Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32167 

suggest methods for performing more 

economically and share in any resulting 

savings or (2) are required to establish 

a program to identify and submit to the 

Government methods for performing 

more economically. These 

recommendations are submitted to the 

Government as value engineering 

change proposals (VECP’s) and they 

must include specific information. This 

information is needed to enable the 

Government to evaluate the VECP and, 

if accepted, to arrange for an equitable 

sharing plan. 

B. Annual Reporting Burden 

Respondents: 400. 

Responses per Respondent: 4. 

Annual Responses: 1,600. 

Hours per Response: 30. 

Total Burden Hours: 48,000. 

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

information collection documents from 

the General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F 

Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, 

DC 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755. 

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0027, 

Value Engineering Requirements, in all 

correspondence. 

Dated: June 23, 2009. 

Al Matera, 

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. 

[FR Doc. E9–15983 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[OMB Control No. 9000–0095] 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; 

Information Collection; Commerce 

Patent Regulations 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Notice of request for comments 

regarding the reinstatement of a 

previously existing OMB clearance. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

Secretariat will be submitting to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) a request to review and approve 

a reinstatement of a previously 

approved information collection 

requirement concerning Commerce 

Patent Regulations. 

Public comments are particularly 

invited on: Whether this collection of 

information is necessary; whether it will 

have practical utility; whether our 

estimate of the public burden of this 

collection of information is accurate, 

and based on valid assumptions and 

methodology; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and ways in 

which we can minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, through the use of 

appropriate technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

September 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect 

of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to: General Services 

Administration (GSA), Regulatory 

Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F Street, NW., 

Room 4041, Washington, DC 20405. 

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0095, 

Commerce Patent Regulations, in all 

correspondence. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, 

Contract Policy Division, GSA, (202) 

501–3775. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose 

As a result of the Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) publishing a 

final rule in the Federal Register 

implementing Public Law 98–620 (52 

FR 8552, March 18, 1987), a revision to 

FAR subpart 27.3 to implement the 

Commerce regulation was published in 

the Federal Register as an interim rule 

on June 12, 1989 (54 FR 25060). The 

final rule was published without change 

on June 21, 1990. 

A Government contractor must report 

all subject inventions to the contracting 

officer, submit a disclosure of the 

invention, and identify any publication, 

or sale, or public use of the invention 

(52.227–11(c), 52.227–12(c), and 

52.227–13(e)(2)). Contractors are 

required to submit periodic or interim 

and final reports listing subject 

inventions (27.303(b)(2)(i) and (ii)). In 

order to ensure that subject inventions 

are reported, the contractor is required 

to establish and maintain effective 

procedures for identifying and 

disclosing subject inventions (52.227– 

11, Alternate IV; 52.227–13(e)(1)). In 

addition, the contractor must require his 

employees, by written agreements, to 

disclose subject inventions (52.227– 

11(f)(2); 52.227–12(e)(2); 52.227– 

13(e)(4)). The contractor also has an 

obligation to utilize the subject 

invention, and agree to report, upon 

request, the utilization or efforts to 

utilize the subject invention (27.302(e); 

52.227–11(f); 52.227–12(f)). 

B. Annual Reporting Burden 

Respondents: 1,200. 

Responses per Respondent: 9.75. 

Total Responses: 11,700. 

Hours per Response: 3.9. 

Total Burden Hours: 45,630. 

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: 

Requesters may obtain a copy of the 

information collection documents from 

the General Services Administration, 

Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), 1800 F 

Street, NW., Room 4041, Washington, 

DC 20405, telephone (202) 501–4755. 

Please cite OMB Control No. 9000–0095, 

Commerce Patent Regulations, in all 

correspondence. 

Dated: June 23, 2009. 

Al Matera, 

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy. 

[FR Doc. E9–15979 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

Findings of Scientific Misconduct 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HHS. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) 

and the Assistant Secretary for Health 

have taken final action in the following 

case: 

Juan Luis R. Contreras, M.D., 

University of Alabama at Birmingham: 

Based on a finding of scientific 

misconduct made by the University of 

Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) on 

January 24, 2008, a report of the UAB 

Investigation Committee, dated 

November 21, 2007, and analysis 

conducted by ORI during its oversight 

review, and further discussion between 

UAB and ORI to clarify UAB’s 

investigative findings and decision with 

respect to the requirements of 42 CFR 

Parts 50 and 93, the U.S. Public Health 

Service (PHS) found that Dr. Juan Luis 

R. Contreras, Assistant Professor, 

Department of Surgery— 

Transplantation, UAB, engaged in 

scientific misconduct in research 

supported by National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), 

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 

grants R01 AI22293, R01 AI39793, and 

32168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

1Hutchings, A., Wu, J., Asiedu, C., Hubbard, W., 

Eckhoff, D., Contreras, J., Thomas, F.T., Neville, D., 

& Thomas, J.M. ‘‘The immune decision toward 

allograft tolerance in non-human primates requires 

early inhibition of innate immunity and induction 

of immune regulation.’’ Transpl Immunol. 11(3– 

4):335–344, July–September 2003. (Retraction 

required by UAB.) 

Thomas, J.M., Eckhoff, D.E., Contreras, J.L., 

Lobashevsky, A.L., Hubbard, W.J., Moore, J.K., 

Cook, W.J., Thomas, F.T., & Neville, D.M. Jr. 

‘‘Durable donor-specific T and B cell tolerance in 

rhesus macaques induced with peritransplantation 

anti-CD3 immunotoxin and deoxyspergualin: 

Absence of chronic allograft nephropathy.’’ 

Transplantation 69(12):2497–2503, June 27, 2000. 

(Retracted.) 

Thomas, J.M., Contreras, J.L., Jiang, X.L., Eckhoff, 

D.E., Wang, P.X., Hubbard, W.J., Lobashevsky, A.L., 

Wang, W., Asiedu, C., Stavrou, S., Cook, W.J., 

Robbin, M.L., Thomas, F.T., & Neville, D.M. Jr. 

‘‘Peritransplant tolerance induction in macaques: 

Early events reflecting the unique synergy between 

immunotoxin and deoxyspergualin.’’ 

Transplantation 68(11):1660–1673, December 15, 

1999. (Retracted.) 

Contreras, J.L., Eckhoff, D.E., Cartner, S., Frenette, 

L., Thomas, F.T., Robbin, M.L., Neville, D.M. Jr., & 

Thomas, J.M. ‘‘Tolerability and side effects of antiCD3-immunotoxin in preclinical testing in kidney 

and pancreatic islet transplant recipients.’’ 

Transplantation 68(2):215–219, July 27, 1999. 

(Retracted.) 

Contreras, J.L., Wang, P.X., Eckhoff, D.E., 

Lobashevsky, A.L., Asiedu, C., Frenette, L., Robbin, 

M.L., Hubbard, W.J., Cartner, S., Nadler, S., Cook, 

W.J., Sharff, J., Shiloach, J., Thomas, F.T., Neville, 

D.M. Jr., & Thomas, J.M. ‘‘Peritransplant tolerance 

induction with anti-CD3-immunotoxin: A matter of 

proinflammatory cytokine control.’’ 

Transplantation 65(9):1159–1169, May 15, 1998. 

(Retracted.) 

2Hubbard, W.J., Eckhoff, D., Contreras, J.L., 

Thomas, F.T., Hutchings, A., & Thomas, J.M. 

‘‘STEALTH on the preclinical path to tolerance.’’ 

Graft 5(6):322–330, 2002. (Retraction required by 

UAB—Journal has ceased publication.) 

Hubbard, W.J., Contreras, J.V., Eckhoff, D.E., 

Thomas, F.T., Neville, D.M., & Thomas, J.M. 

‘‘Immunotoxins and tolerance induction in 

primates.’’ Current Opinion in Organ 

Transplantation 5:29–34, 2000. (Partially retracted.) 

U19 AI056542, National Institute of 

Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 

Diseases (NIDDK), NIH, grant U19 

DK57958, and NIH/Novartis 

Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement 96–MH–01/NIHITC–0697. 

PHS found that Respondent engaged 

in scientific misconduct by falsifying in 

seven publications reports of research 

results in NIH-supported experiments 

with non-human primate (NHP) renal 

allograft recipients. 

Specifically, PHS found that 

Respondent engaged in scientific 

misconduct by falsely reporting in five 

publications 1 that at least 32 specific 

non-human primates in a renal allotransplantation study had received 

bilateral nephrectomies, while in fact an 

intrinsic kidney was left in place in 

each animal, and generally, in two 

additional publications 2 by reporting 

that all long term surviving non-human 

primate renal allograft recipients had 

received bilateral nephrectomies of their 

native kidneys. 

The objective of the research was to 

test the effectiveness of different 

immunomodulating agents, 

administered around the time of renal 

transplantation in non-human primates, 

in preventing rejection of the 

transplanted kidney. To determine 

whether or not the transplanted kidney 

was functioning (able to sustain life) 

after the immunomodulating therapy, 

the animals were to have both of their 

native kidneys removed at or shortly 

after the time of transplant, so that their 

survival would depend solely on the 

viability of the transplanted kidney. 

Failure to remove both native kidneys 

rendered it impossible to assess the 

effectiveness of the immunomodulating 

treatment. 

Both Dr. Contreras and PHS are 

desirous of concluding this matter 

without further expense of time and 

other resources, and the parties have 

entered into a Voluntary Exclusion 

Agreement to settle the matter. Dr. 

Contreras accepted responsibility for the 

reporting described above, but denied 

that he intentionally committed 

scientific misconduct. The settlement is 

not an admission of liability on the part 

of the Respondent. 

Dr. Contreras has entered into a 

Voluntary Exclusion Agreement in 

which he has voluntarily agreed, for a 

period of three (3) years, beginning on 

June 17, 2009: 

(1) To exclude himself voluntarily 

from any contracting or subcontracting 

with any agency of the United States 

Government and from eligibility or 

involvement in nonprocurement 

programs of the United States 

Government referred to as ‘‘covered 

transactions’’ and defined by 2 CFR 

Parts 180 and 376; and 

(2) To exclude himself from serving in 

any advisory capacity to PHS, including 

but not limited to service on any PHS 

advisory committee, board, and/or peer 

review committee, or as a consultant. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Director, Division of Investigative 

Oversight, Office of Research Integrity, 

1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, 

Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453–8800. 

John Dahlberg, 

Director, Division of Investigative Oversight, 

Office of Research Integrity. 

[FR Doc. E9–15909 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

Title: Developmental Disabilities 

Program Independent Evaluation 

Project. 

OMB No.: New Collection. 

Description: The Developmental 

Disabilities Program Independent 

Evaluation (DDPIE) Project is an 

independent (non-biased) evaluation to 

examine through rigorous and 

comprehensive performance-based 

research procedures the targeted impact 

on the lives of people with 

developmental disabilities and their 

families of three programs funded under 

the Developmental Disabilities 

Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 

2000 (DD Act): (1) State Councils on 

Developmental Disabilities (SCDDs); (2) 

State Protection and Advocacy Systems 

for Individuals with developmental 

disabilities (P&As); and (3) University 

Centers for Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities (UCEDDs). The intent of this 

evaluation is to understand and report 

on the accomplishments of these 

programs, including collaborative efforts 

among the DD Network programs. The 

results of this evaluation will provide a 

report to the Administration on 

Developmental Disabilities (ADD) (the 

agency that administers these programs) 

with information on the effectiveness of 

its programs and policies and serve as 

a way for ADD to promote 

accountability to the public. 

The independent evaluation is a 

response to accountability requirements 

for ADD as identified in the 

Developmental Disabilities Assistance 

and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (DD Act), 

the Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, and the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART), administered by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

project meets the requirements of PART 

by providing a non-biased method of 

evaluating the effectiveness and impact 

of DD Network programs on the lives of 

people with developmental disabilities 

and their families. 

ADD is seeking OMB approval for the 

evaluation tools (e.g., data collection 

instruments). The evaluation tools are 

designed to collect data for two 

purposes: (1) To measure the programs 

according to indicators (structural, 

process, output, and outcome) in key 

function areas; and (2) to establish 

performance standards for measuring