48802 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(2) For Nickel Cadmium coated disks listed

by P/N in Chart C of PW ASB No. 6038,

Revision 5, dated August 17, 1994, inspect

and recoat or remove from service in

accordance with PW JT8D Engine Manual, P/

N 481672, at the time intervals specified in

Table B of this AD.

(3) For Aluminide coated disks listed by P/

N in Chart B of PW ASB No. 6038, Revision

5, dated August 17, 1994, inspect and recoat

or remove from service in accordance with

PW JT8D Engine Manual, P/N 481672, at the

time intervals specified in Table C of this AD.

TABLE A.—INSPECTION INTERVAL FOR

LOW UTILIZATION DISKS NICAD

COATED DISKS FROM CHART B OF

PW ASB NO. 6038, REVISION 5,

DATED AUGUST 17, 1994, AND

ALUMINIDE COATED DISKS FROM

CHART C OF PW ASB NO. 6038,

REVISION 5, DATED AUGUST 17,

1994

Years since new, replated or corrosion inspected (YRSNRC)

per engine manual

Remove to inspect

and recoat or replace

Less than or equal to

5.0 YRSNRC.

By 7 YRSNRC.

Greater than 5.0 but

less than or equal

to 6 YRSNRC.

Within 24 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 6 but

less than or equal

to 7 YRSNRC.

Within 18 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 7 but

less than or equal

to 8 YRSNRC.

Within 15 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 8 but

less than or equal

to 9 YRSNC.

Within 12 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 9 but

less than or equal

to 10 YRSNRC.

Before reaching 10

YRSNRC.

Greater than 10 years Before further flight.

TABLE B.—INSPECTION INTERVAL FOR

LOW UTILIZATION DISKS NICAD

COATED DISKS FROM CHART C OF

PW ASB NO. 6038, REVISION 5,

DATED AUGUST 7, 1994.

Years since new, replated or corrosion inspected (YRSNRC)

per engine manual

Remove to inspect

and recoat or replace

Less than or equal to

5.0 YRSNRC.

By 7 YRSNRC.

Greater than 5.0 but

less than or equal

to 6 YRSNRC.

Within 24 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 6 but

less than or equal

to 7 YRSNRC.

Within 21 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 7 but

less than or equal

to 8 YRSNRC.

Within 18 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 8 but

less than or equal

to 9 YRSNC.

Within 15 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

TABLE B.—INSPECTION INTERVAL FOR

LOW UTILIZATION DISKS NICAD

COATED DISKS FROM CHART C OF

PW ASB NO. 6038, REVISION 5,

DATED AUGUST 7, 1994.—Continued

Years since new, replated or corrosion inspected (YRSNRC)

per engine manual

Remove to inspect

and recoat or replace

Greater than 9 but

less than or equal

to 10 YRSNRC.

Within 12 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 10 but

less than or equal

to 11 YRSNRC.

Before reaching 11

YRSNRC.

Greater than 11 years Before further flight.

TABLE C.—INSPECTION INTERVAL FOR

LOW UTILIZATION DISKS ALUMINIDE

COATED DISKS FROM CHART B OF

PW ASB NO. 6038, REVISION 5,

DATED AUGUST 17, 1994.

Years since new, replated or corrosion inspected (YRSNRC)

per engine manual

Remove to inspect

and recoat or replace

Less than or equal to

5.0 YRSNRC.

By 7 YRSNRC.

Greater than 5.0 but

less than or equal

to 6 YRSNRC.

Within 24 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 6 but

less than or equal

to 7 YRSNRC.

Within 18 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 7 but

less than or equal

to 8 YRSNRC.

Within 12 months of

the effective date of

this AD.

Greater than 8 but

less than or equal

to 9 YRSNC.

Before reaching 9

YRSNRC.

Greater than 9 years Before further flight.

(e) For stage 7 through stage 12 HPC disks

that have been recoated in accordance with

paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), or (d)(1) of this AD,

designate these disks as high utilization and

perform the following:

(1) For disks installed in an engine that is

part of a high utilization fleet, comply with

the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD.

(2) For disks installed in an engine that is

part of a low utilization fleet, comply with

the requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD.

(f) For the purpose of this AD, recoat of an

HPC disk is defined as removal and

application of new plating or coating in

accordance with Sections 72–36–41, Repair

02; 72–36–42, Repair 02; 72–36–43, Repair

03; 72–36–44, Repair 03; 72–36–45, Repair

03; or 72–36–46, Repair 03, as applicable, of

PW JT8D Engine Manual P/N 481672.

(g) For the purpose of this AD, part

accessibility is defined as the removal of the

disk from the engine and deblading of that

disk.

(h) For the purpose of this AD, a sub-fleet

is defined as any individual aircraft or any

portion of an operator’s fleet that operates in

a separate and unique route structure,

characterized by different flight lengths,

frequencies, or geographic location.

(i) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Engine

Certification Office. Operators shall submit

their requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Engine Certification Office.

Note 4: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this airworthiness directive,

if any, may be obtained from the Engine

Certification Office.

(j) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

September 10, 1997.

Mark C. Fulmer,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–24799 Filed 9–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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.
48804 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

§ 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:

§ 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:

§ 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 § 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 § 295.2(g) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 295.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

(g) The term ‘‘indirect costs’’ means

those costs incurred for common or joint
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 § 295.2(h) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 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 § 295.2(j)(1)(vi) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 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:

§ 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 § 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:

§ 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:

§ 295.4 The selection process.

(a) The selection process for awards is

a multi-step process based on the

criteria listed in § 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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
48806 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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:

§ 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 costeffectiveness 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:

§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 programspecific 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.

§ 295.12 [Removed]

13. Section 295.14 is removed.

14. Section 295.22 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 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:

§ 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 nonFederal 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:

§ 295.31 Qualification of proposers.

Awards under this subpart will be

available to all businesses subject to the

limitations set out in §§ 295.3 and

295.32.

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

[OSM SPATS No. ND–035–FOR, North

Dakota Amendment No. XXV]

North Dakota Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing on proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

announcing receipt of a proposed

amendment to the North Dakota

regulatory program (hereinafter, the

‘‘North Dakota program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

proposed amendment consists of

revisions to rules pertaining to a

proposal to eliminate the requirement

for companies to submit a copy of the

federal reclamation fee report, changes

to revegetation success standards, and a

new rule on inspection frequencies for

inactive mines. The amendment is

intended to revise the North Dakota

program to improve operational

efficiency.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. October 17,

1997. If requested, a public hearing on

the proposed amendment will be held

on October 14, 1997. Requests to present

oral testimony at the hearing must be

received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. on October

2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or hand delivered to Guy

Padgett at the address listed below.

Copies of the North Dakota program,

the proposed amendment, and all

written comments received in response

to this document will be available for

public review at the addresses listed

below during normal business hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Each requester may receive

one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s Casper

Field Office.

Guy Padgett, Director, Casper Field

Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 100

East ‘‘B’’ Street, Federal Building,

room 2128, Casper, Wyoming 82601–

1918

James R. Deutsch, Director, Reclamation

Division, Public Service Commission,

State Capitol, Bismarck, North Dakota

58505, Telephone: (701) 328–2252

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy

Padgett, (307) 261–6550; Internet

address, gpadgett@osmre.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the North Dakota

Program

On December 15, 1980, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the North Dakota program. General

background information on the North

Dakota program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and conditions of approval

of the North Dakota program can be

found in the December 15, 1980 Federal

Register (45 FR 82214). Subsequent

actions concerning North Dakota’s

program and program amendments can