NBSIR 76-1057

Standards Development Services

Section—An Industry Evaluation

Charles W. Devereux

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

March 1 976

Final

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDAROS

NBSIR 76-1057

STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

SECTION -AN INDUSTRY EVALUATION

Charles W. Devereux

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

March 1976

Final

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Elliot L Richardson, SBentary

James A. Baker, III, Under Secretary

Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistartt Secretary for Science and Teehnotogy

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler. Acting Director

Report on Conference of Participants in

the Voluntary Product Standards Program

Held at the National Bureau of Standards

December 5, 1975

I. Objectives—The objective of the day-long conference was to:

A. Explore the services performed by the Standards Development

Services Section and determine their relevance to the recipients

of those services; and

B. Recommend changes in the programs of the Standards Development

Services Section to better meet the mission of seeing that needed

standards are developed in the public interest.

II. Participants

A. Selection Process—All current Voluntary Product Standards

(VPS) and active standards projects were evaluated by totaling

the numerical significance values of 0 to 4 assigned to each

of the following questions:

1. Does the project meet the national goals and needs of

society?

2. Are the results of the standard significantly greater

than the input required?

3. Does the Standards Development Services Section have a unique and substantial impact on the development of the

standard?

4. Are the development problems well defined and well analyzed?

5. Do the funds, management, and technical capabilities exist

to support the development and continued review of the standard?

6. What is the technical quality of the standard?

7. Is there an opportunity for scientific or technical

contribution to the industry through standardization?

This rating scheme is a modification of the Value Analysis

Criteria developed by a task force at the National Bureau of

Standards at Boulder working with the Management and Organization

Division at Gaithersburg . (Background information may be found in

a report entitled Productivity Measurement in R & D dated

December 16, 1974.)

Each of the more than 100 standards and standards projects was evaluated individually by three standards coordinators. Results

were tabulated and those projects that ranked in the top 25 percent

were selected.
B. Attendance

Invitations were sent to officials of the proponent organizations, the proponent's technical representative, and the chairmen

of the standards committees. Invitations were also extended to

representatives of the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) . The conference was attended by 17 representatives of 14

industry groups responsible for approximately 55 Voluntary Product

Standards. ASTM sent two representatives. (See appendix A for

list of attendees.)

III. Conference Organization

A. Working Groups—Those attending the conference were divided

into two working groups. Selection of the working groups was made

to provide two equally balanced groups of standards interests.

Each group was provided a chairman, a representative of the

Standards Development Services Section professional staff, and

secretarial staff. Business was conducted using the agenda

found in appendix B.

Each participant was asked in the invitation letter to come to

the conference prepared to make a 5- to 10-minute presentation on:

1. How the Standards Development Services Section has

assisted his group in the past; and

2. How VPS standards are implemented, including a discussion

of general industry awareness of the existence and use of

the standards.

Mr. Tom Searles , American Lumber Standards Committee, and

Mr. Tom Flint, American Plywood Association, agreed before the

conference to chair the two working groups. Both received background information and suggestions for conducting their respective

groups in attaining the goals of the conference at a special

chairmen's meeting held at NBS the day preceding the conference.

(See appendix C.) ,

B. Introductory Remarks

Opening remarks on Friday, December 5, 1975, included an overview of the National Bureau of Standards with emphasis on the

Institute for Applied Technology by Mr. Gene Rowland, Chief,

Standards Application and Analysis Division. These remarks were

followed by a presentation by Mrs. Joan Koenig, Standardization

Specialist, Standards Information and Analysis Section, concerning

NBS participation on standards committees of other organizations

such as ASTM and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

.

Mr. Karl G. Newell, Chief, Standards Development Services Section,

2
spoke of the Section's role in administering the U.S. Department

of Commerce "Procedures for the Development of Voluntary Product

Standards" and the NBS policy toward the development of voluntary

standards. He also described the mission and objectives of the

conference

.

IV. Working Group Discussions

Both working groups spent considerable time in the discussion

of alternatives to the Voluntary Product Standards program. It was generally agreed that standards developed by an industry group

are not a viable alternative to the consensus procedures of the

U.S. Department of Commerce. Members felt that without representation of other interests in the industry, standards developed by a single group may often be biased and self serving. Several participants expressed the concern that these types of standards or agreements between members of an association may be interpreted as violations of anti-trust laws.

Further discussions by the conference participants concluded

that mandatory standards were not an alternative to Voluntary

Product Standards. Points of discussion included opinions that

legislated standards: (1) are sometimes biased in favor of one segment of the industry to the disadvantage of the others, (2)

increase costs, (3) place unreasonable demands on technology, (4)

restrain innovation, (5) deviate radically from current industry

practices, (6) may not be based on sufficient data or experience,

and (7) place emphasis on incentives that are negative rather than

positive. The thought was expressed that mandatory standards by

their very nature should not be considered as alternatives to

Voluntary Product Standards, because they are not voluntary.

Standards of ANSI and ASTM were recognized as possible

alternatives to Voluntary Product Standards, particularly in those cases where committees were in existence or standards were underway.

Discussions lead to the consensus that it was important to

have standards developed cooperatively between all segments of an industry and the government. Conference participants felt that

under the present climate with pressures for mandatory Federal

regulations, there is a need for the best possible governmentindustry participation in standards development. It was generally

agreed that, of all the voluntary standards-writing organizations,

the Standards Development Services Section could best act as the

coordinating body between industry and other Federal agencies with

possible interests in standards. Members of the conference agreed

that participation of regulatory agencies early in the development

3
process was of prime importance in avoiding wasted time and

duplication of effort. It was recognized that industries are interested in policing themselves through voluntary standards,

and want their efforts recognized and accepted by regulatory

agencies, particularly if the efforts are in the area of possible

future mandatory regulations. Further, it was felt, a sound

voluntary standard, developed through consensus procedures, such

as those used in the VPS program, may obviate the need for a mandatory standard or may be accepted as the basis of a mandatory

regulation if one is deemed necessary.

Conference members believed the VPS program is an important

element in addressing national standardization requirements. It was pointed out that local. State, and Federal agencies often

accept Voluntary Product Standards and their revisions or amendments without long and involved hearings to update codes and

regulations

.

It was generally agreed that it was important for "U.S." to

appear on the standard. When compliance to a standard is voluntary,

it was felt that industry interests would be more likely to follow

a standard developed cooperatively with the government. Participants believed the voluntary standards developed under U.S.

Government procedures by their very nature promote confidence in

their adoption and use. Two members of the conference gave examples

in the jewelry and lumber industries where standards developed under

the U.S. Department of Commerce procedures have the force of law.

Conference participants felt that government participation was

important in the development of standards expected to have international influence. Industry groups also look to the government to

assist them in developing standards that will promote domestic

commerce. It was pointed out that in other countries the government

plays a much more active role in developing and promoting national

standards

.

Another area where government participation is needed, according

to participants, is the conversion of present standards to the metric

system of measurement. It was felt that there is no better agency

than the National Bureau of Standards to coordinate changes with

respect to the metric transition. Conference members recommended

that the National Bureau of Standards take a leadership role in that

activity.

Several participants expressed strong opinions in favor of

allowing industry groups the option of choosing the standards

development process which they feel best suits their needs.

Conference members criticized the National Bureau of Standards

for its "arbitrary" and "fickle" determinations as to which

4
standards projects it would accept or continue to process under

the Voluntary Product Standards procedures. In some cases, they

said, new projects have been transferred to the private sector,

against the desires of the proponent organization. Some members

felt this had been done without adequate consideration as to how

effective a standard would be under the private sector. Those

present at the conference expressed a need to have input to this

decision-making process. It was felt that the proponent group

could contribute some insight into determining whether a project

can be most effectively developed by an alternative to the Voluntary

Product Standards program. According to the participants, the

services of the VPS program should be available to any organization

wishing to develop a standard as long as the project meets the

NBS criteria.

Communication in the Voluntary Product Standards program was discussed. Members felt that the published standards themselves

were successful forms of communication, being well written and

in easily understood language. It was felt that this quality of

being easily understood by all groups, from technicians to the

average consumer, promotes the use of Voluntary Product Standards.

The U.S. Department of Commerce, participants said, provides an outstanding avenue of communication between technical groups,

trade associations, education groups, consumer groups. Federal

agencies, and other standards organizations. The participants

agreed that communication is an important factor in obtaining high

quality input to the development of standards and in eliminating

duplication of effort. They expressed the belief that everyone

involved in the development of a VPS learns through the communication process. There is an exchange of ideas among producers,

distributors, consumer/users, and general interest groups by which

it was felt each group learns from the other. Participants felt

that no one group dominates the results.

The discussion of communications led to thoughts of communications beyond those required by procedures. Conference participants

discussed the feasibility of dissemination of periodic reports on

all SDSS projects, not only to all those involved in the Voluntary

Product Standards procedures, but to other standards organizations,

educators, trade associations, and consumer groups.

A question was raised about how to make the Government Printing

Office more effective in distributing standards. Delays were reported of up to six months from time of request to receipt of

the document. It was pointed out that the National Bureau of

Standards does maintain a small stock of Voluntary Product Standards

on hand for distribution of single courtesy copies.

5
A request was made by one of the industry groups for NBS to play

an active role in obtaining and distributing national anthropometric

data. The applications of the data within the fields of human

engineering and standardization were pointed out.

Discussions also touched on comparative costs of developing

standards. Since little has been published on comparisons of costs

incurred by proponent organizations going to the various standards

groups in the national system, it was proposed that such a comparison

should be made for use by proponent groups when considering alternative

procedures

.

A number of people at the conference felt that industry would

be more than willing to assist in paying the expenses of Voluntary

Product Standards development and that NBS should explore the

feasibility of such an idea. Some participants expressed the

belief that the Voluntary Product Standards program is selected,

not because it minimizes industry expense, but because it is well

run and demanding; and those who use it have confidence in the end

result. For these reasons, the participants felt that industry

would want to bear its fair share of the cost burden.

V. Conclusions and Recommendations—At the day's end, the chairmen of

both working groups made concluding remarks and recommendations in

summary of the day's discussion to a general session of all conference

participants. These included:

A. The VPS program is an important element for addressing standardization requirements. It provides safeguards, such as other government

agencies review, not available to the same degree under other

standards organizations' procedures. Under the present climate of

pressure for mandatory Federal standards, there is a need for the

best possible government-industry participation in standards development. The conference endorses the VPS program. The program is

viable and it is essential that it be continued. The NBS's policy

should be one of continuing support with judgments made as to the

national needs and public concern.

B. Providing the criteria for a Voluntary Product Standard are met,

the VPS program should be available to any organization wishing to

avail itself of those services. There are times when standards can be most effective when published as a VPS through NBS. In these

cases, the standards should not be automatically turned over to the

private sector without due consideration of the effectiveness of the

end product.

C. Industry should have a choice in the procedures it wishes to

follow in standards development . It was recommended that the NBS

expand its activities in the VPS system because:

6
1. Some standards are most effective with the benefit of

government prestige and influence;

2. The VPS has outstanding credibility because of the interaction between, and review of, producers, distributors,

consumers, and other government agencies; and

3. The various industries need to preserve the opportunity

to regulate itself through voluntary consensus standards within

government, not outside of the government.

D. Speed of processing is important. Delays have been experienced

in processing a Voluntary Product Standard. NBS should review past

projects to determine what has been responsible for those delays

and consider such adjustments as may seem appropriate in procedures

or administrative handling to minimize future delays.

E. It was felt that there is no better agency than NBS to coordinate

changes with respect to metric transition. It was recommended that

the NBS take a leadership role in this activity.

F. Participants recommended that the NBS publish for wide

dissemination a semi-annual review of standardization activities.

G. It was further recommended that there should be an annual

conference of the type held to review and discuss the voluntary

standards programs and activities.

7
(
Appendix A

List of Industry Participants in the Voluntary Product Standards

Program Conference, December 5, 1975

Paul R. Beattie

American Institute of Timber

Construction

333 W. Hampden Avenue

Englewood, Colorado 80110

Milton E. Degenhart

National Sash and Door Jobbers

Association

20 North Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Samuel F. Etris

American Society for Testing and

Materials

1916 Race Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Betty Preston

American Society for Testing and

Materials

1916 Race Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103

Thomas R. Flint

American Plywood Association

1119 A Street

Tacoma, Washington 98402

William J. Groah

Hardwood Plywood Manufacturers

Association

Box 6246

Arlington, Virginia 22206

Ward Hitchings

National Forest Products Association

1619 Massachusetts Avenue, NW.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Aubrey Jay

J, C. Penney Company

1301 Avenue of Americas

New York, New York 10019

9

Robert A. LaCosse

Acoustical and Board Products

Association

205 West Touhy Avenue

Park Ridge, Illinois 60068

David E . Lundy

Matthey Bishop Inc.

Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355

Charles L. Condit

The Society of the Plastics

Industry, Inc.

355 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10017

Thomas J. McGrath

The Society of the Plastics

Industry, Inc.

355 Lexington Avenue

New York, New York 10017

Thomas D. Searles

American Lumber Standards Committee

Suite 204, 20010 Century Boulevard

Germantown, Maryland 20767

Sid Smith

National Association of Hosiery

Manufacturers

P. 0. Box 4314

Charlotte, North Carolina 28211

Joel A. Windman

Jewelers Vigilance Committee, Inc.

919 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022

Harry Korab

National Soft Drink Association

1128 16th Street, NW.

Washington, D.C. 20036

John M. Sharf

Glass Container Manufacturers

Institute, Inc.

1800 K Street, NW.

Washington, D.C. 20006
Appendix B

Agenda for SDSS Seminar

on December 5, 1975

9:00 - 10;30 a.m.

Welcoming and opening remarks - G. Rowland

NBS Standards Participation - J. Koenig

Role of SDSS - K. Newell

10:30 - 12;00 p.m. •

Workshops

Conference participants will be organized into

two working groups.

12:00 - 1:00 p.m.

LUNCH

1:00 - 2:30 p.m.

Workshops (continued)

2:30 - 3:00 p.m.

Coffee break

3:00 - 4:00 p.m. , .

Workshop reports . c,

, ; i

'

"

,

r 4:00 - 4:30 p.m.

Conclusions and Recommendations

10
Appendix C

Suggestions for Group Chairmen

Call to order - Introduce self by name and organization and describe

role you will play in fulfilling objectives.

Review objectives:

1. Explore the services performed by SDSS and determine their

relevance to the recipients of those services.

2. Recommend changes in the programs of the SDSS to better meet

the mission of seeing that needed standards are developed in

the public interest.

Individual Presentations

As a way of introducing the other panel members and providing a basi

for discussions, ask each member to introduce himself and make a bri

presentation concerning:

1. How SDSS has assisted them in the past.

2. How their standards are implemented, including a discussion

of industry awareness.

After last panel member's remarks, add your own experience.

Summarize by listing general services performed by SDSS. Such as:

1. develop drafts, data, test methods , requirements

2. editorial and format

3. coordination with other standards groups

4. review of objections

5. technical review

6. consensus

7. publication

8. distribution

9. continued review

10. administer DoC procedures

11. alternative awareness

Are there alternatives to the VPS prog ram?

(ANSI, ASTM, CPSC, Industry or Association standards, company

standards .

)

11
G. What can SDSS do to assist an Industry group in reaching a successful

alternative?

(Act as liaison between industry and other groups, assist in

determining consensus, develop drafts, put in format, develop

mailing lists.)

H. How can SDSS assist an industry group receive national recognition

for its standard?

(increase: percentage of industry compliance; industry awareness;

purchaser use)

I. How can SDSS assist an industry group in implementing a standard?

(certification, labeling, inspection, advertising, other references)

J. What are the problems encountered in standards:

1. development

2. compliance

3. awareness

4. enforcement

K. What new areas for standards will cause new anticipated problems?

(change from voluntary to mandatory, legislation, change in private

standardizing sector)

L. Summarize role SDSS can play in assisting in the development of standards

in the public interest.

M. If time permits, there could be a discussion of the need for setting

standards priorities.

N. Make recommendations in line with objectives that you as a chairman

can report to the conference at conclusion of conference.

USCOMM-NBS-DC 12
NBS-1 14A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

L PUBLIC;ATI0N or RHl^ORT NO.

NBSIR 76-1057

2. Gov't Accfs.sion No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Standards Development Services Section

An Industry Evaluation

5. Publication Date March 1976

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Charles W. Devereux

8. Performing Organ. Report No. NBSIR 76-1057

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 4013105

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same as No. 9.

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

14, sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

A conference of participants in the Voluntary Product Standards program

was held at the National Bureau of Standards December 5, 1975. The purpose

of the meeting was to evaluate the services performed by the Standards

Development Services Section. This report relates the evaluation discussions

and the industry's recommended changes in the program that would enable

the Standards Development Services Section to better meet its mission

of seeing that needed standards are developed in the public interest.

Also included in the report are the criteria for selecting participants,

a list of attendees, an agenda, and a general guideline for use by working

group chairmen in leading discussions.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Conference, Voluntary Product Standards program; services, standards development;

Standards, Voluntary Product; Standards Development Services Section; Voluntary

Product Standards^ program ^^^f^^^^ conference. w..*..- -W..- » 18. AVAILABILITY ^2 Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

IXi For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCLASSIFIED

1

' Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. C13

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

1

1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151 UNCLASSIFIED

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74