Announcement of Federal Interagency Competition, Fiscal Year 2014 Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership, 74106-74115 [2013-29422]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• Economic Development Administration

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74106-74115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29422]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Economic Development Administration


Announcement of Federal Interagency Competition, Fiscal Year 2014 
Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership

AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Authority: The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 
1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.)

SUMMARY: This notice outlines a competition to designate up to 12 
communities as manufacturing communities (Manufacturing Communities) 
through the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP), 
including proposal submission requirements and instructions, and 
eligibility and selection criteria that will be used to evaluate 
proposals. Manufacturing Communities will receive preference for a 
range of future Federal economic development funding and technical 
assistance offered by IMCP participating agencies. Some Manufacturing 
Communities, as discussed in the Supplementary Information section of 
this notice and subject to the availability of funds, may receive 
financial assistance awards from IMCP participating agencies to assist 
in cultivating an environment for businesses to create well-paying 
manufacturing jobs in regions across the country.

DATES: The deadline for receipt of applications is 11:59 p.m. Eastern 
Time on March 14, 2014. Applications received after this deadline will 
not be reviewed or considered. Applications will be accepted in 
electronic form. Applicants are advised to carefully read the 
application and submission information provided in the Supplementary 
Information section of this notice.

ADDRESSES: You may submit applications by any of the following methods. 
All comments must include the title, ``Proposals for designation as a 
Manufacturing Community'' and Docket No. 131121981-3981.
    Email: IMCP@eda.gov. Include ``Proposals for designation as a 
Manufacturing Community'' and Docket No. 131121981-3981 in the subject 
line of the message.
    Fax: (202) 482-2838, Attention: Office of Performance and National 
Programs.
    Please indicate ``Proposals for designation as a Manufacturing 
Community'' and Docket No. 131121981-3981 on the cover page.
    Mail: Economic Development Administration, Office of Performance 
and National Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Suite 71030, Washington, DC 20230. Please indicate 
``Proposals for designation as a Manufacturing Community'' and Docket 
No. 131121981-3981 on the envelope.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Hedgepeth, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Economic Development Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Suite 78006, Washington, DC 20230 or via email at 
rhedgepeth@eda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    The Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) is a 
new government-wide initiative that will help communities cultivate an 
environment for businesses to create well-paying manufacturing jobs in 
regions across the country and thereby accelerate the resurgence of 
manufacturing. The IMCP is designed to reward communities that 
demonstrate best practices in attracting and expanding manufacturing by 
bringing together key local stakeholders and using long-term planning 
that integrates targeted investments across a community's industrial 
ecosystem to create broad-based prosperity. Research has shown that 
vibrant ecosystems may create a virtuous cycle of development for a key 
technology or supply chain through integrated investments and 
relationships among the following elements:
     Workforce and training;
     Supplier network;
     Research and innovation;
     Infrastructure/site development;
     Trade and international investment; and
     Operational improvement and capital access.

Interactions within and between these elements create ``public goods,'' 
or assets upon which many firms can draw and that are fundamental in 
creating an advantage for industry but are not adequately provided by 
the private sector. Thus, well-designed public investment is a key part 
of developing a self-sustaining ecosystem that attracts private 
investment from new and existing manufacturers and leads to broad-based 
prosperity.
    Designation as an IMCP manufacturing community (each a 
Manufacturing Community, and collectively the Manufacturing

[[Page 74107]]

Communities) will be given to communities with the best strategies for 
designing and making such investments in public goods. The Federal 
agencies participating in IMCP are the: Department of Commerce, 
Economic Development Administration; Department of Defense; Department 
of Education; Appalachian Regional Commission; Delta Regional 
Authority; Department of Energy; Department of Housing and Urban 
Development; Department of Labor, Employment and Training 
Administration; Department of Transportation; Environmental Protection 
Agency; National Science Foundation; Small Business Administration; and 
the Department of Agriculture (each an IMCP Participating Agency, and 
collectively the IMCP Participating Agencies). IMCP Participating 
Agencies will coordinate with each other to leverage complementary 
activities while also preventing duplication of efforts. Manufacturing 
Communities will receive preferential consideration for other Federal 
programs identified by IMCP Participating Agencies consistent with each 
program's eligibility requirements and evaluation criteria (see Section 
II. of this notice). Additionally, a Federal point of contact (POC) 
will be made available to help the winning community access Federal 
funds and resources. Manufacturing Communities will have access to 
generally available technical assistance resources developed through 
IMCP, namely: (1) An online data portal centralizing data available 
across agencies to enable communities to evaluate their strengths and 
weaknesses; and (2) a ``playbook'' that identifies existing Federal 
planning grant and technical assistance resources, and catalogues 
economic development best practices.
    Some Manufacturing Communities, subject to the availability of 
funds, may receive awards from IMCP Participating Agencies (see Section 
II. of this notice).

II. Benefits of IMCP Manufacturing Communities Designation

    Up to 12 communities will be designated as Manufacturing 
Communities for a period of two years. After two years, communities 
will be invited to apply to renew their designation as Manufacturing 
Communities; they will be evaluated based on: (a) Performance against 
the terms of the designation and post-designation awards received (if 
any); and (b) progress against project-specific metrics as proposed by 
communities in their applications, designed to also help communities 
track their own progress. See Section V.A.2. of this notice for more 
information on self-defined metrics.
    Co-applicants and identified partners in Manufacturing Communities' 
original IMCP proposals will be eligible for the following benefits:
    1. Preferential consideration (or supplemental awards for existing 
grantees) for funding streams identified by the IMCP Participating 
Agencies as furthering IMCP goals and thereby assisting Manufacturing 
Communities in bolstering their economic development plans. 
Manufacturing Communities will only receive preference when applying 
for grants and projects consistent with the community's economic 
development strategy. (Note: In the event that co-applicants and 
partners submit multiple applications to a given funding stream, only 
one of the applicants may claim preference.)
    2. A POC to help the Manufacturing Community access Federal 
economic development funding and non-funding related to specialized 
services provided by the IMCP Participating Agencies. These specialized 
services include but are not limited to: Big data analytics; capacity-
building assistance; and capital access consulting.
    3. Branding and promotion under the Manufacturing Community 
designation that may be helpful in attracting partners and investors 
behind the community's development strategy.
    4. In addition, subject to the availability of funds, some 
Manufacturing Communities may be invited to submit additional 
documentation (e.g. budget information) for consideration for Federal 
financial assistance through Challenge Grant Awards from EDA with the 
possibility of additional funding from other Federal programs. 
Challenge Grant Awards are intended to support large public goods 
investments, such as transit or digital infrastructure, workforce 
training, and business incubators. The total sum for Challenge Grant 
Awards, subject to the availability of funding, is expected to be up to 
$20 million.
    Publication of this announcement does not obligate the IMCP 
Participating Agencies to award Manufacturing Communities any specific 
grant or cooperative agreement, and the IMCP Participating Agencies 
reserve the right to fund, in whole or in part, any, all, or none of 
the applications submitted in response to future solicitations.
    The following 9 IMCP Participating Agencies have agreed to provide 
preferential consideration, and/or consideration in the determination 
of application merit, and/or grant supplemental awards (totaling 
approximately $1.3 billion) for Manufacturing Communities for the 
following 18economic development programs:

1. Appalachian Regional Commission

    a. Local Access Road Program: The Appalachian Regional Commission 
program aims to better link the Region's businesses, communities, and 
residents to the Appalachian Development Highway System and to other 
key parts of the Region's transportation network. The program offers a 
flexible approach designed to meet local needs and provide a financing 
mechanism to support a variety of economic development opportunities 
throughout the Region. Funding is available to provide access to 
industrial sites, business parks, and commercial areas where 
significant employment opportunities are present. Other eligible sites 
include timberlands with significant commercial value and areas where 
educational services are provided. Proposals for the use of this 
program should be developed in coordination with the State ARC Program 
Office and State Department of Transportation as required lead times 
can span multiple fiscal years and/or project cycles.
    b. Area Development Program: The Appalachian Regional Commission 
program addresses three of the four goals identified in the 
Commission's strategic plan: (1) Increase job opportunities and per 
capita income in Appalachia to reach parity with the nation; (2) 
Strengthen the capacity of the people of Appalachia to compete in the 
global economy; and (3) Develop and improve Appalachia's infrastructure 
to make the Region economically competitive. Projects funded in these 
program areas create thousands of new jobs; improve local water and 
sewer systems; increase school readiness; expand access to health care; 
assist local communities with strategic planning; and provide technical 
and managerial assistance to emerging businesses. Proposals for the use 
of this program should be developed in coordination with the State ARC 
Program Office.

2. Delta Regional Authority

    a. States' Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP) ): DRA's 
primary investment, SEDAP provides for investments in Basic Public 
Infrastructure, Transportation Infrastructure, Workforce Development, 
and Business Development with an emphasis in entrepreneurship. SEDAP 
funds are allocated to Lower Mississippi Delta designated counties in 
eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky,

[[Page 74108]]

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee).

3. Department of Housing and Urban Development

    a. Office of Economic Resiliency Integrated Planning & Investment 
Grants (pending program funding) will offer $75 million in Integrated 
Planning and Investment Grants that will seed locally-created, 
comprehensive blueprints that strategically direct investments in 
development and infrastructure to projects that result in: attracting 
jobs and building diverse and resilient economies, significant 
municipal cost savings, and stronger, more unified local leadership. 
Integrated Planning and Investment Grants will incorporate some of the 
same features of the previously-funded Regional Plans for Sustainable 
Communities and the Community Challenge Grants offered by the Office of 
Sustainable Housing and Communities, but, using lessons learned from 
that program and feedback from local leaders, will place a greater 
emphasis on supporting actionable economic development strategies, 
reducing redundancy in Federally-funded planning activities, setting 
and monitoring performance, and identifying how Federal formula funds 
can be used smartly and efficiently in support of economic resilience. 
As with the previous efforts, priority will be placed on directing 
grants to rural areas, cities, counties, metropolitan areas and states 
that demonstrate economic need and are committed to building the cross-
sector, cross-disciplinary partnerships necessary to tackle the tough 
decisions that help make places economically competitive. A portion of 
grant funds will be reserved for small and rural communities and 
regions.
    b. Delta Community Capital Initiative: Administered by HUD's Office 
of Rural Housing and Economic Development, DCCI is a collaborative 
effort among three Federal agencies--the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD), the Department of the Treasury--Community 
Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) and the Department 
of Agriculture--Rural Development (USDA--RD). The DCCI's goal is to 
increase access to capital for business lending and economic 
development in the chronically underserved and undercapitalized Lower 
Mississippi Delta Region. Specifically, it will provide direct 
investment and technical assistance to community development lending 
and investing institutions that focus on small business development to 
benefit the residents of Lower Mississippi Delta Region.
    c. Appalachia Economic Development Initiative: Administered by 
HUD's Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development. AEDI is a 
collaborative effort among three Federal agencies--the Department of 
HUD, the CDFI Fund and the USDA--RD. The AEDI's goal is to increase 
access to capital for business lending and economic development in the 
chronically underserved and undercapitalized Appalachia Region. 
Specifically, it will provide investment and technical assistance to 
State community and/or economic development agencies that apply on 
behalf of local rural nonprofit organizations or community development 
corporations that focus on small business development to benefit the 
residents of the Appalachia Region.

4. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration

    a. Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career 
Training Grant Program (TAACCT): The Education and Training 
Administration's Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and 
Career Training Grant Program (TAACCT) provides community colleges and 
other eligible institutions of higher education with funds to expand 
and improve their ability to deliver education and career training 
programs. Through these multi-year grants, the Department of Labor is 
helping to ensure that our nation's institutions of higher education 
are helping adults succeed in acquiring the skills, degrees, and 
credentials needed for high-wage, high-skill employment while also 
meeting the needs of employers for skilled workers.

5. Department of Transportation

    a. Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER): 
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Transportation Investment 
Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER Discretionary Grant program, 
provides a unique opportunity for the Department of Transportation to 
engage directly with states, cities, regional planning organizations, 
and rural communities through a competitive process that invests in 
road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve critical 
national objectives. Each project is multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional 
or otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs. The TIGER 
program showcases DOT's use of a rigorous cost-benefit analysis 
throughout the process to select projects with exceptional benefits, 
explore ways to deliver projects faster and save on construction costs, 
and make investments in our Nation's infrastructure that make 
communities more livable and sustainable. For more information about 
the TIGER program, please visit https://www.dot.gov/tiger.

6. Environmental Protection Agency

    a. Targeted Brownfield Assessments (TBA) program is designed to 
help states, tribes, and municipalities, as well as land clearance 
authorities, regional redevelopment agencies, and other eligible 
entities--especially those without other EPA brownfield site assessment 
resources--minimize the uncertainties of contamination often associated 
with brownfields, and set the stage for new investment. The TBA program 
is not a grant program, but a service provided by EPA via a contractor, 
who conducts environmental assessment activities to address the 
requestor's needs.
    b. Brownfield Site Assessment/cleanup/RLF (RLF) (includes 
assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and cleanup grants) can support a 
range of activities needed to re-deploy properties, including for 
manufacturing and related uses. Assessment grants provide funding for 
communities, regional development authorities, and other eligible 
recipients to inventory, characterize, assess, and conduct planning and 
community involvement related to brownfield sites. Revolving Loan Fund 
(RLF) grants provide funding for states, communities, and other 
eligible recipients to capitalize a locally administered RLF to carry 
out cleanup activities at brownfield sites; alternatively, recipients 
may use up to 40% of their capitalization grants to provide subgrants 
for cleanup purposes. Cleanup grants provide funding to carry out 
remedial activities at brownfield sites. Cleanup grants require a 20 
percent cost share (cash or eligible in-kind), which may be waived 
based on hardship. An applicant must own the site for which it is 
requesting funding at time of application. For additional information 
on brownfield grants, including examples of their use to advance 
manufacturing activities, please visit www.epa.gov/brownfields.

7. National Science Foundation

    a. Advanced Technology Education (ATE) (supplemental awards will be 
awarded only to existing ATE grantees also designated as Manufacturing 
Communities entitled to challenge grants): With an emphasis on two-year 
colleges, the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program focuses on 
the education of technicians for the high-technology fields that drive 
our nation's economy. The program involves

[[Page 74109]]

partnerships between academic institutions and employers to promote 
improvement in the education of science and engineering technicians at 
the undergraduate and secondary school levels. The ATE program supports 
curriculum development; professional development of college faculty and 
secondary school teachers; career pathways to two-year colleges from 
secondary schools and from two-year colleges to four-year institutions; 
and other activities. Another goal is articulation between two-year and 
four-year programs for K-12 prospective teachers that focus on 
technological education. The program also invites proposals focusing on 
research to advance the knowledge base related to technician education.
    b. I/UCRC (supplemental awards will be awarded only to existing ATE 
grantees also designated as Manufacturing Communities entitled to 
challenge grants): The Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers 
(I/UCRC) program develops long-term partnerships among industry, 
academe, and government. The centers are catalyzed by a seed investment 
from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and are primarily supported 
by industry center members, with NSF taking a supporting role in their 
development and evolution. Each center is established to conduct 
research that is of interest to both the industry and the center. An I/
UCRC not only contributes to the Nation's research infrastructure base 
and enhances the intellectual capacity of the engineering and science 
workforce through the integration of research and education, but also 
encourages and fosters international cooperation and collaborative 
projects.

8. Small Business Administration

    a. Accelerator Program (pending funding and authority for the 
program): The Accelerator Program, within the SBA's Office of 
Investment and Innovation, is comprised of ecosystems that encompass 
programs which at a high level provide high potential entrepreneurs and 
fast growing start-ups with three things--in exchange for minority 
equity stakes: (1) Mentorship--access to people that have ``seen the 
movie'' before and whom can be tapped for advice; (2) Access to 
Capital--access to super-seed cash to jump-start ideas and very young 
companies; and (3) Space--Sharing office space and co-working to enable 
both cost savings and idea proliferation in a Keiretsu-type setting. 
Some of the concrete and specific initiatives at the Accelerator 
Program include Demo Days (brought accelerators from diverse industries 
and geographies together to network and share ideas), Start-Up 
University (an online platform for universities to build and share 
effective models for fostering student entrepreneurship), and Educate 
Accelerators (train the trainers type programs).
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture
    a. Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program (REDLG) REDLG 
provides loans and grants to local public and nonprofit utilities which 
use the funds to make zero interest loans to businesses and economic 
development projects in rural areas that will create and retain 
employment. Examples of eligible projects include: Purchase or 
improvement of real estate, buildings, and equipment, working capital 
and start-up costs; health care facilities and equipment, business 
incubators; telecommunications/computer networks; educational and job 
training facilities and services; community facilities and other 
community development projects. In REDLG a rural area is any area other 
than a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 
inhabitants and its contiguous urbanized area.
    b. Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program (RBEG): RBEG grants may 
be made to public bodies and private nonprofit corporations which use 
the grant funds to assist small and emerging businesses in rural areas. 
Public bodies include States, counties, cities, townships, and 
incorporated town and villages, boroughs, authorities, districts, and 
Indian tribes. Small and emerging private businesses are those that 
will employ 50 or fewer new employees and have less than $1 million in 
projected gross revenues. Examples of eligible fund use include: 
Capitalization of revolving loan funds to finance small and emerging 
rural businesses; training and technical assistance; job training; 
community facilities and infrastructure, rural transportation 
improvement; and project planning and feasibility. In RBEG a rural area 
is any area other than a city or town that has a population of greater 
than 50,000 inhabitants and its contiguous urbanized area.
    c. Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) IRP loans are provided to 
intermediaries to establish revolving loan funds which they use to with 
finance business and economic development activity in rural 
communities. Private non-profit corporations, public agencies, Indian 
groups, and cooperatives with at least 51 percent rural membership may 
apply for intermediary lender status. IRP funding may be used for a 
variety of business and community development projects located in a 
rural area. Under the IRP, a rural area is any area that is not inside 
a city with a population of 25,000 or more according to the latest 
decennial census. Some examples of eligible projects, related to 
businesses in the manufacturing sector are: Acquisition of a business, 
purchase or development of land, buildings, facilities, leases, 
purchase equipment, leasehold improvements, machinery, supplies; 
startup costs and working capital. IRP may also finance community and 
economic development projects.
    d. Business & Industry Guaranteed Loan Program (B&I) The B&I 
Guaranteed Loan Program bolsters existing private credit structure by 
guaranteeing quality loans aimed at improving the economic and 
environmental climate in rural communities. A borrower may be a 
cooperative organization, corporation, partnership, or other legal 
entity organized and operated on a profit or nonprofit basis; an Indian 
tribe on a Federal or State reservation or other Federally recognized 
tribal group; a public body; or an individual. Borrowers must be 
engaged in a business that will: Provide employment; improve the 
economic or environmental climate; promote the conservation, 
development, and use of water for aquaculture; or reduce reliance on 
nonrenewable energy resources by encouraging the development and 
construction of solar energy systems and other renewable energy 
systems.
    In addition, each of the 13 IMCP Participating Agencies--the above 
nine plus the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Education, and Energy--
will offer staff time in order that each Manufacturing Community will 
have access to a POC (assigned from an IMCP Participating Agency) to 
facilitate access to technical assistance and economic development 
funds.

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Organizations

    Proposals for designation as a Manufacturing Community must be 
submitted on behalf of the region by a consortium that includes one or 
more of the eligible organizations discussed in this section. The 
consortium must designate one of these eligible organizations as lead 
applicant and one member of that organization to be the primary point 
of contact for the consortium. Applicants are strongly encouraged to 
include other key stakeholders, including but not limited to private 
sector partners, higher education institutions, government entities, 
economic development and

[[Page 74110]]

other community and labor groups, financial institutions and utilities. 
All members of the consortium must submit letters of commitment or sign 
a Memorandum of Understanding documenting their contributions to the 
partnership. Additionally, at a minimum, the applicant must have 
letters of support from a higher education institution, a private 
sector partner, and some government entity if not already part of the 
consortium. Applicants should demonstrate a significant level of 
regional cooperation in their proposal because only one designation 
will be made in a particular region.
    Eligible lead applicants include a(n):
    1. District Organization;
    2. Indian Tribe or a consortium of Indian Tribes;
    3. State, county, city, or other political subdivision of a State, 
including a special purpose unit of a State or local government engaged 
in economic or infrastructure development activities, or a consortium 
of political subdivisions;
    4. Institution of higher education or a consortium of higher 
education institutions; or
    5. Public or private non-profit organization or association acting 
in cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a State.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See section 3 of (42 U.S.C. 3122) and 13 CFR 300.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Geographic Scope

    Applicants may define their regional boundaries of their 
consortium, though all such regions should have a strong existing 
manufacturing base. In general, an applicant's region should be large 
enough to contain critical elements of the key technologies or supply 
chains (KTS) prioritized by the applicant, but small enough to enable 
close collaboration (e.g. generally, larger than a city but smaller 
than a state). The proposed manufacturing community should provide 
evidence that their community ranks in the top third in the nation for 
their key manufacturing technology or supply chain by either: Location 
quotient for employment in the KTS, or location quotient for firms in 
the KTS.
    A key element in evaluating proposals will be the rate of 
improvement in key indicators that the plan can credibly generate. 
Thus, both distressed and non-distressed manufacturing regions are 
encouraged to apply.

IV. Application and Submission Information

A. How To Submit an Application

    You may submit applications by any of the following methods. All 
comments must include the title, ``Proposals for designation as a 
Manufacturing Community'' and Docket No. 131121981-3981.
    Email: IMCP@eda.gov. Include ``Proposals for designation as a 
Manufacturing Community'' and Docket No. 131121981-3981 in the subject 
line of the message.
    Fax: (202) 482-2838, Attention: Office of Performance and National 
Programs.
    Please indicate ``Proposals for designation as a Manufacturing 
Community'' and Docket No. 131121981-3981 on the cover page.
    Mail: Economic Development Administration, Office of Performance 
and National Programs U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Suite 71030, Washington, DC 20230. Please indicate 
``Proposals for designation as a Manufacturing Community'' and Docket 
No. 131121981-3981 on the envelope.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Hedgepeth, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Economic Development Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW., Suite 78006, Washington, DC 20230 or via email at 
rhedgepeth@eda.gov.
    In preparing their applications, communities are urged to consult 
online resources developed through IMCP, namely (1) a data portal 
centralizing data available across agencies to enable communities to 
evaluate their strengths and weaknesses; and (2) a ``playbook'' that 
identifies existing Federal planning grant and technical assistance 
resources and catalogues best practices in economic development. These 
resources are available at www.eda.gov/challenges/imcp/.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission

    In order to be considered for designation, applicants must submit a 
proposal that includes all required elements outlined below. The 
proposal will be used to determine which communities will receive the 
manufacturing communities designation. Reviewers will focus on the 
quality of the analysis described below; the POC awarded to designees 
will help with identifying appropriate funding streams and fine-tuning 
the details of proposals to meet the requirements of individual 
agencies.
    Each proposal shall consist of no more than thirty (30) single-
sided pages exclusive of cover sheet and/or transmittal letter, and 
must include the following information:
    (a) Point of Contact: Name, phone number, email address, and 
organization address of the respondent's primary point of contact, 
including specific staff member to be the point of contact;
    (b) Assessment of Local Industrial Ecosystem: An integrated 
assessment of the local industrial ecosystem (i.e., the whole range of 
physical, capital, and human resource components needed for 
manufacturing activities) as it exists today in the area defined by the 
applicant and what is missing; and an evidence-based path for 
developing chosen components of this ecosystem (infrastructure, 
transit, workforce, etc.) by making specific investments to address 
gaps and make a region uniquely competitive;
    (c) Implementation Strategy Description: A description of the 
proposed investments and implementation strategy that will be used to 
address gaps in the ecosystem;
    (d) Implementation Strategy Parties: A description of the local 
partner organizations/jurisdictions, and their roles and 
responsibilities, that will carry out the proposed strategy, including 
letters of commitment or signed a Memorandum of Understanding 
documenting their contributions to the partnership as attachments that 
will not count against the 30-page limit;
    (e) Performance Metrics: A description of metrics, benchmarks and 
milestones to be tracked and of evaluation methods to be used 
(experimental design, control groups, etc.) over the course of the 
implementation to gauge performance of the strategy;
    (f) Federal Financial Assistance Experience: Evidence of the 
intended recipient's ability and authority to manage a Federal 
financial assistance award;
    (g) Geographic Scope: Description of the regional boundaries of 
their consortium and the basis for determining that their manufacturing 
concentration ranks in the top third in the nation for their key 
manufacturing technology or supply chain by either: Location quotient 
for employment in the KTS, or location quotient for firms in the KTS.
    (h) Submitting Official: Documentation that the Submitting Official 
is authorized by the applicant to submit a proposal and subsequently 
apply for assistance;

[[Page 74111]]

C. Deadlines for Submission

    The deadline for receipt of applications is March 14, 2014 at 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time. Proposals received after the closing date and time 
will not be considered.

V. Application Review and Selection Process

    Throughout the review and selection process, the IMCP Participating 
Agencies reserve the right to seek clarification in writing from 
applicants whose proposals are being reviewed and considered. IMCP 
Participating Agencies may ask applicants to clarify proposal 
materials, objectives, and work plans, or other specifics necessary to 
comply with Federal requirements. To the extent practicable, the IMCP 
Participating Agencies encourage applicants to provide data and 
evidence of the merits of the project in a publicly available and 
verifiable form.

A. Proposal Narrative Requirements and Selection Criteria

    IMCP Participating Agencies will consider each of the following 
factors as a basis to confer the manufacturing communities designation. 
(See section V.B. of this notice for weighting).
1. Quality of Assessment/Implementation Strategy
    Applicants should provide a detailed data-driven assessment of the 
local industrial ecosystem as it exists today, what is missing, and an 
evidence-based path to development that could make a region uniquely 
competitive. This description should also explain public good 
investments needed to realize these plans. The proposed development 
should involve strong coordination across the subcategories below. 
Applicants must conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of their 
proposed public good investment and demonstrate that project benefits 
exceed project costs, similar to analysis required of Department of 
Transportation TIGER applicants (see www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/TIGER%202013%20NOFA_BCA%20Guidance_0.pdf).
    At the outset, applicants should identify KTS on which their 
development plan will focus, and explain how these KTS build on 
existing regional assets and capabilities. In selecting KTS and in 
defining the geographic boundaries of the community, applicants should 
choose areas that are sufficiently focused to ensure a well-integrated 
development plan, but sufficiently broad that resulting development of 
related capabilities have a substantial impact on a community's 
prosperity overall and achieve broad distribution of benefits. Finally, 
the applicant should discuss why this community has a comparative 
advantage in building these KTS (e.g., comparative data such as 
location quotients levels of sales, employment, patents) and how their 
strategy integrates the following subcategories into a coherent whole, 
leading to a vibrant manufacturing ecosystem based on these KTS.
    We expect that winning applications will include a detailed, 
integrated, and data-driven assessment of the local industrial 
ecosystem as it currently exists for their KTS, what is missing, and a 
path to development that could make a region uniquely competitive. 
However, we do not expect that applicants will provide detailed budgets 
and analysis for plans to remedy every gap they identify. Instead, 
applicants should submit estimated budgets for such projects that they 
can show would be catalytic.
    The following text provides guidance on how we will analyze the 
composition of a community's industrial ecosystem, and is not meant to 
be proscriptive.
    For workforce and training, the applicant should consider:
    i. Current capability: What are the requisite skills and average 
compensation for employees in fields relevant to the KTS? How many 
people with these or similar skills currently reside in the region? How 
many employees could be added to the workforce with minimal additional 
training?
    ii. Current institutions for improving capability: What local 
community colleges, certified apprenticeships, workforce 
intermediaries, and other training programs exist that either 
specialize in the KTS or could develop specialties helpful for the KTS? 
Do these programs result in recognized credentials and pathways for 
continuous learning that are valued by employers and lead to improved 
outcomes for employees? To what extent do these institutions currently 
integrate research and development (R&D) activities and education to 
best prepare the current and future workforce? To what extent do 
postsecondary partners engage with feeder programs, such as those in 
secondary schools? What is the nature of engagement of Workforce 
Investment Boards, employers, community, and labor organizations?
    iii. Gaps: What short- and long-term human resources challenges 
exist for the local economy along the region's proposed development 
path? If available, what is the local unemployment rate for key 
occupations in the KTS? Are any local efforts underway to re-
incorporate the long-term unemployed into the workforce that could be 
integrated into KTS?
    iv. Plans: Communities that intend to focus on workforce issues as 
a priority area in seeking future grants should explain how they intend 
to build on local assets to improve KTS in areas such as:
    a. Linkage (including training, financial and in-kind partnerships) 
with employers (or prospective employers) in the KTS and labor/
community groups to ensure skills are useful, portable, and lead to a 
career path;
    b. Plans to ensure broad distribution of benefits, e.g., through 
programs to upgrade jobs and wages or support disadvantaged 
populations;
    c. Extent of plan to integrate R&D activities and education to best 
prepare the current and future workforce as appropriate to the KTS 
focus specified.
    For supplier networks, the applicant should consider:
    i. Current Capability: What are key firms in the KTS? What parts of 
the KTS are located inside and outside the region defined by the 
applicant? How are firms connected to each other? What are the key 
trade and other associations and what roles do they play? How might 
customers or suppliers (even outside the region) support suppliers in 
the region? What are examples of projects/shared assets across these 
firms? What new KTS products have been launched recently? If your 
community is participating in SBA Supply Chain Analysis grant, how will 
you leverage their work?
    ii. Current Institutions for Improving Capability: What processes 
or institutions (foundations, medical or educational institutions, 
trade associations, etc.) exist to promote innovation or upgrade 
supplier capability? Please provide performance measures and/or case 
studies as evidence of these capabilities.
    iii. Gaps: What short- and long-term supply chain challenges exist 
for the local economy along the region's proposed development path? Are 
there institutions that convene suppliers and customers to discuss 
improved ways of working together, roadmap complementary investments, 
etc.?
    iv. Plans: Communities that intend to focus on improving supplier 
networks as a priority area in seeking future grants should explain how 
they intend to build on local assets to improve KTS in areas such as:
    a. Establishing an industrial park conducive to supply chain 
integration,

[[Page 74112]]

including support for convening and upgrading supplier firms of all 
sizes;
    b. Remedying gaps and/or undertaking more intensive supply chain 
mapping;
    c. Measuring and improving supplier capabilities in innovation, 
problem-solving ability, and systematic operation (e.g. lean, 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) certification);
    d. Leveraging organizations that work with suppliers, such as 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), U.S. Export Assistance 
Centers (USEAC), Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), SCORE 
chapters and Women Business Centers (WBCs); and
    e. Measuring and improving trade association activity, 
interconnectedness, and support from key customers or suppliers (even 
if outside the region).
    For research and innovation, the applicant should consider:
    i. Current Capabilities: What are the community's university/
research assets in KTS? To what extent do training institutions 
currently integrate R&D activities and education to best prepare the 
current and future workforce? Does the community have shared facilities 
such as incubator space or research centers? What is the community's 
record for helping the ecosystem develop small businesses and start-
ups?
    ii. Current Institutions for Improving Capability: How relevant are 
local institutions' program of research and commercialization for the 
proposed development path? How robust is the revenue model? What local 
entities work with new and existing firms to help promote innovation? 
How integrated are industry and academia (including Federal 
Laboratories)?
    iii. Gaps: What short- and long-term research challenges exist for 
the local economy along the region's proposed development path?
    iv. Plans: Communities that intend to focus on improving local 
research institutions as a priority area in seeking future grants 
should explain how they intend to build on local assets to improve KTS 
in areas such as:
    a. Establishing shared space and procuring capital equipment for 
incubation and research;
    b. Developing strategies for negotiating intellectual property 
rights in ways that balance the goals of rewarding inventors and 
sharing knowledge;
    c. Plans for promoting university research relevant to new industry 
needs, and arrangements to facilitate adoption of such applied research 
by industry;
    d. Leveraging other Federal innovation initiatives such as the 
National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, MEP, Manufacturing 
Technology Accelerator Centers; and
    e. Plans to ensure broad distribution of the benefits of public 
investment, including benefits to disadvantaged populations.
    For infrastructure/site development, the applicant should consider:
    i. Current capability: Describe the quality of existing physical 
infrastructure and logistical services that support manufacturing and 
provide analysis of availability of sites prepared to receive new 
manufacturing investment (including discussion of specific limitations 
of these cites, i.e., environmental concerns or limited transportation 
access). Provide detailed analysis on how transportation infrastructure 
serves KTS in moving people and goods. Do KTS firms contribute 
significantly to air or water pollution, or sprawl?
    ii. Current institutions for improving capability: Is there 
capability for on-going analysis to identify appropriate sites for new 
manufacturing activity, and efforts necessary to make them 
``implementation ready?'' Do the applicants control these sites? Are 
they well-located, requiring readily achievable remedial or 
infrastructural support to become implementation-ready? Are they easily 
accessible by potential workers via short commutes or multiple modes of 
transportation? Are they located in areas where planned uses will not 
disproportionately impact the health or environment of vulnerable 
populations? Are they suitable for manufacturing investment in 
accordance with Brownfield Area-Wide plans, Comprehensive Economic 
Development Strategies (CEDS), or other plans that focus on economic 
development outcomes in an area such as those associated with 
metropolitan planning organizations or regional councils of government? 
Are there opportunities to improve the environmental sustainability of 
the KTS?
    iii. Gaps: Provide analysis of gaps in existing infrastructure 
relevant for proposed path to ecosystem development, including barriers 
and challenges to attracting manufacturing- related investment such as 
lack of appropriate land or transportation use planning, and explains 
how plans will address them. To what extent have firms indicated 
interest in investing in the region if infrastructure gaps are 
addressed?
    iv. Plans: Communities that intend to focus on infrastructure 
development as a priority area in seeking future grants should explain 
how they intend to build on local assets to improve KTS in areas such 
as:
    a. Transportation projects that contribute to economic 
competitiveness of the region and United States as a whole by (i) 
improving efficiency, reliability, sustainability and/or cost-
competitiveness in the movement of workers or goods in the KTS, and 
(ii) creating jobs in the KTS;
    b. Site development for manufacturing to take advantage of existing 
transportation and other infrastructure and facilitate worker access to 
new manufacturing jobs;
    c. Infrastructure and site reuse that will generate cost savings 
over the long term and efficiency in use of public resources; and
    d. Improvement of production methods and locations so as to reduce 
environmental pollution and sprawl.
    For trade and international investment, the applicant should 
consider:
    i. Current capability: What is the current level and rate of change 
of the community's exports of products or services in the KTS? Identify 
existing number of international KTS firms, inward investment flow, 
outward investment flow, export and import figures, KTS trends in the 
region and internationally.
    ii. Current institutions for improving export capability and 
support: What local public sector, public-private partnership, or 
nonprofit programs have been developed to promote exports of products 
or services from the KTS?
    iii. Gaps: What are the barriers to increasing KTS exports? 
Identify strategic needs or gaps to fully implement a program to 
attract foreign investment (e.g. outreach missions, marketing 
materials, infrastructure, data or research, missing capabilities).
    iv. Plans: Communities that intend to focus on exports or foreign 
direct investment as a priority area in seeking future grants should 
explain how they intend to build on local assets to improve KTS in 
areas such as:
    a. Developing global business-to-business matching services; 
regional advisory services for engaging international markets and 
international trade officials, or planning and implementing trade 
missions.
    b. Location (investment) promotion in target markets and within 
target sectors to build the KTS; Investment Missions; business 
accelerators or soft landing sites to support new investors; marketing 
materials; or organizational capacity to support investment strategy 
implementation.

[[Page 74113]]

    For operational improvement and capital access, the applicant 
should consider:
    i. Current capability: For the KTS, what data is available about 
business operational costs and local capital access? The applicant can 
provide general description of what is available, and more detailed 
description of key areas of comparative advantage or of concern. How 
does industry partner with utility companies to achieve efficient 
energy distribution and delivery and/or more energy efficient 
manufacturing operations? What (if any) local institutions exist to 
help companies reduce business operational costs while maintaining or 
increasing performance? What (if any) sources of capital and 
infrastructure are available (public and private) to businesses to 
expand or locate in a community? What evidence exists regarding their 
performance?
    ii. Gaps: What improvements or new institutions (including 
financial institutions and foundations) are key for promoting 
continuous improvement in KTS business operational capability?
    iii. Plans: Communities that intend to focus on operational 
improvements and/or capital access as a priority area in seeking future 
grants should explain how they intend to build on local assets to 
improve KTS in areas such as:
    a. Reducing manufacturers' production costs by reducing waste 
management costs, enhancing efficiency, and promoting resilience 
establishing mechanisms to help firms measure and minimize life-cycle 
costs (e.g., improving firms' access to innovative financing mechanisms 
for energy efficiency projects, such as a revolving energy efficiency 
loan fund or state green bank);
    b. Building concerted local efforts and capital projects that 
facilitate industrial energy efficiency, combined heat and power, and 
commercial energy retrofits (applicants should detail strategies for 
capturing these opportunities in support of local manufacturing/
business competitiveness); and
    c. Developing public-private partnerships that provide capital to 
commercialize new technology, and develop/equip production facilities 
in the KTS.
2. Capacity To Carry Out Implementation Strategy
    Applications will be judged in part on the quality of the evidence 
they provide, including the following information:
    i. Overall leadership capacity--lead organization's capacity to 
carry out planned investments in public goods, e.g., prior leadership 
of similar efforts, prior success attracting outside investment, prior 
success identifying and managing local and regional partners, and 
ability to manage, share, and use data for evaluation and continuous 
improvement.
    ii. Sound partnership structure, e.g., clear identification of 
project lead, clarity of partner responsibilities for executing plan, 
and appropriateness of partners designated for executing each 
component; clarity of partnership governance structure; and strength of 
accountability mechanisms, including contractual measures and remedies 
for non-performance, as reflected in letters of commitment or 
Memorandum of Understanding among consortium members. As discussed in 
Section III.A. of this notice, the partnership (a) must include an EDA-
eligible lead applicant (district organization; Indian tribe; state, 
county, city, or political subdivision of state, institution of higher 
education, or nonprofit); and (b) should include other key 
stakeholders, including but not limited to private sector partners, 
higher education institutions, government entities, economic 
development and other community and labor groups, financial 
institutions and utilities. At a minimum, the applicant must have 
letters of support from a higher education institution, a private 
sector partner, and some government entity if not already part of the 
consortium.
    iii. Partner capacity to carry out planned investments in public 
goods and attract companies, as measured by prior stewardship of 
Federal, state, and/or private dollars received and prior success at 
achieving intended outcomes.
    iv. State of ecosystem's institutions (associated with the six 
subcategories under Section I. of this notice) and readiness of 
industry, nonprofit, and public sector facilities to improve the way 
they facilitate innovation, development, production, and sale of 
products, as well as train/educate a corresponding workforce.
    v. Depth and breadth of communities' short, medium and long term 
development and employment goals, plans to utilize high-quality data 
and rigorous methods to evaluate progress, and demonstration that the 
probability of achieving these goals is realistic.
    Competitive applications will have clearly defined goals and 
impacts that are aligned with IMCP objectives. Over the long term (5-10 
years), plans should lead to significant improvements in community's 
economic activity, environmental sustainability, and quality of life. 
Thus, every applicant should provide credible evidence that their KTS 
development plan will lead over the next 5- 10 years to significant but 
reasonably attainable increases in private investment in the sector, 
creation of well-paying jobs, increased median income, increased 
exports and improved environmental quality. We expect that every 
applicant will track these long-term outcomes, for either the community 
as a whole or only for their KTS.
    In addition, applications will be evaluated on the extent to which 
applicants present practical and clear metrics for nearer-term 
evaluations. For the short and medium term (next 2-3 years), applicants 
should develop milestones (targets they expect to achieve in this time 
frame) and metrics (measurements toward the selected milestones and 
long-term goals) that measure the extent to which the chosen catalytic 
projects are successfully addressing the ecosystem gaps identified in 
their assessment and contributing to improving the long-term metrics 
above.
    These intermediate metrics will vary according to the plan; for 
example, a community that has identified a weakness in supplier quality 
may track improvements in supplier quality systems, while a community 
that has identified a desire to increase university-industry 
collaboration might track invention disclosures filed by faculty and 
business. To the extent feasible, communities should also plan to 
statistically evaluate the individual programs as well as the effects 
of the bundle of programs taken together. For example, communities 
might choose randomly from among qualified applicants if job training 
programs are oversubscribed, and track job creation outcomes for both 
treatment and control groups.
    A key element in evaluating proposals will be the rate of 
improvement in key indicators that the plan can credibly generate. 
Thus, both distressed and non-distressed manufacturing regions are 
encouraged to apply.
3. Verifiable Commitment From Existing and Prospective Stakeholders--
Both Private and Public--To Executing a Plan and Investing in a 
Community.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Such commitments may range in intensity and duration. Lead 
applicants are responsible for overall coordination, reporting, and 
delivery of results. Consortium members have ongoing roles that 
should be specified in the proposal. Other partners may take on less 
intensive commitments such as in-kind donations of the use of 
meeting space, equipment, telecommunications services, or staffing 
for particular functions; letters or other expressions of support 
for IMCP activities and applications for resources; participation in 
steering committees or other advisory bodies; permanent donations of 
funding, land, equipment, facilities or other resources; or the 
provision of other types of support without taking on a formal role 
in the day-to-day operations and advancement of the overall 
strategy; stronger applications will also specify these commitments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    i. Cohesion of partnership. This may be shown in part by evidence 
of prior

[[Page 74114]]

collaboration between the IMCP lead applicant, applicant consortium 
members, and other key community stakeholders (local government, anchor 
institutions, community, business and labor leaders and local firms, 
etc.) that includes specific examples of past projects/activities.
    ii. Strength/extent of partnership commitment (not contingent upon 
receipt or specific funding stream) to coordinate work and investment 
to execute plan and strategically invest in identified public goods. 
Documented match for current project and evidence of past investments 
can help serve to demonstrate this commitment.
    iii. Breadth of commitment to the plan from diverse institutions, 
including local anchor institutions (e.g., hospitals, colleges/
universities, labor and community organizations, major employers small 
business owners and other business leaders, national and community 
foundations) and local, state and regional government officials.
    iv. Investment commitments. Extent to which applicants can 
demonstrate commitments from public and private sectors to invest in 
public goods identified by the plan, or investments that directly lead 
to high-wage jobs in manufacturing or related sectors. Letters of 
intent from prospective investors to support projects, with detailed 
descriptions of the extent of their financial and time commitment, can 
serve to demonstrate this commitment. These commitments should be 
classified into two groups: those that are not contingent on receipt of 
a specific Federal economic development funding stream, and those that 
are contingent on the availability of such a Federal economic 
development funding stream. In the latter case, applicants should aim 
to show that each dollar of their proposed Federally-funded public 
investments will be matched over the next 5-10 years by at least two 
dollars of other investment, which may be private or public (non-
Federal).

B. Review Process

    All proposals submitted for the manufacturing communities 
designation will be reviewed on their individual merits by an 
interagency panel. The interagency panel will judge applications 
against the evaluation criteria enumerated in section V.A. of this 
notice, and score applications on a scale of 100 points. The maximum 
number of points that may be awarded to each criterion is as follows:
1. Quality of Implementation Strategy: 50 points
    i. Quality of analysis of workforce, supplier network, innovation, 
infrastructure, trade, and costs (6 points per element)--36 points
    ii. Bonus weight (applicant selects one of the elements in section 
V.B.1.i. for extra weighting)--6 points
    iii. Quality of integration of the six elements--8 points;
2. Capacity: 25 points
    i. Leadership capacity, partnership structure, partner capacity, 
readiness of institutions (4 points per element)--16 points
    ii. Quality of goal-setting and evaluation plan--9 points; and
3. Commitment: 25 points
    i. Cohesion, strength, and breadth of partnership--14 points
    ii. Credibility and size of investments not tied to future Federal 
economic development funding--7 points
    iii. Credibility and size of match tied to IMCP funding--4 points.
    Following the scoring of applications, the interagency panel will 
rank the applications according to their respective scores and present 
the ranking to the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development (who 
will serve as the selecting official for the manufacturing community 
designations made by EDA pursuant to this notice). In determining the 
issuance of manufacturing community designations, the Assistant 
Secretary for Economic Development will take into consideration the 
ranking and supporting justifications provided by the interagency 
review panel, as well as the applicant's ability to successfully 
carryout the public policy and program priorities outlined in this 
notice. The decision of the Assistant Secretary for Economic 
Development is final; however, if the Assistant Secretary for Economic 
Development decides to make a manufacturing communities designation 
that differs from the recommendation of the interagency review panel, 
the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development will document the 
rationale for such a determination.

C. Transparency

    The agencies and bureaus involved in this initiative are committed 
to conducting a transparent competition and publicizing information 
about investment decisions. Applicants are advised that their 
respective applications and information related to their review, 
evaluation, and project progress may be shared publicly. For further 
information on how proprietary, confidential commercial/business, and 
personally identifiable information will be protected see Section VI.A. 
of this notice.

VI. Other Information

A. Freedom of Information Act Disclosure

    The Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) (FOIA) and DOC's 
implementing regulations at 15 CFR part 4 set forth the rules and 
procedures to make requested material, information, and records 
publicly available. Unless prohibited by law and to the extent 
permitted under FOIA, contents of applications submitted by applicants 
may be released in response to FOIA requests. In the event that an 
application contains information or data that the applicant deems to be 
confidential commercial information, that information should be 
identified, bracketed, and marked as ``Privileged, Confidential, 
Commercial or Financial Information.'' Based on these markings, the 
confidentiality of the contents of those pages will be protected to the 
extent permitted by law.

B. Intergovernmental Review

    Applications submitted under this announcement are subject to the 
requirements of Executive Order (EO) 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review 
of Federal Programs,'' if a State has adopted a process under EO 12372 
to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and 
direct Federal development (commonly referred to as the ``single point 
of contact review process''). All applicants must give State and local 
governments a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the 
proposed Project, including review and comment from area-wide planning 
organizations in metropolitan areas.\3\ To find out more about a 
State's process under EO 12372, applicants may contact their State's 
Single Point of Contact (SPOC). Names and addresses of some States' 
SPOCs are listed on the Office of Management and Budget's home page at 
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc. Section A.11. of Form ED-900 
provides more information and allows applicants to demonstrate 
compliance with EO 12372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As provided for in 15 CFR part 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Contact Information

    For questions concerning this solicitation, or more information 
about the IMCP Participating Agencies

[[Page 74115]]

programs, you may contact the appropriate IMCP Participating Agency's 
representative listed below.
1. Appalachian Regional Commission
a. Local Access Road Program: Jason Wang, (202) 884-7725, jwang@arc.gov
b. Area Development Program: David Hughes, (202) 884-7740, 
dhughes@arc.gov
2. Delta Regional Authority
a. States' Economic Development Assistance Program (SEDAP): Kemp 
Morgan, (662) 483-8210, kmorgan@dra.gov
3. Department of Housing and Urban Development
a. Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities (OSHC) grant: Salin 
Geevarghese, (202) 402-6412, salin.g.geeverarghese@hud.gov
b. Delta Community Capital Initiative: Jackie Williams, (202) 402-4611, 
Jackie.L.Williams@hud.gov
c. Appalachia Economic Development Initiative: (202) 402-4611, 
Jackie.L.Williams@hud.gov
4. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration
a. Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training 
(TAACCCT): Robin Fernkas, (202) 693-3177, Fernkas.Robin@dol.gov
5. Department of Transportation
a. Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER): 
Thomas Berry, (202) 366-4829, thomas.berry@dot.gov
6. Environmental Protection Agency
a. Targeted Brownfield Assessments (TBA): Debra Morey, (202) 566-2735, 
morey.debi@epa.gov
b. Brownfield Grants: Debra Morey, (202) 566-2735, morey.debi@epa.gov
7. National Science Foundation
a. Advanced Technology Education: Susan Singer, (703) 292-5111, 
srsinger@nsf.gov
b. I/UCRC: Grace Wang, (703) 292-5111 jiwang@nsf.gov
8. Small Business Administration
a. Accelerator Program: Pravina Ragavan, (202) 205-6988, 
pravina.raghavan@sba.gov; Javier Saade, (202) 205-6513, 
javier.saade@sba.gov
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture
a. Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program (REDLG): Mark 
Brodziski, (202) 720-1394, mark.brodziski@wdc.usda.gov
b. Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program (RBEG): Mark Brodziski, 
(202) 720-1394, mark.brodziski@wdc.usda.gov
c. Intermediary Relending Program (IRP): Mark Brodziski, (202) 720-
1394, mark.brodziski@wdc.usda.gov
d. Business & Industry Guaranteed Loan Program (B&I): John Broussard, 
(202) 720-1418, john.broussard@wdc.usda.gov
10. U.S. Department of Commerce
Michael Jackson, (202) 482-3639, mjackson@doc.gov

    Dated: December 5, 2013.
Thomas Guevara,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-29422 Filed 12-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P