Announcement of Availability of Funding for Competitions Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Technology (EPSCoT)

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