[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48802-48807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24709]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
15 CFR Part 295
[Docket No. 970822201-7201-01]
RIN 0693-AB44
Advanced Technology Program
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology
Administration, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology requests
comments on proposed revisions to the regulations which implement the
Advanced Technology Program (ATP), found at part 295 of title 15 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. Major changes proposed today include an
increase in the cost-sharing requirement for large companies applying
as single proposers in future competitions; modification of the ATP
evaluation criteria for project selection to place greater emphasis on
joint ventures and consortia with a broad range of participants; and
changes in the valuation of transfers between separately-owned joint
venture members and applies to transfers of goods, including computer
software, and services provided by the transferor related to the
maintenance of those goods, when those goods or services are
[[Page 48803]]
transferred from one joint venture member to other separately-owned
joint venture members. These changes strengthen the fundamental mission
of the ATP: for Government to work in partnership with industry to
foster the development and broad dissemination of challenging, high-
risk technologies that offer the potential for significant, broad-based
economic benefits for the nation.
DATES: Comments on the proposed program must be received no later than
October 17, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed program must be submitted in
writing to: Advanced Technology Program Rule Comments, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Room A333, Administration
Building, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
To receive additional program information, contact Barbara Lambis at
(301) 975-4447.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a statement to Congress in March of 1997,
Secretary of Commerce William M. Daley announced a Departmental study
of several issues raised by Members of Congress and others concerning
the policies and procedures of the ATP. The study was designed to make
recommendations for possible changes to improve the effectiveness of
the program. Following issuance of a 30-day notice of opportunity for
public comment on ways to improve the operation of the ATP,
recommendations for possible changes were made to improve the
effectiveness of the program.
In order to implement the recommendations and the decisions of
Secretary Daley, the National Institute of Standards and Technology is
today proposing changes to the operating procedures of the Advanced
Technology Program found at part 295 of title 15 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. These changes strengthen the fundamental mission of the
ATP: For Government to work in partnership with industry to foster the
development and broad dissemination of challenging, high-risk
technologies that offer the potential for significant, broad-based
economic benefits for the nation. Such a unique government-industry
research partnership fosters the acceleration not only of dramatic
gains in existing industries, but also acceleration of the development
of emerging or enabling technologies leading to revolutionary new
products, industrial processes and services for the world's markets and
work to spawn industries of the 21st century. Furthermore, the proposed
changes also ensure that the fundamental strengths of the ATP remain
unchanged, especially the requirement that the ATP continue to be a
wholly merit-driven program based on peer review. These changes are
reflected in proposed amendments to the regulation contained in this
Notice:
Proposed revised section 295.32(b) increases the cost-
sharing requirement for large companies applying as single proposers in
future competitions. ``Large businesses'' as the term is proposed to be
defined in the revised Sec. 295.2(k), are proposed to cost-share at a
minimum of 60 percent. This change is proposed to provide an incentive
for large companies to participate in joint ventures and to guarantee
that large companies pay a majority of total project costs.
The term ``large business'' is proposed to be defined as
including any business, including any parent company and related
subsidiaries, having revenues in excess of the amount published by ATP
in the relevant annual notice of availability of funds. In establishing
this amount, ATP may consider the dollar value of the total revenues of
the 500th company in Fortune Magazine's Fortune 500 listing. This is a
response to a perceived need to eliminate the problem of
unintentionally disadvantaging thousands of medium-sized firms of
limited resources. The new definition provides for a simple,
unambiguous and relatively effective measure of size.
The ATP evaluation criteria for project selection are
proposed to be modified to: (1) place greater emphasis on joint
ventures and consortia with a broad range of participants; and (2)
better define the multi-step selection process based on all of the
criteria in Sec. 295.6. these proposed changes reaffirm ATP's increased
emphasis on partnerships as part of the ATP's overall goals. Further,
these changes will encourage joint ventures and consortia that team
large companies with smaller companies and other technology resources,
such as universities and federal laboratories, and will create new
relationships among small and large companies to develop new
technologies and bring them to commercialization.
A new rule is proposed regarding the valuation of
transfers between separately-owned joint venture members and applies to
transfers of goods, including computer software, and services provided
by the transferor related to the maintenance of those goods, when those
goods or services are transferred from one joint venture member to
other separately-owned joint venture members. This proposal resulted
from negotiations between the Department of Commerce's Inspector
General and ATP concerning the valuation of transfers of certain goods
and services within joint ventures. This proposal appears in Sec.
295.25.
Also, a number of administrative and clerical changes are
proposed to be implemented to Part 295 for consistency and clarity.
Request for Comments
The National Institute of Standards and Technology requests
comments on the draft revisions to regulations found at 15 CFR part
295, implementing the Advanced Technology Program, which are included
in this notice. Persons interested in commenting on the proposed
program should submit their comments in writing to the above address.
All comments received in response to this notice will become part of
the public record and will be available for inspection and copying in
the Commerce Department's Central Reference and Records Inspection
Facility, Herbert Hoover Building, Room 6020, 14th Street between E
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Additional Information
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been determined not to be significant under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12612
This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under
Executive Order 12612.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
Small Business Administration, that this rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). This is because there are only a small
number of awardees and thus only a small number of awards will be given
to small businesses. Specifically, based on past experience and
currently foreseen budgets, the ATP would expect to receive only a few
hundred proposals annually from small businesses, and from these, to
make under 100 awards. The program is entirely voluntary for the
participants that seek funding.
[[Page 48804]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection-of-information, subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
This proposed rule contains a collection of information requirement
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
collection of information requirement applies to persons seeking
financial assistance under the Advanced Technology Program as well as
reporting requirements if financial assistance is granted. The
collection of information requirement contained in the proposed rule
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review
under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The public reporting
burden per respondent for the collection of information contained in
this rule is estimated to range between 20 and 30 hours per submission
and 3 hours annually for recipients of financial assistance to provide
monitoring reports. This estimate includes the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of NIST's burden estimate; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.
20503 (Attn: Desk Officer for NIST); and to Barbara Lambis, Room A333,
Administration Building, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, an environmental assessment or Environmental
Impact Statement is not required to be prepared under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Executive Order 12372
Executive Order 12372 ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs'' does not apply to this program.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 295
Inventions and patents, Laboratories, Research, Science and
Technology, Scientists.
Dated: September 12, 1997.
Elaine Bunten-Mines,
Director, Program Office.
For reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that title
15, part 295 of the Code of Federal Regulations be amended as follows:
PART 295--ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for part 295 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278n.
2. Section 295.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.1 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is to
assist United States businesses to carry out research and development
on high risk, high pay-off, emerging and enabling technologies. These
technologies are:
(1) High risk, because the technical challenges make success
uncertain;
(2) High pay-off, because when applied, they offer significant
benefits to the U.S. economy; and
(3) Emerging and enabling, because they offer wide breadth of
potential application and form an important technical basis for future
commercial applications.
(b) These rules prescribe policies and procedures for the award of
cooperative agreements under the advanced Technology Program in order
to ensure the fair treatment of all proposals. While the Advanced
Technology Program is authorized to enter into grants, cooperative
agreements, and contracts to carry out its mission, these rules address
only the award of cooperative agreements. The Program employs
cooperative agreements rather than grants because such agreements allow
ATP to exercise appropriate management oversight of projects and also
to link ATP-funded projects to ongoing R&D at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology wherever such linkage would increase the
likelihood of success of the project.
(c) In carrying out this rule, the Program endeavors to put more
emphasis on joint ventures and consortia with a broad range of
participants, including large companies, and less emphasis on support
of individual large companies.
3. Section 295.2(c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(c) The term ``direct costs'' means costs that can be identified
readily with activities carried out in support of a particular final
objective. A cost may not be allocated to an award as a direct cost if
any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has
been assigned to an award as an indirect cost. Because of the diverse
characteristics and accounting practices of different organizations, it
is not possible to specify the types of costs which may be classified
as direct costs in all situations. However, typical direct costs could
include salaries of personnel working on the ATP project and associated
reasonable fringe benefits such as medical insurance. Direct costs
might also include supplies and materials, special equipment required
specifically for the ATP project, and travel associated with the ATP
project. ATP shall determine the allowability of direct costs in
accordance with applicable Federal cost principles.
* * * * *
4. Section 295.2 is further amended by removing paragraph (e),
redesignating paragraphs (f) through (k) as paragraphs (e) through (j),
removing paragraph (n), redesignating paragraphs (o) through (r) as
paragraphs (n) through (q), and adding new paragraph (k) to read as
follows:
Sec. 295.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(k) The term ``large business'' for a particular ATP competition
means any business, including any parent company and related
subsidiaries, having revenues in excess of the amount published by ATP
in the relevant annual notice of availability of funds required by
Sec. 295.7(a). In establishing this amount, ATP may consider the dollar
value of the total revenues of the 500th company in Fortune Magazine's
Fortune 500 listing.
* * * * *
5. The newly designated Sec. 295.2(g) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 295.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(g) The term ``indirect costs'' means those costs incurred for
common or joint
[[Page 48805]]
objectives that cannot be readily identified with activities carried
out in support of a particular final objective. A cost may not be
allocated to an award as an indirect cost if any other cost incurred
for the same purpose in like circumstances has been assigned to an
award as a direct cost. Because of diverse characteristics and
accounting practices it is not possible to specify the types of costs
which may be classified as indirect costs in all situations. However,
typical examples of indirect costs include general administration
expenses, such as the salaries and expenses of executive officers,
personnel administration, maintenance, library expenses, and
accounting. ATP shall determine the allowability of indirect costs in
accordance with applicable Federal cost principles.
* * * * *
6. The newly designated Sec. 295.2(h) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 295.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(h) The term ``industry-led joint research and development
venture'' means a joint research and development venture that consists
of two or more separately-owned, for-profit businesses that perform
research and development in the project; control the venture's
membership, research directions, and funding priorities; and share
total project costs with the Federal government. The venture may
include additional companies, independent research organizations,
universities, and/or governmental laboratories (other than NIST) which
may or may not contribute funds (other than Federal funds) to the
project and perform research and development. An independent research
organization may perform administrative tasks on behalf of an industry-
led joint research and development venture, such as handling receipts
and disbursements of funds and making antitrust filings.
* * * * *
7. Redesignated Sec. 295.2(j)(1)(vi) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Any combination of the purposes specified in paragraphs
(j)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of this section, and may include
the establishment and operation of facilities for the conducting of
research, the conducting of such venture on a protected and proprietary
basis, and the prosecuting of applications for patents and the granting
of licenses for the results of such venture, but does not include any
activity specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
8. Section 295.2(l) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(l) The term ``matching funds or cost sharing'' means that portion
of project costs not borne by the federal government. Sources of
revenue to satisfy the required cost share include cash and in-kind
contributions. Cash contributions can be from recipient, state, county,
city, or other non-Federal sources. In-kind contributions can be made
by recipients or non-federal third parties (except subcontractors
working on an ATP project) and include but are not limited to
equipment, research tools, software, and supplies. Except as specified
at Sec. 295.25 of this regulation, the value of in-kind contributions
shall be determined in accordance with OMB Circular A-110, Subpart C,
Section 23. The value of in-kind contributions will be prorated
according to the share of total use dedicated to the ATP program. ATP
restricts the total value of in-kind contributions that can be used to
satisfy the cost share by requiring that such contributions not exceed
30 percent of the non-federal share of the total project costs. ATP
shall determine the allowability of matching share costs in accordance
with applicable Federal cost principles.
* * * * *
9. Section 295.3(c) is added as follows:
Sec. 295.3 Eligibility of United States and foreign-owned businesses.
* * * * *
(c) Companies owned by legal residents (green card holders) may
apply to the Program, but before an award can be given, the owner(s)
must either become a citizen or ownership must be transferred to a U.S.
citizen(s).
10. Section 295.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.4 The selection process.
(a) The selection process for awards is a multi-step process based
on the criteria listed in Sec. 295.6. A source evaluation board (SEB)
is established to ensure that all proposals receive careful
consideration. In the first step, called ``preliminary screening,''
proposals are eliminated that do not meet the requirements of this rule
or the Program announcement. Typical but not exclusive of the reasons
for eliminating a proposal at this stage is that the proposal: is
deemed to have serious deficiencies in either the technical or business
plan; involves product development rather than high risk R&D; is not
industry-led; is significantly overpriced or underpriced given the
scope of the work; does not meet the requirements set out in the notice
of availability of funds issued pursuant to Sec. 295.7; or, in the case
of joint ventures, requests more than a minority share of funding. NIST
will also examine proposals that have been submitted to a previous
competition to determine whether substantive revisions have been made
to the earlier proposal, and, if not, may reject the proposal or
forward it to a later stage in the review process based upon the
earlier review.
(b) In the second step, referred to as the ``technical and business
review,'' proposals are evaluated under the criteria found in
Sec. 295.6. Proposals judged to have the highest merit based on the
selection criteria receive further consideration and are referred to as
``semifinalists.''
(c) In the third step, referred to as ``selection of finalists,''
the Program prepares a final scoring and ranking of semifinalist
proposals. During this step, the semifinalist proposers may be asked to
make oral presentations on their proposals at NIST, and in some cases
site visits may be required. Subject to the provisions of Sec. 295.6, a
list of ranked finalists is submitted to the Selecting Official.
(d) In the final step, referred to as ``selection of awardees,''
the Selecting Official selects funding recipients from among the
finalists, based upon;
(1) The rank order of the proposals on the basis of all selection
criteria Sec. 295.6;
(2) Assuring an appropriate distribution of funds among
technologies and their applications; and
(3) The availability of funds. The Selecting Official is
responsible for ensuring that only proposals that meet the Program
selection criteria receive awards. The Program reserves the right to
withhold awards in any case where a search of Federal records discloses
information that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of
the proposer. The decision of the Selecting Official is final.
(e) If a joint venture is ranked as a finalist, but the Program
determines that the joint venture contains weaknesses in its structure
or cohesiveness that may substantially lessen the probability of the
proposed program being completed successfully, the Program may inform
the proposer of the deficiencies and enter into negotiations with the
proposer in an effort to remedy the deficiencies. If appropriate,
funding up to 10 percent of the amount originally requested by the
proposer may be
[[Page 48806]]
awarded by the Program to the proposer to assist in overcoming the
organizational deficiencies. If the Program determines within six
months of this award that the organizational deficiencies have been
corrected, the Program may award the remaining funds requested by the
proposer to that proposer.
(f) NIST reserves the right to negotiate with proposers selected to
receive awards the cost and scope of the proposed work, e.g., to add or
delete a task(s) to improve the probability of success or to make the
proposal more consistent with ATP's mission.
11. Section 295.6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.6 Criteria for selection.
The evaluation criteria to be used in selecting any proposal for
funding under this Program, and their respective weights, are listed
below. No proposal will be funded unless the Program determines that it
has high scientific and technical merit, no matter how meritorious the
proposal might be with respect to the other selection criteria.
Similarly, no proposal will be funded that does not require Federal
support or that is product development rather than high risk R&D.
(a) Scientific and Technical Merit (30 percent).
(1) Quality, innovativeness, and cost-effectiveness of the proposed
technical program, that is, uniqueness with respect to current industry
practice. Proposers shall compare and contrast their approaches with
those taken by other domestic and foreign companies working in the same
field.
(2) Appropriateness of the technical risk and feasibility of the
project, that is, is there a sufficient knowledge base to justify the
level of technical risk involved, and is the risk commensurate with the
potential payoff. Projects should press the state of the art while
still having credibility with regard to technical approach.
(3) Coherency of the technical plan and clarity of vision of the
technical objectives, and the degree to which the technical plan meets
the project and, and in the case of focused program competitions,
program goals.
(4) Integrated, forward-looking, team approach to the project. This
factor includes the extent to which the R&D team will take into account
aspects such as research and raw material suppliers and considerations
of manufacturability and requirements of customers, regulatory
concerns, safety issues, and environmental impacts. It also includes
the extent to which all of the necessary technical disciplines will be
brought into the R&D and how R&D, manufacturing, and marketing will
work together in an integrated fashion.
(5) Potential broad impact on U.S. technology and knowledge base.
(b) Potential Net Broad-Based Economic Benefits (20 percent).
Potential to improve U.S. economic growth, taking into account the
timeliness of the proposal; that is, the potential project results will
not occur too late or too early to be competitively useful, and the
degree to which ATP support is essential for the achievement of the
broad-based benefits from the proposed R&D and appropriateness of
proposed R&D for ATP support. This criterion takes into consideration
the likelihood of the results being achieved in the same general time
frame by the proposer or by other U.S. researchers without ATP support,
and whether other Federal agencies or other sponsors are already
funding very similar kinds of work. Projects will not be selected if
the Program judges that Federal support is not needed. In assessing the
potential for broad-based economic benefits, emphasis is placed on a
strong potential for spillover benefits extending well beyond those
accruing to the awardee(s). Benefits are compared against the costs of
the proposal to determine cost-effectiveness of the proposal.
(c) Adequacy of Plans for Eventual Commercialization (20 percent).
(1) Evidence that if the project if successful, the proposers will
pursue further development of the technology toward commercial
application, either through their own organization(s) or through
others.
(2) Degree to which proposal identifies potential applications of
the technology and provides evidence that the proposer has credible
plans to assure prompt and widespread use of the technology if the R&D
is successful and to ensure adequate protection of the intellectual
property by the participant(s) and, as appropriate, by other U.S.
businesses.
(d) Level of Commitment and Organizational Structure (20 percent).
(1) Level of commitment of proposer as demonstrated by contribution
of personnel, equipment, facilities, and cost-sharing. Extent to which
the proposer assigns the company's best people to the project. Priority
given to this work in relation to other company activities.
(2) For joint ventures, the extent to which the joint venture has
been structured (vertical integration, horizontal integration, or both)
so as to include sufficient participants possessing all of the skills
required to complete successfully the proposed work.
(3) For joint ventures, the extent to which participation by small
businesses is encouraged and is a key component of the proposal.
(4) Appropriateness of subcontractor/supplier/collaborator
participation and relationships (where applicable). For large company
single proposers, the extent to which subcontractor teaming
arrangements are featured and are a key component of the proposal.
(5) Clarify and appropriateness of management plan. Extent to which
the proposers have clarified who is responsible for each task, and the
chain of command. Extent to which those responsible for the work have
adequate authority and access to higher level management.
(e) Experience and Qualifications (10 percent).
(1) Adequacy of proposer's facilities, equipment, and other
technical, financial, and administrative resources to accomplish the
proposed program objectives. This factor includes consideration of
resources possessed by subcontractors to the proposer or other
collaborators.
(2) Quality and appropriateness of the technical staff to carry out
the proposed work program and to identify and overcome barriers to
meeting project objectives.
(3) Past performance of the company or joint venture members in
carrying out similar kinds of efforts successfully, including
technology application. Consideration of this factor in the case of a
start-up company or new joint venture, will take into account the past
performance of the key people in carrying out similar kinds of efforts.
(f) Each of the subfactors within a selection criterion shall be
weighted equally.
(12) Section 295.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.12 Special reporting and auditing requirements.
Each award by the Program shall contain procedures regarding
technical, business, and financial reporting and auditing requirements
to ensure that awards are being used in accordance with the Program's
objectives and applicable Federal cost principles. The purpose of the
technical reporting is to monitor ``best effort'' progress toward
overall project goals. The purpose of the business reporting system is
to monitor project performance against the Program's mission as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) mandate
for program evaluation. The audit standards to be
[[Page 48807]]
applied to ATP awards are the ``Government Auditing Standards (GAS)
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (also known as
yellow book standards) and the ATP program-specific audit guidelines.
The ATP program-specific audit guidelines include guidance on the
number of audits required under an award. In the interest of
efficiency, the recipients are encouraged to retain their own
independent CPA firm to perform these audits. The Department of
Commerce's Office of Inspector General (OIG) reserves the right to
conduct audits as deemed necessary and appropriate.
Sec. 295.12 [Removed]
13. Section 295.14 is removed.
14. Section 295.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.22 Limitations on assistance.
(a) An award will be made under this subpart only if the award will
facilitate the formation of a joint venture or the initiation of a new
research and development project by an existing joint venture.
(b) The total value of any in-kind contributions used to satisfy
the cost sharing requirement may not exceed 30 percent of the non-
federal share of the total project costs.
15. Section 295.25 is added as follows:
Sec. 295.25 Special rule for the valuation of transfers between
separately-owned joint venture members.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to transfers of goods,
including computer software, and services provided by the transferor
related to the maintenance of those goods, when those goods or services
are transferred from one joint venture member to other separately-owned
joint venture members.
(b) Rule. The greater amount of the actual cost of the transferred
goods and services as determined in accordance with applicable Federal
cost principles, or 75 percent of the best customer price of the
transferred goods and services, shall be deemed to be allowable costs;
provided, however, that in no event shall the aggregate of these
allowable costs exceed 30 percent of the non-Federal share of the total
cost of the joint research and development program.
(c) Definition. The term ``best customer price'' shall mean the GSA
schedule price, or if such price is unavailable, the lowest price at
which a sale was made during the last twelve months prior to the
transfer of the particular good or service.
16. Sections 295.31 and 295.32 are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 295.31 Qualification of proposers.
Awards under this subpart will be available to all businesses
subject to the limitations set out in Secs. 295.3 and 295.32.
Sec. 295.32 Limitations on assistance.
(a) The Program will not directly provide funding under this
Subpart to any governmental entity, academic institution or independent
research organization.
(b) For proposals submitted to ATP after November 1, 1997, awards
to large businesses made under this Subpart shall not exceed 40 percent
of the total project costs of those awards in any year of the award.
(c) Awards under this subpart may not exceed $2,000,000, or be for
more than three years, unless the Secretary provides a written
explanation to the authorizing committees of both Houses of Congress
and then, only after thirty days during which both Houses of Congress
are in session. No funding for indirect costs, profits, or management
fees shall be available for awards made under this Subpart.
(d) The total value of any in-kind contributions used to satisfy a
cost sharing requirement may not exceed 30 percent of the non-federal
share of the total project costs.
17. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 15 CFR part
295 remove the word ``applicants'' or ``applicant'' and add in its
place the word ``proposers'' or ``proposer'' in the following places
a. Section 295.7(a), (b) and (c);
b. Section 295.21 section heading;
c. Subpart C heading; and
d. Section 295.31 section heading.
[FR Doc. 97-24709 Filed 9-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M
