34286 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1The 1989 rulemaking did not suggest that 

electronic online–only works should also be subject 

to mandatory deposit, and there is no evidence that 

such an outcome was contemplated. In fact at that 

time, the Library did not possess the technological 

means of ingesting copies of online–only works. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 202 

[Docket No. RM 2009–3] 

Mandatory Deposit of Published 

Electronic Works Available Only 

Online 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the 

Library of Congress is proposing to 

amend its regulations governing 

mandatory deposit of electronic works 

published in the United States and 

available only online. The amendments 

would establish that such works are 

exempt from mandatory deposit until a 

demand for deposit of copies or 

phonorecords of such works is issued by 

the Copyright Office. They would also 

set forth the process for issuing and 

responding to a demand for deposit, 

amend the definition of a ‘‘complete 

copy’’ of a work for purposes of 

mandatory deposit of online–only 

works, and establish new best edition 

criteria for electronic serials available 

only online. The Copyright Office seeks 

public comment on these proposed 

revisions. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received in the Office of the General 

Counsel of the Copyright Office no later 

than August 31, 2009. Reply comments 

must be received in the Office of the 

General Counsel of the Copyright Office 

no later than September 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a 

private party, an original and five copies 

of a comment or reply comment should 

be brought to the Library of Congress, 

U.S. Copyright Office, Room 401, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, 

DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

E.D.T. The envelope should be 

addressed as follows: Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office. 

If delivered by a commercial courier, an 

original and five copies of a comment or 

reply comment must be delivered to the 

Congressional Courier Acceptance Site 

(‘‘CCAS’’) located at 2nd and D Streets, 

NE, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. 

and 4 p.m. The envelope should be 

addressed as follows: Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, 

LM 403, James Madison Building, 101 

Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, 

DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will 

not accept delivery by means of 

overnight delivery services such as 

Federal Express, United Parcel Service 

or DHL. If sent by mail (including 

overnight delivery using U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail), an original and 

five copies of a comment or reply 

comment should be addressed to U.S. 

Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, 

P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General 

Counsel, or Christopher Weston, 

Attorney Advisor, Copyright GC/I&R, 

P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: 

(202)–707–8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Historical Context 

Under section 407 of the Copyright 

Act of 1976, Title 17 of the United 

States Code, the owner of copyright, or 

of the exclusive right of publication, in 

a work published in the United States 

is required to deposit two complete 

copies (or, in the case of sound 

recordings, two phonorecords) of the 

best edition of the work with the 

Copyright Office for the use or 

disposition of the Library of Congress. 

The deposit is to be made within three 

months after such publication. Failure 

to make the required deposit does not 

affect copyright in the work, but it may 

subject the copyright owner to fines and 

other monetary liability if the owner 

fails to comply after a demand for 

deposit is made by the Register of 

Copyrights. These general provisions, 

however, are subject to limitations. 

Section 407 also provides that the 

Register of Copyrights ‘‘may by 

regulation exempt any categories of 

material from the deposit requirements 

of this section, or require deposit of only 

one copy or phonorecord with respect to 

any categories.’’ 17 U.S.C. 407(c). 

Accordingly, the Copyright Office, 

with the approval of the Librarian of 

Congress, established regulations 

governing mandatory deposit and 

deposit for registration of copyright, 

which are set forth in Chapter II, Part 

202 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). Section 202.19 

establishes the standards governing 

mandatory deposit of copies and 

phonorecords published in the United 

States for the Library of Congress. 

Section 202.20 prescribes rules 

pertaining to the required deposit for 

registration of a copyright claim with 

the Copyright Office under section 408 

of Title 17, and section 202.21 allows 

for a deposit of identifying material in 

lieu of copies or phonorecords in certain 

cases, for both mandatory deposit and 

registration deposit. In addition, the 

Library of Congress’s Best Edition 

Statement in Appendix B of Part 202 

specifies the required deposit in 

instances where ‘‘two or more editions 

of the same version of a work have been 

published.’’ 

When the mandatory deposit 

regulations were first issued in 1978, the 

Copyright Office adopted a regulation 

exempting machine–readable works. It 

reads as follows: 

Literary works, including computer 

programs and automated databases, 

published in the United States only in 

the form of machine–readable copies 

(such as magnetic tape or disks, punch 

cards, or the like) from which the work 

cannot ordinarily be visually perceived 

except with the aid of a machine or 

device [are exempted]. Works published 

in a form requiring the use of a machine 

or device for purposes of optical 

enlargement (such as film, filmstrips, 

slide films and works published in any 

variety of microform), and works 

published in visually perceivable form 

but used in connection with optical 

scanning devices, are not within this 

category and are subject to the applicable 

deposit requirements. 

37 CFR 202.19(c)(5) (1978). At the 

time this exemption was promulgated, 

copies of such machine–readable works 

were not widely marketed to the public. 

Thus, the Library decided not to require 

their deposit. 

However, by the mid–1980s many 

important reference materials 

traditionally made available only in 

print form were being published in 

whole or in part in machine–readable 

form (e.g, CD–ROM) and the public’s 

demand for access to and use of these 

materials had increased significantly. In 

addition, the Library’’s interest in 

collecting computer programs published 

in IBM and Macintosh formats was 

growing, and it needed a way to obtain 

these works for its collection. As a 

result, the Library established a 

Machine–Readable Collections Reading 

Room, and, in 1989, the Copyright 

Office amended the machine–readable 

copies exemption so that machine– 

readable works published in physical 

form were subject to mandatory deposit 

and only ‘‘automated databases 

available only online in the United 

States’’ were exempted. 54 FR 42295 

(Oct. 16, 1989).1

The 1989 amendments also added two 

classes of works to the list of those not 

covered by the exemption: ‘‘automated 

databases distributed only in the form of 

machine–readable copies (such as 

magnetic tape or disks, punch cards, or 

the like) from which the work cannot 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34287 

2 Circular 65 is currently under revision. 

3Note that the Library’’s current Best Edition 

Statement for ‘‘Works Existing in More Than One 

Medium’’ does not currently list electronic formats. 

See, e.g., 37 CFR 202.20(b)(1) (‘‘For purposes of this 

section, if a work is first published in both hard 

copy, i.e., in a physically tangible format, and also 

in an electronic format, the current Library of 

Congress Best Edition Statement requirements 

pertaining to the hard copy format apply.’’) 

Nevertheless, the Library of Congress retains the 

authority to determine what constitutes ‘‘best 

edition’’ and it may decide at a future time that, 

when a particular work is published in both print 

and electronic editions, the electronic edition is the 

‘‘best edition’’ for purposes of mandatory deposit. 

ordinarily be visually perceived except 

with the aid of a machine or device’’ 

and ‘‘computerized information works 

in the nature of statistical compendia, 

serials, and reference works.’’ Two years 

later, the Copyright Office amended 

section 202.19(c)(5) yet again to 

explicitly identify CD–ROM–formatted 

works as another category of works no 

longer included in the exemption. 56 FR 

47402 (Sept. 19, 1991). 

Regulatory Interpretation and Practice. 

The term ‘‘automated database,’’ 

although used in the regulations to 

characterize a class of works, is a term 

that has not been defined in Title 17, 

and neither the Copyright Office 

regulations regarding mandatory 

deposit, nor the relevant Federal 

Register notices proposing and 

implementing regulatory changes, 

provide a definition of the term. 

However, the Copyright Office did 

provide a definition in its Circular 65: 

Copyright Registration for Automated 

Databases:2 The circular defines an 

‘‘automated database’’ as ‘‘a body of 

facts, data, or other information 

assembled into an organized format 

suitable for use in a computer and 

comprising one or more files.’’ This 

definition comports with the general 

understanding of what constitutes a 

database, in that a database usually 

would not include works like journals, 

newspapers or encyclopedias. 

Even so, the Copyright Office practice 

to date has been, for purposes of 

mandatory deposit, to interpret this 

category broadly to encompass all 

electronic works published only online. 

To understand how this interpretation 

evolved, it should be noted that when 

section 202.19(c)(5) was amended in 

1989, there was no tension involved in 

using the category ‘‘automated databases 

available only on–line in the United 

States’’ to refer to all online–only 

publications. For all practical purposes, 

the only works being published online 

at that time were automated databases, 

e.g. Westlaw and Nexis. The Copyright 

Office, however, did not revise its 

definition of automated databases as 

other categories of works, such as 

articles and serial titles, began to be 

published online. It chose instead to 

include these works in the exempted 

category ‘‘automated databases available 

only on–line in the United States’’ as a 

matter of convenience because, at that 

time, the Library exhibited neither the 

intention nor the technological ability to 

collect such works. Unfortunately, the 

effect of these practices has been to 

stretch the definition of the excluded 

category ‘‘automated databases available 

only on–line in the United States’’ 

beyond its generally understood limits. 

Hence, the proposed revision to the 

exemption will replace this category 

with the more accurate ‘‘electronic 

works published in the United States 

and available only online.’’ 

Proposed Qualified Exemption: 

Demand–Based Deposit of Electronic 

Works Published in the United States 

and Available Only Online 

Twenty years have passed since the 

adoption of the regulation used to 

exclude from mandatory copyright 

deposit electronic works published in 

the United States and available only 

online. In that time, the Internet has 

grown to become a fundamental tool for 

the publication and dissemination of 

millions of works of authorship. To cite 

just one pertinent example, the Library 

has determined that there are now more 

than five thousand scholarly electronic 

serials available exclusively online, 

with no print counterparts. In some 

cases the Library has purchased 

subscriptions to these periodicals, but 

such subscriptions are typically ‘‘access 

only,’’ and rarely allow the Library to 

acquire a ‘‘best edition’’ copy for its 

collections. Thus, the current inability 

of the Library to acquire online–only 

works through mandatory copyright 

deposit places the long–term 

preservation of the works at risk. 

To fulfill its mandate of sustaining 

and preserving a universal collection of 

knowledge, the Library is currently 

developing technological systems that 

will allow it to electronically ingest 

online–only works and maintain them 

in formats suitable for long–term 

preservation. As part of this process, the 

Library will also establish policies and 

practices to insure the security and 

integrity of its electronic collections, 

and to provide appropriate, limited 

access as allowed by law. So that this 

strategy may be implemented, the 

Copyright Office proposes to amend the 

mandatory copyright deposit regulations 

and thus enable the on–demand 

mandatory deposit of electronic works 

published in the United States and 

available only online (i.e., not published 

in physical form). Via this notice, the 

Office seeks public comment on the 

proposed regulatory changes. 

To date, mandatory copyright deposit 

has been one of the most important 

methods for building the Library’’s 

collections and making it the world’’s 

largest repository of knowledge and 

creativity. There is no reason why 

mandatory deposit cannot or should not 

serve this function in the digital 

environment as well. If, for example, a 

scholarly journal is subject to 

mandatory copyright deposit when 

published in paper copies, it is logical 

and reasonable to demand its deposit 

once it is published solely in an online– 

accessible format, and such is the goal 

of the proposed amendments. 

a. Qualified Exemption for Electronic 

Works Published in the United States 

and Available Only Online 

This notice proposes that the current 

section 202.19(c)(5) exemption be 

amended so that all electronic works 

published in the United States and 

available only online enjoy a qualified 

exemption from mandatory deposit, 

which would mean that any work in 

this class is exempt until the Copyright 

Office issues a demand for its deposit. 

This revised exemption would apply to 

all published electronic works available 

only online. It would apply to serials, 

monographs, sound recordings, 

automated databases, and all other 

categories of electronic works. 

Furthermore, because the revised 

exemption would apply exclusively to 

published online–only works, there will 

be no need to retain the current list of 

machine–readable works in physical 

formats to which the exemption does 

not apply. It is important to emphasize, 

however, that the revised exemption 

would not apply to those works 

published in both physical and online 

formats. These works, because they are 

not published ‘‘only’’online, were never 

exempted from mandatory deposit by 

§ 202.19(c)(5).3

In proposing a qualified exemption, 

the Office seeks to balance the current 

needs of the Library of Congress against 

the imposition of a mandatory 

requirement on all copyright owners of 

works published exclusively online to 

deposit one complete copy of the best 

edition. Guidance for adopting this 

approach comes from the House and 

Senate Reports for the Copyright Act of 

1976 which state that: 

The fundamental criteria governing 

regulations issued under section 407(c) 

. . . would be the needs and wants of the 

Library. The purpose of this provision is 

to make the deposit requirements as 

flexible as possible . . . so that reasonable 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
34288 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

adjustments can be made to meet 

practical needs in special cases. The 

regulations, in establishing special 

categories for these purposes, would 

necessarily balance the value of the 

copies or phonorecords to the collections 

of the Library of Congress against the 

burdens and costs to the copyright owner 

of providing them. 

H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 150 (1976); 

S. Rep. No. 94–473, at 133 (1975). By 

exempting published electronic works 

available only online until a demand is 

made, the proposed qualified exemption 

addresses the practical difficulties of 

acquiring works published in non– 

physical formats, ensures that the 

Library will only receive those works 

that it needs for its collections, and 

reduces the burdens on copyright 

owners, who will only have to deposit 

those works demanded by the Copyright 

Office. 

b. Single Copy of Work Demanded 

Title 17’s mandatory deposit 

provision requires the deposit of two 

copies or phonorecords [17 U.S.C. 

407(a)(1)], but grants the Copyright 

Office authority to reduce that number 

to one by regulation. Pursuant to this 

authority, the proposed qualified 

exemption will state that only a single 

copy or phonorecord of a demanded 

work is required. The Office has 

determined that transmitting duplicate 

electronic files presents a risk of 

slowing down the electronic ingest 

system of the Library, particularly in the 

case of a work consisting of a single 

large file or of many small files. Upon 

receipt of the single copy of a demanded 

work, the Library may allow 

simultaneous access by two on–site 

users. This achieves the statute’’s goal of 

providing two copies of a published 

work to the Library of Congress in a 

more efficient and flexible manner. 

c. Demand Deposit Process 

This notice proposes that published 

electronic works available only online 

be deposited only pursuant to a demand 

issued by the Copyright Office, under 

the authority of section 407(d) of Title 

17. The Library intends to phase in its 

collection of online–only works on a 

category–by–category basis. The initial 

revision of § 202.19(c)(5) proposed in 

this notice identifies ‘‘electronic serials’’ 

as being exempt but subject to demand, 

because that is the first category of 

online–only works that the Library 

intends to collect. As the Library 

expands its collection of online–only 

works to other categories, these new 

categories would be identified in 

§ 202.19(c)(5) as subject to demand, 

following a notice and comment period. 

Under the proposed regulation, once 

a category of works is identified as being 

subject to demand under the qualified 

exemption of § 202.19(c)(5), the 

Copyright Office would be able to make 

a demand on the owner of copyright or 

of the exclusive right of publication for 

one complete copy of a work in that 

category, for any such work published 

on or after the date that this proposed 

regulation goes into effect. A demand 

for a copy of an online–only periodical 

or other serial would cover not only the 

issue or issues specified in the demand, 

but also all subsequent issues of the 

serial title. 

The owner of copyright or of the 

exclusive right of publication would 

have three months from the date of 

receipt of the notice in which to make 

the deposit, in keeping with the time 

period allotted by statute for deposit of 

the best edition of a published work not 

subject to an exemption. See 17 U.S.C. 

407(a). The proposed regulation also 

includes a provision governing requests 

for special relief from the requirements 

of the demand process to accommodate, 

for example, situations where the work 

is no longer available in any of the 

formats listed in the Best Edition 

Statement. 

d. Notice of Publication 

The Library intends to commence the 

demand–deposit program proposed by 

this notice with the ‘‘electronic serials’’ 

category of electronic works published 

in the United States and available only 

online. The Library believes that 

sufficient bibliographic information 

exists on electronic serials (such as 

indexes, online search tools, and 

announcement lists) that it will be able 

to independently determine which titles 

to demand. However, experience with 

the demand–deposit process may 

demonstrate that a number of important 

electronic serial titles are escaping the 

Library’’s notice. Moreover, other 

categories of online–only works likely 

are not subject to the same level of 

bibliographic control as electronic 

serials, and hence may prove to be even 

more elusive. 

The Copyright Office is thus soliciting 

comments on the question of whether 

the owner of copyright or of the 

exclusive right of publication in an 

online–only work should be required to 

notify the Library of Congress upon the 

publication of a new online–only work 

in the United States. Such a notice of 

publication would provide an 

additional source of information on 

which the Library could rely in 

ascertaining what works are available. 

As a threshold matter, the Office is 

interested in comments regarding 

whether promulgating such a notice 

requirement as a condition of the 

qualified exemption from mandatory 

deposit is within the Office’’s authority 

as granted by 17 U.S.C. 407. In addition, 

commenters should address whether a 

notice requirement is necessary and 

prudent and whether it would strike the 

appropriate balance between the needs 

of the Library for timely publication 

information and the imposition of a 

further requirement on copyright 

holders. Comments are also welcome on 

the content and frequency of notices of 

publication. For example, would it be 

preferable to require notification upon 

the publication of each new work or 

serial title, or instead to require the 

submission of a list of all new 

publications at a predetermined 

frequency (monthly, quarterly, etc.)? 

Finally, assuming the advisability of a 

notice of publication requirement, what 

should the consequences be for 

noncompliance? 

e. Revised ‘‘Complete Copy’’ 

Definition 

Section 407 of Title 17 requires the 

deposit of a complete copy of the best 

edition of a work published in the 

United States. Section 202.19(b)(2) of 

the Copyright Office regulations defines 

a ‘‘complete copy’’ of a work for 

purposes of mandatory deposit as one 

that ‘‘includes all elements comprising 

the unit of publication of the best 

edition of the work, including elements 

that, if considered separately, would not 

be copyrightable subject matter or 

would otherwise be exempt from 

mandatory deposit requirements under 

paragraph(c) of this section.’’ Published 

electronic works often contain elements 

such as metadata and formatting codes 

that, while they are not perceptible to 

the naked eye or ear, are part of the unit 

of publication. These elements are also 

critical for continued access to and 

preservation of a work once it is 

deposited. Thus, this notice proposes to 

clarify that a ‘‘complete copy’’ of a 

published electronic work available 

only online includes the associated 

metadata and formatting codes that 

make up the unit of publication. 

f. Best Edition Statement for 

Electronic Serials 

This notice proposes the creation of a 

new section of the Best Edition 

Statement in Appendix B to Part 202, 

describing best edition criteria for 

published electronic works available 

only online in the United States. These 

criteria are based primarily upon the 

potential sustainability of the various 

digital formats currently in use. A work 

deposited in a sustainable format is one 

that is less difficult and more cost– 

effective to transform or migrate to 

future systems as technologies change. 

Consistent with the Library’’s current 

collection priorities, demands under the 

proposed amendments will initially 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 34289 

focus on material that has traditionally 

been published in hard copy. The first 

category of electronic works published 

in the United States and available only 

online for which the Library is 

proposing best edition criteria is 

electronic serials, a term that this notice 

proposes to define. It is the 

understanding of the Copyright Office 

that the formats listed in the proposed 

Best Edition Statement for electronic 

serials are all currently publication 

formats used by some, if not all, 

electronic serial publishers. Best edition 

criteria for other categories of electronic 

works published in the United States 

and available only online will follow as 

they are developed. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202 

Copyright and registration of claims to 

copyright 

Proposed Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Copyright Office proposes to amend part 

202 of 37 CFR, as follows: 

PART 202 – PREREGISTRATION AND 

REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO 

COPYRIGHT 

1. The authority citation for part 202 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702 

2. Amend § 202.19 as follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (b)(2); 

b. By adding a new paragraph (b)(4); 

and 

c. By revising paragraph (c)(5). 

The additions and revisions to 

§ 202.19 read as follows: 

§ 202.19 Deposit of published copies or 

phonorecords for the Library of 

Congress. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) A complete copy includes all 

elements comprising the unit of 

publication of the best edition of the 

work, including elements that, if 

considered separately, would not be 

copyrightable subject matter or would 

otherwise be exempt from mandatory 

deposit requirements under paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

(i) In the case of sound recordings, a 

(complete( phonorecord includes the 

phonorecord, together with any printed 

or other visually perceptible material 

published with such phonorecord (such 

as textual or pictorial matter appearing 

on record sleeves or album covers, or 

embodied in leaflets or booklets 

included in a sleeve, album, or other 

container). 

(ii) In the case of a musical 

composition published in copies only, 

or in both copies and phonorecords: 

(A) If the only publication of copies 

in the United States took place by the 

rental, lease, or lending of a full score 

and parts, a full score is a (complete( 

copy; and 

(B) If the only publication of copies in 

the United States took place by the 

rental, lease, or lending of a conductor’s 

score and parts, a conductor’s score is 

a (complete( copy. 

(iii) In the case of a motion picture, a 

copy is (complete( if the reproduction of 

all of the visual and aural elements 

comprising the copyrightable subject 

matter in the work is clean, undamaged, 

undeteriorated, and free of splices, and 

if the copy itself and its physical 

housing are free of any defects that 

would interfere with the performance of 

the work or that would cause 

mechanical, visual, or audible defects or 

distortions. 

(iv) In the case of an electronic work 

published in the United States and 

available only online, a copy is 

(complete( if it includes all elements 

constituting the work in its published 

form, i.e., the complete work as 

published, including metadata and 

formatting codes otherwise exempt from 

mandatory deposit. 

* * * * * 

(4) For purposes of § 202.19(c)(5) of 

these regulations, an electronic serial is 

an electronic work published in the 

United States and available only online, 

issued or intended to be issued in 

successive parts bearing numerical or 

chronological designations, and 

intended to be continued indefinitely. 

This class includes periodicals; 

newspapers; annuals; and the journals, 

proceedings, transactions, etc. of 

societies. 

(c) * * * 

(5) Electronic works published in the 

United States and available only online. 

This exemption includes electronic 

serials available only online only until 

such time as a demand is issued by the 

Copyright Office under the regulations 

set forth in § 202.24. This exemption 

does not apply to works that are 

published in both online, electronic 

formats and in physical formats, which 

remain subject to the appropriate 

mandatory deposit requirements. 

* * * * * 

3. Add a new § 202.24, as follows: 

§ 202.24 Deposit of Published 

Electronic Works Available Only 

Online 

(a) Pursuant to authority under 17 

U.S.C. 407(d), the Register of Copyrights 

may make written demand to deposit 

one complete copy or phonorecord of an 

electronic work published in the United 

States and available only online upon 

the owner of copyright or of the 

exclusive right of publication in the 

work, under the following conditions: 

(1) Demands may be made only for 

works in those categories identified in 

§ 202.19(c)(5) of these regulations as 

being subject to demand. 

(2)Demands may be made only for 

works published on or after [the 

effective date of the final regulation]. 

(3)The owner of copyright or of the 

exclusive right of publication must 

deposit the demanded work within 

three months of the date the demand 

notice is received. 

(4)If the demanded work is not 

available in any of the formats listed in 

the Best Edition Statement, the owner of 

copyright or of the exclusive right of 

publication may request special relief 

under paragraph (c) of this section. 

(b) Definitions. (1) ‘‘Best edition’’ has 

the meaning set forth in § 202.19(b)(1) of 

this part. 

(2)‘‘Complete copy’’ has the meaning 

set forth in § 202.19(b)(2) of this part. 

(c)Special relief. (1) In the case of any 

demand made under paragraph (a) of 

this section, the Register of Copyrights 

may, after consultation with other 

appropriate officials of the Library of 

Congress and upon such conditions as 

the Register may determine after such 

consultation, 

(i)Extend the time period provided in 

section 407(d) of Title 17[e1]; 

(ii)Permit the deposit of incomplete 

copies or phonorecords; or 

(iii)Permit the deposit of copies or 

phonorecords other than those normally 

comprising the best edition. 

(2)Any decision as to whether to grant 

such special relief, and the conditions 

under which special relief is to be 

granted, shall be made by the Register 

of Copyrights after consultation with 

other appropriate officials of the Library 

of Congress, and shall be based upon the 

acquisition policies of the Library of 

Congress then in force. 

(3)Requests for special relief under 

this section shall be made in writing to 

the Copyright Acquisitions Division, 

shall be signed by or on behalf of the 

owner of copyright or of the exclusive 

right of publication in the work, and 

shall set forth specific reasons why the 

request should be granted. 

4.Amend Part 202, Appendix B, 

Section I as follows: 

a.By redesignating section IX as 

section X; and 

b.By adding a new section IX. 

The revision to Part 202, Appendix B, 

Section I reads as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 202 – ‘‘Best 

Edition’’ of Published Copyrighted 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
34290 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Works for the Collections of the Library 

of Congress 

* * * * * 

IX. Electronic Works Published in the 

United States and Available Only Online 

For all deposits, UTF–8 encoding is 

preferred to ASCII encoding and other non 

UTF–8 encodings for non–Latin character 

sets in all categories below. 

A.Electronic Serials 

1. Content Format 

a. Level 1: Serials–specific structured/ 

markup format: 

(i)Content compliant with the NLM Journal 

Archiving (XML) Document Type Definition 

(DTD), with presentation stylesheet(s), rather 

than without. 

(ii)Other widely used serials or journal 

XML DTDs/schemas, with presentation 

stylesheet(s), rather than without. 

(iii)Proprietary XML format for serials or 

journals (with documentation), with DTD/ 

schema and presentation stylesheet(s), rather 

than without. 

b.Level 2: Page–oriented rendition: 

(i)PDF/A (Portable Document Format/ 

Archival; compliant with ISO 19005). 

(ii)PDF (Portable Document Format, with 

searchable text, rather than without). 

c.Level 3: Other formats: 

(i)XHTML/HTML, as made available 

online, with presentation stylesheets(s), 

rather than without. 

(ii)XML (widely used, publicly 

documented XML–based word–processing 

formats, e.g. ODF/OpenDocument Format, 

OpenXML), with presentation stylesheets(s), 

if appropriate, rather than without. 

(iii)Plain text. 

(iv)Other formats (e.g., proprietary word 

processing or page layout formats). 

2.Metadata Elements: 

If it has already been gathered and is 

available, descriptive data (metadata) as 

described below should accompany the 

deposited material. 

a.Title level metadata: serial or journal 

title, ISSN, publisher, frequency, place of 

publication. 

b.Article level metadata, as relevant/ 

applicable: volume(s), number(s), issue 

dates(s), article title(s), article author(s), 

article identifier (DOI, etc.). 

c.With other descriptive metadata (e.g., 

subject heading(s), descriptor(s), abstract(s)), 

rather than without. 

3.Access and copy controls: 

a.Editions without access and copy 

controls, or with those controls disabled, are 

preferred over editions with such controls. 

Dated: July 7, 2009. 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. E9–16675 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 50 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0922; FRL– 8930–6] 

RIN 2060–AO19 

Public Hearings for Primary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Announcement of public 

hearings. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing two 

public hearings to be held for the 

proposed rule ‘‘Primary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Nitrogen Dioxide’’ which is published 

elsewhere in this Federal Register. The 

hearings will be held in Arlington, 

Virginia, on Monday, August 3, 2009 

and Los Angeles, California, on 

Thursday, August 6, 2009. 

In the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

EPA proposes to make revisions to the 

primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

in order to provide requisite protection 

of public health. Specifically, EPA 

proposes to supplement the current 

annual standard by establishing a new 

short-term NO2 standard based on the 3- 

year average of the 99th percentile (or 

4th highest) of the annual distribution of 

1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 

The EPA proposes to set the level of this 

new standard within the range of 80 to 

100 parts per billion (ppb) and solicits 

comment on standard levels as low as 

65 ppb and as high as 150 ppb. Also, 

EPA proposes to establish requirements 

for an NO2 monitoring network that will 

include monitors within 50 meters of 

major roadways. In addition, EPA is 

soliciting comment on an alternative 

approach to setting the standard and 

revising the monitoring network. 

Consistent with the terms of a consent 

decree, the Administrator will sign a 

notice of final rulemaking by January 

22, 2010. 

DATES: The public hearings will be held 

on August 3, 2009 in Arlington, 

Virginia, and on August 6, 2009 in Los 

Angeles, California. Please refer to 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

additional information on the public 

hearings. 

ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held at 

the following locations: 

1. Arlington, VA: Environmental 

Protection Agency Conference Center, 

First Floor Conference Center South, 

One Potomac Yard, 2777 S. Crystal 

Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. All visitors 

will need to go through security and 

present a valid photo identification, 

such as a driver’s license. 

2. Los Angeles, CA: Sheraton Los 

Angeles Downtown, 711 South Hope 

Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017, 

telephone (213) 488–3500. 

Written comments on this proposed 

rule may also be submitted to EPA 

electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or 

through hand delivery/courier. Please 

refer to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking for the addresses and 

detailed instructions for submitting 

written comments. 

A complete set of documents related 

to the proposal is available for public 

inspection at the EPA Docket Center, 

located at 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. A reasonable fee may be 

charged for copying. Documents are also 

available through the electronic docket 

system at http://www.regulations.gov . 

The EPA Web site for the rulemaking, 

which includes the proposal and 

information about the public hearings 

can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/air/ 

nitrogenoxides/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you would like to speak at the public 

hearings or have questions concerning 

the public hearings, please contact Ms. 

Tricia Crabtree at the address given 

below under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

Questions concerning the ‘‘Primary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Nitrogen Dioxide’’ proposed rule 

should be addressed to Dr. Scott 

Jenkins, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Health and 

Environmental Impacts Division (C504– 

06), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone (919) 541–1167, e-mail: 

jenkins.scott@epa.gov . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposal for which EPA is holding the 

public hearings is published elsewhere 

in this Federal Register and is also 

available on the following Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/. 

The public hearings will provide 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present data, views, or arguments 

concerning the proposed rules. The EPA 

may ask clarifying questions during the 

oral presentations, but will not respond 

to the presentations at that time. Written 

statements and supporting information 

submitted during the comment period 

will be considered with the same weight 

as any oral comments and supporting 

information presented at the public 

hearings. Written comments must be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS