Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystem Organization (CAMEO), 32112-32116 [E9-15960]
Download as PDF
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
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
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]
[Docket No. 0906261096–91096–01]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
AGENCIES: Fisheries Headquarters
Program Office (FHQ), National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
RIN 0648–ZC08
Comparative Analysis of Marine
Ecosystem Organization (CAMEO)
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices
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
(https://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: https://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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32113
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.
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
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 https://
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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,
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 7, 2009 / Notices
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32115
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: https://
www.nepa.noaa.gov/, including our
NOAA Administrative Order 216–6 for
NEPA, https://www.nepa.noaa.gov/
NAO216_6_TOC.pdf, and the Council
on Environmental Quality
implementation regulations, https://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
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
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.
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
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT:
[Docket No. PTO–P–2009–0027]
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.
Grant of Interim Extension of the Term
of U.S. Patent No. 4,977,138;
ISTODAXTM
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Jul 06, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32112-32116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15960]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 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 (https://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: https://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.
[[Page 32114]]
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 https://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,
[[Page 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: https://www.nepa.noaa.gov/, including our
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, https://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf, and the Council on Environmental Quality
implementation regulations, https://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
[[Page 32116]]
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