Public Access Policies for Science and Technology Funding Agencies Across the Federal Government, 65173-65175 [E9-29322]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 9, 2009 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
a matched individual (unless the Postal
Service determines that public health or
safety may be affected or threatened
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(p)(3)).
The privacy of employees will be
safeguarded and protected. The Postal
Service will manage all data in strict
accordance with the Privacy Act of
1974. Data extracted from the relevant
Postal Service System of Records (USPS
100.400) for comparison will not be
shared with the DOJ, state agencies,
territories, Indian Nations, or any other
person or organization, except as
authorized by the Privacy Act or
required by the Freedom of Information
Act. Any verified data that is
maintained will be managed within the
parameters of the Privacy Act System of
Records USPS 700.000, Inspection
Service Investigative File System (last
published April 29, 2005 (Volume 70,
Number 82)); and, for cases referred to
the OIG, data that is maintained will
also be managed within the parameters
of Privacy Act System of Records USPS
700.300, Inspector General Investigative
Records (last published June 14, 2006
(Volume 71, Number 114)).
Key privacy features of the data
comparison program include the
following:
• Requiring that the identity of
matched individuals be verified and
that the relevant facts of the offense be
confirmed;
• Requiring appropriate security
controls for the comparison;
• Providing protections for employees
who appear as an initial match but who
are not subsequently verified as
belonging on the state registry of
offenders; and
• Requiring the Postal Service to
complete the verification and provide at
least 30 days advance notice prior to the
initiation of any adverse action against
a matched individual (unless the Postal
Service determines that public health
and safety may be affected or threatened
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(p)(3), or as
otherwise provided by 5 U.S.C. 7513(b),
relevant collective bargaining
provisions, and Postal Service
regulations).
Neva Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. E9–29383 Filed 12–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:02 Dec 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Aeronautics Science and Technology
Subcommittee; Committee on
Technology; National Science and
Technology Council
ACTION: Notice of Meeting—Public input
is requested on development of the draft
National Aeronautics Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation
(RDT&E) Infrastructure Plan.
SUMMARY: The Aeronautics Science and
Technology Subcommittee (ASTS) of
the National Science and Technology
Council’s (NSTC) Committee on
Technology will hold a public meeting
to discuss the development of the
National Aeronautics RDT&E
Infrastructure Plan. Executive Order
(E.O.) 13419—National Aeronautics
Research and Development—signed
December 20, 2006, calls for the
development of this plan. The plan is
guided by both the National Aeronautics
Research and Development (R&D) Policy
and the National Plan for Aeronautics
Research and Development and Related
Infrastructure that were developed by
the NSTC in consonance with E.O.
13419. The draft National Aeronautics
RDT&E Infrastructure Plan is to be
completed in 2010.
Dates and Addresses: The meeting
will be held in conjunction with the
48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
at the Orlando World Center Marriott,
8701 World Center Drive, Orlando,
Florida 32821 on Thursday, January 7,
2010, from 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. in the
Crystal Ballroom A. Information
regarding the 48th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting is available at the
https://www.aiaa.org Web site. Note:
Persons solely attending this ASTS
public meeting do not need to register
for the AIAA Conference and Exhibit to
attend this public meeting. There will
be no admission charge for persons
solely attending the public meeting.
Seating is limited and will be on a first
come, first served basis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Additional information and links to E.O.
13419, the National Aeronautics R&D
Policy, the National Plan for
Aeronautics Research and Development
and Related Infrastructure, and the
Technical Appendix—National Plan for
Aeronautics Research and Development
and Related Infrastructure are available
by visiting the Office of Science and
Technology Policy’s NSTC Web site at:
https://www.ostp.gov/nstc/aeroplans or
by calling 202–456–6012.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E.O.
13419 and the National Aeronautics
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65173
R&D Policy call for executive
departments and agencies conducting
aeronautics R&D to engage industry,
academia and other non-Federal
stakeholders in support of government
planning and performance of
aeronautics R&D. At this meeting, ASTS
members will discuss the proposed
structure and draft content (to date) of
the National Aeronautics RDT&E
Infrastructure Plan and receive input to
help inform further development of the
draft National Aeronautics RDT&E
Infrastructure Plan. The desired
outcome of the meeting is to obtain facts
and information from individuals on the
RDT&E infrastructure requirements to
support the national aeronautics R&D
goals and objectives related to: Mobility;
national defense; aviation safety; and
energy and the environment.
M. David Hodge,
Operations Manager, OSTP.
[FR Doc. E9–29317 Filed 12–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3170–W9–P
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Public Access Policies for Science and
Technology Funding Agencies Across
the Federal Government
AGENCY: Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive
Office of the President.
ACTION: Notice; request for public
comment.
SUMMARY: With this notice, the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
within the Executive Office of the
President, requests input from the
community regarding enhancing public
access to archived publications resulting
from research funded by Federal science
and technology agencies. This RFI will
be active from December 10, 2009 to
January 7, 2010. Respondents are
invited to respond online via the Public
Access Policy Forum at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/open, or may
submit responses via electronic mail.
Responses will be re-posted on the
online forum. Instructions and a
timetable for daily blog topics during
this period are described at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/open.
DATES: Comments must be received by
January 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments by one of
the following methods:
Public Access Policy Forum: https://
www.whitehouse.gov/open.
Via E-mail: publicaccess@ostp.gov.
Mail: Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Attn: Open
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
65174
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 9, 2009 / Notices
Government Recommendations, 725
17th Street, Washington, DC 20502.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice could be made available to
the public online or by alternative
means. For this reason, please do not
include in your comments information
of a confidential nature, such as
sensitive personal information or
proprietary information. If you submit
an e-mail comment, your e-mail address
will be captured automatically and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Diane DiEuliis, Assistant Director, Life
Sciences, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Attn: Open
Government, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20502, 202–456–6059.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
I. Background
On his first day in office, the
President issued a Memorandum on
Transparency and Open Government
that called for an ‘‘unprecedented level
of openness in government’’ and the
rapid disclosure of one of our nation’s
great assets—information. Moreover, the
Administration is dedicated to
maximizing the return on Federal
investments made in R&D. Consistent
with this policy, the Administration is
exploring ways to leverage Federal
investments to increase access to
information that promises to stimulate
scientific and technological innovation
and competitiveness. The results of
government-funded research can take
many forms, including data sets,
technical reports, and peer-reviewed
scholarly publications, among others.
This RFI focuses on approaches that
would enhance the public’s access to
scholarly publications resulting from
research conducted by employees of a
Federal agency or from research funded
by a Federal agency.
Increasing public access to scholarly
publications resulting from federally
funded research may enhance the return
on federal investment in research in the
following ways:
(a) More timely, easier, and less costly
access to scholarly publications
resulting from federally funded research
for commercial and noncommercial
scientists has the potential to promote
advances in science and technology,
thereby enhancing the return on federal
investment in research;
(b) Creating an easily searchable
permanent electronic archive of
scholarly publications resulting from
federally funded research has the
potential to allow cross-referencing,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:02 Dec 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
continuous long-term access, and
retrieval of information whose initial
value may only be theoretical, but may
eventually have important applications;
(c) Ensuring that the federal agencies
that support this research can access the
published results has the potential to
promote improved cross-government
coordination of government funding,
and thus improved management of the
federal research investments;
(d) More timely, easier, and less costly
access to scholarly publications
resulting from federally funded research
for educators and students, and ‘‘end
users’’ of research, such as clinicians,
patients, farmers, engineers, and
practitioners in virtually all sectors of
the economy, has the potential to
promote the diffusion of knowledge.
The Executive Branch is considering
ways to enhance public access to peer
reviewed papers arising from all federal
science and technology agencies. One
potential model, implemented by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
pursuant to Division G, Title II, Section
218 of Pub. L. 110–161 (https://
publicaccess.nih.gov/) requires that all
investigators funded by the NIH submit
an electronic version of their final, peerreviewed manuscript upon acceptance
for publication no later than 12 months
after the official date of publication.
Articles collected under the NIH Public
Access Policy are archived in PubMed
Central and linked to related scientific
information contained in other NIH
databases. More information about
PubMed Central is available: https://
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/about/
faq.html.
The NIH model has a variety of
features that can be evaluated, and there
are other ways to offer the public
enhanced access to peer-reviewed
scholarly publications. The best models
may influenced by agency mission, the
culture and rate of scientific
development of the discipline, funding
to develop archival capabilities, and
research funding mechanisms.
II. Invitation To Comment
Input is welcome on any aspect of
expanding public access to peer
reviewed publications arising from
federal research. Questions that
individuals may wish to address
include, but are not limited to, the
following (please respond to questions
individually):
1. How do authors, primary and
secondary publishers, libraries,
universities, and the federal government
contribute to the development and
dissemination of peer reviewed papers
arising from federal funds now, and
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
how might this change under a public
access policy?
2. What characteristics of a public
access policy would best accommodate
the needs and interests of authors,
primary and secondary publishers,
libraries, universities, the federal
government, users of scientific
literature, and the public?
3. Who are the users of peer-reviewed
publications arising from federal
research? How do they access and use
these papers now, and how might they
if these papers were more accessible?
Would others use these papers if they
were more accessible, and for what
purpose?
4. How best could federal agencies
enhance public access to the peerreviewed papers that arise from their
research funds? What measures could
agencies use to gauge whether there is
increased return on federal investment
gained by expanded access?
5. What features does a public access
policy need to have to ensure
compliance?
6. What version of the paper should
be made public under a public access
policy (e.g., the author’s peer reviewed
manuscript or the final published
version)? What are the relative
advantages and disadvantages to
different versions of a scientific paper?
7. At what point in time should peerreviewed papers be made public via a
public access policy relative to the date
a publisher releases the final version?
Are there empirical data to support an
optimal length of time? Should the
delay period be the same or vary for
levels of access (e.g., final peer reviewed
manuscript or final published article,
access under fair use versus alternative
license), for federal agencies and
scientific disciplines?
8. How should peer-reviewed papers
arising from federal investment be made
publiclyavailable? In what format
should the data be submitted in order to
make it easy to search, find, and retrieve
and to make it easy for others to link to
it? Are there existing digital standards
for archiving and interoperability to
maximize public benefit? How are these
anticipated to change?
9. Access demands not only
availability, but also meaningful
usability. How can the federal
government make its collections of peerreviewed papers more useful to the
American public? By what metrics (e.g.,
number of articles or visitors) should
the Federal government measure
success of its public access collections?
What are the best examples of usability
in the private sector (both domestic and
international)? And, what makes them
exceptional? Should those who access
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 9, 2009 / Notices
papers be given the opportunity to
comment or provide feedback?
Dated: December 3, 2009.
M. David Hodge,
Operations Manager.
[FR Doc. E9–29322 Filed 12–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3170–W7–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Applicant’s Representations
[Investment Company Act Release No.
29066; File No. 812–13640]
PNC Bank, National Association;
Notice of Application
December 3, 2009.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’).
ACTION: Notice of an application for an
order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940
(‘‘Act’’) granting an exemption from
section 18(f)(1) of the Act.
PNC Bank, National
Association (‘‘PNC Bank’’).
SUMMARY OF THE APPLICATION: Applicant
requests an order that that would permit
certain registered open-end management
investment companies to participate as
borrowers in loan facilities to be
administered by PNC Bank.
FILING DATES: The application was filed
on March 11, 2009, and amended on
November 30, 2009.
HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An
order granting the application will be
issued unless the Commission orders a
hearing. Interested persons may request
a hearing by writing to the
Commission’s Secretary and serving
applicants with a copy of the request,
personally or by mail. Hearing requests
should be received by the Commission
by 5:30 p.m. on December 28, 2009 and
should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an
affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of
service. Hearing requests should state
the nature of the writer’s interest, the
reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request by
writing to the Commission’s Secretary.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549–
1090. Applicant, PNC Bank, National
Association, One PNC Plaza, 21st Floor,
249 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lewis B. Reich, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551–6919, or Mary Kay Frech, Branch
Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Office of
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
APPLICANT:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:02 Dec 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
Investment Company Regulation,
Division of Investment Management).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
following is a summary of the
application. The complete application
may be obtained via the Commission’s
Web site by searching for the file
number, or for an applicant using the
Company name box at https://
www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by
calling (202) 551–8090.
1. PNC Bank, a wholly-owned indirect
subsidiary of The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. (‘‘PNC Financial’’),
is a national banking association with
its principal office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. PNC Financial is one of
the largest diversified financial services
companies in the United States based on
assets, with businesses engaged in retail
banking, corporate and institutional
banking, asset management, and global
fund processing services. PNC Bank has
extensive experience and expertise as an
administrator of asset-backed
commercial paper programs, having
administered the commercial paper
program of Market Street Funding LLC
(‘‘Market Street’’), a limited purpose
securitization entity, since 1995.
2. Market Street is organized as a
Delaware limited liability company and
is exempt from registration under the
Act in reliance on section 3(c)(7) of the
Act. All of the membership interests of
Market Street are owned by Market
Street Holding Corporation (‘‘MSHC’’).
All of the capital stock of MSHC is
owned by Amacar Investments, LLC, an
entity unaffiliated with PNC Financial.
As of September 30, 2009, Market
Street’s purchase commitments totaled
approximately $6.0 billion, and its
outstanding loans and other assets
totaled approximately $3.3 billion.
3. PNC Bank requests relief to permit
any registered open-end management
investment company or series thereof to
participate from time to time as a
borrower (‘‘Borrowing Fund’’) in a loan
facility to be administered by PNC Bank
(‘‘Loan Facility’’). Market Street, which
would be the principal source of
financing for each Loan Facility, will
issue commercial paper and will utilize
liquidity support provided by highly
rated financial institutions that are
‘‘banks’’ within the meaning of section
2(a)(5) of the Act (‘‘Liquidity
Providers’’). Market Street issues
unsecured commercial paper with
maturities of up to 270 days
(‘‘Promissory Notes’’) to fund
uncommitted purchases of and
uncommitted loans secured by various
types of financial assets.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65175
4. The Promissory Notes issued by
Market Street are sold only to
institutional investors that are
‘‘accredited investors’’ as defined in rule
501(a) of Regulation D under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the ‘‘Securities
Act’’) or to ‘‘qualified institutional
buyers’’ as defined in rule 144A under
the Securities Act. PNC Bank, which has
extensive experience as an
administrator of asset-backed
commercial paper programs, will
perform the administrative functions for
Market Street. PNC Bank will negotiate
the business arrangements on behalf of
Market Street, including loan amounts,
interest rates, and fees. PNC Bank will
act as agent for Market Street and the
related Liquidity Providers under the
agreements executed with each
Borrowing Fund and in such capacity
will exercise rights and enforce
remedies on behalf of Market Street and
Liquidity Providers.
5. As security for a loan, Borrowing
Funds will pledge assets (‘‘Pledged
Assets’’) for the benefit of Market Street
and the applicable Liquidity Provider.
The Pledged Assets will meet eligibility
criteria set by Market Street that will be
consistent with the Borrowing Fund’s
investment objectives and policies. For
each loan transaction, PNC Bank will
evaluate: (a) The type and nature of a
Borrowing Fund’s Pledged Assets to
determine whether they meet Market
Street’s standards for collateral; (b) the
operations and history of the Borrowing
Fund; and (c) the financial position and
operations of the Borrowing Fund’s
investment adviser.
6. Applicant states that Market Street
would make loans to a Borrowing Fund
on an uncommitted basis and the
applicable Liquidity Provider would be
obligated to make loans to the
Borrowing Fund in the event Market
Street was unable or unwilling to make
such loans. Market Street will have the
right in its sole discretion to require the
Liquidity Providers to acquire
outstanding loans made by Market
Street to a Borrowing Fund at an agreedupon amount determined pursuant to
the formula set forth in the related
agreements. Applicant states that these
liquidity support arrangements provide
additional assurances to the holders of
Promissory Notes that they will be paid
at maturity, as well as protection for
Borrowing Funds.
7. Applicant states that Market Street
currently provides financing for assets
originated by customers of PNC Bank
and their affiliates as sellers of those
assets to Market Street. The assets
purchased by Market Street include
financial assets and securities backed by
financial assets. Some transactions are
E:\FR\FM\09DEN1.SGM
09DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65173-65175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29322]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Public Access Policies for Science and Technology Funding
Agencies Across the Federal Government
AGENCY: Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive
Office of the President.
ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this notice, the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President, requests input
from the community regarding enhancing public access to archived
publications resulting from research funded by Federal science and
technology agencies. This RFI will be active from December 10, 2009 to
January 7, 2010. Respondents are invited to respond online via the
Public Access Policy Forum at https://www.whitehouse.gov/open, or may
submit responses via electronic mail. Responses will be re-posted on
the online forum. Instructions and a timetable for daily blog topics
during this period are described at https://www.whitehouse.gov/open.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments by one of the following methods:
Public Access Policy Forum: https://www.whitehouse.gov/open.
Via E-mail: publicaccess@ostp.gov.
Mail: Office of Science and Technology Policy, Attn: Open
[[Page 65174]]
Government Recommendations, 725 17th Street, Washington, DC 20502.
Comments submitted in response to this notice could be made
available to the public online or by alternative means. For this
reason, please do not include in your comments information of a
confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or
proprietary information. If you submit an e-mail comment, your e-mail
address will be captured automatically and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Diane DiEuliis, Assistant
Director, Life Sciences, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Attn:
Open Government, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20502, 202-456-
6059.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On his first day in office, the President issued a Memorandum on
Transparency and Open Government that called for an ``unprecedented
level of openness in government'' and the rapid disclosure of one of
our nation's great assets--information. Moreover, the Administration is
dedicated to maximizing the return on Federal investments made in R&D.
Consistent with this policy, the Administration is exploring ways to
leverage Federal investments to increase access to information that
promises to stimulate scientific and technological innovation and
competitiveness. The results of government-funded research can take
many forms, including data sets, technical reports, and peer-reviewed
scholarly publications, among others. This RFI focuses on approaches
that would enhance the public's access to scholarly publications
resulting from research conducted by employees of a Federal agency or
from research funded by a Federal agency.
Increasing public access to scholarly publications resulting from
federally funded research may enhance the return on federal investment
in research in the following ways:
(a) More timely, easier, and less costly access to scholarly
publications resulting from federally funded research for commercial
and noncommercial scientists has the potential to promote advances in
science and technology, thereby enhancing the return on federal
investment in research;
(b) Creating an easily searchable permanent electronic archive of
scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research has the
potential to allow cross-referencing, continuous long-term access, and
retrieval of information whose initial value may only be theoretical,
but may eventually have important applications;
(c) Ensuring that the federal agencies that support this research
can access the published results has the potential to promote improved
cross-government coordination of government funding, and thus improved
management of the federal research investments;
(d) More timely, easier, and less costly access to scholarly
publications resulting from federally funded research for educators and
students, and ``end users'' of research, such as clinicians, patients,
farmers, engineers, and practitioners in virtually all sectors of the
economy, has the potential to promote the diffusion of knowledge.
The Executive Branch is considering ways to enhance public access
to peer reviewed papers arising from all federal science and technology
agencies. One potential model, implemented by the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) pursuant to Division G, Title II, Section 218 of Pub.
L. 110-161 (https://publicaccess.nih.gov/) requires that all
investigators funded by the NIH submit an electronic version of their
final, peer-reviewed manuscript upon acceptance for publication no
later than 12 months after the official date of publication. Articles
collected under the NIH Public Access Policy are archived in PubMed
Central and linked to related scientific information contained in other
NIH databases. More information about PubMed Central is available:
https://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/about/faq.html.
The NIH model has a variety of features that can be evaluated, and
there are other ways to offer the public enhanced access to peer-
reviewed scholarly publications. The best models may influenced by
agency mission, the culture and rate of scientific development of the
discipline, funding to develop archival capabilities, and research
funding mechanisms.
II. Invitation To Comment
Input is welcome on any aspect of expanding public access to peer
reviewed publications arising from federal research. Questions that
individuals may wish to address include, but are not limited to, the
following (please respond to questions individually):
1. How do authors, primary and secondary publishers, libraries,
universities, and the federal government contribute to the development
and dissemination of peer reviewed papers arising from federal funds
now, and how might this change under a public access policy?
2. What characteristics of a public access policy would best
accommodate the needs and interests of authors, primary and secondary
publishers, libraries, universities, the federal government, users of
scientific literature, and the public?
3. Who are the users of peer-reviewed publications arising from
federal research? How do they access and use these papers now, and how
might they if these papers were more accessible? Would others use these
papers if they were more accessible, and for what purpose?
4. How best could federal agencies enhance public access to the
peer-reviewed papers that arise from their research funds? What
measures could agencies use to gauge whether there is increased return
on federal investment gained by expanded access?
5. What features does a public access policy need to have to ensure
compliance?
6. What version of the paper should be made public under a public
access policy (e.g., the author's peer reviewed manuscript or the final
published version)? What are the relative advantages and disadvantages
to different versions of a scientific paper?
7. At what point in time should peer-reviewed papers be made public
via a public access policy relative to the date a publisher releases
the final version? Are there empirical data to support an optimal
length of time? Should the delay period be the same or vary for levels
of access (e.g., final peer reviewed manuscript or final published
article, access under fair use versus alternative license), for federal
agencies and scientific disciplines?
8. How should peer-reviewed papers arising from federal investment
be made publiclyavailable? In what format should the data be submitted
in order to make it easy to search, find, and retrieve and to make it
easy for others to link to it? Are there existing digital standards for
archiving and interoperability to maximize public benefit? How are
these anticipated to change?
9. Access demands not only availability, but also meaningful
usability. How can the federal government make its collections of peer-
reviewed papers more useful to the American public? By what metrics
(e.g., number of articles or visitors) should the Federal government
measure success of its public access collections? What are the best
examples of usability in the private sector (both domestic and
international)? And, what makes them exceptional? Should those who
access
[[Page 65175]]
papers be given the opportunity to comment or provide feedback?
Dated: December 3, 2009.
M. David Hodge,
Operations Manager.
[FR Doc. E9-29322 Filed 12-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3170-W7-P
