16140 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices

Secretary or the Attorney General for

information or documents relevant to

conduct under the Certificate. The

Secretary of Commerce will request

such information or documents when

either the Attorney General or the

Secretary of Commerce believes that the

information or documents are required

to determine that the Export Trade,

Export Trade Activities and Methods of

Operation of a person protected by this

Certificate of Review continue to

comply with the standards of section

303(a) of the Act.

Definitions

‘‘Member’’ means a member of U.S.

RICE that has been certified as a

‘‘Member’’ within the meaning of

§ 325.2(l) of the Regulations, as listed in

Attachment I. Any U.S. RICE member

that is not a Member may request that

U.S. RICE file for an amended

certificate. A Member may withdraw

from coverage under this certificate at

any time by giving written notice to U.S.

RICE, a copy of which U.S. RICE will

promptly transmit to the Secretary of

Commerce and the Attorney General.

Protection Provided by Certificate

This Certificate protects U.S. RICE, its

Members, and directors, officers, and

employees acting on behalf of U.S. RICE

and its Members from private treble

damage actions and government

criminal and civil suits under U.S.

federal and state antitrust laws for the

export conduct specified in the

Certificate and carried out during its

effective period in compliance with its

terms and conditions.

Effective Period of Certificate

This Certificate continues in effect

from the effective date indicated below

until it is relinquished, modified, or

revoked as provided in the Act and the

Regulations.

Other Conduct

Nothing in this Certificate prohibits

U.S. RICE and its Members from

engaging in conduct not specified in

this Certificate, but such conduct is

subject to the normal application of the

antitrust laws.

Disclaimer

The issuance of this Certificate of

Review to U.S. RICE by the Secretary of

Commerce with the concurrence of the

Attorney General under the provisions

of the Act does not constitute, explicitly

or implicitly, an endorsement or

opinion by the Secretary of Commerce

or by the Attorney General concerning

either (a) the viability or quality of the

business plans of U.S. RICE or its

Members or (b) the legality of such

business plans of U.S. RICE or its

Members under the laws of the United

States (other than as provided in the

Act) or under the laws of any foreign

country.

The application of this Certificate to

conduct export trade where the United

States Government is the buyer or where

the United States Government bears

more than half the cost of the

transaction is subject to the limitations

set forth in Section V.(D.) of the

‘‘Guidelines for the Issuance of Export

Trade Certificates of Review (Second

Edition),’’ 50 FR 1786 (January 11,

1985).

In accordance with the authority

granted under the Act and Regulations,

this Certificate of Review has been

granted to the U.S. Rice Industry

Coalition for Exports, Inc.

A copy of the Certificate will be kept

in the International Trade

Administration’s Freedom of

Information Records Inspection Facility,

Room 4001, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: March 31, 1997.

W. Dawn Busby,

Director, Office of Export Trading Company

Affairs.

Attachment I

U.S. Rice Industry Coalition for Exports,

Inc.

(Application No. 96–00008)

Continental Grain Company, New York,

New York

Newfield Partners Ltd., Miami, Florida

[FR Doc. 97–8582 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

Technology Administration

Department of Commerce Study for the

Continuous Improvement of the

Advanced Technology Program (ATP)

AGENCY: Technology Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Request for Public Comments

ATP 60 Day Study.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Commerce’s Technology Administration

is seeking ways to make the National

Institute of Standards and Technology’s

(NIST) Advanced Technology Program

(ATP) operate more effectively. This

notice provides the general public the

opportunity to review the areas under

consideration. This study will be

presented to the Secretary of Commerce.

DATES: The due date for submission of

comments is May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments

concerning this notice to: National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

Program Office, Attention: ATP 60 Day

Study, Administration Building, Room

A1000, Quince Orchard & Clopper

Roads, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–0001;

or via e-mail to:

atp60daystudy@nist.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Leslie Smith, (301) 975–6762.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The ATP is a rigorously competitive,

cost-sharing R&D program to provide

incentives for the pursuit of high-risk,

emerging and enabling technologies by

U.S.-based businesses at the early,

precompetitive stage when market

forces do not generally provide private

capital. The ATP provides multi-year

funding to single companies and

business-led joint ventures. It

encourages interactions and teaming

arrangements between businesses and

universities and national laboratories.

The ATP challenges businesses to

leverage the significant U.S. investment

in fundamental research to generate the

nuclei of new industries and new

enabling technologies for the future

growth and competitiveness of the U.S.

industrial base. Competitions are held

for both general programs, where any

technology area can be explored, and for

focused programs where industry

discussions have indicated that

significant progress in new areas can be

made by a set of intensive R&D activities

in a specific area of emerging

technologies. In all cases proposers

must provide credible evidence of the

potential for new technology

breakthroughs and outline project

feasibility. In addition, they must be

able to demonstrate their capability to

bring a successful project to commercial

reality after the completion of the ATP

funding. Small technology-intensive

and high tech start-up companies are

particularly encouraged to participate.

In the global economy of today, ATP is

designed to accelerate and broaden the

U.S. technology base and to provide the

foundation for the next century’s new,

exciting industries. It should also serve

as a vehicle for infusing truly new

research ideas into existing industries

for the next generation of products and

services.

Purpose and Scope of Study

The Advanced Technology Program is

a key component of the Nation’s long

term economic growth strategy. In a

recent statement before a committee of

the United States House of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices 16141

Representatives, Secretary of Commerce

William M. Daley stated that the

Advanced Technology Program is

critically important and provides

enormous benefits to the United States’

long-term economic prosperity. He

noted that ATP projects planned, cofunded, and carried out by industry will

play a special role in enabling

technological developments that have

long-term payoffs and widespread

benefits for the economy.

Secretary Daley has instructed the

Department of Commerce to review

certain current policies and procedures

of the ATP to determine if, after the six

years of experience with the program,

there are modifications that could

further strengthen the program. In

undertaking this review, the Department

intends to consult with experts and

interested parties, and to gather and

analyze industry’s experiences with the

ATP. The outcome of this review will be

incorporated in the Department’s

recommendations to the Secretary on

possible modifications of the program

which would increase its effectiveness.

Request for Public Comment

The Technology Administration has

identified the following topics on which

it requests public comments:

1. Company Participation

Companies, both large and small,

participate in the program in ways that

offer broad based benefits as well as

specific technology developments. The

program pays only direct costs of single

applicants while any indirect costs are

borne by the company. Awards to single

applicants are currently limited to a

maximum of two million dollars and a

three year period. Single applicant

proposals often involve teaming

arrangements, including subcontractors

and business alliances, that in many

ways resemble joint ventures.

Joint ventures currently require the

participation of two or more for-profit

organizations which contribute to both

the R&D and the cost share. Participants

in joint ventures contribute at least half

of the total costs and are allowed to

apply for projects of up to five years

duration and with no limit on funding.

The appropriateness of the budget is one

of the elements examined in

determining the score of applicants.

The program currently solicits

proposals in both general competitions,

open to all areas of technology, and in

focused programs. The ATP develops

focused programs by a process which

identifies where a coordinated set of

public-private technology partnerships

could solve a major technology

challenge lending to economic benefits

to the U.S.

Issues for comment include:

—Should large companies only

participate as members of joint

ventures or in other teaming

arrangements?

—Should large companies who are

single applicants be required to

contribute a monetary cost share

where current rules require them to

pay only their indirect costs?

—Should the program simplify the rules

by paying direct costs for both single

applicants and joint ventures?

—Should teaming arrangements which

do not meet the ATP requirements for

joint venture funding but which apply

as single applicants be allowed the

same flexibility as joint ventures in

the size and duration of their projects?

—Are there models for teaming

arrangements other than these joint

ventures that would work effectively

for the ATP?

—Are there other advantages of the team

building process involved in

developing focused programs that are

seen by industry as separate from the

benefits of the specific ATP projects?

—What are the appropriate criteria to

judge whether greater benefit would

accrue by extending an existing

focused program or by initiating a

new one?

—Should participation in focused

programs be limited to one

competition after which further

proposals would be evaluated as part

of general competitions?

2. Private Capital Markets

ATP projects are directed to high risk,

enabling research and development that

are typically conducted five to ten years

before product commercialization. Such

projects would not normally be able to

secure private financing because of the

long term nature of the work, the high

risk, and the inability of any single

investor to capture the wide range of

potential technology uses from the early

stage R&D.

—What are the possible sources of

private funding available for such

projects and how could those sources

be made available to potential

program applicants?

3. Regional Distribution of Awards

Awards from the program are

currently made on the basis of business

and technical merit without regard to

the geographic location of the

participants. Some regions of the

country have not received significant

assistance from the program because

they lack large numbers of R&D

intensive companies.

—Are there mechanisms that the

Department should explore to foster

high quality proposals from

companies in States that lack large

numbers of R&D intensive companies?

—Should a separate program be set up

specifically to aid States that are

under-represented in the ATP and

should it also apply to underrepresented States in other Federal

R&D programs?

4. Other Assistance to Applicants

The program holds conferences and

workshops to explain the goals and

requirements of the program to potential

applicants. Proposal requirements are

kept to a minimum but larger, more

experienced companies may be able to

write effective proposals more easily.

—What additional information could

ATP provide to potential applicants,

particularly smaller companies, that

would assist them in developing

proposals?

—Should the ATP provide information

to unsuccessful applicants about other

possible sources of financial

assistance to pursue R&D that is

judged meritorious?

Dated: March 31, 1997.

Mary L. Good,

Under Secretary for Technology.

[FR Doc. 97–8608 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

The Department of Defense has

submitted to OMB for clearance, the

following proposal for collection of

information under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

Chapter 35).

Title and Associated Form: Defense

Export Loan Guarantee (DELG) Program

Application, DD Form 2747, OMB

Number 0704–0391.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 20.

Average Burden Per Response: 1 hour.

Annual Burden Hours: 20.

Needs and Uses: This collection of

information is necessary to review and

process applications for loan guarantees

issued under 10 U.S.C. 2540 for defense

exports. Respondents are defense

suppliers of exporters, lenders, or

nations, who are requesting a DoD