Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20707 

1Public Law 116–260, sec. 212, 134 Stat. 1182, 

2176 (2020). 

2 17 U.S.C. 1502(a), 1504(e)(1)(D); see, e.g., H.R. 

Rep. No. 116–252, at 17–20 (2019); S. Rep. No. 116– 

105, at 11 (2019). Note, the CASE Act legislative 

history cited is for H.R. 2426 and S. 1273, the CASE 

Act of 2019, a bill nearly identical to the CASE Act 

of 2020. See H.R. 2426, 116th Cong. (2019); S. 1273, 

116th Cong. (2019). 

3 17 U.S.C. 1504(c)(1)–(3). 

4See id. at 1504(a); H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 17, 

21; S. Rep. No. 116–105, at 3, 11. 

5 17 U.S.C. 1507(a)(3); H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 

21–22, 33; S. Rep. No. 116–105, at 14. 

6 17 U.S.C. 1506(a)(1). 

7 Id. at 1506(d)(2); see also S. Rep. No. 116–105, 

at 4 (‘‘Parties may also rely upon law school legal 

clinics to represent them before the Board.’’); H.R. 

Rep. No. 116–252, at 17 (‘‘Parties may . . . be 

represented . . . by a law student acting pro 

bono.’’). 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, associated 

implementing instructions, and 

Environmental Planning COMDTINST 

5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone that will prohibit entry within 200 

yards of a damaged power cable that is 

laying across the Columbia River, 

approximately 300 yards west of the 

John Day Lock and Dam. It is 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L 60(c) of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T13–0176 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T13–0176 Safety Zone; Safety Zone; 

Columbia River, Rufus, OR. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of the Columbia 

River, from surface to bottom, 200 yards 

around a line connecting the following 

points: 45°42′51′′ N, 120°42′39′′ W and 

45°42′22.9′′ N, 120°42′28.1′′ W. These 

coordinates are based on the 1984 

World Geodetic System. 

(b) Definitions. As used in this 

section, designated representative 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

operating a Coast Guard vessel and a 

Federal, State, and local officer 

designated by or assisting the Captain of 

the Port Columbia River (COTP) in the 

enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

safety zone regulations in subpart C of 

this part, you may not enter the safety 

zone described in paragraph (a) of this 

section unless authorized by the COTP 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by contacting the Sector 

Columbia River at 503–861–6212. Those 

in the safety zone must comply with all 

lawful orders or directions given to 

them by the COTP or the COTP’s 

designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from April 4, 2022, to 

April 10, 2022. 

Dated: April 4, 2022. 

M. Scott Jackson, 

Capt, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port 

Columbia River. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07515 Filed 4–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Parts 201, 232, and 234 

[Docket No. 2021–9] 

Copyright Claims Board: Law Student 

and Business Entity Representation 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

issuing a final rule establishing 

procedures governing the appearance of 

law student representatives and 

representatives of business entities in 

proceedings before the Copyright Claims 

Board. 

DATES: Effective May 9, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 

General Counsel, by email at meft@

copyright.gov, or by telephone at 202– 

707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Copyright Alternative in SmallClaims Enforcement (‘‘CASE’’) Act of 

2020 1 directs the Copyright Office 

(‘‘Office’’) to establish the Copyright 

Claims Board (‘‘CCB’’), an alternative 

forum to federal court in which parties 

may seek resolution of copyright 

disputes that have a total monetary 

value of $30,000 or less.2 The CCB has 

the authority to hear copyright 

infringement claims, claims seeking a 

declaration of noninfringement, and 

misrepresentation claims under 17 

U.S.C. 512(f).3 Participation in the CCB 

is voluntary for all parties 4 and all 

determinations are non-precedential.5

The CASE Act directs the Register of 

Copyrights to establish the regulations 

by which the CCB will conduct its 

proceedings, subject to the provisions of 

chapter 15 and relevant principles of 

law under title 17 of the United States 

Code.6 The CASE Act also provides that 

any party in a CCB proceeding may be 

represented by ‘‘a law student who is 

qualified under applicable law 

governing representation by law 

students of parties in legal proceedings 

and who provides such representation 

on a pro bono basis.’’ 7

In December 2021, the Office issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’), proposing regulations 

governing the representation of parties 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
20708 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

8 86 FR 74394 (Dec. 30, 2021). Comments 

received in response to the NPRM are available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2021- 

0011-0001/comment. References to comments 

responding to the NPRM are by party name 

(abbreviated where appropriate), followed by 

‘‘Initial NPRM Comments’’ or ‘‘Reply NPRM 

Comments’’ as appropriate. 

9See id. at 74397–98. 

10 Id. at 74394. 

11 Id. at 74397. 

12See Law School Faculty With an Interest in 

CCB Procedures Initial NPRM Comments at 1–2 

(commenting parties include Brianna Marie 

Christenson, Sabren Hassan Wahdan, Sandra 

Aistars, Amy Tang, Philippa Loengard, Robert 

Brauneis, Melissa Eckhause, Jon M. Garon, Laurie 

Kohn, Christopher Newman, Sean A. Pager, Zvi 

Rosen, Mark F. Schultz) (‘‘[L]aw school clinics will 

play an important role in allowing parties to 

confidently pursue or defend their claims before the 

CCB.’’) (‘‘Law School Faculty’’); Marketa Trimble 

Initial NPRM Comments at 1 (‘‘a welcome new 

opportunity for law student experiential learning 

and an important additional support of access to 

justice in the realm of copyright law’’); Norman 

Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 2; Joel Rothman 

Initial NPRM Comments at 1; Anonymous Initial 

NPRM Comments; Sarah Mintz Reply NPRM 

Comments; Anonymous II Reply NPRM Comments. 

13Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

1. 

14See id. at 6; Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM 

Comments at 2; Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply 

NPRM Comments at 2–3; Copyright Alliance et al. 

Initial NPRM Comments at 7; Copyright Alliance et 

al. Reply NPRM Comments at 10 (‘‘[I]n line with 

many other clinic and professor authored 

comments, we again urge the Office to expand the 

scope of law student participation to include other 

programs, organizations, and groups that utilize law 

school students.’’). 

15Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

5–6; Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 7; see DC App. R. 48, https://

www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/ 

DCCA%20Rule%2048.pdf (last visited March 28, 

2022); see also Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply 

NPRM Comments at 2–4 (proposing definition of 

‘‘clinic’’ to include all education to assist with pro 

bono legal representation, or to cover other law 

school educational programs). 

16See generally Cynthia L. Dahl & Victoria F. 

Phillips, Innovation and Tradition: A Survey of 

Intellectual Property and Technology Legal Clinics, 

25 Clinical L. Rev. 95, 137–47 (Fall 2018), https:// 

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_

id=3184486. 

17See Law School Faculty Initial NPRM 

Comments at 2 (cautioning against ‘‘placing 

additional CCB-specific burdens on clinic 

operations’’); id. at 6 (identifying concerns related 

to the role of ‘‘faculty’’ and ‘‘fee-shifting’’ in a 

potential definition of ‘‘law school clinic’’); 

Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments 

at 3 (noting that Tulane Law School has a trademark 

and patent lab but no formal intellectual property 

clinic, so its students would likely be precluded 

from participating under the proposed definition). 

18Law School Faculty Initial Comments at 6. The 

Office understands the reference to ‘‘costs’’ to 

denote what are called ‘‘court costs’’ in litigation, 

such as filing fees and service-related fees. See id. 

19 Id. at 7. 

20See 86 FR 69890, 69917 (Dec. 8, 2021). 

by qualified law students.8 To facilitate 

law student representation before the 

CCB, the Office proposed setting 

threshold eligibility requirements for 

law students and their supervising 

attorneys and creating a voluntary 

public directory of law school clinics 

whose students are available to 

represent clients before the CCB.9

The same NPRM also proposed 

regulations ‘‘governing the 

representation of corporations, limited 

liability companies, partnerships, sole 

proprietorships, and other 

unincorporated associations 

(collectively, ‘business entities’)’’ in 

CCB proceedings.10 Considering the 

small claims nature of the CCB and the 

fact that attorney representation is not 

mandatory, the Office proposed that, in 

addition to attorneys or law students, 

business entities may be represented in 

a CCB proceeding by a fiduciary or 

properly authorized employee, and 

proposed requirements that these 

representatives must follow.11

Commenters were generally 

supportive of the proposed regulations, 

except as discussed in the sections 

below, and offered many suggestions 

that the Office is adopting in the final 

rule. Based on the comments received, 

the final rule will expand the scope of 

law student participation in CCB 

proceedings in several ways. The 

prerequisites for law students to appear 

before the CCB have been adjusted to 

provide law clinics more discretion. In 

addition, law students will be permitted 

to participate before the CCB not only 

through law school clinics but also 

through pro bono legal services 

organizations that have a connection 

with the student’s law school. 

Accordingly, under the final rule, the 

Office will provide a public directory of 

both participating law school clinics 

and participating pro bono 

organizations. As in the proposed rule, 

a clinic or organization will not be 

required to be on the published CCB list 

to participate in CCB proceedings. 

Commenters were also supportive of 

the proposed rule governing business 

entity representation. The final rule 

adopts the proposed rule’s approach 

and permits business entities to be 

represented before the CCB by in-house 

attorneys, fiduciaries, and employees 

expressly authorized by the business 

entity to represent it in a particular 

proceeding. The final rule also includes 

a revision to clarify that a business 

entity’s representative may submit a 

single valid certification that will 

remain effective throughout a 

proceeding, but such certification does 

not extend to future proceedings. 

II. Discussion of Final Rule 

A. Requirements for Law Student 

Representation 

1. Law Student Representation Through 

Law School Clinics 

Most comments addressing law 

student representation before the CCB 

expressed support for the Office’s 

proposed rule.12 A typical comment, 

jointly submitted by ‘‘Law School 

Faculty With an Interest in CCB 

Procedures’’ (‘‘Law School Faculty’’), 

including professors and clinic directors 

from eight law schools, stated ‘‘[t]he 

Proposed Regulations properly take into 

consideration the need to ensure the 

quality of law student representation 

and the corresponding burdens placed 

on the law clinics and supervising 

attorneys.’’ 13 Many commenters further 

wrote in favor of expanding 

opportunities for student representation 

beyond the law school clinic 

environment, as further discussed 

below.14

Some commenters requested that the 

Office consider defining the term ‘‘law 

school clinic’’ and proposed using the 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals 

Rule 48(a)(5) as a model.15 After 

considering the variety of operating 

structures and practices employed by 

clinical programs at law schools 

throughout the country,16 the Office 

declines to provide a specific, limiting 

definition of the term, to avoid unduly 

excluding capable clinics from 

participation.17 A participating law 

student must comply with the 

applicable law of the jurisdiction that 

certifies the student to practice law in 

conjunction with a law school clinic. 

Further, the student’s supervising 

attorney must also be qualified to 

practice under applicable law and must 

certify the student’s eligibility to 

participate. The same commenters urged 

the Office to ‘‘allow law school clinics 

to set their own rules with regard to the 

handling of costs’’ 18 when defining 

‘‘law school clinic.’’ As noted above, the 

Office does not purport to define that 

term at all. 

The proposed rule did not include 

any limits on the number of proceedings 

in which a law student representative or 

clinic may participate. The Law School 

Faculty commenters asserted that the 

Office may lack the authority to impose 

such a limit.19 The Office does not 

include any limitations in this final 

rule, but it intends to address the issue 

of limits, if any, on the number of 

proceedings that parties and their 

representatives may bring over a 12- 

month period in a separate rulemaking 

proceeding.20

A few commenters expressed 

reservations or opposition to law 

student representation through clinics. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20709 

21Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial 

NPRM Comments at 1 (commenting parties include 

Jonathan Askin, Lynda Braun, Cynthia L. Dahl, Ron 

Lazebnik, Jack I. Lerner, Amanda Levendowski, 

Phil Malone, Art Neill, Vicki Phillips, Jef Pearlman, 

Blake E. Reid, Jason Schultz, and Erik Stallman); 

see also Southlaw Ent. Initial NPRM Comments (‘‘I 

am not for law students handling these cases,’’ 

considering the seriousness of the offenses and the 

life-altering effect of a damages award ‘‘if cases are 

mishandled’’); Trenton Seegert Initial NPRM 

Comments at 1 (supporting law student 

representation while urging the Office to ‘‘be more 

concerned with ensuring that student 

representatives exhibit the necessary and proper 

qualifications’’). 

22 17 U.S.C. 1504(a). 23 Id. at 1506(i). 24Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial 

NPRM Comments at 2. 25 Id. at 2. 26 Id. 27 Id. at 4. 

28 Id. at 5. 

29Law School Faculty Reply NPRM Comments at 

2–3 (‘‘We likewise appreciate the thoughtful 

discussion and analysis offered by the Technology 

and IP Clinical Professors concerning whether or 

not they are likely to find cases they deem of 

appropriate pedagogical value or how they would 

advise clients seeking their services to use the CCB 

process.’’); Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM 

Comments at 4 (‘‘The Reply Comment is written, in 

great part, to respond to the thoughtful Comment 

by Technology and Intellectual Property Clinical 

Law Professors . . . [who] brought up all of the 

difficulties and problems they see in adding CCB 

representation to their clinics.’’); Joel Rothman 

Reply NPRM Comments at 2 (‘‘I could not disagree 

more with the IP Professors’ view.’’). 

30Law School Faculty Reply NPRM Comments at 

3. 

31 Joel Rothman Reply NPRM Comments at 3. The 

Office takes no view on any role that insurance may 

play in a respondent’s decision to respond to a 

claim or opt out of a CCB proceeding. 

32 Id. at 4 (citing ABA, Directory of Law School 

Public Interest & Pro Bono Programs, https://

www.americanbar.org/groups/center-pro-bono/ 

resources/directory_of_law_school_public_interest_

pro_bono_programs (last visited Mar. 28, 2022); see 

also Joel Rothman Initial NPRM Comments at 1 (‘‘In 

my experience, copyright law can be learned as 

required. I never took an IP course in law school, 

yet that never stood in my way.’’). 

33Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2. 

34 86 FR 74394, 74394 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 

116–252, at 17) (footnotes omitted). 

35 17 U.S.C. 1506(d)(2). 

36 86 FR 74394, 74397. 

37Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2 

(‘‘Participation in a law school-sponsored pro bono 

program should be accepted as an alternative to 

participation in a law school clinic focused on 

copyright.’’); Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply 

NPRM Comments at 3; Law School Faculty Initial 

NPRM Comments at 6; Copyright Alliance et al. 

Initial NPRM Comments at 7. 

38Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 7; see Law School Faculty Initial 

Continued 

Notably, a comment submitted jointly 

by directors of 12 intellectual property 

and technology law school clinics 

(‘‘Technology & IP Clinical Law 

Professors’’) stated ‘‘that CCB 

proceedings are not well-suited to clinic 

participation.’’ 21 These commenters 

cited CASE Act provisions that they 

believe limit the suitability of law 

school clinics’ participation in CCB 

proceedings. Specifically, they contend 

that the voluntary nature of CCB 

proceedings,22 which permit a 

respondent to ‘‘opt out’’ and have the 

proceeding dismissed without prejudice 

at the outset,23 provide few learning 

opportunities for the law school clinic 

student.24 In the view of these 12 clinic 

directors, this opt-out procedure poses 

‘‘significant limitations on the kinds of 

clients that clinics can represent in CCB 

proceedings and the possibilities for 

pedagogically sound learning 

opportunities for law student 

attorneys.’’ 25 Because the parties to a 

CCB proceeding that is dismissed after 

a respondent opts out retain their rights 

to litigate in federal court, these 

commenters explained that their clinics 

were not well situated to engage in 

federal court copyright litigation in the 

event their client’s CCB claim is 

dismissed after the respondent opts 

out.26 They expressed concern that 

‘‘[e]ven when cases present a viable set 

of representational and pedagogical 

circumstances to proceed to 

adjudication before the CCB, . . . the 

degree of complexity may be beyond the 

capacity of our clinics to handle without 

taking matters out of our law student 

attorneys’ hands.’’ 27 Finally, noting the 

non-precedential nature of CCB 

decisions, they observed that ‘‘many 

clinics aim to square their public service 

missions with their limited capacity to 

serve deserving clients by taking on 

those whose cases are likely to advance 

the state of the law more broadly and 

advance the interest of others by setting 

precedent.’’ 28

Several reply comments responded 

directly to these concerns.29 Reply 

comments submitted by Law School 

Faculty (including the directors of law 

school clinics) opined that the 

Technology & IP Clinical Law 

Professors’ comments ‘‘seemed to more 

directly address the policy 

considerations underlying the CASE Act 

as a whole,’’ and were ‘‘less directly 

addresse[d to] the questions asked in the 

NPRM regarding the procedures 

governing the appearance of law student 

representatives before the CCB.’’ With 

regard to those broader policy 

considerations, the Law School Faculty 

reply comment noted that though ‘‘the 

matters raised by our colleagues are of 

deep concern to us as well . . . we do 

not believe these questions are within 

the scope of this NPRM and urge the 

[Office] to leave them within Congress’s 

purview.’’ 30

Attorney Joel Rothman suggested that 

respondents are less likely to opt out 

than projected by the Technology & IP 

Clinical Law Professors’ comment. By 

example, Mr. Rothman noted that 

infringement claims related to 

advertising uses of copyrighted works 

are likely to be covered by commercial 

general liability insurance, suggesting 

that insurance companies covering 

copyright claims for respondents have 

an incentive to participate in CCB 

proceedings, which offer lower 

exposure to significant damages and 

expenses than do cases before the 

federal courts.31 While some 

commenters disagreed on whether CCB 

proceedings would raise questions too 

complex for law student representatives, 

Mr. Rothman pointed out that law 

school clinics routinely represent 

clients in complicated legal fields such 

as taxation, immigration, workers’ 

compensation, social security disability, 

real estate, and bankruptcy law.32

Law student representation is 

expressly envisioned by the CASE Act. 

The Act aims to increase access to 

justice, and as intellectual property law 

professor Marketa Trimble observed, 

‘‘law school clinics typically provide an 

ideal setting for the type of 

representation envisioned by the 

proposed rules.’’ 33 As stated in the 

NPRM, ‘‘[c]onsistent with Congress’s 

directive to develop a system that is 

accessible to ‘those with little prior 

formal exposure to copyright laws,’ the 

Office is committed to facilitating law 

student representation through law 

school clinics, which play an important 

role in providing expanded legal access 

to often underserved members of the 

public.’’ 34

2. Law Student Representation Outside 

of Clinics 

Commenters encouraged the Office to 

allow CCB participants to be 

represented by law students outside of 

law school clinics. The statute provides 

for representation by ‘‘a law student 

who is qualified under applicable law 

governing representation by law 

students of parties in legal proceedings 

and who provides such representation 

on a pro bono basis.’’ 35 It does not 

indicate that such representatives must 

be under the auspices of a law school 

clinic. Though the regulation proposed 

in the NPRM would have limited 

representation by eligible law students 

to those ‘‘affiliated with a law school 

clinic,’’ 36 several commenters 

persuasively urged the Office to expand 

the scope of law student representation 

beyond that environment.37

The Office recognizes that ‘‘not all 

programs operated by law schools may 

be truly clinical in nature.’’ 38 The Office 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
20710 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

NPRM Comments at 5 (‘‘not every law school 

operates programs that can be categorized as 

clinical in nature’’). 

39Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 2 

(discussing the Partners in Pro Bono Program at the 

William S. Boyd School of Law at the University 

of Nevada, Las Vegas). 

40 86 FR 74394, 74394 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 

116–252, at 17). 

41Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial 

NPRM Comments at 5. 

42Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

6. 

43 86 FR 74394, 74397. 

44Law School Faculty Initial Comments at 4. The 

Copyright Alliance et al. commented that 

‘‘completion of the first year of studies’’ should be 

the only requirement, though it also proposed 

revisions to the rule that would allow 

representation by students who had not completed 

a year of law school, or had taken only a copyright 

course or training instead. Copyright Alliance et al. 

Initial Comments at 8. 

45 86 FR 74394, 74395 (citing Model Rules of 

Prof’l Conduct R. 1.1 (Am. Bar Ass’n 1983) 

(‘‘Competent representation requires the legal 

knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation 

reasonably necessary for the representation [of a 

client].’’)). 

46Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

3–4; Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 3– 

4; Joel Rothman Initial NPRM Comments at 1–2; 

Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 8–9; Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM 

Comments at 2–3. But see Trenton Seegert Initial 

NPRM Comments at 2 (supporting the formal 

training proposed prerequisites and noting that ‘‘by 

requiring all participating law students to have a 

similar base knowledge of copyright law, 

representation becomes more efficient’’). 

47Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 8 (‘‘It is not clear what would 

constitute ‘formal’ training versus ‘informal’ 

training.’’); see also Law School Faculty Initial 

NPRM Comments at 2. 

48Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

3; Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 3–4; 

Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM Comments 

at 2–3. 

49Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

3; see also Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments 

at 4 (‘‘With the supervision of an attorney, the need 

for students to have taken copyright or CCB courses 

becomes an unnecessary barrier to eligibility for 

students and should be withdrawn from the 

proposed rules.’’). 

50See Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 8 n.4 (commenting that a requirement 

of ‘‘completion of a copyright law course may not 

be desirable . . . particularly since the legal issues 

in a CCB proceeding are narrow and since the 

supervising attorney will be supervising the law 

student representative throughout the proceeding’’). 

further recognizes that not all law 

schools have clinics focused on 

copyright, though many sponsor 

programs ‘‘in which attorneys who work 

on pro bono cases are paired with law 

students who assist with the cases 

under the attorneys’ supervision and 

guidance.’’ 39 Such programs can ensure 

that parties in CCB proceedings are 

represented by law students who have 

sufficient training and oversight. The 

Office is persuaded that, if these 

programs have a connection with the 

student’s law school, and they follow 

the same rules as any law school clinics 

would have to follow, they may also 

participate in CCB proceedings. 

The Office believes that facilitating 

representation by qualified students, 

whether through law school clinics or 

comparable, law school-connected pro 

bono programs offering similar 

supervision and support, is consistent 

with the goal of expanding access to 

‘‘those with little prior formal exposure 

to copyright laws.’’ 40 Such 

representation can help alleviate the 

concern, raised in the Technology & IP 

Clinical Law Professors’ comment that 

‘‘clinics likely will be unable to fill the 

significant access-to-justice gap that the 

opening of proceedings before the CCB 

may create.’’ 41 As the Law School 

Faculty comment noted, ‘‘[a]n expanded 

field of properly trained and supervised 

students will allow more students to 

help underserved communities and 

claimants, especially if the demand is 

high for law student representation or 

when there are few (or no) eligible legal 

clinics in a particular area, or during 

particular times of the year, like summer 

breaks.’’ 42

Accordingly, the final rule provides 

that a qualified law student must be 

affiliated with a law school clinic, or 

with a pro bono legal services 

organization that has a connection with 

the student’s law school. 

Finally, in addition to the qualified 

law student representation described in 

the rule, the Office encourages the 

participation of law students in CCB 

proceedings more broadly. For example, 

under the supervision of a licensed 

attorney, a law student may assist with 

drafting a pleading or other document to 

be filed before the CCB. In addition, a 

licensed lawyer representing a party 

before the CCB may have a law student 

intern or clerk attend any part of the 

party’s proceeding. 

3. Competency Prerequisites 

The NPRM proposed a standard of 

competency for law student 

representatives that would require 

successful completion of both ‘‘[t]he 

first year of studies at an American Bar 

Association-accredited law school,’’ and 

‘‘[a] copyright law course, formal 

copyright law training, or formal 

training in Board procedures.’’ 43

Commenters addressed the prerequisites 

and the Office is modifying the rule 

after consideration of those comments. 

Commenters supported the 

requirement that law student 

representatives must have completed 

their first year of law school: ‘‘We do 

wholeheartedly agree that law students 

participating in this program should be 

required to complete their first year of 

studies at an American Bar Association 

(ABA)-accredited law school. To our 

knowledge this is a pre-requisite of all 

clinical programs.’’ 44 The Office 

believes that the completion of a first 

year of law school is a minimum 

requirement that is part of ‘‘an 

appropriate standard of competence’’ 45

for law student representatives and will 

retain that requirement. 

Most commenters considered the 

Office’s proposed law student 

competency prerequisites to be too 

restrictive and unnecessary.46 Some 

deemed unclear what would constitute 

sufficient ‘‘formal’’ training in copyright 

law or CCB procedures.47 Commenters 

also noted that administrative issues, 

such as the fact that some law schools 

may offer copyright law courses only at 

limited times, may hamper students’ 

completion of the prerequisite in time to 

participate in the clinic.48 Several 

commenters suggested that supervising 

attorneys charged with ensuring 

competent representation will take 

responsibility for providing students 

sufficient instruction in copyright, in a 

clinical setting or elsewhere, if the 

students have not completed a copyright 

law course beforehand, with one group 

noting, ‘‘[c]ompetent representation can 

be rendered through necessary study, 

and providing training in copyright 

advocacy and counselling may well be 

among the pedagogical goals of clinical 

programs that will be taking on CCB 

representations.’’ 49

The Office agrees. The CCB is 

designed to allow parties to represent 

themselves, or to be represented by an 

attorney or a pro bono law clinic. 

Neither parties, nor their representatives 

need to be versed in the entire body of 

copyright law to participate before the 

CCB.50 Determining whether a student 

is sufficiently trained to represent a 

party in each proceeding can be 

entrusted to an attorney supervisor with 

access to information specific to the 

dispute, who can tailor any needed 

copyright training to the pertinent 

matters. Accordingly, the final rule will 

not require a copyright law course or 

‘‘formal’’ copyright law training, but 

instead will require ‘‘training in relevant 

copyright law, as determined by the 

supervising clinic or pro bono 

organization.’’ 

However, any CCB proceeding will 

also require party representatives to be 

familiar with, at a minimum, the 

language in the CASE Act and the 

governing CCB regulations. The Office 

expects that parties who secure pro 

bono law school student representation 

will likely be heavily reliant on the 

student representative’s guidance on 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20711 

51S. Rep. No. 116–105, at 8 (‘‘Nothing in the 

legislation prevents the imposition of a requirement 

that parties to a claim acknowledge in writing that 

they have reviewed the procedural rules and/or 

watched such videos [about how parties to the 

proceeding should act] prior to the filing of a claim 

or responded to claim.’’). 52Eric Goldman, Tyler Ochoa & Rebecca Tushnet 

Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 53 Id. 54 Id. 55 Id. 56Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 9; Law School Faculty Reply NPRM 

Comments at 2. 57Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 9. 

58See 86 FR 53897, 53906 (Sept. 29, 2021); 86 FR 

69890, 69916 (Dec. 8, 2021). 

59See 86 FR 74394, 74397 (‘‘Representatives of 

business entities who appear pursuant to 

paragraphs (b)(3) or (4) of this section are equally 

subject to the standards of conduct . . . as any 

other party representative.’’); see also id. at 74398 

(‘‘Law student representatives are equally subject to 

the standards of conduct . . . as any other attorney 

representatives.’’). 

60 Id. at 74395 (‘‘[L]aw student representatives 

must be supervised by an attorney’’). 

61Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

5; see also Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 9 (‘‘The proposed regulations are well 

drafted in terms of allocating responsibilities to a 

supervising attorney.’’). 

62Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

5; see also Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 9 (‘‘Some law school clinics may have 

several adjunct professors who support the law 

school clinic director in project management and 

supervision.’’). 

63See 86 FR 74394, 74397–98. 

64See id. at 74398. 

65 Id. at 74396. 

66Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 9. 

67 Id. at 6 (quoting 86 FR 74394, 74397); Law 

School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 4 (same). 

matters of CCB procedure. Therefore, 

the final rule includes a requirement 

that, to be competent to represent a 

party, a law student must first review 

the CASE Act’s statutory text and the 

CCB’s regulations. The legislative 

history of the CASE Act indicated that 

the Office may require that parties 

‘‘have reviewed the [CCB’s] procedural 

rules’’ to participate.51 The Office 

acknowledges that reviewing detailed 

regulatory text could be challenging for 

pro se parties without legal training, and 

it is not imposing such a requirement on 

parties at this time. However, a review 

of the statute and regulations should not 

pose the same challenges for students 

who have completed a year or more of 

law school, and who can turn to a 

supervising attorney for help in 

understanding the rules. 

4. Professional Conduct 

In a joint comment, three law school 

professors suggested that the Office 

should set explicit standards of 

professional conduct for ‘‘anyone 

representing clients before the CCB,’’ 52

including requirements to ‘‘conduct 

proper investigations of the facts and 

law before filing a claim, similar to the 

duties specified in FRCP 11.’’ 53 The 

professors further asked the Office to set 

specific ‘‘consequences for 

representatives who repeatedly engage 

in improper conduct before the CCB,’’ 54

and establish disciplinary proceedings 

against such representatives.55 Other 

commenters replied and opposed the 

Office establishing such a separate 

disciplinary system.56 The Office agrees 

with the Copyright Alliance et al. reply 

comment noting that ‘‘[a]ttorneys are 

already subject to professional ethics 

standards’’ and that creating a separate 

disciplinary process relating to law 

student representatives under the Office 

would be ‘‘duplicative or conflict with 

preexisting systems.’’ 57 In addition, 

there is no basis in the statute to permit 

the CCB to establish a separate 

disciplinary standard for law students. 

The three law school professors’ 

comments regarding professional 

conduct apply to all party 

representatives appearing before the 

CCB, including attorneys, so they are 

necessarily broader than the issues of 

law student and business entity 

representations raised in this rule. The 

Office has discussed issues regarding 

truthful filings and professional conduct 

under earlier notices of proposed 

rulemaking.58 This separate rulemaking 

when finalized will apply equally to all 

party representatives appearing before 

the CCB, including business entity and 

law student representatives.59 The 

Office’s intent is that the standards for 

conduct before the CCB as a whole 

should foster professional conduct as 

well as truthful and accurate 

submissions by all parties and their 

representatives. 

5. Attorney Supervision 

The Office proposed that all law 

student representatives must be 

supervised by a licensed attorney.60 No 

commenter disagreed with this 

requirement. Commenters generally 

stated that ‘‘the proposed regulations are 

well-drafted in terms of defining the 

role of a Supervisory Attorney to ensure 

proper guidance and direction to law 

student representatives.’’ 61

Commenters asked the Office to 

‘‘clarify that law student representatives 

may be supervised by multiple 

attorneys’’ affiliated with a law school 

clinic.62 The Office acknowledges that 

multiple attorneys may supervise 

students in some law school clinics, and 

nothing in the regulation limits their 

ability to do so. The Office simply 

requires that at least one attorney be 

identified as the supervising attorney on 

each document that the law student 

representative submits, even if several 

attorneys supervise the student’s work. 

Any supervising attorney linked to the 

law student through the CCB’s 

electronic filing system (‘‘eCCB’’) shall 

have responsibility over case 

management and professional 

responsibility for the law student 

representative’s actions.63 Furthermore, 

at hearings and conferences, one of the 

law student representative’s supervising 

attorneys must attend with the student, 

and the Office is revising the proposed 

regulation to clarify that point.64

The Office invited comments on 

‘‘whether documents submitted to the 

CCB must be signed by both the 

supervising attorney and the law 

student representative,’’ 65 rather than 

by the student alone. The Office 

received one responsive comment, from 

the Copyright Alliance et al., stating, 

‘‘we believe that both supervising 

attorneys and law student 

representatives should sign all legal 

filings submitted to the CCB,’’ without 

additional context.66 The Office has set 

up eCCB to be as streamlined as 

possible, often with fillable templates to 

complete required forms, and so 

mandating multiple signatures at this 

time for every filing would interfere 

with the ease of eCCB use. Rather, while 

the final rule allows both the law 

student representatives and the 

supervisory attorney sign any document 

they submit, the final rules require a 

single signature. If the student 

representative is the sole signatory, that 

student must certify that the supervising 

attorney assented to the filing. 

Commenters suggested that the Office 

issue a definition of the term 

‘‘supervising attorney’’ that would 

mirror language in the proposed 

regulation regarding attorneys 

representing business entities, requiring 

the attorney to be a ‘‘member in good 

standing of the bar of the highest court 

of a State, the District of Columbia, or 

any territory or commonwealth of the 

United States.’’ 67 A supervising 

attorney must comport with the 

applicable state laws governing a clinic 

or legal services organization in the 

jurisdiction where the attorney’s clinic 

or organization is based. The Office 

believes that the current requirement 

addresses the appropriate qualifications 

for attorneys supervising law student 

representatives. 

Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard 

proposed that a supervising attorney 

should not be required to act as the pro 

bono client’s attorney, but simply as a 

facilitator or teacher overseeing the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
20712 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

68Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM 

Comments at 3 (‘‘Taking on a client requires a great 

deal of vetting and responsibility.’’). 

69Cal. Rules of State Bar R. 3.6(B)(3); N.Y. Comp. 

Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22, sec. 805.5(e) (2017); Tenn. 

Sup. Ct. R. 7, sec. 10.03(h)(3)(C); D.C. Ct. App. R. 

48(e)(2); Md. R. 19–220(d); Va. Sup. Ct. R. pt. 6, sec. 

IV, 15(d)(ii). 

70See 86 FR 74394, 74395. 

71Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 9. 

72Norman Hedges Initial NPRM Comments at 5 

(stating students expressed that they would not be 

comfortable proceeding without a supervisor 

present). 

73 86 FR 74394, 74395. 

74Marketa Trimble Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

75Technology & IP Clinical Law Professors Initial 

NPRM Comments at 5; see also Law School Faculty 

Initial NPRM Comments at 8 (noting that ‘‘inclusion 

in this directory should be voluntary and not a 

prerequisite to participate in CCB proceedings’’); 

Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 10. 

76Law School Faculty Initial NPRM Comments at 

8. 

77Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 10, Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply 

NPRM Comments at 5; Law School Faculty Initial 

NPRM Comments at 8–9. 

78See 86 FR 74394, 74398. 

79Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 11; see also Law School Faculty Initial 

NPRM Comments at 8. 

80 86 FR 74394, 74397. 

81 Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 1–2; see 

also Southlaw Ent. Initial NPRM Comments at 1 

(noting that ‘‘these proceedings should be handled 

by a professional’’). 

82 17 U.S.C. 1506(d). 

83Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 7–8 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, 

at 17); see also Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply 

NPRM Comments at 5–6 (stating that CCB 

regulations ‘‘should be clear and not present a 

barrier to solopreneurs or start ups that may not 

have access to legal representation’’). 

student.68 However, if the Office were to 

adopt this rule, it could violate the 

requirements of applicable law 

governing the clinic. In jurisdictions 

surveyed by the Office including 

California, New York, Tennessee, the 

District of Columbia, Maryland, and 

Virginia, the supervisory attorney is 

generally required to assume 

professional responsibility for any 

activity performed by the law student.69

The Office is therefore maintaining the 

requirement for a supervising attorney 

to be responsible for the actions and 

filings of a law student representative. 

The proposed rule would have 

required a supervising attorney to 

accompany a law student representative 

to hearings on the merits, but not to 

conferences.70 Several commenters 

advocated that ‘‘it should be mandatory 

for supervising attorneys to appear at 

both hearings and conferences’’ 71 or, 

going even further, that they must ‘‘be 

present in all situations where a client 

is represented, whether or not the 

situations are on the merits.’’ 72 There 

were no comments to the contrary. The 

Office agrees that direct supervision in 

such circumstances serves the interests 

of a law student’s client and is 

appropriate in view of the supervising 

attorney’s responsibility for case 

management.73 The Office will require 

that a supervising attorney must appear 

at any hearing or conference absent 

leave from the CCB. 

B. Pro Bono Representation Directory 

No commenters opposed the creation 

of a directory of pro bono 

representation. Professor Marketa 

Trimble proposed that the Office 

directory listings include ‘‘not only 

participating law school clinics, but also 

participating law school-sponsored pro 

bono programs.’’ 74 Because the Office 

will permit law student representation 

outside the clinical context with 

supervision through a law schoolconnected pro bono legal services 

organization, the Office agrees with 

Professor Trimble’s proposal. The final 

rule provides for such organizations to 

be able to indicate, in the public 

directory, their availability to assist CCB 

parties. 

Several commenters asked the Office 

to ensure ‘‘that clinics can choose 

whether to be listed in a directory of 

participating clinics separate from their 

ability to appear in any given 

proceeding.’’ 75 Clinics and legal 

services organizations that are eligible 

and available to facilitate pro bono 

student representation before the CCB 

are encouraged to make their 

availability known through a public 

directory listing, but the Office will not 

make inclusion in the directory a 

requirement. The regulation clarifies 

that the duty to maintain current 

information in the directory applies 

only to participants that have chosen to 

be listed, and that directory listing is not 

a requirement for representing clients in 

CCB proceedings. 

The Law School Faculty commenters 

requested that participating clinics be 

permitted to submit directory listings 

that do not provide all of the 

information required in the proposed 

regulation, so that the clinics need ‘‘not 

to answer questions they do not wish to 

answer or feel they cannot adequately 

keep current under the guidelines.’’ 76

Some commenters took issue with 

requirements to disclose whether the 

clinic or organization has handled 

copyright matters in the last two years, 

and the nature of such matters, at a time 

when the CCB has not yet been in 

operation for two years.77 A disclosure 

that there have been few or no recent 

copyright matters will not prohibit a law 

clinic’s inclusion in the directory. 

Nothing stops a clinic or organization 

from explaining why it has limited 

experience, and the Office does not 

believe it should craft a regulation that 

it will need to change in the future. 

Since qualified clinics and public 

service organizations may fully 

participate in supervising law student 

representatives whether or not they are 

listed in the directory, those that choose 

to be listed must provide all information 

requested and can explain any 

perceived gaps in their experience. The 

Office believes that all such information 

would be relevant to a potential client 

seeking representation through the 

directory and notes that updates are 

required only once a year.78

The Copyright Alliance et al. asked 

that the Office accept a general 

description of the nature of such recent 

copyright matters, and not require that 

the listing ‘‘divulge any specific details 

of prior client representations.’’ 79 The 

Office is not requesting or requiring 

disclosure of any confidential or 

privileged information for inclusion in 

the directory. 

The final rule maintains the proposed 

disclosure requirements for law school 

clinics and requires the same 

disclosures of eligible legal services 

organizations, if they seek to be listed in 

the CCB pro bono representation 

directory. 

C. Representation of Business Entities 

The NPRM proposed that, in addition 

to attorneys or law students, business 

entities may be represented in a CCB 

proceeding by a fiduciary or properly 

authorized employee, and proposed 

requirements that these representatives 

must follow.80 The comments received 

in response to the NPRM were 

supportive of the proposed rule, which 

expands access to the CCB by smaller 

business entities. 

While two commenters took the 

position that the Office should require 

business entities to use in-house 

lawyers or outside counsel in order to 

appear before the CCB,81 the CASE Act 

does not require business entities to be 

represented by counsel.82 As other 

commenters noted, Congress envisioned 

the CCB as a forum that will enable 

parties to resolve low-value copyright 

claims without the expense of an 

attorney, and ‘‘intended [the CCB] to be 

accessible especially for pro se parties 

and those with little prior formal 

exposure to copyright laws who cannot 

otherwise afford to have their claims 

and defenses heard in federal court.’’ 83

Representation of business entities by 

their own fiduciaries and authorized 

employees is consistent with the CASE 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20713 

84Anonymous Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 

85See 86 FR 74394, 74397; see also 86 FR 69890, 

69917 (Dec. 8, 2021). 

86See Law School Faculty Initial NPRM 

Comments at 6 n.2 (noting, in the context of 

supervision of law school representatives, ‘‘the 

Copyright Office should rely on state entities to 

govern the Supervising Attorneys to ensure proper 

oversight’’). 

87Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 12. 

88Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM 

Comments at 3–4, 6; see also Norman Hedges Initial 

NPRM Comments at 3 (proposing that the Office 

direct members of the public to law school clinics 

for assistance filing copyright registrations). 

89Elizabeth Townsend Gard Reply NPRM 

Comments at 5. 

Act and with express Congressional 

intent. 

Another commenter proposed that 

‘‘lawyers with foreign credentials’’ be 

allowed to represent foreign authors, 

suggesting that such lawyers ‘‘have 

more knowledge than a student.’’ 84 The 

Office considers it impracticable to 

allow representation by such attorneys. 

An attorney representative in a CCB 

proceeding, including an attorney 

supervising a qualified law student, will 

be required to be in good standing to 

practice before the bar of the highest 

court of a State, the District of 

Columbia, or a territory or 

commonwealth of the United States.85

While the Office can depend on a 

domestic state bar’s professional 

responsibility requirements to ensure 

that the attorney’s conduct before the 

CCB will comport with ethical 

standards for practice,86 the Office 

would not have the capacity to ensure 

that attorneys admitted elsewhere are 

subject to the same ethical obligations. 

The Copyright Alliance et al. 

suggested ‘‘that the Office amend 

[proposed 37 CFR] 232.6(c) so that the 

required certification for a particular 

business representative qualified under 

[proposed 37 CFR] 232.6(b)(3)–(4) can 

be valid for a period of up to one 

year.’’ 87 The certification requirement is 

on a per-proceeding basis, not an annual 

basis. To avoid any potential confusion, 

the Copyright Office is amending the 

proposed regulation to clarify that a 

business entity representative who 

certifies the entity’s authorization in a 

particular CCB proceeding shall remain 

authorized for the duration of that 

proceeding, so long as the business 

entity continues to authorize the 

representative. 

Finally, Professor Elizabeth 

Townsend Gard expressed support for 

opportunities to educate small 

businesses about copyright in ways that 

would not entail representation, such as 

workshops on copyright registration, 

and suggested that student or alumni 

groups could be organized to provide 

such legal information to the public.88

Professor Townsend Gard also suggested 

creating CCB fellowships whereby 

faculty or student groups could apply to 

the Office with research proposals and 

have their research published on the 

CCB website.89 The Office appreciates 

the suggestions of various methods of 

education and outreach to the public, as 

well as future research possibilities, but 

does not understand these suggestions 

to require the Office to promulgate any 

regulations. 

List of Subjects 

37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, General provisions. 

37 CFR Part 232 

Claims, Copyright. 

37 CFR Part 234 

Claims, Copyright. 

Final Regulations 

For reasons stated in the preamble, 

the U.S. Copyright Office amends 

chapter II, subchapters A and B, of title 

37 Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

Subchapter A—Copyright Office and 

Procedures 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

Section 201.10 also issued under 17 U.S.C. 

304. 

■ 2. In § 201.2, revise paragraph (a)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 201.2 Information given by the Copyright 

Office. 

(a) * * * 

(2) The Copyright Office does not 

furnish the names of copyright 

attorneys, publishers, agents, or other 

similar information to the public, except 

that it may provide a directory of pro 

bono representation available to 

participants in proceedings before the 

Copyright Claims Board. 

* * * * * 

Subchapter B—Copyright Claims Board and 

Procedures 

■ 3. Add part 232 to read as follows: 

PART 232—CONDUCT OF PARTIES 

Sec. 

232.1–232.5 [Reserved] 

232.6 Representation of business entities. 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510. 

§§ 232.1–232.5 [Reserved] 

§ 232.6 Representation of business 

entities. 

For purposes of this part: 

(a) Definition. A business entity is a 

corporation, limited liability company, 

partnership, sole proprietorship, or 

unincorporated association. 

(b) Appearance of a business entity. A 

business entity may appear before the 

Copyright Claims Board (Board) 

through— 

(1) A member in good standing of the 

bar of the highest court of a State, the 

District of Columbia, or any territory or 

commonwealth of the United States; 

(2) A law student who meets the 

requirements set forth in 37 CFR 234.1; 

(3) An owner, partner, officer, or 

member, of the business entity; or 

(4) An authorized employee. 

(c) Certification. Someone appearing 

before the Board in a proceeding to 

represent a business entity in that 

proceeding pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) 

or (4) of this section shall certify that 

they are an authorized agent of the 

business entity and may bind that entity 

in the proceeding pending before the 

Board. If the representative qualifies 

only as an authorized employee under 

paragraph (b)(4) of this section, then 

within 30 days of the authorized 

employee’s initial appearance, the 

representative also must submit written 

authorization, signed by an owner, 

partner, officer, or member of the 

business entity under penalty of perjury, 

stating that the representative may bind 

that entity on matters pending before 

the Board. A valid certification under 

this subsection shall remain effective 

throughout the proceeding, so long as 

the representative continues to be 

authorized by the business entity. 

(d) Subject to standards of 

professional conduct. Representatives of 

business entities who appear pursuant 

to paragraph (b)(3) or (4) of this section 

are equally subject to the standards of 

conduct as any other party 

representative. 

■ 4. Add part 234 to read as follows: 

PART 234—LAW STUDENT 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Sec. 

234.1 Law student representatives. 

234.2 Pro bono representation directory. 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510. 

§ 234.1 Law student representatives. 

(a) Eligibility for appearance—(1) 

State law compliance. Any law student 

who is affiliated with a law school 

clinic or a pro bono legal services 

organization with a connection to the 

student’s law school, is qualified under 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
20714 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable laws governing 

representation by law students of parties 

in legal proceedings, and meets the 

other requirements of this paragraph 

(a)(1) may appear before the Copyright 

Claims Board (Board). Applicable law is 

the law of the jurisdiction that certifies 

the student to practice law in 

conjunction with a law school clinic or 

pro bono legal services organization 

with a connection to the student’s law 

school. 

(2) Pro bono representation. Any law 

student who appears before the Board 

must provide representation on a pro 

bono basis. 

(3) Competency. Law student 

representatives must meet a standard of 

competency. For the purpose of 

appearances before the Board, 

competency includes successful 

completion of— 

(i) The first year of studies at an 

American Bar Association-accredited 

law school; 

(ii) Training in relevant copyright law, 

as determined by the supervising clinic 

or pro bono organization; and 

(iii) Review of the Board’s regulations 

found in this subchapter, and of the 

Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims 

Enforcement Act of 2020 statutory text, 

as codified at chapter 15 of title 17 of 

the United States Code. 

(b) Client consent. The law student 

representative shall have the written 

consent of the client to appear on that 

client’s behalf. 

(c) Attorney supervision. A law 

student who represents a party in a 

proceeding before the Board shall be 

supervised by an attorney who is 

qualified under applicable state law 

governing representation by law 

students, as specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section. In supervising the law 

student, the attorney shall adhere to any 

rules regarding participant conduct. 

(d) Confirmation of eligibility. In 

accordance with the standards of 

professional conduct set forth in 

paragraph (j) of this section, the attorney 

supervising the work of the law student 

representative is responsible for 

confirming the law student’s eligibility 

to appear before the Board as set forth 

in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(e) Signature and assent. The law 

student representative or supervising 

attorney shall electronically or 

physically sign each document 

submitted to the Board on behalf of the 

law student’s client. If the law student 

representative signs, the law student 

must identify the name of the 

supervising attorney on all documents 

signed by the law student 

representative. The law student must 

certify that the law student sought and 

obtained the supervising attorney’s 

assent to the submission. 

(f) Notice of appearance. In any 

proceeding in which a law student 

represents a party, a notice of 

appearance shall be filed identifying 

both the law student representative and 

the supervising attorney, unless already 

identified in the party’s claim or 

response. 

(g) Filing documents. All filings by a 

law student representative shall be 

made with the knowledge of the 

supervising attorney, who shall 

maintain an association with the law 

student representative in the Board’s 

electronic filing system (eCCB). 

Supervising attorneys and law students 

shall maintain their own accounts in 

eCCB. A notice of withdrawal, and a 

notice of appearance if applicable, shall 

be filed whenever the identity of a law 

student representative or a supervising 

attorney has changed. 

(h) Appearance at hearings and 

conferences. A supervising attorney 

shall accompany the law student 

representative to any hearings and 

conferences held in the course of the 

proceeding, absent leave of the Board 

for the law student to appear without a 

supervising attorney present. 

(i) Responsibility for continuity of 

case management. The supervising 

attorney shall be responsible for all 

aspects of case management, including 

appearances and withdrawals, as well as 

continuity of representation during law 

school term transitions. 

(j) Applicability of rules of 

professional conduct. Law student 

representatives are equally subject to 

any rules regarding participant conduct 

as any other attorney representatives. 

The supervising attorney has 

professional responsibility for the 

actions of the law student 

representative. The Board may hold 

supervising attorneys responsible for 

law student representative activity. 

§ 234.2 Pro bono representation directory. 

(a) Publicly available directory. The 

Board shall make a directory available 

on its website of law school clinics and 

of pro bono legal services organizations 

with a connection to a law school that 

have advised the Board that they are 

available, on a pro bono basis, to 

provide law student representation to 

clients in proceedings before the Board, 

and wish to be listed in the directory. 

Listing in the directory is not a 

requirement for eligible law school 

clinics or a pro bono legal services 

organizations to represent clients in 

Board proceedings. 

(b) Form for inclusion. To be included 

in the public directory, the director of 

the law school clinic or pro bono legal 

services organization shall submit a 

form providing the following 

information for public dissemination: 

(1) The name of the participating 

clinic or organization; 

(2) The name of the law school where 

the clinic is based, or with which the 

organization is connected; 

(3) The name of the director of the 

clinic or organization; 

(4) A general contact email address 

and phone number; 

(5) The geographic area from which 

the clinic or organization may accept 

clients; 

(6) Whether the clinic or organization 

has handled copyright matters in the 

past two years; 

(7) The nature of any copyright 

matters handled by the clinic or 

organization in the past two years; 

(8) Whether the clinic or organization 

has experience in handling litigation 

matters; 

(9) If the clinic or organization does 

not have litigation experience, whether 

it has a partnership with a litigation 

clinic or experience supervising law 

students in litigation matters; 

(10) A brief statement describing the 

clinic or organization’s interest in 

handling matters before the Board; and 

(11) A certification that student 

representatives participating in Board 

proceedings in affiliation with the clinic 

or organization will meet all 

requirements of § 234.1(a). 

(c) Standards for inclusion. Subject to 

paragraph (d) of this section, the Board 

will accept for inclusion in the public 

directory any law school clinic or pro 

bono legal services organization with a 

connection to a law school that certifies 

that its law student representatives will 

meet all requirements of § 234.1(a) and 

provides sufficient information 

pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section 

for participants in Board proceedings to 

evaluate whether representation is 

available and appropriate. 

(d) Removal from directory. The 

Board may, in its discretion, remove a 

clinic or pro bono legal services 

organization from the directory if it 

determines that the clinic or 

organization is not suitable for 

representing clients before the Board, 

including, without limitation, if it 

determines that the clinic or 

organization has failed to properly 

update its information in the public 

directory. 

(e) Duty to update directory. 

Participating clinics and pro bono legal 

services organizations, which have been 

listed in the directory, have a duty to 

maintain current information in the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 20715 

1Previously, PSD permits in Illinois have been 

issued under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). 

Since April 7, 1980, IEPA has issued PSD permits 

under a delegation agreement with EPA that 

authorizes IEPA to implement the FIP (January 29, 

1981, 46 FR 9580). Under a November 16, 1981 

amendment to the 1980 Delegation Agreement, 

IEPA also had the authority to amend or revise any 

PSD permit issued by EPA under the FIP. See 86 

FR 22372, 22373 (April 28, 2021). On September 22, 

2020, IEPA submitted to EPA a request to revise the 

Illinois SIP to establish a SIP-approved PSD 

program in Illinois, which was approved on 

September 9, 2021 (86 FR 50459), and addressed 

comments received during EPA’s public comment 

period. 

2See 46 FR 44476, 44477 (Sept. 4, 1981) 

(‘‘Because of the straightforward nature of some 

actions or the narrowness of their scope, many SIP 

revisions get few, if any, comments from the public 

during the comment period.’’); 47 FR 27073, 27074 

(June 23, 1982) (‘‘as part of EPA’s new SIP 

processing program, a SIP revision that is judged by 

Continued 

directory and shall confirm the currency 

of the information on an annual basis. 

Dated: April 4, 2022. 

Shira Perlmutter, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

Approved by: 

Carla D. Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07543 Filed 4–7–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0583; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2019–0311; EPA–R05–OAR–2020– 

0501; FRL–9056–04–R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Illinois regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and 2015 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). Further, EPA is 

approving the infrastructure 

requirements related to Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

previous NAAQS. The infrastructure 

requirements are designed to ensure that 

the structural components of each 

state’s air quality management program 

are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. EPA 

received comments on its September 29, 

2021, proposed rule and withdrew the 

accompanying Direct Final Rule (DFR). 

After considering the comments, EPA is 

approving the revisions to the Illinois 

SIP as requested by the State on 

September 29, 2017, May 16, 2019, and 

September 22, 2020. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 9, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0583 (for PM2.5), 

EPA–R05–OAR–2019–0311 (for ozone), 

and EPA–R05–OAR–2020–0501 (for 

PSD) at https://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either through 

www.regulations.gov or at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. We 

recommend that you telephone Olivia 

Davidson, Environmental Scientist, at 

(312) 886–0266 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Olivia Davidson, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–0266, 

davidson.olivia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

I. Background 

On September 29, 2021 (86 FR 53872), 

EPA published a DFR approving 

elements of infrastructure SIP revisions 

submitted by the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (IEPA) on September 

29, 2017, May 16, 2019, and September 

22, 2020, to address the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5 and 2015 

ozone NAAQS, respectively. In the DFR, 

EPA also approved the infrastructure 

requirements related to Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 1 for 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, 2008 lead, 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2), and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2) NAAQS. An explanation of the 

CAA requirements, a detailed analysis 

of the SIP submission, and EPA’s 

reasons for proposing approval were 

provided in the DFR and will not be 

restated here. 

In the DFR, EPA stated that if adverse 

comments were received by October 29, 

2021, the rule would be withdrawn and 

not take effect. On October 27, 2021, 

EPA received one set of adverse 

comments and, as a result, revised its 

regulations on January 18, 2022 (87 FR 

2554), because EPA was unable to 

withdraw the DFR before it took effect. 

EPA is addressing the comments in this 

final action based upon the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) also 

published on September 29, 2021. See 

86 FR 53915. 

II. EPA’s Response to Comments 

A summary of the comments, and 

EPA’s response, is provided below. 

Comment: The commenters state that 

EPA should not have used a DFR for 

this action because EPA did not have 

good cause under 5 U.S.C. to forgo 

normal notice-and-comment procedures 

(i.e., publishing an NPRM and accepting 

comments 30 days before the rule’s 

effective date), because EPA allegedly 

did not find that compliance with the 

30-day requirement was either 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest,’’ nor did EPA 

incorporate such a finding ‘‘and a brief 

statement of the reasons therefor’’ in the 

DFR. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). In the DFR, 

EPA stated that this action was a 

‘‘noncontroversial amendment’’ to the 

existing Illinois SIP and that it 

anticipated no adverse comments. The 

commenters argue that these statements 

fail to satisfy the good cause exemption 

under 5 U.S.C. 553. The commenters 

assert that infrastructure SIP actions, 

even when the public fails to comment, 

are not necessarily ‘‘noncontroversial,’’ 

because such actions involve detailed 

reviews and have been subject to 

litigation. For this reason, the 

commenters argue EPA should never 

use DFRs to approve an infrastructure 

SIP submission. The commenters 

encourage EPA to commence a separate 

rulemaking to govern its use of DFRs. 

Response: EPA disagrees that it was 

inappropriate to use a DFR for this 

infrastructure SIP action. Since 

September 1981, EPA has used DFRs for 

SIP actions that are noncontroversial 

and where it reasonably expects no 

adverse public comments.2 These 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1