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
16142 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices

guarantee of a private sector loan in

support of the sale or loan terms lease,

to certain eligible countries, of U.S.

defense articles, services, or design and

construction services. The completed

form will enable the department to

determine whether the proposed

transaction meets statutory guidance for

program implementation.

Affected Public: Business or Other

For-Profit.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to

obtain or retain benefits.

OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss.

Written comments and

recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to

Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management

and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room

10236, New Executive Office Building,

Washington, DC 20503.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert

Cushing.

Written requests for copies of the

information collection proposal should

be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR,

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite

1204, Arlington, VA 22202–4302.

Dated: March 31, 1997.

Patrica L. Toppings,

Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–8563 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

Defense Science Board Task Force

Advanced Modeling and Simulation for

Analyzing Combat Concepts in the

21st Century

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee

meetings.

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board

Task Force on Advanced Modeling and

Simulation for Analyzing Combat

Concepts in the 21st Century will meet

in closed session on April 21–22, 1997

at USACOM, JTASC, 116 Lakeview

Parkway, Suffolk, Virginia.

The mission of the Defense Science

Board is to advise the Secretary of

Defense through the Under Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition and Technology

on scientific and technical matters as

they affect the perceived needs of the

Department of Defense. At this meeting

the Task Force will address modeling

and simulation capabilities required for

analyzing concepts for 21st century

military combat operations. These

capabilities should encompass the

breadth of warfare from strategic to

individuals fighting afoot for all phases

of military operations (Air, Land, Sea,

Information, Communications).

In accordance with Section 10(d) of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act,

P.L. No. 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C.

App. II, (1994)), it has been determined

that this DSB Task Force meeting

concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C.

§ 552b(c) (1) (1994), and that

accordingly this meeting will be closed

to the public.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–8609 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–4–M

Department of the Army

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) for the Relocation of the U.S.

Army Military Police School and the

U.S. Army Chemical School to Fort

Leonard Wood, Missouri

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) and the President’s

Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ), the Army has prepared an FEIS

for the directed relocation of the U.S.

Army Chemical School and U.S. Army

Military Police School from Fort

McClellan, Alabama, to Fort Leonard

Wood, Missouri. The relocation is part

of the approved 1995 Base Closure and

Realignment actions mandated by the

Base Closure and Realignment Act of

1990 (Pub. L. 101–510), and subsequent

actions in compliance with this law.

Therefore, the FEIS focuses on

alternative methods of implementing

these BRAC actions at Fort Leonard

Wood. The FEIS describes the proposed

action which involves the relocation of

military mission activities, construction

of support facilities, and relocation of

personnel to Fort Leonard Wood.

Alternatives considered for

realignment of the BRAC training

missions include the: No. Action

Alternative; Relocate Current Practice

(RCP) Alternative; Optimum Training

Method (OPTM) Alternative; and the

Environmentally Preferred Training

Method (EPTM) Alternative.

Alternatives considered for providing

required support facilities include the

No Action Alternative, and three land

use and facility siting implementation

alternatives. The final element of the

planned action, realignment of

associated personnel, is considered in

the context of a: No Action Alternative;

and Total Early, Total Late, and Phased

Move Alternatives. The Army has

identified their Preferred Action in the

FEIS which includes implementation of

the OPTM Alternative for realigning

training missions, the Combined

Headquarters and Instruction Land Use

and Facility Plan Alternative to provide

required support facilities, and the

Phased Move Alternative to relocate

personnel from Fort McClellan.

Based on the analysis included in this

FEIS, adverse impacts that would occur

as a result of implementing the Army’s

proposed BRAC actions at Fort Leonard

Wood include: A reduction of air

quality as a result of fog oil obscurant

training; training activities and tree

clearing that result in a ‘‘may effect’’

finding to Federally listed threatened

and endangered species; the potential

for loss of soil resources and accelerated

erosion resulting from BRAC

construction projects; the release of

unburned fuel that could impact soil

and water resources at the expedient

flame range; and human health risks for

trainers and military students involved

with obscurant training. Beneficial

impacts include increased operational

efficiency and training effectiveness

associated with the collocation of the

Engineer School, the Military Police

School and the Chemical School; shortterm economic gains associated with

BRAC construction activities; and longterm economic gains associated with the

transfer of the Chemical School and

Military Police School missions to Fort

Leonard Wood.

FEIS Distribution and Waiting Period

Copies of the FEIS have been

forwarded to Federal, State and local

agencies; organizations; and individuals

who provided substantive comments on

the Draft EIS, or who previously

requested a copy of the FEIS. These

copies were distributed prior to, or

simultaneously with, the filing of this

Notice of Availability for the FEIS with

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. Copies of the FEIS are available

for review at the following public and

other libraries: Kinderhook Regional

Library, Lebanon, Missouri; Kinderhook

Regional Library, Waynesville,

Missouri; Rolla Public Library, Rolla,

Missouri; Kansas City Public Library,

Kansas City, Missouri; St. Louis County

Library, Main Branch, St. Louis,

Missouri; Clarke Engineer School

Library, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri;

Texas County Library, Houston,

Missouri; Daniel Boone Regional

Library, Columbia, Missouri; Missouri

River Regional Library, Jefferson City,

Missouri; Springfield-Greene County

Library, Springfield, Missouri; and

Fisher Library, Fort McClellan,

Alabama. Following a 30-day post-filing