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
45626 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 

2 In particular, applicants should add a disclaimer 

if the work contains an ‘‘appreciable’’ amount of 

previously published material. This requirement 

was stated throughout the 2014 version of the 

Compendium. See, e.g., Compendium, sections 

311.2, 507.2, 508.2, 618.2, 618.5, 618.6, 618.7, 621, 

621.1—621.9 (3d ed. 2014). But in a few places the 

Office inadvertently used the word ‘‘substantial’’ in 

place of the word ‘‘appreciable.’’ See id. sections 

712.3, 715.3, 717, 717.2, 718, 721.9(G), 727.3(D). 

The Public Draft corrected these oversights, and 

contrary to IPO’s suggestion, these corrections do 

not represent a change in the Office’s current 

policy. 

3The language appearing in the corresponding 

sections of the 2014 version will be retained for the 

time being. But to be clear, the Office retained some 

minor changes made in these sections, such as 

those discussed in footnote 2, and changes in 

section 721.8 that do not involve the priorpublication issue. 

4At IPO’s suggestion, the Final Version 

discourages applicants from using the term ‘‘text’’ 

to describe non-executing comments, because that 

term is potentially ambiguous. 

5At IPO’s suggestion, the Office retained language 

from the 2014 version of the Compendium stating 

that ‘‘[t]he applicant should not block out any 

portions of the source code that do not contain 

trade secret material.’’ Final Version section 

1509.1(C)(4)(b) (emphasis added). 

6At the Kernochan Center’s suggestion, the Office 

also revised one of the examples in section 906.4 

of the Public Draft to clarify that calligraphy is a 

practice, and the Office has decided to 

maintain its current practice (described 

in Chapters 600 and 1500 of the 2014 

version). A complete list of all sections 

that have been added, amended, 

revised, or removed is available on the 

Office’s Web site at https://

www.copyright.gov/comp3/ 

revisions.html, along with redlines that 

provide a direct comparison between 

the Final Version and the 2014 version 

of the Compendium. 

Revisions to the Public Draft reflected 

in the Final Version are as follows: 

Applicability of the 2017 Update to the 

Compendium 

In response to a suggestion from IPO, 

the Office amended the Introduction to 

confirm that applications and 

documents registered or recorded on or 

after September 29, 2017, will be 

governed by the Final Version. The 

Introduction also confirms that 

registrations and recordations that are 

issued by the Office before that date will 

generally be governed by the 2014 

version of the Compendium, except in 

cases where that version had been 

superseded by an amendment to the 

regulations, intervening case law, or 

previously announced changes in 

practice. 

Email Communication With the Office 

If an applicant provides an email 

address in the application, the Office 

will use that address as the primary 

means for communicating with the 

applicant, even if the applicant also 

provides a telephone number or other 

contact information. As the Copyright 

Alliance noted, applicants do not need 

to provide a personal email address or 

designate a specific person to receive 

emails from the Office. The Office will 

accept communications from a general 

email address that may be used by 

multiple people within the same 

organization, such as 

‘‘copyrightadministrator@

publisher.com.’’ See Final Version, 

section 605.2. 

Best Edition Requirement 

Sections 1504.2 and 1509.2(B)(3) of 

the Final Version clarify that an 

applicant may submit a digital copy of 

a work if it was published solely in a 

digital form in the United States—even 

if that work was published in another 

country in a physical form. This 

responds to the Copyright Alliance’s 

concern that it may be too burdensome 

to obtain physical copies from an 

overseas distributor, especially if a 

digital copy is readily available in this 

country. 

Disclaiming Preexisting Material 

When an applicant submits a work 

that contains previously published 

material, the applicant is generally 

expected to exclude that material from 

the claim.2 The Public Draft 

summarized the legal and policy 

justifications for this longstanding 

practice. It also explained that this 

practice applies regardless of whether 

the previously published material was 

authored by the copyright claimant or a 

third party. See Public Draft sections 

503.5, 507.2. 

IPO contended that these revisions are 

inconsistent with the weight of legal 

authority holding that a registration for 

a derivative work may be used to 

enforce the copyright in a preexisting 

version of the same work, even if the 

preexisting version has been previously 

published and has not been separately 

registered with the Office. IPO also 

contended that the revisions to these 

sections will increase the complexity of 

registering and enforcing the copyright 

in derivative computer programs, and 

will discourage software companies 

from registering their works. 

After considering the IPO’s 

comments, the Office agrees that this 

issue warrants further study. Therefore, 

the changes proposed in sections 503.5 

and 507.2 of the Public Draft will not be 

adopted at this time. The Office also 

removed the phrase ‘‘the version that is 

being registered’’ from sections 

1509.1(C)(2) and 1509.1(C)(4)(b) of the 

Public Draft.3

The Office intends to revisit this issue 

in the future through a formal notice of 

inquiry. Until the Office has concluded 

that public process, the Office will 

maintain its current practices for 

examining these types of claims. In the 

meantime, applicants should continue 

to add a disclaimer if a work contains 

an appreciable amount of previously 

published material, and if applicants do 

not exclude this type of material, the 

Office will continue to communicate 

when an appropriate disclaimer is 

needed. 

Computer Programs 

IPO expressed concern that a change 

made in the Public Draft would require 

applicants to expressly claim ‘‘nonexecuting comments’’ in the application 

in order to register that aspect of a work. 

See Public Draft sections 721.7, 

721.9(F). IPO stated that software 

developers consider non-executing 

comments to be an integral part of a 

computer program. 

The Final Version confirms that the 

term ‘‘computer program’’ may be used 

to assert a claim in both the executable 

code and non-executing comments 

within a computer program. It also 

confirms that applicants may register 

both elements by checking the box 

marked ‘‘computer program,’’ or by 

checking that box and expressly stating 

‘‘non-executing comments’’ in the 

application.4 See Final Version sections 

618.4(C), 721.7, 721.9(F). 

IPO also expressed concern that the 

Office may cancel a registration if ‘‘a 

court determines that an applicant 

submitted redacted source code or 

object code that does not contain trade 

secret material.’’ Public Draft, section 

1509.1(C)(4)(b). The regulations state 

that an applicant may only submit 

redacted source code or object code if 

the program contains trade secret 

material. See 37 CFR 

202.20(c)(2)(vii)(A), (B). The regulations 

also state that the Office may cancel a 

registration if it ‘‘becomes aware that 

. . . [the] correct deposit material has 

not been deposited.’’ 37 CFR 201.7(c)(4). 

However, the Final Version confirms 

that before doing so, the Office will ask 

the claimant to resubmit an appropriate 

deposit. It also clarifies that the Office 

will cancel a registration only if the 

Office does not receive a response 

within 30 days, or if the claimant’s 

response does not resolve the 

problem.5 See Final Version section 

1509.1(C)(4)(b). 

Choreographic Works and Pantomimes 

In response to comments submitted 

by the Kernochan Center,6 the Office 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 45627 

stylized typeface and that typeface is not 

copyrightable. 

7The Office also removed some of the other 

activities listed in these sections, such as runway 

modeling and wrestling matches. The Kernochan 

Center did not mention these activities in its 

comments. The Office decided to remove them for 

stylistic reasons and to streamline the discussion of 

these issues. 

8Another individual asked the Office to clarify 

that works fixed in the same medium of expression 

may be considered a unit of publication. The Office 

did not accept this suggestion. As a general rule, an 

applicant should prepare a separate application, 

filing fee, and deposit for each work that is 

submitted for registration. The unit of publication 

option is a narrow and limited exception to this 

Continued 

removed ‘‘competitive ice skating,’’ 

‘‘synchronized swimming,’’ ‘‘parades,’’ 

‘‘marching band routines,’’ ‘‘magic 

acts,’’ ‘‘circus acts,’’ and ‘‘juggling’’ from 

the examples of physical activities that 

cannot be registered as a pantomime or 

a choreographic work. If the Office 

receives claims involving these types of 

activities in the future, they will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis. See 

Final Version sections 805.5(B)(3), 

806.5(B)(5).7

Notices of Termination Under Section 

203 of the Copyright Act 

Section 203(a)(3) of the Copyright Act 

provides that, if a grant ‘‘covers the right 

of publication of the work,’’ the period 

for terminating that grant ‘‘begins at the 

end of thirty-five years from the date of 

publication of the work under the grant 

or at the end of forty years from the date 

of execution of the grant, whichever 

term ends earlier.’’ 17 U.S.C. 203(a)(3). 

The 2014 version of the Compendium 

took the position that the ‘‘date of 

publication’’ is the date the work is 

published ‘‘under the grant,’’ and 

acknowledged that the date of 

publication under a particular grant may 

or may not be the date the work was 

published for the first time. See 

Compendium sections 2310.3(C), 

2310.3(C)(2) (3d ed. 2014). 

The Public Draft amended these 

sections to reflect the approach adopted 

by a Second Circuit case, Baldwin v. 

EMI Feist Catalog, Inc., 805 F.3d 18, 33 

(2d Cir. 2015). Specifically, the draft 

stated that the phrase ‘‘date of 

publication’’ means the date the work 

was published for the first time. See 

Public Draft sections 2310.3(C), 

2310.3(C)(1), 2310.3(C)(2), 2310.3(D)(1), 

2310.3(D)(1)(a). The Copyright Alliance 

contended that this interpretation is not 

supported by the statute or the 

legislative history, and urged the Office 

to retain the corresponding language 

from the 2014 version of the 

Compendium. 

After further consideration, the Office 

agrees that the 2014 version represents 

the better reading of section 203(a)(3), 

and is not prepared to follow Baldwin 

in light of the limited jurisprudence on 

this matter. This reading is supported by 

both the language and structure of the 

statute. The terms ‘‘first published’’ and 

‘‘first publication’’ are used in multiple 

sections of the Copyright Act, including 

sections 101, 104, 104A, 302, 401, 402, 

406, 408, 409, 410, and 412. 

Presumably, Congress would have used 

the same terminology in section 

203(a)(3) if that provision only applied 

to grants that convey the right to publish 

a work for the first time. 

Indeed, the termination provision in 

an early copyright reform bill did 

provide that ‘‘if the grant covers the 

right of first publication of the work, the 

period begins at the end of 35 years 

from the date of first publication of the 

work.’’ H.R. 4347, 89th Cong. (1965). 

But the word ‘‘first’’ was dropped from 

subsequent bills, see H.R. 2512, 91st 

Cong. (1967), and it is that version of the 

provision that was eventually enacted as 

part of the Copyright Act of 1976. The 

legislative history shows that this 

change was intentional. The relevant 

House Report explains that the 

provision was specifically amended so 

that the provision would ‘‘apply to any 

publication contract, and not just to 

contracts involving first publication.’’ 

H.R. Rep. No. 89–2237, at 122 (1966); 

see also H.R. Rep. No. 90–83, at 93 

(1967). Accordingly, the Final Version 

reverts to the Office’s initial 

interpretation reflected in the 2014 

version of the Compendium, with an 

additional discussion of this issue, as 

this interpretation is most consistent 

with the terms of the Copyright Act. 

Section 115 Compulsory License 

One individual expressed concern 

that the Public Draft suggested that 

copyright owners must register their 

works as a condition for receiving 

royalties under the compulsory license 

set forth in section 115(c)(1) of the 

Copyright Act. The Final Version 

confirms that copyright owners may be 

entitled to receive royalties under this 

section if they are identified ‘‘in the 

registration or other public records of 

the Copyright Office.’’ See Final Version 

section 202 (quoting 17 U.S.C. 

115(c)(1)). 

Unit of Publication 

The 2014 version of the Compendium 

states that multiple works may be 

registered as a unit of publication if they 

are physically packaged or bundled 

together and distributed to the public in 

that form. It also contains a single 

sentence suggesting that a ‘‘digital 

download’’ could be considered a unit 

of publication. See Compendium, 

section 1107.1 (3d ed. 2014). The Public 

Draft removed this sentence because it 

is inconsistent with other provisions in 

the Compendium that clearly and 

repeatedly state that the unit of 

publication option may only be used to 

register works fixed and distributed in 

a physical format. The revision to the 

sentence in section 1107.1 does not 

represent a change in policy from the 

2014 version of the Compendium; it 

simply corrects a minor inconsistency 

in that version. 

The Copyright Alliance and one 

individual asked the Office to expand 

the unit of publication definition to 

allow applicants to register separate 

works that are packaged and distributed 

in a digital form. The Office declines to 

adopt this suggestion. The unit of 

publication option was always intended 

to be a narrow accommodation to 

account for a particular scenario: where 

a physical product bundles together 

multiple types of works of authorship as 

a single ‘‘unit,’’ and those separate 

works are not published individually. 

The paradigmatic example is a board 

game with playing pieces, a game board, 

and instructions; each of those 

components may be a separate work of 

authorship—the playing pieces may be 

individual sculptural works, the game 

board may be a pictorial or graphic 

work, and the instructions may be a 

literary work. But it would make little 

sense—and would be administratively 

burdensome on the Office—to impose 

the general requirement of separate 

applications for each work of authorship 

in these cases. Among other things, 

imposition of that rule would result in 

deposits that are either duplicative (e.g., 

the applicant sends the entire board 

game with each application) or 

incomplete (e.g., the applicant sends 

each element of the board game 

separately). 

In the Office’s view, the same 

concerns are not present with respect to 

digital products. To begin with, the 

problem with duplication of deposits is 

significantly diminished with respect to 

digital works. Moreover, while it may be 

relatively easy for applicants and the 

Copyright Office to assess whether a 

physical product qualifies as true ‘‘unit 

of publication,’’ the same cannot readily 

be said for digital products, which could 

be distributed in a single digital file or 

in multiple digital files, or could readily 

be published only as a bundle, or both 

in a bundle and individually. Thus, at 

least at this time, the Office believes that 

it is inappropriate to extend the unit of 

publication option to digital products.8


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45628 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2017 / Notices 

rule. It provides a means for registering multiple 

works with one submission in cases where multiple 

submissions would otherwise be required and 

where no other statutory or regulatory 

accommodation exists. Often, when multiple items 

are fixed in the same medium of expression, they 

may be considered a derivative work, a 

compilation, or a collective work. If so, there is no 

need to rely on the unit of publication option, 

because the statute already provides a means for 

obtaining a registration. If applicants could register 

multiple works as a unit of publication whenever 

they happen to be fixed in the same medium of 

expression, the regulatory accommodation would 

displace the statutory scheme, and this narrow 

exception would become the default method for 

registering published works. 

9Similarly, one individual asked the Office to 

add a new space to Form TX where applicants may 

provide titles of the works appearing within a unit 

of publication. The Office declines to adopt this 

suggestion, because the Compendium already 

provides instructions for adding title information to 

a paper application. See Compendium section 

1107.4(C). 

That said, the Office has, over time, 

expanded its group registration options 

to accommodate the need to register 

multiple works with the same 

application. To the extent the concern 

expressed in the comments relates to the 

inability to register multiple musical 

works fixed and/or distributed on an 

album, the Office is planning to create 

a new group registration option to 

accommodate those situations. 

Collective Works and Contributions to 

Collective Works 

The Copyright Alliance commented 

on the Public Draft’s discussion of 

collective works. First, it asserted that 

more information should be included in 

applications for certain collective 

works. When registering an album 

together with the works on that album, 

the Copyright Alliance asserted that 

applicants should identify the complete 

content of the album. Specifically, the 

Copyright Alliance suggested that 

section 618.7(B)(2) should be revised to 

state that titles of the individual works 

should be included in the ‘‘Content 

Titles’’ field, even if the applicant 

intends to exclude one or more of those 

works from the claim. The Copyright 

Alliance said this would provide a clear 

record of what the album contains and 

makes the titles accessible in the online 

public record.9

The Office declines to adopt the 

Copyright Alliance’s suggestion at this 

time. The Office encourages applicants 

to provide album information as 

suggested by the Copyright Alliance, but 

it will not require applicants for all 

collective works to submit all similar 

information. Requiring applicants to 

provide contents titles for an album may 

be feasible, but applying the same 

requirement to all types of collective 

works may be burdensome for some 

applicants. That said, the Office plans to 

revise the sections on collective works 

consisting of musical works and/or 

sound recordings in a future update to 

the Compendium, and will revisit the 

Copyright Alliance’s suggestions in 

making those revisions. 

Additionally, the Copyright Alliance 

contended that the Office will not 

register a collective work unless it 

contains at least four independent 

works (citing Compendium sections 

312.2, 618.7, and 803.8(F)(4)). The 

Copyright Alliance said this is a 

problem for the recording industry, 

because extended play albums (‘‘EPs’’) 

often contain two or three tracks. In 

such cases, the individual tracks must 

be registered separately. It also said this 

creates a workflow problem for the 

record labels because, although EPs are 

a single product, they cannot be 

registered in a manner that reflects the 

way they are commercially distributed. 

The Office registers ‘‘original works of 

authorship,’’ as defined in sections 102 

and 103 of the Copyright Act. A 

compilation may be registered if it 

contains a sufficient amount of creative 

expression in the selection, 

coordination, and/or arrangement of its 

component elements. These 

requirements are set forth in the statute, 

and the Office adheres to this standard 

when it examines an album or any other 

type of compilation. The vast majority 

of albums contain sufficient selection, 

coordination, or arrangement authorship 

to be considered a collective work, but 

some albums do not satisfy this 

requirement. The Office recognizes that 

in such cases, a separate application 

may be required for each individual 

track, and that this may increase the 

incremental cost and effort of seeking a 

registration. But, contrary to the 

Copyright Alliance’s suggestion, the 

Office does not have a bright line rule 

regarding the number of tracks that must 

be present to qualify as a collective 

work; the Office will simply scrutinize 

collective work applications with fewer 

tracks more closely to ensure they pass 

the necessary threshold of creativity. 

Dated: September 27, 2017. 

Karyn Temple Claggett, 

Acting Register of Copyrights and Director 

of the U.S. Copyright Office. 

[FR Doc. 2017–21065 Filed 9–28–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING 

COMMISSION 

Submission Guidelines 

AGENCY: National Capital Planning 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The National Capital Planning 

Commission (NCPC or Commission) 

hereby adopts new Submission 

Guidelines. 

DATES: The Submission Guidelines are 

adopted as of October 30, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Flis, Senior Urban Designer at 

(202) 482–7236 or submission@

ncpc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Background 

Federal and non-Federal agency 

applicants whose development 

proposals are subject to statutorilymandated Commission plan and project 

review must submit their proposals to 

the Commission following a process laid 

out in the Submission Guidelines. The 

Submission Guidelines describe the 

content of submissions, the submission 

stages, and the coordination and review 

process governing submissions. 

The new Submission Guidelines 

accomplish three primary objectives: (1) 

Create clear, accessible, and efficient 

guidelines that are responsive to 

applicant needs; (2) Align NCPC’s 

review stages and National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements 

with those of applicant agencies to save 

time and resources in the planning 

process; and (3) Allow staff to exempt 

from Commission review certain minor 

projects based on specific criteria where 

there is no federal interest. The new 

Submission Guidelines are posted on 

NCPC’s Web site at https://

www.ncpc.gov/initiatives/subnepa.html. 

II. Summary of and Response to 

Comments 

NCPC published a notice of 

availability; request for comment; and 

notice of public meetings for its revised 

Submission Guidelines in the Federal 

Register on May 26, 2017. The notice 

announced, among others, a 45-day 

public comment period. The public 

comment period closed on July 10, 

2017. A summary of the comments 

received and NCPC’s response thereto 

can be found in Appendix A of the 

Executive Director’s Recommendation 

(EDR) for NCPC file No. 7744 dated 

September 7, 2017. The subject EDR is 

located on NCPC’s Web site at https:// 

www.ncpc.gov/docs/actions/ 

2017September/NCPC_Submission_

Guidelines_Recommendation_7744_

Sept2017.pdf. 

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 8721(e)(2) and 

8722(a). 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES