12372 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Notice Designating Purdue University 

as Visualization Sciences and 

Education Lead Institution for the DHS 

Center of Excellence for Command, 

Control and Interoperability 

AGENCY: Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security has designated Purdue 

University as Visualization Sciences 

and Education Lead Institution for the 

DHS Center of Excellence for Command, 

Control and Interoperability. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Kielman, Science and 

Technology Directorate, Department of 

Homeland Security, Washington, DC 

20528; telephone 202–254–5787; e-mail 

joseph.kielman@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 308 of the Homeland Security 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–296, (the 

‘‘Homeland Security Act’’), as amended 

by the Consolidated Appropriations 

Resolution 2003, Public Law 108–7, and 

as codified in Title 6 of the United 

States Code Chapter I Subchapter III 

Section 188(b)(2) [6 U.S.C. 188(b)(2)], 

directs the Department of Homeland 

Security (‘‘Department’’) to sponsor 

extramural research, development, 

demonstration, testing and evaluation 

programs relating to homeland security. 

As part of this program, the Department 

has established a coordinated system of 

university-based centers for homeland 

security (the ‘‘Centers’’). 

The Centers are envisioned to be an 

integral component of the Department’s 

capability to anticipate, prevent, 

respond to, and recover from terrorist 

attacks and natural disasters. The 

Centers will leverage multidisciplinary 

capabilities and fill gaps in current 

knowledge. 

Title 6 U.S.C. 188(b)(2)(B) lists 

fourteen areas of substantive expertise 

that, if demonstrated, might qualify 

universities for designation as 

university-based centers. The listed 

areas of expertise include: (1) The 

training of first responders; (2) 

responding to incidents involving 

weapons of mass destruction and 

biological warfare; (3) emergency and 

diagnostic medical services; (4) 

chemical, biological, radiological and 

nuclear countermeasures or detection; 

(5) animal and plant health and 

diagnostics; (6) food safety; (7) water 

and wastewater operations; (8) port and 

waterway security; (9) multi-modal 

transportation; (10) information security 

and information engineering; (11) 

engineering; (12) educational outreach 

and technical assistance; (13) border 

and transportation security; and (14) the 

public policy implications and public 

dissemination of homeland security 

relevant research and development. 

However, this list is not exclusive. 

Title 6 U.S.C. 188(b)(2)(C) gives the 

Secretary discretion to except certain 

criteria specified in 6 U.S.C. 188(b)(2)(B) 

and consider additional criteria beyond 

those specified in 6 U.S.C. 188(b)(2)(B) 

in selecting universities for this 

program, as long as the Department 

issues a Federal Register notice 

explaining the criteria used for the 

designation. This Center of Excellence 

will address statutory criterion 6 U.S.C. 

188(b)(2)(B)(10), information security 

and information engineering. 

Evaluation 

The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) chose Purdue University 

and its partner institutions for the new 

Center of Excellence (COE) through a 

merit-based, competitive, and rigorous 

review process consistent with 

guidelines set forth in Section 308 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 

107–296), as amended. The DHS 

Science and Technology Directorate 

(S&T) issued a research funding 

opportunity announcement (FOA) 

soliciting applications for the 

establishment of a COE for the Study of 

Command, Control and Interoperability 

(CCI) issues on May 1, 2008 on http:// 

www.grants.gov. 

DHS received eight proposals in 

response to this announcement. 

External subject matter experts 

considered the merits of these proposals 

with respect to the evaluation criteria in 

the announcement and referred four 

proposals to a DHS internal review 

panel. DHS subject matter experts 

evaluated the proposals in light of DHS 

priorities and investments and made 

recommendations. A select team of S&T 

staff made site visits to all four 

applicants considered by the internal 

review panel. At the end of the 

competitive review, University 

Programs selected the lead institutions 

in accordance with Section 308 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

Criteria 

As communicated in the funding 

opportunity announcement and to the 

reviewers, the evaluation criteria for 

proposals were as follows. The first six 

criteria (a–f) were critical elements of 

the proposal and were of equal 

significance. Proposals that did not 

provide satisfactory responses to all of 

these essential criteria were declined. 

The remaining criteria (g–m) also were 

important to meeting S&T’s overall 

objectives. They were listed in 

approximate descending order of 

importance, and needed to be fully 

addressed by applicants. 

a. Responsiveness: The degree to 

which the proposal directly responds to 

the research areas, topics or questions 

described in the funding opportunity 

announcement, with appropriate 

scientific theory, methods, and data. 

b. Technical Merit and Quality: The 

degree to which the proposed research 

focus will achieve excellence (to offer 

results capable of commanding the 

respect of active researchers and of 

probing a frontier area well). The 

originality and creativity of the 

proposed research questions and the 

appropriateness and adequacy of the 

proposed research methods. 

c. Mission-Related Significance: The 

degree to which the proposed research 

focus can yield results that overcome 

existing and difficult technical 

limitations, or that offer the scientific 

basis to enable major technological 

advances in the foreseeable future. The 

responsiveness of the proposal to the 

research needs identified in this 

announcement and the willingness and 

ability of the applicants to consult with 

Federal, State, local and private 

stakeholders to refine research questions 

and design to make results applicable to 

homeland security issues or policy. 

d. Geographical Distribution of All 

Centers of Excellence and Major 

Partners: The Centers of Excellence 

program’s authorizing legislation states: 

‘‘ * * * the Under Secretary for Science 

and Technology, shall operate 

extramural research, development, 

demonstration, testing and evaluation 

programs so as to ensure that colleges, 

universities, private research institutes 

and companies from as many regions of 

the United States as practicable 

participate.’’ Geographical location of 

the lead institution and its major 

partners will be a factor in evaluating 

proposals submitted in response to this 

COE. 

e. Qualifications of Investigators: The 

qualifications of the principal 

investigator(s) and other key personnel, 

including training, demonstrated 

knowledge of pertinent literature, 

experience, and publication records, 

and the extent to which key personnel 

will make a significant time 

commitment to the project. 

f. Productive Use of Federal 

Resources: The ability to extend the 

productivity of Federal funds and other 

resources through matching funds, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 24, 2009 / Notices 12373 

leveraging of other new fund sources, 

in-kind provision of faculty, student 

support, dedicated office or laboratory 

space. 

g. Facilities and Equipment: The 

availability and/or adequacy of the 

facilities and equipment proposed for 

the project. 

h. Management: The ability of the 

lead institution to manage a complex 

Center of Excellence in terms of 

achieving research results when due, 

managing large and complex budgets 

and communicating research outcomes, 

and the adequacy of the proposed 

management plan to ensure quality 

research and education programs from 

researchers at both primary and partner 

institutions. 

i. Minority Serving Institution 

Partnerships: The demonstrated ability 

and commitment to establish 

meaningful partnerships with MSIs to 

develop a quality MSI research and 

training program, and the quality of the 

proposed program. 

j. Education: The adequacy of 

education plans and supporting 

materials demonstrating the proposed 

COE’s ability to establish an enduring 

and comprehensive program of study in 

disciplines related to the specific 

research areas cited in this 

announcement. 

k. Knowledge of Current Research: 

Evidence that the applicant is familiar 

with the research and resources of 

existing DHS COEs, other DHS S&T, 

Federal agency or National Laboratory 

research and development programs, 

and other relevant university programs 

and can demonstrate its ability to take 

advantage of these resources. 

l. Results Transition: The 

effectiveness and soundness of a 

strategy to transition research results to 

end users and mechanisms to 

accomplish this transition, and 

demonstration of a clear and effective 

plan for transitioning research results 

for each project or research area 

ultimately to homeland security mission 

agencies. 

m. Budget: Although budget 

information does not reflect on the 

application’s scientific merit, the 

evaluation will include the 

appropriateness and/or adequacy of the 

proposed budget and its implications for 

the potential success of the proposed 

research. Input on requested equipment 

is of particular interest. 

Summary 

This COE will conduct fundamental 

research into the technological issues, 

challenges, and policy issues related to 

(1) dynamic, on-demand data processing 

and visualization; (2) hypothesis-driven 

data analysis; (3) visualization of 

structured, unstructured, and streaming 

data; (4) mathematics of discrete and 

visual analytics; (5) scalable information 

filtering and dissemination; (6) 

visualization and simulation of 

information; (7) mobile and light-weight 

information analytics and sharing. This 

COE will create the scientific basis and 

enduring technologies needed to 

analyze massive amounts of information 

from multiple sources to more reliably 

detect threats to the security of the 

nation and its infrastructures, and to the 

health and welfare of its populace. 

These new technologies will also 

improve the dissemination of both 

information and related technologies. 

Based on information collected in the 

evaluation process, DHS designated 

Purdue University as Visualization 

Sciences and Education Lead Institution 

for the DHS Center of Excellence for 

Command, Control and Interoperability, 

in partnership with Rutgers University 

(the Data Sciences Lead Institution) and 

other affiliates. This team of institutions 

is uniquely well qualified and located to 

address data analysis, visualization, 

cyber security and other related issues. 

They will become an intrinsic part of 

the DHS science and technology 

portfolio, working closely with DHS and 

other Federal, State, and local 

governments to solve complex and 

critical data and visualization science 

challenges. 

Matthew Clark, 

Director, University Programs, Science and 

Technology Directorate, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. E9–6450 Filed 3–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9F–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0169] 

Head and Gut Fleet; Guidance for 

Implementation of the Alternate 

Compliance and Safety Agreement 

Program 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces 

the availability of guidance for 

implementation of the Alternate 

Compliance and Safety Agreement 

program for ‘‘head and gut fleet’’ 

vessels. The guidance clarifies various 

elements contained in the original 2006 

policy letter relating to that program, 

and in a 2006 Federal Register notice 

that announced the availability of that 

policy letter. Among these elements is 

the issuance of a conditional load line 

exemption for head and gut vessels. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or e-mail M. M. Rosecrans, Chief, 

Fishing Vessel Safety Division (CG– 

5433), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202– 

372–1245, e-mail 

Michael.M.Rosecrans@uscg.mil. 

If you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background and Purpose 

In the August 22, 2006 Federal 

Register (71 FR 48932), we announced 

the availability of Coast Guard G–PCV 

policy letter 06–03, concerning the 

applicability of vessel classification and 

load line requirements set by 46 CFR 

Part 28, Subpart F, and 46 CFR 

Subchapter E to ‘‘head and gut fleet’’ 

vessels. The head and gut (H&G) fleet 

consists of approximately 60 vessels 

that operate in the Gulf of Alaska and 

the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island fisheries. 

Crews on H&G vessels not only catch 

fish, but also freeze and package the 

catch for later distribution to foreign 

and domestic markets. Due to the age of 

most H&G vessels and the costs 

associated with compliance, the 

majority of the H&G fleet cannot comply 

with classification and load line 

requirements. The policy announced in 

2006 provides a safe and economical 

alternative: H&G vessel owners may 

apply for and be granted an exemption 

from those requirements, so long as they 

meet Alternate Compliance and Safety 

Agreement (ACSA) program elements 

that provide an equivalent level of 

safety. The ACSA Program was 

developed in 2006 to process individual 

requests for exemption letters under 46 

CFR 28.60. The Program allows 

exemptions to the class and Load Line 

requirements while at the same time 

creating improved safety requirements 

for these vessels, thereby avoiding the 

incentive to operate strictly as 

uninspected fishing vessels. ACSA 

vessel owners work with the Coast 

Guard to develop alternative standards 

for their vessels, and compliance with 

those standards is facilitated through 

voluntary vessel examination by Coast 

Guard personnel. Guidance for 

implementation of the ACSA program is 

available at http://www.fishsafe.info/ 

acsaguidance. This guidance document 

reiterates and clarifies information 

already provided in the ACSA Program 

governing guidance of the G–PCV Policy 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES