c) of the Copyright Act provides that 
recordation of a document in the Copyright Office gives all persons 
constructive notice of the facts stated in the recorded document, but 
only if . . . the document, or material attached to it, 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), in turn, states that, as between two conflicting 
transfers, the one executed first prevails if it is recorded, in the 
manner required to give constructive notice under subsection (c), 
within one month after its execution in the United States or within two 
months after its execution outside the United States, or at any time 
before recordation in such manner of the later transfer. Otherwise the 
later transfer prevails if recorded first in such manner, and if taken 
in good faith, for valuable consideration or on the basis of a binding 
promise to pay royalties, and without notice of the earlier transfer 
(17 U.S.C. 205(d)).
    In its comments, the RIAA argues that the electronic title list 
rule should not suggest that a remitter's failure to provide an 
accurate list might deprive the remitter of the legal benefits of 
recordation as provided under the statutory provisions. RIAA Comments 
at 3. The RIAA reasons that, by making such a suggestion, the rule 
could ``punish rights holders who make innocent, inadvertent mistakes 
in preparing electronic lists in the specified format that are 
submitted for recordation by suggesting that the electronic lists may 
take precedence over the underlying original document that is submitted 
for recordation.'' RIAA Comments at 2. The RIAA asserts that such a 
result would ``deprive remitters of their right to constructive 
notice.'' Id. Instead, in the RIAA's view, a remitter should be 
entitled to the legal benefits of recordation--constructive notice and 
priority--even if the remitter provides the Office with an inaccurate 
electronic title list that causes the document to be indexed and 
cataloged incorrectly. The RIAA asserts that the contents of the 
recorded paper document must solely determine questions of constructive 
notice and priority under the Copyright Act. Id. at 3-5. According to 
the RIAA, any other result would ``improperly subvert the plain 
language of the Copyright Act and the intent of Congress.'' Id. at 2.
    As an initial matter, it should be noted that accepting the RIAA's 
view would seriously undermine the central aim of the electronic title 
list rule. As the RIAA acknowledges, the rule is meant to ``assist[] 
the Office in the efficient cataloging of the information contained in 
the lists.'' RIAA Comments at 3. To effectively achieve that goal, the 
Office must be able to rely upon the electronic title lists for 
indexing purposes without having to individually review the titles in 
the electronic list against those in the paper document to identify and 
correct discrepancies. If, as the RIAA urges, constructive notice and 
priority as between conflicting transfers cannot be affected by 
inaccuracies in the electronic list that is intended to serve as the 
basis for the Public Catalog index, the rule will be in tension with 
the statutory design. In other words, for the rule to result in the 
efficient cataloging of documents submitted for recordation, the burden 
for creating accurate electronic title lists, and thus the legal 
consequences for failing to do so, must be on the remitter.
    As noted above, section 205(c) provides that constructive notice 
will attach ``only if . . . the document, or material attached to it, 
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). This language indicates Congress's 
intent that, before constructive notice can attach, the public should 
be able to find the document by title or registration number through a 
reasonable search of the Copyright Office's records. For this reason we 
do not believe the RIAA's approach to be aligned with the statutory 
goal.
    Moreover, the language in section 205(c) referencing indexing by 
the Register of Copyrights must be interpreted in light of section 
705(a), which provides that the Register ``shall ensure that records of 
deposits, registrations, recordations, and other actions taken under 
this title are maintained, and that indexes of such records are 
prepared.'' 17 U.S.C. 705(a) (emphasis added).\5\ She is also 
authorized to establish regulations consistent with the statute ``for 
the administration of [her] functions and duties'' under title 17. 17 
U.S.C. 702. Thus, the Register may assign the task of indexing to 
another and issue implementing regulations; her duty is to ensure that 
indexes of records are prepared. Notably, section 705 was amended in 
2000 specifically to empower the Register to delegate tasks related to 
record maintenance and indexing to others outside the Copyright 
Office.\6\ Especially in light of this amendment, allowing remitters to 
prepare electronic title lists that will serve as the basis for the 
recordation index is fully consistent with congressional intent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Wachovia Bank NA v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 315-16 (2006) 
(``[U]nder the in pari materia canon of statutory construction, 
statutes addressing the same subject matter generally should be read 
`as if they were one law.' '' (quoting Erlenbaugh v. United States, 
409 U.S. 239, 243 (1972))).
    \6\ H.R. Rep. No. 106-861, at 5-6 (2000); see Work Made for Hire 
and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000, Public Law 106-379, 114 Stat. 
144, 1445. Prior to this amendment, section 705(a) stated that the 
Register ``shall . . . prepare indexes of all . . . records.'' 17 
U.S.C. 705(a) (1999).
    \7\ The RIAA also relies on provisions of the Federal Rules of 
Evidence relating to the introduction of documentary evidence at 
trial. RIAA Comments at 3-5 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 1001(d); 1002; 
1003). While those provisions could be relevant in litigation 
involving a particular document, they do not govern the 
interpretation of the Copyright Act by the Copyright Office. See 
Fed. R. Evid. 101 (``These rules apply to proceedings in United 
States courts.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We appreciate the RIAA's concern that remitters are perhaps bearing 
some additional responsibility and risk by choosing to submit 
electronic title lists. RIAA Comments at 5. We note that remitters can 
mitigate their risk by establishing appropriate internal procedures to 
review and confirm electronic lists before they are submitted to the 
Office. (Indeed, remitters should already be employing such measures 
for title lists that are submitted in paper form.) Still, the Office 
acknowledges that some remitters may not wish to take on the added 
burden of preparing a careful list in electronic form. In such a case, 
the remitter may continue to rely

[[Page 55635]]

on a wholly paper process and manual transcription by the Office. The 
Office continues to believe, however, that for many remitters, the 
benefits of faster processing times are likely to outweigh the concerns 
identified by the RIAA.
    Notwithstanding its disagreement with the RIAA's basic position, 
the Office concurs with the RIAA's views to the extent that the RIAA 
suggests that it is unnecessary for the rule itself specifically to 
note potential scenarios where discrepancies in the electronic list may 
give rise to concerns about notice or priority. Accordingly, the final 
rule omits the last two sentences of proposed Sec.  201.4(c)(4)(iii), 
which referenced such scenarios, and revises the preceding sentence to 
be more general in approach.

2. Quality Control Checks

    The RIAA also suggests that the Office ``implement a process of 
quality control checks, particularly during the first year or so after 
a final rule is promulgated, so that the Office can determine the 
extent of errors in the submissions of electronic lists.'' RIAA 
Comments at 2. The RIAA notes that ``[i]f the rate of such errors is 
not insignificant, the Office may need to consider modifying the rule 
in order to minimize such errors.'' Id.
    The Office intends to ``spot check'' electronic title lists that 
are submitted, at least for some initial period of time after 
promulgation of the rule, and plans to communicate with remitters if 
inaccuracies are found. If the Office discovers an unacceptably high 
error rate in electronic title lists through these spot checks or 
otherwise, it will consider appropriate revisions to the rule. 
Notwithstanding such quality control checks, the Office reiterates that 
remitters bear full responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of the 
electronic title lists they submit.

3. Correction of Errors

    The RIAA also urges the Office to ``provide for a mechanism or 
procedure by which a remitter can easily correct any errors to the 
electronic list that the remitter has supplied voluntarily.'' RIAA 
Comments at 5. Specifically, the RIAA urges that ``the remitter should 
be able to correct those errors in a simple, cost-free or low-cost 
manner,'' and that ``there should be no time limitation during which a 
remitter can correct an error.'' Id.
    In light of the potential consequences of errors, and to ensure the 
most accurate public record possible, the Office agrees with the RIAA 
that the rule should provide a mechanism for correcting errors in the 
online Public Catalog that stem from a remitter's submission of an 
erroneous title list. The Office is therefore adding a provision to the 
rule to permit such corrections. This provision, to be codified at 
Sec.  201.4(c)(4)(v), would apply after the document has already been 
processed and catalogued by the Office. Under the rule, if a remitter 
discovers an error in the cataloging of a recorded document that is a 
result of an inaccuracy in the earlier submitted electronic title list, 
the remitter may submit a corrected title list to the Copyright Office.
    To correct the Public Catalog, the original remitter of the 
recorded document must submit the full electronic list of titles, in 
the same format as prescribed for the originally submitted list, with 
each corrected row identified with color highlighting in the table. The 
table header should contain the phrase ``CORRECTED TITLE LIST.'' The 
table header, file name, and label on the storage medium should include 
the volume and document number of the recorded document to which the 
corrected list pertains so it can be easily matched to the proper 
record. A cover letter should also be included that clearly references 
the volume and document number of the recorded document, the name of 
the remitting party, the name of the first party listed in the paper 
document, and the first title listed in the paper document. Once 
received by the Office, staff will process the necessary corrections so 
they are reflected in the Office's Public Catalog. In addition, a note 
will be placed in the record indicating that corrections were made to 
the catalog, and the date those corrections were made.
    This service will require the establishment of a separate fee.\8\ 
See 17 U.S.C. 708(a) (authorizing the Register to ``fix fees for other 
services . . . based on the cost of providing the service''). But 
rather than delay the adoption of this final rule in its entirety to 
allow public comment on such a fee, the Office has decided to issue the 
rule now and delay imposition of the fee.\9\ Until the applicable fee 
is finalized through the separate rulemaking proceeding, the fee for 
submission of corrected title lists will be zero.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Office will reexamine the overall fees for recordation, 
including the impact, if any, of implementation of this rule, during 
its next fee study. See generally 79 FR 15910 (Mar. 24, 2014) (prior 
fee study).
    \9\ In a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Office 
proposes a fee of seven dollars for every title that is being 
corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Technical Changes

    Lastly, the final rule includes a few technical changes with 
respect to the processing of electronic title lists. The rule now 
specifies that the Office will add a note into the record indicating 
that it has used an electronic title list submitted by the remitter for 
purposes of indexing the document. In addition, the final rule includes 
two clarifications regarding the manner in which registration numbers 
are to be listed in electronic title lists. First, it specifies that 
when multiple registration numbers are associated with a title, the 
registration numbers should be separated by commas. Second, it requires 
the use of all capital letters for the alphabetic prefixes of 
registration numbers (e.g., ``VAU'' not ``VAu'').

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright.

Final Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office 
amends 37 CFR part 201 as follows:

PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.

0
2. Amend Sec.  201.4 by revising paragraph (b) and the paragraph (c) 
heading and by adding paragraphs (c)(4) and (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  201.4  Recordation of transfers and certain other documents.

* * * * *
    (b) Forms. Persons recording documents are encouraged, but not 
required, to complete and include a Recordation Document Cover Sheet 
(Form DCS), available on the Copyright Office Web site, with their 
submissions; provided, however, that if the remitter seeks a return 
receipt as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, then Form DCS is 
required. Form DCS may also be used to satisfy the sworn certification 
requirement of 17 U.S.C. 205(a), as provided in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of 
this section. If Form DCS is used, two copies of the completed form 
should accompany each document submitted for recordation, one of which 
will become part of the public record.
    (c) Document submission contents and process. * * *
    (4) Submission of electronic title lists. If a document submitted 
for recordation pertains to 100 or more titles of copyrighted works 
(including where the total number of titles across multiple title lists 
associated with the document

[[Page 55636]]

is 100 or more), in addition to identifying the titles in the paper 
submission, the remitting party may also submit an electronic list (or 
lists) setting forth each such title, as provided herein. The 
electronic list(s) shall not be considered a part of the recorded 
document and shall function only as a means to index titles and other 
information associated with the recorded document. When the Office uses 
an electronic title list submitted by a remitter for indexing purposes, 
it will make a note of this fact in the record.
    (i) Method of submitting electronic title lists. Absent a special 
arrangement with the Office, the electronic list must be included in 
the same package as the paper document to be recorded. The list must be 
prepared in a format consistent with the requirements in paragraph 
(c)(4)(ii) of this section, and stored on a compact disc, flash drive, 
or other digital storage medium approved by the Copyright Office that 
is clearly labeled with the following information: The name of the 
remitting party, the name of the first party listed in the paper 
document, the first title listed in the paper document, the number of 
titles included in the paper document, and the date the remitting party 
mailed or delivered the paper document.
    (ii) Format requirements for electronic title lists. Any electronic 
list of titles submitted pursuant to this paragraph (c)(4) shall 
conform to the requirements of this subparagraph. The electronic list 
of titles shall:
    (A) Consist of a table contained in an electronic file in Excel 
(.xls) format or an equivalent electronic format approved by the 
Office;
    (B) Include only letters, numbers, and printable characters that 
appear in the ASCII 128-character set;
    (C) Include four columns respectively entitled, from left to right, 
Article, Title, Authorship Information, and Registration Number(s);
    (D) List each title on a separate row of the electronic table, and 
include the following information for each title in the appropriate 
column, as applicable:
    (1) First column: Article. If the title of the work begins with one 
of the articles specified in the following list, the article should be 
separated from the title and placed in this column. If the title does 
not begin with one of the specified articles, the column must still be 
included, but this field should be left blank. The list of leading 
articles is as follows:
    (i) English: A, An, The
    (ii) Spanish: Un, Una, El, La, Lo, Las, Los
    (iii) French: L', Le, La, Les, Un, Une
    (iv) German: Der, Die, Das, Einer, Eine, Ein;
    (2) Second column: Title. The title of the work, not including any 
leading article;
    (3) Third column: Authorship Information. The word ``By'' followed 
by the author or authors of the work. Where applicable, include 
designations such as ``performer known as'' or ``also known as,'' or 
the abbreviated form of such designations. Abbreviated designations 
must omit any punctuation between letters, for example ``pka'' (not 
``p/k/a''); and
    (4) Fourth column: Registration Number(s). The copyright 
registration number or numbers, separated by commas. This field is 
optional; if registration numbers are not being supplied for any title 
in the submission, this column should still be included, but left 
blank. Regardless of how they appear in the paper document, 
registration numbers included in the electronic list must be twelve 
characters long, must include a two- or three-letter prefix in all 
capital letters, and must not include spaces or hyphens. If a given 
registration number consists of fewer than twelve characters in the 
original, the remitting party should add leading zeroes to the numeric 
portion of the registration number before adding it to the list. For 
example, a published work with the registration number ``SR-320-918'' 
should be transcribed into the electronic list as ``SR0000320918,'' and 
an unpublished work with the registration number ``VAu-598-764'' should 
be transcribed into the electronic list as ``VAU000598764.''
    (iii) Remitters to bear consequences of inaccurate electronic title 
lists. The Office will rely on the electronic list of titles for 
purposes of indexing recorded documents in the Public Catalog and the 
remitter will bear the consequences, if any, of any inaccuracies in the 
electronic list in relation to the recorded document, including with 
respect to the application of 17 U.S.C. 205(c) and 205(d).
    (iv) Treatment of improperly prepared electronic title lists. The 
Office reserves the right to reject an electronic title list from any 
party that is shown to have submitted an improperly prepared file.
    (v) Correction of erroneous title lists. If a remitter of a 
recorded document finds that an error or omission in an electronic 
title list has led to the inaccurate indexing of the document in the 
Public Catalog, the remitter may request that the record be corrected 
by submitting a corrected version of the electronic title list. The 
remitter must submit the complete, corrected list of electronic titles 
in accordance with the method and format requirements set forth in 
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, with each corrected row 
in the table identified by color highlighting. The table header should 
contain the phrase ``CORRECTED TITLE LIST.'' The volume and document 
number of the associated recorded document should also be included in 
the header, as well as in the title of the computer file containing the 
electronic title list. In submitting the list the remitter should 
include a cover letter that clearly references the volume and document 
number of the recorded document, the name of the remitting party, the 
name of the first party listed in the paper document, and the first 
title listed in the paper document. Upon receipt of a corrected 
electronic list in proper form, the Office will proceed to correct the 
data in the Public Catalog, and will make a note in the record 
indicating that the corrections were made and the date they were made.
* * * * *
    (f) Return receipt. If, with a document submitted for recordation, 
a remitter includes two copies of a properly completed Recordation 
Document Cover Sheet (Form DCS) indicating that a return receipt is 
requested, as well as a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope, the 
remitter will receive a date-stamped return receipt acknowledging the 
Copyright Office's receipt of the enclosed submission. The completed 
copies of Form DCS and the self-addressed, postage-paid envelope must 
be included in the same package as the submitted document. A return 
receipt confirms the Office's receipt of the submission as of the date 
indicated, but does not establish eligibility for, or the date of, 
recordation.

    Dated: September 2, 2014.
Maria A. Pallante,
Register of Copyrights.

    Approved by:
James H. Billington,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2014-22233 Filed 9-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
```