Public Access Policies for Science and Technology Funding Agencies Across the Federal Government, 69368-69370 [E9-30725]
Download as PDF
69368
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 250 / Thursday, December 31, 2009 / Notices
whether the planned increase is only
the result of ‘‘objective, external factors’’
contemplated by Order No. 216. If the
increase is based on other terms of the
contract that are not ‘‘objective, external
factors,’’ i.e., based on Article 9,
paragraph 2, of the contract, then it
must be subject to the usual
requirements of a competitive rate
change set forth in 39 CFR 3015.5.
Because the basis for the price change
in the Notice is not clear, the
Commission reopens Docket No.
CP2009–29 to review the proposed price
change and give interested persons the
opportunity to comment on whether the
Postal Service’s proposed rate increase
is based on ‘‘objective, external factors.’’
If the change is based on such factors,
Commission review may be unnecessary
under the terms of Order No. 216.
Comments may also address, if
appropriate, whether the filings in the
captioned docket are consistent with the
policies of 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3652
and 39 CFR part 3015 and 39 CFR 3020,
subpart B. Comments are due no later
than January 5, 2010.
The Commission appoints Paul L.
Harrington to serve as Public
Representative in these dockets.
It is ordered:
1. The Commission reopens Docket
No. CP2009–29 for consideration of the
issues raised in this order.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Paul L.
Harrington is appointed to serve as the
officer of the Commission (Public
Representative) to represent the
interests of the general public in these
proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in
this proceeding are due no later than
January 5, 2010.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this Notice in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–31034 Filed 12–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CP2009–36; Order No. 369]
Postal Product Price Changes
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Commission is noticing a
recently-filed Postal Service request to
change prices for a Direct Entry Parcels
contract. This notice provides an
opportunity for the public to comment.
DATES: Comments are due: January 5,
2010.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:06 Dec 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Commenters who cannot
submit their views electronically should
contact the person identified in ‘‘FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT’’
by telephone for advice on alternatives
to electronic filing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202–789–6820 or
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Postal Service Filing
II. Comments
III. Ordering Paragraphs
ADDRESSES:
I. Postal Service Filing
On December 21, 2009, the Postal
Service filed a notice of a change in
prices under the Direct Entry Parcels
contract.1
Background. On July 31, 2009, the
Commission issued Order No. 264
adding Direct Entry Parcels 1 (MC2009–
26 and CP2009–36) to the Competitive
Product List.2 In that order, the
Commission noted that the Direct Entry
Parcels 1 contract ‘‘includes provisions
that would permit price changes during
the 1–year term of the contract.’’ Id. at
9. Price changes could result either from
changes in the prices charged by Canada
Post Corporation for Xpresspost, or from
changes in costs incurred by the Postal
Service relative to a specified threshold.
Id. at 10. Order No. 264 directed the
Postal Service to file a notice of any
such price changes with the
Commission prior to their effective date.
Id.
Notice. The Postal Service states that
the price changes it is proposing are
‘‘not the sort of automatic change[s]
based on external, objective factors for
which the Commission has permitted a
relatively streamlined, notice-type filing
procedure.’’ Notice at 1, n.1.3 The Postal
Service’s Notice includes (1) A redacted
copy of the notice to the customer of
new prices and supporting
documentation establishing compliance
with 39 U.S.C. 3633 and 39 CFR
1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Change
in Prices, December 21, 2009 (Notice).
2 Docket Nos. MC2009–26 and CP2009–36, Order
Concerning Direct Entry Parcels, International
Return Service and Harmonization Service
Negotiated Service Agreements, July 31, 2009
(Order No. 264).
3 Footnote 1 of the Notice refers to PRC Order No.
216, Docket No. CP2009–2, Order Concerning Filing
of Additional Global Direct Contracts Negotiated
Service Agreement, May 15, 2009, at 7 (Order No.
216). Order No. 216 permitted the Postal Service to
make notice-type filings for non-discretionary price
changes under Global Direct Contracts due to
exchange rate fluctuations and Canada Post
Corporation price changes.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3015.5;‘‘4 and (2) the certified statement
required by 39 CFR 3015.5(c)(2).5 Nonredacted copies of the customer notice
and the certified statement have been
filed under seal. The Notice also
includes an application for non-public
treatment of the non-redacted
documents.6
II. Comments
Interested persons may submit
comments on the Postal Service’s
December 21, 2009 filing no later than
January 5, 2010. The public portion of
the filing can be accessed via the
Commission’s Web site (https://
www.prc.gov).
The Commission appoints Emmett
Rand Costich to serve as the Public
Representative in this proceeding.
III. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission reopens Docket
No. CP2009–36 to consider the price
changes proposed in the Postal Service’s
December 21, 2009 filing.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Emmett
Rand Costich is appointed to serve as
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in
these proceedings.
3. Comments by interested persons in
these proceedings are to be filed no later
than January 5, 2010.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–31073 Filed 12–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–S
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; extension of comment
period.
SUMMARY: On December 9, 2009, the
Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP) within the Executive Office of
the President, published a notice
requesting input from the community
regarding enhancing public access to
archived publications resulting from
4 Attachment
1 to the Notice.
2 to the Notice.
6 Attachment 3 to the Notice.
5 Attachment
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 250 / Thursday, December 31, 2009 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
research funded by Federal science and
technology agencies. That notice stated
that the RFI would be active from
December 10, 2009 to January 7, 2010.
The purpose of this document is to
extend that comment period to allow
comments until January 21, to
accommodate potential respondents
who may find it difficult to complete
their responses by the original deadline
because of the intervening holidays.
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 reposted 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 21, 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
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:06 Dec 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 Public Law 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://
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69369
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 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
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
69370
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 250 / Thursday, December 31, 2009 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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
publicly available? 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:06 Dec 30, 2009
Jkt 220001
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
papers be given the opportunity to
comment or provide feedback?
III. Deadline Extension
OSTP received more than 150
substantive responses in the first week
of this public forum. OSTP also received
several requests to extend the deadline
for comments because of the time
constraints inherent in the holiday
season. As a result, OSTP will extend
the deadline for comments through
January 21, 2010.
Dated: December 22, 2009.
M. David Hodge,
Operations Manager.
[FR Doc. E9–30725 Filed 12–30–09; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act Public Transportation on Indian
Reservations Program Project
Selections and Tribal Transit Program
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Project
Selections
Correction
In notice document E9–30197
beginning on page 67302 in the issue of
Friday, December 18, 2009, make the
following corrections:
On page 67303, before the file line,
three photo pages were meant to
publish. They are printed in their
entirety below:
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\31DEN1.SGM
31DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 250 (Thursday, December 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69368-69370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30725]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 9, 2009, the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President, published a
notice requesting input from the community regarding enhancing public
access to archived publications resulting from
[[Page 69369]]
research funded by Federal science and technology agencies. That notice
stated that the RFI would be active from December 10, 2009 to January
7, 2010. The purpose of this document is to extend that comment period
to allow comments until January 21, to accommodate potential
respondents who may find it difficult to complete their responses by
the original deadline because of the intervening holidays. 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 21, 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
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 Public
Law 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
[[Page 69370]]
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 publicly available? 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 papers be given the opportunity to comment or provide feedback?
III. Deadline Extension
OSTP received more than 150 substantive responses in the first week
of this public forum. OSTP also received several requests to extend the
deadline for comments because of the time constraints inherent in the
holiday season. As a result, OSTP will extend the deadline for comments
through January 21, 2010.
Dated: December 22, 2009.
M. David Hodge,
Operations Manager.
[FR Doc. E9-30725 Filed 12-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P