Department of Commerce
Technology Administration
Federal Register Notice

Billing Code:3510-13

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
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 Administration's long term economic growth strategy. In a recent statement before a committee of the United States House of 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, co-funded, 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 leading 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 be required to contribute a monetary cost share even 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 furtherproposals 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 under-represented 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: April 4, 1997

Mary L. Good
Under Secretary for Technology