45624 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 

1The ‘‘Allocation Phase Claimants’’ are Program 

Suppliers, Joint Sports Claimants, Broadcaster 

Claimants Group, Music Claimants (represented by 

American Society of Composers, Authors and 

Publishers, Broadcast Music, Inc., and SESAC, Inc.), 

and Devotional Claimants. 

contents of the [subgrant] application 

annually in the Federal Register and on 

its Web site.’’ 45 CFR 1627.4(b). This 

Notice and the publication of the 

Subgrant Application Forms on LSC’s 

Web site satisfies § 1627.4(b)’s notice 

requirement for the Technology 

Initiative Grant and Pro Bono 

Innovation Fund grant programs. Only 

current or prospective LSC grantees may 

apply. 

Applications for subgrants of 

Technology Initiative Grant and Pro 

Bono Innovation Fund grant funds with 

starting dates after October 30 must be 

submitted at least 45 days in advance of 

the subgrant’s proposed effective date. 

45 CFR 1627.4(b)(2). LSC grantees may 

subgrant up to $20,000 in LSC funds 

without submitting an application for 

prior approval. 45 CFR 1627.4(b). All 

subgrants of LSC funds, however, are 

subject to LSC’s regulations, guidelines, 

and instructions. 

Subgrant applications must be 

submitted at https://lscgrants.lsc.gov. 

Applicants may access the application 

under the ‘‘Subgrants’’ heading on their 

‘‘LSC Grants’’ home page. Applicants 

may initiate an application by selecting 

‘‘Initiate Subgrant Application.’’ 

Applicants must then provide the 

information requested in the LSC Grants 

data fields, located in the Subrecipient 

Profile, Subgrant Summary, and 

Subrecipient Budget screens, and 

upload the following documents: 

• A draft Subgrant Agreement (with 

the required terms provided in the 

Technology Initiative Grants and Pro 

Bono Innovation Fund Subgrant 

Agreement Template (‘‘Template’’); 

• Responses to Technology Initiative 

Grants and Pro Bono Innovation Fund 

Subgrant Inquiries; 

• The subrecipient’s accounting 

manual (or letter indicating that the 

subrecipient does not have one and 

why); 

• The subrecipient’s most recent 

audited financial statement (or letter 

indicating that the subrecipient does not 

have one and why); 

• The subrecipient’s most recent 

Form 990 filed with the Internal 

Revenue Service (or letter indicating 

that the subrecipient does not have one 

and why); 

• The subrecipient’s current fidelity 

bond policy (or letter indicating that the 

subrecipient does not have one and 

why); 

• The subrecipient’s conflict of 

interest policy (or letter indicating that 

the subrecipient does not have one and 

why); and 

• The subrecipient’s whistleblower 

policy (or letter indicating that the 

subrecipient does not have one and 

why). 

Technology Initiative Grants and Pro 

Bono Innovation Fund Subgrant 

Agreement Template and Inquiries are 

available on LSC’s Web site at http://

www.lsc.gov/grants-grantee-resources/ 

grantee-guidance/how-apply-subgrant. 

LSC encourages applicants to use the 

Template provided to draft their 

subgrant agreement(s). If the applicant 

does not use the Template, the proposed 

agreement must include, at a minimum, 

the substance of the provisions in the 

Template. LSC recommends that 

applicants pay careful attention to the 

terms included in, and instructions on, 

the Template. Several of the terms have 

been modified from previous years and 

new terms have been added. 

Once submitted, LSC will evaluate the 

application and provide applicants with 

instructions on any needed 

modifications to the information, 

documents, or Draft Agreement 

provided with the application. The 

applicant must then upload a final and 

signed subgrant agreement through LSC 

Grants. This can be done by selecting 

‘‘Upload Signed Agreement’’ to the right 

of the application ‘‘Status’’ under the 

‘‘Subgrant’’ heading on an applicant’s 

LSC Grants home page. 

As required by 45 CFR 1627.4(b)(3), 

LSC will inform applicants of its 

decision to disapprove, approve, or 

request modifications to the subgrant no 

later than the subgrant’s proposed 

effective date. 

Dated: September 25, 2017. 

Stefanie K. Davis, 

Assistant General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20865 Filed 9–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Royalty Board 

[Docket No. 17–CRB–0011–SD (2015)] 

Distribution of 2015 Satellite Royalty 

Funds 

AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), 

Library of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice requesting reply 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges 

solicit reply comments on a motion of 

Allocation Phase claimants for partial 

distribution of 2015 satellite royalty 

funds. 

DATES: Reply comments are due on or 

before October 30, 2017. Surreplies from 

original commenters are due on or 

before November 8, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: You may make replies and 

surreplies, identified by docket number 

17–CRB–0011–SD (2015), by any of the 

following methods: 

CRB’s electronic filing application: 

Submit comments online in eCRB at 

https://app.crb.gov/. 

U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, 

P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024– 

0977; or 

Overnight service (only USPS Express 

Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty 

Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 

20024–0977; or 

Commercial courier: Address package 

to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of 

Congress, James Madison Memorial 

Building, LM–403, 101 Independence 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559– 

6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier 

Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE. and D 

Street NE., Washington, DC; or 

Hand delivery: Library of Congress, 

James Madison Memorial Building, LM– 

401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20559–6000. 

Instructions: Unless submitting 

online, commenters must submit an 

original, five paper copies, and an 

electronic version on a CD. All 

submissions must include the CRB’s 

name and docket number. All 

submissions will be posted without 

change to eCRB on https://www.crb.gov 

including any personal information 

provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to eCRB, the 

Copyright Royalty Board’s electronic 

filing and case management system, at 

https://app.crb.gov/ and search for 

docket number 17–CRB–0011–SD 

(2015). For documents not yet uploaded 

to eCRB (because it is a new system), go 

to the agency Web site at https://

www.crb.gov/ or contact the CRB 

Program Specialist. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, 

by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or email 

at crb@loc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 17, 2017, representatives of all 

the Allocation Phase claimant categories 

(formerly ‘‘Phase I’’) 1 filed with the 

Judges a motion requesting a partial 

distribution amounting to 60% of the 

2015 satellite royalty funds pursuant to 

section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright 

Act. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(3)(C). That section 

requires that, before ruling on the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 45625 

2 82 FR 18160. 

3 Given the Judges’ general request for reply 

comments, the Judges DENY the Devotional 

Claimants’ motion as moot. 

1The Final Version does not include the Office’s 

recent interim rule on secure tests, because the 

deadline for submitting comments in that 

proceeding does not expire until December 11, 

2017. 82 FR 26850 (June 12, 2017). 

motion, the Judges publish a notice in 

the Federal Register seeking responses 

to the motion for partial distribution to 

ascertain whether any claimant entitled 

to receive the subject royalties has a 

reasonable objection to the requested 

distribution. 

On April 17, 2017, the Judges 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register seeking comments on the 

motion.2 The Judges received two 

comments on the motion, both of which 

opposed the partial distribution as 

proposed. In particular, one commenter 

contended that two of the parties 

seeking a partial distribution had not 

provided a means to permit proper 

identification of those claimant 

representatives and that neither of the 

claimant representatives was an 

established claimant with respect to 

satellite funds and therefore were 

precluded by applicable precedent from 

receiving a partial distribution of 

satellite royalties. On June 9, 2017, the 

Devotional Claimants filed a motion for 

leave to file reply comments to the 

objection of the Multigroup Claimants. 

Motion of Devotional Claimants for 

Leave to File Reply to Multigroup 

Claimants’ Objection to Partial 

Distribution of 2015 Satellite Royalty 

Funds to Certain ‘‘Allocation Phase 

Parties.’’ In light of this motion and the 

comments submitted on the filing, the 

Judges request reply comments that 

respond to any issues the commenters 

raised with respect to the motion for 

partial distribution and that address 

whether or not any commenter raised a 

reasonable objection to the proposed 

partial distribution and if not, why not.3

In addition, the Judges permit either 

of the original commenters to offer 

surreply to any reply comments the 

Judges receive. Reply comments must be 

filed no later than 30 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Surreplies, if any, must be 

filed no later than ten days after the 

deadline for filing reply comments. 

The Motion of the Allocation Phase 

Claimants and the comments are posted 

on the Copyright Royalty Board Web 

site at http://www.loc.gov/crb. 

Dated: September 26, 2017 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20926 Filed 9–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2017–14] 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Update to Compendium of U.S. 

Copyright Office Practices, Third 

Edition. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

announcing the release of an update to 

its administrative manual, the 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices, Third Edition, which goes 

into effect as of September 29, 2017. 

DATES: The final updated version of the 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices, Third Edition is available on 

the Office’s Web site as of September 29, 

2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik 

Bertin, Deputy Director for Registration 

Policy and Practice, Sarang Damle, 

General Counsel and Associate Register 

of Copyrights, Regan A. Smith, Deputy 

General Counsel, or Catherine Zaller 

Rowland, Senior Advisor to the Register 

of Copyrights, all by telephone at (202) 

707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office 

Practices, Third Edition 

(‘‘Compendium’’) is the administrative 

manual of the U.S. Copyright Office. It 

‘‘explains many of the practices and 

procedures concerning the Office’s 

mandate and statutory duties under title 

17 of the United States Code.’’ 37 CFR 

201.2(b)(7). ‘‘It is both a technical 

manual for the Copyright Office’s staff, 

as well as a guidebook for authors, 

copyright licensees, practitioners, 

scholars, the courts, and members of the 

general public.’’ Id. While it has been a 

guiding manual for the Copyright Office 

for several decades, the Office 

conducted a comprehensive revision of 

the entire Compendium beginning in 

2011, which was completed in 

December 2014 and resulted in the 

Third Edition. 79 FR 78911 (Dec. 31, 

2014). 

To ensure that the Compendium 

remains up to date, the Office monitors 

the law and Office practices. After 

conducting this analysis with regard to 

the 2014 version, the Office released a 

draft revision to the Compendium on 

June 1, 2017 (the ‘‘Public Draft’’). The 

Office posted the Public Draft on its 

public Web site and invited comments 

until July 30, 2017. The draft included 

proposed revisions to the registration 

chapters that clarified, among other 

things: how and when the Office 

communicates with applicants; and how 

it handles duplicate claims, deposit 

requirements, and claims involving 

multiple works. The Public Draft also 

sought to provide preliminary guidance 

for claims involving useful articles 

based on the Supreme Court’s recent 

decision in Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. 

Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 

(2017). Revisions to the recordation 

chapter provided additional guidance 

for recording notices of termination, as 

well as information on the Office’s new 

electronic system for designating agents 

for online service providers. 81 FR 

75695 (Nov. 1, 2016). The Public Draft 

also explained recent regulatory changes 

that impact post-registration procedures, 

including the new ‘‘mailbox rule’’ for 

calculating dates in requests for 

reconsideration and new procedures for 

removing personally identifiable 

information. 81 FR 62373 (Sept. 9, 

2016); 82 FR 9004 (Feb. 2, 2017). The 

update also incorporated changes made 

by the recent technical amendments to 

the Office’s regulations. 82 FR 12180 

(Mar. 1, 2017). An archived copy of the 

Public Draft is available on the Office’s 

Web site. 

The Office received comments on the 

Public Draft from the Copyright 

Alliance, the Intellectual Property 

Owners Association (‘‘IPO’’), the 

Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and 

the Arts at Columbia Law School, as 

well as four individuals. After carefully 

reviewing these comments, the Office 

decided to further revise twenty-one 

sections of the Public Draft, resulting in 

a final update (the ‘‘Final Version’’), as 

discussed in more detail below. 

Additionally, the Final Version reflects 

rulemaking activity that post-dated the 

Public Draft, including the Office’s final 

rules on supplementary registration and 

group registration for contributions to 

periodicals. 82 FR 27424 (June 15, 

2017); 82 FR 29410 (June 29, 2017).1 It 

includes a revised Chapter 1700 that 

reflects the Office’s new practice for 

amending a claim during the course of 

a request for reconsideration. In 

addition, the Office will not adopt the 

position in the Public Draft that, when 

an application deposit consists of only 

one copy when two are required, the 

effective date of registration would be 

based on the date the second copy was 

received. This would have been a 

departure from the Office’s current 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES