79354 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Notices 

majority concluded that reasonable 

attorney’s fees and costs for this 

arbitration should be reduced to 

$28,393.50. 

One panel member dissented stating 

that the scope and amount of an award 

of attorney’s fees and costs would not 

materially damage the Oregon 

Commission for the Blind’s RandolphSheppard program. Consequently, this 

panel member would award 

Complainant’s attorney $65,749.33, 

reducing the original amount requested 

by one-third. 

The views and opinions expressed by 

the panel do not necessarily represent 

the views and opinions of the 

Department. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31879 Filed 12–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Assessment Technology Standards 

Request for Information (RFI) 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of request for 

information to gather technical expertise 

pertaining to assessment technology 

standards. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this RFI is to 

collect information relating to 

assessment technology standards. 

Toward that end, we are posing a series 

of questions to which we invite 

interested members of the public to 

respond. The Department anticipates 

making use of this information in the 

following ways. First of all, we expect 

to use this information to help 

determine the appropriate 

interoperability standards for 

assessments and related work developed 

under the Race to the Top Assessment 

(RTTA) program. Secondly, we expect 

to use this information to help us 

develop related standards-based 

programs. For example, we might, in the 

future, offer additional grants, contracts, 

or awards and some of those offerings 

may include similar interoperability 

requirements. This RFI may be used to 

help set the interoperability 

requirements for those offerings as well 

as the existing RTTA program. 

Under the RTTA program, the 

Department requires grantees to develop 

assessments that (see http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopassessment/executive-summary.pdf, p. 

78): 

‘‘5. Maximize the interoperability of 

assessments across technology platforms 

and the ability for States to switch their 

assessments from one technology 

platform to another by— 

(a) Developing all assessment items to 

an industry-recognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period, without non-standard 

extensions or additions; and 

(b) Producing all student-level data in 

a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period.’’ 

DATES: Written submissions must be 

received by the Department on or before 

5 p.m., Washington, DC time, on 

January 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: We encourage submissions 

by e-mail using the following address: 

RTTA-RFI@ed.gov. You must include 

the term ‘‘Assessment RFI response’’ in 

the subject line of your e-mail. If you 

prefer to send your input by mail or 

hand delivery, address it to Steve 

Midgley, Office of Educational 

Technology, Attention: Assessment RFI, 

U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 7E202, 

Washington, DC 20202–0001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Midgley, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 7E202, Washington, DC 20202– 

0001 by phone at 202–453–6381 or email at RTTA-RFI@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Introduction 

The Department is seeking 

information on technology standards 

that may be applied to the management 

and delivery of education-related 

assessments, as well as those that may 

be applied to the capture and reporting 

of assessment results within distributed 

online learning environments (i.e. 

learning environments with components 

managed by more than one 

organization). THIS IS A REQUEST FOR 

INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This 

document uses the term ‘‘technology 

standards’’ to refer to assessment 

technology standards, specifications, 

technical approaches and 

implementations, and any other 

functional or formal descriptions of 

technical functionality. (Note: This 

document refers to curricular or content 

standards specifically as ‘‘curricular 

standards.’’) Information about nonassessment technology standards and 

related issues may be relevant and 

included in responses, but this RFI is 

specifically inquiring into technology 

standards related to assessments of 

learning. For the purpose of this RFI, the 

Department does not distinguish 

between technology specifications and 

technology standards produced by 

consortia, other groups, or nationally or 

internationally recognized technology 

standards development organizations. 

This RFI is issued solely for 

information and planning purposes and 

does not constitute a Request for 

Proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an 

RFP or notice inviting applications 

(NIA). This request for information does 

not commit the Department to contract 

for any supply or service whatsoever. 

Further, the Department is not at this 

time seeking proposals and will not 

accept unsolicited proposals. 

Responders are advised that the 

Department will not pay for any 

information or administrative costs that 

a person or entity may incur in 

responding to this RFI. All costs 

associated with responding to this RFI 

will be solely at the interested party’s 

expense. Not responding to this RFI will 

not preclude individuals or 

organizations from applying under 

future contract or grant competition. If 

the Department issues an RFP or NIA, 

it will be posted on the Federal Business 

Opportunities (https://www.fbo.gov/) 

Web site (in the case of contracts) or the 

Federal Register (http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/) Web site (in the 

case of grants, or other awards). It is the 

responsibility of the potential offerors to 

monitor these sites to determine 

whether the Department issues an RFP 

or NIA after considering the information 

received in response to this RFI. Any 

company or industry proprietary 

information contained in responses 

should be clearly marked as such, by 

paragraph, such that publicly releasable 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Notices 79355 

information and proprietary information 

are clearly distinguished. Any clearly 

marked proprietary information 

received in response to this request will 

be properly protected from 

unauthorized disclosure. The 

Department will not use proprietary 

information submitted from any one 

source to establish the capability and 

requirements for any future acquisition 

or grant competition so as not to 

inadvertently restrict competition. The 

Department may publicly release or use 

any or all materials submitted which are 

not so marked. 

The documents and information 

submitted in response to this RFI 

become the property of the U.S. 

Government and will not be returned. 

2. Background 

The Department is investigating open 

technology standards and specifications 

to support the interoperable delivery 

(that is, delivery in a way that allows 

effective use across multiple systems or 

components) of State- or locally selected 

content and assessments for purposes of 

education and training when conducted 

via online learning platforms. As a part 

of this effort, the Department is 

investigating the availability and current 

practice of open technology standards 

and innovative technologies to support 

management, delivery, and exchange of 

assessment content, and the capture and 

reporting of assessment results. 

Existing technologies may serve as the 

basis for the creation of new open 

technology standards and specifications, 

if implementation details related to 

these technologies can be disclosed and 

provided without restriction for 

technical standardization or use. We 

expect that applicable open technology 

standards and specifications will be 

combined with other technology 

standards, current or to be developed, 

providing the assessment capabilities 

for online learning platforms that will 

support the next generation of 

technology for learning content. 

Therefore, this RFI seeks information on 

a range of solutions and approaches to 

standardization of assessment via 

technology, including deployment, 

collection and reporting solutions, 

techniques, and technology standards. 

It is possible that RTTA grantees will 

be able to use one or more existing 

technology standards, or it may be that 

additional development work will be 

required to obtain sufficiently complete 

technology standards for the program. It 

is also possible that one or more existing 

technology standards are suitable but 

are not licensed in a way that will 

permit free and open use by the public. 

Through this RFI, the Department seeks 

to uncover and gather information on 

how to resolve as many of these issues 

as possible. 

The Department may engage in 

additional work to address these issues 

at the conclusion of its analysis of the 

responses to this RFI. 

There are numerous efforts underway 

across the Department that can benefit 

from assessment technology 

standardization of assessment content, 

results, and reporting interoperability. 

For example, the Department is 

providing significant funding for the 

development of ‘‘next- generation’’ 

assessment systems via the RTTA 

program (see http:// 

edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010- 

8176.pdf; http://www2.ed.gov/ 

programs/racetothetop-assessment/ 

index.html). In order to promote 

technological innovation and market 

competition, the Department has 

specified that all assessment content 

developed under this program be 

developed using an ‘‘industry 

recognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard’’ that is 

approved by the Department. The 

assessment content developed under the 

program must also be made freely 

available to any State, technology 

platform provider, or others that request 

it for purposes of administering 

assessments (consistent with test 

security and protection requirements). 

Moreover, the standards and technology 

for controlling sensitive data 

(assessment results and related 

information) must also maintain the 

privacy of any individually identifiable 

information while permitting secure 

interchange among authorized systems. 

The Department intends that these 

requirements, taken as a whole, give 

States the flexibility to switch from one 

technology platform to another, 

allowing multiple providers to compete 

for States’ business and for States to 

make better decisions about cost and 

value. Use of technology standards that 

meet these requirements will help 

ensure that public investments in 

assessment instruments and related 

technology can be used in the education 

sector as broadly as possible and, at the 

same time, contribute to a competitive 

and innovative market place. 

Through this notice, the Department 

solicits advice, technical information, 

additional questions (that is, questions 

in addition to those put forward later in 

this notice), and other input as to how 

the Department can select the best 

available technology standard(s) for the 

RTTA program, as well as general 

information related to assessment 

technology standards and technology 

and policy. 

3. Context for Responses 

3.1 The primary intent of this RFI is 

to explore existing, in-process, or 

planned open technology standards, 

specifications, and technology products 

that support the management, delivery, 

and exchange of assessment content and 

the capture and exchange of assessment 

results. While the focus of this RFI is 

assessment technology standards, the 

Department recognizes that assessment 

generally occurs within the context of 

broader learning activities (whether 

online or offline) and, therefore, does 

not wish to restrict the range of 

responses to assessment-only 

approaches. The Department, therefore, 

also welcomes responses that address 

broader technology standards or 

approaches that are relevant to the 

handling of assessment management, 

delivery, or reporting. As mentioned 

earlier, the Department has required 

RTTA grantees to adopt a technical 

standard (or standards) that permit 

interoperability of the assessments and 

technology developed by that program. 

To help focus our consideration of the 

comments provided in the response to 

this RFI, we have developed several 

questions regarding the development of 

assessment technology standard(s) and 

their application to the RTTA program. 

Because these questions are only a guide 

to help us better understand the issues 

related to the development of 

interoperable technology standards for 

assessments, respondents do not have to 

respond to any specific question. 

Commenters responding to this RFI may 

provide comments in a format that is 

convenient to them. 

3.2 Questions About Assessment 

Technology Standards 

General and Market Questions 

3.2.1 Current Landscape. What are 

the dominant or significant assessment 

technology standards and platforms 

(including technologies and approaches 

for assessment management, delivery, 

reporting, or other assessment 

interoperability capabilities)? What is 

the approximate market penetration of 

the major, widely adopted solutions? To 

what degree is there significant regional, 

educational sub-sector, or international 

diversity or commonality regarding the 

adoption of various technology 

standards and capabilities, if any? 

3.2.2 Timelines. Approximately how 

long would it take for technology 

standards setting and adoption 

processes to obtain a technology 

standard that meets many or all of the 

features or requirements described in 

this RFI? What are the significant factors 

that would affect the length of that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
79356 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Notices 

timeline, and how can the impact of 

those factors be mitigated? More 

specifically, would the acquisition of 

existing intellectual property (IP), 

reduction or simplification of specific 

requirements, or other strategies reduce 

the time required to develop these 

technology standards and processes? 

3.2.3 Process. What process or 

processes are appropriate for the 

adoption, modification, or design of the 

most effective technology standard in a 

manner that would answer many or all 

of the questions in this RFI? We are 

interested in learning the extent to 

which the uses of one or another 

process would affect the timeline 

required to develop the technology 

standards. 

3.2.4 Intellectual Property. What are 

the potential benefits and costs to the 

Federal Government, States, and other 

end-users of different IP restrictions or 

permissions that could be applied to 

technology standards and 

specifications? Which types of licensed 

or open IP (e.g., all rights reserved, MIT 

Open License, or Gnu Public License) 

should be considered as a government 

technology standard? How should 

openness relating to the IP of technology 

standards be defined and categorized 

(e.g., Open Source Initiative-compatible 

license, free to use but not modify, noncommercial use only, or proprietary) 

3.2.4.1 Existing Intellectual 

Property. What are the IP licenses and 

policies of existing assessment 

technology standards, specifications, 

and development and maintenance 

policies? Are the documents, processes, 

and procedures related to these IP 

licenses and policies publicly available, 

and how could the Department obtain 

them? 

3.2.5 Customizing. Can assessment 

tools developed under existing 

technology standards be customized, 

adapted, or enhanced for the use of 

specific communities of learning 

without conflicting with the technology 

standard under which a particular 

assessment tool was developed? Which 

technology standards provide the 

greatest flexibility in permitting 

adaption or other enhancement to meet 

the needs of different educational 

communities? What specific provisions 

in existing technology standards would 

tend to limit flexibility to adapt or 

enhance assessment tools? How easy 

would it be to amend existing 

technology standards to offer more 

flexibility to adapt and enhance 

assessment tools to meet the needs of 

various communities? Do final 

technology standards publications 

include flexible IP rights that enable and 

permit such customizations? What are 

the risks and the benefits of permitting 

such customization within technology 

standards? When would it make sense 

to prevent or to enable customization? 

3.2.6 Conformance and Testing. Do 

existing technology standards or 

technologies include specifications or 

testing procedures that can be used to 

verify that a new product, such as an 

assessment tool, meets the technology 

standards under which it was 

developed? What specifications or 

testing procedures exist for this 

purpose, e.g., software testing suites, 

detailed specification descriptions, or 

other verification methods? Are these 

verification procedures included in the 

costs of the technology standards, or 

provided on a free or fee-basis, or 

provided on some combination of bases? 

3.2.7 Best Practices. What are best 

practices related to the design and use 

of assessment interoperability 

technology standards? Where have these 

best practices been adopted, and what 

are the general lessons learned from 

those adoptions? How might such best 

practices be effectively used in the 

future? 

Technological Questions Regarding 

Assessment Technology Standards 

3.2.8 Interoperable Assessment 

Instruments. What techniques, such as 

educational markup or assessment 

markup languages (see also http:// 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 

Markup_language), exist to describe, 

package, exchange, and deliver 

interoperable assessments? How do 

technology standards include 

assessments in packaged or structured 

formats? How can technology standards 

enable interoperable use with resources 

for learning content? How can 

technology standards permit assessment 

instruments and items to be exchanged 

between and used by different 

assessment technology systems? 

3.2.9 Assessment Protection. For this 

RFI, ‘‘Assessment Protection’’ means 

keeping assessment instruments and 

items sufficiently controlled to ensure 

that their application yields valid 

results. (See also paragraph below, 

‘‘Results Validity.’’) When assessment 

instruments or content are re-used or 

shared across organizations or publicly, 

are there capabilities or strategies in the 

technology standards to assist in item or 

instrument protection? What 

mechanisms or processes exist to ensure 

that assessment results are accurate and 

free from tampering? Do examples exist 

of public or semi-public assessment 

repositories that can provide valid tests 

or assessments while still sharing 

assessment items broadly? 

3.2.10 Security and Access. In what 

ways do technology standards provide 

for core security issues, such as access 

logging, encryption, access levels, and 

inter-system single-sign-on capabilities 

(i.e., one login for systems managed by 

different organizations)? 

3.2.11 Results Validity. For this RFI, 

‘‘Results Validity’’ means protecting the 

statistical validity and reliability of 

assessment instruments and items. How 

can interoperable instruments be 

managed to ensure they are 

administered in a way that ensures valid 

results? Are solutions regarding 

assurance or management of validity 

appropriate for inclusion in technology 

standards, or should they be addressed 

by the communities that would use the 

technology standards to develop 

specific assessments? 

3.2.12 Results Capture. How can 

technology standards accurately link 

individual learners, their assessment 

results, the systems where they take 

their assessments, and the systems 

where they view their results? How do 

technology standards accurately make 

these linkages when assessments, 

content, and other data reside across 

numerous, distinct learning and 

curriculum management systems, 

sometimes maintained by different 

organizations? 

3.2.13 Results Privacy. How do 

technology standards enable assessment 

results for individual learners to be kept 

private, especially as assessments 

results are transferred across numerous, 

distinct learning systems? How can such 

results best be shared securely over a 

distributed set of systems managed by 

independent organizations that are 

authorized to receive the data, while 

still maintaining privacy from 

unauthorized access? 

3.2.14 Anonymization. Do 

technology standards or technologies 

permit or enable anonymization of 

assessment results for research or data 

exchange and reporting? How do 

various technology standards 

accomplish these tasks? For example, 

where a number of students take a test, 

can their answers be anonymized 

(through aggregation or other 

techniques) and shared with researchers 

to examine factors related to the 

assessment (e.g., instructional inputs, 

curriculum, materials, validity of the 

instrument itself) without revealing the 

identity of the learners? Is this an area 

where technology standards can help? 

3.2.15 Scoring and Analysis of 

Results. How can technology standards 

be used for the scoring, capture, 

recording, analysis or evaluation of 

assessment results? 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Notices 79357 

3.2.15.1 Results Aggregation and 

Reporting. How can technology 

standards enable assessment results to 

be aggregated into statistical or other 

groupings? How can technology 

standards provide capabilities for 

results (aggregated or raw) to be 

reported across multiple technology 

systems? For example, if a learner takes 

an assessment in one system, but the 

results are to be displayed in another, 

how do technology standards address 

transferring results across those 

systems? How do technology standards 

address aggregation of results for a 

number of learners who are assessed in 

one system and whose results are 

displayed in yet another technology 

system? Can anonymization controls be 

included with aggregation and reporting 

solutions to ensure individual data 

privacy and protection (see also 3.2.14 

above). 

3.2.16 Sequencing. How do 

technology standards enable assessment 

items stored within an assessment 

instrument to be sequenced for 

appropriate administration, when the 

assessment consists of more than a 

single linear sequence of items? For 

example, how do technology standards 

address computer-adaptive 

assessments? How are the logic rules 

that define such sequencing embedded 

within a technology standard? 

3.2.17 Computer-Driven scoring. 

How do technology standards permit, 

enable, or limit the ability to integrate 

computer-driven scoring systems, in 

particular those using ‘‘artificial 

intelligence,’’ Bayesian analysis, or other 

techniques beyond traditional bubblefill scoring? 

3.2.18 Formative, Interim, and 

Summative Assessments. What 

technology and technology standards 

exist that support formative, interim, 

and summative assessments? What 

technology standards support nontraditional assessment methods, such as 

evidence, competency, and observationbased models? 

3.2.19 Learning and Training. What 

applications or technology standards 

exist that can apply assessment results 

to support learning and training? Are 

there technology standards or 

applications that support more than one 

of the following: Early learning, 

elementary/secondary education, 

postsecondary education, job training, 

corporate training, and military 

training? 

3.2.20 Repositories. What 

technology standards-based assessment 

instruments, questions, or item banks 

(or repositories and learning 

management systems) are used to 

manage and deliver assessments? 

3.2.21 Content Lifecycle. How can 

technology standards be employed to 

support an assessment content lifecycle 

(creation, storage, edit, deletion, 

versioning, etc.)? 

3.2.22 Interfaces and Services. What 

interoperability specifications for 

application program interfaces (APIs) or 

Web services interfaces to assessment 

management, delivery and tracking 

systems have been developed? How are 

they organized? What are the best 

practices related to their design and 

usage? How broadly have they been 

adopted, and what are the lessons 

learned from those who have designed 

or implemented them? 

3.2.23 Internal Transparency and 

Ease of Use. Are there technology 

standards and communication protocol 

implementations that are ‘‘human 

readable?’’ What are the benefits and 

risks of ‘‘human readable’’ technology 

standards? Some technology standards 

are not comprehensible without tools to 

unpack, decode, or otherwise interpret 

the implementation data resulting from 

use of the technology standard. Other 

technology standards, such as HTML, 

RTF and XML, are largely readable by 

a reasonably sophisticated technical 

user. RESTful-designed Web services 

are often specifically intended to be 

readable by, and even intuitive to, such 

users as well. We ask commenters to 

consider the extent to which various 

technology standards possess native 

‘‘human readability’’ and 

comprehensibility. 

3.2.24 Discovery and Search. How is 

the discovery of items or instruments (or 

other elements) handled within a 

technology standard or technology? For 

example, are there search APIs that are 

provided to permit a search? How are 

metadata exposed for discovery by 

search engines or others? 

3.2.25 Metadata. What kinds of 

metadata about assessments (i.e., 

information describing assessments) are 

permitted to be stored within 

technology standards or technologies? 

How do technology standards 

accommodate structured data (such as 

new State curriculum standards) that 

were not anticipated when the 

technology standard was designed? How 

are metadata describing unstructured 

(such as free-text input) and semistructured data incorporated within 

assessment technology standards? 

3.2.26 Recommendation, Rating, 

and Review. Do technology standards or 

technologies permit rating, review, or 

recommendations to be incorporated 

within an item, instrument, or other 

element? If so, in what ways? How are 

conflicting ratings handled? Do 

technology standards or technologies 

permit ‘‘reviews of reviews’’ (e.g., 

‘‘thumbs up/down’’ or ‘‘Rate this review 

1–5’’)? Is the rating or review system 

centralized, or are multiple analyses of 

the rating data permitted by distributed 

participants? 

3.2.27 Content and Media Diversity. 

What types of diverse content types and 

forms of assessment content exist that 

extend beyond traditional paper-based 

assessments translated to an electronic 

delivery medium? We are interested in 

learning more about electronic delivery 

and interaction media, such as 

performance-based assessments, games, 

virtual worlds, mobile devices, and 

simulations. 

3.2.28 Accessibility. How do 

technology standards ensure that the 

platforms are accessible to all persons 

with disabilities? How can technology 

standards ensure the availability of 

accommodations based on the 

individual needs of persons with 

disabilities? What factors are important 

to consider so that accessibility 

capabilities can be included within an 

interoperable technology standard, both 

for end-users, as well as operators, 

teachers, and other administrators? How 

are issues related to Universal Design 

for Learning (UDL) relevant to standards 

for accessible use? How can technology 

standards provide for, improve, or 

enhance Section 504 and 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act compliance for 

assessment technology? 

3.2.29 English Learners. How do 

technology standards ensure that 

assessment platforms support the 

assessment, reporting of results, and 

other capabilities related to the 

assessment of English learners? 

Questions about process and IP for 

technology standards development 

include: 

3.2.30 Transparency. How do the 

organizations that develop assessment 

technology standards approach 

development and maintenance 

activities? Is it common for such work 

to be performed in an unrestricted or 

open public forum? Are there examples 

of organizations conducting technology 

standards development through private 

(e.g., membership-driven) activities? Are 

the final work products produced 

through standards-development 

activities made publicly available in a 

timely manner? If not, when or for how 

long is it necessary to keep these 

products private? What circumstances 

require, justify, or benefit from 

protecting trade secrets or intellectual 

property? 

3.2.31 Participation. Does the 

development of assessment technology 

standards depend on membership fees 

from individuals and organizations who 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
79358 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 243 / Monday, December 20, 2010 / Notices 

wish to contribute to development and 

maintenance activities? Are there 

requirements for ‘‘balance’’ within 

membership across different 

constituencies? What are the cost and 

structure of such memberships? Are 

there viable alternative methods for 

generating revenue necessary to conduct 

the work? What are the most realistic 

and useful ways to generate 

participation, fund work, and ensure 

public access to a technology standardssetting process? 

3.2.32 Availability. What are the 

costs associated with final publication 

of technology standards, and with all 

supporting materials for those 

standards, and can these assessment 

products be made available at nominal 

or no cost to users? Do technology 

standards require restrictions for use or 

application, including limitations on 

derivation, resale, or other restrictions? 

Is it appropriate to obtain patent, 

copyright, or trademark protections for 

assessment technology standards? Are 

the publications for technology 

standards and materials provided in a 

machine-readable, well-defined form? 

Are there restrictions or limitations on 

any future application of the 

publications and materials after initial 

release? Are developer-assistance 

materials (e.g., Document Type 

Definitions, test harnesses, code 

libraries, reference implementations) 

also made available free under an openlicense? In what circumstances should 

technology standards-setting 

organizations retain rights or control, or 

impose restrictions on the use of 

publications, derivations, and resale or 

developer-assistance technologies, as 

opposed to open-licensing everything? 

When should materials be made freely 

available (that is, at no cost to the 

consumer) while still retaining most or 

all copyright license rights? 

3.2.33 Derivation. For technology 

standards, do copyright licenses for 

publications and all supporting 

materials and software licenses for 

software artifacts permit the 

unrestricted creation and dissemination 

of derivative works (a.k.a. ‘‘open 

licensed’’)? Do such open licenses 

contain restrictions that require 

publication and dissemination of such 

works in a manner consistent with the 

openness criteria described by, for 

example, a GNU Public License (a.k.a. 

‘‘viral licensed’’) or an MIT Public 

License (a.k.a. ‘‘academic licensed’’)? 

Are there policies or license restrictions 

on derivative works intended to prevent 

re-packaging, re-sale, or modifications 

without re-publication for assessment 

technology standards? 

3.2.34 Licensing Descriptions (for 

materials contained within the standard, 

not for the standard’s licensing itself). 

How do technology standards address 

licensing terms for assessment resources 

described within the technology 

standard? Are there successful 

technology standards or approaches for 

describing a wide variety of license 

types, including traditional per-use 

licensing, Web-fulfillment, free (but 

licensed), open (but licensed, including 

commercial or non-commercial use 

permitted), and public domain status. 

Are there other resource licensing issues 

that should be addressed within a 

technology standard as a best practice? 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large 

print, or audiotape) on request to the 

program contact person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6771. 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

James Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31881 Filed 12–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings # 1 

December 10, 2010. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER10–2615–001; 

ER11–2335–001. 

Applicants: Plum Point Energy 

Associates, L.L.C., Plum Point Services 

Company, LLC. 

Description: Plum Point MBR Entities 

Submit 652 Notice of Change in Status. 

Filed Date: 12/10/2010. 

Accession Number: 20101210–5174. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, January 03, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER10–2785–003. 

Applicants: Chevron Coalinga Energy 

Company. 

Description: Chevron Coalinga Energy 

Company submits tariff filing per 35: 

Chevron Coalinga Energy Company 

Tariff to be effective 10/19/2010. 

Filed Date: 10/20/2010. 

Accession Number: 20101020–5155. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, December 30, 2010. 

Docket Numbers: ER10–2786–003. 

Applicants: Washington Gas Energy 

Services, Inc. 

Description: Washington Gas Energy 

Services, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35: 

Washington Gas Energy Services Tariff 

to be effective 10/19/2010. 

Filed Date: 10/20/2010. 

Accession Number: 20101020–5156. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, December 30, 2010. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2325–000. 

Applicants: California Pacific Electric 

Company, LLC. 

Description: California Pacific Electric 

Company, LLC submits tariff filing per 

35.1: Electric Service Agreement to be 

effective 12/31/1998. 

Filed Date: 12/09/2010. 

Accession Number: 20101209–5079. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, December 20, 2010. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2326–000. 

Applicants: Florida Power 

Corporation. 

Description: Florida Power 

Corporation submits tariff filing per 

35.13(a)(2)(iii): Rate Schedule No. 204 of 

Florida Power Corporation to be 

effective 12/9/2010. 

Filed Date: 12/09/2010. 

Accession Number: 20101209–5080. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, December 30, 2010. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2327–000. 

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. 

Description: PJM Interconnection, 

L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 

35.13(a)(2)(iii): WMPA No. 2704, Queue 

W2–071, CleanLight Energy, L.L.C. and 

PSE&G to be effective 11/9/2010. 

Filed Date: 12/09/2010. 

Accession Number: 20101209–5104. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, December 30, 2010. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2328–000. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES