Small Copyright Claims Study

8/3/2019 Small Copyright Claims Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/small-copyright-claims-study 1/4

66758 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208/ Thursday, October 27, 2011/ Notices

investigation in these cases would serveno purpose since the petitioning groupof workers cannot be covered by morethan one certification at a time.TA–W–80,427; Coastal Lumber

Company, Hopwood, PAI hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations wereissued during the period of October 11,

2011 through October 14, 2011. Copiesof these determinations may berequested under the Freedom of Information Act. Requests may besubmitted by fax, courier services, ormail to FOIA Disclosure Officer, Officeof Trade Adjustment Assistance (ETA),U.S. Department of Labor, 200Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,DC 20210 or [email protected] . These determinations also are availableon the Department’s Web site athttp://www.doleta.gov/tradeact underthe searchable listing of determinations.

Dated: October 20, 2011.

Michael W. Jaffe,Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2011–27847 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and TrainingAdministration

Investigations Regarding Certificationsof Eligibility To Apply for WorkerAdjustment Assistance and AlternativeTrade Adjustment Assistance

Petitions have been filed with theSecretary of Labor under Section 221(a)of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) andare identified in the Appendix to thisnotice. Upon receipt of these petitions,the Director of the Division of TradeAdjustment Assistance, Employmentand Training Administration, hasinstituted investigations pursuant toSection 221(a) of the Act.

The purpose of each of theinvestigations is to determine whetherthe workers are eligible to apply foradjustment assistance under title II,chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations

will further relate, as appropriate, to thedetermination of the date on which totalor partial separations began orthreatened to begin and the subdivisionof the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other personsshowing a substantial interest in thesubject matter of the investigations mayrequest a public hearing, provided suchrequest is filed in writing with theDirector, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance, at the address shown below,not later than November 7, 2011.

Interested persons are invited tosubmit written comments regarding thesubject matter of the investigations tothe Director, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance, at the address shown below,not later than November 7, 2011.

The petitions filed in this case areavailable for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade AdjustmentAssistance, Employment and TrainingAdministration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N–5428, 200 ConstitutionAvenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of

October 2011.Michael Jaffe,

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

APPENDIX

[20 TAA petitions instituted between 10/10/11 and 10/14/11]

TA–WSubject firm(petitioners)

LocationDate of

institutionDate ofpetition

80500 ........... IBM (State/One-Stop) ............................................................... San Francisco, CA .................. 10/11/11 10/07/1180501 ........... TT Electronics (Company) ....................................................... Boone, NC .............................. 10/11/11 10/10/1180502 ........... LexisNexis (Company) ............................................................. Miamisburg, OH ...................... 10/11/11 10/06/1180503 ........... Viam Manufacturing, Inc. (Company) ...................................... Santa Fe Springs, CA ............. 10/11/11 10/06/11

80504 ........... BASF Corporation (Company) ................................................. Belvidere, NJ .......................... 10/14/11 10/11/1180505 ........... Haldex (State/One-Stop) .......................................................... Kansas City, MO ..................... 10/14/11 10/12/1180506 ........... JVC–USA Product Return Center (State/One-Stop) ............... McAllen, TX ............................ 10/14/11 10/12/1180507 ........... Kerry Ingredients & Flavours (Union) ...................................... Turtle Lake, WI ....................... 10/14/11 10/12/1180508 ........... Stateline Warehouse (Workers) ............................................... Ridgeway, VA ......................... 10/14/11 10/07/1180509 ........... ON Semiconductor (Company) ................................................ Phoenix, AZ ............................ 10/14/11 10/06/1180510 ........... Suntron Corporation (Company) .............................................. Sugar Land, TX ...................... 10/14/11 10/12/1180511 ........... Specialty Bar Products Co. (Workers) ..................................... Blairsville, PA .......................... 10/14/11 10/05/1180512 ........... Pilgrim’s Pride—Dallas Processing Plant (State/One-Stop) .... Dallas, TX ............................... 10/14/11 09/30/1180513 ........... Centurion Medical Products (Workers) .................................... Jeanette, PA ........................... 10/14/11 10/13/1180514 ........... Intier Magna (State/One-Stop) ................................................. Shreveport, LA ........................ 10/14/11 10/13/1180515 ........... AI Android Industries (State/One-Stop) ................................... Shreveport, LA ........................ 10/14/11 10/13/1180516 ........... Travelers (Workers) ................................................................. Elmira, NY ............................... 10/14/11 10/13/1180517 ........... AGS Automotive (State/One-Stop) .......................................... Shreveport, LA ........................ 10/14/11 10/13/1180518 ........... KV Pharmaceuticals (State/One-Stop) .................................... Bridgeton, MO ......................... 10/14/11 10/13/1180519 ........... Verso Paper Corp. (Union) ...................................................... Bucksport, ME ........................ 10/14/11 10/13/11

[FR Doc. 2011–27846 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. 2011–10]

Remedies for Small Copyright Claims

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office isundertaking a study at the request of Congress to assess whether and, if so,how the current legal system hinders orprevents copyright owners frompursuing copyright infringement claimsthat have a relatively small economicvalue (‘‘small copyright claims’’); andrecommend potential changes inadministrative, regulatory, and statutoryauthority to improve the adjudication of these small copyright claims. The Office

VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:47 Oct 26, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact


http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact



66759Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208/ Thursday, October 27, 2011/ Notices

1Remedies for Small Copyright Claims, Before theSubcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109thCong. (2006), available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109 _house

_hearings&docid=f:26767.pdf.

2Remedies for Small Copyright Claims, Before theSubcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109thCong. (2006) (statement of the United StatesCopyright Office), available at http:// www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032906.html.

3United States Copyright Office, Report onOrphan Works 1 (2006), available at http:// www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf.

4Proposed bills include the Shawn BentleyOrphan Works Act of 2008, S. 2913, 110th Cong.(2008), which was passed by the Senate; the OrphanWorks Act of 2008, H.R. 5889, 110th Cong. (2008);and the Orphan Works Act of 2006, H.R. 5439,109th Cong. (2006).

thus seeks comment on how copyrightowners have handled small copyrightclaims and the obstacles they haveencountered, as well as potentialalternatives to the current legal systemthat could better accommodate suchclaims. This is a general inquiry and theOffice will publish additional notices onthis topic.

DATES: Comments are due January 16,2012.

ADDRESSES: All comments and replycomments shall be submittedelectronically. A comment pagecontaining a comment form is posted onthe Office Web site at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims. TheWeb site interface requires submitters tocomplete a form specifying name andorganization, as applicable, and toupload comments as an attachment viaa browser button. To meet accessibilitystandards, submitters must uploadcomments in a single file not to exceed

six megabytes (MB) in one of thefollowing formats: the Adobe PortableDocument File (PDF) format thatcontains searchable, accessible text (notan image); Microsoft Word;WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); orASCII text file format (not a scanneddocument). The form and face of thecomments must include both the nameof the submitter and organization. TheOffice will post all comments publiclyon the Office’s Web site exactly as theyare received, along with names andorganizations. If electronic submissionof comments is not feasible, please

contact the Office at 202–707–8380 forspecial instructions.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Catherine Rowland, Counsel, Office of Policy and International Affairs, bytelephone at 202–707–8350 or byelectronic mail at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Copyright Act (the ‘‘Act’’), 17U.S.C. 101 et seq., protects a widevariety of works of authorship, rangingfrom individual articles or photographsthat may not have a high commercial

value to motion pictures worthhundreds of millions of dollars in themarketplace. Copyright owners of all of these works may seek remedies underthe federal Copyright Act in the event of infringement. Not all of these copyrightowners, however, have the sameresources to bring a federal lawsuit,which can require substantial time,money, and effort. To the extent aninfringement results in a relatively smallamount of economic damage, thecopyright owner may be dissuaded fromfiling a lawsuit because the potential

award may not justify the expense of litigation. Even where statutory damagesand attorney fees are possible, they arenot available until the conclusion of thelitigation. Moreover, awards of statutorydamages may be as low as $750 (or, incases of innocent infringement, $200),and may not always make the copyrightowner whole.

In light of these challenges, the Houseof Representatives’ Subcommittee onCourts, the Internet, and IntellectualProperty held a hearing in March 2006to learn more about the problems faced

by small copyright claimants (the‘‘Small Claims Hearing’’).1 The hearingfocused on possible alternative disputeresolution systems such as a copyright‘‘small claims court’’ or othermechanism. The testimony alsoaddressed some of the problems thatsmall copyright claim owners have withthe current system, as well as concernsabout defendants’ rights in an

alternative system. The Copyright Officesubmitted a statement to theSubcommittee regarding the smallcopyright claims issue, noting thesedifficulties, proposing to reviewpotential alternatives, and welcomingthe possibility of further study.2 TheCopyright Office also identified some of these ‘‘small claims’’ challenges in its2006 Report on Orphan Works,3 andproposed legislation in 2006 and 2008addressing orphan works includedprovisions that specifically directed theCopyright Office to conduct a studyaddressing remedies for small claims,

but the legislation ultimately did not become law.4 The Chairman of the House Judiciary

Committee has recently asked the U.S.Copyright Office to study the obstaclesfacing small copyright claims disputes,as well as possible alternatives. In aletter dated October 11, 2011, ChairmanLamar Smith requested that the Office‘‘undertake a study to assess: (1) Theextent to which authors and other

copyright owners are effectivelyprevented from seeking relief frominfringements due to constraints in thecurrent system; and (2) furnish specificrecommendations, as appropriate, forchanges in administrative, regulatoryand statutory authority that willimprove the adjudication of smallcopyright claims and thereby enable all

copyright owners to more fully realizethe promise of exclusive rightsenshrined in our Constitution.’’

The Office therefore seeks commentson how parties—both copyright ownersand those alleged to have infringed—view the current system, what theirexperiences with the current systemhave been, and what types of alternatives would be helpful andviable.

A. Challenges of the Current Legal System

Currently, copyright ownersinterested in bringing a lawsuit toenforce their copyrights must do so infederal district courts, which haveexclusive jurisdiction over copyrightclaims. 28 U.S.C. 1338. This is trueregardless of the monetary value of thecopyright claim. Vesting exclusivejurisdiction in federal courts is generally

beneficial because copyright law isfederal law, and federal courts have

become familiar with copyright analysisand thus should bring a level of consistency to copyright cases.Additionally, the Act aids somecopyright claimants by permittingawards of reasonable attorney’s fees and

statutory damages to the prevailingparty, but a plaintiff may recoverstatutory damages and attorney’s feesonly if the work was timely registered.17 U.S.C. 412, 504, 505.

Despite the benefits of the currentsystem, there are some drawbacks torequiring copyright owners anddefendants to engage in potentiallyextensive federal litigation for allcopyright disputes. One of the majorimpediments to federal lawsuits is thecost of litigation. Although copyrightowners could proceed pro se in federalcourt, they often need the assistance of

a lawyer to understand and handlefederal procedures and substantive law.This is especially true because, unlikein the state court system, there is nostreamlined ‘‘small claims’’ process forclaims with a lower monetary value. If a copyright owner hires a lawyer, theexpenses can add up quickly.Contingency fee arrangements arerelatively rare in copyright lawsuits;thus most copyright owners will have topay an hourly fee for representation.Lawyers charge hundreds of dollars perhour, which could reach a total of tens


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:26767.pdf






http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032906.html


http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report-full.pdf


http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims















66760 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208/ Thursday, October 27, 2011/ Notices

5Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, March 31,2010, Office of Judges Programs, Statistics Division,Administrative Office of the United States Courts,Table C–5, available at http://www.uscourts.gov/ Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/ FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2010/tables/ C05Mar10.pdf. The time frame differs significantly between districts—from 11.1 months in the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to41.2 months in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia.

or hundreds of thousands of dollarswhen a case does not immediately settleand instead requires discovery, motionpractice, and trial. In fact, one recentsurvey found that, as of 2011, themedian cost for litigating a copyrightinfringement lawsuit with less than$1 million at risk was $350,000. Am.Intellectual Prop. Law Ass’n (‘‘AIPLA’’),

Report of the Economic Survey 2011 35(2011). Even if a copyright ownerproceeds pro se, litigation itself includescourt costs and fees, which can add upto a not insignificant sum. Manyindividual copyright owners simply donot have the resources to fundexpensive litigation. Moreover, eventhough the Act allows some awards of attorney’s fees, other costs, and statutorydamages, these awards are notguaranteed—and may not be available atall depending on the timeliness of copyright registration—and are onlyawarded at the end of litigation, likely

after a copyright owner has madesignificant out of pocket payment tocover legal fees and court costs.Additionally, an award of attorney’sfees—assuming that it is collectible—will not necessarily reimburse thecopyright owner for all fees expended inprosecuting a claim.

In federal litigation, the period of time between the filing of a case and the finaldetermination can be lengthy. TheFederal Rules of Civil Procedure allowparties to engage in extensive discoveryand motion practice, which often takefar more than a year to complete. In fact,the median time for all cases that went

to trial—not just copyright suits—wastwenty-three months in 2009–2010.5 This lengthy time frame requireslitigants to expend energy and effortthroughout a relatively long period of time. This investment of time, not tomention the associated expenses, maynot be feasible for individual authors,who may not be able to dedicatesufficient time to handle all of thelitigation burdens.

B. Potential Alternatives for Small Copyright Claims

The Office is interested in learning

about alternatives to the current legalsystem that might help alleviate some of the burdens associated with pursuingsmall copyright claims. Some

alternatives were identified at the SmallClaims Hearing, including: (1) Using thecurrent Copyright Royalty Board (apanel of administrative law judgesestablished under Chapter 8 of Title 17that sets rates and terms for statutorylicenses and decides how to distributecertain statutory license royalties); (2)creating a federal ‘‘small claims court’’

or otherwise streamlining federalprocedures; (3) developing a staff of dedicated administrative law judges tospecialize in small copyright claims; (4)amending the Act to allow state courts(including small claims courts) to hearsmall copyright claims; and (5) allowingtrade associations or other grouprepresentatives to bring a single, largefiling on behalf of a sizeable group of small copyright owners. While thesealternatives deserve balanceddiscussion, there may be otherpotentially suitable options that werenot discussed at the Small Claims

Hearing.There are, of course, a variety of issues that require further consideration.These include:

Degree of Difficulty Litigating Small Copyright Claims in the Current System:Before analyzing various alternatives tothe current system, it is important tofurther explore the obstacles that thedistrict court process presents in smallcopyright claim cases. This would helpfocus future analysis and any potentialalternative legal processes.

State Court Involvement: State courtsdo not have expertise in copyrightjurisprudence. As noted above, Section

1338 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code vestsfederal courts with exclusivejurisdiction over copyright claims.Moreover, Section 301 of the Actexplicitly preempts state claims ‘‘thatare equivalent to any of the exclusiverights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 inworks of authorship that are fixed in atangible medium of expression andcome within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102and 103.’’ Thus, state courts are notexperienced in the nuances of copyrightlaw and may not have sufficient

resources to devote to a claim’sintricacies, especially when limited in asmall claims court context.Nevertheless, state courts commonlyhandle small disputes, and thus theylikely have the structure to handle thelogistics of such claims. State courtinvolvement, however, is only onepossible avenue to explore and there arealso several federal options that should

be considered in the discussion.Location of Federal Court/Tribunal:

Creating a federal ‘‘small claims court’’or administrative judge panel would

create logistical rather thanjurisdictional challenges, includingwhere the court(s) and panel(s) would

be located. If there are several courts orpanels located throughout the country,it may provide more convenience to theparties, but it may also reduceconsistency and add to administrativecosts. Alternatively, if there is only one

court or panel, the guiding rules couldallow for liberal use of telephoneconferences and videoconferences, andthe procedures could focus more on apaper practice with fewer (if any)hearings. The court or tribunal couldalso limit the types and amount of discovery in the interest of expediency.

Affiliation With the Copyright Officeor Copyright Royalty Board: TheCopyright Office administers theCopyright Act, is a substantive expert onprovisions of copyright law, and hasstatutory responsibilities in bothlitigation and administrative law. It may

thus be appropriate for the Office to beassociated with a new process.Similarly, the Copyright Royalty Boardis already proficient in handlingadministrative procedures under theAct, and it may have the capability of expanding its scope to handleadditional claims.

Determination of ‘‘Small’’ Copyright Claims: Although many copyrightowners are concerned about the cost of litigating ‘‘small’’ copyright claims infederal court, the definition of ‘‘small’’is unclear. Any changes in legal processmust take a balanced approach todetermine which claims are deemed

‘‘small’’ enough to fit into the newsystem.

Voluntary or Mandatory: A majorquestion is whether a new smallcopyright claim process would bevoluntary or mandatory. Copyrightowners may want the option of choosingwhich type of court hears a claim, anddefendants might similarly wish toremove a claim filed in a new court orpanel to federal district court.Additionally, the question arises abouthow to appeal an adverse decision—andto what court or other body.

Fair Use: The affirmative defense of

fair use defense is extremely fact-specific and typically requires courts toexamine decades of judicial precedent.The ability to present and have heard afair use defense is therefore a concern.

Defendants’ Appearance: It has beensuggested that defendants should not berequired to appear at a small copyrightclaim proceeding until the copyrightowner provides a prima facie case of infringement. This ostensibly wouldprevent a copyright owner fromdragging a defendant into a legalproceeding without cause. It is unclear


http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2010/tables/C05Mar10.pdf










66761Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 208/ Thursday, October 27, 2011/ Notices

whether this would be necessary, orwhether an alternative small copyrightclaims proceeding might instead relyupon a rule akin to Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 11, which requires plaintiffsto certify the veracity of the claim.

Available Remedies: Because a smallcopyright claim process likely would belimited to reduce costs and time, it is

unclear what types of remedies should be offered. The Act itself offers anumber of infringement remedies,including injunctions, monetary relief (including statutory damages),impounding of infringing copies and of the articles by means of whichinfringing copies may be reproduced,costs and attorney’s fees. Considerationshould be given to whether analternative small claims process couldor should provide this whole panoply of remedies, and whether the new systemwould also allow preliminary relief toprevent impending or continuing

infringement, similar to a temporaryrestraining order or preliminaryinjunction under Federal Rule of CivilProcedure 65.

These are but a few of the factors toanalyze before deciding whether tomove forward with a new smallcopyright claim system, and, if so, whatthat new process might be.

II. Subjects of Inquiry

The Office seeks comment on howcopyright owners and defendants usethe current legal system for smallcopyright claims, including information

on the obstacles and benefits of usingfederal district courts. Additionally, theOffice requests comment on potentialalternatives for handling copyrightclaims that have a relatively smalleconomic value. The Office is interestedin comment on the logistics of potentialalternatives, as well as the benefits andrisks presented by different types of processes.

III. Conclusion

The Office hereby seeks commentfrom the public on factual and policymatters related to the treatment of small

copyright claims. If there are anyadditional pertinent issues notdiscussed above, the Office encouragesinterested parties to raise those mattersin their comments. In addition, theOffice is considering having one or moreroundtables or formal hearings on thematters raised above in the comingmonths. It is also likely that, followingreceipt of the comments in response tothis Notice, the Office will publish afurther Notice of Inquiry posing specificquestions and possibly exploringadditional alternatives.

Dated: October 24, 2011.

Maria A. Pallante,

Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 2011–27824 Filed 10–26–11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATIONRecords Schedules; Availability andRequest for Comments

AGENCY: National Archives and RecordsAdministration (NARA).

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request forcomments.

SUMMARY: The National Archives andRecords Administration (NARA)publishes notice at least once monthlyof certain Federal agency requests forrecords disposition authority (records

schedules). Once approved by NARA,records schedules provide mandatoryinstructions on what happens to recordswhen no longer needed for currentGovernment business. They authorizethe preservation of records of continuing value in the NationalArchives of the United States and thedestruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal,research, or other value. Notice ispublished for records schedules inwhich agencies propose to destroyrecords not previously authorized fordisposal or reduce the retention periodof records already authorized fordisposal. NARA invites publiccomments on such records schedules, asrequired by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).

DATES: Requests for copies must bereceived in writing on or beforeNovember 28, 2011. Once the appraisalof the records is completed, NARA willsend a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisalmemorandums that contain additionalinformation concerning the recordscovered by a proposed schedule. These,too, may be requested and will beprovided once the appraisal iscompleted. Requesters will be given 30days to submit comments.ADDRESSES: You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in thisnotice by contacting RecordsManagement Services (ACNR) using oneof the following means:

Mail: NARA (ACNR), 8601 AdelphiRoad, College Park, MD 20740–6001.

E-mail: [email protected]. Fax: 301–837–3698.Requesters must cite the control

number, which appears in parenthesesafter the name of the agency which

submitted the schedule, and mustprovide a mailing address. Those whodesire appraisal reports should soindicate in their request.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Laurence Brewer, Director, NationalRecords Management Program (ACN),National Archives and RecordsAdministration, 8601 Adelphi Road,

College Park, MD 20740–6001.Telephone: 301–837–1539. E-mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each yearFederal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape,and other media. To control thisaccumulation, agency records managersprepare schedules proposing retentionperiods for records and submit theseschedules for NARA’s approval, usingthe Standard Form (SF) 115, Request forRecords Disposition Authority. Theseschedules provide for the timely transferinto the National Archives of historically valuable records andauthorize the disposal of all otherrecords after the agency no longer needsthem to conduct its business. Someschedules are comprehensive and coverall the records of an agency or one of itsmajor subdivisions. Most schedules,however, cover records of only oneoffice or program or a few series of records. Many of these updatepreviously approved schedules, andsome include records proposed aspermanent.

The schedules listed in this notice aremedia neutral unless specified

otherwise. An item in a schedule ismedia neutral when the dispositioninstructions may be applied to recordsregardless of the medium in which therecords are created and maintained.Items included in schedules submittedto NARA on or after December 17, 2007,are media neutral unless the item islimited to a specific medium. (See 36CFR 1225.12(e).)

No Federal records are authorized fordestruction without the approval of theArchivist of the United States. Thisapproval is granted only after athorough consideration of their

administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government andof private persons directly affected bythe Government’s activities, andwhether or not they have historical orother value.

Besides identifying the Federalagencies and any subdivisionsrequesting disposition authority, thispublic notice lists the organizationalunit(s) accumulating the records orindicates agency-wide applicability inthe case of schedules that cover recordsthat may be accumulated throughout an






Documents

Small Copyright Claims Study