Bipartisan manufacturing bill moves forward

America Makes in Youngstown, Ohio, is dedicated to researching and commercializing additive manufacturing and 3D printing technologies. It is one of the 14 "manufacturing institutes" created by the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014. American Makes and its sister organizations might see more funding in the near future if a bipartisan bill becomes law.

A manufacturing bill with Democratic and Republican support is starting to move through Congress. The bill would reauthorize and make some changes to the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act (RAMI Act).

Congress passed the RAMI Act in December 2014. It set the stage for the establishment of 14 manufacturing institutes around the U.S., each designed to invigorate investment and research in various advanced manufacturing sectors. The effort was set up under the umbrella of “Manufacturing USA.” The RAMI bill authorized the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Defense (DOD) to each provide funds appropriated by Congress to the 14 institutes for terms of five to seven years.

The House Science Committee passed the American Manufacturing Leadership Act (H.R. 2397), sponsored by Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., in late spring. The bill passed on a noncontroversial voice vote. The bill would increase the authorization levels that both the DOC and DOE could spend, and it would make other changes to reach out to small and medium-sized manufacturers. For example, working with manufacturers served by the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership is encouraged, and any advanced technologies developed by the institutes are to be made available to the same small and medium-sized companies.

The DOC’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) received $15 million in fiscal 2019 to spend on the institutes. (The DOC manages the institutes program for the DOE and DOD.) The Stevens bill would bump that up to $25 million for each year between fiscal 2020 and 2023. The DOE level would grow to $70 million for each of the fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and $84 million for each of the fiscal years 2022 and 2023. The DOE did not respond to a question on what was actually appropriated for fiscal 2019. Appropriations can be up to an authorization level, but often are short of those ceilings.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report in May 2019 evaluating the Manufacturing USA program. Its main findings are that NIST, DOE, and DOD “had not developed criteria to evaluate whether the institutes will be able to sustain their operations.” Lack of that criteria and using it to determine the chances of long-term sustainability, possibly in the event of reduced federal funding, might make congressional appropriators hesitant to provide more money even if the authorization levels for the DOC and DOE should increase. (DOD authorization is not in the Stevens bill.) That potential reality influenced a recommendation from the GAO that the NIST “develop and implement network-wide performance goals for the Manufacturing USA program with measurable targets and time frames.”

The Stevens bill seems to answer that by requiring the federal agency that has committed money to a particular institute “shall develop and implement metrics-based performance standards to assess the effectiveness of activities funded in making progress toward the purposes of the program."

No Changes in Coatings Emissions for Two Metal Fab Sectors

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided not to change two air toxic emission standards for two metal fabrication sectors: manufacturers that coat metal cans and metal coil.

The agency estimates five domestic metal can coaters and 41 metal coil coaters in the U.S. are currently subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) first established in 2002. NESHAP sets limitations on factory emissions of chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, and other health effects.

The EPA’s latest announcement on June 4 was the result of separate health and technology reviews to see whether NESHAP should be tightened. In both instances, the answer was no based on the unavailability of any better control technology than existed in 2002 and the finding that emissions of volatile organic compounds from these types of facilities did not seem to have an adverse effect on the nearby environment. The only add-on requirement the agency imposes has to do with electronic reporting of various details.