You are on page 1of 5

63578 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No.

199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2002 / Proposed Rules

documents for a parent company or whether there are particular classes of ‘‘No person shall circumvent a
subsidiary company or sister subsidiary works as to which users are, or are technological measure that effectively
company are prepared and filed with likely to be, adversely affected in their controls access to a work protected
Customs using ‘‘reasonable care’’, but ability to make noninfringing uses due under this title.’’ Subparagraph (B)
such activity does not extend to the to the prohibition on circumvention. limits this prohibition. It provides that
actual preparation or filing of the This notice requests written comments prohibition against circumvention
documents or their electronic from all interested parties, including ‘‘shall not apply to persons who are
equivalents. For purposes of this representatives of copyright owners, users of a copyrighted work which is in
definition, a parent company is a educational institutions, libraries and a particular class of works, if such
corporation that owns more than 50 archives, scholars, researchers and persons are, or are likely to be in the
percent of the voting shares of another members of the public, in order to elicit succeeding 3-year period, adversely
corporation, a subsidiary company is a evidence on whether noninfringing uses affected by virtue of such prohibition in
corporation in which a parent company of certain classes of works are, or are their ability to make noninfringing uses
owns more than 50 percent of the voting likely to be, adversely affected by this of that particular class of works under
shares, and a sister subsidiary company prohibition on the circumvention of this title’’ as determined in this
is one of two or more corporations in measures that control access to rulemaking. This prohibition on
which the same parent company owns copyrighted works. circumvention became effective two
more than 50 percent of the voting DATES: Written comments are due by years after the date of enactment, on
shares. December 18, 2002. Reply comments are October 28, 2000.
* * * * * due by February 19, 2003. At the end of the 2-year period
3. In § 111.2, a new paragraph ADDRESSES: Electronic Internet
between the enactment and effective
(a)(2)(vii) is added to read as follows: submissions must be made through the date of the provision, the Librarian of
Congress made an initial determination
Copyright Office Web site: http://
§ 111.2 License and district permit as to classes of works to be exempted
www.copyright.gov/1201/
required. from the prohibition for the first
comment_forms; See section 3 of the
(a) * * * triennial period. Exemption to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
(2) * * * Prohibition on Circumvention of
(vii) Corporate compliance activity. A file formats and other information about
Copyright Protection Systems for Access
company performing a corporate electronic and non-electronic filing
Control Technologies, 65 FR 64556,
compliance activity is not required to be requirements. If delivered by hand,
64574 (2000) (hereinafter Final Reg.).
licensed as a broker. comments should be delivered to the
This determination was made upon the
Office of the General Counsel, Copyright
* * * * * recommendation of the Register of
Office, LM–403, James Madison Copyrights following an extensive
Douglas M. Browning, Memorial Building, 101 Independence rulemaking proceeding. The exemptions
Acting Commissioner of Customs. Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If promulgated by the Librarian in the first
Approved: October 8, 2002. delivered by means of the United States rulemaking will remain in effect until
Timothy E. Skud, Postal Service (see section 3 of the October 28, 2003. At that point, the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION about
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. exemptions created in the first
continuing mail delays), comments anticircumvention rulemaking will
[FR Doc. 02–26039 Filed 10–11–02; 8:45 am]
should be addressed to David O. Carson, expire and any exemptions promulgated
BILLING CODE 4820–02–P
General Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, PO in this second anticircumvention
Box 70400, Southwest Station, rulemaking will take effect for a new 3-
Washington, DC 20024–0400. See year period.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
information about requirements and 2. Background
Copyright Office
formats of submissions. Title I of the Digital Millennium
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob Copyright Act was, inter alia, the
37 CFR Part 201
Kasunic, Office of the General Counsel, congressional fulfillment of obligations
[Docket No. RM 2002–4] Copyright GC/I&R, PO Box 70400, of the United States under the WIPO
Southwest Station, Washington, DC Copyright Treaty and the WIPO
Exemption to Prohibition on 20024–0400. Telephone (202) 707–8380; Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
Circumvention of Copyright Protection telefax (202) 707–8366. For additional information on the
Systems for Access Control historical background and the legislative
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Technologies history of Title I, See Exemption to
1. Mandate for Rulemaking Proceeding Prohibition on Circumvention of
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of
Congress. On October 28, 1998, President Copyright Protection Systems for Access
ACTION: Notice of inquiry. Clinton signed into law the Digital Control Technologies, 64 FR 66139,
Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. 105– 66140 (1999) (http://www.loc.gov/
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the 304 (1998). Section 103 (subtitled copyright/fedreg/1999/64fr66139.html).
Library of Congress is preparing to ‘‘Copyright Protection Systems and Section 1201 of title 17 of the United
conduct proceedings mandated by the Copyright Management Information’’) of States Code prohibits two general types
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title I of the Act added a new Chapter of activity: (1) The conduct of
which provides that the Librarian of 12 to title 17 United States Code, which ‘‘circumvention’’ of technological
Congress may exempt certain classes of among other things prohibits protection measures that control access
works from the prohibition against circumvention of access control and (2) trafficking in any technology,
circumvention of technological technologies employed by or on behalf product, service, device, component, or
measures that control access to of copyright owners to protect their part thereof that protects either access to
copyrighted works. The purpose of this works. Specifically, subsection a copyrighted work or that protects the
rulemaking proceeding is to determine 1201(a)(1)(A) provides, inter alia, that ‘‘rights of the copyright owner,’’ if that

VerDate 0ct<02>2002 18:56 Oct 11, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2002 / Proposed Rules 63579

device or service meets one of three decryption or hacking of access controls showing that the prohibition has a
conditions. The first type of activity, the such as passwords or serial numbers. substantial adverse effect on
conduct of circumvention, is prohibited The structure of section 1201 is such noninfringing uses of a particular class
in section 1201(a)(1). The latter that there exists no comparable of works. It was determined that
activities, trafficking in devices or prohibition on the conduct of proponents of an exemption bear the
services that circumvent (1) access or (2) circumventing technological measures burden of proof that an exemption is
the rights of the copyright owner are that protect the ‘‘rights of the copyright warranted for a particular class of works
contained in sections 1201(a)(2) and owner,’’ e.g., the section 106 rights to and that the prohibition is presumed to
1201(b) respectively. In addition to reproduce, adapt, distribute, publicly apply to all classes of works unless an
these prohibitions, section 1201 also perform, or publicly display a work. adverse impact has been shown. See
includes a series of section-specific Circumventing a technological measure Commerce Comm. Report, at 37; see
limitations and exemptions to the that protects these section 106 rights of also Final Reg., 65 FR 64556, 64558.
prohibitions of section 1201. the copyright owner is governed not by In order to meet the burden of proof,
section 1201, but rather by the proponents of an exemption must
The Anticircumvention Provision at provide evidence either that actual harm
traditional copyright rights and the
Issue exists or that it is ‘‘likely’’ to occur in
applicable limitations in the Copyright
Subsection 1201(a)(1) applies when a Act. For example, if a person the ensuing 3-year period. Actual
person who is not authorized by the circumvents a measure that prohibits instances of verifiable problems
copyright owner to gain access to a work printing or saving an electronic copy of occurring in the marketplace are
does so by circumventing a an article, there is no provision in necessary to satisfy the burden with
technological measure put in place by section 1201 that precludes this activity. respect to actual harm and a compelling
the copyright owner to control access to Instead, it would be actionable as case will be based on first-hand
the work. See the Report of the House copyright infringement of the section knowledge of such problems. While
Committee on Commerce on the Digital 106 right of reproduction unless an ‘‘likely’’ adverse effects will also be
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, H.R. applicable limitation applied, e.g., fair examined in this rulemaking, this
Rep. No. 105–551, pt. 2, at 36 (1998) use. The trafficking in, inter alia, any standard requires proof that adverse
(hereinafter Commerce Comm. Report). device or service that allowed others to effects are more likely than not to occur
That section provides that ‘‘No person circumvent such a technological and cannot be based on speculation
shall circumvent a technological protection measure may, however, be alone. The House Manager’s Report
measure that effectively controls access actionable under section 1201(b). stated that an exemption based on
to a work protected under this title.’’ 17 Since section 1201 contains no ‘‘likely’’ future adverse impacts during
U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) (1998). The prohibition on the circumvention of the applicable period should only be
relevant terms are defined: technological measures that protect the made ‘‘in extraordinary circumstances
(3) As used in this subsection— ‘‘rights of the copyright owner,’’ in which the evidence of likelihood is
(A) To ‘‘circumvent a technological sometimes referred to as ‘‘use’’ or highly specific, strong and persuasive.’’
measure’’ means to descramble a ‘‘copy’’ control measures, any effect Staff of the House Committee on the
scrambled work, to decrypt an these measures may have on Judiciary, 105th Cong., Section-By-
encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, noninfringing uses would not be Section Analysis of H.R. 2281 as passed
bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a attributable to a section 1201 by the United States House of
technological measure, without the prohibition. Since there is a prohibition Representatives on August 4, 1998
authority of the copyright owner; and on the act of circumventing a (hereinafter House Manager’s Report) at
(B) A technological measure technological measure that controls 6. While such a statement could be
‘‘effectively controls access to a work’’ access to a work, and since traditional interpreted as raising the burden beyond
if the measure, in the ordinary course of Copyright Act limitations are not a standard of a preponderance of the
its operation, requires the application of defenses to the act of circumventing a evidence, the statutory language
information, or a process or a treatment, technological measure that controls enacted—‘‘whether persons who are
with the authority of the copyright access, Congress chose to create the users of a copyrighted work are, or are
owner, to gain access to the work. current rulemaking proceeding as a likely to be in the succeeding 3-year
17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(3). ‘‘fail-safe mechanism’’ to monitor the period, adversely affected by the
effect of the anticircumvention prohibition’’—does not specify a
Scope of the Rulemaking
provision in 1201(a)(1)(A). Commerce standard beyond more likely than not.
The statutory focus of this rulemaking Comm. Report, at 36. This Nevertheless, as the Register’s final
is limited to one subsection of section anticircumvention rulemaking is recommendation explained, the
1201: The prohibition on the conduct of authorized to monitor the effect of the expectation of ‘‘distinct, verifiable and
circumvention of technological prohibition on ‘‘access’’ circumvention measurable impacts’’ in the legislative
measures that control access to on noninfringing uses of copyrighted history as to actual harm suggests that
copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C. works. In this triennial rulemaking conjecture alone would be insufficient
1201(a)(1)(C). The Librarian has no proceeding, effects on noninfringing to support a finding of ‘‘likely’’ adverse
authority to limit either of the anti- uses that are unrelated to section effect. Final Reg., 65 FR 64556, 64559.
trafficking provisions contained in 1201(a)(1)(A) may not be considered. A showing of ‘‘likely’’ adverse impact
subsections 1201(a)(2) or 1201(b). This See 1201(a)(1)(C). will necessarily involve prediction, but
narrow focus was the subject of a great the burden of proving that the expected
deal of confusion during the first Burden of Proof adverse effect is more likely than other
rulemaking and, therefore, demands In the last rulemaking, the Register possible outcomes is on the proponent
some clarification. concluded from the language of the of the exemption.
This rulemaking addresses only the statute and the legislative history that a The identification of a specific
prohibition on the conduct of determination to exempt a class of problem and the meeting of a burden of
circumventing measures that control works from the prohibition on proof as to a problem is not, however,
‘‘access’’ to copyrighted works, e.g., circumvention must be based on a the end of the analysis. For an

VerDate 0ct<02>2002 18:56 Oct 11, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1
63580 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2002 / Proposed Rules

exemption to be warranted in a need for an exemption to the discussed the importance of


particular class of works, a proponent prohibition on circumvention. appropriately defining the proper scope
must show that such problems are or are Another consideration relating to the of the exemption. House Manager’s
likely to become of such significance availability for use of copyrighted works Report, at 7. The legislative history
that they would constitute a substantial is whether the measure supports a stated that it would be highly unlikely
adverse effect. De minimis or isolated model that is likely to benefit the for all literary works to be adversely
problems would be insufficient to public. For example, while a measure affected by the prohibition and
warrant an exemption for a class of may limit the length of time of access to therefore, determining an appropriate
works. Similarly, mere inconveniences a work or may limit access to only a subcategory of the works in this
to noninfringing uses or theoretical portion of work, those limitations may category would be the goal of the
critiques of Section 1201 would not benefit the public by providing ‘‘use- rulemaking. Id.
satisfy the requisite showing. House facilitating’’ models that will allow Therefore, the Register concluded that
Manager’s Report, at 6. There is a users to obtain access to works at a the starting point for identifying a
presumption that the prohibition will lower cost than they would otherwise be particular ‘‘class of works’’ to be
apply to any and all classes of works, able to obtain were such restrictions not exempted must be one of the section
including those as to which an in place. Similarly, if there is 102 categories. Final Reg., 65 FR 64559–
exemption of applicability was compelling evidence that particular 64561. From that starting point, it is
previously in effect, unless a new classes of works would not be offered at likely that the scope or boundaries of a
showing is made that an exemption is all without the protection afforded by particular class would need to be further
warranted. Final Reg., 65 FR 64556, technological protection measures that limited to remedy the particular harm to
64558. Exemptions are reviewed de control access, this use-facilitating noninfringing uses identified in the
novo and prior exemptions will expire factor must be considered. House rulemaking.
unless the case is made in the Manager’s Report, at 6. Accord: Final In the first anticircumvention
rulemaking proceeding that the Reg., 65 FR 64556, 64559. rulemaking, the Register recommended
prohibition has or will more likely than and the Librarian agreed that two
The Scope of the Term ‘‘Class of classes of works should be exempted:
not have an adverse effect on Works’’ (1) Compilations consisting of lists of
noninfringing uses. A prior argument
Section 1201 does not define a critical websites blocked by filtering software
that resulted in an exemption may be
term for the rulemaking process: ‘‘class applications; and
less persuasive within the context of the (2) Literary works, including
marketplace in the next 3-year period. of works.’’ In the first rulemaking, the
Register elicited views on the scope and computer programs and databases,
Similarly, proposals that were not found protected by access control mechanisms
to warrant an exemption in the last meaning of this term. After review of the
statutory language, the legislative that fail to permit access because of
rulemaking could find factual support malfunction, damage or obsoleteness.
in the present rulemaking. history and the extensive record in the
While the first class exempted fits
proceeding,1 the Register reached
Availability of Works in Unprotected comfortably within the approach to
certain conclusions on the scope of this
Formats classification discussed above, the
term. For a more detailed discussion,
second class includes the entire
Other factors must also be balanced see Final Reg., 65 FR 64556, 64559.
The Register found that the statutory category of literary works, but narrows
with any adverse effects attributable to the exemption by reference to attributes
language required that the Librarian
the prohibition on circumvention of of the technological measures that
identify a ‘‘class of works’’ primarily
technological protection measures that controls access to the works. The
based upon attributes of the works
protect access to copyrighted works. In Register found that this second class
themselves, and not by reference to
making her recommendation to the probably reached the outer limits of a
some external criteria such as the
Librarian, the Register is instructed to permissible definition of ‘‘class’’ under
intended use or the users of the works.
consider the availability for use of the approach adopted in the first
The phrase ‘‘class of works’’ connotes
copyrighted works. 17 U.S.C. rulemaking.
that the shared, common attributes of
1201(a)(1)(C)(i). The Register must also Commenters should familiarize
the ‘‘class’’ relate to the nature of
consider whether works protected by themselves with the Register’s
authorship in the ‘‘works.’’ Thus a
technological measures that control recommendation in the first rulemaking,
‘‘class of works’’ was intended to be a
access are also available in the since many of these issues which were
‘‘narrow and focused subset of the the
marketplace in formats that are unsettled at the start of that rulemaking
broad categories of works of authorship
unprotected. The fact that a work is have been addressed in the final
* * * identified in section 102.’’
available in a format without decision. Since the bases of those
Commerce Comm. Report, at 38. The
technological protection measures determinations were the statute and the
starting point for a proposed exemption
would allow the public to make legislative history relevant to these
of a particular class of works must be
noninfringing uses of the work even if issues, and since Congress has not
the section 102 categories of authorship:
that is not the preferred or optimal provided any additional guidance to the
literary works; musical works; dramatic
format for use. For example, in the last Register or the Librarian since that
works; pantomimes and choreographic
rulemaking, although many users rulemaking’s conclusion, interested
works; pictorial, graphic and sculptural
claimed that the technological measures parties should presume that these
works; motion pictures and other
on motion pictures contained on Digital determinations will be applied to the
audiovisual works; sound recordings;
Versatile Disks (DVDs) restricted evidence submitted during this second
and architectural works.
noninfringing uses of works, a balancing anticircumvention rulemaking as well.
This determination is supported by
consideration was that the vast majority Of course, commenters may argue for
the House Manager’s Report which
of these works were also available in adoption of alternative approaches, but
analog format on VHS tapes. Final Reg., 1 See Final Reg., 65 FR 64556, 64557 for a a persuasive case will have to be made
65 FR 64554, 64568. Such availability is description of the record in the last rulemaking to warrant reconsideration of decisions
a factor to consider in assessing the proceeding. regarding interpretation of section 1201.

VerDate 0ct<02>2002 18:56 Oct 11, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2002 / Proposed Rules 63581

The exemptions that were published account ‘‘such other factors as the and to provide factual information and
for the first 3-year period of the effective Librarian considers appropriate,’’ legal argument addressing whether a
date of section 1201(a)(1)(A) are commenters are invited to identify any proposed exemption should be adopted.
temporary and will expire on the last such factors, explain why any factors Since the reply comments are intended
day of such 3-year period, October 27, identified should be considered, and to be responsive to the initial comments,
2003. This rulemaking will examine discuss how such factors would affect reply commenters must identify what
adverse effects in the current the analysis relating to any proposed proposed class they are responding to,
marketplace and in the next 3-year class of works that the commenters are whether in opposition, support,
period to determine whether any addressing. amplification or correction. As with
exemptions to the prohibition on For the entire record of the first initial comments, reply comments
circumvention of technological anticircumvention rulemaking, should first identify the proposed class,
protection measures that effectively including all comments, testimony and provide a summary of the argument, and
control access to copyrighted works are notices published, See the Copyright then provide the factual and/or legal
warranted by the evidence raised during Office’s Web site at: http://www.loc.gov/ support for their argument. This format
this rulemaking. copyright/1201/anticirc.html. of class/summary/facts and/or legal
This notice requests written 3. Written Comments argument should be repeated for each
comments from all interested parties. In reply to a particular class of work
addition to the necessary showing In the last rulemaking the Register proposed.
discussed above, in order to make a determined that the burden of proof is
on the proponent of an exemption to The Copyright Office intends to place
prima facie case for a proposed the comments and reply comments that
exemption, certain critical points must come forward with evidence supporting
an exemption for a particular class of are submitted in this proceeding on its
be established. First, a proponent must Web site (http://www.copyright.gov/
works. Therefore, the initial comment
identify the technological measure that 1201). Regardless of the mode of
period in this rulemaking specifically
is the ultimate source of the alleged submission, all comments must, at a
seeks the identification of this
problem, and the technological measure minimum, contain the legal name of the
information from proponents of
must effectively control access to a submitter and the entity on whose
exemptions. First, the commenter
copyrighted work. Second, a proponent behalf the comment was submitted, if
should identify the particular class of
must specifically explain what any. If persons do not wish to have their
works that is being proposed as an
noninfringing activity the prohibition address, telephone number, or email
exemption, followed by a summary of
on circumvention is preventing. Third, address publicly displayed on the
the argument for the exemption. The
a proponent must establish that the commenter should then specify the facts Office’s website, the comment itself
prevented activity is, in fact, a and evidence providing a basis for this should not include such information,
noninfringing use under current law. exemption and any legal arguments in but should only include the name of the
The nature of the Librarian’s inquiry is support of the exemption. Finally, the commenter. The Office prefers that
further delineated by the statutory areas commenter may include in the comment comments and reply comments be
to be examined: any additional information or submitted in electronic form and
(i) The availability for use of documentation which supports the strongly encourages commenters to
copyrighted works; commenter’s position. submit their comments electronically.
(ii) The availability for use of works If a commenter proposes that more However, the Office recognizes that it
for nonprofit archival, preservation, and than one class of works be exempted, must provide a means of delivery for
educational purposes; each individual class proposed should persons who are unable to submit their
(iii) The impact that the prohibition be numbered and followed by a comments through the Office’s website
on the circumvention of technological summary of the argument for that or to deliver their comments in person.
measures applied to copyrighted works proposed class and the factual support Therefore, comments may also be
has on criticism, comment, news and legal arguments in support of that delivered through the United States
reporting, teaching, scholarship, or class. This format of class/summary/ Postal Service, addressed to the General
research; facts/argument should be sequentially Counsel, Copyright GC/I&R, PO Box
(iv) The effect of circumvention of followed for each class of work 70400, Southwest Station, Washington,
technological measures on the market proposed as necessary. DC 20024–0400. Because private
for or value of copyrighted works; and As discussed above, the best evidence carriers such as Airborne Express, DHL
(v) Such other factors as the Librarian in support of an exemption would Worldwide Express, Federal Express,
considers appropriate. consist of concrete examples or cases of and United Parcel Service cannot
17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C). specific instances in which the deliver to post office boxes or directly
These statutory considerations require prohibition on circumvention of to the office of the General Counsel,
examination and careful balancing. The technological measures controlling commenters are cautioned not to use
harm identified by a proponent of an access has had or is likely to have an such services to deliver their comments.
exemption must be balanced with the adverse effect on noninfringing uses. It Moreover, due to continuing mail delays
harm that would result from an would also be useful for the commenter at the Library of Congress, submission
exemption. In some circumstances, an to quantify the adverse effects in order by means of the United States Postal
exemption could have a greater adverse to explain the scope of the problem, e.g., Service is strongly discouraged and the
effect on the public than would the evidence of widespread or substantial submitter assumes the risk that the
adverse effects identified. The ultimate impact through data or supplementary comment will not be received at the
determination of the Librarian must take material. Copyright Office by the due date.
all of these factors into consideration. In the reply comments, persons who Comments submitted by means of the
Proponents and opponents of oppose or support any exemptions United States Postal Service must be
exemptions should address each of proposed in the initial comments will physically received by an employee of
these statutory factors. Because the have the opportunity to respond to the the General Counsel’s Office of the
statute invites the Librarian to take into proposals made in the initial comments Copyright Office by the applicable

VerDate 0ct<02>2002 18:56 Oct 11, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1
63582 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 199 / Tuesday, October 15, 2002 / Proposed Rules

deadline to be considered. Commenters single file in either Adobe Portable Following these hearings, the Register
who use the postal service should Document File (PDF) format (preferred), will make a determination as to whether
consider using Express Mail. Electronic or in Microsoft Word Version 2000 or there is a need for additional written
filing or hand-delivery will help insure earlier, in WordPerfect Version 9 or comments in the form of post-hearing
timely receipt of comments by the earlier, or in ASCII text. If the comment comments specifically addressing
Office. Electronic comments is hand delivered or mailed to the Office matters raised in the record of this
successfully submitted through the and the submitter does not wish to have proceeding. Details on hearings and any
Office’s website will generate a the address, telephone number, or email post-hearing comments will be
confirmation receipt to the submitter address publicly displayed on the announced at a future date.
and submitters hand-delivering Office’s website, the comment should In order to provide flexibility in this
comments may request a date stamp on not include such information on the proceeding to take into account
an extra copy provided by the submitter. document itself, but only the name and unforeseen developments that may
If submitted through the Copyright affiliation, if any, of the commenter. In occur and that would significantly affect
Office’s website: The Copyright Office’s that case, a cover letter should be the Register’s recommendation, an
website will contain a submission page included that contains the commenter’s opportunity to petition the Register for
at: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/ address, telephone number, email consideration of new information will
comment_forms. Approximately thirty address, and for initial comments, the be made available after the deadlines
days prior to each applicable deadline proposed class of copyrighted work to specified. A petition, including
(see DATES), a form will be activated on be exempted and another field for a proposed new classes of works to be
the Copyright Office website allowing brief summary of the argument. exempted, must be in writing and must
information to be entered into the Anyone who is unable to submit a set forth the reasons why the
required fields, including the name of comment in electronic form (on the information could not have been made
the person making the submission, his website as an attachment or by means of available earlier and why it should be
or her title, organization, mailing hand delivery or the United States considered by the Register after the
address, telephone number, and email Postal Service on disk or CD–ROM) deadline. A petition must also set forth
address. For initial comments, there will should submit an original and fifteen the proposed class of works to be
be two additional fields required: (1) paper copies by hand or by means of the exempted, a summary of the argument,
The proposed class or classes of United States Postal Service to the the factual basis for such an exemption
copyrighted work(s) to be exempted, appropriate address listed above. It may and the legal argument supporting such
and (2) a brief summary of the not be feasible for the Office to place an exemption. Fifteen copies of the
argument(s). The comment or reply these comments on its website. petition must be hand-delivered to the
comment itself must be sent as an General Requirements for all Office of the General Counsel of the
attachment, and must be in a single file submissions: All submissions (in either Copyright Office at the address listed
in either Adobe Portable Document File electronic or non-electronic form above. The Register will make a
(PDF) format (preferred), in Microsoft delivered through the website, by means determination whether to accept such a
Word Version 2000 or earlier, or in of hand delivery or the United States
petition based on the stage of the
WordPerfect 9 or earlier, or in ASCII Postal Service) must contain on the
rulemaking process at which the request
text. There will be a browse button on comment itself, the name of the person
is made and the merits of the petition.
the form that will allow submitters to making the submission and, if
If a petition is accepted, the Register
attach the comment file to the form and applicable, the entity on whose behalf
will announce deadlines for comments
then to submit the completed form to the comment is submitted. The mailing
in response to the petition.
the Office. The personal information address, telephone number, telefax
entered in the required fields will not be number, if any, and email address need Dated: October 4, 2002.
publicly posted on the website, but the not be included on the comment itself, Marybeth Peters,
Office intends to post on its website the but must be included in some form, e.g., Register of Copyrights.
proposed class and the summary of the on the website form or in a cover letter, James H. Billington,
argument, as well as the entire with the submission. All submissions
The Librarian of Congress.
comment. Only the commenter’s name must also include the class/summary/
[FR Doc. 02–26183 Filed 10–11–02; 8:45 am]
(and, if applicable, the entity on whose factual and/or legal argument format in
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
behalf the comment is submitted) is the comment itself for each class of
required on the comment document work proposed or for each reply to a
itself and a commenter who does not proposal. Initial comments and reply
want other personal information posted comments will be accepted for a 30-day POSTAL SERVICE
on the Office’s website should avoid period in each round, and a form will
including other private information on be placed on the Copyright Office 39 CFR Part 111
the comment itself. Except in website at least 30 days prior to the Change in Administrative Charges for
exceptional circumstances, changes to deadline for submission. Initial Refunds of Unused Meter Stamps and
the submitted comment will not be comments will be accepted from Returned Business Reply Mail
allowed and it will become a part of the November 19, 2002, until December 18, Mailpieces With Postage Affixed
public record of this rulemaking. 2002, at 5 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
If by means of the United States at which time the submission form will AGENCY: Postal Service.
Postal Service or hand delivery: Send, to be removed from the website. Reply ACTION: Proposed rule.
the appropriate address listed above, comments will be accepted from
two copies, each on a 3.5-inch write- January 21, 2003, until February 19, SUMMARY: The Postal Service proposes
protected diskette or CD–ROM, labeled 2003, at 5 P.M. Eastern Standard Time. to revise the Domestic Mail Manual
with the name of the person making the (DMM) to increase the administrative
submission and the entity on whose 4. Hearings and Further Comments charges for processing refunds for
behalf the comment was submitted, if The Register intends to hold hearings unused meter stamps and business reply
any. The document itself must be in a in this rulemaking in the spring of 2003. mail (BRM) pieces returned with

VerDate 0ct<02>2002 18:56 Oct 11, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15OCP1.SGM 15OCP1