31422 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1Public Law 115–264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018). 

2 17 U.S.C. 115(d)(3)(B), (d)(3)(C); 84 FR 32274 

(July 8, 2019). As permitted under the MMA, the 

Office also designated a digital licensee coordinator 

(‘‘DLC’’) to represent licensees in proceedings 

before the Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘CRJs’’) and 

the Office, to serve as a non-voting member of the 

MLC, and to carry out other functions. 17 U.S.C. 

115(d)(3)(D)(i)(IV), (d)(5)(B), (d)(5)(C); 84 FR 32274. 

3 17 U.S.C. 115(e)(31). 

4 85 FR 58114 (Sept. 17, 2020). 

5 37 CFR 210.27(f), (g)(3)–(4), (k). 

6 Id. at 210.27(g)(3). 

7 Id. at 210.27(f); see also 37 CFR pt. 385 (defining 

terms, including ‘‘service provider revenue’’ ‘‘total 

cost of content,’’ and ‘‘subscription,’’ and 

permitting certain deductions). 

8 85 FR 22518, 22533 (Apr. 22, 2020). 

§ 165.T08–801 Safety Zone; Cumberland 

River, Nashville, TN. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All navigable waters of the 

Cumberland River, Mile Markers 189.7 

to 191.1, extending the entire width of 

the river. 

(b) 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 Captain 

of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) 

or the COTP’s designated representative. 

(2) To seek permission to enter, 

contact the COTP or the COTP’s 

representative by VHF Channel 16. 

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. 

(c) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 11 p.m. to 12:15 

a.m. on June 9, 2022, through June 10, 

2022. 

Dated: May 19, 2022. 

A.M. Beach, 

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

Port Sector Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11163 Filed 5–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 210 

[Docket No. 2020–5] 

Music Modernization Act Notices of 

License, Notices of Nonblanket 

Activity, Data Collection and Delivery 

Efforts, and Reports of Usage and 

Payment 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Supplemental interim rule; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

amending its regulations governing 

certain reporting requirements of digital 

music providers pursuant to title I of the 

Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music 

Modernization Act. This amendment 

modifies provisions concerning reports 

of adjustment and annual reports of 

usage in light of a recent request 

prompted by operational and 

compliance challenges with existing 

regulations. Based on the request and 

the imminence of related reporting 

deadlines, the Copyright Office has 

determined that there is a legitimate 

need to make this amendment effective 

immediately, while soliciting public 

comments on whether it should further 

modify these particular reporting 

requirements going forward. 

DATES:

Effective date: The supplemental 

interim rule is effective May 24, 2022. 

Comments due date: Written 

comments must be received no later 

than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 8, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of Government 

efficiency, the Copyright Office is using 

the regulations.gov system for the 

submission and posting of public 

comments in this proceeding. All 

comments are therefore to be submitted 

electronically through regulations.gov. 

Specific instructions for submitting 

comments are available on the 

Copyright Office’s website at https://

www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/mmanotices-reports/. If electronic 

submission of comments is not feasible 

due to lack of access to a computer or 

the internet, please contact the 

Copyright Office using the contact 

information below for special 

instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 

General Counsel, by email at meft@

copyright.gov or telephone at 202–707– 

8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte 

Music Modernization Act (‘‘MMA’’) 

substantially modified the compulsory 

‘‘mechanical’’ license for making and 

distributing phonorecords of 

nondramatic musical works under 17 

U.S.C. 115.1 It did so by switching from 

a song-by-song licensing system to a 

blanket licensing regime that became 

available on January 1, 2021 (the 

‘‘license availability date’’), 

administered by a mechanical licensing 

collective (‘‘MLC’’) designated by the 

Copyright Office (the ‘‘Office’’).2 Digital 

music providers (‘‘DMPs’’) are able to 

obtain the new compulsory blanket 

license to make digital phonorecord 

deliveries of nondramatic musical 

works, including in the form of 

permanent downloads, limited 

downloads, or interactive streams 

(referred to in the statute as ‘‘covered 

activity’’ where such activity qualifies 

for a compulsory license), subject to 

compliance with various requirements, 

including reporting obligations. DMPs 

may also continue to engage in those 

activities solely through voluntary 

licensing with copyright owners, in 

which case the DMP may be considered 

a significant nonblanket licensee 

(‘‘SNBL’’) under the statute,3 subject to 

separate reporting obligations. 

On September 17, 2020, the Office 

issued an interim rule adopting 

regulations concerning certain types of 

reporting required under the statute 

after the license availability date: 

Notices of license and reports of usage 

by DMPs and notices of nonblanket 

activity and reports of usage by SNBLs 

(the ‘‘September 2020 rule’’).4 As 

relevant here, those interim regulations 

provide requirements governing annual 

reporting and the ability to make 

adjustments to monthly and annual 

reports and related royalty payments, 

including to correct errors and replace 

estimated inputs with finally 

determined figures.5

Under the September 2020 rule, DMPs 

must deliver annual reports of usage 

(‘‘AROUs’’) and any related royalty 

payment to the MLC no later than the 

twentieth day of the sixth month 

following the end of the DMP’s fiscal 

year covered by the AROU.6 AROUs 

must contain cumulative information 

for the applicable fiscal year, broken 

down by month and by activity or 

offering, including the total royalty 

payable, the total sum paid, the total 

adjustments made, the total number of 

payable units, and to the extent 

applicable to calculating the royalties 

owed, total service provider revenue, 

total costs of content, total performance 

royalty deductions, and total 

subscribers.7 In describing these 

requirements, the Office said that 

‘‘[r]eceiving these totals and having 

them broken down this way seems 

beneficial to the MLC in confirming 

proper royalties, while not unreasonably 

burdening DMPs, who would not have 

to re-provide all of the information 

contained in the monthly reports 

covered by the annual reporting 

period.’’ 8

Under the September 2020 rule, DMPs 

have the ability to make adjustments to 

previously delivered monthly reports of 

usage (‘‘MROUs’’) and AROUs, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31423 

9 37 CFR 210.27(k). 

10 Id. at 210.27(k)(1); see 85 FR 22518, 22527. 11 37 CFR 210.27(k)(1). 12 Id. at 210.27(g)(4)(i). 13See id. at 210.27(g)(3), (k)(1). 14 Id. at 210.27(k)(6). 15 Id. at 210.27(g)(4)(ii). 16 Id. at 210.27(k)(3). 17 85 FR 22518. 

18 85 FR 58114, 58138 (internal citations omitted). 

19 37 CFR 210.27(k)(4); 85 FR 58114, 58139 n.341. 

20 37 CFR 210.27(d)(1), (g)(1)–(2); see 85 FR 

58114, 58137–38; 85 FR 22518, 22528. 

21 85 FR 58114, 58138. 

22 85 FR 22518, 22528. 

23 84 FR 49966 (Sept. 24, 2019). 

24 85 FR 22518. 

25 Guidelines for ex parte communications, along 

with records of such communications, including 

those referenced herein, are available at https://

www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/mmaimplementation/ex-parte-communications.html. All 

rulemaking activity, including public comments, as 

well as educational material regarding the Music 

Modernization Act, can currently be accessed via 

navigation from https://www.copyright.gov/musicmodernization/. 

26See 85 FR 84243 (Dec. 28, 2020), 86 FR 12822 

(Mar. 5, 2021). 

27 DLC Ex Parte Letter at 1 (Mar. 14, 2022). 

28 Id. 

29 Id. at 2. 

30 Id. at 3, add. at i–iv. 

31 Id. at 3. 

32 Id. at 4. The D.C. Circuit partially vacated and 

remanded the CRJs’ Phonorecords III determination, 

which was intended to set rates and terms for the 

section 115 license for the period from January 1, 

2018 through December 31, 2022. Johnson v. 

Copyright Royalty Bd., 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 

2020). Remand proceedings before the CRJs are 

ongoing and it is unknown at this time when the 

CRJs will issue their new determination. 

including related royalty payments, by 

delivering reports of adjustment 

(‘‘ROAs’’) to the MLC.9 An ROA 

adjusting one or more MROUs may, but 

need not, be combined with the AROU 

for the annual period covering the 

MROUs and related payments.10 When 

an ROA and AROU are combined, the 

AROU is also considered an ROA, and 

the AROU must comply with the 

regulatory requirements applicable to 

both types of reports.11 The deadlines to 

deliver ROAs and any related royalty 

payment to the MLC differ depending 

on whether the ROA is adjusting an 

MROU or AROU and whether the ROA 

is combined with an AROU. An ROA 

adjusting an MROU that is not 

combined with an AROU must be 

delivered after the date that the MROU 

being adjusted is delivered and before 

the date that the AROU covering that 

MROU is delivered.12 If the ROA is 

combined with the AROU, then the due 

date for the AROU applies.13

An ROA adjusting an AROU is only 

permitted in response to certain 

enumerated triggering events (e.g., in 

exceptional circumstances, when 

making an adjustment to a previously 

estimated input, or in response to a 

change in applicable rates or terms set 

by the CRJs under the section 115 

license).14 Such an ROA is due no later 

than six months after the occurrence of 

such an event.15

All ROAs must include detailed 

information, including about the 

specific changes being made and the 

reason(s) for the adjustment.16 In 

response to comments from the DLC, the 

Office significantly modified these 

requirements between the Office’s April 

2020 notice of proposed rulemaking 17

and the September 2020 rule. As the 

Office explained in the September 2020 

rule, the DLC proposed deleting two 

portions of the proposed rule addressing 

reports of adjustments. The first was the 

requirement for DMPs to include in the 

description of adjustment ‘‘the monetary 

amount of the adjustment’’ and second, 

the requirement to include ‘‘a detailed 

and step-by-step accounting of the 

calculation of the adjustment sufficient 

to allow the mechanical licensing 

collective to assess the manner in which 

the blanket licensee determined the 

adjustment and the accuracy of the 

adjustment.’’ As the DLC explained, 

‘‘[a]lthough DMPs must provide inputs 

to the MLC, it is typically the MLC, not 

the providers, that will use those inputs 

to perform a ‘step-by-step accounting’ 

and determine the ‘monetary amount[s]’ 

due to be paid.’’ In response, the MLC 

confirmed its shared understanding it 

would verify this math and did not 

oppose the DLC’s proposal. The MLC 

proposed additional language, modeled 

off language in the monthly usage 

reporting provisions found in 

§ 210.27(d)(1)(ii) of the proposed rule to 

confirm ‘‘DMPs must always provide all 

necessary royalty pool calculation 

information.’’ As it found these changes 

reasonable, the Office adopted the DLC’s 

proposal with the addition of the 

language proposed by the MLC.18

In adopting these proposals, the 

Office also modified the due date for 

delivering any underpayment of 

royalties to the MLC. Instead of always 

being due contemporaneously with the 

ROA’s delivery, as was originally 

proposed, the September 2020 rule 

provides that it may either be due then 

‘‘or promptly after being notified by the 

mechanical licensing collective of the 

amount due.’’ 19

Separate from the requirements for 

ROAs and AROUs, the September 2020 

rule contains processes through which 

DMPs may receive royalty invoices and 

response files from the MLC in 

connection with MROUs, including 

after delivering MROUs but before 

making royalty payments.20 The Office 

explained that ‘‘[a]lthough the MMA 

does not explicitly address invoices and 

response files, the DLC has consistently 

articulated the importance of addressing 

requirements for each in Copyright 

Office regulations,’’ 21 and that 

accommodating invoices and response 

files ‘‘is intended to further the Office’s 

longstanding policy objective that the 

compulsory license should be a realistic 

and practical alternative to voluntary 

licensing.’’ 22 Notably, the DLC did not 

request an invoice or response file 

process in connection with AROUs or 

ROAs. 

After the adoption of these rules, 

which involved multiple rounds of 

public comments through a notification 

of inquiry,23 notice of proposed 

rulemaking,24 and an ex parte 

communications process,25 the DLC 

raised a new concern regarding the 

applicability of certain reporting 

provisions to pass-through licenses for 

permanent downloads which the Office 

addressed through supplemental 

interim rules.26 The DLC now raises 

another new concern, this time arising 

from ‘‘several operational and 

compliance challenges with the existing 

AROU and adjustment regulations.’’ 27

As the DLC describes it, ‘‘[t]he 

identified challenges stem principally 

from differences between the 

regulations governing AROUs and 

adjustments on the one hand, and the 

regulations governing monthly reporting 

under the blanket license that licensees 

and the MLC have now been 

successfully operating under for over a 

year.’’ 28 These ‘‘differences’’ appear to 

largely refer to the lack of an express 

back-and-forth process through which 

DMPs can obtain invoices and response 

files from the MLC in connection with 

AROUs and ROAs.29 To address its 

concerns, the DLC essentially proposes 

to amend the content requirements and 

royalty payment timing for AROUs and 

create a response file process for 

ROAs.30 The DLC further states that 

‘‘[g]iven the time pressure for those 

services that are currently in the AROU 

process, we urge the Office to consider 

adopting an immediately effective 

interim rule.’’ 31 The DLC also suggests 

that an alternative solution could be for 

the Office to ‘‘postpon[e] the deadline 

for the 2021 annual reports of usage 

entirely until some period after the 

[CRJs] decide[] the Phonorecords III rate 

proceeding.’’ 32

The MLC opposes the DLC’s proposal 

for reasons discussed below, which 

mostly concern the disruptive impact it 

would have on the MLC’s core 

operations, e.g., processing monthly 

royalty distributions and historical 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
31424 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

33MLC Ex Parte Letter at 2–4 (Apr. 4, 2022) 

(discussing the MLC’s ‘‘inability to shift resources 

without delaying critical path royalty distribution 

work’’). 

34 Id. at 4. 

35 Id. at 3 & n.2. 

36See 17 U.S.C. 702, 115(c)(2)(I), 

115(d)(4)(A)(iv)(II), 115(d)(12)(A); see also H.R. Rep. 

No. 115–651, at 5–6, 14 (2018); S. Rep. No. 115– 

339, at 5, 15 (2018); Report and Section-by-Section 

Analysis of H.R. 1551 by the Chairmen and Ranking 

Members of Senate and House Judiciary 

Committees, at 4, 12 (2018), https://

www.copyright.gov/legislation/_conference_

report.pdf; Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. 

Brand X internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980 (2005) 

(discussing an agency’s congressionally delegated 

authority and stating that ‘‘ambiguities in statutes 

within an agency’s jurisdiction to administer are 

delegations of authority to the agency to fill the 

statutory gap in reasonable fashion’’). 

37See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), (d)(3); see also DLC Ex 

Parte Letter at 3 (Mar. 14, 2022) (‘‘urg[ing] the 

Office to consider adopting an immediately 

effective interim rule’’ because of ‘‘the time 

pressure for those services that are currently in the 

AROU process’’). 

38 DLC Ex Parte Letter at 3, add. at i (Mar. 14, 

2022). 

39 Id. 

40 Id. at 3. 

41 Id. at 1–2. 

42 Id. at 2. 

43 Id. 

44MLC Ex Parte Letter at 3 & n.2 (Apr. 4, 2022). 

45 Id. at 3 n.2. 

46 85 FR 58114, 58115. 

47 Id. at 58115–16. 

48 Id. at 58138. 

unmatched royalties.33 The MLC 

explains that its understanding is ‘‘that 

the interim status of the rule is not 

intended to enable new and onerous 

substantive requirements to be added 

without meaningful notice, comment 

and transition, as the DLC Letter now 

seems to propose.’’ 34 Nevertheless, the 

MLC states that ‘‘it intends to provide 

response files to DSPs in connection 

with ARoUs’’ and ‘‘can provide invoices 

in connection with ARoUs,’’ noting that 

it ‘‘will continue to work with DSPs on 

timing and coordination, as it has done 

since its inception.’’ 35

Having reviewed and considered all 

relevant comments, the Office 

concludes, based on the current record, 

that it is necessary and appropriate 

under its authority pursuant to 17 

U.S.C. 115 and 702 to amend the 

regulations governing AROUs and ROAs 

to address the DLC’s concerns.36

Because of the short amount of time 

remaining before the June 20, 2022 

deadline for many DMPs to deliver their 

AROUs, and the even shorter period of 

time that may remain for DMPs whose 

AROUs are due sooner, the Office finds 

there is good cause to adopt the 

supplemental interim rule without 

public notice and comment, and to 

make it effective immediately upon 

publication.37 In doing so, the Office 

notes that, as discussed below, the 

aspects of the rule that impose new 

obligations on the MLC come with a 

nine-month transition period, which 

means that the Office can make 

modifications in response to public 

comments before the transition period 

expires. The Office solicits public 

comments on any aspect of the 

supplemental interim rule that 

stakeholders wish to address. 

II. Supplemental Interim Rule and 

Request for Comments 

Based on the current record, the 

Office agrees with the DLC that it 

should amend the regulations governing 

AROUs and ROAs, but disagrees with 

much of the DLC’s proposed regulatory 

approach. Each aspect is discussed in 

turn below. 

Content of AROUs. The DLC proposes 

to strike § 210.27(f)(4)(i) and (iii), which 

respectively require DMPs to report the 

total royalty payable and total 

adjustments for the annual reporting 

period, calling them ‘‘unnecessary’’ and 

‘‘redundant of each other.’’ 38 The DLC 

also proposes to amend § 210.27(f)(4)(ii), 

which requires DMPs to report the total 

sum paid for the annual reporting 

period including the amount of any 

adjustments, to instead ‘‘require 

reporting of the sum paid . . . prior to 

any adjustments being made.’’ 39 In the 

alternative, the DLC proposes adding 

language allowing DMPs to use 

estimates in calculating the amounts 

required to be reported under 

§ 210.27(f)(4)(i)–(iii).40 The DLC calls 

these provisions ‘‘a vestige of the old 

[pre-blanket license] annual statement 

of account regulations,’’ where 

‘‘licensees were responsible for 

matching and calculating royalties owed 

to individual publishers and delivering 

annual statements directly to those 

publishers.’’ 41 The DLC explains that 

because ‘‘under the blanket license, the 

MLC is, on a month-to-month basis, 

responsible for matching usage, 

calculating the amount of royalties 

owed, and ultimately for confirming 

proper payment,’’ the lack of ‘‘a 

mechanism by which a service can 

request and obtain an invoice and/or 

response file’’ for AROUs ‘‘has created 

operational issues for services that 

depend on the MLC to engage in the 

calculations necessary to ensure the 

proper amounts are reported and 

paid.’’ 42 The DLC states that this issue 

‘‘is not limited to services that have 

voluntary licenses for which MLC 

matching is required,’’ and says that 

while ‘‘[t]his issue might be of limited 

import if the AROU process were 

merely an exercise in adding together 

figures reported and paid as part of 

monthly reporting,’’ ‘‘the reality is that 

nearly every service engages in a 

process of adjustment as part of the year 

end process,’’ meaning that ‘‘most, if not 

all, DMPs will need to adjust previously 

reported information to the MLC as part 

of the AROU process and will need the 

MLC to calculate the amount of royalties 

owed.’’ 43

The MLC disagrees with the DLC’s 

proposed changes, including its 

alternative proposal, stating that ‘‘DSPs 

are able to calculate their own royalty 

pools, and indeed many DSPs choose to 

calculate their royalty pools each month 

and pay that amount, which the MLC 

then verifies as part of processing.’’ 44

The MLC also notes that 

§ 210.27(k)(3)(ii) already permits using 

estimates under certain 

circumstances.45

The Office declines to adopt the 

specific amendments proposed by the 

DLC, but agrees that certain changes are 

warranted. With respect to AROUs that 

are not combined with ROAs, the Office 

continues to believe that the existing 

reporting requirements are reasonable 

and beneficial to the MLC without 

unduly burdening DMPs. The DLC has 

not presented evidence to the contrary. 

The Office disagrees that § 210.27(f)(4)(i) 

and (iii) are unnecessary and redundant 

(one is a subset of the other). In any 

event, the Office declines the DLC’s 

apparent ‘‘invitation to revisit settled 

provisions or rehash arguments.’’ 46 As 

the Office emphasized when it decided 

to adopt the September 2020 rule on an 

interim basis, the intent was ‘‘to 

maintain flexibility to make necessary 

modifications in response to new 

evidence, unforeseen issues, or where 

something is otherwise not functioning 

as intended.’’ 47

In contrast, the Office agrees with the 

DLC that changes should be made with 

respect to the reporting requirements for 

AROUs that are combined with ROAs. 

In that context, the regulations do not 

appear to be functioning as intended. As 

discussed above, in response to a DLC 

proposal that the MLC did not oppose, 

the Office significantly modified some 

of the requirements for ROAs between 

the notice of proposed rulemaking and 

the September 2020 rule to provide that, 

rather than reporting information such 

as the monetary amount of the 

adjustment and a detailed accounting of 

the calculation of the adjustment, as was 

originally proposed, the reporting 

would instead include the information 

necessary for the MLC to compute the 

adjusted royalties payable by the 

DMP.48 In making those changes, the 

Office recognized that DMPs may not 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31425 

49See 85 FR 58114, 58139–40 (discussing 

changes to proposed certification requirements to 

reflect that ‘‘under the blanket license, DMPs are no 

longer solely responsible for making all royalty 

calculations’’); 37 CFR 210.27(k)(4) (contemplating 

that when royalties are underpaid, as part of an 

adjustment, the DMP will pay the difference, 

including ‘‘after being notified by the mechanical 

licensing collective of the amount due’’). 

50To be clear, the exclusion of such amounts 

from the reporting of these totals does not alter the 

‘‘requirement that DMPs must still certify to any 

underlying data necessary for such calculations.’’ 

85 FR 58114, 58140. 

51See 37 CFR 210.27(f)(4)(ii). 

52See id. at 210.27(k)(6)(ii) (permitting AROUs to 

be adjusted ‘‘[w]hen making an adjustment to a 

previously estimated input under paragraph 

(d)(2)(i)’’). 

53 Id. at 210.27(g)(3) (noting that both must be 

delivered ‘‘no later than the 20th day of the sixth 

month following the end of the fiscal year covered 

by the [AROU]’’). 

54 DLC Ex Parte Letter at 3, add. at ii (Mar. 14, 

2022). 

55 Id. at 1–2. 

56MLC Ex Parte Letter at 3 & n.2 (Apr. 4, 2022). 

57Compare 37 CFR 210.27(g)(3) with id. at 

210.27(k)(4). 

58 Id. at 210.27(k)(1). 

59 Id. at 210.27(g)(4). 

60 DLC Ex Parte Letter add. at iv (Mar. 14, 2022). 

61 Id. at 2 (internal citation omitted). 

62MLC Ex Parte Letter at 2–3 (Apr. 4, 2022). 

necessarily be making the ultimate 

royalty calculations in connection with 

their ROAs; they may instead be 

dependent on the MLC to make such 

computations and then provide notice 

to them of the amount due (if there is 

an underpayment).49

The current requirements in 

§ 210.27(f)(4)(i) and (iii) to report certain 

royalty totals seem at odds with the 

Office’s prior decision, at least where 

such totals are required in connection 

with an AROU that is combined with an 

ROA. Consequently, to resolve this 

tension, the Office is amending these 

provisions so that where an ROA is 

combined with an AROU, and the DMP 

is relying on the MLC to provide notice 

of the amount due with respect to the 

adjustment (which, as discussed below, 

will take the form of an invoice), the 

totals required to be reported in the 

AROU may exclude non-invoiced 

amounts related to the adjustment.50

The Office believes this approach is 

more appropriate than the DLC’s 

proposal to eliminate the reporting 

entirely. The Office declines to amend 

§ 210.27(f)(4)(ii) because doing so seems 

unnecessary. To the extent the total sum 

paid must include the amount of any 

adjustment made in connection with the 

AROU, the provision is already limited 

to where the adjustment is delivered 

contemporaneously with the AROU.51

Because the Office has decided to 

address this issue in the manner 

discussed, the Office declines to adopt 

the DLC’s alternative proposal to 

broadly allow the use of estimates in 

reporting the AROU totals. The Office 

is, however, taking this opportunity to 

add language to clarify that information 

reported pursuant to § 210.27(f)(4) may 

be calculated using estimates as 

permitted by § 210.27(d)(2)(i). This is 

intended as a non-substantive 

clarification to merely recognize that 

certain relevant royalty inputs may be 

unable to be finally determined at the 

time the AROU is due.52

Timing of royalty payments related to 

AROUs and ROAs. Under the 

September 2020 rule, the deadlines to 

deliver an AROU and any related 

royalty payment are the same.53 The 

DLC proposes to change this by 

‘‘[a]mend[ing] § 210.27(g)(3) to allow the 

delivery of any royalty payment either 

contemporaneously with the AROU or 

promptly after being notified by the 

MLC about the amount owed.’’ 54 The 

DLC is seeking this change for the same 

reasons as detailed above.55 The MLC 

similarly opposes this aspect of the 

DLC’s proposal for the same reasons as 

noted above, adding that it ‘‘does not 

see a reason to change DSP royalty 

payment deadlines.’’ 56

The Office agrees with the DLC that 

the timing provision should be changed. 

Similar to the content provisions 

discussed above, the timing provision in 

the September 2020 rule for royalty 

payments related to AROUs seems at 

odds with the Office’s previous 

recognition that DMPs may be 

dependent on the MLC to make ultimate 

royalty calculations in connection with 

ROAs and then provide notice of the 

amount due (if there is an 

underpayment). Indeed, where an ROA 

is combined with an AROU, there 

appears to be a direct conflict between 

the AROU royalty payment deadline in 

§ 210.27(g)(3) and the ROA royalty 

payment deadline in § 210.27(k)(4). The 

former provides that an AROU and 

related royalty payment have the same 

deadline which is fixed based on the 

end of the DMP’s fiscal year, while the 

latter provides that they do not 

necessarily have the same deadline and 

that the royalty payment deadline may 

be connected to whenever the MLC 

provides notice of the amount due.57

To resolve this issue, the Office is 

amending § 210.27(g)(3) to strike the 

language about related royalty 

payments, as the DLC proposes. The 

Office declines to adopt the DLC’s 

proposed additional language because it 

appears to be unnecessary. Where an 

AROU is not combined with an ROA, 

there should not be any related royalty 

payment to deliver. Where an AROU is 

combined with an ROA, then the royalty 

payment timing provision for ROAs in 

§ 210.27(k)(4) should govern because 

‘‘such an annual report of usage shall 

also be considered a report of 

adjustment, and must satisfy the 

requirements of both paragraphs (f) and 

(k).’’ 58

Though not raised by the DLC, the 

same problem exists with § 210.27(g)(4), 

which provides that the deadlines to 

deliver an ROA and any related royalty 

payment are the same.59 This provision 

appears to directly conflict with the 

royalty payment deadline for ROAs 

specified in § 210.27(k)(4). Therefore, 

the Office is making the same change to 

§ 210.27(g)(4), to clarify that 

§ 210.27(k)(4) should govern when 

royalty payments related to ROAs are 

due. 

Invoices and response files for ROAs. 

The DLC proposes to add a new 

provision creating a response file 

process for ROAs. Specifically, the 

proposed provision would require the 

MLC to deliver a response file to a DMP, 

if requested, ‘‘within a reasonable 

period of time’’ after receiving the ROA, 

except that ‘‘if the digital music 

provider states that a response file is 

necessary to the digital music provider’s 

ability to timely submit an annual report 

of usage, the MLC shall deliver an 

invoice and/or a response file to the 

digital music provider within 45 

days.’’ 60 As the DLC explains: 

The adjustment provision (unlike the 

annual report of usage provision) does appear 

to contemplate some process by which the 

MLC can inform a service of the amount of 

money owed after submission of the report of 

adjustment . . . . But that provision—unlike 

the provision for regular monthly reports of 

usage—does not specify that a response file 

shall be sent from the MLC to the blanket 

licensee. The lack of a response file provision 

is particularly problematic for services that 

have voluntary licenses. Because many 

blanket licensees are adjusting both the top 

line royalty figures and usage figures, the 

MLC matching and response file process is 

critical to allow those services to accurately 

pay their voluntary license partners as well 

as the MLC, just as it is in the ordinary 

course of monthly reporting.61

The MLC opposes the DLC’s proposal, 

detailing the disruptive impact that 

‘‘add[ing] an accelerated 45-day 

deadline for the MLC to deliver ARoU 

response files to DSPs’’ would have on 

the MLC’s core operations.62 The MLC 

says that its ‘‘resources are fully 

dedicated to critical path statutory 

functions, and—even if it were feasible 

to accelerate ARoU processing or 

response files on the proposed 

timeline—the MLC cannot remove 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
31426 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

63 Id. at 2. 

64 Id. 

65 Id. at 3. 

66 37 CFR 210.27(k)(4). 

67 DLC Ex Parte Letter at 2 (Mar. 14, 2022) 

(internal citation omitted) (emphasis added). 

68See 37 CFR 210.27(g)(1) (requiring MROU 

invoices to ‘‘set[] forth the royalties payable by the 

blanket licensee under the blanket license for the 

applicable monthly reporting period, which shall be 

broken down by each applicable activity or offering 

including as may be defined in part 385’’). 

69See id. at 210.27(g)(2)(v). 

70See 85 FR 22518, 22528 (citation omitted) 

(‘‘The MLC does not seem to generally disagree 

with this choreography and ultimately states that it 

intends to provide DMPs with both invoices and 

response files, but argues that such matters, 

particularly with respect to timing, are not ripe for 

rulemaking.’’). 

71 Id. 

72Cf. 37 CFR 210.27(g)(2)(ii) (‘‘The mechanical 

licensing collective shall engage in efforts to 

confirm uses of musical works subject to voluntary 

licenses and individual download licenses, and, if 

applicable, the corresponding amounts to be 

deducted from royalties that would otherwise be 

due under the blanket license.’’). 

73 DLC Ex Parte Letter add. at iv (Mar. 14, 2022). 

74See 37 CFR 210.27(g)(1), (2)(v). 

75 85 FR 58114, 58116. 

76See, e.g., 37 CFR 210.27(e)(2)(i), (e)(3)(ii), (e)(5), 

(h)(3). 

resources and delay such core functions 

as monthly royalty distributions and 

processing the substantial historical 

unmatched royalties in order to assist 

with these voluntary license 

administration concerns.’’ 63 As the 

MLC further explains: 

ARoU processing is not at all the same as 

monthly processing and requires substantial 

time and work to design and execute. This 

type of complex processing—which involves 

data comparison and integration across 

thousands of usage reporting files from over 

forty DSPs containing billions of data 

points—is a very significant task, and this is 

the first year that it is being done under the 

blanket license. This project involves 

requirements gathering, design, 

implementation, testing, production, and 

processing. The MLC has begun this project, 

but it will take a number of additional 

months and cannot reasonably be 

accelerated.64

The MLC also states that while it 

intends to provide invoices and 

response files in connection with 

AROUs, it is not in a position at this 

time to guarantee or estimate any 

particular turnaround time before 

receiving and reviewing the various 

AROUs.65

The Office agrees with the DLC that 

an invoice and response file process 

should be established for ROAs (and by 

extension, AROUs that are combined 

with ROAs). With respect to invoices, 

there appears to perhaps be some 

ambiguity in the September 2020 rule, 

which allows a royalty payment to be 

delivered ‘‘promptly after being notified 

by the mechanical licensing collective 

of the amount due.’’ 66 In describing this 

provision, the DLC says it ‘‘appear[s] to 

contemplate some process by which the 

MLC can inform a service of the amount 

of money owed after submission of the 

report of adjustment.’’ 67 To resolve any 

potential uncertainty about this 

provision, the Office takes this 

opportunity to amend § 210.27(k)(4) to 

clarify that the notice to be delivered by 

the MLC of the amount due in 

connection with an ROA should be an 

invoice containing information similar 

to what is required for MROU 

invoices.68 Since invoices for MROUs 

and ROAs serve similar functions, it 

seems reasonable that their content be 

similar. The Office is also establishing a 

timeframe for the MLC to deliver such 

invoices (subject to the transition period 

discussed below). If the DMP is going to 

receive a response file in connection 

with the ROA, then the invoice must be 

delivered contemporaneously with the 

response file (see discussion below 

concerning response file timing); 

otherwise, the invoice must be delivered 

in a reasonably timely manner. This 

timing is similar to how the timing 

works for MROU invoices and response 

files and appears reasonable to adopt in 

the ROA context.69

Regarding response files, the MLC 

does not seem to disagree with the DLC 

that they should be provided, but the 

MLC appears to be primarily concerned 

with the DLC’s proposed turnaround 

time. These concerns echo those 

expressed by the MLC in connection 

with the adoption of the invoice and 

response file process for MROUs under 

the September 2020 rule.70 As the Office 

said then, and believes now in the 

context of ROAs, ‘‘a rule would 

ultimately be valuable to build reliance 

that DMPs can obtain these items.’’ 71

Therefore, the Office is adopting a 

requirement for the MLC to provide 

DMPs with response files in connection 

with ROAs (and by extension, AROUs 

that are combined with ROAs) if 

requested by the DMP. Such a 

requirement naturally follows from the 

Office’s above-discussed previous 

recognition that DMPs may be 

dependent on the MLC to make ultimate 

royalty calculations in connection with 

ROAs and then provide notice of the 

amount due (if there is an 

underpayment).72

The Office believes, however, that the 

MLC’s timing concerns have merit and 

should be accommodated. First, the 

supplemental interim rule provides two 

different deadlines for delivering 

response files to DMPs in connection 

with ROAs—45 days after receipt of the 

ROA, or 60 days after receipt of the 

AROU where the ROA is combined with 

it. By proposing a 45-day deadline 

where the DMP ‘‘states that a response 

file is necessary to the digital music 

provider’s ability to timely submit an 

annual report of usage,’’ 73 the DLC 

seems to suggest that a 45-day deadline 

is a reasonable turnaround time for 

DMPs with respect to ROAs that are not 

combined with AROUs. Meanwhile, the 

MLC’s comments appear to be primarily 

focused on AROUs, rather than 

uncombined ROAs. Given that 45 days 

is nearly double the 25-day timeline for 

the MLC to provide MROU response 

files,74 and that ROAs that are not 

combined with AROUs will not 

necessarily be arriving mostly all at the 

same time like AROUs and likely will 

not cover the same volume of 

adjustments that AROUs are anticipated 

to cover, the Office believes that 45 days 

is reasonable based on the current 

record. Based on the MLC’s comments, 

however, the Office believes that 

additional time is warranted for 

providing response files for ROAs that 

are combined with AROUs, and 60 days 

strikes the Office as a reasonable 

deadline to both provide the MLC with 

extra processing time while not 

unreasonably delaying delivery of 

response files to DMPs needing to rely 

on them for voluntary license 

administration or other purposes. 

Second, the supplemental interim 

rule provides for a nine-month 

transition period during which the MLC 

is not required to deliver invoices or 

response files within the specified 

timeframes. In adopting the September 

2020 rule on an interim basis, the Office 

said that ‘‘if any significant changes 

prove necessary, the Office intends, as 

the DLC requests, to provide adequate 

and appropriate transition periods.’’ 75

Just as the Office provided DMPs with 

transition periods for aspects of the 

September 2020 rule that required them 

to update their systems or develop new 

processes, the Office finds it reasonable 

to provide one to the MLC here to 

minimize any potential disruption on 

the MLC’s current operations.76 The 

Office understands that the adoption of 

a transition period may mean that 

certain DMPs may be unable to obtain 

response files from the MLC in time to 

meet certain near-term obligations that 

may exist under their voluntary 

licenses. While this is an unfortunate 

result, the MLC represents that, at this 

point, ‘‘even if an additional reasonable 

fee was paid,’’ it still would ‘‘not have 

the resources to complete an accelerated 

timetable’’ for processing AROUs and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 31427 

77MLC Ex Parte Letter at 2 n.1 (Apr. 4, 2022). 78The Office understands that DMPs used outside 

vendors or in-house services to meet reporting 

obligations that may have existed under their 

voluntary licenses prior to the MMA’s enactment. 

DMPs may wish to revisit those earlier methods to 

meet any obligations under their voluntary licenses 

until the MLC is able to deliver invoices or response 

files under this rule. 

79 85 FR 22518, 22528 (referencing monthly 

invoice and response file process). Despite the 

MLC’s contention that ‘‘this issue is extremely 

confined and does not affect blanket licensees at 

large,’’ MLC Ex Parte Letter at 2 (Apr. 4, 2022), the 

Office believes that promulgating a rule is 

reasonable. 

80 DLC Ex Parte Letter at 4 (Mar. 14, 2022). 

81 Id. at 4 n.3. 

82MLC Ex Parte Letter at 3 (Apr. 4, 2022). 

delivering response files to DMPs.77

Consequently, while the supplemental 

interim rule is intended to address this 

issue going forward, DMPs affected by 

the MLC’s current, though ultimately 

temporary, inability to provide response 

files for AROUs and ROAs may need to 

make other arrangements with respect to 

their voluntary licenses.78

Based on the current record, the 

Office believes the supplemental 

interim rule ‘‘is a reasonable approach 

to ensuring that DMPs that need 

invoices and response files can get 

them, while providing the MLC the time 

it needs to generate them.’’ 79 The Office 

recognizes that because the MLC is still 

in the process of developing systems to 

process AROUs and has not yet 

reviewed the various AROUs yet to be 

delivered, the MLC may not be in a 

position to fully address the timing of 

the new response file requirement for 

several months—long after the comment 

period for the supplemental interim rule 

has expired. Consequently, the Office 

will continue to welcome updates from 

the MLC’s operations advisory 

committee or the MLC or DLC 

separately if, after development is 

further along or after the process 

becomes operational and the MLC has 

reviewed the AROUs, the parties believe 

timing changes are necessary. 

AROU deadline postponement. In 

light of the changes being made by the 

Office to the AROU and ROA 

regulations, the Office declines to adopt 

the DLC’s alternative solution to 

‘‘postpon[e] the deadline for the 2021 

annual reports of usage entirely until 

some period after the [CRJs] decide[ ] the 

Phonorecords III rate proceeding.’’ 80

Moreover, it does not appear that 

delaying the deadline would necessarily 

provide meaningful relief to DMPs 

needing response files in the near-term. 

As the DLC explains, ‘‘for some services 

that have independent annual reporting 

obligations under voluntary licenses, 

those services may still require response 

files from the MLC to fulfill existing 

obligations,’’ ‘‘[b]ut presumably if all 

annual reporting to the MLC were 

postponed, the MLC would then have 

sufficient bandwidth to address the 

needs of those services.’’ 81 In response, 

the MLC makes clear that this is ‘‘not 

accurate,’’ as ‘‘the ARoU processing 

design and implementation needs to be 

completed before any ARoUs can be 

processed.’’ 82 Thus, it appears that 

postponing the deadline would not 

resolve the issue any more satisfactorily 

than the solution being adopted in the 

supplemental interim rule. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 210 

Copyright, Phonorecords, Recordings. 

Interim Regulations 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office 

amends 37 CFR part 210 as follows: 

PART 210—COMPULSORY LICENSE 

FOR MAKING AND DISTRIBUTING 

PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL 

PHONORECORDS OF NONDRAMATIC 

MUSICAL WORKS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 210 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 115, 702. 

■ 2. Amend § 210.27 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (f)(4) introductory text, 

add the words ‘‘which may, as 

appropriate, be calculated using 

estimates permitted under paragraph 

(d)(2)(i) of this section,’’ after the word 

‘‘information,’’ and before the word 

‘‘cumulative’’ in the first sentence. 

■ b. In paragraph (f)(4)(i), add a sentence 

at the end of the paragraph. 

■ c. In paragraph (f)(4)(iii), add a 

sentence at the end of the paragraph. 

■ d. In paragraph (g)(3), remove the 

words ‘‘and, if any, related royalty 

payment’’. 

■ e. In paragraph (g)(4), remove the 

words ‘‘and, if any, related royalty 

payment’’. 

■ f. Revise paragraph (k)(4). 

■ g. Add paragraphs (k)(8) and (9). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 210.27 Reports of usage and payment for 

blanket licensees. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * Where the blanket licensee 

will receive an invoice under paragraph 

(k)(4) of this section with respect to an 

adjustment made in connection with the 

annual report of usage as described in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section, the 

reporting of such total royalty payable 

may exclude non-invoiced amounts 

related to such adjustment. 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * Where the blanket licensee 

will receive an invoice under paragraph 

(k)(4) of this section with respect to an 

adjustment made in connection with the 

annual report of usage as described in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this section, the 

reporting of such total adjustment(s) 

may exclude non-invoiced amounts 

related to such adjustment. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(4) In the case of an underpayment of 

royalties, the blanket licensee shall pay 

the difference to the mechanical 

licensing collective contemporaneously 

with delivery of the report of adjustment 

or promptly after receiving an invoice 

from the mechanical licensing collective 

that sets forth the royalties payable by 

the blanket licensee under the blanket 

license with respect to the adjustment, 

which shall be broken down by each 

applicable activity or offering including 

as may be defined in part 385 of this 

title. Where the blanket licensee will 

receive a response file under paragraph 

(k)(8) of this section, the mechanical 

licensing collective shall deliver the 

invoice to the blanket licensee 

contemporaneously with such response 

file. The mechanical licensing collective 

shall otherwise deliver the invoice to 

the blanket licensee in a reasonably 

timely manner. A report of adjustment 

and its related royalty payment may be 

delivered together or separately, but if 

delivered separately, the payment must 

include information reasonably 

sufficient to allow the mechanical 

licensing collective to match the report 

of adjustment to the payment. 

* * * * * 

(8) If requested by the blanket 

licensee, the mechanical licensing 

collective shall deliver a response file to 

the blanket licensee that contains the 

information required by paragraph 

(g)(2)(v) of this section to the extent 

applicable to the adjustment. The 

response file shall be delivered no later 

than 45 calendar days after receiving the 

relevant report of adjustment, unless the 

report of adjustment is combined with 

an annual report of usage, in which case 

the response file shall be delivered no 

later than 60 calendar days after 

receiving the relevant annual report of 

usage. 

(9) The mechanical licensing 

collective may make use of a transition 

period ending February 24, 2023, during 

which the mechanical licensing 

collective shall not be required to 

deliver invoices or response files within 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
31428 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

the timeframes specified in paragraphs 

(k)(4) and (8) of this section. 

* * * * * 

Dated: May 18, 2022. 

Shira Perlmutter, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

Approved by: 

Carla D. Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11174 Filed 5–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 21 

Clarification Regarding SelfEmployment in the Context of 

‘‘Employment’’ for VET TEC Training 

Programs 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Notification of interpretation. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) provides notice of a policy 

advisory released on January 19, 2022, 

by VA’s Education Service. The policy 

advisory clarifies VA’s previous 

regulatory interpretation of 

‘‘employment’’ and also explains when 

‘‘self-employment’’ will be considered 

‘‘employment’’ for the purpose of 

paying training providers participating 

in the Veterans Employment Through 

Technology Education Courses (VET 

TEC) training program. 

DATES: May 24, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cheryl Amitay, Chief of Policy and 

Regulations Team, Education Service 

(225), Veterans Benefits Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 

20420, at 202–461–9800. This is not a 

toll-free number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

16, 2017, Public Law 115–48, the Harry 

W. Colmery Veterans Educational 

Assistance Act of 2017, was signed into 

law. Section 116 of this Act, codified at 

38 U.S.C. 3001 note, requires the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out 

a pilot program (commonly known as 

VET TEC) for 5 years to provide eligible 

Veterans who are entitled to educational 

assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30, 

32, 33, 34, or 35, or 10 U.S.C. chapter 

1606 or 1607, with the opportunity to 

enroll in high technology programs of 

education intended to provide training 

and skills sought by employers in a 

relevant field or industry. Under section 

116(c)(2)(C) of Public Law 115–48, VA 

must pay 50% of the cost of providing 

a high technology program of education 

to qualified providers upon 

‘‘employment’’ of a Veteran in a certain 

field of study. Also, under section 

116(c)(5)(B), VA is required to give 

preference to a qualified provider that 

offers tuition reimbursement for 

students who do not find full-time 

‘‘meaningful employment’’ in their field 

of study within 180 days after 

completing their program. 

Based on a review of employment 

information since the initial roll-out of 

VET TEC, VA issued a policy advisory 

on January 19, 2022, titled Clarification 

Regarding Self-Employment in the 

Context of ‘‘Employment’’ for VET TEC 

Training Programs Established under 

section 116 of Public Law 115–48, to 

clarify how self-employment satisfies 

the meaning of ‘‘employment’’ for the 

purposes of determining whether VA 

must pay qualified providers for 

training provided to Veterans and 

selecting qualified providers. The 

advisory establishes objective standards 

for determining under what 

circumstances VA will consider selfemployment to be employment and is 

intended to maximize economic 

outcomes for VET TEC participants. The 

advisory states generally that VA 

considers a person to be ‘‘employed’’ if 

that person performs services for 

another individual and is compensated 

for such services. It further states that 

the nature of the relationship may be 

that of an employee/employer or 

contractor/client. More specifically, the 

advisory states that ‘‘employment’’ 

includes the following: 

• Establishing a new employee/ 

employer relationship in a career 

supported by the completed program of 

study; or, 

• Promotion in the Veteran’s current 

employee/employer relationship in a 

career supported by the completed 

program of study; or, 

• Self-employment in a career 

supported by the completed program of 

study. 

With regard to clarifying the job 

certification requirements surrounding 

what is deemed as acceptable and 

reasonable for the reporting of 

employment, including selfemployment (i.e., the minimum 

standards for declaring a Veteran has 

obtained employment), the advisory 

provides as follows: 

The following documentation is 

required for payment of employment 

certifications that claim any form of 

employment (both ‘‘employment’’ under 

section 116(c)(2)(C) and ‘‘meaningful 

employment’’ under section 

116(c)(5)(B)): 

• Contract Jobs. Reports of Contract 

Jobs must be at least 6 months in length. 

• Salary or hourly wages. 

• Hours worked per week. 

Employment must be full-time. There is 

a minimum 30 hours per week 

requirement for all employment claims. 

• Promotion in current job. Must be a 

monetary promotion. A promotion is 

NOT simply a job title change without 

an increase in salary. 

• Offer letter and/or first pay stub. 

Documentation must be official and 

display the official company letterhead. 

‘‘Self-Employment’’ Criteria and 

Verification Regarding SelfEmployment 

VA supports self-employment and 

other entrepreneurial endeavors as 

viable paths to achieving meaningful 

employment. However, training 

providers should encourage students to 

explore all possible employment 

prospects and opportunities, and should 

not direct students towards selfemployment as the primary option for 

employment. To ensure that individuals 

electing to pursue employment through 

self-employment are adequately 

equipped for success, the following 

documentation is required for payment 

of employment certifications that claim 

any form of self-employment: 

• Proof of ownership of the business. 

These can include a Federal Tax ID 

Number; Articles of Organization, or 

Articles of Incorporation; copy of 

personal tax return with schedule C; a 

copy of the Doing Business As 

declarations, etc. It may also include a 

state tax ID Number or state business 

registration information. 

• Copies of any valid personal 

licenses or certifications required for 

business operations. 

• A bill and payment from a client to 

show proof of legitimate business 

transactions for the type of services 

being provided and/or products sold; 

and 

• Other documents: VA may request 

additional documentation to support the 

claim if existing evidence provided is 

insufficient to make a determination. 

To avoid a conflict of interest, neither 

the training provider, its subsidiaries, 

nor a parent company may become the 

client of the self-employed VET TEC 

student. 

Implementation of the new policy 

began on February 1, 2022, and it is 

applicable to both VET TEC students 

and training providers, regardless of 

when the student began or graduated 

from their program. Compliance with 

the requirements specified in the new 

policy is part of the annual approval or 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1