[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