25872 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on April 21,

1995.

Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division Central

Region.

[FR Doc. 95–11892 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

15 CFR Part 292

[Docket No. 950330085–5085–01]

Manufacturing Extension Partnership;

Infrastructure Development Projects

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The purpose of the proposed

rule would be to provide for the

introduction of effective training, tools,

practices, techniques and analyses, and

information systems into the national

manufacturing extension system and to

codify the process by which NIST will

solicit and select applications for

cooperative agreements and financial

assistance on projects for providing

improved training, tools, practices,

techniques and analyses, and

information systems to the national

manufacturing extension system. The

intended effect is to increase the

effectiveness of the extension system by

providing improved infrastructure

capability to promote the

competitiveness of smaller U.S.

manufacturers.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

program must be received no later than

June 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

program must be submitted in writing

to: MEP Infrastructure Development

Projects Rule Comments, Attention

Kathryn Leedy, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, Building

301 Room C121, Gaithersburg, MD

20899–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Leedy, The Manufacturing

Extension Partnership Infrastructure

Development Projects Manager, 301–

975–5020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

purpose of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology

Manufacturing Extension Partnership is

to promote the competitiveness of

smaller U.S. manufacturers. This is

done primarily through technical

assistance provided by a network of

nonprofit manufacturing extension

centers. The purpose of this rule is to

provide for the development of

infrastructure capability to effectively

support the national manufacturing

extension system and to codify the

process by which NIST will solicit and

select applications for financial

assistance, typically for cooperative

agreements, on projects which have the

benefit of enhancing the ability of the

extension system to promote the

competitiveness of smaller U.S.

manufacturers. Proposals from qualified

organizations will periodically be

solicited for projects which accomplish

any one of the following objectives:

Development and Deployment of Training:

To support the delivery of effective technical

assistance to smaller manufacturers by

trained service delivery personnel at the

manufacturing extension centers. Specific

categories of training and mechanisms of

deployment may be specified in solicitations.

Development of Technical Assistance

Tools, Practices, Techniques, and Analyses:

To support the initial development,

implementation, and analysis of tools,

techniques, or practices which will aid

manufacturing extension organizations in

providing effective services to smaller

manufacturers. Specific categories of tools,

techniques, practices, or types of analysis

may be specified in solicitations.

Information Infrastructure: To support and

act as a catalyst for the development and

implementation of information infrastructure

services and pilots which will aid

manufacturing extension organizations and

smaller manufacturers in accessing the

technical information they need or will

accelerate the rate of adoption of electronic

commerce. Specific industry sectors or

subcategories of information infrastructure

projects may be specified in solicitations.

In general, eligible applicants for

these projects include all for profit and

nonprofit organizations including

private companies, universities,

community colleges, state governments,

state technology programs, and

independent nonprofit organizations.

However, specific limitations on

eligibility may be specified in

solicitations.

Announcements of solicitations will

be made in the Commerce Business

Daily.

In accordance with the provisions of

the National Institute of Standards and

Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(b)(1) and

(c)(3) and 2781), as amended, NIST will

provide assistance to the national

manufacturing extension system. Under

the NIST Manufacturing Extension

Partnership (MEP), NIST will

periodically make merit-based awards to

develop and deploy infrastructure

improvements into extension centers

and to other organizations for the

development and deployment of

training, tools and techniques, and

information infrastructure. MEP

assumes a broad definition of

manufacturing, and recognizes a wide

range of technology and concepts,

including durable goods production;

chemical, biotechnology, and other

materials processing; electronic

component and system fabrication; and

engineering services associated with

manufacturing, as lying within the

definition of manufacturing.

Classification

This notice relating to public

property, loans, grants, benefits, or

contracts is exempt from all

requirements of section 553 of the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553(a)(2)) including notice and

opportunity for comment. Therefore, a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not

required and was not prepared for this

notice for purposes of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).

The program is not a major Federal

action requiring an environmental

assessment under the National

Environmental Policy Act. This notice

does not contain policies with

Federalism implications sufficient to

warrant preparation of a Federalism

assessment under Executive Order

12612. This notice contains collection of

information requirements subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act which have

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB Control

Numbers 0693–0010, 0348–0043 and

0348–0044). Public reporting burden for

this collection of information is

estimated to average 40 hours per

response, including the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. Send

comments regarding this burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

the address shown above; and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

It has been determined that this rule

is not significant for purposes of EO

12866.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 292

Grant programs—science and

technology, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Science

and technology, Technical assistance.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 25873

Dated: May 5, 1995.

Samuel Kramer,

Associate Director.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, it is proposed that 15 CFR

part 292 be added to read as follows:

PART 292—MANUFACTURING

EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP;

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

Sec.

292.1 Program description.

292.2 Training development and

deployment projects.

292.3 Technical tools, techniques,

practices, and analyses projects.

292.4 Information infrastructure projects.

292.5 Proposal selection process.

292.6 Additional requirements.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272 (b)(1) and (c)(3)

and 2781.

§ 292.1 Program description.

(a) Purpose. In accordance with the

provisions of the National Institute of

Standards and Technology Act (15

U.S.C. 272 (b)(1) and (c)(3) and 2781), as

amended, NIST will provide financial

assistance to develop the infrastructure

of the national manufacturing extension

system. Under the NIST Manufacturing

Extension Partnership (MEP), NIST will

periodically make merit-based awards to

develop and deploy training capability

and technical tools, techniques,

practices, and analyses. In addition,

NIST will develop and implement

information infrastructure services and

pilots. MEP assumes a broad definition

of manufacturing, and recognizes a wide

range of technology and concepts,

including durable goods production;

chemical, biotechnology, and other

materials processing; electronic

component and system fabrication; and

engineering services associated with

manufacturing, as lying within the

definition of manufacturing.

(b) Announcements of solicitations.

Announcements of solicitations will be

made in the Commerce Business Daily.

Specific information on the level of

funding available and the deadline for

proposals will be contained in that

announcement. in addition, any specific

industry sectors or types of tools and

techniques to be focused on will be

specified in the announcement.

(c) Proposal workshops. Prior to an

announcement of solicitation, NIST may

announce opportunities for potential

applicants to learn about these projects

through workshops. The time and place

of the workshop(s) will be contained in

a Commerce Business Daily

announcement.

(d) Indirect costs. The total dollar

amount of the indirect costs proposed in

an application under this program must

not exceed the indirect cost rate

negotiated and approved by a cognizant

Federal agency prior to the proposed

effective date of the award or 100

percent of the total proposed direct

costs dollar amount in the application,

whichever is less.

(e) Proposal format. The proposal

must contain both technical and cost

information. The proposal page count

shall include every page, including

pages that contain words, table of

contents, executive summary,

management information and

qualifications, resumes, figures, tables,

and pictures. All proposals shall be

printed such that pages are single-sided,

with no more than fifty-five (55) lines

per page. Use 21.6 x 27.9 cm (81⁄2′′ x

11′′) paper or A4 metric paper. Use an

easy-to-read font of not more than about

5 characters per cm (fixed pitch font of

12 or fewer characters per inch or

proportional font of point size 10 or

larger). Smaller type may be used in

figures and tables, but must be clearly

legible. Margins on all sides (top,

bottom, left and right) must be at least

2.5 cm. (1′′). Length limitations for

proposals will be specified in

solicitations. The applicant may submit

a separately bound document of

appendices, containing letters of

support for the proposal. The proposal

should be self-contained and not rely on

the appendices for meeting criteria.

Excess pages in the proposal will not be

considered in the evaluation.

Applicants must submit one signed

original plus six copies of the proposal

and Standard Form 424, 424A, and

424B (Rev 4/92), Standard Form LLL,

and Form CD–511. Applicants for whom

the submission of six copies presents

financial hardship may submit one

original and two copies of the

application.

(f) Content of proposal. (1) The

proposal must, at a minimum, include

the following:

(i) An executive summary

summarizing the planned project

consistent with the Evaluation Criteria

stated in this part.

(ii) A description of the planned

project sufficient to permit evaluation of

the proposal in accordance with the

proposal Evaluation Criteria stated in

this part.

(iii) A budget for the project which

identifies all sources of funds and

which breaks out planned expenditures

by both activity and object class (e.g.,

personnel, travel, etc.).

(iv) A description of the qualifications

of key personnel who will be assigned

to work on the proposed project.

(v) A statement of worth that

discusses the specific tasks to be carried

out, including a schedule of measurable

events and milestones.

(vi) A completed Standard Form 424,

424A, and 424B (Rev 4–92) prescribed

by the applicable OMB circular,

Standard Form LLL, and Form CD–511,

Certification Regarding Debarment,

Suspension and Other Responsibility

Matters; Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements and Lobbying. SF–424,

424A, 424B (Rev 4–92), SF LLL, and

Form CD–511 will not be considered

part of the page count of the proposal.

(2) The application requirements and

the standard form requirements have

been approved by OMB (OMB Control

Number 0693–0010, 0348–0043 and

0348–0044).

(g) Applicable federal and

departmental guidance. The

Administrative Requirements, Cost

Principles, and Audits are dependent

upon type of Recipient organization as

follows:

(1) Nonprofit organizations. (i) OMB

Circular A–110—Uniform

Administrative Requirements for Grants

and Agreements with Institutions of

Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other

Nonprofit Organizations.

(ii) OMB Circular A–122—Cost

Principles for Nonprofit Organizations.

(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b—Audit

Requirements for Institutions of Higher

Education and Other Nonprofit

Organizations (implements OMB

Circular A–133—Audits for Institutions

of Higher Education and Other

Nonprofit Organizations).

(2) State/local governments. (i) 15

CFR Part 24—Uniform Administrative

Requirements for Grants and

Cooperative Agreements to State and

Local Governments.

(ii) OMB CIrcular A–87—Cost

Principles for State and Local

Governments.

(iii) 15 CFR Part 29a—Audit

Requirements for State and Local

Governments (implements OMB

Circular A–128—Audit of State and

Local Governments).

(3) Educational institutions. (i) OMB

Circular A–110—Administrative

Requirements for Grants and

Agreements with Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals, and Other

Nonprofit Organizations.

(ii) OMB Circular A–21—Cost

Principles for Educational Institutions.

(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b—Audit

Requirements for Institutions of Higher

Education and Other Nonprofit

Organizations (implements OMB

Circular A–133—Audits for Institutions

of Higher Education and Other

Nonprofit Organizations).
25874 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(4) For profit organizations. (i) OMB

Circular A–110—Administrative

Requirements for Grants and

Agreements with Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals, and Other

Nonprofit Organizations.

(ii) 48 CFR Part 31—Federal

Acquisition Regulation, Contract Cost

Principles and Procedures.

(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b—Audit

Requirements for Institutions of Higher

Education and Other Nonprofit

Organizations (implements OMB

Circular A–133).

(h) Availability of forms and circulars.

(1) Copies of forms referenced in this

part may be obtained from the

Manufacturing Extension Partnership,

National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Room C121, Building 301,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

(2) Copies of OMB Circulars may be

obtained from the Office of

Administration, Publications Office, 725

17th ST., NW., Room 2200, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

§ 292.2 Training development and

deployment projects.

(a) Eligibility criteria. In general,

eligible applicants for these projects

include all for profit and nonprofit

organizations including universities,

community colleges, state governments,

state technology programs and

independent nonprofit organizations.

However, specific limitations on

eligibility may be specified in

solicitations. Organizations may submit

multiple proposals under this category

in each solicitation for unique projects.

(b) Project objective. The purpose of

these projects is to support the

development and deployment of

training programs which will aid

manufacturing extension organizations

in providing services to smaller

manufacturers. While primarily directed

toward the field agents/engineers of the

extension organizations, the training

may also be of direct use by the smaller

manufacturers themselves. Specific

industry sectors to be addressed and

sub-categories of training may be

specified in solicitations. Examples of

training topic areas include, but are not

limited to, manufacturing assessment

functions, business systems

management, quality assurance

assistance, and financial management

activities. Examples of training program

deployment include, but are not limited

to, organization and conduct of training

courses, development and conduct of

train-the-trainer courses, preparation

and delivery of distance learning

activities, and preparation of selflearning and technical-guideline

materials. Projects must be completed

within the scope of the effort proposed

and should not require on-going federal

support.

(c) Award period. Projects initiated

under this category may be carried out

over a period of up to three years. If an

application is selected for funding, DOC

has no obligation to provide any

additional future funding in connection

with that award. Renewal of an award

to increase funding or extend the period

of performance is at the total discretion

of DOC.

(d) Matching requirements. Matching

fund requirements for these proposals

will be specified in solicitations

including the breakdown of cash and inkind requirements. For those projects

not requiring matching funds, the

presence of match will be considered in

the evaluation under the Financial Plan

criteria.

(e) Training development and

deployment projects evaluation criteria.

Proposals will be evaluated and rated on

the basis of the following criteria listed

in descending order of importance:

(1) Demonstration that the proposed

project will meet the training needs of

technical assistance providers and

manufacturers in the target population.

The target population must be clearly

defined and the proposal must

demonstrate that it understands the

population’s training needs within the

proposed project area. The proposal

should show that the efforts being

proposed meet the needs identified.

Factors that may be considered include:

A clear definition of the target

population, size and demographic

distribution; demonstrated

understanding of the target population’s

training needs; and appropriateness of

the size of the target population and the

anticipated impact for the proposed

expenditure.

(2) Development/deployment

methodology and use of appropriate

technology and information sources.

The proposal must describe the

technical plan for the development or

deployment of the training, including

the project activities to be used in the

training development/deployment and

the sources of technology and/or

information which will be used to create

or deploy the training activity. Sources

may include those internal to the

proposer or from other organizations.

Factors that may be considered include:

Adequacy of the proposed technical

plan; strength of core competency in the

proposed area of activity; and

demonstrated access to relevant

technical or information sources

external to the organization.

(3) Delivery and implementation

mechanisms. The proposal must set

forth clearly defined, effective

mechanisms for delivery and/or

implementation of proposed services to

the target population. The proposal also

must demonstrate that training activities

will be integrated into and will be of

service to the NIST Manufacturing

Extension Centers. Factors that may be

considered include: Ease of access to the

training activity especially for MEP

extension centers; methodology for

disseminating or promoting

involvement in the training especially

within the MEP system; and

demonstrated interest in the training

activity especially by MEP extension

centers.

(4) Coordination with other relevant

organizations. Wherever possible the

project should be coordinated with and

leverage other organizations which are

developing or have expertise with

similar training. If no such organizations

exist, the proposal should show that this

is the case. Applicants will need to

describe how they will coordinate to

allow for increased economies of scale

and to avoid duplication. Factors that

may be considered include:

Demonstrated understanding of existing

organizations and resources relevant to

the proposed project; adequate linkages

and partnerships with existing

organizations and clear definition of

those organizations’ roles in the

proposed activities; and that the

proposed activity does not duplicate

existing services or resources.

(5) Program evaluation. The applicant

should specify plans for evaluation of

the effectiveness of the proposed

training activity and for ensuring

continuous improvement of the training.

Factors that may be considered include:

Thoroughness of evaluation plans,

including internal evaluation for

management control, external

evaluation for assessing outcomes of the

activity, and ‘‘customer satisfaction’’

measures of performance.

(6) Management and organizational

experience and plans. Applicants

should specify plans for proper

organization, staffing, and management

of the implementation process. Factors

that may be considered include:

Appropriateness and authority of the

governing or managing organization to

conduct the proposed activities;

qualifications of the project team and its

leadership to conduct the proposed

activity; soundness of any staffing plans,

including recruitment, selection,

training, and continuing professional

development; and appropriateness of

the organizational approach for carrying

out the proposed activity.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 25875

(7) Financial plan. Applicants should

show the relevance and cost

effectiveness of the financial plan for

meeting the objectives of the project; the

firmness and level of the applicant’s

total financial support for the project;

and a plan to maintain the program after

the cooperative agreement has expired.

Factors that may be considered include:

Reasonableness of the budget, both in

income and expenses; strength of

commitment and amount of the

proposer’s cost share, if any;

effectiveness of management plans for

control of budget; appropriateness of

matching contributions; and plan for

maintaining the program after the

cooperative agreement has expired.

§ 292.3 Technical tools, techniques,

practices, and analyses projects.

(a) Eligibility criteria. In general,

eligible applicants for these projects

include all for profit and nonprofit

organizations including universities,

community colleges, state governments,

state technology programs and

independent nonprofit organizations.

However, specific limitations on

eligibility may be specified in

solicitations. Organizations may submit

multiple proposals under this category

in each solicitation for unique projects.

(b) Project objective. The purpose of

these projects is to support the initial

development, implementation, and

analysis of tools, techniques, and

practices which will aid manufacturing

extension organizations in providing

services to smaller manufacturers and

which may also be of direct use by the

smaller manufacturers themselves.

Specific industry sectors to be

addressed and sub-categories of tools,

techniques, practices, and analyses may

be specified in solicitations. Examples

of tools, techniques, and practices

include, but are not limited to,

manufacturing assessment tools,

benchmarking tools, business systems

management tools, quality assurance

assistance tools, financial management

tools, software tools, practices for

partnering, techniques for urban or rural

firms, and comparative analysis of

assessment methods. Projects must be

completed within the scope of the effort

proposed and should not require ongoing federal support.

(c) Award period. Projects initiated

under this category may be carried out

over a period of up to three years. If an

application is selected for funding, DOC

has no obligation to provide any

additional future funding in connection

with that award. Renewal of an award

to increase funding or extend the period

of performance is at the total discretion

of DOC.

(d) Matching requirements. Matching

fund requirements for these proposals

will be specified in solicitations

including the breakdown of cash and inkind requirements. For those projects

not requiring matching funds, the

presence of match will be considered in

the evaluation under the Financial Plan

criteria.

(e) Tools, techniques, practices, and

analyses projects evaluation criteria.

Proposals from applicants will be

evaluated and rated on the basis of the

following criteria listed in descending

order of importance:

(1) Demonstration that the proposed

project will meet the technical

assistance needs of technical assistance

providers and manufacturers in the

target population. Target population

must be clearly defined. The proposal

must demonstrate that it understands

the population’s tool or technique needs

within the proposed project area. The

proposal should show that the efforts

being proposed meet the needs

identified. Factors that may be

considered include: A clear definition of

the target population, size and

demographic distribution; demonstrated

understanding of the target population’s

tools or technique needs; and

appropriateness of the size of the target

population and the anticipated impact

for the proposed expenditure.

(2) Development methodology and use

of appropriate technology and

information sources. The proposal must

describe the technical plan for the

development of the tool or resource,

including the project activities to be

used in the tool/resource development

and the sources of technology and/or

information which will be used to create

the tool or resource. Sources may

include those internal to the proposer or

from other organizations. Factors that

may be considered include: Adequacy

of the proposed technical plan; strength

of core competency in the proposed area

of activity; and demonstrated access to

relevant technical or information

sources external to the organization.

(3) Degree of integration with the

manufacturing extension partnership.

The proposal must demonstrate that the

tool or resource will be integrated into

and will be of service to the NIST

Manufacturing Extension Centers.

Factors that may be considered include:

Ability to access the tool or resource

especially for MEP extension centers;

methodology for disseminating or

promoting use of the tool or technique

especially within the MEP system; and

demonstrated interest in using the tool

or technique especially by MEP

extension centers.

(4) Coordination with other relevant

organizations. Wherever possible the

project should be coordinated with and

leverage other organizations which are

developing or have expertise on similar

tools, techniques, practices, or analyses.

If no such organizations exist, the

proposal should show that this is the

case. Applicants will need to describe

how they will coordinate to allow for

increased economies of scale and to

avoid duplication. Factors that may be

considered include: Demonstrated

understanding of existing organizations

and resources relevant to the proposed

project; adequate linkages and

partnerships with exiting organizations

and clear definition of those

organizations’ roles in the proposed

activities; and that the proposed activity

does not duplicate existing services or

resources.

(5) Program evaluation. The applicant

should specific plans for evaluation of

the effectiveness of the proposed tool or

technique and for ensuring continuous

improvement of the tool. Factors that

may be considered include:

Thoroughness of evaluation plans,

including internal evaluation for

management control, external

evaluation for assessing outcomes of the

activity, and ‘‘customer satisfaction’’

measures of performance.

(6) Management experience and

plans. Applicants should specify plans

for proper organization, staffing, and

management of the implementation

process. Factors that may be considered

include: Appropriateness and authority

of the governing or managing

organization to conduct the proposed

activities; qualifications of the project

team and its leadership to conduct the

proposed activity; soundness of any

staffing plans, including recruitment,

selection, training, and continuing

professional development; and

appropriateness of the organizational

approach for carrying out the proposed

activity.

(7) Financial plan. Applicants should

show the relevance and cost

effectiveness of the financial plan for

meeting the objectives of the project; the

firmness and level of the applicant’s

total financial support for the project;

and a plan to maintain the program after

the cooperative agreement has expired.

Factors that may be considered include:

Reasonableness of the budget, both in

income and expenses; strength of

commitment and amount of the

proposer’s cost share, if any;

effectiveness of management plans for

control of budget; appropriateness of

matching contributions; and plan for

maintaining the program after the

cooperative agreement has expired.
25876 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

§ 292.4 Information infrastructure projects.

(a) Eligibility criteria. In general,

eligible applicants for these projects

include all for profit and nonprofit

organizations including universities,

community colleges, state governments,

state technology programs and

independent nonprofit organizations.

However, specific limitations on

eligibility may be specified in

solicitations. Organizations may submit

multiple proposals under this category

in each solicitation for unique projects.

(b) Project objective. The purpose of

these projects is to support and act as a

catalyst for the development and

implementation of information

infrastructure services and pilots. These

projects will aid manufacturing

extension organizations and smaller

manufacturers in accessing the technical

information they need or will accelerate

the rate of adoption of electronic

commerce. Specific industry sectors to

be addressed or subcategories of

information infrastructure projects

include, but are not limited to, pilot

demonstration of electronic data

interchange in a supplier chain,

implementation of an electronic

information service for field engineers at

MEP extension centers, and industry

specific electronic information services

for MEP centers and smaller

manufacturers.

(c) Award period. Projects initiated

under this category may be carried out

over a period of up to three years. If an

application is selected for funding, DOC

has no obligation to provide any

additional future funding in connection

with that award. Renewal of an award

to increase funding or extend the period

of performance is at the total discretion

of DOC.

(d) Matching requirements. Matching

fund requirements for these proposals

will be specified in solicitations

including the breakdown of cash and inkind requirements. For those projects

not requiring matching funds, the

presence of match will be considered in

the evaluation under the Financial Plan

criteria.

(e) Information infrastructure projects

evaluation criteria. Proposals from

applicants will be evaluated and rated

on the basis of the following criteria

listed in descending order of

importance:

(1) Demonstration that the proposed

project will meet the needs of the target

customer base. The target customer base

must be clearly defined and, in general,

will be technical assistance providers

and/or smaller manufacturers. The

proposal should demonstrate a clear

understanding of the customer base’s

needs within the proposed project area.

The proposal should also show that the

efforts being proposed meet the needs

identified. Factors that may be

considered include: A clear definition of

the customer base, size and

demographic distribution; demonstrated

understanding of the customer base’s

needs within the project area; and

appropriateness of the size of the

customer base and the anticipated

impact for the proposed expenditure.

(2) Development plans and delivery/

implementation mechanisms. The

proposal must set forth clearly defined,

effective plans for the development,

delivery and/or implementation of

proposed services to the customer base.

The proposal must delineate the sources

of information which will be used to

implement the project. Sources may

include those internal to the center

(including staff expertise) or from other

organizations. Factors that may be

considered include: Adequacy of plans;

potential effectiveness and efficiency of

proposed delivery and implementation

systems; demonstrated capacity to form

effective linkages; partnerships

necessary for success of the proposed

activity; strength of core competency in

the proposed area of activity; and

demonstrated access to relevant

technical or information sources

external to the organization.

(3) Coordination with other relevant

organizations. Wherever possible the

project should be coordinated with and

leverage other organizations which are

developing or have expertise within the

project area. In addition, the project

should demonstrate that it does not

duplicate efforts which already are

being performed by the private sector

without government support.

Applicants will need to describe how

they will coordinate to allow for

increased economies of scale and to

avoid duplication. If the proposer will

not be partnering with any other

organizations, then the proposal should

clearly explain why the project will be

more successful if implemented as

proposed. A proposal which makes a

credible case for why there are no, or

very limited, partnerships will not be

penalized in evaluation. Factors that

may be considered include:

Demonstrated understanding of existing

organizations and resources relevant to

the proposed project; Adequate linkages

and partnerships with relevant existing

organizations; clear definition of the

roles of partnering organizations in the

proposed activities; and that the

proposed activity does not duplicate

existing services or resources.

(4) Management and organizational

experience and plans. Applicants

should specify plans for proper

organization, staffing, and management

of the project. Factors that may be

considered include: Appropriateness

and authority of the governing or

managing organization to conduct the

proposed activities; qualifications of the

project team and its leadership to

conduct the proposed activity;

soundness of any staffing plans,

including recruitment, selection,

training, and continuing professional

development; and appropriateness of

the organizational approach for carrying

out the proposed activity.

(5) Financial plan. Applicants should

show the relevance and cost

effectiveness of the financial plan for

meeting the objectives of the project; the

firmness and level of the applicant’s

total financial support for the project;

and the ability of the project to continue

after the cooperative agreement has

expired without federal support. While

projects that appear to require on-going

public support will be considered, in

general, they will be evaluated lower

than those which show a strong ability

to become self-sufficient. Factors that

may be considered include:

Reasonableness of the budget, both in

income and expenses; strength of

commitment and amount of the

proposer’s cost share, if any;

effectiveness of management plans for

control of budget; appropriateness of

matching contributions; and plan for

maintaining the program after the

cooperative agreement has expired.

(6) Evaluation. The applicant should

specify plans for evaluation of the

effectiveness of the proposed project

and for ensuring continuous

improvement. Factors that may be

considered include: Thoroughness of

evaluation plans, including internal

evaluation for management control,

external evaluation for assessing

outcomes of the activity, and ‘‘customer

satisfaction’’ measures of performance.

§ 292.5 Proposal selection process.

The proposal evaluation and selection

process will consist of three principal

phases: Proposal qualifications;

proposal review and selection of

finalists; and award determination as

follows:

(a) Proposal qualification. All

proposals will be reviewed by NIST to

assure compliance with the proposal

content and other basic provisions of

this part. Proposals which satisfy these

requirements will be designated

qualified proposals; all others will be

disqualified at this phase of the

evaluation and selection process.

(b) Proposal review and selection of

finalists. NIST will appoint an

evaluation panel to review and evaluate
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 25877

all qualified proposals in accordance

with the evaluation criteria and values

set forth in this part. Evaluation panels

will consist of NIST employees and in

some cases other federal employees or

non-federal experts who sign nondisclosure agreements. A site visit may

be required to make full evaluation of a

proposal. From the qualified proposals,

a group of finalists will be numerically

ranked and recommended for award

based on this review.

(c) Award determination. The Director

of the NIST, or her/his designee, shall

select awardees based on total

evaluation scores, geographic

distribution, and the availability of

funds. All three factors will be

considered in making an award. Upon

the final award decision, a notification

will be made to each of the proposing

organizations.

§ 292.6 Additional requirements.

Federal policies and procedures.

Recipients and subrecipients are subject

to all Federal laws and Federal and

Department of Commerce policies,

regulations, and procedures applicable

to Federal financial assistance awards.

[FR Doc. 95–11701 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900–AH18

Eligibility Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend its

adjudication regulations regarding

eligibility verification reports (EVRs) for

income-based benefits. This amendment

implements recent legislation which

eliminated the mandatory requirement

for submission of EVRs on an annual

basis from recipients of pension or

parents’ dependency and indemnity

compensation (DIC) and gives VA

discretionary authority to require such

reports where necessary to determine

eligibility. This amendment is necessary

to set forth the guidelines that the

Secretary will use in exercising this

discretionary authority.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Director, Office of Regulations

Management (02D), Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20420, or handdeliver written comments to: Office of

Regulations Management, Room 1176,

801 Eye Street, NW, Washington, DC

20001. Comments should indicate that

they are in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–

AH18.’’ All written comments received

will be available for public inspection in

the Office of Regulations Management,

Room 1176, 801 Eye Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20001, between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except

holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Trowbridge, Consultant, Regulations

Staff, Compensation and Pension

Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20420, telephone

(202) 273–7210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The term

‘‘eligibility verification report’’ means a

VA form which requests information

needed to determine or verify eligibility

for VA’s income-based benefit programs

(pension and parents’ DIC). A series of

forms, rather than one universal form, is

used because specific entitlement

factors vary depending on the benefit

involved and the status of the

beneficiary. However, all EVR forms

request income and marital status

information and have a similar format.

Until recently VA was required by

law (38 U.S.C. 1315(e) and 38 U.S.C.

1506(2)) to secure a completed EVR at

least once a year from every pension

beneficiary and every parents’ DIC

beneficiary under the age of 72. Public

Law 103–271, the Board of Veterans’

Appeals Administrative Procedures

Improvement Act of 1994, amended 38

U.S.C. 1315 and 1506 to give the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs

discretionary authority to require

submission of income and resource

reports by recipients of income-based

benefits. These implementing regulatory

amendments outline the manner in

which the secretary will exercise this

discretionary authority each year to

determine which claimants and

beneficiaries must complete an EVR.

The proposed rule would require an

EVR in three instances. First, VA will

require submission of an EVR by any

beneficiary whose Social Security

number, or whose spouse’s Social

Security number, has not been verified

by the Social Security Administration

(SSA). VA conducts periodic computer

matches with SSA. These matches

permit VA to verify the information

upon which payment of VA benefits is

based. However, these matches cannot

be conducted unless VA records contain

accurate Social Security numbers for the

beneficiary and, if applicable, his or her

spouse. A Social Security number is

considered to be verified when the

identifying information associated with

that number in VA records (e.g., name,

date of birth, sex) matches identifying

information associated with the number

in SSA records. SSA verifies the Social

Security numbers of VA beneficiaries

and spouses twice each year.

VA is required by 38 U.S.C. 5312 to

increase current pension and parents’

DIC rates by the same percentage and on

the same date as the Social Security

COLA, and for that reason we

automatically update Social Security

income information in our records at the

time of a Social Security COLA. VA

then receives a computer extract from

SSA showing the actual Social Security

income which beneficiaries will receive

based upon the new COLA and

reconciles any differences between data

in VA’s records and data provided by

SSA. Based on this review of Social

Security data, we are confident of the

timeliness and accuracy of the Social

Security income match and, in our

judgment, it is not necessary to require

beneficiaries with verified Social

Security numbers who have no income,

or whose only income is Social

Security, to submit an annual EVR.

VA will also require beneficiaries who

receive income other than Social

Security to submit an EVR. These

beneficiaries must submit an EVR

because VA is unable to verify the

receipt and amount of other types of

income with the same accuracy that it

can verify Social Security income.

Even if all relevant Social Security

numbers have been verified and neither

the beneficiary nor the beneficiary’s

spouse received income other than

Social Security, VA will still require

completion of an EVR if it determines

that submission of an EVR is necessary

to preserve program integrity. The

phrase ‘‘necessary to preserve program

integrity’’ applies when it is necessary

for VA, or an agency with oversight

authority over VA, to verify that EVRexempt beneficiaries are accurately

reporting changes in entitlement factors.

38 U.S.C. 1315(e) establishes a

statutory exemption from filing an EVR

for parents who have attained the age of

72 and who have been paid Dependency

and Indemnity Compensation for two

consecutive years. However, when

Congress removed the mandatory

requirement for annual reporting by

persons who have received old law or

section 306 pension or parents’ DIC for

two consecutive years and are at least 72

years old, it indicated that removal of

this reporting requirement did not affect

VA’s authority to require clarification or