33836 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

1Letter from Sen. Thom Tillis, Ranking Member, 

Subcomm. on Intell. Prop. of the S. Comm. on the 

Judiciary, to Shira Perlmutter, Reg. of Copyrights, 

U.S. Copyright Office 1 (May 24. 2021), https://

www.copyright.gov/policy/best-edition/5-24-21-LtrUSCO-Copyright-Examination-and-RegistrationRequirements-Studies-Final.pdf. 

2 Id. 

3 Id. 

4 Id. 

Dated: May 31, 2022. 

Stefanie Davis, 

Senior Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11988 Filed 6–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: The Finance Committee 

of the Legal Services Corporation Board 

of Directors will meet virtually on June 

13, 2022. The meeting will commence at 

3:30 p.m. EDT and will continue until 

the conclusion of the Committee’s 

agenda. 

PLACE: Public Notice of Virtual Meeting. 

LSC will conduct the June 13, 2022 

meeting via Zoom. 

Public Observation: Unless otherwise 

noted herein, the Finance Committee 

meeting will be open to public 

observation via Zoom. Members of the 

public who wish to participate remotely 

in the public proceedings may do so by 

following the directions provided 

below. 

Directions for Open Sessions 

June 13, 2022 

To join the Zoom meeting by 

computer, please use this link. 

• https://lsc-gov.zoom.us/j/ 

87474557815?pwd=M2dlK05

peks3b2dxaTJnMm1oWUxCQT09&

from=addon. 

Æ Meeting ID: 874 7455 7815 

Æ Passcode: 504510 

• To join the Zoom meeting with one 

tap from your mobile phone, please 

click dial: 

Æ +13017158592,,87474557815# US 

(Washington DC) 

Æ +16468769923,,87474557815# US 

(New York) 

• To join the Zoom meeting by 

telephone, please dial one of the 

following numbers: 

Æ +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington, 

DC) 

Æ +1 646 876 9923 US (New York) 

Æ +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) 

Æ +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) 

Æ +1 408 638 0968 US (San Jose) 

Æ +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) 

Æ +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) 

Æ Meeting ID: 874 7455 7815 

Æ Passcode: 504510 

Once connected to Zoom, please 

immediately mute your computer or 

telephone. Members of the public are 

asked to keep their computers or 

telephones muted to eliminate 

background noise. To avoid disrupting 

the meetings, please refrain from 

placing the call on hold if doing so will 

trigger recorded music or other sound. 

From time to time, the Finance 

Committee Chair may solicit comments 

from the public. To participate in the 

meeting during public comment, use the 

‘raise your hand’ or ‘chat’ functions in 

Zoom and wait to be recognized by the 

Chair before stating your questions and/ 

or comments. 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Approval of agenda 

2. Approval of minutes of the Finance 

Committee’s meeting on April 4, 

2022 

3. Public comment regarding LSC’s 

Fiscal Year 2024 budget request 

4. Public comment on other matters 

5. Consider and act on other business 

6. Consider and act on adjournment of 

meeting 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Kaitlin Brown, Executive and Board 

Project Coordinator, at (202) 295–1555. 

Questions may also be sent by electronic 

mail to brownk@lsc.gov. 

Non-Confidential Meeting Materials: 

Non-confidential meeting materials will 

be made available in electronic format at 

least 24 hours in advance of the meeting 

on the LSC website, at https://

www.lsc.gov/about-lsc/board-meetingmaterials. 

Dated: 06/01/2022 

Kaitlin D. Brown, 

Executive and Board Project Coordinator, 

Legal Services Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2022–12104 Filed 6–1–22; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2022–3] 

Best Edition Study: Notice and 

Request for Public Comment 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

undertaking a public study at the 

request of Senator Thom Tillis to 

evaluate the deposit requirements of 

section 407 and 408 of the Copyright 

Act and consider whether ‘‘removing 

the ‘best edition’ requirement from the 

registration deposit process in section 

408 could help improve the registration 

process.’’ To aid in its review of this 

topic, the Office is soliciting input from 

interested members of the public. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on July 18, 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 website at https://

www.copyright.gov/policy/best-edition. 

If electronic submission of comments is 

not feasible due to lack of access to a 

computer and/or the internet, please 

contact the 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: On May 

24, 2021, Senator Thom Tillis sent a 

letter seeking the Copyright Office’s 

‘‘expertise and guidance regarding 

adjusted copyright examination and 

registration requirements.’’ 1

Specifically, Senator Tillis requested 

that the Office complete ‘‘a study 

regarding the feasibility of decoupling 

the deposit requirements of Section 407 

of Title 17 from Section 408.’’ 2 The 

letter states that ‘‘[s]ome have asserted 

that’’ decoupling ‘‘could help improve 

the registration process by permitting 

low resolution digital deposits, for 

example.’’ 3 In conducting the study, 

Senator Tillis asked the Office to 

consult with the Library of Congress to 

address the Library’s need to grow its 

collections, as well as to consider the 

Office’s own needs as part of the 

registration process.4

To guide its consideration of these 

issues, the Office is soliciting public 

comments on topics related to this 

inquiry. These comments will be used 

to inform the Office’s discussions with 

the Library and its consideration of the 

Office’s needs with respect to deposits 

for registration purposes. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33837 

5 17 U.S.C. 407(a), (b). See generally 37 CFR 

202.19, 202.20. 

6 17 U.S.C. 408(b)(2). 

7 Id. 101. See also id. 407(b). 

8 Id. 408(b). 

9 In many cases, the Copyright Office has issued 

regulations to require only one copy instead of two. 

See, e.g., 37 CFR 202.19(d)(2)(vi) (permitting 

deposit of one complete copy of best edition for 

literary monographs), 202.20(c)(2)(i)(E) (permitting 

deposit of one complete copy of best edition of 

musical compositions published in copies). 

10See U.S. Copyright Office, Annual Report 

Fiscal 2019, at 48 (2019), https://

www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2019/ar2019.pdf 

(roughly 727,000 deposits transferred to Library); 

U.S. Copyright Office, Annual Report for Fiscal 

2018, at 24 (2018), https://www.copyright.gov/ 

reports/annual/2018/ar2018.pdf (almost 737,000 

deposits transferred to Library). The number of 

deposits decreased in fiscal year 2020 due to a 

backlog of processing physical deposits as a result 

of the COVID–19 pandemic. U.S. Copyright Office, 

Annual Report Fiscal 2020, at 40 (2020), https://

www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2020/ar2020.pdf 

(roughly 550,000 deposits transferred). 

11See, e.g., 37 CFR 202, App. B.I.C.2 (for printed 

textual works with illustrations, the best edition is 

version with ‘‘[i]llustrations in color rather than 

black and white.’’). The Best Edition Statement 

divides works into 10 categories: I. Printed Textual 

Matter, II. Photographs, III. Motion Pictures, IV. 

Other Graphic Matter, V. Phonorecords, VI. Musical 

Compositions, VII. Microforms, VIII. MachineReadable Copies, IX. Electronic-Only Works 

Published in the United States and Available Only 

Online, and X. Works Existing in More Than One 

Medium. Id. 

12See id. 202, App. B.I. 

13 Id. 202, App. B.II. 

14See id. 202.19(d)(2)(iv). 

15See id. 202.19(c)(2), (6). 

16See 37 CFR 202.19(c)(5), 202.24. 

17 Id. 202.19(e). 

18See id. 202.20(c)(vii), (xi)(A)(2), (xiii). 

19 Id. 202.21(b). 

20U.S. Copyright Office, Operations Updates 

During the COVID–19 Pandemic, https://

www.copyright.gov/coronavirus/. 

21 37 CFR 202.20(d). 

I. Background 

(A) Legal Background 

The Copyright Act has two provisions 

requiring copyright owners to deposit 

copies of their works. First, under 

section 407 of the Act, once a 

copyrighted work is published in the 

United States, the copyright owner 

must, within three months of 

publication, deposit ‘‘two complete 

copies of the best edition’’ of the work 

with the Copyright Office ‘‘for the use 

or disposition of the Library of 

Congress.’’ 5 Second, under section 408, 

copyright owners who apply to register 

works that have been published must 

generally include with their 

applications a deposit that consists of 

‘‘two complete copies or phonorecords 

of the best edition’’ of their works.6 The 

term ‘‘best edition,’’ as used in both 

section 407 and section 408 is defined 

as ‘‘the edition, published in the United 

States at any time before the date of 

deposit, that the Library of Congress 

determines to be most suitable for its 

purposes.’’ 7

Copyright owners can deposit a single 

set of best edition materials that will 

satisfy their obligations under both 

sections 407 and 408. Section 408 

explicitly provides that deposits made 

to satisfy section 407 may also be used 

to satisfy the registration deposit 

requirement, provided they are 

accompanied by a copyright application 

and fee.8 When applicants submit the 

required best edition copies with their 

registration applications, the Office 

provides the Library with copies of the 

materials that are within the Library’s 

selection criteria for addition to its 

collections.9

Together, the deposits received 

pursuant to sections 407 and 408 allow 

the Library of Congress to grow its 

collection as the nation’s library. The 

Copyright Office generally transfers over 

700,000 copyright deposits to the 

Library each year.10

(B) Best Edition Requirements 

The Office’s regulations at appendix B 

to part 202 of title 37 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations—known as the Best 

Edition Statement—describe how to 

identify the best edition of a work. The 

regulations do not require a specific 

format; they instead describe an order of 

preference for formats of different types 

of works.11 In most cases, physical 

copies of works must be submitted to 

meet the best edition requirement. For 

example, for printed textual matter, the 

Library of Congress prefers that the 

deposit be the largest possible size 

(other than a large-type edition for the 

partially-sighted), illustrated in color, 

and contain ‘‘archival-quality rather 

than less-permanent paper,’’ a hard 

cover, library binding, and a sewn rather 

than glued binding.12 For photographs, 

the Library prefers the most widely 

distributed edition of the photograph, or 

an unmounted 8x10-inch glossy print 

on archival-quality paper.13

(C) Exceptions to Best Edition 

Requirements 

The Office has the authority to waive 

the requirement that deposits be the best 

edition of a work, and it has done so in 

many circumstances. For section 407 

deposits, the Office has promulgated 

regulations permitting deposit of 

versions that might not be the best 

edition as defined by the Best Edition 

Statement. For example, copyright 

owners of pictorial and graphic works 

published in small numbers have the 

option to deposit ‘‘photographs or other 

identifying material’’ of the works.14 For 

other types of works, such as greeting 

cards and three-dimensional sculptural 

works, the Office’s regulations waive the 

deposit requirement altogether.15

Additionally, for electronic-only books 

and serials published only in electronic 

form and available only online, deposit 

is required only on demand from the 

Copyright Office.16 The Office also may 

waive the best edition requirement for 

section 407 deposits for individual 

works upon request for ‘‘special relief,’’ 

typically when complying with the 

requirement would be burdensome or 

impractical.17 These requests may 

permit copyright owners to deposit a 

version of their work that does not fit 

the best edition requirement, such as an 

electronic copy of a work that was 

published as physical printed text. The 

Library and the Copyright Office have 

entered into continuing ‘‘special relief’’ 

agreements with a number publishers, 

whereby electronic copies of works in a 

publisher’s catalog are accepted as a 

substitute for the best edition under 

certain conditions. 

The Office provides similar flexibility 

for section 408 registration deposits. For 

many works, such as computer 

programs, useful articles, and works 

exceeding 96 inches in any dimension, 

the Office permits applicants to deposit 

identifying material instead of the best 

edition.18 Identifying material is a 

deposit that provides at least ‘‘an 

adequate representation’’ of the content 

an applicant seeks to register.19 While 

the Office was closed to the public 

during the COVID–19 pandemic, the 

Office provided the option for 

applicants submitting electronic 

applications for works that required 

deposit of ‘‘best edition’’ physical 

copies to upload electronic copies of the 

works in addition to mailing the 

required physical copies, which enabled 

the Office to examine the works 

remotely.20 As with section 407 

deposits, the Office, in consultation 

with the Library, may also waive the 

best edition requirement on a case-bycase basis as ‘‘special relief,’’ upon 

request to permit the deposit of other 

formats that are more convenient for the 

applicant.21

(D) Criticism of Best Edition 

Requirements 

While the best edition requirement 

satisfies important Library acquisition 

objectives, it can in some instances be 

an obstacle to registration and generally 

increases the Copyright Office’s 

registration processing times. Some 

copyright owners have explained that 

they have difficulty complying with the 

best edition requirement because they 

do not possess copies of the best edition 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
33838 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 

22Shaftel & Schmelzer, Comments Submitted in 

Response to Notification of Inquiry on Registration 

Modernization, at 21 (Jan. 11, 2019). See also 

Coalition of Visual Artists, Comments Submitted in 

Response to Notification of Inquiry on Registration 

Modernization, at 25 (Jan. 15, 2019) (‘‘Tracking 

down hard copies of the first published use of a 

particular image is often difficult or impossible. 

And purchasing two copies of a book, for example, 

unnecessarily increases registration expense.’’). 

23On December 4, 2019, the Office published a 

notification of inquiry in which it noted the 

uncertainty expressed by some registration 

applicants as to how the term ‘‘publication’’ applies 

in the online context, and sought perspectives and 

suggestions regarding possible new regulations 

interpreting the statutory definition of publication 

and policy guidance regarding the role that 

publication should play in copyright law and the 

registration process. 84 FR 66328 (Dec. 4, 2019). 

The Office recently described the actions it has 

taken to provide additional guidance regarding the 

definition of ‘‘publication,’’ and discussed how it 

will supplement those efforts going forward. Letter 

from Shira Perlmutter, Reg. of Copyrights, U.S. 

Copyright Office, to Sen. Thom Tillis, Ranking 

Member, Subcomm. on Intell. Prop. of the S. Comm. 

on the Judiciary (Dec. 1, 2021). 

24Association of American Publishers, Comments 

Submitted in Response to Notification of Inquiry on 

Registration Modernization, at 2 (Jan. 15, 2019). 

25 Id. at 2 n.2. 

26Copyright Alliance, Comments Submitted in 

Response to Notification of Inquiry on Registration 

Modernization, at 25–26 (Jan. 15, 2019). 

27See, e.g., Coalition of Visual Artists, Comments 

Submitted in Response to Notification of Inquiry on 

Registration Modernization, at 25–26 (Jan. 15, 2019) 

(describing the ‘‘two best-edition’’ requirement as 

‘‘archaic, unnecessary and impractical’’); Graphic 

Artists Guild, Comments Submitted in Response to 

Notification of Inquiry on Registration 

Modernization, at 8–9 (Jan. 15, 2019) (requesting 

that applicants be permitted to submit digital 

deposits for all types of works and only be required 

to provide a physical deposit if the Library 

determines that it wants to include the work in its 

collection). 

28Letter from Karyn A. Temple, Reg. of 

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

Tillis, Chairman, Subcomm. on Intell. Prop. of the 

S. Comm. on the Judiciary, and Sen. Christopher A. 

Coons, Ranking Member, Subcomm. on Intell. Prop. 

of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary 18 (May 31, 2019), 

https://www.copyright.gov/laws/hearings/responseto-march-14-2019-senate-letter.pdf (‘‘Senate 

Letter’’); Letter from Karyn A. Temple, Reg. of 

Copyrights, U.S. Copyright Office, to Rep. Jerrold 

Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, and 

Rep. Doug Collins, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on 

the Judiciary 18 (May 31, 2019), https://

www.copyright.gov/laws/hearings/response-toapril-3-2019-house-letter.pdf (‘‘House Letter’’). 

29 17 U.S.C. 410(d); U.S. Copyright Office, 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices sec. 

625 (3d ed. 2021). 

30Senate Letter at 18; House Letter at 18. 

31Senate Letter at 19; House Letter at 19. 

32U.S. Copyright Office, Registration Processing 

Times, https://www.copyright.gov/registration/ 

docs/processing-times-faqs.pdf. 

33 37 CFR 202.4(e). 

34 Id. 202.18. 

35See 85 FR 12704, 12711–12 (Mar. 3, 2020) 

(summarizing public comments on issue of digital 

deposits). 

of a work. Obtaining two copies—or 

even one—of the best edition of a work 

may sometimes be time-consuming and 

expensive. Shaftel & Schmelzer, a 

consulting firm that works with visual 

artists, has explained that ‘‘[v]isual 

creators sometimes have to purchase 

published copies at full retail price to 

submit with their registration 

application, adding significant cost to 

our registration. . . .’’ 22 The statutory 

requirement that the best edition be one 

that has been published also creates a 

hurdle because creators may have 

difficulty determining if a particular 

version of a work has been published.23

In response to a prior Copyright Office 

inquiry, the Association of American 

Publishers (‘‘AAP’’) commented that 

publishers of literary works sometimes 

find the Office’s registration deposit 

requirements to be ‘‘costly, risky, and 

illogical,’’ and indicated they would 

welcome the ability to submit electronic 

deposits for registration if they could do 

so in a manner that was secure, with the 

deposit ‘‘kept wholly separate from the 

collections of the Library and its access 

or interlibrary lending or surplus books 

policies.’’ 24 In particular, AAP 

explained that the current best edition 

requirements do not accept ePub files, 

which are its members’ preferred 

format.25 Likewise, the Copyright 

Alliance urged the Office to create 

options for applicants to upload digital 

deposits in a manner that takes into 

account applicants’ operational systems 

and work processes.26 Visual artists also 

have maintained that the ability to 

submit digital deposits of their works 

encourages registration.27

As the Office has explained to 

Congress, the section 408 best edition 

requirement often increases registration 

processing times for a number of 

reasons.28 After electronic applications 

and fees have been submitted, authors 

or publishers must incur the time and 

expense of packaging and shipping 

physical copies of works, along with 

shipping slips that connect the physical 

works with the electronic applications. 

Once the physical copies arrive at the 

Office, they must undergo off-site 

security screening and decontamination, 

be matched to a corresponding 

electronic application, have security 

measures applied, and be physically 

brought to an examiner’s workspace 

before examination can begin. The time 

delay adversely affects applicants 

because the effective date of registration 

is not assigned until the Office has 

received the deposit in addition to the 

application and fee.29 Second, under the 

current rules, in addition to examining 

whether a work is copyrightable, an 

examiner must review each deposit for 

compliance with the best edition rules 

to confirm whether the proper version 

has been received. Correspondence with 

applicants is often necessary to ensure 

that they have complied with the 

Library’s best edition criteria and the 

Copyright Office’s regulations.30 This 

adds additional complexities and time 

to the examination process. 

As a result, applications with physical 

deposits take much longer for the Office 

to process than those with electronic 

deposits.31 On average, examination of 

electronic applications that do not need 

correspondence takes 1.1 months for 

those with electronic deposits and takes 

10.8 months for those with physical 

deposits. The average processing time 

for electronic applications that do need 

correspondence is 3.4 months for those 

with electronic deposits and 13.1 

months for those with physical 

deposits.32

(E) Digital Deposit Options 

The Office has been exploring options 

that would permit registration 

applicants to submit digital copies of 

works and provide the Library with 

physical copies only upon demand. 

Since 2018, the Office has required 

applicants seeking to register a group of 

newspapers to file an online application 

rather than a paper application and to 

upload a complete electronic copy of 

each issue through the electronic 

registration system instead of submitting 

them in physical form.33 The Library 

has incorporated electronic copies of 

these registration deposits into its 

collections, and provides its patrons 

with secure onsite access to them, 

subject to a number of security 

restrictions.34 If this model were applied 

to other categories and classes of 

registered works, the Office could both 

meet the Library’s collections needs and 

expand the ability of applicants to 

provide electronic deposits in lieu of 

physical best edition copies, while 

providing secure, rights-restricted 

access to the works. 

The Library’s Office of Chief 

Information Officer (‘‘OCIO’’) is 

currently working with the Office to 

build a new Enterprise Copyright 

System (‘‘ECS’’) to improve the Office’s 

provision of copyright services to the 

public, including its registration 

services. This will include replacing the 

Office’s current electronic system for 

registration. As part of the Office’s prior 

rulemaking on registration 

modernization, the Office inquired 

about providing greater flexibility for 

copyright applicants to deposit digital 

versions of their works, with physical 

copies only deposited upon request. The 

responses to that inquiry were generally 

very positive.35

The Library has been focusing on its 

digital collecting capacity and capability 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2022 / Notices 33839 

36 Id. See also Carla Hayden, Libr. of Congr., 

Responses to Questions for the Record, Subcomm. 

on Intell. Prop. of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary 

at 17 (Jan. 7, 2020), https://

www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ 

Hayden%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf (noting 

that digital deposits options must ‘‘appropriately 

balance security with ease of use’’). 

37Library of Congress Library Services, 

Comments Submitted in Response to Notification of 

Inquiry on Registration Modernization, at 1–2 (Jan. 

15, 2019). 

38Library of Congress, Digital Collections Strategy 

Fiscal Years 2022–2026, at 3 (2021), https://

www.loc.gov/acq/devpol/Digital%20

Collections%20Strategy%20Overview_final.pdf. 

39 Id. at 4. 

40 Id. at 4–5. 

for over two decades and has expressed 

a commitment to continuing to 

strengthen its digital collections. The 

Library has stressed that new electronic 

deposit options for copyright owners 

must take into account ‘‘the Library’s 

collection needs, technological 

capabilities, and security and access 

issues.’’ 36 The Library’s Library 

Collections and Services Group (part of 

which was formerly known as Library 

Services) has expressed support for 

permitting digital deposits for all 

copyright applications in the long run. 

Noting that the Library depends on the 

items acquired via copyright deposit to 

help build its collection, it further 

explained that ‘‘[w]hile the submission 

of e-copies as opposed to print copies 

for purposes of registration would pose 

some difficulties in terms of service to 

Congress and other user groups, having 

access to e-copies of the content will be 

beneficial in the long term.’’ 37

The Library’s Digital Collections 

Strategy: Fiscal Years 2022–2026 

focuses on ‘‘further mainstreaming and 

routinizing digital collecting and digital 

collections management across the wide 

range of areas, formats, and subjects the 

Library of Congress collects.’’ 38

Pursuant to this Strategy, the Library 

has committed to continuing to work 

closely with the Office to explore 

possible regulatory updates to the 

deposit requirements, including 

‘‘planning electronic deposit workflows 

related to the acquisition of electronic 

deposits for mandatory deposit and 

registration deposit’’ for works that 

could include ‘‘books, serials, motion 

pictures, sound recordings, music 

compositions, maps, photographs, 

prints, drawings, design and 

architectural materials, technical 

designs, technical reports, and web 

content.’’ 39 The Strategy also notes that 

the Library plans to transition to ‘‘epreferred,’’ in which digital formats are 

preferred over traditional physical 

formats, across its major acquisitions 

streams, including deposits from the 

Copyright Office.40

II. Subjects of Inquiry 

To guide the Office’s consideration of 

these issues and its consultation with 

the Library, the Office invites written 

comments on the subjects below. A 

party choosing to respond to this notice 

of inquiry need not address every 

subject, but the Office requests that 

responding parties clearly identify and 

separately address each subject for 

which a response is submitted. The 

Office also requests that commenters 

explain their interest in the study and, 

with respect to each answer, the basis 

for their knowledge. Citations to 

published data and other external 

documents that support commenters’ 

viewpoints are particularly helpful to 

the Office’s review of written comments. 

1. One way to address concerns raised 

regarding the best edition requirement 

would be to limit the categories of 

deposits to it applies. To what 

categor(y/ies) of deposits do you think 

the best edition requirement should 

apply and why? What would be the 

impact on Library collections? What 

would be the impact on claimants’ 

ability to register their copyrights? 

2. If registration and mandatory 

deposit requirements were no longer 

linked, how would this affect the 

deposit burden on copyright owners? 

How would it affect the Library’s 

collections? How would it affect 

claimants’ ability to register their 

copyrights? 

3. Should the Office expand the 

options for submitting electronic 

deposits for the purpose of examining 

registration applications and selection 

by the Library for its collections while 

retaining the requirement to submit best 

edition copies upon demand by the 

Library pursuant to section 407? Why or 

why not? 

4. Would copyright owners prefer to 

deposit electronic deposit copies for 

registration purposes instead of copies 

that meet the best edition standards? 

Why or why not? Would copyright 

owners like the option to provide 

electronic copies or best edition 

physical copies? Why or why not? How 

would the submission of electronic 

copies for registration affect the 

Library’s collections and operations? 

What effect would the use of electronic 

copies have on the public record, and 

on a researcher’s ability to use the work? 

5. Would the option to deposit 

electronic deposit copies create security 

concerns that the Copyright Office’s and 

the Library’s protocols do not currently 

address? What are the security concerns 

most important to applicants if 

electronic deposit copies are permitted 

and how could the Library address 

them? 

6. The Copyright Act requires that a 

‘‘best edition’’ of a work must be the 

edition published in the U.S. Can this 

definition be interpreted to include 

digital file formats that were not 

themselves distributed to the public but 

contain the same copyrightable material 

as the edition distributed to the public? 

7. Please identify any pertinent issues 

regarding digital deposit and the best 

edition requirement not referenced 

above that the Office should consider in 

conducting its study. 

Dated: May 31, 2022. 

Suzanne V. Wilson, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2022–11953 Filed 6–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Proposing To Extend the Information 

Collection 0348–0065 

AGENCY: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Executive 

Office of the President. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) is proposing to extend the 

information collection 0348–0065 it 

uses for members of the public who 

request a meeting with OIRA on rules 

under review at the time pursuant to 

Executive Order 12866. The information 

collected is subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) and this notice 

announces and requests comment on 

OIRA’s proposal for such a collection. 

DATES: Provide comments by July 5, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by the 

following method: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

for docket OMB–2022–0006. Comments 

submitted electronically, including 

attachments to https://

www.regulations.gov, will be posted to 

the docket unchanged. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite Information Collection 

0348–0065 in all correspondence related 

to this collection. To confirm receipt of 

your comment(s), please check 

regulations.gov, approximately two to 

three business days after submission to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES