Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 8137 

that each application accurately 

describes all material terms of the 

transaction which is the subject of the 

exemption. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

February, 2009. 

Ivan Strasfeld, 

Director of Exemption Determinations, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration, 

U.S. Department of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3444 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–29–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

Coordination and Strategic Planning of 

the Federal Effort Against Intellectual 

Property Infringement: Request of the 

Intellectual Property Enforcement 

Coordinator for Public Comments 

Regarding the Joint Strategic Plan 

AGENCY: Office of Management and 

Budget, Executive Office of the 

President. 

ACTION: Request for written submissions 

from the public. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Government is 

currently undertaking a landmark effort 

to develop an intellectual property 

enforcement strategy building on the 

immense knowledge and expertise of 

the agencies charged with enforcing 

intellectual property rights. By 

committing to common goals, the 

Government will more effectively and 

efficiently combat intellectual property 

infringement. In this request for 

comments, the Government, through the 

office of the Intellectual Property 

Enforcement Coordinator (‘‘IPEC’’), 

invites public input and participation in 

shaping an effective intellectual 

property enforcement strategy. 

This new effort is mandated by the 

Prioritizing Resources and Organization 

for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, 

Public Law 110–403 (Oct. 13, 2008) 

(‘‘the PRO IP Act’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) which 

created, within the Executive Office of 

the President, the position of the IPEC. 

The Act requires the IPEC to chair an 

interagency intellectual property 

enforcement advisory committee in 

order to develop an Administration 

strategy for enforcement against 

intellectual property infringement: The 

Joint Strategic Plan. The IPEC is 

currently working with the interagency 

advisory committee to develop this 

intellectual property enforcement 

strategy. 

This request for comments and for 

recommendations for an improved 

enforcement strategy is divided into two 

parts. In the first, the IPEC seeks written 

submissions from the public regarding 

the costs to the U.S. economy resulting 

from intellectual property violations, 

and the threats to public health and 

safety created by infringement. In the 

second part, the IPEC requests detailed 

recommendations from the public 

regarding the objectives and content of 

the Joint Strategic Plan and other 

specific recommendations for improving 

the Government’s intellectual property 

enforcement efforts. Responses to this 

request for comments may be directed to 

either of these two parts, or both, and 

may include a response to one or more 

requests for information found in either 

part. 

DATES: Submissions must be received on 

or before Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 

at 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: All submissions should be 

sent electronically via 

intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov. 

Publication and Confidential 

Information 

Submissions filed in response to this 

request will be made available to the 

public by posting them on the Internet. 

For this reason, please do not include in 

your comments information of a 

confidential nature, such as sensitive 

personal information or proprietary 

information. If you have confidential 

business information that would 

support your recommendation or that 

you believe would help the Government 

formulate an effective enforcement 

strategy, please let us know, and we 

may request that additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas L. Stoll, Office of the 

Intellectual Property Enforcement 

Coordinator, at (202) 395–1808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through 

the PRO IP Act, Congress created the 

IPEC, to serve within the Executive 

Office of the President, and an 

interagency advisory committee 

specifically tasked with formulating and 

implementing a Joint Strategic Plan to 

improve the effectiveness of the U.S. 

Government’s efforts to protect the 

rights of intellectual property owners 

and to reduce the costs of and threats 

posed by intellectual property 

infringement, in the U.S. and in other 

countries. The IPEC seeks public input, 

in the form of written comments, on the 

formulation of a Joint Strategic Plan and 

on the U.S. Government’s intellectual 

property enforcement efforts. 

Part I 

The Joint Strategic Plan must contain 

an analysis of the threat posed by 

violations of intellectual property rights, 

including the costs to the U.S. economy 

resulting from such violations, and the 

threats to public health and safety 

created by infringement. Thus, the IPEC 

seeks written submissions from the 

public identifying the costs to the U.S. 

economy resulting from infringement of 

intellectual property rights, both direct 

and indirect, including any impact on 

the creation or maintenance of jobs. 

In addition, the IPEC seeks written 

submissions identifying threats to 

public health and safety posed by 

intellectual property infringement, in 

the U.S. and in other countries. 

Submissions directed to the economic 

costs of violations of intellectual 

property rights must clearly identify the 

methodology used in calculating the 

estimated costs and any critical 

assumptions relied upon, identify the 

source of the data on which the cost 

estimates are based, and provide a copy 

of or a citation to each such source. 

Submissions directed to threats to 

public health or safety must include a 

detailed description of the threat, 

identify the source of the information 

substantiating the existence of that 

threat and provide a copy of or a 

citation to each such source. 

The issues and challenges that pertain 

to adequate and appropriate 

enforcement of intellectual property are 

changing rapidly. Therefore, if desired, 

submissions may also identify and 

discuss emerging or future threats to the 

U.S. economy or to health and safety 

over the next five to ten years. 

Part II 

The IPEC requests written 

submissions from the public that 

provide specific recommendations for 

accomplishing one or more of the 

objectives of the Joint Strategic Plan, or 

other specific recommendations for 

significantly improving the U.S. 

Government’s enforcement efforts. 

Recommendations may include, but 

need not be limited to: Proposed 

legislative changes, regulations, 

executive orders, other executive action, 

guidelines, or changes in policies, 

practices or methods. 

Recommendations should include a 

detailed description of a preferred 

method for accomplishing the 

recommendation. If a submission 

includes multiple recommendations, the 

IPEC requests that the submission rank 

the recommendations in order of 

priority, where possible. 

The objectives of the Joint Strategic 

Plan include: 

• Reducing the supply of infringing 

goods, domestically and internationally; 

• Identifying weaknesses, duplication 

of efforts, waste, and other unjustified 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

8138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 

impediments to effective enforcement 

actions; 

• Promoting information sharing 

between participating agencies to the 

extent permissible by law; 

• Disrupting and eliminating 

infringement networks in the U.S. and 

in other countries; 

• Strengthening the capacity of other 

countries to protect and enforce 

intellectual property rights; 

• Reducing the number of countries 

that fail to enforce intellectual property 

rights; 

• Assisting other countries to more 

effectively enforce intellectual property 

rights; 

• Protecting intellectual property 

rights in other countries by: 

• Working with other countries to 

reduce intellectual property crimes in 

other countries; 

• Improving information sharing 

between law enforcement agencies in 

the U.S. and in other countries; and 

• Establishing procedures for 

consulting with interested groups 

within other countries. 

• Establishing programs to enhance 

the enforcement efforts of foreign 

governments by providing training and 

technical assistance designed to: 

• Enhance the efficiencies and 

minimize the duplication of U.S. 

Government training and assistance 

efforts; 

• Prioritize deployment of U.S. 

Government resources to those 

countries in which programs can be 

carried out most effectively and will 

have the greatest impact on reducing the 

number of infringing products in the 

relevant U.S. market, protecting the 

intellectual property rights of U.S. rights 

holders, and protecting the interests of 

U.S. persons otherwise harmed by 

infringements in other countries. 

Supplemental Comment Topics 

In addition to the foregoing, the IPEC 

requests information and/or 

recommendations on the following list 

of additional supplemental topics. The 

submission of responses to one or more 

of the following topics below is entirely 

optional. 

1. Suggest methods to improve the 

adequacy, effectiveness and/or 

coordination of the various Federal 

departments, agencies and programs 

that are charged with enforcement of 

intellectual property. 

2. Identify specific existing 

enforcement actions, methods, 

procedures or policies employed by the 

U.S. Government or governments of 

other countries that have been 

particularly effective at curtailing or 

preventing infringement (including, if 

possible, specific examples illustrating 

the effectiveness of those methods). 

3. Identify specific existing processes 

involving cooperation between 

stakeholders and the U.S. Government 

(or between stakeholders and other 

governments) that have been 

particularly effective at curtailing or 

preventing infringement. 

4. Provide examples of existing 

successful agreements, in the U.S. or 

abroad, that have had a significant 

impact on intellectual property 

enforcement, including voluntary 

agreements among stakeholders or 

agreements between stakeholders and 

the relevant government. 

5. Suggest methods for strengthening 

information sharing between 

stakeholders and U.S. Government 

agencies to improve intellectual 

property rights enforcement efforts, 

including methods the U.S. Government 

can use to obtain more accurate 

information concerning the identities, 

corporate structures and locations of 

those suspected of intellectual property 

infringement. 

6. Suggest new methods for rights 

holders and importers to provide 

information to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) on distribution and 

supply chains. Such information could 

enable CBP to increase the effectiveness 

of its process for selecting (‘‘targeting’’) 

imports for inspection by creating a 

segment of trusted imports, which 

would allow CBP to better focus its 

targeting on high risk imports and 

imports for which advance information 

is lacking. 

7. Describe existing technology that 

could or should be used by the U.S. 

Government or a particular agency or 

department to more easily identify 

infringing goods or other products. 

8. Suggest approaches for increasing 

standardization among authentication 

tools and technologies applied by rights 

holders to products to enable 

identification of these goods as genuine 

through a physical examination of the 

goods or product. 

9. Suggest how state and local law 

enforcement authorities could more 

effectively assist in intellectual property 

enforcement efforts, including whether 

coordination could be improved, if 

necessary, and whether they should be 

vested with additional authority to more 

actively participate in prosecutions 

involving intellectual property 

enforcement. 

10. Describe the adequacy and 

effectiveness of the reporting by the 

various agencies responsible for 

enforcing intellectual property 

infringements, such as the reporting of 

investigations, seizures of infringing 

goods or products, prosecutions, the 

results of prosecutions, including 

whether any further voluntary reporting 

of activities should be made, in keeping 

with other federal law. 

11. Suggest methods to improve the 

adequacy, effectiveness and/or 

coordination of U.S. Government 

personnel stationed in other countries 

who are charged with enforcement of 

intellectual property, including but not 

limited to: 

a. Department of Justice IP Law 

Enforcement Coordinator (IPLEC) 

program; 

b. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

Intellectual Property attache ́s program; 

c. Food and Drug Administration 

foreign country offices; 

d. Foreign Agricultural Service; 

e. Department of Commerce 

International Trade Administration 

Foreign Commercial Service officers; 

f. Department of Commerce 

International Trade Administration 

compliance attache ́s; 

g. Department of Homeland Security/ 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

and Department of Homeland Security/ 

Customs and Border Patrol attache ́s and 

other representatives; 

h. Department of State’s Foreign 

Service officers and post leadership; and 

i. Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative IP attache ́. 

12. Suggest ways to improve the 

adequacy, effectiveness and/or 

coordination of the enforcement training 

and technical assistance provided by the 

U.S. Government, including (but not 

limited to): 

a. Identification of specific countries 

or geographical regions that could 

benefit from U.S. Government training 

and technical assistance and the 

program areas where training and 

assistance should focus; 

b. Suggestions for how to leverage 

resources or partnerships to broaden the 

impact of U.S. Government training and 

assistance; and 

c. Suggestions to enhance industry 

participation in relevant training 

programs. 

13. Suggest specific measures to 

further secure the domestic and 

international supply chains to minimize 

the threat posed by infringing goods or 

products. 

14. Suggest specific methods to limit 

or prevent use of the Internet to sell 

and/or otherwise distribute or 

disseminate infringing products 

(physical goods or digital content). 

15. Provide information on the 

various types of entities that are 

involved, directly or indirectly, in the 

distribution or dissemination of 

infringing products and a brief 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Notices 8139 

description of their various roles and 

responsibilities. 

16. Discuss the effectiveness of recent 

efforts by educational institutions to 

reduce or eliminate illegal downloading 

over their networks. Submissions 

should include recent specific 

examples. 

17. Suggest specific strategies for 

reducing the threats to public health 

and safety caused by the use or 

consumption of infringing goods (for 

example, counterfeit drugs, medical 

devices, biologics, and ingested 

consumer products). 

18. Discuss the possible application of 

World Trade Organization provisions, 

including, but not limited to, those on 

anti-dumping, subsidies, standards and 

safeguard measures in cases where 

failure to enforce intellectual property 

laws in other jurisdictions produces 

unfair cost or other advantages for the 

production or distribution of goods and 

services or otherwise disadvantages U.S. 

right holders. 

19. Suggest specific strategies to 

significantly reduce the demand for 

infringing goods or products both in the 

U.S. and in other countries. 

20. Provide specific suggestions on 

the need for public education and 

awareness programs for consumers, 

including a description of how these 

programs should be designed, estimates 

of their cost, whether they should focus 

on specific products that pose a threat 

to public health, such as counterfeit 

pharmaceuticals, or whether should 

they be general infringement awareness 

programs. 

The above list of topics for 

discussions and recommendations is not 

intended to limit the scope of the 

submissions. Rather, the public is 

encouraged to submit any detailed 

concrete recommendation for 

significantly improving intellectual 

property rights enforcement. 

Dated: February 18, 2010. 

Victoria A. Espinel, 

United States Intellectual Property 

Enforcement Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3539 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3110–01–P 

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE 

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES 

Institute of Museum and Library 

Services; Sunshine Act Meeting of the 

National Museum and Library Services 

Board 

AGENCY: Institute of Museum and 

Library Services (IMLS), NFAH. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the 

agenda of the forthcoming meeting of 

the National Museum and Library 

Services Board. This notice also 

describes the function of the Board. 

Notice of the meeting is required under 

the Sunshine in Government Act. 

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, February 23, 

2010 from 9:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. 

AGENDA: Nineteenth Meeting of the 

National Museum and Library Services 

Board. 

I. Welcome. 

II. Approval of Minutes. 

III. Financial Update. 

IV. Legislative Update. 

V. Board Program. 

VI. Board Updates. 

VII. Closing Remarks by the Director. 

VIII. Adjourn. 

(Open to the Public.) 

PLACE: The meetings will be held in the 

Room MO–9 of the Old Post Office, 

located at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20506. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Lyons, Director of Special 

Events and Board Liaison, Institute of 

Museum and Library Services, 1800 M 

Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC, 

20036. Telephone: (202) 653–4676 or Email: elyons@imls.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Museum and Library Services 

Board is established under the Museum 

and Library Services Act, 20 U.S.C. 9101 

et seq. The Board advises the Director of 

the Institute on general policies with 

respect to the duties, powers, and 

authorities related to Museum and 

Library Services. 

If you need special accommodations 

due to a disability, please contact: 

Institute of Museum and Library 

Services, 1800 M Street, NW., 9th Fl., 

Washington, DC 20036. Telephone: 

(202) 653–4676; TDD (202) 653–4614 at 

least seven (7) days prior to the meeting 

date. 

Dated: February 16, 2010. 

Kate Fernstrom, 

Chief of Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3306 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7036–01–P 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, 

March 9, 2010. 

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20594. 

STATUS: The one item is open to the 

public. 

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 7954A

Safety Study—Introduction of Glass 

Cockpit Avionics into Light Aircraft. 

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 

314–6100. 

The press and public may enter the 

NTSB Conference Center one hour prior 

to the meeting for set up and seating. 

Individuals requesting specific 

accommodations should contact 

Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 by 

Friday, March 5, 2010. 

The public may view the meeting via 

a live or archived webcast by accessing 

a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the 

NTSB home page at http:// 

www.ntsb.gov. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi 

Bing, (202) 314–6403. 

Friday, February 19, 2010. 

Candi R. Bing, 

Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3692 Filed 2–19–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2010–0055] 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC) 

is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from January 28, 

2010, to February 10, 2010. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6408). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES