4258 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 

26 Id., at 15–19. 

27See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Final Results of the New Shipper Review; 2012– 

2013, 80 FR 4244 (January 27, 2015). 

sufficient to allow the Court to sustain 

the Department’s ultimate 

determination.26

Timken Notice 

In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 

341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 

the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 

516A(e) of the Act, the Department must 

publish a notice of a court decision that 

is not ‘‘in harmony’’ with a Department 

determination and must suspend 

liquidation of entries pending a 

‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s 

December 21, 2015, judgment in this 

case constitutes a final court decision 

that is not in harmony with the 

Department’s Final Results. This notice 

is published in fulfillment of the 

publication requirements of Timken. 

Amended Final Results 

As a result, of the Court’s final 

decision with respect to this case, the 

Department is amending the Final 

Results with respect to PBCD/SKF and 

SKF/CPZ in this case. The revised 

weighted-average dumping margins for 

the June 1, 2008, through May 31, 2009, 

period of review are as follows: 

Exporter Final percent 

margin 

Peer Bearing Company— 

Changshan (Spungenowned, PBCD) .................. 21.65 

Changshan Peer Bearing 

Company, Ltd. (SKFowned, SKF) ..................... 19.45 

The Department will continue the 

suspension of liquidation of the subject 

merchandise pending the expiration of 

the period of appeal or, if appealed, 

pending a final and conclusive court 

decision. In the event the Court’s ruling 

is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld 

by the CAFC, the Department will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to assess antidumping duties 

on unliquidated entries of subject 

merchandise exported by the above 

listed exporters at the rate listed above. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Since the Final Results, the 

Department has established a new cash 

deposit rate for SKF/CPZ.27 Therefore, 

the cash deposit rate for SKF does not 

need to be updated as a result of these 

amended final results. 

Since the Final Results, the 

Department has not established a new 

cash deposit rate for PBCD/CPZ. 

However, as explained above, in 

September 2008, PBCD/CPZ was 

acquired by AB SKF, and the 

Department determined via a successorin-interest analysis that SKF/CPZ was 

not its successor in interest. As a 

consequence, PBCD/CPZ effectively no 

longer exists, and its cash deposit rate 

does not need to be updated as a result 

of these amended final results. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 516A(e), 

751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: January 13, 2016. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01509 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

[Docket Number: 150302201–6024–02] 

Award Competitions for Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

(MEP) Centers in the States of 

Alabama, Arkansas, California, 

Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, 

Missouri, Montana, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Utah and 

Vermont 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST), United States 

Department of Commerce (DoC). 

ACTION: Notice of funding availability. 

SUMMARY: NIST invites applications 

from eligible organizations in 

connection with NIST’s funding up to 

thirteen (13) separate MEP cooperative 

agreements for the operation of an MEP 

Center in the designated States’ service 

areas and in the funding amounts 

identified in the corresponding Federal 

Funding Opportunity (FFO). NIST 

anticipates awarding one (1) cooperative 

agreement for each of the identified 

States. The objective of the MEP Center 

Program is to provide manufacturing 

extension services to primarily small 

and medium-sized manufacturers 

within the States designated in the 

corresponding FFO. The selected 

organization will become part of the 

MEP national system of extension 

service providers, currently located 

throughout the United States and Puerto 

Rico. 

DATES: Electronic applications must be 

received no later than 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on April 25, 2016. Paper 

applications will not be accepted. 

Applications received after the deadline 

will not be reviewed or considered. The 

approximate start date for awards under 

this notice and the corresponding FFO 

is expected to be October 1, 2016. 

When developing your submission 

timeline, please keep in mind that (1) all 

applicants are required to have a current 

registration in the System for Award 

Management (SAM.gov); (2) the free 

annual registration process in the 

electronic System for Award 

Management (SAM.gov) may take 

between three and five business days, or 

as long as more than two weeks; and (3) 

electronic applicants are required to 

have a current registration in 

Grants.gov; and (4) applicants will 

receive a series of email messages from 

Grants.gov over a period of up to two 

business days before learning whether a 

Federal agency’s electronic system has 

received its application. Please note that 

a federal assistance award cannot be 

issued if the designated recipient’s 

registration in the System for Award 

Management (SAM.gov) is not current at 

the time of the award. 

ADDRESSES: Applications must be 

submitted electronically through 

www.grants.gov. NIST will not accept 

applications submitted by mail, 

facsimile, or by email. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Administrative, budget, cost-sharing, 

and eligibility questions and other 

programmatic questions should be 

directed to Diane Henderson at Tel: 

(301) 975–5105; Email: mepffo@nist.gov; 

Fax: (301) 963–6556. Grants Rules and 

Regulation questions should be 

addressed to: Michael Teske, Grants 

Management Division, National Institute 

of Standards and Technology, 100 

Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg, 

MD 20899–1650; Tel: (301) 975–6358; 

Email: michael.teske@nist.gov; Fax: 

(301) 975–6368. For technical assistance 

with Grants.gov submissions contact 

Christopher Hunton at Tel: (301) 975– 

5718; Email: grants.gov@nist.gov; Fax: 

(301) 975–8884. Questions submitted to 

NIST/MEP may be posted as part of an 

FAQ document, which will be 

periodically updated on the MEP Web 

site at http://nist.gov/mep/ffo-statecompetitions-03.cfm. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic access: Applicants are 

strongly encouraged to read the 

corresponding FFO announcement 

available at www.grants.gov for 

complete information about this 

program, including all program 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 4259 

1The States of Ohio and Utah were included in 

a prior round of MEP Center award competitions 

(see 80 FR 12451 (March 9, 2015) and NIST 

Funding Opportunity Number 2015–NIST–MEP– 

01), which did not result in an application being 

selected for funding. As a result, NIST is 

announcing competition for these two States as part 

of this round of MEP Center award competitions. 

requirements and instructions for 

applying electronically. Paper 

applications or electronic applications 

submitted other than through 

www.grants.gov will not be accepted. 

The FFO may be found by searching 

under the Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Name and Number provided 

below. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278k, as implemented 

in 15 CFR part 290. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Name and Number: Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership—11.611. 

Webinar Information Session: NIST/

MEP will hold one or more webinar 

information sessions for organizations 

that are considering applying for this 

funding opportunity. These webinars 

will provide general information 

regarding MEP and offer general 

guidance on preparing proposals. NIST/ 

MEP staff will be available at the 

webinars to answer general questions. 

During the webinars, proprietary 

technical discussions about specific 

project ideas will not be permitted. 

Also, NIST/MEP staff will not critique 

or provide feedback on any specific 

project ideas during the webinars or at 

any time before submission of a 

proposal to MEP. However, NIST/MEP 

staff will provide information about the 

MEP eligibility and cost-sharing 

requirements, evaluation criteria and 

selection factors, selection process, and 

the general characteristics of a 

competitive MEP proposal during this 

webinar. The webinars will be held 

approximately fifteen (15) to thirty (30) 

business days after posting of this notice 

and the corresponding FFO. The exact 

dates and times of the webinars will be 

posted on the MEP Web site at http:// 

nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions03.cfm. The webinars will be recorded, 

and a link to the recordings will be 

posted on the MEP Web site. In 

addition, the webinar presentations will 

be available on the MEP Web site. 

Organizations wishing to participate in 

one or more of the webinars must 

register in advance by contacting MEP 

by email at mepffo@nist.gov. 

Participation in the webinars is not 

required in order for an organization to 

submit an application pursuant to this 

notice and the corresponding FFO. 

Program Description: NIST invites 

applications from eligible organizations 

in connection with NIST’s funding up to 

thirteen (13) separate MEP cooperative 

agreements for the operation of an MEP 

Center in the designated States’ service 

areas and in the funding amounts 

identified in section II.2 of the 

corresponding FFO. NIST anticipates 

awarding one (1) cooperative agreement 

for each of the identified States. The 

objective of the MEP Center Program is 

to provide manufacturing extension 

services to primarily small and mediumsized manufacturers within the States 

designated in the applications. The 

selected organization will become part 

of the MEP national system of extension 

service providers, located throughout 

the United States and Puerto Rico. 

See the corresponding FFO for further 

information about the Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership and the MEP 

National Network. 

The MEP Program is not a Federal 

research and development program. It is 

not the intent of the program that 

awardees will perform systematic 

research. 

To learn more about the MEP 

Program, please go to http://www.nist.

gov/mep/. 

Funding Availability: NIST 

anticipates funding up to thirteen (13) 

MEP Center awards with an initial fiveyear period of performance in 

accordance with the multi-year funding 

policy described in section II.3 of the 

corresponding FFO. Initial funding for 

the awards listed below and in the 

corresponding FFO is contingent upon 

the availability of appropriated funds. 

The table below lists the thirteen (13) 

States identified for funding as part of 

this notice and the corresponding FFO 

and the estimated amount of funding 

available for each: 

MEP Center location and assigned geographical service area (by state) 1

Anticipated 

annual Federal 

funding for 

each year of 

the award 

Total Federal 

funding for 5 

year award 

period 

Alabama ................................................................................................................................................................... $1,780,800 $8,904,000 

Arkansas .................................................................................................................................................................. 971,218 4,856,065 

California .................................................................................................................................................................. 14,046,449 70,232,245 

Georgia .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,693,482 13,467,410 

Louisiana .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,197,546 5,987,730 

Massachusetts ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,467,879 12,339,395 

Missouri .................................................................................................................................................................... 2,207,873 11,039,365 

Montana ................................................................................................................................................................... 512,000 2,560,000 

Ohio ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5,246,822 26,234,110 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................................................................ 5,280,586 26,402,930 

Puerto Rico .............................................................................................................................................................. 643,133 3,215,665 

Utah ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1,147,573 5,737,865 

Vermont ................................................................................................................................................................... 500,000 2,500,000 

Applicants may propose annual 

Federal funding amounts that are 

different from the anticipated annual 

Federal funding amounts set forth in the 

above table, provided that the total 

amount of Federal funding being 

requested by an Applicant does not 

exceed the total amount of federal 

funding for the five-year award period 

as set forth in the above table. For 

example, if the anticipated annual 

Federal funding amount for an MEP 

Center is $500,000 and the total Federal 

funding amount for the five-year award 

period is $2,500,000, an Applicant may 

propose Federal funding amounts 

greater, less than, or equal to $500,000 

for any year or years of the award, so 

long as the total amount of Federal 

funding being requested by the 

Applicant for the entire five-year award 

period does not exceed $2,500,000. 

Multi-Year Funding Policy. When an 

application for a multi-year award is 

approved, funding will usually be 

provided for only the first year of the 

project. Recipients will be required to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4260 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 

submit detailed budgets and budget 

narratives prior to the award of any 

continued funding. Continued funding 

for the remaining years of the project 

will be awarded by NIST on a noncompetitive basis, and may be adjusted 

higher or lower from year-to-year of the 

award, contingent upon satisfactory 

performance, continued relevance to the 

mission and priorities of the program, 

and the availability of funds. 

Continuation of an award to extend the 

period of performance and/or to 

increase or decrease funding is at the 

sole discretion of NIST. 

Potential for Additional 5 Years. 

Initial awards issued pursuant to this 

notice and the corresponding FFO are 

expected to be for up to five (5) years 

with the possibility for NIST to renew 

the award, on a non-competitive basis, 

for an additional 5 years at the end of 

the initial award period. The review 

processes in 15 CFR 290.8 will be used 

as part of the overall assessment of the 

recipient, consistent with the potential 

long-term nature and purpose of the 

program. In considering renewal for a 

second five-year, multi-year award term, 

NIST will evaluate the results of the 

annual reviews and the results of the 

3rd Year peer-based Panel Review 

findings and recommendations as set 

forth in 15 CFR 290.8, as well as the 

Center’s progress in addressing findings 

and recommendations made during the 

various reviews. The full process is 

expected to include programmatic, 

policy, financial, administrative, and 

responsibility assessments, and the 

availability of funds, consistent with 

Department of Commerce and NIST 

policies and procedures in effect at that 

time. 

Kick-Off Conferences 

Each recipient will be required to 

attend a kick-off conference, which will 

be held within 30 days post start date 

of award, to help ensure that the MEP 

Center operator has a clear 

understanding of the program and its 

components. The kick-off conference 

will take place at NIST/MEP 

headquarters in Gaithersburg, MD, 

during which time NIST will: (1) Orient 

MEP Center key personnel to the MEP 

program; (2) explain program and 

financial reporting requirements and 

procedures; (3) identify available 

resources that can enhance the 

capabilities of the MEP Center; and (4) 

negotiate and develop a detailed threeyear operating plan with the recipient. 

NIST/MEP anticipates an additional set 

of site visits at the MEP Center and/or 

telephonic meetings with the recipient 

to finalize the three-year operating plan. 

The kick-off conference will take up 

to approximately 3 days and must be 

attended by the MEP Center Director, 

along with up to two additional MEP 

Center employees. Applicants must 

include travel and related costs for the 

kick-off conference as part of the budget 

for year one (1), and these costs should 

be reflected in the SF–424A form. (See 

section IV.2.a(2) of the corresponding 

FFO). These costs must also be reflected 

in the budget table and budget narrative 

for year 1, which is submitted as part of 

the budget tables and budget narratives 

section of the Technical Proposal. (See 

section IV.2.a(6)(e) of the corresponding 

FFO.) Representatives from key 

subrecipients and other key strategic 

partners may attend the kick-off 

conference with the prior written 

approval of the Grants Officer. 

Applicants proposing to have key 

subrecipients and/or other key strategic 

partners attend the kick-off conference 

should clearly indicate so as part of the 

budget narrative for year one of the 

project. 

MEP System-Wide Meetings 

NIST/MEP typically organizes systemwide meetings approximately four times 

a year in an effort to share best 

practices, new and emerging trends, and 

additional topics of interest. These 

meetings are rotated throughout the 

United States and typically involve 3– 

4 days of resource time and associated 

travel costs for each meeting. The MEP 

Center Director must attend these 

meetings, along with up to two 

additional MEP Center employees. 

Applicants must include travel and 

related costs for four quarterly MEP 

system-wide meetings in each of the five 

(5) project years (4 meetings per year; 20 

total meetings over five-year award 

period). These costs must be reflected in 

the SF–424A form (see section 

IV.2.a(2).of the corresponding FFO). 

These costs must also be reflected in the 

budget tables and budget narratives for 

each of the project’s five (5) years, 

which are submitted in the budget 

tables and budget narratives section of 

the Technical Proposal. (See section 

IV.2.a(6)(e) of the corresponding FFO). 

Cost Share or Matching Requirement: 

Non-Federal cost sharing of at least 50 

percent of the total project costs is 

required for each of the first through the 

third year of the award, with an 

increasing minimum non-federal cost 

share contribution beginning in year 4 

of the award as follows: 

Award year Maximum 

NIST share 

Minimum 

non-Federal 

share 

1–3 .................... 1⁄2 1⁄2

4 ........................ 2⁄5 3⁄5

5 and beyond .... 1⁄3 2⁄3

Non-Federal cost sharing is that 

portion of the project costs not borne by 

the Federal Government. The 

applicant’s share of the MEP Center 

expenses may include cash, services, 

and third party in-kind contributions, as 

described at 2 CFR 200.306, as 

applicable, and in the MEP program 

regulations at 15 CFR 290.4(c). No more 

than 50% of the applicant’s total nonFederal cost share for any year of the 

award may be from third party in-kind 

contributions of part-time personnel, 

equipment, software, rental value of 

centrally located space, and related 

contributions, per 15 CFR 290.4(c)(5). 

The source and detailed rationale of the 

cost share, including cash, full- and 

part-time personnel, and in-kind 

donations, must be documented in the 

budget tables and budget narratives 

submitted with the application and will 

be considered as part of the review 

under the evaluation criterion found in 

section V.1.c.ii of the corresponding 

FFO. 

Recipients must meet the minimum 

non-federal cost share requirements for 

each year of the award as identified in 

the chart above. For purposes of the 

MEP Program, ‘‘program income’’ (as 

defined in 2 CFR 200.80, as applicable) 

generated by an MEP Center may be 

used by a recipient towards the required 

non-federal cost share under an MEP 

award. 

As with the Federal share, any 

proposed costs included as non-Federal 

cost sharing must be an allowable/

eligible cost under this program and 

under the Federal cost principles set 

forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E. NonFederal cost sharing incorporated into 

the budget of an approved MEP 

cooperative agreement is subject to 

audit in the same general manner as 

Federal award funds. See 2 CFR part 

200, subpart F. 

As set forth in section IV.2.a(7) of the 

corresponding FFO, a letter of 

commitment is required from an 

authorized representative of the 

applicant, stating the total amount of 

cost share to be contributed by the 

applicant towards the proposed MEP 

Center. Letters of commitment for all 

other third-party sources of non-Federal 

cost sharing identified in a proposal are 

not required, but are strongly 

encouraged. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 4261 

Eligibility: The eligibility 

requirements set forth here and in 

section III.1 of the corresponding FFO 

will be used in lieu of and to the extent 

they are inconsistent with will 

supersede those given in the MEP 

regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, 

specifically 15 CFR 290.5(a)(1). Each 

applicant for and recipient of an MEP 

award must be a U.S.-based nonprofit 

institution or organization. For the 

purpose of this notice and the 

corresponding FFO, nonprofit 

institutions include public and private 

nonprofit organizations, nonprofit or 

State colleges and universities, public or 

nonprofit community and technical 

colleges, and State, local or Tribal 

governments. Existing MEP awardees 

and new applicants that meet the 

eligibility criteria set forth here and in 

section III.1 of the corresponding FFO 

may apply. An eligible organization may 

work individually or may include 

proposed subawards to eligible 

organizations or proposed contracts 

with any other organization as part of 

the applicant’s proposal, effectively 

forming a team. However, as discussed 

in section I.4 of the corresponding FFO, 

NIST generally will not fund 

applications that propose an 

organizational or operational structure 

that, in whole or in part, delegates or 

transfers to another person, institution, 

or organization the applicant’s 

responsibility for MEP Core 

Management and Oversight functions. 

In addition, the applicant must have or 

propose an Oversight Board or Advisory 

Committee and Governance structure or 

plan for establishing a board structure 

within 90 days from the award start date 

(Refer to section I.3 of the corresponding 

FFO). 

Application Requirements: 

Applications must be submitted in 

accordance with the requirements set 

forth in section IV of the corresponding 

FFO announcement, which are in lieu of 

and to the extent they are inconsistent 

with will supersede any application 

requirements set forth in 15 CFR 290.5. 

See specifically sections IV.2.b(1), 

IV.2.b(2), and IV.2.b(7) in the Full 

Announcement Text of the 

corresponding FFO. 

Application/Review Information: The 

evaluation criteria, selection factors, and 

review and selection process provided 

in this section and in section V of the 

corresponding FFO will be used for this 

competition in lieu of and to the extent 

they are inconsistent with will 

supersede those provided in the MEP 

regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, 

specifically 15 CFR 290.6 and 290.7. 

Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation 

criteria that will be used in evaluating 

applications and assigned weights, with 

a maximum score of 100, are listed 

below. 

a. Executive Summary and Project 

Narrative. (40 points; Sub-criteria i 

through iv will be weighted equally) 

NIST/MEP will evaluate the extent to 

which the applicant’s Executive 

Summary and Project Narrative 

demonstrates how the applicant’s 

methodology will efficiently and 

effectively establish an MEP Center and 

provide manufacturing extension 

services to primarily small and mediumsized manufacturers in the applicable 

State-wide geographical service area 

identified in section II.2 of the 

corresponding FFO. Applicants should 

name the state to be covered in the first 

sentence of the Executive Summary and 

Project Narrative. Reviewers will 

consider the following topics when 

evaluating the Executive Summary and 

Project Narrative: 

i. Center Strategy. Reviewers will 

assess the applicant’s strategy proposed 

for the Center to deliver services that 

meet manufacturers’ needs, generate 

client impacts (e.g., cost savings, 

increased sales, etc.), and support a 

strong manufacturing ecosystem. 

Reviewers will assess the quality with 

which the applicant: 

• Incorporates the market analysis 

described in the criterion set forth in 

subsection ii, below and in section 

V.1.a.ii(1) of the corresponding FFO to 

inform strategies, products and services; 

• defines a strategy for delivering 

services that balances market 

penetration with impact and revenue 

generation, addressing the needs of 

manufacturers, with an emphasis on the 

small and medium-sized manufacturers; 

• defines the Center’s existing and/or 

proposed roles and relationships with 

other entities in the State’s 

manufacturing ecosystem, including 

State, regional, and local agencies, 

economic development organizations 

and educational institutions such as 

universities and community or technical 

colleges, industry associations, and 

other appropriate entities; 

• plans to engage with other entities 

in Statewide and/or regional advanced 

manufacturing initiatives; and 

• supports achievements of the MEP 

mission and objectives while also 

satisfying the interests of other 

stakeholders, investors, and partners. 

ii. Market Understanding. Reviewers 

will assess the strategy proposed for the 

Center to define the target market, 

understand the needs of manufacturers 

(especially Small and Medium 

Enterprises (SMEs)), and to define 

appropriate services to meet identified 

needs. Reviewers will evaluate the 

proposed approach for regularly 

updating this understanding through the 

five years. The following sub-topics will 

be evaluated and given equal weight: 

(1) Market Segmentation. Reviewers 

will assess the quality and extent of the 

applicant’s market segmentation 

strategy including: 

• Segmentation of company size, 

geography, and industry priorities 

including some consideration of rural, 

start-up (a manufacturing establishment 

that has been in operation for five years 

or less) and/or very small manufacturers 

as appropriate to the state; 

• alignment with state and/or 

regional initiatives; and 

• other important factors identified 

by the applicant. 

(2) Needs Identification and Product/ 

Service Offerings. Reviewers will assess 

the quality and extent of the applicant’s 

proposed needs identification and 

proposed products and services for both 

sales growth and operational 

improvement in response to the 

applicant’s market segmentation and 

understanding assessed by reviewers 

under the preceding subsection ii(1) and 

in section V.1.a.ii.1 of the corresponding 

FFO. Of particular interest is how the 

applicant would leverage new 

manufacturing technologies, techniques 

and processes usable by small and 

medium-sized manufacturers. 

Reviewers will also consider how an 

applicant’s proposed approach will 

support a job-driven training agenda 

with manufacturing clients. (To learn 

more about the White House job-driven 

training agenda, please go to: https://

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

docs/ready_to_work_factsheet.pdf). 

iii. Business Model. Reviewers will 

assess the applicant’s proposed business 

model for the Center as the applicant 

provides in its Project Narrative, 

Qualifications of the Applicant; Key 

Personnel, Organizational Structure and 

Budget Tables and Budget Narratives 

sections of its Technical Proposal, 

submitted under section IV.2.a(6) of the 

corresponding FFO, and the proposed 

business model’s ability to execute the 

strategy evaluated under criterion set 

forth in subsection ii(1), above, and in 

section V.1.a.i of the corresponding 

FFO, based on the market 

understanding evaluated under criterion 

set forth in subsection ii(2), above, and 

in section V.1.a.ii of the corresponding 

FFO. The following sub-topics will be 

evaluated and given equal weight: 

(1) Outreach and Service Delivery to 

the Market. Reviewers will assess the 

extent to which the proposed Center is 

organized to: 

• Identify, reach and provide 

proposed services to key market 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4262 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 

segments and individual manufacturers 

described above; 

• work with a manufacturer’s 

leadership in strategic discussions 

related to new technologies, new 

products and new markets; and 

• leverage the applicant’s past 

experience in working with small and 

medium-sized manufacturers as a basis 

for future programmatic success. 

(2) Partnership Leverage and 

Linkages. Reviewers will assess the 

extent to which the proposed Center 

will make effective use of resources or 

partnerships with third parties such as 

industry, universities, community/

technical colleges, nonprofit economic 

development organizations, and 

Federal, State and Local Government 

Agencies in the Center’s business 

model. 

iv. Performance Measurement and 

Management. Reviewers will assess the 

extent to which the applicant will use 

a systematic approach to measuring and 

managing performance including the: 

• Quality and extent of the 

applicant’s stated goals, milestones and 

outcomes described by operating year 

(year 1, year 2, etc.); 

• applicant’s utilization of clientbased business results important to 

stakeholders in understanding program 

impact; and 

• depth of the proposed methodology 

for program management and internal 

evaluation likely to ensure effective 

operations and oversight for meeting 

program and service delivery objectives. 

b. Qualifications of the Applicant; 

Key Personnel, Organizational Structure 

and Management; and Oversight Board 

or Advisory Committee and Governance 

(30 points; Sub-criteria i and ii will be 

weighted equally). Reviewers will assess 

the ability of the key personnel, the 

applicant’s organizational structure and 

management and Oversight Board or 

Advisory Committee and Governance to 

deliver the program and services 

envisioned for the Center. Reviewers 

will consider the following topics when 

evaluating the qualifications of the 

applicant and of program management: 

i. Key Personnel, Organizational 

Structure and Management. Reviewers 

will assess the extent to which the: 

• Proposed key personnel have the 

appropriate experience and education in 

manufacturing, outreach, program 

management and partnership 

development to support achievements 

of the MEP mission and objectives; 

• proposed management structure 

and organizational roles are aligned to 

plan, direct, monitor, organize and 

control the monetary resources of the 

proposed center to achieve its business 

objectives (Refer to section I.4 of the 

corresponding FFO); 

• proposed organizational structure 

flows logically from the specified 

approach to the market and products 

and service offerings; and 

• proposed field staff structure 

sufficiently supports the geographic 

concentrations and industry targets for 

the region. 

ii. Oversight Board or Advisory 

Committee and Governance. Reviewers 

will assess the extent to which the: 

• Proposed Oversight Board or 

Advisory Committee and its operations 

are complete, appropriate and will meet 

the program’s objectives at the time of 

award, or, if such a Board or Committee 

does not exist at the time of application 

or is not expected to meet these 

requirements at the time of award, the 

extent to which the proposed plan for 

developing and implementing such an 

Oversight Board or Advisory Committee 

within 90 days of award start date 

(expected to be October 1, 2016) is 

feasible. (Refer to section I.3 of the 

corresponding FFO). 

• Oversight Board or Advisory 

Committee and Governance is engaged 

with overseeing and guiding the Center 

and supports its own development 

through a schedule of regular meetings, 

and processes ensuring Board or 

Advisory Committee involvement in 

strategic planning, recruitment, 

selection and retention of board 

members, board assessment practices 

and board development initiatives 

(Refer to section I.3. of the 

corresponding FFO). 

c. Budget and Financial Plan. (30 

points; Sub-criteria i and ii will be 

weighted equally) Reviewers will assess 

the suitability and focus of the 

applicant’s five (5) year budget. The 

application will be assessed in the 

following areas: 

i. Budget. Reviewers will assess the 

extent to which: 

• The proposed financial plan is 

aligned to support the execution of the 

proposed Center’s strategy and business 

model over the five (5) year project plan; 

• the proposed projections for income 

and expenditures are appropriate for the 

scale of services that are to be delivered 

by the proposed Center and the service 

delivery model envisioned within the 

context of the overall financial model 

over the five (5) year project plan; 

• a reasonable ramp-up or scale-up 

scope and budget has the Center fully 

operational by the 4th year of the 

project; and 

• the proposal’s narrative for each of 

the budgeted items explains the 

rationale for each of the budgeted items, 

including assumptions the applicant 

used in budgeting for the Center. 

ii. Quality of the Financial Plan for 

Meeting the Award’s Non-Federal Cost 

Share Requirements over 5 Years. 

Reviewers will assess the quality of and 

extent to which the: 

• Applicant clearly describes the total 

level of cost share and detailed rationale 

of the cost share, including cash and inkind, in their proposed budget. 

• applicant’s funding commitments 

for cost share are documented by letters 

of support from the applicant, proposed 

sub-recipients and any other partners 

identified and meet the basic matching 

requirements of the program; 

• applicant’s cost share meets basic 

requirements of allowability, 

allocability and reasonableness under 

applicable federal costs principles set 

for in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E; 

• applicant’s underlying accounting 

system is established or will be 

established to meet applicable federal 

costs principles set for in 2 CFR part 

200, subpart E; and 

• the overall proposed financial plan 

is sufficiently robust and diversified so 

as to support the long term 

sustainability of the Center throughout 

the five (5) years of the project plan. 

Selection Factors: The Selection 

Factors for this notice as set forth here 

and in section V.3 of the corresponding 

FFO are as follows: 

a. The availability of Federal funds; 

b. Relevance of the proposed project 

to MEP program goals and policy 

objectives; 

c. Reviewers’ evaluations, including 

technical comments; 

d. The need to assure appropriate 

distribution of MEP services within the 

designated State; 

e. Whether the project duplicates 

other projects funded by DoC or by 

other Federal agencies; and 

f. Whether the application 

complements or supports other 

Administration priorities, or projects 

supported by DoC or other Federal 

agencies, such as but not limited to the 

National Network for Manufacturing 

Innovation and the Investing in 

Manufacturing Communities 

Partnership. 

Review and Selection Process: 

Proposals, reports, documents and other 

information related to applications 

submitted to NIST and/or relating to 

financial assistance awards issued by 

NIST will be reviewed and considered 

by Federal employees, Federal agents 

and contractors, and/or by non-Federal 

personnel who enter into nondisclosure 

agreements covering such information 

as set forth here and in section V.2 of 

the corresponding FFO, which will be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 4263 

used for this competition in lieu of and 

to the extent they are inconsistent with 

will supersede the review and selection 

process provided in the MEP regulations 

found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 

15 CFR 290.7. 

(1) Initial Administrative Review of 

Applications. An initial review of 

timely received applications will be 

conducted to determine eligibility, 

completeness, and responsiveness to 

this notice and the corresponding FFO 

and the scope of the stated program 

objectives. Applications determined to 

be ineligible, incomplete, and/or nonresponsive may be eliminated from 

further review. However, NIST, in its 

sole discretion, may continue the review 

process for an application that is 

missing non-substantive information 

that can easily be rectified or cured. 

(2) Full Review of Eligible, Complete, 

and Responsive Applications. 

Applications that are determined to be 

eligible, complete, and responsive will 

proceed for full reviews in accordance 

with the review and selection processes 

below. Eligible, complete and 

responsive applications will be grouped 

by the State in which the proposed MEP 

Center is to be established. The 

applications in each group will be 

reviewed by the same reviewers and 

will be evaluated, reviewed, and 

selected as described below in separate 

groups. 

(3) Evaluation and Review. Each 

application will be reviewed by at least 

three technically qualified individual 

reviewers who will evaluate each 

application based on the evaluation 

criteria (see section V.1 of the 

corresponding FFO). Applicants may 

receive written follow-up questions in 

order for the reviewers to gain a better 

understanding of the applicant’s 

proposal. Each reviewer will provide a 

written technical assessment against the 

evaluation criteria and based on that 

assessment will assign each application 

a numeric score, with a maximum score 

of 100. If a non-Federal reviewer is 

used, the reviewers may discuss the 

applications with each other, but scores 

will be determined on an individual 

basis, not as a consensus. 

Applicants whose applications 

receive an average score of 70 or higher 

out of 100 will be deemed finalists. If 

deemed necessary, finalists will be 

invited to participate with reviewers in 

a conference call and/or a video 

conference, and/or finalists will be 

invited to participate in a site visit that 

will be conducted by the same 

reviewers at the applicant’s location. In 

any event, if there are two (2) or more 

finalists within a state, conference calls, 

video conferences or site visits will be 

conducted with each finalist. Finalists 

will be reviewed and evaluated, and 

reviewers may revise their assigned 

numeric scores based on the evaluation 

criteria (see section V.1 of the 

corresponding FFO) as a result of the 

conference call, video conference, and/ 

or site visit. 

(4) Ranking and Selection. Based 

upon an average of the technical 

reviewers’ final scores, an adjectival 

rating will be assigned to each 

application in accordance with the 

following scale: 

Fundable, Outstanding (91–100 

points); 

Fundable, Very Good (81–90 points); 

Fundable (70–80 points); or 

Unfundable (0–69 points). 

For decision-making purposes, 

applications receiving the same 

adjectival rating will be considered to 

have an equivalent ranking, although 

their technical review scores, while 

comparable, may not necessarily be the 

same. 

The Selecting Official is the NIST 

Associate Director for Innovation and 

Industry Services or designee. The 

Selecting Official makes the final 

recommendation to the NIST Grants 

Officer regarding the funding of 

applications under the corresponding 

FFO. The Selecting Official shall be 

provided all applications, all the scores 

and technical assessments of the 

reviewers, and all information obtained 

from the applicants during the 

evaluation, review and negotiation 

processes. 

The Selecting Official will generally 

select and recommend the most 

meritorious application for an award 

based on the adjectival rankings and/or 

one or more of the six (6) selection 

factors described in section V.3 of the 

corresponding FFO. The Selecting 

Official retains the discretion to select 

and recommend an application out of 

rank order (i.e., from a lower adjectival 

category) based on one or more of the 

selection factors, or to select and 

recommend no applications for funding. 

The Selecting Official’s 

recommendation to the Grants Officer 

shall set forth the bases for the selection 

decision. 

As part of the overall review and 

selection process, NIST reserves the 

right to request that applicants provide 

pre-award clarifications and/or to enter 

into pre-award negotiations with 

applicants relative to programmatic, 

financial or other aspects of an 

application, such as but not limited to 

the revision or removal of proposed 

budget costs, or the modification of 

proposed MEP Center activities, work 

plans or program goals and objectives. 

In this regard, NIST may request that 

applicants provide supplemental 

information required by the Agency 

prior to award. NIST also reserves the 

right to reject an application where 

information is uncovered that raises a 

reasonable doubt as to the responsibility 

of the applicant. The final approval of 

selected applications and issuance of 

awards will be by the NIST Grants 

Officer. The award decisions of the 

NIST Grants Officer are final. 

Anticipated Announcement and 

Award Date. Review, selection, and 

award processing is expected to be 

completed in mid-late 2016. The 

anticipated start date for awards made 

under this notice and the corresponding 

FFO is expected to be October 1, 2016. 

Additional Information 

a. Application Replacement Pages. 

Applicants may not submit replacement 

pages and/or missing documents once 

an application has been submitted. Any 

revisions must be made by submission 

of a new application that must be 

received by NIST by the submission 

deadline. 

b. Notification to Unsuccessful 

Applicants. Unsuccessful applicants 

will be notified in writing. 

c. Retention of Unsuccessful 

Applications. An electronic copy of 

each non-selected application will be 

retained for three (3) years for record 

keeping purposes. After three (3) years, 

it will be destroyed. 

Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements 

Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles and 

Audit Requirements: Through 2 CFR 

1327.101, the Department of Commerce 

adopted the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and 

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 

at 2 CFR part 200, which apply to 

awards made pursuant to this notice 

and the corresponding FFO. Refer to 

http://go.usa.gov/SBYh and http://go.

usa.gov/SBg4. 

The Department of Commerce PreAward Notification Requirements: The 

Department of Commerce will apply the 

Pre-Award Notification Requirements 

for Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

dated December 30, 2014 (79 FR 78390). 

If the Department of Commerce 

publishes revised Pre-Award 

Notification Requirements prior to 

issuance of awards under this notice 

and the corresponding FFO, the revised 

Pre-Award Notification Requirements 

will apply. Refer to section VII of the 

corresponding FFO, Federal Awarding 

Agency Contacts, Grant Rules and 

Regulations for more information. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

4264 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2016 / Notices 

Unique Entity Identifier and System 

for Award Management (SAM): 

Pursuant to 2 CFR part 25, applicants 

and recipients (as the case may be) are 

required to: (i) Be registered in SAM 

before submitting its application; (ii) 

provide a valid unique entity identifier 

in its application; and (iii) continue to 

maintain an active SAM registration 

with current information at all times 

during which it has an active Federal 

award or an application or plan under 

consideration by a Federal awarding 

agency, unless otherwise excepted from 

these requirements pursuant to 2 CFR 

25.110. NIST will not make a Federal 

award to an applicant until the 

applicant has complied with all 

applicable unique entity identifier and 

SAM requirements. If an applicant has 

not fully complied with the 

requirements by the time that NIST is 

ready to make a Federal award pursuant 

to this notice and the corresponding 

FFO, NIST may determine that the 

applicant is not qualified to receive a 

Federal award and use that 

determination as a basis for making a 

Federal award to another applicant. 

Paperwork Reduction Act: The 

standard forms in the application kit 

involve a collection of information 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 

424B, SF–LLL, and CD–346 have been 

approved by OMB under the respective 

Control Numbers 0348–0043, 0348– 

0044, 0348–0040, 0348–0046, and 0605– 

0001. MEP program-specific application 

requirements have been approved by 

OMB under Control Number 0693–0056. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB Control Number. 

Certifications Regarding Federal 

Felony and Federal Criminal Tax 

Convictions, Unpaid Federal Tax 

Assessments and Delinquent Federal 

Tax Returns. In accordance with Federal 

appropriations law, an authorized 

representative of the selected 

applicant(s) may be required to provide 

certain pre-award certifications 

regarding federal felony and federal 

criminal tax convictions, unpaid federal 

tax assessments, and delinquent federal 

tax returns. 

Funding Availability and Limitation 

of Liability: Funding for the program 

listed in this notice and the 

corresponding FFO is contingent upon 

the availability of appropriations. In no 

event will NIST or DoC be responsible 

for application preparation costs if this 

program fails to receive funding or is 

cancelled because of agency priorities. 

Publication of this notice and the 

corresponding FFO does not oblige 

NIST or DoC to award any specific 

project or to obligate any available 

funds. 

Other Administrative and National 

Policy Requirements: Additional 

administrative and national policy 

requirements are set forth in section 

VI.2 of the corresponding FFO. 

Executive Order 12866: This funding 

notice was determined to be not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): 

It has been determined that this notice 

does not contain policies with 

federalism implications as that term is 

defined in Executive Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12372: Proposals 

under this program are not subject to 

Executive Order 12372, 

‘‘Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs.’’ 

Administrative Procedure Act/

Regulatory Flexibility Act: Notice and 

comment are not required under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553) or any other law, for matters 

relating to public property, loans, 

grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 

553(a)). Moreover, because notice and 

comment are not required under 5 

U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for matters 

relating to public property, loans, 

grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 

553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis is not required and has not 

been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq. 

Richard R. Cavanagh, 

Director, Special Programs Office. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01405 Filed 1–25–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XE355 

Endangered and Threatened Species; 

Initiation of 5-Year Review for 

Southern Resident Killer Whales 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of initiation of 5-year 

review; request for information. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 5-year 

review of Southern Resident killer 

whales (Orcinus orca) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA). The purpose of these 

reviews is to ensure that the listing 

classification of a species is accurate. 

The 5-year review will be based on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available at the time of the review; 

therefore, we request submission of any 

such information on Southern Resident 

killer whales that has become available 

since their original listing as endangered 

in November 2005 or since the previous 

5-year review completed in 2011. Based 

on the results of this 5-year review, we 

will make the requisite determination 

under the ESA. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we must receive 

your information no later than April 25, 

2016. However, we will continue to 

accept new information about any listed 

species at any time. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information on this document identified 

by NOAA–NMFS–2016–0006 by either 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking 

Portal, first click the ‘‘submit a 

comment’’ icon, then enter NOAA– 

NMFS–2016–0006 in the keyword 

search. Locate the document you wish 

to comment on from the resulting list 

and click on the ‘‘Submit a Comment’’ 

icon on the right of that line. 

• Mail or hand-delivery: Lynne Barre, 

NMFS West Coast Region, 7600 Sand 

Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynne Barre, West Coast Regional 

Office, 206–526–4745. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES