Simplifying Deposit Requirements for Certain Literary Works and Musical Compositions, 38859-38864 [2017-17194]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August
8, 2017.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern
Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2017–17257 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. 2017–9]
Simplifying Deposit Requirements for
Certain Literary Works and Musical
Compositions
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The United States Copyright
Office is proposing to amend the
regulations governing the deposit
requirements for certain types of literary
works and musical compositions.
Specifically, the proposed rule will
apply to certain types of ‘‘literary
monographs,’’ which are defined, in
part, as literary works published in one
volume or a finite number of separate
volumes. The proposed rule also applies
to musical compositions that are
published in the United States in print
formats—that is, compositions
published as ‘‘copies’’ rather than solely
as phonorecords, as referenced in the
Copyright Act. Under the current
regulations, two copies of the best
edition are generally needed to register
these types of works and to comply with
the mandatory deposit requirement.
Under the proposed rule, copyright
owners will be able to satisfy both
requirements for literary monographs by
submitting one copy of the best edition
of the work, although the Office will
retain the right to demand a second
copy under the mandatory deposit
provision should the Library need it.
Copyright owners will also be able to
satisfy both requirements for certain
musical compositions by submitting one
copy of the best edition. As part of these
changes, the proposed rule also clarifies
the deposit requirements for musical
compositions published both in print
and phonorecord formats. For musical
works (i.e., musical compositions)
published in both formats, the Office
will require the submission of the print
version for purposes of copyright
registration. If the musical composition
is published only as a phonorecord, the
applicant should submit the
phonorecord. All of these changes will
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:40 Aug 15, 2017
Jkt 241001
improve the efficiency of registration
and mandatory deposit for both the
Office and copyright owners alike,
ensuring that the Office has an adequate
registration record and continuing to
make these works available to the
Library of Congress when needed for
use in its collections or other
disposition. The Office invites public
comment on this proposal.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule
must be made in writing and must be
received by the Copyright Office no later
than October 2, 2017.
ADDRESSES: For reasons of government
efficiency, the Copyright Office is using
the regulations.gov system for the
submission and posting of public
comments in this proceeding. All
comments are therefore to be submitted
electronically through regulations.gov.
Specific instructions for submitting
comments are available on the
Copyright Office Web site at https://
copyright.gov/rulemaking/singlecopy/.
If electronic submission of comments is
not feasible due to lack of access to a
computer and/or the Internet, please
contact the Office using the contact
information below for special
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of
Copyrights and Director of Registration
Policy and Practice, by email at rkas@
loc.gov; Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of
Registration Policy and Practice, by
email at ebertin@loc.gov; or Cindy
Abramson, Assistant General Counsel,
by email at ciab@loc.gov. All can be
reached by telephone by calling 202–
707–8040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 407 of the Copyright
Act, when a work is published in the
United States, the copyright owner or
the owner of the exclusive right of
publication is generally required to
deposit two complete copies of the best
edition of that work with the U.S.
Copyright Office within three months
after publication. 17 U.S.C. 407. ‘‘The
‘best edition’ of a work’’ is defined as
‘‘the edition, published in the United
States at any time before the date of
deposit, that the Library of Congress
determines to be most suitable for its
purposes.’’ 17 U.S.C. 101. The Act
provides that copies deposited with the
Office under section 407 are ‘‘for the use
or disposition of the Library of
Congress.’’ 17 U.S.C. 407(b). This is
known as the ‘‘mandatory deposit’’
requirement.
Separately, the Copyright Act’s
provision governing copyright
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38859
registration, section 408, specifies that,
in the case of published works, an
application for registration must be
accompanied by ‘‘two complete copies
or phonorecords of the best edition.’’ 17
U.S.C. 408(b)(2). To avoid duplication of
deposits, section 408 specifies that
copies or phonorecords deposited under
section 407 ‘‘may be used to satisfy the
deposit provisions’’ of section 408 if
they ‘‘are accompanied by the
prescribed application and fee.’’ 17
U.S.C. 408(b).
Because the same copies can
potentially be used for both registration
and mandatory deposit, the deposit
requirements set forth in sections 407
and 408 are generally the same.
Compare 17 U.S.C. 407(a)(1)–(2)
(requiring two complete copies of the
best edition of the work for purposes of
mandatory deposit) with 17 U.S.C.
408(b)(2) (requiring two complete copies
of the best edition for the purpose of
registering a published work).
Sections 407 and 408 both give the
Register of Copyrights (the ‘‘Register’’)
broad authority to issue regulations
concerning the specific nature of the
copies that must be deposited, including
the ability to exempt works from these
statutory requirements. As relevant
here, section 408 gives the Register
authority to ‘‘require or permit, for
particular classes [of works], . . . the
deposit of only one copy . . . where two
would normally be required’’ for
copyright registration. 17 U.S.C.
408(c)(1). Similarly, section 407 gives
the Register authority to issue
regulations that ‘‘require [the] deposit of
only one copy’’ for the purpose of
mandatory deposit. 17 U.S.C. 407(c).
The legislative history confirms that
Congress intended the Register to
exercise this authority when needed to
improve efficiencies within the
Copyright Office. In explaining the
Register’s authority under section 407,
Congress expressed the desire ‘‘to make
the deposit requirements as flexible as
possible, so that there will be no
obligation to make deposits where it
serves no purpose, so that only one copy
or phonorecord may be deposited where
two are not needed, and so that
reasonable adjustments can be made to
meet practical needs in special cases.’’
H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 151 (1976).
Similarly, the legislative history for
section 408 explains that the ‘‘[d]eposit
of one copy . . . rather than two would
probably be justifiable . . . in any case
where the Library of Congress has no
need for the deposit’’ or where the
copies ‘‘are bulky, unwieldy . . . or
otherwise impractical to file and retain
as records identifying the work
registered.’’ Id. at 154.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
38860
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules
The Office has exercised this
authority on many occasions. It created
exceptions allowing applicants to
deposit one copy for purposes of
mandatory deposit for some works. See
37 CFR 202.19(d)(2)(i)–(ii), (v)–(vi)
(covering three-dimensional
cartographic representations of area,
such as globes; published motion
pictures; musical compositions where
the only publication took place by
rental, lease, or lending; and published
multi-media kits). The Office also
created corresponding exceptions to the
deposit requirements for registration.
See 37 CFR 202.20(c)(2)(i)(A)–(K). The
proposed rule will expand the exception
that currently applies to registration
deposits of musical compositions, and
create a new exception for ‘‘literary
monographs.’’ In both cases, one copy of
the best edition of the work will satisfy
the deposit requirement for registration
and mandatory deposit. As noted below,
however, the rule excludes legal
publications and also allows a second
copy to be demanded by the Copyright
Office on behalf of the Library under
mandatory deposit provisions.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Literary Monographs
For purposes of registration and
mandatory deposit, a ‘‘literary
monograph’’ will be defined, in part, as
‘‘a literary work published in one
volume or a finite number of volumes.’’
Examples of works that fit within this
category include fiction, nonfiction,
poetry, short stories, memoirs,
manuscripts, textbooks, and other types
of nondramatic literary works.
The rule draws a distinction between
‘‘monographs’’ and ‘‘serials,’’ which are
defined elsewhere in the regulations as
‘‘work[s] issued or intended to be issued
in successive parts bearing numerical or
chronological designations and
intended to be continued indefinitely.’’
37 CFR 202.3(b)(1)(v). Examples of
works that may qualify as a serial
include periodicals, newspapers,
newsletters, and annuals. These types of
works are typically published in
successive issues and they are usually
distributed on an established schedule.
Each issue is published under the same
continuing title, and they generally bear
numerical or chronological designations
that distinguish one issue from the next.
By contrast, most monographs are
published as a single volume, rather
than a series of successive issues. Some
monographs are published in separate
volumes with each volume bearing the
same title and successive numerical
designations (as in the case of a multivolume encyclopedia). But typically the
entire work is published in a limited
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:40 Aug 15, 2017
Jkt 241001
number of volumes that, taken together,
constitute the work as a whole.
The proposed rule will allow
copyright owners to register a published
monograph and satisfy the mandatory
deposit requirement by submitting one
complete copy of the best edition of that
work. There are several reasons for
creating this exception.
The Library of Congress’s need for
copies of works submitted through
copyright registration has diminished
over time. In many cases, the Library
receives additional copies of published
monographs through programs such as
the Cataloging In Publication (‘‘CIP’’)
program—a program that is entirely
separate from the mandatory deposit
and copyright registration deposit
provisions of the Copyright Act. The CIP
program creates a uniform cataloging
record for the benefit of the nation’s
libraries. Publishers that participate in
the program submit an application to
the Library before they publish their
works. The Library then creates an
appropriate bibliographic record and
sends that information to the publisher.
The publisher prints this information on
the copyright page when the work is
published, and distributes this same
information in electronic form to
libraries, vendors, and other interested
parties. In exchange, the publisher then
sends a complimentary copy of the
published work to the CIP program. A
member of the Library’s staff confirms
that the CIP record matches the
published work, and if necessary, the
electronic cataloging record is updated
to reflect the actual content of the
published work. All copies submitted
through the CIP program are made
available to the Library for use in its
collections. Because ‘‘CIP copies’’ are
submitted soon after a work is
published, they often enter the Library’s
collections before the Copyright Office
has examined any additional copies that
have been submitted for purposes of
registration or mandatory deposit.1
In addition, the Library recently
revised its acquisition policies and
practices for published monographs.
Previously, when the Library selected a
work for its collections from the copies
received through copyright registration
or mandatory deposit, it would often
take both copies and permanently retain
them in the Library’s collections. In
2013, Library Services 2 estimated that
1 See generally Library of Congress, Cataloging in
Publication Program, https://www.loc.gov/publish/
cip/ (last visited Jun. 12, 2017).
2 Library Services is one of the main components
of the Library of Congress, and is the entity that is
principally responsible for developing and
maintaining the Library of Congress’s collections.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Library had at least 1,950,000
‘‘second copies’’ in its permanent
collections, and predicted that the
Library could achieve substantial
savings in its long-term storage and
preservation costs by reducing the
number of additional service copies in
its collections.
Accordingly, under the revised
policy, when the Library selects a work,
it still takes both copies that were
deposited with the Copyright Office, but
(with some exceptions) 3 it only keeps
one for itself, and delivers the other one
to the Library’s Surplus Books
program,4 Duplicate Materials Exchange
Program,5 or other similar programs for
donation or exchange to eligible
organizations and institutions. And if it
turns out that the Library previously
received a copy through the CIP
Program, both copies received from the
Office are sent to Surplus Books or
another program.6 Finally, if the Library
does not select a work for the Library’s
collections, the Copyright Office sends
one copy to Surplus Books, and sends
the second copy to the Office’s storage
facility.7 Thus, as things stand now, at
least one copy of every published
monograph sent to the Copyright Office
is treated as surplus.
The deposit of unneeded material
imposes significant burdens both on
copyright owners and the Copyright
Office. Copyright owners have to bear
costs involved in producing extra copies
of each work, and shipping both copies
to the Office. Cumulatively, these costs
See Library of Congress, About the Library, https://
www.loc.gov/about/.
3 The Library’s single-copy retention policy does
not apply to legal publications, reference works, or
publications about certain topics: United States
history (including genealogy and heraldry),
commerce and finance, political institutions and
public administration, and libraries and
information science.
4 Surplus books that are not needed for the
Library’s own collections are made available to
educational institutions, governmental agencies,
and non-profit organizations or institutions located
within the United States. See generally Library of
Congress, Library of Congress Surplus Books
Program, https://www.loc.gov/acq/surplus.html
(last visited July 31, 2017).
5 The Library of Congress exchanges library
materials with approximately 4,000 partners around
the world through its Duplicate Materials Exchange
Program. See generally Library of Congress,
Exchange of Library Materials,https://www.loc.gov/
acq/exchange.html (last visited July 31, 2017).
6 In addition, this policy has been applied
retroactively to monographs held within the general
collections. In cases where the Library received two
copies from the Office and a third copy from the
CIP program or another source, Library Services
will remove the second and third copies from the
shelves and offer them to another institution
through the Surplus Books program or another
program.
7 Published works stored in this facility are kept
for up to 20 years unless the applicant requests fullterm retention under § 202.23 of the regulations.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules
may discourage copyright owners from
routinely registering their works.
From the Office’s perspective, literary
monographs are significantly larger than
the physical copies received by the
other divisions within the Registration
Program. They are heavy, unwieldy, and
often include multi-volume sets of
books. To distribute these materials to
the staff, the copies must be strapped
together, which doubles the size and
weight of each submission. Sometimes
the Literary Division does not have
enough space to store the copies that it
has on hand. The bulky nature of these
physical copies also slows down the
examination of each work. On average,
the copies must be moved at least eight
times or more during the examination
process, which increases the risk that
they may be damaged, misplaced,
mismatched, or lost. Requiring two
copies limits the amount of work that
the examiner may keep at his or her
desk at any given time. It also increases
the amount of time that the examiners
need to examine the claim, prepare the
copies for dispatch, and retrieve his or
her next assignment.
Reducing the number of unneeded
copies required will reduce this volume
and significantly increase the amount of
space available for storing incoming
physical copies. This should increase
productivity within the Literary
Division and reduce the likelihood that
copies may be lost or misplaced. For
copyright owners, the proposed rule
will reduce the cost of seeking a
registration and complying with
mandatory deposit by lowering the
incremental cost of producing and
delivering physical copies to the Office.
Although, generally speaking, the
provision of a single copy of a literary
monograph will be sufficient to meet the
Library’s collection needs, in certain
cases, the Library may need an
additional copy—for example, if the
original is in high demand by Congress,
the Congressional Research Service, the
Supreme Court, or researchers from the
general public. The rule expressly
carves out one category of works that are
consistently in high demand—legal
publications, which are defined in the
rule as works ‘‘published in one volume
or a finite number of volumes that
contain legislative enactments, judicial
decisions, or other edicts of
government.’’ These types of works are
collected either by the Library of
Congress’s Serials and Government
Publications division (which is part of
Library Services) or the Law Library.8 At
8 The Law Library is a component of the Library
of Congress that is separate from Library Services,
and it is a primary source of legal materials for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:40 Aug 15, 2017
Jkt 241001
the present time, these divisions still
have an active need for the two copies
received through copyright registration
for their respective collections.
With respect to other categories of
works, if the Library determines that it
does need a second copy, the proposed
rule entitles it to demand the additional
copy under the mandatory deposit
provision.9 The copyright owner,
however, will not be required to
proactively deposit a second copy in
order to be in compliance with either
the mandatory deposit or registration
deposit rules. And, a single copy will be
deemed to satisfy mandatory deposit
unless the Office issues a demand for an
additional copy.
To be clear, the Library anticipates
that it will often have a need for second
copies for certain reference works, such
as dictionaries, encyclopedias,
gazetteers, bibliographies, and almanacs
as well as publications about the
following topics: United States history
(including genealogy and heraldry),10
commerce and finance,11 political
institutions and public
administration,12 and libraries and
information science.13 Thus, although
the proposed rule does not specifically
require the proactive deposit of two
copies of such works for registration or
mandatory deposit purposes,
principally because of the difficulty of
crafting a rule ex ante defining these
additional categories of works, it is
U.S. Supreme Court. See Library of Congress, About
the Library, https://www.loc.gov/about/; Library of
Congress, Law Librarian’s Welcome, https://
www.loc.gov/law/about/welcome.php.
9 Although the Library’s single-copy retention
policy does not apply to certain other categories of
works, see n.3 supra, in many of those cases the
Library already receives a second copy through the
CIP program or other sources. In cases where the
Library does need an additional copy, either
because it was not received via the CIP program or
otherwise, the Office will issue a demand to the
publisher pursuant to the mandatory deposit
provision.
10 This includes, but is not limited to, works
where the Library of Congress CIP data, as printed
on the verso of the book’s title page, indicates a
Library of Congress Subject Heading of heraldry,
genealogy, United States local history, United States
history or has a Library of Congress Classification
of CR, CS, F below 1000, or E.
11 This includes, but is not limited to, works
where the Library of Congress CIP data indicates a
Library of Congress Subject Heading of Commerce,
Finance, or Public Finance or has a Library of
Congress Classification of HF, HG, or HJ.
12 This includes, but is not limited to, works
where the Library of Congress CIP data indicates a
Library of Congress Subject Heading of Political
Institutions and Public Administration (North
America) or Political Institutions and Public
Administration (United States) or has a Library of
Congress Classification of JJ or JK.
13 This includes works where the Library of
Congress CIP data indicates a Library of Congress
Subject Heading of Libraries, Books, Information
Resources or Bibliography or has a Library of
Congress Classification of Z.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38861
anticipated that many works falling
within these categories will be subject to
a later demand as part of the mandatory
deposit process. Accordingly,
publishers may nevertheless decide to
submit two copies of works that might
fall within these categories as part of the
registration process if they wish to avoid
the burden of subsequent production.
Moreover, the proposed rule creates a
new exception only for ‘‘literary’’
monographs, meaning nondramatic
literary works that predominantly
contain textual material. 37 CFR
202.3(b)(1)(i). Monographs that
predominantly contain photographs,
artwork, or other pictorial or graphic
content would not be eligible for this
exception. To register these types of
works and to satisfy the mandatory
deposit requirement, applicants would
be required to submit two complete
copies of the best edition, even if the
applicant is seeking to register both the
visual and textual aspects of the work.
The Office is limiting this exception to
literary monographs at this time,
because they routinely account for the
largest number of physical deposits
received in the Literary Division. By
contrast, pictorial or graphic
monographs represent a relatively small
portion of the claims received in the
Visual Arts Division, and thus, have less
impact on the division’s workflow.
Musical Compositions Published in
Print Formats
The proposed rule also simplifies and
rationalizes the deposit requirements for
musical compositions published in
print formats (i.e., as sheet music,
musical scores or the like). Put another
way using the Copyright Act’s specific
language, the proposed rule applies to
compositions published in ‘‘copies’’
(including cases where a composition is
published both in copies and in
phonorecords).14 The proposed rule
does not apply to compositions
published only in phonorecords, or to
unpublished musical compositions. Nor
does the proposed rule apply to those
seeking to register their copyright in a
14 The Copyright Act draws a distinction between
‘‘copies’’ and ‘‘phonorecords.’’ ‘‘Copies’’ are defined
as ‘‘material objects, other than phonorecords, in
which a work is fixed by any method now known
or later developed, and from which the work can
be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated, either directly or with the aid of a
machine or device.’’ 17 U.S.C. 101. A
‘‘phonorecord’’ is a ‘‘material object[] in which
sounds . . . are fixed . . . and from which the
sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated either directly or with the aid of a
machine or device.’’ Id. The definition includes ‘‘a
cassette tape, an LP vinyl disc, a compact disc, or
other means of fixing sounds.’’ Copyright Office,
U.S. Copyright Office Definitions, https://
www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html.
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
38862
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
sound recording, as opposed to the
musical composition.15
Under the current regulation,
copyright owners generally are required
to submit two copies of compositions
published in print formats for purposes
of mandatory deposit and copyright
registration. There are narrow
exceptions permitting the deposit of one
copy rather than two where publication
only took place by rental, lease, or
lending, 37 CFR 202.19(d)(2)(v),
202.20(c)(2)(i)(E). These exceptions are
intended to cover ‘‘musical
compositions published by rental of
scores for performances,’’ because ‘‘only
a limited number of [these] copies are
available for distribution.’’ 43 FR 763,
764 (Jan. 4, 1978).
In the past, when the Office received
a musical composition in print format it
would send both copies to the Library.
Since March 2017, however, the Library
of Congress’s Music Division (which is
a component of Library Services) has
requested only one copy, and the Office
has retained the second copy in its
storage facility.16 Given this change in
the Music Division’s acquisition
practice, the Office believes it is
appropriate to expand the current
exceptions for musical compositions.
Under the proposed rule, applicants
will be allowed to deposit a single copy
of any musical composition that has
been published in copies or in both
copies and phonorecords. In other
words, the exceptions will no longer be
limited to musical compositions
published solely by rental, lease, or
lending.
The proposed rule makes one further
clarification with respect to musical
compositions. In cases where a musical
composition was published in both
copies and phonorecords, the proposed
rule specifies that the copyright owner
should submit a copy of the work—i.e.,
in print format—rather than a
phonorecord. (For unpublished musical
compositions, the applicant may submit
either a copy or a phonorecord for
15 When registering a sound recording, the
applicant should submit a phonorecord that
contains a complete copy of the work. 37 CFR
202.20(c)(1)(i)–(iv), 202.20(c)(2)(viii)(D). The
proposed rule also makes a technical change to the
deposit requirement for musical compositions and
sound recordings fixed or published in machinereadable form. Specifically, the rule directs
applicants to submit ‘‘a reproduction of the entire
work on a phonorecord,’’ rather than an
‘‘audiocassette.’’ 37 CFR 202.20(c)(2)(viii)(C)–(D).
16 The Music Division collects musical
compositions that are published in print formats,
but it does not collect works that have been
published in phonorecords. The Library’s Motion
Picture Broadcasting and Recorded Sound division
collects phonorecords, but it does not collect
musical compositions that have been published in
printed form.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:40 Aug 15, 2017
Jkt 241001
purposes of copyright registration. See
37 CFR 202.20(c)(i).) There are three
reasons for this change.
First, the proposed rule harmonizes
the deposit requirements for registration
and mandatory deposit. In general, the
Office has designed its regulations so
that deposits submitted as part of
copyright registration will also satisfy
mandatory deposit requirements where
those requirements apply. But the
current regulations governing musical
compositions depart from that
approach. On the one hand, the
mandatory deposit statute and
implementing regulations require the
submission of complete copies (not
phonorecords) of the best edition of
published musical compositions. 17
U.S.C. 407(a) (requiring deposit of two
copies of the best edition of all works
except sound recordings); 37 CFR
202.19(d)(1)(i), (2)(v).17 On the other
hand, the registration deposit
regulations currently state that
applicants may register a musical
composition by submitting one
complete copy or phonorecord of the
best edition without further
qualification. See id. § 202.20(c)(1)(iii),
(c)(2)(i)(E) (emphasis added). This
means that when a musical composition
is published both as copies and as
phonorecords, a copyright owner might
submit phonorecords for purposes of
registration, and unwittingly fail to
satisfy the mandatory deposit
requirement. The proposed rule fixes
this discrepancy.
Second, when a musical composition
has been published in both copies and
phonorecords, the Office considers the
copies to be the best representation of
the work. Visually perceptible formats
typically contain a clear and precise
representation of the music and lyrics
that constitute the work. When a
preexisting musical composition is
published in a phonorecord, the sound
recording is a separate work that recasts,
transforms, or adapts the music and
lyrics embodied in that recording. See
17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of ‘‘derivative
work’’). And in cases where the music
and sound recording are created
simultaneously, it may be difficult to
identify the author or co-authors of the
music and sound recording or the
respective owners or co-owners of each
work. (To be clear, when a musical
17 Musical
works compositions published only as
phonorecords are not subject to mandatory deposit
at all. See 42 FR 59302, 59304 (Nov. 16, 1977)
(explaining that under section 407 ‘‘the mandatory
deposit requirements extend only to ‘copies’ of all
types of works except sound recordings, and to
‘phonorecords’ of sound recordings; they do not
apply to ‘phonorecords’ of literary, dramatic, or
musical works’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
composition is published solely in a
phonorecord, the phonorecord
constitutes the only representation of
the work. In such cases, the copyright
owner may submit the phonorecord for
purposes of registration. There is no
need to transcribe or notate the work in
a visually perceptible form. See 42 FR
at 59304.)
Third, the statute and the regulations
indicate that copies should be given
preference over phonorecords in cases
where a musical composition has been
published in both print and audio form.
As mentioned above, copyright owners
are required to submit the ‘‘best edition’’
of their works for purposes of
mandatory deposit. ‘‘The ‘best edition’
of a work’’ is defined, in part, as the
edition ‘‘that the Library of Congress
determines to be most suitable for its
purposes.’’ 17 U.S.C. 101. Section
407(a)(2) of the statute and § 202.19(a) of
the regulations state that phonorecords
are subject to mandatory deposit. But
this requirement only applies to the
copyright owner of the sound recording
or the owner of the exclusive right to
publish that recording. 17 U.S.C.
407(a)(2); 37 CFR 202.19(c)(4). It does
not apply to the owner of the musical
composition that may be embodied in
that recording. 37 CFR 202.19(c)(4).
The Library’s preference for copies
rather than phonorecords of musical
compositions is also reflected in the
Best Edition Statement, which is set
forth in Appendix B to Part 202 of the
regulations. Section VI of this statement
contains a hierarchical list of the
preferred formats for musical
compositions. All of the formats listed
in this section are visually perceptible
formats. See 37 CFR p. 202, app. B, secs.
VI.A–C. Thus, allowing applicants to
submit phonorecords in cases where a
musical composition has been
published in both visual and audio form
is inconsistent with the Library’s stated
preferences. See 37 CFR p. 202, app. B,
sec. b. (‘‘In judging quality, the Library
of Congress will adhere to the criteria
set forth [in the Best Edition Statement]
in all but exceptional circumstances.’’).
Retention of Copyright Registration
Deposits
The proposed rule does not change
current practices regarding what works
the Office retains in its possession.
Under these practices, when applicants
submit a physical copy of a published
literary monograph or a published
musical composition, the Office will not
retain a copy of that work in most
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
cases.18 After a work is registered, the
Office will offer the copy to Library
Services,19 and will generally retain the
copy in its storage facility only if the
copy has not been selected by Library
for inclusion in its collections.20 If
applicants want to ensure that the Office
does retain a precise record of the
particular published work that was
submitted for registration, they should
consider one of the following options.
First, the applicant may request fullterm retention. To do so, the applicant
must submit a written request together
with an additional copy of the work and
the appropriate fee for this service.21 See
37 CFR 202.23(b)(2), (c)(2), (e)(1). If the
request is approved, the Office will
retain the copy in its storage facility for
75 years from the date of
publication.22 See id. at § 202.23(g).
18 By contrast, when an applicant submits an
unpublished work, the Office will retain the copy
for the entire term of the copyright.
19 See 17 U.S.C. 704(b) (‘‘In the case of published
works, all copies, phonorecords, and identifying
material deposited are available to the Library of
Congress for its collections, or for exchange or
transfer to any other library.’’). In exceptional cases,
the Office may retain a registered work for a limited
time if the applicant requested special handling and
notified the Office that the registration is needed for
pending or prospective litigation. If the Office
refuses registration, or if the claim is closed because
the applicant failed to respond to the examiner, the
copy will be sent to the Office’s storage facility.
Under current record retention policies, claims that
have been closed or refused are retained for up to
30 years.
20 The Office’s regulations provide that the Office
will make a certified copy of a registered work if
it is needed for litigation or other legitimate
purposes, provided that the Office has retained a
copy of that work. 37 CFR 201.2(d)(2). The Office
cannot issue a certified copy of a work that has been
transferred to the Library or another institution. See
U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S.
Copyright Office Practices secs. 2405.3, 2409.5 (3d
ed. 2014). But the Office has no institutional
memory of any case where a party has requested a
certified copy of a published monograph or a
musical composition in print format. This makes
sense because, in infringement cases involving
published works, the work alleged to have been
copied has been made publicly available, and the
fact that the work was registered is not typically a
disputed issue.
21 Requests for full term retention may only be
granted ‘‘if at least one copy . . . is in the custody
of the Copyright Office’’ at the time of the request.
37 CFR 202.23(c)(2). Thus, to ensure that the Office
has such a copy, the applicant must submit a
complete request with the registration application.
If the applicant submits two copies without
requesting full-term retention or paying the
appropriate fee, the second copy will be sent to
Library Services before the claim has been assigned
to a member of the Registration Program.
22 The Office is planning to initiate a separate
rulemaking that will extend the full-term retention
period to 95 years to better correspond with the
extended term established by the Copyright Term
Extension Act for published works. See Public Law
105–298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998); accord 17 U.S.C.
302(a), (c) (ensuring copyright ‘‘endures for a term
consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after
the author’s death’’ for works created after Jan. 1,
1978, and that ‘‘copyright endures for a term of 95
years from the year of . . . first publication’’ for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:40 Aug 15, 2017
Jkt 241001
Second, if an International Standard
Book Number (‘‘ISBN’’) or International
Standard Music Number (‘‘ISMN’’)
number has been assigned to the work,
the applicant is encouraged to include
that information in the online
application. If this number is provided
in the appropriate field, it will appear
on the certificate of registration, and in
the case of an ISBN, it will also appear
in the online public record for that
work, and will serve as evidence of the
work submitted for examination and
registration. Note, however, that the
examiner will not review the ISBN or
ISMN to determine if it matches the
number appearing on the copy.
Therefore, applicants should confirm
that this number has been entered
correctly. See U.S. Copyright Office,
Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office
Practices sec. 612.6(C) (3d ed. 2014).
Third, in addition to submitting a
physical copy when it is required,23 the
applicant may also upload a digital copy
of the work to the electronic registration
system. When doing so, the applicant
should add a note in the ‘‘Note
Copyright Office’’ field stating that the
digital copy has been submitted for
archival purposes and that a physical
copy will be sent separately. The
examiner will examine the claim when
the physical deposit arrives and will
only check any electronic upload to
determine whether it represents the
same work.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202
Copyright, Preregistration and
Registration of Claims to Copyright.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the
U.S. Copyright Office is proposing to
amend 37 CFR part 202 as follows:
PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND
REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO
COPYRIGHT
1. The authority citation for part 202
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
2. Amend § 202.19 as follows:
a. Add paragraph (b)(5).
b. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(v) by
removing the words ‘‘in copies only,’’
and adding in its place ‘‘solely in
copies,’’ and by removing the words ‘‘if
■
■
■
anonymous, pseudonymous, and works made for
hire).
23 See 37 CFR 202.20(b) (stating that ‘‘if a work
is first published in both hard copy, i.e., in a
physically tangible format, and also in an electronic
format, the current Library of Congress Best Edition
Statement requirements pertaining to the hard copy
format apply’’ for purposes of copyright
registration).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
38863
the only publication of copies in the
United States took place by rental, lease,
or lending,’’.
■ c. Add paragraph (d)(2)(ix).
The revision and addition read as
follows:
§ 202.19 Deposit of published copies or
phonorecords for the Library of Congress.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(5) The term literary monograph
means a literary work published in one
volume or a finite number of volumes.
This category does not include serials,
nor does it include legal publications
that are published in one volume or a
finite number of volumes that contain
legislative enactments, judicial
decisions, or other edicts of government.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) In the case of published literary
monographs, the deposit of one
complete copy of the best edition of the
work will suffice in lieu of the two
copies required by paragraph (d)(1) of
this section, unless the Copyright Office
issues a demand for a second copy
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 407(d).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 202.20 as follows:
■ a. Revise paragraph (b)(3).
■ b. Remove paragraph (b)(4).
■ c. Redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as
paragraph (b)(4).
■ d. In paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) through
(D), remove the semi-colon and add a
period in its place at the end of each
sentence.
■ e. Revise paragraph (c)(2)(i)(E).
■ f. In paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(F) through (I),
remove the semi-colon and add a period
in its place at the end of the sentence.
■ g. In paragraph (c)(2)(i)(J) remove ‘‘;
and’’ and add a period in its place at the
end of the sentence.
■ h. Add paragraph (c)(2)(i)(L).
■ i. In paragraphs (c)(2)(viii)(A) through
(D) remove the semi-colon and add a
period in its place at the end of the
sentence.
■ j. In paragraphs (c)(2)(viii)(C) and (D)
remove ‘‘an audiocassette or other’’ and
add in its place ‘‘a’’.
The revision and additions read as
follows:
§ 202.20 Deposit of copies and
phonorecords for copyright registration.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) The terms secure test and literary
monograph have the meanings set forth
in §§ 202.13(b) and 202.19(b)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
38864
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 2017 / Proposed Rules
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Musical compositions published
solely in copies or in both copies and
phonorecords, provided that one
complete copy (rather than a
phonorecord) is deposited;
(L) Published literary monographs.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: August 10, 2017.
Sarang V. Damle,
General Counsel and Associate Register of
Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2017–17194 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0454; FRL–9966–40–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; North Carolina;
Transportation Conformity
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the portion of a revision to the North
Carolina State Implementation plan
submitted by the State of North Carolina
on March 24, 2006, for the purpose of
clarifying the State’s transportation
conformity rules consistent with Federal
requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 15, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2017–0454 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:40 Aug 15, 2017
Jkt 241001
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nacosta Ward, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9140.
Ms. Ward can also be reached via
electronic mail at ward.nacosta@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Rules Section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
implementation plan revision as a direct
final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in
response to this rule, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this
document. Any parties interested in
commenting on this document should
do so at this time.
Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017–17250 Filed 8–15–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R01–OAR–2016–0626; FRL–9966–36–
Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Regional
Haze Five-Year Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
Vermont’s regional haze progress report,
submitted on February 29, 2016 as a
revision to its State Implementation
Plan (SIP). Vermont’s SIP revision
addresses requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules that require
states to submit periodic reports
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
describing the progress toward
reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a
determination of adequacy of the State’s
existing regional haze SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve Vermont’s
progress report on the basis that it
addresses the progress report and
adequacy determination requirements
for the first implementation period
covering through 2018.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 15,
2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R01–OAR–2016–0626 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
arnold.anne@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anne K. McWilliams, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—
Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston,
MA 02109–3912, telephone (617) 918–
1697, facsimile (617) 918–0697, email
mcwilliams.anne@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
E:\FR\FM\16AUP1.SGM
16AUP1
Agencies
- Library of Congress
- U.S. Copyright Office
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38859-38864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17194]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. 2017-9]
Simplifying Deposit Requirements for Certain Literary Works and
Musical Compositions
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Copyright Office is proposing to amend the
regulations governing the deposit requirements for certain types of
literary works and musical compositions. Specifically, the proposed
rule will apply to certain types of ``literary monographs,'' which are
defined, in part, as literary works published in one volume or a finite
number of separate volumes. The proposed rule also applies to musical
compositions that are published in the United States in print formats--
that is, compositions published as ``copies'' rather than solely as
phonorecords, as referenced in the Copyright Act. Under the current
regulations, two copies of the best edition are generally needed to
register these types of works and to comply with the mandatory deposit
requirement. Under the proposed rule, copyright owners will be able to
satisfy both requirements for literary monographs by submitting one
copy of the best edition of the work, although the Office will retain
the right to demand a second copy under the mandatory deposit provision
should the Library need it. Copyright owners will also be able to
satisfy both requirements for certain musical compositions by
submitting one copy of the best edition. As part of these changes, the
proposed rule also clarifies the deposit requirements for musical
compositions published both in print and phonorecord formats. For
musical works (i.e., musical compositions) published in both formats,
the Office will require the submission of the print version for
purposes of copyright registration. If the musical composition is
published only as a phonorecord, the applicant should submit the
phonorecord. All of these changes will improve the efficiency of
registration and mandatory deposit for both the Office and copyright
owners alike, ensuring that the Office has an adequate registration
record and continuing to make these works available to the Library of
Congress when needed for use in its collections or other disposition.
The Office invites public comment on this proposal.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be made in writing and must
be received by the Copyright Office no later than October 2, 2017.
ADDRESSES: For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office
is using the regulations.gov system for the submission and posting of
public comments in this proceeding. All comments are therefore to be
submitted electronically through regulations.gov. Specific instructions
for submitting comments are available on the Copyright Office Web site
at https://copyright.gov/rulemaking/singlecopy/. If electronic
submission of comments is not feasible due to lack of access to a
computer and/or the Internet, please contact the Office using the
contact information below for special instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register
of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice, by
email at rkas@loc.gov; Erik Bertin, Deputy Director of Registration
Policy and Practice, by email at ebertin@loc.gov; or Cindy Abramson,
Assistant General Counsel, by email at ciab@loc.gov. All can be reached
by telephone by calling 202-707-8040.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under section 407 of the Copyright Act, when a work is published in
the United States, the copyright owner or the owner of the exclusive
right of publication is generally required to deposit two complete
copies of the best edition of that work with the U.S. Copyright Office
within three months after publication. 17 U.S.C. 407. ``The `best
edition' of a work'' is defined as ``the edition, published in the
United States at any time before the date of deposit, that the Library
of Congress determines to be most suitable for its purposes.'' 17
U.S.C. 101. The Act provides that copies deposited with the Office
under section 407 are ``for the use or disposition of the Library of
Congress.'' 17 U.S.C. 407(b). This is known as the ``mandatory
deposit'' requirement.
Separately, the Copyright Act's provision governing copyright
registration, section 408, specifies that, in the case of published
works, an application for registration must be accompanied by ``two
complete copies or phonorecords of the best edition.'' 17 U.S.C.
408(b)(2). To avoid duplication of deposits, section 408 specifies that
copies or phonorecords deposited under section 407 ``may be used to
satisfy the deposit provisions'' of section 408 if they ``are
accompanied by the prescribed application and fee.'' 17 U.S.C. 408(b).
Because the same copies can potentially be used for both
registration and mandatory deposit, the deposit requirements set forth
in sections 407 and 408 are generally the same. Compare 17 U.S.C.
407(a)(1)-(2) (requiring two complete copies of the best edition of the
work for purposes of mandatory deposit) with 17 U.S.C. 408(b)(2)
(requiring two complete copies of the best edition for the purpose of
registering a published work).
Sections 407 and 408 both give the Register of Copyrights (the
``Register'') broad authority to issue regulations concerning the
specific nature of the copies that must be deposited, including the
ability to exempt works from these statutory requirements. As relevant
here, section 408 gives the Register authority to ``require or permit,
for particular classes [of works], . . . the deposit of only one copy .
. . where two would normally be required'' for copyright registration.
17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1). Similarly, section 407 gives the Register
authority to issue regulations that ``require [the] deposit of only one
copy'' for the purpose of mandatory deposit. 17 U.S.C. 407(c).
The legislative history confirms that Congress intended the
Register to exercise this authority when needed to improve efficiencies
within the Copyright Office. In explaining the Register's authority
under section 407, Congress expressed the desire ``to make the deposit
requirements as flexible as possible, so that there will be no
obligation to make deposits where it serves no purpose, so that only
one copy or phonorecord may be deposited where two are not needed, and
so that reasonable adjustments can be made to meet practical needs in
special cases.'' H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 151 (1976). Similarly, the
legislative history for section 408 explains that the ``[d]eposit of
one copy . . . rather than two would probably be justifiable . . . in
any case where the Library of Congress has no need for the deposit'' or
where the copies ``are bulky, unwieldy . . . or otherwise impractical
to file and retain as records identifying the work registered.'' Id. at
154.
[[Page 38860]]
The Office has exercised this authority on many occasions. It
created exceptions allowing applicants to deposit one copy for purposes
of mandatory deposit for some works. See 37 CFR 202.19(d)(2)(i)-(ii),
(v)-(vi) (covering three-dimensional cartographic representations of
area, such as globes; published motion pictures; musical compositions
where the only publication took place by rental, lease, or lending; and
published multi-media kits). The Office also created corresponding
exceptions to the deposit requirements for registration. See 37 CFR
202.20(c)(2)(i)(A)-(K). The proposed rule will expand the exception
that currently applies to registration deposits of musical
compositions, and create a new exception for ``literary monographs.''
In both cases, one copy of the best edition of the work will satisfy
the deposit requirement for registration and mandatory deposit. As
noted below, however, the rule excludes legal publications and also
allows a second copy to be demanded by the Copyright Office on behalf
of the Library under mandatory deposit provisions.
Literary Monographs
For purposes of registration and mandatory deposit, a ``literary
monograph'' will be defined, in part, as ``a literary work published in
one volume or a finite number of volumes.'' Examples of works that fit
within this category include fiction, nonfiction, poetry, short
stories, memoirs, manuscripts, textbooks, and other types of
nondramatic literary works.
The rule draws a distinction between ``monographs'' and
``serials,'' which are defined elsewhere in the regulations as
``work[s] issued or intended to be issued in successive parts bearing
numerical or chronological designations and intended to be continued
indefinitely.'' 37 CFR 202.3(b)(1)(v). Examples of works that may
qualify as a serial include periodicals, newspapers, newsletters, and
annuals. These types of works are typically published in successive
issues and they are usually distributed on an established schedule.
Each issue is published under the same continuing title, and they
generally bear numerical or chronological designations that distinguish
one issue from the next.
By contrast, most monographs are published as a single volume,
rather than a series of successive issues. Some monographs are
published in separate volumes with each volume bearing the same title
and successive numerical designations (as in the case of a multi-volume
encyclopedia). But typically the entire work is published in a limited
number of volumes that, taken together, constitute the work as a whole.
The proposed rule will allow copyright owners to register a
published monograph and satisfy the mandatory deposit requirement by
submitting one complete copy of the best edition of that work. There
are several reasons for creating this exception.
The Library of Congress's need for copies of works submitted
through copyright registration has diminished over time. In many cases,
the Library receives additional copies of published monographs through
programs such as the Cataloging In Publication (``CIP'') program--a
program that is entirely separate from the mandatory deposit and
copyright registration deposit provisions of the Copyright Act. The CIP
program creates a uniform cataloging record for the benefit of the
nation's libraries. Publishers that participate in the program submit
an application to the Library before they publish their works. The
Library then creates an appropriate bibliographic record and sends that
information to the publisher. The publisher prints this information on
the copyright page when the work is published, and distributes this
same information in electronic form to libraries, vendors, and other
interested parties. In exchange, the publisher then sends a
complimentary copy of the published work to the CIP program. A member
of the Library's staff confirms that the CIP record matches the
published work, and if necessary, the electronic cataloging record is
updated to reflect the actual content of the published work. All copies
submitted through the CIP program are made available to the Library for
use in its collections. Because ``CIP copies'' are submitted soon after
a work is published, they often enter the Library's collections before
the Copyright Office has examined any additional copies that have been
submitted for purposes of registration or mandatory deposit.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See generally Library of Congress, Cataloging in Publication
Program, https://www.loc.gov/publish/cip/ (last visited Jun. 12,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Library recently revised its acquisition policies
and practices for published monographs. Previously, when the Library
selected a work for its collections from the copies received through
copyright registration or mandatory deposit, it would often take both
copies and permanently retain them in the Library's collections. In
2013, Library Services \2\ estimated that the Library had at least
1,950,000 ``second copies'' in its permanent collections, and predicted
that the Library could achieve substantial savings in its long-term
storage and preservation costs by reducing the number of additional
service copies in its collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Library Services is one of the main components of the
Library of Congress, and is the entity that is principally
responsible for developing and maintaining the Library of Congress's
collections. See Library of Congress, About the Library, https://www.loc.gov/about/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, under the revised policy, when the Library selects a
work, it still takes both copies that were deposited with the Copyright
Office, but (with some exceptions) \3\ it only keeps one for itself,
and delivers the other one to the Library's Surplus Books program,\4\
Duplicate Materials Exchange Program,\5\ or other similar programs for
donation or exchange to eligible organizations and institutions. And if
it turns out that the Library previously received a copy through the
CIP Program, both copies received from the Office are sent to Surplus
Books or another program.\6\ Finally, if the Library does not select a
work for the Library's collections, the Copyright Office sends one copy
to Surplus Books, and sends the second copy to the Office's storage
facility.\7\ Thus, as things stand now, at least one copy of every
published monograph sent to the Copyright Office is treated as surplus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Library's single-copy retention policy does not apply to
legal publications, reference works, or publications about certain
topics: United States history (including genealogy and heraldry),
commerce and finance, political institutions and public
administration, and libraries and information science.
\4\ Surplus books that are not needed for the Library's own
collections are made available to educational institutions,
governmental agencies, and non-profit organizations or institutions
located within the United States. See generally Library of Congress,
Library of Congress Surplus Books Program, https://www.loc.gov/acq/surplus.html (last visited July 31, 2017).
\5\ The Library of Congress exchanges library materials with
approximately 4,000 partners around the world through its Duplicate
Materials Exchange Program. See generally Library of Congress,
Exchange of Library Materials,https://www.loc.gov/acq/exchange.html
(last visited July 31, 2017).
\6\ In addition, this policy has been applied retroactively to
monographs held within the general collections. In cases where the
Library received two copies from the Office and a third copy from
the CIP program or another source, Library Services will remove the
second and third copies from the shelves and offer them to another
institution through the Surplus Books program or another program.
\7\ Published works stored in this facility are kept for up to
20 years unless the applicant requests full-term retention under
Sec. 202.23 of the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deposit of unneeded material imposes significant burdens both
on copyright owners and the Copyright Office. Copyright owners have to
bear costs involved in producing extra copies of each work, and
shipping both copies to the Office. Cumulatively, these costs
[[Page 38861]]
may discourage copyright owners from routinely registering their works.
From the Office's perspective, literary monographs are
significantly larger than the physical copies received by the other
divisions within the Registration Program. They are heavy, unwieldy,
and often include multi-volume sets of books. To distribute these
materials to the staff, the copies must be strapped together, which
doubles the size and weight of each submission. Sometimes the Literary
Division does not have enough space to store the copies that it has on
hand. The bulky nature of these physical copies also slows down the
examination of each work. On average, the copies must be moved at least
eight times or more during the examination process, which increases the
risk that they may be damaged, misplaced, mismatched, or lost.
Requiring two copies limits the amount of work that the examiner may
keep at his or her desk at any given time. It also increases the amount
of time that the examiners need to examine the claim, prepare the
copies for dispatch, and retrieve his or her next assignment.
Reducing the number of unneeded copies required will reduce this
volume and significantly increase the amount of space available for
storing incoming physical copies. This should increase productivity
within the Literary Division and reduce the likelihood that copies may
be lost or misplaced. For copyright owners, the proposed rule will
reduce the cost of seeking a registration and complying with mandatory
deposit by lowering the incremental cost of producing and delivering
physical copies to the Office.
Although, generally speaking, the provision of a single copy of a
literary monograph will be sufficient to meet the Library's collection
needs, in certain cases, the Library may need an additional copy--for
example, if the original is in high demand by Congress, the
Congressional Research Service, the Supreme Court, or researchers from
the general public. The rule expressly carves out one category of works
that are consistently in high demand--legal publications, which are
defined in the rule as works ``published in one volume or a finite
number of volumes that contain legislative enactments, judicial
decisions, or other edicts of government.'' These types of works are
collected either by the Library of Congress's Serials and Government
Publications division (which is part of Library Services) or the Law
Library.\8\ At the present time, these divisions still have an active
need for the two copies received through copyright registration for
their respective collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Law Library is a component of the Library of Congress
that is separate from Library Services, and it is a primary source
of legal materials for the U.S. Supreme Court. See Library of
Congress, About the Library, https://www.loc.gov/about/; Library of
Congress, Law Librarian's Welcome, https://www.loc.gov/law/about/welcome.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to other categories of works, if the Library
determines that it does need a second copy, the proposed rule entitles
it to demand the additional copy under the mandatory deposit
provision.\9\ The copyright owner, however, will not be required to
proactively deposit a second copy in order to be in compliance with
either the mandatory deposit or registration deposit rules. And, a
single copy will be deemed to satisfy mandatory deposit unless the
Office issues a demand for an additional copy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Although the Library's single-copy retention policy does not
apply to certain other categories of works, see n.3 supra, in many
of those cases the Library already receives a second copy through
the CIP program or other sources. In cases where the Library does
need an additional copy, either because it was not received via the
CIP program or otherwise, the Office will issue a demand to the
publisher pursuant to the mandatory deposit provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, the Library anticipates that it will often have a need
for second copies for certain reference works, such as dictionaries,
encyclopedias, gazetteers, bibliographies, and almanacs as well as
publications about the following topics: United States history
(including genealogy and heraldry),\10\ commerce and finance,\11\
political institutions and public administration,\12\ and libraries and
information science.\13\ Thus, although the proposed rule does not
specifically require the proactive deposit of two copies of such works
for registration or mandatory deposit purposes, principally because of
the difficulty of crafting a rule ex ante defining these additional
categories of works, it is anticipated that many works falling within
these categories will be subject to a later demand as part of the
mandatory deposit process. Accordingly, publishers may nevertheless
decide to submit two copies of works that might fall within these
categories as part of the registration process if they wish to avoid
the burden of subsequent production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This includes, but is not limited to, works where the
Library of Congress CIP data, as printed on the verso of the book's
title page, indicates a Library of Congress Subject Heading of
heraldry, genealogy, United States local history, United States
history or has a Library of Congress Classification of CR, CS, F
below 1000, or E.
\11\ This includes, but is not limited to, works where the
Library of Congress CIP data indicates a Library of Congress Subject
Heading of Commerce, Finance, or Public Finance or has a Library of
Congress Classification of HF, HG, or HJ.
\12\ This includes, but is not limited to, works where the
Library of Congress CIP data indicates a Library of Congress Subject
Heading of Political Institutions and Public Administration (North
America) or Political Institutions and Public Administration (United
States) or has a Library of Congress Classification of JJ or JK.
\13\ This includes works where the Library of Congress CIP data
indicates a Library of Congress Subject Heading of Libraries, Books,
Information Resources or Bibliography or has a Library of Congress
Classification of Z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the proposed rule creates a new exception only for
``literary'' monographs, meaning nondramatic literary works that
predominantly contain textual material. 37 CFR 202.3(b)(1)(i).
Monographs that predominantly contain photographs, artwork, or other
pictorial or graphic content would not be eligible for this exception.
To register these types of works and to satisfy the mandatory deposit
requirement, applicants would be required to submit two complete copies
of the best edition, even if the applicant is seeking to register both
the visual and textual aspects of the work. The Office is limiting this
exception to literary monographs at this time, because they routinely
account for the largest number of physical deposits received in the
Literary Division. By contrast, pictorial or graphic monographs
represent a relatively small portion of the claims received in the
Visual Arts Division, and thus, have less impact on the division's
workflow.
Musical Compositions Published in Print Formats
The proposed rule also simplifies and rationalizes the deposit
requirements for musical compositions published in print formats (i.e.,
as sheet music, musical scores or the like). Put another way using the
Copyright Act's specific language, the proposed rule applies to
compositions published in ``copies'' (including cases where a
composition is published both in copies and in phonorecords).\14\ The
proposed rule does not apply to compositions published only in
phonorecords, or to unpublished musical compositions. Nor does the
proposed rule apply to those seeking to register their copyright in a
[[Page 38862]]
sound recording, as opposed to the musical composition.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Copyright Act draws a distinction between ``copies''
and ``phonorecords.'' ``Copies'' are defined as ``material objects,
other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now
known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
aid of a machine or device.'' 17 U.S.C. 101. A ``phonorecord'' is a
``material object[] in which sounds . . . are fixed . . . and from
which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise
communicated either directly or with the aid of a machine or
device.'' Id. The definition includes ``a cassette tape, an LP vinyl
disc, a compact disc, or other means of fixing sounds.'' Copyright
Office, U.S. Copyright Office Definitions, https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html.
\15\ When registering a sound recording, the applicant should
submit a phonorecord that contains a complete copy of the work. 37
CFR 202.20(c)(1)(i)-(iv), 202.20(c)(2)(viii)(D). The proposed rule
also makes a technical change to the deposit requirement for musical
compositions and sound recordings fixed or published in machine-
readable form. Specifically, the rule directs applicants to submit
``a reproduction of the entire work on a phonorecord,'' rather than
an ``audiocassette.'' 37 CFR 202.20(c)(2)(viii)(C)-(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the current regulation, copyright owners generally are
required to submit two copies of compositions published in print
formats for purposes of mandatory deposit and copyright registration.
There are narrow exceptions permitting the deposit of one copy rather
than two where publication only took place by rental, lease, or
lending, 37 CFR 202.19(d)(2)(v), 202.20(c)(2)(i)(E). These exceptions
are intended to cover ``musical compositions published by rental of
scores for performances,'' because ``only a limited number of [these]
copies are available for distribution.'' 43 FR 763, 764 (Jan. 4, 1978).
In the past, when the Office received a musical composition in
print format it would send both copies to the Library. Since March
2017, however, the Library of Congress's Music Division (which is a
component of Library Services) has requested only one copy, and the
Office has retained the second copy in its storage facility.\16\ Given
this change in the Music Division's acquisition practice, the Office
believes it is appropriate to expand the current exceptions for musical
compositions. Under the proposed rule, applicants will be allowed to
deposit a single copy of any musical composition that has been
published in copies or in both copies and phonorecords. In other words,
the exceptions will no longer be limited to musical compositions
published solely by rental, lease, or lending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Music Division collects musical compositions that are
published in print formats, but it does not collect works that have
been published in phonorecords. The Library's Motion Picture
Broadcasting and Recorded Sound division collects phonorecords, but
it does not collect musical compositions that have been published in
printed form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule makes one further clarification with respect to
musical compositions. In cases where a musical composition was
published in both copies and phonorecords, the proposed rule specifies
that the copyright owner should submit a copy of the work--i.e., in
print format--rather than a phonorecord. (For unpublished musical
compositions, the applicant may submit either a copy or a phonorecord
for purposes of copyright registration. See 37 CFR 202.20(c)(i).) There
are three reasons for this change.
First, the proposed rule harmonizes the deposit requirements for
registration and mandatory deposit. In general, the Office has designed
its regulations so that deposits submitted as part of copyright
registration will also satisfy mandatory deposit requirements where
those requirements apply. But the current regulations governing musical
compositions depart from that approach. On the one hand, the mandatory
deposit statute and implementing regulations require the submission of
complete copies (not phonorecords) of the best edition of published
musical compositions. 17 U.S.C. 407(a) (requiring deposit of two copies
of the best edition of all works except sound recordings); 37 CFR
202.19(d)(1)(i), (2)(v).\17\ On the other hand, the registration
deposit regulations currently state that applicants may register a
musical composition by submitting one complete copy or phonorecord of
the best edition without further qualification. See id. Sec.
202.20(c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(i)(E) (emphasis added). This means that when
a musical composition is published both as copies and as phonorecords,
a copyright owner might submit phonorecords for purposes of
registration, and unwittingly fail to satisfy the mandatory deposit
requirement. The proposed rule fixes this discrepancy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Musical works compositions published only as phonorecords
are not subject to mandatory deposit at all. See 42 FR 59302, 59304
(Nov. 16, 1977) (explaining that under section 407 ``the mandatory
deposit requirements extend only to `copies' of all types of works
except sound recordings, and to `phonorecords' of sound recordings;
they do not apply to `phonorecords' of literary, dramatic, or
musical works'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, when a musical composition has been published in both
copies and phonorecords, the Office considers the copies to be the best
representation of the work. Visually perceptible formats typically
contain a clear and precise representation of the music and lyrics that
constitute the work. When a preexisting musical composition is
published in a phonorecord, the sound recording is a separate work that
recasts, transforms, or adapts the music and lyrics embodied in that
recording. See 17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of ``derivative work''). And
in cases where the music and sound recording are created
simultaneously, it may be difficult to identify the author or co-
authors of the music and sound recording or the respective owners or
co-owners of each work. (To be clear, when a musical composition is
published solely in a phonorecord, the phonorecord constitutes the only
representation of the work. In such cases, the copyright owner may
submit the phonorecord for purposes of registration. There is no need
to transcribe or notate the work in a visually perceptible form. See 42
FR at 59304.)
Third, the statute and the regulations indicate that copies should
be given preference over phonorecords in cases where a musical
composition has been published in both print and audio form. As
mentioned above, copyright owners are required to submit the ``best
edition'' of their works for purposes of mandatory deposit. ``The `best
edition' of a work'' is defined, in part, as the edition ``that the
Library of Congress determines to be most suitable for its purposes.''
17 U.S.C. 101. Section 407(a)(2) of the statute and Sec. 202.19(a) of
the regulations state that phonorecords are subject to mandatory
deposit. But this requirement only applies to the copyright owner of
the sound recording or the owner of the exclusive right to publish that
recording. 17 U.S.C. 407(a)(2); 37 CFR 202.19(c)(4). It does not apply
to the owner of the musical composition that may be embodied in that
recording. 37 CFR 202.19(c)(4).
The Library's preference for copies rather than phonorecords of
musical compositions is also reflected in the Best Edition Statement,
which is set forth in Appendix B to Part 202 of the regulations.
Section VI of this statement contains a hierarchical list of the
preferred formats for musical compositions. All of the formats listed
in this section are visually perceptible formats. See 37 CFR p. 202,
app. B, secs. VI.A-C. Thus, allowing applicants to submit phonorecords
in cases where a musical composition has been published in both visual
and audio form is inconsistent with the Library's stated preferences.
See 37 CFR p. 202, app. B, sec. b. (``In judging quality, the Library
of Congress will adhere to the criteria set forth [in the Best Edition
Statement] in all but exceptional circumstances.'').
Retention of Copyright Registration Deposits
The proposed rule does not change current practices regarding what
works the Office retains in its possession. Under these practices, when
applicants submit a physical copy of a published literary monograph or
a published musical composition, the Office will not retain a copy of
that work in most
[[Page 38863]]
cases.\18\ After a work is registered, the Office will offer the copy
to Library Services,\19\ and will generally retain the copy in its
storage facility only if the copy has not been selected by Library for
inclusion in its collections.\20\ If applicants want to ensure that the
Office does retain a precise record of the particular published work
that was submitted for registration, they should consider one of the
following options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ By contrast, when an applicant submits an unpublished work,
the Office will retain the copy for the entire term of the
copyright.
\19\ See 17 U.S.C. 704(b) (``In the case of published works, all
copies, phonorecords, and identifying material deposited are
available to the Library of Congress for its collections, or for
exchange or transfer to any other library.''). In exceptional cases,
the Office may retain a registered work for a limited time if the
applicant requested special handling and notified the Office that
the registration is needed for pending or prospective litigation. If
the Office refuses registration, or if the claim is closed because
the applicant failed to respond to the examiner, the copy will be
sent to the Office's storage facility. Under current record
retention policies, claims that have been closed or refused are
retained for up to 30 years.
\20\ The Office's regulations provide that the Office will make
a certified copy of a registered work if it is needed for litigation
or other legitimate purposes, provided that the Office has retained
a copy of that work. 37 CFR 201.2(d)(2). The Office cannot issue a
certified copy of a work that has been transferred to the Library or
another institution. See U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S.
Copyright Office Practices secs. 2405.3, 2409.5 (3d ed. 2014). But
the Office has no institutional memory of any case where a party has
requested a certified copy of a published monograph or a musical
composition in print format. This makes sense because, in
infringement cases involving published works, the work alleged to
have been copied has been made publicly available, and the fact that
the work was registered is not typically a disputed issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the applicant may request full-term retention. To do so, the
applicant must submit a written request together with an additional
copy of the work and the appropriate fee for this service.\21\ See 37
CFR 202.23(b)(2), (c)(2), (e)(1). If the request is approved, the
Office will retain the copy in its storage facility for 75 years from
the date of publication.\22\ See id. at Sec. 202.23(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Requests for full term retention may only be granted ``if
at least one copy . . . is in the custody of the Copyright Office''
at the time of the request. 37 CFR 202.23(c)(2). Thus, to ensure
that the Office has such a copy, the applicant must submit a
complete request with the registration application. If the applicant
submits two copies without requesting full-term retention or paying
the appropriate fee, the second copy will be sent to Library
Services before the claim has been assigned to a member of the
Registration Program.
\22\ The Office is planning to initiate a separate rulemaking
that will extend the full-term retention period to 95 years to
better correspond with the extended term established by the
Copyright Term Extension Act for published works. See Public Law
105-298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998); accord 17 U.S.C. 302(a), (c)
(ensuring copyright ``endures for a term consisting of the life of
the author and 70 years after the author's death'' for works created
after Jan. 1, 1978, and that ``copyright endures for a term of 95
years from the year of . . . first publication'' for anonymous,
pseudonymous, and works made for hire).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, if an International Standard Book Number (``ISBN'') or
International Standard Music Number (``ISMN'') number has been assigned
to the work, the applicant is encouraged to include that information in
the online application. If this number is provided in the appropriate
field, it will appear on the certificate of registration, and in the
case of an ISBN, it will also appear in the online public record for
that work, and will serve as evidence of the work submitted for
examination and registration. Note, however, that the examiner will not
review the ISBN or ISMN to determine if it matches the number appearing
on the copy. Therefore, applicants should confirm that this number has
been entered correctly. See U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S.
Copyright Office Practices sec. 612.6(C) (3d ed. 2014).
Third, in addition to submitting a physical copy when it is
required,\23\ the applicant may also upload a digital copy of the work
to the electronic registration system. When doing so, the applicant
should add a note in the ``Note Copyright Office'' field stating that
the digital copy has been submitted for archival purposes and that a
physical copy will be sent separately. The examiner will examine the
claim when the physical deposit arrives and will only check any
electronic upload to determine whether it represents the same work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 37 CFR 202.20(b) (stating that ``if a work is first
published in both hard copy, i.e., in a physically tangible format,
and also in an electronic format, the current Library of Congress
Best Edition Statement requirements pertaining to the hard copy
format apply'' for purposes of copyright registration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202
Copyright, Preregistration and Registration of Claims to Copyright.
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the U.S. Copyright Office is
proposing to amend 37 CFR part 202 as follows:
PART 202--PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT
0
1. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
0
2. Amend Sec. 202.19 as follows:
0
a. Add paragraph (b)(5).
0
b. Revise paragraph (d)(2)(v) by removing the words ``in copies only,''
and adding in its place ``solely in copies,'' and by removing the words
``if the only publication of copies in the United States took place by
rental, lease, or lending,''.
0
c. Add paragraph (d)(2)(ix).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 202.19 Deposit of published copies or phonorecords for the
Library of Congress.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) The term literary monograph means a literary work published in
one volume or a finite number of volumes. This category does not
include serials, nor does it include legal publications that are
published in one volume or a finite number of volumes that contain
legislative enactments, judicial decisions, or other edicts of
government.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) In the case of published literary monographs, the deposit of
one complete copy of the best edition of the work will suffice in lieu
of the two copies required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless
the Copyright Office issues a demand for a second copy pursuant to 17
U.S.C. 407(d).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 202.20 as follows:
0
a. Revise paragraph (b)(3).
0
b. Remove paragraph (b)(4).
0
c. Redesignate paragraph (b)(5) as paragraph (b)(4).
0
d. In paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) through (D), remove the semi-colon and
add a period in its place at the end of each sentence.
0
e. Revise paragraph (c)(2)(i)(E).
0
f. In paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(F) through (I), remove the semi-colon and
add a period in its place at the end of the sentence.
0
g. In paragraph (c)(2)(i)(J) remove ``; and'' and add a period in its
place at the end of the sentence.
0
h. Add paragraph (c)(2)(i)(L).
0
i. In paragraphs (c)(2)(viii)(A) through (D) remove the semi-colon and
add a period in its place at the end of the sentence.
0
j. In paragraphs (c)(2)(viii)(C) and (D) remove ``an audiocassette or
other'' and add in its place ``a''.
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 202.20 Deposit of copies and phonorecords for copyright
registration.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The terms secure test and literary monograph have the meanings
set forth in Sec. Sec. 202.13(b) and 202.19(b)(5).
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 38864]]
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Musical compositions published solely in copies or in both
copies and phonorecords, provided that one complete copy (rather than a
phonorecord) is deposited;
(L) Published literary monographs.
* * * * *
Dated: August 10, 2017.
Sarang V. Damle,
General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2017-17194 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P