Notice of Request for Information (RFI), 2201-2204 [2014-00404]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 2014 / Notices
Systems, Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–
643/11. All comments must be
submitted no later than thirty (30) days
after the publication date of this notice.
Comments may be submitted either by
email or by mail:
To submit
comments:
Send them to:
By email .......
pubcomment-ees.enrd@
usdoj.gov.
Assistant Attorney General;
U.S. DOJ—ENRD; P.O.
Box 7611; Washington, DC
20044–7611.
By mail .........
During the public comment period,
the Consent Decree may be examined
and downloaded at this Justice
Department Web site: https://
www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_
Decrees.html. We will provide a paper
copy of the Consent Decree upon
written request and payment of
reproduction costs. Please mail your
request and payment to: Consent Decree
Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box
7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611.
Please enclose a check or money order
for $11.50 (25 cents per page
reproduction cost) payable to the United
States Treasury.
Maureen Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental
Enforcement Section, Environment and
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2014–00365 Filed 1–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463, as amended), the National Science
Foundation announces the following
Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory
Committee (#13883) meeting:
Date and Time: February 3, 2014 9:00 a.m.–
5:00 p.m.
February 4, 2014 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m.
Place: National Science Foundation, Room
595–II, Stafford II Building, 4221 Wilson
Blvd., Arlington, VA, 22230.
Type of Meeting: Open.
Contact Person: Dr. Jim Ulvestad, Division
Director, Division of Astronomical Sciences,
Suite 1045, National Science Foundation,
4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
Telephone: 703–292–7165.
Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and
recommendations to the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) and the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues
within the field of astronomy and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Jan 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
astrophysics that are of mutual interest and
concern to the agencies.
Agenda: To hear presentations of current
programming by representatives from NSF,
NASA, DOE and other agencies relevant to
astronomy and astrophysics; to discuss
current and potential areas of cooperation
between the agencies; to formulate
recommendations for continued and new
areas of cooperation and mechanisms for
achieving them.
Dated: January 8, 2014.
Susanne E. Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014–00350 Filed 1–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Notice of Request for Information (RFI)
The Office of Science and
Technology Policy requests public
comments to inform its policy
development related to high-impact
learning technologies. This Request for
Information offers the opportunity for
interested individuals and organizations
to identify public and private actions
that have the potential to accelerate the
development, rigorous evaluation, and
widespread adoption of high-impact
learning technologies. The focus of this
RFI is on the design and
implementation of ‘‘pull mechanisms’’
for technologies that significantly
improve a given learning outcome.
Comments must be received by 11:59
p.m. on March 7, 2014, to be
considered. In your comments, please
reference the question to which you are
responding.
DATES: Comments must be received by
11:59 p.m. on March 7, 2014, to be
considered.
ADDRESSES: Respondents are
encouraged to submit their comments
through one of the following methods.
Email is the preferred method of
submission. Please do not include in
your comments information of a
confidential nature, such as sensitive
personal information or proprietary
information. Responses to this notice
are not offers and cannot be accepted by
the Federal Government to form a
binding contract or issue a grant.
Information obtained as a result of this
notice may be used by the Federal
Government for program planning on a
non-attribution basis. Please be aware
that your comments may be posted
online.
• Email: learning@ostp.gov. Email
submissions will receive an electronic
confirmation acknowledging receipt of
your response, but will not receive
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2201
individualized feedback on any
suggestions.
• Postal Mail: Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Attn: Cristin
Dorgelo, 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20504.
Submissions by postal mail must be
received by the deadline, and should
allow sufficient time for security
processing.
• Fax: 202.456.6021
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Request for Information (RFI) offers the
oppm1unity for interested individuals
and organizations to identify public and
private actions that have the potential to
accelerate the development, rigorous
evaluation, and widespread adoption of
high-impact learning technologies. The
focus of this RFI is on the design and
implementation of ‘‘pull mechanisms’’
for technologies that significantly
improve a given learning outcome. Pull
mechanisms increase the incentives to
develop specific products or services by
committing to reward success. Examples
of pull mechanisms include incentive
prizes, Advance Market Commitments,
milestone payments, ‘‘pay for success’’
bonds, and purchasing consm1ia. The
public input provided through this
notice will inform the deliberations of
the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP).
Background
OSTP is interested in identifying
policies and serving as a catalyst for
public-private pat1nerships that have
the potential to accelerate the
development, rigorous evaluation, and
widespread adoption of high-impact
learning technologies. For example,
imagine if learners in the United States
had access to technologies that:
• Dramatically reduced the large and
persistent gap in vocabulary size
between children from wealthy and
poor households.
• Allowed middle and high school
students to outperform their
international peers in math and science.
• Enabled English-language learners
that are reading at several grade levels
below average to catch up after only a
year.
• Gave non-college bound students an
industry skills ce1tification or set of
cognitive skills (e.g. literacy, numeracy,
ability to understand and apply chmis,
graphs and diagrams) that are a ticket to
a middle-class job, increasing their
employability and their incomes by
$10,000–$20,000 or more in less than a
year.
• Doubled the percentage of
community college students that pass
remedial math, which is currently only
30 percent.
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2202
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 2014 / Notices
• Successfully delivered a ‘‘growth
mindset’’ intervention to teachers and
students.
• Were as effective as a personal
tutor, were as engaging as the best video
game, and improved the more students
used them.
Currently, there is a large gap between
the relatively modest impact that
technology has had on education,
particularly in K–12, and the
transformative impact that it has had in
many aspects of our economic and
social life. For example, businesses are
using information and communications
technologies to dramatically increase
productivity, tap the expe1iise of their
employees, slash the time needed to
develop new products, tailor products
and services to meet the needs of
individual consumers, orchestrate
global networks of suppliers, derive
insights from huge volumes of
transactional data, and improve their
products and services by conducting
rapid, low-cost experiments.
Education, particularly K–12
education, remains relatively untouched
by advances in our understanding of
how people learn, how to design
instruction that incorporates those
insights, and the explosion in
information technologies such as lowcost smartphones and tablets, cloud
computing, broadband networks, speech
recognition and speech synthesis,
predictive analytics, data mining,
machine learning, intelligent tutors,
simulations, games, computer-suppmied
collaborative work, and many other
technologies. That is why President
Obama has proposed ConnectED, a new
initiative to connect 99 percent of
America’s students to the Internet
through high-speed broadband and
high-speed wireless within 5 years.
Learning technologies will be much
more effective if they informed by
‘‘learning science’’—advances in
disciplines in fields such as
neuroscience, cognitive science,
educational psychology, and disciplinebased education research that shed light
on how people learn. This research can
provide actionable insights on issues
such as student motivation, the
circumstances under which prior
knowledge helps or hmis learning, how
students can organize knowledge in rich
and meaningful ways, and the ways in
which students can progress from
novice to expeti in a given domain.
There are a number of reasons for the
gap between the potential of learning
science and technology and the cunent
state-of-the-practice:
• The United States is investing 0.1
percent of K–12 expenditures on R&D,
compared to 2 percent in mature
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Jan 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
industries and 18.7 percent in the
pharmaceutical industry. This
extremely low level of investment in
educational R&D has clearly limited the
pace of innovation.
• Entrepreneurs seeking to develop
and market new products to the K–12
market face a number of challenges,
including low per-pupil expenditures
on software, lengthy adoption cycles,
and a highly fragmented market. This in
turn limits the amount that companies
can spend on research and product
development.
• It is difficult for companies to make
authoritative claims about the impact of
their products on learning outcomes
assessed through rigorous third-party
validation, which limits the premium
that school districts and other
consumers of learning technology are
willing to pay for high-quality, effective
products.
This suggests that an effective
national strategy for increasing the
impact of learning science and
technology should address both the
‘‘supply’’ and ‘‘demand’’ for advanced
learning technologies.
To increase the ‘‘supply’’ of learning
technology, the Federal government and
philanthropists could increase funding
for research and development and
support training grants and scholarships
in relevant disciplines such as
educational psychology, cognitive
science, instructional design, artificial
intelligence, etc. The National Science
Foundation is funding a program called
‘‘Cyberlearning Transforming
Education’’ and the Depmiment of
Defense is supporting research in
advanced training technologies. The
President FY14 Budget request includes
funding for a ‘‘DARPA for Education’’
(ARPA–ED).
The Power
However, there has been little
discussion of the potential of what
economists call ‘‘pull mechanisms’’ to
accelerate the development, evaluation,
and adoption of high-impact learning
technologies.
As economists have recently noted,
governments and other funders can
suppmt innovation using ‘‘push’’
programs (e.g. funding grants and
contracts to universities and companies,
providing tax incentives for R&D, or
supporting government laboratories)
and ‘‘pull’’ mechanisms that ‘‘increase
the rewards for developing specific
products by committing to reward
success.’’ Push programs pay for
research inputs; pull mechanisms pay
for research outcomes.
‘‘Pull mechanisms’’ have been used
successfully in the field of global health.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In December 2010, children in
developing countries began receiving a
vaccine that will prevent deaths from
‘‘pneumococcal’’ diseases including
pneumonia, meningitis, and sepsis.
Nearly one million young children die
every year from pneumococcal
infections, with 90 percent of these
deaths occurring in developing
countries.
The development of this vaccine was
accelerated by a $1.5 billion ‘‘Advance
Market Commitment’’ backed by five
governments and a private foundation.
Pharmaceutical companies that have
agreed to provide the vaccine at $3.50
per dose to low-income countries for the
next 10 years will receive additional
payments from the $1.5 billion in donor
commitments. The AMC increased the
size and predictability of the market for
pneumococcal vaccines, which
increased the willingness of companies
to invest in high-volume production of
these vaccines for developing country
markets. Expe1ts predict that this AMC
will save 7 million lives over the next
twenty years.
Non-binding commitments to
purchase products can also provide
market pull, if there is both a clearly
defined performance specification and a
strong expression of interest from
potential buyers. For example, in June
2013, the U.S. Department of Energy put
together a coalition of the Federal
government and over 200 major
commercial building pmtners that
issued a challenge to U.S.
manufacturers: ‘‘If you can build
wireless sub-meters that cost less than
$100 apiece and enable us to identify
opportunities to save money by saving
energy, we will buy them.’’ At least 18
manufacturers agreed to take up the
challenge. In 2011, the Department of
Energy put together a similar and
successful challenge for energy-efficient
and cost-effective commercial air
conditioners, with the first
manufacturer meeting the challenge in
May 2012.
In addition, Federal agencies have
offered almost 300 incentive prizes on
Challenge.gov, providing opportunities
for citizen solvers to offer novel
solutions to tough problems, while
minimizing risk to Federal agencies by
only paying for success. More
information about pull mechanisms can
be found in this supplemental
information document.
OSTP is interested in stimulating a
conversation about how pull
mechanisms could be used to accelerate
the development, evaluation, and
adoption of learning technologies. Some
of the advantages of pull mechanisms
are that a funder can (a) pay only for
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 2014 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
success; (b) set a goal without having to
choose in advance which team or
approach is most likely to be successful;
and (c) increase the number and
intellectual diversity of the teams that
are working to solve a particular
problem. Although there a variety of
different types of pull mechanisms, they
generally require establishing a clear
goal and an agreed-upon set of metrics
for evaluating progress towards that
goal. If education is going to benefit
from increased use of pull mechanisms,
policy-makers and stakeholders have to
identify some specific challenges that
are important and measurable, and
where it is plausible that learning
technology can help improve student
outcomes.
Using Pull Mechanisms for Learning
Technologies
Pull mechanisms can be used for
social interventions that do not use
technology. For example, the first
‘‘social impact bond’’ is being used by
the United Kingdom to reduce
recidivism among 3,000 prisoners. The
United Kingdom’s Depa11ment for
International Development (DfiD) is
supporting a ‘‘Results-Based Aid’’
approach to improving education in
Ethiopia. Under this pilot, DfiD will
make grant payments to the education
ministry for the increase in the number
of students above a baseline that sits for
or passes the national grade 10 exam.
There will be additional payments for
students in the poorest regions, and for
girls compared to boys.
It may also make sense to experiment
with pull mechanisms to accelerate the
development and rigorous evaluation of
learning technologies. Some of the
potential advantages of learning
technologies include:
• Low marginal cost: The marginal
cost of making software or digital
content and services available to more
students is very low, although the fixed
cost of R&D and rigorous evaluation
may be high. This is why IT stmtups are
able to grow rapidly—the cost of serving
tens or hundreds of millions of
customers does not increase
arithmetically with the number of
customers.
• Ability to maintain high levels of
‘‘time on task’’: For example, good game
developers can keep users riveted for
hours at a time. They can create
experiences that are intrinsically
motivating, and that offer an
increasingly difficult set of challenges
that keep users in the ‘‘sweet spot’’
between being bored and frustrated.
• Continuous improvement: The
productivity of most public sector
services is flat or negative. Researchers
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Jan 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
and entrepreneurs have ideas for
developing online services that get
better the more people use them by (a)
conducting many low-cost experiments
to discover what works; and (b) collect,
analyze and act on the data that can be
generated online.
• Learning anytime, anywhere:
Mobile devices allow individuals to
access digital content at a time, place,
and pace that is convenient for them.
This might be particularly impmiant for
an adult who is trying to upgrade their
skills while balancing the competing
demands of work and family.
• Digital tutors: Research suggests
that the average student tutored one-onone using ‘‘mastery learning’’
techniques (students are helped to
master each concept before proceeding
to a more advanced learning task)
performed better than 98 percent of the
students that learn the same material
using conventional instructional
methods. Projects funded by DARPA
and the Office of Naval Research suggest
that it may be possible to develop
‘‘digital tutors’’ that model the one-onone interaction between a world-class
subject matter expeti and a student. A
pilot suppmied by the Veteran’s
Administration is allowing unemployed
veterans that use the digital tutor for 6
months to get IT jobs that pay $40,000
to $80,000.
• Personalization: Researchers and
firms are developing software and
online services that are personalized to
the needs, background, interests and
skill levels of individuals.
• Interactive simulations that enable
‘‘learning by doing’’: Researchers have
developed simulations in areas such as
physics, chemistry, biology, emih
science, and math. For example, an
‘‘Energy Skate Park’’ simulation allows
students to explore energy conservation
with multiple different variables (shape
of the track, starting height and speed of
the skater, mass of the skater, and
friction). Students can quicldy repeat
experiments and rapidly explore the
effect of many different parameters.
• Embedded assessment: Technology
can help provide continuous assessment
of a given set of knowledge, skills and
abilities if the designers know (a) what
behaviors would constitute evidence
that a student has mastered a given
competency; and (b) which tasks can
elicit those behaviors.
Questions
To stimulate a national conversation
on whether and how pull mechanisms
might be used to accelerate the
development of high-impact learning
technologies, OSTP seeks public
comment on the questions listed below:
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2203
(1) What learning outcomes would be
good candidates for the focus of a pull
mechanism to catalyze the creation and
use of new learning technology? These
outcomes could be relevant to early
childhood education, K–20, life-long
learning, workforce readiness and skills,
etc.
(2) How are these learning outcomes
currently measured and assessed?
(3) What information exists about
current U.S. performance relative to this
learning outcome? What information
exists about the presence (currently
available or potential given current
trends or breakthroughs) or absence of
effective interventions (technologybased, offline, or hybrid) to improve this
learning outcome?
(4) Why would a pull mechanism in
this area accelerate innovation in
learning technology?
(5) What role might different
stakeholders (e.g. Federal agencies, state
and local educational agencies,
foundations, researchers, practitioners,
companies, investors, or non-profit
organizations) play in designing,
funding, and implementing a pull
mechanism for learning technology?
What role would your organization be
willing to play?
(6) What changes in public policy
would facilitate experimentation with
pull mechanisms at different levels of
government?
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 accelerating the
development, rigorous evaluation and
widespread adoption of high-impact
learning technologies. Please note that
the U.S. Government will not pay for
response preparation or for the use of
any information contained in the
response.
Ted Waelder,
Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director.
Supplementary Information: Overview
of Pull Mechanisms
Incentive prizes are one type of ‘‘pull
mechanism’’—results-based market
incentives designed to overcome market
failures and catalyze itmovation.
Experts often make a distinction
between ‘‘recognition’’ prizes that honor
past achievements and ‘‘inducement’’ or
‘‘incentive’’ prizes that encourage
participants in the competition to
achieve a particular goal. In a 2009
repot1, McKinsey identified six prize
archetypes that provide a useful
framework for identifying types of
prizes that can best achieve different
types of goals:
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2204
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 8 / Monday, January 13, 2014 / Notices
• Exemplar Prizes that define
excellence within an area.
• Point Solution Prizes that aim to
spur development of solutions for a
pmiicular well-defined problem.
Solutions can include software
applications, algorithms, predictive
models, ideas, business plans, policy
proposals, designs, or prototypes.
• Market Stimulation Prizes that try
to establish the viability of a market to
address a potential market failure,
mobilize additional human talent and
financial capital to jumpstati the
development of a new industry, or
change public perceptions about what is
possible.
• Exposition Prizes that are designed
to highlight a broad range of promising
ideas and practices, attract attention,
and mobilize capital to further develop
the winning innovations.
• Participation Prizes that create
value during and after the competitionnot through conferral of the prize award
itself but through their role in
encouraging contestants to change their
behavior or develop new skills that may
have beneficial effects during and
beyond the competition.
• Network Prizes that build networks
and strengthen communities by
organizing winners into new problemsolving communities that can deliver
more impact than individual effmis.
Other types of pull mechanisms
include:
• Advance Market Commitments:
Binding commitments to purchase, or to
subsidize purchase, of a ce1iain volume
of a product at a fixed prize, if the
product meets pre defined performance
characteristics (pneumococcal vaccine
and Department of Energy examples
discussed above).
• Buyer’s Consortia: Cooperative
agreements between purchasers of
products that leverage the combined
buying power of those purchasers to
drive down the price of products, such
as a buyer’s consmiium set up for Maine
school districts to purchase specialized
software and specific assistive
technology devices.
• Pay-for-Success Bonds: Under a Pay
for Success bond, also known as a social
impact bond, the financing organization
and the Federal, state, or local
government enter into a contract that
specifies the population to be served,
the outcomes to be achieved, the
measurement methodology to be used,
and the schedule of payments to be
made. The financing organization works
with philanthropic and other investors
to invest in innovative, data-driven
service providers that can achieve
results. One example of a pay forsuccess bond program is an initiative in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Jan 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
New York targeted at reducing
recidivism in adult males.
• Milestone-based Payments:
Payment terms in a standard grant or
contract in which the payment for each
performance milestone established in
the statement of work is not made until
the milestone is proven to have been
achieved. One example of this approach
has been successfully demonstrated in
NASA ’s Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services (COTS)
program.
• Priority Review Vouchers: An
accelerated regulatory review offered to
products that meet certain performance
or cost criteria, such as the FDA
Innovation Pathway and USPTO ’s
Patents for Humanity.
• Patent Buyout: An offer to buy out
the patent rights to a product that meets
specified performance conditions at a
set price (price for patent usually
marked up over market value; followed
by placing of the patent into the public
domain to encourage competition for
commercialization of the product). One
example is the purchase of the patent
for the Daguerreotype process by the
French government in 1839.
[FR Doc. 2014–00404 Filed 1–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–71247; File No. 4–631]
Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing of
the Sixth Amendment to the National
Market System Plan To Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility by
BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS YExchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated,
Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc.,
Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, National Stock
Exchange, Inc., New York Stock
Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and
NYSE Arca, Inc.
January 7, 2014.
Pursuant to Section 11A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’) 1 and Rule 608 thereunder 2,
notice is hereby given that, on December
3, 2013, The NASDAQ OMX Group, on
behalf of NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.
(‘‘BX’’), NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC
(‘‘Phlx’’), and the Nasdaq Stock Market
LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’), and the following
1 15
2 17
PO 00000
U.S.C. 78k–1.
CFR 242.608.
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
parties to the National Market System
Plan: BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS YExchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc.,
EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.,
National Stock Exchange, Inc., New
York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT
LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., (collectively with
BX, Phlx, and Nasdaq, the
‘‘Participants’’), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) a proposal to amend the
Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility (‘‘Plan’’).3 The proposal
represents the sixth amendment to the
Plan (‘‘Sixth Amendment’’), and reflects
changes unanimously approved by the
Participants. The Sixth Amendment to
the Plan proposes to make technical
changes to the implementation schedule
of the Plan. A copy of the Plan, as
proposed to be amended, is attached as
Exhibit A hereto. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit
comments from interested persons on
the Sixth Amendment to the Plan.
I. Rule 608(a) of Regulation NMS
A. Purpose of the Plan
The Participants filed the Plan in
order to create a market-wide limit uplimit down mechanism that is intended
to address extraordinary market
volatility in ‘‘NMS Stocks,’’ as defined
in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS
under the Act.4 The Plan sets forth
procedures that provide for market-wide
limit up-limit down requirements that
would be designed to prevent trades in
individual NMS Stocks from occurring
outside of the specified Price Bands.5
These limit up-limit down requirements
would be coupled with Trading Pauses,
as defined in Section I(Y) of the Plan, to
accommodate more fundamental price
moves (as opposed to erroneous trades
or momentary gaps in liquidity).
As set forth in Section V of the Plan,
the price bands would consist of a
Lower Price Band and an Upper Price
Band for each NMS Stock.6 The price
bands would be calculated by the
Securities Information Processors
(‘‘SIPs’’ or ‘‘Processors’’) responsible for
consolidation of information for an
NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of
3 See Letter from Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President
& Deputy General Counsel, The NASDAQ OMX
Group, to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated December 3, 2013 (‘‘Transmittal
Letter’’).
4 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47). See also Section I(H) of
the Plan.
5 See Section V of the Plan.
6 Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise
defined shall have the meaning ascribed to such
terms in the Plan. See Exhibit A, infra.
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2201-2204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00404]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Notice of Request for Information (RFI)
SUMMARY: The Office of Science and Technology Policy requests public
comments to inform its policy development related to high-impact
learning technologies. This Request for Information offers the
opportunity for interested individuals and organizations to identify
public and private actions that have the potential to accelerate the
development, rigorous evaluation, and widespread adoption of high-
impact learning technologies. The focus of this RFI is on the design
and implementation of ``pull mechanisms'' for technologies that
significantly improve a given learning outcome. Comments must be
received by 11:59 p.m. on March 7, 2014, to be considered. In your
comments, please reference the question to which you are responding.
DATES: Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on March 7, 2014, to be
considered.
ADDRESSES: Respondents are encouraged to submit their comments through
one of the following methods. Email is the preferred method of
submission. Please do not include in your comments information of a
confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or
proprietary information. Responses to this notice are not offers and
cannot be accepted by the Federal Government to form a binding contract
or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this notice may
be used by the Federal Government for program planning on a non-
attribution basis. Please be aware that your comments may be posted
online.
Email: learning@ostp.gov. Email submissions will receive
an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response, but
will not receive individualized feedback on any suggestions.
Postal Mail: Office of Science and Technology Policy,
Attn: Cristin Dorgelo, 1650 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20504. Submissions by postal mail must be received by the deadline, and
should allow sufficient time for security processing.
Fax: 202.456.6021
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Request for Information (RFI) offers
the oppm1unity for interested individuals and organizations to identify
public and private actions that have the potential to accelerate the
development, rigorous evaluation, and widespread adoption of high-
impact learning technologies. The focus of this RFI is on the design
and implementation of ``pull mechanisms'' for technologies that
significantly improve a given learning outcome. Pull mechanisms
increase the incentives to develop specific products or services by
committing to reward success. Examples of pull mechanisms include
incentive prizes, Advance Market Commitments, milestone payments, ``pay
for success'' bonds, and purchasing consm1ia. The public input provided
through this notice will inform the deliberations of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Background
OSTP is interested in identifying policies and serving as a
catalyst for public-private pat1nerships that have the potential to
accelerate the development, rigorous evaluation, and widespread
adoption of high-impact learning technologies. For example, imagine if
learners in the United States had access to technologies that:
Dramatically reduced the large and persistent gap in
vocabulary size between children from wealthy and poor households.
Allowed middle and high school students to outperform
their international peers in math and science.
Enabled English-language learners that are reading at
several grade levels below average to catch up after only a year.
Gave non-college bound students an industry skills
ce1tification or set of cognitive skills (e.g. literacy, numeracy,
ability to understand and apply chmis, graphs and diagrams) that are a
ticket to a middle-class job, increasing their employability and their
incomes by $10,000-$20,000 or more in less than a year.
Doubled the percentage of community college students that
pass remedial math, which is currently only 30 percent.
[[Page 2202]]
Successfully delivered a ``growth mindset'' intervention
to teachers and students.
Were as effective as a personal tutor, were as engaging as
the best video game, and improved the more students used them.
Currently, there is a large gap between the relatively modest
impact that technology has had on education, particularly in K-12, and
the transformative impact that it has had in many aspects of our
economic and social life. For example, businesses are using information
and communications technologies to dramatically increase productivity,
tap the expe1iise of their employees, slash the time needed to develop
new products, tailor products and services to meet the needs of
individual consumers, orchestrate global networks of suppliers, derive
insights from huge volumes of transactional data, and improve their
products and services by conducting rapid, low-cost experiments.
Education, particularly K-12 education, remains relatively
untouched by advances in our understanding of how people learn, how to
design instruction that incorporates those insights, and the explosion
in information technologies such as low-cost smartphones and tablets,
cloud computing, broadband networks, speech recognition and speech
synthesis, predictive analytics, data mining, machine learning,
intelligent tutors, simulations, games, computer-suppmied collaborative
work, and many other technologies. That is why President Obama has
proposed ConnectED, a new initiative to connect 99 percent of America's
students to the Internet through high-speed broadband and high-speed
wireless within 5 years.
Learning technologies will be much more effective if they informed
by ``learning science''--advances in disciplines in fields such as
neuroscience, cognitive science, educational psychology, and
discipline-based education research that shed light on how people
learn. This research can provide actionable insights on issues such as
student motivation, the circumstances under which prior knowledge helps
or hmis learning, how students can organize knowledge in rich and
meaningful ways, and the ways in which students can progress from
novice to expeti in a given domain.
There are a number of reasons for the gap between the potential of
learning science and technology and the cunent state-of-the-practice:
The United States is investing 0.1 percent of K-12
expenditures on R&D, compared to 2 percent in mature industries and
18.7 percent in the pharmaceutical industry. This extremely low level
of investment in educational R&D has clearly limited the pace of
innovation.
Entrepreneurs seeking to develop and market new products
to the K-12 market face a number of challenges, including low per-pupil
expenditures on software, lengthy adoption cycles, and a highly
fragmented market. This in turn limits the amount that companies can
spend on research and product development.
It is difficult for companies to make authoritative claims
about the impact of their products on learning outcomes assessed
through rigorous third-party validation, which limits the premium that
school districts and other consumers of learning technology are willing
to pay for high-quality, effective products.
This suggests that an effective national strategy for increasing
the impact of learning science and technology should address both the
``supply'' and ``demand'' for advanced learning technologies.
To increase the ``supply'' of learning technology, the Federal
government and philanthropists could increase funding for research and
development and support training grants and scholarships in relevant
disciplines such as educational psychology, cognitive science,
instructional design, artificial intelligence, etc. The National
Science Foundation is funding a program called ``Cyberlearning
Transforming Education'' and the Depmiment of Defense is supporting
research in advanced training technologies. The President FY14 Budget
request includes funding for a ``DARPA for Education'' (ARPA-ED).
The Power
However, there has been little discussion of the potential of what
economists call ``pull mechanisms'' to accelerate the development,
evaluation, and adoption of high-impact learning technologies.
As economists have recently noted, governments and other funders
can suppmt innovation using ``push'' programs (e.g. funding grants and
contracts to universities and companies, providing tax incentives for
R&D, or supporting government laboratories) and ``pull'' mechanisms
that ``increase the rewards for developing specific products by
committing to reward success.'' Push programs pay for research inputs;
pull mechanisms pay for research outcomes.
``Pull mechanisms'' have been used successfully in the field of
global health. In December 2010, children in developing countries began
receiving a vaccine that will prevent deaths from ``pneumococcal''
diseases including pneumonia, meningitis, and sepsis. Nearly one
million young children die every year from pneumococcal infections,
with 90 percent of these deaths occurring in developing countries.
The development of this vaccine was accelerated by a $1.5 billion
``Advance Market Commitment'' backed by five governments and a private
foundation. Pharmaceutical companies that have agreed to provide the
vaccine at $3.50 per dose to low-income countries for the next 10 years
will receive additional payments from the $1.5 billion in donor
commitments. The AMC increased the size and predictability of the
market for pneumococcal vaccines, which increased the willingness of
companies to invest in high-volume production of these vaccines for
developing country markets. Expe1ts predict that this AMC will save 7
million lives over the next twenty years.
Non-binding commitments to purchase products can also provide
market pull, if there is both a clearly defined performance
specification and a strong expression of interest from potential
buyers. For example, in June 2013, the U.S. Department of Energy put
together a coalition of the Federal government and over 200 major
commercial building pmtners that issued a challenge to U.S.
manufacturers: ``If you can build wireless sub-meters that cost less
than $100 apiece and enable us to identify opportunities to save money
by saving energy, we will buy them.'' At least 18 manufacturers agreed
to take up the challenge. In 2011, the Department of Energy put
together a similar and successful challenge for energy-efficient and
cost-effective commercial air conditioners, with the first manufacturer
meeting the challenge in May 2012.
In addition, Federal agencies have offered almost 300 incentive
prizes on Challenge.gov, providing opportunities for citizen solvers to
offer novel solutions to tough problems, while minimizing risk to
Federal agencies by only paying for success. More information about
pull mechanisms can be found in this supplemental information document.
OSTP is interested in stimulating a conversation about how pull
mechanisms could be used to accelerate the development, evaluation, and
adoption of learning technologies. Some of the advantages of pull
mechanisms are that a funder can (a) pay only for
[[Page 2203]]
success; (b) set a goal without having to choose in advance which team
or approach is most likely to be successful; and (c) increase the
number and intellectual diversity of the teams that are working to
solve a particular problem. Although there a variety of different types
of pull mechanisms, they generally require establishing a clear goal
and an agreed-upon set of metrics for evaluating progress towards that
goal. If education is going to benefit from increased use of pull
mechanisms, policy-makers and stakeholders have to identify some
specific challenges that are important and measurable, and where it is
plausible that learning technology can help improve student outcomes.
Using Pull Mechanisms for Learning Technologies
Pull mechanisms can be used for social interventions that do not
use technology. For example, the first ``social impact bond'' is being
used by the United Kingdom to reduce recidivism among 3,000 prisoners.
The United Kingdom's Depa11ment for International Development (DfiD) is
supporting a ``Results-Based Aid'' approach to improving education in
Ethiopia. Under this pilot, DfiD will make grant payments to the
education ministry for the increase in the number of students above a
baseline that sits for or passes the national grade 10 exam. There will
be additional payments for students in the poorest regions, and for
girls compared to boys.
It may also make sense to experiment with pull mechanisms to
accelerate the development and rigorous evaluation of learning
technologies. Some of the potential advantages of learning technologies
include:
Low marginal cost: The marginal cost of making software or
digital content and services available to more students is very low,
although the fixed cost of R&D and rigorous evaluation may be high.
This is why IT stmtups are able to grow rapidly--the cost of serving
tens or hundreds of millions of customers does not increase
arithmetically with the number of customers.
Ability to maintain high levels of ``time on task'': For
example, good game developers can keep users riveted for hours at a
time. They can create experiences that are intrinsically motivating,
and that offer an increasingly difficult set of challenges that keep
users in the ``sweet spot'' between being bored and frustrated.
Continuous improvement: The productivity of most public
sector services is flat or negative. Researchers and entrepreneurs have
ideas for developing online services that get better the more people
use them by (a) conducting many low-cost experiments to discover what
works; and (b) collect, analyze and act on the data that can be
generated online.
Learning anytime, anywhere: Mobile devices allow
individuals to access digital content at a time, place, and pace that
is convenient for them. This might be particularly impmiant for an
adult who is trying to upgrade their skills while balancing the
competing demands of work and family.
Digital tutors: Research suggests that the average student
tutored one-on-one using ``mastery learning'' techniques (students are
helped to master each concept before proceeding to a more advanced
learning task) performed better than 98 percent of the students that
learn the same material using conventional instructional methods.
Projects funded by DARPA and the Office of Naval Research suggest that
it may be possible to develop ``digital tutors'' that model the one-on-
one interaction between a world-class subject matter expeti and a
student. A pilot suppmied by the Veteran's Administration is allowing
unemployed veterans that use the digital tutor for 6 months to get IT
jobs that pay $40,000 to $80,000.
Personalization: Researchers and firms are developing
software and online services that are personalized to the needs,
background, interests and skill levels of individuals.
Interactive simulations that enable ``learning by doing'':
Researchers have developed simulations in areas such as physics,
chemistry, biology, emih science, and math. For example, an ``Energy
Skate Park'' simulation allows students to explore energy conservation
with multiple different variables (shape of the track, starting height
and speed of the skater, mass of the skater, and friction). Students
can quicldy repeat experiments and rapidly explore the effect of many
different parameters.
Embedded assessment: Technology can help provide
continuous assessment of a given set of knowledge, skills and abilities
if the designers know (a) what behaviors would constitute evidence that
a student has mastered a given competency; and (b) which tasks can
elicit those behaviors.
Questions
To stimulate a national conversation on whether and how pull
mechanisms might be used to accelerate the development of high-impact
learning technologies, OSTP seeks public comment on the questions
listed below:
(1) What learning outcomes would be good candidates for the focus
of a pull mechanism to catalyze the creation and use of new learning
technology? These outcomes could be relevant to early childhood
education, K-20, life-long learning, workforce readiness and skills,
etc.
(2) How are these learning outcomes currently measured and
assessed?
(3) What information exists about current U.S. performance relative
to this learning outcome? What information exists about the presence
(currently available or potential given current trends or
breakthroughs) or absence of effective interventions (technology-based,
offline, or hybrid) to improve this learning outcome?
(4) Why would a pull mechanism in this area accelerate innovation
in learning technology?
(5) What role might different stakeholders (e.g. Federal agencies,
state and local educational agencies, foundations, researchers,
practitioners, companies, investors, or non-profit organizations) play
in designing, funding, and implementing a pull mechanism for learning
technology? What role would your organization be willing to play?
(6) What changes in public policy would facilitate experimentation
with pull mechanisms at different levels of government?
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 accelerating the development, rigorous
evaluation and widespread adoption of high-impact learning
technologies. Please note that the U.S. Government will not pay for
response preparation or for the use of any information contained in the
response.
Ted Waelder,
Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant Director.
Supplementary Information: Overview of Pull Mechanisms
Incentive prizes are one type of ``pull mechanism''--results-based
market incentives designed to overcome market failures and catalyze
itmovation. Experts often make a distinction between ``recognition''
prizes that honor past achievements and ``inducement'' or ``incentive''
prizes that encourage participants in the competition to achieve a
particular goal. In a 2009 repot1, McKinsey identified six prize
archetypes that provide a useful framework for identifying types of
prizes that can best achieve different types of goals:
[[Page 2204]]
Exemplar Prizes that define excellence within an area.
Point Solution Prizes that aim to spur development of
solutions for a pmiicular well-defined problem. Solutions can include
software applications, algorithms, predictive models, ideas, business
plans, policy proposals, designs, or prototypes.
Market Stimulation Prizes that try to establish the
viability of a market to address a potential market failure, mobilize
additional human talent and financial capital to jumpstati the
development of a new industry, or change public perceptions about what
is possible.
Exposition Prizes that are designed to highlight a broad
range of promising ideas and practices, attract attention, and mobilize
capital to further develop the winning innovations.
Participation Prizes that create value during and after
the competition- not through conferral of the prize award itself but
through their role in encouraging contestants to change their behavior
or develop new skills that may have beneficial effects during and
beyond the competition.
Network Prizes that build networks and strengthen
communities by organizing winners into new problem-solving communities
that can deliver more impact than individual effmis.
Other types of pull mechanisms include:
Advance Market Commitments: Binding commitments to
purchase, or to subsidize purchase, of a ce1iain volume of a product at
a fixed prize, if the product meets pre defined performance
characteristics (pneumococcal vaccine and Department of Energy examples
discussed above).
Buyer's Consortia: Cooperative agreements between
purchasers of products that leverage the combined buying power of those
purchasers to drive down the price of products, such as a buyer's
consmiium set up for Maine school districts to purchase specialized
software and specific assistive technology devices.
Pay-for-Success Bonds: Under a Pay for Success bond, also
known as a social impact bond, the financing organization and the
Federal, state, or local government enter into a contract that
specifies the population to be served, the outcomes to be achieved, the
measurement methodology to be used, and the schedule of payments to be
made. The financing organization works with philanthropic and other
investors to invest in innovative, data-driven service providers that
can achieve results. One example of a pay for-success bond program is
an initiative in New York targeted at reducing recidivism in adult
males.
Milestone-based Payments: Payment terms in a standard
grant or contract in which the payment for each performance milestone
established in the statement of work is not made until the milestone is
proven to have been achieved. One example of this approach has been
successfully demonstrated in NASA 's Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services (COTS) program.
Priority Review Vouchers: An accelerated regulatory review
offered to products that meet certain performance or cost criteria,
such as the FDA Innovation Pathway and USPTO 's Patents for Humanity.
Patent Buyout: An offer to buy out the patent rights to a
product that meets specified performance conditions at a set price
(price for patent usually marked up over market value; followed by
placing of the patent into the public domain to encourage competition
for commercialization of the product). One example is the purchase of
the patent for the Daguerreotype process by the French government in
1839.
[FR Doc. 2014-00404 Filed 1-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
