[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 53 (Friday, March 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13543-13548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6719]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Technology Administration
[Docket No. 990122027-9027-01]
RIN 0692-ZA02


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 1999 under the Experimental 
Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT). The EPSCoT will 
support technology-based economic growth in eligible states 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 1999.

DATES: Complete applications for the Fiscal Year 1999 EPSCoT grant 
program must be mailed or hand-carried to the address indicated below 
and received by the Technology Administration no later than 5:00 P.M. 
EST, May 14, 1999. 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 May 13, 1999 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: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology Administration, Attn: 
EPSCoT Director, Anita Balachandra, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, HCHB 
Room 4418, Washington, DC 20230.


[[Page 13544]]


    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 Technology 
Administration Act of 1998, codified at 15 U.S.C. 3704(f).

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The CFDA number is 11.614--Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Technology (EPSCoT)

Program Description

    The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology 
(EPSCoT) will support technology-based economic growth in eligible 
states by promoting partnerships among state and local governments, 
universities, community colleges, non-profit organizations and the 
private sector. Through these partnerships, EPSCoT seeks to support 
local efforts to:
     Build state-side institutional capacity to support 
technology commercialization
     Create the business climate that is conducive to 
technology development, deployment and diffusion
    The EPSCoT will provide financial assistance in eligible states for 
activities that foster the growth of technology-oriented businesses.
    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 states, EPSCoT seeks to support state 
efforts to improve its commercial technology base.

Funding Availability

    In fiscal year 1999,
     Approximately $2 million is available
     TA anticipates that between six and eight grants will be 
awarded
     Funding for multiple year awards will be contingent on the 
achievement of annual milestones.

Matching Funds Requirements

    Grant recipients under this program are required to provide 
matching funds toward the total project cost
     For single-state proposals, TA will provide up to 50% of 
the total project cost
     For multi-state 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 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 it 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.
     Information on administrative requirements for financial 
assistance can be found in 15 CFR Part 14 and 15 CFR Part 24, as 
applicable. Applicable cost principles are the following: OMB Circular 
A-87 for State, local, or Federally-recognized Indian tribal 
governments, OMB Circular A-122 for non-profit organizations, OMB 
Circular A-21 for educational institutions, and the Federal Acquisition 
Regulations, 48 CFR Part 31 for commercial organizations.

Type of Funding Instruments

     The funding instruments for awards under this program 
shall be grants and cooperative agreements.

Eligibility Criteria

    By law, the program is open to ``those states that have 
historically received less Federal R&D funds than a majority of the 
states.'' (15 U.S.C. 3704(f)) Listed below are the states that ranked 
lower than 26th in the distribution of Federal Research and Development 
funds between 1990-1996.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ranking is based on the average Federal R&D investment 
over the years 1990-96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eligible organizations shall be headquartered in one of the 
following states: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 
Wyoming and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    Within these states, 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 state \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Technology Administration reserves the right to make an 
exception in the event that an organization submits a single state 
proposal and that state is implicated in a multi-state proposal and 
both are final candidates for awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Multi-state proposals do not count as projects submitted 
by an organization from a single state.
     Entities that are not headquartered in one of the eligible 
states, 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 in the following 
order:
     Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance
     Executive Summary (125 words)
     Project Narrative (no more than 10 pages)
     Task-Based Budget Narrative
     Statement of Matching Funds
     Optional: Appendices, Timeliness, Letters of support
     Standard Form 424A
     Standard Form 424B: Assurances
     Standard Form CD-511: Certificates
     Standard Form LLL: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if 
applicable)
     Upon selection for an award, applicants will be required 
to submit a Standard Form CD-346
    The total package may not exceed 30 pages, not including the 
standard forms.

Pagination

    The pages of an EPSCoT application should be numbered 
consecutively, starting with the first page of the Project

[[Page 13545]]

Narrative. 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 
point with margins of no less than one inch (1'').

Total Number of Copies

    TA requests that each applicant submit one (1) original singed 
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, Disclosures 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 30 pages, including a 125-word 
Executive Summary, 10-page Project Narrative, and Budget Narrative. The 
30-page limit includes all text, tables, illustrations, maps, letters, 
references, resumes and supporting documents, and excludes the Standard 
Forms. Applicants are advised that appendices and Curriculum Vitae 
should be limited to professional experience that is directly relevant 
to the proposed activity.

Contact Information

    Applicants must provide the following contact information on 
Standard Form 424:
     Legal name
     Complete mailing address
     Telephone number
     Fax 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.
(1) Project Definition
     Describe the proposed activity and how it was identified.
     Describe how the proposed activity will address a specific 
problem.
     Describe the appropriate stakeholders and partners and how 
they are engaged in this process.
(2) Project Impact
     Explain why the proposed activity is a good investment of 
Federal funds.
     Describe how the proposed activity represents an 
innovation in technology-based economic development.
     Describe the expected impact of the proposed activity.
     Describe how the proposed activity will be completed 
within the grant life, or become self-sustaining afterward.
     Demonstrate that the proposed activity is new to the 
state; EPSCoT will not subsidize the operating costs of existing 
activities.
(3) Engagement With the Private Sector
     Describe the engagement of small high-tech businesses.
     Describe how the proposed activity will improve the 
state's capacity to support small high-technology businesses.
     Demonstrate that the proposed activity responds to the 
needs of small high-tech businesses.
(4) Coordination Within and/or Among States
     Describe how the proposed activity relates to, or builds 
upon, the strategic plans developed for economic development, science 
and technology and NSF EPSCoR.
     Describe how collaborators were identified.
     Describe how the proposed activity supports or furthers 
the collaborators' missions.
(5) Project Feasibility
     Describe the qualifications of personnel.
     Describe how the project will be managed.
     Describe how decisions will be made between and among 
partners.
     Describe how funds will be allocated, given the project 
timeline and milestones. The budget should allow sufficient funds for 
evaluation, dissemination of results and participation in one meeting 
in Washington, DC.
     Demonstrate the 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.
     Provide a task-based budget, relating project costs to 
specific tasks.
(6) Evaluation
     Describe the appropriate outcome-measures for the proposed 
activity
     Detail the timeline for the proposed activity, including 
specific milestones and tasks so that the benefits of the proposed 
activity are both measurable and severable.

Funding Priorities

    EPSCoT is intended to strengthen the technological competitiveness 
of those states that have historically received less Federal R&D funds 
than a majority of the states. In order to have the greatest impact 
with limited funds, the program seeks to support the most innovative 
projects with the expectation that these 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. 
Similarly, applicants must demonstrate that they have made the maximum 
use of all available resources within the state.
    Thus, EPSCoT's funding priorities are innovation and coordination 
within and/or among states. EPSCoT funds are not intended for the 
construction of facilities, nor are they intended to subsidize an 
organization's operating costs. EPSCoT is meant to assist states in 
their attempts to foster technology-based economic growth. A strategy 
for doing so should build on local expertise and local resources--those 
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 targeted 
and effective teaming arrangements among participating organizations.
    The competition for EPSCoT awards is intense. Applications will 
undergo a

[[Page 13546]]

rigorous review and must be cost-share. They will be of a finite 
duration, ranging from 12 to 36 months. It is intended that EPSCoT 
projects will serve as models for other states.

Innovative Value of Project

    Reviewers will be instructed to assess whether the proposed 
activity represents an innovation in technology-based economic 
development and whether the proposed activity is likely to improve the 
technological competitiveness of the state/region.

Coordination Within the State

    Coordination within states is a principal priority of the EPSCoT. 
Multiple proposals from the same state 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 state 
will be reviewed more favorably.
    Applicants are required to demonstrate familiarity with the 
strategic plans developed by the state's EPSCoR Committee, economic 
development agency and/or science & technology council. The proposed 
activity should be related to the stated priorities of these plans.
    Applicants are required to specify whether they are applying for 
funds to improve the innovative capacity of the state, to facilitate 
cluster development within the state, or to undertake a planning 
activity. These designations are discussed below:

Improving the Innovative Capacity

    Applicants may apply for EPSCoT funds in order to improve the state 
or region's innovative capacity.
    Any such effort should begin with a solid analysis of the local 
economy and include an understanding of the industrial base, the 
existing network of services available to high-tech businesses and an 
assessment of any gaps in that network. A group of companies may seek 
to establish an entity that assists them to utilize existing resources 
more effectively or to provide a service that is currently not 
available. In either case, the objective should be to facilitate the 
growth of technology-oriented businesses.

Facilitating Cluster Development

    The term ``cluster'' generally refers to a group of companies in 
related industries that are (1) geographically concentrated and (2) 
contributing to the wealth creation of the region in which they are 
concentrated. A state--or high technology council or other entity--may 
conduct a comprehensive analysis of the region's industrial base for 
the purpose of identifying budding clusters. When no single industry 
cluster is large enough to sustain an exclusive effort, companies, 
university researchers and public agencies might work together to 
address a problem that faces a group of companies in the region. Such 
an effort might involve developing a strategy that ties together the 
state's industrial base, universities and community colleges so that 
there are more local employment opportunities for graduates in science 
and technology fields.

Planning Grants

    Applicants may apply for planning grants. A planning activity 
involving the research community, economic development agencies, 
private sector, science & technology councils, community colleges, and/
or vocational schools, could lay the groundwork for a larger 
initiative. Such an effort would ideally build on previous efforts and 
integrate the complementary but distinct missions of the participating 
organizations toward common goals.

Multi-State Proposals

    Recognizing that a regional economy may not always fit within the 
boundaries of one state, the Technology Administration will consider 
proposals for multi-state projects. The requirement of matching funds 
is reduced for multi-state proposals. Applicants are expected to 
demonstrate the proposed activity's importance to the stated economic 
development priorities of the participating states. Multi-state 
proposals will not be considered against each state's total.
    Any of the activities described above could be launched on a 
regional scale. A group of high-technology industry councils could 
collaborate to develop resources in support of an emerging industry 
cluster. Applicants representing a group of states could work together 
to identify industry clusters and develop strategies to support those 
clusters. For example, such an initiative could improve technology 
access for micro-enterprises by harmonizing the technology licensing 
practices among the universities in participating states. A group of 
states could also cooperate to link and leverage their efforts in a 
specific area 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 budget summary that relates to the project 
milestones. 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 state's 
competitiveness and measures of its success.

Evaluation Criteria

    Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

(1) Project Definition (10 points)

    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

(2) Project Impact (30 points)

    Reviewers will be instructed to evaluate the degree to which the 
proposals:
     Explain why the proposed activity is a good investment of 
public funds.
     Demonstrate the greatest value per Federal dollar.
     Demonstrate that the proposed activity represents an 
innovation in technology-based economic development.
     Demonstrate that the proposed activity will have an impact 
on the state/region's industrial base.
     Address the needs of underserved areas.
     Demonstrate that the proposed activity will be completed 
within the grant life, or become self-sustaining afterward.

(3) Engagement With the Small High-Tech Business Community (202 points)

    Proposals will be evaluated for the degree to which they:
     Demonstrate engagement of small high-tech businesses
     Demonstrate that the proposed activity does in fact 
increase the state/region's support of small high technology businesses
     Demonstrate that the proposed activity responds to the 
needs of small high tech businesses

[[Page 13547]]

(4) Coordination Within and/or Among States (20 points)

    Proposals will be evaluated for the
     Degree to which they develop effective teaming 
arrangements between disparate organizations
     Degree to which the proposed activity builds upon the 
complementary missions of the partners
     Strength and diversity of support for the project within 
the state/region
     Partnerships involved--they must be clearly defined, 
mutually beneficial, and the commitments well documented
     Demonstrated understanding of the strategic plans 
developed by the state's EPSCoR committee, economic development agency 
and/or science and technology council. The proposed activity should 
relate to the stated priorities of these plans.

(5) Project Feasibility (10 points)

    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 and how decision-making responsibilities 
will be shared among he partners
     Clarity of the budget plan it should include a task-based 
budget that relates project costs to specific tasks and should be 
sufficiently detailed so that the relationship between budget items and 
milestones in the project narrative is clear
     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 provide a 
cash match

(6) Evaluation (10 points)

    Each proposal must include a plan for evaluating the project and a 
plan for disseminating knowledge gained from the project. The 
evaluation plan must identify specific, quantifiable measurable 
outcomes of the proposed activity. Outcomes should reflect benefits 
that are measurable on an annual basis. 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.

Selection Procedures

    Each eligible application will first be reviewed by outside 
reviewers. Each reviewer will evaluate applications according to the 
evaluation criteria above. Each reviewer will make non-binding 
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 evaluation criteria listed above,
     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, 
and
     The avoidance of redundancy and conflicts with the 
initiatives of other federal agencies

Intergovernmental Review

    Applicants under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, 
``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''

Additional Requirements

Federal Policies and Procedures

    Recipients and subrecipients under the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT) shall be subject to all 
Federal laws and Federal and Departmental regulations, policies, and 
procedures applicable to financial assistance awards.

Past Performance

    Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in 
an application not being considered for funding.

Preaward Activities

    Applicants (or their institutions) who incur any costs prior to the 
beginning of an award period do so solely at their own risk of not 
beging 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 obligationto 
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.

Deliquent Federal Debts

    No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant who has an 
outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either:
    (1) The deliquent account is paid in full,
    (2) A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one 
payment is received, or
    (3) Other arrangements satisfactory to DoC are made.

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 managment 
honesty or financial integrity.

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

[[Page 13548]]

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.

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. In the event that this 
authority is exercised, the Under Secretary will sign a memorandum for 
the file setting forth the justification for the waiver.

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.
    Regardless of any approved indirect cost rate applicable to the 
award, the maximum dollar amount of allocable indirect costs for which 
the DoC will reimburse the Recipient shall be the lesser of:
    (a) The Federal share of the total allocable indirect costs of the 
award based on the negotiated rate with the cognizant Federal Agency as 
established by audit or negotiation; or
    (b) The line item amount for the Federal share of indirect costs 
contained in the approved budget of the award.

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.

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.

Executive Order Statement

    This funding notice was determined to be ``not significant'' for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Gary R. Bachula,
Acting Under Secretary for Technology.
[FR Doc. 99-6719 Filed 3-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-18-M