2542 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

commitment to consultation with Indian 

tribes and recognizes their right to selfgovernance and tribal sovereignty. 

BOEM is also respectful of its 

responsibilities for consultation with 

corporations established pursuant to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq. (ANCSA). 

BOEM has evaluated this rule under 

the consultation policy of the 

Department of the Interior in Chapters 4 

and 5 of Series 512 of the Departmental 

Manual and has determined that this 

rule has no substantial direct effects on 

any Tribe or ANCSA Corporation, as 

defined in 512 DM 4.3 to include, 

among others, Federally-recognized 

Alaska Native tribes. On the basis of this 

evaluation, BOEM has determined that 

consultation is not necessary to comply 

with any DOI policy. 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain 

information collection requirements, 

and a submission to the OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) is not required. We may 

not conduct or sponsor, and you are not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

J. National Environmental Policy Act 

A detailed environmental analysis 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not 

required if the rule is covered by a 

categorical exclusion (see 43 CFR 

46.205). This final rule meets the 

criteria set forth at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for 

a Departmental Categorical Exclusion in 

that this final rule is ‘‘. . . of an 

administrative, financial, legal, 

technical, or procedural nature . . .’’ We 

have also determined that the rule does 

not involve any of the extraordinary 

circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 

that would require further analysis 

under NEPA. 

K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 

13211) 

This rule is not a significant energy 

action under the definition in E.O. 

13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy 

Effects is not required. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 553 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Continental shelf, Financial 

responsibility, Liability, Limit of 

liability, Oil and gas exploration, Oil 

pollution, Oil spill, Outer Continental 

Shelf, Penalties, Pipelines, Rights-ofway, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Surety bonds, Treasury 

securities. 

Dated: January 9, 2018. 

Joseph R. Balash, 

Assistant Secretary—Land and Minerals 

Management. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, BOEM amends 30 CFR part 

553 as follows: 

PART 553—OIL SPILL FINANCIAL 

RESPONSIBILITY FOR OFFSHORE 

FACILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 553 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 2704, 2716; E.O. 

12777, as amended. 

■ 2. Revise § 553.702 to read as follows: 

§ 553.702 What limit of liability applies to 

my offshore facility? 

Except as provided in 33 U.S.C. 

2704(c), the limit of liability under OPA 

for a responsible party for any offshore 

facility, including any offshore pipeline, 

is the total of all removal costs plus 

$137.6595 million for damages with 

respect to each incident. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00798 Filed 1–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

37 CFR Parts 201, 202 

[Docket No. 2016–10] 

Group Registration of Photographs 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

modernizing its practices to increase the 

efficiency of the group registration 

option for photographs. This final rule 

modifies the procedure for registering 

groups of published photographs 

(GRPPH), and establishes a similar 

procedure for registering groups of 

unpublished photographs (GRUPH). 

Applicants will be required to use a new 

online application specifically designed 

for each option, instead of using a paper 

application, and will be allowed to 

include up to 750 photographs in each 

claim. The ‘‘unpublished collection’’ 

option (which allows an unlimited 

number of photographs to be registered 

with one application), and the ‘‘pilot 

program’’ (which allows an unlimited 

number of published photographs to be 

registered with the application designed 

for one work) will be eliminated. The 

corresponding ‘‘pilot program’’ for 

photographic databases will remain in 

effect for the time being. The final rule 

modernizes the deposit requirements by 

requiring applicants to submit their 

photographs in a digital format when 

using GRPPH, GRUPH, or the pilot 

program for photographic databases, 

along with a separate document 

containing a list of the titles and file 

names for each photograph. The final 

rule revises the eligibility requirements 

for GRPPH and GRUPH by providing 

that all the photographs must be created 

by the same ‘‘author’’ (a term that 

includes an employer or other person 

for whom a work is made for hire), and 

clarifying that they do not need to be 

created by the same photographer or 

published within the same country. It 

also confirms that a group registration 

issued under GRPHH or GRUPH covers 

each photograph in the group, each 

photograph is registered as a separate 

work, and the group as a whole is not 

considered a compilation or a collective 

work. 

DATES: Effective February 20, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of 

Copyrights and Director of Registration 

Policy and Practice; Sarang Vijay Damle, 

General Counsel and Associate Register 

of Copyrights; Erik Bertin, Deputy 

Director of Registration Policy and 

Practice by telephone at 202–707–8040 

or by email at rkas@loc.gov, sdam@

loc.gov, and ebertin@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Copyright Act gives the Register 

of Copyrights (the ‘‘Register’’) the 

discretion to allow groups of related 

works to be registered with one 

application and one filing fee. See 17 

U.S.C. 408(c)(1). Congress cited ‘‘a 

group of photographs by one 

photographer’’ as an example of a 

‘‘group of related works’’ that would be 

suitable for a group registration. H.R. 

Rep. No. 94–1476, at 154 (1976), 

reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 

5770; S. Rep. No. 94–473, at 136 (1975). 

When large numbers of photographs are 

grouped together in one application, 

however, information about the 

individual works may not be adequately 

captured. Group registration options 

therefore require careful balancing of 

the need for an accurate public record 

and the need for an efficient method of 

facilitating the examination of those 

works. 

On December 1, 2016, the Copyright 

Office (the ‘‘Office’’) published a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) 

setting forth proposed amendments to 

the current regulation governing the 

group registration option for published 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2543 

1As noted in the NPRM, the Office is not 

proposing to eliminate the corresponding ‘‘pilot 

program’’ for photographic databases. 81 FR at 

86643, 86649 n.21. Applicants may continue to 

register these types of databases with the online 

application at least for the time being. 37 CFR 

202.3(b)(5)(ii)(A). 

2The Office recently issued a separate notice of 

proposed rulemaking that proposed to eliminate the 

‘‘unpublished collection’’ option and replace it with 

a new group registration option for unpublished 

works (GRUW). Briefly stated, the GRUW option 

would allow applicants to register up to five 

unpublished works with one application and one 

filing fee (with certain limited exceptions for claims 

involving sound recordings). See 82 FR 47415, 

47417 (Oct. 12, 2017). To be clear, the GRUW 

option is not intended to replace the GRUPH option 

described in today’s final rule. Photographers will 

be able to register up to 750 photographs with the 

GRUPH option. See 81 FR at 86653; 82 FR 52258 

(Nov. 13, 2017). 

3 17 U.S.C. 408(b), (c). 

4The NPRM clarified that this same presumption 

does not apply when photographs are registered as 

part of a photographic database under 37 CFR 

202.3(b)(5), because a database is, by definition, a 

compilation. See 81 FR at 86653–54. 

5The Copyright Alliance endorsed the views 

expressed by the Coalition of Visual Artists, in 

addition to submitting its own comments. 

6The Coalition is comprised of the following 

organizations: The American Photographic Artists 

(APA), American Society of Media Photographers 

(ASMP), Digital Media Licensing Association 

(DMLA), Graphic Artists Guild (GAG), North 

American Nature Photography Association 

(NANPA), National Press Photographers 

Association (NPPA), Professional Photographers of 

America (PPA), the PLUS Coalition (PLUS), 

Schaftel & Schmelzer, and Doniger/Burroughs. 

7The Office received comments from five 

individuals, including three photographers. All of 

the comments submitted in response to the NPRM 

can be found on the Copyright Office’s website at 

https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/groupphotographs/. 

8See Copyright Alliance Comment at 2; CVA 

Comment at 6. The Office also issued a separate 

NPRM that proposed a similar online-filing 

requirement for seeking a supplementary 

registration. See 81 FR 86656 (Dec. 1, 2016). Under 

the rule proposed in that proceeding, most 

applicants would be required to file an online 

application to correct or amplify the information in 

an existing registration. The Office explained that 

this same online-filing requirement would apply 

when applicants seek to correct or amplify the 

information in a registration for a group of 

photographs or a photographic database. See 81 FR 

at 86648. The CVA expressed some concern about 

this proposal. CVA Comment at 10–15. The Office 

previously addressed those comments when it 

issued a final rule in the rulemaking on 

supplementary registration. See 82 FR at 27426. 

9See Copyright Alliance Comment at 1–2; CVA 

Comment at 4. 

10The final rule makes a few technical 

amendments to the proposed rule that match 

amendments that were recently made to §§ 202.3 

and 202.4. See 82 FR 29410, 82 FR 52224 (Nov. 13, 

2017). 

11The NPRM stated that applicants would be able 

to submit their photographs in the same formats 

listed in the current regulation, namely, JPEG, GIF, 

TIFF, or PCD. 81 FR at 86651; 37 CFR 

202.20(c)(2)(xx). Although the CVA supported this 

proposal, the Office did not include the PCD format 

in the final rule, because the electronic registration 

system will not accept these types of files. See 

www.copyright.gov/eco/help-file-types.html. 

12The CVA offered some suggestions for 

standardizing the size, dimension, resolution, and 

compression of each image. CVA Comment at 35. 

The Office did not include these suggestions in the 

final rule, because the electronic registration system 

should be able to accept any digital image, as long 

as it is submitted in an acceptable file format and 

the file size does not exceed 500MB. 

photographs (‘‘GRPPH’’), and proposing 

to create a new group registration option 

for unpublished photographs 

(‘‘GRUPH’’). See 81 FR 86643 (Dec. 1, 

2016). 

The NPRM described six major 

proposals. First, the proposed rule 

would require applicants to use a new 

online application specifically designed 

for registering a group of published 

photographs or a group of unpublished 

photographs, in lieu of using a paper 

application. Second, it would eliminate 

the ‘‘pilot program’’ that allows 

applicants to register an unlimited 

number of published photographs with 

the online application designed for 

registering one work.1 It also proposed 

to eliminate the registration 

accommodation that allows applicants 

to register an unlimited number of 

photographs as an ‘‘unpublished 

collection.’’ 2 Third, the proposed rule 

would limit the number of photographs 

that may be included within each 

application to no more than 750 

photographs. Fourth, the NPRM 

provided that all of the photographs 

must be created by the same 

photographer (similar to the 

requirement that applies under the 

current regulation governing GRPPH), 

and further provided that the 

photographs must be published within 

the same nation. Fifth, the proposed 

rule would modify the deposit 

requirement for GRPPH, GRUPH, and 

photographic databases by requiring 

applicants to submit (i) a digital copy of 

each photograph,3 and (ii) a separate 

document containing a list of the titles 

and file names for each photograph. 

Finally, the NPRM confirmed that when 

a group of photographs is registered 

under GRPHH or GRUPH, the 

registration covers each photograph, 

each photograph is registered as a 

separate work, and ‘‘the group as a 

whole is not considered a compilation, 

[or] a collective work . . . under 

sections 101, 103(b), or 504(c)(1) of the 

statute.’’ 4

The Office received comments from 

several individuals, the Copyright 

Alliance,5 and the Coalition of Visual 

Artists,6 which consists of ten separate 

organizations that represent 

photographers, illustrators, designers, 

and other visual artists (‘‘CVA’’).7 The 

commenters generally supported the 

Office’s proposal to eliminate the paper 

application and require applicants to 

submit their claims using an online 

application specifically designed for 

GRPPH and GRUPH.8 They welcomed 

the proposal to eliminate the ‘‘pilot 

program’’ for published photographs, 

and to replace the ‘‘unpublished 

collections’’ accommodation with a new 

group registration option for 

unpublished photographs.9 They also 

agreed that photographers should be 

entitled to claim a separate award of 

statutory damages for each photograph 

when they register their works under 

the GRPPH or GRUPH option. 

Nearly all of the commenters objected 

to the proposed limit on the number of 

photographs that may be included in 

each claim. Some commenters said it 

would be difficult to determine if a 

particular photograph should be 

registered as a published or 

unpublished work. Some expressed 

concern that all of the photographs 

would have to be created by the same 

photographer and published in the same 

nation. Others expressed concern about 

the obligation to submit digital deposits. 

Finally, one commenter suggested that 

photographers should be entitled to seek 

the same legal remedies, regardless of 

whether they register their works using 

GRPPH, GRUPH, or the pilot program 

for photographic databases. 

Having reviewed and carefully 

considered the comments, the Office 

now issues a final rule that closely 

follows the proposed rule, with some 

alterations based on these comments, 

which are discussed in more detail 

below.10

II. Discussion of Comments 

A. Online Application and Digital 

Deposits 

When this final rule goes into effect, 

applicants will be required to use the 

online applications designated for 

GRPPH and GRUPH. If an applicant 

attempts to use a paper application, the 

Office will refuse to register the claim. 

Applicants will be required to submit a 

digital copy of each photograph,11 either 

by uploading the photographs to the 

electronic registration system or by 

sending them to the Office on a physical 

storage device, such as a flash drive, 

CD–R, or DVD–R.12 In addition, 

applicants will be required to submit a 

separate document containing a 

sequentially numbered list that 

identifies the title and file name—and in 

the case of published photographs, the 

month and year of publication—for each 

photograph in the group. 

The Copyright Alliance supported 

this proposal, and predicted that online 

filing would ‘‘facilitate economy and 

efficiency.’’ Copyright Alliance 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2544 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

13The CVA commented that the 750 limit is 

‘‘unnecessary,’’ ‘‘unworkable, ‘‘contrary to the way 

most photographers’’ work, and ‘‘an arbitrary 

impediment to registering works as part of a visual 

artist’s nature workflow.’’ CVA Comment at 16. 

Photographer Eric Bowles commented that the 

proposed limit would be ‘‘completely unsuitable for 

event photographers, wedding photographers, 

sports photographers, or nature photographers,’’ 

because they typically take ‘‘1000–2000 photos or 

more on a regular basis in a single day.’’ Eric 

Bowles Comment. 

14Under the current pilot program for published 

photographs, the CVA commented that 

photographers may register 7500 photographs for 

$55. Under the proposed rule, the CVA commented 

that photographers would have to file 10 

applications to register the same number of works 

at the ‘‘prohibitive cost’’ of $550. CVA Comment at 

16. 

15To be clear, the 750 limit adopted in this final 

rule only applies to claims submitted under the 

group registration options for GRPPH and GRUPH. 

It does not apply to the pilot program for 

photographic databases. Applicants may continue 

to register an unlimited number of published 

photographs under this option, at least for the time 

being. But the Office intends to revisit this issue in 

a separate rulemaking or as part of its upcoming fee 

study. The Office notes that at least one database 

provider registered 57,040 photographs between 

2012 and 2016. According to the Digital Media 

Licensing Association (DMLA), this company filed 

29 applications during this four-year period, and 

each submission contained an average of 1966 

photographs. If the Office imposed a 750 limit on 

the pilot program for photographic databases, the 

DMLA stated that this company would have filed 

another 48 applications during this same period. 

CVA Comment at 41. The Office recognizes that this 

would require additional filing fees, and that those 

fees would have amounted to $660 per year. That 

is less than what the Office currently charges for 

expedited handling for one application under the 

current fee structure. And it represents a significant 

bargain for the privilege of registering nearly 60,000 

photographs with 77 applications, instead of 

preparing a separate submission for each work. 

Comment at 2. The CVA agreed that 

‘‘[d]elivering images via the internet has 

become the norm for the majority of 

photographers and other visual artists,’’ 

and that ‘‘it is reasonable to require 

visual creators to submit deposit images 

in digital format.’’ CVA Comment at 6, 

35. The CVA also agreed that uploading 

a list containing title and publication 

information would be preferable to the 

pilot program where applicants are 

expected to enter each title in the 

application one by one. CVA Comment 

at 34. 

The CVA acknowledged that 

photographers who use traditional film 

often ‘‘reproduce or scan’’ their images 

and ‘‘deliver their work via electronic 

means.’’ CVA Comment at 6. The CVA 

also acknowledged that there are feebased services available for 

photographers who need help 

completing the online application and 

submitting a digital deposit. CVA 

Comment at 6. However, the CVA and 

the Copyright Alliance expressed 

concern that some of these creators may 

have ‘‘vast archives’’ of photographs 

fixed in ‘‘traditional print media,’’ and 

they encouraged the Office to maintain 

the paper application for two-years to 

give these creators time to ‘‘catalog, 

archive, and register their works.’’ 

Copyright Alliance Comment at 2; CVA 

Comment at 7. 

The Office recently issued a final rule 

for group registration of contributions to 

periodicals that addressed similar 

concerns. See 82 FR at 29412. As in that 

rule, a specific provision is being added 

to the regulations making clear that in 

an exceptional case, if photographers 

are unable to submit a digital copy of 

their works, they may request special 

relief and submit an actual copy of each 

photograph or other identifying material 

in lieu of a digital file. 37 CFR 

202.20(d)(1)(iii)–(iv). 

In addition, the Office is developing 

several new resources to ease the 

transition to the online filing 

requirement. The Office will prepare an 

online tutorial that explains how to use 

the new applications, and ‘‘help text’’ 

within the applications themselves that 

will provide answers to frequently 

asked questions. The Office will update 

the sections of the Compendium of U.S. 

Copyright Office Practices, Third 

Edition (‘‘Compendium’’) that discuss 

the Office’s practices and procedures for 

group registration. The Office also 

intends to issue a new circular that will 

provide a general introduction to 

GRPPH and GRUPH. And as noted in 

the NPRM, the Office will contact each 

applicant that participated in the 

existing pilot program and notify them 

that this program has been replaced 

with a new procedure. 81 FR at 86647. 

B. Number of Photographs That May Be 

Included in the Group 

The NPRM proposed to limit the 

number of works that may be included 

in each submission to no more than 750 

photographs. This would represent a 

change in policy. Currently applicants 

may submit an unlimited number of 

photographs if they register their works 

as an unpublished collection, or if they 

use the pilot program for published 

photographs. By contrast, if they use a 

paper application submitted on Form 

VA and Form GR/PPh/CON, they may 

include no more than 750 photographs 

in each claim. 

The Copyright Alliance, the CVA, and 

three individuals objected to this 

proposal. They commented that the 

limit would be burdensome, because 

many photographers take thousands of 

photographs in a single day.13 They 

commented that photographers would 

have to pay more fees to register the 

same number of photographs as before, 

and that they would be unable to pass 

these additional fees on to their 

clients.14 Before imposing a limit on the 

number of photographs that may be 

registered under GRPPH or GRUPH, the 

commenters encouraged the Office to 

monitor the actual cost of examining 

these claims to determine if there is a 

substantial increase in the Office’s 

workload. CVA Comment at 17. 

After carefully reviewing the 

comments and weighing the issues 

involved, the Office has decided to 

adopt the 750 limit proposed in the 

NPRM. As mentioned above, the Office 

imposes the same limit when applicants 

use Form VA and Form GR/PPh/CON. 

That requirement has been in place 

since 2005. 70 FR 15587, 15588 (Mar. 

28, 2005). Since the Office introduced 

the pilot program for published 

photographs in 2012, the Office has 

monitored the cost of examining claims 

submitted through the electronic 

registration system. Based on this 

experience, the Office has concluded 

that 750 is a reasonable limit for GRPPH 

and GRUPH given its current staffing 

levels, the current filing fee for these 

group registration options, and the 

technical capabilities of the current 

system.15

When the system is functioning 

properly, it takes approximately 15 to 30 

minutes to examine a claim involving 

750 photographs or fewer. By contrast, 

a claim involving more than 750 

photographs typically requires an hour 

or more to complete. Applicants often 

fail to provide publication dates, they 

fail to list the dates in chronological 

order, or the dates provided in the 

application do not match the dates 

given in the deposit. If the applicant 

submits each photograph as an 

individual file, instead of uploading 

them in a .zip file, the examiner must 

click separate links to open each 

photograph. If any of the files are 

corrupt, the examiner must write to the 

applicant to request a new submission. 

The increasing work associated with 

these claims has had an adverse effect 

on the timeframe for examination of 

other types of works within the Visual 

Arts Division. 

There also may be problems once the 

claim has been approved. The title field 

in the Office’s public database will not 

accept more than 999 characters, but 

there is no corresponding limit in the 

registration application. When 

applicants submit more than 750 

photographs, the information in the title 

files often exceeds these character 

limits. When this occurs, the Office 

must review each record one by one to 

identify the registration that was 

rejected by the system. Then the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2545 

16See generally Modified U.S. Copyright Office 

Provisional IT Modernization Plan (Sept. 5, 2017), 

available at https://www.copyright.gov/reports/ 

itplan/. 

examiner must contact the applicant to 

request permission to amend the title 

field, he or she must update the record, 

and issue a new certificate. 

Moreover, when applicants upload 

thousands of photos to the electronic 

registration system, it strains the system 

as a whole. This has an adverse effect 

on other applicants, because it delays 

the receipt of their submissions and it 

prevents the Office from issuing an 

email acknowledging the receipt of 

those claims. Many applicants then 

contact the Office’s help desk to confirm 

that their submission was received, 

which places additional strains on the 

Office’s limited resources. 

Registering 750 photographs with the 

same application and the same filing fee 

represents a significant value and 

provides significant legal benefits. An 

applicant who submits the maximum 

number of photographs effectively 

would pay $0.07 to register each work 

under the current fee structure. As 

discussed below, the Office will 

examine each photograph in the group, 

and if the claim is approved, the 

registration covers each photograph and 

each photograph is registered as a 

separate work. Thus, if the photographs 

are subsequently infringed, the 

copyright owner should be entitled to 

seek a separate award of statutory 

damages for each individual 

photograph. See 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(1) 

(authorizing a separate award of 

statutory damages ‘‘with respect to any 

one work’’). 

The Visual Arts Division estimates 

that 75% to 80% of the applicants who 

register their works using the pilot 

program include fewer than 750 

photographs in each claim. Thus, the 

final rule will not have an adverse effect 

on the vast majority of applicants. The 

Office recognizes that some applicants 

routinely include more than 750 works 

in each claim, and going forward, these 

applicants will need to file multiple 

applications instead of submitting all of 

their photographs with the same 

application. But it is important to 

recognize that the final rule does not 

impose any limit on the number of 

applications that may be submitted at a 

given time. 

The CVA surveyed 1,744 

photographers and asked them to 

identify the average number of 

photographs that they take in a single 

day and over the course of a single 

month. The vast majority of the 

respondents—70%—reported that they 

take fewer than 750 photos on an 

average day, while another 17% 

reported that they take between 751 and 

1,500 photos on an average day. This 

presumably represents the average rate 

for a daily photo shoot, but it seems 

unlikely that the average photographer 

would create this many images on every 

day of the month. The CVA’s survey 

supports this assumption. The results 

indicate that during an average month 

nearly half of the respondents—47%— 

would be able to register all the photos 

with four applications or fewer, and 

during a slow month, the majority of the 

respondents—61%—would be able to 

register all of their photos with one 

submission. 

The CVA encouraged the Office to 

expand the scope of the group 

registration option by developing a 

tiered filing fee based on the number of 

photographs included within each 

claim, or a sliding-scale subscription 

model that would let photographers 

register an unlimited number of 

photographs with an annual, semiannual, or quarterly filing fee. CVA 

Comment at 17. The Copyright Alliance 

and another individual expressed 

similar views. Copyright Alliance 

Comment at 3; Brian Powell Comment. 

The Office welcomes these 

suggestions. But unfortunately, the 

current registration system is not 

capable of supporting this type of fee 

structure. 

The Office, however, is beginning 

preparations for the initial development 

of its next generation registration 

system,16 and will take the commenters’ 

suggestions into account in developing 

the business requirements for the new 

system. In the near future, the Office 

will be seeking additional comments 

and conducting extensive outreach to 

gather additional suggestions and 

recommendations for the new system. 

C. Distinguishing Between Published 

and Unpublished Photographs 

Under the rule proposed in the 

NPRM, applicants would be able to 

register a group of unpublished 

photographs or a group of published 

photographs, but they would not be able 

to combine published and unpublished 

photographs in the same claim. See 81 

FR at 86650. After considering the 

comments, the Office has decided to 

maintain this requirement in the final 

rule. 

The CVA commented that it is 

difficult to separate published and 

unpublished photographs, in part, 

because photographers do not know if 

or when their images are published after 

they have been sent to a particular 

client. CVA Comment at 29. The 

Copyright Alliance expressed similar 

concerns. Copyright Alliance Comment 

at 3. 

At the same time, however, the CVA 

and the Copyright Alliance 

acknowledged that the Copyright Act 

requires applicants to separately 

identify published and unpublished 

works for purposes of registration, and 

that this requirement cannot be changed 

without amending the law. CVA 

Comment at 29, 59; Copyright Alliance 

Comment at 3. Moreover, this 

distinction is firmly embedded in the 

current electronic registration system 

and the Office’s internal processes. For 

example, when the Office issues a 

certificate of registration, the prefix 

assigned to the certificate begins with 

the letters VA if the work is published, 

and it begins with the letters VAu if the 

work is unpublished. If an applicant 

attempted to combine published and 

unpublished works in the same claim, 

the resulting registration number would 

be misleading. The Office may revisit 

this issue when it develops the business 

requirements for its new registration 

system, but for the time being, it is not 

feasible to ignore these distinctions 

within the context of the current system. 

The CVA also commented that the 

photographers who participated in its 

survey would prefer to register all of the 

photographs that they create for a 

particular job, project, or client with the 

same application, regardless of whether 

those photographs are published or 

unpublished. CVA Comment at 31, 48– 

49. The final rule provides that 

flexibility. When registering a group of 

photographs under GRPPH or GRUPH, 

applicants will be asked to provide a 

title for the group as a whole. If a 

photographer wants to register the 

works he or she created for a particular 

client, the group title provides a 

convenient means for adding that 

information to the record. If a 

photographer needs to file separate 

applications for his or her published 

and unpublished photographs, the 

applicant may assign the same title to 

each application followed by the phrase 

‘‘Group 1 of 3,’’ ‘‘Group 2 of 3,’’ and so 

on. 

The CVA acknowledged that 

photographers should be able to 

determine if their photographs are 

published or unpublished if they are 

given proper guidance. CVA Comment 

at 31. The CVA and the Copyright 

Alliance also acknowledged that the 

Compendium provides useful 

information and asked the Office to 

make this document accessible from 

within the electronic registration 

system. CVA Comment at 29; Copyright 

Alliance at 3. As mentioned above, the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2546 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

17When the Office established these requirements 

in 2001, it relied on the statement in the legislative 

history citing ‘‘a group of photographs by one 

photographer’’ as an example of a ‘‘group of related 

works.’’ See 66 FR 37142, 37148 (July 17, 2001); 

H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 154. The Office also 

relied on the statutory and regulatory requirements 

governing the group registration option for 

contributions to periodicals, which permit ‘‘a single 

registration for a group of works by the same 

individual author.’’ See 66 FR at 37148; 17 U.S.C. 

408(c)(2). 

18The NPRM stated that ‘‘the Office will not 

accept applications claiming that two or more 

individuals jointly created each photograph in the 

group as a joint work.’’ 81 FR at 86650. The CVA 

commented that some photographers work as a 

team with both partners jointly owning each 

photograph, and that the proposed rule would 

prevent these teams from registering their works. 

CVA Comment at 26. It is unclear from the CVA’s 

comments whether these photographs would be 

considered joint works or works made for hire. On 

rare occasions, the Office has received inquiries 

from applicants expressing interest in registering a 

photograph as a joint work. But to be effective, a 

group registration option must be narrowly tailored 

to fit the claims that are most frequently received, 

and it cannot be expected to accommodate 

exceptional cases that fall outside of these expected 

norms. 

19 In this respect, the final rule is similar to the 

group registration option for photographic 

databases, which may be registered if the updates 

or other revisions are owned by the same claimant 

and were created or published within a three month 

period. 37 CFR 202.3(b)(5)(i)(A), (F). 

20 If the claim is approved this information will 

appear in the online public record as follows: 

‘‘employer for hire of photographer not named in 

the application.’’ 

Office intends to update the sections of 

the Compendium that discuss this group 

registration option, and it intends to add 

examples to explain the difference 

between published and unpublished 

photographs. In addition, the Office 

intends to prepare a new circular that 

summarizes the various options for 

registering photographs, and will 

provide links to these resources from 

within the help text for the new 

applications. 

D. The Photographs Must Be Created by 

the Same Author (Including a WorkMade-for-Hire Author), Rather Than the 

Same Photographer 

The NPRM proposed that all the 

photographs must be taken by the same 

photographer. If the photographs were 

created as works made for hire, the 

NPRM proposed that, in order to be 

eligible for group registration, all the 

photographs in the group must have 

been taken by the same employee, and 

the applicant must have identified both 

the employer and the employee in the 

application. To register photographs 

taken by different photographers, 

applicants would be required to submit 

a separate application for each 

individual. See 81 FR at 86649–50. Both 

of these proposals were based on the 

regulation that currently governs 

GRPPH.17 See 37 CFR 202.3(b)(10)(ii), 

(ix). 

The CVA commented that commercial 

studios often use multiple 

photographers and assistants during 

each photo shoot, and that a shoot 

involving a particular job or client may 

occur on different dates. Given the way 

these studios operate, the CVA said it 

would be ‘‘impractical’’ to segregate 

their photographs into separate groups, 

and it would be ‘‘time consuming and 

expensive’’ to prepare a separate 

application for each photographer.18

CVA Comment at 26–27. One individual 

expressed similar concerns and 

suggested that applicants should be 

allowed ‘‘to include up to three 

photographers working under contract 

for a single copyright owner.’’ Eric 

Bowles Comment. 

Section 408 of the Copyright Act 

authorizes the Register to ‘‘require or 

permit . . . a single registration for a 

group of related works.’’ 17 U.S.C. 

408(c)(1). The statute indicates that the 

Register has ‘‘general authority’’ to 

determine whether ‘‘particular classes’’ 

of works are sufficiently related to 

warrant group registration. 17 U.S.C. 

408(c)(1), (2). After considering the 

comments, the Office has determined 

that this requirement may be met if the 

photographs were created by the same 

‘‘author’’ (a term that includes an 

employer or other person for whom a 

work is made for hire), if the works are 

owned by the same claimant, and in the 

case of published photographs, if the 

works were published in the same 

calendar year.19 Therefore, photographs 

can be included in one group even if 

they were created by different 

employees, as long as the photographs 

were created by the same author as 

works for hire. 

The final rule does not represent a 

change in policy for most 

photographers. When an individual 

creates a photograph, that individual is 

considered the ‘‘author’’ of the work, 

and thus, the ‘‘author’’ and the 

‘‘photographer’’ are the same person. 

But it does represent a change in policy 

for works made for hire. When a 

photograph is created as a work made 

for hire, the employer or commissioning 

party is considered the author and 

owner of the work, rather than the 

photographer who actually created the 

image. Thus, if the photographs were 

created as works made for hire, the 

applicant may name the employer or 

commissioning party as the author/ 

claimant, instead of dividing the 

photographs into separate groups and 

submitting a separate application for 

each photographer. 

For similar reasons, work-made-forhire authors do not need to identify 

their employees in the application. 

However, the Office developed the new 

application before it decided to modify 

this requirement; as a result, the 

application contains a space where 

applicants may provide employee 

information. If the applicant checks the 

work made for hire box—but fails to 

complete the employee space—the 

application will not be accepted by the 

electronic registration system. The 

Office intends to remove this space in 

a future update to the system. In the 

meantime, work made for hire authors 

who are unwilling or unable to identify 

their employees may complete this 

portion of the application by stating that 

the individual photographer(s) are ‘‘not 

named in the application.’’ 20

E. The Photographs Do Not Need To Be 

Published Within the Same Country 

When registering a group of published 

photographs, applicants should identify 

the author’s country of citizenship or 

domicile, as well as the country where 

the photographs were published for the 

first time. The Office will use this 

information to determine if the 

photographs are eligible for registration 

under U.S. copyright law. 17 U.S.C. 

104(b)(1)–(2); 409(2), (8). 

The NPRM further proposed that all 

the photographs within each group 

should be published in the same 

country. 81 FR at 86650. This proposal 

was based on the current limitations of 

the electronic registration system. To 

identify the nation of publication in the 

current system, applicants must select 

from a list of countries appearing in a 

drop down menu, but the system will 

not allow applicants to select two or 

more countries from this list. 

The CVA objected that photographers 

would need to prepare separate 

applications if their works are published 

in multiple countries. The CVA also 

noted that it may be difficult to 

determine where a photograph was 

published for the first time, particularly 

if the work was published online. CVA 

Comment at 32–33. 

The Office did not include the singlecountry requirement in the final rule. In 

most cases, the Office should be able to 

determine if the photographs are eligible 

for copyright protection based on the 

author’s citizenship or domicile. If the 

applicant is unable to establish 

eligibility based on this information, the 

Office may ask the applicant to confirm 

that the photographs were published in 

a country that has entered into a 

copyright treaty with the United States. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2547 

21CVA Comment at 45 (noting that DMLA 

contended that ‘‘databases [should] not be 

considered compilations,’’ and that ‘‘individual 

images’’ should be ‘‘treated in the same way,’’ 

regardless of whether they are registered under 

GRPPH, GRUPH, or as part of a photographic 

database). 

22See generally Copyright Protection for Certain 

Visual Works, 80 FR 23054 (Apr. 24, 2015). 

If the photographs were published in 

different countries, the applicant may 

provide that information in the 

application in the ‘‘Note to Copyright 

Office’’ field. 

F. The Scope of Protection for 

Photographs Registered Under GRPPH 

and GRUPH vs. Photographs Registered 

Under the Pilot Program for 

Photographic Databases 

The Copyright Alliance and the CVA 

agreed that photographers should be 

entitled to claim a separate award of 

statutory damages if they register their 

works under the GRPPH or GRUPH 

option. See Copyright Alliance 

Comment at 2; CVA Comment at 4. The 

Copyright Alliance also agreed that 

GRPPH and GRUPH would provide 

‘‘more comprehensive and effective 

legal protections’’ than a registration for 

a photographic database, because 

photographers who register their works 

as part of a database would only be 

entitled to seek one award of statutory 

damages for the database as a whole. 

See Copyright Alliance Comment at 2. 

Although one member of the CVA 

disagreed with this view of the scope of 

a database registration,21 the Office 

continues to believe that the view it 

expressed in the NPRM is the correct 

one. See 81 FR at 86653–86654. 

Regardless, under the Copyright Act and 

the Office’s regulations, a group 

registration of published photographs 

(GRPPH) or a group registration of 

unpublished photographs (GRUPH) will 

expressly be treated as a separate 

registration for each photograph that is 

included within the group, and 

applicants who wish to ensure the 

availability of separate statutory 

damages awards should select one of 

those group registration options. 

G. Additional Considerations 

The Copyright Alliance and CVA also 

asked the Office to create a new group 

registration option for other types of 

visual art works, such as illustrations, 

video clips, and textile designs. 

Alternatively, they asked the Office to 

create another pilot program that would 

allow visual artists to register groups of 

related works with the online 

application that is designed for 

registering one work. Copyright Alliance 

Comment at 2, 4; CVA Comment at 5, 

8–9, 27, 46–47, 49, 51–52, 56, 60. The 

Office recognizes a need for establishing 

new and updated practices for 

examining and registering visual art 

works.22 The Office is considering these 

issues and will take them into account 

when developing its priorities for future 

upgrades to the electronic registration 

system. 

The CVA also offered some 

suggestions for improving the current 

system. It encouraged the Office to 

improve the user interface, and allow 

applicants to populate each field with 

information stored in a spreadsheet or 

other database instead of entering it by 

hand. CVA Comment at 8. In addition, 

the CVA encouraged the Office to 

collaborate with third parties to develop 

apps and APIs that would help 

photographers register works directly 

from their cameras and photo editing 

programs. CVA Comment at 6, 36. The 

Office welcomes these suggestions. As 

mentioned above, the Office is in the 

early stages of developing the business 

requirements for its next generation 

registration system, and it will be 

seeking further comment on these issues 

in the future. 

Finally, the CVA suggested that a 

registration for an unpublished work 

would be more effective if copyright 

owners could claim statutory damages 

and attorney’s fees for any 

infringements occurring within three 

months before the effective date of 

registration (similar to the rule that 

applies to published works under 

section 412(2) of the Copyright Act). 

CVA Comment at 48. The CVA also 

suggested that the Office could create a 

‘‘deferred examination’’ procedure, 

whereby the Office could issue a 

‘‘provisional’’ registration after 

examining a sampling of the 

photographs in each group (similar to a 

provisional patent or intent to use 

trademark registration). If the 

photographer wanted to enforce the 

copyright in a particular photograph, he 

or she could ask the Office to conduct 

a ‘‘full’’ examination of that photograph 

for an additional fee. CVA Comment at 

57–58. 

The Office does not express any views 

on these suggestions, but simply notes 

that this rulemaking is not the proper 

forum in which to address them. The 

registration requirements CVA 

identified in its comments are part of 

the Copyright Act and the Office cannot 

expand or create exceptions to them as 

part of this rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Parts 201 and 

202 

Copyright. 

Final Regulations 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office 

amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 202 as 

follows: 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

■ 2. Amend § 201.3 as follows: 

■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) 

through (19) as paragraphs (c)(4) 

through (20), respectively; 

■ b. Add new paragraph (c)(3); and 

■ c. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (c)(4). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 201.3 Fees for registration, recordation, 

and related services, special services, and 

services performed by the Licensing 

Division. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Registration of a claim in a 

group of published photographs 

or a claim in a group of unpublished photographs .................... 55 

(4) Registration for a database 

that predominantly consists of 

photographs and updates thereto: 

(i) Electronic filing ......................... 55 

(ii) Paper filing .............................. 65 

* * * * * 

PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND 

REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO 

COPYRIGHT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 202 

continues to read as follows: 

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

§ 202.3 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 202.3 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(3) remove the 

phrase ‘‘, subject to the limitations in 

paragraph (b)(10)(v) of this section’’. 

■ b. Remove and reserve paragraph 

(b)(10). 

■ 5. Amend § 202.4 as follows: 

■ a. Add paragraphs (h) and (i). 

■ b. In paragraph (l) remove ‘‘(9), or 

(10).’’ and add in its place ‘‘or (9).’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (n) remove ‘‘paragraph 

(g) or (k)’’ and add in its place 

‘‘paragraphs (g) through (i) or paragraph 

(k)’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 202.4 Group Registration. 

* * * * * 

(h) Group registration of unpublished 

photographs. Pursuant to the authority 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2548 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1), the 

Register of Copyrights has determined 

that a group of unpublished 

photographs may be registered in Class 

VA with one application, the required 

deposit, and the filing fee required by 

§ 201.3(c) of this chapter, if the 

following conditions are met: 

(1) All the works in the group must be 

photographs. 

(2) The group must include no more 

than 750 photographs, and the 

application must specify the total 

number of photographs that are 

included in the group. 

(3) All the photographs must be 

created by the same author. 

(4) The copyright claimant for all the 

photographs must be the same person or 

organization. 

(5) The photographs may be registered 

as works made for hire if all the 

photographs are identified in the 

application as such. 

(6) All the photographs must be 

unpublished. 

(7) The applicant must provide a title 

for the group as a whole 

(8) The applicant must complete and 

submit the online application 

designated for a group of unpublished 

photographs. (The Office will not 

register a group of unpublished 

photographs as an unpublished 

collection under § 202.3(b)(4)(i)(B).) The 

application may be submitted by any of 

the parties listed in § 202.3(c)(1). 

(9) The applicant must submit one 

copy of each photograph in one of the 

following formats: JPEG, GIF, or TIFF. 

The file name for a particular 

photograph may consist of letters, 

numbers, and spaces, but the file name 

should not contain any other form of 

punctuation. The photographs may be 

uploaded to the electronic registration 

system together with the required 

numbered list, preferably in a .zip file 

containing all the photographs. The file 

size for each uploaded file must not 

exceed 500 megabytes; the photographs 

may be compressed to comply with this 

requirement. Alternatively, the 

photographs and the required numbered 

list may be saved on a physical storage 

device, such as a flash drive, CD–R, or 

DVD–R, and delivered to the Copyright 

Office together with the required 

shipping slip generated by the 

electronic registration system. 

(10) The applicant must submit a 

sequentially numbered list containing a 

title and file name for each photograph 

in the group (matching the 

corresponding file names for each 

photograph specified in paragraph (h)(9) 

of this section). The title and file name 

for a particular photograph may be the 

same. The numbered list must be 

contained in an electronic file in Excel 

format (.xls), Portable Document Format 

(PDF), or other electronic format 

approved by the Office, and the file 

name for the list must contain the title 

of the group and the case number 

assigned to the application by the 

electronic registration system (e.g., 

‘‘Title Of Group Case Number 

16283927239.xls’’). 

(11) In an exceptional case, the 

Copyright Office may waive the online 

filing requirement set forth in paragraph 

(h)(8) of this section or may grant 

special relief from the deposit 

requirement under § 202.20(d), subject 

to such conditions as the Associate 

Register of Copyrights and Director of 

the Office of Registration Policy and 

Practice may impose on the applicant. 

(i) Group registration of published 

photographs. Pursuant to the authority 

granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1), the 

Register of Copyrights has determined 

that a group of published photographs 

may be registered in Class VA with one 

application, the required deposit, and 

the filing fee required by § 201.3(c) of 

this chapter, if the following conditions 

are met: 

(1) All the works in the group must be 

photographs. 

(2) The group must include no more 

than 750 photographs, and the 

application must specify the total 

number of photographs that are 

included in the group. 

(3) All the photographs must be 

created by the same author. 

(4) The copyright claimant for all the 

photographs must be the same person or 

organization. 

(5) The photographs may be registered 

as works made for hire if all the 

photographs are identified in the 

application as such. 

(6) All the photographs must be 

published within the same calendar 

year, and the applicant must specify the 

earliest and latest date that the 

photographs were published during the 

year. 

(7) The applicant must provide a title 

for the group as a whole. 

(8) The applicant must complete and 

submit the online application 

designated for a group of published 

photographs. The application may be 

submitted by any of the parties listed in 

§ 202.3(c)(1). 

(9) The applicant must submit one 

copy of each photograph in one of the 

following formats: JPEG, GIF, or TIFF. 

The file name for a particular 

photograph may consist of letters, 

numbers, and spaces, but the file name 

should not contain any other form of 

punctuation. The photographs may be 

uploaded to the electronic registration 

system together with the required 

numbered list, preferably in a .zip file 

containing all the photographs. The file 

size for each uploaded file must not 

exceed 500 megabytes; the photographs 

may be compressed to comply with this 

requirement. Alternatively, the 

photographs and the required numbered 

list may be saved on a physical storage 

device, such as a flash drive, CD–R, or 

DVD–R, and delivered to the Copyright 

Office together with the required 

shipping slip generated by the 

electronic registration system. 

(10) The applicant must submit a 

sequentially numbered list containing 

the title, file name, and month and year 

of publication for each photograph in 

the group (matching the corresponding 

file names for each photograph specified 

in paragraph (i)(9) of this section). The 

title and file name for a particular 

photograph may be the same. The 

numbered list must be contained in an 

electronic file in Excel format (.xls), 

Portable Document Format (PDF), or 

other electronic format approved by the 

Office, and the file name for the list 

must contain the title of the group and 

the case number assigned to the 

application by the electronic registration 

system (e.g., ‘‘Title Of Group Case 

Number 16283927239.xls’’). 

(11) In an exceptional case, the 

Copyright Office may waive the online 

filing requirement set forth in paragraph 

(i)(8) of this section or may grant special 

relief from the deposit requirement 

under § 202.20(d), subject to such 

conditions as the Associate Register of 

Copyrights and Director of the Office of 

Registration Policy and Practice may 

impose on the applicant. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 202.20 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D)(8). 

■ b. Remove paragraph (c)(2)(xx). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 202.20 Deposit of copies and 

phonorecords for copyright registration. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) * * * 

(D) * * * 

(8) In the case of an application for 

registration of a database that consists 

predominantly of photographs 

(including a group registration for 

revised or updated versions of such a 

database), ‘‘identifying portions’’ shall 

instead consist of all individual 

photographs included in the claim. 

Photographs must be submitted in 

digital form in one of the following 

formats: JPEG, GIF, or TIFF. In addition, 

the applicant must submit a 

sequentially numbered list containing 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2549 

the title and file name—and if the 

photographs have been published, the 

month and year of publication—for each 

photograph in the group. The title and 

file name for a particular photograph 

may be the same and may consist of 

letters, numbers, and spaces, but the file 

name should not contain any other form 

of punctuation. The numbered list must 

be contained in an electronic file in 

Excel format (.xls), Portable Document 

Format (PDF), or other electronic format 

approved by the Office. The file name 

for the list must contain the title of the 

database, and the case number assigned 

to the application by the electronic 

registration system, if any (e.g., ‘‘Title Of 

Database Case Number 

162883927239.xls’’). The photographs 

and the numbered list may be uploaded 

to the electronic registration system 

with the permission and under the 

direction of the Visual Arts Division, 

preferably in a .zip file containing these 

materials. The file size for each 

uploaded file must not exceed 500 

megabytes; the photographs may be 

compressed to comply with this 

requirement. Alternatively, the 

photographs and the numbered list may 

be saved on a physical storage device, 

such as a flash drive, CD–R, or DVD–R, 

and delivered to the Copyright Office 

together with the required shipping slip 

generated by the electronic registration 

system or with a paper application 

submitted on Form VA. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 19, 2017. 

Karyn Temple Claggett, 

Acting Register of Copyrights and Director 

of the U.S. Copyright Office. 

Approved by: 

Carla D. Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00687 Filed 1–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2017–0073, 0074, 0075 

and 0076; FRL–9973–00–OLEM] 

National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘the 

EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rule adds four sites to 

the General Superfund section of the 

NPL. 

DATES: The document is effective on 

February 20, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the 

EPA Headquarters: 

• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW, William 

Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 

3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202–566– 

0276. 

The contact information for the 

regional dockets is as follows: 

• Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, 

NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund 

Records and Information Center, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912; 617–918–1413. 

• Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, 

PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New 

York, NY 10007–1866; 212–637–4344. 

• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, 

DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, 

Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 

3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215– 

814–3355. 

• Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, 

GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 

Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, 

Atlanta, GA 30303; 404–562–8637. 

• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, 

MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund 

Division Librarian/SFD Records 

Manager SRC–7J, Metcalfe Federal 

Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604; 312–886–4465. 

• Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, 

NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733; 214–665–7436. 

• Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, 

KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner 

Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 

66219; 913–551–7956. 

• Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, 

MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303–312–6578. 

• Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, 

HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 

Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6–1, 

San Francisco, CA 94105; 415–947– 

4250. 

• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, 

WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, 

Mailcode ECL–112, Seattle, WA 98101; 

206–463–1349. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, 

email: jeng.terry@epa.gov Site 

Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch, Assessment and Remediation 

Division, Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, 

phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– 

9810 in the Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

B. What is the NCP? 

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of 

sites? 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites 

from the NPL as they are cleaned up? 

I. What is the Construction Completion List 

(CCL)? 

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use measure? 

K. What is state/tribal correspondence 

concerning NPL Listing? 

II. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant to 

this final rule? 

B. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA headquarters docket? 

C. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA regional dockets? 

D. How do I access the documents? 

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL 

sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES