Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices 12563 

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. 

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 Department contact 

A–570–904 .................... 731–TA–1103 China ........................... Activated Carbon (1st Review) ...... Jennifer Moats, (202) 482–5047. 

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: 

‘‘http://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 

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. 

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 

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). 

Dated: February 27, 2012. 

Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[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 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST), United States 

Department of Commerce (DoC). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

12564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices 

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: 

Year of 

center 

operation 

Maximum 

NIST share 

Minimum nonfederal 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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Notices 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 (http://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. 

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 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 

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. 

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 

http://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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES