Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 48905 

however, did not collect poverty 

population data for the 50 states, the 

District of Columbia or Puerto Rico. The 

Bureau of the Census has other data for 

making U.S. poverty population 

determinations in those areas. 

LSC management has proposed to the 

LSC Board of Directors (‘‘Board’’) that 

LSC request an update to the statutory 

mandate in light of the elimination of 

poverty data from almost all of the 2010 

census. LSC management has proposed 

that LSC make recommendations to the 

President and to Congress that: (1) The 

determination of the number of 

individuals in poverty in each 

geographic area be made by the Bureau 

of the Census, without any reference to 

the decennial census as the basis for 

that determination; (2) funding be 

reallocated among geographic areas 

every three years based on updated 

poverty population determinations by 

the Bureau of the Census; and (3) the 

first reallocation be phased in over two 

years, in Fiscal Year 2013 and Fiscal 

Year 2014. 

LSC management presented this 

proposal to the Board’s Operations and 

Regulations Committee (‘‘Committee’’) 

on July 20, 2011, which also received a 

presentation of recommendations from 

the National Legal Aid and Defender 

Association (‘‘NLADA’’). The 

Committee then presented 

management’s proposal to the full board 

on July 21, 2011. The Board adopted the 

recommendation of management and 

the Committee that LSC publish 

management’s proposal in the Federal 

Register for comment. The committee 

will meet to consider all comments 

received and make a recommendation to 

the Board for a final decision by early 

September of 2011. 

LSC management’s proposal 

‘‘Management Recommendation on 

Funding Reallocation Issues’’ (July 13, 

2011) and NLADA’s recommendations 

can both be found at: http:// 

www.lsc.gov/about/ 

mattersforcomment.php. 

LSC invites public comment on this 

issue. Interested parties may submit 

comments to LSC within 30 days. 

Dated: August 3, 2011. 

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President & General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20162 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET 

United States Government InterAgency Anti-Counterfeiting Working 

Group: Request for Public Comments 

Regarding Strategy to Eliminate 

Counterfeit Products from the United 

States Government Supply Chain 

AGENCY: Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Management and 

Budget. 

ACTION: Request for written submissions 

from the public. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Government is 

currently undertaking a significant effort 

to eliminate counterfeit products from 

the U.S. Government supply chain. In 

June 2010, Vice President Biden and 

White House Intellectual Property 

Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria 

Espinel, announced the Joint Strategic 

Plan on Intellectual Property 

Enforcement, laying out a coordinated 

government-wide approach to 

strengthening intellectual property 

enforcement and directing the 

establishment of an inter-agency 

working group. Recent reports issued by 

the Department of Commerce and the 

Government Accountability Office have 

found that counterfeits have infiltrated 

many sectors of the U.S. Government 

supply chain and have the potential to 

cause serious disruptions in national 

defense, critical infrastructure and other 

vital applications. This working group 

will develop a framework for reducing 

vulnerability to counterfeits that is 

flexible enough to accommodate the 

wide variety of missions across Federal 

agencies. This cross-functional working 

group will identify any gaps in legal 

authority, regulation, policy and 

guidance that undermine the security of 

U.S. Government supply chain from 

counterfeit parts. The working group’s 

examination will include reviewing 

current industry standards, the ability of 

prime contractors and their suppliers to 

authenticate or trace at-risk items to the 

original manufacturer, government 

evaluation and detection capabilities 

and limitations, and contractual 

enforcement of authenticity. 

DATES: Submissions must be received on 

or before September 16, 2011 at 5 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Public comment should be 

electronically submitted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

OMB–2011–0003. The regulations.gov 

Web site is a Federal E–Government 

Web site that allows the public to find, 

review and submit comments on 

documents that agencies have published 

in the Federal Register and that are 

open for comment. If you are unable to 

provide submissions to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, please contact 

James Schuelke at (202) 395–1808 to 

arrange for an alternate method of 

transmission. Submissions filed via the 

regulations.gov Web site will be 

available to the public for review and 

inspection. If you want to submit 

confidential business information that 

supports your comments, please contact 

Michael Lewis at 

intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Lewis, Office of the Intellectual 

Property Enforcement Coordinator, at 

(202) 395–1808. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The core 

members of the Working Group are the 

Office of the Intellectual Property 

Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) in the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) of the Executive Office of the 

President; Department of Defense (DoD); 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA); and the 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

These core members, along with other 

government components, have 

partnered to identify areas of common 

interest and compare progress and best 

practices to ultimately eliminate 

counterfeits in the government-wide 

supply chains. The working group will 

work to accomplish the following 

objectives: 

• Objective #1—Develop procedures 

for program managers to identify items 

at risk for counterfeiting or requiring 

authentication of legitimacy. These 

procedures will, to the greatest extent 

practicable, utilize current industry 

standards. 

• Objective #2—Examine whether 

additional administrative actions, 

including regulatory actions, are needed 

to require suppliers to take stronger 

anti-counterfeiting measures. 

• Objective #3—Examine when and 

how product and package traceability, 

reporting and marking processes can be 

used by prime contractors, their 

suppliers, Federal government 

personnel and potentially other 

customers to confirm production 

authority by the original manufacturer 

of at-risk items. 

• Objective #4—Examine 

government/industry evaluation 

capabilities and determine whether 

improvement is needed. 

• Objective #5—Develop an anticounterfeiting training and outreach 

strategy for the Federal workforce. 

• Objective #6—Examine whether 

additional measures are needed to 

protect the rights and interests of the 

United States, recoup costs and 

prosecute offenders. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
48906 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 

The purpose of the request for 

comments and recommendations is to 

solicit feedback and best practices from 

industry, academia, research 

laboratories, and other stakeholders on 

issues related to identifying areas of 

common interest and compare progress 

and best practices to ultimately 

eliminate counterfeits in Federal 

Government supply chains. This request 

for comments and for recommendations 

is divided into six categories. Responses 

to this request for comments may be 

directed to any or all of the six 

categories. 

Request for Comments Categories 

Category 1: General 

The U.S. Government Inter-Agency 

Anti-Counterfeiting Working group 

seeks written comment submissions on 

the following topics: 

• Describe functional responsibilities, 

procedures and programs specifically 

designed to address prevention, 

identification and control of suspect/ 

counterfeit items. 

• Describe any procedures for the 

disposal of items identified as suspect/ 

counterfeit items. Do these procedures 

include segregation, evaluation of 

safety/mission impact, extent of 

condition, removal, destruction or 

return to the vendor? 

• Describe both internal and/or 

external notification procedures used 

when a suspect/counterfeit item is 

discovered. Identify suspect/counterfeit 

industry information exchanges to 

which you report counterfeit items. 

• Describe any testing and inspection 

procedures used to authenticate a 

procured item. 

• Describe any rules or procedures 

that can improve the use and 

functionality of the GovernmentIndustry Data Exchange Program 

(GIDEP). 

• Recommend best practices for 

identifying counterfeit products 

entering the U.S. Government supply 

chain and for curbing their entry into 

that supply chain. 

Category 2: Objective #1—Establish 

procedures for program managers to 

identify items at risk for counterfeiting 

or requiring authentication of 

legitimacy. These procedures will, to the 

greatest extent practicable, utilize 

current industry standards. 

• Describe methodologies for 

determining the functional criticality of 

parts and whether critical parts have 

unintentional or intentional 

vulnerabilities that may subject them to 

counterfeiting. For critical parts, 

describe the consequences of 

counterfeiting and the likelihood that 

counterfeiting will occur. 

• As the likelihood of the 

counterfeiting of critical parts increases, 

describe ways to establish more 

stringent traceability requirements for 

direct suppliers and their subcontractors 

to assure and support evidence of part 

authenticity. 

• Describe processes for the 

verification of direct suppliers’ 

trustworthiness for consistent delivery 

of authentic and conforming parts that 

meet specifications. 

• Describe procedures for tracking 

parts and materials received from 

suppliers to the original manufacturer, 

or other acceptable source, to 

authenticate that they meet the 

requirements of the customer’s 

specifications. 

• Describe procedures that you follow 

to ensure that counterfeit parts are not 

incorporated into products during the 

manufacturing processes, including the 

means of identifying suspect parts 

during receiving inspection and 

preventing their acceptance. 

• Describe effective international and 

industry standards used in anticounterfeiting risk management efforts. 

Category 3: IPEC Objective #2—Examine 

Whether Regulations Are Needed To 

Require Suppliers To Take Stronger 

Anti-Counterfeiting Measures 

• Describe contractual requirements 

used by customers to assure the 

authenticity of the products upon 

delivery. Describe the provisions of 

these requirements, if any. Describe any 

process or procedures used to flow 

authenticity requirements down to 

suppliers. Describe any conflicts 

between requirements from different 

customers. 

• Are contract clauses that notify 

suppliers that they are prohibited from 

providing suspect/counterfeit items 

effective? 

• Describe any special quality 

assurance provisions that may be 

contained in anti-counterfeiting contract 

clauses that require parties to confirm 

compliance. 

• Describe effective methods for 

addressing counterfeit prevention 

during the source selection process. 

• Describe any risk factors used in 

determining risk for counterfeit items/ 

commodity groups. 

• Describe procedures for processing 

potentially counterfeit items. Describe 

any requirements imposed on suppliers 

when potential counterfeit items are 

identified. 

Category 4: IPEC Objective #3—Examine 

When and How Product and Package 

Traceability, Reporting and Marking 

Processes Can Be Used by Prime 

Contractors, Their Suppliers, Federal 

Government Personnel and Potentially 

Other Customers To Confirm Production 

Authority by the Original Manufacturer 

of At-Risk Items 

• Describe procedures that require the 

labeling, stamping or marking of 

authentic parts and/or part packaging 

prior to purchasing parts and material 

for installation in products. 

• Describe the use of part markings to 

address the following: 

(1) Identification of distributors and/ 

or suppliers who have a documentation 

system, and receiving inspection system 

that ensures the traceability of their 

parts to a production or design 

authority-approved source, and 

(2) Methods of screening part 

markings to identify unfamiliar 

distributors and/or suppliers to 

determine if the parts present a 

potential risk of being unapproved by a 

production or design authority. 

• Describe procedures for establishing 

product and packaging identification 

and authenticity documentation 

requirements for at-risk items and 

applying these requirements to 

suppliers to ensure traceability of 

product authenticity throughout the 

supply chain. 

• Describe how the use of enhanced 

product/package identification marking 

methods (such as marking products/ 

packages with globally unique item 

identifiers (UIIs) using international 

standards, and then registering these 

UIIs and their product/package pedigree 

information in a database to enable 

tracking them back to their originating 

source as they transit the supply chain) 

might help reduce or eliminate 

counterfeits in the supply chain. Does 

the use of these identification marking 

methods impose a substantial burden on 

manufacturers/suppliers? Identify the 

types of incentives that would 

encourage manufacturers/suppliers to 

consistently use identification markings. 

• Describe how the use of advanced 

technology for ensuring the integrity of 

products delivered in the supply chain 

(including such techniques as digital 

signatures, hologram tags, tamperresistant and tamper-evident packaging) 

might help reduce or eliminate 

counterfeits in the supply chain. 

• Describe any techniques that may 

be employed when product 

authentication cannot be confirmed by 

use of product and packaging 

identification and authenticity 

documentation requirements. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 9, 2011 / Notices 48907 

Category 5: IPEC Objective #4—Examine 

Government/Industry Evaluation 

Capabilities and Determine Whether 

Improvement Is Needed. 

• List physical inspection, nondestructive examination, and laboratory 

testing equipment that your 

organization owns and operates and that 

is capable of authenticating a suspected 

counterfeit part. 

• Describe specific products that can 

be inspected/tested using this 

equipment and how the inspection/ 

testing technique(s) can be used to 

distinguish counterfeit product from 

authentic product. 

• List any laboratory/testing 

certifications or accreditations that your 

facility(ies) maintains. 

• List any governmental or industry 

customers that employ your testing 

facilities. 

• Describe handling and storage 

techniques that your facility employs to 

prevent comingling, tampering and 

unauthorized release of suspect 

counterfeit items. 

• How much capacity would your 

facility be able to manage—how many 

parts per day can you handle? Can your 

test facility handle classified 

information? 

Category 6: IPEC Objective #5— 

Establish an Anti-Counterfeiting 

Training and Outreach Strategy for the 

Federal Workforce 

• Does your organization provide 

anti-counterfeit training for employees? 

Identify the type of training that is 

available. List the types of employees 

who receive anti-counterfeit training 

(e.g., Buyers, Inspectors, Engineers, 

Project Managers). 

Æ Did you model your training after 

another industry standard or company, 

or outsource the training? If so, please 

describe. 

Æ How frequently do you provide 

anti-counterfeiting training to your 

employees? 

Æ How do you educate/train your 

new hires? 

Æ What is the venue and medium for 

this training? (e.g., Classroom, Webbased, Reading materials) 

Æ How long are the training sessions? 

• How do you track and benchmark 

the effectiveness of your training in anticounterfeiting? 

• What training resources do you 

provide to suppliers or customers on 

anti-counterfeit tactics and strategies for 

your industry or products? 

• Do you formally test recipients on 

the contents of the training and/or 

provide formal qualifications/ 

certifications upon completion of the 

training? 

• Describe the scope and contents of 

your anti-counterfeiting training. 

Request for Information Response 

Guidelines: Responses to this Request 

for Comments must be submitted 

electronically to http:// 

www.regulations.gov docket number 

OMB–2011–0003. 

To submit comments via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, enter docket 

number OMB–2011–0003 on the home 

page and click ‘‘search’’. The site will 

provide a search-results page listing all 

documents associated with this docket. 

Find a reference to this notice by 

selecting ‘‘Notice’’ under ‘‘Document 

Type’’ on the left side of the searchresults page, and click on the link 

entitled ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ (For 

further information on using the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site, 

please consult the resources provided 

on the Web site by clicking on ‘‘How to 

Use This Site’’ on the left side of the 

home page.) 

The http://www.regulations.gov site 

provides the option of providing 

comments by filling in a ‘‘Type 

Comment and Upload File’’ field, or by 

attaching a document. It is expected that 

most comments will be provided in an 

attached document. If a document is 

attached, it is sufficient to type ‘‘See 

attached’’ in the ‘‘Type Comment and 

Upload File’’ field. If you want to 

submit confidential business 

information that supports your 

comments, please contact Michael 

Lewis at 

intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov. 

Victoria Espinel, 

United States Intellectual Property 

Enforcement Coordinator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–20204 Filed 8–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. NRC–2011–0065] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of 

information collection and solicitation 

of public comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has recently 

submitted to OMB for review the 

following proposal for the collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. chapter 35). The NRC hereby 

informs potential respondents that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

that a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The NRC published a Federal 

Register Notice with a 60-day comment 

period on this information collection on 

May 3, 2011. 

(1) Type of submission, new, revision, 

or extension: Extension. 

(2) The title of the information 

collection: Grant and Cooperative 

Agreement Provisions. 

(3) Current OMB approval number: 

3150–0107. 

(4) The form number if applicable: 

Not applicable. 

(5) How often the collection is 

required: Technical performance reports 

are required every six months; other 

information is submitted on occasion, as 

needed. 

(6) Who will be required or asked to 

report: Grant and Cooperative 

Agreement Recipients. 

(7) An estimate of the number of 

annual responses: 1064 (714 responses 

+ 350 recordkeepers). 

(8) The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 350. 

(9) An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to complete the 

requirement or request: 8,077 (7,540 

reporting hours plus 537 recordkeeping 

hours). 

(10) Abstract: The Division of 

Contracts is responsible for awarding 

grants and cooperative agreements 

(financial assistance) for the NRC. The 

Division of Contracts collects 

information from assistance recipients 

in accordance with grant and 

cooperative agreement provisions in 

order to administer NRC’s financial 

assistance program. The information 

collected under the provisions ensures 

that the Government’s rights are 

protected, the agency adheres to public 

laws, the work proceeds on schedule, 

and that disputes between the 

Government and the recipient are 

settled. 

The public may examine and have 

copied for a fee publicly available 

documents, including the final 

supporting statement, at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room, Room O–1F21, 

One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. OMB 

clearance requests are available at the 

NRC Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/ 

public-involve/doc-comment/omb/ 

index.html. The document will be 

available on the NRC home page site for 

60 days after the signature date of this 

notice. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES