[Senate Report 113-320]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 113-320
_______________________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 619
FORENSIC SCIENCE AND STANDARDS ACT OF 2014
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 2022
December 12, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-006 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred thirteenth congress
second session
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK BEGICH, Alaska DANIEL COATS, Indiana
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
ED MARKEY, Massachusetts DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
CORY BOOKER, New Jersey RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN WALSH, Montana
Ellen Doneski, Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel
113th Congress } { Report
SENATE
2d Session } { 113-320
======================================================================
FORENSIC SCIENCE AND STANDARDS ACT OF 2014
_______
December 12, 2014.--Ordered to be printed
_______
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-006 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rockefeller, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2022]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 2022) to establish scientific
standards and protocols across forensic disciplines, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and
recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of S. 2022, the Forensic Science and Standards
Act of 2014, is to strengthen forensic science by promoting
scientific research, establishing science-based voluntary
consensus standards and protocols across forensic science
disciplines, and encouraging the adoption of these standards.
Background and Needs
The case for action
Modern forensic science is a powerful law enforcement tool.
Significant advances in DNA testing, for example, have enabled
law enforcement to identify suspects and solve crimes using
only minute traces of biological evidence. In a number of other
areas, however, forensic science methods require further
testing to fully ascertain both their validity and accuracy.\1\
While the consistency and certainty of DNA analysis is well
established, forensic disciplines such as bite mark analysis
lack a rigorous body of supporting scientific research.\2\ Even
fingerprint analysis, despite its longevity and general
acceptance as an exact identification technique, has been found
lacking in strong scientific validation.\3,\\4,\\5\ Fundamental
or basic scientific research and science-based standards can
therefore help to establish or enhance the reliability of
forensic techniques. Strengthening the science underpinning of
the forensic disciplines and improving standards of practice
will serve not only to identify and prosecute criminals but
also to avoid wrongful convictions, which both imprison the
innocent and leave dangerous criminals free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the
United States: A Path Forward (Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press, 2009).
\2\Ibid.
\3\Koehler, J.J., ``Fingerprint Error Rates and Proficiency Tests:
What They Are and Why They Matter,'' Hastings Law Journal 59 (2008), p.
1077-1100.
\4\Haber, L. and Haber, R.N., ``Scientific Validation of
Fingerprint Evidence under Daubert,'' Law Probability and Risk 7
(2008), p. 87-109.
\5\Mnookin, J.L., ``The Validity of Latent Fingerprint
Identification: Confessions of a Fingerprinting Moderate,'' Law,
Probability and Risk 7 (2008), p. 127-141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Academies findings and recommendations
At the request of Congress,\6\ the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) in 2006 formed a committee, including members of
the legal, forensic science practitioner, and research
communities, to assess the state of forensic science in the
United States. The committee's in-depth work led to the 2009
report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A
Path Forward.\7\ This report brought to light many concerns
about the state of forensic science, including the need to
establish or enhance the scientific foundation behind many
forensic science disciplines, the lack of mandatory and
enforceable standards in laboratory techniques and reporting,
and the potential for bias and examiner error. The report's
recommendations included providing resources to support
fundamental research in forensic science; establishing better
education and training programs for forensic science
practitioners; adopting and enforcing best practices, quality
controls, and proficiency testing; and establishing standard
terminology to be used in reports and testimony for the courts.
The report also noted that, while congressional action will not
remedy all of the problems identified, Federal leadership is
necessary to make meaningful advances. This bill would
specifically address the need for increased scientific research
and development of science-based standards in the forensic
disciplines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Making Appropriations for
Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related
Agencies for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2006, and for Other
Purposes, H. Rept. 109-272 (2005).
\7\National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the
United States: A Path Forward (Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some forensic methods evolved from laboratory sciences and
are well rooted in the scientific process; however, other
methods evolved to fulfill specific law enforcement needs
without undergoing rigorous scientific analyses and therefore
remain vulnerable to concerns about reliability.\8\ The 2009
NAS report concluded that enhanced scientific scrutiny of non-
laboratory disciplines, such as fingerprint and ballistic
analyses, is required to establish the limits of reliability
and accuracy of different disciplines. DNA analysis, for
example, required years of research and scientific debate
before achieving the broad acceptance it enjoys today. Although
scientists discovered the structure of DNA in the 1950s, the
first publicized use of DNA evidence to establish a positive
identification in legal proceedings in the United States did
not occur until 1987.\9\ Other forensic methods may or may not
hold up to scientific scrutiny, and may only prove useful in
certain contexts, or may be discredited. Comparative bullet
lead analysis, for example, was once a popular forensic
technique for linking bullets found at a crime scene to bullets
in the possession of suspects. However, after a 2004 NAS study
found that the analysis method used could be ``unreliable and
potentially misleading,''\10\ the FBI voluntarily stopped
providing the analysis to law enforcement.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Ibid.
\9\U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Genetic Witness:
Forensic Uses of DNA Tests, OTA-BA-438 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1990).
\10\National Research Council, Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet
Lead Analysis (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004).
\11\John Solomon, ``FBI's Forensic Test Full of Holes,'' Washington
Post, November 18, 2007, at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701681.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with a well-defined set of standards reduces the
risk of bias, improves the consistency of a given test, and
makes it possible to replicate and empirically test
procedures.\12\ While many forensic science disciplines have
standards developed by standards-setting organizations, there
are variations in those standards and their use is often
voluntary. Because of the inconsistent application of standards
and lack of uniformity in the standards-setting community, the
2009 NAS report identified a role for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), working in conjunction with
stakeholders, to develop ``tools for advancing measurement,
validation, reliability, information sharing, and proficiency
testing in forensic science and to establish protocols for
forensic examinations, methods, and practices.''\13\ However,
as NIST is a non-regulatory agency, this approach would require
the involvement of another agency, such as the Department of
Justice (DOJ), for standards dissemination and implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science.
\13\Ibid at 214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Provisions
S. 2022 would support research by:
establishing a National Forensic Science
Research Initiative (NFSRI)--to include a coordinating
office, an interagency committee, and a Federal
research strategy--to improve, expand, and coordinate
Federal research in the forensic sciences;
directing the NSF to award merit-based
research grants to improve the foundation of forensic
science and to establish multidisciplinary forensic
science research centers; and
encouraging all Federal agencies with equities
in forensic science to use prizes and challenges to
stimulate innovative and creative solutions to satisfy
the research needs identified in the national strategy.
The bill would direct the development and promotion of
uniform standards by:
requiring NIST to coordinate the development
of voluntary consensus forensic science standards in
consultation with standards development organizations
and stakeholders, including the DOJ and State and local
practitioners;
directing NIST to establish a forensic science
Center of Excellence;
establishing a National Commission on Forensic
Science to make recommendations to the Attorney
General, NIST Director, and others on standards
development and adoption; and
directing the Attorney General to require the
adoption of standards in laboratories under DOJ, as
appropriate, and to encourage their use in other
Federal forensic science laboratories.
Legislative History
On June 26, 2013, the Committee held a hearing entitled,
``From the Lab Bench to the Courtroom: Advancing the Science
and Standards of Forensics.'' The Committee examined the
science of forensic disciplines, the need for scientific
research and enforceable national standards, other challenges
faced by the forensic science community, and the role of the
Federal Government in facilitating the validation and
standardization in forensic disciplines. A key conclusion of
this hearing was that Federal leadership and funding are
required to improve standards setting, as well as to support
basic research and applied research. Witnesses agreed that
scientific research was critical to advancing and validating
the forensic sciences and supported a Federal role in promoting
consistent forensics standards, with some witnesses emphasizing
the need for sufficient input from State and local forensic
science practitioners in standards development and
implementation.
On February 12, 2014, Senator Rockefeller introduced S.
2022 and the measure was referred to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. Senator Blumenthal cosponsored the
bill. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson introduced a similar
bill, H.R. 3064, on September 9, 2013.
On March 27, 2014, Senators Leahy and Cornyn of the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate introduced the
Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act (S. 2177). S.
2177 would address forensic science research, standards,
accreditation, certification, and training. S. 2177 would make
certification and accreditation a requirement for the receipt
of Federal funds by a forensic science laboratory and permit
existing grant programs to fund accreditation and certification
activities. No new funding, however, would be authorized for
this purpose. Also, whereas S. 2022 reflects current
developments, such as the Administration establishing the newly
appointed National Commission on Forensic Science and the
Organization of Scientific Area Committees, S. 2177 would
require a different approach to the Federal role.
On April 9, 2014, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation met in open Executive Session and, by voice
vote, ordered S. 2022 to be reported favorably with an
amendment (in the nature of a substitute).
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
S. 2022--Forensic Science and Standards Act of 2014
Summary: S. 2022 would establish the Forensic Science
Research Initiative to improve, expand, and coordinate federal
research in the forensic sciences. Under the initiative,
selected agencies would be directed to undertake activities
designed to improve the validity and reliability of forensic
science (FS) practices. (FS encompasses both basic and applied
research and its application to recognize, evaluate, and
analyze evidence for use in investigations and legal
proceedings.)
CBO estimates that implementing S. 2022 would cost $101
million over the 2015-2019 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to
this legislation because it would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
S. 2022 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary effect of S. 2022 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370
(commerce and housing credit).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015-2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level........................... 28 31 15 15 16 104
Estimated Outlays....................................... 22 29 18 15 16 101
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.
Basis of estimate: S. 2022 would establish the Forensic
Science Research Initiative to improve, expand, and coordinate
federal research in FS and to develop a strategy that directs
research efforts to improve the validity and reliability of FS
practices.
The bill would create a coordinating office to develop the
research strategy, a national commission to provide advice to
federal agencies implementing the new research strategy, a
center of excellence to improve standards of practice in the
forensic sciences, and new research centers to conduct basic
research and encourage efforts to apply the research to
practical use in the forensic sciences.
S. 2022 would authorize the appropriation of $28 million
over fiscal years 2015 and 2016 for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) to coordinate the development
of new voluntary standards for FS and to test and validate
existing standards, measurements, and methods.
Based on information from the agencies that would be
affected by the legislation, including NIST, the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), CBO
estimates that implementing S. 2022 would cost $101 million
over the 2015-2019 period, assuming appropriation of the
specified and necessary amounts. Much of that amount, about $68
million, would be spent by NIST to develop new standards and
test existing standards in the forensic sciences, to establish
a new center of excellence, and to undertake efforts to improve
the practice of forensic science in the United States. The
balance of the costs would be borne by OSTP, NSF, and DOJ to
support the coordinating office and research centers, and to
fund research and other efforts to improve FS practices.
Pay-As-You-Go Considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2022
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Susan Willie, Matthew
Pickford, and Martin von Gnechten; Impact on state, local, and
tribal governments: J'nell L. Blanco; Impact on the private
sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
number of persons covered
The bill would require the establishment of the NFSRI--to
include a coordinating office, an interagency committee, and a
Federal research strategy--to improve, expand, and coordinate
Federal research in the forensic sciences. The bill would also
require NIST to identify and coordinate the development of
forensic science standards that would be adopted, as
appropriate, by laboratories under DOJ. These laboratories are
already subject to DOJ rules and regulations, and therefore the
number of persons covered should be consistent with the current
levels of individuals impacted under the provisions that are
addressed in the bill.
economic impact
The bill would authorize $8 million in fiscal year (FY)
2014, $12 million in FY 2015, and $16 million in FY 2016 out of
otherwise available appropriations to NIST. These funding
levels are not expected to have an inflationary impact on the
Nation's economy.
privacy
S. 2022 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the
personal privacy of individuals. Forensic data sets that could
be shared for the purpose of carrying out a prize or challenge
under section 6 of the bill would be provided in a way that
ensures the privacy rights of individuals are protected.
paperwork
S. 2022 would not increase the paperwork requirements for
private individuals or businesses, unless an individual applied
and participated on the National Commission on Forensic Science
or the Scientific Area Committees, or a company was part of a
submission for a grant award under a solicitation issued
pursuant to this bill. The legislation would require several
reports from the Federal Government, including a Federal
research strategy, implementation plan, and a biennial
evaluation of the progress of the NFSRI.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title; table of contents
This section would provide that the legislation be cited as
the ``Forensic Science and Standards Act of 2014.''
Section 2. Findings
This section would provide relevant findings from the NAS
report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A
Path Forward that highlight the need for research and continued
standards development in forensic disciplines.
Section 3. Definitions
This section would define six terms used in the bill. The
definition of ``forensic science'' in S. 2022 would include
pattern, analytical, and digital techniques. Given the
increasing dependence on digital sources of information and the
rapid evolution of technology, the Committee acknowledges the
particular need for research in the area of digital forensics.
The Committee also acknowledges the strong need for both
basic and applied research in forensic science. Basic (or
fundamental) research advances scientific understanding and
fuels technological innovation. Basic research on DNA, for
example, led to a powerful forensic tool. However, when James
Watson and Francis Crick published their 1953 paper on the
structure of DNA, its utility in revolutionizing medicine and
the criminal justice system was unknown. Further, since
innovation occurs in an iterative progression, new
applications, needs, processes, and products often inspire new
basic research.
Section 4. National Forensic Science Research Initiative
This section would establish the NFSRI to improve, expand,
and coordinate Federal research in the forensic sciences, with
participation from NSF, NIST, DOJ, and other Federal
departments, agencies, and offices contributing to research in
forensic science. A coordinating office and interagency
committee would be established to oversee the development and
implementation of a Federal research strategy. Both the
Director of the Coordinating Office and the co-chair of the
interagency committee would be required to have expertise
relevant to forensic science, which could include research
experience in forensic disciplines or related fields such as
genetics, statistics, chemistry, biology, etc. The NSF
Director, in consultation with the Director of the Coordinating
Office, would contract with an external, independent science
entity to develop a report that would identify critical
forensic science research needs. Further, this section would
require the development, in consultation with State and local
stakeholders, of a triennially-updated, unified Federal
research strategy and implementation roadmap in forensic
science. The roadmap would consider both the basic and applied
research needs in forensic science.
Although the legislation does not specifically identify
participating entities at DOJ, the Committee expects that the
National Institute of Justice would play a significant role in
the NFSRI, particularly in collaboration with NSF. While NSF
would be likely to have a primary role in expanding basic
research in forensic science, many other Federal agencies--from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service--could be involved in the research
initiative. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for example, would likely
have an interest in strengthening the field of conservation
forensics, which is critical for supporting Federal efforts to
combat illegal wildlife trafficking. The U.S. Department of
Defense, as another example, operates a number of forensic
science laboratories--including the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigation Laboratory, the Armed Forces DNA Identification
Laboratory, and the Defense Computer Forensic Laboratory--and
conducts applied research to develop ``smaller, faster,
lighter'' and automated technologies to reduce the need for
forward deployment of forensic scientists.
Section 5. Implementation of forensic science research recommendations
This section would direct the Federal entities
participating in the NFSRI to improve the foundation and
practice of forensic science through research and
collaboration, consistent with the unified Federal research
strategy. Agencies would also be required to build
relationships between forensic science practitioners and the
research community and to broadly disseminate the results of
research conducted under the NFSRI. All external grants awarded
by any entity pursuant to this section would be required to be
consistent with the merit review criteria approved by the
National Science Board and described by NSF's Proposal and
Award Policies and Procedures Guide. Research findings would be
considered for submission to peer-reviewed journals.
NSF would be directed to establish at least one
multidisciplinary research center to conduct basic and
translational research relevant to forensic science. NIST would
be directed to establish and operate a Center of Excellence
focusing on measurement science, technology, and standards
development in the forensic sciences.
Section 6. Forensic science research challenges
This section would highlight the use of Federal entities'
existing prize and challenge authority to advance forensic
science research needs and priorities. It would also provide
possible examples of how prizes and challenges could be applied
to forensic science research. The direction for making forensic
data sets available for research would be consistent with the
Administration's open data policies and the Committee expects
that an individual's privacy rights would be protected in
making data available for this purpose.
Section 7. Forensic science standards
This section would provide direction to NIST to identify
and coordinate the development of voluntary consensus forensic
science standards and to develop measurement standards and
standard reference materials to support forensic science
disciplines. To inform NIST's work, the NIST Director and the
Attorney General would establish scientific area committees to
identify gaps in and opportunities for forensic science
standards development. A majority of the scientific area
committees would be required to have a minimum representation
of 50 percent from forensic science practitioners to the extent
practicable. The NIST Director, in administering the scientific
area committees, would be required to ensure the forensic
community has an opportunity for public review and comment on
the proposed standards. For the purposes of carrying out this
section, appropriations out of otherwise available funds would
be authorized for NIST in the amounts of $8 million for FY
2014, $12 million for FY 2015, and $16 million for FY 2016.
Section 8. National Commission on Forensic Science
This section would authorize the NIST Director and the
Attorney General, in consultation with the NSF Director, to
establish a National Commission on Forensic Science. The
Commission would provide advice to the Federal departments,
agencies, and offices participating in the unified Federal
research strategy and standards development in forensic
science. While the Attorney General would provide
administrative support for this Commission, the direction is
not meant to exclude other agencies from providing staff.
Rather, the Committee expects that NIST and other relevant
Federal agencies, as appropriate, would assist with the
staffing needs of the Commission.
Section 9. Adoption, accreditation, and certification
This section would direct the Attorney General to encourage
the broad adoption of forensic science standards and to require
laboratories under DOJ to adopt these standards, as
appropriate. The Attorney General would also promote
accreditation and certification based on forensic science
standards and advance recommendations made by the National
Commission on Forensic Science.
Section 10. National Institute of Standards and Technology functions
This section would amend the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.) by
directing to NIST ``to identify and coordinate the development
of voluntary consensus forensic science standards to enhance
the validity and reliability of forensic science activities.''
Section 11. Effect on other laws
This section would clarify that this bill does not impact
the support and technical assistance for State and local
laboratories under part BB of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797j et seq.).
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT, FUNCTIONS, AND ACTIVITIES.
[15 U.S.C. 272]
(a) Establishment of National Institute of Standards and
Technology.--There is established within the Department of
Commerce a science, engineering, technology, and measurement
laboratory to be known as the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Institute'').
(b) Functions of Secretary and Institute.--The Secretary of
Commerce (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Secretary'') acting through the Director of the Institute
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Director'') is
authorized to take all actions necessary and appropriate to
accomplish the purposes of this Act, including the following
functions of the Institute--
(1) to assist industry in the development of
technology and procedures needed to improve quality, to
modernize manufacturing processes, to ensure product
reliability, manufacturability, functionality, and
cost-effectiveness, and to facilitate the more rapid
commercialization, especially by small- and medium-
sized companies throughout the United States, of
products based on new scientific discoveries in fields
such as automation, electronics, advanced materials,
biotechnology, and optical technologies;
(2) to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the
national standards of measurement, and provide the
means and methods for making measurements consistent
with those standards;
(3) to compare standards used in scientific
investigations, engineering, manufacturing, commerce,
industry, and educational institutions with the
standards adopted or recognized by the Federal
Government and to coordinate the use by Federal
agencies of private sector standards, emphasizing where
possible the use of standards developed by private,
consensus organizations;
(4) to enter into contracts, including cooperative
research and development arrangements, and grants and
cooperative agreements, in furtherance of the purposes
of this Act;
(5) to provide United States industry, Government,
and educational institutions with a national
clearinghouse of current information, techniques, and
advice for the achievement of higher quality and
productivity based on current domestic and
international scientific and technical development;
(6) to assist industry in the development of
measurements, measurement methods, and basic
measurement technology;
(7) to determine, compile, evaluate, and disseminate
physical constants and the properties and performance
of conventional and advanced materials when they are
important to science, engineering, manufacturing,
education, commerce, and industry and are not available
with sufficient accuracy elsewhere;
(8) to develop a fundamental basis and methods for
testing materials, mechanisms, structures, equipment,
and systems, including those used by the Federal
Government;
(9) to assure the compatibility of United States
national measurement standards with those of other
nations;
(10) to cooperate with other departments and agencies
of the Federal Government, with industry, with State
and local governments, with the governments of other
nations and international organizations, and with
private organizations in establishing standard
practices, codes, specifications, and voluntary
consensus standards;
(11) to advise government and industry on scientific
and technical problems;
(12) to invent, develop, and (when appropriate)
promote transfer to the private sector of measurement
devices to serve special national needs; [and]
(13) to coordinate Federal, State, and local
technical standards activities and conformity
assessment activities, with private sector technical
standards activities and conformity assessment
activities, with the goal of eliminating unnecessary
duplication and complexity in the development and
promulgation of conformity assessment requirements and
measures[.]; and
(14) to identify and coordinate the development of
voluntary consensus forensic science standards to
enhance the validity and reliability of forensic
science activities.
* * * * * * *