Exemptions To Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works, 29804-29808 [2017-13815]

Agencies

• Library of Congress
• Copyright Office

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29804-29808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13815]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. 2017-10]


Exemptions To Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on 
Copyrighted Works

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for petitions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright Office is initiating the seventh 
triennial rulemaking proceeding under the Digital Millennium Copyright 
Act (``DMCA''), concerning possible temporary exemptions to the DMCA's 
prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that 
control access to copyrighted works. In this proceeding, the Copyright 
Office is establishing a new, streamlined procedure for the renewal of 
exemptions that were granted during the sixth triennial rulemaking. If 
renewed, those current exemptions would remain in force for an 
additional three-year period (October 2018--October 2021). Members of 
the public seeking the renewal of current exemptions should submit 
petitions as described below; parties opposing such renewal will then 
have the opportunity to file comments in response. The Office is also 
accepting petitions for new exemptions to engage in activities not 
currently permitted by existing exemptions, which may include proposals 
that expand upon a current exemption. Those petitions, and any renewal 
petitions that are meaningfully opposed, will be considered pursuant to 
a more comprehensive rulemaking process similar to that used for the 
sixth rulemaking (i.e., three rounds of written comment, followed by 
public hearings).

DATES: Written petitions for renewal of current exemptions must be 
received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on July 31, 2017. 
Written comments in response to any petitions for renewal must be 
received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 13, 2017. 
Written petitions for new exemptions must be received no later than 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Written petitions for renewal of current exemptions must be 
completed using the form provided on the Office's Web site at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/renewal-petition.pdf. Written petitions 
proposing new exemptions must be completed using the form provided on 
the Office's Web site at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/new-petition.pdf. The Copyright Office is using the regulations.gov system 
for the submission and posting of public petitions and comments in this 
proceeding. All petitions and comments are therefore to be submitted 
electronically through regulations.gov. Specific instructions for 
submitting petitions and comments are available on the Copyright Office 
Web site at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018. If electronic 
submission is not feasible, please contact the Office using the contact 
information below for special instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regan A. Smith, Deputy General 
Counsel, by email at resm@loc.gov, Anna Chauvet, Assistant General 
Counsel, by email at achau@loc.gov, or Jason E. Sloan, Attorney-
Advisor, by email at jslo@loc.gov. Each can be contacted by telephone 
by calling (202) 707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Section 1201

    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (``DMCA'') \1\ has played a 
pivotal role in the development of the modern digital economy. Enacted 
by Congress in 1998 to implement the United States' obligations under 
two international treaties,\2\ the DMCA was intended to foster the 
growth and development of a thriving, innovative, and flexible digital 
marketplace by making digital networks safe places to disseminate and 
use copyrighted materials.\3\ It did this by, among other things, 
ensuring adequate legal protections for copyrighted content to 
``support new ways of disseminating copyrighted materials to users, and 
to safeguard the availability of legitimate uses of those materials by 
individuals.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998).
    \2\ WIPO Copyright Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 65 (1997); 
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, 36 I.L.M. 76 
(1997).
    \3\ See Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 
Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 2281 as Passed by the United 
States House of Representatives on August 4th, 1998, at 2, 6 (Comm. 
Print 1998) (``House Manager's Report''); H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 
2, at 21, 23 (1998); H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 1, at 10 (1998); S. 
Rep. No. 105-190, at 1-2, 8-9 (1998).
    \4\ House Manager's Report at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These protections, codified in section 1201 of title 17, United 
States Code, as envisioned by Congress, seek to balance the interests 
of copyright owners and users, including the personal interests of 
consumers, in the digital environment.\5\ Section 1201 does this by 
protecting the use of technological measures (also called technological 
protection measures or TPMs) used by copyright owners to prevent 
unauthorized access to or use of their works.\6\ Section 1201 contains 
three separate protections for TPMs. First, it prohibits circumvention 
of technological measures employed by or on behalf of copyright owners 
to protect access to their works (also known as access controls). 
Access controls include, for example, a password requirement limiting 
access to a Web site to paying customers, or authentication codes in 
video game consoles to prevent the playing of pirated copies. Second, 
the statute prohibits trafficking in devices or services primarily 
designed to circumvent access controls. Finally, it prohibits 
trafficking in devices or services primarily designed to circumvent 
TPMs used to protect the copyright rights of the owner of a work (also 
known as copy controls). Copy controls protect against unauthorized 
uses of a copyrighted work once access has been lawfully obtained. They 
include, for example, technology preventing the copying of an e-book 
after it has been downloaded to a user's device. Because title 17 
already forbids copyright infringement, there is no corresponding ban 
on the act of circumventing a copy control.\7\ These prohibitions 
supplement the preexisting rights of copyright owners under the 
Copyright Act of 1976 by establishing separate and distinct causes of 
action independent of any infringement of copyright.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 2, at 26.
    \6\ 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)-(b).
    \7\ S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 12.
    \8\ U.S. Copyright Office, Section 1201 of Title 17, at i, iii, 
43-45 (June 2017), https://www.copyright.gov/policy/1201/section-1201-full-report.pdf (``Section 1201 Study'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, section 1201 contains a number of discrete, 
statutory exemptions to these prohibitions, to avoid curtailing 
legitimate activities such as security testing, law enforcement 
activities, or the protection of personally identifying information.\9\ 
In addition, to accommodate changing marketplace realities and ensure 
that access to copyrighted works for lawful

[[Page 29805]]

purposes is not unjustifiably diminished,\10\ the statute provides for 
a rulemaking proceeding whereby additional, temporary exemptions to the 
prohibition on circumventing access controls may be adopted by the 
Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of 
Copyrights in consultation with the Assistant Secretary for 
Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce.\11\ In 
contrast to the permanent exemptions set out by statute, exemptions 
adopted pursuant to the rulemaking must be reconsidered every three 
years.\12\ By statute, the triennial rulemaking process only addresses 
section 1201(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition on circumvention; the statute does 
not grant the authority to adopt exemptions to the anti-trafficking 
provisions of sections 1201(a)(2) or 1201(b).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 U.S.C. 1201(d)-(j).
    \10\ H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 2, at 35-36.
    \11\ 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C); see also id. 1201(a)(1)(B)-(D).
    \12\ Id. 1201(a)(1)(C).
    \13\ Id. 1201(a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for a temporary exemption from the prohibition on 
circumvention to be granted through the triennial rulemaking, it must 
be established that ``persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, 
or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected 
by the prohibition . . . in their ability to make noninfringing uses 
under [title 17] of a particular class of copyrighted works.'' \14\ In 
evaluating the evidence, the statutory factors listed in section 
1201(a)(1)(C) are weighed: ``(i) the availability for use of 
copyrighted works; (ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit 
archival, preservation, and educational purposes; (iii) the impact that 
the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied 
to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, 
teaching, scholarship, or research; (iv) the effect of circumvention of 
technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; 
and (v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.'' 
\15\ To assess whether the implementation of access controls impairs 
the ability of individuals to make noninfringing uses of copyrighted 
works, the Office solicits proposals from the public and develops a 
comprehensive administrative record using information submitted by 
interested parties, and the Register makes a recommendation to the 
Librarian concerning whether exemptions are warranted based on that 
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. 1201(a)(1)(C).
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Overview of the Rulemaking Process

    The rulemaking process for the seventh triennial proceeding will be 
generally similar to the process introduced in the sixth proceeding. 
The primary change from the last rulemaking is the addition of a new 
streamlined procedure through which members of the public may petition 
for current temporary exemptions that were granted during the sixth 
triennial rulemaking to remain in force for an additional three-year 
period (October 2018-October 2021).
    With this notice of inquiry, the Copyright Office is initiating the 
petition phase of the rulemaking, calling for the public to submit 
petitions both to renew current exemptions, as well as any comments in 
support of or opposition to such petitions, and to propose new 
exemptions. This two-track petition process is described below. After 
the close of the petition phase, the Office will publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``NPRM'') to initiate the next phase of the 
rulemaking process, as described below.
    Video tutorials explaining section 1201 in general and the 
rulemaking process can be found on the Office's 1201 rulemaking Web 
page at https://www.copyright.gov/1201.

III. Process for Seeking Renewal of Current Exemptions

A. Background

    The Copyright Office recently published a comprehensive study of 
section 1201, including the process for adopting temporary exemptions. 
As part of the study, the Office solicited comments from the public and 
held roundtable discussions on whether the Office should adjust the 
rulemaking procedure to streamline the process for recommending 
readoption of previously adopted exemptions to the Librarian.\16\ 
Previously, the Office had ``require[d] that a factual record to 
support an exemption be developed de novo each rulemaking,'' meaning 
rulemaking participants could not merely rely on previously submitted 
evidence from prior proceedings, but had to provide new evidence every 
three years.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 80 FR 81369, 81373 (Dec. 29, 2015); 81 FR 17206, 17206 
(Mar. 28, 2016).
    \17\ Section 1201 Study at 130; see id. at 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the course of the study, a broad consensus of stakeholders 
requested that the Copyright Office change this approach and take steps 
within its regulatory authority to streamline the process for 
recommending the renewal of previously adopted exemptions to the 
Librarian.\18\ In the study, the Office concluded as a threshold matter 
that ``the statute itself requires that exemptions cannot be renewed 
automatically, presumptively, or otherwise, without a fresh 
determination concerning the next three-year period. . . . [A] 
determination must be made specifically for each triennial period.'' 
\19\ The Office further determined, however, that ``the statutory 
language appears to be broad enough to permit determinations to be 
based upon evidence drawn from prior proceedings, but only upon a 
conclusion that this evidence remains reliable to support granting an 
exemption in the current proceeding.'' \20\ The Office elaborated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id. at 127-28.
    \19\ Id. at 142.
    \20\ Id. at 143.

    Adopting an approach of de novo assessment of evidence--compared 
to de novo submission--would allow future rulemakings to consider 
the appropriate weight to afford to previously submitted evidence 
when evaluating renewal requests. The relatively quick three-year 
turnover of the exemptions was put in place by Congress to allow the 
rulemaking to be fully considered and fairly decided on the basis of 
real marketplace developments, and any streamlined process for 
recommending renewed exemptions must retain flexibility to 
accommodate changes in the marketplace that affect the required 
rulemaking analysis. But at the same time, where there is little 
evidence of marketplace or technological changes, the Office 
believes it is statutorily permissible to establish a framework that 
expedites the recommendation to renew perennially sought 
exemptions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

    While the study concluded that the Office has some regulatory 
flexibility as to how it could implement a streamlined process for 
evaluating exemption renewals, it announced that the Office intended to 
implement such a process for this seventh triennial rulemaking 
proceeding. As promised in the study, below the Office provides further 
details regarding the streamlined process.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Petitioning To Renew a Current Exemption

    Those seeking readoption of a current exemption, granted during the 
sixth rulemaking, may petition for renewal by submitting the Copyright 
Office's required fillable form, available on the Office's Web site at 
https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/renewal-petition.pdf. This form is 
for renewal petitions only. The Office has a separate

[[Page 29806]]

form, discussed below, for petitions for new exemptions.
    Scope of Renewal. Renewal may only be sought for current exemptions 
as they are currently formulated, without modification. This means that 
if a proponent seeks to engage in any activities not currently 
permitted by an existing exemption, a petition for a new exemption must 
be submitted. Where a petitioner seeks to engage in activities that 
expand upon a current exemption, the Office recommends that the 
petitioner submit both a petition to renew the current exemption, and, 
separately, a petition for a new exemption. In such cases, the petition 
for a new exemption need only discuss those issues relevant to the 
proposed expansion of the current exemption. If the Office recommends 
readoption of the current exemption, then only those discrete aspects 
relevant to the expansion will be subject to the more comprehensive 
rulemaking procedure described below.
    Automatic Reconsideration. If the Office declines to recommend 
renewal of a current exemption (as discussed below), the petition to 
renew will automatically be treated as a petition for a new exemption, 
and will be considered pursuant to the more comprehensive rulemaking 
proceeding. If a proponent has petitioned both for renewal and an 
expansion, and the Office declines to recommend renewal, the entire 
exemption (i.e., the current exemption along with the proposed 
expansion) will automatically be considered under the more 
comprehensive public proceeding.
    Petition Form and Contents. The petition to renew is a short form 
designed to let proponents identify themselves and the relevant 
exemption, and to make certain sworn statements to the Copyright Office 
concerning the existence of a continuing need and justification for the 
exemption. Use of the Office's prepared form is mandatory, and 
petitioners must follow the instructions contained in this notice and 
on the petition form. A separate petition form must be submitted for 
each current exemption for which renewal is sought. This is required 
for reasons of administrability and so that the basis for renewal set 
forth in each petition is clear as to which exemption it applies. While 
a single petition may not encompass more than one current exemption, 
the same party may submit multiple petitions.
    The petition form has four components:
    1. Petitioner identity and contact information. The form asks for 
each petitioner (i.e., the individual or entity seeking renewal) to 
provide its name and the name of its representative, if any, along with 
contact information. Any member of the public capable of making the 
sworn declaration discussed below may submit a petition for renewal, 
regardless of prior involvement with past rulemakings. Petitioners and/
or their representatives should be reachable through the provided 
contact information for the duration of the rulemaking proceeding. 
Multiple petitioning parties may jointly file a single petition.
    2. Identification of the current exemption that is the subject of 
the petition. The form lists all current exemptions granted during the 
last rulemaking (codified at 37 CFR 201.40), with a check box next to 
each. The exemption for which renewal is sought is to be identified by 
marking the appropriate checkbox.
    3. Explanation of need for renewal. The petitioner must provide a 
brief explanation summarizing the basis for claiming a continuing need 
and justification for the exemption. The required showing is meant to 
be minimal. The Office anticipates that petitioners will provide a 
paragraph or two detailing this information, but there is no page 
limit. While it is permissible to attach supporting documentary 
evidence as exhibits to the petition, it is not necessary. The Office's 
petition form includes an example of what it regards as a sufficient 
explanation.
    4. Declaration and signature. One of the petitioners named in the 
petition must sign a declaration attesting to the continued need for 
the exemption and the truth of the explanation provided in support. 
Where the petitioner is an entity, the declaration must be signed by an 
individual at the organization having appropriate personal knowledge to 
make the declaration. The declaration may be signed electronically.
    For the attestation to be trustworthy and reliable, it is important 
that the petitioner make it based on his or her own personal knowledge 
and experience. This requirement should not be burdensome, as a broad 
range of individuals have a sufficient level of knowledge and 
experience. For example, a blind individual having difficulty finding 
and purchasing e-books with appropriate assistive technologies would 
have such personal knowledge and experience to make the declaration 
with regard to the assistive technology exemption; so would a relevant 
employee or volunteer at an organization like the American Foundation 
for the Blind, which advocates for the blind, visually impaired, and 
print disabled, is familiar with the needs of the community, and is 
well-versed specifically in the e-book accessibility issue. It would be 
improper, however, for a general member of the public to petition for 
renewal if he or she knows nothing more about matters concerning e-book 
accessibility other than what he or she might have read in a brief 
newspaper article, or simply opposes the use of digital rights 
management tools as a matter of general principle.
    The declaration also requires affirmation that, to the best of the 
petitioner's knowledge, there has not been any material change in the 
facts, law, or other circumstances set forth in the prior rulemaking 
record (available at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015) that 
originally demonstrated the need for the selected exemption, such that 
renewal of the exemption would not be justified. By ``material 
change,'' the Office means such significant change in the underlying 
conditions that originally justified the exemption when it was first 
granted, such that the appropriateness of continuing the exemption for 
another three years based on that original justification is called into 
question. This attestation tells the Office that the prior rulemaking 
record from when the current exemption was originally granted is still 
ripe and applicable in considering whether or not the same exemption is 
appropriate for the subsequent triennial period. Only after finding the 
old record to still be germane can the Office rely upon it in deciding, 
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C), whether to recommend renewal.

C. Comments in Response to a Petition To Renew an Exemption

    Any interested party may respond to a petition to renew a current 
exemption by submitting comments. While the primary purpose of these 
comments is to allow for opposition to renewing the exemption, comments 
in support of renewal are also permitted. Although no form is being 
provided for such comments, the first page of any responsive comments 
must clearly identify which exemption's readoption is being supported 
or opposed. While participants may comment on more than one exemption, 
a single submission may not address more than one exemption. For 
example, a party that wishes to oppose the renewal of both the wireless 
device unlocking exemption and the jailbreaking exemption must file 
separate comments for each.\23\ The

[[Page 29807]]

Office acknowledges that this format may require some parties to repeat 
certain general information (e.g., about their organization) across 
multiple submissions, but the Office believes that the administrative 
benefits of creating self-contained, separate records for each 
exemption will be worth the modest amount of added effort involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Commenters may, however, respond to multiple petitions to 
renew the same exemption in a single submission. For instance, if 
the Office receives six petitions in favor of readopting the current 
wireless device unlocking exemption, a commenter can file a single 
comment that addresses points made in the six petitions. That 
comment, however, may not address petitions to readopt the 
jailbreaking exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Opposition to a renewal petition must be meaningful, such that, 
from the evidence provided, it would be reasonable for the Register to 
conclude that the prior rulemaking record and any further information 
provided in the renewal petition are insufficient to support 
recommending renewal of an exemption. For example, a change in case law 
might affect whether a particular use is noninfringing, new 
technological developments might affect the availability for use of 
copyrighted works, or new business models might affect the market for 
or value of copyrighted works. Such evidence could cause the Office to 
conclude that the prior evidentiary record is too stale to rely upon 
for an assessment affecting the subsequent three-year period. The 
Office may also consider whether opposition is meaningful only as to 
part of a current exemption.
    Unsupported conclusory opinion and speculation will not be enough 
for the Register to refuse to recommend renewing an exemption she would 
have otherwise recommended in the absence of any opposition, or subject 
consideration of this exemption to the more comprehensive rulemaking 
procedure.

IV. Process for Seeking New Exemptions

    Those seeking to engage in activities not currently permitted by an 
existing exemption, including activities that expand upon a current 
exemption, may propose a new exemption by filing a petition using the 
Copyright Office's required fillable form, available on the Office's 
Web site at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/new-petition.pdf. Use 
of the Office's prepared form is mandatory, and petitioners must follow 
the instructions contained in this notice and on the petition form. As 
in the sixth rulemaking, a separate petition must be filed for each 
proposed exemption. The Office anticipates that it will, once again, 
receive a significant number of submissions, and requiring separate 
submissions for each proposed exemption will help both participants and 
the Office keep better track of the record for each proposed exemption. 
Although a single petition may not encompass more than one proposed 
exemption, the same party may submit multiple petitions.
    The petition form has two components:
    1. Petitioner identity and contact information. The form asks for 
each petitioner (i.e., the individual or entity proposing the 
exemption) to provide its name and the name of its representative, if 
any, along with contact information. Petitioners and/or their 
representatives should be reachable through the provided contact 
information for the duration of the rulemaking proceeding. Multiple 
petitioning parties may jointly file a single petition.
    2. Description of the proposed exemption. At this stage, the Office 
is only asking petitioners to briefly explain the nature of the 
proposed new or expanded exemption. The information that would be most 
helpful to the Office includes the following, to the extent relevant: 
(1) The types of copyrighted works that need to be accessed; (2) the 
physical media or devices on which the works are stored or the services 
through which the works are accessed; (3) the purposes for which the 
works need to be accessed; (4) the types of users who want access; and 
(5) the barriers that currently exist or which are likely to exist in 
the near future preventing these users from obtaining access to the 
relevant copyrighted works.
    To be clear, petitioners need not propose precise regulatory 
language or fully define the contours of an exemption class in the 
petition. A short, plain statement describing the nature of the 
activities the petitioners wish to engage in will be sufficient. 
Although there is no page limit, the Office anticipates that 
petitioners will be able to adequately describe in plain terms the 
relevant information in a few sentences. The Office's petition form 
includes examples of what it regards as a sufficient description of a 
requested exemption.
    Nor does the Office intend for petitioners to deliver the complete 
legal and evidentiary basis for their proposals in the petition, and 
specifically requests that petitioners not do so. Rather, the sole 
purpose of the petition is to provide the Office with basic information 
about the uses of copyrighted works that are adversely affected by the 
prohibition on circumvention. The Office will then use that information 
to itself formulate categories of potential exemptions, and group 
similar proposals into those categories, for purposes of the next, more 
substantive, phase of the rulemaking beginning with the publication of 
the NPRM.
    Indeed, as during the last rulemaking, even the NPRM will not ``put 
forward precise regulatory language for the proposed classes, because 
any specific language for exemptions that the Register ultimately 
recommends to the Librarian will necessarily depend on the full record 
developed during this rulemaking.'' \24\ Rather, the proposed 
categories of exemptions described in the NPRM will ``represent only a 
starting point for further consideration in the rulemaking proceeding, 
and will be subject to further refinement based on the record.'' \25\ 
Thus, proponents will have the opportunity to further refine or expound 
upon their initial petitions during later phases of the rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 79 FR 73856, 73859 (Dec. 12, 2014).
    \25\ Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Following receipt of all petitions, as well as comments on 
petitions for renewal, the Office will evaluate the material received 
and will issue an NPRM addressing all of the potential exemptions to be 
considered in the seventh rulemaking.
    The NPRM will set forth which exemptions the Register will 
recommend for readoption, along with proposed regulatory language. The 
NPRM will also identify any exemptions the Register has declined to 
recommend for renewal under the streamlined process, after considering 
any opposition received. Those exemptions will instead be subject to 
the more comprehensive rulemaking procedure in order to build out the 
administrative record. The Register will not at the NPRM stage make a 
final determination to reject recommendation of any exemption that 
meets the threshold requirements of section 1201(a).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 79 FR 55687, 55692 (Sept. 17, 2014) (explaining that 
part of the purpose of providing the information in the petition 
phase is so the Office can ``confirm that the threshold requirements 
of section 1201(a) can be met''); see also 79 FR at 73859 (noting 
that three petitions sought an exemption which could not be granted 
as a matter of law and declining to put them forward for comment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For current exemptions for which renewal was sought but which were 
not recommended for readoption through the streamlined process and all 
new exemptions, including proposals to expand current exemptions, the 
NPRM will group them appropriately, describe them, and initiate at 
least three rounds of public comment. As with the sixth rulemaking, the 
Office plans to

[[Page 29808]]

consolidate or group related and/or overlapping proposed exemptions 
where possible to simplify the rulemaking process and encourage joint 
participation among parties with common interests (though such 
collaboration is not required). As in previous rulemakings, the 
exemptions as described in the NPRM will represent only a starting 
point for further consideration in the rulemaking proceeding, and will 
be subject to further refinement based on the record. The NPRM will 
provide guidance regarding specific areas of legal and factual interest 
for the Office with respect to each proposed exemption, and suggest 
particular types of evidence that participants may wish to submit for 
the record. It will also contain additional instructions and 
requirements for submitting comments and will detail the later phases 
of the rulemaking proceeding--i.e., public hearings, post-hearing 
questions, recommendation, and final rule--which will be similar to 
those of the sixth rulemaking.
    As noted in the Office's study, however, the Office intends to 
issue the NPRM at an earlier point than during the sixth rulemaking 
proceeding, to give all parties sufficient time to participate in the 
process. Publishing the NPRM earlier should better accommodate the 
academic calendar and allow for greater law student participation 
during the more substantive comment and public hearing phases of the 
proceeding--something many commenters suggested during the study.\27\ 
In addition, the Office will look for opportunities to preview 
regulatory language or ask additional post-hearing questions, where 
necessary to ensure sufficient stakeholder participation.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Section 1201 Study Initial Reply Comments of 
International Documentary Association et al. at 3-4 (Apr. 1, 2016); 
Section 1201 Study Hearing Tr. at 132:10-133:17 (May 25, 2016) 
(McClure, American Foundation for the Blind); Section 1201 Study 
Hearing Tr. at 133:16-135:02 (May 19, 2016) (Decherney, University 
of Pennsylvania); Section 1201 Study Hearing Tr. at 108:13-109:05 
(May 25, 2016) (Metalitz, Association of American Publishers, Motion 
Picture Association of America, Inc., & Recording Industry 
Association of America); Section 1201 Study Additional Comments of 
American Association of Law Libraries at 3 (Oct. 27, 2016). Given 
the statutory deadline, it was necessary to also move up the 
petition phase to align the written comment and hearing phases with 
the academic calendar. The Office determined this to be the most 
optimal choice, particularly given that the petitions are meant to 
be simple and short filings, as discussed above. Nevertheless, after 
discussing the schedule with a number of academic clinics, we 
selected a longer period for the filing of initial petitions to 
better accommodate academic schedules.
    \28\ Section 1201 Study at 150-51.

    Dated: June 27, 2017.
Sarang V. Damle,
General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2017-13815 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1410-30-P