Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices 34667 

request was rejected starting no later 

than nine (9) months after date of 

contract award. 

C.5.3 External Auditor—The 

Contractor shall have an external, 

independent, specialized compliance 

auditor conduct an audit of the IANA 

functions security provisions annually. 

C.6 Performance Exclusions 

C.6.1 This purchase order, in itself, 

does not authorize modifications, 

additions, or deletions to the root zone 

file or associated information. (This 

purchase order does not alter the root 

zone file responsibilities as set forth in 

Amendment 11 of the Cooperative 

Agreement NCR–9218742 between the 

DoC and VeriSign, Inc.) 

C.6.2 This purchase order, in itself, 

does not authorize the Contractor to 

make material changes in the policies 

and procedures developed by the 

relevant entities associated with the 

performance of the IANA functions. The 

Contractor shall not change or 

implement the established methods 

associated with the performance of the 

IANA functions without prior approval 

of the COTR. 

C.6.3 The performance of the 

functions under this contract, including 

the development of recommendations in 

connection with processing changes that 

constitute delegations and redelegations 

of ccTLDs, shall not be, in any manner, 

predicated or conditioned on the 

existence or entry into any contract, 

agreement or negotiation between the 

Contractor and any party requesting 

such changes or any other third-party. 

Questions Related to the Draft SOW 

The public is invited to comment on 

any aspect of the Draft SOW including, 

but not limited to, the specific questions 

set forth below. When responding to 

specific questions, please cite the 

number(s) of the questions addressed, 

the ‘‘section’’ of the Draft SOW to which 

the question(s) correspond, and provide 

any references to support the responses 

submitted. 

1. Does the language in ‘‘Provision 

C.1.3’’ capture views on how the 

relevant stakeholders as sources of the 

policies and procedures should be 

referenced in the next IANA functions 

contract. If not, please propose specific 

language to capture commenters’ views. 

2. Does the new ‘‘Provision C.2.2.1.1’’ 

adequately address concerns that the 

IANA functions contractor should 

refrain from developing policies related 

to the IANA functions? If not, please 

provide detailed comments and specific 

suggestions for improving the language. 

3. Does the language in ‘‘Provisions 

C.2.2.1.2, C.2.2.1.3, C.2.2.1.4, and 

C.2.2.1.5’’ adequately address concerns 

that the IANA functions contractor 

should perform these services in a 

manner that best serves the relevant 

stakeholders? If not, please propose 

detailed alternative language. 

4. Does the language in ‘‘Provision 

C.2.2.1.3’’ adequately address concerns 

related to root zone management? If not, 

please suggest detailed alternative 

language. Are the timeframes for 

implementation reasonable? 

5. Does the new ‘‘Provision C.2.2.1.3.2 

Responsibility and Respect for 

Stakeholders’’ adequately address 

concerns related to the root zone 

management process in particular how 

the IANA functions contractor should 

document its decision making with 

respect to relevant national laws of the 

jurisdiction which the TLD registry 

serves, how the TLD reflects community 

consensus among relevant stakeholders 

and/or is supported by the global public 

interest. If not, please provide detailed 

suggestions for capturing concerns. Are 

the timeframes for implementation 

reasonable? 

6. Does the new ‘‘Section C.3 Security 

Requirements’’ adequately address 

concerns that the IANA functions 

contractor has a secure communications 

system for communicating with service 

recipients? If not, how can the language 

be improved? Is the timeframe for 

implementation reasonable? 

7. Does the new ‘‘Provision C.2.2.1.3.5 

Customer Service Complaint Resolution 

Process’’ provide an adequate means of 

addressing customer complaints? Does 

the new language provide adequate 

guidance to the IANA functions 

contractor on how to develop a 

customer complaint resolution? If not, 

please provide detailed comments and 

suggestions for improving the language. 

8. Does the new ‘‘Provision C.3.6 

Contingency and Continuity of 

Operations Plan (CCOP)’’ adequately 

address concerns regarding contingency 

planning and emergency recovery? If 

not, please provide detailed comments 

and suggestions for improving the 

language. Are the timeframes for 

implementation reasonable? 

9. Does the new ‘‘Section C.4 

Performance Standards Metric 

Requirements’’ adequately address 

concerns regarding transparency in root 

zone management process, and 

performance standards and metrics? 

Should the contractor be required to 

gather and report on statistics regarding 

global IPv6 and DNSSEC deployment? If 

so, how should this requirement be 

reflected in the SOW? What statistics 

should be gathered and made public? 

10. Does the new ‘‘Section C.5 Audit 

Requirements’’ adequately address 

concerns regarding audits? If not, please 

propose alternative language. Are the 

timeframes for implementation 

reasonable? 

Dated: June 9, 2011. 

Lawrence E. Strickling, 

Assistant Secretary for Communications and 

Information. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14762 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–64638; File Nos. 4–633 and 

S7–39–10] 

Joint Public Roundtable on Proposed 

Dealer and Major Participant 

Definitions of Title VII of the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act 

AGENCIES: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’) and Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 

(each, an ‘‘Agency,’’ and collectively, 

the ‘‘Agencies’’). 

ACTION: Notice of roundtable discussion; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: On Thursday, June 16, 2011, 

commencing at 9 a.m. and ending at 

3:45 p.m., staff of the Agencies will hold 

a public roundtable meeting at which 

invited participants will discuss various 

issues related to the proposed 

definitions of the terms ‘‘swap dealer,’’ 

‘‘security-based swap dealer,’’ ‘‘major 

swap participant,’’ and ‘‘major securitybased swap participant’’ under Title VII 

of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 

and Consumer Protection Act (the 

‘‘Act’’). See 75 FR 80174 (Dec. 21, 2010). 

The discussion will be open to the 

public with seating on a first-come, firstserved basis. Members of the public may 

also listen to the meeting by telephone. 

Call-in participants should be prepared 

to provide their first name, last name 

and affiliation. The information for the 

conference call is set forth below. 

• U.S. Toll-Free: (866) 844–9416. 

• International Toll: information on 

international dialing can be found at the 

following link: http://www.cftc.gov/

PressRoom/PressReleases/

internationalnumbers021811.html. 

• Conference ID: 7731946. 

A transcript of the public roundtable 

discussion will be published at http:// 

www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/Events/2011/ 

index.htm. The roundtable discussion 

will take place in the Conference Center 

at the CFTC’s headquarters, Three 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
34668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

CFTC’s Office of Public Affairs at (202) 

418–5080 or the SEC’s Office of Public 

Affairs at (202) 551–4120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

roundtable discussion will take place on 

Thursday, June 16, 2011, commencing 

at 9 a.m. and ending at 3:45 p.m. 

Members of the public who wish to 

comment on the topics addressed at the 

discussion, may do so via: 

• Paper submission to David Stawick, 

Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581, or Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary, Securities and Exchange 

Commission, 100 F Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20549–1090; or 

• Electronic submission via visiting 

http://comments.cftc.gov/Public

Comments/ReleasesWith

Comments.aspx and submitting 

comments through the CFTC’s Web site; 

and/or by e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov (all e-mails must 

reference the file numbers 4–633 and 

S7–39–10 in the subject field) or 

through the comment form available at: 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml. 

All submissions will be reviewed 

jointly by the Agencies. All comments 

must be in English or be accompanied 

by an English translation. All 

submissions provided to either Agency 

in any electronic form or on paper will 

be published on the Web site of the 

respective Agency, without review and 

without removal of personally 

identifying information. Please submit 

only information that you wish to make 

publicly available. 

Dated: June 9, 2011. 

By the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary. 

Dated: June 9, 2011. 

By the Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14729 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Comment request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(the Department), in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), 

provides the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information. This helps 

the Department assess the impact of its 

information collection requirements and 

minimize the reporting burden on the 

public and helps the public understand 

the Department’s information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. The Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Privacy, Information and 

Records Management Services, Office of 

Management, invites comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requests as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before August 

15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding burden 

and/or the collection activity 

requirements should be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or 

mailed to U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, 

Washington, DC 20202–4537. Please 

note that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) requires that 

Federal agencies provide interested 

parties an early opportunity to comment 

on information collection requests. The 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Information 

Management and Privacy Services, 

Office of Management, publishes this 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests at the beginning of 

the Departmental review of the 

information collection. The Department 

of Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. 

Dated: June 8, 2011. 

Darrin A. King, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Privacy, Information and Records 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title of Collection: Protection and 

Advocacy of Individual Rights (PAIR) 

Program Assurances. 

OMB Control Number: 1820–0625. 

Agency Form Number(s): N/A. 

Frequency of Responses: Submitted 

once prior to FY 2007, and thereafter 

only upon the redesignation of the P&A. 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 57. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 9. 

Abstract: Section 509 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

(act), and its implementing Federal 

Regulations at 34 CFR Part 381, require 

the Protection and Advocacy of 

Individual Rights (PAIR) grantees to 

submit an application to the 

Rehabilitation Services Administration 

(RSA) Commissioner in order to receive 

assistance under Section 509 of the act. 

The act requires that the application 

contain Assurances to which the grantee 

must comply. Section 509(f) of the act 

specifies the Assurances. There are 57 

PAIR grantees. All 57 grantees are 

required to be part of the protection and 

advocacy system in each State 

established under the Developmental 

Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights 

Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 6041 et seq.). 

Copies of the proposed information 

collection request may be accessed from 

http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 4638. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection and OMB Control Number 

when making your request. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

[FR Doc. 2011–14644 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES