[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11344-11346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03896]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Docket Number: 200213-0056]


Request for Information Regarding Manufacturing USA Institutes 
and Processes

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Request for Information (RFI).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Manufacturing USA reauthorization prescribes three 
pathways for creating centers for manufacturing innovation or 
institutes in the Manufacturing USA network. Through this Request for 
Information (RFI), NIST is seeking comment from the public on the 
pathway where manufacturing centers outside of Manufacturing USA are 
recognized by the Secretary of Commerce as centers for manufacturing 
innovation in response to a formal request by the centers for such 
recognition. The law provides that a manufacturing center substantially 
similar to Manufacturing USA institutes, but which do not have federal 
sponsorship, may be recognized for participation in the network, but 
does not specify criteria for similarity. This pathway may be termed 
the ``alliance'' model for membership in Manufacturing USA. These could 
be existing agency-sponsored institutes which are no longer under a 
federal financial aid agreement or existing entities not in the network 
with relevant characteristics that are new to the network. Through this 
RFI, NIST also is seeking broad input and participation from 
stakeholders to assist in identifying and prioritizing issues and 
proposed solutions on the information provided regarding the proposed 
``alliance'' path to designate a Manufacturing USA Institute, including 
what should be the minimum characteristics and requirements for such 
entities.

DATES: Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 
25, 2020. Written comments in response to the RFI should be submitted 
according to the instructions in the ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION sections below. Submissions received after that date may 
not be considered.

ADDRESSES: 
    For Comments:
    Responses can be submitted by either of the following methods:
    Website: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd1NhLXHHHy-hnj9xpxZ85MAMmTMxMxgGglc8LW6r7QWI55Xg/viewform. Follow the instructions 
for sending comments on the agency website.
    Email: [email protected]. Include ``RFI Response: 
Manufacturing USA Institutes and Processes'' in the subject line of the 
message.
    Instructions: Attachments will be accepted in plain text, Microsoft 
Word, or Adobe PDF formats. Comments containing references, studies, 
research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should 
include copies or electronic links of the referenced materials.
    All submissions, including attachments and other supporting 
materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public 
disclosure. NIST reserves the right to publish relevant comments 
publicly, unedited and in their entirety. Personal information, such as 
account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other 
individuals, should not be included. Do not submit confidential 
business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. 
Comments that contain profanity, vulgarity, threats, or other 
inappropriate language or content will not be considered.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Margaret Phillips, Associate 
Director for Competitions, Office of Advanced Manufacturing, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive MS 4700, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899, 301-975-4350, or by email to 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Manufacturing USA was authorized by the Revitalize American 
Manufacturing and Innovation Act in December 2014.\1\ In 2019 the House 
Science Committee convened a hearing on Manufacturing USA, leading to 
the House passing the American Manufacturing Leadership Act. 
Concurrently the Senate developed and passed the Global Leadership in 
Manufacturing Act. Both of these bills were reconciled and included 
into the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law 
on December 20, 2019.\2\ This Manufacturing USA reauthorization 
prescribes three pathways for creating centers for manufacturing 
innovation, or institutes in the Manufacturing USA network. The three 
pathways are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2015, Public Law 113-235, Title VII--Revitalize American 
Manufacturing Innovation Act of 2014, codified at 15 U.S.C. 278s.
    \2\ National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, 
Public Law 116-92, codified at 15 U.S.C. 278s, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Institutes established pursuant to Federal law or executive 
actions which became members of the network,
    (2) institutes created via competitions held by the Secretary of 
Commerce through the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), and
    (3) manufacturing centers outside of Manufacturing USA but 
recognized by the Secretary of Commerce as centers for manufacturing 
innovation in response to a formal request by the centers for such 
recognition. ``A manufacturing center that is substantially similar to 
those established under this subsection but does not receive financial 
assistance under subsection (d) may, upon request of the center, be 
recognized as a center for manufacturing innovation by the Secretary 
for purposes of participation in the Network''.
    The third pathway may be termed the ``alliance'' model for 
membership in Manufacturing USA. These could be existing agency-
sponsored institutes which are no longer under a federal financial aid 
agreement or existing entities not in the network with relevant 
characteristics that are new to the network. NIST is seeking broad 
input and participation from stakeholders to assist in identifying and 
prioritizing issues and proposed solutions on the information provided 
regarding the proposed ``alliance'' path to establish a Manufacturing 
USA Institute.

Anticipated Benefits and Impact of the ``Alliance'' Model

Benefits to the Joining Entities
    Entities that seek to join Manufacturing USA through the 
``alliance'' model stand to benefit in ways that are both tangible and 
intangible. Some of the key benefits are identified below.
     Formal recognition and ``branding'' with associated 
visibility as a national manufacturing innovation institute.
     Membership in a nationwide network of manufacturing 
innovation institutes with associated support.
    [cir] Enhanced communication with leadership of the Manufacturing 
USA Institutes.

[[Page 11345]]

    [cir] Opportunities for synergistic collaboration with other 
institutes in the network.
    [cir] Access to the shared network services offered by the National 
Program Office.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The interagency Advanced Manufacturing National Program 
Office (AMNPO), which is headquartered at NIST, is tasked with the 
role of the National Program Office for Manufacturing USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Eligibility for programmatic funding specifically for 
entities designated as Manufacturing USA Institutes which are not 
federally sponsored. Grants may be awarded on a competitive basis, 
subject to the availability of funds, for public service activities, 
such as workforce development, outreach to small- and medium-sized 
manufacturers, and other activities aligned with the mission of 
Manufacturing USA.
Benefits to the Manufacturing USA Program and Existing Institutes
    The alliance model for new manufacturing innovation institutes and 
their induction into Manufacturing USA can facilitate expansion of the 
network, and technical areas not currently addressed by existing or 
pending Manufacturing USA Institutes can be established. In doing so, 
the federal government can significantly leverage its existing and 
future Manufacturing USA investments to spur the U.S. advanced 
manufacturing efforts already underway.
    The extensive public and private sector inputs gathered by the 
Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) initiatives 4 5 and 
by the five ``Designing for Impact'' regional workshops \6\ held around 
the country clearly indicate that several technology areas of 
importance to U.S. manufacturers remain to be addressed by 
Manufacturing USA. The alliance model can serve as a cost-effective 
pathway to rapidly expand technology coverage, geographical reach, and 
national impact of Manufacturing USA. It should however be noted that 
the ``alliance'' model is not intended to be a substitute for robust 
long-term federal support of Manufacturing USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive 
Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing, Executive Office of the 
President, President's Council of Advisors on Science and 
Technology, July 2012.
    \5\ Report to the President on Accelerating U.S. Advanced 
Manufacturing, Executive Office of the President, President's 
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, October 2014.
    \6\ National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A Preliminary 
Design, Executive Office of the President, National Science and 
Technology Council, Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, 
January 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Institutes in the network have the potential to improve the 
competitiveness of United States manufacturing, including in key 
advanced manufacturing technologies, and to accelerate non-Federal 
investment in advanced manufacturing production capacity in the United 
States.
    Existing institutes in Manufacturing USA also stand to benefit from 
their association with the alliance members. Some of the key potential 
benefits to existing institutes that are already in the network are 
listed below.
     The new technology topics of the joining entities will 
enrich the network of institutes and will provide additional 
opportunities for the existing institutes to leverage complementary 
technical capabilities and services offered by the alliance members.
     Alliance members will have different operational and 
governance models. The existing and future Manufacturing USA 
Institutes, and their federal sponsor agencies, stand to benefit from 
the best practices gleaned from the different operational models 
adopted.

Proposed Process for Alliance Model Institutes

    1. Information about the application process will be on the 
Manufacturing USA website.
    2. Interested applicants can apply at any time.
    3. Applications will be evaluated by a panel of Federal employees 
against evaluation criteria to be determined. If additional information 
is needed, it can be requested by the panel.
    4. Applicants will be notified of the decision with regard to the 
review.
    5. If an applicant is selected for as an alliance institute, a 
binding Memorandum of Understanding will be executed by the applicant 
and NIST. A template MOU will be made available on the website along 
with instructions.
    6. The addition is announced and added to appropriate messaging as 
a network member.
    7. An orientation to the network will be provided by Advanced 
Manufacturing National Program Office to each new member.

Request for Information

    Respondents are encouraged--but are not required--to respond to 
each question and to present their answers after each question. The 
following questions cover the major areas about which NIST seeks 
comment. Respondents may organize their submissions in response to this 
RFI in any manner. Responses may include estimates, which should be 
identified as such.
    All responses that comply with the requirements listed in the DATES 
and ADDRESSES sections of this RFI will be considered.
    NIST is interested in receiving responses to the following 
questions from the stakeholder community:
    1. Congress has defined specific goals and activities for federally 
sponsored Manufacturing USA Institutes. Which of these goals and 
activities should be minimal requirements for ``alliance pathway'' 
institutes?
    2. Should all Manufacturing USA Institutes brought into the network 
under an ``alliance pathway'' follow the same process? If not, what 
should be the differences?
    3. Who/what types of entities should be eligible to join the 
Manufacturing USA network using the ''alliance pathway''?
    4. What additional opportunities should be considered for a 
Manufacturing USA alliance institute? Technical projects? Education and 
workforce efforts? Others?
    5. Should joining the Manufacturing USA network change any aspect 
of how a current organization operates?
    6. What, if any, administrative, reporting, and meeting 
responsibilities should be required for the alliance institutes? For 
those responsibilities, what technical or other support should NIST 
provide to assist the alliance institutes?
    7. Should institutes joining the Manufacturing USA network be able 
to accept projects or funding from foreign entities? If so, under what 
terms should foreign entities be able to participate?
    8. If an existing organization becomes a member of Manufacturing 
USA via the ``alliance pathway,'' should that organization still be 
eligible to apply to be a fully funded institute under a competition 
sponsored by a federal agency?
    9. How might the alliance pathway be structured to ease entry to 
the network by manufacturing centers that specifically address 
underrepresented technology areas of importance to U.S. manufacturers, 
or that increase the geographic reach and accessibility of the Network 
to underserved customers and communities?
    10. What types of relationships should exist, or be required, 
between applicant entities and other federal manufacturing programs, 
such as NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)?
    11. Does the proposed process, as described in this notice, seem 
appropriate? Any suggestions for changes?

[[Page 11346]]

    12. Applications will be evaluated by a panel using evaluation 
criteria that has yet to be determined. What are some relevant 
evaluation criteria for use in this process?
    13. Do you have any other comments or suggestions related to this 
proposed approach?

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 278s, as amended.

Kevin A. Kimball,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2020-03896 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-13-P