Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices 42967

to it are not designed to implement all

of the provisions of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act and the Uruguay Round

Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, but

are designed to assist only in the

implementation of certain of their

provisions.

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

Committee for the Implementation of Textile

Agreements

August 5, 1997.

Commissioner of Customs,

Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC

20229.

Dear Commissioner: This directive

amends, but does not cancel, the directive

issued to you on November 4, 1996, by the

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements. That directive

concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and

man-made fiber textile products, produced or

manufactured in Guatemala and exported

during the twelve-month period which began

on January 1, 1997 and extends through

December 31, 1997.

Effective on August 12, 1997, you are

directed to increase the Guaranteed Access

Level for Categories 342/642 to 150,000

dozen.

The Committee for the Implementation of

Textile Agreements has determined that this

action falls within the foreign affairs

exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5

U.S.C. 553(a)(1).

Sincerely,

Troy H. Cribb,

Chairman, Committee for the Implementation

of Textile Agreements.

[FR Doc. 97–21084 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–F

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Defense Technical Information

Center, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

In compliance with Section

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense

Technical Information Center (DTIC)

announces the initiation of a public

information collection of its registered

users and seeks public comment on the

provisions thereof. Comments are

invited on: (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 the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed information collection; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the information collection on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all

comments received by October 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to:

ATTN: DTIC–BCP, Defense Technical

Information Center, 8725 John J.

Kingman Road, Suite 0944, Fort Belvoir,

VA 22060–6218.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

To request more information on this

proposed information collection or to

obtain a copy of the proposal and

associated collection instruments,

please write to the above address or call

(703) 767–8267/DSN 427–8267.

Title, Associated Form, and OMB

Number

Needs and Uses: The information

collection is necessary to provide DTIC

with satisfaction data about the

timeliness, use, and quality of its

products and services in order to

establish a customer satisfaction

baseline; assist in determining

appropriate modifications to current

products and services; and contribute to

DTIC’s product development efforts. It

will allow DTIC to compile customer

data which does not currently exist.

Information gathered from discussions

with customers is maintained in various

nondigital formats but is not considered

to be quantifiable in terms of customer

satisfaction factors because of its

anecdotal nature. Because DTIC offers

23 products and services to

approximately 3,500 registered users, no

cheaper method exists to collect this

data other than a survey instrument.

This survey is required to implement

Executive Order 12862, 11 Sep 93,

Setting Customer Service Standards,

and the memorandum of the Secretary

of Defense, 7 Jan 94, which directs the

application of the principles of the

Executive Order to all customers of the

directors of all defense agencies; the

Government Performance and Results

Act (GPRA); and the DTIC Strategic Plan

mandate to measure customer

satisfaction of government-produced

products and services.

Affected Public: All DTIC registered

users who are Department of Defense

(DoD) contractors and potential

contractors; U.S. Government

organizations and their contractors; and

participants in the Small Business

Innovation Research/Small Business,

Technology Transfer, Historically Black

Colleges and Universities, and

University Research Support programs.

Annual Burden Hours: 20 hours

(based on a 20% return rate).

Number of Respondents:

Approximately 1,500.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Average Burden per Respondent: 3

minutes.

Frequency: Annually, after baseline is

established.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

survey is required to implement

Executive Order 12862, 11 Sep 93,

Setting Customer Service Standards; the

memorandum of the Secretary of

Defense, 7 Jan 94, which directs the

application of the principles of the

Executive Order to all customers of the

directors of all defense agencies; the

GPRA; and the DTIC Strategic Plan

mandate to measure customer

satisfaction of government-produced

products and services.

The Executive Order 12862, 11 Sep

93, Setting Customer Service Standards,

the memorandum of the Secretary of

Defense, 7 Jan 94, and the GPRA of

1993, have as their purposes to improve

the efficiency and effectiveness of

Federal programs by requiring

Government agencies to establish a

system to set goals and measure

program performance and program

results. DTIC does not presently have a

system established to gather data to

measure program performance or

program results in quantifiable terms

against customer standards. Each agency

is required to publish a customer service

plan and make use of customer survey

information to promote the principles

and objectives of the executive order.

Under the GPRA, DTIC must set

program goals and then publicly report

on their progress toward achieving those

goals in three stages:

a. By September 30, 1997, a five-year

strategic plan for DTIC’s programs. DTIC

has developed such a plan. According to

the GPRA, it will be submitted every 3

years, include a mission statement

covering major functions and operations

of the agency and general goals and

objectives of the agency; the approach

and necessary resources to be used in

achieving those goals and objectives;

any ‘‘key external factors’’ that might

have a significant affect on DTIC’s

ability to achieve the general goals and

objectives; and any program evaluations

used in establishing or revising the goals

and objectives (including plans for

future evaluations).

b. By October 1, 1997, DTIC will be

required to prepare an annual

performance plan. The first plan will be
42968 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Notices

for Fiscal Year 1999. As with the pilot

projects, these plans will cover each

program activity in DTIC’s budget and

establish performance goals and define

the performance level to be achieved by

a program activity. The goal will be

expressed in an objective, quantifiable,

and measurable form. Performance

indicators will be used to measure the

relevant outputs, outcomes, and/or

service levels for each program activity.

The performance plans will also

describe the operational processes and

resources needed to meet the

performance goals and will establish a

procedure for comparing actual program

results with the performance goals.

c. By March 31, 2000, and every year

thereafter, DTIC will be required to

publish annual program performance

reports. (These reports will be due 6

months after the end of the fiscal year

on which they are based.) The reports

will compare the performance

indicators that were established in the

performance plan and the actual

program performance achieved with the

performance goals. These reports will

also discuss the agency’s success in

achieving the performance goals and

describe and explain those cases in

which performance goals have not been

met.

Dated: August 5, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–21089 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) for the Proposed Construction

of a Rail Connector at Fort Campbell,

Kentucky

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Availability.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 and the Council on Environmental

Quality and Army regulations, the Army

has prepared an FEIS for the proposed

construction of a rail connector for Fort

Campbell, Kentucky. The primary Army

action analyzed in the FEIS is the

construction of a rail connector between

the government-owned line and the CSX

line in Christian County, Kentucky. The

rail connector is needed so that the

101st Airborne Division, stationed at

Fort Campbell, can deploy rapidly

during an emergency.

Five alternatives including the NoAction Alternative, have been

evaluated:

1. The No-Action Alternative would

not change the existing configuration or

operation of the rail lines, or construct

any new ones. Trains from Fort

Campbell would continue current

operations, using the Hopkinsville Belt

Line and Interchange, to switch five cars

at a time to the CSX main line.

2. The Hopkinsville Interchange

Upgrade Alternative (Alternative 1)

would upgrade the existing connection

between the government-owned branch

line with the CSX main line track and

also involves construction of two

relatively short rail connectors within

the city limits of Hopkinsville and a 2.2-

mile siding track parallel to the existing

branch line south of Hopkinsville.

However, because Alternative 1 resulted

in excessive cycle times resulting from

having only one (northbound) entrance

to the CSX main line, a modified

Alternative 1 was also reviewed. The

modified Alternative 1 included a

southbound entrance to the CSX main

line and alignment adjustments to

lessen the proposed curvature and

grade. Due to the high real estate

acquisition costs, potential residential

and commercial displacement impacts,

numerous grade crossings, and the

requirement for additional bridges and

tunnels, the alternative was found not to

be reasonable.

3. The Hopkinsville Bypass North

Alternative (Alternative 2N) would

connect the branch line directly to the

CSX main line south of Hopkinsville

and north of the Hopkinsville Bypass

(KY 8546) with approximately 2.7 miles

of new rail, and incorporate a 2.2-mile

siding track parallel to the existing

branch line south of Hopkinsville.

4. The Hopkinsville Bypass South

Alternative (Alternative 2S) would

connect the branch line directly to the

CSX main line south of Hopkinsville

and south of the Hopkinsville Bypass

(KY 8546) with approximately 2.8 miles

of new rail, and incorporate a 2.2-mile

siding track parallel to the existing

branch line south of Hopkinsville.

5. The Masonville-Casky Alternative

(Alternative 3) would connect the

branch line directly to the CSX main

line approximately 6 miles south of

Hopkinsville with approximately 5.5

miles of new rail. A 2.2-mile siding

track for Alternative 3 is included in the

alignment corridor.

The FEIS has identified Alternative

2S as the preferred alternative, due to

the following: it meets mission

requirements, allowing the 101st

Airborne Division to meet its rapid

deployment requirements; is less

disruptive to City and total community

land use and planning; requires few or

no relocations; has fewer grade

crossings; and has less public

opposition than Alternatives 2N and 3.

No, significant adverse environmental

impacts are anticipated as a result of

this Army action.

DISTRIBUTION AND WAITING PERIOD: The

FEIS on the proposed construction of a

rail connector for Fort Campbell,

Kentucky, was distributed to interested

agencies and the public prior to, or

simultaneously with, filing of the Notice

of Availability for the FEIS with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Following a 30 day post-filing waiting

period, the Department of the Army will

prepare a Record of Decision.

QUESTIONS OR REQUEST FOR FEIS:

Questions regarding the FEIS, or a

request for copies of the document may

be directed to Mr. William Ray Haynes,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Louisville District, PO Box 59,

Louisville, Kentucky 40201–6475, or

call (502) 582–6475.

Dated: August 5, 1997.

Richard E. Newsome,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the

Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health), OASA (1, L&E).

[FR Doc. 97–21041 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710–08–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP96–403–004]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of

Refund Report

August 5, 1997.

Take notice that on August 1, 1997,

ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered

for filing a report of refunds paid to

eligible customers in compliance with

the Commissioner’s Order on

Reconciliation Filing and Directing

Refunds issued on June 13, 1997, in the

referenced proceeding.

On July 1, 1997, ANR states that it

paid to eligible customers refunds of the

costs of upstream pipeline capacity of

Viking Gas Transmission Corporation of

$8,483,256, consisting of principal

amounts totaling $7,740,793 and

interest of $742,463.

Any person desiring to protest this

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Section

385.211 of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such protests must be