[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37853-37858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18660]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Technology Administration
[Docket No. 980317064-8064-01]
RIN 0692-ZA01
Announcement of Availability of Funding for Competitions--
Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT)
AGENCY: Office of Technology Policy, Technology Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Technology Administration's Office of Technology Policy
(OTP) announces the availability of funding for the following
competition to be held in fiscal year 1998 under the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT). The EPSCoT will
support technology-based economic growth in eligible jurisdictions by
promoting partnerships between state and local governments,
universities, community colleges, non-profit organizations and the
private sector. This notice provides general information for the
competition planned for fiscal year 1998.
DATES: Complete applications for the Fiscal Year 1998 EPSCoT grant
program must be mailed or hand-carried to the address indicated below
and received by the Technology Administration no later than 9:00 P.M.
EST, August 25, 1998. Postmark date is not sufficient. Applications
which have been provided to a delivery service will be accepted for
review if the applicant can document that the application was provided
to the delivery service by August 24, 1998 with delivery to the address
listed below guaranteed prior to the closing date and time.
Applications will not be accepted via facsimile machine transmission or
electronic mail.
ADDRESSES: US Dept. of Commerce, Technology Administration, attn:
EPSCoT Director, Anita Balachandra, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, HCHB
Room 4418, Washington, DC 20230.
Note: Due to Departmental security policies, hand carried
packages must be delivered to Rm. 1874.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita Balachandra, Director of the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Technology, Telephone: (202) 482-1320, Fax: (202) 219-8667,
Email: [email protected]
Information on the EPSCoT is also available at: http://
www.ta.doc.gov/epscot
For fax and email inquiries, please include a name, mailing
address, and phone number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority
The statutory authority for the EPSCoT is the Federal Technology
Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 3704(c)(11), (12) and Sec. 3706)
Program Description
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology
(EPSCoT) will support technology-based economic growth in eligible
jurisdictions by promoting partnerships between state and local
governments, universities, community colleges, non-profit organizations
and the private sector.\1\ Through these partnerships, EPSCoT seeks to
support local efforts to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eligible jurisdictions are those that are eligible to
participate in the National Science Foundation's Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR): Alabama,
Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build state-wide institutional capacity to support
technology commercialization
Create the business climate that is conducive to
technology development, deployment and diffusion
Compete in Federal R&D programs
The EPSCoT parallels the National Science Foundation's Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). While EPSCoR's
primary emphasis is improving the competitive performance of major
research universities of these jurisdictions, EPSCoT seeks to support
state efforts to improve the commercial environment for R&D.
Funding Availability
In fiscal year 1998,
[[Page 37854]]
Approximately $1.6 million is available
It is anticipated that between four and six grants will be
awarded
Funding for multiple year awards will be contingent on the
achievement of annual milestones.
Matching Funds Requirements
The Technology Administration seeks to develop a partnership with
each EPSCoT jurisdiction. To achieve the objectives of the EPSCoT, both
parties must contribute to EPSCoT initiatives.
Grant recipients under this program are required to
provide matching funds toward the total project cost
For single-jurisdiction proposals TA will provide up to
50% of the total project cost
For multi-jurisdictional proposals TA will provide up to
75% of the total project cost
Applicants must document the capacity to supply matching
funds
Matching funds may be in the form of cash
In-kind match is permissible only when the in-kind
contribution is significantly changing the activities that would
otherwise be performed by the ``match''
In-kind match may not exceed 25% of the total project cost
If an applicant incurs any project costs prior to the
start date negotiated at the time the award is made, it does so solely
at its own risk of not being reimbursed by the government and will not
be allowable as ``match.''
Federal funds (such as grants) generally may not be used
as matching funds, except as provided by federal statute. For
information about whether particular federal funds may be used as
matching funds, the applicant should contact the federal agency that
administers the funds in question.
Type of Funding Instrument
The funding instrument for awards under this program shall
be a grant.
Eligible Organizations
Eligible organizations shall be headquartered in jurisdictions that
are eligible to participate in the National Science Foundation's
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR):
Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Within these jurisdictions, state, local, or Indian tribal
governments, community colleges, universities, non-profit
organizations, private (for-profit) organizations, technology business
centers, business incubators, industry councils or any combination of
these entities may submit proposals.
TA shall not award more than one EPSCoT grant per grant
round within a single jurisdiction\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Technology Administration reserves the right to make an
exception in the event that an organization submits a single
jurisdiction proposal and that jurisdiction is implicated in a
multi-jurisdictional proposal and both are final candidates for
awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-jurisdictional proposals do not count as projects
submitted by an organization from a single jurisdiction.
Entities that are not headquartered in one of the eligible
jurisdictions, such as national or regional organizations or federal
laboratories, may participate as partners, but may not serve as lead
organizations.
The lead organization is the organization to which funds
will be disbursed--this is the organization that is listed in Box 5 of
Standard Form 424.
Award Period
Awards will be made for between 12 and 36 months.
Multiple year awards will be contingent on the achievement
of annual milestones.
Proposal Format
Application forms
A complete proposal will include the following:
Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance.
Executive Summary.
Project Narrative.
Optional: Appendices, Timelines, Letters of support.
Standard Form 424A.
Budget Narrative.
Statement of Matching Funds.
Standard Form 424B; Assurances.
Standard Form CD-511; Certifications.
Standard Form LLL; Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if
applicable).
Pagination
The pages of an EPSCoT application should be numbered
consecutively, starting with the first page of the Project Narrative.
Please number the Budget Narrative and the Statement of Matching Funds
as 424A-1, 424A-2, etc. Applicants may insert a Table of Contents after
the Standard Form 424 and before the Project Narrative to assist
reviewers in locating information.
Page Formats
The proposal should be typed, single-spaced, on 8\1/2\'' x 11''
paper. All text should be prepared using a font of no less than 12
points with margins of no less than one inch (1'').
Total Number of Copies
TA requests that each applicant submit one (1) original signed
proposal and two (2) copies. The copy with original signatures should
clearly be marked ``Original.'' Each duplicate should be clearly marked
``Copy.'' The copy marked ``Original'' must be clipped with a binder
clip. The two copies must each be stapled.
Signatures
Signatures are required in the following places in the application
Bottom (box 18d) of Standard Form 424, Application for
Federal Assistance
Back page of Standard Form 424B, Assurances
Bottom of back page of Standard Form CD-511,
Certifications
Bottom of Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities (if applicable)
Standard Forms 424, 424B, CD-511 and LLL should be signed by
someone who is authorized to commit the applicant organization(s), such
as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, President, or
Executive Director. Original signatures should be in blue ink so that
the original proposal can be easily distinguished from the duplicate
copies.
Page Limit
The total proposal must not exceed 50 pages, including eight pages
for the Project Narrative and a 125 word Executive Summary. The 50-page
limit includes all text, tables, illustrations, maps, letters,
references, resumes and supporting documents, excluding the Standard
Forms and all budget information. Quality, not quantity, is what
counts!
Contact Information
Applicants must provide the following contact information on
Standard Form 424:
Legal name (of the organization)
Complete mailing address
Telephone number
Name of a contact individual
Electronic mail address, if any
If any of this contact information changes after the application is
submitted, the applicant must immediately notify EPSCoT in writing.
Narrative Elements
Each proposal must address the following. It is recommended that
the project narrative be organized in these five sections.
[[Page 37855]]
(1) Scope of Proposed Project
Describe how the proposed activity was identified
Describe how the proposed activity will improve the
jurisdiction's capacity to support technology-based economic
development
Explain why the proposed activity is a good investment of
Federal funds
(2) Project Management
Describe the qualifications of personnel
Describe how the project will be managed
Describe how decisions will be made between and among
partners
(3) Coordination within and/or among Jurisdictions
Describe how the proposed activity relates to, or builds
upon, the strategic plans developed for economic development, science &
technology and NSF EPSCoR
Describe how collaborators were identified
Describe how participating organizations will benefit from
the proposed activity
(4) Financial Plan
Describe how funds will be allocated, given the project
timeline and milestones
Demonstrate your ability to procure matching funds
Describe the quality of match: while in-kind contributions
are allowable, preference will be given to those that are able to
procure a cash match
(5) Evaluation
Describe the appropriate outcome-measures for the proposed
activity
Detail the timeline for the proposed activity (include
specific milestones)
Freedom of Information Act
Because of the high level of public interest in projects supported
by the EPSCoT, the program anticipates receiving requests for copies of
successful applications. Applicants are hereby notified that the
applications they submit are subject to the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). Applicants may identify sensitive information and label it
``confidential'' to assist TA in making disclosure determinations.
Funding Priorities
EPSCoT's funding priorities are the effective use of partnerships
and outreach to underserved areas. EPSCoT funds are not intended for
the construction of facilities. Given the central role that technology
plays in economic growth, all jurisdictions--federal, state and local--
are concerned with creating and maintaining the conditions that are
conducive to the development of new technologies, and the adoption and
diffusion of existing ones.
EPSCoT is meant to assist jurisdictions in their attempts to
promote technology-based economic growth by improving the commercial
environment for R&D. A strategy for doing so should build on the
resources of the state government, research universities, community
colleges, vocational schools, business community, finance community and
any Federal resources the jurisdiction may have, such as national labs,
manufacturing extension centers, or technology transfer centers. To
this end, applicants must demonstrate that they are developing robust
teaming arrangements between and among participating organizations.
EPSCoT awards will be competitively selected and cost-shared. They
will be of a finite duration, ranging from 12 to 36 months, EPSCoT
grants must create activities that will become self-sufficient OR
create change within the grant life. This way the EPSCoT can support
the most innovative projects with the expectation that projects will
create new knowledge, develop successful institutional relationships,
demonstrate new concepts that can be replicated, or develop concepts
that can be sustained by other organizations at the end of the grant
life. These grants should either obtain the desired outcome within the
life of the grant or should serve as ``seed'' capital to initiatives
that will be self-sustaining after the grant. It is intended that
EPSCoT projects will serve as models for other jurisdictions.
Multi-jurisdictional Proposals
Recognizing that a regional economy may not always fit within the
boundaries of one jurisdiction, the Technology Administration will
consider proposals for multi-jurisdiction projects. The requirement of
matching funds is reduced for multi-jurisdiction proposals. Applicants
will be expected to demonstrate the proposed activity's importance to
the stated economic development priorities of the participating
jurisdictions. Multi-jurisdiction proposals will not be considered
against each jurisdiction's total.
Jurisdictional Coordination
Coordination within jurisdictions is a principal priority of the
EPSCoT. Multiple proposals from the same jurisdiction will be
scrutinized carefully, not only for redundancy, but also to determine
whether the proposed activities will be carried out in isolation.
Single proposals representing collaboration between stakeholders in a
particular jurisdiction will be reviewed more favorably.
Applicants are required to demonstrate familiarity with the
strategic plans developed by the jurisdiction's EPSCoR Committee,
economic development agency and/or science & technology council. The
proposed activity should clearly build on the stated priorities of
these plans.
Examples of Eligible Project Ideas
The EPSCoT aims to foster innovative, collaborative approaches to
improve competitiveness; examples of eligible project ideas include,
but are not limited to, the following:
Technology Access Database
In order to assist small firms in accessing the technological
resources of local universities, a jurisdiction could establish a
comprehensive database of research areas and contact information. Such
an effort would involve significant research to identify and categorize
research areas, construct a database that is easily searchable, and
then make the database widely available.
Technology Access Workshops
In order to assist small firms in accessing the technological
resources of local universities, a jurisdiction could conduct outreach
workshops. Such an effort would involve a cluster analysis of the small
business community, an inventory of the technological resources
available in the local universities, and then a series of workshops.
Increasing Participation in Federal R&D Programs
A jurisdiction could develop mechanisms to increase its
participation in Federal R&D programs such as the Small Business
Innovation Research Program (SBIR) or the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP). Such an effort might involve assistance programs that conduct
outreach workshops to small businesses, as well as other service
providers, to provide information about these programs and/or
commercialization assistance for firms after participation in the
program.
Technology Transfer
Several jurisdictions have investigated and identified barriers to
university-industry collaboration. Eliminating these barriers can
facilitate technology transfer. Such an effort might begin with
altering the risk-reward structure to create a climate, or
[[Page 37856]]
``market,'' for technology transfer within universities, and go on to
include harmonizing technology transfer mechanisms across universities.
Business Incubators
A jurisdiction could establish a virtual business incubator to
foster the growth of small technology-intensive businesses in
underserved areas. Such an effort might involve a variety of
partnerships; for example, between faculty and students from a
university's business administration and engineering programs, between
existing business incubators and universities, or between universities,
community colleges and economic development agencies. Among other
things, a virtual incubator could provide online entrepreneurship
training, including assistance with business planning and market
development.
Co-op Opportunities
A jurisdiction could develop co-op opportunities between
universities and businesses to increase interactions between students
and private-sector companies. Such an effort might involve cross-
placement of engineering and business students.
Strategic Planning
A jurisdiction could apply for a planning grant. A planning effort
involving the research community, economic development agencies,
private sector, science & technology councils, community colleges, and/
or vocational schools, would ideally build on previous plans and
integrate the complementary but distinct missions of the participating
organizations toward common goals.
Consortia
Having conducted a comprehensive cluster analysis, a jurisdiction
may conclude that seemingly disparate nascent clusters in fact have
common interests and needs. When no single industry cluster is large
enough to sustain an exclusive effort, companies, university
researchers and public agencies might form a consortium to address
issues of common interest.
Reaping the Investment in Human Capital
A jurisdiction might seek to retain a greater share of its skilled
labor. This might involve developing a manufacturing strategy that ties
together the jurisdiction's industrial base and the jurisdiction's
universities and community colleges so that there are more local
employment opportunities for graduates in science and technology
fields.
Industry Councils
Having undertaken an analysis to identify industry clusters and key
industries, a jurisdiction could work with resident companies to set up
industry councils bringing together producers, suppliers, and
university researchers. With a minimum of overhead, such councils could
serve as fora for identifying and addressing issues of common interest,
host networking events, and, as appropriate, conduct outreach
activities or implement apprenticeship programs.
Regional Cooperative Efforts
Any of the projects described above could be launched on a regional
scale. A group of jurisdictions could work together to identify
industry clusters and develop strategies to support those clusters. For
example, such an initiative could improve technology access for
microenterprises by harmonizing the technology licensing practices
among the universities in participating jurisdictions. A group of
jurisdictions could also cooperate to link and leverage their efforts
in a specific area, such as support for SBIR applicants, in order to
provide a more seamless regional infrastructure.
Other Requirements
Each successful applicant will be required to travel to Washington
and participate in a 2-day networking meeting. The purpose of this
meeting is to brief the Technology Administration on the progress of
the funded projects and to provide awardees with an opportunity to
compare notes with one another.
In addition, awardees will be required to provide the Technology
Administration with quarterly progress reports, consisting of a 1-2
page activity summary and a 1 page budget summary. At the end of the
grant period, a final project report is required before the final
disbursement of funds. This report must explain the contribution of the
funded activity to the jurisdiction's competitiveness and measures of
its success.
Selection Process
Each eligible application will first be reviewed by outside
reviewers. Each reviewer will evaluate applications according to the
evaluation criteria below.
Evaluation Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated according to selection criteria that
match the required format. These criteria will be weighted equally.
(1) Scope of Proposed Project
Proposals will be evaluated on the clarity with which they:
Identify/define a specific problem or issue that the
proposed activity is to address:
Identify stakeholders and partners.
Propose a solution--and specify the process for
identifying this particular solution.
Explain why the proposed activity is a good investment of
public funds.
Demonstrate that the proposed activity does in fact
increase a jurisdiction or region's capacity to support technology-
based economic development.
Address the needs of underserved areas.
Identify specific, quantifiable measurable outcomes of the
proposed activity. Outcomes should reflect benefits that are measurable
on an annual basis.
(2) Project Management
Proposals will be evaluated for the:
Adequacy of the personnel--their expertise and ability to
carry out the proposed activity.
Capabilities of the applicant (lead) organization.
Clarity of the management plan, including the
identification of partners.
Likelihood that the proposed activity will be completed
within the grant life, or become self-sustaining afterward.
(3) Coordination within and/or among Jurisdictions
Proposals will be evaluated for the:
Emphasis on robust teaming arrangements between disparate
organizations.
Degree to which the proposed activity builds upon the
complementary missions of the participating organizations.
Strength and diversity of support for the project within
the jurisdiction.
Partnerships involved--they must be clearly defined,
mutually beneficial, and the commitments well documented.
Demonstrated understanding of the strategic plans
developed by the jurisdiction's EPSCoR committee, economic development
agency and/or science and technology council. The proposed activity
should reflect or build upon the stated priorities of these plans.
(4) Financial Plan
Proposed will be evaluated for the:
Budget plan--it should be sufficiently detailed so that
the
[[Page 37857]]
relationship between budget items and milestones in the project
narrative is clear. Also, the budget should allow sufficient funds for
evaluation, dissemination of results and participation in one
networking meeting in Washington, DC.
Reasonableness of costs.
Demonstrated ability to provide or procure matching funds.
Quality of match: while in-kind contributions are
allowable, preference will be given to those that are able to (deliver)
a cash match.
(5) Evaluation
Each proposal must include a plan for evaluating the project and a
plan for disseminating knowledge gained from the project. The
evaluation plan should include both quantitative and qualitative
indicators and must identify specific evaluation methods. The
evaluation plan should also capture the lessons learned during the
project that will serve as pragmatic tips for others interested in
replicating or adapting the project in other regions. Applications must
include the qualifications of any proposed evaluators and sufficient
funds in the budget to perform a thorough and useful evaluation of the
project.
Finally, applicants must demonstrate a willingness to share
information about their projects with interested parties, to host site
visits, and to participate in demonstrations.
Each reviewer will make non-building recommendations to a committee
of Federal officials, chaired by the EPSCoT Director. This committee
will prepare and present a set of recommended grant awards to the
Selecting Official, the Under Secretary for Technology. The Committee's
recommendations and the Under Secretary's review and approval will take
into account the following:
The evaluations of the outside reviewers.
The degree to which the slate of applications, taken as a
whole, satisfies the program's stated purposes.
The variety of the proposed activities.
The availability of funds.
The geographic distribution of the proposed grant awards.
Avoidance of redundancy and conflicts with the initiatives
of other federal agencies.
Additional Requirements
Primary Application Certifications
All primary applicant institutions must submit a completed form CD-
511, ``Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other
Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and
Lobbying,'' and the following explanations must be provided:
(1) Non-procurement Debarment and Suspension. Prospective
participants (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section 105) are subject to
15 CFR Part 26, ``Non-procurement Debarment and Suspension'' and the
related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;
(2) Drug-Free Workplace. Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26,
Section 605) are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, Subpart F, ``Government-
wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)'' and the related
section of the certification form prescribed above applies;
(3) Anti-Lobbying. Persons (as defined at 15 CFR Part 28, Section
105) are subject to the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352,
``Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal
contracting and financial transactions,'' and the lobbying section of
the certification form prescribed above applies to applications/bids
for grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than
$100,000, and loans and loan guarantees for more than $150,000, or the
single family maximum mortgage limit for affected programs, whichever
is greater.
(4) Anti-Lobbying Disclosure. Any applicant institution that has
paid or will pay for lobbying using any funds must submit an SF-LLL,
``Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,'' as required under 15 CFR Part
28, Appendix B.
(5) Lower-Tier Certifications. Recipients shall require applicant/
bidder institutions for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other
lower tier covered transactions at any tier under the award to submit,
if applicable, a completed Form CD-512, ``Certifications Regarding
Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower
Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying'' and disclosure form, SF-LLL,
``Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.'' Form CD-512 is intended for the
use of recipients and should not be transmitted to TA. SF-LLL submitted
by any tier recipient or subrecipient should be submitted to TA in
accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.
Name Check Reviews
All for-profit and non-profit applicants will be subject to a name
check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal if any
individuals associated with the applicant have been convicted of or are
presently facing, criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or
other matters which significantly reflect on the applicant's management
honesty or financial integrity.
Preaward Activities
Applicants (or their institutions) who incur any costs prior to an
award being made do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed
by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal assurance that may have
been provided, there is no obligation on the part of TA to cover pre-
award costs.
No Obligation for Future Funding
If an application is accepted for funding, TA 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 TA.
Past Performance
Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in
an application not being considered for funding.
False Statements
A false statement on an application is grounds for denial or
termination of funds, and grounds for possible punishment by a fine or
imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Waiver Authority
It is the general intent of TA not to waive any of the provisions
set forth in this Notice. However, under extraordinary circumstances
and when it is in the best interests of the federal government, TA,
upon its own initiative or when requested, may waive the provisions in
this Notice. Waivers may only be granted for requirements that are
discretionary and not mandated by statute. Any request for a waiver
must set forth the extraordinary circumstances for the request and be
included in the application or sent to the address provided in the
``Addresses'' section above. The final determination will be made by
the Selecting Official, the Under Secretary for Technology. TA will not
consider a request to waive the application deadline for an application
until the application has been received.
Delinquent Federal Debts
No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant who has an
outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either:
(1) The delinquent account is paid in full,
(2) A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one
payment is received, or
[[Page 37858]]
(3) Other arrangements satisfactory to DoC are made.
Indirect Costs
No Federal funds will be authorized for Indirect Costs (IDC);
however, an applicant may provide for IDC under their portion of Cost
Sharing.
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.
Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products
Applicants are hereby notified that they are encouraged, to the
greatest practicable extent, to purchase American-made equipment and
products with funding provided under this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This notice involves collections of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which have been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Numbers 0348-0043,
0348-0044, 0348-0040 and 0348-0046. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of
information subject to the requirements of the PRA unless that
collection displays a current valid OMB control number.
Federal Policies and Procedures
Recipients and subrecipients under the Experimental Program to
Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSoT) shall be subject to all
Federal laws and Federal and Departmental regulations, policies, and
procedures applicable to financial assistance awards.
Intergovernmenal Review
Applicants are reminded of the applicability of Executive Order
12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''
Executive Order Statement
This funding notice was determined to be ``significant'' for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Gary R. Bachula,
Acting Under Secretary for Technology.
[FR Doc. 98-18660 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-18-M