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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.