Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55541 

recommendations for fishing year 2011 

total allowable catches of these same 

stocks. The day will conclude with the 

Groundfish Committee’s Report which 

will include a recommendation to take 

initial action on Framework Adjustment 

45 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. 

Measures under consideration include 

revising the pollock status 

determination criteria, changing the 

acceptable biological catch for pollock, 

modifying the Georges Bank yellowtail 

flounder rebuilding strategy, 

implementing measures to protect 

spawning cod in the inshore Gulf of 

Maine, implementing additional sectors, 

changing monitoring requirements for 

handgear A and B permitted vessels and 

changing the general category scallop 

vessel restrictions in the Great South 

Channel. Other issues could be 

considered as a result of the September 

3, 2010 Groundfish Committee meeting. 

The groundfish agenda items will 

continue until meeting adjournment at 

the end of the day. 

Although other non-emergency issues 

not contained in this agenda may come 

before this Council for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subjects of formal 

action during this meeting. Council 

action will be restricted to those issues 

specifically listed in this notice and any 

issues arising after publication of this 

notice that require emergency action 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act, provided that the public 

has been notified of the Council’s intent 

to take final action to address the 

emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

This meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul 

J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 

days prior to the meeting date. 

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22674 Filed 9–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 100820388–0388–01] 

RIN 0648–ZC20 

NOAA Regional Ocean Partnership 

Funding Program—FY2011 Funding 

Competition 

AGENCY: National Ocean Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document 

is to advise eligible state, local, territory 

and tribal governments, regional ocean 

partnerships, institutions of higher 

learning, and non-profit and for-profit 

organizations (requirements described 

in full announcement) that NOAA is 

soliciting proposals for competitive 

funding for Regional Ocean Partnerships 

that include or emphasize regional 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning 

(CMSP) efforts. This competition is 

focused on advancing effective coastal 

and ocean management through regional 

ocean governance and the goals for 

national ocean policy set out in the July 

2010 Final Recommendations of the 

Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, 

which includes a national CMSP 

Framework. The Regional Ocean 

Partnership Funding Program (ROPFP) 

will support two categories of activities: 

(1) Implementation of activities that 

contribute to achieving the priorities 

identified by Regional Ocean 

Partnerships (ROPs) while also 

advancing CMSP as envisioned in the 

national CMSP Framework; and 

(2) ROP Development and Governance 

Support for administration and 

operations of existing ROPs, and for 

start-up costs of those regions beginning 

ROPs. 

Eligible entities must submit to 

NOAA full proposals on or before 

December 10, 2010, in order to 

participate in this Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 

funding opportunity. Total anticipated 

funding is approximately $20,000,000 

and is subject to the availability of FY 

2011 appropriations. Additional funds 

of approximately $10,000,000 from 

NOAA or other Federal agencies may be 

used for FY 2011 or multi-year awards 

from this competition. The start date on 

proposals should be the first day of July, 

August or September, but no later than 

October 1, of 2011. Statutory authority 

for this program is provided under 

Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1456c (Technical Assistance). 

DATES: Full proposals must be received 

no later than 11:59 p.m. ET, December 

10, 2010. For proposals submitted 

through Grants.gov, a date and time 

receipt indication by Grants.gov will be 

the basis of determining timeliness. 

Hard copy applications will be date and 

time-stamped when they are received. 

Full proposals received after the 

submission deadline will not be 

reviewed or considered. Anticipated 

Announcement of Award: June 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Full proposal application 

packages, including any letters of 

support, should be submitted through 

the apply function on Grants.gov. If an 

applicant does not have Internet access, 

one set of originals (signed) and two 

copies of the proposals and related 

forms should be mailed to the attention 

of James Lewis Free, NOAA Coastal 

Services Center, 2234 South Hobson 

Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 

29405–2413. No e-mail or fax copies 

will be accepted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

administrative questions, contact James 

Lewis Free, NOAA CSC; 2234 South 

Hobson Avenue, Room B–119; 

Charleston, South Carolina 29405–2413, 

phone 843–740–1185, fax 843–740– 

1224, e-mail James.L.Free@noaa.gov. 

For technical questions regarding this 

announcement, contact Rebecca Smyth, 

phone 510–251–8324, e-mail 

Rebecca.Smyth@noaa.gov. To obtain a 

copy of the Final Recommendations of 

the Interagency Ocean Policy Task 

Force, please refer to http://www.

whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_

FinalRecs.pdf. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Announcement of Funding Opportunity 

also available at http:// 

www.csc.noaa.gov/funding/. 

Federal Agency Name(s): Coastal 

Services Center, National Ocean 

Service, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce. 

Funding Opportunity Title: NOAA 

Regional Ocean Partnership Funding 

Program—FY 2011 Funding 

Competition. 

Announcement Type: Initial 

Announcement. 

Funding Opportunity Number: 

NOAA–NOS–CSC–2011–2002718. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number: 11.473, Coastal 

Services Center. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

A. Program Objectives 

This Regional Ocean Partnership 

Funding Program (ROPFP) is focused on 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55542 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

advancing effective coastal and ocean 

management through regional ocean 

governance, including the goals for 

national ocean policy and coastal and 

marine spatial planning set out in the 

July 2010 Final Recommendations of 

the Interagency Ocean Policy Task 

Force, http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/ 

documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf. In the 

justification for a national CMSP 

Framework, the Ocean Policy Task 

Force (OPTF) underscores the need for 

planning and governance with the 

following assessment: 

The Nation’s interests in the ocean, our 

coasts, and the Great Lakes support a growing 

number of significant and often competing 

uses and activities, including commercial, 

recreational, cultural, energy, scientific, 

conservation, and homeland and national 

security activities. Combined, these activities 

profoundly influence and benefit coastal, 

regional, and national economies and 

cultures. However, human uses of our ocean, 

coasts, and the Great Lakes are expanding at 

a rate that challenges our ability to plan and 

manage them under the current sector-bysector approach. While many existing 

permitting processes include aspects of crosssectoral planning (through, for example, the 

process governed by the National 

Environmental Policy Act), most focus solely 

on a limited range of management tools and 

outcomes (e.g., oil and gas leases, fishery 

management plans, and marine protected 

areas). Missing from this picture is a more 

integrated, comprehensive, ecosystem-based, 

flexible, and proactive approach to planning 

and managing these uses and activities. This 

new approach would be national in scope to 

address national interests, but also scalable 

and specific to regional and local needs. 

Without such an improved approach, we risk 

an increase in user conflicts, continued 

planning and regulatory inefficiencies with 

their associated costs and delays, and the 

potential loss of critical economic, 

ecosystem, social, and cultural services for 

present and future generations. 

The OPTF, the Pew Oceans 

Commission, the U.S. Commission on 

Ocean Policy and the Joint Ocean 

Commission Initiative have all called for 

stronger regional ocean governance 

mechanisms to improve our 

understanding of ocean and coastal 

ecosystems, and to address fragmented 

planning and management of societal 

uses of coastal and ocean lands and 

waters. The value in this approach is 

reflected in the rapid engagement by 

most coastal states in new Regional 

Ocean Partnerships (ROP). These 

partnerships have been established to 

facilitate the effective management of 

ocean and coastal resources across 

jurisdictional boundaries by improving 

communications, aligning priorities, 

and enhancing resource-sharing 

between local, State, tribal and Federal 

agencies. 

Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning 

(CMSP) is an important planning tool 

for regional ocean governance. CMSP is 

a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, 

ecosystem-based, and transparent 

spatial planning process, based on 

sound science, for analyzing current and 

anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and 

Great Lakes areas. Intended to look 

across multiple sectors and jurisdictions 

in an objective and collaborative 

regional fashion, CMSP identifies areas 

most suitable for various types or 

classes of activities in order to reduce 

conflicts among uses, reduce 

environmental impacts, facilitate 

compatible uses, and preserve critical 

ecosystem services to meet societal 

objectives, including economic, 

environmental and security 

considerations. In practical terms, 

CMSP provides a public policy process 

for society to better determine how the 

ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are 

sustainably used and protected for 

future generations. As noted in the 

OPTF’s Final Recommendations, 

potential opportunities and incentives 

for regions undertaking CMSP include: 

(1) Encouraging and informing the 

Federal government to better manage 

resources or address processes that 

transcend jurisdictional boundaries; 

(2) Defining local and regional 

objectives and developing and 

implementing CMSP in a way that is 

meaningful to regionally specific 

concerns; 

(3) Leveraging, strengthening, and 

magnifying local planning objectives 

through integration with regional and 

national planning efforts; 

(4) Proactively addressing concerns 

over proposed activities impacting State 

and tribal interests and minimizing use 

conflicts before they escalate; 

(5) Leveraging support from the 

Federal government to build CMSP 

capacity, access CMSP data; and acquire 

scientific, technical, and financial 

assistance; 

(6) Accessing data through CMSP 

Portal(s) and utilizing science tools 

developed, established, and maintained 

for CMSP efforts; 

(7) Benefiting from sustained Federal 

participation on the regional planning 

bodies that consist of representatives 

empowered to make decisions and 

commitments on behalf of their 

respective agencies, in turn helping to 

integrate and improve decision-making; 

(8) Providing a clearer and easier 

point of access for all Federal agencies 

with regard to ocean, coastal, and Great 

Lakes issues; and 

(9) Achieving regulatory efficiencies, 

reduction in administrative delays, and 

cost savings. 

The OPTF’s CMSP Framework 

generally identifies large marine 

ecosystems (LME) as the basis for 

defining CMSP regions. LMEs are 

defined on the basis of consistent 

ecological conditions and other factors. 

For CMSP purposes, the United States is 

subdivided into nine regional planning 

areas based on LMEs with modifications 

as necessary to ensure inclusion of the 

entire U.S. EEZ and Continental Shelf, 

and to allow for incorporation of 

existing state or regional ocean 

governance bodies. For the most part, 

the boundaries of regional governance 

structures for the Northeast, MidAtlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf Coast, 

West Coast, and Great Lakes lie within 

LME boundaries. The OPTF also 

designates Alaska, Hawaii and the U.S. 

Pacific Islands, and the U.S. Caribbean 

as regions, resulting in a total of nine 

regions. For purposes of this funding 

opportunity, NOAA will generally use 

the OPTF-defined regions for 

consideration in ROPFP funding 

proposals. Where possible, NOAA has 

identified an existing lead ROP or 

planning body for each region (see 

Section III.C.). Regional Ocean 

Partnerships are defined as below: 

Regional Ocean Partnerships are 

voluntary, usually multi-state, 

Governor-established forums that 

develop shared priorities and take 

critical action on a broad diversity of 

ocean, coastal and Great Lakes needs, as 

relevant to their region. They have 

different structures and employ varied 

methods and approaches to enhance the 

ecological and economic health of the 

region. Their efforts involve nongovernmental stakeholders and all of the 

multiple state and Federal agencies 

involved in coastal and ocean 

management. 

For the purposes of this 

announcement, all applicants must 

coordinate their proposals for a region 

with the identified lead ROP or 

planning body of that region. The goal 

of this coordination is to ensure 

awareness, enhance collaboration, and 

contribute to achieving the best 

outcomes for regional ocean governance 

and healthy, resilient and sustainable 

oceans, coasts and Great Lakes 

resources. 

The ROPFP is intended to support 

development or implementation of 

regional ocean governance priorities 

that also advance the objectives detailed 

in the OPTF’s national CMSP 

Framework. Regional priorities may be 

identified in existing ROP plans (e.g., 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance, Northeast 

Regional Ocean Council, Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Council on the Ocean, the 

South Atlantic Alliance, the Great Lakes 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55543 

Council of Governors and the West 

Coast Governors’ Agreement on Ocean 

Health), or emerge through developing 

ROP efforts. The ROPFP is also intended 

to support regional ocean governance 

efforts with funds for administration 

and operations of existing ROPs, and for 

development costs of those regions 

beginning ROPs (including Alaska, 

Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Islands, and 

the U.S. Caribbean). 

The ROPFP program will support two 

categories of activities: 

(1) Focus Area 1—Implementation of 

activities that meet both regional ocean 

governance priorities identified by ROPs 

in action plans and other public 

documents and the purposes and 

priorities of the national CMSP 

Framework; and 

(2) Focus Area 2 (up to approximately 

$3M)—Development and governance 

support for administration and 

operations of existing and new ROPs, 

including development of plans and 

management of ROP activities. 

This funding opportunity supports 

the Department of Commerce’s 

objectives to ‘‘Support coastal 

communities that are environmentally 

and economically sustainable,’’ and 

‘‘Support climate adaptation and 

mitigation.’’ It also directly contributes 

to the NOAA strategic goal for Resilient 

Coasts and Economies, and the 

objectives therein, including 

‘‘Comprehensive Ocean and Coastal 

Planning and Management’’ and 

‘‘Resilient Coastal Communities That 

Can Adapt to Impacts of Hazards and 

Climate Change.’’ 

B. Program Priorities 

Focus Area 1 

Focus Area 1 funds are intended to 

support a spectrum of regional ocean 

governance priorities including those 

that address national goals for CMSP. 

CMSP is an important planning tool for 

supporting a number of regional ocean 

governance efforts; therefore Focus Area 

1 proposals that also advance 

comprehensive CMSP, either through 

regional planning processes or through 

building capacity by addressing relevant 

CMSP principles will be given highest 

priority in the final evaluation. The 

OPTF’s CMSP Framework identifies 

twelve Guiding Principles: 

(1) CMSP would use an ecosystembased management approach that 

addresses cumulative effects to ensure 

the protection, integrity, maintenance, 

resilience, and restoration of ocean, 

coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems, 

while promoting multiple sustainable 

uses. 

(2) Multiple existing uses (e.g., 

commercial fishing, recreational fishing 

and boating, marine transportation, sand 

and gravel mining, and oil and gas 

operations) and emerging uses (e.g., offshore renewable energy and 

aquaculture) would be managed in a 

manner that reduces conflict, enhances 

compatibility among uses and with 

sustained ecosystem functions and 

services, provides for public access, and 

increases certainty and predictability for 

economic investments. 

(3) CMSP development and 

implementation would ensure frequent 

and transparent broad-based, inclusive 

engagement of partners, the public, and 

stakeholders, including with those most 

impacted (or potentially impacted) by 

the planning process and with 

underserved communities. 

(4) CMSP would take into account 

and build upon the existing marine 

spatial planning efforts at the regional, 

State, tribal, and local level. 

(5) CMS Plans and the standards and 

methods used to evaluate alternatives, 

tradeoffs, cumulative effects, and 

sustainable uses in the planning process 

would be based on clearly stated 

objectives. 

(6) Development, implementation, 

and evaluation of CMS Plans would be 

informed by sound science and the best 

available information, including the 

natural and social sciences, and relevant 

local and traditional knowledge. 

(7) CMSP would be guided by the 

precautionary approach as defined in 

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, 

which states that, ‘‘Where there are 

threats of serious or irreversible damage, 

lack of full scientific certainty shall not 

be used as a reason for postponing costeffective measures to prevent 

environmental degradation.’’ 

(8) CMSP would be adaptive and 

flexible to accommodate changing 

environmental conditions and impacts, 

including those associated with global 

climate change, sea-level rise, and ocean 

acidification; and new and emerging 

uses, advances in science and 

technology, and policy changes. 

(9) CMSP objectives and progress 

toward those objectives would be 

evaluated in a regular and systematic 

manner, with public input, and adapted 

to ensure that the desired 

environmental, economic, and societal 

outcomes are achieved. 

(10) The development of CMS Plans 

would be coordinated and compatible 

with homeland and national security 

interests, energy needs, foreign policy 

interests, emergency response and 

preparedness plans and frameworks, 

and other national strategies, including 

the flexibility to meet current and future 

needs. 

(11) CMS Plans would be 

implemented in accordance with 

customary international law, including 

as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea 

Convention, and with treaties and other 

international agreements to which the 

United States is a party. 

(12) CMS Plans would be 

implemented in accordance with 

applicable Federal and State laws, 

regulations, and Executive Orders. 

In addition, proposals that also 

address the national Areas of Special 

Emphasis as identified in the OPTF July 

2010 final report will receive some 

priority in the evaluation. The Areas of 

Special Emphasis are: 

(1) Resiliency and Adaptation to 

Climate Change and Ocean 

Acidification: Strengthen resiliency of 

coastal communities and marine and 

Great Lakes environments and their 

abilities to adapt to climate change 

impacts and ocean acidification. 

(2) Regional Ecosystem Protection and 

Restoration: Establish and implement an 

integrated ecosystem protection and 

restoration strategy that is science-based 

and aligns conservation and restoration 

goals at the Federal, State, tribal, local, 

and regional levels. 

(3) Water Quality and Sustainable 

Practices on Land: Enhance water 

quality in the ocean, along our coasts, 

and in the Great Lakes by promoting 

and implementing sustainable practices 

on land. 

And where applicable: 

(4) Changing Conditions in the Arctic: 

Address environmental stewardship 

needs in the Arctic Ocean and adjacent 

coastal areas in the face of climateinduced and other environmental 

changes, and 

(5) Ocean, Coastal, and Great Lakes 

Observations, Mapping and 

Infrastructure: Strengthen and integrate 

Federal and non-Federal ocean 

observing systems, sensors, data 

collection platforms, data management, 

and mapping capabilities into a national 

system and integrate that system into 

international observation efforts. 

Therefore, proposals for ROPFP funds 

might articulate (but are not limited to) 

how a region would move forward on 

planning consistent with the OPTF’s 

CMSP Framework; or implement key 

priority actions of the existing ROPs that 

would apply CMSP Guiding Principles 

to an Area of Special Emphasis; or 

provide tools and information identified 

as an ROP priority that are also critical 

for regional CMSP. Some examples of 

how an applicant might propose to 

advance an ROP’s capacity to conduct 

comprehensive regional CMSP across 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

multiple sectors and jurisdictions 

include: 

(1) The synthesis of relevant spatial 

data on ecosystem structure, function, 

services and human uses on a regional 

scale; 

(2) The development or application of 

decision-support tools to help planners 

and stakeholders assess the implications 

of alternative ocean use scenarios 

throughout the region; or 

(3) The identification of regional goals 

and objectives for appropriate uses of 

ocean and coastal areas. 

In addition, the creation of new and 

innovative partnerships and broader 

stakeholder engagement beyond the 

existing governmental relationships of 

the ROPs will be needed for successful 

planning and implementation of CMSP. 

This element needs to be included in 

projects that will be considered for 

CMSP efforts. 

The CMSP process consists of a series 

of steps that would eventually lead to 

the development of a comprehensive, 

multi-sectoral, and multi-objective CMS 

Plan. Although the CMSP process 

envisions optimum flexibility among 

and within regions, the following 

essential elements—and how the 

partners plan to accomplish them— 

would need to occur in all regions in 

order to ensure a level of national 

consistency. The process would be 

adaptive and refined as regions gain 

experience with CMSP. In determining 

whether ROP proposals are using a 

CMSP approach, applicants should 

indicate how they are addressing the 

CMSP Guiding Principles as well as 

how the proposed approach aligns with 

the Essential Elements of the CMSP 

process (also noted in the OPTF’s CMSP 

Framework): 

(1) Identify Regional Objectives. 

(2) Identify Existing Efforts that 

Should Help Shape the Plan 

Throughout the Process. 

(3) Engage Stakeholders and the 

Public at Key Points throughout Process. 

(4) Consult Scientists and Technical 

and Other Experts. 

(5) Analyze Data, Uses, Services, and 

Impacts. 

(6) Develop and Evaluate Alternative 

Future Spatial Management Scenarios 

and Tradeoffs. 

(7) Prepare and Release for Public 

Comment a Draft CMS Plan With 

Supporting Environmental Impact 

Analysis Documentation. 

(8) Create a Final CMS Plan and 

Submit for National Ocean Council 

(NOC) Review. 

(9) Implement, Monitor, Evaluate, and 

Modify (as needed) the NOC-Certified 

CMS Plan. 

Development and implementation of 

CMS Plans would be an iterative 

process leading to a comprehensive, 

multi-objective, multi-sectoral plan 

within the first five years. Since each 

region may have different drivers and 

capabilities for CMSP, regions may 

choose to prioritize initial development 

and implementation steps. While CMSP 

should help resolve many use conflicts, 

it is not realistic to expect that all such 

conflicts would be resolved. Further, 

partners might agree not to resolve 

certain issues in a CMS Plan at a 

particular time, but rather to 

acknowledge these issues and indicate 

how the parties would continue to work 

on them as part of the iterative CMSP 

process. Such issues may be resolved as 

data gaps are filled, new information is 

developed, or as State or Federal legal 

authorities are enacted, changed, or 

updated. 

For example, offshore energy is an 

ROP priority that could also address 

CMSP Guiding Principles. ROPs will 

need to develop a solid spatial 

framework and socioeconomic measures 

to understand the trade-offs and make 

sound decisions on siting offshore 

energy facilities—the planning 

approach, decision support tools and 

information used in planning for 

offshore energy siting are also needed 

for developing an effective regional 

CMSP. Data collection and data 

synthesis can also illustrate the 

intersection between CMSP and many 

ROP priorities. For example, the 

collection of seafloor mapping data and 

relevant products from that data could 

support siting decisions about 

waterborne commerce, recreational use 

of the area, or protection of key 

resources. These data, fundamental to 

our understanding of our ocean 

resources and where activities can 

occur, are also fundamental to 

comprehensive CMSP tools. 

Focus Area 1 proposals that 

effectively articulate the connection 

between the proposed project, CMSP 

Guiding Principles and Essential 

Elements and the Areas of Special 

Emphasis, and the priorities publicly 

identified by the relevant ROP will 

receive the highest rankings based upon 

NOAA’s criteria (see Section V.A.). 

Focus Area 2 

The intent of Focus Area 2, ROP 

Development and Governance Support, 

is to help support administration and 

operations for existing ROPs, and 

support development for regions that 

are initiating ROP activities. 

Proposals might seek funding for any 

aspects of these elements in support of 

ROP development and impact. Some 

examples include: Funding for ROP staff 

support to coordinate and facilitate 

stakeholder engagement; holding 

stakeholder engagement meetings; 

identifying, developing and/or 

managing implementation of priority 

activities in the region; establishing a 

non-profit organization under 26 U.S.C. 

501(c)(3) or other fiduciary entity to 

represent the ROP or entering into a 

partnership with an existing non-profit 

organization established under section 

501(c)(3) to act as fiduciary; developing 

annual reports and other outreach 

materials to demonstrate the importance 

of broad support for regional ocean 

governance. ROP participation should 

be voluntary, emphasize collaborative 

management, and involve all states in 

the region. 

C. Program Authority 

Statutory authority for this program is 

provided under Coastal Zone 

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1456c 

(Technical Assistance). 

II. Award Information 

A. Funding Availability 

Total anticipated funding for all 

ROPFP awards is approximately 

$20,000,000 and is subject to the 

availability of FY 2011 appropriations. 

Additional funds of approximately 

$10,000,000 from NOAA or other 

Federal agencies may be used for FY 

2011 or multi-year awards from this 

competition. Multiple awards are 

anticipated from this announcement. 

The anticipated Federal funding per 

Focus Area 1 award (min-max) is 

approximately $1,000,000 to $3,500,000. 

The anticipated Federal funding per 

Focus Area 2 award (min-max) is 

approximately $100,000 to $500,000. 

The anticipated number of awards 

ranges from twelve (12) to thirty (30), 

and will be adjusted based on available 

funding. Applicants must be aware that 

funds have not yet been appropriated 

for this program. If additional funding is 

made available in FY 2011 through 

Congress for ROPFP, NOAA may select 

additional FY 2011 proposals for 

funding rather than open a new 

competition, or augment FY 2011 

awards that were only partially funded. 

There is no limit on the number of 

proposals from each region. Applicants 

may bundle multiple projects into one 

proposal, or may submit single projects; 

however, NOAA will evaluate all 

projects for readiness and feasibility for 

completion within the required 2 year 

time frame. Applicants must note the 

requirement detailed in Section III.C. for 

demonstration of coordination with the 

relevant ROP on projects. 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55545 

There is no guarantee that funds will 

be available to make awards for this 

Federal funding opportunity or that any 

proposal will be selected for funding. If 

an applicant incurs any costs prior to 

receiving an award agreement signed by 

an authorized NOAA official, they do so 

at their own risk of these costs not being 

included in a subsequent award. In no 

event will NOAA or the Department of 

Commerce be responsible for any 

proposal preparation costs. In addition, 

NOAA and DOC will not be responsible 

for proposal or project costs if this 

program fails to receive funding. 

Recipients and sub-recipients are 

subject to all Federal laws and agency 

policies, regulations, and procedures 

applicable to Federal financial 

assistance awards. Applicants must be 

in good standing with all existing 

NOAA grants and/or cooperative 

funding agreements in order to receive 

funds. 

B. Project/Award Period 

Focus Area 1 is for multiple year 

awards with project periods up to 24 

months. Multiple year awards receive 

all funding in the first year, but the 

performance period can be two years. 

Competitive announcements for this 

purpose may be published in future 

years, and if so, applicants may 

resubmit proposals or submit new 

proposals for funding in future years. 

Focus Area 2 is for multi-year awards. 

Multi-year awards are partially funded 

when the awards are approved, but may 

receive subsequent increments of 

funding. Proposed projects may request 

funding for one to three years and once 

awarded, those awards will not compete 

for funding in subsequent years. 

Proposals in Focus Area 1 or 2 not 

funded in the current fiscal period may 

be considered for funding in another 

fiscal period without NOAA repeating 

the competitive process outlined in this 

announcement. 

C. Type of Funding Instrument 

Applications should be written as 

cooperative agreements and the 

proposal should clearly identify this 

funding instrument in the proposal 

abstract and cover sheet. Applicants 

should clearly articulate the Federal 

roles and responsibilities in 

implementing the proposal. Examples of 

Federal involvement include Federal coleadership of the ROPs, Federal 

leadership on priority task teams, and 

staff support to working groups and 

leadership teams. 

III. Eligibility Information 

A. Eligible Applicants 

All state, local, territory and tribal 

governments, institutions of higher 

learning, non-profit and for-profit 

organizations that may receive and 

expend Federal funds as legal entities 

are eligible to apply. As defined at 15 

CFR 24.3, local government means a 

county, municipality, city, town, 

township, local public authority 

(including any public and Indian 

housing agency under the United States 

Housing Act of 1937), school district, 

special district, intrastate district, 

council of governments (whether or not 

incorporated as a non-profit corporation 

under State law), any other regional or 

interstate government entity, or any 

agency or instrumentality of a local 

government. 

Please note the requirement detailed 

in Section III.C. for demonstration of 

coordination with the relevant ROP on 

projects and funding amounts proposed. 

Federal agencies and employees are 

not allowed to receive funds under this 

announcement but may serve as 

collaborative project partners. If Federal 

agencies are collaborators, applicants 

should provide detail on the level of 

Federal engagement in the application. 

Examples might include, but are not 

limited to, providing additional 

funding, in-kind services, or serving in 

a review capacity. 

The lead applicant on any proposal 

will be responsible for ensuring that 

allocated funds are used for the 

purposes of, and in a manner consistent 

with, this program, including any funds 

awarded to an eligible sub-awardee. 

B. Cost Sharing or Matching 

Requirement 

There is no requirement for cost 

sharing. 

C. Other Criteria That Affect Eligibility 

In order to be eligible to compete, a 

project or applicant must meet one or 

more of the 

following criteria, as applicable to the 

proposed project and Focus Area: 

(1) Represent or directly partner with 

a member of an existing regional ocean 

governance partnership; 

(2) Possess the authority, proven 

capacity, and regional relationships to 

effectively coordinate the development 

of a regional ocean governance priorities 

that engages affected coastal states and 

territories and their management 

agencies, including the approved coastal 

zone management program; 

(3) Demonstrate formal commitments 

with existing regional ocean governance 

partnerships and coastal states or 

territories (including the approved 

coastal zone management program) to 

adopt the plan(s), product(s) or 

outcome(s) of a proposed project into 

regional or state ocean management 

planning processes or coastal and ocean 

resource management policies. 

Where applicable, each proposal must 

directly involve or include a letter of 

support or endorsement from the lead 

ROP for each region (identified below) 

for the purposes of this funding 

opportunity. The letter should confirm 

that the proposed project has been 

evaluated for its contributions to 

regional ROG priorities, and specifically 

indicate concurrence with 

recommended approach and proposal 

funding amounts. 

The existing lead ROPs identified for 

each region for the purposes of the 

ROPFP are: 

(1) Northeast Regional Ocean Council. 

(2) Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on 

the Ocean. 

(3) South Atlantic Governors’ 

Alliance. 

(4) Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 

(5) West Coast Governors’ Agreement 

on Ocean Health. 

(6) Council of Great Lakes Governors. 

During FY 2011, applicants for 

Alaska, Hawaii, Pacific Island 

Commonwealths and Territories, and 

the Caribbean will be allowed to 

compete for Focus Area 1 funds by 

demonstrating that they are working 

towards a regional ocean partnership in 

their respective regional planning areas 

as identified above. This can be 

accomplished by providing letters of 

support for each proposal from their 

respective Office of the Governor and 

lead State and Federal agencies as well 

as tribes involved in coastal and ocean 

management. Part of this application 

must outline steps towards creating a 

ROP. Applicants from these regions 

where no ROP currently exists are 

strongly encouraged to also submit 

proposals for Focus Area 2 funds in 

order to develop ROP capacity for 

regional ocean governance and CMSP 

objectives. These regions will be eligible 

for Focus Area 1 funding in FY 2012 

and beyond once they establish the 

partnerships needed for comprehensive 

ocean governance. 

Allowable uses for funds: 

Direct and indirect costs for 

administering the ROPFP award are 

allowable and must be incurred within 

the award period. Note that 

administrative costs may be included, 

but the total amount allocated for costs 

of this nature should be minimized to 

the greatest extent possible. Direct and 

indirect costs may include time spent by 

staff for project planning, 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55546 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

implementation, and review. If an 

application includes indirect costs, the 

amount must be based on the indirect 

cost rate negotiated and approved by the 

applicant’s cognizant Federal agency. 

The total amount allocated for indirect 

costs may not exceed the value of 20 

percent of the Federal share, e.g., a 

proposal requesting $250,000 in Federal 

funds may include a maximum of 

$50,000 for indirect costs in the budget. 

Applicants requesting indirect costs will 

be required to submit a copy of their 

indirect cost rate agreement. 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

A. Address To Request Application 

Package 

Application packages for full 

proposals are available through the 

apply function on Grants.gov. If an 

applicant does not have Internet access, 

application packages can be requested 

from James Lewis Free at 2234 South 

Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South 

Carolina 29405–2413; 843–740–1185; or 

James.L.Free@noaa.gov. 

B. Content and Form of Application 

Submission 

(1) Focus Area 1 Proposals: 

Full proposal applications must be 15 

pages or less (single-spaced, 11 or 12- 

point font and exclusive of appendices). 

The 15-page limit does not include the 

proposal title page, a table of contents 

(if included), the project summary 

(referenced below), and any appendices. 

Appendices should be limited to 

materials that directly support the main 

body of the proposal (e.g., detailed 

budget information, support letters, 

resumes, references, lists of data 

sources, maps, and/or required Federal 

forms as noted above in Section IV.B.1). 

Applicants should number the pages in 

the proposal and any appendices. 

Appendices may be paginated as standalone documents (individually) or as 

part of the larger document. Proposals 

failing to comply with the format 

prescribed in this section will be 

deemed incomplete and will not be 

considered for further review. 

Required Elements 

All funding application packages 

must contain the following components: 

(1) Title Page (Proposal Cover Sheet). 

Include proposal title, complete contact 

information for the Principal 

Investigator and Financial 

Representative, duration of proposed 

project, funding type (cooperative 

agreement), and amount of funding 

request. 

(2) Project Summary. Provide a one to 

two-page summary of the proposed 

project. The summary should be written 

for easy understanding by a broad 

audience and contain the following 

sections: 

i. Project Name/Title. 

ii. Primary Contact (name, address, phone, 

fax, e-mail). 

iii. Recipient Organization or Institution (If 

the project is intended to be administered 

under an existing NOAA Cooperative 

Institute, please state which Institute will 

administer the award). 

iv. Other Investigators (name, affiliated 

organization, institution or agency). 

v. Brief Project Summary (whether for 

Focus Area 1 or Focus Area 2, or both) 

including objectives, ties to ROP priorities 

and applicable CMSP approaches, and 

intended benefits. 

vi. Partners. 

vii. Proposed funding for each year of the 

project. If the proposal includes funding to 

NOAA to provide technical assistance on the 

project, make sure to note the amounts by 

year and line office that is the intended 

recipient of the funds. 

(3) Project Description. All project 

descriptions (proposals) must include 

the following sections: 

i. Goal and Objective(s). Describe in 

the narrative the specific project goals 

and objectives to be achieved. In 

particular, note the connection to 

regional ocean governance, including 

ROP priorities and, where applicable, 

how CMSP can be applied to address 

those priorities, and expected outcomes. 

Recipients will be required to submit 

semi-annual reports describing progress 

toward these goals and objectives. 

Provide a description of measures of 

success that will be used to evaluate 

progress and success in achieving the 

goals and objectives of the project. 

ii. Background. Provide sufficient 

background information for NOAA and 

non-NOAA reviewers to independently 

assess the significance of the proposed 

project for advancing regional coastal 

and ocean planning and management 

priorities. Summarize the problem to be 

addressed, identified needs and the 

status of ongoing efforts to address 

them. Summarize the relationship of the 

proposed work to other ongoing or 

planned regional ocean governance 

efforts. 

iii. Partnerships: Provide information 

on the range of partners, including local, 

State, tribal, and Federal government as 

well as non-governmental organizations, 

academia, and industry. Include the 

roles and support each key partner is 

providing and how the ROP will 

include and grow partnerships as 

appropriate to achieve the goals of both 

the ROP and as appropriate, CMSP. 

iv. Audience. Identify specific users of 

the results of the project, describe how 

they will use the results, and identify 

any training that will be needed for 

users to make full use of the results. 

v. Approach. Provide a work plan 

that: identifies specific tasks to be 

accomplished; explains the technical 

approach (including quality assurance) 

needed to accomplish the tasks; 

identifies the roles of partners and 

cooperators; and identifies potential 

obstacles to successful completion of 

the goals and objectives. Describe how 

users are involved in the planning and 

design process. The work plan must 

clearly address data management 

requirements, and the steps to be taken 

to achieve efficient and effective data 

access and archiving that is compliant 

with Federal regulations. Identify 

methods that will be used to ensure that 

the project will be coordinated to 

achieve active and meaningful 

participation by all partners and 

appropriate stakeholders in the region. 

Clearly identify the roles and 

responsibilities of the Federal partners. 

vi. Benefits. Identify, with a high 

degree of specificity, the uses of the 

information derived from the work, and 

the benefits that will be achieved from 

those uses, or by particular users of the 

information, as well as society as a 

whole. Document how valid user 

requirements are guiding the proposed 

work. Describe how the information 

from the project will be delivered to 

those users, and any special 

considerations or requirements for 

ensuring or improving the delivery of 

information. 

vii. Milestone Schedule. Display time 

lines for major tasks, target milestones 

for important intermediate and final 

products, and key project outcomes. 

viii. Project Budget. Provide a budget 

description that follows the categories 

and formats in the NOAA grants 

package (Standard Form 424–A) and a 

brief narrative justification of the 

budget. Detailed budget information, 

such as a repeat of the information in 

Form SF–424A along with more details 

should be included in an appendix. In 

this appendix, the budget narrative also 

shall clearly identify the cost of 

separable elements of the proposed 

work and shall identify the elements of 

the project that the cooperator would 

recommend for revision or elimination 

if sufficient funding is not available for 

all proposed activities. Applicants must 

itemize and describe the intended use of 

equipment costing $5,000 or greater that 

will be purchased under the award. 

Applicants must complete a lease versus 

purchase analysis for any equipment 

$5,000 or greater. For proposals to carry 

out basic or applied scientific research, 

non-profit institutions of higher 

education or non-profit organizations 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55547 

whose primary purpose is conducting 

scientific research should identify, if 

possible, who will be requested to retain 

ownership of any equipment purchased 

through grant funds after the project 

ends. The budget narrative must also 

provide, to the extent possible, detailed 

information on travel, including costs, a 

description of anticipated travel, 

destinations, the number of travelers, 

and a justification of how the requested 

travel is directly relevant to the 

successful completion of the project. If 

actual trip details are unknown, 

applicants must state the basis for the 

proposed travel charges. Applicants 

should allocate travel funds for any 

coordination meetings at regional or 

national levels. Foreign travel must 

receive prior approval, and therefore, 

should be included in the proposal to 

avoid having to request prior approval 

after the project starts. Applicants may 

factor in travel costs for participation in 

a NOAA Grants Management Division 

workshop for recipients, as well as for 

meeting with NOAA staff and/or key 

project personnel. 

(4) Appendices 

i. Mandatory Detailed Budget 

Information, including budgets of 

subawards and contracts. Information 

should include the name of the entity 

receiving funds, the location of the 

entity receiving the funds (for example, 

city, state, and Congressional district), 

and the location of the primary place of 

performance under the contract/ 

subaward. 

ii. Resumes. Provide resumes of the 

Principal Investigator for the project and 

other key personnel critical to the 

success of the project. Ensure that 

resumes address qualifications relevant 

to conducting the proposed work. Please 

limit resumes to a maximum of two 

pages for each key investigator. 

iii. National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA)—Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

NOAA must analyze the potential 

environmental impacts of projects or 

proposals seeking funding from NOAA. 

Detailed information on NOAA 

compliance with NEPA can be found at 

the following NOAA NEPA Web site: 

http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/including 

our NOAA Administrative Order 216–6 

for NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/ 

NAO216_6_TOC.pdf and the Council on 

Environmental Quality implementation 

regulations, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ 

regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm. 

Consequently, as part of an 

applicant’s package, and under their 

description of their program activities, 

applicants are required to provide 

detailed information on the activities to 

be conducted, locations, sites, species 

and habitat to be affected, possible 

construction activities, and any 

environmental concerns that may exist 

(for example, the use and disposal of 

hazardous or toxic chemicals, 

introduction of non-indigenous species, 

impacts to endangered and threatened 

species, aquaculture projects, and 

impacts to coral reef systems). 

After the application is submitted, 

NOAA may require additional 

information to fulfill NEPA 

requirements. If NOAA determines that 

an environmental assessment is 

required, applicants may also be 

requested to assist in drafting the 

assessment. Applicants may also be 

required to cooperate with NOAA in 

identifying and implementing feasible 

measures to reduce or avoid any 

identified adverse environmental 

impacts of their proposal. The failure to 

do so shall be grounds for the denial of 

an application. In some cases if 

additional information is required after 

an application is selected, funds can be 

withheld by the Grants Officer under a 

special award condition requiring the 

recipient to submit additional 

environmental compliance information 

sufficient to enable NOAA to make an 

assessment on any impacts that a project 

may have on the environment. 

Applicants are required to answer the 

questions indicated in this 

Announcement of Federal Funding 

Opportunity. Applicants should answer 

the NEPA questions to the best of their 

ability with as much detail as possible. 

If the applicant does not answer all the 

questions indicated in the 

Announcement of Federal Funding 

Opportunity the application may be 

considered incomplete. 

Some of the questions may overlap 

with material provided in other parts of 

the application. This overlap occurs 

because the answers to the 

questionnaire are provided to NOAA 

staff members who do not review the 

other parts of the application. If 

appropriate, the applicant may copy the 

information from other parts of the 

application and paste it into the answers 

to the questionnaire. Many questions 

have a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ response. If the 

response is ‘‘no’’ the applicant does not 

need to elaborate on their answer. If the 

response is ‘‘yes’’ the question will have 

a second part asking the applicant to 

provide more information. 

Applicant NEPA questions are as 

follows: 

Question C1. Is the proposed activity going 

to be conducted in partnership with NOAA 

or would the proposed activity require 

NOAA’s direct involvement, activity, or 

oversight? If yes, describe NOAA’s 

involvement, activity, or oversight, including 

the name of the office or program that is 

involved. 

Question C2. Would the proposed activity 

involve any other Federal agency(ies) 

partnership, direct involvement, activity, or 

oversight? If yes, provide the name(s) of the 

agency(ies) and describe its involvement, 

activity, or oversight. 

Question D1. Provide a brief description of 

the location of the proposed activity. 

Question E1. List any Federal, State, or 

local permits, authorizations, or waivers that 

would be required to complete the proposed 

activity. Provide the date the permit, 

authorization, or waiver was obtained or will 

be obtained. Provide copies of the permit, 

authorization, or waiver as appropriate. Was 

a NEPA analysis prepared for the permit, 

authorization, or waiver? If yes, state the title 

of the NEPA analysis and provide copies of 

the NEPA analysis. 

Question F1. Is there the potential for the 

proposed activity to cause changes that 

would be different from normal ambient 

conditions (for example, temperature, light, 

turbidity, noise, other human activity levels, 

etc.)? If yes, describe the changes and the 

circumstances that would cause these 

changes. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This documents contains collectionof-information requirements subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 

The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 

424B, and SF–LLL have been approved 

by OMB under the respective control 

numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 0348– 

0040, and 0348–0046. The application 

requirements specific to the NOAA 

Regional Ocean Partnership Funding 

Program have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Control Number 0648–0538. Public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 3 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any 

other suggestions for reducing this 

burden to Ms. Cristi Reid, NOAA Office 

of Program Planning and Integration, 

SSMC 3, Room 15700, 1315 East West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The 

information collection does not request 

any proprietary or confidential 

information. No confidentiality is 

provided. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subjected to a penalty for failure to 

comply with, a collection of information 

subject to the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

(2) Focus Area 2 Proposals 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

Full proposal applications must be 5 

pages or less (single-spaced, 11 or 12- 

point font and exclusive of appendices). 

The 5-page limit does not include the 

proposal title page, a table of contents 

(if one is included), the project 

summary referenced below and any 

appendices. Appendices should be 

limited to budget, resumes and support 

letters. Applicants should number the 

pages of the proposal and any 

appendices. Appendices may be 

paginated as stand-alone documents 

(individually) or as part of the larger 

document. Proposals failing to comply 

with the format prescribed in this 

section will be deemed incomplete and 

will not be considered for further 

review. 

Required Elements 

All funding application packages 

must contain the following components: 

(a) Title Page (Proposal Cover Sheet). 

Include proposal title, complete contact 

information for the Principal 

Investigator and Financial 

Representative, duration of proposed 

project, funding type (cooperative 

agreement), and amount of funding 

request. 

(b) Project Summary. Provide a onepage summary of the proposed project. 

The summary should be prepared to 

be readable to a broad audience and 

contain the following sections: 

i. Project Name/Title. 

ii. Primary Contact (name, address, phone, 

fax, e-mail). 

iii. Recipient Organization or Institution. 

iv. Other Investigators (name, affiliated 

organization, institution or agency). 

v. Brief Project Summary including 

objectives, ties to ROP Development and 

Governance, and intended benefits. 

vi. Partners. 

vii. Proposed funding for each year of the 

project. If the proposal includes funding to 

NOAA to provide technical assistance on the 

project, make sure to note the amounts by 

year and line office that is the intended 

recipient of the funds. 

viii. If the project is intended to be 

administered under an existing NOAA 

Cooperative Institute, state which Institute 

will administer the award. 

(a) Project Description. All project 

descriptions (proposals) must include the 

following sections: 

i. Goal and Objective(s). Describe in 

the narrative the specific project goals 

and objectives to be achieved. In 

particular note the connection to ROP 

Development and Governance. 

Objectives should be specific for each 

year of the work plan presented. 

Recipients will be required to submit 

semi-annual progress reports in which 

progress against these goals and 

objectives will be reported. 

ii. Background. Provide sufficient 

background information for NOAA and 

non-NOAA reviewers to independently 

assess the significance of the proposed 

project. Summarize the problem to be 

addressed and the status of ongoing 

efforts to address the identified needs. 

Summarize the relationship of the 

proposed work to other ongoing or 

planned regional ocean governance 

efforts. 

iii. Partnerships: Provide information 

on how the project will build the 

partnerships, especially cross 

governmental on all state, tribal and 

Federal agencies with interest in coastal 

and ocean management as well as 

partnership building with industry, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

academia. 

iv. Audience. Identify specific users of 

the results of the project, describe how 

they will use the results, and identify 

any training that will be needed for 

users to make full use of the results. 

v. Approach. Provide a work plan 

that: identifies specific tasks to be 

accomplished; explains the technical 

approach (including quality assurance) 

needed to accomplish the tasks; 

identifies the roles of partners and 

cooperators; and identifies potential 

obstacles to successful completion of 

the goals and objectives. Describe how 

users are involved in the planning and 

design process. The work plan must 

clearly address data management 

requirements, and the steps to be taken 

to achieve efficient and effective data 

access and archiving that is compliant 

with Federal regulations. Clearly 

identify the roles and responsibilities of 

the Federal. 

vi. Benefits. Identify, with a high 

degree of specificity, the uses of the 

information derived from the work, and 

the benefits that will be achieved from 

those uses, or by particular users of the 

information, as well as society as a 

whole. Document how valid user 

requirements are guiding the proposed 

work. Describe how the information 

from the project will be delivered to 

those users, and any special 

considerations or requirements for 

ensuring or improving the delivery of 

information. 

vii. Milestone Schedule. Display time 

lines for major tasks, target milestones 

for important intermediate and final 

products, and key project outcomes. 

viii. Project Budget. Provide a budget 

description that follows the categories 

and formats in the NOAA grants 

package (Standard Form 424–A) and a 

brief narrative justification of the 

budget. 

ix. Detailed budget information, such 

as a repeat of the information in Form 

SF–424A along with more details 

should be included in an appendix. In 

this appendix, the budget narrative also 

shall clearly identify the cost of 

separable elements of the proposed 

work and shall identify the elements of 

the project that the cooperator would 

recommend for revision or elimination 

if sufficient funding is not available for 

all proposed activities. 

x. Applicants must itemize and 

describe the intended use of equipment 

costing $5,000 or greater that will be 

purchased under the award. Applicants 

must complete a lease versus purchase 

analysis for any equipment $5,000 or 

greater. For proposals to carry out basic 

or applied scientific research, non-profit 

institutions of higher education or nonprofit organizations whose primary 

purpose is conducting scientific 

research should identify, if possible, 

who will be requested to retain 

ownership of any equipment purchased 

through grant funds after the project 

ends. The decision on grant ownership 

requests will be made by the Grants 

Officer before or during the grant close 

out process. 

xi. The budget narrative must also 

provide, to the extent possible, detailed 

information on travel, including costs, a 

description of anticipated travel, 

destinations, the number of travelers, 

and a justification of how the requested 

travel is directly relevant to the 

successful completion of the project. If 

actual trip details are unknown, 

applicants must state the basis for the 

proposed travel charges. Applicants 

should allocate travel funds for any 

coordination meetings at regional or 

national levels. Foreign travel must 

receive prior approval, and therefore, 

should be included in the proposal to 

avoid having to request prior approval 

after the project starts. Applicants may 

factor in travel costs for participation in 

annual NOAA Grants Management 

Division workshops for recipients, as 

well as for meeting with NOAA staff 

and/or key project personnel. 

(3) Appendices 

(a) Mandatory Detailed Budget 

Information, including budgets of 

subawards and contracts. Information 

should include the name of the entity 

receiving funds, the location of the 

entity receiving the funds (for example, 

city, State, and Congressional district), 

the location of the entity receiving funds 

(city, State, and Congressional district), 

and the location of the primary place of 

performance under the contract/ 

subaward. 

(b) Resumes. Provide resumes of the 

Principal Investigator for the project and 

other key personnel critical to the 

success of the project. Ensure that 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55549 

resumes address qualifications relevant 

to conducting the proposed work. Please 

limit resumes to a maximum of two 

pages for each key investigator. 

(c) National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA)—Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

NOAA must analyze the potential 

environmental impacts of projects or 

proposals seeking funding from NOAA. 

Detailed information on NOAA 

compliance with NEPA can be found at 

the following NOAA NEPA Web site: 

http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/including 

our NOAA Administrative Order 216–6 

for NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/ 

NAO216_—6_—TOC.pdf and the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

implementation regulations, http:// 

ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/ 

toc_ceq.htm. 

Consequently, as part of an 

applicant’s package, and under their 

description of their program activities, 

applicants are required to provide 

detailed information on the activities to 

be conducted, locations, sites, species 

and habitat to be affected, possible 

construction activities, and any 

environmental concerns that may exist 

(for example, the use and disposal of 

hazardous or toxic chemicals, 

introduction of non-indigenous species, 

impacts to endangered and threatened 

species, aquaculture projects, and 

impacts to coral reef systems). 

After the application is submitted, 

NOAA may require additional 

information to fulfill NEPA 

requirements. If NOAA determines that 

an environmental assessment is 

required, applicants may also be 

requested to assist in drafting the 

assessment. Applicants may also be 

required to cooperate with NOAA in 

identifying and implementing feasible 

measures to reduce or avoid any 

identified adverse environmental 

impacts of their proposal. The failure to 

do so shall be grounds for the denial of 

an application. In some cases if 

additional information is required after 

an application is selected, funds can be 

withheld by the Grants Officer under a 

special award condition requiring the 

recipient to submit additional 

environmental compliance information 

sufficient to enable NOAA to make an 

assessment on any impacts that a project 

may have on the environment. 

Applicants are required to answer the 

questions indicated in this 

Announcement of Federal Funding 

Opportunity. Applicants should answer 

the NEPA questions to the best of their 

ability with as much detail as possible. 

If the applicant does not answer all the 

questions indicated in the 

Announcement of Federal Funding 

Opportunity the application may be 

considered incomplete. 

Some of the questions may overlap 

with material provided in other parts of 

the application. This overlap occurs 

because the answers to the 

questionnaire are provided to NOAA 

staff members who do not review the 

other parts of the application. If 

appropriate, the applicant may copy the 

information from other parts of the 

application and paste it into the answers 

to the questionnaire. Many questions 

have a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ response. If the 

response is ‘‘no’’ the applicant does not 

need to elaborate on their answer. If the 

response is ‘‘yes’’ the question will have 

a second part asking the applicant to 

provide more information. 

Applicant NEPA questions are as 

follows: 

Question C1. Is the proposed activity going 

to be conducted in partnership with NOAA 

or would the proposed activity require 

NOAA’s direct involvement, activity, or 

oversight? If yes, describe NOAA’s 

involvement, activity, or oversight, including 

the name of the office or program that is 

involved. 

Question C2. Would the proposed activity 

involve any other Federal agency(ies) 

partnership, direct involvement, activity, or 

oversight? If yes, provide the name(s) of the 

agency(ies) and describe its involvement, 

activity, or oversight. 

Question D1. Provide a brief description of 

the location of the proposed activity. 

Question E1. List any Federal, state, or 

local permits, authorizations, or waivers that 

would be required to complete the proposed 

activity. Provide the date the permit, 

authorization, or waiver was obtained or will 

be obtained. Provide copies of the permit, 

authorization, or waiver as appropriate. Was 

a NEPA analysis prepared for the permit, 

authorization, or waiver? If yes, state the title 

of the NEPA analysis and provide copies of 

the NEPA analysis. 

Question F1. Is there the potential for the 

proposed activity to cause changes that 

would be different from normal ambient 

conditions (for example, temperature, light, 

turbidity, noise, other human activity levels, 

etc.)? If yes, describe the changes and the 

circumstances that would cause these 

changes. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This documents contains collectionof-information requirements subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 

The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 

424B, and SF–LLL have been approved 

by OMB under the respective control 

numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 0348– 

0040, and 0348–0046. The application 

requirements specific to the NOAA 

Regional Ocean Partnership Funding 

Program have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 

Control Number 0648–0538. Public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 3 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any 

other suggestions for reducing this 

burden to Ms. Cristi Reid, NOAA Office 

of Program Planning and Integration, 

SSMC 3, Room 15700, 1315 East West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The 

information collection does not request 

any proprietary or confidential 

information. No confidentiality is 

provided. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subjected to a penalty for failure to 

comply with, a collection of information 

subject to the requirements of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

C. Intergovernmental Review 

Applications under this program are 

subject to Executive Order 12372, 

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs’’ for states that participate in 

this process. It is the state agency’s 

responsibility to contact their state’s 

Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to find 

out about and comply with the state’s 

process under EO 12372. A list of the 

participating states and the 

clearinghouse points of contact can be 

found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/grants_spoc. 

D. Funding Restrictions 

None. 

E. Other Submission Requirements 

(1) Letter of Endorsement—As 

detailed in Section III.C., where 

applicable, each proposal must include 

a letter of support or endorsement from 

the lead ROP identified for each region 

for the purposes of this funding 

opportunity. 

(2) Full proposal application 

packages, including any letters of 

support, should be submitted through 

the apply function on Grants.gov. The 

standard NOAA funding application 

package is available at www.grants.gov. 

Please be advised that potential funding 

applicants must register with Grants.gov 

before any application materials can be 

submitted. An organization’s one time 

registration process may take up to three 

weeks to complete so please allow 

sufficient time to ensure applications 

are submitted before the closing date. 

The Grants.gov site contains directions 

for submitting an application, the 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55550 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

application package (forms), and is also 

where the completed application is 

submitted. 

(3) If an applicant does not have 

Internet access, one set of originals 

(signed) and two copies of the proposals 

and related forms should be mailed to 

the attention of James Lewis Free, 

NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234 

South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, 

South Carolina 29405–2413. No e-mail 

or fax copies will be accepted. Full 

proposal application packages, 

including any letters of support, should 

be submitted together in one package. 

V. Application Review Information 

A. Evaluation Criteria 

(1) Importance and/or relevance and 

applicability of proposed project to the 

program goals (50 percent): This 

ascertains whether there is intrinsic 

value in the proposed work and/or 

relevance to NOAA, Federal, regional, 

State, or local activities. 

For Focus Area 1, questions related to 

this criterion include: 

(a) Does the proposal identify clear 

goals and objectives that are consistent 

with ROP priorities and, as appropriate, 

the CMSP Framework (available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/ 

documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf)? For 

applicants from regions without an 

established ROP (e.g., Alaska and 

Hawaii), does the proposal demonstrate 

that they are working towards a regional 

ocean partnership? 

(b) To what extent does the proposal 

address CMSP Guiding Principles? 

(c) Does the proposal address an Area 

of Special Emphasis? 

(d) Does the proposal identify 

outcomes that are focused and realistic 

given the time frame and scope of the 

project? 

(e) Will the proposal advance ROP 

priorities and regional CMSP efforts? 

For applicants from regions without an 

established ROP, does the proposal 

advance regional CMSP efforts as well 

as show how the region will work 

towards establishing a ROP? 

(f) If applicable, does the proposal 

clearly identify ROP goals for CMSP 

development? Are they achievable? 

(g) Does the proposal identify primary 

partners, expand existing partnerships, 

and key stakeholders and describe how 

they will participate in project 

activities, including CMSP activities 

where applicable? 

(h) Does the proposal reflect strong 

support from project partners? 

(i) Does the proposal demonstrate 

either direct involvement or a letter of 

support from the lead ROP in the 

region? For applicants from regions 

without an established ROP, is the 

proposal supported by the relevant 

governors and lead State and Federal 

agencies and tribes involved in coastal 

and ocean management? 

(j) Will the proposal result in benefits 

that are region-wide or transferable to 

other ROP and CMSP priorities and 

regions? 

For Focus Area 2, questions include: 

(a) Does the proposal contribute to the 

establishment or implementation of a 

long term regional ocean partnership? 

(b) Does the proposal identify an 

effective development process that will 

result in a consensus for regional 

priorities, specific action steps to 

address those priorities, and tangible 

outcomes that will be accomplished? 

(c) Establishing a regional ocean 

partnership may come with challenges/ 

barriers (i.e., entities in a region may be 

accustomed to traditions of competing 

for economic development, research 

funding, and other financial or social 

benefits). To what extent does the 

proposal identify such challenges/ 

barriers and explain how such barriers 

will be overcome? 

(d) Does the proposal adequately 

identify methods in which development 

activities will be coordinated to achieve 

active and meaningful participation by 

all partners, including various levels of 

governments, and appropriate 

stakeholders in the region? 

(e) Does the proposal include methods 

to achieve lasting coordination for 

regional ocean governance and for the 

implementation of a regional ocean 

partnership? 

(f) Does the partnership include 

participation by a large cross section of 

state, Federal and tribal governments 

and participation by other relevant 

interest groups? 

(2) Technical and scientific merit (25 

percent): This assesses whether the 

approach is technically sound and/or 

innovative, if the methods are 

appropriate, and whether there are clear 

project goals and objectives. 

Questions relevant to this criterion 

include: 

(a) Is the approach appropriate for the 

stated goals and objectives? 

(b) Are the project goals and 

objectives achievable within the 

proposed time-frame? 

(c) Does the proposed approach 

incorporate current guidance, scientific, 

and/or technical advancements in the 

design and implementation of the 

proposed work? 

(d) If geospatial data are to be 

acquired, does the proposal promote 

interoperability with other components 

of regional and national geospatial 

systems? Has a thorough search been 

conducted to ensure that data do not 

already exist that can meet the intended 

purpose of the proposed acquisition? 

Will the data be collected to national 

and/or international standards and 

specifications that promote multipurpose uses in the future per Federal 

Geospatial Data Committee standards 

and the Ocean and Coastal Mapping 

Integration Act of 2009? Does the 

proposal comply with Executive Order 

12906, Coordinating Geographic Data 

Acquisition and Access: The National 

Spatial Data Infrastructure? 

(3) Overall qualifications of the 

funding applicants (15 percent): This 

criterion ascertains whether the funding 

applicant and identified collaborators 

possess the necessary education, 

experience, training, facilities, and 

administrative resources to accomplish 

the project. Questions relevant to this 

criterion include: 

(a) Are the investigators qualified and 

is the organizational framework 

appropriate to conduct a project of the 

nature and scope proposed? 

(b) Are investigators from other 

agencies and institutions within the 

region included as key personnel on the 

project to capitalize on available 

expertise and promote a regional 

approach? 

(c) Does the proposal adequately 

address the capacity of the applicant 

and partners to implement proposed 

work? 

(d) Does the proposal adequately 

define how participation and 

accountability among principle 

investigators and partners will be 

sustained to the continued progress and 

success? 

(4) Project costs and metrics (10 

percent). This criterion evaluates the 

budget to determine if it is realistic and 

commensurate with the project needs 

and time-frame. Questions relevant to 

this criterion include: 

(a) Does the proposal demonstrate that 

the budget is commensurate with 

project needs? 

(b) Is the cost effectiveness of the 

proposal optimized through strategic 

partnerships with collaborating 

institutions, agencies, or private sector 

partners? 

(c) Are the budget and budget 

justification adequately detailed to 

determine how requested funds will be 

used (i.e. salary, equipment, supplies, 

travel, etc.)? 

(5) Outreach and education (0 

percent). NOAA assesses whether this 

project provides a focused and effective 

education and outreach strategy 

regarding NOAA’s mission to protect 

the Nation’s natural resources. This 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 55551 

competition does not include this 

criterion. 

B. Review and Selection Process 

An initial administrative screening is 

conducted to determine compliance 

with requirements/completeness. All 

proposals will be evaluated and 

individually ranked in accordance with 

the assigned weights of the above 

evaluation criteria by at least three 

independent peer reviewers through a 

full merit review process (i.e., a mail 

and panel review process). A mix of 

Federal and non-Federal reviewers will 

be used. No consensus advice will be 

given by the independent peer 

reviewers through mail reviews or on 

the review panels. The merit reviewer’s 

ratings are used to produce a rank order 

of the proposals. The Selecting Official 

shall award according to rank order 

unless there is a specific justification for 

selecting out of rank order based upon 

factors listed in Section V.C. The 

Selecting Official or designee may also 

negotiate the funding level of the 

proposals to be recommended for 

funding. The Selecting Official will 

make the final recommendation for 

award to the Grants Officer, who is 

authorized to obligate the funds and 

execute the award. Proposals that are 

not funded in the current fiscal period 

may be considered for funding in 

another fiscal period without having to 

repeat the competitive review process. 

C. Selection Factors 

The merit review ratings shall provide 

a rank order to the Selecting Official for 

final funding recommendations. A 

program officer may first make 

recommendations to the Selecting 

Official applying the selection factors 

below. The Selecting Official shall 

award in the rank order unless the 

proposal is justified to be selected out 

of rank order based upon one or more 

of the following factors: 

1. Availability of funding. 

2. Balance/distribution of funds: 

a. Geographically. 

b. By type of institutions. 

c. By type of partners. 

d. By research areas. 

e. By project types. 

3. Whether this project duplicates 

other projects funded or considered for 

funding by NOAA or other Federal 

agencies. 

4. Program priorities and policy 

factors. 

5. Applicant’s prior award 

performance. 

6. Partnerships and/or Participation of 

targeted groups. 

7. Adequacy of information necessary 

for NOAA staff to make a NEPA 

determination and draft necessary 

documentation before recommendations 

for funding are made to the Grants 

Officer. 

The Selecting Official or designee 

may negotiate the funding level of the 

proposal. 

D. Anticipated Announcement and 

Award Dates 

The start date on proposals should be 

the first day of July, August or 

September, but no later than October 1, 

of 2011. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

A. Award Notices 

Applications recommended for 

funding by the selecting official will be 

forwarded to the NOAA Grants 

Management Division by the Program 

Office. The applicant will be notified by 

the program office by e-mail that their 

application was recommended for 

funding. The applicant must be aware 

that the notification by the program 

office is NOT the official award notice. 

Official notification happens only when 

the applicant receives an award notice 

from the Grants Officer either by postal 

mail or electronically. 

Unsuccessful applications for all 

Coastal Services Center programs will 

be destroyed after any FY 2012 funding 

actions are considered. Unsuccessful 

applicants will be notified by e-mail 

that their application was not 

recommended for funding no later than 

the proposed state date of the proposal. 

B. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements 

Department of Commerce Pre-Award 

Notification Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements 

Administrative and national policy 

requirements for all Department of 

Commerce awards are contained in the 

Department of Commerce Pre-Award 

Notification Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements contained 

in the Federal Register notice of 

February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696). This 

notice may be obtained under http:// 

www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/ 

a080211c.html. 

Limitation of Liability 

In no event will NOAA or the 

Department of Commerce be responsible 

for any proposal preparation costs. In 

addition, NOAA and DOC will not be 

responsible for project costs if this 

program fails to receive funding. 

Publication of this announcement does 

not oblige NOAA to award any specific 

project or to obligate any available 

funds. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Requirements 

See the NEPA information in Section 

IV., B., of this announcement. 

C. Reporting 

Grant recipients will be required to 

submit financial and performance 

(technical) progress reports 

electronically through the NOAA Grants 

On-Line System. Instructions for 

submitting financial and progress 

reports will be provided by the NOAA 

Grants Management Division. 

VII. Other Information 

After electronic submission of the 

application through Grants.gov, the 

person submitting the application will 

receive within the next 24 to 48 hours 

two e-mail messages from Grants.gov 

updating them on the progress of their 

application. The first e-mail will 

confirm receipt of the application by the 

Grants.gov system, and the second will 

indicate that the application has either 

been successfully validated by the 

system before transmission to the 

grantor agency or has been rejected 

because of errors. After the application 

has been validated, this same person 

will receive another e-mail when the 

application has been downloaded by the 

Federal agency. 

Official notification of an award 

notice is provided by the Grants 

Management Division, not the program 

office. If one incurs any costs before 

receiving an award agreement from an 

authorized NOAA grant official, one 

would do so solely at one’s own risk of 

these costs not being included under the 

award. 

The Coastal Services Center will not 

release the names of applicants 

submitting proposals unless ordered by 

a court or requested to do so by an 

appropriate NOAA official and 

administrative protocol. Applicants can 

use a NOAA public search feature to 

find out information about NOAA 

awards https:// 

grantsonline.rdc.noaa.gov/flows/ 

publicSearch/begin.do or go through the 

Freedom of Information Act process to 

request more information about grant 

competitions. More information about 

the NOAA FOI process is online at 

http://www.rdc.noaa.gov/foia/. 

Successful applicants will be 

requested to ensure that all interim 

progress reports indicate whether 

financial reports have been submitted to 

NOAA’s Grants Management Division 

and are up-to-date. Applicants in their 

final progress report will be asked to (a) 

Clearly state the resulting impact of 

their project and products in the coastal 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

55552 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / Notices 

management community; and (b) certify 

that ‘‘Final financial reports have been 

submitted to NOAA’s Grants 

Management Division and a final 

funding draw-down has been made 

through the Automated Standard 

Application for Payments (ASAP).’’ 

If equipment is purchased with grant 

funds, applicants may be asked to 

submit an equipment inventory in 

accordance with 15 CFR 14.34(f)(3), 15 

CFR 24.32(b) or 15 CFR 24.32(d)(2) as an 

appendix to progress reports. Further, 

the program office recommends that 

recipients request disposition 

instructions for equipment 

approximately 150 days before the 

project period ends to allow sufficient 

time to have equipment disposition 

requests addressed before a project 

period ends. Equipment disposition 

instructions typically require that 

recipients complete an ‘‘other’’ award 

action request in Grants Online. NOAA 

will provide instructions for disposition 

in accordance with 15 CFR 14.34(g)–(h) 

and 15 CFR 24.32(g)(2). 

Please be advised that potential 

funding applicants must register with 

Grants.gov before any application 

materials can be submitted. An 

organization’s one time registration 

process may take up to three weeks to 

complete so please allow sufficient time 

to ensure applications are submitted 

before the closing date. To use 

Grants.gov, applicants must have a Dun 

and Bradstreet Data Universal 

Numbering System (DUNS) number and 

be registered in the Central Contractor 

Registry (CCR). Allow a minimum of 

five days to complete the CCR 

registration. (Note: Your organization’s 

Employer Identification Number (EIN) 

will be needed on the application form.) 

The Grants.gov site contains 

directions for submitting an application, 

the application package (forms), and is 

also where the completed application is 

submitted. Applicants using Grants.gov 

must locate the downloadable 

application package for this solicitation 

by the Funding Opportunity Number or 

the CFDA number (11.473). Applicants 

will be able to download a copy of the 

application package, complete it off 

line, and then upload and submit the 

application via the Grants.gov site. 

After electronic submission of the 

application, the person submitting the 

application will receive within the next 

24 to 48 hours two e-mail messages from 

Grants.gov updating them on the 

progress of their application. The first email will confirm receipt of the 

application by the Grants.gov system, 

and the second will indicate that the 

application has either been successfully 

validated by the system before 

transmission to the grantor agency or 

has been rejected because of errors. 

After the application has been validated, 

this same person will receive another email when the application has been 

downloaded by the Federal agency. 

Christopher C. Cartwright, 

Associate Assistant Administrator for 

Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services 

and Coastal Zone Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22645 Filed 9–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–841] 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (the Department) 

preliminarily determines that sales of 

polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from Taiwan 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV) as provided in section 733(b) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are listed in the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

Pursuant to requests from the 

respondent, we are postponing by 

60 days the final determination and 

extending provisional measures from a 

four-month period to not more than 

6 months. Accordingly, we will make 

our final determination not later than 

135 days after publication of this 

preliminary determination. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 

2010 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer or Richard Rimlinger, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–0410 or (202) 482– 

4477 respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Applicable Statute and Regulations 

Unless otherwise indicated, all 

citations to the Act or the Department’s 

regulations, 19 CFR part 351, are to 

those provisions in effect on September 

27, 2004, the date of initiation of this 

investigation. 

Background 

On September 27, 2004, the 

Department initiated the antidumping 

duty investigation on PVA from Taiwan. 

See Initiation of Anti Dumping Duty 

Investigation: Polyvinyl Alcohol From 

Taiwan, 69 FR 59204 (October 4, 2004) 

(Initiation Notice). On October 22, 2004, 

the International Trade Commission 

(ITC) made a preliminary determination 

that there was not a reasonable 

indication of injury due to imports of 

the subject merchandise. See Polyvinyl 

Alcohol From Taiwan, 69 FR 63177 

(October 29, 2004). As a result, the 

Department terminated the 

investigation. 

The petitioner appealed the negative 

ITC preliminary determination to the 

Court of International Trade (CIT). On 

remand from the CIT, the ITC reversed 

its preliminary determination and found 

instead that there was a reasonable 

indication of injury due to imports of 

the subject merchandise. The CIT 

affirmed the ITC’s remand 

determination. See Celanese Chemicals, 

Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 08–125 

(CIT 2008). DuPont, an importer of the 

subject merchandise, appealed the CIT’s 

decision to the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit (CAFC). On December 

23, 2009, the CAFC affirmed the ITC’s 

decision. See Polyvinyl Alcohol From 

Taiwan; Determination, 75 FR 15726 

(March 30, 2010). The ITC notified the 

Department of its affirmative 

determination in the preliminary phase 

of an antidumping duty investigation 

concerning imports of PVA from Taiwan 

on March 25, 2010. See letter from the 

ITC dated March 25, 2010. On April 20, 

2010, the Department issued a decision 

memorandum which stated that the 

deadline for its preliminary 

determination is July 18, 2010. See 

memorandum to Laurie Parkhill dated 

April 20, 2010, at 10. 

On April 20, 2010, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire to Chang 

Chun Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (CCPC). 

On May 24, 2010, we received a 

response to section A of our 

questionnaire from CCPC. On June 10, 

2010, we received a response to sections 

B–D of our questionnaire from CCPC. 

We issued supplemental questionnaires 

to CCPC and received responses to these 

questionnaires from CCPC. 

On June 17, 2010, the petitioner 

requested that the Department postpone 

its preliminary determination by 50 

days. In accordance with section 

733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we postponed 

our preliminary determination by 

50 days. See Postponement of 

mstockstill on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES