Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38859 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 

8, 2017. 

Ryan W. Almasy, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17257 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 202 

[Docket No. 2017–9] 

Simplifying Deposit Requirements for 

Certain Literary Works and Musical 

Compositions 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office is proposing to amend the 

regulations governing the deposit 

requirements for certain types of literary 

works and musical compositions. 

Specifically, the proposed rule will 

apply to certain types of ‘‘literary 

monographs,’’ which are defined, in 

part, as literary works published in one 

volume or a finite number of separate 

volumes. The proposed rule also applies 

to musical compositions that are 

published in the United States in print 

formats—that is, compositions 

published as ‘‘copies’’ rather than solely 

as phonorecords, as referenced in the 

Copyright Act. Under the current 

regulations, two copies of the best 

edition are generally needed to register 

these types of works and to comply with 

the mandatory deposit requirement. 

Under the proposed rule, copyright 

owners will be able to satisfy both 

requirements for literary monographs by 

submitting one copy of the best edition 

of the work, although the Office will 

retain the right to demand a second 

copy under the mandatory deposit 

provision should the Library need it. 

Copyright owners will also be able to 

satisfy both requirements for certain 

musical compositions by submitting one 

copy of the best edition. As part of these 

changes, the proposed rule also clarifies 

the deposit requirements for musical 

compositions published both in print 

and phonorecord formats. For musical 

works (i.e., musical compositions) 

published in both formats, the Office 

will require the submission of the print 

version for purposes of copyright 

registration. If the musical composition 

is published only as a phonorecord, the 

applicant should submit the 

phonorecord. All of these changes will 

improve the efficiency of registration 

and mandatory deposit for both the 

Office and copyright owners alike, 

ensuring that the Office has an adequate 

registration record and continuing to 

make these works available to the 

Library of Congress when needed for 

use in its collections or other 

disposition. The Office invites public 

comment on this proposal. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be made in writing and must be 

received by the Copyright Office no later 

than October 2, 2017. 

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 Web site at https://

copyright.gov/rulemaking/singlecopy/. 

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: 

Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of 

Copyrights and Director of Registration 

Policy and Practice, by email at rkas@

loc.gov; Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of 

Registration Policy and Practice, by 

email at ebertin@loc.gov; or Cindy 

Abramson, Assistant General Counsel, 

by email at ciab@loc.gov. All can be 

reached by telephone by calling 202– 

707–8040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under section 407 of the Copyright 

Act, when a work is published in the 

United States, the copyright owner or 

the owner of the exclusive right of 

publication is generally required to 

deposit two complete copies of the best 

edition of that work with the U.S. 

Copyright Office within three months 

after publication. 17 U.S.C. 407. ‘‘The 

‘best edition’ of a work’’ 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.’’ 17 U.S.C. 101. The Act 

provides that copies deposited with the 

Office under section 407 are ‘‘for the use 

or disposition of the Library of 

Congress.’’ 17 U.S.C. 407(b). This is 

known as the ‘‘mandatory deposit’’ 

requirement. 

Separately, the Copyright Act’s 

provision governing copyright 

registration, section 408, specifies that, 

in the case of published works, an 

application for registration must be 

accompanied by ‘‘two complete copies 

or phonorecords of the best edition.’’ 17 

U.S.C. 408(b)(2). To avoid duplication of 

deposits, section 408 specifies that 

copies or phonorecords deposited under 

section 407 ‘‘may be used to satisfy the 

deposit provisions’’ of section 408 if 

they ‘‘are accompanied by the 

prescribed application and fee.’’ 17 

U.S.C. 408(b). 

Because the same copies can 

potentially be used for both registration 

and mandatory deposit, the deposit 

requirements set forth in sections 407 

and 408 are generally the same. 

Compare 17 U.S.C. 407(a)(1)–(2) 

(requiring two complete copies of the 

best edition of the work for purposes of 

mandatory deposit) with 17 U.S.C. 

408(b)(2) (requiring two complete copies 

of the best edition for the purpose of 

registering a published work). 

Sections 407 and 408 both give the 

Register of Copyrights (the ‘‘Register’’) 

broad authority to issue regulations 

concerning the specific nature of the 

copies that must be deposited, including 

the ability to exempt works from these 

statutory requirements. As relevant 

here, section 408 gives the Register 

authority to ‘‘require or permit, for 

particular classes [of works], . . . the 

deposit of only one copy . . . where two 

would normally be required’’ for 

copyright registration. 17 U.S.C. 

408(c)(1). Similarly, section 407 gives 

the Register authority to issue 

regulations that ‘‘require [the] deposit of 

only one copy’’ for the purpose of 

mandatory deposit. 17 U.S.C. 407(c). 

The legislative history confirms that 

Congress intended the Register to 

exercise this authority when needed to 

improve efficiencies within the 

Copyright Office. In explaining the 

Register’s authority under section 407, 

Congress expressed the desire ‘‘to make 

the deposit requirements as flexible as 

possible, so that there will be no 

obligation to make deposits where it 

serves no purpose, so that only one copy 

or phonorecord may be deposited where 

two are not needed, and so that 

reasonable adjustments can be made to 

meet practical needs in special cases.’’ 

H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 151 (1976). 

Similarly, the legislative history for 

section 408 explains that the ‘‘[d]eposit 

of one copy . . . rather than two would 

probably be justifiable . . . in any case 

where the Library of Congress has no 

need for the deposit’’ or where the 

copies ‘‘are bulky, unwieldy . . . or 

otherwise impractical to file and retain 

as records identifying the work 

registered.’’ Id. at 154. 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
38860 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

1See generally Library of Congress, Cataloging in 

Publication Program, https://www.loc.gov/publish/ 

cip/ (last visited Jun. 12, 2017). 

2Library Services is one of the main components 

of the Library of Congress, and is the entity that is 

principally responsible for developing and 

maintaining the Library of Congress’s collections. 

See Library of Congress, About the Library, https:// 

www.loc.gov/about/. 

3The Library’s single-copy retention policy does 

not apply to legal publications, reference works, or 

publications about certain topics: United States 

history (including genealogy and heraldry), 

commerce and finance, political institutions and 

public administration, and libraries and 

information science. 

4Surplus books that are not needed for the 

Library’s own collections are made available to 

educational institutions, governmental agencies, 

and non-profit organizations or institutions located 

within the United States. See generally Library of 

Congress, Library of Congress Surplus Books 

Program, https://www.loc.gov/acq/surplus.html 

(last visited July 31, 2017). 

5The Library of Congress exchanges library 

materials with approximately 4,000 partners around 

the world through its Duplicate Materials Exchange 

Program. See generally Library of Congress, 

Exchange of Library Materials,https://www.loc.gov/ 

acq/exchange.html (last visited July 31, 2017). 

6 In addition, this policy has been applied 

retroactively to monographs held within the general 

collections. In cases where the Library received two 

copies from the Office and a third copy from the 

CIP program or another source, Library Services 

will remove the second and third copies from the 

shelves and offer them to another institution 

through the Surplus Books program or another 

program. 

7Published works stored in this facility are kept 

for up to 20 years unless the applicant requests fullterm retention under § 202.23 of the regulations. 

The Office has exercised this 

authority on many occasions. It created 

exceptions allowing applicants to 

deposit one copy for purposes of 

mandatory deposit for some works. See 

37 CFR 202.19(d)(2)(i)–(ii), (v)–(vi) 

(covering three-dimensional 

cartographic representations of area, 

such as globes; published motion 

pictures; musical compositions where 

the only publication took place by 

rental, lease, or lending; and published 

multi-media kits). The Office also 

created corresponding exceptions to the 

deposit requirements for registration. 

See 37 CFR 202.20(c)(2)(i)(A)–(K). The 

proposed rule will expand the exception 

that currently applies to registration 

deposits of musical compositions, and 

create a new exception for ‘‘literary 

monographs.’’ In both cases, one copy of 

the best edition of the work will satisfy 

the deposit requirement for registration 

and mandatory deposit. As noted below, 

however, the rule excludes legal 

publications and also allows a second 

copy to be demanded by the Copyright 

Office on behalf of the Library under 

mandatory deposit provisions. 

Literary Monographs 

For purposes of registration and 

mandatory deposit, a ‘‘literary 

monograph’’ will be defined, in part, as 

‘‘a literary work published in one 

volume or a finite number of volumes.’’ 

Examples of works that fit within this 

category include fiction, nonfiction, 

poetry, short stories, memoirs, 

manuscripts, textbooks, and other types 

of nondramatic literary works. 

The rule draws a distinction between 

‘‘monographs’’ and ‘‘serials,’’ which are 

defined elsewhere in the regulations as 

‘‘work[s] issued or intended to be issued 

in successive parts bearing numerical or 

chronological designations and 

intended to be continued indefinitely.’’ 

37 CFR 202.3(b)(1)(v). Examples of 

works that may qualify as a serial 

include periodicals, newspapers, 

newsletters, and annuals. These types of 

works are typically published in 

successive issues and they are usually 

distributed on an established schedule. 

Each issue is published under the same 

continuing title, and they generally bear 

numerical or chronological designations 

that distinguish one issue from the next. 

By contrast, most monographs are 

published as a single volume, rather 

than a series of successive issues. Some 

monographs are published in separate 

volumes with each volume bearing the 

same title and successive numerical 

designations (as in the case of a multivolume encyclopedia). But typically the 

entire work is published in a limited 

number of volumes that, taken together, 

constitute the work as a whole. 

The proposed rule will allow 

copyright owners to register a published 

monograph and satisfy the mandatory 

deposit requirement by submitting one 

complete copy of the best edition of that 

work. There are several reasons for 

creating this exception. 

The Library of Congress’s need for 

copies of works submitted through 

copyright registration has diminished 

over time. In many cases, the Library 

receives additional copies of published 

monographs through programs such as 

the Cataloging In Publication (‘‘CIP’’) 

program—a program that is entirely 

separate from the mandatory deposit 

and copyright registration deposit 

provisions of the Copyright Act. The CIP 

program creates a uniform cataloging 

record for the benefit of the nation’s 

libraries. Publishers that participate in 

the program submit an application to 

the Library before they publish their 

works. The Library then creates an 

appropriate bibliographic record and 

sends that information to the publisher. 

The publisher prints this information on 

the copyright page when the work is 

published, and distributes this same 

information in electronic form to 

libraries, vendors, and other interested 

parties. In exchange, the publisher then 

sends a complimentary copy of the 

published work to the CIP program. A 

member of the Library’s staff confirms 

that the CIP record matches the 

published work, and if necessary, the 

electronic cataloging record is updated 

to reflect the actual content of the 

published work. All copies submitted 

through the CIP program are made 

available to the Library for use in its 

collections. Because ‘‘CIP copies’’ are 

submitted soon after a work is 

published, they often enter the Library’s 

collections before the Copyright Office 

has examined any additional copies that 

have been submitted for purposes of 

registration or mandatory deposit.1

In addition, the Library recently 

revised its acquisition policies and 

practices for published monographs. 

Previously, when the Library selected a 

work for its collections from the copies 

received through copyright registration 

or mandatory deposit, it would often 

take both copies and permanently retain 

them in the Library’s collections. In 

2013, Library Services 2 estimated that 

the Library had at least 1,950,000 

‘‘second copies’’ in its permanent 

collections, and predicted that the 

Library could achieve substantial 

savings in its long-term storage and 

preservation costs by reducing the 

number of additional service copies in 

its collections. 

Accordingly, under the revised 

policy, when the Library selects a work, 

it still takes both copies that were 

deposited with the Copyright Office, but 

(with some exceptions) 3 it only keeps 

one for itself, and delivers the other one 

to the Library’s Surplus Books 

program,4 Duplicate Materials Exchange 

Program,5 or other similar programs for 

donation or exchange to eligible 

organizations and institutions. And if it 

turns out that the Library previously 

received a copy through the CIP 

Program, both copies received from the 

Office are sent to Surplus Books or 

another program.6 Finally, if the Library 

does not select a work for the Library’s 

collections, the Copyright Office sends 

one copy to Surplus Books, and sends 

the second copy to the Office’s storage 

facility.7 Thus, as things stand now, at 

least one copy of every published 

monograph sent to the Copyright Office 

is treated as surplus. 

The deposit of unneeded material 

imposes significant burdens both on 

copyright owners and the Copyright 

Office. Copyright owners have to bear 

costs involved in producing extra copies 

of each work, and shipping both copies 

to the Office. Cumulatively, these costs 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38861 

8The Law Library is a component of the Library 

of Congress that is separate from Library Services, 

and it is a primary source of legal materials for the 

U.S. Supreme Court. See Library of Congress, About 

the Library, https://www.loc.gov/about/; Library of 

Congress, Law Librarian’s Welcome, http://

www.loc.gov/law/about/welcome.php. 

9Although the Library’s single-copy retention 

policy does not apply to certain other categories of 

works, see n.3 supra, in many of those cases the 

Library already receives a second copy through the 

CIP program or other sources. In cases where the 

Library does need an additional copy, either 

because it was not received via the CIP program or 

otherwise, the Office will issue a demand to the 

publisher pursuant to the mandatory deposit 

provision. 

10This includes, but is not limited to, works 

where the Library of Congress CIP data, as printed 

on the verso of the book’s title page, indicates a 

Library of Congress Subject Heading of heraldry, 

genealogy, United States local history, United States 

history or has a Library of Congress Classification 

of CR, CS, F below 1000, or E. 

11This includes, but is not limited to, works 

where the Library of Congress CIP data indicates a 

Library of Congress Subject Heading of Commerce, 

Finance, or Public Finance or has a Library of 

Congress Classification of HF, HG, or HJ. 

12This includes, but is not limited to, works 

where the Library of Congress CIP data indicates a 

Library of Congress Subject Heading of Political 

Institutions and Public Administration (North 

America) or Political Institutions and Public 

Administration (United States) or has a Library of 

Congress Classification of JJ or JK. 

13This includes works where the Library of 

Congress CIP data indicates a Library of Congress 

Subject Heading of Libraries, Books, Information 

Resources or Bibliography or has a Library of 

Congress Classification of Z. 

14The Copyright Act draws a distinction between 

‘‘copies’’ and ‘‘phonorecords.’’ ‘‘Copies’’ are defined 

as ‘‘material objects, other than phonorecords, in 

which a work is fixed by any method now known 

or later developed, and from which the work can 

be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise 

communicated, either directly or with the aid of a 

machine or device.’’ 17 U.S.C. 101. A 

‘‘phonorecord’’ is a ‘‘material object[] in which 

sounds . . . are fixed . . . and from which the 

sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise 

communicated either directly or with the aid of a 

machine or device.’’ Id. The definition includes ‘‘a 

cassette tape, an LP vinyl disc, a compact disc, or 

other means of fixing sounds.’’ Copyright Office, 

U.S. Copyright Office Definitions, https://

www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html. 

may discourage copyright owners from 

routinely registering their works. 

From the Office’s perspective, literary 

monographs are significantly larger than 

the physical copies received by the 

other divisions within the Registration 

Program. They are heavy, unwieldy, and 

often include multi-volume sets of 

books. To distribute these materials to 

the staff, the copies must be strapped 

together, which doubles the size and 

weight of each submission. Sometimes 

the Literary Division does not have 

enough space to store the copies that it 

has on hand. The bulky nature of these 

physical copies also slows down the 

examination of each work. On average, 

the copies must be moved at least eight 

times or more during the examination 

process, which increases the risk that 

they may be damaged, misplaced, 

mismatched, or lost. Requiring two 

copies limits the amount of work that 

the examiner may keep at his or her 

desk at any given time. It also increases 

the amount of time that the examiners 

need to examine the claim, prepare the 

copies for dispatch, and retrieve his or 

her next assignment. 

Reducing the number of unneeded 

copies required will reduce this volume 

and significantly increase the amount of 

space available for storing incoming 

physical copies. This should increase 

productivity within the Literary 

Division and reduce the likelihood that 

copies may be lost or misplaced. For 

copyright owners, the proposed rule 

will reduce the cost of seeking a 

registration and complying with 

mandatory deposit by lowering the 

incremental cost of producing and 

delivering physical copies to the Office. 

Although, generally speaking, the 

provision of a single copy of a literary 

monograph will be sufficient to meet the 

Library’s collection needs, in certain 

cases, the Library may need an 

additional copy—for example, if the 

original is in high demand by Congress, 

the Congressional Research Service, the 

Supreme Court, or researchers from the 

general public. The rule expressly 

carves out one category of works that are 

consistently in high demand—legal 

publications, which are defined in the 

rule as works ‘‘published in one volume 

or a finite number of volumes that 

contain legislative enactments, judicial 

decisions, or other edicts of 

government.’’ These types of works are 

collected either by the Library of 

Congress’s Serials and Government 

Publications division (which is part of 

Library Services) or the Law Library.8 At 

the present time, these divisions still 

have an active need for the two copies 

received through copyright registration 

for their respective collections. 

With respect to other categories of 

works, if the Library determines that it 

does need a second copy, the proposed 

rule entitles it to demand the additional 

copy under the mandatory deposit 

provision.9 The copyright owner, 

however, will not be required to 

proactively deposit a second copy in 

order to be in compliance with either 

the mandatory deposit or registration 

deposit rules. And, a single copy will be 

deemed to satisfy mandatory deposit 

unless the Office issues a demand for an 

additional copy. 

To be clear, the Library anticipates 

that it will often have a need for second 

copies for certain reference works, such 

as dictionaries, encyclopedias, 

gazetteers, bibliographies, and almanacs 

as well as publications about the 

following topics: United States history 

(including genealogy and heraldry),10

commerce and finance,11 political 

institutions and public 

administration,12 and libraries and 

information science.13 Thus, although 

the proposed rule does not specifically 

require the proactive deposit of two 

copies of such works for registration or 

mandatory deposit purposes, 

principally because of the difficulty of 

crafting a rule ex ante defining these 

additional categories of works, it is 

anticipated that many works falling 

within these categories will be subject to 

a later demand as part of the mandatory 

deposit process. Accordingly, 

publishers may nevertheless decide to 

submit two copies of works that might 

fall within these categories as part of the 

registration process if they wish to avoid 

the burden of subsequent production. 

Moreover, the proposed rule creates a 

new exception only for ‘‘literary’’ 

monographs, meaning nondramatic 

literary works that predominantly 

contain textual material. 37 CFR 

202.3(b)(1)(i). Monographs that 

predominantly contain photographs, 

artwork, or other pictorial or graphic 

content would not be eligible for this 

exception. To register these types of 

works and to satisfy the mandatory 

deposit requirement, applicants would 

be required to submit two complete 

copies of the best edition, even if the 

applicant is seeking to register both the 

visual and textual aspects of the work. 

The Office is limiting this exception to 

literary monographs at this time, 

because they routinely account for the 

largest number of physical deposits 

received in the Literary Division. By 

contrast, pictorial or graphic 

monographs represent a relatively small 

portion of the claims received in the 

Visual Arts Division, and thus, have less 

impact on the division’s workflow. 

Musical Compositions Published in 

Print Formats 

The proposed rule also simplifies and 

rationalizes the deposit requirements for 

musical compositions published in 

print formats (i.e., as sheet music, 

musical scores or the like). Put another 

way using the Copyright Act’s specific 

language, the proposed rule applies to 

compositions published in ‘‘copies’’ 

(including cases where a composition is 

published both in copies and in 

phonorecords).14 The proposed rule 

does not apply to compositions 

published only in phonorecords, or to 

unpublished musical compositions. Nor 

does the proposed rule apply to those 

seeking to register their copyright in a 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
38862 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

15When registering a sound recording, the 

applicant should submit a phonorecord that 

contains a complete copy of the work. 37 CFR 

202.20(c)(1)(i)–(iv), 202.20(c)(2)(viii)(D). The 

proposed rule also makes a technical change to the 

deposit requirement for musical compositions and 

sound recordings fixed or published in machinereadable form. Specifically, the rule directs 

applicants to submit ‘‘a reproduction of the entire 

work on a phonorecord,’’ rather than an 

‘‘audiocassette.’’ 37 CFR 202.20(c)(2)(viii)(C)–(D). 

16The Music Division collects musical 

compositions that are published in print formats, 

but it does not collect works that have been 

published in phonorecords. The Library’s Motion 

Picture Broadcasting and Recorded Sound division 

collects phonorecords, but it does not collect 

musical compositions that have been published in 

printed form. 

17Musical works compositions published only as 

phonorecords are not subject to mandatory deposit 

at all. See 42 FR 59302, 59304 (Nov. 16, 1977) 

(explaining that under section 407 ‘‘the mandatory 

deposit requirements extend only to ‘copies’ of all 

types of works except sound recordings, and to 

‘phonorecords’ of sound recordings; they do not 

apply to ‘phonorecords’ of literary, dramatic, or 

musical works’’). 

sound recording, as opposed to the 

musical composition.15

Under the current regulation, 

copyright owners generally are required 

to submit two copies of compositions 

published in print formats for purposes 

of mandatory deposit and copyright 

registration. There are narrow 

exceptions permitting the deposit of one 

copy rather than two where publication 

only took place by rental, lease, or 

lending, 37 CFR 202.19(d)(2)(v), 

202.20(c)(2)(i)(E). These exceptions are 

intended to cover ‘‘musical 

compositions published by rental of 

scores for performances,’’ because ‘‘only 

a limited number of [these] copies are 

available for distribution.’’ 43 FR 763, 

764 (Jan. 4, 1978). 

In the past, when the Office received 

a musical composition in print format it 

would send both copies to the Library. 

Since March 2017, however, the Library 

of Congress’s Music Division (which is 

a component of Library Services) has 

requested only one copy, and the Office 

has retained the second copy in its 

storage facility.16 Given this change in 

the Music Division’s acquisition 

practice, the Office believes it is 

appropriate to expand the current 

exceptions for musical compositions. 

Under the proposed rule, applicants 

will be allowed to deposit a single copy 

of any musical composition that has 

been published in copies or in both 

copies and phonorecords. In other 

words, the exceptions will no longer be 

limited to musical compositions 

published solely by rental, lease, or 

lending. 

The proposed rule makes one further 

clarification with respect to musical 

compositions. In cases where a musical 

composition was published in both 

copies and phonorecords, the proposed 

rule specifies that the copyright owner 

should submit a copy of the work—i.e., 

in print format—rather than a 

phonorecord. (For unpublished musical 

compositions, the applicant may submit 

either a copy or a phonorecord for 

purposes of copyright registration. See 

37 CFR 202.20(c)(i).) There are three 

reasons for this change. 

First, the proposed rule harmonizes 

the deposit requirements for registration 

and mandatory deposit. In general, the 

Office has designed its regulations so 

that deposits submitted as part of 

copyright registration will also satisfy 

mandatory deposit requirements where 

those requirements apply. But the 

current regulations governing musical 

compositions depart from that 

approach. On the one hand, the 

mandatory deposit statute and 

implementing regulations require the 

submission of complete copies (not 

phonorecords) of the best edition of 

published musical compositions. 17 

U.S.C. 407(a) (requiring deposit of two 

copies of the best edition of all works 

except sound recordings); 37 CFR 

202.19(d)(1)(i), (2)(v).17 On the other 

hand, the registration deposit 

regulations currently state that 

applicants may register a musical 

composition by submitting one 

complete copy or phonorecord of the 

best edition without further 

qualification. See id. § 202.20(c)(1)(iii), 

(c)(2)(i)(E) (emphasis added). This 

means that when a musical composition 

is published both as copies and as 

phonorecords, a copyright owner might 

submit phonorecords for purposes of 

registration, and unwittingly fail to 

satisfy the mandatory deposit 

requirement. The proposed rule fixes 

this discrepancy. 

Second, when a musical composition 

has been published in both copies and 

phonorecords, the Office considers the 

copies to be the best representation of 

the work. Visually perceptible formats 

typically contain a clear and precise 

representation of the music and lyrics 

that constitute the work. When a 

preexisting musical composition is 

published in a phonorecord, the sound 

recording is a separate work that recasts, 

transforms, or adapts the music and 

lyrics embodied in that recording. See 

17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of ‘‘derivative 

work’’). And in cases where the music 

and sound recording are created 

simultaneously, it may be difficult to 

identify the author or co-authors of the 

music and sound recording or the 

respective owners or co-owners of each 

work. (To be clear, when a musical 

composition is published solely in a 

phonorecord, the phonorecord 

constitutes the only representation of 

the work. In such cases, the copyright 

owner may submit the phonorecord for 

purposes of registration. There is no 

need to transcribe or notate the work in 

a visually perceptible form. See 42 FR 

at 59304.) 

Third, the statute and the regulations 

indicate that copies should be given 

preference over phonorecords in cases 

where a musical composition has been 

published in both print and audio form. 

As mentioned above, copyright owners 

are required to submit the ‘‘best edition’’ 

of their works for purposes of 

mandatory deposit. ‘‘The ‘best edition’ 

of a work’’ is defined, in part, as the 

edition ‘‘that the Library of Congress 

determines to be most suitable for its 

purposes.’’ 17 U.S.C. 101. Section 

407(a)(2) of the statute and § 202.19(a) of 

the regulations state that phonorecords 

are subject to mandatory deposit. But 

this requirement only applies to the 

copyright owner of the sound recording 

or the owner of the exclusive right to 

publish that recording. 17 U.S.C. 

407(a)(2); 37 CFR 202.19(c)(4). It does 

not apply to the owner of the musical 

composition that may be embodied in 

that recording. 37 CFR 202.19(c)(4). 

The Library’s preference for copies 

rather than phonorecords of musical 

compositions is also reflected in the 

Best Edition Statement, which is set 

forth in Appendix B to Part 202 of the 

regulations. Section VI of this statement 

contains a hierarchical list of the 

preferred formats for musical 

compositions. All of the formats listed 

in this section are visually perceptible 

formats. See 37 CFR p. 202, app. B, secs. 

VI.A–C. Thus, allowing applicants to 

submit phonorecords in cases where a 

musical composition has been 

published in both visual and audio form 

is inconsistent with the Library’s stated 

preferences. See 37 CFR p. 202, app. B, 

sec. b. (‘‘In judging quality, the Library 

of Congress will adhere to the criteria 

set forth [in the Best Edition Statement] 

in all but exceptional circumstances.’’). 

Retention of Copyright Registration 

Deposits 

The proposed rule does not change 

current practices regarding what works 

the Office retains in its possession. 

Under these practices, when applicants 

submit a physical copy of a published 

literary monograph or a published 

musical composition, the Office will not 

retain a copy of that work in most 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 38863 

18By contrast, when an applicant submits an 

unpublished work, the Office will retain the copy 

for the entire term of the copyright. 

19See 17 U.S.C. 704(b) (‘‘In the case of published 

works, all copies, phonorecords, and identifying 

material deposited are available to the Library of 

Congress for its collections, or for exchange or 

transfer to any other library.’’). In exceptional cases, 

the Office may retain a registered work for a limited 

time if the applicant requested special handling and 

notified the Office that the registration is needed for 

pending or prospective litigation. If the Office 

refuses registration, or if the claim is closed because 

the applicant failed to respond to the examiner, the 

copy will be sent to the Office’s storage facility. 

Under current record retention policies, claims that 

have been closed or refused are retained for up to 

30 years. 

20The Office’s regulations provide that the Office 

will make a certified copy of a registered work if 

it is needed for litigation or other legitimate 

purposes, provided that the Office has retained a 

copy of that work. 37 CFR 201.2(d)(2). The Office 

cannot issue a certified copy of a work that has been 

transferred to the Library or another institution. See 

U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. 

Copyright Office Practices secs. 2405.3, 2409.5 (3d 

ed. 2014). But the Office has no institutional 

memory of any case where a party has requested a 

certified copy of a published monograph or a 

musical composition in print format. This makes 

sense because, in infringement cases involving 

published works, the work alleged to have been 

copied has been made publicly available, and the 

fact that the work was registered is not typically a 

disputed issue. 

21Requests for full term retention may only be 

granted ‘‘if at least one copy . . . is in the custody 

of the Copyright Office’’ at the time of the request. 

37 CFR 202.23(c)(2). Thus, to ensure that the Office 

has such a copy, the applicant must submit a 

complete request with the registration application. 

If the applicant submits two copies without 

requesting full-term retention or paying the 

appropriate fee, the second copy will be sent to 

Library Services before the claim has been assigned 

to a member of the Registration Program. 

22The Office is planning to initiate a separate 

rulemaking that will extend the full-term retention 

period to 95 years to better correspond with the 

extended term established by the Copyright Term 

Extension Act for published works. See Public Law 

105–298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998); accord 17 U.S.C. 

302(a), (c) (ensuring copyright ‘‘endures for a term 

consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after 

the author’s death’’ for works created after Jan. 1, 

1978, and that ‘‘copyright endures for a term of 95 

years from the year of . . . first publication’’ for 

anonymous, pseudonymous, and works made for 

hire). 

23See 37 CFR 202.20(b) (stating that ‘‘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’’ for purposes of copyright 

registration). 

cases.18 After a work is registered, the 

Office will offer the copy to Library 

Services,19 and will generally retain the 

copy in its storage facility only if the 

copy has not been selected by Library 

for inclusion in its collections.20 If 

applicants want to ensure that the Office 

does retain a precise record of the 

particular published work that was 

submitted for registration, they should 

consider one of the following options. 

First, the applicant may request fullterm retention. To do so, the applicant 

must submit a written request together 

with an additional copy of the work and 

the appropriate fee for this service.21 See 

37 CFR 202.23(b)(2), (c)(2), (e)(1). If the 

request is approved, the Office will 

retain the copy in its storage facility for 

75 years from the date of 

publication.22 See id. at § 202.23(g). 

Second, if an International Standard 

Book Number (‘‘ISBN’’) or International 

Standard Music Number (‘‘ISMN’’) 

number has been assigned to the work, 

the applicant is encouraged to include 

that information in the online 

application. If this number is provided 

in the appropriate field, it will appear 

on the certificate of registration, and in 

the case of an ISBN, it will also appear 

in the online public record for that 

work, and will serve as evidence of the 

work submitted for examination and 

registration. Note, however, that the 

examiner will not review the ISBN or 

ISMN to determine if it matches the 

number appearing on the copy. 

Therefore, applicants should confirm 

that this number has been entered 

correctly. See U.S. Copyright Office, 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices sec. 612.6(C) (3d ed. 2014). 

Third, in addition to submitting a 

physical copy when it is required,23 the 

applicant may also upload a digital copy 

of the work to the electronic registration 

system. When doing so, the applicant 

should add a note in the ‘‘Note 

Copyright Office’’ field stating that the 

digital copy has been submitted for 

archival purposes and that a physical 

copy will be sent separately. The 

examiner will examine the claim when 

the physical deposit arrives and will 

only check any electronic upload to 

determine whether it represents the 

same work. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202 

Copyright, Preregistration and 

Registration of Claims to Copyright. 

Proposed Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

U.S. Copyright Office is proposing to 

amend 37 CFR part 202 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. 408(f), 702. 

■ 2. Amend § 202.19 as follows: 

■ a. Add paragraph (b)(5). 

■ b. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(v) by 

removing the words ‘‘in copies only,’’ 

and adding in its place ‘‘solely in 

copies,’’ and by removing the words ‘‘if 

the only publication of copies in the 

United States took place by rental, lease, 

or lending,’’. 

■ c. Add paragraph (d)(2)(ix). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 202.19 Deposit of published copies or 

phonorecords for the Library of Congress. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) The term literary monograph 

means a literary work published in one 

volume or a finite number of volumes. 

This category does not include serials, 

nor does it include legal publications 

that are published in one volume or a 

finite number of volumes that contain 

legislative enactments, judicial 

decisions, or other edicts of government. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ix) In the case of published literary 

monographs, the deposit of one 

complete copy of the best edition of the 

work will suffice in lieu of the two 

copies required by paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section, unless the Copyright Office 

issues a demand for a second copy 

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 407(d). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 202.20 as follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (b)(3). 

■ b. Remove paragraph (b)(4). 

■ c. Redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as 

paragraph (b)(4). 

■ d. In paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) through 

(D), remove the semi-colon and add a 

period in its place at the end of each 

sentence. 

■ e. Revise paragraph (c)(2)(i)(E). 

■ f. In paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(F) through (I), 

remove the semi-colon and add a period 

in its place at the end of the sentence. 

■ g. In paragraph (c)(2)(i)(J) remove ‘‘; 

and’’ and add a period in its place at the 

end of the sentence. 

■ h. Add paragraph (c)(2)(i)(L). 

■ i. In paragraphs (c)(2)(viii)(A) through 

(D) remove the semi-colon and add a 

period in its place at the end of the 

sentence. 

■ j. In paragraphs (c)(2)(viii)(C) and (D) 

remove ‘‘an audiocassette or other’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘a’’. 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 202.20 Deposit of copies and 

phonorecords for copyright registration. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) The terms secure test and literary 

monograph have the meanings set forth 

in §§ 202.13(b) and 202.19(b)(5). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
38864 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) Musical compositions published 

solely in copies or in both copies and 

phonorecords, provided that one 

complete copy (rather than a 

phonorecord) is deposited; 

(L) Published literary monographs. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 10, 2017. 

Sarang V. Damle, 

General Counsel and Associate Register of 

Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17194 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0454; FRL–9966–40– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; 

Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the portion of a revision to the North 

Carolina State Implementation plan 

submitted by the State of North Carolina 

on March 24, 2006, for the purpose of 

clarifying the State’s transportation 

conformity rules consistent with Federal 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 15, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0454 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta Ward, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can also be reached via 

electronic mail at ward.nacosta@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

implementation plan revision as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: August 7, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17250 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2016–0626; FRL–9966–36– 

Region 1] 

Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Regional 

Haze Five-Year Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

Vermont’s regional haze progress report, 

submitted on February 29, 2016 as a 

revision to its State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). Vermont’s SIP revision 

addresses requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to submit periodic reports 

describing the progress toward 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 

established for regional haze and a 

determination of adequacy of the State’s 

existing regional haze SIP. EPA is 

proposing to approve Vermont’s 

progress report on the basis that it 

addresses the progress report and 

adequacy determination requirements 

for the first implementation period 

covering through 2018. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 15, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2016–0626 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, New England 

Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912, telephone (617) 918– 

1697, facsimile (617) 918–0697, email 

mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 


pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS