Ex Parte Communications

Citation88 FR 54491
Published date11 August 2023
Record Number2023-17162
CourtCopyright Office,Library Of Congress
SectionRules and Regulations
Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 154 (Friday, August 11, 2023)
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2023)]
                [Rules and Regulations]
                [Pages 54491-54495]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2023-17162]
                LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
                Copyright Office
                37 CFR Parts 201 and 205
                [Docket No. 2023-1]
                Ex Parte Communications
                AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
                ACTION: Final rule
                SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing a final rule establishing
                procedures governing ex parte communications with the Office. This
                final rule adopts regulatory language set forth in the Office's
                February 2023 notice of proposed rulemaking with some modifications in
                response to public comments. The rule defines ex parte communications,
                provides instructions on how to request an ex parte meeting, sets forth
                the parties' responsibilities after an ex parte meeting, and explains
                how non-compliant communications will be treated.
                DATES: Effective September 11, 2023.
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the
                General Counsel, by email at [email protected], or Melinda Kern,
                Attorney-Advisor, by email at [email protected], or telephone at 202-
                I. Background
                 On February 17, 2023, the Office published a notice of proposed
                rulemaking (``NPRM'') proposing new regulations governing ex parte
                communications with the Office in informal rulemakings.\1\
                Specifically, the Office proposed codifying its existing policies for
                ex parte communications used in prior rulemakings. To aid in drafting
                the NPRM, the Office reviewed other agencies' comparable regulations
                and the Administrative Conference of the United States'
                 \1\ 88 FR 10248 (Feb. 17, 2023).
                 \2\ 79 FR 35988, 35993 (June 25, 2014) (reflecting
                Administrative Conference of the United States Recommendation 2014-
                4, ``Ex Parte'' Communications in Informal Rulemaking).
                 The proposed regulations defined which communications with the
                Office should be considered ``ex parte communications,'' as well as
                which communications fall outside that definition's scope. The NPRM
                also described the process to request an ex parte meeting with the
                Office. It provided that, after an ex parte meeting, parties must
                submit written summaries of the meeting and proposed a deadline for
                doing so. It stated that all meeting summaries will be made publicly
                available on the Office's website. Finally, the NPRM described what
                communications related to informal rulemaking are impermissible, how
                the Office will treat such communications, and the steps that Office
                employees must follow if they receive such communications.
                 The Office sought public input concerning the proposed rule and
                received six comments. Commenters generally supported the rule and
                noted the value of ex parte communications in the rulemaking
                process,\3\ though some suggested various amendments.\4\ Having
                reviewed and carefully considered these comments, the Office now issues
                a final rule that largely adopts the proposed rule, with some
                modifications made in response to the submitted comments.
                 \3\ Authors Alliance Comment at 1; Digital Licensee Coordinator
                (``DLC'') Comment at 1; NCTA--The internet & Television Association
                (``NCTA'') Comment at 1; National Music Publishers' Association
                (``NMPA'') Comment at 1; Spotify Comment at 1. The Office also
                received a comment from Harvey Jearld Johnson Jr. See Harvey Jearld
                Johnson Jr Comment at 1.
                 \4\ Authors Alliance Comment at 2; DLC Comment at 1; NCTA
                Comment at 1; NMPA Comment at 1; Spotify Comment at 1.
                II. Final Rule
                A. Definition of Ex Parte Meetings
                 The NPRM proposed that ``ex parte communications'' include only
                communications to the Office on substantive issues concerning an
                ``ongoing rulemaking.'' \5\ The Office received two comments requesting
                clarification on when a communication would fall within the scope of
                the ex parte communication rule.\6\ The Digital Licensee Coordinator
                (``DLC'') suggested that the Office revise the proposed rule to broaden
                its application to communications occurring after the publication of a
                notification (or notice) of inquiry (``NOI'').\7\ The DLC noted that
                ``in their experience, Copyright Office rulemaking often commences not
                with an NPRM but with a Notification of Inquiry.'' \8\ Spotify echoed
                the DLC's suggestion.\9\
                 \5\ 88 FR 10248, 10252 (Feb. 17, 2023).
                 \6\ DLC Comment at 3; Spotify Comment at 1.
                 \7\ DLC Comment at 3. An NOI is an official document that
                provides or requests information, but is not a proposed or final
                rule, i.e., it cannot amend the Code of Federal Regulations. See 1
                CFR 5.9(d) (also stating that an NOI cannot be an Executive order or
                Presidential proclamation). The Office has used NOIs to announce
                studies or public consultations, or to request public input in
                advance of issuing an NPRM. See, e.g., 86 FR 72638 (Dec. 22, 2021)
                (announcing public consultation on technical measures); 85 FR 34252
                (June 3, 2020) (announcing sovereign immunity study); 84 FR 49966
                (Sept. 24, 2019) (requesting public comments on implementing title I
                of the Music Modernization Act).
                 \8\ DLC Comment at 3 (citing 88 FR 11398 (Feb. 23, 2023)
                (notification of inquiry on Fees for Late Royalty Payments Under the
                Music Modernization Act)).
                 \9\ Spotify Comment at 1.
                 The Office agrees with the suggested change and finds that it is
                consistent with the goal that the ex parte communications process
                ``foster[ ] a complete and transparent rulemaking record.'' \10\
                Accordingly, the final rule clarifies that ex parte communications
                include those communications that occur after the commencement of a
                rulemaking, whether the rulemaking process begins with the publication
                [[Page 54492]]
                an NPRM or another Federal Register notice, such as an NOI.
                 \10\ 88 FR 10248, 10249 (Feb. 17, 2023).
                B. Time Frame for Submitting Meeting Summaries
                 In the NPRM, the Office proposed that a party that engages in an ex
                parte meeting with the Office normally must submit a summary of the
                meeting's discussion within two business days, a timeframe that the
                Office has used in previous rulemakings.\11\ Commenters requested that
                the Office consider extending the submission timeframe.\12\ The DLC
                expressed concern that the proposed timeframe ``imposes more than a
                `minimal burden' on participating parties'' and explained that ex parte
                meetings ``almost always generate[ ] follow-up questions from the
                Office, which require time to investigate, including on occasion
                additional time to survey DLC members, and then time to draft a
                response.'' \13\ Similarly, the National Music Publishers' Association
                (``NMPA'') indicated that the proposed timeframe ``poses a hurdle,
                particularly to individual creators'' and small businesses, ``[g]iven
                the level of detail required'' and those parties' potential
                unfamiliarity with the regulatory process.\14\ Moreover, the NMPA
                explained that in its experience, any questions not answered during ex
                parte meetings ``should be [answered]'' in the meeting summary, but
                noted that the proposed timeframe is ``often insufficient for compiling
                the necessary information and drafting a response.'' \15\ Spotify also
                recommended that the Office increase the timeframe.\16\
                 \11\ See 88 FR 10248, 10249 n.9 (Feb. 17, 2023) (listing several
                rulemakings where the Office imposed the two-business day
                 \12\ DLC Comment at 2-3; NMPA Comment at 1-3; Spotify Comment at
                 \13\ DLC Comment at 2 (footnote omitted) (quoting 88 FR 10248,
                10251 (Feb. 17, 2023)).
                 \14\ NMPA Comment at 2.
                 \15\ NMPA Comment at 2.
                 \16\ Spotify Comment at 1.
                 The Office concludes that the requested modification to the
                proposed rule is reasonable and supports the overall goal. Accordingly,
                the final rule includes a requirement that summaries be submitted
                within five business days of the ex parte meeting. This portion of the
                rule is designed to provide parties with sufficient time to submit
                compliant meeting summaries and ease any potential hardships. The final
                rule, however, retains language that provides the Office with
                flexibility to set a different deadline for submitting meeting
                summaries with respect to a specific rulemaking. The Office believes
                that this flexibility is appropriate in certain limited situations,
                such as where it needs to enlarge the timeframe to account for
                extenuating circumstances, or decrease the timeframe to meet a
                statutory deadline or respond quickly to significant developments, such
                as new legal precedent or facts, that may impact the Office's reasoning
                or the rulemaking's record.\17\
                 \17\ See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(C) (noting that the Office
                must conduct a rulemaking regarding exemptions to the prohibition on
                the circumvention of technological measures every three years).
                C. Timeframe for Posting Meeting Summaries
                 While the proposed rule provided that the Office will publish a
                party's meeting summary on its website, it did not include a deadline
                for the publication.\18\ The NMPA suggested that the Office amend the
                proposed rule to impose a timeframe for publishing meeting summaries
                that is ``commensurate with the number of days [that] parties have to
                file their meeting summary letters.'' \19\
                 \18\ 88 FR 10248, 10251 (Feb. 17, 2023).
                 \19\ NMPA Comment at 3-4 (citing timeframes from the Surface
                Transportation Board, 47 CFR 1102.2(g)(4)(vi) (``within five days of
                submission'') and the Federal Communications Commission, 47 CFR
                1.1206(b)(4) (``at least twice per week'')).
                 The Office understands the importance of prompt and effective
                disclosure of ex parte meeting summaries, but declines to include such
                language in its regulations. In past rulemakings, the Office has
                uploaded meeting summaries in a timely manner--in most cases within 24
                hours of receiving a compliant summary. The Office will continue to
                post meeting summaries as soon as possible, after determining that they
                are compliant with its regulations. The Office believes that this
                practice sufficiently acknowledges and facilitates prompt and effective
                D. Confidential Information
                 Commenters made additional suggestions with respect to the ability
                to provide confidential information in meeting summaries.\20\
                Specifically, the DLC requested that the Office ``make clear that the
                ex parte meeting summary may exclude disclosure of any confidential or
                sensitive information provided to the Office,'' such as financial and
                competitive information.\21\ The DLC's comments cited a previous
                rulemaking in which the Office allowed public-facing meeting summaries
                to exclude confidential information \22\ and a regulation from the
                Federal Communications Commission that allows parties to request that
                confidential information be withheld from public inspection.\23\
                Spotify also recommended that the Office refine the proposed rule
                related to confidential information.\24\
                 \20\ DLC Comment at 2; Spotify Comment at 1.
                 \21\ DLC Comment at 2.
                 \22\ DLC Comment at 2 (citing U.S. Copyright Office, Ex Parte
                Communications, https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/mma-implementation/ex-parte-communications.html (last visited May 11,
                2023) (notating meeting summaries where a party ``simultaneously
                submitted a version containing confidential information to advise
                the Copyright Office of certain confidential information pertaining
                to its business'')).
                 \23\ DLC Comment at 2 (referencing 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2)(ii)
                governing permit-but-disclose proceedings).
                 \24\ Spotify Comment at 1.
                 After considering these comments, the Office proposes no additional
                regulatory changes to address submitting confidential information. The
                Office understands that allowing parties to exclude confidential
                information from publicly posted meeting summaries would allow parties
                to be more open to participating in meetings with the Office and more
                candid in those meetings. At the same time, there is a strong public
                interest in transparent rulemaking proceedings, which the meeting
                summaries are intended to promote.
                 In limited instances in which this balance between these interests
                weighs in favor of non-disclosure, the Office may exercise its
                discretion to allow parties to exclude confidential information from
                publicly posted meeting summaries. The Office may also consider
                formalizing its practices pertaining to confidential information in a
                future regulation.
                E. Sanctions and Penalties
                 The NPRM addressed the situation where parties engaged, or
                attempted to engage, in impermissible substantive communications with
                the Office regarding an ongoing rulemaking. Specifically,
                communications not in compliance with the ex parte regulations would
                not be considered part of the rulemaking record, ``unless [such
                information] has been introduced into the rulemaking record through a
                permitted method.'' \25\ In response, the Authors Alliance asserted
                that the proposed penalty does not provide any ``additional negative
                effect'' on parties engaging in a prohibited ex parte communication and
                urged the Office to strengthen its enforcement mechanisms for
                noncompliance.\26\ Where an impermissible ex parte communication
                occurs, the Authors Alliance
                [[Page 54493]]
                recommended ``sanctions and/or public notification to other parties
                about any impermissible ex parte communication'' to ``deter such
                behavior.'' \27\
                 \25\ 88 FR 10248, 10253 (Feb. 17, 2023).
                 \26\ Authors Alliance Comment at 2 (suggesting that any
                noncompliance should result in a public posting of the noncompliance
                on the Office's website).
                 \27\ Authors Alliance Comment at 2. The Authors Alliance also
                suggested that to help ``disincentivize[ ]'' noncompliance with the
                proposed rule, the Office should utilize these penalties, which may
                involve excluding the impermissible communication from the
                rulemaking record, when parties fail to submit any meeting summary.
                Authors Alliance Comment at 3.
                 At this time, the Office is not adding additional sanctions or
                penalty provisions to its final regulations. In light of its current
                experience with ex parte meetings, the Office believes that the
                proposed penalty (of not including noncompliant ex parte communications
                as part of the rulemaking record and not considering the substance of
                such communications) provides enough of a deterrent to prevent
                noncompliance with the rule. In addition, nothing prevents the Office
                from notating the meeting on its website or authoring its own meeting
                summary, if it believes that doing so would serve the public interest.
                Further, the Office believes it is valuable to evaluate the
                effectiveness of the penalty, and stakeholders' adjustments to it,
                before considering additional sanctions or penalties. In the future,
                the Office may reevaluate the need for additional sanctions or
                penalties, such as those suggested by the Authors Alliance or used by
                other federal government agencies.\28\
                 \28\ 88 FR 10248, 10251 n.24 (Feb. 17, 2023) (listing sanctions
                or penalties imposed by other federal government agencies on parties
                that engage in impermissible ex parte communications).
                F. Attempting To Initiate Noncompliant Ex Parte Meetings With Other
                 The Authors Alliance recognized that some parties may contact
                Office staff other than the staff member listed as the contact for
                further information in the Federal Register or the Assistant to the
                Office's General Counsel--to initiate an ex parte meeting, and
                suggested that the Office amend its rule to either ``explicitly
                disallow[ ]'' initiating ex parte communications with persons not
                listed in the regulations or ``provid[e] a mechanism to manage and
                disclose such communications.'' \29\
                 \29\ Authors Alliance Comment at 3.
                 The Office understands that additional clarity is called for on
                this subject. The final rule clarifies the process for managing
                requests for an ex parte meeting, but declines to incorporate the
                Authors Alliance's other suggestions. The rule addresses instances
                where a party requests an ex parte meeting through an Office employee
                not listed as a contact in the Federal Register. In these
                circumstances, the Office employee will either direct the party to
                contact the appropriate contact person(s) or forward the request to the
                contact person(s). Generally, centralizing ex parte meeting requests
                and meeting summaries helps guard against attempts to engage in
                unauthorized ex parte communications.\30\ It also has the practical
                benefit of allowing the appropriate Office employee(s) to evaluate the
                request and coordinate meeting logistics.
                 \30\ 88 FR 10248, 10250 (Feb. 17, 2023).
                G. Other Comments
                 Commenters made additional suggestions that would expand the scope
                of the proposed rule. These expansions would permit parties to submit
                ``ex parte letters,'' e.g., written comments, without first engaging in
                an ex parte meeting with the Office,\31\ allow parties to submit
                documentary materials during ex parte meetings without the Office's
                prior written approval,\32\ or expand the rule to apply to additional
                communications with the Office with respect to its other
                responsibilities, including policy studies and amicus briefs.\33\ At
                this time, the Office is not adopting these suggestions.
                 \31\ NCTA Comment at 1, 3.
                 \32\ NCTA Comment at 2.
                 \33\ Authors Alliance Comment at 3-4.
                 The Office declines to permit parties to file ``ex parte letters''
                without first meeting with the Office. Allowing parties to submit
                written comments without requiring a meeting would risk allowing the ex
                parte process to supplant, not supplement, the ordinary comment
                submission process.
                 The Office also declines to allow parties to submit documentary
                materials during ex parte meetings without the Office's prior written
                approval.\34\ As stated in the NPRM, ex parte communications are
                intended to provide an opportunity for participants to clarify evidence
                or arguments made in prior written submissions and to respond to the
                Office's questions on those matters, to enhance transparency, and to
                create a comprehensive rulemaking record.\35\ The introduction of
                documentary evidence through ex parte meetings could introduce
                unnecessary inefficiencies or delays and deprive rulemaking parties of
                an opportunity to respond to new documentary evidence.
                 \34\ NCTA Comment at 2.
                 \35\ 88 FR 10248, 10249-50, 10252 (Feb. 17, 2023).
                 Further, the Office declines to extend the proposed rule to
                communications related to the Office's other work, including policy
                studies and amicus briefs.\36\ This rulemaking only addresses ex parte
                meetings in informal rulemakings, i.e., where the Office is acting as a
                regulatory decision-maker. This is consistent with how other agencies
                have addressed ex parte communications to ensure a complete and
                transparent rulemaking record.
                 \36\ Authors Alliance Comment at 3-4.
                 Finally, at NCTA--the internet & Television Association's
                (``NCTA'') request, the Office is making a minor edit to clarify that
                any member of the public can request an ex parte meeting. This
                opportunity is not limited to individuals or entities who file comments
                in the proceeding, e.g., ``rulemaking parties.'' \37\ The Office notes
                that this language is solely a clarification, and not a change to its
                existing practice.
                 \37\ NCTA Comment at 3.
                List of Subjects
                37 CFR Part 201
                 Administrative practice and procedure, Cable television, Copyright,
                Recordings, Satellites.
                37 CFR Part 205
                 Copyright, Courts.
                Final Regulations
                 For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Office
                amends 37 CFR parts 201 and 205 as follows:
                PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS
                1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:
                 Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.
                2. Amend Sec. 201.1 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
                Sec. 201.1 Communication with the Copyright Office.
                * * * * *
                 (d) Requests for an ex parte meeting. The rules governing ex parte
                communications in informal rulemakings, including methods to request ex
                parte meetings, are found in 37 CFR 205.24.
                PART 205--LEGAL PROCESSES
                3. The authority citation for part 205 continues to read as follows:
                 Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.
                4. Add subpart D, consisting of Sec. 205.24, to read as follows:
                Subpart D--Ex Parte Communications
                [[Page 54494]]
                205.24 Ex Parte communications in informal rulemakings.
                Sec. 205.24 Ex Parte communications in informal rulemakings.
                 (a) General. The rules in this section governing ex parte
                communications in informal rulemakings are intended to provide an
                opportunity for parties to clarify evidence or arguments made in prior
                written submissions, to respond to assertions or requests made by other
                parties, or to respond to questions from the Copyright Office on any of
                those matters.
                 (b) Applicability. (1) An ex parte communication is a written or
                oral communication regarding the substance of an ongoing rulemaking
                between a Copyright Office employee and a member of the public that
                must be included in the rulemaking record, as described in this
                 (2) An ex parte communication does not include the following:
                 (i) Communications made prior to the publication of a Federal
                Register document commencing a rulemaking proceeding;
                 (ii) Non-substantive inquiries, such as those regarding the status
                of a rulemaking or the Copyright Office's procedures;
                 (iii) Communications made by members of Congress, Federal
                departments and agencies, the Judiciary, foreign governments, or state
                and local governments; or
                 (iv) Communications required by law.
                 (3) To the extent that communications made on Copyright Office web
                pages, including social media pages, would be considered ex parte
                communications under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, such
                communications are not subject to the rules described in this section
                and will not be considered as part of the rulemaking record.
                 (c) Process--(1) Submitting an ex parte meeting request. (i) A
                party may request an in-person, telephonic, virtual, or hybrid ex parte
                meeting to discuss aspects of an ongoing rulemaking by submitting a
                written request to either--
                 (A) The Copyright Office employee listed as the contact for further
                information in the Federal Register for the ongoing rulemaking that the
                party wishes to discuss; or
                 (B) The Copyright Office's Assistant to the General Counsel. The
                current contact information for this employee can be obtained by
                contacting the Copyright Office.
                 (ii) If a party makes an ex parte meeting request to a Copyright
                Office employee not identified in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this
                section, that employee will either direct the party making the request
                to contact the appropriate employee(s) or forward the party's request
                to the appropriate employee(s).
                 (iii) The Copyright Office permits ex parte meetings in informal
                rulemakings at its discretion. When ex parte meetings are permitted,
                the Office will determine the most appropriate format (e.g., in-person,
                telephonic, virtual, or hybrid) for each meeting, but will consider the
                requesting party's preferences in making that determination.
                 (iv) The request should be submitted by email. If email submission
                of an ex parte meeting request is not feasible, a party may contact the
                Copyright Office for special instructions.
                 (2) Ex parte meeting request content. An ex parte meeting request
                must identify the following information:
                 (i) The names of all proposed attendees;
                 (ii) The party or parties on whose behalf each attendee is
                appearing; and
                 (iii) The rulemaking that will be discussed.
                 (3) Ex parte meeting summary. (i)(A) Unless otherwise directed by
                the Copyright Office, within five business days after an ex parte
                meeting, attendees must email the Copyright Office employee identified
                in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section a letter detailing the
                information identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and
                summarizing the meeting's discussion. The letter must summarize the
                substance of the views expressed and arguments made at the meeting in
                such a way that a non-participating party would understand the scope of
                issues discussed. Merely listing the subjects discussed or providing a
                short description will not be sufficient. If email submission of the
                letter is not feasible, an attendee may contact the Copyright Office
                for special instructions.
                 (B) Meeting attendees representing different groups may submit a
                joint summary letter, but if the groups represent conflicting
                viewpoints, the groups must submit separate summary letters.
                 (C) If a party's ex parte meeting summary letter does not comply
                with paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section or contains inaccuracies, the
                Copyright Office shall notify the ex parte meeting attendee and request
                a corrected letter. Unless otherwise directed by the Copyright Office,
                the attendee must submit the corrected letter within two business days
                of receiving such notification from the Office.
                 (D) If the ex parte meeting attendee does not provide a corrected
                letter under paragraph (c)(3)(i)(C) of this section, the Copyright
                Office may add a notation on its website noting or describing the
                deficiency. The Copyright Office may also, in its discretion, decline
                to consider the noncompliant letter as part of the rulemaking record.
                 (d) Publication of ex parte communications. Ex parte meeting
                letters and comments will be made publicly available on the Copyright
                Office's website.
                 (e) Impermissible communications--(1) General; attempts to
                circumvent the ex parte communication process. If a party attempts to
                make an ex parte communication outside of the process described in
                paragraph (c) of this section to a Copyright Office employee, the
                employee shall attempt to prevent the communication. If unsuccessful in
                preventing the communication, the employee shall advise the person
                making the communication that it will not be considered by the
                Copyright Office as a part of the rulemaking record and shall deliver
                either a copy of the communication or, if the communication was made
                orally, a summary of the communication to the Copyright Office's
                General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
                 (2) Other impermissible communications--(i) Post-deadline
                communications. The Copyright Office may impose a deadline to make ex
                parte meeting requests or to submit written comments for a rulemaking.
                Parties normally may not make requests after that deadline has passed,
                unless the deadline is removed by the Copyright Office or until after a
                final rule is published in the Federal Register for that rulemaking.
                 (ii) New documentary material. (A) The Copyright Office generally
                will not consider or accept new documentary materials once the
                rulemaking record has closed.
                 (B) The restriction in this paragraph (e)(2)(ii) does not apply to
                any Copyright Office requests, e.g., requests for supporting legal
                authority or additional documentary evidence.
                 (C) The restriction in this paragraph (e)(2)(ii) does not apply to
                non-substantive visual aids used in an ex parte meeting that are not
                otherwise submitted by a party as part of the rulemaking record. The
                Copyright Office, in its discretion, may include a copy of the visual
                aid in the rulemaking record.
                 (f) Effect of impermissible ex parte communications. No prohibited
                ex parte communication shall be considered as
                [[Page 54495]]
                part of the rulemaking record, unless it has been introduced into the
                rulemaking record through a permitted method. In the interests of
                justice or fairness, the Copyright Office may waive this restriction.
                 Dated: July 24, 2023.
                Shira Perlmutter,
                Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.
                 Approved by:
                Carla D. Hayden,
                Librarian of Congress.
                [FR Doc. 2023-17162 Filed 8-10-23; 8:45 am]
                BILLING CODE 1410-30-P

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT