Exemptions To Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works: Notice of Public Hearings, 4884-4886 [2018-02086]
Download as PDF
4884
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules
§ 110.209 Saint Lawrence Seaway
Anchorages, NY.
Announcement of public
hearings.
ACTION:
(a) Carleton Island Anchorage; Saint
Lawrence River, Cape Vincent, New
York.
(1) Carleton Island Anchorage Area.
The waters bounded by a line
connecting the following, beginning at
44°11′57.11″ N, 076°14′04.62″ W; thence
to 44°11′21.80″ N, 076°14′05.77″ W;
thence to 44°11′34.07″ N, 076°15′49.57″
W; 44°11′35.35″ N, 076°16′47.50″ W;
44°11′43.49″ N, 076°16′48.00″ W;
44°11′57.11″ N, 076°14′04.62″ W and
back to the beginning point. These
coordinates are based on WGS 84.
(2) Tibbett’s Island Anchorage Area.
The waters bounded by a line
connecting the following points,
beginning at 44°05′20.27″ N,
076°23′25″78° W; thence to 44°05′21.85″
N, 076°22′40.97″ W; thence to
44°04′34.08″ N, 076°23′09.98″ W;
44°04′07.72″ N; 076°23′33.76″ W;
44°04′32.78″ N, 076°24′43.80″ W;
44°05′44.37″ N, 076°23′56.29″ W;
44°05′20.27″ N, 076°23′ 25.78″ W and
back to the beginning point. These
coordinates are based on WGS 84.
(b) The Regulations. (1) Anchors must
not be placed in the Saint Lawrence
Seaway shipping channel. No portion of
the hull or rigging may extend outside
the limits of the anchorage area.
(2) No vessel may occupy any general
anchorage described in paragraph (a) of
this section for a period longer than 10
days unless approval is obtained from
the Captain of the Port for that purpose.
(3) The COTP, or authorized
representative, may require vessels to
depart from the Anchorages described
above before the expiration of the
authorized or maximum stay. The
COTP, or authorized representative, will
provide at least 12-hour notice to a
vessel required to depart the
anchorages.
Dated: January 11, 2018.
J.M. Nunan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018–02114 Filed 2–1–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. 2017–10]
Exemptions To Permit Circumvention
of Access Controls on Copyrighted
Works: Notice of Public Hearings
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Feb 01, 2018
Jkt 244001
The United States Copyright
Office will be holding public hearings as
part of the seventh triennial rulemaking
proceeding under the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’)
concerning possible exemptions to the
DMCA’s prohibition against
circumvention of technological
measures that control access to
copyrighted works. The public hearings
will be held in April 2018 in
Washington, DC and Los Angeles.
Parties interested in testifying at the
public hearings are invited to submit
requests to testify pursuant to the
instructions set forth below.
DATES: The public hearings in
Washington, DC are scheduled for April
10, 11, 12, and 13, 2018, on each day
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The public
hearings in Los Angeles are scheduled
for April 23, 24, and 25, 2018, on each
day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Requests
to testify must be received no later than
11:59 p.m. Eastern time on February 21,
2018. Although the Office currently
anticipates up to four days of hearings
in Washington, DC and three days of
hearings in Los Angeles, the Office may
adjust this schedule depending upon
the number and nature of requests to
testify. Once the schedule of hearing
witnesses is finalized, the Office will
notify all participants and post the times
and dates of the hearings at https://
www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/.
ADDRESSES: The Washington, DC
hearings will be held in the Mumford
Room of the James Madison Building of
the Library of Congress, 101
Independence Ave. SE, Washington, DC
20540. The Los Angeles hearings will be
held in Room 1314 of the UCLA School
of Law, 385 Charles E. Young Drive
East, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Requests
to testify should be submitted through
the request form available at https://
www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/hearingrequest.html. Any person who is unable
to send a request via the website should
contact the Office using the contact
information below to make an
alternative arrangement for submission
of a request to testify. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below includes additional instructions
on submitting requests to testify.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarang Vijay Damle, General Counsel
and Associate Register of Copyrights, by
email at sdam@loc.gov, 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, AttorneySUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Advisor, by email at jslo@loc.gov. Each
can be contacted by telephone by calling
(202) 707–8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
30, 2017, the Copyright Office published
a notice of inquiry in the Federal
Register to initiate the seventh triennial
rulemaking proceeding under 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1), which provides that the
Librarian of Congress, upon
recommendation of the Register of
Copyrights, may exempt certain classes
of copyrighted works from the
prohibition against circumventing a
technological measure that controls
access to a copyrighted work. 82 FR
29804 (June 30, 2017). On October 26,
2017, the Office published a notice of
proposed rulemaking setting forth
proposed exemptions for twelve classes
of works and requesting responsive
comments. 82 FR 49550 (Oct. 26, 2017).
The responsive comments received thus
far have been posted on the Office’s
website. See https://www.copyright.gov/
1201/2018/.
At this time, the Office is announcing
public hearings to be held in
Washington, DC and Los Angeles to
further consider the proposed
exemptions. The Office plans to
convene panels of witnesses for the
proposals to be considered, and may
combine certain panels if the witnesses
and/or key issues substantially overlap.
The Office will schedule panels for
particular exemptions in either
Washington, DC or Los Angeles unless
compelling circumstances require that a
proposed class be considered in both
cities. Limiting the discussion of each
proposed class to one city or another
will better ensure that witnesses can
respond to the points made by others
and avoid duplicative discussion. All of
the hearings will be live streamed
online. If no request to testify is
received for a proposed exemption, the
Office will consider the class based on
the written submissions and any exparte communications with interested
parties (discussed below).
A. Submitting Requests To Testify
A request to testify should be
submitted to the Copyright Office using
the form on the Office’s website
indicated in the ADDRESSES section
above. Anyone wishing to testify with
respect to more than one proposed class
must submit a separate form for each
request. If multiple people from the
same organization wish to testify on
different panels, each should submit a
separate request for each panel. If
multiple people from the same
organization wish to testify on the same
panel, each should submit a request for
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules
that panel, and explain the need for
multiple witnesses in the comment field
of the request form. If a party is
considering whether to testify at a
hearing, the party should submit a
hearing request form even if no
opposition has been filed. The
Copyright Office will contact requesters
should it determine that a hearing is
unnecessary.
Depending upon the number and
nature of the requests to testify, and in
light of the limited time and space
available for the public hearings, the
Office may not be able to accommodate
all requests to testify. The Office will
give preference to those who have
submitted substantive evidentiary
submissions in support of or in
opposition to a proposal. To the extent
feasible, the Office encourages parties
with similar interests to select a
common representative to testify on
their behalf.
All requests to testify must clearly
identify:
• The name of the person desiring to
serve as a witness.
• The organization or organizations
represented, if any.
• Contact information (address,
telephone, and email).
• The proposed class about which the
person wishes to testify.
• A two- to three-sentence
explanation of the testimony the witness
expects to present.
• If the party is requesting the ability
to demonstrate a use or a technology at
the hearing, a description of the
demonstration, including whether it
will be prepared in advance or
presented live, the approximate time
required for such demonstration, and
any presentation equipment that the
person desires to use and/or bring to the
hearing.
• The city in which the person
prefers to testify (Washington, DC or Los
Angeles).
The Office will try to take this
preference into account in scheduling
the hearings, but cannot guarantee that
the relevant panel will be convened in
the preferred city. Participants who are
unable to testify in a particular city or
on a particular date should so indicate
in the comment field of the request
form.
To facilitate the process of scheduling
panels, it is essential that all of the
required information listed above be
included in a request to testify.
Following receipt of the requests to
testify, the Office will prepare agendas
for the hearings listing the panels and
witnesses, which will be circulated to
hearing participants and posted at
https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Feb 01, 2018
Jkt 244001
As stated above, although the Office
currently anticipates up to four days of
hearings in Washington, DC and three
days of hearings in Los Angeles, the
Office may adjust this schedule
depending upon the number and nature
of requests to testify.
B. Format of Public Hearings
There will be time limits for each
panel, which will be established after
receiving all requests to testify.
Generally, the Copyright Office plans to
allot approximately one to two hours for
each proposed class, although it may
allot additional time for more complex
classes.
Witnesses should expect the Office to
have carefully studied all written
comments, and the Office will expect
witnesses to have done the same with
respect to the classes for which they
will be presenting. The hearings will
focus on legal or factual issues that are
unclear or underdeveloped in the
written record, as identified by the
Office, as well as demonstrative
evidence.
The Office stresses that factual
information is critical to the rulemaking
process, and witnesses should be
prepared to discuss, among other things,
where the copies of the works sought to
be accessed are stored, how the works
would be accessed, and what would be
done with the works after being
accessed. The Office also encourages
witnesses to provide real-world
examples to support their arguments. In
some cases, the best way to do this may
be to provide a demonstration of a
claimed noninfringing use or the
technologies pertinent to a proposal. As
noted above, a person wishing to
provide a demonstration should include
a request to do so with his or her request
to testify, using the appropriate space on
the form described above. To ensure
proper documentation of the hearings,
the Office will require that a copy of any
audio, visual, or audiovisual materials
that have been prepared in advance
(e.g., slideshows and videos) be
provided to the Office at the hearing.
Live demonstrations may be recorded by
a videographer provided by the Office.
The Office may contact witnesses
individually ahead of time to ensure
that demonstrations can be preserved
for the record in an appropriate form.
In addition to videography
equipment, the Office expects to have a
PC, projector, and screen in the hearing
room to accommodate demonstrations.
Beyond this equipment, witnesses are
responsible for supplying and operating
any other equipment needed for their
demonstrations. Persons planning to
bring additional electronic or
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4885
audiovisual equipment must notify the
Office at least five business days in
advance of their scheduled hearing date
by emailing John Riley, AttorneyAdvisor, at jril@loc.gov.
All hearings will be open to the
public, but seating will be limited and
will be provided on a first-come, firstserved basis. Witnesses and persons
accompanying witnesses will be given
priority in seating. As noted above, all
of the hearings will be live streamed
online.
C. Ex-Parte Communication
Typically, the Office’s
communications with participants about
an ongoing rulemaking do not include
discussions about the substance of the
proceeding apart from written
comments and public hearings. As with
prior section 1201 rulemakings, the
written record may also include posthearing questions issued by the Office to
individual parties involved with a
particular class, and the Office will
continue to post any questions and
responses on the Office’s website as part
of the public record. For this
rulemaking, the Office has determined
that informal communication with
interested parties might also be
beneficial, such as to discuss nuances of
proposed regulatory language. Any such
communication may occur after the
public hearings, but before the Office
has issued a recommendation to the
Librarian of Congress regarding the
exemptions. Parties wishing to
participate in informal discussions with
the Office should submit a written
request to one or more of the persons
listed in the contact information above.
The primary means to communicate
views in the course of the rulemaking
will, however, continue to be through
the submission of written comments
and testimony at the public hearings. In
other words, informal communication
will supplement, not substitute for, the
written record and testimony at the
public hearings. Should a party meet
with the Office regarding this
rulemaking, the participating party will
be responsible for submitting a list of
attendees and written summary of any
oral communication to the Office, which
will be made publicly available on the
Office’s website or regulations.gov. In
sum, while the Office is establishing the
option of informal meetings in this
rulemaking, it will require that all such
communications be reflected in the
record to ensure the greatest possible
transparency.
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
4886
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Dated: January 25, 2018.
Sarang V. Damle,
General Counsel and Associate Register of
Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2018–02086 Filed 2–1–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0315; FRL–9973–46–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Georgia; Regional
Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for
the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2,
and 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to take the
following four actions regarding the
Georgia State Implementation Plan
(SIP): Approve the portion of Georgia’s
July 26, 2017, SIP submittal seeking to
change reliance from the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain
regional haze requirements; convert
EPA’s limited approval/limited
disapproval of Georgia’s regional haze
SIP to a full approval; remove EPA’s
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for
Georgia which replaced reliance on
CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to
address the deficiencies identified in
the limited disapproval of Georgia’s
regional haze SIP; and approve the
visibility prong of Georgia’s
infrastructure SIP submittals for the
2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5),
2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2008 8-hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 5, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04–
OAR–2016–0315 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
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:38 Feb 01, 2018
Jkt 244001
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
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Notarianni can
be reached by telephone at (404) 562–
9031 or via electronic mail at
notarianni.michele@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Regional Haze Plans and Their
Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR
Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) requires states to
submit regional haze plans that contain
such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the
natural visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of
existing major stationary sources built
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) as determined by
the state. Under the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR), states are directed to conduct
BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART. See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with
this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in
1999, and further refined the criteria for
assessing whether an alternative
program provides for greater reasonable
progress in two subsequent
rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1,
1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR
60612 (October 13, 2006).
EPA demonstrated that CAIR would
achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART in revisions to the regional haze
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
program made in 2005.1 See 70 FR 39104
(July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA
amended its regulations to provide that
states participating in the CAIR cap-andtrade programs pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or states that remain
subject to a CAIR FIP need not require
affected BART-eligible electric
generating units (EGUs) to install,
operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). As a result of EPA’s
determination that CAIR was ‘‘betterthan-BART,’’ a number of states in the
CAIR region, including Georgia, relied
on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as
an alternative to BART for EGU
emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing
their regional haze plans. These states
also relied on CAIR as an element of a
long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving
their reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
for their regional haze programs.
However, in 2008, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit)
remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur
to preserve the environmental benefits
provided by CAIR. North Carolina v.
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir.
2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208),
acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR
and issued FIPs to implement the rule
in CSAPR-subject states.2
Implementation of CSAPR was
scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012,
when CSAPR would have superseded
the CAIR program.
Due to the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling
that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and its
resulting status as a temporary measure
following that ruling, EPA could not
fully approve regional haze SIPs to the
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy
the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to
achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On
these grounds, EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of Georgia’s regional haze
1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to
reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including Georgia,
that contributed to downwind nonattainment or
interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their
statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully
impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain
four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms
of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of
annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX
by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR
state budgets are implemented in two phases of
generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1
budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016
and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in
2017 and later years.
E:\FR\FM\02FEP1.SGM
02FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4884-4886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02086]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. 2017-10]
Exemptions To Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on
Copyrighted Works: Notice of Public Hearings
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Announcement of public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Copyright Office will be holding public
hearings as part of the seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding under
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (``DMCA'') concerning possible
exemptions to the DMCA's prohibition against circumvention of
technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The
public hearings will be held in April 2018 in Washington, DC and Los
Angeles. Parties interested in testifying at the public hearings are
invited to submit requests to testify pursuant to the instructions set
forth below.
DATES: The public hearings in Washington, DC are scheduled for April
10, 11, 12, and 13, 2018, on each day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The
public hearings in Los Angeles are scheduled for April 23, 24, and 25,
2018, on each day from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Requests to testify must
be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on February 21, 2018.
Although the Office currently anticipates up to four days of hearings
in Washington, DC and three days of hearings in Los Angeles, the Office
may adjust this schedule depending upon the number and nature of
requests to testify. Once the schedule of hearing witnesses is
finalized, the Office will notify all participants and post the times
and dates of the hearings at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/.
ADDRESSES: The Washington, DC hearings will be held in the Mumford Room
of the James Madison Building of the Library of Congress, 101
Independence Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20540. The Los Angeles hearings
will be held in Room 1314 of the UCLA School of Law, 385 Charles E.
Young Drive East, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Requests to testify should be
submitted through the request form available at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/hearing-request.html. Any person who is
unable to send a request via the website should contact the Office
using the contact information below to make an alternative arrangement
for submission of a request to testify. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section below includes additional instructions on submitting requests
to testify.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarang Vijay Damle, General Counsel
and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected], Regan
A. Smith, Deputy General Counsel, by email at [email protected], Anna
Chauvet, Assistant General Counsel, by email at [email protected], or Jason
E. Sloan, Attorney-Advisor, by email at [email protected]. Each can be
contacted by telephone by calling (202) 707-8350.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 30, 2017, the Copyright Office
published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register to initiate the
seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding under 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1),
which provides that the Librarian of Congress, upon recommendation of
the Register of Copyrights, may exempt certain classes of copyrighted
works from the prohibition against circumventing a technological
measure that controls access to a copyrighted work. 82 FR 29804 (June
30, 2017). On October 26, 2017, the Office published a notice of
proposed rulemaking setting forth proposed exemptions for twelve
classes of works and requesting responsive comments. 82 FR 49550 (Oct.
26, 2017). The responsive comments received thus far have been posted
on the Office's website. See https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/.
At this time, the Office is announcing public hearings to be held
in Washington, DC and Los Angeles to further consider the proposed
exemptions. The Office plans to convene panels of witnesses for the
proposals to be considered, and may combine certain panels if the
witnesses and/or key issues substantially overlap. The Office will
schedule panels for particular exemptions in either Washington, DC or
Los Angeles unless compelling circumstances require that a proposed
class be considered in both cities. Limiting the discussion of each
proposed class to one city or another will better ensure that witnesses
can respond to the points made by others and avoid duplicative
discussion. All of the hearings will be live streamed online. If no
request to testify is received for a proposed exemption, the Office
will consider the class based on the written submissions and any ex-
parte communications with interested parties (discussed below).
A. Submitting Requests To Testify
A request to testify should be submitted to the Copyright Office
using the form on the Office's website indicated in the ADDRESSES
section above. Anyone wishing to testify with respect to more than one
proposed class must submit a separate form for each request. If
multiple people from the same organization wish to testify on different
panels, each should submit a separate request for each panel. If
multiple people from the same organization wish to testify on the same
panel, each should submit a request for
[[Page 4885]]
that panel, and explain the need for multiple witnesses in the comment
field of the request form. If a party is considering whether to testify
at a hearing, the party should submit a hearing request form even if no
opposition has been filed. The Copyright Office will contact requesters
should it determine that a hearing is unnecessary.
Depending upon the number and nature of the requests to testify,
and in light of the limited time and space available for the public
hearings, the Office may not be able to accommodate all requests to
testify. The Office will give preference to those who have submitted
substantive evidentiary submissions in support of or in opposition to a
proposal. To the extent feasible, the Office encourages parties with
similar interests to select a common representative to testify on their
behalf.
All requests to testify must clearly identify:
The name of the person desiring to serve as a witness.
The organization or organizations represented, if any.
Contact information (address, telephone, and email).
The proposed class about which the person wishes to
testify.
A two- to three-sentence explanation of the testimony the
witness expects to present.
If the party is requesting the ability to demonstrate a
use or a technology at the hearing, a description of the demonstration,
including whether it will be prepared in advance or presented live, the
approximate time required for such demonstration, and any presentation
equipment that the person desires to use and/or bring to the hearing.
The city in which the person prefers to testify
(Washington, DC or Los Angeles).
The Office will try to take this preference into account in
scheduling the hearings, but cannot guarantee that the relevant panel
will be convened in the preferred city. Participants who are unable to
testify in a particular city or on a particular date should so indicate
in the comment field of the request form.
To facilitate the process of scheduling panels, it is essential
that all of the required information listed above be included in a
request to testify.
Following receipt of the requests to testify, the Office will
prepare agendas for the hearings listing the panels and witnesses,
which will be circulated to hearing participants and posted at https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/. As stated above, although the Office
currently anticipates up to four days of hearings in Washington, DC and
three days of hearings in Los Angeles, the Office may adjust this
schedule depending upon the number and nature of requests to testify.
B. Format of Public Hearings
There will be time limits for each panel, which will be established
after receiving all requests to testify. Generally, the Copyright
Office plans to allot approximately one to two hours for each proposed
class, although it may allot additional time for more complex classes.
Witnesses should expect the Office to have carefully studied all
written comments, and the Office will expect witnesses to have done the
same with respect to the classes for which they will be presenting. The
hearings will focus on legal or factual issues that are unclear or
underdeveloped in the written record, as identified by the Office, as
well as demonstrative evidence.
The Office stresses that factual information is critical to the
rulemaking process, and witnesses should be prepared to discuss, among
other things, where the copies of the works sought to be accessed are
stored, how the works would be accessed, and what would be done with
the works after being accessed. The Office also encourages witnesses to
provide real-world examples to support their arguments. In some cases,
the best way to do this may be to provide a demonstration of a claimed
noninfringing use or the technologies pertinent to a proposal. As noted
above, a person wishing to provide a demonstration should include a
request to do so with his or her request to testify, using the
appropriate space on the form described above. To ensure proper
documentation of the hearings, the Office will require that a copy of
any audio, visual, or audiovisual materials that have been prepared in
advance (e.g., slideshows and videos) be provided to the Office at the
hearing. Live demonstrations may be recorded by a videographer provided
by the Office. The Office may contact witnesses individually ahead of
time to ensure that demonstrations can be preserved for the record in
an appropriate form.
In addition to videography equipment, the Office expects to have a
PC, projector, and screen in the hearing room to accommodate
demonstrations. Beyond this equipment, witnesses are responsible for
supplying and operating any other equipment needed for their
demonstrations. Persons planning to bring additional electronic or
audiovisual equipment must notify the Office at least five business
days in advance of their scheduled hearing date by emailing John Riley,
Attorney-Advisor, at [email protected].
All hearings will be open to the public, but seating will be
limited and will be provided on a first-come, first-served basis.
Witnesses and persons accompanying witnesses will be given priority in
seating. As noted above, all of the hearings will be live streamed
online.
C. Ex-Parte Communication
Typically, the Office's communications with participants about an
ongoing rulemaking do not include discussions about the substance of
the proceeding apart from written comments and public hearings. As with
prior section 1201 rulemakings, the written record may also include
post-hearing questions issued by the Office to individual parties
involved with a particular class, and the Office will continue to post
any questions and responses on the Office's website as part of the
public record. For this rulemaking, the Office has determined that
informal communication with interested parties might also be
beneficial, such as to discuss nuances of proposed regulatory language.
Any such communication may occur after the public hearings, but before
the Office has issued a recommendation to the Librarian of Congress
regarding the exemptions. Parties wishing to participate in informal
discussions with the Office should submit a written request to one or
more of the persons listed in the contact information above.
The primary means to communicate views in the course of the
rulemaking will, however, continue to be through the submission of
written comments and testimony at the public hearings. In other words,
informal communication will supplement, not substitute for, the written
record and testimony at the public hearings. Should a party meet with
the Office regarding this rulemaking, the participating party will be
responsible for submitting a list of attendees and written summary of
any oral communication to the Office, which will be made publicly
available on the Office's website or regulations.gov. In sum, while the
Office is establishing the option of informal meetings in this
rulemaking, it will require that all such communications be reflected
in the record to ensure the greatest possible transparency.
[[Page 4886]]
Dated: January 25, 2018.
Sarang V. Damle,
General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. 2018-02086 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P