(a) The National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) has been assigned the following functions (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.):

(1) The custody, maintenance, and development of the national standards of measurement, and the provision of means and methods for making measurements consistent with those standards, including the comparison of standards used in scientific investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, and educational institutions with the standards adopted or recognized by the Government.

(2) The determination of physical constants and properties of materials when such data are of great importance to scientific or manufacturing interests and are not to be obtained with sufficient accuracy elsewhere.

(3) The development of methods for testing materials, mechanisms, and structures, and the testing of materials, supplies, and equipment, including items purchased for use of Government departments and independent establishments.

(4) Cooperation with other governmental agencies and with private organizations in the establishment of standard practices, incorporated in codes and specifications.

(5) Advisory service to Government agencies on scientific and technical problems.

(6) Invention and development of devices to serve special needs of the Government.

(b) The calibration and testing activities of NIST stem from the functions in paragraphs (a) (1) and (3) of this section. NIST provides the central basis within the United States for a complete and consistent system of measurement; coordinates that system, and the measurement systems of other nations; and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform physical measurements throughout this Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce.

(c) The provision of standard reference materials for sale to the public is assigned to the Office of Standard Reference Materials of the National Measurement Laboratory, NIST. That Office evaluates the requirements of science and industry for carefully characterized reference materials, stimulates efforts of NIST to develop methods for production of needed reference materials and directs their production and distribution. For further information on standard reference materials see Subchapter B, Chapter II, Part 230, of this title.

(a) The NIST staff continually reviews the advances in science and the trends in technology, examines the measurement potentialities of newly discovered physical phenomena, and uses these to devise and improve standards, measuring devices, and measurement techniques. As new requirements appear, there are continual shifts of program emphasis to meet the most urgent needs for the measurement of additional quantities, extended ranges, or improved accuracies.

(b) The basic research and development activities of NIST are primarily funded by direct appropriations, and are aimed at meeting broad general needs. NIST may also undertake investigations or developments to meet some specialized physical measurement problem of another Government agency, industrial group, or manufacturing firm, using funds supplied by the requesting organization.

(a) NIST has developed instrumentation and techniques for realizing standards for the seven base units of the International System of Units, as agreed upon by the General Conference of Weights and Measures. Reference standards have been established not only for these seven base units, but also for many derived quantities and their multiples and submultiples. Such reference standards, or equivalent working standards, are used to calibrate laboratory and plant standards for other organizations. Accuracy is maintained by stability checks, by comparison with the standards of other national and international laboratories, and by the exploration of alternative techniques as a means of reducing possible systematic error.

(b) Calibrations for many types of instruments and ranges of physical quantities are described in the NIST Special Publication 250 (SP 250). (See § 200.115 for details relating to the description of service items and listing of fees.)

(c) In recent years NIST has offered to the public new measurement services called measurement assurance programs. These programs are designed for laboratories whose measurement process involves the calibration of other standards. A measurement assurance program is a measurement quality control process. By use of carefully designed redundant measurements and measurements made on NIST transport standards a total uncertainty of the laboratories measurement process can be determined by NIST. The results of these tests are then reported to the customer as uncertainties of the customer's measurements relative to national standards.

(d) Special measurements not listed in SP 250 may be made upon request. These might involve unusual physical quantities, upper or lower extremes of range, higher levels of accuracy, fast response speeds, short durations, broader ranges of associated parameters, or special environmental conditions. Such inquiries should describe clearly the measurement desired. Indication of the scientific or economic basis for the requirements to be satisfied will be helpful in determining future NIST programs. Fees for work accepted will be based upon actual costs incurred.

(e) The principal emphasis of NIST is on those calibrations and other tests requiring such accuracy as can be obtained only by direct comparison with its standards.

(f) Other services which may be obtained include:

(1) Tests of measuring instruments to determine compliance with specifications or claims, when the evaluation is critical in national scientific or technical operations, and when suitable facilities are not available elsewhere; and

(2) Referee tests in important cases when clients are unable to agree upon the method of measurement, the results of tests, or the interpretation of these results, but have agreed in advance in writing to accept and abide by the findings of NIST.

(g) NIST reserves the right to decline any request for services if the work would interfere with other activities deemed by the Director to be of greater importance. In general, measurement services are not provided when available from commercial laboratories.

(h) Suggestions will be offered on measurement techniques and on other sources of assistance on calibration or measurement problems when the equipment and personnel of NIST are unable to undertake the work. The National Conference of Standards Laboratories issues a Directory of Standards Laboratories in the United States which perform calibration work (obtainable from NCSL Secretariat, c/o National Institute of Standards & Technology, Boulder, CO 80303). Those laboratories which perform testing are listed in the ASTM Directory of Testing Laboratories, Commercial and Institutional. (Directory available from the Amercian Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.) Similar listings appear in buyer's guides for commercial products and in technical journals concerned with physical measurement.

(a) In areas of its special competence, NIST offers consulting and advisory services on various problems related to measurement, e.g., details of design and construction, operational aspects, unusual or extreme conditions, methods of statistical control of the measurement process, automated acquisition of laboratory data, and data reduction and analysis by computer. Brief consultation may be obtained at no charge; the fee for extended effort will be based upon actual costs incurred. The services outlined in this paragraph do not include services in connection with legal proceedings not involving the United States as a named party, nor to testimony or the production of data, information, or records in such legal proceedings which is governed by the policies and procedures set forth in Subchapter H, Chapter II, Part 275, of this title.

(b) To enhance the competence of standards laboratory personnel, NIST conducts at irregular intervals several group seminars on the precision measurement of specific types of physical quantities, offering the opportunity of laboratory observation and informal discussion. A brochure describing the current series of seminars can be obtained by writing the Office of Measurement Services, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20234.

Often the performance of a device or structure can be evaluated at the user's laboratory by comparing its response to unknown materials with its response to a stable, homogeneous reference specimen which has been well-characterized with regard to the physical or chemical property being measured. For information regarding carefully characterized materials see Subchapter B, Chapter II, Part 230, of this title. The Office of Standard Reference Materials in the NIST National Measurement Laboratory administers a program to provide many types of well-characterized materials that are needed to calibrate a measurement system or to produce scientific data that can be readily referred to a common base. NIST SP 260 is a catalog of Standard Reference Materials available from NIST.

Data on the physical and chemical properties of the large variety of substances used in science and technology need to be compiled and evaluated for application in research, development, engineering design, and commerce. The Office of Standard Reference Data (OSRD) in the NIST National Measurement Laboratory provides coordination of and access to a number of governmental and nongovernmental data centers throughout this country and the world which are responsive to user needs for data. The OSRD's present program is assembled under a series of tasks which include data for application in energy, environment and health, industrial process design, materials durability, and resource recovery. The subject data are disseminated as hard-copy information in the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, published jointly with the American Chemical Society and the American Institute of Physics, in the National Standard Reference Data System reports as the NSRDS-NIST series, and as NIST special reports. Magnetic tapes of data on selected topics are also issued through the OSRD and the National Technical Information Service. A newsletter, “Reference Data Report,” is issued bimonthly describing current activities. Information concerning the above is available upon request from the OSRD.

Publications provide the primary means of communicating the results of the NIST programs and services to its varied technical audiences, as well as to the general public. NIST issues some fifteen categories of publications including three periodicals, ten non-periodicals series, interagency reports, and papers in the journals and books of professional organizations, technological associations, and commercial publications. The calibration services, standard reference materials and related measurement services along with changes and fees are published in two Special Publications (SP's) and their supplements. These are SP 250 “Calibration and Related Measurement Services of the National Institute of Standards & Technology” 1 and SP 260 “NIST Standard Reference Materials Catalog.” 1 A complete catalog of all publications by NIST authors is issued annually as a supplement to SP 305 “Publications of the National Institute of Standards & Technology.” Announcements and listings of recent NIST publications and services are published in each issue of the bimonthly “NIST Journal of Research” 2 and the NIST monthly magazine, “Dimensions/NIST” 2. Complete citations to NIST publications, along with information on availability are published bimonthly in the “NIST Publications Newsletter”, available free from the Technical Information and Publications Division, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20234. NIST publications are also announced (with abstracts) in “Government Reports Announcements and Index” published every two weeks by the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161 3 . NTIS also sells microfiche copies of all NIST GPO-published documents, as well as paper copy and microfiche versions of NIST Interagency Reports.

(a) Technical services. The NIST radio stations WWV at Fort Collins, Colorado, and WWVH on the island of Kauai, Hawaii, broadcast a number of technical services continuously night and day. These services are:

(1) Standard radio frequencies, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20, MHz (WWV) and 2.5, 5, 10, and 15 MHz (WWVH); (2) standard time signals; (3) time intervals; (4) UTI corrections; (5) standard audio frequencies; (6) standard musical pitch; (7) a slow time code; (8) Omega Navigation System status reports; (9) geophysical alerts; and (10) marine storm warnings. NIST also broadcasts time and frequency signals from its low frequency station, WWVB, also located at Fort Collins, Colorado.

(2) [Reserved]

(b) Time announcements. Once per minute voice announcements are made from WWV and WWVH. The two stations are distinguished by a female voice from WWVH and a male voice from WWV. The WWVH announcement occurs first, at 15 seconds before the minute, while the WWV announcement occurs at 71/2 seconds before the minute. Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) is used in these announcements.

(c) Time corrections. The UTC time scale operates on atomic frequency, but by means of step adjustments is made to approximate the astronomical UTI scale. It may disagree from UTI by as much as 0.9 second before step adjustments of exactly 1 second are made. These adjustments, or leap seconds are required about once per year and will usually be made on December 31 or June 30. For those who need astronomical time more accurately than 0.9 second, a correction to UTC is encoded by the use of double ticks after the start of each minute. The first through the eighth seconds ticks will indicate a “plus” correction, and from the ninth through the 16th a “minus” correction. The correction is determined by counting the number of double ticks. For example, if the first, second, and third ticks are doubled, the correction is “plus” 0.3 second. If the ninth, 10th, 11th, and 12th ticks are doubled, the correction is “minus” 0.4 second.

(d) Standard time intervals. An audio pulse (5 cycles of 1000 Hz on WWV and 6 cycles of 1200 Hz on WWVH), resembling the ticking of a clock, occurs each second of the minute except on the 29th and 59th seconds. Each of these 5-millisecond second pulses occur within a 40-millisecond period, wherein all other modulation (voice or tone) is removed from the carrier. These pulses begin 10 milliseconds after the modulation interruption. A long pulse (0.8 second) marks the beginning of each minute.

(e) Standard frequencies. All carrier and audio frequencies occur at their nominal values according to the International System of Units (SI). For periods of 45-second duration, either 500-Hz or 600-Hz audio tones are broadcast in alternate minutes during most of each hour. A 440-Hz tone, the musical pitch A above middle C, is broadcast once per hour near the beginning of the hour.

(f) Accuracy and stability. The time and frequency broadcasts are controlled by the NIST atomic frequency standards, which realize the internationally defined cesium resonance frequency with an accuracy of 1 part in 10 13. The frequencies transmitted by WWV and WWVH are held stable to better than ±2 parts in 10 11 at all times. Deviations at WWV are normally less than 1 part in 10 12 from day to day. Incremental frequency adjustments not exceeding 1 part in 10 12 are made at WWV and WWVH as necessary. Changes in the propagation medium (causing Doppler effect, diurnal shifts, etc.) result in fluctuations in the carrier frequencies as received which may be very much greater than the uncertainties described above.

(g) Slow time code. A modified IRIG H time code occurs continuously on a 100-Hz subcarrier. The format is 1 pulse per second with a 1-minute time frame. It gives day of the year, hours, and minutes in binary coded decimal form.

(h) Omega announcements. Omega Navigation System status reports are broadcast in voice from WWV at 16 minutes after the hour and from WWVH at 47 minutes after the hour. The international Omega Navigation System is a very low frequency (VLF) radio navigation aid operating in the 10 to 14 kHz frequency band. Eight stations are in operation around the world. Omega, like other radio navigation systems, is subject to signal degradation caused by ionospheric disturbances at high latitudes. The Omega announcements on WWV and WWVH are given to provide users with immediate notification of such events and other information on the status of the Omega system.

(i) Geophysical alerts. These occur in voice at the 18th minute of each hour from WWV. They point out outstanding events which are in process, followed by a summary of selected solar and geophysical events in the past 24 hours and a forecast for the next 24 hours. They are provided by the Space Environment Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, CO 80303.

(j) Marine storm information. Weather information about major storms in the Atlantic and eastern North Pacific are broadcast in voice from WWV at 8, 9, and 10 minutes after each hour. Similar storm warnings covering the eastern and central North Pacific are given from WWVH at 48, 49, and 50 minutes after each hour. An additional segment (at 11 minutes after the hour on WWV and at 51 minutes on WWVH) may be used when there are unusually widespread storm conditions. The brief messages are designed to tell mariners of storm threats in their areas. If there are no warnings in the designated areas, the broadcasts will so indicate. The ocean areas involved are those for which the U.S. has warning responsibility under international agreement. The regular times of issue by the National Weather Service are 0500, 1100, 1700, and 2300 UTC for WWV and 0000, 0600, 1200, and 1800 UTC for WWVH. These broadcasts are updated effective with the next scheduled announcement following the time of issue.

(k) “Silent” periods. These are periods with no tone modulation during which the carrier, seconds ticks, minute time announcements, and 100 Hz modified IRIG H time code continue. They occur during the 16th through the 20th minute on WWVH and the 46th through the 51st minute on WWV.

(l) WWVB. This station (antenna coordinates 40°40′28.3″ N., 105°02′39.5″ W.; radiated power 12 kw.) broadcasts on 60 kHz. Its time scale is the same as for WWV and WWVH, and its frequency accuracy and stability are the same. Its entire format consists of a 1 pulse per second special binary time code giving minutes, hours, days, and the correction between its UTC time scale and UTI astronomical time. Identification of WWVB is made by its unique time code and a 45° carrier phase shift which occurs for the period between 10 minutes and 15 minutes after each hour. The useful coverage area of WWVB is within the continental United States. Propagation fluctuations are much less with WWVB than with high-frequency reception, permitting frequency comparisons to be made to a few parts in 10 11 per day.

(m) Special Publication 432. This publication describes in detail the standard frequency and time service of NIST. Single copies may be obtained at no charge upon request from the National Institute of Standards & Technology, Time & Frequency Services Group, 524.06, Boulder, CO 80303. Quantities may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, at a nominal charge per copy.

(a) A formal purchase order for the calibration or test should be sent before or at the time the instrument or standard is shipped. The purchase order should provide clear identification of the apparatus being submitted, and give separate instructions for return shipment, mailing of report, and billing. If a customer wishes to minimize the time during which the equipment is out of service, the customer can usually arrange to be notified of the scheduled test date to allow timely shipment. (See § 200.110.) Requests from Federal agencies, or from State agencies, for calibrations or tests on material to be used on private or Federal contract work should be accompanied either by purchase order or by letter or document authorizing the cost of the work to be billed to the agency.

(b) The submission of a purchase order for measurement services under this subchapter shall be understood as constituting an agreement on the part of the customer to be bound by the restrictions on the use of results as set forth in § 200.113 of this part. Acceptance of purchase orders does not imply acceptance of any provisions set forth in the order contrary to the policy, practice, or regulations of NIST or the U.S. Government. (A statement to the effect that NIST is an agency of the U.S. Government should satisfy other Government agencies with regard to compliance with Government regulations and Executive orders.)

(c) A test number will be assigned by NIST to each instrument or group of similar instruments or standards when the order is accepted. This test number should be referred to in all subsequent communications. Also, each instrument in a group must be uniquely identified, usually by the manufacturer's name and instrument serial number. When the serial number is lacking, an alternative identifying mark should be provided. If none is found, NIST will mark the piece with an NIST identification number. If the apparatus submitted has been previously calibrated by NIST, the serial number or identifying mark should be given on the new order, so that a continuing record of stability history can be established.

(d) Inquiries for measurement services should be directed to the NIST address listed in the various sections of the Appendix to SP 250.

(a) Shipment of apparatus to NIST for calibration or other test should be made only after the customer has accepted the estimate of cost and the tentative scheduling. Repairs and adjustments on apparatus submitted should be attended to by the owner, since NIST will not undertake them except by special arrangement. Apparatus not in good condition will not be calibrated. If defects are found after calibration has begun, the effort may be terminated, a report issued summarizing such information as has been found, and a fee charged in accordance with the amount of work done.

(b) The customer should pack apparatus sent to NIST so as to minimize the likelihood of damage in shipment and handling. Suggestions on packing and shipping are made in some sections of SP 250. In every case, the sender should consider the nature of the apparatus, pack it accordingly, and clearly label shipments containing fragile instruments or materials, such as glass and the like.

(c) To minimize damage during shipment resulting from inadequate packing, the use of strong reusable containers is recommended. As an aid in preventing loss of such containers, the customer's name should be legibly and permanently marked on the outside. In order to prolong the container's use the notation “REUSABLE CONTAINER, DO NOT DESTROY” should be marked on the outside.

(d) Shipping and insurance coverage instructions should be clearly and legibly shown on the purchase order for the calibration or test. The customer must pay shipping charges to and from NIST; shipments from NIST will be made collect. The method of return transportation should be stated, and it is recommeded that return shipments be insured, since NIST will not assume liability for their loss or damage. For long-distance shipping it is found that air express and air freight provide an advantage in reduction of time in transit. If return shipment by parcel post is requested or is a suitable mode of transportation, shipments will be prepaid by NIST, but without covering insurance. When no shipping or insurance instructions are furnished, return shipment will be made by common carrier collect, but uninsured.

(e) NIST will not be responsible for the risk of loss or damage to any item during shipment to or from NIST. Any arrangements for insurance covering this risk must be made by the customer. Return shipment will be made by NIST as indicated in paragraph (d) of this section. The purchase order should always show the value of the equipment, and if transit insurance is carried by the customer, this fact should be stated.

(f) The risk of loss or damage in handling or testing of any item by NIST must be assumed by the customer, except when it is determined by NIST that such loss or damage was occasioned solely by the negligence of NIST personnel.

(g) When a test number has been assigned prior to shipment to NIST, this number should be clearly marked on the shipping container. When a test number has not been assigned, an invoice, copy of the purchase order, or letter should be enclosed in the shipment to insure proper identification. The original purchase order should be forwarded as appropriate to:

(h) The calibrations listed in SP 250 are performed at Boulder, Colorado and Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Schedule work assignments for calibrations and other tests will generally be made in the order in which confirmed requests are received. However, Government work may be given priority. On the regular services, the workload is usually such that the turn-around interval, between the date a customer's apparatus is received and the date it is prepared for return shipment, will be not more than 45 days. Some types of instruments may require considerably longer, particularly if their abnormal behavior requires reruns to check reliability. The customer who can spare the instrument for only a short time can usually arrange by letter or telephone call for shipping it to NIST just as the assigned starting date approaches. A notice will be sent acknowledging receipt of the customer's standard and/or purchase order. If both a confirmed purchase order (or equivalent) and the apparatus have been received, estimates of the completion date and the calibration fee will be sent upon request.

NIST welcomes scientists and engineers who may wish to visit its laboratories and discuss its methods. Ordinarily visitors will not be permitted to witness the actual carrying out of highly precise measurements because their presence introduces distraction that may lead to errors or delays. This policy may be waived in those cases where NIST determines that the visitor can be of service in setting up apparatus of a new or unusual nature, in the case of referee tests, or in other cases in which the legal validity of the result may require the presence of duly authorized witnesses.

(a) Results of calibrations and other tests are issued to the customer as formal reports entitled, “National Institute of Standards & Technology Report of Calibration,” “National Institute of Standards & Technology Report of Test,” or “National Institute of Standards & Technology Report of Analysis,” as appropriate. Copies are not supplied to other parties except under applicable Federal law. Whenever formal certification is required by law, or to meet special conditions adjudged by NIST to warrant it, a letter will be provided certifying that the particular item was received and calibrated or tested, and identifying the report containing the results.

(b) NIST reports of calibration generally include in sentence form a statement of the uncertainty attached to the numerical values reported. Limits of uncertainty usually comprise an estimate of systematic error plus a value of imprecision. Details on how these estimates are arrived at are in many cases included in the calibration report. Additional information may be found in SP 250.

(c) The NIST practice is to express data given in calibration or test reports in the SI or International System of Units. The International System of Units (SI) was defined and given official status by the 11th General Conference of Weights and Measures, 1960. A complete listing of SI units is presented in detail in NIST SP 330. The NIST will express data in SI units unless this makes communication excessively complicated. For example, commercial gage designations, commonly used items identified by nominal dimensions, or other commercial nomenclatures or devices (such as drill sizes, or commercial standards for weights and measures) expressed in customary units are an exception from this practice. However, even in such instances, when practical and meaningful, SI and customary units may be given in parallel. Users of NIST calibration services may specify the units to be used in the calibration, especially for commercial devices and standards using customary units or units having some legal definition.

(a) As the national standards laboratory of the United States, NIST maintains and establishes the primary standards from which measurements in science and industry ultimately derive. It is therefore sometimes desirable for manufacturers or users of measurement standards to make appropriate reference to the relationship of their calibrations to NIST calibrations. The following considerations must be borne in mind, and shall be understood as constituting an agreement on the part of the NIST customer to be bound thereby in making reference to NIST calibration and test reports.

(b) The results of calibrations and tests performed by NIST are intended solely for the use of the organization requesting them, and apply only to a particular device or specimen at the time of its test. The results shall not be used to indicate or imply that they are applicable to other similar items. In addition, such results must not be used to indicate or imply that NIST approves, recommends, or endorses the manufacturer, the supplier, or the user of such devices or specimens, or that NIST in any way “guarantees” the later performance of items after calibration or test.

(c) NIST declares it to be in the national interest that it maintain an impartial position with respect to any commercial product. Advertising the findings on a single instrument could be misinterpreted as an indication of performance of other instruments of identical or similar type. There will be no objection, however, to a statement that the manufacturer's primary standards have been periodically calibrated by NIST, if this is actually the case, or that the customer might arrange to have NIST calibrate the item purchased from the manufacturer.

(d) NIST does not approve, recommend, or endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material. No reference shall be made to NIST, or to reports or results furnished by NIST in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NIST approves, recommends, or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary material, or which has as its purpose an intent to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of NIST test reports or results.

(a) In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 271 et seq., fees are charged for all measurement services performed by NIST, unless waived by the Director, or the Director's designee, when deemed to be in the interest of the Government. The above-mentioned statutes authorize the issuance from time to time of appropriate regulations regarding the payment of fees, the limits of tolerance on standards submitted for verification, and related matters.

(b) The minimum fee for any service request accepted by NIST is $10, unless otherwise indicated in SP 250. If apparatus is returned without testing, a minimum charge of $10 may be made to cover handling. Charges commensurate with the work performed will be assessed for calibrations which cannot be completed because of faulty operation of the customer's device. Fees for calibrations or tests include the cost of preparation of an NIST report. Remittances should be made payable to the National Institute of Standards & Technology.

(a) NIST Special Publication 250, “Calibration and Related Measurement Services of the National Institute of Standards & Technology” is hereby incorporated by reference, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and 1 CFR Part 51. SP 250 states the authority under which NIST performs various types of measurement services including calibrations and tests and charges fees therefor, states the general conditions under which the public may secure such services, decribes these services in considerable detail, and lists the fees to be charged, and sets out the instructions for requesting them in an appendix which is reviewed, revised and reissued semi-annually (December and June). The Director, Office of the Federal Register, approved the incorporation by reference on December 28, 1967.

(b) SP 250 is available at the following places:

(1) Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

(2) Technical Information and Publications Division, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20234.

(3) District Offices of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

(4) Federal Depository Libraries.

(c) Revisions of SP 250 will be issued from time to time by the National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20234.

(d) Further information concerning policies, procedures, services, and fees may be obtained by writing the Office of Measurement Services, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20234.

The act, “Pub. L. 228, 64th Congress,” approved August 23, 1916 (39 Stat. 530; 15 U.S.C. 237-242), entitled “An Act to standardize lime barrels,” shall be known and referred to as the “Standard Lime-Barrel Act.”

The rules and regulations in this part are to be understood and construed to apply to lime in barrels, or other containers packed, sold, or offered for sale for shipment from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia; and to lime in containers of less capacity than the standard small barrel sold in interstate or foreign commerce; and to lime imported in barrels from a foreign country and sold or offered for sale; also to lime not in barrels or containers of less capacity than the standard small barrel, sold, charged for, or purported to be delivered as a large or small barrel or a fractional part of said small barrel of lime, from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory or the District of Columbia.

Lime in barrels shall be packed only in barrels containing 280 pounds or 180 pounds, net weight. For the purposes of this section the word “barrel” is defined as a cylindrical or approximately cylindrical vessel, cask or drum.

(a) The term container of less capacity than the standard small barrel, as mentioned in section 3 of the law and as used in the rules and regulations in this part, is defined as any container not in barrel form containing therein a net weight of lime of less than 180 pounds.

(b) The term label as used in the rules and regulations in this part is defined as any printed, pictorial, or other matter upon the surface of a barrel or other container of lime subject to the provisions of this act, or upon cloth or paper or the like which is permanently affixed to it by pasting or in a similar manner.

(c) The term tag is defined as a tough and strong strip of cloth or paper or the like, bearing any printed, pictorial, or other matter, which is loose at one end and which is secured to a container of lime subject to the provisions of the act.

(a) The lettering required upon barrels of lime by section 2 of the law shall be as follows: The statement of net weight shall be in boldface capital letters and figures at least 1 inch in height and not expanded or condensed; it shall be clear, legible, and permanent, and so placed with reference to the other lettering that it is conspicuous. The name of the manufacturer of the lime and where manufactured, and, if imported, the name of the country from which it is imported, shall be in boldface letters at least one-half inch in height and not expanded or condensed, and shall be clear, legible, conspicuous, and permanent. None of these letters and figures shall be superimposed upon each other, nor shall any other characters be superimposed upon the required lettering or otherwise obscure it. All the above statements shall form parts of the principal label.

(b) The information required upon containers of lime of less capacity than the standard small barrel by section 3 of the law shall be included in a label: Provided, however, That in order to allow the utilization of second-hand or returnable bags made of cloth, burlap, or the like, such information may be upon a tag firmly attached to the container in a prominent and conspicuous position. In case a tag is used to give the required information there must not be any label or another tag upon the container which bears any statement having reference to lime, or any statement of weight whatever, which is not identical with the information upon the tag mentioned above; if a container is to be utilized which bears any such inaccurate information upon a label, such container shall be turned inside out or such information shall be obliterated in so far as it is inaccurate by blotting out the letters or figures; or if such inaccurate information is upon a tag, by removing such tag.

(c) If the required lettering is upon a label, the statement of net weight shall be in bold-face capital letters and figures at least three-fourths inch in height and not expanded or condensed; it shall be clear, legible, and permanent, and so placed with reference to the other lettering that it is conspicuous. The word “net” shall form part of the statement of weight. The name of the manufacturer of the lime and the name of the brand, if any, under which it is sold, and, if imported, the name of the country from which it is imported, shall be in bold face letters at least one-half inch in height and not expanded or condensed, and shall be clear, legible, conspicuous, and permanent. None of these letters and figures shall be superimposed upon each other, nor shall any other characters be superimposed upon the required lettering or otherwise obscure it. All the above statements shall form parts of the principal label.

(d) If the required lettering is upon a tag, the statement of net weight shall be in bold-face capital letters and figures not less than one-half the height of the largest letters or figures used upon such tag: Provided, however, That in every case they shall be not less than one-eighth inch in height (12-point capitals), and not expanded or condensed. The word “net” shall form part of the statement of weight. The statement shall be clear, legible, and permanent, and so placed with reference to the other lettering that it is conspicuous. The name of the manufacturer of the lime, and the name of the brand, if any, under which it sold, and, if imported, the name of the country from which it is imported, shall be in bold-face letters and figures not less than one-eighth inch in height (12-point capitals), and not expanded or condensed, and shall be clear, legible, conspicuous, and permanent. None of these letters and figures shall be superimposed upon each other nor shall any other characters be superimposed upon the required lettering or otherwise obscure it. All the above statements shall be included upon the same side of the tag.

(e) In case the lime is actually packed in barrels or in containers of less capacity than the standard small barrel by some person other than the manufacturer of the lime, the information mentioned above must be given in the manner there described, and in addition there must be a statement to this effect: “Packed by __________” (giving the name and address of the packer). This statement shall be in letters not smaller than is specified for the general statement required in the case of barrels and containers of less capacity than the standard small barrel, respectively (see paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section); it shall not be obscured and shall form part of the principal label or be upon the same side of the tag as in those cases provided.

(f) In the case of all lime sold in barrels, the actual place of manufacture of the lime shall be stated on the barrel. In general, this will be the name of the post office nearest or most accessible to the plant. However, when the actual place of manufacture of the lime and the offices of the company are separated but are within the boundaries of the same county of a State, or when, though not within the boundaries of the same county they are so close together that the post-office address of the offices represents substantially and to all intents and purposes the actual place of manufacture of the lime, then the post-office address of the offices of the company will be sufficient: Provided, however, That the address given shall always correctly show the State in which the lime is actually manufactured.

(g) More than one place of manufacture of a manufacturer shall not be shown on the same barrel unless the one at which the particular lime in question is manufactured is pointed out.

(h) If the location of the home offices is stated and this is not the place of manufacture within the meaning of the above definition, an additional statement must be included to this effect: “Manufactured at __________” (giving the location of the plant).

(a) When lime is packed in barrels the tolerance to be allowed on the large barrel or the small barrel of lime shall be 5 pounds in excess or in deficiency on any individual barrel: Provided, however, That the average error on 10 barrels of the same nominal weight and packed by the same manufacturer shall in no case be greater than 2 pounds in excess or in deficiency. In case all the barrels available are not weighed, those which are weighed shall be selected at random.

(b) When lime is packed in containers of less capacity than the standard small barrel, the tolerance to be allowed in excess or in deficiency on individual containers of various weights, shall be the values given in the column headed “Tolerance on individual package,” of the following table: Provided, however, That the average error on 10 containers of the same nominal weight and packed by the same manufacturer shall in no case be greater than the values given in the column headed “Tolerance on average weight,” of the following table. In case all the containers available are not weighed, those which are weighed shall be selected at random.

(c) When lime in bulk is sold, charged for, or purported to be delivered as a definite number of large or small barrels, the tolerance to be allowed in excess or in deficiency on such amounts of lime shall be 15 pounds per 1,800 pounds (10 small barrels), or 25 pounds per 2,800 pounds (10 large barrels).

(a) The capacities of the standard barrel for fruits, vegetables, and other dry commodities, other than cranberries, and its subdivisions, are as follows:

(a) Any barrel having the dimensions specified for a standard barrel for fruits, vegetables, and other dry commodities, other than cranberries, in section 1 of the standard-barrel law, or any barrel or a subdivision thereof having the contents specified in section 1 of the standard-barrel law and in § 241.1(a) regardless of its form or dimensions, is a legal standard barrel for fruits, vegetables, or other dry commodities other than cranberries, or a legal subdivision thereof. No other barrel or subdivision in barrel form is a legal container for fruits, vegetables, or other dry commodities other than cranberries.

(b) Any barrel having the dimensions specified for a standard barrel for cranberries in section 1 of the standard-barrel law, or any subdivision thereof having the contents specified in § 241.1(b), regardless of its form or dimensions, is a legal standard barrel for cranberries or a legal subdivision thereof. No other barrel or subdivision in barrel form is a legal container for cranberries.

The tolerance established in this part for the dimension specified as “distance between heads” shall be applied as follows on the various types of barrels in use:

(a) When a barrel or subdivision thereof has two heads, the tolerance shall be applied to the distance between the inside surfaces of the heads and perpendicular to them.

(b) When a barrel or subdivision thereof has but one head and a croze ring or other means for the insertion of a head, such as an inside hoop, etc., at the opposite end, the tolerance shall be applied to the distance from the inside surface of the bottom head and perpendicular to it to the inside edge of the croze ring, or to a point where the inside surface of a head would come were such head inserted in the barrel.

(c) When a barrel or subdivision thereof has but one head and no croze ring or other means for the insertion of a head, such as an inside hoop, etc., at the opposite end, the tolerance shall be applied to the distance from the inside surface of the bottom head and perpendicular to it to a point 11/8 inches from the opposite end of the staves in the case of a barrel or a 3/4 barrel, and to a point 1 inch or 7/8 inch from the opposite end of the staves in the case of the 1/2 barrel and 1/3 barrel, respectively. When a barrel or subdivision thereof has been manufactured with but one head and no croze ring or other means for the insertion of a head at the opposite end, and it is desired to insert a second head, the croze ring shall be so cut that the inside edge shall not be more than 11/8 inches from the end of the staves in the case of a barrel or 3/4 barrel or not more than 1 inch or 7/8 inch from the end of the staves in the case of the 1/2 barrel and 1/3 barrel, respectively, or the other means shall be so adjusted that the inside surface of the head when inserted shall not exceed these distances from the end of the staves.

(a) The tolerance established in this part for the dimension specified as “diameter of head” shall be applied to the diameter of the head over all, including the part which fits into the croze ring of the completed barrel.

(b) The tolerance established in this part for the dimension specified as “effective diameter of head” shall be applied as follows on the various types of barrels and subdivisions in use;

(1) When a barrel or subdivision thereof has two heads, the tolerance shall be applied to the mean of the average diameters from inside to inside of staves at the inner edges of the heads.

(2) When a barrel or subdivision thereof has but one head and a croze ring or other means for the insertion of a head at the opposite end, the tolerance shall be applied to the mean of the average diameters, one taken from inside to inside of staves at the inner edge of the head, the other from inside to inside of staves at the inner edge of the croze ring, or from inside to inside of staves at a point where the inside surface of a head would come were such head inserted in the barrel.

(3) When a barrel or subdivision thereof has but one head and no croze ring or other means for the insertion of a head at the opposite end, the tolerance shall be applied to the mean of the average diameters, one taken from inside to inside of staves at the inner edge of the head, the other taken from inside to inside of staves at a point 11/8 inches from the end of the staves in the case of a barrel or 3/4 barrel, or at a point 1 inch or 7/8 inch from the end of the staves in the case of a 1/2 barrel or 1/3 barrel, respectively.

(c) The standard allowance for depth of croze ring shall be 3/16 inch. Therefore, the standard “effective diameter of head” in the case of the standard barrel is 163/4 inches and in the case of the standard cranberry barrel is 157/8 inches.

Whenever in the rules and regulations in this part the error on a dimension is mentioned, this error shall be determined by taking the difference between the actual measured dimension and the standard dimension. The error is an error in excess and is to be preceded by a plus sign when the measured dimension is greater than the standard dimension. The error is an error in deficiency and is to be preceded by a minus sign when the measured dimension is less than the standard dimension.

(a) The standard dimensions of a barrel for fruits, vegetables, and other dry commodities other than cranberries, and of a barrel for cranberries, with which the actual measured dimensions are to be compared, are as follows:

(b) In the case of all subdivisions of the barrel for fruits, vegetables, and other dry commodities other than cranberries, and all subdivisions of the barrel for cranberries, the following dimensions are hereby standardized for the purpose of the application of tolerances, and the actual measured dimensions are to be compared with these:

For the purpose of the application of tolerances, barrels for fruits, vegetables, and other dry commodities other than cranberries, are hereby divided into two classes as follows:

(a) Class 1 shall include (1) all barrels no dimension of which is in error by more than the following amounts, and (2) all barrels one or more of the dimensions of which are in error by more than the following amounts, and which in addition have no dimension in error in the opposite direction:

(b) Class 2 shall include all barrels at least one dimension of which is in error by more than the amounts given above, but which in addition have at least one dimension in error in the opposite direction. (This class includes all barrels mentioned in section 1 of the law in the proviso reading: “Provided, That any barrel of a different form having a capacity of seven thousand and fifty-six cubic inches shall be a standard barrel.”)

(a) The tolerances to be allowed in excess or in deficiency on the dimensions of all barrels of Class 1 shall be as follows:

(1) If no dimension of a barrel of Class 1 is in error by more than the tolerance given above, then the barrel is within the tolerance allowed.

(2) If one or more of the dimensions of a barrel of Class 1 is in error by more than the tolerance given above, then the barrel is not within the tolerance allowed.

(b) The tolerance to be allowed in excess or in deficiency on all barrels of Class 2 shall be 11/2 inches (1.5) inches, and this tolerance is to be applied to the result obtained by the application of the following rule:

(1) Having determined the errors of each dimension and given to each its proper sign (see § 241.4), add the errors on the effective diameter of head and the distance between heads algebraically and multiply the result by 1.67 (or 5/3). Then add this result to the error on the circumference of bulge algebraically. If the result obtained is not greater than the tolerance given above, then the barrel is within the tolerance allowed; if the result is greater than this tolerance, then the barrel is not within the tolerance allowed.

(2) [Reserved]

(c) The tolerance to be allowed in excess or in deficiency on the dimensions of all barrels for cranberries shall be as follows:

(1) If no dimension of a barrel for cranberries is in error by more than the tolerance given above, then the barrel is within the tolerance allowed.

(2) If one or more of the dimensions of a barrel for cranberries is in error by more than the tolerance given above, then the barrel is not within the tolerance allowed.

(d) The tolerances to be allowed in excess or in deficiency on all subdivisions of the standard barrel for fruits, vegetables, and other dry commodities other than cranberries, and on all subdivisions of the standard barrel for cranberries, shall be the values given in the following table, and these tolerances are to be applied to the result obtained by the application of the following rule:

(1) Having determined the errors on each dimension and given to each its proper sign (see § 241.5), add the errors on the effective diameter of head and the distance between heads algebraically and multiply the result by 1.67 (or 5/3). Then add this result to the error on the circumference of bulge algebraically. If the result obtained is not greater than the tolerance given in the following table for the proper subdivision, then the barrel is within the tolerance allowed; if the result is greater than this tolerance, then the barrel is not within the tolerance allowed.

Fellowships shall be of the combined intern-training and training-in-research type, and may include any or all of the following courses:

(a) Orientation courses consisting of lectures and conferences at the National Institute of Standards & Technology pertaining to laboratory standardization and testing.

(b) Practical laboratory training in various branches of physics, chemistry, and engineering research, under the direction of the National Institute of Standards & Technology, which will include the usual subdivisions of physics (weights and measures, heat, optics, mechanics, atomic physics, electrical measurements and radio) and also technologic applications in research and testing on metals, rubber, leather, paper, textiles, plastics, and clay and silicate products.

(c) Observation and study in such other laboratories within the continental United States as may be selected by the Director of the National Institute of Standards & Technology.

(d) Courses of instruction or research assignments supplementing the practical laboratory training, in universities or colleges selected by the Director of the National Institute of Standards & Technology.

Each applicant selected for a fellowship shall be:

(a) A citizen of an American republic other than the United States;

(b) In possession of a certificate of medical examination issued by a licensed physician within 60 days of the date of application, describing the applicant's physical condition and stating that he is free from any communicable disease, physical deformity or disability that would interfere with the proper pursuit of training, research, or any other activity or work incident to the fellowship;

(c) Able to speak, read, write and understand the English language;

(d) Of good moral character and possessing intellectual ability and suitable personal qualities; and

(e) In possession of acceptable evidence that he has successfully completed the equivalent of a four-year university course in a recognized university, college or other institution of learning, with some training or experience in the field of activity which he desires to pursue. Equivalent experience may be substituted for the university training in the case of candidates who are otherwise specially well qualified.

Fellowships shall be awarded by the Director of the National Institute of Standards & Technology, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State, or the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of State. Applications shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State by the government of the American republic of which the applicant is a citizen through the American diplomatic mission accredited to that government.

Allowances and expenses shall be as provided in State Department regulations given in 22 CFR Part 61, and as provided in Department of Commerce Administrative Order No. 202-3. 1

Applicants awarded fellowships under the regulations in this part shall submit written reports of progress in training and research at such intervals as the Director of the National Institute of Standards & Technology may determine.

Fellowships may be awarded for periods of varying length, not exceeding one 12-month period of actual training and research and may be extended for not exceeding the same periods in the manner prescribed under § 255.3 and subject to the availability of appropriations. Fellowships may be cancelled for cause by the Director of the National Institute of Standards & Technology, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State, or the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of State.

Each applicant selected by the Director of the National Institute of Standards & Technology and approved by the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State, or the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of State, shall be notified of his award through diplomatic channels. The notification shall state the duration and type of fellowship, outline the program of training and research, and state the allowances authorized: Provided, however, That the Director of the National Institute of Standards & Technology may subsequently amend the program and duration of the fellowship if in his opinion such action would be in the interest of obtaining training and research better suited to the needs and capabilities of the fellow than those prescribed in the notification. The amount originally authorized for monthly allowances and other expenses may also be amended, if necessary, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State, or the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of State.

This part states policies and procedures concerning the Research Associate Program at the National Institute of Standards & Technology. In the exercise of its functions as a major scientific agency of the Federal Government, the National Institute of Standards & Technology may make its facilities available to persons other than Bureau employees to work with scientists and engineers in collaborative research aimed at furthering the Nation's scientific, industrial, and economic growth. Such cooperative programs may be sponsored by professional, technical, or industrial organizations or associations. Such participants, when so sponsored, are designated “Research Associates”.

The Bureau provides its facilities, scientific competence, and technical supervision for defined scientific or technical research by a Research Associate when such research is complementary to and compatible with scientific or technical research being performed or to be undertaken by NIST under its statutory mission and authority. The Sponsors pay the salaries of their Research Associates and Sponsor-furnished technical assistants and secretaries of the Research Associates, if any, their travel costs, and other related expenses. Additionally, Sponsors reimburse NIST for the cost of research equipment, services, or materials obtained for the Research Associate.

Arrangements for collaborative research by NIST with a Research Associate generally begin through discussions or correspondence between NIST scientists and representatives of potential sponsoring companies, trade associations or professional organizations. These preliminary steps are followed by the consummation of a Memorandum of Agreement which is signed by NIST, the sponsoring organization and the Research Associate. The agreement sets out the respective responsibilities and obligations of all parties.

Each candidate selected to serve as a Research Associate must be determined to be scientifically qualified by the Sponsor and by the NIST, and found by NIST to be of good moral character and to possess suitable personal qualities.

The work of a Research Associate is generally conducted on a full-time basis. Typically, Research Associates are in residence at NIST for 6 to 18 months; longer-term programs may be carried on by a succession of Research Associates. Agreements provide for cancellation by any of the parties.

Information concerning the Research Associate Program may be obtained from the Industrial Liaison Officer, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Washington, DC 20234.

The purpose of part 285 is to set out procedures and general requirements under which the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) operates as an unbiased third party to accredit both testing and calibration laboratories. Supplementary technical and administrative requirements are provided in supporting handbooks and documents as needed, depending on the criteria established for specific Laboratory Accreditation Programs (LAPs)

The term NVLAP (represented by the NVLAP logo) is a federally registered certification mark of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the federal government, who retain exclusive rights to control the use thereof. Permission to use the term and/or logo is granted to NVLAP-accredited laboratories for the limited purposes of announcing their accredited status, and for use on reports that describe only testing and calibration within the scope of accreditation. NIST reserves the right to control the quality of the use of the term NVLAP and of the logo itself.

NVLAP establishes LAPs in response to legislative actions or to requests from private sector entities and government agencies. For legislatively mandated LAPs, NVLAP shall establish the LAP. For requests from private sector entities and government agencies, the Chief of NVLAP shall analyze each request, and after consultation with interested parties through public workshops and other means shall establish the requested LAP if the Chief of NVLAP determines there is need for the requested LAP.

(a) The Chief of NVLAP may terminate a LAP when he/she determines that a need no longer exists to accredit laboratories for the services covered under the scope of the LAP. In the event that the Chief of NVLAP proposes to terminate a LAP, a notice will be published in the Federal Register setting forth the basis for that determination.

(b) When a LAP is terminated, NVLAP will no longer grant or renew accreditations following the effective date of termination. Accreditations previously granted shall remain effective until their expiration date unless terminated voluntarily by the laboratory or revoked by NVLAP. Technical expertise will be maintained by NVLAP while any accreditation remains effective.

A laboratory may apply for accreditation in any of the established LAPs. The applicant laboratory shall provide a completed application to NVLAP, pay all required fees and agree to certain conditions as set forth in the NVLAP Application for Accreditation, and provide a quality manual to NVLAP (or a designated NVLAP assessor) prior to the assessment process.

(a) Frequency and scheduling. Before initial accreditation, during the first renewal year, and every two years thereafter, an on-site assessment of each laboratory is conducted to determine compliance with the NVLAP criteria.

(b) Assessors. NVLAP shall select qualified assessors to evaluate all information collected from an applicant laboratory pursuant to § 285.6 of this part and to conduct the assessment on its behalf at the laboratory and any other sites where activities to be covered by the accreditation are performed.

(c) Conduct of assessment. (1) Assessors use checklists provided by NVLAP so that each laboratory receives an assessment comparable to that received by others.

(2) During the assessment, the assessor meets with management and laboratory personnel, examines the quality system, reviews staff information, examines equipment and facilities, observes demonstrations of testing or calibrations, and examines tests or calibration reports.

(3) The assessor reviews laboratory records including resumes, job descriptions of key personnel, training, and competency evaluations for all staff members who routinely perform, or affect the quality of the testing or calibration for which accreditation is sought. The assessor need not be given information which violates individual privacy, such as salary, medical information, or performance reviews outside the scope of the accreditation program. The staff information may be kept in the laboratory's official personnel folders or separate folders that contain only the information that the NVLAP assessor needs to review.

(4) At the conclusion of the assessment, the assessor conducts an exit briefing to discuss observations and any deficiencies with the authorized representative who signed the NVLAP application and other responsible laboratory staff.

(d) Assessment report. At the exit briefing, the assessor submits a written report on the compliance of the laboratory with the accreditation requirements, together with the completed checklists, where appropriate.

(e) Deficiency notification and resolution. (1) Laboratories are informed of deficiencies during the on-site assessment, and deficiencies are documented in the assessment report (see paragraph (d) of this section).

(2) A laboratory shall, within thirty days of the date of the assessment report, provide documentation that the specified deficiencies have either been corrected and/or a plan of corrective actions as described in the NVLAP handbooks.

(3) If substantial deficiencies have been cited, NVLAP may require an additional on-site assessment, at additional cost to the laboratory, prior to granting accreditation. All deficiencies and resolutions will be subject to thorough review and evaluation prior to an accreditation decision.

(4) After the assessor submits their final report, NVLAP reviews the report and the laboratory's response to determine if the laboratory has met all of the on-site assessment requirements.

(a) NVLAP proficiency testing is consistent with the provisions contained in ISO/IEC Guide 43 (Parts 1 and 2), Proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons, where applicable, including revisions from time to time. Proficiency testing may be organized by NVLAP itself or a NVLAP-approved provider of services. Laboratories must participate in proficiency testing as specified for each LAP in the NVLAP program handbooks.

(b) Analysis and reporting. Proficiency testing data are analyzed by NVLAP and reports of the results are made known to the participants. Summary results are available upon request to other interested parties; e.g., professional societies and standards writing bodies. The identity and performance of individual laboratories are kept confidential.

(c) Proficiency testing deficiencies. (1) Unsatisfactory participation in any NVLAP proficiency testing program is a technical deficiency which must be resolved in order to obtain initial accreditation or maintain accreditation.

(2) Proficiency testing deficiencies are defined as, but not limited to, one or more of the following:

(i) Failure to meet specified proficiency testing performance requirements prescribed by NVLAP;

(ii) Failure to participate in a regularly scheduled “round” of proficiency testing for which the laboratory has received instructions and/or materials;

(iii) Failure to submit laboratory control data as required; and

(iv) Failure to produce acceptable test or calibration results when using NIST Standard Reference Materials or special artifacts whose properties are well-characterized and known to NIST/NVLAP.

(3) NVLAP will notify the laboratory of proficiency testing deficiencies and actions to be taken to resolve the deficiencies. Denial or suspension of accreditation will result from failure to resolve deficiencies.

(a) The Chief of NVLAP is responsible for all NVLAP accreditation actions, including granting, denying, renewing, suspending, and revoking any NVLAP accreditation.

(b) Initial accreditation is granted when a laboratory has met all NVLAP requirements. One of four accreditation renewal dates (January 1, April 1, July 1, or October 1) is assigned to the laboratory and is usually retained as long as the laboratory remains in the program. Initial accreditation is granted for a period of one year; accreditation expires and is renewable on the assigned date.

(c) Renewal dates may be reassigned to provide benefits to the laboratory and/or NVLAP. If a renewal date is changed, the laboratory will be notified in writing of the change and any related adjustment in fees.

(d) When accreditation is granted, NVLAP shall provide to the laboratory a Certificate of Accreditation and a Scope of Accreditation,

(a) An accredited laboratory must submit both its application for renewal and fees to NVLAP prior to expiration of the laboratory's current accreditation to avoid a lapse in accreditation.

(b) On-site assessments of currently accredited laboratories are performed in accordance with the procedures in § 285.7. If deficiencies are found during the assessment of an accredited laboratory, the laboratory must follow the procedures set forth in § 285.7(e)(2) or face possible suspension or revocation of accreditation.

A laboratory may request in writing changes to its Scope of Accreditation. If the laboratory requests additions to its Scope, it must meet all NVLAP criteria for the additional tests or calibrations, types of tests or calibrations, or standards. The need for an additional on-site assessment and/or proficiency testing will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

(a) In addition to regularly scheduled assessments, monitoring visits may be conducted by NVLAP at any time during the accreditation period. They may occur for cause or an a random selection basis. While most monitoring visits will be scheduled in advance with the laboratory, NVLAP may conduct unannounced monitoring visits.

(b) The scope of a monitoring visit may range from checking a few designated items to a complete review. The assessors may review deficiency resolutions, verify reported changes in the laboratory's personnel, facilities, or operations, or administer proficiency testing, when appropriate.

(a) A laboratory may at any time voluntarily terminate its participation and responsibilities as an accredited laboratory by advising NVLAP in writing of its desire to do so.

(b) If NVLAP finds that an accredited laboratory does not meet all NVLAP requirements, has violated the terms of its accreditation, or does not continue to comply with the provisions of these procedures, NVLAP may suspend the laboratory's accreditation, or advise of NVLAP's intent to revoke accreditation.

(1) If a laboratory's accreditation is suspended, NVLAP shall notify the laboratory of that action stating the reasons for and conditions of the suspension and specifying the action(s) the laboratory must take to have its accreditation reinstated. Conditions of suspension will include prohibiting the laboratory from using the NVLAP logo on its test or calibration reports, correspondence, or advertising during the suspension period in the area(s) affected by the suspension.

(2) NVLAP will not require a suspended laboratory to return its Certificate and Scope of Accreditation, but the laboratory must refrain from using the NVLAP logo in the area(s) affected until such time as the problem(s) leading to the suspension has been resolved. When accreditation is reinstated, NVLAP will authorize the laboratory to resume testing or calibration activities in the previously suspended area(s) as an accredited laboratory.

(c) If NVLAP proposes to deny or revoke accreditation of a laboratory, NVLAP shall inform the laboratory of the reasons for the proposed denial or revocation and the procedure for appealing such a decision.

(1) The laboratory will have thirty days from the date of receipt of the proposed denial or revocation letter to appeal the decision to the Director of NIST. If the laboratory appeals the decision to the Director of NIST, the proposed denial or revocation will be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The proposed denial or revocation will become final through the issuance of a written decision to the laboratory in the event that the laboratory does not appeal the proposed denial or revocation within the thirty-day period.

(2) If accreditation is revoked, the laboratory may be given the option of voluntarily terminating the accreditation.

(3) A laboratory whose accreditation has been revoked must cease use of the NVLAP logo on any of its reports, correspondence, or advertising related to the area(s) affected by the revocation. If the revocation is total, NVLAP will instruct the laboratory to return its Certificate and Scope of Accreditation and to remove the NVLAP logo from all test or calibration reports, correspondence, or advertising. If the revocation affects only some, but not all of the items listed on a laboratory's Scope of Accreditation, NVLAP will issue a revised Scope that excludes the revoked area(s) in order that the laboratory might continue operations in accredited areas.

(d) A laboratory whose accreditation has been voluntarily terminated, denied or revoked, may reapply and be accredited if the laboratory:

(1) Completes the assessment and evaluation process; and

(2) Meets the NVLAP conditions and criteria for accreditation.

The requirements for laboratories to be recognized by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program as competent to carry out tests and/or calibrations are contained in clauses 4 and 5 of ISO/IEC 17025, General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, including revisions from time to time.

(a) Application forms, NVLAP handbooks, and other NVLAP documents and information may be obtained by contacting the NVLAP, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-2140; phone: 301-975-4016; fax: 301-926-2884; e-mail: nvlap@nist.gov.

(b) Copies of all ISO/IEC documents are available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute's eStandards Store at http://webstore.ansi.org. You may inspect copies of all applicable ISO/IEC documents at the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Room B115, Gaithersburg, MD. For access to the NIST campus, please contact NVLAP by phone at 301-975-4016 or by e-mail at NVLAP@nist.gov to obtain instructions for visitor registration.

The purpose of this program is to enable U.S. industry to satisfy mandated foreign technical requirements using the results of U.S.-based conformity assessment programs that perform technical evaluations comparable in their rigor to practices in the receiving country. Under this program, the Department of Commerce, acting through the National Institute of Standards and Technology, evaluates U.S.-based conformity assessment bodies in order to be able to give assurances to a foreign government that qualifying bodies meet that government's requirements and can provide results that are acceptable to that government. The program is intended to provide a technically-based U.S. approval process for U.S. industry to gain foreign market access; the acceptability of conformity assessment results to the relevant foreign government will be a matter for agreement between the two governments.

(a) For purposes of this program, conformity assessment consists of product sample testing, product certification, and quality system registration. Associated activities can be classified by level:

(1) Conformity level: This level encompasses comparing a product, process, service, or system with a standard or specification. As appropriate, the evaluating body can be a testing laboratory, product certifier or certification body, or quality system registrar.

(2) Accreditation level: This level encompasses the evaluation of a testing laboratory, a certification body, or a quality system registrar by an independent body—an accreditation body—based on requirements for the acceptance of these bodies, and the granting of accreditation to those which meet the established requirements.

(3) Recognition level: This level encompasses the evaluation of an accreditation body based on requirements for its acceptance, and the recognition by the evaluating body of the accreditation body which satisfies the established requirements.

(b) NIST operates the NVCASE program as follows:

(1) Conformity level: Under this program NIST accepts requests for evaluations of U.S. bodies involved in activities related to conformity assessment. NIST does not perform conformity assessments as part of the program and therefore does not accept requests for such evaluations.

(2) Accreditation level: NIST accepts requests for accreditation of conformity assessment bodies only when (i) directed by U.S. law; (ii) requested by another U.S. government agency; or (iii) requested to respond to a specific U.S. industrial or technical need, relative to a mandatory foreign technical requirement, if it has been determined after public consultation that (A) there is no satisfactory accreditation alternative available and the private sector has declined to make acceptable accreditation available, and (B) there is evidence that significant public disadvantage would result from the absence of any alternative.

(3) Recognition level: NIST accepts requests for recognition of bodies that accredit testing laboratories, certification bodies, and quality system registrars when (i) directed by U.S. law; (ii) requested by another U.S. government agency; or (iii) requested to respond to a specific U.S. industrial or technical need relative to a mandatory foreign technical requirement if it has been determined after public consultation that (A) there is no suitable alternative available and (B) there is evidence that significant public disadvantage would result from the absence of any alternative.

The objective of the program is to identify the activities of requesting U.S.-based conformity assessment bodies that have been evaluated as meeting requirements established for their acceptance by foreign governments. The evaluations may be provided by NIST or by bodies recognized by NIST for this purpose under the scope of this program.

The program is operated on a cost reimbursable basis. It is open for voluntary participation by any U.S.-based body that conducts activities related to conformity assessment falling within the program's scope. A common procedural approach is followed in responding to a request to participate. (See § 286.7 Evaluation process.) All evaluation activities rely on the use of generic program requirements based on standards and guides for the operation and acceptance of activities related to conformity assessment. Specific criteria for use in each evaluation are derived from the program requirements, as appropriate, for the mandated foreign technical requirements specified in the request to participate. A request involving a foreign technical requirement not previously addressed by NVCASE will result in an announcement of NIST's intent to develop evaluation criteria specific to the relevant requirements. NIST will contact all cognizant and interested federal agencies to coordinate appropriate actions and procedures.

NIST provides and maintains documented generic requirements to be applied in evaluations related to accreditation and recognition within the scope of the program. Available documentation is provided on request to prospective program participants and other interested parties. Generic requirements are developed with public input and are based on guides for the acceptance of conformity assessment activities issued by such international organizations as the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. NIST also provides and maintains documented criteria provided in response to requests for evaluations specific to mandated foreign technical requirements. Criteria are developed with public input derived from the application and interpretation of generic program requirements in relation to specified mandated requirements. Both documented generic requirements and specific criteria are developed and maintained with input from the public.

NIST relies on substantial advice and technical assistance from all parties interested in program requirements and related specific criteria. Interested U.S. government agencies are routinely to be informed of prospective NVCASE actions, and advice is sought from those agencies on any actions of mutual interest. In preparing program documentation, input is also sought from workshops announced in the Federal Register and open tothe general public and other public means to identify appropriate standards and guides and to develop and maintain generic requirements, based on the identified standards and guides. Where relevant Federal advisory committees are available, their advice may also be sought. Similar procedures will be followed with respect to each request for evaluation which necessitates the development of criteria, derived from the generic requirements, specific to mandated foreign technical requirements.

(a) Each applicant requesting to be evaluated under NVCASE is expected to initiate the process and assume designated responsibilities as NIST proceeds with its evaluation:

(1) Application. The applicant completes and submit a request to be evaluated.

(2) Fee. The applicant submits a partial payment with the application and agrees to submit the remaining balance based on evaluation costs as a condition for satisfactory completion of the process.

(3) Documentation. The applicant operates a system and procedures that meet the applicable generic requirements and specific criteria. Relevant documentation submitted with the application is reviewed by NIST.

(4) On-site assessment. The applicant and NIST cooperate in the scheduling and conduct of all necessary on-site evaluations, including the resolution of any deficiencies cited.

(5) Final review. The applicant provides any supplementary materials requested by NIST, then NIST completes the review and decides on appropriate action.

(b) NIST may take one of the following actions with regard to an applicant:

(1) Certificate. If an applicant fully demonstrates conformity with all program requirements and specific criteria, NIST issues a certificate documenting this finding. Each certificate is accompanied by a document describing the specific scope of the accreditation or recognition.

(2) Denial. If an applicant cannot demonstrate conformity with all program requirements and specific criteria, NIST may deny award of the certificate. An applicant who has failed to complete the evaluation satisfactorily may reapply when prepared to demonstrate full conformance with program requirements.

Each program participant remaining in the program shall continuously meet all program requirements and cooperate with NIST in the conduct of all surveillance and reassessment activities. Participants shall reimburse NIST for expenses incurred for these purposes.

Any applicant or other affected party may appeal to the NIST Director any action taken under the program. When appropriate, the Director may seek an independent review by the Deputy Chief Counsel.

(a) NIST maintains lists of all bodies holding current NIST program certificates, together with the assessment areas for which they are issued.

(b) NIST also maintains lists of those qualified conformity assessment bodies that are currently accredited by bodies recognized by NIST, along with the activities of the assessment bodies within the scope of the NIST recognition program.

(c) The lists are made available to the public through various media, e.g., printed directories, electronic bulletin boards, or other means to ensure accessibility by all potential users.

(d) With respect to the lists specified in paragraph (a) and (b) of this section, NIST may delist any body if it determines the action to be in the public interest.

(a) Voluntary termination. Any participant may voluntarily terminate participation at any time by written notification to NIST.

(b) Involuntary termination. If a participant does not continue to meet all program requirements, or if NIST determines it to be necessary in the public interest, NIST may withdraw that participant's certificate. A body that has had its status as a certificate holder terminated may reapply when prepared to demonstrate full conformance with program requirements.

(a) This part provides guidance for each Federal agency to use in evaluating the efficacy and efficiency of its conformity assessment activities. Each agency should coordinate its conformity assessment activities with those of other appropriate government agencies and with those of the private sector to reduce unnecessary duplication. This guidance is intended to help Federal agencies improve the management and coordination of their own conformity assessment activities with respect to other government entities and the private sector. This will help ensure more productive use of the increasingly limited Federal resources available to conduct conformity assessment activities. This will also support the role of the U.S. Government in pursuing international trade and other related negotiations and agreements with foreign countries and U.S. industry in pursuing agreements with foreign national and international private sector organizations.

(b) This guidance applies to all agencies, which set policy for, manage, operate, or use conformity assessment activities and results, both domestic and international, except for activities carried out pursuant to treaties.

(c) This guidance does not preempt the agencies' authority and responsibility to make regulatory or procurement decisions authorized by statute or required to meet programmatic objectives and requirements. These decision-making activities include: determining the level of acceptable regulatory or procurement risk; setting the level of protection; balancing risk, cost and availability of technology (where statutes permit) in establishing regulatory and procurement objectives; and determining or implementing procurement or regulatory requirements necessary to meet programmatic or regulatory objectives. Each agency retains broad discretion in its selection and use of regulatory and procurement conformity assessment practices and may elect not to use or recognize alternative conformity assessment practices if the agency deems them to be inappropriate, inadequate, or inconsistent with statutory criteria or programmatic objectives and requirements. Nothing contained herein shall give any party any claim or cause of action against the Federal government or any agency thereof. Each agency remains responsible for representation of the agency's views on conformity assessment in matters under its jurisdiction. Each agency also remains the primary point of contact for information on the agency's regulatory and procurement conformity assessment actions.

Accreditation means a procedure used to provide formal notice that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks. These tasks include: sampling and testing; inspection; certification; and registration. 2

Agency means any Executive Branch Department, independent commission, board, bureau, office, agency, government-owned or controlled corporation, or other establishment of the Federal government. It also includes any regulatory commission or board, except for independent regulatory commission subject to separate statutory requirements regarding policy setting, management, operation, and use of conformity assessment activities. It does not include the legislative or judicial branches of the Federal government.

Agency Standards Executive means an official designated by an agency as its representative on the Interagency Committee for Standards Policy (ICSP) and delegated the responsibility for agency implementation of OMB Circular A-119 and the guidance in this part.

Certification means a procedure used to provide written assurance that a product, process, service, or person's qualifications conforms to specified requirements.

Conformity assessment means any activity concerned with determining directly or indirectly that requirements are fulfilled. Requirements for products, services, systems, and organizations are those defined by law or regulation or by an agency in a procurement action. Conformity assessment includes: sampling and testing; inspection; supplier's declaration of conformity; certification; and quality and environmental management system assessment and registration. It also includes accreditation and recognition. Conformity assessment does not include mandatory administrative procedures (such as registration notification) for granting permission for a good or service to be produced, marketed, or used for a stated purpose or under stated conditions. Conformity assessment activities may be conducted by the supplier (first party) or by the buyer (second party) either directly or by another party on the supplier's or buyer's behalf, or by a body not under the control or influence of either the buyer or the seller (third party).

Inspection is defines ad the evaluation by observation and judgment accompanied as appropriate by measurement, testing or gauging of the conformity of a product, process or service to specified requirements.

NIST means the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency within the United States Department of Commerce.

Recognition means a procedure used to provide formal notice that an accreditation body is competent to carry out specific tasks. These tasks include: the accreditation of testing laboratories and inspection, certification, and registration bodies. A governmental recognition system is a set of one or more procedures used by a Federal agency to provide recognition.

Registration means a procedure used to give written assurance that a system conforms to specified requirements. Such systems include those established for the management of product, process or service quality and environmental performance.

Sampling means the selection of one or more specimens of a product, process, or service for the purpose of evaluating the conformity of the product, process or service to specified requirements.

Supplier's declaration of conformity means a procedure by which a supplier gives written assurance that a product, process, service or organization conforms to specified requirements.

Testing means the action of carrying out one or more technical operations (tests) that determine one or more characteristics or performance of a given product, material, equipment, organism, person's qualifications, physical phenomenon, process, or service according to a specified technical procedure (test method).

(a) Work with agencies through the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP) to coordinate Federal, state and local conformity assessment activities with private sector conformity assessment activities. NIST chairs the ICSP; assists the ICSP in developing and publishing policies and guidance on conformity assessment related issues; collects and disseminates information on Federal, state and private sector conformity assessment activities; and increases public awareness of the importance of conformity assessment and nature and extent of national and international conformity assessment activities.

(b) Encourage participation in the ICSP by all affected agencies and ensure that all agency views on conformity assessment are considered.

(c) To the extent that resources are available, develop information on state conformity assessment practices; and, upon request by a state government agency, work with that state agency to reduce duplication and complexity in state conformity assessment activities.

(d) Review within three years from August 10, 2000, the effectiveness of the final guidance and recommend modifications to the Secretary as needed.

Each agency should:

(a) Implement the policies contained in the guidance in this part.

(b) Provide a rationale for its use of specified conformity assessment procedures and processes in rulemaking and procurement actions to the extent feasible. Further, when notice and comment rulemaking is otherwise required, each agency should provide the opportunity for public comment on the rationale for the agency's conformity assessment decision.

(c) Use the results of other governmental agency and private sector organization conformity assessment activities to enhance the safety and efficacy of proposed new conformity assessment requirements and measures. An example of this would be to collect and review information on similar activities conducted by other Federal, state and international organizations and agencies and private sector organizations to determine if the results of these activities can be used to improve the effectiveness of a proposed Federal agency conformity assessment activity.

(d) Use relevant guides or standards for conformity assessment practices published by domestic and international standardizing bodies as appropriate in meeting regulatory and procurement objectives. Guides and standards for sampling, testing, inspection, certification, quality and environmental management systems, management system registration and accreditation are issued by organizations which include, but are not limited to, the American National Standards Institute, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Each agency retains responsibility for determining which, if any, of these documents are relevant to its needs.

(e) Identify appropriate private sector conformity assessment practices and programs and consider the results of such practices and/or programs as appropriate in existing regulatory and procurement actions. Responsibility for the determination of appropriateness rests with each agency. Examples: an agency could use the results of private sector or other governmental conformity assessment activities to schedule procurement type audits more effectively. This could allow agencies to reduce the number and extent of audits conducted at companies which are performing in accordance with contract specifications and which are under review by a third party or another agency and to concentrate agency audit efforts on companies which have shown problems in conforming to contract specifications. Another example is the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) program, which allows designated private entities to issue telecommunications equipment approvals for specified regulatory requirements. In addition, under Part 15, FCC premarketing approval requirements for certain types of equipment have been replaced with suppliers declaration of conformity to the regulations, provided test results supporting the declaration are obtained from an accredited testing lab.

(f) Consider using the results of other agencies' conformity assessment procedures. Example: An agency could use the results of another agency's inspection/audit of a supplier to eliminate or reduce the scope of its own inspection/audit of that supplier.

(g) Participate in efforts designed to improve coordination among governmental and private sector conformity assessment activities. These efforts include, but are not limited to, the National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA) organization, the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation (NELAC), the International Organizations for Standardization's (ISO) Committee on Conformity Assessment (CASCO), conformity assessment related activities of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and ICSP working groups dealing with conformity assessment issues.

(h) Work with other agencies to avoid unnecessary duplication and complexity in Federal conformity assessment activities. Examples: An agency can participate in another agency's conformity assessment activities by conducting joint procurement audits/inspections of suppliers that sell to both agencies. An agency can share conformity assessment information with other agencies. An agency can use conformity assessment information provided by other agencies to the extent appropriate to improve the effectiveness and efficiency in its own conformity assessment activities. Conformity assessment information may include: Conformity assessment procedures and results, technical data on the operation of conformity assessment programs, processing methods and requirements for applications, fees, facility site data, complaint review procedures, and confidentiality procedures.

(i) Encourage domestic and international recognition of U.S. conformity assessment results by supporting the work of the U.S. Government in international trade and related negotiations with foreign countries and U.S. industry in pursuing agreements with foreign national and international private sector organizations and any resulting activities/requirements resulting from those negotiations/agreements.

(j) Participate in the development of private sector conformity assessment standards to ensure that Federal viewpoints are represented.

(k) Work with other agencies to harmonize Federal requirements for quality and environmental management systems for use in procurement and regulation, including provisions which will allow the use of one quality or environmental management system per supplier facility in the Federal procurement process and the sharing and usage of audit results and related information as appropriate.

(l) Work with other ICSP members, NIST, and the private sector to develop national infrastructures for coordinating and harmonizing U.S. conformity assessment needs, practices and requirements in support of the efforts of the U.S. Government and U.S. industry to increase international market access for U.S. products.

(m) Work with other ICSP members, NIST, and the private sector as necessary and appropriate to establish criteria for the development and implementation of governmental recognition systems to meet government recognition requirements imposed by other nations and regional groups to support the efforts of the U.S. Government to facilitate international market access for U.S. products.

(n) Assign an Agency Standard Executive responsibility for coordinating the agency-wide implementation of the guidance in this part.

In addition to carrying out the duties described in OMB Circular A-119 related to standards activities, an Agency Standards Executive should:

(a) Promote the following goals:

(1) Effective use of agency conformity assessment related resources and participation in conformity assessment related activities of agency interest.

(2) Development and dissemination of agency technical and policy positions.

(3) Development of agency positions on conformity assessment related issues that are in the public interest.

(b) Ensure that agency participation in conformity assessment related activities is consistent with agency missions, authorities, priorities, and budget.

(c) Cooperate with NIST in carrying out agency responsibilities under the guidance in this part.

(d) Consult with NIST, as necessary, in the development and issuance of internal agency procedures and guidance implementing the policies in this part.

(e) Establish an ongoing process for reviewing his/her agency's existing conformity assessment activities and identifying areas where efficiencies can be achieved through coordination with other agency and private sector conformity assessment activities.

(f) Work with other parts of his/her agency to develop and implement improvements in agency conformity assessment related activities.

(g) Report to NIST, on a voluntary basis, on agency conformity assessment activities for inclusion in the annual report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the agency's implementation of OMB Circular A-119.

This rule provides policy for a program to establish Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology as well as the prescribed policies and procedures to insure the fair, equitable and uniform treatment of proposals for assistance. In addition, the rule provides general guidelines for the management of the program by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as criteria for the evaluation of the Centers, throughout the lifecycle of financial assistance to the Centers by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

(a) The phrase advanced manufacturing technology refers to new technologies which have recently been developed, or are currently under development, for use in product or part design, fabrication, assembly, quality control, or improving production efficiency.

(b) The term Center or Regional Center means a NIST-established Regional Center for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology described under these procedures.

(c) The term operating award means a cooperative agreement which provides funding and technical assistance to a Center for purposes set forth in § 290.3 of these procedures.

(d) The term Director means the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

(e) The term NIST means the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

(f) The term Program or Centers Program means the NIST program for establishment of, support for, and cooperative interaction with Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology.

(g) The term qualified proposal means a proposal submitted by a nonprofit organization which meets the basic requirements set forth in § 290.5 of these procedures.

(h) The term Secretary means the Secretary of Commerce.

(i) The term target firm means those firms best able to absorb advanced manufacturing technologies and techniques, especially those developed at NIST, and which are already well prepared in an operational, management and financial sensse to improve the levels of technology they employ.

(a) The Secretary, acting through the Director, shall provide technical and financial assistance for the creation and support of Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology. Each Center shall be affiliated with a U.S.-based nonprofit institution or organization which has submitted a qualified proposal for a Center Operating Award under these procedures. Support may be provided for a period not to exceed six years. The Centers work with industry, universities, nonprofit economic development organizations and state governments to transfer advanced manufacturing technologies, processes, and methods as defined in § 290.2 to small and medium sized firms. These technology transfer efforts focus on the continuous and incremental improvement of the target firms. The advanced manufacturing technology which is the focus of the Centers is the subject of research in NIST's Automated Manufacturing Research Facility (AMRF). The core of AMRF research has principally been applied in discrete part manufacturing, including electronics, composites, plastics, and metal parts fabrication and assembly. Centers will be afforded the opportunity for interaction with the AMRF and will be given access to reasearch projects and results to strengthen their technology transfer. Where elements of a solution are available from an existing source, they should be employed. Where private-sector consultants who can meet the needs of a small- or medium-sized manufacturer are available, they should handle the task. Each Center should bring to bear the technology expertise described in § 290.3(d) to assist small- and medium-sized manufacturing firms in adopting advanced manufacturing technology.

(b) Program objective. The objective of the NIST Manufacturing Technology Centers is to enhance productivity and technological performance in United States manufacturing. This will be accomplished through:

(1) The transfer of manufacturing technology and techniques developed at NIST to Centers and, through them, to manufacturing companies throughout the United States;

(2) The participation of individuals from industry, universities, State governments, other Federal agencies, and, when appropriate, NIST in cooperative technology transfer activities;

(3) Efforts to make new manufacturing technology and processes usable by United States-based small- and medium-sized companies;

(4) The active dissemination of scientific, engineering, technical, and management information about manufacturing to industrial firms, including small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies; and

(5) The utilization, when appropriate, of the expertise and capability that exists in Federal laboratories other than NIST.

(c) Center activities. The activities of the Centers shall include:

(1) The establishment of automated manufacturing systems and other advanced production technologies based on research by NIST and other Federal laboratories for the purpose of demonstrations and technology transfer;

(2) The active transfer and dissemination of research findings and Center expertise to a wide range of companies and enterprises, particularly small- and medium-sized manufacturers; and

(3) Loans, on a selective, short-term basis, of items of advanced manufacturing equipment to small manufacturing firms with less than 100 employees.

(d) Center organization and operation. Each Center will be organized to transfer advanced manufacturing technology to small and medium sized manufacturers located in its service region. Regional Centers will be established and operated via cooperative agreements between NIST and the award-receiving organizations. Individual awards shall be decided on the basis of merit review, geographical diversity, and the availability of funding.

(e) Leverage. The Centers program must concentrate on approaches which can be applied to other companies, in other regions, or by other organizations. The lessons learned in assisting a particular target firm should be documented in order to facilitate the use of those lessons by other target firms. A Center should build on unique solutions developed for a single company to develop techniques of broad applicability. It should seek wide implementation with well-developed mechanisms for distribution of results. Leverage is the principle of developing less resource-intensive methods of delivering technologies (as when a Center staff person has the same impact on ten firms as was formerly obtained with the resources used for one, or when a project once done by the Center can be carried out for dozens of companies by the private sector or a state or local organization.) Leverage does not imply a larger non-federal funding match (that is, greater expenditure of non-federal dollars for each federal dollar) but rather a greater impact per dollar.

(f) Regional impact. A new Center should not begin by spreading its resources too thinly over too large a geographic area. It should concentrate first on establishing its structure, operating style, and client base within a manageable service area.

(a) NIST shall designate each proposal which satisfies the qualifications criteria below as “qualified proposal” and subject the qualified proposals to a merit review. Applications which do not meet the requirements of this section will not receive further consideration.

(1) Qualified organizations. Any nonprofit institution, or group thereof, or consortium of nonprofit institutions, including entities which already exist or may be incorporated specifically to manage the Center.

(2) Proposal format. Proposals for Center Operating Awards shall:

(i) Be submitted with a Standard Form 424 to the above address;

(ii) Not exceed 25 typewritten pages in length for the basic proposal document (which must include the information requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this section); it may be accompanied by additional appendices of relevant supplementary attachments and tabular material. Basic proposal documents which exceed 25 pages in length will not be qualified for further review.

(3) Proposal requirements. In order to be considered for a Center Operating Award, proposals must contain:

(i) A plan for the allocation of intellectual property rights associated with any invention or copyright which may result from the involvement in the Center's technology transfer or research activities consistent with the conditions of § 290.9;

(ii) A statement which provides adequate assurances that the host organization will contribute 50 percent or more of the proposed Center's capital and annual operating and maintenance costs for the first three years and an increasing share for each of the following three additional years. Applicants should provide evidence that the proposed Center will be self-supporting after six years.

(iii) A statement describing linkages to industry, government, and educational organizations within its service region.

(iv) A statement defining the initial service region including a statement of the constituency to be served and the level of service to be provided, as well as outyear plans.

(v) A statement agreeing to focus the mission of the Center on technology transfer activities and not to exclude companies based on state boundaries.

(vi) A proposed plan for the annual evaluation of the success of the Center by the Program, including appropriate criteria for consideration, and weighting of those criteria.

(vii) A plan to focus the Center's technology emphasis on areas consistent with NIST technology research programs and organizational expertise.

(viii) A description of the planned Center sufficient to permit NIST to evaluate the proposal in accordance with § 290.6 of these procedures.

(b) [Reserved]

(a) In making a decision whether to provide financial support, NIST shall review and evaluate all qualified proposals in accordance with the following criteria, assigning equal weight to each of the four categories.

(1) Identification of target firms in proposed region. Does the proposal define an appropriate service region with a large enough population of target firms of small- and medium-sized manufacturers which the applicant understands and can serve, and which is not presently served by an existing Center?

(i) Market analysis. Demonstrated understanding of the service region's manufacturing base, including business size, industry types, product mix, and technology requirements.

(ii) Geographical location. Physical size, concentration of industry, and economic significance of the service region's manufacturing base. Geographical diversity of Centers will be a factor in evaluation of proposals; a proposal for a Center located near an existing Center may be considered only if the proposal is unusually strong and the population of manufacturers and the technology to be addressed justify it.

(2) Technology resources. Does the proposal assure strength in technical personnel and programmatic resources, full-time staff, facilities, equipment, and linkages to external sources of technology to develop and transfer technologies related to NIST research results and expertise in the technical areas noted in these procedures?

(3) Technology delivery mechanisms. Does the proposal clearly and sharply define an effective methodology for delivering advanced manufacturing technology to small- and medium-sized manufacturers?

(i) Linkages. Development of effective partnerships or linkages to third parties such as industry, universities, nonprofit economic organizations, and state governments who will amplify the Center's technology delivery to reach a large number of clients in its service region.

(ii) Program leverage. Provision of an effective strategy to amplify the Center's technology delivery approaches to achieve the proposed objectives as described in § 290.3(e).

(4) Management and financial plan. Does the proposal define a management structure and assure management personnel to carry out development and operation of an effective Center?

(i) Organizational structure. Completeness and appropriateness of the organizational structure, and its focus on the mission of the Center. Assurance of full-time top management of the Center.

(ii) Program management. Effectiveness of the planned methodology of program management.

(iii) Internal evaluation. Effectiveness of the planned continuous internal evaluation of program activities.

(iv) Plans for financial matching. Demonstrated stability and duration of the applicant's funding commitments as well as the percentage of operating and capital costs guaranteed by the applicant. Identification of matching fund sources and the general terms of the funding commitments. Evidence of the applicant's ability to become self-sustaining in six years.

(v) Budget. Suitability and focus of the applicant's detailed one-year budget and six-year budget outline.

Upon the availability of funding to establish Regional Centers, the Director shall publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting submission of proposals from interested organizations. Appliclants will be given an established time frame, not less than 60 days from the publication date of the notice, to prepare and submit a proposal. The proposal evaluation and selection process will consist of four principal phases: Proposal qualification; Proposal review and selection of finalists; Finalist site visits; and, Award determination. Further descriptions of these phases are provided in the following:

(a) Proposal qualification. All proposals will be reviewed by NIST to assure compliance with § 290.5 of these procedures. Proposals which satisfy these requirements will be designated qualified proposals; all others will be disqualified at this phase of the evaluation and selection process.

(b) Proposal review and selection of finalists. The Director of NIST will appoint an evaluation panel to review and evaluate all qualified proposals in accordance with the criteria set forth in section 290.6 of these procedures, assigning equal weight to each of the four categories. From the qualified proposals, a group of finalists will be selected based on this review.

(c) Finalist site visits. NIST representatives will visit each finalist organization. Finalists will be reviewed and assigned numeric scores using the criteria set forth in § 290.6 of these procedures assigning equal weight to each of the four categories. NIST may enter into negotiations with the finalists concerning any aspect of their proposal.

(d) Award determination. The Director of NIST or his designee shall select awardees for Center Operating Awards based upon the rank order of applicants, the need to assure appropriate regional distribution, and the availability of funds. Upon the final award decision, a notification will be made to each of the proposing organizations.

(a) Overview. Each Center will be reviewed at least annually, and at the end of its third year of operation according to the procedures and criteria set out below. There will be regular management interaction with NIST and the other Centers for the purpose of evaluation and program shaping. Centers are encouraged to try new approaches, must evaluate their effectiveness, and abandon or adjust those which do not have the desired impact.

(b) Annual reviews of centers. Centers will be reviewed annually as part of the funding renewal process using the criteria set out in § 290.8(d). The funding level at which a Center is renewed is contingent upon a positive program evaluation and will depend upon the availability of federal funds and on the Center's ability to obtain suitable match, as well as on the budgetary requirements of its proposed program. Centers must continue to demonstrate that they will be self-supporting after six years.

(c) Third year review of centers. Each host receiving a Center Operating Award under these procedures shall be evaluated during its third year of operation by a Merit Review Panel appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. Each such Merit Review Panel shall be composed of private experts, none of whom shall be connected with the involved Center, and Federal officials. An official of NIST shall chair the panel. Each Merit Review Panel shall measure the involved Center's performance against the criteria set out in § 290.8(d). The Secretary shall not provide funding for the fourth through the sixth years of such Center's operation unless the evaluation is positive on all grounds. As a condition of receiving continuing funding, the Center must show evidence at the third year review that they are making substantial progress toward self-sufficiency. If the evaluation is positive and funds are available, the Secretary of Commerce may provide continued funding through the sixth year at declining levels, which are designed to insure that the Center no longer needs financial support from NIST by the seventh year. In no event shall funding for a Center be provided by the NIST Manufacturing Technology Centers Program after the sixth year of support.

(d) Criteria for annual and third year reviews. Centers will be evaluated under the following criteria in each of the annual reviews, as well as the third year review:

(1) The program objectives specified in § 290.3(b) of these procedures;

(2) Funds-matching performance;

(3) The extent to which the target firms have successfully implemented recently developed or currently developed advanced manufacturing technology and techniques transferred by the Center;

(4) The extent to which successes are properly documented and there has been further leveraging or use of a particular advanced manufacturing technology or process;

(5) The degree to which there is successful operation of a network, or technology delivery mechanism, involving the sharing or dissemination of information related to manufacturing technologies among industry, universities, nonprofit economic development organizations and state governments.

(6) The extent to which the Center can increasingly develop continuing resources—both technological and financial—such that the Centers are finally financially self-sufficient.

(a) Awards under the Program will follow the policies and procedures on ownership to inventions made under grants and cooperative agreements that are set out in Public Law 96-517 (35 U.S.C. chapter 18), the Presidential Memorandum on Government Patent Policy to the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies Dated February 18, 1983, and part 401 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as appropriate. These policies and procedures generally require the Government to grant to Centers selected for funding the right to elect to obtain title to any invention made in the course of the conduct of research under an award, subject to the reservation of a Government license.

(b) Except as otherwise specifically provided for in an Award, Centers selected for funding under the Program may establish claim to copyright subsisting in any data first produced in the performance of the award. When claim is made to copyright, the funding recipient shall affix the applicable copyright notice of 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402 and acknowledgment of Government sponsorship to the data when and if the data are delivered to the Government, are published, or are deposited for registration as a published work in the U.S. Copyright Office. For data other than computer software, the funding recipient shall grant to the Government, and others acting on its behalf, a paid up, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license for all such data to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government. For computer software, the funding recipient shall grant to the Government, and others acting on its behalf, a paid up, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license for all such computer software to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government.

(a) Eligibility criteria. Eligible applicants for these projects are manufacturing extension centers or state technology extension programs which at the time of solicitation have grants, cooperative agreements or contracts with the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Only one proposal per organization per solicitation is permitted in this category.

(b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support the integration of environmentally-focused technical assistance, and especially pollution prevention assistance, for smaller manufacturers into the broader services provided by existing MEP manufacturing extension centers. Proposers are free to structure their project in whatever way will be most effective and efficient in increasing the ability of the center to deliver high quality environmental and pollution prevention technical assistance (either directly or in partnership with other organizations). Following are some examples of purposes for which these funds could be used. This list is by no means meant to be all inclusive. A center might propose a set of actions encompassing several of these examples as well as others.

(1) Environmental needs assessment. Detailed assessment of the environmentally-related technical assistance needs of manufacturers within the state or region of the manufacturing extension center. This would be done as part of a broader plan to incorporate environmentally related services into the services of the manufacturing extension center. The center might propose to document its process and findings so that other centers may learn from its work.

(2) Partnership with another organization. The center might propose to partner with an existing organization which is providing environmentally-focused technical assistance to manufacturers. The partnership would lead to greater integration of service delivery through joint technical assistance projects and joint training.

(3) Accessing private-sector environmental resources. The center might propose to increase it's ability to access environmental technical services for smaller manufacturers from environmental consultants or environmental firms.

(4) Training of field engineers/agents in environmental topics. Funding for training which empowers the field engineer/agent with the knowledge needed to recognize potential environmental, and especially pollution prevention, problems and opportunities. In addition, training might be funded which empowers the field engineer/agent with the knowledge needed to make appropriate recommendations for solutions or appropriate referrals to other sources of information or expertise. The over-arching goal is for the field engineer/agent to enable the manufacturer to be both environmentally clean and competitive.

(5) Access to environmentally related information or expertise. A center might propose to fund access to databases or other sources of environmentally-related information or expertise which might be necessary to augment the environmentally focused activities of the manufacturing extension center.

(6) Addition of environmentally focused staff. It may be necessary for manufacturing extension centers to have an environmental program manager or lead field engineer/agent with environmental training and experience. Funds could be requested to hire this person. However, the proposer would have to demonstrate a clear and reasonable plan for providing for the support of this person after the funds provided under this project are exhausted since no commitment is being made to on-going funding.

(c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be carried out over multiple years. The proposer should include optional second and third years in their proposal. Proposals selected for award may receive one, two or three years of funding from currently available funds at the discretion of DOC. If an application is selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. A separate cooperative agreement will be written with winning applicants. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of DOC. It is anticipated that successful projects will be given the opportunity to roll the funding for these efforts into the base funding for the extension center. Such a roll-over will be based on a performance review and the availability of funds.

(d) Matching requirements. No matching funds are required for these proposals. However, the presence of matching funds (cash and in-kind) will be considered in the evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.

(e) Environmental integration projects evaluation criteria. In most solicitations, preference will be given to projects which are focused on a single industry sector. This is desired to build on the expertise and resources which are being built in tools and resources projects in these industry sectors. Industry focus will be specified in the solicitation announcement. However, actual services need not be limited exclusively to this sector. In addition preference may be given to extension centers which do not have extensive environmentally-related services already in place. In addition to these preferences, the criteria for selection of awards will be as follows in descending order of importance:

(1) Demonstrated commitment to incorporating environmentally related services. The extension center must demonstrate its commitment to incorporate environmentally-related technical services into its overall manufacturing extension services even after funding for this project is exhausted. It is not the objective of this effort to establish completely autonomous environmentally focused extension centers. Rather, the goal is to ensure that such services are integrated directly with general manufacturing extension services focused on competitiveness. The center must demonstrate that such integration will take place. Factors that may be considered include: The amount of matching funds devoted to the efforts proposed as demonstration of the center's commitment to the activity; indication that environmental services are a significant aspect of the organization's long range planning; strength of commitment and plans for continuing service beyond funding which might be awarded through this project; the degree to which environmental services will become an integral part of each field engineers' portfolio of services; the level of current or planned education and training of staff on relevant environmental issues; and the extent of environmentally related information and expert resources which will be easily accessible by field engineers.

(2) Demonstrated understanding of the environmentally related technical assistance needs of manufacturers in the target population. Target population must be clearly defined. The manufacturing center must demonstrate that it understands the populations environmentally related needs or include a coherent methodology for identifying those needs. The proposal should show that the efforts being proposed will enable the center to better meet those needs. Factors that may be considered include: A clear definition of the target population, its size and demographic characteristics; demonstrated understanding of the target population's environmental technical assistance needs or a plan to develop this understanding; and appropriateness of the size of the target population and the anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.

(3) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other organizations which are providing high quality environmentally-related services to manufacturers in the same target population or which have relevant resources which can be of assistance in the proposed effort. If no such organizations exist, the proposal should build the case that there are no such organizations. Applicants will need to describe how they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to avoid duplication of services in providing assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers. Factors that may be considered include: Demonstrated understanding of existing organizations and resources relevant for providing technology assistance related services to the target population; adequate linkages and partnerships with existing organizations and clear definition of those organizations' roles in the proposed activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate existing services or resources.

(4) Program evaluation: The applicant should specify plans for evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed program and for ensuring continuous improvement of program activities. Factors that may be considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for assessing outcomes of the activity, and “customer satisfaction” measures of performance.

(5) Management experience and plans. Applicants should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management of the implementation process. Factors that may be considered include: Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and continuing professional development; appropriateness of the organizational approach for carrying out the proposed activity; evidence of involvement and support by private industry.

(6) Financial plan: Applicants should show the relevance and cost effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considered include: Reasonableness of the budget both in income and expenses; strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share, if any; effectiveness of management plans for control of budget; appropriateness of matching contributions; and plans for maintaining the program after the cooperative agreement has expired.

(a) Eligibility criteria. Eligible applicants for these projects include all nonprofit organizations including universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology programs and independent nonprofit organizations. Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each solicitation for unique projects.

(b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support the initial development and implementation of tools or techniques which will aide manufacturing extension organizations in providing environmentally-related services to smaller manufacturers and which may also be of direct use by the smaller manufacturers themselves. Specific industry sectors to be addressed and sub-categories of tools and techniques may be specified in solicitations. These sectors or sub-categories will be specified in the solicitation announcement. Examples of tools and techniques include, but are not limited to, manufacturing assessment tools, environmental benchmarking tools, training delivery programs, electronically accessible environmental information resources, environmental demonstration facilities, software tools, etc. Projects must be completed within the scope of the effort proposed and should not require on-going federal support.

(c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be carried out over up to three years. Proposals selected for award will receive all funding from currently available funds. If an application is selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of DOC.

(d) Matching requirements. No matching funds are required for these proposals. However, the presence of matching funds (cash and in-kind) will be considered in the evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.

(e) Environmental tools and techniques projects evaluation criteria. Proposals from applicants will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the following criteria listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Demonstrated understanding of the environmentally-related technical assistance needs of manufacturers and technical assistance providers in the target population. Target population must be clearly defined. The proposal must demonstrate that it understands the population's environmentally related tool or technique needs. The proposal should show that the efforts being proposed meet the needs identified. Factors that may be considered include: A clear definition of the target population, size and demographic distribution; demonstrated understanding of the target population's environmental tools or techniques needs; and appropriateness of the size of the target population and the anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.

(2) Technology and information sources. The proposal must delineate the sources of technology and/or information which will be used to create the tool or resource. Sources may include those internal to the center (including staff expertise) or from other organizations. Factors that may be considered include: Strength of core competency in the proposed area of activity; and demonstrated access to relevant technical or information sources external to the organization.

(3) Degree of integration with the manufacturing extension partnership. The proposal must demonstrate that the tool or resource will be integrated into and will be of service to the NIST Manufacturing Extension Centers. Factors that may be considered include: Ability to access the tool or resource especially for MEP extension centers; methodology for disseminating or promoting use of the tool or technique especially within the MEP system; and demonstrated interest in using the tool or technique especially by MEP extension centers.

(4) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other organizations which are developing or have expertise on similar tools or techniques. If no such organizations exist, the proposal should show that this the case. Applicants will need to describe how they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to avoid duplication. Factors that may be considered include: Demonstrated understanding of existing organizations and resources relevant to the proposed project; Adequate linkages and partnerships with existing organizations and clear definition of those organizations' roles in the proposed activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate existing services or resources.

(5) Program evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed tool or technique and for ensuring continuous improvement of the tool. Factors that may be considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for assessing outcomes of the activity, and “customer satisfaction” measures of performance.

(6) Management experience and plans. Applicants should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management of the implementation process. Factors that may be considered include: Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and continuing professional development; and appropriateness of the organizational approach for carrying out the proposed activity.

(7) Financial plan: Applicants should show the relevance and cost effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considerable include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses; strength of commitment and amount of the proposers's cost share, if any; effectiveness of management plans for control of budget appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the program after the cooperative agreement has expired.

(a) Eligibility criteria. Eligible applicants for these projects include all nonprofit organizations including universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology programs and independent nonprofit organizations. Only one proposal per organization is permitted in this category.

(b) Project objective. These centers will provide easy access to relevant, current, reliable and comprehensive information on pollution prevention opportunities, regulatory compliance and technologies and techniques for reducing pollution in the most competitive manner for a specific industry sector or industrial process. The sector or industrial process to be addressed will be specified in the solicitation. The center will enhance the ability of small businesses to implement risk based pollution prevention alternatives to increase competitiveness and reduce adverse environmental impacts. The center should use existing resources, information and expertise and will avoid duplication of existing efforts. The information provided by the center will create links between relevant EPA Pollution Prevention programs, EPA and other technical information, NIST manufacturing extension efforts, EPA regulation and guidance, and state requirements. The center will emphasize pollution prevention methods as the principal means to both comply with government regulations and enhance competitiveness.

(c) Project goal. To improve the environmental and competitive performance of smaller manufacturers by:

(1) Enhancing the national capability to provide pollution prevention and regulatory requirements information (federal, state and local) to specific industries.

(2) Providing easy access to relevant and reliable information and tools on pollution prevention technologies and techniques that achieve manufacturing efficiency and enhanced competitiveness with reduced environmental impact.

(3) Providing easy access to relevant and reliable information and tools to enable specific industries to achieve the continued environmental improvement to meet or exceed compliance requirements.

(d) Project customers. (1) The customers for this center will be the businesses in the industrial sector or businesses which use the industrial process specified as the focus for the solicitation. In addition, consultants providing services to those businesses, the NIST Manufacturing Extension Centers, and federal state and local programs providing technical, pollution prevention and compliance assistance.

(2) The center should assist the customer in choosing the most cost- effective, environmentally sound options or practices that enhance the company's competitiveness. Assistance must be accessible to all interested customers. The center, wherever feasible, shall use existing materials and information to enhance and develop the services to its customers. The centers should rarely, if ever, perform research, but should find and assimilate data and information produced by other sources. The center should not duplicate any existing distribution system. The center should distribute and provide information, but should not directly provide on-site assistance to customers. Rather, referrals to local technical assistance organizations should be given when appropriate. Information would likely be available through multiple avenues such as phone, fax, electronically accessible data bases, printed material, networks of technical experts, etc.

(e) Award period. The pilot initiated under this category may be carried out over multiple years. The proposers should include optional second and third years in their proposal. Proposals selected for award may receive one, two or three years of funding from currently available finds at the discretion of DOC. If an application is selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of DOC. Successful centers may be given an opportunity to receive continuing funding as a NIST manufacturing center after the expiration of their initial cooperative agreement. Such a roll-over will be based upon the performance of the center and availability of funding.

(f) Matching requirements. A matching contribution from each applicant will be required. NIST may provide financial support up to 50% of the total budget for the project. The applicant's share of the budget may include dollar contributions from state, county, industrial or other non-federal sources and non-federal in-kind contributions necessary and reasonable for proper accomplishment of project objectives.

(g) Resource center evaluation criteria. Proposals from applicants will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the following criteria listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Demonstrated understanding of the environmentally-related information needs of manufacturers and technical assistance providers in the target population. Understanding the environmentally-related needs of the target population (i.e., customers) is absolutely critical to the success of such a resource center. Factors that may be considered include: A clear definition of the target population, size and demographic distribution; demonstrated understanding of the target population's environmentally-related information needs or a clear plan for identifying those customer needs; and methodologies for continually improving the understanding of the target population's environmentally-related information needs.

(2) Delivery mechanisms. The proposal must set forth clearly defined, effective mechanisms for delivery of services to target population. Factors that may be considered include: Potential effectiveness and efficiency of proposed delivery systems; and demonstrated capacity to form the effective linkages and partnerships necessary for success of the proposed activity.

(3) Technology and information sources. The proposal must delineate the sources of information which will be used to create the informational foundation of the resource center. Sources may include those internal to the Center (including staff expertise), but it is expected that many sources will be external. Factors that may be considered include: Strength of core competency in the proposed area of activity; demonstrated access to relevant technical or information sources external to the organization.

(4) Degree of integration with the manufacturing extension partnership and other technical assistance providers. The proposal must demonstrate that the source center will be integrated into the system of services provided by the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership and other technical assistance providers. Factors that may be considered include: Ability of the target population including MEP Extension Centers to access the resource center; and methodology for disseminating or promoting use of the resource center especially within the MEP system.

(5) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other organizations which are developing or have expertise on similar tools or techniques. If no such organizations exist, the proposal should show that this is the case. Applicants will need to describe how they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to avoid duplication. Factors that may be considered include: Demonstrated understanding of existing organizations and resources relevant to the proposed project; and adequate linkages and partnerships with existing organizations and clear definition of those organizations' roles in the proposed activities.

(6) Program evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed resource center and for ensuring continuous improvement. Factors that may be considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for assessing outcomes of the activity, and “customer satisfaction” measures of performance; and the proposer's plan must include documentation, analysis of the results, and must show how the results can be used in improving the resource center.

(7) Management experience and Plans. Applicants should specify Plans for proper organization, staffing, and management of the implementation process. Factors that may be considered include: Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications and experience of the project team and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and continuing professional development; and appropriateness of the organizational approach for carrying out the proposed activity.

(8) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considered include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses; strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share; effectiveness of management plans for control of the budget; and appropriateness of matching contributions.

The proposal evaluation and selection process will consist of three principal phases: Proposal qualification; proposal review and selection of finalists; and award determination.

(a) Proposal qualification. All proposals will be reviewed by NIST to assure compliance with the proposal content and other basic provisions of this notice. Proposals which satisfy these requirements will be designated qualified proposals; all others will be disqualified at this phase of the evaluation and selection process.

(b) Proposal review and selection of finalists. NIST will appoint an evaluation panel composed of NIST and in some cases other federal employees to review and evaluate all qualified proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria and values set forth in this notice. A site visit may be required to make full evaluation of a proposal. From the qualified proposals, a group of finalists will be numerically ranked and recommended for award based on this review.

(c) Award determination. The Director of the NIST, or her/his designee, shall select awardees based on total evaluation scores, geographic distribution, and the availability of funds. All three factors will be considered in making an award. Upon the final award decision, a notification will be made to each of the proposing organizations.

Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and Department of Commerce policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.

(a) Purpose. In accordance with the provisions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272 (b)(1) and (c)(3) and 278l), as amended, NIST will provide financial assistance to develop the infrastructure of the national manufacturing extension system. Under the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), NIST will periodically make merit-based awards to develop and deploy training capability and technical tools, techniques, practices, and analyses. In addition, NIST will develop and implement information infrastructure services and pilots. MEP assumes a broad definition of manufacturing, and recognizes a wide range of technology and concepts, including durable goods production; chemical, biotechnology, and other materials processing; electronic component and system fabrication; and engineering services associated with manufacturing, as lying within the definition of manufacturing.

(b) Announcements of solicitations. Announcements of solicitations will be made in the Commerce Business Daily. Specific information on the level of funding available and the deadline for proposals will be contained in that announcement. In addition, any specific industry sectors or types of tools and techniques to be focused on will be specified in the announcement, as well as any further definition of the selection criteria.

(c) Proposal workshops. Prior to an announcement of solicitation, NIST may announce opportunities for potential applicants to learn about these projects through workshops. The time and place of the workshop(s) will be contained in a Commerce Business Daily announcement.

(d) Indirect costs. The total dollar amount of the indirect costs proposed in an application under this program must not exceed the indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal agency prior to the proposed effective date of the award or 100 percent of the total proposed direct costs dollar amount in the application, whichever is less.

(e) Proposal format. The proposal must contain both technical and cost information. The proposal page count shall include every page, including pages that contain words, table of contents, executive summary, management information and qualifications, resumes, figures, tables, and pictures. All proposals shall be printed such that pages are single-sided, with no more than fifty-five (55) lines per page. Use 21.6×27.9 cm (81/2″×11″) paper or A4 metric paper. Use an easy-to-read font of not more than about 5 characters per cm (fixed pitch font of 12 or fewer characters per inch or proportional font of point size 10 or larger). Smaller type may be used in figures and tables, but must be clearly legible. Margins on all sides (top, bottom, left and right) must be at lease 2.5 cm. (1″). Length limitations for proposals will be specified in solicitations. The applicant may submit a separately bound document of appendices, containing letters of support for the proposal. The proposal should be self-contained and not rely on the appendices for meeting criteria. Excess pages in the proposal will not be considered in the evaluation. Applicants must submit one signed original plus six copies of the proposal and Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B (Rev 4/92), Standard Form LLL, and Form CD-511. Applicants for whom the submission of six copies presents financial hardship may submit one original and two copies of the application.

(f) Content of proposal. (1) The proposal must, at a minimum, include the following:

(i) An executive summary summarizing the planned project consistent with the Evaluation Criteria stated in this part.

(ii) A description of the planned project sufficient to permit evaluation of the proposal in accordance with the proposal Evaluation Criteria stated in this part.

(iii) A budget for the project which identifies all sources of funds and which breaks out planned expenditures by both activity and object class (e.g., personnel, travel, etc.).

(iv) A description of the qualifications of key personnel who will be assigned to work on the proposed project.

(v) A statement of work that discusses the specific tasks to be carried out, including a schedule of measurable events and milestones.

(vi) A completed Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B (Rev 4-92) prescribed by the applicable OMB circular, Standard Form LLL, and Form CD-511, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying. SF-424, 424A, 424B (Rev 4-92), SF-LLL, and Form CD-511 will not be considered part of the page count of the proposal.

(2) The application requirements and the standard form requirements have been approved by OMB (OMB Control Number 0693-0005, 0348-0043 and 0348-0044).

(g) Applicable federal and departmental guidance. The Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audits are dependent upon type of Recipient organization as follows:

(1) Nonprofit organizations. (i) OMB Circular A-110—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.

(ii) OMB Circular A-122—Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations.

(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b—Audit Requirements for Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB Circular A-133—Audits for Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations).

(2) State/local governments. (i) 15 CFR Part 24—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.

(ii) OMB Circular A-87—Cost Principles for State and Local Governments.

(iii) 15 CFR Part 29a—Audit Requirements for State and Local Governments (implements OMB Circular A-128—Audit of State and Local Governments).

(3) Educational institutions. (i) OMB Circular A-110—Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.

(ii) OMB Circular A-21—Cost Principles for Educational Institutions.

(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b—Audit Requirements for Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB Circular A-133—Audits for Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations).

(4) For-profit organizations. (i) OMB Circular A-110—Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.

(ii) 48 CFR Part 31—Federal Acquisition Regulation, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures.

(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b—Audit Requirements for Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB Circular A-133).

(h) Availability of forms and circulars. (1) Copies of forms referenced in this part may be obtained from the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Room C121, Building 301, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

(2) Copies of OMB Circulars may be obtained from the Office of Administration, Publications Office, 725 17th St., NW, Room 2200, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

(a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these projects include all for-profit and nonprofit organizations including universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations. Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each solicitation for unique projects.

(b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support the development and deployment of training programs which will aid manufacturing extension organizations in providing services to smaller manufacturers. While primarily directed toward the field agents/engineers of the extension organizations, the training may also be of direct use by the smaller manufacturers themselves. Specific industry sectors to be addressed and sub-categories of training may be specified in solicitations. Examples of training topic areas include, but are not limited to, manufacturing assessment functions, business systems management, quality assurance assistance, and financial management activities. Examples of training program deployment include, but are not limited to, organization and conduct of training courses, development and conduct of train-the-trainer courses, preparations and delivery of distance learning activities, and preparation of self-learning and technical-guideline materials. Projects must be completed within the scope of the effort proposed and should not require on-going federal support.

(c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of DOC.

(d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.

(e) Training development and deployment projects evaluation criteria. Proposals will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the following criteria listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the training needs of technical assistance providers and manufacturers in the target population. The target population must be clearly defined and the proposal must demonstrate that it understands the population's training needs within the proposed project area. The proposal should show that the efforts being proposed meet the needs identified. Factors that may be considered include: A clear definition of the target population, size and demographic distribution; demonstrated understanding of the target population's training needs; and appropriateness of the size of the target population and the anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.

(2) Development/deployment methodology and use of appropriate technology and information sources. The proposal must describe the technical plan for the development or deployment of the training, including the project activities to be used in the training development/deployment and the sources of technology and/or information which will be used to create or deploy the training activity. Sources may include those internal to the proposer or from other organizations. Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy of the proposed technical plan; strength of core competency in the proposed area of activity; and demonstrated access to relevant technical or information sources external to the organization.

(3) Delivery and implementation mechanisms. The proposal must set forth clearly defined, effective mechanisms for delivery and/or implementation of proposed services to the target population. The proposal also must demonstrate that training activities will be integrated into and will be of service to the NIST Manufacturing Extension Centers. Factors that may be considered include: Ease of access to the training activity especially for MEP extension centers; methodology for disseminating or promoting involvement in the training especially within the MEP system; and demonstrated interest in the training activity especially by MEP extension centers.

(4) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other organizations which are developing or have expertise with similar training. If no such organizations exist, the proposal should show that this is the case. Applicants will need to describe how they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to avoid duplication. Factors that may be considered include: Demonstrated understanding of existing organizations and resources relevant to the proposed project; adequate linkages and partnerships with existing organizations and clear definition of those organizations' roles in the proposed activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate existing services or resources.

(5) Program evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed training activity and for ensuring continuous improvement of the training. Factors that may be considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for assessing outcomes of the activity, and “customer satisfaction” measures of performance.

(6) Management and organizational experience and plans. Applicants should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management of the implementation process. Factors that may be considered include: Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and continuing professional development; and appropriateness of the organizational approach for carrying out the proposed activity.

(7) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considered include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses; strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share, if any; effectiveness of management plans for control of budget; appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the program after the cooperative agreement has expired.

(a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these projects include all for profit and nonprofit organizations including universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations. Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each solicitation for unique projects.

(b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support the initial development, implementation, and analysis of tools, techniques, and practices which will aid manufacturing extension organizations in providing services to smaller manufacturers and which may also be of direct use by the smaller manufacturers themselves. Specific industry sectors to be addressed and sub-categories of tools, techniques, practices, and analyses may be specified in solicitations. Examples of tools, techniques, and practices include, but are not limited to, manufacturing assessment tools, benchmarking tools, business systems management tools, quality assurance assistance tools, financial management tools, software tools, practices for partnering, techniques for urban or rural firms, and comparative analysis of assessment methods. Projects must be completed within the scope of the effort proposed and should not require on-going federal support.

(c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of DOC.

(d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.

(e) Tools, techniques, practices, and analyses projects evaluation criteria. Proposals from applicants will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the following criteria listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the technical assistance needs of technical assistance providers and manufacturers in the target population. Target population must be clearly defined. The proposal must demonstrate that it understands the population's tool or technique needs within the proposed project area. The proposal should show that the efforts being proposed meet the needs identified. Factors that may be considered include: A clear definition of the target population, size and demographic distribution; demonstrated understanding of the target population's tools or technique needs; and appropriateness of the size of the target population and the anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.

(2) Development methodology and use of appropriate technology and information sources. The proposal must describe the technical plan for the development of the tool or resource, including the project activities to be used in the tool/resource development and the sources of technology and/or information which will be used to create the tool or resource. Sources may include those internal to the proposer or from other organizations. Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy of the proposed technical plan; strength of core competency in the proposed area of activity; and demonstrated access to relevant technical or information sources external to the organization.

(3) Degree of integration with the manufacturing extension partnership. The proposal must demonstrate that the tool or resource will be integrated into and will be of service to the NIST Manufacturing Extension Centers. Factors that may be considered include: Ability to access the tool or resource especially for MEP extension centers; methodology for disseminating or promoting use of the tool or technique especially within the MEP system; and demonstrated interest in using the tool or technique especially by MEP extension centers.

(4) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other organizations which are developing or have expertise on similar tools, techniques, practices, or analyses. If no such organizations exist, the proposal should show that this is the case. Applicants will need to describe how they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to avoid duplication. Factors that may be considered include: Demonstrated understanding of existing organizations and resources relevant to the proposed project; adequate linkages and partnerships with existing organizations and clear definition of those organizations' roles in the proposed activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate existing services or resources.

(5) Program evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed tool or technique and for ensuring continuous improvement of the tool. Factors that may be considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for assessing outcomes of the activity, and “customer satisfaction” measures of performance.

(6) Management experience and plans. Applicants should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management of the implementation process. Factors that may be considered include: Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and continuing professional development; and appropriateness of the organizational approach for carrying out the proposed activity.

(7) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considered include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses; strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share, if any; effectiveness of management plans for control of budget; appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the program after the cooperative agreement has expired.

(a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these projects include all for profit and nonprofit organizations including universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations. Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each solicitation for unique projects.

(b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support and act as a catalyst for the development and implementation of information infrastructure services and pilots. These projects will aid manufacturing extension organizations and smaller manufacturers in accessing the technical information they need or will accelerate the rate of adoption of electronic commerce. Specific industry sectors to be addressed or subcategories of information infrastructure projects include, but are not limited to, pilot demonstration of electronic data interchange in a supplier chain, implementation of an electronic information service for field engineers at MEP extension centers, and industry specific electronic information services for MEP centers and smaller manufacturers.

(c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of DOC.

(d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.

(e) Information infrastructure projects evaluation criteria. Proposals from applicants will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the following criteria listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the need of the target customer base. The target customer base must be clearly defined and, in general, will be technical assistance providers and/or smaller manufacturers. The proposal should demonstrate a clear understanding of the customer base's needs within the proposed project area. The proposal should also show that the efforts being proposed meet the needs identified. Factors that may be considered include: A clear definition of the customer base, size and demographic distribution; demonstrated understanding of the customer base's needs within the project area; and appropriateness of the size of the customer base and the anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.

(2) Development plans and delivery/implementation mechanisms. The proposal must set forth clearly defined, effective plans for the development, delivery and/or implementation of proposed services to the customer base. The proposal must delineate the sources of information which will be used to implement the project. Sources may include those internal to the center (including staff expertise) or from other organizations. Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy of plans; potential effectiveness and efficiency of proposed delivery and implementation systems; demonstrated capacity to form effective linkages; partnerships necessary for success of the proposed activity; strength of core competency in the proposed area of activity; and demonstrated access to relevant technical or information sources external to the organization.

(3) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other organizations which are developing or have expertise within the project area. In addition, the project should demonstrate that it does not duplicate efforts which already are being performed by the private sector without government support. Applicants will need to describe how they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to avoid duplication. If the proposer will not be partnering with any other organizations, then the proposal should clearly explain why the project will be more successful if implemented as proposed. A proposal which makes a credible case for why there are no, or very limited, partnerships will not be penalized in evaluation. Factors that may be considered include: Demonstrated understanding of existing organizations and resources relevant to the proposed project; Adequate linkages and partnerships with relevant existing organizations; clear definition of the roles of partnering organizations in the proposed activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate existing services or resources.

(4) Management and organizational experience and plans. Applicants should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management of the project. Factors that may be considered include: Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and continuing professional development; and appropriateness of the organizational approach for carrying out the proposed activity.

(5) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial support for the project; and the ability of the project to continue after the cooperative agreement has expired without federal support. While projects that appear to require on-going public support will be considered, in general, they will be evaluated lower than those which show a strong ability to become self-sufficient. Factors that may be considered include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses; strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share, if any; effectiveness of management plans for control of budget; appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the program after the cooperative agreement has expired.

(6) Evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed project and for ensuring continuous improvement. Factors that may be considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for assessing outcomes of the activity, and “customer satisfaction” measures of performance.

Federal policies and procedures. Recipients and subrecipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and Department of Commerce policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.