Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 76397 

1National Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 110 Stat. 775— 

784 (1996). 

2OMB Circular A–119 Revised, Federal 

Participation in the Development and Use of 

Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity 

Assessment Activities (rev. Feb. 10, 1998) ¶ 3, 

available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

rewrite/circulars/a119/a119.html. 

Dated: December 2, 2010. 

Susan H. Kuhbach, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30859 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

[Docket No. 0909100442–0563–02] 

Effectiveness of Federal Agency 

Participation in Standardization in 

Select Technology Sectors for National 

Science and Technology Council’s 

Sub-Committee on Standardization 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for Information. 

SUMMARY: The National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, on behalf of 

the National Science and Technology 

Council’s Sub-Committee on Standards, 

invites interested parties to provide 

their perspectives on the effectiveness of 

Federal agencies’ participation in the 

development and implementation of 

standards and conformity assessment 

activities and programs. This 

information will help the SubCommittee on Standards develop case 

studies that Federal agencies can 

consider in their future engagement in 

standards development and conformity 

assessment, particularly for multidisciplinary technologies, or for 

technologies involving engagement from 

multiple Federal agencies. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

11:59 p.m. on February 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted 

by e-mail only. Comments should be 

sent to SOS_RFI@nist.gov with the 

subject line ‘‘Standardization feedback 

for Sub-Committee on Standards.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ajit 

Jillavenkatesa, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 

1060, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1060, 

301–975–8519, ajit.jilla@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

24, 2010, the U.S. Chief Technology 

Officer and Associate Director for 

Technology in the White House Office 

of Science and Technology Policy, 

Aneesh Chopra, announced the 

establishment of a Sub-Committee on 

Standards under the National Science 

and Technology Council’s Committee of 

Technology. (http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/24/ 

providing-leadership-standardsaddress-national-challenges). The SubCommittee includes leaders of executive 

branch agencies and commissions that 

have an interest in, or are involved with, 

technical standards. It is co-chaired by 

Patrick Gallagher (Director, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, 

U.S. Department of Commerce). 

Information about agencies participating 

in this Sub-Committee, and its charter is 

available at: http://www.standards.gov/ 

standards_gov/ 

nstcsubcommitteeonstandards.cfm. By 

examining the various methods that 

Federal agencies use to engage in 

standards-development activities in 

partnership with the private sector, the 

Sub-Committee on Standards intends to 

develop information on how Federal 

agencies may engage more effectively in 

the standardization system in a manner 

that is consistent with the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 1 and the Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A– 

119.2 In support of this objective, the 

Sub-Committee is interested in 

perspectives on (1) the effectiveness of 

the methods Federal agencies have used 

to engage in standards-setting activities 

by identifying which methods have 

enhanced or limited the public-private 

standards-setting processes; (2) the 

effectiveness of Federal agencies 

coordination with the private sector; 

and (3) the adequacy and availability of 

Federal resources; and (4) other issues 

that arise and are considered during the 

standards setting process which impact 

the process, and the timeliness, 

adoption and use of the resulting 

standards. 

Request for Information 

The objective of this request is to 

inform the development of case studies 

that will examine the effectiveness of 

Federal agencies’ participation in 

standards-setting efforts led by the 

private sector. The case studies would 

provide agencies information on lessons 

learned from Federal agency 

engagement in standards development 

for technologies that are complex, multidisciplinary, exhibit system-type 

characteristics, and involve multiple 

government agencies, and addressed 

specific national priorities. Issues 

impacting U.S. competitiveness such as 

the interplay of standards with 

intellectual property, competition, and 

innovation are also significant 

considerations in these technology 

areas. These case studies may inform 

decisions about Federal agencies’ 

engagement in standardization for 

technologies with similar 

characteristics. The questions below are 

intended to help frame the issues and 

should not be construed as a limitation 

on comments that parties may submit. 

Comments containing references, 

studies, research, and other empirical 

data that are not widely published 

should include copies of the referenced 

materials. All comments will be made 

publicly available. 

The Sub-Committee on Standards is 

specifically interested in comments that 

address the questions below as they 

relate to the following technologies: 

1. Smart Grid. 

2. Health Information Technology. 

3. Cyber Security. 

4. Emergency Communications 

Interoperability. 

5. Radioactivity Detectors and 

Radiation Monitors (ANSI N42.3x and 

N42.4x). 

6. Other technologies involving 

significant Federal agency participation 

in standards setting. 

For the purposes of this notice, the 

term ‘‘standards’’ and the phrase 

‘‘standards setting’’ is used in a generic 

manner to cover both standards and 

conformity assessment development. 

State and local governments, standardssetting organizations, industry, 

consumers, manufacturers, solution 

providers, and other stakeholders are 

invited to respond. Responses should 

identify the technologies involved as 

appropriate. 

Standards-Setting Processes, Reasons 

for Participation and the Benefits of 

Standardization 

Emerging technologies offer great 

potential for delivering new and 

improved products and services in the 

global economy. Standards can enable 

further innovation and enhance the 

value of these new technologies. Federal 

law and associated policy guidance has 

expressed a general preference for 

Federal agencies to rely on voluntary 

consensus standards, in lieu of 

government unique standards, through 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 and Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A– 

119, which encourage agency staff to 

participate in standards-development 

activities led by the private sector, as 

appropriate. 

Recognizing that stakeholders 

participate in standards-setting 

activities for varying reasons, and in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
76398 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 

order to evaluate the effectiveness of 

Federal agencies’ participation in 

standards-setting efforts led by the 

private sector, the Sub-Committee 

invites organizations to provide 

information on their participation, and 

their perceptions of Federal 

participation in standards-setting 

activities related to the case-study 

technologies listed above, as well as the 

current status of the standardization 

process for these technologies. The SubCommittee is interested in better 

understanding: Who participates in 

standards-setting activities? What are 

the most important reasons for 

participation? What are the benefits of 

developing standards for this sector? 

How do the standards impact 

organizations and their 

competitiveness? How has 

standardization spurred innovation in 

the technology sector(s) that is the 

subject of your comment? What is the 

current phase of the standards 

development process for this 

technology? How has the process 

worked so far? When developing 

standards, how are the standards-setting 

processes managed and coordinated? Is 

there a strategic plan that identifies the 

standards needs and defines the 

standards development life cycle? Are 

there barriers to developing high level 

strategies for standard-setting activities? 

Perspectives on Government’s 

Approach to Standards Activities 

The Sub-Committee would like to 

identify and assess the methods by 

which Federal agencies work with 

standards-setting organizations, 

industry, State and local governments, 

and consumers to develop standards. 

The Federal Government approaches 

standard setting in various ways. 

Sometimes staff members from Federal 

agencies participate directly as subject 

matter experts in standards-setting 

activities that are led by the private 

sector. At other times, agencies identify 

their standards needs and requirements, 

and then reach out to the private sector 

to develop the standards. Sometimes, 

agencies fund private standards-setting 

activities to develop standards needed 

by that agency. At other times, agencies 

take an active role in both identifying 

standards needs and leading the 

standards development process in 

collaboration with the private sector. In 

many technology sectors, multiple 

Federal agencies with differing roles 

and mandates participate in standardsdevelopment activities. 

Responses to the following questions 

will help the Sub-Committee to better 

understand which methods of 

engagement by Federal agencies are 

most effective and why. What methods 

of engagement are used by Federal 

agencies to participate in private sectorled standards development? How 

transparent is each method? How 

effective is each method? How could the 

methods be improved? What other 

methods should the Federal agencies 

explore? What impact have Federal 

agencies had on standards activities? 

How well do Federal agencies 

coordinate their roles in standards 

activities in the sector of interest? When 

Federal agencies have been involved in 

standards setting efforts in a technology 

sector, how has the progress of 

standards setting efforts in this 

technology sector changed after Federal 

agencies became involved? Are Federal 

agencies generally receptive to input 

from other participants in standardssetting activities? Does receptiveness 

tend to depend on whether the Federal 

agency is a regulator or a customer? In 

those sectors where Federal agencies 

plays a significant role in standards 

activities, how valuable and timely is 

the work product associated with this 

effort? 

Issues Considered During the Standards 

Setting Process 

Various factors (e.g., technology, 

competition, innovation, intellectual 

property rights, foreign regulations, etc.) 

arise and are considered and addressed 

during standards development. These 

aspects play a role in the adoption and 

use of the standard. The Sub-Committee 

is interested in understanding the types 

of issues that have been considered, and 

how these have been addressed/are 

being addressed. Has Federal agency 

participation in standards-setting 

impacted the consideration and 

resolution of these issues, and the 

standards setting processes? 

With respect to foreign regulations, 

the Subcommittee is interested in 

understanding how foreign technical 

regulations are considered and 

addressed during standards setting or 

conformity assessment activities. Are 

efforts made to determine whether there 

is potential for overlap or duplication 

with existing international standards? 

How are other appropriate international 

standards that may be of interest 

identified? Are efforts made to identify 

existing or planned regional or national 

standards that may be considered for 

use as the basis for foreign technical 

regulations, rather than the international 

standard being considered by the 

committee? 

With respect to intellectual property, 

the Sub-Committee would like to 

understand the approaches you have 

experienced or found most appropriate 

for handling patents and/or other types 

of intellectual property rights that are 

necessary to implement a standard. How 

does the need for access to intellectual 

property rights by Federal agencies 

factor into the use or development of 

standards? To what extent, if any, has 

the development, adoption or use of a 

standard, by Federal agencies in this 

technology sector been affected by 

holders of intellectual property? How 

have such circumstances been 

addressed? Are there particular 

obstacles that either prevent intellectual 

property owners from obtaining 

reasonable returns or cause intellectual 

property owners to make IP available on 

terms resulting in unreasonable returns 

when their IP is included in the 

standard? What strategies have been 

effective in mitigating risks, if any, 

associated with hold-up or buyers’ 

cartels? 

Adequacy of Resources 

The availability and commitment of 

financial resources, personnel, and 

industry expertise may impact the 

success of standards development. In 

some instances, changing priorities or 

changes in an organization’s budget may 

impact the resources an agency commits 

to an ongoing project. The SubCommittee would like to better 

understand the resources that both 

private sector organizations and Federal 

agencies commit to standards-setting 

activities, constraints on those 

resources, and how the level of 

resources affects the success of the 

effort. What resources are needed to 

successfully complete the efforts? 

Taking into account budget constraints 

and competing initiatives, have Federal 

agencies committed adequate resources? 

What resource constraints impact the 

successful completion of the standards 

efforts? 

Process Review and Improvement 

Metrics 

The success and limitations of 

standards-setting activities and the 

associated outcomes may be studied, 

understood and implemented for 

continuous process improvement. Such 

improvements can help ensure that 

Federal agencies participation in 

standards activities is cost-effective and 

will lead to optimal results. Responses 

to the questions that follow will help 

the Sub-Committee better understand 

what methods have facilitated or 

hindered Federal agencies participation 

in standardization, recognizing that 

some standards-setting activities in the 

case-study technologies may be not yet 

be completed. What lessons about 

standards development in complex 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices 76399 

technologies have been learned so far? 

How have these lessons learned been 

implemented? Have there been any 

impediments to implementing these 

lessons? How has this information been 

documented or disseminated, and 

implemented? What kinds of 

performance metrics are appropriate to 

measure the effectiveness of the 

standards-setting process? If any such 

performance metrics have been used, 

what are the results? 

Dated: December 2, 2010. 

Patrick Gallagher, 

Director, National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Co-Chair, National Science and 

Technology Council’s Sub-Committee on 

Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30864 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[File No. 781–1824] 

RIN 0648–XZ66 

Marine Mammals 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for 

permit amendment; extension of public 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On November 9, 2010, NMFS 

published a Notice of Receipt that the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

(NWFSC, Dr. M. Bradley Hanson, 

Principal Investigator), 2725 Montlake 

Blvd. East, Seattle, Washington 98112– 

2097, had applied for an amendment to 

Scientific Research Permit No. 781– 

1824–01. Public comments were due by 

December 09, 2010. NMFS has extended 

the comment period to allow additional 

time for submission of public comments 

on this action. 

DATES: The public comment period for 

this action has been extended for 14 

days. Written comments must be 

received or postmarked by December 23, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 781–1824 from the list of 

available applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)713–0376; and 

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand 

Point Way, NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, 

Seattle, WA 98115–0700; phone 

(206)526–6150; fax (206)526–6426. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, at the address listed above. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile to (301)713–0376, or by e-mail 

to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. 

Please include File No. 781–1824 in the 

subject line of the email comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sloan or Laura Morse, (301)713– 

2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

November 9, 2010 (75 FR 68757), notice 

of receipt of an application to amend 

Permit No. 781–1824 was published 

specifying the date on which comments 

were due as December 09, 2010. This 

notice only extends the comment 

period. The revised comment deadline 

is specified in the DATES section of this 

notice. Please refer to the November 9, 

2010 notice for a summary of the 

application. 

Dated: December 3, 2010. 

Tammy C. Adams, 

Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30909 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[File No. 13602] 

RIN 0648–XK54 

Marine Mammals 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; requested changes to 

application for permit amendment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. 

Terrie Williams, Long Marine Lab, 

Institute of Marine Sciences, University 

of California at Santa Cruz, 100 Shaffer 

Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, has 

requested a change to the application for 

an amendment to Scientific Research 

Permit No. 13602. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

January 7, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting 

File No. 13602 from the list of available 

applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; and 

Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West 

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 

CA 90802–4213; phone (562) 980–4001; 

fax (562) 980–4018. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, at the address listed above. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. 

Please include the File No. in the 

subject line of the e-mail comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and 

Education Division at the address listed 

above. The request should set forth the 

specific reasons why a hearing on this 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 

713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject amendment to Permit No. 13602 

was requested under the authority of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), and the regulations governing the 

taking, importing, and exporting of 

endangered and threatened species (50 

CFR parts 222–226). 

On May 20, 2010 (75 FR 28236), 

notice was published that an 

amendment to Permit No. 13602, issued 

on September 4, 2009 (74 FR 46569), 

had been requested by the permit holder 

to include physiological research on up 

to 18 captive Hawaiian monk seals 

(Monachus schauinslandi) in facilities 

in the United States, and opportunistic 

energetic assessments on stranded ESAVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:23 Dec 07, 2010 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM 08DEN1

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES