Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for South Dakota and Kentucky; Availability of Funds, 12563-12566 [2012-4959]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12563
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department’s procedures for the
conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth
in its Procedures for Conducting FiveYear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998)
and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005).
Guidance on methodological or
analytical issues relevant to the
Department’s conduct of Sunset
Reviews is set forth in the Department’s
Policy Bulletin 98.3—Policies Regarding
the Conduct of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’)
Reviews of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy
Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998),
and in Antidumping Proceedings:
Calculation of the Weighted-Average
Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate
in Certain Antidumping Duty
Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR
8101 (February 14, 2012).
Initiation of Review
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset
Review of the following antidumping
duty order:
DOC case No.
ITC case No.
Country
Product
A–570–904 ....................
731–TA–1103
China ...........................
Activated Carbon (1st Review) ......
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Filing Information
As a courtesy, we are making
information related to Sunset
proceedings, including copies of the
pertinent statute and Department’s
regulations, the Department schedule
for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past
revocations and continuations, and
current service lists, available to the
public on the Department’s Internet
Web site at the following address:
‘‘https://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All
submissions in these Sunset Reviews
must be filed in accordance with the
Department’s regulations regarding
format, translation, and service of
documents. These rules can be found at
19 CFR 351.303.
This notice serves as a reminder that
any party submitting factual information
in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify
to the accuracy and completeness of that
information. See section 782(b) of the
Act. Parties are hereby reminded that
revised certification requirements are in
effect for company/government officials
as well as their representatives in all
AD/CVD investigations or proceedings
initiated on or after March 14, 2011. See
Certification of Factual Information to
Import Administration During
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Interim Final Rule, 76 FR
7491 (February 10, 2011) (‘‘Interim Final
Rule’’) amending 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1)
and (2) and supplemented by
Certification of Factual Information To
Import Administration During
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Proceedings: Supplemental Interim
Final Rule, 76 FR 54697 (September 2,
2011). The formats for the revised
certifications are provided at the end of
the Interim Final Rule. The Department
intends to reject factual submissions if
the submitting party does not comply
with the revised certification
requirements.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the
Department will maintain and make
available a service list for these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Feb 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
Department contact
Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047.
proceedings. To facilitate the timely
preparation of the service list(s), it is
requested that those seeking recognition
as interested parties to a proceeding
contact the Department in writing
within 10 days of the publication of the
Notice of Initiation.
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews
can be very short, we urge interested
parties to apply for access to proprietary
information under administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately
following publication in the Federal
Register of this notice of initiation by
filing a notice of intent to participate.
The Department’s regulations on
submission of proprietary information
and eligibility to receive access to
business proprietary information under
APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304–
306.
response, on an order-specific basis, are
set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note
that certain information requirements
differ for respondent and domestic
parties. Also, note that the Department’s
information requirements are distinct
from the Commission’s information
requirements. Please consult the
Department’s regulations for
information regarding the Department’s
conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please
consult the Department’s regulations at
19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms
and for other general information
concerning antidumping and
countervailing duty proceedings at the
Department.
This notice of initiation is being
published in accordance with section
751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218
(c).
Information Required From Interested
Parties
Domestic interested parties defined in
section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b) wishing
to participate in a Sunset Review must
respond not later than 15 days after the
date of publication in the Federal
Register of this notice of initiation by
filing a notice of intent to participate.
The required contents of the notice of
intent to participate are set forth at 19
CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance
with the Department’s regulations, if we
do not receive a notice of intent to
participate from at least one domestic
interested party by the 15-day deadline,
the Department will automatically
revoke the order without further review.
See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii).
If we receive an order-specific notice
of intent to participate from a domestic
interested party, the Department’s
regulations provide that all parties
wishing to participate in the Sunset
Review must file complete substantive
responses not later than 30 days after
the date of publication in the Federal
Register of this notice of initiation. The
required contents of a substantive
Dated: February 27, 2012.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[FR Doc. 2012–5010 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket Number 120221142–2118–01]
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) Centers for South Dakota and
Kentucky; Availability of Funds
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), United States
Department of Commerce (DoC).
AGENCY:
1 In comments made on the interim final sunset
regulations, a number of parties stated that the
proposed five-day period for rebuttals to
substantive responses to a notice of initiation was
insufficient. This requirement was retained in the
final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As
provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the
Department will consider individual requests to
extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing
of good cause.
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
12564
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices
Notice.
NIST invites proposals from
eligible proposers for funding projects to
provide manufacturing extension
services to primarily small- and
medium-sized manufacturers in the
United States. These projects will
establish MEP centers in South Dakota
and Kentucky.
DATES: All proposals, paper and
electronic, must be received no later
than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 30,
2012.
ADDRESSES: The standard application
package may be obtained by contacting
Diane Henderson, National Institute of
Standards and Technology,
Manufacturing Extension Partnership,
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4800,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4800, phone
301–975–5105, or by downloading the
application package through Grants.gov.
Paper submissions should be sent to:
Diane Henderson, National Institute of
Standards and Technology,
Manufacturing Extension Partnership,
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4800,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899–4800.
Electronic submissions should be
submitted to www.grants.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Administrative, budget, cost-sharing,
and eligibility questions and other
programmatic questions should be
directed to Diane Henderson at Tel:
(301) 975–5105; Email:
diane.henderson@nist.gov; Fax: (301)
963–6556. Grants Administration
questions should be addressed to:
Melinda Chukran, Grants and
Agreements Management Division,
National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop
1650, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1650;
Tel: (301) 975–5266. For assistance with
using Grants.gov contact Christopher
Hunton at Tel: (301) 975–5718; Email:
Christopher.hunton@nist.gov; Fax: (301)
840–5976. All questions and responses
will be posted on the MEP Web site,
www.nist.gov/mep.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic access: Proposers are
strongly encouraged to read the Federal
Funding Opportunity (FFO)
announcement available at
www.grants.gov for complete
information about this program,
including all program requirements and
instructions for applying by paper or
electronically. The FFO may be found
by searching under the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance Name and
Number provided below.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278k, as
implemented in 15 CFR part 290.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Feb 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Name and Number:
Manufacturing Extension Partnership—
11.611.
Information Session: NIST MEP will
hold an information session for
organizations considering applying to
this opportunity. An information
session in the form of a webinar will be
held approximately 14 business days
after publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. The exact date and
time of the webinar will be posted on
the MEP Web site at www.nist.gov/mep.
Organizations wishing to participate in
the webinar must sign up by contacting
Diane Henderson at
diane.henderson@nist.gov.
Program Description: NIST invites
proposals from eligible proposers for
funding two (2) separate MEP centers to
provide manufacturing extension
services to primarily small- and
medium-sized manufacturers in two
separate locations, South Dakota and/or
Kentucky. These MEP centers will
become part of the MEP national system
of extension service providers, currently
comprised of more than 400 centers and
field offices located throughout the
United States and Puerto Rico.
The objective of an MEP center is to
provide manufacturing extension
services that enhance productivity,
innovative capacity, and technological
performance, and strengthen the global
competitiveness of primarily small- and
medium-sized U.S.-based
manufacturing firms in its service
region. Manufacturing extension
services are provided by utilizing the
most cost effective, local, leveraged
resources for those services through the
coordinated efforts of a regionally-based
MEP center and local technology
resources. The management and
operational structure of an MEP center
is not prescribed, but should be based
upon the characteristics of the
manufacturers in the region and locally
available resources with demonstrated
experience working with manufacturers.
It is not the intent of this program that
the centers perform research and
development.
Information regarding MEP and these
centers is available at www.nist.gov/
mep.
Funding Availability: Approximately
$1,000,000 for new awards. NIST
anticipates funding one (1) proposal at
the level of up to $400,000 for an MEP
Center in the state of South Dakota and
one (1) proposal at the level of up to
$600,000 for an MEP Center in the state
of Kentucky. The projects awarded
under this notice will have a budget and
performance period of one (1) year. Each
award may be renewed on an annual
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
basis subject to the review requirements
described in 15 CFR 290.8. Renewal of
each project shall be at the sole
discretion of NIST and shall be based
upon satisfactory performance, priority
of the need for the service, existing
legislative authority, and availability of
funds.
Cost Share Requirements: This
Program requires a non-Federal cost
share of at least 50 percent of the total
project cost for the first year of
operation. Any renewal funding of an
award will require non-Federal cost
sharing as follows:
Year of
center
operation
1–3 ............
4 ................
5 and beyond ......
Maximum
NIST share
Minimum nonfederal share
12
⁄
⁄
12
25
35
⁄
23
13
⁄
⁄
⁄
Non-Federal cost sharing is that
portion of the project costs not borne by
the Federal Government. The proposer’s
share of the MEP center expenses may
include cash, services, and third party
in-kind contributions, as described at 15
CFR 14.23 or 24.24, as applicable, and
the MEP program rule, 15 CFR 290.4(c).
No more than 50% of the proposer’s
total non-Federal cost share may be
third party in-kind contributions of parttime personnel, equipment, software,
rental value of centrally located space,
and related contributions, per 15 CFR
290.4(c)(5). The source and detailed
rationale of the cost share, including
cash, full- and part-time personnel, and
in-kind donations, must be documented
in the budget submitted with the
proposal and will be considered as part
of the evaluation review.
All non-Federal cost share
contributions require a letter of
commitment signed by an authorized
official from each source.
Any cost sharing must be in
accordance with the ‘‘cost sharing or
matching’’ provisions of 15 CFR part 14,
Uniform Administrative Requirements
for Grants and Cooperative Agreements
with Institutions of Higher Education,
Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and
Commercial Organizations and 15 CFR
part 24, Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and
Local Governments.
As with the Federal share, any
proposed costs included as non-Federal
cost sharing must be an allowable/
eligible cost under this Program and the
following applicable Federal cost
principles: (1) Institutions of Higher
Education: 2 CFR part 220 (OMB
Circular A–21); (2) Nonprofit
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices
Organizations: 2 CFR part 230 (OMB
Circular A–122); and (3) State, Local
and Indian Tribal Governments: 2 CFR
part 225.
As with the Federal share, any
proposed non-Federal cost sharing will
be made a part of the cooperative
agreement award and will be subject to
audit if the project receives MEP
funding.
Eligibility: The eligibility
requirements given in this section will
be used in lieu of those published in the
MEP regulations found at 15 CFR part
290, specifically 15 CFR 290.5(a)(1).
Each award recipient must be a U.S.based nonprofit institution or
organization. For the purpose of this
notice, nonprofit organizations include,
but are not limited to, universities and
state and local governments. An eligible
organization may work individually or
include proposed subawards or
contracts with others in a project
proposal, effectively forming a team.
Existing MEP centers are eligible.
Proposal Requirements: Proposals
must be submitted in accordance with
the requirements set forth in the
corresponding FFO announcement.
Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation
criteria provided in this section will be
used for this competition in lieu of that
provided in the MEP regulations found
at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR
290.6 (https://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/
text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=
8652afebd3b81ef821cdaba9a0b5197c&
rgn=div5&view=text&node=
15:1.2.2.10.13&idno=15).
The proposals will be evaluated based
on the evaluation criteria described
below, which are set in the context of
the proposer’s ability to align the
proposal for accomplishing the
objectives of NIST MEP’s Next
Generation Strategy: Continuous
Improvement, Technology Acceleration,
Supplier Development, Sustainability
and Workforce. The NIST MEP Next
Generation Strategy can be found at
www.nist.gov/mep.
The evaluation criteria that will be
used in evaluating proposals are as
follows:
1. Identification of Target Firms in
Proposed Region. Does the proposal
clearly address the entire service region,
providing for a large enough population
of target firms of small- and mediumsized manufacturers that the proposer
understands and can serve, and which
is not presently served by an existing
Center?
a. Market Analysis. Demonstrated
understanding of the service region’s
manufacturing base, including business
size, industry types, product mix, and
technology requirements.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Feb 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
b. Geographical Location. Physical
size, concentration of industry, and
economic significance of the service
region’s manufacturing base.
Geographical diversity of the Center as
compared to existing Centers will be a
factor in evaluation of proposals.
2. Technology Resources. Does the
proposal assure strength in technical
personnel and programmatic resources,
full-time staff, facilities, equipment, and
linkages to external sources of
technology to develop and transfer
technologies related to NIST research
results and expertise in the technical
areas noted in the MEP regulations
found at 15 CFR Part 290 as well as from
other sources of technology research
and development?
3. Technology Delivery Mechanisms.
Does the proposal clearly and sharply
define an effective methodology for
delivering advanced manufacturing
technology to small- and medium-sized
manufacturers and mechanism(s) for
accelerating the adoption of
technologies for both process
improvement and new product
adoption?
a. Linkages. Development of effective
partnerships or linkages to third parties
such as industry, universities, nonprofit
economic organizations, and state
governments who will amplify the
Center’s technology delivery to reach a
large number of clients in its service
region.
b. Program Leverage. Provision of an
effective strategy to amplify the Center’s
technology delivery approaches to
achieve the proposed objectives as
described in 15 CFR 290.3(e).
4. Management and Financial Plan.
Does the proposal define a management
structure and assure management
personnel to carry out development and
operation of an effective Center?
a. Organizational Structure.
Completeness and appropriateness of
the organizational structure, and its
focus on the mission of the Center.
Assurance of local full-time top
management of the Center. This
includes a clearly presented Oversight
Board structure with a membership
representing small- and medium- sized
manufacturers in the region. MEP has
determined that centers clearly benefit
when a majority or more of its Board
members/Trustees compose a
membership representing principally
small and medium manufacturing as
well as committed partners and do not
have dual obligations to more than one
Center. Two-thirds of the members of
the Center’s oversight board must not be
members of any other MEP Center
boards.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12565
b. Program Management.
Effectiveness of the planned
methodology of program management.
This includes committed local partners
and demonstrated experience of the
leadership team in manufacturing,
outreach and partnership development.
c. Internal Evaluation. Effectiveness of
the planned continuous internal
evaluation of program activities. The
proposal must provide the methodology
for continuous internal evaluation of the
program activities and demonstrate the
effectiveness of defined methodology.
d. Plans for Financial Cost Share.
Demonstrated stability and duration of
the proposer’s funding commitments.
Identification of the sources of cost
share and the general terms of funding
commitments. The total level of cost
share and detailed rationale of the cost
share, including cash and in-kind, must
be documented in the budget submitted
with the proposal.
e. Budget. Suitability and focus of the
proposer’s detailed one-year budget and
budget outline for years two (2) through
five (5).
Each of these criteria will be given
equal weight in the evaluation process.
Review and Selection Process: The
review and selection process and
selection factors provided in this section
will be used for this competition in lieu
of that provided in the MEP regulations
found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically
15 CFR 290.6 and 290.7.
1. Initial Administrative Review of
Proposals. An initial review of timely
received proposals will be conducted to
determine eligibility, completeness, and
responsiveness to this notice and the
scope of the stated program objectives.
Proposals determined to be ineligible,
incomplete, and/or non-responsive may
be eliminated from further review.
2. Full Review of Eligible, Complete,
and Responsive Proposals. Proposals
that are determined to be eligible,
complete, and responsive will proceed
for full reviews in accordance with the
review and selection processes below:
a. Evaluation and Review. NIST will
appoint an evaluation panel, consisting
of at least three technically qualified
reviewers to evaluate each proposal
based on the evaluation criteria listed
above and assign a numeric score for
each proposal. If more than one nonFederal employee reviewer is used on
the panel, the panel member reviewers
may discuss the proposals with each
other, but scores will be determined on
an individual basis, not as a consensus.
Proposals with an average score of 70 or
higher out of 100 will be deemed
finalists.
b. Site Visits. Site visits may be
required to make full evaluation of a
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12566
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices
proposal that has been determined to be
a finalist. If site visits are deemed
necessary, all finalists will receive site
visits conducted by the same evaluation
panel reviewers referenced in the
preceding paragraph. NIST may enter
into negotiations with the finalists
concerning any aspect of their proposal.
Finalists will be reviewed, evaluated,
and assigned numeric scores based on
the evaluation criteria listed above.
c. Ranking and Selection. Based on
the average of the panel member
reviewers’ scores, a rank order will be
prepared and provided to the Selecting
Official for further consideration. The
Selecting Official, who is the Director of
the NIST MEP Program, will then select
funding recipients based upon the rank
order and the following selection
factors.
(1) The availability of Federal funds.
(2) The need to assure appropriate
regional distribution.
(3) Whether the project duplicates
other projects funded by DoC or by
other Federal agencies.
(4) Proposer’s performance under
current or previous Federal financial
assistance awards. Note: Proposals from
existing or previous MEP centers or
partners must contain specific
information that addresses whether the
proposer’s past performance with the
program is indicative of expected
performance under a possible new
award and describing how and why
performance is expected to be the same
or different.
NIST reserves the right to negotiate
the budget costs with the proposers that
have been selected to receive awards,
which may include requesting that the
proposer remove certain costs.
Additionally, NIST may request that the
proposer modify objectives or work
plans and provide supplemental
information required by the agency
prior to award. NIST also reserves the
right to reject a proposal where
information is uncovered that raises a
reasonable doubt as to the responsibility
of the proposer. NIST may select part,
some, all, or none of the proposals. The
final approval of selected proposals and
issuance of awards will be by the NIST
Grants Officer. The award decisions of
the NIST Grants Officer are final.
Unsuccessful proposers will be
notified in writing. The Program will
retain one copy of each unsuccessful
proposal for three (3) years for record
keeping purposes. The remaining copies
will be destroyed. After three (3) years
the remaining copy will be destroyed.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Feb 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
Administrative and National Policy
Requirements
The Department of Commerce PreAward Notification Requirements: The
Department of Commerce Pre-Award
Notification Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements, which are
contained in the Federal Register Notice
of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are
applicable to this notice. Please refer to
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-200802-11/pdf/E8-2482.pdf.
Employer/Taxpayer Identification
Number (EIN/TIN), Dun and Bradstreet
Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS), and Central Contractor
Registration (CCR): All proposers for
Federal financial assistance are required
to obtain a universal identifier in the
form of DUNS number and maintain a
current registration in the CCR database.
On the form SF–424 items 8.b. and 8.c.,
the proposer’s 9-digit EIN/TIN and 9digit DUNS number must be consistent
with the information on the CCR
(www.ccr.gov) and Automated Standard
Application for Payment System
(ASAP). For complex organizations with
multiple EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers,
the EIN/TIN and DUNS number MUST
be the numbers for the applying
organization. Organizations that provide
incorrect/inconsistent EIN/TIN and
DUNS numbers may experience
significant delays in receiving funds if
their proposal is selected for funding.
Confirm that the EIN/TIN and DUNS
numbers are consistent with the
information on the CCR and ASAP.
Per the requirements of 2 CFR part 25,
each proposer must:
1. Be registered in the CCR before
submitting a proposal;
2. Maintain an active CCR registration
with current information at all times
during which it has an active Federal
award or a proposal under consideration
by an agency; and
3. Provide its DUNS number in each
application or proposal it submits to the
agency.
See also the Federal Register notice
published on September 14, 2010, at 75
FR 55671.
Paperwork Reduction Act: The
standard forms in the application kit
involve a collection of information
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A,
424B, SF–LLL, and CD–346 have been
approved by OMB under the respective
Control Numbers 0348–0043, 0348–
0044, 0348–0040, 0348–0046, and 0605–
0001. MEP program-specific application
requirements have been approved by
OMB under Control Number 0693–0056.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
OMB Control Number.
Funding Availability and Limitation
of Liability: Funding for the program
listed in this notice is contingent upon
the availability of appropriations. In no
event with NIST or the Department of
Commerce be responsible for proposal
preparation costs if this program fails to
receive funding or is cancelled because
of agency priorities. Publication of this
notice does not oblige NIST or the
Department of Commerce to award any
specific project or to obligate any
available funds.
Executive Order 12866: This funding
notice was 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.
Executive Order 12372: Proposals
under this program are not subject to
Executive Order 12372,
‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs.’’
Administrative Procedure Act/
Regulatory Flexibility Act: Notice and
comment are not required under the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) or any other law, for rules relating
to public property, loans, grants,
benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)).
Because notice and comment are not
required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any
other law, for rules relating to public
property, loans, grants, benefits or
contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required and
has not been prepared for this notice, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Dated: February 24, 2012.
Phillip Singerman,
Associate Director for Innovation & Industry
Services.
[FR Doc. 2012–4959 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
E:\FR\FM\01MRN1.SGM
01MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12563-12566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4959]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
[Docket Number 120221142-2118-01]
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for South
Dakota and Kentucky; Availability of Funds
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United
States Department of Commerce (DoC).
[[Page 12564]]
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NIST invites proposals from eligible proposers for funding
projects to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily
small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the United States. These
projects will establish MEP centers in South Dakota and Kentucky.
DATES: All proposals, paper and electronic, must be received no later
than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The standard application package may be obtained by
contacting Diane Henderson, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop
4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800, phone 301-975-5105, or by
downloading the application package through Grants.gov. Paper
submissions should be sent to: Diane Henderson, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100
Bureau Drive, Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Electronic
submissions should be submitted to www.grants.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administrative, budget, cost-sharing,
and eligibility questions and other programmatic questions should be
directed to Diane Henderson at Tel: (301) 975-5105; Email:
diane.henderson@nist.gov; Fax: (301) 963-6556. Grants Administration
questions should be addressed to: Melinda Chukran, Grants and
Agreements Management Division, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650;
Tel: (301) 975-5266. For assistance with using Grants.gov contact
Christopher Hunton at Tel: (301) 975-5718; Email:
Christopher.hunton@nist.gov; Fax: (301) 840-5976. All questions and
responses will be posted on the MEP Web site, www.nist.gov/mep.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic access: Proposers are strongly encouraged to read the
Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement available at
www.grants.gov for complete information about this program, including
all program requirements and instructions for applying by paper or
electronically. The FFO may be found by searching under the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number provided below.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278k, as implemented in 15 CFR part 290.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number:
Manufacturing Extension Partnership--11.611.
Information Session: NIST MEP will hold an information session for
organizations considering applying to this opportunity. An information
session in the form of a webinar will be held approximately 14 business
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The
exact date and time of the webinar will be posted on the MEP Web site
at www.nist.gov/mep. Organizations wishing to participate in the
webinar must sign up by contacting Diane Henderson at
diane.henderson@nist.gov.
Program Description: NIST invites proposals from eligible proposers
for funding two (2) separate MEP centers to provide manufacturing
extension services to primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers
in two separate locations, South Dakota and/or Kentucky. These MEP
centers will become part of the MEP national system of extension
service providers, currently comprised of more than 400 centers and
field offices located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
The objective of an MEP center is to provide manufacturing
extension services that enhance productivity, innovative capacity, and
technological performance, and strengthen the global competitiveness of
primarily small- and medium-sized U.S.-based manufacturing firms in its
service region. Manufacturing extension services are provided by
utilizing the most cost effective, local, leveraged resources for those
services through the coordinated efforts of a regionally-based MEP
center and local technology resources. The management and operational
structure of an MEP center is not prescribed, but should be based upon
the characteristics of the manufacturers in the region and locally
available resources with demonstrated experience working with
manufacturers.
It is not the intent of this program that the centers perform
research and development.
Information regarding MEP and these centers is available at
www.nist.gov/mep.
Funding Availability: Approximately $1,000,000 for new awards. NIST
anticipates funding one (1) proposal at the level of up to $400,000 for
an MEP Center in the state of South Dakota and one (1) proposal at the
level of up to $600,000 for an MEP Center in the state of Kentucky. The
projects awarded under this notice will have a budget and performance
period of one (1) year. Each award may be renewed on an annual basis
subject to the review requirements described in 15 CFR 290.8. Renewal
of each project shall be at the sole discretion of NIST and shall be
based upon satisfactory performance, priority of the need for the
service, existing legislative authority, and availability of funds.
Cost Share Requirements: This Program requires a non-Federal cost
share of at least 50 percent of the total project cost for the first
year of operation. Any renewal funding of an award will require non-
Federal cost sharing as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum NIST Minimum non-
Year of center operation share federal share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3..................................... \1/2\ \1/2\
4....................................... \2/5\ \3/5\
5 and beyond............................ \1/3\ \2/3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Federal cost sharing is that portion of the project costs not
borne by the Federal Government. The proposer's share of the MEP center
expenses may include cash, services, and third party in-kind
contributions, as described at 15 CFR 14.23 or 24.24, as applicable,
and the MEP program rule, 15 CFR 290.4(c). No more than 50% of the
proposer's total non-Federal cost share may be third party in-kind
contributions of part-time personnel, equipment, software, rental value
of centrally located space, and related contributions, per 15 CFR
290.4(c)(5). The source and detailed rationale of the cost share,
including cash, full- and part-time personnel, and in-kind donations,
must be documented in the budget submitted with the proposal and will
be considered as part of the evaluation review.
All non-Federal cost share contributions require a letter of
commitment signed by an authorized official from each source.
Any cost sharing must be in accordance with the ``cost sharing or
matching'' provisions of 15 CFR part 14, Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Institutions of
Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and Commercial
Organizations and 15 CFR part 24, Uniform Administrative Requirements
for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
As with the Federal share, any proposed costs included as non-
Federal cost sharing must be an allowable/eligible cost under this
Program and the following applicable Federal cost principles: (1)
Institutions of Higher Education: 2 CFR part 220 (OMB Circular A-21);
(2) Nonprofit
[[Page 12565]]
Organizations: 2 CFR part 230 (OMB Circular A-122); and (3) State,
Local and Indian Tribal Governments: 2 CFR part 225.
As with the Federal share, any proposed non-Federal cost sharing
will be made a part of the cooperative agreement award and will be
subject to audit if the project receives MEP funding.
Eligibility: The eligibility requirements given in this section
will be used in lieu of those published in the MEP regulations found at
15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.5(a)(1). Each award recipient
must be a U.S.-based nonprofit institution or organization. For the
purpose of this notice, nonprofit organizations include, but are not
limited to, universities and state and local governments. An eligible
organization may work individually or include proposed subawards or
contracts with others in a project proposal, effectively forming a
team. Existing MEP centers are eligible.
Proposal Requirements: Proposals must be submitted in accordance
with the requirements set forth in the corresponding FFO announcement.
Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria provided in this
section will be used for this competition in lieu of that provided in
the MEP regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.6
(https://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=8652afebd3b81ef821cdaba9a0b5197c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:1.2.2.10.13&idno=15).
The proposals will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria
described below, which are set in the context of the proposer's ability
to align the proposal for accomplishing the objectives of NIST MEP's
Next Generation Strategy: Continuous Improvement, Technology
Acceleration, Supplier Development, Sustainability and Workforce. The
NIST MEP Next Generation Strategy can be found at www.nist.gov/mep.
The evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating proposals
are as follows:
1. Identification of Target Firms in Proposed Region. Does the
proposal clearly address the entire service region, providing for a
large enough population of target firms of small- and medium-sized
manufacturers that the proposer understands and can serve, and which is
not presently served by an existing Center?
a. Market Analysis. Demonstrated understanding of the service
region's manufacturing base, including business size, industry types,
product mix, and technology requirements.
b. Geographical Location. Physical size, concentration of industry,
and economic significance of the service region's manufacturing base.
Geographical diversity of the Center as compared to existing Centers
will be a factor in evaluation of proposals.
2. Technology Resources. Does the proposal assure strength in
technical personnel and programmatic resources, full-time staff,
facilities, equipment, and linkages to external sources of technology
to develop and transfer technologies related to NIST research results
and expertise in the technical areas noted in the MEP regulations found
at 15 CFR Part 290 as well as from other sources of technology research
and development?
3. Technology Delivery Mechanisms. Does the proposal clearly and
sharply define an effective methodology for delivering advanced
manufacturing technology to small- and medium-sized manufacturers and
mechanism(s) for accelerating the adoption of technologies for both
process improvement and new product adoption?
a. Linkages. Development of effective partnerships or linkages to
third parties such as industry, universities, nonprofit economic
organizations, and state governments who will amplify the Center's
technology delivery to reach a large number of clients in its service
region.
b. Program Leverage. Provision of an effective strategy to amplify
the Center's technology delivery approaches to achieve the proposed
objectives as described in 15 CFR 290.3(e).
4. Management and Financial Plan. Does the proposal define a
management structure and assure management personnel to carry out
development and operation of an effective Center?
a. Organizational Structure. Completeness and appropriateness of
the organizational structure, and its focus on the mission of the
Center. Assurance of local full-time top management of the Center. This
includes a clearly presented Oversight Board structure with a
membership representing small- and medium- sized manufacturers in the
region. MEP has determined that centers clearly benefit when a majority
or more of its Board members/Trustees compose a membership representing
principally small and medium manufacturing as well as committed
partners and do not have dual obligations to more than one Center. Two-
thirds of the members of the Center's oversight board must not be
members of any other MEP Center boards.
b. Program Management. Effectiveness of the planned methodology of
program management. This includes committed local partners and
demonstrated experience of the leadership team in manufacturing,
outreach and partnership development.
c. Internal Evaluation. Effectiveness of the planned continuous
internal evaluation of program activities. The proposal must provide
the methodology for continuous internal evaluation of the program
activities and demonstrate the effectiveness of defined methodology.
d. Plans for Financial Cost Share. Demonstrated stability and
duration of the proposer's funding commitments. Identification of the
sources of cost share and the general terms of funding commitments. The
total level of cost share and detailed rationale of the cost share,
including cash and in-kind, must be documented in the budget submitted
with the proposal.
e. Budget. Suitability and focus of the proposer's detailed one-
year budget and budget outline for years two (2) through five (5).
Each of these criteria will be given equal weight in the evaluation
process.
Review and Selection Process: The review and selection process and
selection factors provided in this section will be used for this
competition in lieu of that provided in the MEP regulations found at 15
CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.6 and 290.7.
1. Initial Administrative Review of Proposals. An initial review of
timely received proposals will be conducted to determine eligibility,
completeness, and responsiveness to this notice and the scope of the
stated program objectives. Proposals determined to be ineligible,
incomplete, and/or non-responsive may be eliminated from further
review.
2. Full Review of Eligible, Complete, and Responsive Proposals.
Proposals that are determined to be eligible, complete, and responsive
will proceed for full reviews in accordance with the review and
selection processes below:
a. Evaluation and Review. NIST will appoint an evaluation panel,
consisting of at least three technically qualified reviewers to
evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria listed above
and assign a numeric score for each proposal. If more than one non-
Federal employee reviewer is used on the panel, the panel member
reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be
determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Proposals with
an average score of 70 or higher out of 100 will be deemed finalists.
b. Site Visits. Site visits may be required to make full evaluation
of a
[[Page 12566]]
proposal that has been determined to be a finalist. If site visits are
deemed necessary, all finalists will receive site visits conducted by
the same evaluation panel reviewers referenced in the preceding
paragraph. NIST may enter into negotiations with the finalists
concerning any aspect of their proposal. Finalists will be reviewed,
evaluated, and assigned numeric scores based on the evaluation criteria
listed above.
c. Ranking and Selection. Based on the average of the panel member
reviewers' scores, a rank order will be prepared and provided to the
Selecting Official for further consideration. The Selecting Official,
who is the Director of the NIST MEP Program, will then select funding
recipients based upon the rank order and the following selection
factors.
(1) The availability of Federal funds.
(2) The need to assure appropriate regional distribution.
(3) Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or
by other Federal agencies.
(4) Proposer's performance under current or previous Federal
financial assistance awards. Note: Proposals from existing or previous
MEP centers or partners must contain specific information that
addresses whether the proposer's past performance with the program is
indicative of expected performance under a possible new award and
describing how and why performance is expected to be the same or
different.
NIST reserves the right to negotiate the budget costs with the
proposers that have been selected to receive awards, which may include
requesting that the proposer remove certain costs. Additionally, NIST
may request that the proposer modify objectives or work plans and
provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award.
NIST also reserves the right to reject a proposal where information is
uncovered that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of
the proposer. NIST may select part, some, all, or none of the
proposals. The final approval of selected proposals and issuance of
awards will be by the NIST Grants Officer. The award decisions of the
NIST Grants Officer are final.
Unsuccessful proposers will be notified in writing. The Program
will retain one copy of each unsuccessful proposal for three (3) years
for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.
After three (3) years the remaining copy will be destroyed.
Administrative and National Policy Requirements
The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements: The
Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements, which are contained in the Federal Register
Notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are applicable to this
notice. Please refer to https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-02-11/pdf/E8-2482.pdf.
Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN), Dun and
Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), and Central
Contractor Registration (CCR): All proposers for Federal financial
assistance are required to obtain a universal identifier in the form of
DUNS number and maintain a current registration in the CCR database. On
the form SF-424 items 8.b. and 8.c., the proposer's 9-digit EIN/TIN and
9-digit DUNS number must be consistent with the information on the CCR
(www.ccr.gov) and Automated Standard Application for Payment System
(ASAP). For complex organizations with multiple EIN/TIN and DUNS
numbers, the EIN/TIN and DUNS number MUST be the numbers for the
applying organization. Organizations that provide incorrect/
inconsistent EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers may experience significant delays
in receiving funds if their proposal is selected for funding. Confirm
that the EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers are consistent with the information
on the CCR and ASAP.
Per the requirements of 2 CFR part 25, each proposer must:
1. Be registered in the CCR before submitting a proposal;
2. Maintain an active CCR registration with current information at
all times during which it has an active Federal award or a proposal
under consideration by an agency; and
3. Provide its DUNS number in each application or proposal it
submits to the agency.
See also the Federal Register notice published on September 14,
2010, at 75 FR 55671.
Paperwork Reduction Act: The standard forms in the application kit
involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have
been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043,
0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. MEP program-specific
application requirements have been approved by OMB under Control Number
0693-0056.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Funding Availability and Limitation of Liability: Funding for the
program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of
appropriations. In no event with NIST or the Department of Commerce be
responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to
receive funding or is cancelled because of agency priorities.
Publication of this notice does not oblige NIST or the Department of
Commerce to award any specific project or to obligate any available
funds.
Executive Order 12866: This funding notice was 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.
Executive Order 12372: Proposals under this program are not subject
to Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs.''
Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Notice and
comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5
U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property,
loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice
and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for
rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts
(5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required
and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Dated: February 24, 2012.
Phillip Singerman,
Associate Director for Innovation & Industry Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-4959 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
