4856 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 

• Mail: Jackie Pickens, USDA/FSA/

FMD, STOP 0581, Patriot Plaza III, 355 

E. Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. 

You may also send comments to the 

Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the 

information collection may be requested 

by contacting Jackie Pickens at the 

above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jackie Pickens; (615) 277–2613. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Data on Nonresident. 

OMB Number: 0560–NEW. 

Type of Request: New. 

Abstract: FSA is using the FSA–500 

Data on Nonresident Applicants, to 

verify each applicant’s citizenship, if 

applications for payments are filed by or 

for applicants who reside outside the 

United States, its territories or 

possessions, even if the application is 

filed by an agent of the applicant whose 

address is in the United States. County 

office employees provide the FSA–500 

to the nonresident applicants or agents 

to complete the form. The FSA–500 

request the applicant’s name, address, 

United States citizenship and signature 

of applicant or authorized agent. The 

completed returned form will be filed at 

the County office. The data collected on 

the FSA–500 will assist with ensuring 

foreign taxes are collected and reported 

to the IRS. 

The formula used to calculate the 

total burden hour is estimated average 

time per responses hours times total 

annual responses. 

Estimate of Respondent Burden: 

Public reporting burden for this 

information collection is estimated to 

average 0.0833 hours per response. The 

average travel time, which is included 

in the total burden, is estimated to be 1 

hour per respondent. 

Respondents: Individuals or 

households, businesses or other for 

profit farms. 

Estimated Annual Number of 

Respondents: 55. 

Estimated Number of Reponses per 

Respondent: 1. 

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 

55. 

Estimated Average Time per 

Response: 1.0833. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 60. 

We are requesting comments on all 

aspects of this information collection to 

help us to: 

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

FSA, including whether the information 

will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the FSA’s 

estimate of burden including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

All comments received in response to 

this notice, including names and 

addresses when provided, will be a 

matter of public record. Comments will 

be summarized and included in the 

submission for Office of Management 

and Budget approval. 

Signed on January 23, 2015. 

Val Dolcini, 

Administrator, Farm Service Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01651 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economic Development Administration 

Announcement of Federal Interagency 

Competition, Fiscal Year 2015 

Investing in Manufacturing 

Communities Partnership 

AGENCY: Economic Development 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Authority: The Public Works and 

Economic Development Act of 1965, as 

amended (PWEDA) (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.). 

SUMMARY: This notice outlines a 

competition to designate up to 12 

communities as manufacturing 

communities (Manufacturing 

Communities) through the Investing in 

Manufacturing Communities 

Partnership (IMCP), including proposal 

submission requirements and 

instructions, and eligibility and 

selection criteria that will be used to 

evaluate proposals. Manufacturing 

Communities will receive preference for 

a range of future Federal economic 

development funding and technical 

assistance offered by IMCP participating 

agencies. Some Manufacturing 

Communities, as discussed in the 

Supplementary Information section of 

this notice and subject to the availability 

of funds, may receive financial 

assistance awards from IMCP 

participating agencies to assist in 

cultivating an environment for 

businesses to create well-paying 

manufacturing jobs in regions across the 

country. 

DATES: The deadline for receipt of 

applications is April 1, 2015 at 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time. Applications 

received after this deadline will not be 

reviewed or considered. Applicants are 

advised to carefully read the application 

and submission information provided in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this notice. 

ADDRESSES: Applications will be 

accepted in electronic form only. To 

begin the application process, 

applicants should use the following 

link: http://www.eda.gov/challenges/

imcp/applications/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Hedgepeth and/or Julie Wenah, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Economic Development Administration, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 

78006, Washington, DC 20230 or via 

email at IMCP@eda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Overview 

The Investing in Manufacturing 

Communities Partnership (IMCP) is a 

government-wide initiative to help 

communities cultivate an environment 

for businesses to create well-paying 

manufacturing jobs in regions across the 

country and thereby accelerate the 

resurgence of manufacturing. The IMCP 

is designed to reward communities that 

demonstrate best practices in attracting 

and expanding manufacturing by 

bringing together key local stakeholders 

and using long-term planning that 

integrates targeted public and private 

investments across a community’s 

industrial ecosystem to create broadbased prosperity. Research has shown 

that vibrant ecosystems may create a 

virtuous cycle of development for a key 

technology or supply chain through 

integrated investments and linkages 

among the following elements: 

• Workforce and training; 

• Supplier network; 

• Research and innovation; 

• Infrastructure/site development or 

redevelopment; 

• Trade and international investment; 

and 

• Operational improvement and 

capital access. 

Interactions within and between these 

elements create ‘‘public goods,’’ or 

assets upon which many firms can draw 

and that are fundamental in promoting 

an industry’s development but are not 

adequately provided by the private 

sector. Thus, well-designed public 

investment is a key part of developing 

a self-sustaining ecosystem that attracts 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 4857 

private investment from new and 

existing manufacturers and leads to 

broad-based prosperity. 

Designation as an IMCP 

manufacturing community (each a 

Manufacturing Community, and 

collectively the Manufacturing 

Communities) will be given to 

communities with the best strategies for 

designing and making such investments 

in public goods. The Federal agencies 

participating in the IMCP are the: 

Department of Commerce, Economic 

Development Administration; 

Department of Commerce, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology; 

Department of Defense; Department of 

Education; Appalachian Regional 

Commission; Delta Regional Authority; 

Department of Energy; Department of 

Housing and Urban Development; 

Department of Labor; Department of 

Transportation; Environmental 

Protection Agency; National Science 

Foundation; Small Business 

Administration; and the Department of 

Agriculture (each an IMCP Participating 

Agency, and collectively the IMCP 

Participating Agencies). IMCP 

Participating Agencies will coordinate 

with each other to leverage 

complementary activities (including 

from non-federal sources such as 

philanthropies) while also preventing 

duplication of efforts. Manufacturing 

Communities will receive preferential 

consideration for other Federal 

programs identified by IMCP 

Participating Agencies, the exact nature 

of which is dependent upon, inter alia, 

the existing legal authorities of the 

Participating Agencies as well as each 

program’s eligibility requirements and 

evaluation criteria (see Section II of this 

notice). Additionally, a Federal point of 

contact (POC) will be made available to 

help the winning Manufacturing 

Communities access Federal funds and 

resources. Manufacturing Communities 

will also have access to generally 

available technical assistance resources 

developed through IMCP, namely: (1) 

An online data portal centralizing data 

available across agencies to enable 

communities to evaluate their strengths 

and weaknesses; and (2) a ‘‘playbook’’ 

that identifies existing Federal planning 

grant and technical assistance resources, 

and catalogues economic development 

best practices. 

Manufacturing Communities, subject 

to the availability of funds and fund 

allocation requirements, may receive 

preference in award competitions from 

IMCP Participating Agencies (see 

Section II of this notice). However, 

applicants need to compete for funding 

from participating agencies. Designation 

as a manufacturing community does not 

guarantee federal funding. 

II. Benefits of IMCP Manufacturing 

Communities Designation 

Up to 12 communities will be 

designated as Manufacturing 

Communities for a period of two years. 

After two years, communities will be 

invited to apply to renew their 

designation as Manufacturing 

Communities; they will be evaluated 

based on: (a) Performance against the 

terms of the designation and postdesignation awards received (if any); 

and (b) progress against project-specific 

metrics as proposed by communities in 

their applications, designed to also help 

communities track their own progress. 

See Section V.A.2. of this notice for 

more information on self-defined 

metrics. Renewal will not be a 

competitive process; each 

Manufacturing Community will be 

evaluated on its own merits. It is 

possible that all of the Manufacturing 

Communities will have their 

designations renewed, but also possible 

that some will not. 

Co-applicants and identified, 

committed core partners in 

Manufacturing Communities’ original 

IMCP proposals will be eligible for the 

following benefits: 

1. Preferential consideration (or 

supplemental awards for existing 

grantees) for funding streams identified 

by the IMCP Participating Agencies as 

furthering IMCP goals and thereby 

assisting Manufacturing Communities in 

bolstering their IMCP strategy. 

Manufacturing Communities will only 

receive a preference when applying for 

grants and projects consistent with the 

community’s economic development 

strategy. (Note: In the event that coapplicants and/or core partners submit 

multiple applications to a given funding 

stream, the federal agency reserves the 

right to determine how a preference will 

be applied, which may include asking 

the Manufacturing Community to 

identify which applicant should be 

given the preference). In instances 

where two or more partners are deemed 

eligible to receive the preference for a 

given funding stream, they will be asked 

to demonstrate coordination in 

developing their applications. 

2. A federal point of contact (POC) to 

help the Manufacturing Community 

identify and access Federal economic 

development funding streams and to 

meet requirements of individual 

agencies, and identify and access 

funding related to specialized services 

provided by the IMCP Participating 

Agencies. These specialized services 

include capacity-building assistance 

and technical assistance. 

3. Branding and promotion under the 

Manufacturing Community designation 

that may be helpful in attracting 

partners and investors behind the 

community’s development strategy. 

4. In addition, subject to the 

availability of funds, some 

Manufacturing Communities may be 

invited to submit additional 

documentation (e.g., budget 

information) for consideration for 

Federal financial assistance through 

Challenge Grant Awards, with the 

possibility of additional funding from 

other Federal programs. Challenge Grant 

Awards are intended to support 

investments in ecosystems such as 

transit or digital infrastructure, 

workforce training, and business 

incubators. 

Publication of this announcement 

does not obligate the IMCP Participating 

Agencies to award Manufacturing 

Communities any specific grant or 

cooperative agreement, and the IMCP 

Participating Agencies reserve the right 

to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or 

none of the applications submitted in 

response to future solicitations. 

The following 10 IMCP Participating 

Agencies have agreed to provide 

preferential consideration, and/or 

consideration in the determination of 

application merit, and/or grant 

supplemental awards (totaling 

approximately $1.3 billion) for 

Manufacturing Communities for the 

following 18 economic development 

programs: 

1. Appalachian Regional Commission 

(ARC) 

a. Local Access Road Program: This 

ARC program aims to better link the 

Region’s businesses, communities, and 

residents to the Appalachian 

Development Highway System and to 

other key parts of the Region’s 

transportation network. The program 

offers a flexible approach designed to 

meet local needs and provide a 

financing mechanism to support a 

variety of economic development 

opportunities throughout the Region. 

Funding is available to provide access to 

industrial sites, business parks, and 

commercial areas where significant 

employment opportunities are present. 

Other eligible sites include timberlands 

with significant commercial value and 

areas where educational services are 

provided. Proposals for the use of this 

program should be developed in 

coordination with the State ARC 

Program Office and State Department of 

Transportation as required lead times 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4858 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 

can span multiple fiscal years and/or 

project cycles. 

b. Area Development Program: This 

ARC program addresses three of the four 

goals identified in the Commission’s 

strategic plan: (1) Increase job 

opportunities and per capita income in 

Appalachia to reach parity with the 

nation; (2) Strengthen the capacity of 

the people of Appalachia to compete in 

the global economy; and (3) Develop 

and improve Appalachia’s infrastructure 

to make the Region economically 

competitive. Projects funded in these 

program areas create thousands of new 

jobs; improve local water and sewer 

systems; increase school readiness; 

expand access to health care; assist local 

communities with strategic planning; 

and provide technical and managerial 

assistance to emerging businesses. 

Proposals for the use of this program 

should be developed in coordination 

with the State ARC Program Office. 

2. Delta Regional Authority (DRA) 

a. States’ Economic Development 

Assistance Program (SEDAP): DRA’s 

primary investment, SEDAP, provides 

for investments in Basic Public 

Infrastructure, Transportation 

Infrastructure, Workforce Development, 

and Business Development with an 

emphasis in entrepreneurship. SEDAP 

funds are allocated to Lower Mississippi 

Delta designated counties in eight states 

(Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and 

Tennessee). 

3. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) 

a. Office of Economic Resilience 

Integrated Planning & Investment Grants 

(program funding pending) will offer 

$75 million in Integrated Planning and 

Investment Grants that will seed locallycreated, comprehensive blueprints that 

strategically direct investments in 

development and infrastructure to 

projects that result in: Attracting jobs 

and building diverse and resilient 

economies, significant municipal cost 

savings, and stronger, more unified local 

leadership. Integrated Planning and 

Investment Grants will incorporate 

some of the same features of the 

previously-funded Regional Plans for 

Sustainable Communities and the 

Community Challenge Grants offered by 

the Office of Sustainable Housing and 

Communities, but, using lessons learned 

from that program and feedback from 

local leaders, will place a greater 

emphasis on supporting actionable 

economic development strategies, 

reducing redundancy in Federallyfunded planning activities, setting and 

monitoring performance, and 

identifying how Federal formula funds 

can be used smartly and efficiently in 

support of economic resilience. As with 

the previous efforts, priority will be 

placed on directing grants to rural areas, 

cities, counties, metropolitan areas and 

states that demonstrate economic need 

and are committed to building the crosssector, cross-disciplinary partnerships 

necessary to tackle the tough decisions 

that help make places economically 

competitive. A portion of grant funds 

will be reserved for small and rural 

communities and regions. 

4. Department of Labor (DOL) 

a. DOL will align funds as appropriate 

throughout 2015 and ensure all 

designees are aware of opportunities as 

they become available. Generally, 

competitions for funding that may be 

aligned require strong public private 

partnerships that include entities 

involved in administering the workforce 

investment system established under 

Title I of the Workforce Investment Act, 

such as a state or local Workforce 

Investment Board or an American Job 

Center (formerly One-Stop Career 

Center); education and training 

providers that are institutions of higher 

education as defined in Section 102 of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1002), which include public or 

other nonprofit educational institutions; 

community-based organizations that 

provide training and other workforce 

development services are also 

considered to be education and training 

providers; employers; and businessrelated nonprofit organizations 

including trade or industry associations, 

such as local Chambers of Commerce 

and small business federations, and 

labor organizations. 

5. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

a. DOT will align resources as 

appropriate throughout 2015 and ensure 

all designees are aware of opportunities 

as they become available, including 

assistance to better understand future 

solicitations related to the 

Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery (TIGER), or TIGER 

Discretionary Grant program. This 

program provides a unique opportunity 

for DOT to engage directly with states, 

cities, regional planning organizations, 

and rural communities through a 

competitive process that invests in road, 

rail, transit and port projects that 

promise to achieve critical national 

objectives. Each project is multi-modal, 

multi-jurisdictional or otherwise 

challenging to fund through existing 

programs. The TIGER program 

showcases DOT’s use of a rigorous costbenefit analysis throughout the process 

to select projects with exceptional 

benefits, explore ways to deliver 

projects faster and save on construction 

costs, and make investments in our 

Nation’s infrastructure that make 

communities more livable and 

sustainable. For more information about 

the TIGER program, please visit http:// 

www.dot.gov/tiger. 

6. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

a. Targeted Brownfield Assessments 

(TBA) program is designed to help 

states, tribes, and municipalities, as well 

as land clearance authorities, regional 

redevelopment agencies, and other 

eligible entities–especially those 

without other EPA brownfield site 

assessment resources—minimize the 

uncertainties of contamination often 

associated with brownfields, and set the 

stage for new investment. The TBA 

program is not a grant program, but a 

service provided by EPA via a 

contractor, who conducts environmental 

assessment activities to address the 

requestor’s needs. 

b. Brownfield Site Assessment/

cleanup/Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) 

(includes assessment, RLF, and cleanup 

grants) can support a range of activities 

needed to re-deploy properties, 

including for manufacturing and related 

uses. Assessment grants provide 

funding for communities, regional 

development authorities, and other 

eligible recipients to inventory, 

characterize, assess, and conduct 

planning and community involvement 

related to brownfield sites. RLF grants 

provide funding for states, communities, 

and other eligible recipients to 

capitalize a locally administered RLF to 

carry out cleanup activities at 

brownfield sites; alternatively, 

recipients may use up to 40% of their 

capitalization grants to provide 

subgrants for cleanup purposes. 

Cleanup grants provide funding to carry 

out remedial activities at brownfield 

sites. Cleanup grants require a 20 

percent cost share (cash or eligible inkind), which may be waived based on 

hardship. An applicant must own the 

site for which it is requesting funding at 

time of application. For additional 

information on brownfield grants, 

including examples of their use to 

advance manufacturing activities, please 

visit www.epa.gov/brownfields. 

7. National Science Foundation (NSF) 

a. Advanced Technology Education 

(ATE) (supplemental awards will be 

awarded only to existing ATE grantees 

also designated as Manufacturing 

Communities entitled to Challenge 

Grants): With an emphasis on two-year 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 4859 

colleges, the ATE program focuses on 

the education of technicians for the 

high-technology fields that drive our 

nation’s economy. The program 

involves partnerships between academic 

institutions and employers to promote 

improvement in the education of 

science and engineering technicians at 

the undergraduate and secondary school 

levels. The ATE program supports 

curriculum development; professional 

development of college faculty and 

secondary school teachers; career 

pathways to two-year colleges from 

secondary schools and from two-year 

colleges to four-year institutions; and 

other activities. Another goal is 

articulation between two-year and fouryear programs for K–12 prospective 

teachers that focus on technological 

education. The program also invites 

proposals focusing on research to 

advance the knowledge base related to 

technician education. 

b. I/UCRC (supplemental awards will 

be awarded only to existing ATE 

grantees also designated as 

Manufacturing Communities entitled to 

Challenge Grants): The Industry/

University Cooperative Research 

Centers (I/UCRC) program develops 

long-term partnerships among industry, 

academe, and government. The centers 

are catalyzed by a seed investment from 

the NSF and are primarily supported by 

industry center members, with NSF 

taking a supporting role in their 

development and evolution. Each center 

is established to conduct research that is 

of interest to both the industry and the 

center. An I/UCRC not only contributes 

to the Nation’s research infrastructure 

base and enhances the intellectual 

capacity of the engineering and science 

workforce through the integration of 

research and education, but also 

encourages and fosters international 

cooperation and collaborative projects. 

8. Small Business Administration (SBA) 

a. Accelerator Program (pending 

funding and authority for the program): 

The Accelerator Program, within SBA’s 

Office of Investment and Innovation, is 

a prize competition for entrepreneurial 

ecosystem models that support startups. 

These models provide support in the 

form of mentorship, networking 

opportunities, introductions to investors 

and sometimes an infusion of seed 

capital from the accelerator itself. Most 

of these also have a 3–6 month 

graduation period after which startups 

exit the accelerators to operate 

independently. SBA is encouraging and 

will give special attention to applicants 

to the program which are run by or 

support women, minorities or veterans 

and/or which are focused on 

manufacturing. 

b. Regional Innovation Clusters 

Program (pending funding and authority 

for the program): The Regional 

Innovation Clusters Program, within 

SBA’s Office of Entrepreneurial 

Development, funds and monitors 

organizations to connect and enhance 

regional innovation hubs so that small 

businesses can effectively leverage them 

to commercialize new technologies and 

expand into new markets, thereby 

positioning themselves and their 

regional economies for growth. 

9. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

a. Rural Economic Development Loan 

and Grant Program (REDLG): REDLG 

provides loans and grants to local public 

and nonprofit utilities which use the 

funds to make zero interest loans to 

businesses and economic development 

projects in rural areas that create and 

retain employment. Examples of eligible 

projects include: Purchase or 

improvement of real estate, buildings, 

and equipment; working capital and 

start-up costs; health care facilities and 

equipment; business incubators; 

telecommunications/computer 

networks; educational and job training 

facilities and services; community 

facilities and other community 

development projects. In REDLG a rural 

area is any area other than an urban area 

of 50,000 or more in population and its 

adjacent urbanized areas, as determined 

by the latest federal decennial census. 

b. Rural Business Enterprise Grant 

Program (RBEG): RBEG grants may be 

made to public bodies and private 

nonprofit corporations who use the 

grant funds to assist small and emerging 

businesses in rural areas. Public bodies 

include States, counties, cities, 

townships, and incorporated town and 

villages, boroughs, authorities, districts, 

and Indian tribes. Small and emerging 

private businesses are those that will 

employ 50 or fewer new employees and 

have less than $1 million in projected 

gross revenues. Examples of eligible 

fund use include: Capitalization of 

revolving loan funds to finance small 

and emerging rural businesses; training 

and technical assistance; job training; 

community facilities and infrastructure; 

rural transportation improvement; and 

project planning and feasibility. In 

RBEG a rural area is any area other than 

an urban area of 50,000 or more in 

population and its adjacent urbanized 

areas, as determined by the latest federal 

decennial census. 

c. Intermediary Relending Program 

(IRP): IRP loans are provided to 

intermediaries to establish revolving 

loan funds, which finance business and 

economic development activity in rural 

communities. Private non-profit 

corporations, public agencies, Indian 

groups, and cooperatives with at least 

51 percent rural membership may apply 

for intermediary lender status. IRP 

funding may be used for a variety of 

business and community development 

projects located in a rural area. Under 

the IRP, a rural area is any area other 

than an urban area with a population of 

25,000 or more according to the latest 

decennial census. Some examples of 

eligible projects related to businesses in 

the manufacturing sector are: 

Acquisition of a business; purchase or 

development of land, buildings, 

facilities; leases; purchase equipment; 

leasehold improvements; machinery; 

supplies; startup costs and working 

capital. IRP may also finance 

community and economic development 

projects. 

d. Business & Industry Guaranteed 

Loan Program (B&I): The B&I 

Guaranteed Loan Program bolsters 

existing private credit structure by 

guaranteeing quality loans aimed at 

improving the economic and 

environmental climate in rural 

communities. A borrower may be a 

cooperative organization, corporation, 

partnership, or other legal entity 

organized and operated on a profit or 

nonprofit basis; an Indian tribe on a 

Federal or State reservation or other 

Federally recognized tribal group; a 

public body; or an individual. 

Borrowers must be engaged in a 

business that will: Provide employment; 

improve the economic or environmental 

climate; promote the conservation, 

development, and use of water for 

aquaculture; or reduce reliance on 

nonrenewable energy resources by 

encouraging the development and 

construction of solar energy systems and 

other renewable energy systems. 

10. U.S. Department of Commerce 

(DOC), National Institute for Standards 

and Technology (NIST) 

a. Award Competitions for Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

Centers. These awards are made to 

U.S.-based nonprofit institutions or 

organizations such as a 501(c)(3) 

entities, non-profit and State 

Universities, non-profit and community 

or technical colleges, and State, local or 

Tribal Governments. Awards are in the 

form of a Cooperative Agreement to 

provide manufacturing extension 

services to small and medium-sized 

manufacturers within the State 

designated in the applications. The 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

(MEP) network of centers helps 

manufacturers create and retain jobs, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4860 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 

1See section 3(4) of PWEDA (42 U.S.C. 3122(4)) 

and 13 CFR 300.3. 

increase profits and save time and 

money. They provide technical 

assistance with innovation strategies, 

process improvements, green 

manufacturing, workforce development, 

supply chain optimization, and offer 

other products and services customized 

to address the needs of their regional 

manufacturers. 

b. NIST Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology (AMTech) Consortia. These 

planning grants support new or existing 

industry-driven consortia to develop 

research plans that address high-priority 

challenges impeding the growth of 

advanced manufacturing in the United 

States. Nonprofit U.S. organizations as 

well as accredited institutions of higher 

education and state, local and Tribal 

Governments are eligible to apply for 

the program. Teaming and partnerships 

that include broad participation by 

companies of all sizes, universities and 

government agencies, driven by 

industry, are encouraged. The AMTech 

awards are intended to bridge the gap 

between R&D activities and the 

deployment of technological 

innovations. The grants encourage the 

formation and strengthening of 

industry-driven technology consortia in 

areas of national importance in 

advanced manufacturing. Activities 

supported by these planning awards 

include detailed technology roadmaps 

of critical advanced manufacturing 

technologies and associated long-term 

industrial research challenges. 

c. Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership Network Special 

Competitions. NIST’s MEP works with 

small and mid-sized U.S. manufacturers 

to help them create and retain jobs, 

increase profits, and save time and 

money. The nationwide network 

provides a variety of services, from 

innovation strategies to process 

improvements to green manufacturing. 

MEP also works with partners at the 

state and federal levels on programs that 

put manufacturers in position to 

develop new customers, expand into 

new markets and create new products. 

NIST’s MEP Federal Funding 

Opportunities (FFOs) are awarded to 

existing MEP Centers for projects 

designed to enhance the productivity, 

technical performance and global 

competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers. 

These opportunities help encourage the 

creation and adaption of improved 

technologies and provide resources to 

develop new products that respond to 

the ever changing needs of 

manufacturers. 

In addition, applicant communities 

are reminded about the availability of 

local and state Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds 

and opportunities to use HUD’s Section 

108 Loan Guarantee program in 

achieving their economic development 

goals. HUD’s Section 108 Loan 

Guarantee program enables states and 

local governments to borrow money 

from private investors at reduced 

interest rates to promote economic 

development, stimulate job growth, and 

carry out public infrastructure 

improvements, including development 

of public facilities. The state and local 

governments can borrow up to five 

times their annual CDBG allocation, 

which allows them to transform a small 

portion of their CDBG funds into 

federally guaranteed loans large enough 

to pursue physical and economic 

revitalization projects that can renew 

entire communities. 

The loan guarantees approved by 

HUD for states and local governments 

are not competitive awards. States and 

local governments, however, must 

submit an application to allow HUD to 

confirm the proposed uses of the 

guaranteed financing will meet CDBG 

program requirements and that projects 

are financially feasible. 

Several financing features of the 

Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program 

that promote economic development 

and job growth are: Loan terms up to 20 

years; reduced interests costs; and 

flexible repayment of loan principal. 

Eligible activities under the program in 

recent years include site assembly, 

predevelopment costs, infrastructure 

and undergrounding of utilities for large 

scale commercial developments in 

underserved areas; and acquisition, 

rehabilitation, or construction of 

commercial or industrial buildings, and 

structures. For more information about 

the program’s eligible activities and uses 

of Section108 guaranteed loan funding, 

follow the link below: https://

www.hudexchange.info/section-108/

section-108-program-eligibilityrequirements. 

For more Section 108 Loan Guarantee 

Program information, you may contact 

Hugh Allen at HUD (202–402–4654); 

hugh.allen@hud.gov. 

For more information on using CDBG 

for economic development, please see 

the program link below: http://

portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/

program_offices/comm_planning/

communitydevelopment. 

In addition, each of the 14 IMCP 

Participating Agencies—the above ten 

plus the EDA, Defense, Education, and 

Energy—will offer staff time in order 

that each Manufacturing Community 

will have access to a POC (assigned 

from an IMCP Participating Agency) to 

facilitate access to technical assistance 

and economic development funds. POCs 

will help with identifying appropriate 

funding streams and assisting 

Manufacturing Communities with 

understanding the application 

requirements of individual agencies. 

III. Eligibility Information 

A. Eligible Organizations 

Proposals for designation as a 

Manufacturing Community must be 

submitted on behalf of the region by a 

consortium that includes one or more of 

the eligible organizations discussed in 

this section. The consortium must 

designate, for administrative purposes, 

an eligible organization as its lead 

applicant with one member of that 

organization designated as the primary 

point of contact for the consortium. The 

lead applicants should serve as the 

spokespersons presenting the consensus 

opinion of their respective consortium 

(see also Section II regarding eligibility 

of co-applicants and co-partners of a 

consortium for preferential 

consideration and other substantive 

benefits). All members of the 

consortium must submit letters of 

commitment or sign a Memorandum of 

Understanding documenting their 

contributions to the partnership. 

Consortiums are strongly encouraged to 

include key stakeholders, including but 

not limited to private sector partners, 

higher education institutions, 

government entities, economic 

development and other community and 

labor groups, financial institutions and 

utilities. At a minimum, a consortium 

should include a higher education 

institution, a private sector partner, and 

a government entity; however, if one or 

more of these organizations is not part 

of the consortium, a letter of support 

from each type of organization not 

included in the consortium must be 

submitted. Consortiums should 

demonstrate a significant level of 

regional cooperation in their proposal. 

Eligible lead applicants include a(n): 

1. District Organization; 

2. Indian Tribe or a consortium of 

Indian Tribes; 

3. State, county, city, or other political 

subdivision of a State, including a 

special purpose unit of a State or local 

government engaged in economic or 

infrastructure development activities, or 

a consortium of political subdivisions; 

4. Institution of higher education or a 

consortium of higher education 

institutions; or 

5. Public or private non-profit 

organization or association acting in 

cooperation with officials of a political 

subdivision of a State.1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 4861 

B. Geographic Scope 

Applicants may define the regional 

boundaries of their consortium, though 

all such regions should have a strong 

existing manufacturing base. In general, 

an applicant’s region should be large 

enough to contain critical elements of 

the key technologies or supply chains 

(KTS) prioritized by the applicant, but 

small enough to enable close 

collaboration (e.g., generally, larger than 

a city but smaller than a state). The 

proposed manufacturing community 

should provide evidence that their 

community ranks in the top third in the 

nation for their key manufacturing 

technology or supply chain by: Location 

quotient for either employment or firms 

in the KTS, or in terms of employment 

or firm numbers. If a community is 

using location quotient exclusively, this 

quotient must be in the top third in the 

nation and be greater than one. Other 

metrics can be used to determine a top 

third national ranking in the applicants 

KTS region, but data sources and 

methods used to calculate the top third 

ranking must be well-documented in the 

application. Tools for helping 

communities determine their KTS 

location quotients can be found at: 

http://www.eda.gov/challenges/imcp/. 

A key element in evaluating proposals 

will be the rate of improvement on 

(rather than absolute value of) key 

performance metrics and goals, as 

defined in communities’ strategies, that 

applicants can credibly generate. For 

example, communities are encouraged 

to demonstrate how their proposals will 

lead to an improvement in key 

performance metrics including, 

increases in private investment in the 

sector, creation of middle-to-high wage 

well-paying jobs, increased median 

income, increased exports and 

improved environmental quality. Thus, 

both distressed (as defined in PWEDA) 

and non-distressed manufacturing 

regions are encouraged to apply. 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

A. How To Submit an Application 

Applications will be accepted in 

electronic form only. The application is 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

and has OMB Control Number 0610– 

0107. Application submission will 

involve a two-step process, described 

briefly below. To begin the application 

process, applicants should use this link: 

http://www.eda.gov/challenges/imcp/

applications/. 

Step 1: Eligibility Screen for Lead 

Applicants To Establish a Username 

Only eligible lead applicants will be 

able to upload and submit an 

application. Guided questions will 

screen who is eligible to serve as lead 

applicant for a consortium. Interested 

applicants must establish access to the 

system by completing the eligibility 

screen by March 12, 2015. If a lead 

applicant has not established access to 

the system by March 12, 2015, 

applicants may not be able to complete 

the application by the deadline. No 

additional registrations (e.g., SAM, 

grants.gov) will be required. 

Step 2: Application Submission 

Only lead applicants may submit 

materials via the electronic system on 

behalf of a consortium. Fields will guide 

applicants in the submission of the 

required information. For more details 

about the information requirements for 

an application, see Section IV B. Please 

note that any optional letters of support 

must also be uploaded electronically by 

the lead applicant. 

Establish Access Early and Submit Early 

In order to submit an application 

through the electronic system, an 

applicant must establish access to this 

system. Note that this process can take 

several weeks, especially if all steps are 

not completed correctly. To avoid 

delays, EDA strongly recommends that 

applicants start early and not wait until 

close to the application deadline date 

before logging in, establishing access, 

reviewing the application instructions, 

and applying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ryan Hedgepeth and/or Julie Wenah, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Economic Development Administration, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite 

78006, Washington, DC 20230 or via 

email at IMCP@eda.gov. 

In preparing their applications, 

communities are urged to consult online 

resources developed through IMCP, 

namely (1) a data portal centralizing 

data available across agencies to enable 

communities to evaluate their strengths 

and weaknesses; (2) a ‘‘playbook’’ that 

identifies existing Federal planning 

grant and technical assistance resources 

and catalogues best practices in 

economic development, and (3) 

common questions and answers, the 

applications of successful designees, 

and online data tools for calculating a 

community’s KTS performance. These 

resources are available at www.eda.gov/ 

challenges/imcp/. 

B. Content and Form of Application 

Submission 

In order to be considered for 

designation, applicants must submit a 

proposal that includes all required 

elements outlined below. The proposal 

will be used to determine which 

communities will receive a 

Manufacturing Community designation. 

A proposal that does not contain all of 

the required elements is incomplete and 

will not be considered for a designation. 

Reviewers will focus on the quality of 

the analysis described below. Each 

proposal must include the following 

information: 

(a) Point of Contact: Name, phone 

number, email address, and 

organization address of the primary 

point of contact for the lead applicant, 

including specific staff member to be 

the point of contact; 

(b) Assessment of Local Industrial 

Ecosystem: An integrated assessment of 

the local industrial ecosystem (i.e., the 

whole range of workforce and training, 

supplier network, research and 

innovation, infrastructure/site 

development, trade and international 

investment, operational improvements 

and capital access components needed 

for manufacturing activities) as it exists 

today in the region defined by the 

applicant and what is missing; and an 

evidence-based path for developing 

chosen components of this ecosystem 

(infrastructure, transit, workforce, etc.) 

by making specific investments to 

address gaps and make a region 

uniquely competitive (see also Section 

V.A.1.); 

(c) Implementation Strategy 

Description: A description of the 

proposed investments and 

implementation strategy that will be 

used to address gaps in the ecosystem 

(see also Sections V.A.1, V.A.2); 

(d) Implementation Strategy Parties: A 

description of the local organizations/

jurisdictions that comprise the 

consortium and that will carry out the 

proposed strategy, including letters of 

commitment or signed a Memorandum 

of Understanding documenting their 

contributions to the partnership, as well 

as a description of their specific roles 

and responsibilities (see also Sections 

V.A.2, V.A.3); 

(e) Performance Measurement and 

Impact Evaluation: A description of 

outcome-based metrics, benchmarks and 

milestones to be tracked and evaluation 

methods to be used (experimental or 

high quality quasi-experimental designs 

using control groups, etc.) over the 

course of the implementation to gauge 

performance of the strategy; for 

example, communities are encouraged 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4862 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 

to demonstrate how their proposals will 

lead to an improvement in key 

performance metrics including increases 

in private investment in the sector, 

creation of middle-to-high wage wellpaying jobs, increased median income, 

increased exports and improved 

environmental quality. In addition, 

communities are also expected to 

identify metrics more specifically tied to 

the implementation of their plan (see 

also Section V.A.2). 

(f) Federal Financial Assistance 

Experience: Evidence of the intended 

recipient’s ability and authority to 

manage a Federal financial assistance 

award; 

(g) Geographic Scope: Description of 

the regional boundaries of their 

consortium and the basis for 

determining that their manufacturing 

concentration ranks in the top third in 

the nation for their key manufacturing 

technology or supply chain by either: 

location quotient for employment or 

firms in the KTS, or in terms of 

employment or firm numbers. Other 

metrics can be used to determine a top 

third national ranking in the applicants 

the KTS region, but data sources and 

methods used to calculate the top third 

ranking must be well-documented in the 

application. 

(h) Submitting Official: 

Documentation that the Submitting 

Official (the lead applicant) is 

authorized by its organization to submit 

a proposal and subsequently apply for 

assistance. 

C. Deadlines for Submission 

The deadline for receipt of 

applications is April 1, 2015 at 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time. Proposals received 

after the closing date and time will not 

be considered. 

V. Application Review and Evaluation 

Process 

Throughout the review and selection 

process, the IMCP Participating 

Agencies reserve the right to seek 

clarification in writing from applicants 

whose proposals are being reviewed and 

considered. IMCP Participating 

Agencies may ask applicants to clarify 

proposal materials, objectives, and work 

plans, or other specifics necessary to 

comply with Federal requirements. To 

the extent practicable, the IMCP 

Participating Agencies encourage 

applicants to provide data and evidence 

of the merits of the project in a publicly 

available and verifiable form. 

Applicants are reminded that 

confidential information must be 

identified appropriately and is subject 

to EDA’s obligations under the Freedom 

of Information Act (see Section VI.A.). 

A. Proposal Narrative Requirements and 

Selection Criteria 

IMCP Participating Agencies will 

consider each of the following factors as 

a basis to confer the Manufacturing 

Community designation. Applicants 

have the opportunity to single out one 

of the following factors as a priority area 

or special focus of their proposal for 

additional weighting in the evaluation 

of their proposal. (See Section V.B. of 

this notice for weighting). 

1. Quality of Assessment/

Implementation Strategy 

At the outset, applicants should 

identify a KTS or a small integrated set 

of KTS on which their development 

plan will focus, and explain how the 

KTS builds on existing regional assets 

and capabilities. In selecting a KTS and 

in defining the geographic boundaries of 

the community, applicants should 

choose areas that are sufficiently 

focused to ensure a well-integrated 

development plan, but sufficiently 

broad that resulting development of 

related capabilities have a substantial 

impact on a community’s prosperity 

overall and achieve broad distribution 

of benefits. Finally, the applicant should 

discuss why this community has a 

comparative advantage in building their 

KTS (e.g., comparative data such as 

location quotients, levels of sales, 

wages, employment, and patents) and 

how their strategy integrates the 

ecosystem categories, noted below, into 

a coherent whole, leading to a vibrant 

manufacturing ecosystem based on the 

KTS. 

Applicants should provide a detailed 

data-driven assessment of the local 

industrial ecosystem as it exists today, 

what is missing, and an evidence-based 

path to development that could make a 

region uniquely competitive. For 

example, a data-driven assessment 

could include metrics such as the 

number of firms, the regional market 

share or value added, and the share of 

the workforce dedicated to the local 

industrial ecosystem. This description 

should also explain public good 

investments needed to realize these 

plans. The proposed development 

should involve strong coordination 

across the subcategories below—for 

instance, detailing how plans in 

workforce, infrastructure, capital access, 

and international trade combine to 

support the growth or development of a 

particular KTS or sector. Applicants 

must conduct a cost-benefit analysis of 

their proposed public good investments 

and demonstrate that expected project 

benefits exceed project costs. 

We expect that winning applications 

will include a detailed, integrated, and 

data-driven assessment of the local 

industrial ecosystem as it currently 

exists for their KTS, what is missing, 

and a path to development that could 

make a region uniquely competitive. 

However, we do not expect that 

applicants will provide detailed budgets 

and analysis for plans to remedy every 

gap they identify. Instead, applicants 

should submit estimated budgets for 

such projects that they can show would 

be catalytic. 

The following text provides guidance 

on how we will analyze the composition 

of a community’s industrial ecosystem. 

Applicants are asked to discuss their 

strategies for each of the following six 

elements. However, while the six 

elements are fixed, the guidance under 

each element is not meant to be 

proscriptive. 

For workforce and training, the 

applicant should consider: 

i. Current capability: What are the 

requisite skills and average 

compensation for employees in fields 

relevant to the KTS? How many people 

with these or similar skills currently 

reside in the region? How many 

employees could be added to the 

workforce with minimal additional 

training? 

ii. Current institutions for improving 

capability: What local community 

colleges, certified apprenticeships, and 

other training programs exist that either 

specialize in the KTS or could develop 

specialties helpful for the KTS? Do these 

programs result in recognized 

credentials and pathways for 

continuous learning that are valued by 

employers and lead to improved 

outcomes for employees? To what 

extent do these institutions currently 

integrate research and development 

(R&D) activities and education to best 

prepare the current and future 

workforce? To what extent do 

postsecondary partners engage with 

feeder programs, such as those in 

secondary schools? What is the nature 

of engagement of Workforce Investment 

Boards, employers, community, and 

labor organizations? 

iii. Gaps: What short- and long-term 

human resources challenges exist for the 

local economy along the region’s 

proposed development path? If 

available, what is the local 

unemployment rate for key occupations 

in the KTS? Are any local efforts 

underway to re-incorporate the longterm unemployed into the workforce 

that could be integrated into the KTS? 

iv. Plans: Communities that intend to 

focus on workforce issues as a priority 

area in seeking future grants or technical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 4863 

assistance should explain how they 

intend to build on local assets to 

improve KTS in areas such as: 

a. Linkage (including training, 

financial and in-kind partnerships) with 

employers (or prospective employers) in 

the KTS and labor/community groups to 

ensure skills are useful, portable, and 

lead to a career path; 

b. Plans to ensure broad distribution 

of benefits, e.g., through programs to 

upgrade jobs and wages or support 

disadvantaged populations; 

c. Extent of plan to integrate R&D 

activities and education to best prepare 

the current and future workforce as 

appropriate to the KTS focus specified. 

For supplier networks, the applicant 

should consider: 

i. Current Capability: What are key 

firms in the KTS? What parts of the KTS 

are located inside and outside the region 

defined by the applicant? How are firms 

connected to each other? What are the 

key trade and other associations and 

what roles do they play? How might 

customers or suppliers (even outside the 

region) support suppliers in the region? 

What examples are of projects/shared 

assets across these firms? What new 

KTS products have been launched 

recently? 

ii. Current Institutions for Improving 

Capability: What processes or 

institutions (foundations, medical or 

educational institutions, trade 

associations, etc.) exist to promote 

innovation or upgrade supplier 

capability? Please provide performance 

measures and/or case studies as 

evidence of these capabilities. 

iii. Gaps: What short- and long-term 

supply chain challenges exist for the 

local economy along the region’s 

proposed development path? Are there 

institutions that convene suppliers and 

customers to discuss improved ways of 

working together, roadmap 

complementary investments, etc.? 

iv. Plans: Communities that intend to 

focus on improving supplier networks 

as a priority area in seeking future 

grants or technical assistance should 

explain how they intend to build on 

local assets to improve the KTS in areas 

such as: 

a. Establishing an industrial park 

conducive to supply chain integration, 

including support for convening and 

upgrading supplier firms of all sizes; 

b. Remedying gaps and/or 

undertaking more intensive supply 

chain mapping; 

c. Measuring and improving supplier 

capabilities in innovation, problemsolving ability, and systematic operation 

(e.g. lean, International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) certification); 

d. Leveraging organizations that work 

with suppliers, such as the MEP, U.S. 

Export Assistance Centers (USEACs), 

Small Business Development Centers 

(SBDCs), SCORE chapters and Women 

Business Centers (WBCs); and 

e. Measuring and improving trade 

association activity, interconnectedness, 

and support from key customers or 

suppliers (even if outside the region). 

For research and innovation, the 

applicant should consider: 

i. Current Capabilities: What are the 

community’s university/research assets 

in the KTS? To what extent do training 

institutions currently integrate R&D 

activities and education to best prepare 

the current and future workforce? Does 

the community have shared facilities 

such as incubator space or research 

centers? What is the community’s 

record for helping the ecosystem 

develop small businesses and start-ups? 

ii. Current Institutions for Improving 

Capability: How relevant are local 

institutions’ program of research and 

commercialization for the proposed 

development path? How robust is the 

revenue model? What local entities 

work with new and existing firms to 

help promote innovation? How 

integrated are industry and academia 

(including Federal Laboratories)? 

iii. Gaps: What short- and long-term 

research challenges exist for the local 

economy along the region’s proposed 

development path? 

iv. Plans: Communities that intend to 

focus on improving local research 

institutions as a priority area in seeking 

future grants or technical assistance 

should explain how they intend to build 

on local assets to improve the KTS in 

areas such as: 

a. Establishing shared space and 

procuring capital equipment for 

incubation and research; 

b. Developing strategies for 

negotiating intellectual property rights 

in ways that balance the goals of 

rewarding inventors and sharing 

knowledge; 

c. Plans for promoting university 

research relevant to new industry needs, 

and arrangements to facilitate adoption 

of such applied research by industry; 

d. Leveraging other Federal 

innovation initiatives such as the 

interagency National Network for 

Manufacturing Innovation and MEP’s 

Manufacturing Technology Accelerator 

Centers; and 

e. Plans to ensure broad distribution 

of the benefits of public investment, 

including benefits to disadvantaged 

populations. 

For infrastructure/site development, 

the applicant should consider: 

i. Current capability: Describe the 

quality of existing physical or 

information infrastructure and logistical 

services that support manufacturing and 

provide analysis of availability of sites 

prepared to receive new manufacturing 

investment (including discussion of 

specific limitations of these cites, i.e., 

environmental concerns or limited 

transportation access). Provide detailed 

analysis on how transportation 

infrastructure serves KTS in moving 

people and goods. Do KTS firms 

contribute significantly to air or water 

pollution, or sprawl? 

ii. Current institutions for improving 

capability: Is there capability for ongoing analysis to identify appropriate 

sites for new manufacturing activity, 

and efforts necessary to make them 

‘‘implementation ready?’’ Do the 

applicants control these sites? Are they 

well-located, requiring readily 

achievable remedial or infrastructural 

support to become implementationready? Are they easily accessible by 

potential workers via short commutes or 

multiple modes of transportation? Are 

they located in areas where planned 

uses will not disproportionately impact 

the health or environment of vulnerable 

populations? Are they suitable for 

manufacturing investment in 

accordance with Brownfield Area-Wide 

plans, Comprehensive Economic 

Development Strategies (CEDS), or other 

plans that focus on economic 

development outcomes in an area such 

as those associated with metropolitan 

planning organizations or regional 

councils of government? Are there 

opportunities to improve the 

environmental sustainability of the 

KTS? 

iii. Gaps: Provide analysis of gaps in 

existing infrastructure relevant for the 

proposed path to ecosystem 

development, including barriers and 

challenges to attracting manufacturingrelated investment such as lack of 

appropriate land or transportation use 

planning, and explains how plans will 

address them. To what extent have firms 

indicated interest in investing in the 

region if infrastructure gaps are 

addressed? 

iv. Plans: Communities that intend to 

focus on infrastructure development as 

a priority area in seeking future grants 

or technical assistance should explain 

how they intend to build on local assets 

to improve KTS in areas such as: 

a. Transportation, energy or 

information infrastructure projects that 

contribute to economic competitiveness 

of the region and United States as a 

whole by (i) improving efficiency, 

reliability, sustainability and/or costcompetitiveness in the movement of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4864 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 

workers, goods or information in the 

KTS, and (ii) creating jobs in the KTS; 

b. Site development for 

manufacturing to take advantage of 

existing transportation and other 

infrastructure and facilitate worker 

access to new manufacturing jobs; 

c. Infrastructure and site reuse that 

will generate cost savings over the long 

term and efficiency in use of public 

resources; and 

d. Improvement of production 

methods and locations so as to reduce 

environmental pollution, greenhouse 

gas emissions, resource use and sprawl. 

For trade and international 

investment, the applicant should 

consider: 

i. Current capability: What is the 

current level and rate of change of the 

community’s exports of products or 

services in the KTS? Identify existing 

number of international KTS firms, 

inward investment flow, outward 

investment flow, export and import 

figures, KTS trends in the region and 

internationally. 

ii. Current institutions for improving 

export capability and support: What 

local public sector, public-private 

partnership, or nonprofit programs have 

been developed to promote exports of 

products or services from the KTS? 

iii. Gaps: What are the barriers to 

increasing KTS exports? Identify 

strategic needs or gaps to fully 

implement a program to attract foreign 

investment (e.g., outreach missions, 

marketing materials, infrastructure, data 

or research, missing capabilities). 

iv. Plans: Communities that intend to 

focus on exports or foreign direct 

investment as a priority area in seeking 

future grants or technical assistance 

should explain how they intend to build 

on local assets to improve KTS in areas 

such as: 

a. Developing global business-tobusiness matching services; regional 

advisory services for engaging 

international markets and international 

trade officials, or planning and 

implementing trade missions. 

b. Location (investment) promotion in 

target markets and within target sectors 

to build the KTS; Investment Missions; 

business accelerators or soft landing 

sites to support new investors; 

marketing materials; or organizational 

capacity to support investment strategy 

implementation. 

For operational improvement and 

capital access, the applicant should 

consider: 

i. Current capability: For the KTS, 

what data is available about business 

operational costs and local capital 

access? The applicant can provide 

general description of what is available, 

and more detailed description of key 

areas of comparative advantage or of 

concern. How does industry partner 

with utility companies to achieve 

efficient energy distribution and 

delivery and/or more energy efficient 

manufacturing operations? What (if any) 

local institutions exist to help 

companies reduce business operational 

costs while maintaining or increasing 

performance? What (if any) sources of 

capital and infrastructure are available 

(public and private) to businesses to 

expand or locate in a community? What 

evidence exists regarding their 

performance? 

ii. Gaps: What improvements or new 

institutions (including financial 

institutions and foundations) are key for 

promoting continuous improvement in 

KTS business operational capability? 

iii. Plans: Communities that intend to 

focus on operational improvements and/ 

or capital access as a priority area in 

seeking future grants or technical 

assistance should explain how they 

intend to build on local assets to 

improve KTS in areas such as: 

a. Reducing manufacturers’ 

production costs by reducing waste 

management costs, enhancing 

efficiency, and promoting resilience 

establishing mechanisms to help firms 

measure and minimize life-cycle costs 

(e.g., improving firms’ access to 

innovative financing mechanisms for 

energy efficiency projects, such as a 

revolving energy efficiency loan fund or 

state green bank); 

b. Building concerted local efforts and 

capital projects that facilitate industrial 

energy efficiency, combined heat and 

power, and commercial energy retrofits 

(applicants should detail strategies for 

capturing these opportunities in support 

of local manufacturing/business 

competitiveness); and 

c. Developing public-private 

partnerships that provide capital to 

commercialize new technology, and 

develop/equip production facilities in 

the KTS. 

2. Capacity To Carry Out 

Implementation Strategy 

Applications will be judged on the 

quality of the evidence they provide, 

including the following information: 

i. Overall leadership capacity—lead 

organization’s capacity to carry out 

planned investments in public goods, 

e.g., prior leadership of similar efforts, 

prior success attracting outside 

investment, prior success identifying 

and managing local and regional 

partners, and ability to manage, share, 

and use data for evaluation and 

continuous improvement. 

ii. Sound partnership structure, e.g., 

clear identification of project lead, 

clarity of consortium partner 

responsibilities for executing plan, and 

appropriateness of partners designated 

for executing each component; clarity of 

consortium partnership governance 

structure; and strength of accountability 

mechanisms, including contractual 

measures and remedies for nonperformance, as reflected in letters of 

commitment or Memorandum of 

Understanding among consortium 

members. As discussed in Section III.A. 

of this notice, the partnership (a) must 

include an EDA-eligible lead applicant 

(District Organization; Indian tribe; 

state, city, or other political subdivision 

of a state, institution of higher 

education, or nonprofit organization or 

association acting in cooperation with a 

political subdivision of a state); and (b) 

should include other key stakeholders, 

including but not limited to private 

sector partners, higher education 

institutions, government entities, 

economic development and other 

community and labor groups, financial 

institutions and utilities. Also, at a 

minimum, the applicant must have 

letters of support from a higher 

education institution, a private sector 

partner, and a government entity if these 

are not already part of the consortium. 

It is important to note that securing 

letters of commitment will help 

strengthen the application. Commitment 

means that the entity is making a 

tangible financial or other commitment 

to the strategy regardless of whether the 

applicant is designated as a 

Manufacturing Community. 

In outlining their partnership 

structure, applicants must list the names 

of the organizations that will be part of 

the consortium for designation 

purposes, the DUNS numbers and/or 

EIN numbers as applicable for each 

organization, and the name and contact 

information of a point of contact for 

each partner/consortium member 

organization. Consortium member 

organizations must also submit letters of 

commitment or a signed MOU with the 

IMCP proposal to be counted as a full 

member of the consortium for 

designation purposes. In their 

partnership structure, they should list 

the counties represented. 

iii. Partner capacity to carry out 

planned investments in public goods 

and attract companies, as measured by 

prior stewardship of Federal, state, and/ 

or private dollars received and prior 

success at achieving intended outcomes. 

iv. State of ecosystem’s institutions 

(associated with the six subcategories 

under Section I. of this notice) and 

readiness of industry, nonprofit, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 4865 

public sector facilities to improve the 

way they facilitate innovation, 

development, production, and sale of 

products, as well as train/educate a 

corresponding workforce. 

v. Depth and breadth of communities’ 

short, medium and long term 

development and employment goals, 

plans to utilize high-quality data and 

rigorous methods to evaluate progress 

towards goals, and demonstration that 

the probability of achieving these goals 

is realistic. 

Competitive applications will have 

clearly defined goals and impacts that 

are aligned with IMCP objectives. Over 

the long term (5–10 years), plans should 

lead to significant improvements in the 

community’s economic activity, 

environmental sustainability, and 

quality of life. Thus, every applicant 

should provide credible evidence that 

their KTS development plan will lead 

over the next 5–10 years to significant 

but reasonably attainable increases in 

private investment in the sector, 

creation of middle to high-wage wellpaying jobs, increased median income, 

increased exports and improved 

environmental quality. We expect that 

every applicant will track progress 

toward these long-term outcomes, for 

their region, as it relates to their KTS. 

In addition, applications will be 

evaluated on the extent to which 

applicants present practical and clear 

metrics for nearer-term performance 

assessments. For the short and medium 

term (next 2–3 years), applicants should 

develop milestones (targets they expect 

to achieve in this time frame) and 

metrics (measurements toward the 

selected milestones and long-term goals) 

that measure the extent to which the 

chosen catalytic projects are 

successfully addressing the ecosystem 

gaps identified in their assessment and 

contributing to improving the long-term 

metrics above. Some of the types of 

metrics that applicants may consider for 

these purposes (i.e., are merely 

recommendations and are not allencompassing) are set forth in the table 

below: 

Metrics to Consider 

Workforce & Training: Infrastructure & Development: 

• Number of jobs created/retained. 

• Percentage increase in STEM degrees conferred. 

• Percentage increase in number of women engaged in STEM 

roles. 

• Number of apprenticeships created. 

• Number and acreage of industrially zoned vacant parcels. 

• Number and acreage of sites remediated/prepared for development. 

• Number and acreage of brownfields remediated. 

• Number of new broadband deployments. 

• Number of long-term unemployed persons served. Operational Improvement/Capital Access: 

• Average wage. • Capital dollars invested. 

• Median wage. Supply Chain: 

• Annual average unemployment rate. • New sales. 

Research & Innovation: • Number of new firms by NAICS code. 

• Number of SBIR/STTR awards. • Customers have collaborative relationships with suppliers. 

• Number of new start-ups stemming from University R&D. • Percent of suppliers with quality certification. 

• Number of new technologies commercialized. Other Metrics: 

Trade & International Investment: • Kaufmann Index of Entrepreneurial Activity. 

• Number of regional firms participating in international trade. • Water intensity per unit of production. 

• Value of goods exported. • Energy intensity per unit of production. 

These intermediate metrics will vary 

according to the plan; for example, a 

community that has identified a 

weakness in supplier quality may track 

improvements in supplier quality 

systems, while a community that has 

identified a desire to increase 

university-industry collaboration might 

track invention disclosures filed by 

faculty and business. To the extent 

feasible, communities should also plan 

to statistically evaluate the individual 

programs/assistance as well as the 

effects of the bundle of programs/

assistance taken together. For example, 

communities might choose randomly 

from among qualified applicants if job 

training programs are oversubscribed, 

and track job creation outcomes for both 

treatment and control groups. Please 

note the IMCP participating agencies 

may choose to conduct an evaluation 

using metrics similar to the ones noted 

above. 

Key elements in evaluating proposals 

will be the ability of applicants to 

identify the outcomes they seek to 

achieve; the connection between those 

outcomes and existing conditions, 

supported by data (where available); the 

clarity with which they articulate the 

elements of their plan that will help 

achieve those outcomes; and the 

specificity of the benchmarks that they 

establish to measure progress toward the 

outcomes. Another key element is the 

rate of improvement in key indicators 

that the plan can credibly generate. For 

example, communities are required to 

demonstrate how their proposals will 

lead to an improvement in key 

performance metrics including increases 

in private investment in the sector, 

creation of middle to high-wage wellpaying jobs, increased median income, 

increased exports and improved 

environmental quality, in addition to 

metrics more specifically tied to the 

implementation of a community’s plan. 

Thus, both distressed and nondistressed manufacturing regions are 

encouraged to apply. 

Resources to assist applicants with 

developing outcome-based performance 

metrics and evaluation strategies are 

included in the IMCP Playbook 

‘‘Resources’’ section located at http://

manufacturing.gov/imcp/index.html. 

All lead organizations of designated 

Manufacturing Communities and 

implementation partner organizations in 

the Manufacturing Community 

strategies will be required to participate 

in evaluations of the Investing in 

Manufacturing Communities 

Partnership initiative and related federal 

grant activities must be conducted. Lead 

organizations and implementation 

partners must agree to work with 

evaluators designated by participating 

agencies, as specified in their respective 

grant agreements, regulations and other 

requirements. This may include 

providing access to program personnel 

and all relevant programmatic and 

administrative data, as specified by the 

evaluator(s) under the direction of a 

federal agency, during the term of the 

Manufacturing Community designation 

and/or grant agreement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4866 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 

2Such commitments may range in intensity and 

duration. Lead applicants are responsible for overall 

coordination, reporting, and delivery of results. 

Consortium members have ongoing roles that 

should be specified in the proposal. Other partners 

may take on less intensive commitments such as inkind donations of the use of meeting space, 

equipment, telecommunications services, or staffing 

for particular functions; letters or other expressions 

of support for IMCP activities and applications for 

resources; participation in steering committees or 

other advisory bodies; permanent donations of 

funding, land, equipment, facilities or other 

resources; or the provision of other types of support 

without taking on a formal role in the day-to-day 

operations and advancement of the overall strategy; 

stronger applications will also specify these 

commitments. 

3. Verifiable Commitment From Existing 

and Prospective Stakeholders—Both 

Private and Public—To Executing a Plan 

and Investing in a Community 2

i. Cohesion of partnership. This may 

be shown in part by evidence of prior 

collaboration between the IMCP lead 

applicant, applicant consortium 

members, and other key community 

stakeholders (local government, anchor 

institutions, community, business and 

labor leaders and local firms, etc.) that 

includes specific examples of past 

projects/activities. 

ii. Strength/extent of partnership 

commitment (not contingent upon 

receipt or specific funding stream) to 

coordinate work and investment to 

execute plan and strategically invest in 

identified public goods. Financial 

commitment for current project and 

evidence of past investments can help 

serve to demonstrate this commitment. 

iii. Breadth of commitment to the 

plan from diverse institutions, including 

local anchor institutions (e.g., hospitals, 

colleges/universities/postsecondary 

institutions, labor and community 

organizations, major employers, small 

business owners and other business 

leaders, national and community 

foundations, and local, state and 

regional government officials. 

iv. Investment commitments. Extent 

to which applicants can demonstrate 

commitments from public and private 

sectors to invest in public goods 

identified by the plan, or investments 

that directly lead to high-wage jobs in 

manufacturing or related sectors. Letters 

of intent from prospective investors to 

support projects, with detailed 

descriptions of the extent of their 

financial and time commitment, can 

serve to demonstrate this commitment. 

These commitments should be classified 

into two groups: Those that are not 

contingent on receipt of a specific 

Federal economic development funding 

stream, and those that are contingent on 

the availability of such a Federal 

economic development funding stream. 

In the latter case, applicants should aim 

to show a sustainable commitment over 

the next 5–10 years, which may be 

private or public (non-Federal). 

B. Review Process 

All proposals submitted for the 

Manufacturing Communities 

designation will be reviewed on their 

individual merits by an interagency 

panel consisting of at least three federal 

employees. The interagency panel will 

judge applications against the 

evaluation criteria enumerated in 

Section V.A. of this notice, and score 

applications on a scale of 100 points. 

Prior to reviewing the applications, the 

interagency panel will determine a 

competitive range. Projects must 

achieve at least the competitive range to 

be awarded a designation. The 

maximum number of points that may be 

awarded to each criterion is as follows: 

1. Quality of Implementation Strategy: 

50 Points 

i. Quality of analysis of workforce, 

supplier network, innovation, 

infrastructure, trade, and costs (6 

points per element)—36 points 

ii. Bonus weight (applicant must select 

one of the elements in section 

V.B.1.i. as a priority area or 

particular focus of their proposal for 

extra weighting in the evaluation)— 

6 points 

iii. Quality of integration of the six 

elements—8 points; 

2. Capacity: 25 Points 

i. Leadership capacity, partnership 

structure, partner capacity, 

readiness of institutions (4 points 

per element)—16 points 

ii. Quality of goal-setting and evaluation 

plan—9 points; and 

3. Commitment: 25 Points 

i. Cohesion, strength, and breadth of 

partnership—14 points 

ii. Credibility and size of investments 

not tied to future Federal economic 

development funding—7 points 

iii. Credibility and size of match tied to 

future Federal economic 

development funding—4 points. 

In accordance with the criteria stated 

in Section V—Application Review and 

Evaluation Process, the panel will score 

applications. The interagency panel will 

then rank the applications within the 

competitive range according to their 

respective scores and present the 

ranking to the Assistant Secretary for 

Economic Development (who will serve 

as the selecting official for the 

Manufacturing Community designations 

made by EDA pursuant to this notice). 

In determining the issuance of 

Manufacturing Community 

designations, the Assistant Secretary for 

Economic Development may make a 

selection that differs from the rankings 

based on any of the following Selection 

Factors or use any of these Selection 

Factors to break a tie for applications 

that are otherwise equal in merit: 

(1) Geographic Balance; 

(2) Diversity of project types and 

organizational type to include smaller 

and rural organizations; or 

(3) The applicant’s ability to 

successfully carry out the public policy 

and program priorities outlined in this 

notice. 

The decision of the Assistant 

Secretary for Economic Development is 

final; however, if the Assistant Secretary 

for Economic Development decides to 

make a Manufacturing Communities 

designation that differs from the 

recommendation of the interagency 

review panel, the Assistant Secretary for 

Economic Development will document 

the rationale for such a determination. 

C. Transparency 

The agencies and bureaus involved in 

this initiative are committed to 

conducting a transparent competition 

and publicizing information about 

investment decisions. Applicants are 

advised that their respective 

applications and information related to 

their review, evaluation, and project 

progress may be shared publicly, 

including for those applicants who are 

designated a Manufacturing 

Community, having their application 

posted publicly as an example for other 

communities. For further information 

on how proprietary, confidential 

commercial/business, and personally 

identifiable information will be 

protected see Section VI.A. of this 

notice. 

VI. Other Information 

A. Freedom of Information Act 

Disclosure 

The Freedom of Information Act (5 

U.S.C. 552) (FOIA) and DOC’s 

implementing regulations at 15 CFR part 

4 set forth the rules and procedures to 

make requested material, information, 

and records publicly available. Unless 

prohibited by law and to the extent 

permitted under FOIA, contents of 

applications submitted by applicants 

may be released in response to FOIA 

requests. In the event that an 

application contains information or data 

that the applicant deems to be 

confidential commercial information, 

that information should be identified, 

bracketed, and marked as ‘‘Privileged, 

Confidential, Commercial or Financial 

Information.’’ Based on these markings, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 4867 

3As provided for in 15 CFR part 13. 

the confidentiality of the contents of 

those pages will be protected to the 

extent permitted by law. 

B. Intergovernmental Review 

Applications submitted under this 

announcement are subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 

12372, ‘‘Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs,’’ if a State has 

adopted a process under E.O. 12372 to 

review and coordinate proposed Federal 

financial assistance and direct Federal 

development (commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘single point of contact review 

process’’). All applicants must give State 

and local governments a reasonable 

opportunity to review and comment on 

the proposed Project, including review 

and comment from area-wide planning 

organizations in metropolitan areas.3 To 

find out more about a State’s process 

under E.O. 12372, applicants may 

contact their State’s Single Point of 

Contact (SPOC). Names and addresses of 

some States’ SPOCs are listed on the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

home page at www.whitehouse.gov/

omb/grants_spoc. Section A.11. of Form 

ED–900 provides more information and 

allows applicants to demonstrate 

compliance with E.O. 12372. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The IMCP application on OMB MAX 

involves a collection of information 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The 

application has been approved by OMB 

for a six-month emergency period under 

OMB Control Number 0610–0107. The 

application is described above, and will 

require applicants to provide 

information about, inter alia: The Point 

of Contact/Lead Applicant; the 

Submitting Official; Geographic Scope 

and how they satisfy the top third KTS 

requirement; Members of the 

consortium and evidence of ability to 

manage a Federal Financial Assistance 

award; the local industrial ecosystem 

and implementation strategy; and the 

evaluation plan, including the 

milestones, benchmarks and outcomebased metrics to be tracked and 

evaluation methods to be used. 

EDA expects to receive approximately 

80 applications. EDA estimates cost to a 

respondent to prepare the electronic 

application is a one-time cost of $420, 

based on an average labor cost of $42/ 

hour times 10 hours, which equals $420. 

There are no non-labor costs to a 

respondent (which includes equipment, 

printing, postage and overhead) 

associated with the collection. The total 

cost estimated is therefore: 

80 responses × 10 hours/response = 800 

burden hours. 

800 hours × $42/hour = $33,600 per year 

labor. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the IMCP, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

information collection on respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Comments 

regarding the collection of information 

associated with this rule, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, 

should be sent to OMB Desk Officer, 

New Executive Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: 

Nicholas Fraser, or by email to 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov, or by 

fax to (202) 395–7285, and to EDA as set 

forth under ADDRESSES, above. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, no person is required to comply 

with, and neither shall any person be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

VII. Contact Information 

For questions concerning this 

solicitation, or for more information 

about the IMCP Participating Agencies 

programs, you may contact the 

appropriate IMCP Participating 

Agency’s representative listed below. 

1. Appalachian Regional Commission 

a. Local Access Road Program: Jason 

Wang, (202) 884–7725, jwang@

arc.gov 

b. Area Development Program: David 

Hughes, (202) 884–7740, dhughes@

arc.gov 

2. Delta Regional Authority 

a. States’ Economic Development 

Assistance Program (SEDAP): Kemp 

Morgan, (662) 483–8210, kmorgan@

dra.gov 

3. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

a. Office of Sustainable Housing and 

Communities (OSHC) grant: Salin 

Geevarghese, (202) 402–6412, 

salin.g.geeverarghese@hud.gov 

4. Department of Labor, Employment 

and Training Administration 

a. Department of Labor Programs: 

Melissa Smith, (202) 693–3949, 

smith.melissa@dol.gov 

5. Department of Transportation 

a. Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery (TIGER): Matt 

Fall, (202) 366–8152, matt.fall@

dot.gov 

6. Environmental Protection Agency 

a. Targeted Brownfield Assessments 

(TBA): Debra Morey, (202) 566– 

2735, morey.debi@epa.gov 

b. Brownfield Grants: Debra Morey, 

(202) 566–2735, morey.debi@

epa.gov 

7. National Science Foundation 

a. Advanced Technology Education: 

Susan Singer, (703) 292–5111, 

srsinger@nsf.gov 

b. I/UCRC: Grace Wang, (703) 292–5111, 

jiwang@nsf.gov 

8. Small Business Administration 

a. Accelerator Program: Pravina 

Ragavan, (202) 205–6988, 

pravina.raghavan@sba.gov, Javier 

Saade, (202) 205–6513, 

javier.saade@sba.gov 

b. Regional Innovation Clusters 

Program: John Spears, (202) 205– 

7279, john.spears@sba.gov, 

Matthew Stevens, (202) 205–7699, 

matthew.stevens@sba.gov 

9. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

a. Rural Economic Development Loan 

and Grant Program (REDLG): Kristi 

Kubista-Hovis, (202) 815–1589, 

kristi.kubista-hovis@wdc.usda.gov 

b. Rural Business Enterprise Grant 

Program (RBEG): Kristi KubistaHovis, (202) 815–1589, 

Kristi.kubista-hovis@wdc.usda.gov 

c. Intermediary Relending Program 

(IRP): Kristi Kubista-Hovis, (202) 

815–1589, Kristi.kubista-hovis@

wdc.usda.gov 

d. Business & Industry Guaranteed Loan 

Program (B&I): John Broussard, 

(202) 720–1418, john.broussard@

wdc.usda.gov 

10. U.S. Department of Commerce 

a. Award Competitions for Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership: Heidi Sheppard, (301) 

975–6975, heidi.sheppard@nist.gov 

b. NIST Advanced Manufacturing 

Technology Consortia: Heidi 

Sheppard, (301) 975–6975, 

heidi.sheppard@nist.gov 

c. Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

Network Special Competitions: 

Heidi Sheppard, (301) 975–6975, 

heidi.sheppard@nist.gov 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4868 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Notices 

1See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 79 FR 

36462 (June 27, 2014) (Initiation Notice). 

Dated: January 26, 2015. 

Roy K.J. Williams, 

Assistant Secretary for Economic 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01763 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–WH–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[B–03–2015] 

Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 84— 

Houston, Texas, Notification of 

Proposed Production Activity, MHI 

Compressor International Corporation, 

(Gas Compressors, Compressor Sets, 

Electrical Generators and Generating 

Sets), Pearland, Texas 

MHI Compressor International 

Corporation (MHI) submitted a 

notification of proposed production 

activity to the FTZ Board for its facility 

in Pearland, Texas. The notification 

conforming to the requirements of the 

regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 

400.22) was received on January 12, 

2015. 

A separate application for subzone 

designation at the MHI facility is 

planned and will be processed under 

Section 400.38 of the FTZ Board’s 

regulations. The facility is currently 

under construction and will be used for 

the production of heavy industrial gas 

compressors, compressor sets, electrical 

generators and generating sets. Pursuant 

to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would 

be limited to the specific foreign-status 

materials and components and specific 

finished products described in the 

submitted notification (as described 

below) and subsequently authorized by 

the FTZ Board. 

Production under FTZ procedures 

could exempt MHI from customs duty 

payments on the foreign status 

components used in export production. 

On its domestic sales, MHI would be 

able to choose the duty rates during 

customs entry procedures that apply to 

gas compressors, compressor sets, 

electrical generators and generating sets 

(duty rates: Free and 2.8%) for the 

foreign status inputs noted below. 

Customs duties also could possibly be 

deferred or reduced on foreign status 

production equipment. 

The components and materials 

sourced from abroad include: Steel split 

taper pins; carbon steel seal rings; babbit 

metal seal rings; felt rings; teflon backup rings; plastic o-rings; polymer seals; 

teflon back-up rings; rubber o-rings; 

non-asbestos packing materials; nonasbestos with rubber binder packing 

materials; stainless steel air hose 

couplings; alloy steel tubing; stainless 

steel bite type nuts; carbon steel sleeves; 

stainless steel adapters; stainless steel 

bolts; alloy steel stud bolts; steel set 

screws; steel nuts; steel cap nuts; steel 

lock washers; carbon steel plain 

washers; steel rings; steel pins; cast iron 

valve boxes; carbon steel motor support 

parts; stainless steel guide bars; copper 

seal rings; copper packings; pliers; steel 

cutters; copper bar for nuts; metal plugs; 

steam turbines with an output 

exceeding 40 megawatts; steam turbines 

with an output not to exceed 40 

megawatts; steam turbine blades; steam 

turbine parts (spindles, nozzles, baffle 

plates, casings, casing assemblies, 

bushes, bushings, governing devices, 

levers, oil cylinders, oil cylinder covers, 

hand pump and hose assemblies, 

pistons, and rings); hydraulic cylinder 

tie-rods; oil cylinder covers; hand pump 

assemblies; macerator pumps; hydraulic 

pumps; jet pumps; centrifugal pumps; 

compressors; heat preventative plates; 

oil separation units; catalytic converters; 

parts for couplings (inner metal for 

coupling, outer metal for coupling); 

adjusting tools for puller assemblies; 

USB memory sticks; control valves; 

throttle valves; check valves; relief 

valves; pilot valves; valve seats; single 

angular ball bearings; thrust bearings; 

thrust bearing shoes; bushings; bevel 

gears; turning gears; pinion gears; shaft 

seals; oil seals; electric motors, 

generators, and generating sets (with 

output up to 375 kilowatts, 750 

kilovolts); brush holders; caulking 

compounds; junction boxes; carbon 

brushes; temperature transmitters; and, 

pointers (duty rates range from free to 

9.9%). 

Public comment is invited from 

interested parties. Submissions shall be 

addressed to the FTZ Board’s Executive 

Secretary at the address below. The 

closing period for their receipt is March 

10, 2015. 

A copy of the notification will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 

21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the 

‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the FTZ 

Board’s Web site, which is accessible 

via www.trade.gov/ftz. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Finver at Diane.Finver@trade.gov 

or (202) 482–1367. 

Dated: January 22, 2015. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01700 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

[B–69–2014] 

Foreign-Trade Zone 155—Calhoun/

Victoria Counties, Texas, Authorization 

of Production Activity, Tenaris Bay 

City, Inc., (Seamless Steel Tubes and 

Pipes), Bay City, Texas 

On September 25, 2014, the CalhounVictoria Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., 

grantee of FTZ 155, submitted a 

notification of proposed production 

activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones 

(FTZ) Board on behalf of Tenaris Bay 

City, Inc., within Subzone 155D, in Bay 

City, Texas. 

The notification was processed in 

accordance with the regulations of the 

FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including 

notice in the Federal Register inviting 

public comment (79 FR 59473–59474, 

10–2–2014). The FTZ Board has 

determined that no further review of the 

activity is warranted at this time. The 

production activity described in the 

notification is authorized, subject to the 

FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations, 

including Section 400.14. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01722 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–967] 

Aluminum Extrusions From the 

People’s Republic of China: Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 29, 2015. 

SUMMARY: On June 27, 2014, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty (AD) order on 

aluminum extrusions from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC), based on 

multiple timely requests for an 

administrative review.1 The review 

covers 155 companies. Based on the 

timely withdrawal of the requests for 

review of certain companies, we are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES