6758 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–557–805]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Extruded Rubber Thread From

Malaysia

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to a request by

petitioner and four producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise, the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia. The

review covers five manufacturers/

exporters. The period of review (the

POR) is October 1, 1993, through

September 30, 1994.

We have preliminarily determined

that sales have been made below foreign

market value (FMV) by all of the

companies subject to this review. If

these preliminary results are adopted in

the final results of this administrative

review, we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to assess antidumping

duties on all appropriate entries.

We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

Parties who submit comments in this

proceeding are requested to submit with

each argument (1) a statement of the

issue and (2) a brief summary of the

argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel LaCivita or Robert Blankenbaker,

Office of Antidumping Investigations,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone:

(202) 482–4740 or (202) 482–0989,

respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 7, 1992, the Department

published in the Federal Register (57

FR 46150) the antidumping duty order

on extruded rubber thread from

Malaysia. In accordance with 19 CFR

353.22(a)(2), in October 1994 the

petitioner and the following producers

and exporters of extruded rubber thread

requested an administrative review of

the antidumping order covering the

period October 1, 1993, through

September 30, 1994: Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.

(‘‘Heveafil’’), Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd.

(‘‘Rubberflex’’), Filati Lastex Elastfibre

(Malaysia) (‘‘Filati’’), Rubfil Sdn. Bhd.

(‘‘Rubfil’’) and Rubber Thread (‘‘Rubber

Thread’). On November 14, 1994, the

Department published its notice of

initiation of an administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on extruded

rubber thread from Malaysia for

Heveafil, Filati, Rubberflex, Rubfil and

Rubber Thread (59 FR 56459). Rubber

Thread reported that it made no

shipments of the subject merchandise

during the POR.

Scope of the Review

The product covered by this review is

extruded rubber thread. Extruded rubber

thread is defined as vulcanized rubber

thread obtained by extrusion of stable or

concentrated natural rubber latex of any

cross sectional shape, measuring from

0.18 mm, which is 0.007 inch or 140

gauge, to 1.42 mm, which is 0.056 inch

or 18 gauge, in diameter. Extruded

rubber thread is currently classified

under subheading 4007.00.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and Customs purposes.

Our written description of the scope of

this review is dispositive.

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994. We are

conducting this administrative review

in accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Such or Similar Merchandise

In determining similar merchandise

comparisons, pursuant to section

771(16) of the Act, we considered the

following physical characteristics,

which appear in order of importance: (1)

quality (i.e., first vs. second); (2) size; (3)

finish; (4) color; (5) special qualities; (6)

uniformity; (7) elongation; (8) tensile

strength; and (9) modulus. With the

exception of quality, these

characteristics are in accordance with

matching criteria set forth in the January

26, 1994, memorandum to the file on

the record of this review. Regarding

quality, we have added this

characteristic in order to address

respondents’ concerns regarding

differences in value related to

significant differences in quality.

Regarding color, respondents assigned

separate codes to each shade of color.

We reassigned color codes to sales of

subject merchandise, in accordance

with the instructions contained in the

questionnaire. This resulted in our

treating all shades of a given color as

equally similar to each other instead of

treating a specific shade as most similar

to another specific shade.

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

extruded rubber thread from Malaysia to

the United States were made at less than

fair value, we compared the United

States price (USP) to the foreign market

value (FMV), as specified in the ‘‘United

States Price’’ and ‘‘Foreign Market

Value’’ sections of this notice.

United States Price

We based USP on purchase price (PP),

in accordance with section 772(b) of the

Act, when the subject merchandise was

sold to unrelated purchasers in the

United States prior to importation and

when the exporter’s sales price (ESP)

methodology of section 772(c) of the Act

was not otherwise indicated. In

addition, where sales to the first

unrelated purchaser took place after

importation into the United States, we

based USP on ESP, in accordance with

section 772(c) of the Act.

We based purchase price on packed,

CIF prices to the first unrelated

purchaser in the United States. We

made deductions from USP, where

appropriate, for rebates, foreign inland

freight, foreign brokerage and handling,

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

customs duty, harbor maintenance and

merchandise processing fees, and U.S.

brokerage and handling expenses, in

accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the

Act.

For sales made from the inventory of

the U.S. branch office, we based USP on

ESP, in accordance with section 772(c)

of the Act. We calculated ESP based on

packed, delivered prices to unrelated

customers in the United States. We

made deductions, where appropriate,

for rebates. We also made deductions for

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage,

ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S.

inland freight, U.S. brokerage, entry

fees, harbor maintenance and processing

fees, and inspection charges. In

accordance with section 772(e)(2) of the

Act, we made additional deductions,

where appropriate, for credit and

indirect selling expenses.

Best Information Available

Section 776(b) of the Act requires the

Department to use the best information

available (BIA) if it is unable to verify

the accuracy of the information

submitted. In deciding what to use as

BIA, the Department’s regulations

provide that the Department may take

into account whether a party refuses to

provide requested information. See 19
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices 6759

CFR 353.37(b). Thus, the Department

may determine, on a case-by-case basis,

what is the BIA.

In cases where we have determined to

use total BIA, we apply a two tier

methodology of BIA depending on

whether the companies attempted to or

refused to cooperate in these reviews.

See Antifriction Bearings (Other Than

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts

Thereof From France, et al.; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Reviews, Partial

Termination of Administrative Reviews,

and Revocation in Part of Antidumping

Duty Orders, 60 FR 10900 (February 28,

1995). When a company refused to

provide the information requested in the

form required, or otherwise significantly

impeded the Department’s proceedings,

we assigned that company first-tier BIA,

which is the higher of: (1) the highest of

the rates found for any firm for the same

class or kind of merchandise in the

same country of origin in the less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation or a

prior administrative review; or (2) the

highest calculated rate found in this

review for any firm for the same class

or kind of merchandise in the same

country of origin.

When a company has substantially

cooperated with our requests for

information including, in some cases,

verification, but failed to provide

complete or accurate information, we

assigned that company second-tier BIA,

which is the higher of: (1) The highest

rate (including the ‘‘all others’’ rate)

ever applicable to the firm for the same

class or kind of merchandise from either

the LTFV investigation or a prior

administrative review or, if the firm has

never before been investigated or

reviewed, the ‘‘all others’’ rate from the

LTFV investigation; or (2) the highest

calculated rate for any firm in this

review for the class or kind of

merchandise from the same country of

origin. See Allied-Signal Aerospace Co.

v. United States, 996 F.2d 1185 (Fed.

Cir. 1993).

We applied second-tier BIA to

Rubberflex. While Rubberflex

cooperated throughout the

administrative review by submitting

questionnaire responses and with

verification, we found that responses

provided by Rubberflex could not be

verified and thus resorted to BIA

pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.

The inaccuracies which render the

response unusable for purposes of

margin calculations include: Rubberflex

failed to reconcile its original

questionnaire response with its current

financial statements and current trial

balance; Rubberflex did not report all PP

sales that caused entries during the

POR; due to inconsistencies in

Rubberflex’s date of sale methodology,

Rubberflex failed to clarify which sales

applied to this review period pursuant

to the Department’s methodology;

Rubberflex provided revised

questionnaire responses at verification

for home market indirect selling

expenses, direct labor expense and

packing labor, variable overhead, and

cost of goods sold; for these same

expenses Rubberflex could not

demonstrate how the original response

was supported by documentation, nor

could it document the difference

between the original and revised

submission for these items; Rubberflex

failed to have all the appropriate

documentation required to trace the preselected sales to its books and records,

and; Rubberflex failed to report a tradebill financing expense incurred on U.S.

sales as an adjustment to U.S. price.

Furthermore, it failed to provide

original source documentation for its

reported managerial labor expenses. The

deficiencies are outlined in detail in the

public version of the memorandum on

Rubberflex’s Failed Verification from

Holly Kuga to Jeffrey P. Bialos, dated

November 26, 1996.

In this case, the BIA rate is the highest

calculated rate for any firm in this

review for the class or kind of

merchandise from the same country of

origin. Thus, as a result of our review,

we preliminarily determine the

dumping margin for Rubberflex to be

29.76 percent.

Foreign Market Value

In order to determine whether the

home market was viable during the POR

(i.e., whether there were sufficient sales

of extruded rubber thread in the home

market to serve as a viable basis for

calculating FMV), we compared the

volume of each of the respondent’s

home market sales to the volume of its

third country sales, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.48. Based on this comparison,

we determined that Heveafil and Rubfil

did not have a viable home market

during the POR. Consequently, we

based FMV on third country sales for

these companies.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(b),

we selected the appropriate third

country markets for Heveafil and Rubfil

based on the following criteria:

Similarity of merchandise sold in the

third country to the merchandise

exported to the United States, the

volume of sales to the third country, and

the similarity of market organization

between the third country and U.S.

markets. Specifically, we chose, as the

appropriate third country markets, Italy

for Heveafil and Hong Kong for Rubfil.

Cost of Production

Because the Department disregarded

third country sales below the COP for

both Heveafil and Rubberflex in the

original investigation (see Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Extruded Rubber Thread

from Malaysia, 57 FR 38465 (August 25,

1992)) in accordance with our standard

practice, there were reasonable grounds

to believe or suspect that both Heveafil

and Rubberflex had made third country

sales at prices below their COP in this

review (see Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative:

Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia,

61 FR 54767 (October 22, 1996)). Thus,

the Department initiated a COP

investigation with respect to Heveafil

and Rubberflex. Additionally, upon

petitioner’s allegation of sales made

below the COP by Filati and Rubfil, the

Department determined that it had

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect

that sales by Filati and Rubfil of the

foreign product under consideration for

the determination of FMV in this review

may have been made at prices below the

COP as provided by section 773(b) of

the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section

773(b) of the Act, we initiated a COP

investigation of sales by Filati and

Rubfil. See COP Initiation

Memorandum, dated August 2, 1995.

In order to determine whether home

market or third country prices were

above the cost of production (COP), we

calculated the COP for each model

based on the sum of the respondent’s

cost of materials, labor, other fabrication

costs, general expenses, and packing

pursuant to 19 CFR 353.51(c).

In accordance with section 773(b) of

the Act, and longstanding

administrative practice (see, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Polyethylene Terephthalate

Film, Sheet, and Strip from Korea, 56

FR 16306 (April 22, 1991) and Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review: Mechanical

Transfer Presses from Japan, 59 FR 9958

(March 2, 1994)), if over ninety percent

of respondent’s sales of a given model

were at prices above the cost of

production, we did not disregard any

below-cost sales because we determined

that the below-cost sales were not made

in substantial quantities. Where we

found between ten and ninety percent of

respondent’s sales of a given product

were at prices below the COP and the

below cost sales were made over an

extended period of time, we disregarded

only the below-cost sales. Where we

found that more than ninety percent of
6760 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices

respondent’s sales were at prices below

the COP and the sales were made over

an extended period of time, we

disregarded all sales for that product

and calculated FMV based on

constructed value (CV), in accordance

with section 773(e) of the Act. Based on

this test, we disregarded below-cost

sales with respect to Heveafil, Filati and

Rubfil.

In accordance with section 773(a)(2)

of the Act, we used CV as the basis for

foreign market value where there were

no usable sales of comparable

merchandise in the appropriate home,

or third country, markets. We calculated

CV for each model based on the sum of

respondent’s cost of manufacture

(COM), plus general expenses, profit

and U.S. packing. In accordance with

section 773(e)(1)(B) of the Act, for

general expenses, which include selling,

general and administrative expenses

(SG&A), we used the greater of the

reported general expenses or the

statutory minimum of ten percent of the

COM. For profit, we used the greater of

the weighted-average home or third

country market profit during the POR or

the statutory minimum of eight percent

of the COM and SG&A.

Where FMV was based on third

country sales, we based FMV on CIF

prices to unrelated customers in

comparable channels of trade as that of

the U.S. customer. Specifically, in

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of

the Act, FMV was based on direct sales

from Malaysia for purchase price sales

comparisons, and on sales from the

inventory of each respondent’s branch

office for ESP sales comparisons.

For home or third country market

price-to-purchase price comparisons, we

made deductions, where appropriate,

for rebates. We also deducted post-sale

home or third country market

movement charges from FMV under the

circumstance of sale provision of

section 773(a)(4)(B) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.56(a). This adjustment

included Malaysian foreign inland

freight, brokerage, ocean freight, marine

insurance, brokerage, and inland freight

to unrelated customers, where

appropriate. Pursuant to 19 CFR

353.56(a)(2), we made circumstance of

sale adjustments, where appropriate, for

differences in credit expenses.

For home or third country market

price-to-ESP comparisons, we made

deductions for rebates and credit

expenses where appropriate. We

deducted the home/third country

market indirect selling expenses,

including inventory carrying costs, presale freight (i.e., foreign inland freight,

brokerage, ocean freight, marine

insurance, brokerage, and foreign freight

to warehouse) and other indirect selling

expenses, up to the amount of indirect

selling expenses incurred on U.S. sales,

in accordance with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

For all price-to-price comparisons, we

deducted home or third country market

packing costs and added U.S. packing

costs, where appropriate, in accordance

with section 773(a)(1) of the Act. In

addition, where appropriate, we made

adjustments to FMV to account for

differences in physical characteristics of

the merchandise, in accordance with

section 773(a)(4)(c) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.57 and where possible, made

comparisons at the same level in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.58.

For CV-to-purchase price

comparisons, we made circumstance of

sale adjustments, where appropriate, for

credit expenses in accordance with

773(a)(4)(B) and 19 CFR 353.56.

For CV-to-ESP comparisons, we made

deductions, where appropriate, for

credit expenses. We also deducted the

home market or third country market

indirect selling expenses, including

inventory carrying costs and other

indirect selling expenses, up to the

amount of indirect selling expenses

incurred on U.S. sales, in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.56(b)(2).

For all CV-to-price comparisons, we

added U.S. packing expenses as

specified above, in accordance with

section 773(a)(1) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.60(a). All

currency conversions were made at the

rates certified by the Federal Reserve

Bank.

Verification

As provided in section 776(b) of the

Act, we conducted a verification of

information provided by Rubberflex by

using standard verification procedures

including on-site inspection of the

manufacturer’s facilities, examination of

relevant sales and financial records, and

selection of original source

documentation containing relevant

information.

Preliminary Results of Review

As a result of our review, we

preliminarily determine that the

following margins exist for the period

October 1, 1993, through September 30,

1994:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Heveafil Sdn. Bhd ..................... 0.36

Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd ................ 29.76

Rubfil Sdn. Bhd ......................... 29.76

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Filati Lastex Elastfibre (Malaysia) ......................................... 0.00

Rubber Thread .......................... 15.16

*Rubber Thread reported that it made no

shipments of the subject merchandise during

the period of review. Rubber Thread has not

been investigated or reviewed previously.

Interested parties may request a

disclosure within 5 days of publication

of this notice and may request a hearing

within 10 days of the date of

publication. Any hearing, if requested,

will be held 44 days after the date of

publication, or the first workday

thereafter. Interested parties may submit

case briefs within 30 days of the date of

publication. Rebuttal briefs, limited to

issues raised in the briefs, may be filed

not later than 37 days after the date of

publication. The Department will

publish a notice of the final results of

this administrative review, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in any such briefs.

The Department shall determine, and

the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the U.S. Customs

Service. Furthermore, the following

deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of extruded rubber

thread from Malaysia entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash

deposit rates for the reviewed

companies will be the rates established

in the final results of this review, except

if the rate was less than 0.50 percent

and, therefore, de minimis within the

meaning of 19 CFR 353.6, in which case

the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be the rate

established for the most recent period

for the manufacturer of the

merchandise; and (4) if neither the

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm

covered in this or any previous review

conducted by the Department, the cash

deposit rate will be the ‘‘all others’’ rate,

as set forth below.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 1997 / Notices 6761

On March 25, 1993, the U.S. Court of

International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) and FederalMogul Corporation v. United States, 822

F.Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) decided that

once an ‘‘all others’’ rate is established

for a company, it can only be changed

through an administrative review. The

Department has determined that in

order to implement this decision, it is

appropriate to reinstate the original ‘‘all

others’’ rate from the LTFV investigation

(or that rate as amended for correction

of clerical errors or as a result of

litigation) in proceedings governed by

antidumping duty orders. Because this

proceeding is governed by an

antidumping duty order, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate for the purposes of this

review will be 15.16 percent, the ‘‘all

others’’ rate established in the LTFV

investigation.

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a preliminary

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19

CFR 353.22.

Dated: January 14, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3634 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

[Docket No. 970122010–7010–01]

RIN 0693–XX28

American Lumber Standard

Committee, Incorporated;

Recommends Additions to

Membership

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology (NIST), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of

Standards and Technology announces

that it is considering a recommendation

from the American Lumber Standard

Committee, Incorporated (hereafter

referred to as the ALSC) to increase the

membership of the ALSC by two

additional members. The ALSC has

recommended that the National Lumber

Grades Authority (NLGA), the ruleswriting agency of Canada, and the

wood-treaters segment of the lumber

industry each be provided one voting

membership. NIST will announce its

decision in the Federal Register

following public review of the

recommendation.

DATES: Written comments on the ALSC

recommendation must be submitted to

Barbara M. Meigs, Standards

Management Program, Office of

Standards Services, on or before May

14, 1997, for the comments to be

considered.

ADDRESSES: Standards Management

Program, Room 164, Building 820,

Office of Standards Services, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara M. Meigs, Standards

Management Program, Office of

Standards Services, National Institute of

Standards and Technology, Tel: 301–

975–4025, Fax: 301–926–1559, e-mail:

barbara.meigs@nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

9.3.7 of Voluntary Product Standard PS

20–94 American Softwood Lumber

Standard, developed under procedures

published by the Department of

Commerce (15 CFR part 10), has a

provision by which the Secretary of

Commerce, upon request, can consider

making additional appointments to the

ALSC to ensure that it has a

comprehensive balance of interests. It

provides that in such considerations,

the Secretary shall consult with the

ALSC for advice regarding balance of

interests and the criteria by which it

may be determined.

The ALSC, at its annual meeting on

November 15, 1996, approved

requesting two additional memberships:

One membership for the NLGA of

Canada and one for wood-treaters. This

recommendation was sent to NIST for

consideration on December 10, 1996.

In its recommendation, the ALSC

indicated that an additional entry under

9.3.1 (rules-writing agencies) should be

provided to include the NLGA

membership. That section pertains to

the qualifications of rules-writing

agencies as they pertain to the

composition of the membership of the

ALSC and lists those agencies that may

nominate principal and alternate

members. In making its

recommendation, the ALSC also noted

that for many years Canadian

representatives have been actively

involved in the American lumber

standardization system. Membership of

the NLGA, therefore, would assist in

continuing that beneficial relationship.

The ALSC noted that in 1995, Canadian

softwood lumber imports into the

United States accounted for 36% of the

United States lumber market.

With regard to the wood-treaters

membership, the ALSC recommended

that an additional entry under 9.3.3

(other interested and affected groups) of

PS 20–94 should be provided. That

section pertains to representation of

firms or organizations within

organizations and groups that specify,

distribute, and purchase lumber. Since

1992, the Board of Review of the ALSC

has been accrediting qualified agencies

for supervisory and lot inspection of

pressure-treated wood products at

treating facilities. These agencies

monitor treating facilities in accordance

to their adherence to applicable

standards of the American Wood

Preservers’ Association. In making its

recommendation, the ALSC noted that

over 5 billion board feet of treated wood

is involved in its treated-wood program.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272.

Dated: February 5, 1997.

Elaine Bunten-Mines,

Director, Program Office.

[FR Doc. 97–3525 Filed 2–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

Jointly Owned Invention Available for

Licensing

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a jointly owned

invention available for licensing.

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is

jointly owned by the U.S. Government,

as represented by the Department of

Commerce and the University of

Colorado, as represented by the Board of

Regents of the University of Colorado.

The U.S. Government’s ownership

interest in this invention is available for

licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C.

207 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve

expeditious commercialization of

results of federally funded research and

development.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical and licensing information on

this inventions may be obtained by

writing to: Marcia Salkeld, National

Institute of Standards and Technology,

Industrial Partnerships Program,

Building 820, Room 213, Gaithersburg,