Notices. Proposed Additions to and Deletions from Procurement List

20,188 words·~92 min read·/register/2005/12/23/05-24424·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletion AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Proposed Additions to and Deletions from Procurement List. SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete a service previously furnished by such agencies. *Comments Must Be Received on or Before:* January 22, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *SKennerly@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)

(2)and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. Additions If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government. 2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. End of Certification The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed: Products Product/NSNs: Ergo Nylon Ladle NSN: M.R. 861—Ergo Nylon Ladle Product/NSNs: Ergo Nylon Spaghetti Server NSN: M.R. 857—Ergo Nylon Spaghetti Server NPA: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, Ohio Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA), Fort Lee, Virginia Services Service Type/Location: Medical Transcription (At the following VA Medical Centers and Community Based Outpatient Clinics) Fayetteville Community Based Outpatient Clinics, Arkansas G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery VA Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi Gulf Coast Community Based Outpatient Clinics, Mississippi Overton Brooks VA Medical Center, Shreveport, Louisiana VA Medical Center, 1011 Honor Heights Drive, Muskogee, Oklahoma VA Medical Center, Biloxi, Mississippi VA Medical Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas NPA: Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, Houston, Texas Contracting Activity: VA Medical Center—Overton Brooks, Shreveport, Louisiana Deletion Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities. 2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service proposed for deletion from the Procurement List. End of Certification The following service is proposed for deletion from the Procurement List: Service Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Custodial U.S. Federal Building and Post Office, 522 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona NPA: Goodwill Community Services, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona Contracting Activity: General Services Administration Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E5-7763 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. ACTION: Additions to Procurement List. SUMMARY: This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. DATES: Effective Date: January 22, 2006. ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3259. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheryl D. Kennerly, Telephone:

(703)603-7740, Fax:

(703)603-0655, or e-mail *SKennerly@jwod.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 14, and October 28, 2005, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (70 FR 60062, and 62092) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were: 1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government. 2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government. 3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. End of Certification Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List: Services *Service Type/Location:* Basewide Custodial Services U.S. Naval Academy Complex, Annapolis, Maryland *NPA:* Melwood Horticultural Training Center, Upper Marlboro, Maryland *Contracting Activity:* Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Chesapeake, Washington, DC *Service Type/Location:* Custodial Services West Point Gym, Building 705-C Barry Road West Point Middle School, Building 705-A Barry Road West Point, New York *NPA:* Occupations, Inc., Middletown, New York *Contracting Activity:* Directorate of Contracting, West Point, New York This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts. Sheryl D. Kennerly, Director, Information Management. [FR Doc. E5-7764 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-881) Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to a request from Anvil International, Inc. and Ward Manufacturing, Inc., domestic producers and interested parties in this proceeding, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain malleable iron pipe fittings (“MPF”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The period of review (“POR”) is December 2, 2003, through November 30, 2004. We have preliminarily determined that sales were made below normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of MPF during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above *de minimis* . Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tisha Loeper-Viti at

(202)482-7425 or Ryan Douglas at

(202)482-1277, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. *See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 69 FR 69889 (December 1, 2004). On December 30, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), Anvil International, Inc. and Ward Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, “the petitioners”) requested that the Department conduct administrative reviews of Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. (“SLK”), Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd. (“Pannext”), Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory (“Chengde”), and SCE Co., Ltd. (“SCE”). On January 31, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 4818 (January 31, 2005). On September 2, 2005, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results of this review to December 16, 2005. *See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China* , 70 FR 52634 (September 2, 2005). On March 14, 2005, we issued antidumping questionnaires to SLK, Pannext, Chengde and SCE. SLK, Pannext, and SCE submitted timely responses to the Department's questionnaire in April and May 2005. For information on Chengde's response, *see* the *Facts Otherwise Available* section below. We issued supplemental questionnaires in July and November of 2005 to certain respondents, as appropriate, and received timely responses to each. On August 15, 2005, the petitioners submitted publicly available information for consideration in valuing the factors of production (“FOPs”). SLK and Pannext submitted information for this purpose on August 25, 2005. The petitioners submitted rebuttal comments on September 2, 2005. Scope of the Order For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain malleable iron pipe fittings, cast, other than grooved fittings, from the PRC. The merchandise is currently classifiable under item numbers 7307.19.90.30, 7307.19.90.60 and 7307.19.90.80 of the *Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States* (“HTSUS”). Excluded from the scope of this order are metal compression couplings, which are imported under HTSUS number 7307.19.90.80. A metal compression coupling consists of a coupling body, two gaskets, and two compression nuts. These products range in diameter from 1/2 inch to 2 inches and are carried only in galvanized finish. Although HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive. Separate-Rates Determination The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (“NME”) country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. *See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China* , 69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. *See* section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as Amended (“the Act”). It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China* , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (“Sparklers”); and *Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China* , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (“ *Silicon Carbide* ”). SLK, Pannext, and SCE all provided the requested separate-rate information in their responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, consistent with *Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China* , 61 FR 19026 (April 30, 1996), we performed separate-rates analyses to determine whether each exporter is independent from government control. A. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following *de jure* criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate:

(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; and

(2)any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies. One of the respondents has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of *de jure* control including the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China,” the “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations,” and the “Law of the People's Republic of China on Foreign Capital Enterprises.” The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of *de jure* control. *See, e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 30695 (June 7, 2001), unchanged in the final determination. We have no information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this determination. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record supports a preliminary finding of an absence of *de jure* government control based on:

(1)an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the exporter's business license; and

(2)the legal authority on the record decentralizing control over the respondent. B. Absence of De Facto Control As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. *See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of China* , 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of *de facto* control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to *de facto* government control of its export functions:

(1)whether the exporter sets its own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority;

(2)whether the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements;

(3)whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and

(4)whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. SLK and SCE reported that they are wholly owned by foreign entities. Pannext reported that it is privately owned by individual shareholders. Each has asserted the following:

(1)There is no government participation in setting export prices;

(2)sales managers and authorized employees have the authority to bind sales contracts;

(3)they do not have to notify any government authorities of management selections;

(4)there are no restrictions on the use of export revenue;

(5)each is responsible for financing its own losses. The questionnaire responses of SLK, Pannext, and SCE do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. During our analysis of the information on the record, we found no information indicating the existence of government control. Consequently, we preliminarily determine that SLK, Pannext, and SCE have met the criteria for the application of a separate rate. Because we find the information provided by Chengde to be unreliable and Chengde has not cooperated to the best of its ability, we are applying an adverse inference with respect to Chengde for these preliminary results and preliminarily find that it is part of the PRC-wide entity. For further information, *see* the *Facts Otherwise Available* section below. Export Price For all sales made by SCE and certain sales made by Pannext, 1 we based the U.S. price on export price (“EP”), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. 1 In this review, Pannext has reported that all of its sales are EP transactions. For purposes of these preliminary results, however, we are treating Pannext's sales made through its U.S. affiliate as CEP transactions. See the Constructed Export Price section below for further details. For SCE, we deducted foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, marine insurance, and U.S. inland freight expenses, where appropriate, from the gross unit price, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. For Pannext, we deducted discounts, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, marine insurance, freight surcharges, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. import duties, where appropriate, from the gross unit price, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Constructed Export Price In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we used CEP methodology when the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after importation of the merchandise into the United States. We calculated CEP for all of SLK's sales and, as described further below, for certain U.S. sales made by Pannext through its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated U.S. customers. For SLK, we made adjustments to the gross unit price for foreign inland freight, foreign warehousing, foreign brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. warehousing, and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including commissions, credit expenses, advertising expenses, inventory carrying costs, and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. In this review, Pannext has reported that all of its sales are EP transactions. In the LTFV investigation, however, Pannext reported all sales through its U.S. affiliate as CEP transactions. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China* , 68 FR 33911 (June 6, 2003), unchanged in the final determination. We find that the sales in the current review follow the same fact pattern as the sales reported as CEP transactions during the LTFV investigation. Pannext reported that its date of sale ( *i.e.* , date all material terms of sale are set) is the date of shipment and that its U.S. affiliate issues the official invoice to the unaffiliated U.S. customer upon shipment of the merchandise by Pannext to the U.S. customer. Pannext issues an invoice to the U.S. affiliate ( *e.g.* , a transfer-price sale between Pannext and the U.S. affiliate) for the sale typically in an amount that differs from that between the U.S. affiliate and the unaffiliated U.S. customer. According to Pannext, its U.S. affiliate receives the purchase order, order confirmation, and payment from the unaffiliated U.S. customer. In its questionnaire response, Pannext describes its U.S. affiliate as its “sales headquarters” that is involved in the marketing and sale of subject merchandise and incurs expenses typically associated with CEP sales ( *e.g.* , indirect selling expenses, credit expenses, etc.). Pannext further reported that the chairman of Pannext is also the president of the U.S. affiliate and has the power to contractually bind Pannext to U.S. sales. Based on this information and the fact that Pannext has not demonstrated sufficiently why the Department should not continue to treat these sales as CEP transactions in the current review, we find that the sales made through Pannext's U.S. affiliate should be treated as CEP transactions consistent with the Department's treatment of such sales in the LTFV investigation. For Pannext's CEP transactions, we made adjustments to the gross unit price for discounts, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international ocean freight, marine insurance, freight surcharges, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. import duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including credit expenses and indirect selling expenses. We also made an adjustment for profit in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act. Where movement expenses were provided by PRC service providers or paid for in Chinese renminbi, we valued these services using Indian surrogate values. *See Surrogate Values* section below. Where applicable, we used the actual reported expense for those movement expenses provided by market economy (“ME”) suppliers and paid for in an ME currency. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine normal value (“NV”) using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Because information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and

(4)of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c). Because we are using surrogate-country FOP prices to determine NV, section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department use values from an ME (surrogate) country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We find that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are ME countries at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC. For a further discussion of our surrogate selection, see the February 14, 2005, memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Wendy Frankel regarding Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, which is available in the Department's Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, according to the *Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (“MSFTI”* ) as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and available from World Trade Atlas, we found that India exported 12,073,802 kilograms of comparable merchandise ( *i.e.* , cast iron pipe fittings NESOI or steel based on HTS number 7307.19) during the POR valued at USD 24,535,575. *See World Trade Atlas* at *http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm.* Therefore, we find that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Additionally, we are able to access Indian data that are contemporaneous with this POR. As in the LTFV investigation, we have chosen India as the primary surrogate country and are using Indian prices to value the FOPs. *See* the December 16, 2005, memorandum from Ryan A. Douglas to the File regarding Preliminary Valuation of Factors of Production (“FOP Memo”). We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India that were average non-export values, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Also, where we have relied upon import values, we have excluded imports from NME countries as well as from South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. The Department has found that South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. The existence of these subsidies provides sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices from these countries may be subsidized. * See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China * , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Our practice of excluding subsidized prices has been upheld in *China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. United States* , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1136 (CIT 2003). While it is our preferred methodology to use a producer's actual FOPs in the calculation of NV, the Department has found it necessary to depart from that practice in instances where the actual FOP is a process provided by a subcontractor. In such cases, where we have had difficulty obtaining reliable surrogate values for the subcontracted production processes, we have resorted to using the subcontractor's FOPs as the producer's own. *See Certain Helical Spring Lock Washers from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order, in Part,* 69 FR 12119 (March 15, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at comment 4. In the instant review, one of SLK's suppliers subcontracted its galvanizing process to another company. SLK has provided the FOPs for these processes along with the supplier's own FOPs. Due to the difficulty in obtaining reliable surrogate values for galvanizing, we have instead applied values to the subcontractors' FOPs. Surrogate Values To value all material inputs, by-products, and packing materials, we used per-kilogram import values obtained from *MSFTI* . As appropriate, we adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and the factory. We calculated these freight costs based on the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or distance from the port in accordance with the decision in *Sigma Corporation v. United States* , 117F. 3d 1401, 1407-8 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sale(s) as certified by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from *International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly Statistics (Second Quarter 2003)* . To value water, we used the Revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation water rates for June 1, 2003, available at *http://www.midcindia.com/water_supply.* To value coke and firewood, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from MSFTI and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and the factory. To value coal we used the *Teri Energy Data Directory & Yearbook* (2004). For labor, we used the most recent regression-based wage rate for the PRC in “Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,” available at *http://ia.ita.doc.gov.* For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit values, we used the 2002-2003 financial statements of Vishal Malleables Limited (“Vishal”) and the 2003-2004 financial statements of Ennore Foundries Limited (“Ennore”) and Bhagwati Autocast Limited (“Bhagwati”), all of which are Indian producers of comparable merchandise. From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (“ML&E”) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( *i.e.* , cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. The Department used the 2001-2002 financial statements of Vishal in the final determination of the LTFV investigation. *See Final Determination* at comment 3. Although the petitioner claimed in its September 2, 2005, submission, that both Ennore and Bhagwati were primarily producers of merchandise for the automotive industry and, therefore, not producers of comparable merchandise, we observe that both companies produce primarily cast iron products utilizing substantially the same raw materials and production processes as the respondents in the current review. We also observe that Vishal manufactures products for the automotive industry as well. Furthermore, it is the Department's preference to use multiple financial statements when they are not distortive or otherwise unreliable, in order to eliminate potential distortions that may arise from using those of a single producer. *See, e.g., Final Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China* , 66 FR 45006 (August 27, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1 and *Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Third New Shipper Review and Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 64 FR 73007 (December 29, 1999). We find it appropriate, therefore, for these preliminary results, to average the financial ratios derived from the financial statements of Vishal, Ennore, and Bhagwati to calculate factory overhead and SG&A expenses for the respondents and, as Bhagwati did not earn a profit in 2003-2004, to average the profit ratios of only Vishal and Ennore. SLK and Pannext have also placed on the record of the current review the 2002-2003 financial statements of Rajesh Malleables Limited (“Rajesh”), an Indian producer of identical merchandise. We have declined to include Rajesh's financial data in our calculation of surrogate financial ratios because we have determined that this company is a “sick company” under India's Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act of 1985, amended 1993. It is the Department's policy not to use the financial statements of “sick” companies in its calculations of surrogate financial ratios. *See, e.g., Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 70 FR 6836 (February 9, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. In calculating the surrogate ratios for Vishal, Ennore, and Bhagwati for purposes of this review, we deviated from the methodology used in the LTFV investigation in two respects. First, regarding the treatment of job and process charges, although such charges are treated as overhead expenses in the financial statements, we are categorizing these expenses as ML&E in order to mirror the respondents' experience, explained below, as much as possible and avoid double counting. One of the respondents is an independent producer and the FOPs we are using for the second respondent are from its supplier, which is also an integrated producer. The third respondent, SLK, purchases MPF from several producers, two of which are not fully integrated. These two producers out-source certain processes to sub-contractors. As explained below in the *Facts Otherwise Available* section, however, we are valuing the actual inputs used in these processes, rather than valuing the processes themselves, and including them in ML&E in the respondent's build-up of NV. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the surrogate financial ratios to these producers' costs as if they were also integrated producers in order to avoid double counting the expenses associated with the out-sourced processes. Second, regarding the treatment of changes in inventory, it is the Department's practice to exclude from our calculation of surrogate financial ratios increases or decreases in finished-goods inventory, as well as increases or decreases in the broader categories of stock or inventory where there is insufficient detail regarding the content of these categories. We find that each of the financial statements we are analyzing here, however, provides sufficient detail that enables us to discriminate between inventory changes in finished goods and inventory changes in work-in-process and raw materials. As the latter two items are properly categorized as production expenses, we are including them in our calculation as ML&E. Consistent with the LTFV investigation, we continue to exclude changes in finished-goods inventory. We used two sources to calculate a surrogate value for domestic brokerage expenses. We averaged December 2003-November 2004 data contained in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the antidumping duty administrative review of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India with October 2002-September 2003 data contained in Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India. The brokerage expense data reported by Essar Steel and Pidilite Industries in their public versions is ranged data. We first derived an average per-unit amount from each source. We then adjusted each average rate for inflation and, finally, averaged the two per-unit amounts to derive an overall average rate for the POR. To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at *http://www.infreight.com. * To value domestic warehousing, we used a rate obtained from the Board of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, available at *http://www.jnport.com/new_site/itarriff_crc.asp. * To value international ocean freight and U.S. inland freight, we used price quotes obtained from Maersk Sealand available at *http://www.maersksealand.com. * To value marine insurance, we used a price quote obtained from RJG Consultants and available at *http://www.rjgconstultants.com. * Where necessary, we adjusted the surrogate values to reflect inflation/deflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index as published on the Reserve Bank of India Web site, available at *http://www.rbi.org.in.* For further detail regarding all of the above surrogate values, see the FOP Memo. Facts Otherwise Available Section 776(a)(1) and

(2)of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, *inter alia* , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person:

(A)withholds information that has been requested,

(B)fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e)of section 782 of the Act,

(C)significantly impedes a proceeding, or

(D)provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act. In addition, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds that an interested party “has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information,” the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. The purpose of applying an adverse inference is “to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.” *See* Statement of Administrative Action

(SAA)accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). SLK SLK purchased MPF from several unaffiliated suppliers in the PRC. For one supplier, SLK was able to provide the Department with FOPs based only on a standard production formula. Because this information is not based on the supplier's actual production experience and it cannot be verified, the Department has declined to use the reported FOPs. SLK also suggested an alternative methodology; however, we do not have sufficient information at this time to apply that alternative. Due to the totality of the circumstances, however, we have determined that SLK has acted to the best of its ability to provide the Department with the requested information and, in the absence of the actual FOPs, for the purposes of these preliminary results, an adverse inference is not warranted. As facts otherwise available for those products that SLK also purchased from other suppliers, we are using the weighted-average FOPs (weighted by purchased quantity) of the other suppliers. For those U.S. sales of products not purchased from other suppliers ( *i.e.* , unique products provided only by this supplier), we are applying SLK's weighted-average margin calculated for its other reported U.S. sales. For another of SLK's suppliers, SLK was unable to provide complete FOPs for galvanized MPF. During the POR, this supplier subcontracted the galvanizing process to two different subcontractors: one for the first nine months of the POR and the other for the last three months of the POR. Because the first subcontractor did not maintain production records, SLK was able to provide the Department with complete FOPs for only those products produced during the last three months of the POR. Because of the small percentage of NV attributable to galvanizing, and because SLK has cooperated with the Department's request for information to the best of its ability, for the purposes of the prelminary results, we are applying neutral facts available by using the three months of data representing the FOPs for galvanizing MPF provided by the second subcontractor for the full POR. SLK reported that certain products it sold to the U.S. during the POR were sold out of its own inventory and not purchased from any of its suppliers during the POR. Thus, for these products, SLK was unable to provide the Department with purchased quantities to use as a weighting factor to average each supplier's reported FOPs. 2 Additionally, SLK was unable to provide FOP data for approximately one half of those products because none of SLK's suppliers produced these products during the POR. The percentage of sales, by volume, that these products represent is less than three percent of its U.S. sales during the POR. Because of this, and because the Department did not request SLK to provide FOPs for these products based on a prior period, we find that an adverse inference is not warranted for the preliminary results. As neutral facts available, where we are unable to weight average the product-specific FOPs of each supplier by SLK's purchased quantities, we are using a simple average of the reported product-specific FOPs provided by the suppliers of that product. For the remaining products sold out of inventory, none of SLK's suppliers reported FOPs. For sales of these products, for the purpose of the preliminary results, we are applying SLK's weighted-average margin calculated using its other reported U.S. sales as neutral facts available. 2 The Department requested that SLK report the quantities of each product it purchased from each supplier during the POR. This information is being used to weight the product-specific FOPs of each supplier during the POR. Finally, SLK did not report FOPs for a small number of unique products purchased from all but one of its suppliers. Due to the small number of sales affected by these missing FOPs, for the purpose of the preliminary results, we are applying neutral facts available to these sales. As neutral facts available, we are applying the average of the FOPs for the same products purchased from other suppliers, if available. If unavailable, we are applying SLK's weighted-average margin. We will provide SLK with an opportunity to cure the deficiencies discussed above and will revisit the facts-available calls for SLK for the final results of review in light of the adequacy of SLK's response to this opportunity. If appropriate, we may resort to the use of adverse facts available (“AFA”) for SLK for the final results of review. For further detail, *see* the December 16, 2005, memorandum from Jennifer Moats to the File regarding the 2003-2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results for Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd. Pannext Pannext did not report FOPs for less than one percent of its U.S. sales made during the POR. Pannext has stated that it was not able to supply FOPs for these sales because the products were sold out of inventory and were not produced during the POR. Pannext has suggested that the Department use the FOPs of the most similar products that were produced during the POR and identified the most similar products in its December 1, 2005, submission to the Department. However, Pannext did not provide any supporting information on the criteria used to identify the products on this list as “most similar” to those products without reported FOP data. Therefore, we are unable to use Pannext's suggested methodology for these preliminary results. Because the sales in question constitute a small percentage of Pannext's sales of MPF to the United States during the POR and Pannext has cooperated to the best of its ability, we find that an adverse inference is not warranted in this case. As neutral facts available, for purposes of the preliminary results, we are applying Pannext's calculated weighted-average margin of its other reported U.S. sales during the POR to those U.S. sales that were sold out of inventory. We will provide Pannext with an additional opportunity to explain the methodology it used to identify the “most similar” products reported to the Department following these preliminary results, and will revisit this issue for the final results of this proceeding. If appropriate, we may resort to the use of AFA for Pannext for the final results of review. For further detail, *see* the December 16, 2005, memorandum from Sochieta Moth to the File regarding the 2003-2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results for Pannext Fittings Corporation. Chengde In the current proceeding, Chengde significantly impeded both our ability to complete the review of the MPF order which we are conducting pursuant to section 751 of the Act, and to impose the correct antidumping duties, as mandated by section 731 of the Act. As discussed below, we preliminarily find that its failure to cooperate with the Department to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's request for information warrants the use of adverse facts available in determining dumping margins for its sales of merchandise subject to the order. Chengde has had extensive difficulty complying with the Department's filing and service requirements during the course of this proceeding. On April 29, 2005, the Department rejected Chengde's sections A, C, and D questionnaire responses due to filing format and service deficiencies, offering Chengde the opportunity to correct the deficiencies and resubmit its responses. Chengde resubmitted its responses on May 18, 2005. The Department subsequently discovered that the submissions contained inconsistencies regarding bracketed information. After giving Chengde multiple opportunities to re-bracket the proprietary information and resubmit its responses correctly, which Chengde did not do, the Department notified Chengde on July 7, 2005, that Chengde's improperly bracketed information would be treated as public information by the Department. On July 21, 2005, after improperly filing a request for an extension and failing to serve it on the other parties to the proceeding, the Department again reminded Chengde of the filing requirements and helped it meet those requirements. In addition to filing problems, Chengde had difficulty complying with the Department's requests for information. Thus far we have issued two supplemental questionnaires to Chengde. The first supplemental questionnaire was issued on July 20, 2005. Chengde's response was received on August 10, 2005. On November 23, 2005, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Chengde requesting, among other things, revised U.S. sales and FOP databases and reconciliations for Chengde's reported FOPs. Chengde requested an extension until December 23, 2005, to respond to the supplemental questionnaire. The Department granted Chengde the full extension requested, on the condition that Chengde provide the Department with a specified minimal amount of information necessary for the Department to perform its calculation analysis of Chengde's sales of subject merchandise during the POR. Chengde provided revised databases on December 5, 2005. However, we find that the databases are so deficient they cannot be used for the purpose of performing a calculation for Chengde. Our review of the data revealed several major inconsistencies and omissions in Chengde's most recent U.S. sales and FOP databases. For example, Chengde did not provide FOP data for 26 of its sales (representing 23 different products), and it provided different per-piece weights for the same products in its FOP and U.S. sales databases. Because Chengde has not provided complete or usable data to the Department despite the multiple opportunities provided, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will apply facts available to Chengde because it did not provide the necessary information to calculate a dumping margin. Because Chengde has not cooperated to the best of its ability pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, it is appropriate to use AFA for Chengde for purposes of the preliminary results of review. Furthermore, we find that because Chengde's information is unreliable it does not merit a separate rate and will be subject to the PRC-wide rate. As AFA for the PRC-wide entity (including Chengde), for the preliminary results, we are applying the highest weighted-average margin calculated in this proceeding ( *i.e.* , 200.24 percent). In this case, the rate is the margin calculated for another respondent ( *i.e.* , SCE) in the instant segment of the proceeding. For further detail, see the December 16, 2005, memorandum from Tisha Loeper-Viti to Wendy J. Frankel regarding the 2003-2004 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Malleable Iron Pipe Fittings from the People's Republic of China: Adverse Facts Available Analysis Memorandum for Preliminary Results for Chengde Malleable Iron General Factory. We intend to issue Chengde one more supplemental questionnaire outlining the deficiencies we are able to identify in its current submissions. Should Chengde's forthcoming response to the Department's second and third (to be issued following the preliminary results) supplemental questionnaires be incomplete or unusable, or should Chengde fail to provide additional data requested by the Department within the requested time frame, we may continue to use AFA for Chengde for the final results of review. Corroboration of Secondary Information Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. Secondary information is defined in the SAA as “information derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” *See* SAA at 870. The SAA provides that to “corroborate” means simply that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. *See id* . The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. *See id* . As noted in *Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, from Japan; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Partial Termination of Administrative Reviews* , 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996) (“TRBs”), to corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. While the Department need not prove that the selected facts available are the best alternative information (SAA at 869), where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin.” *See TRBs* , 61 FR at 57392. *See also Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review* , 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (disregarding the highest margin in the case as best information available because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an extremely high margin). In this review, we are using as AFA the margin calculated for a respondent in the instant review, which constitutes secondary information within the meaning of the SAA. *See* SAA at 870. Unlike other types of information such as input costs or selling expenses, however, there are no independent sources for calculated dumping margins. Thus, in an administrative review, if the Department chooses as facts available a calculated dumping margin from the current or from a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary to question the reliability of the margin if it was calculated from sales and cost data. The 200.24 percent rate is based on information provided by SCE in the instant review of this proceeding. Therefore, we consider this rate to be reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Nothing in the record of this review calls into question the relevance of the margin we have selected as AFA. Moreover, the selected margin will be applied as the PRC-wide rate and will be applicable to exporters who do not have a separate rate. Thus, it is appropriate to use the selected rate as adverse facts available in the instant review. Accordingly, we have corroborated the AFA rate identified above, as required, by section 776(c) of the Act (i.e., established its probative value). Because this is a preliminary margin, the Department will consider all margins on the record at the time of the final results for the purpose of determining the most appropriate final margin based on total AFA. *See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the Russian Federation* , 65 FR 1139 (January 7, 2000). Preliminary Results of Review We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margins exist: Manufacturer/exporter Margin (percent) Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co., Ltd 23.44 Langfang Pannext Pipe Fitting Co., Ltd. 5.25 SCE Co., Ltd. 200.24 PRC-Wide Entity (including Chengde) 200.24 We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 CFR § 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case briefs and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs. The Department will notify all parties of the briefing and hearing request schedule at a later date. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate if parties submitting written comments provide an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing. *See* 19 CFR 351.310(c). The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice. Assessment Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were *de minimis* , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculate importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an importer (or customer)-specific *ad valorem* rate is greater than *de minimis* and we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). The Department will issue assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results for all shipments of MPF from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act:

(1)for the above listed respondents, which each have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of the review;

(2)the cash deposit rates for any other companies that have separate rates established in the investigation, but were not reviewed in this proceeding, will not change;

(3)for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be 200.24 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the LTFV; and

(4)for non-PRC exporters of MPF from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 16, 2005. Stephen J. Claeys, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E5-7785 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC) AGENCY: International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. *Date:* January 13, 2006. *Time:* 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. *Place:* Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution NW., Washington, DC 20230, Room 4830. SUMMARY: The Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC) will hold a plenary meeting on January 13, 2006, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, in Room 4830. The ETTAC will discuss global climate change mitigation initiatives, the European Union's electronic and other waste initiatives, updated negotiations in the World Trade Organization's environmental goods and services trade liberalization, the Export-Import Bank's environmental exports program, U.S. EPA's Environmental Technologies Verification

(ETV)Program, the USG role in the Asia-Pacific Partnership, and an overview of the U.S. International Trade Commission's environmental services sector market analysis. The meeting is open to the public and time will be permitted for public comment. Written comments concerning ETTAC affairs are welcome anytime before or after the meeting. Minutes will be available within 30 days of this meeting. The ETTAC is mandated by Public Law 103-392. It was created to advise the U.S. government on environmental trade policies and programs, and to help it to focus its resources on increasing the exports of the U.S. environmental industry. ETTAC operates as an advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce and the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC). ETTAC was originally chartered in May of 1994. It was most recently rechartered until May 30, 2006. For further information phone Ellen Bohon, Office of Energy and Environmental Technologies Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at

(202)482-0359. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to OEEI at

(202)482-5225. Dated: December 15, 2005. Joe O. Neuhoff, Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries. [FR Doc. E5-7767 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No.: 051202321-5335-02] Small Grants Programs and Precision Measurement Grants Program; Availability of Funds AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)announces that the following programs are soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2006:

(1)The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program;

(2)the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory Grants Program;

(3)the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program;

(4)the Physics Laboratory Grants Program;

(5)the Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory Grants Program;

(6)the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program;

(7)the Fire Research Grants Program;

(8)the Information Technology Laboratory Grants Program; and

(9)the Precision Measurement Grants Program. Each program will only consider applications that are within the scientific scope of the program as described in this notice and in the detailed program descriptions found in the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)announcement for these programs. Prior to preparation of a proposal, it is strongly suggested that potential applicants contact the Program Manager for the appropriate field of research, as specified in the FFO announcement found at *http://www.grants.gov* , for clarification of the program objectives and to determine whether their proposal is responsive to this notice. DATES: See below. ADDRESSES: See below. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number:* Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609 Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory

(EEEL)Grants Program *Program Description:* The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory

(EEEL)Grants Program will provide grants and cooperative agreements for the development of fundamental electrical metrology and of metrology supporting industry and government agencies in the broad areas of semiconductors, electronic instrumentation, radio-frequency technology, optoelectronics, magnetics, video, electronic commerce as applied to electronic products and devices, the transmission and distribution of electrical power, national electrical standards (fundamental, generally quantum-based physical standards), and law enforcement standards. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time on June 30, 2006. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Sheilda Bryner, Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8100. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov* . A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Program questions should be addressed to Sheilda Bryner, Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8100, Tel.:

(301)975-2220, Fax:

(301)975-4091. All grants related administration questions concerning this program should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division,

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov* . For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov* . *Funding Availability:* In fiscal year 2005, the EEEL Grants Program made 13 new awards, totaling $866,613. The amount available each year fluctuates considerably based on programmatic needs. Individual awards are expected to range between $5,000 and $150,000. For the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves). Statutory Authority: As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 272(b) and (c), the NIST Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory conducts a basic and applied research program directly and through grants and cooperative agreements to eligible recipients. *Eligibility:* The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Review and Selection Process:* For the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, proposals will be reviewed in a three-step process. First, the EEEL Grants Coordinator, or the Deputy Director of EEEL, will determine the compatibility of the applicant's proposal with EEEL Program Areas and the relevance to the objectives of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, described in the Program Description section above. If it is determined that the proposal is incomplete or non-responsive to the scope of the stated objectives, the proposal will not be reviewed for technical merit. If it is determined that all funds available for the EEEL Grants Program for the given fiscal year have been exhausted, the proposal will not be reviewed for technical merit. Proposers may contact EEEL at

(301)975-2220 to find out if funds have been exhausted for the fiscal year. EEEL will also post a notice on its Web site, *http://www.eeel.nist.gov/eeel_grants,* when funds are exhausted for the fiscal year. EEEL will notify proposers in writing if their proposals are not reviewed for technical merit. Second, proposals will be distributed for technical review by the EEEL Grants Coordinator, or other technical professionals familiar with the programs of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, to the appropriate Division or Office based on technical area. At least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the Program Description section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described above. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Reviews will be conducted on a quarterly basis, and all proposals received during the quarter will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. Third, the Division Chief or Office Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief or Office Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funding, and relevance to the objectives of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, as described in the Program Description section above. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, the evaluation criteria and weights to be used by the technical reviewers in evaluating the proposals are as follows: Proposal addresses specific program objectives as described in this notice (25%) Proposal provides evidence of applicant's expertise in relevant technical area (20%) Proposal offers innovative approach (20%) Proposal provides realistic schedule with defined milestones (20%) Proposal provides adequate rationale for budget (15%) *Cost Share Requirements:* The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program does not require any matching funds. Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

(MEL)Grants Program *Program Description:* The Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

(MEL)Grants Program will provide grants and cooperative agreements in the following fields of research: Dimensional Metrology for Manufacturing, Mechanical Metrology for Manufacturing, Intelligent Systems, and Information Systems Integration for Applications in Manufacturing. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 30, 2006. Proposals received between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006 may be processed and considered for funding under this solicitation in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Mrs. Mary Lou Norris, Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8200, Building 220, Room B322, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8200. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov.* A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Program questions should be addressed to Mrs. Mary Lou Norris, Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8200, Building 220, Room B322, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8200, Tel:

(301)975-3400, E-mail: *mnorris@nist.gov.* All grants related administration questions concerning this program should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division,

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov.* For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov.* *Funding Availability:* In fiscal year 2005, the MEL Grants Program funded 11 new awards, totaling $834,342. In fiscal year 2006 the MEL Grants Program anticipates funding of approximately $500,000, including new awards and continuing projects. Individual awards are expected to range from approximately $25,000 to $300,000. For the MEL Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to five years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the MEL program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves). Statutory Authority: As authorized under 15 U.S.C. 272(b) and (c), the MEL conducts a basic and applied research program directly and through grants and cooperative agreements to eligible recipients. *Eligibility:* The MEL Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Review and Selection Process:* For the MEL Grants Program responsive proposals will be assigned, as received on a rolling basis, to the most appropriate area for review. At least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the Program Description section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of proposals based on the evaluation criteria. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. The Division Chief or Laboratory Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief or Laboratory Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives of the MEL Grants Program. These objectives are described above in the Program Description section above. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The original application will be returned to the applicant. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the MEL Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows: 1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues. 2. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of manufacturing engineering and metrology research. 3. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project. 4. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives. Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process. *Cost Share Requirements:* The MEL Grants Program does not require any matching funds. Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program *Program Description:* The Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory

(CSTL)Grants Program will provide grants and cooperative agreements in the following fields of measurement science research, focused on reference methods, reference materials and reference data: Biotechnology, Process Measurements, Surface and Microanalysis Science, Physical and Chemical Properties, and Analytical Chemistry. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 30, 2006. Proposals received between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006 may be processed and considered for funding under this solicitation in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Dr. William F. Koch, Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8300, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8300. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov.* A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Program questions should be addressed to Dr. William F. Koch, Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8300, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8300, Tel

(301)975-8301, E-Mail: *william.koch@nist.gov.* All grants related administration questions concerning this program should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division,

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov.* For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov.* *Funding Availability:* No funds have been set aside specifically for support of the CSTL Grants Program. The availability of funds depends upon actual authorization of funds and other costs expected to be incurred by individual divisions within the laboratory. Where funds are identified as available for grants, those funds will be awarded to highly ranked proposals as determined by the process described in this notice. In fiscal year 2005, the CSTL Grants Program funded 10 new awards, totaling $830,254. In fiscal year 2006, the CSTL Grants Program anticipates funding of approximately $500,000. Individual awards are expected to range from approximately $5,000 to $100,000. For the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grant Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e. the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves). Statutory Authority: As authorized under 15 U.S.C. 272(b) and (c), the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory conducts a basic and applied research program directly and through grants and cooperative agreements to eligible recipients. *Eligibility:* The Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Review and Selection Process:* For the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program, proposals will be reviewed in a three-step process. First, the Deputy Director of CSTL, or appropriate CSTL Division Chief, will determine the compatibility of the applicant's proposal with CSTL Program Areas and the relevance to the objectives of the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program, described in the Program Description section above. If it is determined that the proposal is incomplete or non-responsive to the scope of the stated objectives, the proposal will not be reviewed for technical merit. Second, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular measurement science area described in the section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described below. Reviews will be conducted on a quarterly basis, subject to the availability of funds, and all responsive, complete proposals received and reviewed since the last quarter will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Third, the Division Chief will make application selections, taking into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and the relevance of the proposal to the program objectives described in the Program Description section above. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decisions of the Grants Officer are final. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows: 1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues. 2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project. 3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives. 4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of measurement science, especially as it pertains to reference methods, reference materials and reference data in Chemical Science and Technology. Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process. *Cost Share Requirements:* The Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program does not require any matching funds. Physics Laboratory Grants Program Program Description: The Physics Laboratory

(PL)Grants Program will provide grants and cooperative agreements in the following fields of research: Electron and Optical Physics, Atomic Physics, Optical Technology, Ionizing Radiation, Time and Frequency, and Quantum Physics. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Standard Time on September 30, 2006. Proposals received between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006 may be processed and considered for funding under this solicitation in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Ms. Anita Sweigert, Physics Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8400, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8400. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov* . A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Program questions should be addressed to Ms. Anita Sweigert, Physics Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8400, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8400, Tel

(301)975-4200, E-Mail: *anita.sweigert@nist.gov* . It is strongly suggested to first confirm the program objectives with the Program Manager prior to preparing a detailed proposal. All grants related administration questions concerning this program should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division,

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov* . For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov* . *Funding Availability:* In fiscal year 2005, the PL Grants Program funded 21 new awards, totaling $2,274,427. In fiscal year 2006, the PL Grants Program anticipates funding of approximately $1,700,000, including new awards and continuing projects. Funding availability will be apportioned by quarter. Individual awards are expected to range from approximately $5,000 to $300,000. For the Physics Laboratory Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to five years. When a proposal for a multi-year project is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Physics Laboratory program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant ( *i.e.* , the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves). Statutory Authority: As authorized under 15 U.S.C. 272(b) and (c), the Physics Laboratory conducts a basic and applied research program directly and through grants and cooperative agreements to eligible recipients. *Eligibility:* The Physics Laboratory Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Review and Selection Process:* For the Physics Laboratory Grants Program, responsive proposals will be considered as follows: First, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the proposal will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described below. Reviews will be conducted on a monthly basis within each division of the Physics Laboratory, and all proposals received during the month will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. If non-Federal reviewers are used, reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Next, the Division Chief will make final application selections, taking into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank; the compilation of a slate that, when taken as a whole, is likely to best further the program interests described in the Program Description section above; and the availability of funds. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decisions of the Grants Officer are final. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the Physics Laboratory Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows: 1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues. 2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project. 3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives. 4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of physics. Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process. *Cost Share Requirements:* The Physics Laboratory Grants Program does not require any matching funds. MSEL Grants Program *Program Description:* The Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory

(MSEL)Grants Program will provide grants and cooperative agreements in the following fields of research: Ceramics; Metallurgy; Polymer Sciences; Materials Reliability; and Neutron Scattering Research and Spectroscopy. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 30, 2006. Proposals received between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006 may be processed and considered for funding under this solicitation in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Dr. Stephen W. Freiman, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8500, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8500. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov.* A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Program questions should be addressed to Dr. Stephen W. Freiman, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8500, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8500, Tel:

(301)975-5658, E-mail: *stephen.freiman@nist.gov.* All grants related administration questions concerning this program should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division,

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov.* For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@nist.gov.* *Funding Availability:* In fiscal year 2005, the MSEL Grants Program funded 36 new awards, totaling $4,966,802. In fiscal year 2006, the MSEL Grants Program anticipates funding of approximately $4,500,000, including new awards and continuing projects. Most grants and cooperative agreements are expected to be in the $25,000 to $100,000 per year range. For the MSEL Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the MSEL program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves). Statutory Authority: As authorized under 15 U.S.C. 272

(b)and (c), the MSEL conducts a basic and applied research program directly and through grants and cooperative agreements to eligible recipients. *Eligibility:* The MSEL Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Review and Selection Process:* For the MSEL Grants Program proposals will be reviewed in a two-step process. First, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the Program Description section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of proposals, as they are received on a rolling basis, based on the evaluation criteria. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Second, the Division Chief or Center Director or Laboratory Deputy Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief or Center Director or Laboratory Deputy Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives of the MSEL Grants Program, described above in the Program Description section. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the MSEL Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows: 1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues. 2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project. 3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives. 4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of materials science and engineering and neutron research. Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process. *Cost Share Requirements:* The MSEL Grants Program does not require any matching funds. Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program *Program Description:* The Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program will provide grants and cooperative agreements in the following fields of research: Structures, Construction Metrology and Automation, Inorganic Materials, Polymeric Materials, HVAC & R Equipment Performance, Mechanical Systems and Controls, Heat Transfer and Alternative Energy Systems, Computer Integrated Building Processes, and Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 30, 2006. Proposals received between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006 may be processed and considered for funding under this solicitation in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Karen Perry, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8602, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8602. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov.* A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Program questions should be addressed to Karen Perry, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8602, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8602, Tel.:

(301)975-5910, Fax:

(301)975-4032, *http://www.bfrl.nist.gov.* All grants related administration questions concerning this program should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division,

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov.* For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov.* *Funding Availability:* In fiscal year 2005, the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program funded 4 new awards, totaling $603,964. No funds have been set aside specifically for support of the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program. The availability of funds depends upon actual authorization of funds and other costs expected to be incurred by the individual divisions. The amount available each year fluctuates considerably based on programmatic needs. Individual awards are expected to range between $5,000 and $150,000. For the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves). Statutory Authority: As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 272(b) and (c), the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory conducts a basic and applied research program directly and through grants and cooperative agreements to eligible recipients. *Eligibility:* The Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Review and Selection Process:* All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for recordkeeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. Responsive proposals will be forwarded to the appropriate Division Chief, who will assign them to appropriate reviewers. At least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the Program Description section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described below. When non-Federal reviewers are used, reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Reviews will be conducted no less than once per quarter, and all proposals since the last review session will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. Next, the Division Chief, Laboratory Deputy Director, or Laboratory Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief, Laboratory Deputy Director, or Laboratory Director will take into consideration the results of the evaluations, the scores of the reviewers, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives of the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program, as described in the Program Description section above. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The award decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* The Divisions will score proposals based on the following criteria and weights: 1. Technical quality of the research. Reviewers will assess the rationality, innovation and imagination of the proposal and the fit to NIST's in-house building research programs. (0-35 points) 2. Potential impact of the results. Reviewers will assess the potential impact and the technical application of the results to our in-house programs and the building industry. (0-25 points) 3. Staff and institution capability to do the work. Reviewers will evaluate the quality of the facilities and experience of the staff to assess the likelihood of achieving the objective of the proposal. (0-20 points) 4. Match of budget to proposed work. Reviewers will assess the budget against the proposed work to ascertain the reasonableness of the request. (0-20 points) *Cost Share Requirements:* The Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program does not require any matching funds. Fire Research Grants Program *Program Description:* The Fire Research Grants Program will provide funding for innovative ideas in the fire research area generated by the proposal writer, who chooses the topic and approach. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 30, 2006. Proposals received between May 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006 will be processed and considered for funding under this solicitation, but if selected, proposals may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Ms. Wanda Duffin-Ricks, Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL), National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8660, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8660. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov* . A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Program questions should be addressed to Ms. Wanda Duffin-Ricks, Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL), National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8660, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8660, Tel:

(301)975-6863, E-mail: *wanda.duffin@nist.gov* , Web site: *http://www.bfrl.nist.gov* . All grants related administration questions concerning this program should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division,

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov* . For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov* . *Funding Availability:* For the Fire Research Grants Program, the annual budget is approximately $1.0 to $1.5 million. Because of commitments for the support of multi-year projects and because proposals may have been deferred from the previous year's competition, only a portion of the budget is available to fund applications received in response to this notice. Most grants and cooperative agreements are in the $25,000 to $125,000 per year range, with a maximum requested duration of three years. In fiscal year 2005, the Fire Research Grants Program funded 8 new awards, totaling $620,224. For the Fire Research Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year project is approved, funding will normally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, DoC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent on satisfactory progress, continuing relevance to the mission of the NIST Fire Research Program, and the availability of funds. Statutory Authority: As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278f, the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory conducts directly and through grants and cooperative agreements, a basic and applied fire research program. *Eligibility:* The Fire Research Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Review and Selection Process:* Prospective proposers are encouraged to contact the group leaders listed in the FFO announcement to determine the responsiveness of the proposal and compliance with program objectives prior to preparation of a detailed proposal. Responsive proposals will be assigned, as received on a rolling basis, to the most appropriate group. Proposals are evaluated for technical merit based on the evaluation criteria described above by at least three reviewers chosen from NIST professionals, technical experts from other interested government agencies, and experts from the fire research community at large. When non-Federal reviewers are used, reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. The group leaders will make funding recommendations to the Division Chief based on the technical evaluation score and the relationship of the work proposed to the objectives of the program. In making application selections, the Division Chief will take into consideration the results of the evaluations, the scores of the reviewers, the group leader's recommendation, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives of the Fire Research Grants Program, as described in the Program Description section above. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The award decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the Fire Research Grants Program, the technical evaluation criteria are as follows: 1. Technical quality of the research. Reviewers will assess the rationality, innovation and imagination of the proposal. (0-35 points). 2. Potential impact of the results. Reviewers will assess the potential impact and the technical application of the results to the fire safety community. (0-25 points) 3. Staff and institution capability to do the work. Reviewers will evaluate the quality of the facilities and experience of the staff to assess the likelihood of achieving the objective of the proposal. (0-20 points) 4. Match of budget to proposed work. Reviewers will assess the budget against the proposed work to ascertain the reasonableness of the request. (0-20 points) *Cost Share Requirements:* The Fire Research Grants Program does not require any matching funds. Information Technology Laboratory

(ITL)Grants Program *Program Description:* The Information Technology Laboratory Grants Program will provide grants and cooperative agreements in the broad areas of mathematical and computational sciences, advanced network technologies, and information access. Specific objectives of interest in these areas of research include: Quantum information theory, computational materials science, computational nanotechnology, mathematical knowledge management, visual data analysis, verification and validation of computer models, software testing, human-robot interaction, human factors in voting systems, security for the IPv6 transition from and coexistence with IPv6, and device mobility among heterogeneous networks. For details on these various activities, please see the Information Technology Laboratory Web site at *http://www.itl.nist.gov* . Additionally, the ITL Grant Program will provide grants and cooperative agreements in support of conferences, workshops, and other technical research groups that focus on trends and future focus areas of information technology. DATES: All applications, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on September 30, 2006. Proposals received between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006 will be processed and considered for funding under this solicitation, but if selected, proposals may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. ADDRESSES: Paper applications must be submitted to: Kirk Dohne, Information Technology Laboratory (ITL), National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8900, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8900. Electronic applications and associated proposal information should be uploaded to grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov* . A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Program questions should be addressed to Kirk Dohne, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8900, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8200, Tel:

(301)975-8480, E-mail: *kirk.dohne@nist.gov* ; Fax:

(301)975-2378, Web site: *http://www.itl.nist.gov* . It is strongly suggested to first confirm the program objectives with the Program Manager prior to preparing a detailed proposal. All grants related administration questions concerning this program should be addressed to: Joyce Brigham, NIST Grants and Agreements Management Division,

(301)975-6328; *joyce.brigham@nist.gov* . For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov* . *Funding Availability:* In fiscal year 2005, the Information Technology Laboratory did not participate in the grants program, therefore no historical data is available for that period. No funds have been set aside specifically for support of the Information Technology Laboratory Grants Program. The availability of funds depends upon actual authorization of funds and other costs expected to be incurred by the individual divisions. The amount available each year fluctuates considerably based on programmatic needs. Individual awards are expected to range between $10,000 and $150,000. For the Information Technology Laboratory Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Information Technology Laboratory Grants Program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves). Statutory Authority: As authorized under 15 U.S.C. 272(b) and (c), the ITL conducts a basic and applied research program directly and through grants and cooperative agreements to eligible recipients. *Eligibility:* The ITL Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations. *Review and Selection Process:* For the Information Technology Laboratory

(ITL)Grants Program, proposals will be reviewed in a three-step process. First, the Deputy Director of ITL, or appropriate designee, will determine the compatibility of the applicant's proposal with ITL Program Areas and the relevance to the objectives of the ITL Grants Program, described in the Program Description section above. If it is determined that the proposal is incomplete or non-responsive to the scope of the stated objectives, the proposal will not be reviewed for technical merit. If a proposal is determined to be incomplete or non-responsive, or if it is determined that all available funds have been exhausted, the proposal will not be reviewed for technical merit. Proposers may contact ITL at

(301)975-8480 to find out if funds have been exhausted for the fiscal year. ITL will also post a notice on its Web site, *www.itl.nist.gov* , when funds are exhausted for the fiscal year. ITL will notify proposers in writing if their proposals are not reviewed for technical merit. Second, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular measurement science area described in the section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described above. Reviews will be conducted on a quarterly basis, and all responsive, complete proposals received and reviewed since the last quarter will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Third, the Division Chief, in accord with the Director of ITL, will make application selections, taking into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and the relevance of the proposal to the program objectives described in the Program Description section above. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decisions of the Grants Officer are final. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* For the ITL Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows: 1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues. 2. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of manufacturing engineering and metrology research. 3. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project. 4. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives. Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process. Precision Measurement Grants Program *Program Description:* The National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)announces that the Precision Measurement Grants Program is soliciting applications for financial assistance for FY 2005. The Precision Measurement Grants Program is seeking proposals for significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. As part of its research program, since 1970 NIST has awarded Precision Measurement Grants primarily to universities and colleges so that faculty may conduct significant research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. NIST sponsors these grants and cooperative agreements primarily to encourage basic, measurement-related research in universities and colleges and other research laboratories and to foster contacts between NIST scientists and those faculty members of academic institutions and other researchers who are actively engaged in such work. The Precision Measurement Grants are also intended to make it possible for researchers to pursue new ideas for which other sources of support may be difficult to find. There is some latitude in research topics that will be considered under the Precision Measurement Grants Program. The key requirement is that the proposed project support NIST's ongoing work in the field of basic measurement science. DATES: Abbreviated proposals must be received at the address listed below no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on February 3, 2006. Proposals received after this deadline will be returned with no further consideration. Finalists will be selected by approximately March 23, 2006, and will be requested to submit full proposals to NIST. All full proposals, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on May 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Abbreviated proposals and paper applications must be submitted to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr; Manager, NIST Precision Measurement Grants Program; National Institute of Standards and Technology; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8420; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8420. Electronic final proposals should be uploaded to Grants.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For complete information about this program and instructions for applying by paper or electronically, read the Federal Funding Opportunity

(FFO)Notice at *http://www.grants.gov.* A paper copy of the FFO may be obtained by calling

(301)975-6328. Technical questions should be addressed to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr at the address listed in the Addresses section above, or at Tel:

(301)975-3217; E-mail: *mohr@nist.gov* . Grants Administration questions should be addressed to: Grants and Agreements Management Division; National Institute of Standards and Technology; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1650; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650; Tel:

(301)975-6328. For assistance with using Grants.gov contact *support@grants.gov* . *Funding Availability:* Applicants should propose multi-year projects for up to three years at no more than $50,000 per year. NIST anticipates spending $100,000 this year for two new grants at $50,000 each for the first year of the research projects. NIST may award both, one, or neither of these new awards. Second and third year funding will be at the discretion of NIST, based on satisfactory performance, continuing relevance to program objectives, and the availability of funds. Statutory Authority: The authority for the Precision Measurement Grants Program is as follows: As authorized by 15 U.S.C. 272

(b)and (c), NIST conducts directly, and supports through grants, a basic and applied research program in the general area of fundamental measurement and the determination of fundamental constants of nature. *Eligibility:* Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; international organizations; and Federal agencies with appropriate legal authority. *Review and Selection Process:* All abbreviated proposals and full applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive abbreviated proposals and full applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive abbreviated proposal and full application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. To simplify the proposal writing and evaluation process, the following selection procedure will be used: All applicants must submit an abbreviated proposal (original and two signed copies), containing a description of the proposed project, including sufficient information to address the evaluation criteria, with a total length of no more than five

(5)double spaced pages, to the mailing address given above in the “Addresses” section. These proposals will be screened to determine whether they address the requirements outlined in this notice. Proposals that do not meet those requirements will not be considered further. Eight independent, objective individuals, at least half of whom are NIST employees, and who are knowledgeable about the scientific areas that the program addresses will conduct a technical review of each abbreviated proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described in the Evaluation Criteria section for this program. The proposals will then be ranked based on the average of the reviewers' rankings. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but the ranking will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. The Chief of the Atomic Physics Division of the Physics Laboratory, the selecting official, will then select approximately four to eight finalists. In selecting finalists, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank, and relevance to the program objectives described above in the Program Description section. Applicants not selected as finalists will be notified in writing. Finalists will then be asked in writing to submit full proposals in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Content and Form of Application Submission section of the FFO. The same independent reviewers that reviewed the abbreviated proposals will then evaluate the full proposals based on the same evaluation criteria, and the proposals will be ranked as previously described. In selecting proposals that will be recommended for funding, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank and relevance to the program objectives described in the Program Description section of this notice. The final approval of selected applications and award of grants will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing. The Program will retain one copy of each unsuccessful application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Evaluation Criteria:* The evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the abbreviated application proposals and full proposals are: 1. The importance of the proposed research—Does it have the potential of answering some currently pressing question or of opening up a whole new area of activity? 2. The relationship of the proposed research to NIST's ongoing work—Will it support one of NIST's current efforts to develop a new or improved fundamental measurement method or physical standard, test the basic laws of physics, or provide an improved value for a fundamental constant? 3. The feasibility of the research and the potential impact of the grant—Is it likely that significant progress can be made in a three year time period with the funds and personnel available and that the funding will enable work that would otherwise not be done with existing or potential funding? 4. The qualifications of the applicant—Does the educational and employment background and the quality of the research, based on recent publications, of the applicant indicate that there is a high probability that the proposed research will be carried out successfully? Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process. *Cost Share Requirements:* The Precision Measurement Grants Program does not require any matching funds. The following information applies to all programs announced in this notice: *The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements:* The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the **Federal Register** notice of December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389). On the form SF-424, the applicant's 9-digit Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System

(DUNS)number must be entered in the Applicant Identifier block (68 FR 38402). *Collaborations with NIST Employees:* All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget. If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review. *Use of NIST Intellectual Property:* If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. sec. 200-212, 37 CFR part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in section 20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements published on December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78389). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803. Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one. If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain. *Initial Screening of all Applications:* All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. *Paperwork Reduction Act:* The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. *Research Projects Involving Human Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or Recordings Involving Human Subjects:* Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services

(DHHS)and other federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, FDA, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics. NIST will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards

(IRBs)possessing a current, valid Federal-wide Assurance

(FWA)from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance

(SPA)for any IRB reviewing any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST. On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement

(1)the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and

(2)the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at *http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/stemcell.pdf* for funding such research. *Research Projects Involving Vertebrate Animals:* Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 *et seq.* ), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanized, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks. *Limitation of Liability:* In no event will the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige the agency to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. Funding of any award under any program announced in this notice is subject to the availability of funds. *Executive Order 12866:* This funding notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. *Executive Order 13132 (Federalism):* It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. *Executive Order 12372:* Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” *Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act:* Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553 (a)). Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* Dated: December 15, 2005. William Jeffrey, Director, NIST. [FR Doc. 05-24424 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents

CFR