Recordation of Documents, 44049-44052 [05-15137]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
FR 64954, October 31, 2000). On
November 29, 2000, Bayer Corp. (Bayer),
the sponsor of enrofloxacin (sold under
the trade name Baytril 3.23%
Concentrate Antimicrobial Solution),
requested a hearing on the proposed
withdrawal. On February 20, 2002, the
FDA’s then Acting Principal Deputy
Commissioner published a notice of
hearing granting Bayer’s request and
identifying the factual issues that would
be the subject of the evidentiary hearing
(67 FR 7700, February 20, 2002). On
March 21, 2002, the Animal Health
Institute submitted a notice of
participation under 21 CFR 12.45. Oral
hearing for the purposes of crossexamination of witnesses was held at
FDA from April 28 through May 7,
2003. On March 16, 2004, an FDA
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued
an initial decision under 21 CFR 12.120.
The ALJ determined that enrofloxacin
had not been ‘‘shown to be safe under
the conditions of use upon the basis of
which the application was approved,’’
as required under section 512(e)(1)(B) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360b(e)(1)(B))
and ordered that the approval of the
NADA for Baytril be withdrawn. Bayer
and CVM each filed exceptions to the
initial decision on May 17, 2004.
In a notice published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register, FDA
is announcing the final decision
withdrawing approval of the NADA
held by Bayer Corp., Agriculture
Division, Animal Health, Shawnee
Mission, KS 66201. NADA 140–828,
Baytril 3.23% Concentrate
Antimicrobial Solution provides for use
of enrofloxacin to treat poultry under
§ 520.813 (21 CFR 520.813). Relevant
information concerning tolerances for
residues of enrofloxacin in edible
tissues of poultry is under § 556.228(a)
(21 CFR 556.228(a)).
Therefore, in accordance with the
final decision withdrawing approval
and section 512(i) of the act (21 U.S.C.
360(b)(i)), FDA is amending the
regulations to remove §§ 520.813 and
556.228(a).
The agency has determined under 21
CFR 25.33(g) that this action is of a type
that does not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment. Therefore,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
This rule does not meet the definition
of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because
it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’
Therefore, it is not subject to the
congressional review requirements in 5
U.S.C. 801–808.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:40 Jul 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
List of Subjects
Medicine (HFV–100), Food and Drug
Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301–827–6967, email: david.newkirk@fda.gov.
21 CFR Part 520
Animal drugs.
21 CFR Part 556
Animal drugs, Foods.
I Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 520 and
556 are amended as follows:
PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM
NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 520 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.
§ 520.813
I
44049
[Removed]
2. Section 520.813 is removed.
PART 556—TOLERANCES FOR
RESIDUES OF NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
IN FOOD
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 556 continues to read as follows:
North
American Nutrition Companies, Inc.,
C.S. 5002, 6531 St., Rt. 503, Lewisburg,
OH 45338, has informed FDA that it has
transferred ownership of, and all rights
and interest in, NADA 127–507 for
TYLAN SULFA G Type A Medicated
Article to Elanco Animal Health, A
Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly
Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN
46285. Accordingly, the agency is
amending the regulations in 21 CFR
558.630 to reflect the transfer of
ownership.
This rule does not meet the definition
of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because
it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’
Therefore, it is not subject to the
congressional review requirements in 5
U.S.C. 801–808.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558
I
Animal drugs, Animal feeds.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371.
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
§ 556.228 [Amended]
of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the
I 4. Section 556.228 is amended by
Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR
removing paragraph (a), by redesignating part 558 is amended as follows:
paragraph (b) as paragraph (a), and by
adding and reserving new paragraph (b). PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR
USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS
Dated: July 27, 2005.
Lester M. Crawford,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 05–15223 Filed 7–28–05; 2:31 pm]
I
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 558 continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
§ 558.630
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 558
New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal
Feeds; Change of Sponsor
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
[Amended]
2. Section 558.630 is amended in
paragraph (b)(10) by removing ‘‘017790’’
and by adding in numerical sequence
‘‘000986’’.
I
Dated: July 11, 2005.
Steven D. Vaughn,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug
Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 05–15161 Filed 7–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
HHS.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is amending the
animal drug regulations to reflect a
change of sponsor for a new animal drug
application (NADA) from North
American Nutrition Companies, Inc., to
Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli
Lilly & Co.
DATES: This rule is effective August 1,
2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David R. Newkirk, Center for Veterinary
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. 2005–10]
Recordation of Documents
Copyright Office, Library of
Congress.
ACTION: Notice of policy decision.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
44050
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
SUMMARY: This notice of policy decision
clarifies three matters relating to
practices concerning the recordation of
documents pertaining to copyrights.
First, it clarifies that a document will be
indexed only under the titles appearing
in the executed document. Second, it
announces an interim practice on
redaction of documents submitted for
recordation, and states the intention of
the Copyright Office to issue a notice of
inquiry on the subject. Third, it
provides notice that the Copyright
Office is issuing a revised Document
Cover Sheet.
DATES: Effective August 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent
Dunlap, Principal Legal Advisor to the
General Counsel. Telephone: (202) 707–
8380. Telefax: (202) 707–8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background Information
Since 1870, the Copyright Office has
recorded assignments and other
documents relating to copyright.
Although this function has been
performed by the Office for over 100
years, the recordation process and the
Office records concerning recordation
are frequently misunderstood.
Generally, the original document to be
recorded is submitted to the Office.
Recordation makes the contents of a
document part of the public records of
the Copyright Office. The recorded
document speaks for itself. The Office
creates a public record of the document;
that record is available (and searchable)
in the Office’s online catalog. A
document is indexed under the names
of the parties and the titles of works
listed in the executed document.
When a document is recorded in the
Copyright Office, that document is given
a unique identifying number. The
document is imaged and made available
to the public for inspection and
copying. The original document is
returned to the sender with a certificate
of recordation. The Office does not
make determinations about the validity
or effect of any document. Such
determinations are within the purview
of the courts.
2. Indexing of Titles
It has been a longstanding written
practice of the Copyright Office to
require that the index of recorded
documents will only include titles
contained in the recorded document,
and that principle is embodied in
section 205 of the copyright law. In
administering the 1909 Copyright Act,
Compendium of Copyright Office
Practices I (1973) (Compendium I) made
it clear that only titles that appeared in
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:24 Jul 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
the document would be indexed and
therefore appear in the records of the
Office. Section 12.3.5. IV. provided as
follows: ‘‘Outside sources: A document
will be indexed solely under the titles
or other identifying matter it contains;
no information or other information
from sources outside the document will
be supplied.’’
This principle was retained in the
1976 Copyright Act, which provides
that recordation of a document provides
constructive notice of the facts stated in
the recorded document, but only if ‘‘the
document, or material attached to it,
specifically identifies the work to which
it pertains so that, after the document is
indexed by the Register of Copyrights, it
would be revealed by a reasonable
search under the title or registration
number of the work.’’ 17 U.S.C. 205(c)
(emphasis added).
It is clear from the earliest discussions
of this provision in the process of
revision of the Copyright Act that the
indexing by the Copyright Office, and
the resulting constructive notice, would
apply only to titles identified in the
document or its attachments. The
Report of the Register of Copyrights on
the General Revision of the U.S.
Copyright Law, House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. House
Committee Print (1961), contains the
following statement concerning
‘‘blanket transfers’’:
(2) Blanket transfers.—In some cases a
recorded transfer will cover ‘‘all the
copyrights’’ owned by the transferor with no
identification of the individual works. It may
be extremely difficult and time-consuming
for a third person to ascertain whether the
copyright in a particular work is covered by
such a blanket transfer. We believe the
statute should indicate that constructive
notice is confined to the copyrights in works
specifically identified by the recorded
instrument.
Id. at 96. Thus, the Register’s discussion
clearly anticipated that the revised
statute would not provide for
constructive notice for works that are
not specifically identified in the
agreement or other document being
recorded.
The provisions of the 1976 Act
relating to documents, sections 204 and
205, were generally settled on in 1965.
The 1965 Supplementary Report of the
Register of Copyrights on the General
Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law:
1965 Revision Bill, House Comm. on the
Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. at 230,
House Committee Print (1965), explains
the decision reflected in the statute with
respect to requiring the specific titles to
be included in a document for that
document to be given constructive
notice:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Subsection (c) of section 205 implements
another recommendation of the Report by
providing that recordation of a document
constitutes constructive notice of the facts it
states only if ‘‘the document, or material
attached to it, specifically identifies the work
to which it pertains so that, after the
document is indexed by the Register of
Copyrights, it would be revealed by a
reasonable search under the title or
registration number of the work; * * *.’’
Id. at 77.
The phrase ‘‘or material attached to
it’’ means an appendix or attachment
that was formally part of the executed
document. It is a common practice for
copyright transactions to include
important terms or information in
schedules, appendices, or other
attachments as part of the document.
This interpretation is consistent with
the phrase ‘‘gives all persons
constructive notice of the facts stated in
the recorded document’’ appearing in
the first sentence of section 205(c). It is
also consistent with the Office’s practice
under the 1909 Copyright Act, and the
legislative history as reflected in the
1961 Report of the Register of
Copyrights, and the 1965
Supplementary Report of the Register of
Copyrights. Moreover, such a practice is
consistent with the requirement in
section 205(a) that a recorded document
bear the signature of the person who
executed it (or be accompanied by a
sworn certification that it is a true copy
of the original, signed document): the
only reasonable reading of that
requirement is that it does not permit
recordation to extend constructive
notice to information that was not part
of the document at the time it was
executed.
Several years after enactment of the
revision of the 1976 copyright law, the
Copyright Office issued Compendium of
Copyright Office Practices II (1984)
(Compendium II), which implemented
procedures with respect to the new
copyright law. Chapter 1600 concerned
recordation of documents, and
subsections 1607.02(c)–1607.04
provided as follows:
1607.02(c)
Blanket transfer. A blanket transfer, in
which no individual titles are given, will be
recorded without question. Example:
‘‘Copyrights in all the published works of
John Doe are hereby assigned. * * *’’
1607.03
No titles given. When a document in which
no titles are specified is recorded, the catalog
entry will contain the notation: ‘‘No Titles
Given.’’
1607.04
Outside sources. A document will be
indexed solely under the titles or other
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
identifying matter it contains; no information
from sources outside the document will be
supplied. Thus, for example, the Copyright
Office will not index titles given only in a
covering letter.
In order to streamline processing, the
office suspended Chapter 1600 of
Compendium II regarding recordation of
documents in 1992. 57 FR 27074 (1992).
In 1998, it issued a new Compendium
Chapter 1600. The treatment of blanket
transfers in former subsections
1607.02(c)–1607.4 was simplified in
new section 1608.03, which states:
‘‘Outside sources. A document will be
indexed only under the titles or other
identifying matter it contains.’’ This
language actually returned to the
language in Compendium I regarding
practices under the 1909 Copyright Act.
This reintroduction of the old language
on ‘‘outside sources’’ into the new
Compendium chapter meant no change
in policy was intended.
However, the Office has discovered
that an informal practice had evolved in
the Documents Section which permitted
a party submitting a document to attach
a listing of titles to a document which,
as executed, lacked titles, and to index
titles that did not appear in the
document if those titles were listed in
a document cover sheet supplied by the
Office. It is not clear when, how or why
this practice commenced. It has been
discontinued.
Copyright owners who wish to have
titles of works appear in the index of
recorded documents are cautioned to
include a list of titles either in the body
of the document or as an attachment
made to the document before execution.
3. Redaction of Documents
On January 4, 1978, the Copyright
Office issued interim regulations
implementing recordation procedures.
43 FR 771 (1978). The Office regulations
require that a document submitted for
recordation must be ‘‘complete on its
face, and include any schedules,
appendixes, or other attachments
referred to in the document as being
part of it.’’ This provision has been
included in the regulations since
January 4, 1978. 43 FR 771 (1978).
In commenting on the interim
regulation, the Authors League of
America, Inc. requested that the
requirement of completeness be
clarified. 43 FR 35044 (1978). As a
result, section 201.4(c)(2) was
introduced into the regulation relating
to the policies regarding attachments,
and these clarifications remain as part of
the regulations today. The commentary
described these additions as ‘‘our actual
practices in the area.’’ Id. at 35044. The
current regulation reads as follows:
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:24 Jul 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
(2) To be recordable, the document must be
complete by its own terms.
(i) A document that contains a reference to
any schedule, appendix, exhibit, addendum,
or other material as being attached to the
document or made a part of it shall be
recordable only if the attachment is also
submitted for recordation with the document
or if the reference is deleted by the parties
to the document. If a document has been
submitted for recordation and has been
returned by the Copyright Office at the
request of the sender for deletion of the
reference to an attachment, the document
will be recorded only if the deletion is signed
or initialed by the persons who executed the
document or by their authorized
representatives. In exceptional cases a
document containing a reference to an
attachment will be recorded without the
attached material and without deletion of the
reference if the person seeking recordation
submits a written request specifically
asserting that: (A) The attachment is
completely unavailable for recordation; and
(B) the attachment is not essential to the
identification of the subject matter of the
document; and (C) it would be impossible or
wholly impracticable to have the parties to
the document sign or initial a deletion of the
reference. In such exceptional cases, the
Copyright Office records of the document
will be annotated to show that recordation
was made in response to a specific request
under this paragraph.
(ii) If a document otherwise recordable
under this title indicates on its face that it is
a self-contained part of a larger instrument
(for example: If it is designated ‘‘Attachment
A’’ or ‘‘Exhibit B’’), the Copyright Office will
raise the question of completeness, but will
record the document if the person requesting
recordation asserts that the document is
sufficiently complete as it stands.
(iii) When the document submitted for
recordation merely identifies or incorporates
by reference another document, or certain
terms of another document, the Copyright
Office will raise no question of completeness,
and will not require recordation of the other
document. 37 CFR 201.4(c)(2). In addition to
the stated practices on attachments, there has
been a longstanding practice of allowing
financial information (e.g., a dollar amount)
to be removed or blacked out. However, over
the years larger redactions have been
allowed. The Office generally has required
that all pages be accounted for, meaning that
if the text of an entire page was deleted, a
blank page with the page number should be
submitted at the appropriate place in the
document with an indication that the entire
page was redacted. This general policy,
however, has been inconsistently applied.
The Copyright Office has concluded that
the requirement of completeness as
expressed in the regulation and the informal
practice of permitting substantial redactions
are inconsistent. If the Office is to continue
its present practice of permitting substantial
redactions, such as policy and the scope of
the allowed redaction should be explicitly
stated in the regulations. Moreover,
opportunity for public comment on this
important policy should be provided through
a notice of inquiry. Before the Office issues
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
44051
such a notice of inquiry, further study is
necessary to determine the origins, purpose
and extent of the completeness doctrine as
expressed in the regulation and the redaction
practices. In the interim, the Copyright Office
will permit redactions under following terms
and conditions:
Interim Policy on Redaction of Documents.
Documents containing blank or blocked-out
sections, with the deletions initialed or
labeled ‘‘redacted,’’ will be accepted for
recordation if the document otherwise meets
the recordation requirements and each page
is accounted for, even if entire pages are
redacted. Documents with missing pages will
be returned as incomplete. The policies with
respect to attachments as stated in 37 CFR
201.4(c)(2) will be applied, except that
redactions will also be permitted in an
attachment.
Notwithstanding this interim policy,
persons submitting documents for
recordation are cautioned that they
would be well-advised to be
conservative in the practice of redacting
material from the submitted documents,
limiting their omissions to small
amounts of sensitive information, such
as financial terms. It is possible that
excessive redaction might deprive the
document of the constructive notice
provided under section 205. The Office
notes that under section 205(c),
constructive notice applies only to
‘‘facts stated in the recorded document.’’
A document which has been
substantially redacted would
necessarily limit constructive notice to
that which appears in the document as
recorded and could raise questions as to
whether the Office’s regulations were
complied with—that is, whether the
Office should have recorded the
document with such redactions. The
Office’s interim policy should not be
read as suggesting that it is appropriate
to redact large portions from a
document submitted for recordation,
and it is possible that a court would
refuse to recognize constructive notice
for such a document, or in some way
limit the constructive notice. After the
Office has completed its inquiry into
this issue, taking into account
comments it receives from the public in
the future, it is possible that the Office
may decide to eliminate the possibility
of redaction entirely, or to limit its
application. It is therefore advised that
if redaction is used at all, it be limited
to a small amount of sensitive
information, such as financial terms.
4. Revised Document Cover Sheet
In 1993, the Copyright Office made
available an optional Document Cover
Sheet in order to assist in recording
documents. 58 FR 3297 (1993). It was
anticipated that cataloging would be
simplified because titles and parties
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
44052
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 146 / Monday, August 1, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
would be more readily accessible from
the cover sheet than from the document
itself. It was discovered, however, that
often information was designated in the
cover sheet which did not appear in the
document. As a result, the Copyright
Office had to limit indexing strictly to
information appearing in the document,
and copyright owners may have
misinterpreted the purpose of the cover
sheet as permitting the addition to the
public record of information outside of
the document by listing it in the cover
sheet.
Despite the problems, the document
cover sheet has been useful in a number
of areas, particularly in providing a
simple means to certify that a copy of
a document bearing original signatures
is a true and correct copy of the original
document. For these reasons, the
Copyright Office has issued a revised
Document Cover Sheet retaining
features which will assist in the
processing of recording documents.
While the revised Document Cover
Sheet asks for identification of one party
and one title for the purpose of
connecting the Document Cover Sheet
to the document, indexing will be based
solely on the information appearing in
the document. The Document Cover
Sheet will remain optional, although its
use is encouraged because it will assist
in the recordation of submitted
documents. Persons using the Document
Cover Sheet should ensure that they use
only copies dated 1/2005 or later, as
indicated at the bottom of the page.
Copies may be found on the Copyright
Office Web site at https://
www.copyright.gov/forms/formdoc.pdf.
The Copyright Office continues to
request that two copies of the Document
Cover Sheet be submitted since one
copy is used for imaging purposes, and
the other copy is used to prepare the
envelope for returning the document.
Dated: July 26, 2005.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 05–15137 Filed 7–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:24 Jul 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[RME Docket Number R08–OAR–2004–CO–
0005;FRL–7937–1]
Clean Air Act Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plan Revision for
Colorado; Long-Term Strategy of State
Implementation Plan for Class I
Visibility Protection
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Governor of Colorado
with a letter dated April 12, 2004. This
revision replaces an August 19, 1998
submittal from the Governor and
updates the Long-Term Strategy of the
Visibility SIP to establish strategies,
activities, and plans that constitute
reasonable progress toward the National
visibility goal. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 30, 2005, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse
comment by August 31, 2005. If adverse
comment is received, EPA will publish
a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take
effect.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. R08–OAR–
2004–CO–0005, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Regional Materials in EDOCKET (RME),
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comment system for regional actions, is
EPA’s preferred method for receiving
comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: long.richard@epa.gov and
platt.amy@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing
comments).
• Mail: Richard R. Long, Director, Air
and Radiation Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
Mailcode 8P–AR, 999 18th Street, Suite
300, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.
• Hand Delivery: Richard R. Long,
Director, Air and Radiation Program,
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 999
18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado
80202–2466. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.
to 4:55 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. R08–OAR–2004–CO–
0005. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available at https://docket.epa.gov/
rmepub/index.jsp, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do no submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA’s
Regional Materials in EDOCKET and
Federal regulations.gov Web site are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through
EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk of CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit
EDOCKET online or see the Federal
Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the Regional Materials in
EDOCKET index at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
E:\FR\FM\01AUR1.SGM
01AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 146 (Monday, August 1, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44049-44052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15137]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. 2005-10]
Recordation of Documents
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of policy decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44050]]
SUMMARY: This notice of policy decision clarifies three matters
relating to practices concerning the recordation of documents
pertaining to copyrights. First, it clarifies that a document will be
indexed only under the titles appearing in the executed document.
Second, it announces an interim practice on redaction of documents
submitted for recordation, and states the intention of the Copyright
Office to issue a notice of inquiry on the subject. Third, it provides
notice that the Copyright Office is issuing a revised Document Cover
Sheet.
DATES: Effective August 1, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Dunlap, Principal Legal Advisor
to the General Counsel. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-
8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background Information
Since 1870, the Copyright Office has recorded assignments and other
documents relating to copyright. Although this function has been
performed by the Office for over 100 years, the recordation process and
the Office records concerning recordation are frequently misunderstood.
Generally, the original document to be recorded is submitted to the
Office. Recordation makes the contents of a document part of the public
records of the Copyright Office. The recorded document speaks for
itself. The Office creates a public record of the document; that record
is available (and searchable) in the Office's online catalog. A
document is indexed under the names of the parties and the titles of
works listed in the executed document.
When a document is recorded in the Copyright Office, that document
is given a unique identifying number. The document is imaged and made
available to the public for inspection and copying. The original
document is returned to the sender with a certificate of recordation.
The Office does not make determinations about the validity or effect of
any document. Such determinations are within the purview of the courts.
2. Indexing of Titles
It has been a longstanding written practice of the Copyright Office
to require that the index of recorded documents will only include
titles contained in the recorded document, and that principle is
embodied in section 205 of the copyright law. In administering the 1909
Copyright Act, Compendium of Copyright Office Practices I (1973)
(Compendium I) made it clear that only titles that appeared in the
document would be indexed and therefore appear in the records of the
Office. Section 12.3.5. IV. provided as follows: ``Outside sources: A
document will be indexed solely under the titles or other identifying
matter it contains; no information or other information from sources
outside the document will be supplied.''
This principle was retained in the 1976 Copyright Act, which
provides that recordation of a document provides constructive notice of
the facts stated in the recorded document, but only if ``the document,
or material attached to it, specifically identifies the work to which
it pertains so that, after the document is indexed by the Register of
Copyrights, it would be revealed by a reasonable search under the title
or registration number of the work.'' 17 U.S.C. 205(c) (emphasis
added).
It is clear from the earliest discussions of this provision in the
process of revision of the Copyright Act that the indexing by the
Copyright Office, and the resulting constructive notice, would apply
only to titles identified in the document or its attachments. The
Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the
U.S. Copyright Law, House Comm. on the Judiciary, 87th Cong., 1st Sess.
House Committee Print (1961), contains the following statement
concerning ``blanket transfers'':
(2) Blanket transfers.--In some cases a recorded transfer will
cover ``all the copyrights'' owned by the transferor with no
identification of the individual works. It may be extremely
difficult and time-consuming for a third person to ascertain whether
the copyright in a particular work is covered by such a blanket
transfer. We believe the statute should indicate that constructive
notice is confined to the copyrights in works specifically
identified by the recorded instrument.
Id. at 96. Thus, the Register's discussion clearly anticipated that the
revised statute would not provide for constructive notice for works
that are not specifically identified in the agreement or other document
being recorded.
The provisions of the 1976 Act relating to documents, sections 204
and 205, were generally settled on in 1965. The 1965 Supplementary
Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the
U.S. Copyright Law: 1965 Revision Bill, House Comm. on the Judiciary,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. at 230, House Committee Print (1965), explains
the decision reflected in the statute with respect to requiring the
specific titles to be included in a document for that document to be
given constructive notice:
Subsection (c) of section 205 implements another recommendation
of the Report by providing that recordation of a document
constitutes constructive notice of the facts it states only if ``the
document, or material attached to it, specifically identifies the
work to which it pertains so that, after the document is indexed by
the Register of Copyrights, it would be revealed by a reasonable
search under the title or registration number of the work; * * *.''
Id. at 77.
The phrase ``or material attached to it'' means an appendix or
attachment that was formally part of the executed document. It is a
common practice for copyright transactions to include important terms
or information in schedules, appendices, or other attachments as part
of the document. This interpretation is consistent with the phrase
``gives all persons constructive notice of the facts stated in the
recorded document'' appearing in the first sentence of section 205(c).
It is also consistent with the Office's practice under the 1909
Copyright Act, and the legislative history as reflected in the 1961
Report of the Register of Copyrights, and the 1965 Supplementary Report
of the Register of Copyrights. Moreover, such a practice is consistent
with the requirement in section 205(a) that a recorded document bear
the signature of the person who executed it (or be accompanied by a
sworn certification that it is a true copy of the original, signed
document): the only reasonable reading of that requirement is that it
does not permit recordation to extend constructive notice to
information that was not part of the document at the time it was
executed.
Several years after enactment of the revision of the 1976 copyright
law, the Copyright Office issued Compendium of Copyright Office
Practices II (1984) (Compendium II), which implemented procedures with
respect to the new copyright law. Chapter 1600 concerned recordation of
documents, and subsections 1607.02(c)-1607.04 provided as follows:
1607.02(c)
Blanket transfer. A blanket transfer, in which no individual
titles are given, will be recorded without question. Example:
``Copyrights in all the published works of John Doe are hereby
assigned. * * *''
1607.03
No titles given. When a document in which no titles are
specified is recorded, the catalog entry will contain the notation:
``No Titles Given.''
1607.04
Outside sources. A document will be indexed solely under the
titles or other
[[Page 44051]]
identifying matter it contains; no information from sources outside
the document will be supplied. Thus, for example, the Copyright
Office will not index titles given only in a covering letter.
In order to streamline processing, the office suspended Chapter
1600 of Compendium II regarding recordation of documents in 1992. 57 FR
27074 (1992). In 1998, it issued a new Compendium Chapter 1600. The
treatment of blanket transfers in former subsections 1607.02(c)-1607.4
was simplified in new section 1608.03, which states: ``Outside sources.
A document will be indexed only under the titles or other identifying
matter it contains.'' This language actually returned to the language
in Compendium I regarding practices under the 1909 Copyright Act. This
reintroduction of the old language on ``outside sources'' into the new
Compendium chapter meant no change in policy was intended.
However, the Office has discovered that an informal practice had
evolved in the Documents Section which permitted a party submitting a
document to attach a listing of titles to a document which, as
executed, lacked titles, and to index titles that did not appear in the
document if those titles were listed in a document cover sheet supplied
by the Office. It is not clear when, how or why this practice
commenced. It has been discontinued.
Copyright owners who wish to have titles of works appear in the
index of recorded documents are cautioned to include a list of titles
either in the body of the document or as an attachment made to the
document before execution.
3. Redaction of Documents
On January 4, 1978, the Copyright Office issued interim regulations
implementing recordation procedures. 43 FR 771 (1978). The Office
regulations require that a document submitted for recordation must be
``complete on its face, and include any schedules, appendixes, or other
attachments referred to in the document as being part of it.'' This
provision has been included in the regulations since January 4, 1978.
43 FR 771 (1978).
In commenting on the interim regulation, the Authors League of
America, Inc. requested that the requirement of completeness be
clarified. 43 FR 35044 (1978). As a result, section 201.4(c)(2) was
introduced into the regulation relating to the policies regarding
attachments, and these clarifications remain as part of the regulations
today. The commentary described these additions as ``our actual
practices in the area.'' Id. at 35044. The current regulation reads as
follows:
(2) To be recordable, the document must be complete by its own
terms.
(i) A document that contains a reference to any schedule,
appendix, exhibit, addendum, or other material as being attached to
the document or made a part of it shall be recordable only if the
attachment is also submitted for recordation with the document or if
the reference is deleted by the parties to the document. If a
document has been submitted for recordation and has been returned by
the Copyright Office at the request of the sender for deletion of
the reference to an attachment, the document will be recorded only
if the deletion is signed or initialed by the persons who executed
the document or by their authorized representatives. In exceptional
cases a document containing a reference to an attachment will be
recorded without the attached material and without deletion of the
reference if the person seeking recordation submits a written
request specifically asserting that: (A) The attachment is
completely unavailable for recordation; and (B) the attachment is
not essential to the identification of the subject matter of the
document; and (C) it would be impossible or wholly impracticable to
have the parties to the document sign or initial a deletion of the
reference. In such exceptional cases, the Copyright Office records
of the document will be annotated to show that recordation was made
in response to a specific request under this paragraph.
(ii) If a document otherwise recordable under this title
indicates on its face that it is a self-contained part of a larger
instrument (for example: If it is designated ``Attachment A'' or
``Exhibit B''), the Copyright Office will raise the question of
completeness, but will record the document if the person requesting
recordation asserts that the document is sufficiently complete as it
stands.
(iii) When the document submitted for recordation merely
identifies or incorporates by reference another document, or certain
terms of another document, the Copyright Office will raise no
question of completeness, and will not require recordation of the
other document. 37 CFR 201.4(c)(2). In addition to the stated
practices on attachments, there has been a longstanding practice of
allowing financial information (e.g., a dollar amount) to be removed
or blacked out. However, over the years larger redactions have been
allowed. The Office generally has required that all pages be
accounted for, meaning that if the text of an entire page was
deleted, a blank page with the page number should be submitted at
the appropriate place in the document with an indication that the
entire page was redacted. This general policy, however, has been
inconsistently applied.
The Copyright Office has concluded that the requirement of
completeness as expressed in the regulation and the informal
practice of permitting substantial redactions are inconsistent. If
the Office is to continue its present practice of permitting
substantial redactions, such as policy and the scope of the allowed
redaction should be explicitly stated in the regulations. Moreover,
opportunity for public comment on this important policy should be
provided through a notice of inquiry. Before the Office issues such
a notice of inquiry, further study is necessary to determine the
origins, purpose and extent of the completeness doctrine as
expressed in the regulation and the redaction practices. In the
interim, the Copyright Office will permit redactions under following
terms and conditions:
Interim Policy on Redaction of Documents. Documents containing
blank or blocked-out sections, with the deletions initialed or
labeled ``redacted,'' will be accepted for recordation if the
document otherwise meets the recordation requirements and each page
is accounted for, even if entire pages are redacted. Documents with
missing pages will be returned as incomplete. The policies with
respect to attachments as stated in 37 CFR 201.4(c)(2) will be
applied, except that redactions will also be permitted in an
attachment.
Notwithstanding this interim policy, persons submitting documents
for recordation are cautioned that they would be well-advised to be
conservative in the practice of redacting material from the submitted
documents, limiting their omissions to small amounts of sensitive
information, such as financial terms. It is possible that excessive
redaction might deprive the document of the constructive notice
provided under section 205. The Office notes that under section 205(c),
constructive notice applies only to ``facts stated in the recorded
document.'' A document which has been substantially redacted would
necessarily limit constructive notice to that which appears in the
document as recorded and could raise questions as to whether the
Office's regulations were complied with--that is, whether the Office
should have recorded the document with such redactions. The Office's
interim policy should not be read as suggesting that it is appropriate
to redact large portions from a document submitted for recordation, and
it is possible that a court would refuse to recognize constructive
notice for such a document, or in some way limit the constructive
notice. After the Office has completed its inquiry into this issue,
taking into account comments it receives from the public in the future,
it is possible that the Office may decide to eliminate the possibility
of redaction entirely, or to limit its application. It is therefore
advised that if redaction is used at all, it be limited to a small
amount of sensitive information, such as financial terms.
4. Revised Document Cover Sheet
In 1993, the Copyright Office made available an optional Document
Cover Sheet in order to assist in recording documents. 58 FR 3297
(1993). It was anticipated that cataloging would be simplified because
titles and parties
[[Page 44052]]
would be more readily accessible from the cover sheet than from the
document itself. It was discovered, however, that often information was
designated in the cover sheet which did not appear in the document. As
a result, the Copyright Office had to limit indexing strictly to
information appearing in the document, and copyright owners may have
misinterpreted the purpose of the cover sheet as permitting the
addition to the public record of information outside of the document by
listing it in the cover sheet.
Despite the problems, the document cover sheet has been useful in a
number of areas, particularly in providing a simple means to certify
that a copy of a document bearing original signatures is a true and
correct copy of the original document. For these reasons, the Copyright
Office has issued a revised Document Cover Sheet retaining features
which will assist in the processing of recording documents. While the
revised Document Cover Sheet asks for identification of one party and
one title for the purpose of connecting the Document Cover Sheet to the
document, indexing will be based solely on the information appearing in
the document. The Document Cover Sheet will remain optional, although
its use is encouraged because it will assist in the recordation of
submitted documents. Persons using the Document Cover Sheet should
ensure that they use only copies dated 1/2005 or later, as indicated at
the bottom of the page. Copies may be found on the Copyright Office Web
site at https://www.copyright.gov/forms/formdoc.pdf. The Copyright
Office continues to request that two copies of the Document Cover Sheet
be submitted since one copy is used for imaging purposes, and the other
copy is used to prepare the envelope for returning the document.
Dated: July 26, 2005.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 05-15137 Filed 7-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
