Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for Arizona, Maryland and Rhode Island; Availability of Funds, 37653-37656 [2012-15305]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Notices
The open session will be accessible
via teleconference to 20 participants on
a first come, first serve basis. To join the
conference, submit inquiries to Ms.
Yvette Springer at
Yvette.Springer@bis.doc.gov no later
than July 24, 2012.
A limited number of seats will be
available during the public session of
the meeting. Reservations are not
accepted. To the extent that time
permits, members of the public may
present oral statements to the
Committee. The public may submit
written statements at any time before or
after the meeting. However, to facilitate
distribution of public presentation
materials to the Committee members,
the Committee suggests that the
materials be forwarded before the
meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for
Administration, with the concurrence of
the General Counsel, formally
determined on September 27, 2011
pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5
U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d), that the portion of
this meeting dealing with pre-decisional
changes to the Commerce Control List
and U.S. export control policies shall be
exempt from the provisions relating to
public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app.
2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining
portions of the meeting will be open to
the public.
For more information contact Yvette
Springer on (202) 482–2813.
Dated: June 18, 2012
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
DATES:
Effective Date: June 22, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristen Johnson or Patricia Tran, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 3, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: 202–482–4793
and 202–482–1503, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 3510–JT–P
On January 18, 2012, the Department
initiated the AD and CVD investigations
of wind towers from the PRC.1 On June
6, 2012, the Department published the
preliminary affirmative CVD
determination.2 On June 7, 2012, the
petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade
Coalition,3 timely requested alignment
of the deadline for the final CVD
determination with the deadline for the
final determination in the companion
AD investigation, in accordance with
section 705(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.210(b)(4)(i) and 210(i). Because the
AD and CVD investigations were
initiated simultaneously and involve the
same class or kind of merchandise from
the same country, we are aligning the
final deadlines in the two
investigations. The final CVD and AD
determinations will be issued no later
than October 9, 2012, unless postponed.
This notice is issued and published
pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act.
[FR Doc. 2012–15376 Filed 6–21–12; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
International Trade Administration
[C–570–982]
Utility Scale Wind Towers From the
People’s Republic of China: Alignment
of Final Countervailing Duty
Determination With Final Antidumping
Duty Determination
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is aligning the final
determination in the countervailing
duty (CVD) investigation of utility scale
wind towers (wind towers) from the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) with
the final determination in the
companion antidumping duty (AD)
investigation.
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Jun 21, 2012
Jkt 226001
1 See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People’s
Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty
Investigation, 77 FR 3447 (January 24, 2012) and
Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People’s
Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty
Investigations, 77 FR 3440 (January 24, 2012).
2 See Utility Scale Wind Towers From the People’s
Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative
Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 33422
(June 6, 2012).
3 The following companies compose the Wind
Tower Trade Coalition: Broadwind Towers, Inc.,
DMI Industries, Katana Summit LLC, and Trinity
Structural Towers, Inc.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket Number: 120518098–2098–01]
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
(MEP) Centers for Arizona, Maryland
and Rhode Island; Availability of
Funds
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), United States
Department of Commerce (DoC).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Background
Dated: June 15, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012–15321 Filed 6–21–12; 8:45 am]
37653
NIST invites proposals from
eligible proposers for funding projects
that provide manufacturing extension
services to primarily small- and
medium-sized manufacturers in the
United States. Specifically, NIST seeks
proposals for projects to establish MEP
centers in Arizona, Maryland and Rhode
Island.
DATES: All proposals, paper and
electronic, must be received no later
than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 21,
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: Jannet
Cancino, Grants and Agreements
Management Division, National Institute
of Standards and Technology, 100
Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg,
MD 20899–1650; Tel: (301) 975–6544.
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:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
37654
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Notices
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.
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Program Description
NIST invites proposals from eligible
proposers for funding three (3) separate
MEP centers to provide manufacturing
extension services to primarily smalland medium-sized manufacturers in
three separate locations, Arizona,
Maryland, and Rhode Island. 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Jun 21, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
$3,000,000 for new awards. NIST
anticipates funding three (3) separate
proposals: One (1) at the level of up to
$1,000,000 for the state of Arizona, one
(1) of up to $1,000,000 for the state of
Maryland, and one (1) of up to
$1,000,000 for the state of Rhode Island.
The projects awarded under this
competition 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:
Year of center
operation
Maximum
NIST share
1–3 ................
4 ....................
5 and beyond
⁄
⁄
1⁄3
Minimum
non-federal
share
⁄
⁄
⁄
12
12
25
35
23
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for Grants and Agreements with
Institutions of Higher Education,
Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and
Commercial Organizations or 15 CFR
part 24, Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and
Local Governments, as applicable.
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
Organizations: 2 CFR part 230 (OMB
Circular A–122); and (3) State, Local
and Indian Tribal Governments: 2 CFR
part 225 (OMB Circular A–87).
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
competition, 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, selection
factors and review and selection process
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 (https://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/
text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=8652afebd3b
81ef821cdaba9a0b5197c&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
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Notices
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:
a. 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?
(1) Market Analysis. Demonstrated
understanding of the service region’s
manufacturing base, including business
size, industry types, product mix, and
technology requirements.
(2) 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.
b. 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?
c. 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?
(1) 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.
(2) 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).
d. 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?
(1) Organizational Structure.
Completeness and appropriateness of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Jun 21, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37655
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.
Panelists will assign each proposal a
score, based on the proposal’s
responsiveness to the criteria above,
with a maximum score of 100. 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
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
proposals for award based upon the
rank order of the proposals, and may
select a proposal out of rank based on
one or more of 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
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
37656
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Notices
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.
wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Administrative and National Policy
Requirements
The Department of Commerce PreAward Notification Requirements: The
DoC 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 competition and are
available at 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 a 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 numbers 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Jun 21, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 will NIST or DoC 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 DoC 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
has not been prepared for this notice, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Dated: June 15, 2012.
Phillip Singerman,
Associate Director for Innovation & Industry
Services.
[FR Doc. 2012–15305 Filed 6–21–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
RIN 0648–XC011
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation
Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce; Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final
environmental impact statement, multispecies habitat conservation plan, and
implementing agreement.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
availability of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) on the
applications from the Fruit Growers
Supply Company (FGS) for Incidental
Take Permits (ITPs) and a multi-species
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for
take of endangered and threatened
species in accordance with the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA). The National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service (Services) and FGS
have also developed an Implementing
Agreement (IA) which details how the
Services and FGS will work together to
implement the HCP. The applicant
seeks the ITPs to authorize incidental
take of the covered species during forest
management and timber harvest in
Siskiyou County, CA, where FGS owns
lands, during the term of the proposed
50-year ITPs and HCP. This document is
provided under National Environmental
Policy Act regulations to inform the
public that the Final EIS and multispecies HCP, and the Services’
responses to public comments are
available for review, and that we have
filed the Final EIS with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for public notice. The Services will not
make a decision on issuing ITPs to FGS
sooner than 45 days after publication of
EPA’s notice.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37653-37656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15305]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
[Docket Number: 120518098-2098-01]
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for Arizona,
Maryland and Rhode Island; Availability of Funds
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United
States Department of Commerce (DoC).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NIST invites proposals from eligible proposers for funding
projects that provide manufacturing extension services to primarily
small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the United States.
Specifically, NIST seeks proposals for projects to establish MEP
centers in Arizona, Maryland and Rhode Island.
DATES: All proposals, paper and electronic, must be received no later
than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 21, 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: Jannet Cancino, Grants and Agreements
Management Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650; Tel: (301)
975-6544. 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:
[[Page 37654]]
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 three
(3) separate MEP centers to provide manufacturing extension services to
primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers in three separate
locations, Arizona, Maryland, and Rhode Island. 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 $3,000,000 for new awards. NIST
anticipates funding three (3) separate proposals: One (1) at the level
of up to $1,000,000 for the state of Arizona, one (1) of up to
$1,000,000 for the state of Maryland, and one (1) of up to $1,000,000
for the state of Rhode Island. The projects awarded under this
competition 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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum non-
Year of center operation Maximum NIST federal
share 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 Agreements with Institutions of Higher
Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and Commercial Organizations or
15 CFR part 24, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, as applicable.
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 Organizations: 2 CFR part 230 (OMB Circular A-122); and
(3) State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments: 2 CFR part 225 (OMB
Circular A-87).
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 competition, 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, selection factors and review and selection
process 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 (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
[[Page 37655]]
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:
a. 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?
(1) Market Analysis. Demonstrated understanding of the service
region's manufacturing base, including business size, industry types,
product mix, and technology requirements.
(2) 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.
b. 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?
c. 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?
(1) 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.
(2) 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).
d. 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?
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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. Panelists will
assign each proposal a score, based on the proposal's responsiveness to
the criteria above, with a maximum score of 100. 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 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 proposals
for award based upon the rank order of the proposals, and may select a
proposal out of rank based on one or more of 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
[[Page 37656]]
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
DoC 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 competition and
are available at 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
a 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 numbers 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 will NIST or DoC 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 DoC 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: June 15, 2012.
Phillip Singerman,
Associate Director for Innovation & Industry Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-15305 Filed 6-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
