Request for Information on Implementation of the Regional Technology and Innovation Hub Program, 9427-9429 [2023-03022]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2023 / Notices
Civil Rights will convene a business
meeting on Thursday, March 16, 2023,
12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The purpose of
the meeting is to continue to review,
edit, and vote on a draft report on the
civil rights implications of algorithms.
March 16, 2023, Thursday; 12:00
p.m. (ET).
DATES:
Meeting will be held via
Zoom.
Meeting Link (Audio/Visual): https://
tinyurl.com/2p9b2mde; password:
USCCR–CT
Join by Phone (Audio Only): 1–551–
285–1373; Meeting ID: 161 850 4257#
ADDRESSES:
Agenda
I. Roll Call
II. Review, Edit, Vote—Draft Report on
Civil Rights Implications of
Algorithms
III. Discuss Next Steps
IV. Public Comment
V. Adjournment
Dated: February 9, 2023.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2023–03112 Filed 2–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Economic Development Administration
Evelyn Bohor, at ebohor@usccr.gov or
202–381–8915.
Members
of the public can listen to these
discussions. Committee meetings are
available to the public through the
above call-in number. Any interested
member of the public may call this
number and listen to the meeting. An
open comment period will be provided
to allow members of the public to make
a statement as time allows. Callers can
expect to incur regular charges for calls
they initiate over wireless lines,
according to their wireless plan. The
Commission will not refund any
incurred charges. Callers will incur no
charge for calls they initiate over landline connections to the toll-free
telephone number. Individuals who are
deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may
also follow the proceedings by first
calling the Federal Relay Service at 1–
800–877–8339 and providing the
Service with the conference call number
and conference ID number.
Members of the public are also
entitled to submit written comments;
the comments must be received in the
regional office within 30 days following
the meeting. Written comments may be
emailed to Evelyn Bohor at ebohor@
usccr.gov. Persons who desire
additional information may contact the
Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353–
8311.
Records generated from the meetings
may be inspected and reproduced at the
Regional Programs Unit Office, as they
become available, both before and after
the meeting. Records of the meeting will
be available via www.facadatabase.gov
under the Commission on Civil Rights,
Connecticut Advisory Committee link.
Persons interested in the work of this
Committee are directed to the
Commission’s website, https://
www.usccr.gov, or may contact the
Regional Programs Unit at the above
email or street address.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:12 Feb 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
Request for Information on
Implementation of the Regional
Technology and Innovation Hub
Program
Economic Development
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, through the Economic
Development Administration (EDA), is
seeking information to inform the
planning and design of the Regional
Technology and Innovation Hub (Tech
Hubs) program. Responses to this
Request for Information (RFI) will
inform planning for the implementation
of the Tech Hubs program.
DATES: Comments must be received by
5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 16, 2023.
Submissions received after that date
may not be considered. Written
comments in response to this RFI
should be submitted in accordance with
the instructions in the Addresses and
Supplementary Information sections
below.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments by
email to techhubs@eda.gov. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric
Smith, Director, Office of Innovation
and Entrepreneurship, via email at
techhubs@eda.gov or via telephone at
(202) 482–5081. Please reference ‘‘Tech
Hubs RFI’’ in the subject line of your
correspondence. You may find
additional information on EDA at
www.eda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
Section 10621 of the Research and
Development, Competition, and
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9427
Innovation Act authorizes the
Department of Commerce to designate
geographically distributed regional
technology and innovation hubs and to
award strategy development grants and
strategy implementation grants to
eligible consortia (15 U.S.C. 3722a; Pub.
L. 117–167, Division B, Title VI, Subtitle
C, Sec. 10621(a)(2), 136 Stat. 1642).
Tech Hubs will focus on technology
development, job creation,
entrepreneurial development, and
expanding U.S. innovation capacity. Of
the $10 billion authorized for the Tech
Hubs program from Federal fiscal year
2023 through Federal fiscal year 2027,
$500 million has been made available
for the Tech Hubs program as of the
publication of this RFI.
Section 10621 of the Research and
Development, Competition, and
Innovation Act provides that the Tech
Hubs program shall:
(A) Encourage constructive
collaborations among a wide range of
new and traditional economic
development stakeholders, including
public and private sector entities;
(B) Support the development and
implementation of regional innovation
strategies;
(C) Designate regional technology and
innovation hubs and facilitate the
following implementation activities:
(i) Enable United States leadership in
technology and innovation sectors
critical to national and economic
security.
(ii) Support regional economic
development and resilience, including
in small cities and rural areas, and
promote increased geographic diversity
of innovation across the United States;
(iii) Promote the benefits of
technology development and innovation
for all Americans, including
underserved communities and
vulnerable communities;
(iv) Support the modernization and
expansion of United States
manufacturing based on advances in
technology and innovation;
(v) Support domestic job creation and
broad-based economic growth; and
(vi) Improve the pace of market
readiness, industry maturation, and
overall commercialization and domestic
production of innovative research;
(D) Ensure that the regional
technology and innovation hubs address
the intersection of emerging
technologies and either regional
challenges or national challenges; and
(E) Conduct ongoing research,
evaluation, analysis, and dissemination
of best practices for regional
development and competitiveness in
technology and innovation.
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
9428
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES
The Tech Hubs program is an
economic development initiative to
drive technology- and innovationcentric growth that leverages existing
R&D strengths and technology
demonstration and deployment
capacities (public and private) within a
region to catalyze the creation of good
jobs for American workers at all skill
levels equitably and inclusively.
EDA intends to run a rigorous, fair,
and evidence-driven competition
informed by the vision and experiences
of all stakeholders, technology
practitioners, and relevant policy
research to guide program design,
structure, and evaluation, and to aim for
the strongest geographic and
demographic diversity among hubs.
This RFI seeks to encourage the field of
regional innovation and economic
development to provide evidence-based
input that will be used to inform the
design and implementation of the Tech
Hubs program to maximize American
competitiveness. The following sections
provide specific requests for
information, group into a number of
categories.
Specific Request for Information: Tech
Hubs Characteristics
1. What are the indicia of a successful
future Tech Hub?
a. What are the defining features of a
region that indicate that a Tech Hub will
take hold, and how will EDA know if
Tech Hubs succeed?
b. What existing assets and resources
that generate, support, and enable
technology innovation, demonstration,
and deployment should Tech Hubs
have? How does a Tech Hub leverage
those assets and resources
collaboratively?
c. When designating Tech Hubs, what
additional geographic, demographic, or
other place-specific factors or data
should EDA consider?
d. Are there specific metrics that EDA
should consider for designating Tech
Hubs?
e. What are the technological
considerations that EDA should
consider?
2. How might EDA determine how the
size and timing of investments will best
accelerate a future Tech Hub’s evolution
into a global leader in an industry of the
future that strengthens its region and
our economic and national security?
What data and information are
important to that determination?
3. What are historical and existing
examples of successful regional hub
programs and what can be learned from
these examples?
4. How might EDA determine the
relative competitiveness of proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:12 Feb 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
Tech Hubs in the context of current and
future global competition, in addition to
domestic competition?
Specific Request for Information: Tech
Hubs Program Design
Models for Program Design
5. Please share specific examples of
evidence-based or evidence-informed
investments, interventions, or policies,
including those implemented in other
countries, that would support
technology-based economic
development, particularly at the scale
required to enable U.S. leadership in
technology and innovation sectors
critical to economic and national
security.
a. What limitations currently prevent
EDA from investing, intervening, or
making policies in these ways? For
example, are there statutory, regulatory,
policy, design, or implementation issues
with current EDA programs or
operations that inhibit or prohibit EDA
in some way? Are there other Federal
organizations that have overcome these
issues?
6. Are there specific workforce and
labor development, business and
entrepreneurial development,
technology development and
maturation, or infrastructure activities
that EDA should emphasize through the
program?
7. How should EDA consider worker
and community input in Tech Hub
design?
8. What are some of the most
innovative approaches to
commercialization at research
institutions (e.g., universities, national
labs) and what evidence exists on the
effectiveness of these approaches?
9. What are some of the most
innovative approaches to ensuring the
growth of globally competitive
industries occurs in an inclusive and
equitable manner? Where possible,
please provide examples of evidencebased and/or evidence-informed
investments, interventions, or policies
that drive inclusive and equitable
outcomes.
Funding and Support
10. Please share best-in-class ideas for
inclusive and accessible competition
processes for the Tech Hubs program,
including examples of best-in-class
regional competitions in the United
States or internationally.
11. How should EDA evaluate the
extent to which certain technology and
innovation sectors are critical to
national and economic security? How
should EDA take into account whether
a consortium would help promote
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
increased geographic diversity of
innovation?
12. How can Federal designations and
Federal grants be structured to
maximize the desired impacts of the
Tech Hubs program?
13. What other existing Federal
programs can complement Tech Hubs?
14. In addition to existing Federal
programs, what types of benefits or
support could be helpful for
‘‘designated’’ regional Tech Hubs?
15. What should EDA consider in
designing the program for its current
appropriation of $500 million given the
$10 billion vision in the program’s
statutory authorization? How should
those considerations affect EDA’s design
of the program now and potentially into
future years?
16. How should EDA evaluate the
effectiveness and return on publicprivate partnerships or other
collaborative arrangements that may
emerge from the Tech Hubs?
17. What criteria should EDA use to
shift investments within or between
Tech Hubs to maximize the impact of
the program?
18. What else should EDA consider
when building this program, including
but not limited to alignment with other
Federal programs?
Specific Request for Information: Tech
Hubs Program Administration
19. How should EDA measure
whether the Tech Hubs program has
been successful in achieving these
outcomes, and how might EDA capture
those data?
a. What are the indicia of successful
investments under the Tech Hubs
program? What, if any, earlier-in-time
proxies are predictive of those indicia?
b. What is a realistic time horizon
over which to evaluate the economic
development, national security, and
global competitiveness impacts of Tech
Hubs? Which measures are meaningful
over which time horizons (e.g., five, ten,
fifteen years)?
20. What desirable organizational and
institutional changes within and among
tech hubs’ participants, beneficiaries,
and other stakeholders could the Tech
Hubs program competition incentivize?
How could those changes be
incentivized, and how could those
changes be measured?
21. How can EDA ensure input from,
and engagement with, community
members in the administration of the
Tech Hubs program, particularly for
underserved community members?
22. What are unique challenges faced
by Established Program to Stimulate
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2023 / Notices
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) 1 statebased consortia or rural consortia that
EDA should be aware of and account for
in program administration?
Dated: February 8, 2023.
Eric Smith,
Director, Office of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship.
[FR Doc. 2023–03022 Filed 2–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–24–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
In the Matter of: Arash Yousefi Jam, 24
Great Heron Court, King City, Ontario,
Canada; Order Denying Export
Privileges
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES
On October 14, 2021, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Arash Yousefi Jam (‘‘Arash
Jam’’) was convicted of violating 18
U.S.C. 371. Specifically, Arash Jam was
convicted of conspiring to export goods
from the United States to Iran through
the United Arab Emirates without
having first obtained the required
licenses from the Office of Foreign
Assests Control. As a result of his
conviction, the Court sentenced Arash
Jam time served, one year of supervised
release and a $100 assessment.
Pursuant to Section 1760(e) of the
Export Control Reform Act (‘‘ECRA’’),1
the export privileges of any person who
has been convicted of certain offenses,
including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C.
371, may be denied for a period of up
to ten (10) years from the date of his/her
conviction. 50 U.S.C. 4819(e). In
addition, any Bureau of Industry and
Security (‘‘BIS’’) licenses or other
authorizations issued under ECRA, in
which the person had an interest at the
time of the conviction, may be revoked.
Id.
BIS received notice of Arash Jam’s
conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 371.
As provided in Section 766.25 of the
Export Administration Regulations
(‘‘EAR’’ or the ‘‘Regulations’’), BIS
provided notice and opportunity for
Arash Jam to make a written submission
1 EPSCoR states are determined annually by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) based on the
proportion of NSF funding each state receives
within certain periods of time. See 42 U.S.C.
13503(b)(3) (2021); Nat’l Sci. Found., EPSCoR
Criteria for Eligibility, https://beta.nsf.gov/funding/
initiatives/epscor/epscor-criteria-eligibility (last
visited Jan. 26, 2023).
1 ECRA was enacted on August 13, 2018, as part
of the John S. McCain National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, and as
amended is codified at 50 U.S.C. 4801–4852.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:12 Feb 13, 2023
Jkt 259001
to BIS. 15 CFR 766.25.2 BIS has not
received a written submission from
Arash Jam.
Based upon my review of the record
and consultations with BIS’s Office of
Exporter Services, including its
Director, and the facts available to BIS,
I have decided to deny Arash Jam’s
export privileges under the Regulations
for a period of seven years from the date
of Arash Jam’s conviction. The Office of
Exporter Services has also decided to
revoke any BIS-issued licenses in which
Arash Jam had an interest at the time of
his conviction.3
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:
First, from the date of this Order until
October 14, 2028, Arash Yousefi Jam,
with a last known address of 24 Great
Heron Court, King City, Ontario,
Canada, and when acting for or on his
behalf, his successors, assigns,
employees, agents or representatives
(‘‘the Denied Person’’), may not directly
or indirectly participate in any way in
any transaction involving any
commodity, software or technology
(hereinafter collectively referred to as
‘‘item’’) exported or to be exported from
the United States that is subject to the
Regulations, including, but not limited
to:
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using
any license, license exception, or export
control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations
concerning, or ordering, buying,
receiving, using, selling, delivering,
storing, disposing of, forwarding,
transporting, financing, or otherwise
servicing in any way, any transaction
involving any item exported or to be
exported from the United States that is
subject to the Regulations, or engaging
in any other activity subject to the
Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any
transaction involving any item exported
or to be exported from the United States
that is subject to the Regulations, or
from any other activity subject to the
Regulations.
Second, no person may, directly or
indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export, reexport, or transfer (incountry) to or on behalf of the Denied
Person any item subject to the
Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
the Denied Person of the ownership,
possession, or control of any item
2 The Regulations are currently codified in the
Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730–
774 (2022).
3 The Director, Office of Export Enforcement, is
the authorizing official for issuance of denial orders
pursuant to amendments to the Regulations (85 FR
73411, November 18, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
9429
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States, including financing or other
support activities related to a
transaction whereby the Denied Person
acquires or attempts to acquire such
ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or
to facilitate the acquisition or attempted
acquisition from the Denied Person of
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been exported from the United
States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in
the United States any item subject to the
Regulations with knowledge or reason
to know that the item will be, or is
intended to be, exported from the
United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by the Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by the Denied Person if such
service involves the use of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States. For purposes of this paragraph,
servicing means installation,
maintenance, repair, modification or
testing.
Third, pursuant to Section 1760(e) of
ECRA and Sections 766.23 and 766.25
of the Regulations, any other person,
firm, corporation, or business
organization related to Arash Jam by
ownership, control, position of
responsibility, affiliation, or other
connection in the conduct of trade or
business may also be made subject to
the provisions of this Order in order to
prevent evasion of this Order.
Fourth, in accordance with part 756 of
the Regulations, Arash Jam may file an
appeal of this Order with the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Industry and
Security. The appeal must be filed
within 45 days from the date of this
Order and must comply with the
provisions of part 756 of the
Regulations.
Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be
delivered to Arash Jam and shall be
published in the Federal Register.
Sixth, this Order is effective
immediately and shall remain in effect
until October 14, 2028.
John Sonderman,
Director, Office of Export Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2023–03103 Filed 2–13–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DT–P
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9427-9429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03022]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Request for Information on Implementation of the Regional
Technology and Innovation Hub Program
AGENCY: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, through the Economic Development
Administration (EDA), is seeking information to inform the planning and
design of the Regional Technology and Innovation Hub (Tech Hubs)
program. Responses to this Request for Information (RFI) will inform
planning for the implementation of the Tech Hubs program.
DATES: Comments must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 16,
2023. Submissions received after that date may not be considered.
Written comments in response to this RFI should be submitted in
accordance with the instructions in the Addresses and Supplementary
Information sections below.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by
email to [email protected]. Do not submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Smith, Director, Office of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, via email at [email protected] or via
telephone at (202) 482-5081. Please reference ``Tech Hubs RFI'' in the
subject line of your correspondence. You may find additional
information on EDA at www.eda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 10621 of the Research and Development, Competition, and
Innovation Act authorizes the Department of Commerce to designate
geographically distributed regional technology and innovation hubs and
to award strategy development grants and strategy implementation grants
to eligible consortia (15 U.S.C. 3722a; Pub. L. 117-167, Division B,
Title VI, Subtitle C, Sec. 10621(a)(2), 136 Stat. 1642). Tech Hubs will
focus on technology development, job creation, entrepreneurial
development, and expanding U.S. innovation capacity. Of the $10 billion
authorized for the Tech Hubs program from Federal fiscal year 2023
through Federal fiscal year 2027, $500 million has been made available
for the Tech Hubs program as of the publication of this RFI.
Section 10621 of the Research and Development, Competition, and
Innovation Act provides that the Tech Hubs program shall:
(A) Encourage constructive collaborations among a wide range of new
and traditional economic development stakeholders, including public and
private sector entities;
(B) Support the development and implementation of regional
innovation strategies;
(C) Designate regional technology and innovation hubs and
facilitate the following implementation activities:
(i) Enable United States leadership in technology and innovation
sectors critical to national and economic security.
(ii) Support regional economic development and resilience,
including in small cities and rural areas, and promote increased
geographic diversity of innovation across the United States;
(iii) Promote the benefits of technology development and innovation
for all Americans, including underserved communities and vulnerable
communities;
(iv) Support the modernization and expansion of United States
manufacturing based on advances in technology and innovation;
(v) Support domestic job creation and broad-based economic growth;
and
(vi) Improve the pace of market readiness, industry maturation, and
overall commercialization and domestic production of innovative
research;
(D) Ensure that the regional technology and innovation hubs address
the intersection of emerging technologies and either regional
challenges or national challenges; and
(E) Conduct ongoing research, evaluation, analysis, and
dissemination of best practices for regional development and
competitiveness in technology and innovation.
[[Page 9428]]
The Tech Hubs program is an economic development initiative to
drive technology- and innovation-centric growth that leverages existing
R&D strengths and technology demonstration and deployment capacities
(public and private) within a region to catalyze the creation of good
jobs for American workers at all skill levels equitably and
inclusively.
EDA intends to run a rigorous, fair, and evidence-driven
competition informed by the vision and experiences of all stakeholders,
technology practitioners, and relevant policy research to guide program
design, structure, and evaluation, and to aim for the strongest
geographic and demographic diversity among hubs. This RFI seeks to
encourage the field of regional innovation and economic development to
provide evidence-based input that will be used to inform the design and
implementation of the Tech Hubs program to maximize American
competitiveness. The following sections provide specific requests for
information, group into a number of categories.
Specific Request for Information: Tech Hubs Characteristics
1. What are the indicia of a successful future Tech Hub?
a. What are the defining features of a region that indicate that a
Tech Hub will take hold, and how will EDA know if Tech Hubs succeed?
b. What existing assets and resources that generate, support, and
enable technology innovation, demonstration, and deployment should Tech
Hubs have? How does a Tech Hub leverage those assets and resources
collaboratively?
c. When designating Tech Hubs, what additional geographic,
demographic, or other place-specific factors or data should EDA
consider?
d. Are there specific metrics that EDA should consider for
designating Tech Hubs?
e. What are the technological considerations that EDA should
consider?
2. How might EDA determine how the size and timing of investments
will best accelerate a future Tech Hub's evolution into a global leader
in an industry of the future that strengthens its region and our
economic and national security? What data and information are important
to that determination?
3. What are historical and existing examples of successful regional
hub programs and what can be learned from these examples?
4. How might EDA determine the relative competitiveness of proposed
Tech Hubs in the context of current and future global competition, in
addition to domestic competition?
Specific Request for Information: Tech Hubs Program Design
Models for Program Design
5. Please share specific examples of evidence-based or evidence-
informed investments, interventions, or policies, including those
implemented in other countries, that would support technology-based
economic development, particularly at the scale required to enable U.S.
leadership in technology and innovation sectors critical to economic
and national security.
a. What limitations currently prevent EDA from investing,
intervening, or making policies in these ways? For example, are there
statutory, regulatory, policy, design, or implementation issues with
current EDA programs or operations that inhibit or prohibit EDA in some
way? Are there other Federal organizations that have overcome these
issues?
6. Are there specific workforce and labor development, business and
entrepreneurial development, technology development and maturation, or
infrastructure activities that EDA should emphasize through the
program?
7. How should EDA consider worker and community input in Tech Hub
design?
8. What are some of the most innovative approaches to
commercialization at research institutions (e.g., universities,
national labs) and what evidence exists on the effectiveness of these
approaches?
9. What are some of the most innovative approaches to ensuring the
growth of globally competitive industries occurs in an inclusive and
equitable manner? Where possible, please provide examples of evidence-
based and/or evidence-informed investments, interventions, or policies
that drive inclusive and equitable outcomes.
Funding and Support
10. Please share best-in-class ideas for inclusive and accessible
competition processes for the Tech Hubs program, including examples of
best-in-class regional competitions in the United States or
internationally.
11. How should EDA evaluate the extent to which certain technology
and innovation sectors are critical to national and economic security?
How should EDA take into account whether a consortium would help
promote increased geographic diversity of innovation?
12. How can Federal designations and Federal grants be structured
to maximize the desired impacts of the Tech Hubs program?
13. What other existing Federal programs can complement Tech Hubs?
14. In addition to existing Federal programs, what types of
benefits or support could be helpful for ``designated'' regional Tech
Hubs?
15. What should EDA consider in designing the program for its
current appropriation of $500 million given the $10 billion vision in
the program's statutory authorization? How should those considerations
affect EDA's design of the program now and potentially into future
years?
16. How should EDA evaluate the effectiveness and return on public-
private partnerships or other collaborative arrangements that may
emerge from the Tech Hubs?
17. What criteria should EDA use to shift investments within or
between Tech Hubs to maximize the impact of the program?
18. What else should EDA consider when building this program,
including but not limited to alignment with other Federal programs?
Specific Request for Information: Tech Hubs Program Administration
19. How should EDA measure whether the Tech Hubs program has been
successful in achieving these outcomes, and how might EDA capture those
data?
a. What are the indicia of successful investments under the Tech
Hubs program? What, if any, earlier-in-time proxies are predictive of
those indicia?
b. What is a realistic time horizon over which to evaluate the
economic development, national security, and global competitiveness
impacts of Tech Hubs? Which measures are meaningful over which time
horizons (e.g., five, ten, fifteen years)?
20. What desirable organizational and institutional changes within
and among tech hubs' participants, beneficiaries, and other
stakeholders could the Tech Hubs program competition incentivize? How
could those changes be incentivized, and how could those changes be
measured?
21. How can EDA ensure input from, and engagement with, community
members in the administration of the Tech Hubs program, particularly
for underserved community members?
22. What are unique challenges faced by Established Program to
Stimulate
[[Page 9429]]
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) \1\ state-based consortia or rural
consortia that EDA should be aware of and account for in program
administration?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPSCoR states are determined annually by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) based on the proportion of NSF funding each
state receives within certain periods of time. See 42 U.S.C.
13503(b)(3) (2021); Nat'l Sci. Found., EPSCoR Criteria for
Eligibility, https://beta.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/epscor/epscor-criteria-eligibility (last visited Jan. 26, 2023).
Dated: February 8, 2023.
Eric Smith,
Director, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
[FR Doc. 2023-03022 Filed 2-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-24-P
