32112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

procedures, error rates, peer review, and 

general industry acceptance. Further, 

the vendor may be required to provide 

technical and expert support for 

litigation to support the application’s 

capabilities and to establish cases 

against violators. If the vendor’s 

application has previously been subject 

to such scrutiny in a court of law, the 

vendor should describe the evidence 

and any court finding on the reliability 

of the application. 

Additionally, to maintain the integrity 

of the e-log application for fisheries 

management, the vendor will be 

required to sign a non-disclosure 

agreement limiting the release of certain 

information that might compromise 

either the confidentiality of fishermen’s 

personally identifying information or 

proprietary fishing data. The vendor 

shall include a statement confirming its 

agreement with these conditions. The 

scope of litigation support may include, 

but is not limited to, technical 

capabilities of the e-log application, elog application support and training 

content, alterations to the e-log 

application, and data content and 

history. 

A vendor may voluntarily retire a 

certification to terminate its obligation 

to provide litigation support for the 

product; such action must be in writing 

to PIFSC. The vendor’s obligation to 

provide litigation support will end 180 

calendar days after such notification is 

received. If a certification is retired, the 

e-log application is no longer available 

for use in the fishery. 

Change Control 

Once an e-log application is certified, 

it is the responsibility of the vendor to 

notify PIFSC of any change in its 

submission, such as a change affecting 

hardware or software components, 

performance characteristics, or customer 

support services or contacts. PIFSC 

reserves the right to reconsider and 

revoke the certification if, as a result of 

the change, the vendor’s application is 

deemed to no longer satisfy PIFSC 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. The vendor must report to 

the PIFSC e-log technical panel (as 

described in the Certification 

Guidelines) any changes to the certified 

product, along with updated copies of 

the new configuration prior to 

deploying the changes to customers. If 

the change affects the e-log application 

components used to meet the 

requirements, PIFSC may require reevaluation and possible recertification. 

The technical panel will notify the 

vendor within 30 days with a 

recertification statement which will say 

whether a recertification is required and 

if so, why and when the recertification 

would be completed. The vendor may 

report planned changes to the certified 

e-log application to PIFSC and request 

an advisory recertification statement 

within 30 days. The vendor is permitted 

to provide quick code upgrades for 

customers to handle critical defects; 

however, the vendor must report the 

code change to PIFSC prior to deploying 

the change to a customer. 

Advertising Prohibition 

Once a product is certified, the 

vendor may state that the product is 

‘‘certified for electronic logbook 

submission for the Hawaii pelagic 

longline fishery.’’ However, the vendor 

must not use in the vendor’s name or 

the product name, or claim endorsement 

of the e-log application by, any of the 

following: NOAA, NMFS, PIFSC, or 

PIRO. 

Expiration of Certification 

The certification expiration date for a 

product is determined by changes to 

PIFSC reporting requirements and 

reporting activity by product users. 

Additionally, PIFSC may set an 

expiration date for a certification based 

on other requirements. PIFSC will notify 

the vendor at least 120 days prior to 

expiration. PIFSC will set an expiration 

date for a certification if the product has 

not been used to submit an electronic 

logbook for three years. 

Revocation of Certification 

PISFC may revoke certification of a 

product if any of the following occurs: 

1. PIFSC repeatedly receives 

inaccurate or incorrectly formatted 

electronic logbooks and the error is 

traced to a defect in the e-log 

application; 

2. The vendor modifies a certified elog application without reporting the 

modification to PIFSC; or 

3. The vendor violates advertising 

prohibitions. 

If a certification is revoked, the e-log 

application is no longer available for use 

in the fishery. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15958 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[Docket 20–2009 and 22–2009] 

Foreign-Trade Zones 29 and 203 

Applications for Subzone Authority 

Dow Corning Corporation and REC 

Silicon; Notice of Public Hearing and 

Extension of Comment Period 

A public hearing will be held on the 

applications for subzone authority at the 

Dow Corning Corporation (Dow 

Corning) facilities in Carrollton, 

Elizabethtown and Shepherdsville, 

Kentucky (74 FR 21621–21622, 5/8/09) 

and at the REC Silicon facility in Moses 

Lake, Washington (74 FR 25488–25489, 

5/28/09). The Commerce examiner will 

hold the public hearing on September 1, 

2009 at 1 p.m., at the Department of 

Commerce, Room 4830, 1401 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20230. Interested parties should 

indicate their intent to participate in the 

hearing and provide a summary of their 

remarks no later than August 28, 2009. 

The comment period for the cases 

referenced above is being extended to 

September 16, 2009, to allow interested 

parties additional time in which to 

comment. Rebuttal comments may be 

submitted during the subsequent 15-day 

period, until October 1, 2009. 

Submissions (original and one 

electronic copy) shall be addressed to 

the Board’s Executive Secretary at: 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 

1401 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

For further information, contact 

Elizabeth Whiteman at 

Elizabeth_Whiteman@ita.doc.gov or 

(202) 482–0473. 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–15966 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

[Docket No. 0906261096–91096–01] 

RIN 0648–ZC08 

Comparative Analysis of Marine 

Ecosystem Organization (CAMEO) 

AGENCIES: Fisheries Headquarters 

Program Office (FHQ), National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), National 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32113 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Commerce; 

National Science Foundation (NSF). 

ACTION: Notice of funding availability. 

SUMMARY: This announcement solicits 

proposals for the Comparative Analysis 

of Marine Ecosystem Organization 

(CAMEO) Program which is 

implemented as a partnership between 

the NOAA National Marine Fisheries 

Service and National Science 

Foundation Division of Ocean Sciences. 

The purpose of CAMEO is to strengthen 

the scientific basis for an ecosystem 

approach to the stewardship of our 

ocean and coastal living marine 

resources. The program will support 

fundamental research to understand 

complex dynamics controlling 

ecosystem structure, productivity, 

behavior, resilience, and population 

connectivity, as well as effects of 

climate variability and anthropogenic 

pressures on living marine resources 

and critical habitats. CAMEO 

encourages the development of multiple 

approaches, such as ecosystem models 

and comparative analyses of managed 

and unmanaged areas (e.g., marine 

protected areas) that can ultimately form 

a basis for forecasting and decision 

support. Further information is 

available on the CAMEO web site 

(http://cameo.noaa.gov). 

DATES: Full proposals must be received 

and validated by Grants.gov, 

postmarked, or provided to a delivery 

service on or before 11:59 p.m. ET, 

October 5, 2009. Please note: Validation 

or rejection of your application by 

Grants.gov may take up to 2 business 

days after submission. Please consider 

this process in developing your 

submission timeline. Applications 

received after the deadline will be 

rejected/returned to the sender without 

further consideration. Use of U.S. mail 

or another delivery service must be 

documented with a receipt. No facsimile 

or electronic mail applications will be 

accepted. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic application 

packages are strongly encouraged and 

are available at: http://www.grants.gov/. 

If the applicant’s only mode of 

submitting a proposal is via paper 

application, or if the applicant has 

difficulty accessing Grants.gov or 

downloading the required forms, they 

should contact: Lora Clarke, CAMEO, 

NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East–West 

Highway, Room 14505, Silver Spring, 

MD, 20910 or by phone at (301) 713– 

2239, or via internet at 

Lora.Clarke@noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Ford, CAMEO Program 

Manager, NOAA/NMFS, (301) 713– 

2239, Michael.Ford@noaa.gov; Lora 

Clarke, Associate Program Manager, 

NOAA/NMFS, (301) 713–2239, 

Lora.Clarke@noaa.gov; Cynthia 

Suchman, Associate Program Director, 

Biological Oceanography, OCE/GEO/ 

NSF, (703) 292–8582, 

csuchman@nsf.gov; David Garrison, 

Program Director, Biological 

Oceanography, OCE/GEO/NSF, (703) 

292–8582, dgarriso@nsf.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: CAMEO 

will be implemented as an interagency 

partnership between NOAA–NMFS and 

NSF. The interests of these agencies 

overlap in funding basic scientific 

research that will lead to discovery and 

a deeper understanding of the factors 

controlling ecosystem dynamics, with 

the potential to create tools for effective 

living marine resource management. 

The first competition for the program 

was held in 2008, with several initial 

projects selected for FY2009 funding. 

This announcement provides guidance 

to researchers wishing to apply for 

CAMEO support in FY2010. We expect 

that CAMEO proposals will continue to 

focus on comparisons of environments 

where there is a rich base of 

environmental and biological data, 

where there are clear and compelling 

management issues, and where further 

research is likely to result in a deeper 

understanding of ecosystem processes 

that ultimately can lead to management 

tools or solutions. Projects with a strong 

probability of producing results that can 

be widely applied are likely to be most 

compelling. A substantial challenge is to 

develop research that integrates across 

spatial and temporal scales –– from 

conducting local, short–term 

investigations to evaluating regional, 

decadal processes. The over–arching 

goal is to produce information 

applicable to stocks of managed 

resources and ecosystems that will 

support management decisions. Because 

of their link to management, CAMEO 

projects must emphasize population and 

community processes affecting upper 

trophic levels and/or multi–species 

interactions. Proposals should not be 

submitted that focus on areas (such as 

microbial dynamics, biogeochemical 

cycling, and ocean acidification) that 

overlap existing programs within NSF 

and NMFS. Questions about whether 

proposals are appropriate for the 

CAMEO program should be directed to 

the NOAA or NSF technical contacts. As 

appropriate to each proposal, applicants 

should employ one or more of the 

approaches below, providing sufficient 

detail for critical evaluation of 

methodology and connection to CAMEO 

objectives. 

1. Synthesis of existing time series and/ 

or ongoing observation programs 

Projects may draw on a wide range of 

existing data and observations, 

including historical data sets and 

ongoing programs. If this approach is 

chosen, it is expected that the project 

will primarily focus on the synthesis of 

information rather than the 

development or support of new 

observational capabilities. Any new 

field studies must be well justified and 

integrated with existing data. 

2. Modeling 

Modeling is likely to be an approach 

common to many CAMEO proposals. 

These efforts may range from the 

development of conceptual models for 

emergent properties such as 

connectivity or resilience to more 

specific numerical models used for 

ecosystem comparisons or predictions. 

Among the many possible modeling 

approaches, different models (or sets of 

assumptions) may be compared for the 

same ecosystem, or the same (or similar) 

models may be applied to compare 

different ecosystems. 

3. Experimental approach 

Carefully planned experiments can 

shed light on the mechanisms driving 

large–scale patterns and processes. 

Moreover, experiments can provide 

information to parameterize models, 

e.g., environmental tolerances and 

reproductive, growth, survival, and 

trophic transfer rates. In CAMEO, 

comparative experimental approaches 

may include traditional field, 

mesocosm, or laboratory experiments as 

well as non–traditional opportunities 

provided by experimental adaptive 

management (conducted at large spatial 

scales with the potential to illuminate 

mechanisms structuring ecosystems). 

4. Human dimensions 

Human activities have compounded 

climate–related and other 

environmental changes affecting marine 

ecosystems. In turn, human systems 

need to respond and adapt to changes in 

the availability of marine living 

resources and other goods and services 

resulting from ecosystem processes. In 

CAMEO, collaborations between natural 

and social scientists may undertake 

interdisciplinary comparative research 

on ecosystems, living resources and 

human interactions. 

5. Taking multiple and integrative 

approaches 

In some cases, the aim of CAMEO — 

to develop links between fundamental 

research on marine ecosystems and 

issues of living resources management 

— may be addressed effectively through 

integration of the above approaches. 

32114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

Therefore, research strategies combining 

approaches may provide an important 

contribution to the CAMEO Program. 

Program Priorities: 

This funding opportunity will 

implement CAMEO research by 

supporting the development of research 

tools and strategic approaches. The 

following types of proposals are 

encouraged: 

1. Development of strategies and 

methodologies for comparative analyses 

that can be applied consistently across 

spatial and temporal scales and 

ecosystems, and that facilitate the 

design of decision support tools for 

marine populations, ecosystems and 

habitats. 

2. Development of models that 

address key scientific questions by 

comparing ecosystems and ecosystem 

processes. Models that are 

geographically and temporally portable, 

and that incorporate assessment of 

modeling skill, are particularly 

encouraged. 

3. Retrospective studies that analyze, 

re–analyze or synthesize existing 

information (historic, time–series, 

ongoing program, etc.) using a 

comparative approach. 

4. Studies that integrate the human 

dimension within ecosystem dynamics. 

The CAMEO program seeks to promote 

interdisciplinary research using 

comparative approaches to link marine 

ecosystem research with the social and 

behavioral sciences in new and vital 

ways. 

ELECTRONIC ACCESS: 

The full text of the full funding 

opportunity announcement for this 

program can be accessed via the 

Grants.gov web site at http:// 

www.grants.gov. The announcement 

will also be available by contacting the 

program officials identified under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Applicants must comply with all 

requirements contained in the full 

funding opportunity announcement. 

STATUTORY AUTHORITY: 

Authority for CAMEO is provided by 

the following: 33 U.S.C. 1442 for the 

National Marine Fisheries Service and 

42 U.S.C. 1861–75 for the National 

Science Foundation. 

CFDA: 

11.472, Unallied Science Program 

FUNDING AVAILABILITY: 

It is anticipated that up to $6 million 

will be available to support 2–3 year 

projects in response to this 

announcement 

ELIGIBILITY: 

Eligible applicants are U.S. 

institutions of higher education, other 

non–profits, state, local, Indian Tribal 

Governments, and Federal agencies that 

possess the statutory authority to 

receive financial assistance. 

International collaborations are 

encouraged, but international partners 

are not eligible to receive funding, 

including travel funds. Collaborative 

partnerships between academic or 

private researchers and NOAA scientists 

are highly encouraged. Federal 

employees are not eligible to apply for 

salary. 

COST SHARING REQUIREMENTS: 

None is required. Applicants may 

seek supplementary funding from other 

agencies or foundations (non–profits, 

state, local etc). Applicants are 

encouraged to discuss funding 

opportunities with these entities prior to 

submitting proposal applications to 

NOAA/NSF and should list any 

supplementary funding in their 

applications. 

EVALUATION AND SELECTION 

PROCEDURES: 

The general evaluation criteria and 

selection factors that apply to full 

applications to this funding opportunity 

are summarized below. Further 

information about the evaluation criteria 

and selection factors can be found in the 

full funding opportunity announcement. 

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR 

PROJECTS: 

The general evaluation criteria that 

apply to full applications to this funding 

opportunity are summarized below. For 

the purposes of this competition, NOAA 

will adopt the NSF evaluation criteria. 

NSF merit review criteria are listed 

below. Following each criterion are 

potential considerations that the 

reviewer may employ in the evaluation. 

These are suggestions and not all will 

apply to any given proposal. Each 

reviewer will be asked to address only 

those that are relevant to the proposal 

and for which he/she is qualified to 

make judgments. Principal Investigators 

(PIs) should be aware that a component 

of Criterion 2 will be how well the 

project meets CAMEO program goals. 

Criterion 1 (50%): What is the 

intellectual merit of the proposed 

activity? How important is the proposed 

activity to advancing knowledge and 

understanding within its own field or 

across different fields? How well 

qualified is the proposer (individual or 

team) to conduct the project? (If 

appropriate, the reviewer will comment 

on the quality of prior work.) To what 

extent does the proposed activity 

suggest and explore creative, original, or 

potentially transformative concepts? 

How well conceived and organized is 

the proposed activity? Is there sufficient 

access to resources? 

Criterion 2 (50%): What are the 

broader impacts of the proposed 

activity? How well does the activity 

advance discovery and understanding 

while promoting teaching, training, and 

learning? How well does the proposed 

activity broaden the participation of 

underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, 

ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? 

To what extent will it enhance the 

infrastructure for research and 

education, such as facilities, 

instrumentation, networks, and 

partnerships? Will the results be 

disseminated broadly to enhance 

scientific and technological 

understanding? What may be the 

benefits of the proposed activity to 

society? Each proposal that requests 

funding to support postdoctoral 

researchers must include a description 

of the mentoring activities that will be 

provided for such individuals. 

Mentoring activities provided to 

postdoctoral researchers supported on 

the project, as described in a one–page 

supplementary document, will be 

evaluated under the Broader Impacts 

criterion. PIs should address the 

following elements in their proposal to 

provide reviewers with the information 

necessary to respond fully to the above– 

described merit review criteria. NSF and 

NOAA staff will give these elements 

careful consideration in making funding 

decisions. 

Integration of Research and 

Education: One of the principal 

strategies in support of NSF’s goals is to 

foster integration of research and 

education through the programs, 

projects and activities it supports at 

academic and research institutions. 

These institutions provide abundant 

opportunities where individuals may 

concurrently assume responsibilities as 

researchers, educators, and students, 

and where all can engage in joint efforts 

that infuse education with the 

excitement of discovery and enrich 

research through the diversity of 

learning perspectives. 

Integrating Diversity into NSF 

Programs, Projects, and Activities: 

Broadening opportunities and enabling 

the participation of all citizens –– 

women and men, underrepresented 

minorities, and persons with disabilities 

–– are essential to the health and vitality 

of science and engineering. NSF is 

committed to this principle of diversity 

and deems it central to the programs, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 32115 

projects, and activities it considers and 

supports. 

REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS: 

Proposals will be evaluated 

individually in accordance with the 

assigned weights of the above 

evaluation criteria by independent peer 

mail review and/or by independent peer 

panel review. Both Federal and non– 

Federal experts in the field may be used 

in this process. The peer mail reviewers 

have expertise in the subjects addressed 

by the proposals. Each mail reviewer 

will see only certain individual 

proposals within his or her area of 

expertise, and will score them 

individually on the following scale: 

Excellent (1), Very Good (2), Good (3), 

Fair (4), Poor (5). Those proposals 

receiving an average mail review score 

of ‘‘Fair’’ or ‘‘Poor’’ will not be given 

further consideration, in which case 

proposers will be notified of non 

selection. The peer panel will comprise 

8 to 12 individuals, with each 

individual having expertise in a 

separate area, so that the panel, as a 

whole, covers a range of scientific 

expertise. The panel will have access to 

all mail reviews of proposals, and will 

use the mail reviews in discussion and 

evaluation of the entire slate of 

proposals. All proposals will be 

evaluated and scored individually. The 

peer panel shall rate the proposals using 

the evaluation criteria and scores 

provided above. Scores from each peer 

panelist shall be averaged for each 

application and presented to the 

program officers. No consensus advice 

will be given by the independent peer 

mail review or the review panel. The 

program officers will neither vote or 

score proposals as part of the 

independent peer panel nor participate 

in discussion of the merits of the 

proposal. Those proposals receiving an 

average panel score of ‘‘Fair’’ or ‘‘Poor’’ 

will not be given further consideration, 

and proposers will be notified of non 

selection. For the proposals rated by the 

panel as either ‘‘Excellent,’’ ‘‘Very 

Good,’’ or ‘‘Good’’, the program officers 

will (a) select the proposals to be 

recommended for funding according to 

the averaged ratings, and/or by applying 

the project selection factors listed 

below; (b) determine the total duration 

of funding for each proposal; and (c) 

determine the amount of funds available 

for each proposal subject to the 

availability of fiscal year funds. Awards 

may not necessarily be made in rank 

order. In addition, proposals rated by 

the panel as either ‘‘Excellent,’’ ‘‘Very 

Good,’’ or ‘‘Good’’ 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. Proposals 

recommended for funding by the 

Program Officers are then forwarded to 

the NMFS selecting official and/or NSF 

Ocean Sciences Division Director for the 

final funding recommendations. Final 

recommendations are based upon the 

reviewer/program officer 

recommendations, project funding 

priorities and availability of funds. Final 

decisions for all recommended 

proposals will be made within the 

Grants Divisions at NOAA and NSF. At 

the conclusion of the review process, 

the NOAA Program Officer and the NSF 

Biological Oceanography Program 

Officer will notify lead proposers for 

those projects recommended for 

support, and negotiate revisions in the 

proposed work and budget. All 

proposals selected for funding by NSF 

will be required to be resubmitted to 

NSF’s FastLane system. Final awards 

will be issued by the agency responsible 

for a specific project after receipt and 

processing of any specific materials 

required by the agency. Investigators 

may be asked to modify objectives, work 

plans or budgets, and provide 

supplemental information required by 

the agency prior to the award. When a 

decision has been made (whether an 

award or declination), verbatim 

anonymous copies of reviews and 

summaries of review panel 

deliberations, if any, will be made 

available to the proposer. Declined 

applications will be held by NOAA for 

3 years in accordance with the current 

retention requirements, and then 

destroyed. 

SELECTION FACTORS FOR 

PROJECTS: 

The Selecting Official shall award in 

the rank order unless the proposal is 

justified to be selected out of rank order 

based on one or more of the following 

factors: 1. Availability of funding 2. 

Balance and distribution of funds (by 

research area, project type, type of 

institutions, type of partners, 

geographical location) 3. Duplication of 

other projects funded or considered for 

funding by NOAA/NSF. 4. FY2010 

Program Priorities (listed above under 

Program Priorities, and in Section I.B. of 

the FFO) 5. Applicant’s prior award 

performance. 6. Partnerships with/ 

Participation of targeted groups. 7. 

Adequacy of information necessary to 

make a National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) determination and draft 

necessary documentation before 

recommendations for funding are made. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW: 

Applications under this program are 

not subject to Executive Order 12372, 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs. 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: 

In no event will NOAA, the 

Department of Commerce, or NSF be 

responsible for proposal preparation 

costs if these programs fail to receive 

funding or are cancelled because of 

other agency priorities. Publication of 

this announcement does not oblige 

NOAA or NSF to award any specific 

project or to obligate any available 

funds. 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT (NEPA): 

NOAA must analyze the potential 

environmental impacts, as required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), for applicant projects or 

proposals which are seeking NOAA 

federal funding opportunities. Detailed 

information on NOAA compliance with 

NEPA can be found at the following 

NOAA NEPA website: 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 (e.g., 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). In addition to 

providing specific information that will 

serve as the basis for any required 

impact analyses, applicants may also be 

requested to assist NOAA in drafting of 

an environmental assessment, if NOAA 

determines an assessment is required. 

Applicants will also be required to 

cooperate with NOAA in identifying 

feasible measures to reduce or avoid any 

identified adverse environmental 

impacts of their proposal. The failure to 

do so shall be grounds for not selecting 

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 

32116 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

PRE–AWARD NOTIFICATION 

REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS: 

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), are 

applicable to this solicitation. 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

This document contains collection– 

of–information requirements subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 

The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 

424B, and SF–LLL and CD–346 has been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the respective 

control numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 

0348–0040, 0348–0046, and 0605–0001. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no person is required to, nor shall 

a person be subject to a penalty for 

failure to comply with, a collection of 

information subject to the requirements 

of the PRA unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12866: 

This notice has been determined to be 

not significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13132 

(FEDERALISM): 

It has been determined that this notice 

does not contain policies with 

Federalism implications as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 13132. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT/ 

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT: 

Prior notice and an opportunity for 

public comment are not required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other law for rules concerning public 

property, loans, grants, benefits, and 

contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). Because 

notice and opportunity for comment are 

not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or 

any other law, the analytical 

requirements for the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are 

inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis has not been 

prepared. 

Dated: June 29, 2009. 

Steven A. Murawski, Ph.D. 

NOAA Fisheries, Chief Scientific Advisor, 

Director of Scientific Programs. 

Dated: June 30, 2009. 

Phillip R. Taylor 

Section Head, Ocean Section, Division of 

Ocean Sciences, National Science 

Foundation. 

[FR Doc. E9–15960 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2009–0027] 

Grant of Interim Extension of the Term 

of U.S. Patent No. 4,977,138; 

ISTODAXTM

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. 

ACTION: Notice of Interim Patent Term 

Extension. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office has issued an order 

granting interim extension under 35 

U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for a one-year interim 

extension of the term of U.S. Patent No. 

4,977,138. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary C. Till by telephone at (571) 272– 

7755; by mail marked to her attention 

and addressed to the Commissioner for 

Patents, Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE, 

P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313– 

1450; by fax marked to her attention at 

(571) 273–7755, or by e-mail to 

Mary.Till@uspto.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

156 of Title 35, United States Code, 

generally provides that the term of a 

patent may be extended for a period of 

up to five years if the patent claims a 

product, or a method of making or using 

a product, that has been subject to 

certain defined regulatory review, and 

that the patent may be extended for 

interim periods of up to a year if the 

regulatory review is anticipated to 

extend beyond the expiration date of the 

patent. 

On June 12, 2009, Gloucester 

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a licensee of 

Astellas Pharma Inc., the patent owner, 

timely filed an application under 35 

U.S.C. 156(d)(5) for an interim extension 

of the term of U.S. Patent No. 4,977,138. 

The patent claims the human drug 

product ISTODAXTM (romidepsin). The 

application indicates that a New Drug 

Application (NDA No. 22–393) for the 

human drug product ISTODAXTM

(romidepsin) has been filed and is 

currently undergoing regulatory review 

before the Food and Drug 

Administration for permission to market 

or use the product commercially. 

Review of the application indicates 

that except for permission to market or 

use the product commercially, the 

subject patent would be eligible for an 

extension of the patent term under 35 

U.S.C. 156, and that the patent should 

be extended for an additional one year 

as required by 35 U.S.C. 156(d)(5)(B). 

Because it is apparent that the 

regulatory review period will continue 

beyond the original expiration date of 

the patent (July 6, 2009), an interim 

extension of the patent term under 35 

U.S.C. 156(d)(5) is appropriate. 

An interim extension under 35 U.S.C. 

156(d)(5) of the term of U.S. Patent No. 

4,977,138 is granted for a period of one 

year from the original expiration date of 

the patent, i.e., until July 6, 2010. 

June 30, 2009. 

John J. Doll, 

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Acting Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–15863 Filed 7–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XQ12 

Marine Mammals; File No. 540–1811 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of permit 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Mr. John Calambokidis, Cascadia 

Research Collective, Waterstreet 

Building, 218 1/2 West Fourth Avenue, 

Olympia, WA 89501, has been issued an 

amendment to scientific research Permit 

No. 540–1811. 

ADDRESSES: The permit and related 

documents are available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

(See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Skidmore or Carrie Hubard, 

(301)713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 7, 

2008, notice was published in the 

Federal Register (73 FR 25668) that a 

request for a scientific research permit 

amendment to take cetacean species had 

been submitted by the above-named