Request For Information: Public Access to Digital Data Resulting from Federally Funded Scientific Research; Correction, 70176-70178 [2011-29166]

Download as PDF 70176 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices submissions also will be posted on the Web site, if provided in electronic format or amenable to conversion, and not subject to a valid protective order. Information on how to use the Commission’s Web site is available online or by contacting the Commission’s webmaster via telephone at (202) 789–6873 or via electronic mail at prc-webmaster@prc.gov. The appeal and all related documents are also available for public inspection in the Commission’s docket section. Docket section hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except on Federal government holidays. Docket section personnel may be contacted via electronic mail at prc-dockets@prc.gov or via telephone at (202) 789–6846. Filing of documents. All filings of documents in this case shall be made using the Internet (Filing Online) pursuant to Commission rules 9(a) and 10(a) at the Commission’s Web site, http://www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is obtained. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a). Instructions for obtaining an account to file documents online may be found on the Commission’s Web site, http://www.prc.gov, or by contacting the Commission’s docket section at prcdockets@prc.gov or via telephone at (202) 789–6846. Commission reserves the right to redact personal information which may infringe on an individual’s privacy rights from documents filed in this proceeding. Intervention. Persons, other than the Petitioners and respondents, wishing to be heard in this matter are directed to file a notice of intervention. See 39 CFR 3001.111(b). Notices of intervention in this case are to be filed on or before November 28, 2011. A notice of intervention shall be filed using the Internet (Filing Online) at the Commission’s Web site, http:// www.prc.gov, unless a waiver is obtained for hardcopy filing. See 39 CFR 3001.9(a) and 3001.10(a). Further procedures. By statute, the Commission is required to issue its decision within 120 days from the date it receives the appeal. See 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5). A procedural schedule has been developed to accommodate this statutory deadline. In the interest of expedition, in light of the 120-day decision schedule, the Commission may request the Postal Service or other participants to submit information or memoranda of law on any appropriate issue. As required by Commission rules, if any motions are filed, responses are due 7 days after any such motion is filed. See 39 CFR 3001.21. It is ordered: 1. The Postal Service shall file the applicable administrative record regarding this appeal no later than November 11, 2011. 2. Any responsive pleading by the Postal Service to this notice is due no later than November 11, 2011. 3. The procedural schedule listed below is hereby adopted. 4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Tracy Ferguson is designated officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public. 5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this notice and order and Procedural Schedule in the Federal Register. By the Commission. Shoshana M. Grove, Secretary. PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE October 27, 2011 ................................................ November 11, 2011 ............................................ November 11, 2011 ............................................ November 28, 2011 ............................................ December 1, 2011 .............................................. December 21, 2011 ............................................ January 5, 2011 .................................................. January 12, 2011 ................................................ February 14, 2012 .............................................. [FR Doc. 2011–29135 Filed 11–9–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY Request For Information: Public Access to Digital Data Resulting from Federally Funded Scientific Research; Correction Notice of Request for Information (RFI). jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES ACTION: The RFI is being corrected to change the response date to January 2, 2012 to reflect a 60 day response time. The RFI was published in the Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 214, on November 4, 2011, pages 68517–68518. SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:38 Nov 09, 2011 Jkt 226001 Filing of Appeal. Deadline for the Postal Service to file the applicable administrative record in this appeal. Deadline for the Postal Service to file any responsive pleading. Deadline for notices to intervene (see 39 CFR 3001.111(b)). Deadline for Petitioners’ Form 61 or initial brief in support of petition (see 39 CFR 3001.115(a) and (b)). Deadline for answering brief in support of the Postal Service (see 39 CFR 3001.115(c)). Deadline for reply briefs in response to answering briefs (see 39 CFR 3001.115(d)). Deadline for motions by any party requesting oral argument; the Commission will schedule oral argument only when it is a necessary addition to the written filings (see 39 CFR 3001.116). Expiration of the Commission’s 120-day decisional schedule (see 39 U.S.C. 404(d)(5)). In accordance with Section 103(b)(6) of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (ACRA; Pub. L. 111–358), this Request for Information (RFI) offers the opportunity for interested individuals and organizations to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring long-term stewardship and encouraging broad public access to unclassified digital data that result from federally funded scientific research. The public input provided through this Notice will inform deliberations of the National Science and Technology Council’s Interagency Working Group on Digital Data. Release Date: November 3, 2011. Response Date: January 2, 2012. ADDRESSES: digitaldata@ostp.gov. Issued By: Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on behalf of PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose In accordance with Section 103(b)(6) of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (ACRA; Pub. L. 111–358), this Request for Information (RFI) offers the opportunity for interested individuals and organizations to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring long-term stewardship and encouraging broad public access to unclassified digital data that result from federally funded scientific research. The public input provided through this Notice will inform deliberations of the National Science and Technology E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Council’s Interagency Working Group on Digital Data. Background The multi-agency Interagency Working Group on Digital Data (Working Group), established under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Science (CoS), has been tasked with developing options for implementing the digital data policy and standards requirements of Section 103 of ACRA. OSTP will issue a report to Congress, in accordance with Section 103(e) of ACRA, describing priorities for the development of agency policies for ensuring broad public access to the results of federally funded unclassified research, the status of agency policies for public access to digital data resulting from federally funded research, and a summary of public input collected from this RFI and other mechanisms. The Working Group is considering steps that can be taken by Federal agencies to encourage and coordinate the development of agency policies and standards to promote longterm preservation of and access to digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research. Ideally, such policies would harmonize, to the extent practicable and feasible, data management plans for digital data that are collected or otherwise produced either by the agency itself or extramurally with Federal funds. The 2009 report of the Interagency Working Group on Digital Data of the National Science and Technology Council, ‘‘Harnessing the Power of Digital Data,’’ recommended that agencies lay the foundations for digital scientific data policy and make their policies publicly available. It also recommended that agencies consider requiring data management plans for projects that will generate ‘‘preservation data’’—those data for which the benefits of preservation exceed the costs. Federal science agencies already have some experience with policies to promote long-term preservation and access to scientific data. Indeed current Federal policies promote and in many cases require Federal agencies to make the digital data generated by Federal agencies more publically accessible. However, such policies do not routinely cover data generated through Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and some other types of funding mechanism. Exceptions include, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Data Sharing Policy, which requires all investigatorinitiated applications with direct costs greater than $500,000 in any single year provide a data management plan. In addition, NIH has more specific data VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:38 Nov 09, 2011 Jkt 226001 management and data sharing requirements for specific types of projects, such as genome-wide association studies. In January 2011, the National Science Foundation (NSF) reaffirmed its data management policy requirement, indicating that proposals must include a Data Management Plan that describes how funded researchers will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results. The NSF policy is clear that ‘‘Investigators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of work under NSF grants.’’ Such models may not necessarily be appropriate for all types of federally sponsored research. As agencies consider how to further develop digital data policies, it is important to note that all policies for increasing accountability and access to digital data must follow statutory requirements and follow best practices for protecting confidentiality, personal privacy, proprietary interests, intellectual property rights, author attribution, and for ensuring that homeland and national security interests are not compromised. The Working Group is now seeking additional insight from ‘‘non-Federal stakeholders, including the public, universities, nonprofit and for-profit publishers, libraries, federally funded and non-federally funded research scientists, and other organizations and institutions with an interest in longterm stewardship and improved public access to the results of federally funded research,’’ as described in Section 103(b)(6) of ACRA. Specifically the Working Group seeks further public comment on the questions listed below: Preservation, Discoverability, and Access (1) What specific Federal policies would encourage public access to and the preservation of broadly valuable digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research, to grow the U.S. economy and improve the productivity of the American scientific enterprise? (2) What specific steps can be taken to protect the intellectual property interests of publishers, scientists, Federal agencies, and other stakeholders, with respect to any existing or proposed policies for encouraging public access to and preservation of digital data resulting PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70177 from federally funded scientific research? (3) How could Federal agencies take into account inherent differences between scientific disciplines and different types of digital data when developing policies on the management of data? (4) How could agency policies consider differences in the relative costs and benefits of long-term stewardship and dissemination of different types of data resulting from federally funded research? (5) How can stakeholders (e.g., research communities, universities, research institutions, libraries, scientific publishers) best contribute to the implementation of data management plans? (6) How could funding mechanisms be improved to better address the real costs of preserving and making digital data accessible? (7) What approaches could agencies take to measure, verify, and improve compliance with Federal data stewardship and access policies for scientific research? How can the burden of compliance and verification be minimized? (8) What additional steps could agencies take to stimulate innovative use of publicly accessible research data in new and existing markets and industries to create jobs and grow the economy? (9) What mechanisms could be developed to assure that those who produced the data are given appropriate attribution and credit when secondary results are reported? Standards for Interoperability, Reuse and Repurposing (10) What digital data standards would enable interoperability, reuse, and repurposing of digital scientific data? For example, MIAME (minimum information about a microarray experiment; see Brazma et al., 2001, Nature Genetics 29, 371) is an example of a community-driven data standards effort. (11) What are other examples of standards development processes that were successful in producing effective standards and what characteristics of the process made these efforts successful? (12) How could Federal agencies promote effective coordination on digital data standards with other nations and international communities? (13) What policies, practices, and standards are needed to support linking between publications and associated data? E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1 70178 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2011 / Notices Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responders are free to address any or all the above items, as well as provide additional information that they think is relevant to developing policies consistent with increased preservation and dissemination of broadly useful digital data resulting from federally funded research. Please note that the Government will not pay for response preparation or for the use of any information contained in the response. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION the Exchange, and at the Commission’s Public Reference Room. [Release No. 3306; File No.: 801–35969] II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change How To Submit a Response October 24, 2011. All comments must be submitted electronically to: digitaldata@ostp.gov. Responses to this RFI will be accepted through January 2, 2012. You will receive an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response, but will not receive individualized feedback on any suggestions. No basis for claims against the U.S. Government shall arise as a result of a response to this request for information or from the Government’s use of such information. Correction In notice document 2011–27900, appearing on pages 67005–67006 in the issue of October 28, 2011, make the following correction: On page 67005, in the second column, the subject heading should read as set forth above. Inquiries [FR Doc. C1–2011–27900 Filed 11–9–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505–01–D SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Market Data Fees Form should include: [Assigned ID #] [Assigned Entry date] Name/Email Affiliation/Organization City, State Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5 Comment 6 Comment 7 Comment 8 Comment 9 Comment 10 Comment 11 November 3, 2011. In addition, please identify any other items the Working Group might consider for Federal policies related to public access to peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally supported research. Please attach any documents that support your comments to the questions. Ted Wackler, Deputy Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. 2011–29166 Filed 11–9–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Exchange Act’’) 1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that, on October 24, 2011, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the ‘‘Exchange’’ or the ‘‘ISE’’) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt subscription fees for the sale of a market data offering called the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange’s Web site http:// www.ise.com, at the principal office of U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b–4. 16:38 Nov 09, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 A. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt subscription fees for the sale of the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed. The Exchange previously submitted a proposed rule change to establish this data feed.3 ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed The ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed delivers real-time implied volatilities and risk parameters for equity, index and ETF options. This information is used to track an option’s price relative to changes in volatility and the underlying security’s price, which affects the theoretical price of an option. The risk parameters are useful for delta neutral option execution and monitoring an option’s time premium decay. The ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed is also useful for investing and hedging strategies such as placing orders based on changes in levels of volatility. The ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed includes real-time implied volatilities for the bid, ask and mid-point price as well as delta, gamma, vega, theta and rho for each option series. The ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed is a low latency feed that produces data for the entire universe of U.S. options disseminated by the Options Price Reporting Authority (OPRA). The Exchange believes the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed provides valuable information that can help users make informed investment decisions. 3 See Exchange Act Release No. 65295 (September 8, 2011), 76 FR 56832 (September 14, 2011) (SR– ISE–2011–55). 1 15 VerDate Mar<15>2010 In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. 1. Purpose [Release No. 34–65678; File No. SR–ISE– 2011–67] Specific questions about this RFI should be directed to the following email address: digitaldata@ostp.gov. jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Investment Advisers Act of 1940; In the Matter of Creative Investment Research, Inc., 1050 17th Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036; Notice of Intention to Cancel Registration Pursuant to Section 203(h) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10NON1.SGM 10NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70176-70178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29166]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY


Request For Information: Public Access to Digital Data Resulting 
from Federally Funded Scientific Research; Correction

ACTION: Notice of Request for Information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The RFI is being corrected to change the response date to 
January 2, 2012 to reflect a 60 day response time. The RFI was 
published in the Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 214, on November 
4, 2011, pages 68517-68518.
    In accordance with Section 103(b)(6) of the America COMPETES 
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (ACRA; Pub. L. 111-358), this Request for 
Information (RFI) offers the opportunity for interested individuals and 
organizations to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring 
long-term stewardship and encouraging broad public access to 
unclassified digital data that result from federally funded scientific 
research. The public input provided through this Notice will inform 
deliberations of the National Science and Technology Council's 
Interagency Working Group on Digital Data.
    Release Date: November 3, 2011.
    Response Date: January 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: digitaldata@ostp.gov.
    Issued By: Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on behalf 
of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose

    In accordance with Section 103(b)(6) of the America COMPETES 
Reauthorization Act of 2010 (ACRA; Pub. L. 111-358), this Request for 
Information (RFI) offers the opportunity for interested individuals and 
organizations to provide recommendations on approaches for ensuring 
long-term stewardship and encouraging broad public access to 
unclassified digital data that result from federally funded scientific 
research. The public input provided through this Notice will inform 
deliberations of the National Science and Technology

[[Page 70177]]

Council's Interagency Working Group on Digital Data.

Background

    The multi-agency Interagency Working Group on Digital Data (Working 
Group), established under the National Science and Technology Council 
(NSTC) Committee on Science (CoS), has been tasked with developing 
options for implementing the digital data policy and standards 
requirements of Section 103 of ACRA. OSTP will issue a report to 
Congress, in accordance with Section 103(e) of ACRA, describing 
priorities for the development of agency policies for ensuring broad 
public access to the results of federally funded unclassified research, 
the status of agency policies for public access to digital data 
resulting from federally funded research, and a summary of public input 
collected from this RFI and other mechanisms. The Working Group is 
considering steps that can be taken by Federal agencies to encourage 
and coordinate the development of agency policies and standards to 
promote long-term preservation of and access to digital data resulting 
from federally funded scientific research. Ideally, such policies would 
harmonize, to the extent practicable and feasible, data management 
plans for digital data that are collected or otherwise produced either 
by the agency itself or extramurally with Federal funds. The 2009 
report of the Interagency Working Group on Digital Data of the National 
Science and Technology Council, ``Harnessing the Power of Digital 
Data,'' recommended that agencies lay the foundations for digital 
scientific data policy and make their policies publicly available. It 
also recommended that agencies consider requiring data management plans 
for projects that will generate ``preservation data''--those data for 
which the benefits of preservation exceed the costs. Federal science 
agencies already have some experience with policies to promote long-
term preservation and access to scientific data. Indeed current Federal 
policies promote and in many cases require Federal agencies to make the 
digital data generated by Federal agencies more publically accessible. 
However, such policies do not routinely cover data generated through 
Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and some other types of funding 
mechanism. Exceptions include, the National Institutes of Health's 
(NIH) Data Sharing Policy, which requires all investigator-initiated 
applications with direct costs greater than $500,000 in any single year 
provide a data management plan. In addition, NIH has more specific data 
management and data sharing requirements for specific types of 
projects, such as genome-wide association studies.
    In January 2011, the National Science Foundation (NSF) reaffirmed 
its data management policy requirement, indicating that proposals must 
include a Data Management Plan that describes how funded researchers 
will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research 
results. The NSF policy is clear that ``Investigators are expected to 
share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and 
within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical 
collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the 
course of work under NSF grants.'' Such models may not necessarily be 
appropriate for all types of federally sponsored research.
    As agencies consider how to further develop digital data policies, 
it is important to note that all policies for increasing accountability 
and access to digital data must follow statutory requirements and 
follow best practices for protecting confidentiality, personal privacy, 
proprietary interests, intellectual property rights, author 
attribution, and for ensuring that homeland and national security 
interests are not compromised. The Working Group is now seeking 
additional insight from ``non-Federal stakeholders, including the 
public, universities, nonprofit and for-profit publishers, libraries, 
federally funded and non-federally funded research scientists, and 
other organizations and institutions with an interest in long-term 
stewardship and improved public access to the results of federally 
funded research,'' as described in Section 103(b)(6) of ACRA. 
Specifically the Working Group seeks further public comment on the 
questions listed below:

Preservation, Discoverability, and Access

    (1) What specific Federal policies would encourage public access to 
and the preservation of broadly valuable digital data resulting from 
federally funded scientific research, to grow the U.S. economy and 
improve the productivity of the American scientific enterprise?
    (2) What specific steps can be taken to protect the intellectual 
property interests of publishers, scientists, Federal agencies, and 
other stakeholders, with respect to any existing or proposed policies 
for encouraging public access to and preservation of digital data 
resulting from federally funded scientific research?
    (3) How could Federal agencies take into account inherent 
differences between scientific disciplines and different types of 
digital data when developing policies on the management of data?
    (4) How could agency policies consider differences in the relative 
costs and benefits of long-term stewardship and dissemination of 
different types of data resulting from federally funded research?
    (5) How can stakeholders (e.g., research communities, universities, 
research institutions, libraries, scientific publishers) best 
contribute to the implementation of data management plans?
    (6) How could funding mechanisms be improved to better address the 
real costs of preserving and making digital data accessible?
    (7) What approaches could agencies take to measure, verify, and 
improve compliance with Federal data stewardship and access policies 
for scientific research? How can the burden of compliance and 
verification be minimized?
    (8) What additional steps could agencies take to stimulate 
innovative use of publicly accessible research data in new and existing 
markets and industries to create jobs and grow the economy?
    (9) What mechanisms could be developed to assure that those who 
produced the data are given appropriate attribution and credit when 
secondary results are reported?

Standards for Interoperability, Reuse and Repurposing

    (10) What digital data standards would enable interoperability, 
reuse, and repurposing of digital scientific data? For example, MIAME 
(minimum information about a microarray experiment; see Brazma et al., 
2001, Nature Genetics 29, 371) is an example of a community-driven data 
standards effort.
    (11) What are other examples of standards development processes 
that were successful in producing effective standards and what 
characteristics of the process made these efforts successful?
    (12) How could Federal agencies promote effective coordination on 
digital data standards with other nations and international 
communities?
    (13) What policies, practices, and standards are needed to support 
linking between publications and associated data?

[[Page 70178]]

    Response to this RFI is voluntary. Responders are free to address 
any or all the above items, as well as provide additional information 
that they think is relevant to developing policies consistent with 
increased preservation and dissemination of broadly useful digital data 
resulting from federally funded research. Please note that the 
Government will not pay for response preparation or for the use of any 
information contained in the response.

How To Submit a Response

    All comments must be submitted electronically to: 
digitaldata@ostp.gov.
    Responses to this RFI will be accepted through January 2, 2012. You 
will receive an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your 
response, but will not receive individualized feedback on any 
suggestions. No basis for claims against the U.S. Government shall 
arise as a result of a response to this request for information or from 
the Government's use of such information.

Inquiries

    Specific questions about this RFI should be directed to the 
following email address: digitaldata@ostp.gov.

    Form should include:

[Assigned ID ]
[Assigned Entry date]
Name/Email
Affiliation/Organization
City, State
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
Comment 9
Comment 10
Comment 11

    In addition, please identify any other items the Working Group 
might consider for Federal policies related to public access to peer-
reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally supported 
research.
    Please attach any documents that support your comments to the 
questions.

Ted Wackler,
Deputy Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2011-29166 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P