Strategy for American Innovation, 44064-44068 [2014-17761]
Download as PDF
44064
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 2014 / Notices
[FR Doc. 2014–17842 Filed 7–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–C
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Parole Commission
Sunshine Act Meeting
Record of Vote of Meeting Closure
(Public Law 94–409) (5 U.S.C. Sec.
552b)
I, Cranston Mitchell, of the United
States Parole Commission, was present
at a meeting of said Commission, which
started at approximately 12:00 p.m., on
Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at the U.S.
Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE.,
Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530.
The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss one original jurisdiction case
pursuant to 28 CFR Section 2.27. Four
Commissioners were present,
constituting a quorum when the vote to
close the meeting was submitted.
Public announcement further
describing the subject matter of the
meeting and certifications of the Acting
General Counsel that this meeting may
be closed by votes of the Commissioners
present were submitted to the
Commissioners prior to the conduct of
any other business. Upon motion duly
made, seconded, and carried, the
following Commissioners voted that the
meeting be closed: Cranston, Mitchell,
Patricia K. Cushwa, J. Patricia Wilson
Smoot and Charles T. Massarone.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I make this
official record of the vote taken to close
this meeting and authorize this record to
be made available to the public.
1. On page 42833, in the first column,
in the ADDRESSES section, the hyperlink
should read: https://www.copyright.gov/
docs/musiclicensingstudy.
2. On page 42833, in the second
column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section, the hyperlink on
lines 29–31 should read: https://
www.copyright.gov/docs/
musiclicensingstudy/comments/
Docket2014_3/.
3. On page 42833, in the second
column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section, the hyperlink on
lines 44–45 should read: https://
www.copyright.gov/docs/
musiclicensingstudy/comments/
Docket2014_3/.
[FR Doc. C1–2014–17354 Filed 7–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2014–0001]
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
Weeks of July 28, August 4, 11,
18, 25, September 1, 2014.
PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference
Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.
STATUS: Public and Closed.
DATE:
Week of July 28, 2014
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
[FR Doc. 2014–17909 Filed 7–25–14; 11:15 am]
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Human Capital
and Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) (Public Meeting)
(Contact: Kristin Davis, 301–287–
0707).
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—https://www.nrc.gov/.
1:00 p.m. Briefing on Project Aim 2020
(Closed—Ex. 2).
BILLING CODE 4410–31–P
Week of September 1, 2014—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of September 1, 2014.
*
*
*
*
*
The schedule for Commission
meetings is subject to change on short
notice. To verify the status of meetings,
call Rochelle Bavol, 301–415–1651.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC Commission Meeting
Schedule can be found on the Internet
at: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
public-meetings/schedule.html.
*
*
*
*
*
The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you
need a reasonable accommodation to
participate in these public meetings, or
need this meeting notice or the
transcript or other information from the
public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify
Kimberly Meyer, NRC Disability
Program Manager, at 301–287–0727, or
by email at Kimberly.Meyer-Chambers@
nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for
reasonable accommodation will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
*
*
*
*
*
Members of the public may request to
receive this information electronically.
If you would like to be added to the
distribution, please contact the Office of
the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555
(301–415–1969), or send an email to
Darlene.Wright@nrc.gov.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Dated: July 23, 2014.
Cranston Mitchell,
Vice Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission.
9:00 a.m. Briefing on the Status of
Lessons Learned from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Kevin
Witt, 301–415–2145).
This meeting will be webcast live at
the Web address—https://www.nrc.gov/.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office
[Docket No. 2014–03]
Music Licensing Study: Second
Request for Comments
Week of August 4, 2014—Tentative
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 4, 2014.
Correction
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 11, 2014.
AGENCY:
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Week of August 25, 2014—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 25, 2014.
In notice document 2014–17354
appearing on pages 42833 through
42835 in the issue of Wednesday, July
23, 2014, make the following correction:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:02 Jul 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
Week of August 11, 2014—Tentative
Week of August 18, 2014—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of August 18, 2014.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: July 24, 2014.
Rochelle C. Bavol,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–17864 Filed 7–25–14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Strategy for American Innovation
Notice of Request for
Information.
ACTION:
The Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the National
Economic Council request public
comments to provide input into an
upcoming update of the Strategy for
American Innovation, which helps to
guide the Administration’s efforts to
promote lasting economic growth and
competitiveness through policies that
support transformative American
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 2014 / Notices
innovation in products, processes, and
services and spur new fundamental
discoveries that in the long run lead to
growing economic prosperity and rising
living standards. These efforts include
policies to promote critical components
of the American innovation ecosystem,
including scientific research and
development (R&D), technical
workforce, entrepreneurship,
technology commercialization,
advanced manufacturing, and others.
The strategy also provides an important
framework to channel these Federal
investments in innovation capacity
towards innovative activity for specific
national priorities. The public input
provided through this notice will inform
the deliberations of the National
Economic Council and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, which
are together responsible for publishing
an updated Strategy for American
Innovation.
DATES: Responses must be received by
September 23, 2014 to be considered.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (email
is preferred):
• Email: innovationstrategy@ostp.gov.
Include [Strategy for American
Innovation] in the subject line of the
message.
• Fax: (202) 456–6040, Attn: Dan
Correa.
• Mail: Attn: Dan Correa, Office of
Science and Technology Policy,
Eisenhower Executive Office Building,
1650 Pennsylvania Ave NW.,
Washington, DC 20504. If submitting
responses by mail, please allow
sufficient time for mail processing and
screening.
Details: Response to this RFI is
voluntary. Please do not include in your
comments information of a confidential
nature, such as sensitive personal
information or proprietary information.
Please be aware that your comments
may be posted online. Responses to this
notice are not offers and cannot be
accepted by the Federal Government to
form a binding contract or issue a grant.
Information obtained as a result of this
notice may be used by the Federal
Government for program planning on a
non-attribution basis. The United States
Government will not pay for response
preparation, or for the use of any
information contained in the response.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan
Correa, (202) 456–4444,
innovationstrategy@ostp.gov, OSTP.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
Request for Information (RFI) offers
interested individuals and organizations
the opportunity to provide input into
the development of an updated Strategy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:02 Jul 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
for American Innovation by identifying
promising policy opportunities to
promote innovation and its economic
benefits in the United States (U.S.). The
public input provided through this
notice will inform the deliberations of
the National Economic Council and the
Office of Science and Technology
Policy, which are together responsible
for publishing an updated Strategy for
American Innovation.
Public input into the strategy update
process is particularly valuable given
the document’s critical role in guiding
the development of new policy
initiatives that can help unleash the
transformative innovation that leads to
long-term economic growth. For
example, the 2009 Strategy for
American Innovation first identified an
opportunity for Federal agencies to use
incentive prizes to promote innovation,
which was an important step in the
eventual inclusion of agency prize
authority in the America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010,
significantly increasing the Federal
Government’s ability to catalyze
innovation across a wide range of
national priorities.
Background
President Obama released the Strategy
for American Innovation in September
2009 and updated it in February 2011
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/
innovation/strategy).
The 2011 Strategy for American
Innovation articulates the importance of
innovation as a driver of U.S. economic
growth and prosperity, the central
importance of the private sector as the
engine of innovation, and the critical
role of government in supporting our
innovation system.
It organizes the Administration’s
policy initiatives into three parts:
(1) Invest in the Building Blocks of
American Innovation
Spurring the innovations that will
drive America’s future economic growth
and competitiveness requires critical
investments in the basic foundations of
the innovation process, including
education, fundamental research, and
both the digital and physical
infrastructure on which our dynamic
economy relies.
(2) Promote Market-Based Innovation
American businesses are the engine of
innovation, and the Administration
seeks to promote an environment that
allows U.S. companies to drive future
economic growth and continue to lead
on the global stage. This requires that
government establish and maintain the
right framework conditions to support
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44065
market-based innovation through the
Research and Experimentation Tax
Credit, effective intellectual property
policy, and policies to promote
innovation-based entrepreneurship as
well as innovative, open, and
competitive markets.
(3) Catalyze Breakthroughs for National
Priorities
The 2011 strategy identifies several
areas of national importance where
public investments can catalyze
advances, bring about key
breakthroughs, and establish U.S.
leadership faster than might be possible
otherwise. The portfolio of national
priority areas outlined in the 2011
strategy includes clean energy,
biotechnology, nanotechnology,
advanced manufacturing, educational
and health information technologies,
and space technologies.
Questions
To gather valuable insight into
promising opportunities to boost our
innovation capacity in order to drive
economic growth and competitiveness,
the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) and the National
Economic Council (NEC) seek public
comment on a wide range of innovation
policy topics.
Instructions. In formulating responses
to any of the below questions,
respondents should consider the
following:
• The questions below are grouped into
the following categories:
Æ Overarching Questions
Æ Innovation Trends
Æ Science, Technology, and R&D
Priorities
Æ Skilled Workforce Development
Æ Manufacturing and
Entrepreneurship
Æ Regional Innovation Ecosystems
Æ Intellectual Property/Antitrust
Æ Novel Government Tools for
Promoting Innovation
Æ National Priorities
• Respondents are free to address any or
all of the following questions, as
well as provide additional relevant
information not in response to any
specific question. Please note the
number corresponding to the
question(s) addressed in the
response.
• Specific, actionable proposals for
policy mechanisms, models, or
initiatives are more useful than
general observations and
recommendations. For example, a
response that describes the
importance of increasing
technology transfer activities is
helpful but not as useful as one that
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
44066
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 2014 / Notices
identifies specific model(s) to
accomplish this goal and offers
accompanying details (e.g., the
specific problem it addresses and
how it does so, the parties who
would be responsible for
administering the model, actions
the Administration might take, the
likely benefits and costs, the
rationale and evidence to support
the proposal, etc.).
• There is a 5,000 word limit for
responses. Accordingly, responses
longer than 5,000 words will not be
considered. There is no minimum
length requirement, and a 500 word
response can be as valuable as a
5,000 word response if it contains
detailed and well-founded
information.
OSTP and NEC seek public comment
on the following:
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Overarching Questions
(1) What specific policies or
initiatives should the Administration
consider prioritizing in the next version
of the Strategy for American
Innovation?
For any proposal, respondents may
wish to consider describing specific
goals, the actions the Administration
might take to achieve those goals, the
benefits and costs associated with the
proposal, whether the proposal is crossgovernment, inter-agency, or agencyspecific, the rationale and evidence to
support it, and the roles of other
stakeholders, such as companies,
universities, non-profits,
philanthropists, state and local
governments, professional societies, etc.
(2) What are the biggest challenges to,
and opportunities for, innovation in the
United States that will generate longterm economic growth, increased
productivity, sustained leadership in
knowledge-intensive sectors, job
creation, entrepreneurship, and rising
standards of living for more Americans?
(3) What specific actions can the
Federal Government take to build and
sustain U.S. strengths including its
entrepreneurial culture, flexible labor
markets, world-class research
universities, strong regional innovation
ecosystems, and large share of global
venture capital investment?
(4) How can the Federal Government
augment its overall capacity for analysis
of both the forces that determine the
competitiveness of specific sectors and
the impact of Federal policies—
including, but not limited to, science,
technology, and innovation policies—on
sector-specific productivity and
competitiveness? What are the most
important outstanding questions about
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:02 Jul 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
innovation policy and process and how
might government promote systematic
research and program evaluation in
those areas?
Many policies can affect the ability of
research-intensive companies to
innovate and compete in the
marketplace, but the impact of future
policy choices on innovation is often
not well understood in advance. For
example, telecommunications spectrum
policies that facilitate innovative
business models may enable significant
productivity growth in the mobile
communications sector. Improved
Federal capacity for analysis of such
impacts would help inform policy
development to support innovation.
(5) What innovation practices and
policies have other countries adopted
that deserve further consideration in the
United States? What innovation
practices and policies have been
adopted at the state or local level that
should be piloted by the Federal
Government?
Innovation Trends
(6) How has the nature of the
innovation process itself changed in
recent years and what new models for
science and technology investment and
innovation policy, if any, do these
changes require?
For example, many cite the growing
importance of open innovation,
combinatorial innovation, and user
innovation; the convergence of biology,
the physical sciences, and engineering;
and the emergence of human-centered
design.
(7) What emerging areas of scientific
and technological innovation merit
greater Federal investment, and how can
that investment be structured for
maximum impact?
(8) What are important needs or
opportunities for institutional
innovation and what steps can the
Federal Government take to support
these innovations?
Economists have identified
institutional innovation as critical to
long-term economic growth. Examples
of particularly important institutional
innovations include the British
invention of patents and copyrights in
the 17th century, the work of the
agricultural extension service in the
U.S. in the 19th century, and the
development of the peer review system
for supporting basic research in the 20th
century.
Science, Technology, and R&D Priorities
(9) What additional opportunities
exist to develop high-impact platform
technologies that reduce the time and
cost associated with the ‘‘design, build,
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
test’’ cycle for important classes of
materials, products, and systems?
A number of the Administration’s
current research initiatives are aimed at
developing platform technologies for
this purpose, such as:
• The Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA)/National
Institute of Health NIH)/Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) ‘‘tissue
chip’’ project to transform the way
researchers evaluate the safety and
efficacy of drug candidates;
• The Materials Genome Initiative,
which is investing in a ‘‘materials
innovation infrastructure’’ to reduce
the time and cost required to
discover and make advanced
materials by at least 50 percent;
• Federal investments in new tools to
reduce the time and cost needed to
engineer biological systems;
• The DARPA ‘‘Adaptive Vehicle
Make’’ program, which supported
the development of technologies
such as model-based design to
shorten development timelines for
defense systems by a factor of five
or more.
(10) Where are there gaps in the
Federal Government’s science,
technology, and innovation portfolios
with respect to important national
challenges, and what are the appropriate
investment and R&D models through
which these gaps might be addressed?
Agencies lacking a traditional focus
on research and development
nonetheless pursue critical missions
that could benefit from innovation.
Given these agencies’ more modest
capacity to support research and
development and other avenues to
innovation, there is potentially
underinvestment in science, technology
and innovation to address key national
problems such as education, workforce
development, and poverty alleviation.
(11) Given recent evidence of the
irreproducibility of a surprising number
of published scientific findings, how
can the Federal Government leverage its
role as a significant funder of scientific
research to most effectively address the
problem?
Skilled Workforce Development
(12) What novel mechanisms or
models might facilitate matching skilled
STEM workers with employers and
helping individuals identify what
additional skills they may need to
transition successfully to new roles?
In a dynamic economy, STEM
workers seeking employment in a
different industry often find it difficult
to identify employers with matching
needs. Likewise, employers devote
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 2014 / Notices
significant resources to finding
technically skilled individuals to meet
their needs, sometimes with little
success, even though a large pool of
technically skilled workers may exist.
(13) What emerging areas of skills are
needed in order to keep pace with
emerging innovations or technologies?
What are successful models for training
workers with these skills to keep up
with emerging innovations?
For example, pharmaceutical
researchers report that more workers are
needed with capabilities in gene
sequencing and bioengineering to keep
pace with new innovations in biomanufacturing. Similarly, innovations
in advanced materials from lightweight
metals to advanced composites have
spurred a need for welders with the
ability to create high-precision welds on
complex materials.
(14) What mechanisms or programs
can effectively increase the supply of
workers with technical training, from
industry-recognized credentials and
postsecondary certificates to two- and
four-year degrees?
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Manufacturing and Entrepreneurship
(15) What new or existing investment
models should be explored to support
entrepreneurship in new geographies, as
well as in technologies and sectors that
are capital-intensive, relatively highrisk, and require sustained investment
over long periods of time?
Angel and venture investment has
tended to concentrate in a few regions
and sectors, particularly sectors that are
capital efficient and can provide ‘‘exits’’
for investors within 5–7 years. As a
result, innovative technologies that do
not meet these criteria may be better
suited to different investment models.
(16) For new technologies and
products, how might ‘‘proof of
manufacturability’’ be gauged sooner,
and what entities would most
appropriately provide the necessary
resources and facilities? What sectors
represent the most promising
opportunities for the application of such
models?
Assessing the feasibility of producing
at scale remains a critical hurdle for
manufacturing startups attempting to
commercialize new or unproven
technologies, but it is a challenge that
firms do not face until relatively late in
their evolution, after a great deal of early
investment has already been committed.
More effectively addressing this
challenge at an early stage could yield
more efficient allocation of investment
capital, and greater commercialization
of important innovative technologies
and products.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:02 Jul 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
(17) What tools, business model
innovations, financial innovations, or
other developments hold promise for
reducing the cost of starting and scaling
a business in capital intensive sectors
like the life sciences, advanced
materials, and clean energy? What can
the Federal Government do to accelerate
these trends?
Over the past two decades, the cost of
starting and scaling an IT-based
company has plummeted due to a
combination of cheap, scalable cloud
computing, open source software, and
other similar trends. Extending these or
similar developments to more capital
intensive sectors, where costs remain a
significant barrier, would yield
significant benefits.
(18) What investments, strategies, or
technological advancements, across
both the public and private sectors, are
needed to rebuild the U.S. ‘‘industrial
commons’’ and ensure the latest
technologies can be produced here?
After a decade of significant
offshoring, the United States has lost
important manufacturing capabilities
and the connections between
manufacturers, know-how, national
supply chains, educational institutions,
local workforce and financial
institutions that provide the foundation
and resources for new technologies to be
manufactured in the U.S. As the
manufacturing sector recovers and
strengthens, rebuilding these industrial
commons will be important for
capturing domestically both the
production of new technologies and
next generation manufacturing
capabilities.
Regional Innovation Ecosystems
(19) What partnerships or novel
models for collaboration between the
Federal Government and regions should
the Administration consider in order to
promote innovation and the
development of regional innovation
ecosystems?
(20) How should the Federal
government promote the development
of metropolitan ‘‘innovation districts,’’
where large research institutions,
companies, start-ups, and business
accelerators congregate to facilitate the
knowledge flows that sustain
innovation?
Intellectual Property/Antitrust
(21) What new challenges and
opportunities for intellectual property
and competition policy are posed by the
increasing diversity of models of
innovation (including, e.g., through the
growing use of open innovation,
combinatorial innovation, user
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
44067
innovation, internet-enabled innovation,
and big data-driven innovation)?
Novel Government Tools for Promoting
Innovation
(22) What are specific areas where a
greater capacity for experimentation in
law, policy, and regulation at the
Federal level is likely to have large
benefits? Are there useful models of
experimental platforms in the public or
private sectors that the Federal
Government can adopt? How might the
Federal Government encourage state
and local experimentation?
New technologies and business
models often evolve more rapidly than
law, policy, and regulation at the
Federal, state and local level. One
approach to dealing with this challenge
is to increase the capacity of
governments at all levels to support
experimentation. For example, the FCC
recently reformed its experimental
licensing rules to help researchers and
manufacturers bring new products to
market more rapidly. Analogous
opportunities may exist in other areas.
(23) Beyond current Federal efforts to
promote open data and open application
programming interfaces (APIs), what
other opportunities exist to open up
access to Federal assets (such as data,
tools, equipment, facilities, and
intellectual property from Federallyfunded research) in order to spark
private sector innovation?
For example, the Internet economy
has created new opportunities for
innovative business models relying on
Federal data. Through open data and
open APIs, the Federal Government can
invite competition among firms to
provide valuable services directly to end
users by incorporating these Federal
assets. For example, a travel booking
provider might directly incorporate
public campsite reservation
functionality into its Web site through
open Federal APIs. Likewise, a
researcher looking to access billions of
dollars of Federal testing equipment can
access equipment availability and usage
information through machine-readable
data on Data.gov.
National Priorities
(24) Which new areas should be
identified as ‘‘national priorities,’’ either
because they address important
challenges confronting U.S. security or
living standards, or they present an
opportunity for public investments to
catalyze advances, bring about key
breakthroughs and establish U.S.
leadership faster than what might be
possible otherwise?
(25) What Federal policies or
initiatives could unleash additional
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
44068
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 145 / Tuesday, July 29, 2014 / Notices
corporate and philanthropic investment
for critical national priorities, such as
energy innovation?
In a number of areas, overall
investment may be too low to sustain
our global leadership in innovation or to
confront critical challenges to our
national wellbeing. For example, overall
investment in clean energy innovation
remains significantly below the level
that economists and climate experts
conclude are required to facilitate the
transition to a low-carbon economy.
Other national priorities may suffer
from similar underinvestment, such as
in learning technologies or in smart
infrastructure technologies. Responsible
for the majority of U.S. research and
development (R&D) funding, private
entities will be essential to achieving
the overall levels of investment required
to meet such challenges.
Respondents are also free to provide
additional information they think is
relevant to the goal of promoting
innovation in the United States, and
feedback on the framework and
components of the 2011 Strategy for
American Innovation.
Cristin A. Dorgelo,
Chief of Staff, Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
John M. Galloway,
Chief of Staff, National Economic Council.
[FR Doc. 2014–17761 Filed 7–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3270–F4–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549–2736.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Extension:
Form N–17f-2.
SEC File No. 270–317, OMB Control No.
3235–0360.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 350l et seq.), the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection
of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension
and approval.
Form N–17f-2 (17 CFR 274.220) under
the Investment Company Act is entitled
‘‘Certificate of Accounting of Securities
and Similar Investments in the Custody
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:02 Jul 28, 2014
Jkt 232001
of Management Investment Companies.’’
Form N–17f-2 is the cover sheet for the
accountant examination certificates
filed under Rule 17f-2 (17 CFR 270.17f2) by registered management investment
companies (‘‘funds’’) maintaining
custody of securities or other
investments. Form N–17f-2 facilitates
the filing of the accountant’s
examination certificates prepared under
Rule 17f-2. The use of the form allows
the certificates to be filed electronically,
and increases the accessibility of the
examination certificates to both the
Commission’s examination staff and
interested investors by ensuring that the
certificates are filed under the proper
Commission file number and the correct
name of a fund.
Commission staff estimates that it
takes: (i) On average 1.25 hours of fund
accounting personnel at a total cost of
$247.5 to prepare each Form N–17f-2; 1
and (ii) .75 hours of clerical time at a
total cost of $55.50 to file the Form N–
17f-2 with the Commission.2
Approximately 188 funds currently file
Form N–17f-2 with the Commission.
Commission staff estimates that on
average each fund files Form N–17f-2
four times annually for a total annual
hourly burden per fund of
approximately 8 hours at a total cost of
$1,212.00. The total annual hour burden
for Form N–17f-2 is therefore estimated
to be approximately 1504 hours. Based
on the total annual costs per fund listed
above, the total cost of Form N–17f-2’s
collection of information requirements
is estimated to be approximately
$227,856.3
The estimate of average burden hours
is made solely for the purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not
derived from a comprehensive or even
a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules and forms.
Complying with the collections of
information required by Form N–17f-2
is mandatory for those funds that
maintain custody of their own assets.
Responses will not be kept confidential.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control
number.
The Commission requests written
comments on: (a) Whether the collection
of information is necessary for the
1 This estimate is based on the following
calculation: 1.25 × $198 (fund senior accountant’s
hourly rate) = $247.5.
2 This estimate is based on the following
calculation: .75 × $74 (secretary hourly rate) =
$55.50.
3 This estimate is based on the following
calculation: 188 funds × $1,212.00 (total annual cost
per fund) = $227,856.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the
information has practical utility; (b) the
accuracy of the Commission’s estimate
of the burdens of the collection of
information; (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 respondents, including
through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given
to comments and suggestions submitted
in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
Please direct your written comments
to Thomas Bayer, Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549; or send an email to: PRA_
Mailbox@sec.gov.
Dated: July 23, 2014.
Kevin M. O’Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–17778 Filed 7–28–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011–01–P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Upon Written Request, Copies Available
From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549–2736.
Extension:
Rule 6e–2 and Form N–6EI–1.
SEC File No. 270–177, OMB Control No.
3235–0177.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the
‘‘Commission’’) is soliciting comments
on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission
plans to submit this existing collection
of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension
and approval.
Rule 6e–2 (17 CFR 270.6e–2) under
the Investment Company Act of 1940
(‘‘Act’’) (15 U.S.C. 80a) is an exemptive
rule that provides separate accounts
formed by life insurance companies to
fund certain variable life insurance
products, exemptions from certain
provisions of the Act, subject to
conditions set forth in the rule. The rule
sets forth several information collection
requirements.
Rule 6e–2 provides a separate account
with an exemption from the registration
E:\FR\FM\29JYN1.SGM
29JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44064-44068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17761]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Strategy for American Innovation
ACTION: Notice of Request for Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National
Economic Council request public comments to provide input into an
upcoming update of the Strategy for American Innovation, which helps to
guide the Administration's efforts to promote lasting economic growth
and competitiveness through policies that support transformative
American
[[Page 44065]]
innovation in products, processes, and services and spur new
fundamental discoveries that in the long run lead to growing economic
prosperity and rising living standards. These efforts include policies
to promote critical components of the American innovation ecosystem,
including scientific research and development (R&D), technical
workforce, entrepreneurship, technology commercialization, advanced
manufacturing, and others. The strategy also provides an important
framework to channel these Federal investments in innovation capacity
towards innovative activity for specific national priorities. The
public input provided through this notice will inform the deliberations
of the National Economic Council and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, which are together responsible for publishing an
updated Strategy for American Innovation.
DATES: Responses must be received by September 23, 2014 to be
considered.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(email is preferred):
Email: innovationstrategy@ostp.gov. Include [Strategy for
American Innovation] in the subject line of the message.
Fax: (202) 456-6040, Attn: Dan Correa.
Mail: Attn: Dan Correa, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave
NW., Washington, DC 20504. If submitting responses by mail, please
allow sufficient time for mail processing and screening.
Details: Response to this RFI is voluntary. Please do not include
in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as
sensitive personal information or proprietary information. Please be
aware that your comments may be posted online. Responses to this notice
are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Federal Government to form
a binding contract or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result
of this notice may be used by the Federal Government for program
planning on a non-attribution basis. The United States Government will
not pay for response preparation, or for the use of any information
contained in the response.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Correa, (202) 456-4444,
innovationstrategy@ostp.gov, OSTP.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Request for Information (RFI) offers
interested individuals and organizations the opportunity to provide
input into the development of an updated Strategy for American
Innovation by identifying promising policy opportunities to promote
innovation and its economic benefits in the United States (U.S.). The
public input provided through this notice will inform the deliberations
of the National Economic Council and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, which are together responsible for publishing an
updated Strategy for American Innovation.
Public input into the strategy update process is particularly
valuable given the document's critical role in guiding the development
of new policy initiatives that can help unleash the transformative
innovation that leads to long-term economic growth. For example, the
2009 Strategy for American Innovation first identified an opportunity
for Federal agencies to use incentive prizes to promote innovation,
which was an important step in the eventual inclusion of agency prize
authority in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,
significantly increasing the Federal Government's ability to catalyze
innovation across a wide range of national priorities.
Background
President Obama released the Strategy for American Innovation in
September 2009 and updated it in February 2011 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/innovation/strategy).
The 2011 Strategy for American Innovation articulates the
importance of innovation as a driver of U.S. economic growth and
prosperity, the central importance of the private sector as the engine
of innovation, and the critical role of government in supporting our
innovation system.
It organizes the Administration's policy initiatives into three
parts:
(1) Invest in the Building Blocks of American Innovation
Spurring the innovations that will drive America's future economic
growth and competitiveness requires critical investments in the basic
foundations of the innovation process, including education, fundamental
research, and both the digital and physical infrastructure on which our
dynamic economy relies.
(2) Promote Market-Based Innovation
American businesses are the engine of innovation, and the
Administration seeks to promote an environment that allows U.S.
companies to drive future economic growth and continue to lead on the
global stage. This requires that government establish and maintain the
right framework conditions to support market-based innovation through
the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, effective intellectual
property policy, and policies to promote innovation-based
entrepreneurship as well as innovative, open, and competitive markets.
(3) Catalyze Breakthroughs for National Priorities
The 2011 strategy identifies several areas of national importance
where public investments can catalyze advances, bring about key
breakthroughs, and establish U.S. leadership faster than might be
possible otherwise. The portfolio of national priority areas outlined
in the 2011 strategy includes clean energy, biotechnology,
nanotechnology, advanced manufacturing, educational and health
information technologies, and space technologies.
Questions
To gather valuable insight into promising opportunities to boost
our innovation capacity in order to drive economic growth and
competitiveness, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and
the National Economic Council (NEC) seek public comment on a wide range
of innovation policy topics.
Instructions. In formulating responses to any of the below
questions, respondents should consider the following:
The questions below are grouped into the following categories:
[cir] Overarching Questions
[cir] Innovation Trends
[cir] Science, Technology, and R&D Priorities
[cir] Skilled Workforce Development
[cir] Manufacturing and Entrepreneurship
[cir] Regional Innovation Ecosystems
[cir] Intellectual Property/Antitrust
[cir] Novel Government Tools for Promoting Innovation
[cir] National Priorities
Respondents are free to address any or all of the following
questions, as well as provide additional relevant information not in
response to any specific question. Please note the number corresponding
to the question(s) addressed in the response.
Specific, actionable proposals for policy mechanisms, models,
or initiatives are more useful than general observations and
recommendations. For example, a response that describes the importance
of increasing technology transfer activities is helpful but not as
useful as one that
[[Page 44066]]
identifies specific model(s) to accomplish this goal and offers
accompanying details (e.g., the specific problem it addresses and how
it does so, the parties who would be responsible for administering the
model, actions the Administration might take, the likely benefits and
costs, the rationale and evidence to support the proposal, etc.).
There is a 5,000 word limit for responses. Accordingly,
responses longer than 5,000 words will not be considered. There is no
minimum length requirement, and a 500 word response can be as valuable
as a 5,000 word response if it contains detailed and well-founded
information.
OSTP and NEC seek public comment on the following:
Overarching Questions
(1) What specific policies or initiatives should the Administration
consider prioritizing in the next version of the Strategy for American
Innovation?
For any proposal, respondents may wish to consider describing
specific goals, the actions the Administration might take to achieve
those goals, the benefits and costs associated with the proposal,
whether the proposal is cross-government, inter-agency, or agency-
specific, the rationale and evidence to support it, and the roles of
other stakeholders, such as companies, universities, non-profits,
philanthropists, state and local governments, professional societies,
etc.
(2) What are the biggest challenges to, and opportunities for,
innovation in the United States that will generate long-term economic
growth, increased productivity, sustained leadership in knowledge-
intensive sectors, job creation, entrepreneurship, and rising standards
of living for more Americans?
(3) What specific actions can the Federal Government take to build
and sustain U.S. strengths including its entrepreneurial culture,
flexible labor markets, world-class research universities, strong
regional innovation ecosystems, and large share of global venture
capital investment?
(4) How can the Federal Government augment its overall capacity for
analysis of both the forces that determine the competitiveness of
specific sectors and the impact of Federal policies--including, but not
limited to, science, technology, and innovation policies--on sector-
specific productivity and competitiveness? What are the most important
outstanding questions about innovation policy and process and how might
government promote systematic research and program evaluation in those
areas?
Many policies can affect the ability of research-intensive
companies to innovate and compete in the marketplace, but the impact of
future policy choices on innovation is often not well understood in
advance. For example, telecommunications spectrum policies that
facilitate innovative business models may enable significant
productivity growth in the mobile communications sector. Improved
Federal capacity for analysis of such impacts would help inform policy
development to support innovation.
(5) What innovation practices and policies have other countries
adopted that deserve further consideration in the United States? What
innovation practices and policies have been adopted at the state or
local level that should be piloted by the Federal Government?
Innovation Trends
(6) How has the nature of the innovation process itself changed in
recent years and what new models for science and technology investment
and innovation policy, if any, do these changes require?
For example, many cite the growing importance of open innovation,
combinatorial innovation, and user innovation; the convergence of
biology, the physical sciences, and engineering; and the emergence of
human-centered design.
(7) What emerging areas of scientific and technological innovation
merit greater Federal investment, and how can that investment be
structured for maximum impact?
(8) What are important needs or opportunities for institutional
innovation and what steps can the Federal Government take to support
these innovations?
Economists have identified institutional innovation as critical to
long-term economic growth. Examples of particularly important
institutional innovations include the British invention of patents and
copyrights in the 17th century, the work of the agricultural extension
service in the U.S. in the 19th century, and the development of the
peer review system for supporting basic research in the 20th century.
Science, Technology, and R&D Priorities
(9) What additional opportunities exist to develop high-impact
platform technologies that reduce the time and cost associated with the
``design, build, test'' cycle for important classes of materials,
products, and systems?
A number of the Administration's current research initiatives are
aimed at developing platform technologies for this purpose, such as:
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)/National
Institute of Health NIH)/Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ``tissue
chip'' project to transform the way researchers evaluate the safety and
efficacy of drug candidates;
The Materials Genome Initiative, which is investing in a
``materials innovation infrastructure'' to reduce the time and cost
required to discover and make advanced materials by at least 50
percent;
Federal investments in new tools to reduce the time and cost
needed to engineer biological systems;
The DARPA ``Adaptive Vehicle Make'' program, which supported
the development of technologies such as model-based design to shorten
development timelines for defense systems by a factor of five or more.
(10) Where are there gaps in the Federal Government's science,
technology, and innovation portfolios with respect to important
national challenges, and what are the appropriate investment and R&D
models through which these gaps might be addressed?
Agencies lacking a traditional focus on research and development
nonetheless pursue critical missions that could benefit from
innovation. Given these agencies' more modest capacity to support
research and development and other avenues to innovation, there is
potentially underinvestment in science, technology and innovation to
address key national problems such as education, workforce development,
and poverty alleviation.
(11) Given recent evidence of the irreproducibility of a surprising
number of published scientific findings, how can the Federal Government
leverage its role as a significant funder of scientific research to
most effectively address the problem?
Skilled Workforce Development
(12) What novel mechanisms or models might facilitate matching
skilled STEM workers with employers and helping individuals identify
what additional skills they may need to transition successfully to new
roles?
In a dynamic economy, STEM workers seeking employment in a
different industry often find it difficult to identify employers with
matching needs. Likewise, employers devote
[[Page 44067]]
significant resources to finding technically skilled individuals to
meet their needs, sometimes with little success, even though a large
pool of technically skilled workers may exist.
(13) What emerging areas of skills are needed in order to keep pace
with emerging innovations or technologies? What are successful models
for training workers with these skills to keep up with emerging
innovations?
For example, pharmaceutical researchers report that more workers
are needed with capabilities in gene sequencing and bioengineering to
keep pace with new innovations in bio-manufacturing. Similarly,
innovations in advanced materials from lightweight metals to advanced
composites have spurred a need for welders with the ability to create
high-precision welds on complex materials.
(14) What mechanisms or programs can effectively increase the
supply of workers with technical training, from industry-recognized
credentials and postsecondary certificates to two- and four-year
degrees?
Manufacturing and Entrepreneurship
(15) What new or existing investment models should be explored to
support entrepreneurship in new geographies, as well as in technologies
and sectors that are capital-intensive, relatively high-risk, and
require sustained investment over long periods of time?
Angel and venture investment has tended to concentrate in a few
regions and sectors, particularly sectors that are capital efficient
and can provide ``exits'' for investors within 5-7 years. As a result,
innovative technologies that do not meet these criteria may be better
suited to different investment models.
(16) For new technologies and products, how might ``proof of
manufacturability'' be gauged sooner, and what entities would most
appropriately provide the necessary resources and facilities? What
sectors represent the most promising opportunities for the application
of such models?
Assessing the feasibility of producing at scale remains a critical
hurdle for manufacturing startups attempting to commercialize new or
unproven technologies, but it is a challenge that firms do not face
until relatively late in their evolution, after a great deal of early
investment has already been committed. More effectively addressing this
challenge at an early stage could yield more efficient allocation of
investment capital, and greater commercialization of important
innovative technologies and products.
(17) What tools, business model innovations, financial innovations,
or other developments hold promise for reducing the cost of starting
and scaling a business in capital intensive sectors like the life
sciences, advanced materials, and clean energy? What can the Federal
Government do to accelerate these trends?
Over the past two decades, the cost of starting and scaling an IT-
based company has plummeted due to a combination of cheap, scalable
cloud computing, open source software, and other similar trends.
Extending these or similar developments to more capital intensive
sectors, where costs remain a significant barrier, would yield
significant benefits.
(18) What investments, strategies, or technological advancements,
across both the public and private sectors, are needed to rebuild the
U.S. ``industrial commons'' and ensure the latest technologies can be
produced here?
After a decade of significant offshoring, the United States has
lost important manufacturing capabilities and the connections between
manufacturers, know-how, national supply chains, educational
institutions, local workforce and financial institutions that provide
the foundation and resources for new technologies to be manufactured in
the U.S. As the manufacturing sector recovers and strengthens,
rebuilding these industrial commons will be important for capturing
domestically both the production of new technologies and next
generation manufacturing capabilities.
Regional Innovation Ecosystems
(19) What partnerships or novel models for collaboration between
the Federal Government and regions should the Administration consider
in order to promote innovation and the development of regional
innovation ecosystems?
(20) How should the Federal government promote the development of
metropolitan ``innovation districts,'' where large research
institutions, companies, start-ups, and business accelerators
congregate to facilitate the knowledge flows that sustain innovation?
Intellectual Property/Antitrust
(21) What new challenges and opportunities for intellectual
property and competition policy are posed by the increasing diversity
of models of innovation (including, e.g., through the growing use of
open innovation, combinatorial innovation, user innovation, internet-
enabled innovation, and big data-driven innovation)?
Novel Government Tools for Promoting Innovation
(22) What are specific areas where a greater capacity for
experimentation in law, policy, and regulation at the Federal level is
likely to have large benefits? Are there useful models of experimental
platforms in the public or private sectors that the Federal Government
can adopt? How might the Federal Government encourage state and local
experimentation?
New technologies and business models often evolve more rapidly than
law, policy, and regulation at the Federal, state and local level. One
approach to dealing with this challenge is to increase the capacity of
governments at all levels to support experimentation. For example, the
FCC recently reformed its experimental licensing rules to help
researchers and manufacturers bring new products to market more
rapidly. Analogous opportunities may exist in other areas.
(23) Beyond current Federal efforts to promote open data and open
application programming interfaces (APIs), what other opportunities
exist to open up access to Federal assets (such as data, tools,
equipment, facilities, and intellectual property from Federally-funded
research) in order to spark private sector innovation?
For example, the Internet economy has created new opportunities for
innovative business models relying on Federal data. Through open data
and open APIs, the Federal Government can invite competition among
firms to provide valuable services directly to end users by
incorporating these Federal assets. For example, a travel booking
provider might directly incorporate public campsite reservation
functionality into its Web site through open Federal APIs. Likewise, a
researcher looking to access billions of dollars of Federal testing
equipment can access equipment availability and usage information
through machine-readable data on Data.gov.
National Priorities
(24) Which new areas should be identified as ``national
priorities,'' either because they address important challenges
confronting U.S. security or living standards, or they present an
opportunity for public investments to catalyze advances, bring about
key breakthroughs and establish U.S. leadership faster than what might
be possible otherwise?
(25) What Federal policies or initiatives could unleash additional
[[Page 44068]]
corporate and philanthropic investment for critical national
priorities, such as energy innovation?
In a number of areas, overall investment may be too low to sustain
our global leadership in innovation or to confront critical challenges
to our national wellbeing. For example, overall investment in clean
energy innovation remains significantly below the level that economists
and climate experts conclude are required to facilitate the transition
to a low-carbon economy. Other national priorities may suffer from
similar underinvestment, such as in learning technologies or in smart
infrastructure technologies. Responsible for the majority of U.S.
research and development (R&D) funding, private entities will be
essential to achieving the overall levels of investment required to
meet such challenges.
Respondents are also free to provide additional information they
think is relevant to the goal of promoting innovation in the United
States, and feedback on the framework and components of the 2011
Strategy for American Innovation.
Cristin A. Dorgelo,
Chief of Staff, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
John M. Galloway,
Chief of Staff, National Economic Council.
[FR Doc. 2014-17761 Filed 7-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3270-F4-P