57262 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Notices 

Appeals and Interferences (BPAI)). The 

USPTO’s goal for this time would be six 

months. The patent owner would not be 

required to waive any current statutory 

and procedural rights, and would have 

the same time periods for filing 

responses and other communications as 

those under the existing procedure. The 

six-month goal would only measure the 

time periods that the USPTO takes for 

actions (e.g., from the date of filing of 

a response to the date of mailing of the 

action), excluding the time that the 

patent owner takes for responding to an 

action. This goal compares to the 

current 19 to 20-month period that the 

USPTO takes for action in ex parte 

reexamination based on a review of 100 

certificates issued between June 15, 

2010, and July 31, 2010. 

In the pilot program, a fast-track ex 

parte reexamination voucher would be 

offered to patent holders demonstrating 

humanitarian practices with patented 

technologies as described below. 

Specifically, organizations may be 

eligible for the program if they engage 

in intellectual property practices that 

qualify as either humanitarian use or 

humanitarian research. 

‘‘Humanitarian use’’ would comprise 

four principles: subject matter, 

effectiveness, availability, and access. In 

general terms, subject matter evaluates 

whether the patented technology 

addresses a recognized humanitarian 

problem. Effectiveness judges whether 

the technology can be used or is being 

used to address that issue. Availability 

determines whether the technology is 

available to an affected impoverished 

population. Access evaluates whether 

the applicant has made significant 

efforts to increase access to the 

technology among such populations. 

The USPTO seeks to develop a workable 

test to apply these principles that is 

clear, concise, administratively efficient, 

and resistant to abuse. 

‘‘Humanitarian research’’ would 

comprise two principles: significance 

and access. Significance requires that 

the patented technology make a 

significant contribution to research on a 

problem that predominantly affects an 

impoverished population, such as the 

tropical diseases identified by the FDA 

in its priority review voucher scheme. 

Access determines that the patented 

technology was made available to 

researchers on generous terms. The 

USPTO seeks to develop a workable test 

to apply these principles which is clear, 

concise, administratively efficient, and 

resistant to abuse. 

Comments on one or more of the 

following questions would be helpful to 

the USPTO: 

1. The FDA awards priority review 

vouchers to entities that develop drugs 

which treat a tropical disease under 21 

U.S.C. 360n. Should recipients of this 

FDA voucher automatically receive a 

humanitarian fast-track ex parte 

reexamination voucher from the 

USPTO? 

2. FDA priority review vouchers are 

transferable on the open market. Should 

USPTO fast-track ex parte 

reexamination vouchers similarly be 

transferable on the open market? 

3. What humanitarian issues should 

qualify for the voucher program? 

Neglected diseases, debilitating health 

conditions in developing countries, 

chronic hunger, widespread public 

health problems such as lack of 

sanitation or potable water, and/or other 

issues predominantly affecting 

impoverished populations? Can these be 

defined with reference to existing 

humanitarian aid organizations? 

4. Other than actual use, how can a 

patent owner demonstrate that a 

patented technology would be effective 

at addressing a particular humanitarian 

issue? What kinds of expertise would be 

required to make those judgments? 

5. Should the USPTO consider 

statements from independent third 

parties (particularly humanitarian 

organizations or researchers) on the 

effectiveness or actual use of an 

invention to address humanitarian 

needs? Should such submissions be 

required to qualify for a voucher? 

6. Should certain elements (e.g., 

neglected diseases, tropical crops, 

developing countries) of qualifying 

humanitarian criteria be defined with 

reference to lists or criteria provided by 

external organizations experienced in 

such matters, such as the World Health 

Organization, National Institutes of 

Health, Food and Drug Administration, 

United Nations, or U.S. Agency for 

International Development? If so, which 

criteria of other public or private 

organizations should be followed? 

7. What actions should be considered 

to determine whether a patent holder 

has made significant efforts to increase 

access to a patented technology? What 

types of evidence of such actions can be 

submitted to minimize the burden on 

both patent owners and the USPTO? 

8. How should a patented 

technology’s significance to a 

humanitarian research project be 

determined? Should significance mean 

that the research could or would not 

have occurred without the use of the 

patented technology? Would 

considering economic or logistical 

factors suffice? Should qualifying 

research efforts meet certain minimum 

thresholds (resources, number of 

researchers involved, involvement from 

recognized humanitarian groups, etc.) to 

prevent abuse? 

9. For the humanitarian research 

qualification, what factors should 

determine whether terms of use are 

generous? Should it only focus on the 

cost of the patented technology or 

consider other factors? What if the 

granting entity retains any rights over 

the results of the humanitarian 

research? 

10. How can the program encompass 

humanitarian issues affecting 

impoverished populations in more 

developed countries in a way that is 

efficient to administer and deters abuse? 

In particular, how should an applicant 

demonstrate the existence of an 

impoverished group and that the 

product or treatment primarily targets 

that group? 

11. Should vouchers to accelerate 

initial examination rather than 

reexamination be offered for 

technologies addressing humanitarian 

needs? Are there other pro-business 

strategies that the Department of 

Commerce or the USPTO should pursue 

in future programs to incentivize 

humanitarian research and development 

and/or best practices for intellectual 

property with humanitarian uses? 

12. Would non-monetary prizes or 

awards sponsored by the USPTO 

recognizing humanitarian efforts 

encourage greater investment in the 

field? What criteria should be used for 

selecting recipients? 

Dated: September 13, 2010. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23395 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XZ11 

New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils; Amendment 5 

to the Monkfish Fishery Management 

Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Intent 

to prepare an environmental assessment 

(EA); request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This supplemental notice is to 

alert the interested public of the New 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Notices 57263 

England Fishery Management Council’s 

(Council) intent to change the level of 

NEPA analysis for Amendment 5 to the 

Monkfish Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP) from an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) to an EA and to provide 

for public comment on this course of 

action. The primary purpose of 

Amendment 5 is to address the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requirements 

for annual catch limits (ACLs) and 

accountability measures (AMs), to set 

multi-year specifications of days-at-sea 

(DAS) and trip limits, and to make other 

adjustments to measures in the FMP. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before 5 p.m., EST, on 

October 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

sent by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail to the following address: 

0648–XZ11@noaa.gov; 

• Mail or hand deliver to Paul 

Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water St., Mill 2, Newburyport, MA, 

01950. Mark the outside of the envelope 

‘‘Monkfish Amendment 5 EA 

Comments’’; or 

• Fax to (978) 465–3116. 

Questions about this action may be 

directed to the Council office at the 

previously provided address, or by 

request to the Council by telephone 

(978) 465–0492. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water St., Mill 2, Newburyport, MA, 

01950, (telephone 978–465–0492). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 20, 2009, the Council 

announced its intention to prepare, in 

cooperation with NMFS, an EIS in 

accordance with NEPA to assess 

potential effects on the human 

environment of alternative measures to 

address the new Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements for ACLs and AMs (74 FR 

7880). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also 

required that the ACLs and AMs be 

adopted by 2011. During the early 

development stages of Amendment 5, 

the Council considered including 

proposals for adopting a major revision 

to the management program, shifting 

from effort controls (DAS and trip 

limits) to catch share management 

(individual vessel quotas or sectors). By 

September 2009, the Council recognized 

that, due to their complexity, 

development of catch share alternatives 

would likely delay Amendment 5, and 

risk not meeting the statutory ACL/AM 

deadline. At that time, the Council 

decided to separate the catch shares 

portion of the amendment so it could 

focus on the remaining elements. It also 

agreed to consider catch shares in the 

next management action. With this 

decision, it was determined that 

remaining measures contained in 

Amendment 5 were not likely to be 

significant under NEPA, and the 

development of an EIS was no longer 

necessary. 

The Council held six public hearings 

on the EA prepared for Amendment 5 

between February 8 and March 9, 2010. 

Based on comments received and the 

preliminary analysis contained in the 

EA, the preparation of an EIS no longer 

appears necessary. 

Dated: September 15, 2010. 

Carrie Selberg, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23441 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

New Policy Announcing That 

Traditional Horizontal Survey Projects 

Performed With Terrestrial Survey 

Techniques Will No Longer Be 

Accepted for Processing or Loading 

Into NGS Databases 

AGENCY: National Geodetic Survey 

(NGS), National Ocean Service (NOS), 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). 

ACTION: Informational Notice. 

SUMMARY: Beginning January 1, 2011 the 

National Geodetic Survey (NGS) will 

cease accepting data, all orders and 

classes, from triangulation and traverse 

geodetic surveys as they are described 

in the Federal Geodetic Control 

Committee September 1984 ‘‘Standards 

and Specifications for Geodetic Control 

Networks’’ for inclusion into the NGS 

Integrated Data Base (NGSIDB). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Mr. Mark Eckl, 

Observation and Analysis Division 

Chief, National Geodetic Survey (N/ 

NGS4), 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910; Phone: (301) 713– 

3176 x 117; E-mail: 

mark.eckl@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Geodetic Survey has not 

received a traditional (triangulation or 

traverse) survey for purely horizontal 

work since 2006. All horizontal surveys 

relevant to the mission of NGS 

performed by individuals external to 

NGS are now performed with GPS. The 

maintenance of computer software and 

hardware dedicated to traditional 

horizontal surveys requires use of 

resources that are limited and will be 

used more appropriately elsewhere. 

Dated: September 1, 2010. 

Juliana P. Blackwell, 

Director, Office of National Geodetic Survey, 

National Ocean Service, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23356 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JE–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Solicitation of Nominations for 

Membership on the Civil Nuclear Trade 

Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Administration, DOC. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

is currently seeking nominations for 

membership on the Civil Nuclear Trade 

Advisory Committee (CINTAC). The 

purpose of the CINTAC is to advise the 

Secretary regarding the development 

and administration of programs to 

expand United States exports of civil 

nuclear goods and services in 

accordance with applicable United 

States regulations. 

DATES: Nominations for members must 

be received on or before Tuesday, 

October 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: All nominations should be 

submitted either via e-mail to 

civilnuclear@trade.gov, or via mail to 

Frank Caliva, Office of Energy & 

Environmental Industries, Room 4053, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank Caliva, Office of Energy & 

Environmental Industries, Room 4407, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; phone 202–482– 

8245; fax 202–482–5665; e-mail 

civilnuclear@trade.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of Commerce is in the 

process of renewing the CINTAC charter 

for another two-year term. The Secretary 

of Commerce invites nominations to the 

CINTAC for the upcoming two-year 

charter term. Members will be selected, 

in accordance with applicable 

Department of Commerce guidelines, 

based on their ability to advise the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES