Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for South Dakota and Kentucky; Availability of Funds, 12563-12566 [2012-4959]

Download as PDF 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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.