U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–920PDF 2012

PROMOTING INNOVATION, COMPETITION 

AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: 

PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC AND 

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

Serial No. 112–63 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

HON. BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona, Chair 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

VACANCY

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Benjamin Quayle, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ...............................................

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Witnesses: 

Ms. Mary H. Saunders, Director, Standards Coordination Office, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 10 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13 

Mr. S. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO, American National Standards Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 41 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 43 

Mr. Mark Grimaldi, Owner, Equinox Chemicals 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 47 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49 

Mr. James Seay, President, Premier Rides 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 53 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 55 

Discussion 68 

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mary H. Saunders, Director, Standards Coordination Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology ...................................................................... 86 

S. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO, American National Standards Institute ..... 90 

Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation ................................ 98 

Mark Grimaldi, Owner, Equinox Chemicals ......................................................... 101 

James Seay, President, Premier Rides .................................................................. 104 

(1) 

PROMOTING INNOVATION, COMPETITION 

AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: 

PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC AND 

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin Quayle 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

RAl Pf I M HAll, TEXAS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

I::DDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, lLX!\S 

J.{ANK'~G M~,\18f:H 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 2051!l-6301 

(202) 225- 6371 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation Hearing 

Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth: Principles 

for Effective Domestic and International Standards Development 

Wednesday, February 29, 20]2 

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

Ms. Mary H. Saunders, Director, Standards Coordination Ot1ice, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Mr. S. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO, American National Standards Institute 

Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation 

Mr. Mark Grimaldi, Owner, Equinox Chemicals 

Mr. James Seay, President, Premier Rides 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION 

HEARING CHARTER 

Promotiflg Inflovatiofl, Competitioll, alld Ecoflomic Growtlt: PrillciplesfoJ" Effective Domestic 

and International Standards Development 

J. Purpose 

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 

10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Wednesday, February 29, 2011, the Committee on Science. Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will convene a hearing to: examine the principles 

of effective domestic and international standards development processes; analyze how the 

Federal government, industry and other organizations promote these principles internationally; 

and understand how standards may be used as technical barriers to trade. 

II. Witnesses 

Ms. Mary H. Saunders, Director, Standards Coordination Office, National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. 

Mr. S. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO, American National Standards Institute. 

Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation. 

Mr. Mark Grimaldi, Owner, Equinox Chemicals. 

Mr. James Scay, President, Premier Rides. 

III. Background 

Standards playa critical role in the domestic and international economics. Standards establish 

rules under which difterent products and services compete in the global marketplace, allowing 

for uniformity or interoperability. Standards facilitate trade by providing product specifications 

around which exporters can design products. Standards enable cell phones from different service 

carriers to communicate with each other, ensure that appliances can be powered by electrical 

outlets throughout the United Slates, and allow software programs to operate on computers 

manufactured by different companies. 
4 

OMS Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary 

Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities," states that the term 

"standard" or "technical standard" as cited in the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-113) includes all of the following: (1) Common and 

repeated use of rules, conditions, guidelines or characteristics for products or relatcd processes 

and production methods, and related management systems practices; (2) The definition of 

terms; classification of components; delineation of procedures; specification of dimensions. 

materials, performance, designs, or operations; measurcment of quality and quantity in 

describing materials, processes, products, systems, services, or practices; test methods and 

sampling procedures; or descriptions of fit and measurements of size or strength.' 

While standards are crucial in providing certainty to industry, consumcrs, and governments, the 

process by which standards are developed or adopted is also of critical importance to economic 

competitiveness and to innovation. Standards that are adopted with consensus among 

stakeholders provide market assurances that can enable the emergencc of innovative 

technologies. Standards that are implemented without regard to technology or market 

penetration can inhibit innovation, trade, and competition. 

The timing of standardization is also important, especially with respect to emerging technologies. 

Stakeholders must weigh the benefits of market assurance through standardization versus the 

nced to allow rool1l for innovation and technology development. 

Standards Development in the United Slates 

Historically, standards development in the U.S. has followed a market-driven, voluntary 

consensus approach. This approach resulted in a standards devciopment ecosystcm where 

stakcholders engage with professional associations, standards development organizations (SDO), 

and standards consortia that have technical expertise in their respective product and service 

areas. Collectively these entities are known as Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs) and 

membership can consist of companies, federal agencics, non-profits, and other stakcholders. 

Through a consensus process, SSOs develop and adopt member-accepted standards. Traditional 

U.S. SDOs represent well-established industries that developed formalized processes for the 

proposal, consideration, and acceptance of standards. Typically, U.S.-based SDOs arc open to 

any industry stakeholder, regardless ofwhcrc their company is headquartcred. 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) suppOlis the devclopment of 

standards through technical staff participation in SDOs--ensuring standards are based on sound 

science and supported by effective measurements and testing that promote conformity to and 

acceptance of the standards. As a non-regulatory federal agency, NIST boasts both breadth and 

depth of technical expertise, a reputation as an unbiased, neutral party, and a long collaborative 

history with the private sector. 

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a non-profit umbrella group Jor SDOs that 

accredits the standards development procedures of its member organizations, helps coordinate 

standards activities in the U.S., provides a forum for its members to discllss standards issues, and 

'0MB Circular No. 1-119. Revised. February 10, 1998 

2 
5 

is the U.S. representative to two major international standards bodies: The International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission 

(IEC). ANSI's membership includes major U.S. manufacturers, universities, government 

agencies, testing laboratories, and other entities. 

International Sfandaniy Developmel1f 

In contrast to the market-driven approach to standards development that has mostly dominated in 

the U.S., some global trading partners historically employed a morc top-down approach to 

standards development the basis of which arc political or regulatory factors. In many cases, 

companies are required to have locations or domestic industry partners in the host countries to 

participate in the standards development process. This approach makes it more difficult for 

U.S.-based Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) to participate in the standards 

development process, which results in the adoption of standards that often puts these SMEs at a 

competitive disadvantage, even in cases where an SME may utilize superior technology. 

In the global arena, the ISO is the world's largest developer and publisher of international 

proprietary, industrial, and commercial standards, operating a network of 162 national standards 

institutes across multiple industries. The IEC prepares and publishes standards for electrical 

technologies, including power generation, semiconductors, tiber optics, batteries, and 

nanotechnology. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a specialized agency of the 

United Nations, develops standards for information and communication technologies. While 

these organizations develop standards based on international political consensus, they utilize a 

voting system that allocates one vote to each paliicipating country? As a result, these processes 

may result in standards that reward suboptimal technology supported by regional trading blocs. 

While ISO, lEe, and ITU are international in their makeup, they are not the only organizations 

that can develop international standards. Indeed, private SDOs can participate in international 

standards development by following WTO guidelines. 

Established in 1995, the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade 

(WTO/TBT), sought to ensure that "technical regulations and standards, including packaging, 

marking and labeling requirements, and procedures for assessment of conformity with technical 

regulations and standards do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade."] While the 

WTOITBT Agreement does not select specific standards or SDOs as international, the 

WTOITBT Committee established the following criteria for international standards 

development4

: 

Transparency 

• Openness 

• Impartiality and Consensus 

, ASME General Position Paper rs 11-03. "Standards and Technical Barriers to Trade", Jamwr) 2011. 

1 World Trade Organization '-Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade", Uruguay Agreement. J 995 

4 World Trade Organiz<ltion Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade (2000), "Second Triennial Review of the 

Operation and Implementation of1hl: Agreement on Tcchllkal Barriers to Trade." 

3 
6 

Effectiveness and Relevance 

• Coherence 

• Development Dimension 

While these criteria tend to align with the voluntary, consenslls driven approach that has 

dominated in the U.s., there are still significant differences in the interpretation and 

implementation of WTOfTBT guidelines among the U.S. and its trading partners. 

IV, Issues for Examination 

This hearing will explore the principles that support effective standards development processes, 

with respect to the effect of standards development on innovation, competition, and economic 

growth. The hearing will also analyze the ways in which the Federal government industry, and 

other organizations work to promote the application of principles in the international standards 

development arena. Finally, the hearing will examine the ways in which trading partners may 

lise standards as technical barriers to trade and will examine how the Federal government and 

other stakeholders seek to address these challenges in the glohal arena. 

Witnesses have been asked to provide their perspective on: the principles oC effective standards 

development; the role of both NIST and ANSI in the domestic and international standards 

development arenas; how companies engage in both domestic and international standards 

development; how companies have experienced the lise of technical standards in countries to 

which they export; and actions the Federal government, SDOs, and other companies can take to 

minimize industry vulnerability to the use of standards as technical barriers to trade. 

4 
7 

Chairman QUAYLE. The Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation will come to order. 

Good morning. We have been informed that the Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards, is on her way and wanted us to be started so 

we can be prompt. 

I want to welcome everybody to today’s hearing, entitled ‘‘Promoting Innovation, Competitive and Economic Growth: Principles 

for Effective Domestic and International Standards Development.’’ 

In front of you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony disclosures for today’s witnesses. 

I am now going to recognize myself for five minutes for an opening 

statement. 

Today, we have the Federal Government—sorry. I would like to 

welcome everybody to today’s hearing, which is being held to examine the principles of effective standards development, the process 

by which the Federal Government, industry, and other stakeholders promote those principles internationally, and the ways 

some of our trading partners use standards as technical barriers to 

trade. 

Standards play a critical role in both the domestic and international economies. Standards provide certainty for both producers 

and consumers, enabling technologies to emerge and markets to develop. While standards are pervasive throughout the economy, 

their role in the marketplace is not widely appreciated. Standards 

enable cell phones from different carriers to communicate with 

each other. They allow microprocessors to operate in computers 

made by different manufacturers, and standards ensure that electrical appliances can be used throughout the United States. 

Along with providing market certainty to producers and consumers, the process by which standards are developed is also crucial to competitiveness and innovation. In the United States, standards development has historically followed a market-driven, voluntary consensus approach. This system has proven to be effective 

because it allows relevant stakeholders, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to contribute in the development process, 

ensuring the final standards have broad market relevance. As a result, our standards development process has promoted innovation 

and competition. 

However, different industries have unique needs for standards. 

Whereas mature industries require standards to provide product 

specifications to producers, emerging technology industries may 

want to avoid standardizing at an early stage, as this could stifle 

innovation and the development of potentially superior technology. 

Timing, therefore, is a critical issue. It is also important that 

standards remain dynamic, allowing opportunities for incorporation 

of new technologies. 

These principles have proven to be effective in promoting innovation in standards development processes. However, they have not 

been universally adopted. Many countries have taken a top-down 

approach to standards development. In some instances, trading 

partners have mandated standards as a means of protecting their 

domestic industries. In other cases, countries have implemented 

standards without adequate notification periods. This can be especially burdensome for small- and medium-sized enterprises, which 
8 

do not have the abundant resources available to comply with 

changing rules. Other countries require a local presence or partner 

to participate in their standards development processes. In each 

case, these approaches to standards development can inhibit competition and innovation and can hurt U.S. producers seeking to export their products. 

Today, we will be looking at the principles of effective standards 

development processes, and will seek to understand the ways in 

which the Federal Government and stakeholders promote these 

principles abroad. We will also analyze some of the ways that 

standards and conformance assessment can be used by trading 

partners as technical barriers to trade. Finally, we will seek to understand the ways in which the Federal Government, industry, and 

other stakeholders can act to address instances where standards 

are used as technical barriers to trade. 

We have an excellent panel of government, industry, and stakeholder witnesses who will share their insights on these topics, and 

I would like to extend my appreciation to each of our witnesses for 

taking the time and effort to appear before us today, and we look 

forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quayle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN QUAYLE, CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Good morning. I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, which is being held 

to examine the principles of effective standards development; the process by which 

the Federal Government, industry and other stakeholders promote those principles 

internationally; and the ways some of our trading partners use standards as technical barriers to trade. 

Standards play a critical role in both the domestic and international economies. 

Standards provide certainty for both producers and consumers, enabling technologies to emerge and markets to develop. While standards are pervasive throughout the economy, their role in the marketplace is not widely appreciated. Standards 

enable cell phones from different carriers to communicate with each other. They 

allow microprocessors to operate in computers made by different manufacturers. 

And, standards ensure that electrical appliances can be used throughout the United 

States. 

Along with providing market certainty to producers and consumers, the process 

by which standards are developed is also crucial to competitiveness and innovation. 

In the United States, standards development has historically followed a marketdriven, voluntary consensus approach. This system has proven to be effective because it allows relevant stakeholders, including small and medium-sized enterprises, 

to contribute in the development process, ensuring the final standards have broad 

market relevance. As a result, our standards development process has promoted innovation and competition. 

However, different industries have unique needs for standards. Whereas mature 

industries require standards to provide product specifications to producers, emerging technology industries may want to avoid standardizing at an early stage, as this 

could stifle innovation and the development of potentially superior technology. Timing, therefore, is a critical issue. It is also important that standards remain dynamic, allowing opportunities for incorporation of new technologies. 

These principles have proven to be effective in promoting innovation in standards 

development processes. However, they have not been universally adopted. 

Many countries have taken a top-down approach to standards development. In 

some instances, trading partners have mandated standards as a means of protecting 

their domestic industries. In other cases, countries have implemented standards 

without adequate notification periods. This can be especially burdensome for smalland medium-sized enterprises, which do not have abundant resources available to 

comply with changing rules. Other countries require a local presence or partner to 

participate in their standards development processes. In each case, these approaches 
9 

to standards development can inhibit competition and innovation, and can hurt U.S. 

producers seeking to export their products. 

Today, we will be looking at the principles of effective standards development 

processes and will seek to understand the ways in which the Federal Government 

and stakeholders promote these principles abroad. We will also analyze some of the 

ways that standards and conformance assessment can be used by trading partners 

as technical barriers to trade. Finally, we will seek to understand the ways in which 

the Federal Government, industry, and other stakeholders can act to address instances where standards are used as technical barriers to trade. 

We have an excellent panel of government, industry, and stakeholder witnesses 

who will share their insights on these topics with us. I’d like to extend my appreciation to each of our witnesses for taking the time and effort to appear before us 

today. We look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. DONNA F. EDWARDS, RANKING MINORITY MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

Thank you, Chairman Quayle. And thank you for calling this important hearing 

on standards development and the role of standards in global competition. 

Although issues surrounding standards do not often get attention in Congress, 

they have an incredibly significant impact on the ability of U.S. companies to innovate and compete in the global market and have a much greater bearing on future 

economic growth than most would imagine. I’m pleased that we’re taking the time 

to focus on these issues and thank the witnesses for their willingness to join us 

today. 

As the global marketplace has grown over the last 30 years, we have learned how 

important it is that the playing field is level and that all of the players on that field 

are playing by the same rules. Standards can open up new or expanding markets 

to a U.S. company. However, standards can also serve as a barrier to trade, keeping 

U.S. companies out and sending profits elsewhere. When things go awry in the 

international standards realm—when someone tries to manipulate the standards 

system or rig it to their own ends—it really matters for U.S. companies and the U.S. 

economy. 

As we continue to look for opportunities to spur economic growth in this country 

and keep the U.S. competitive in the global marketplace, it is critical that we preserve the ability of our companies—big and small alike—to export their products to 

markets throughout the world. To make that happen, we need to do what we can 

to ensure that the standards that are being put in place worldwide do not unfairly 

disadvantage our home-grown businesses. 

We have a very successful standards development system in this country. It has 

been, and continues to be, the envy of the world. Our system is characterized by 

unparalleled transparency, openness, and engagement. As a result, we produce incredibly high quality standards. 

Unfortunately, not everyone does it our way. And the task of promoting our standards internationally or harmonizing our standards with those developed elsewhere, 

while also weeding out those that leave something to be desired or disadvantage our 

companies, is certainly not an easy one. 

Last Congress, this Committee recognized the importance of international standardization to our economy and sought to determine if there were ways that the Federal Government could more effectively help the private sector in its standards harmonization efforts. We explored ways for the Federal Government to get its own 

house in order, so that our agencies are coordinating and not unintentionally getting 

in each others’ way. We wondered if there was value to the Federal Government 

stepping up and helping industry and the standards community by serving as a 

watchdog, looking out for situations where the international standards development 

process might be taking a turn for the worse. And we wanted to ensure that the 

Federal Government was prepared to offer assistance to our private sector standards community, if such assistance was needed and would prove helpful. 

As you may know, these efforts culminated in a provision in the House version 

of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Although this language did 

not make it into the final version, these are issues that I remain interested in. I 

look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about what, if anything, can be 

done to make the Federal Government a better partner to industry and the standards development community. 

I am also interested in hearing from the witnesses about the importance of the 

U.S. remaining on the leading edge of standardization in new or emerging areas of 
10 

technology. I am pleased that the Federal Government is working closely with the 

private sector and the standards development community to ensure that the U.S. 

is leading the world on standards development for smart grid, nanotechnology, 

health information technology, cloud computing, and public safety communications. 

We should continue to join efforts to identify new areas of technology with significant transformative potential and come together as quickly as possible to develop 

the needed standards and promote those standards internationally. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing on this important topic. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman QUAYLE. We will wait for the gentlelady, but before we 

do it, we are going to introduce our witnesses and then we will proceed to hear from each of them in order. 

Our first witness is Ms. Mary Saunders, Director of the Standards Coordination Office at the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. Ms. Saunders serves as the representative of NIST 

within the standards community and leads the agency’s interactions with foreign governments. 

Next, we will hear from Mr. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO of 

the American National Standards Institute. Mr. Bhatia represents 

American interests in international standards through his involvement with a variety of international standard organizations. 

Our third witness is Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards 

at Intel Corporation. Mr. Wennblom leads Intel’s worldwide strategic standards policy. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Mark Grimaldi, owner of Equinox 

Chemicals. As the owner of a business with significant export 

growth, Mr. Grimaldi is experienced in how international standards affect American companies in the global marketplace. 

Our final witness is Mr. James Seay, President of Premier Rides. 

In addition to his standards experience with Premier Rides, Mr. 

Seay chairs the ASTM F24 Global Committee on Ride Safety 

Standards. 

Thanks again to our witnesses for being here this morning. As 

our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each. After all witnesses have spoken, Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize our first witness, Ms. Mary Saunders, for her 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MARY H. SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR, 

STANDARDS COORDINATION OFFICE, 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Chairman Quayle and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss how standards 

can promote innovation, competition, and economic growth. I will 

highlight recent standards policy developments in the federal space 

as well as outlining how NIST promotes voluntary consensus 

standards internationally. More detailed information is available in 

my written testimony submitted as part of the hearing record. 

NIST has a unique role with respect to standards in the federal 

enterprise. This role is defined by statute, and its effectiveness is 

borne out by a track record of technical excellence. Our strong ties 

to industry and the standards community have enabled us to tackle 

various standards-related challenges and deliver timely solutions. 

Companies both large and small engage with NIST directly 
11 

through workshops and outreach activities as well as indirectly in 

technical committees in more than 100 standards organizations in 

which we participate. 

Last year, NIST Director Patrick Gallagher testified before this 

committee about the need for more effective federal engagement in 

standards development, use, and promotion. This is now being facilitated by a Subcommittee on Standards chaired by Dr. Gallagher 

established within the National Science and Technology Council’s 

Committee on Technology. Last October, following extensive public 

consultations, the Subcommittee issued a report with recommendations on how the effectiveness of Federal Government engagement 

in standards to address national priorities can be enhanced. These 

recommendations have been incorporated into a recent White 

House memorandum for agencies. 

There are many types of standards organizations. One size certainly does not fit all, and identifying underlying principles that 

characterize effective standardization processes is important for 

agency decision making. A limited set of foundational attributes for 

standardization activities is called out in OMB Circular A–119 focusing on voluntary consensus standards activities. The Subcommittee on Standards also identified the following as being important to maximize the impact of the full range of standardization 

activities on enabling innovation and fostering competition, and 

these are transparency, open participation, flexibility, effectiveness 

and relevance, coherence international acceptance, and net benefit. 

NIST has embraced these principles in our work coordinating 

standards development for the realization of interoperable smart 

grid, for cloud computing, and other areas. In each of these cases, 

it was determined either by legislative or policy directive that there 

was a need to ensure that relevant standards are available on a 

timely basis to support a rapid, coherent response to a national priority. NIST leadership in facilitating private-sector-led standards 

development efforts engaging a broad range of stakeholders is contributing to ensuring that key public policy goals are met in a timely manner with solutions that are accepted globally. 

The U.S. Government and NIST in its international interactions 

has long advocated that companies should adopt and use international standards where available and that the opportunity to 

participate in standardization activities should be made available 

to all interested stakeholders. NIST has also demonstrated by example through our own participation in a range of international 

standardization activities. We have worked effectively to move 

technical content from NIST special publications in the 

cybersecurity and cloud arenas into international standards venues 

to facilitate global acceptance. 

With a reduction in tariffs globally, the use of standards and conformity assessment procedures as technical barriers of trade has 

become an issue of increasing concern. NIST supports U.S. industry and government agencies in addressing technical barriers to 

trade by providing various reference tools to inform U.S. stakeholders of potential TBT-related issues and to assist them in addressing them. We engage in regular information exchanges related 

to technical standards and conformity assessment issues with important trading partners such as the European Union, Japan, 
12 

China and Brazil. These exchanges enable us to gather firsthand 

information about standards and related developments that can 

impact U.S. companies exporting to those countries. In instances 

where we have better approaches, we have been able to share our 

experiences about those approaches, why these have worked and 

lessons learned. 

In closing, Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Edwards and 

members of the Subcommittee, NIST is actively working with both 

private sector partners and other agencies to leverage new opportunities to help our industry maintain their leadership role in the 

standards arena. We look forward to working with you closely, and 

I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:] 
13 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. MARY H. SAUNDERS

Testimony of 

Mary H. Saunders 

Director, Standards Coordination Office 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Before the 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

on 

"PROMOTING INNOVATION, COMPETITION, & 

ECONOMIC GROWTH: PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE 

DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 

DE VEL OP"VENT" 

February 29, 2012 
14 

Introduction 

Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Edwards, and members of the Subcommittee, on behalfof 

Secretary Bryson, and the Director orNIST, Patrick Gallagher, I want to thank you for this 

opportunity to discuss the current dynamics in the world of standards and standardization, and 

NIST's role in the opportunities and challenges presented, With the growing importance of 

standards as key drivers in innovation and international competitiveness, and the attention and 

resources that Ollr key trading partners arc investing in this area, this is a very timely hearing. 

We ol1en hear the statistic that over 80% ofglohal trade is affected by standards or technical 

regulations. This estimate comes from a 1999 OECD Report on Regulatory Refilfln and 

International standardization. This estimate should be considered within the context of the 

explosive growth of global trade since the time of the report. Clearly, today, standards impact 

trillions of dollars in trade. 

With the emergence and growth of new technologies, such as those needed for the development 

and deployment oran interoperable Smart Grid. nanotechnology. cloud computing and 

emergency communications, these are exciting times in the standards world. International 

standards and broadly accepted conformity assessment programs are playing a critical role in the 

development and commercialization of these technologies. 

In my testimony, I will address the impact of standards on innovation and competitiveness, the 

complex interplay of the U.S. and international standards systems, the challenges that are we are 

currently facing, and NIST's efforts to address these challenges. 

Stal/dards Matter 

The pervasive nature and ubiquity of standards often de-sensitizes LIS to how much we depend 

upon standards that work. As examples, the spacing and operation of sprinkler heads that provide 

lire protection in this room are dictated by standards. We know that this hearing is being webcast 

to the standards community in the United States and abroad. Webcasting is made simple and 

seamless due to international standards [()f audio and video which arc built into the computer 

software and hardware. These standards and specillcations are just a few of the more than 250 

standards and specillcations implemented in a laptop computer, according to a study by Arizona 

State University. 1 

Standards also provide great benefit by helping to ensure our health and safety. Frol11 standards 

which define the size, color, shape and positioning of roadway stop signs. to standards that 

determine safe levels of exposure to radiation when getting an x-ray upon visiting a dentist, 

standards underpin a large number of our daily activities and interactions. 

Broad use of standards clearly helps enhance the safety of products. while reducing cost to 

consumers, and also providing consumers greater choice. Widespread reliance on standards also 

creates tremendous market opportunities for those with ideas and technologies that can be 

1 Brad Biddle, Andrew White and Sean Woods, "!fUll' Many Siandords 111 ({ Laptop? (And Olher Empirical 

Qlfestions) " Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law 
15 

standardized and used around the world. [n an increasingly global economy, standards are not 

only important for consumcrs, they arc also critical underpinnings lor business. In today's hypercompetitive world economy, ignoring the importance of standards can prove costly for both 

industry and government. Companies. and even entire industries. may become less efficient. 

Transactions may become more costly in both dollars and resources necessary tor buyer-seller 

negotiations. Markets can fragment as divergent requirements for products and services are 

developed and imposed. 

U.S. competitiveness in technology requires leadership by U.S. industry in standards and 

standardization. Leadership in standardization provides a first-mover 0ppOltunity to drive 

technological innovation. However, such active participation and leadership also requires 

significant time and resource commitments. In today's resource-constrained environments, U.S. 

industry is faced with very tough choices regarding investment in standards activities, the 

benefits of which may not be evident in the short-or medium-term. This becomes an even more 

significant issue for small and medium enterprises, who may 110t have the resources to invest in 

standardization when struggling to make payroll or pay for raw materials. 

Standards (IS Engines {!f Innovation 

Standards play an important role in enabling technological innovation by defining and 

establishing common foundations upon which product differentiation, innovative technology 

development and other value-added services can be developed. Standards are also essential for 

enabling seamless interoperability between products and systems. Thus, standards are otten the 

technical foundation enabling global trade, competitiveness and innovation. 

Standards promote efficiency in domestic and international markets. By adhering to agreed-upon 

standards. businesses can lISC widely accepted requirements and specifications to negotiate deals 

for products or services, avoiding contract ambiguities that might otherwise underminc such 

transactions. Standards promote understanding between buyer and seller and facilitate mutually 

beneficial commercial transactions. 

Most products have become exceedingly complex; and, in our globalmarketpJacc, suppliers are 

often unknown entities. Thus, standards provide us the assurance that products will perform the 

way they arc supposed to. At the same time, they are the common platform, upon which 

innovators and developers can design and build a wide range of value added products which in 

turn can drive greater innovation and competition. The Universal Serial Bus, or USB 

specification, is a great example of such a protocol driving innovation. This specification defines 

how data can be transferred trom a peripheral device to a computer's Central Processing Unit 

(CPU) through a USB port, and how the same port can also be used to charge a device. The 

broad utility of this specification, however, has driven applications well beyond the CPU, with 

the result that consumers enjoy low-cost USB conncctivity for many, ifnot all, of the electronic 

devices in common lise today. 

Considering the broad impact that standards can have, and the global nature of trade and supply 

cbains, which in turn support the global trade, standards also have a significant role in ensuring 

internat iOllal competit iveness. 
16 

Stalldards as a Tool/or International Competitiveness 

"Third class companies make prodliCis, second class companies develop technology, while jil's/ 

c/ass companies sel slandol'dl ", 

This very telling quote, originally attributed 10 Sony Corporation, resonates with industry and 

policy makers around the world, It also explains the signiticant investments by countries such as 

China to increase their participation in international standards activities, and to attempt to assume 

leadership positions in such standardization activities, Increasingly, developing economies arc 

viewing international standards as a powerful tool for competitiveness, and are developing 

strategies and tactics to playa greater role in international standardization, 

An important element of this approach is increased participation in international standards 

developing bodies, We welcome such participation, as we believe that the best standards result 

when there is broad participation representing all interested stakeholders in open and transparent 

fora, The resulting standards then reflect consensus ofthis wide stakeholder group, and when 

used as intended in mUltiple markets, such standards drive significant economies of seale. The 

U.S, government has long advocated that countries should consider adopting and using 

international standards where available, and that the opportunity to participate in standardization 

activities in other countries should be made available to all interested stakeholders, 

Principles/or I."[fective Standardization 

A limited set of foundational attributes of standardization activities is called out in OMB 

Circular A-119, focusing on voluntary, consensus standards activities, These attributes include 

openness, balance of interest and due process. 

It is important to recognize as well the contributions ofstandardization activities that take place 

outside of the formal voluntary, consensus process, particularly in emerging technology areas, 

The October 20 II report of the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on 

Standards noted that, in addition to the attributes identified in OMB Circular A-II9, the 

following additional attributes should also be considered. to maximize the impact of those 

activities on enabling innovation and fostering competition, while also assuring tldtillment of 

agency regulatory, procuremcnt, and policy missions: 

Transparency: essential inf(lrInation regarding standardization activities is accessible to all 

interested parties. 

Open Participation: all interested or affected parties have an opportunity to participate in the 

development ofa standard, with no undue financial barriers to participation. 

Flexibility: ditTerent product and scrvices sectors rely on different methodologies for standards 

development that meets their needs. 

3 
17 

Effectiveness and Relevance: standards arc developed in response to regulatory, procurement 

and policy needs, and take account of market needs and practices as well as scientific and 

technological developments. 

Coherence: the process avoids overlapping and conflicting standards. 

International Acceptance: as product and service solutions cross borders, the public and private 

sectors are best served by standards that are international in scope and applicability; and 

Net Benefit: standards used to meet regulatory and procurement needs should 

maximize net benefits of the use of such standards. 

Tile Still/tlards Ecosystem 

The U.S. voluntary, consensus standards system is bOllolll-UP, industry-driven, and sectorfocused. The government participates as an equal and interested partner. Federal, state, local and 

Tribal government representatives participate when the activity is relevant to their needs, and 

consistent with their respective missions and functions. In contrast to the government-directed, 

prescriptive standards that characterize the systems in place in a number of other countries, the 

Fedcral government does not control or direct the standards systcm in the United States. 

The modern day engagement onhe U.S. government in the formal U.S. standards system can be 

traced back to the founding of the organization that has evolved into the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI). In 1916, the Department of Commerce was one of the founding 

members of the American Engineering Standards Committee, formed to be an "impartial 

national body to coordinate standards development, approve national consensus standards, and 

halt user confusion on acceptability"'. 

Since the founding of the American Engineering Standards Committee, U.S. government 

agencies have bcen extensively involved in the development and use of standards to meet agency 

missions and priorities. This engagemcnt was catalyzed in 1995 by the passagc of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (P.L. 104-113), which directed Federal agencies to 

"use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, 

using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined 

by the agencies and departments",] except where inconsistent with applicable law or impractical. 

The strength and agility of the U.S, standards system stems jj'om its sector-specific focus. 

Individual industry and technology sectors are served by standards developing organizations that 

are sensitive to and responsive to that sector's needs, and understand the dynamics of that 

technology and industry. While there is no formal count of the number of standards developers in 

the United States, it is estimated that there arc about 600 standards selting organizations based in 

'http://www.ansi.org/about __ ansilintroduetion/h istory .aspx?mcnu id~ I 

, P. L.I 04-/13 National Technology Transfer and Advanccment Act of 1995, Section 12 (d)( I ).( available 

at: i111Q~'jstanciards.\!ov!standarcis l!ovintlaa.cnn) 

4 
18 

the United States, with approximately 194 developing most of the standards in broad use in the 

U.S. market. in regulation and procurement. The membership and organizational structure of 

these organizations vary widely: some are professional societies closely associated with a 

technology or technical sector; others are industry associations; and others arc standards setting 

organizations that are not associated with a specific technical sector. Most are accredited by the 

American National Standards Institute. 

In addition to formal standards setting organizations, consortia and other non-traditional 

standards setting organizations contribute signil1cantly to the diversity of the standards 

landscape. There has been a remarkable growth in consortia since the early 19905, driven in large 

part by the growth of the information and communications technology industries during this 

period. Consortia are organizations with participation from parties interested in rapidly 

addressing a specil1c technical issue or in developing a specific solution. Consortia follow 

different organizational models, with some having a very narrow scope of activities and a 

selective membership. Other consortia, for example, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) 

01' the Open Geospatial Consortium, closely resemble consensus-based standards developing 

organizations, with membership open to any interested entity and standards developed through 

consensus-based processes. 

Tlte Federal Govemmellt's Role lIlId Interest 

The Federal government has a significant intercst in a robust U.S. standards system. Federal 

government agencies engage in standardization in a wide range ofmissiol1-specific roles, 

including contributing to development of standards in the privatc sector, championing U.S. 

interests in standards (e.g., ensuring that standards are not used as technical barriers to trade by 

trading partners), lIsing standards for procurement or regulatory actions, and addressing 

competition-related aspects of standards-setting activities. 

In FY 2010, over 4000 Federal agency staffft'om across the Federal enterprise participated in 

more than 500 private-sector standards organizations. This participation is spurred in large part 

by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (PL 104-113), and the 

associated OMB Circular A-119. The NTTAA directs agencies to consider the use ofvoluntary 

consensus standards, in lieu of government unique standards, and OMB A-119 strongly 

encourages agencies to pal1icipa(e in standards development activities to ensure that the resulting 

standards are bettcr suited (0 meet agency needs. 

This extensive participation by Federal agency staff, and the use of the resulting standards, 

provides direct benefits to agencies and to taxpayers. The use of consensus standards 

significantly reduces costs to agencies that would otherwise be incurred if agencies had (0 

develop and maintain agency-unique standards. The use of consensus standards also reduces the 

cost to agencies due to economies of scale resulting from using the same standards for 

government as are used for the commercial sector, and spurs innovation and greater product 

choice. Currently, almost 10,000 consenSllS standards are referenced in regulations, and just 

'M. Breitcnberg, ABC's oj'Standarci.l' Activities. NISTlR 761.f. August, 2009 

(jlttp:!/esi.nisLgov!globalidocs/pubs/NISTIR 7614.pdf) page 10 

5 
19 

more than the same number of standards are referenced for procurement. Such extensive use of 

consensus standards has provided huge benefits to the United States. The European Commission 

recently undertook a major review of the European standardization system to see how it could be 

made stronger and more flexible, and a number of approaches that are central to our standards 

system were considered by the Commission. 

It is important to appreciate, that participation in the U.S. voluntary consensus standards 

development system by Federal agencies does not equal a passive engagement or abdication of 

Federal responsibilities to the private sector. The Administration's Innovation Strategy 

recognizes that for certain sectors ofexceptional national importance, selt:organization may not 

produce a desirable outcome on its own in a timely manner. In such instances, where time is of 

essence to address national priorities, the Federal government can play the important role of an 

"impatient convener" to catalyze standards development critical for these sectors. Current 

national priorities include the development and deployment of an interoperable Smart Grid, 

innovations in health care technology brought about through the use of interoperable electronic 

health records, cybersecurity standards for securing Federal government IT systems and the 

interactions of these systems. 

NIST's Role ill the US Stalldards System 

In the context of Federal engagement in the standards process, NIST plays a critical role. NIST is 

the nation's measurement laboratory, and has a unique role relating to standards in the Federal 

enterprise. NIST's coordination function, defined by statute, has been borne out by a track record 

of technical excellence and objectivity, embraced by NlST's world-class scientists and 

engineers, ever since the Institute was chartered by Congress in 1901. NIST's strong ties to 

industry and the standards development community, backed by technical excellence, have 

enabled NIST to take on critical standards-related challenges and deliver timely and effective 

solutions. 

NIST views standards and standardization as an important tool to enable U.S. innovation and 

competitiveness. Standards enable the effective and efficient transler of technology from the 

NIST laboratories to the marketplace. This is further made possible by the participation of nearly 

400 NIST technical staff in over 100 standards organizations, and more than 1000 different 

standards activities, in support of domestic and international priorities. It is noteworthy that this 

number represents more than a quarter of the NIST technical staff. NIST's engagement with 

industry in these standards activities also provides us the ability to learn first-hand about 

industry's measurement, standards and research needs, and this provides valuable input into our 

prioritization of current NIST programs and planning for future programs. 

An Impatient Convener 

Our recent work convening stakeholders to catalyze standards development to meet national 

priorities, such as the ongoing development and eventual deployment of an interoperable Smart 

Grid and the development of a reference architecture for the Federal government's approach to 

Cloud Computing, rctlects the NIST philosophy of working closely with the private sector, and 

looking to private sector standards to meet government needs. In each case, NIST was able to 

6 
20 

accelerate the bringing together ofa broad set of stakeholders to address a critical technology 

challenge. While these stakeholders might otherwise have self-assembled in due course. there is 

no question that NIST, in its role as convener, was able to engage and focus the very substantial 

energies of private sector industry, academia and government to much more rapidly address the 

critical area of national need. This approach can be particularly effective when addressing 

priorities that span different technologies, or where multiple agencies have an interest. In such 

instances, the stakeholders would include groups of professionals who may otherwise not be 

interacting through the usual channels of communication. 

The Federal government in the role of convener enables clear communication of Federal 

government priorities, and also helps stakeholder groups to rapidly identify the state of the 

relevant technology, including existing standards strengths as well as gaps. These models have 

enabled the U.S. to clearly establish an international leadership role in standardization for Smart 

Grid and Cloud Computing. In the case of smart grid interoperability, NIST's role is laid out in 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of2007. In the case of cloud computing, NIST's role 

is outlined in the Administration's Cloud Computing Initiative. 

Does the Product meet/he Standard? COl1jimllily Assessmcl1l 

Another unique role that NIST plays in the U.S. standards system is that of providing conformity 

assessment guidance to Federal agencies. Simply put, conformity assessment is the process of 

demonstrating that a product, service or systemmcets the requirements ofa standard (or 

standards). and thus provides users added assurance. 

NIST's conformity assessment expertise is extensively relied upon by agencies to develop their 

conformity assessment procedures, based upon international systems, ensuring that the resulting 

procedures and schemes do not pose technical barriers to trade. These international systemsbased conformity assessment approaches significantly reduce the cost imposed on the user 

community and thereby benefit both the government and consumers in terms of reduced costs, 

greater confidence in product quality and greater product choice. NIST is in the midst of 

reviewing its current contonnity assessment guidance, and will be undertaking a process of 

extensive public consultation to update the current guidance, beginning in April. 

Ihe National Science and Technolo",), Couneil's Subcommittee on Standards 

In March 2010, NIST Director and now the Under Secretary for Standards and Technology 

Patrick Gallagher testified before this Committee about the need tor more effective Federal 

engagement and coordination in standards development, use, and standards promotion. Dr. 

Gallagher noted the urgency of working more effective with industry and private sector 

standards developers, and need for more effective engagement across agencies to ensure that 

Federal efforts to work with the private sector are effectively planned and coordinated. 

Soon after Dr. Gallagher'S testimony, in April 20 10, a Subcommittee on Standards was 

established within the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Technology. 

Chaired by Under Secretary Gallagher, with the support of the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy and the participation of the Office ofManagcment and Budget- this subcommittee is a 

7 
21 

forum for senior leadership of Federal government agencies, hureaus and independent 

commissions within the cxecutive branch to exchange information and develop positions on 

policy issues relating to standards and their impact on U.S. competitiveness. 

In October 201 I, the Subcommittee on Standards issued a report that included policy 

recommendations, mentioned previously in my testimony, on how Federal government 

engagement in standards to address national priorities can be enhanced 

(http://standards.gov/upload/Federal Engagement in Standards Activities October 12 tinal.pdi' 

). The report was based on information and feedback obtained through extensive interactions 

with the private sector and with U.S. governmcnt agencies, examining what worked well, and 

looking at opportunities for tlfrthcr improvcment. The policy recommendations included in this 

report gathered significant industry support, including that of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

and global companies such as IBM Corporation and Microsoft. 

In January 2012, three White House offices (the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the 

Office oflnformation and Regulatory Affi.firs of the Oflice of Management and Budget, and the 

U.S. Trade Representative) issued a policy memorandum that formalized most of the 

recommendations included in the Subcommittee's report. The memorandum on "Principles tor 

Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Address National Priorities" 

(lillp:llwww.whitehouse.govisitesideJauitlliles/ol11b/lllClllOranda/20 12/m-12-08 I.pdf) 

underscores the strengths of the U.S. standards model of private sector leadership with strong 

Federal government participation, and articulates principles for Federal agencies to follow when 

they are tasked with a coordination or convening role, in order to accelerate private sector 

standards development to address national priorities. 

Standarils as Technical Barriers to Trade 

With the reduction in tariffs globally, the use of standards and conformity assessment procedures 

as technical barriers to trade has become an issue of increasing concern. Within the Federal 

government, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) coordinates the development of 

U.S. positions and responses on technical barriers to trade-related matters and publishes an 

annual report on technical barriers to trade. By statute, USTR is also responsible for leading 

discussions and negotiations with other countries on these matters. The Department of 

Commerce is a mcmbcr ofUSTR's Trade Policy Stuff Committee. NIST staff provides technical 

expertise to the TPSC through the Department of Commerce .. 

In addition, NIST supports U.S. industry and government agencies in their errorts to address 

technical barriers to trade by providing various reference tools to inform U.S. stakeholders of 

potential - issues related to technical barriers to trade, and to assist them in addressing these. All 

signatories to the WTO TBT Agreement are required to establish a national Inquiry Point and 

Notification Authority to gather and efficiently distribute trade-related regulatory, standards and 

conformity assessment information to the WTO Member community. NIST serves that role for 

the United States. 

8 
22 

Notif}' us - An Early Warning Timl 

Pursuant to the statute' formalizing the U.S. implementation orits obligations under the WTO 

TBT Agreement to provide information to other WTO Members, NIST houses the national 

Standards Information Center. This Center serves as the U.S. source for standards and 

standards-related information at home and abroad. Examples ofNIST assistance to U.S. 

exporters include providing reference information on standards and conformity assessmcnt 

measures relating to energy efficiency labeling in Saudi Arabia, Aviation Safety Management 

Systems in Japan, and requirements for telecommunications equipment in India. The Center 

provides bibliographic information on U.S., foreign, regional, and international voluntary 

standards, mandatory government regulations, and conformity assessment procedures for 

nonagricultural products. The Center has developed an electronic tool, Notify U.S., where 

subscribers can sign up for alerts from different countries on their proposed regulations, and 

provide comments on the proposed regulations. Over 2,700 U.S. stakeholders actively use this 

tool, and in 2011 we notilied over 1,700 proposed regulations to these subscribers. The users of 

[his tool, particularly small and medium enterprises who have limited resources to track 

developments around the world, have mentioned that they lind significant value in Notify US, 

which provides them a one-stop shop for information on proposed rules, regulations, or 

procedures that can impact their exports overseas. 

Standards In Trade Workshops Promoting the US. approach to standardization 

NIST promotes the U.S. approach to standards and standardization with other countries where 

there is significant market opportunity for U.S. exporters. The Standards in Trade Workshop 

program, established by NIST in the late 90s, enables U.S. participants to share information 

about the standards jj'amcwork in a particular sector or technology area, and the standards used 

within that framework. The target audience is key government and industry decision makers and 

policy makers in countries where U.S. industry would like to explore new opportunities, or 

where U.S. industry seeks government assistance to address specific concerns about that country 

or region's lise of specific standards, technical regulations or conformity assessment 

requirements. 

Over the past 15 years, the program has resulted in a wide range of successes, such as the 

adoption ofthc U.S. national architecture j()r Intelligent Transp0l1ation Systems in Israel and 

Brazil. the referencing of pipeline standards developed by a U.S. based standards developing 

organizatioll in India's expansion of their natural gas pipeline network, and a delay in adoption 

of onerous conformity assessment requirements in the Gulf Cooperation Coullcil region that 

would impact U.S. toy manu fneturers and exporters. 

'Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) and 19 USC 13 ~ 1544 

9 
23 

Technical Exchanges 

NIST engages in information exchanges relating to technical standards and conformity 

assessment systems with important trading partners such as the European Union, Japan, India, 

China, and Brazil, among others. These exchanges enable us to gather firsthand information 

about standards and related developments, including technical regulations that can impact 

American companies exporting to those countries. In instances where we have better approaches, 

we have been able to share our experiences about our approaches, why these have worked and 

the lessons learned. 

Continued dialog with our international partners over the years has generated a signiticant level 

of trust, which has resulted in some NIST work products being used in these countries as is, or 

with minor moditicat ions, further benefiting American exporters. In other instances, we have 

been able to caucus with our foreign counterparts to develop common strategies for collaboration 

in standardization in areas of mutual interest. 

In closing, Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Edwards, and members of the Subcommittee, 

NIST and the U.S. government are actively engaged in standards and standardization. While 

there are many challenges confronting our engagement, we are actively working with our private 

sector partners to address these challenges lIsing a range o I' tools, and to leverage the 

opportunities to help our industries maintain their leadership roles. We look forward to working 

with you closely, and I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have. 

10 
24 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Ms. Saunders. 

I now recognize Mr. Bhatia for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. S. JOE BHATIA, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE 

Mr. BHATIA. Thank you, Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Edwards. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mr. 

Bhatia. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

I want to start out by saying that standards and conformity assessment activities are inseparably linked really to all aspects and 

all facets of our national economy. They influence it, and 80 percent of all global merchandise traded is impacted by them. That 

amounts to about $13 trillion every year. Of course, it will go up 

later. 

The United States has the most flexible and democratic standardization system in the world. Our system thrives on active engagement of all stakeholders, giving us a competitive advantage 

over those countries that follow a top-down approach. It is the market itself, that through open, transparent, and consensus-based 

processes determines when a standard should be first developed. 

The public-private partnership that we have talked about is a 

key part of what makes our system successful, and ANSI is committed to our role as a neutral convener and as a forum where we 

get all the constituencies together—industry, government agencies, 

consumers, academia, and all the other people that are affected by 

the documents. We work to leverage the power of standardization 

and by making targeted activities successful in first developing the 

standards and then deploying them in the future. 

I have heard from many industry leaders over many years that 

they have come together in the standardization process to achieve 

three key goals: one, to shape the specifications that drive their 

products’ acceptance; two, they capitalize on the efficiency and costsaving measures that collaborative ingenuity provides; and they finally are able to influence international requirements and standards that allow our products to be accepted across borders and take 

advantage of the growing global economy. 

As the U.S. member body to ISO and IEC, ANSI works very hard 

to ensure that the U.S. interests are considered from all facets of 

life. It is crucial that we approach ISO and IEC with a clear and 

strong national position both from the technical point of view and 

also from a policy point of view, and we then leverage our international relationships, be it from the Germans or with the French 

as the traditional partners, or with the new ones like Brazilians or 

the Indians. We leverage that to achieve support for our positions. 

We have several examples of success. The most critical ones that 

come to mind are biotechnology and the standardization efforts in 

the financial services area. 

Now, a big problem we face in the global market is that too often 

standards, and compliance to standards, are used as barriers by 

other nations. Emerging markets such as China and India are 

countries that are developing thousands of standards and specifications every year. A lot of them are developed with the personal 
25 

preferences of those markets and those technologies in mind. You 

can imagine that these are favoring those solutions that perhaps 

are foreign to us, and you can imagine the difficulty that creates 

for the U.S. businesses looking to get into these markets; one of our 

key priorities is to help U.S. companies, large and small, negotiate 

this complex landscape and remove any barriers in the way of unobstructed trade. 

One key example I want to mention is a U.S. SME, undergoing 

an $8.5 million contract, was stopped at the border because of a 

certification requirement, a technical requirement, and we worked 

then with the China certification and accreditation administration, 

which eventually agreed to speak on behalf of the company; then 

we worked with the U.S. Government to raise the issue with the 

Chinese officials as a matter of WTO obligations of the Chinese, 

and after a short time, the SME was successful in gaining acceptance to that market. 

Mostly, though, when it comes to global trade, transparent and 

consensus-based international standards are really not an obstacle. 

They are actually a part of the solution. If they are used effectively, 

if they are developed properly, they have the capacity to remove all 

barriers to trade and fuel business growth for large and small companies. 

Now, large companies have the capacity and resources to develop 

global strategies to overcome barriers to trade. The SMEs often 

lack such in-house capabilities. ANSI has worked very closely with 

NIST and with others to develop things like standards portals, 

which provide valuable free information to small and large companies, both to be able to access markets like China, like Japan, like 

Korea, like India, and work on others at the same time. The standards portals are a beneficial, free resource to all comers, especially 

to the SMEs. 

And finally, in conclusion, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for calling this hearing. We hear a lot about problems that our exports have in breaking into emerging markets, and we simply cannot afford to let them miss out on these good opportunities, and I 

think in a partnership that spans the public sector and the private 

sector, standards and conformance can really be the strategic tools 

to help fuel the U.S. innovation, our competitiveness, and our economic growth, and we stand ready to help anyone. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatia follows:] 
26 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. S. JOE BHATIA

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

Written Testimony of the American National Standards Institute 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Hearing: Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth: 

Principles for Effective Domestic and International Standards Development 

Introduction 

February 29, 2012,10 a.m. 

Statement of 

S. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO 

American National Standards Institute 

1899 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

mailto:jbhatia@ansLorg; 202.331.3605 

Standards and conformity assessment activities are inseparably linked to all facets of our 

national economy and are vital to the continued global competitiveness of our national 

economy. They influence an estimated 80% of global merchandise trade - or about $13 

trillion. 

The U.S. has the most flexible and democratic standardization system in the world. Our 

system thrives on the active engagement of all stakeholders - public- and private-sectorgiving us a competitive advantage over countries that follow a top-down approach. It is 

the market itself, through an open, consensus-based process, that determines when a 

standard should be developed. 

The public-private partnership is a key part of what makes our system successful, and the 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is committed to our role as a neutral forum 

and convener of these diverse parties. We work to leverage the power of standardization 

through strategic partnerships, both domestic and international, and through targeted 

activities that help U.S. organizations develop and utilize standards for business growth. 

What is ANSI? 

ANSI is a private non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance U.S. global 

competitiveness and the American quality of life by promoting, facilitating, and 

safeguarding the integrity of the voluntary standardization and conformity assessment 

system. ANSI's membership is comprised of businesses, professional societies and trade 

associations, standards developers, government agencies, and consumer and labor 

organizations. Throngh this network of members, the Institute represents the diverse 

interests of more than 125,000 companies and organizations and 3.5 million 

professionals worldwide. 

Page 1 of 16 
27 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

For more than ninety years, ANSI has served as coordinator of this nation's private-sector 

led and public sector-supported voluntary consensus standards and conformity 

assessment system. We speak as the U.S. voice in standards and conformity assessment 

forums around the globe. ANSI is the official U.S. representative to the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and, via the U.S. National Committee, the 

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and is a U.S. representative to the 

International Accreditation Forum (IAF). A memorandum of agreement between ANSI 

and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

outlines a mutual understanding of the roles of each organization. 

For more information about ANSI, please reference Annex A of this document. 

The Strength of the Public-Private Partnership 

From its very inception, the Institute has coordinated a public-private partnership to 

address and help resolve the critical issues that face the nation. The ANSI Federation has 

worked to build effective partnerships in two important areas: 

1. between the government and the private sector; and 

2, in consensus-building with linked domestic and international needs and activities. 

The importance of these collaborative efforts has been officially recognized most recently 

in the December 2000 ratification of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

between ANSI and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

describing a partnership designed to "enhance and strengthen the national voluntary 

consensus standards system of the United States and to support continued U.S, 

competitiveness, economic growth, health, safety and protection of the environment." 

Over the past nine decades, we have seen that the most effective solutions come about 

through a thoughtful, open, and consensus-based process. As the voice of the U.s, 

standards and conformity assessment system, ANSI leads and facilitates this process, 

providing the neutral forum where all affected stakeholders work together to: 

identify existing and emerging regulations, requirements and supporting standards 

and compliance programs; 

define where gaps exist; and 

recommend where additional work is needed. 

One of the core principles of ANSI - and the standards community at large - is that of 

inclusion; that those who have an interest in an issue should be at the table when 

standards are developed. That includes businesses, consumers, government, academia, 

industry associations, and companies of all sizes, 

Page 2 of i6 
28 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

As described in the principles of the United States Standards Strategy, standards must be 

based on; 

Openness: "Participation is open to all affected parties." 

Impartiality: "No one interest dominates the process or is favored over another." 

Consensus: "Decisions are reached through consensus among those affected." 

For more on the hallmarks of the U.S. standards and conformity assessment system, 

please see Annexes B and C. 

Standards, Conformity Assessment, and Global Trade .~~~=-=~~-------------------

We have heard time and again, first-hand from business leaders of companies of all sizes, 

that participation in standards development gives 'them the opportunity to: 

1. shape the specifications that drive their products' acceptance; 

2. capitalize on the efficiency and cost-savings measures that collaborative ingenuity 

provides; and 

3. influence the international requirements that allow certain products to cross 

borders and take advantage of the global market. 

The development and application of standards, technical regUlations, and conformity 

assessment (e.g., testing, inspection, certification) has a significant impact on global 

trade. When developed and applied in an effective manner, standards and conformance 

open global markets for U.S. products and services. However, intentional or unintentional 

misapplication of standards andlor conformance activities can create trade barriers for 

U.S. exporters. 

In the global marketplace, transparent, consensus international standards are part of the 

solution, not part of the problem. It is often the lack of conformance to a particular 

standard that is the problem, whether lead in toys, counterfeit drugs, or unsafe produce. 

Congress has recognized in recent legislation for toys and food that monitoring and 

testing has to be done at the point of creation, not when products enter into our country. 

This has lead to an increased awareness of third-party solutions - based upon 

international standards - that create a level playing field for all affected parties to 

participate. These solutions draw from a toolbox of conformity assessment resources -

not just testing and inspection, but also systems auditing, accredited certification 

programs, and education and training. 

The programs we have developed are committed to improving product safety and making 

global supply chains more transparent. They are designed to be sustainable and inclusive 

- involving everyone affected by actions in the global marketplace. They are considerate 

of all types of suppliers - regardless of size or location. And they will advance the 

concept of "one standard ... one test ... accepted everywhere." 

Page 3 of 16 
29 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

The U.S. government and the ANSI-led private sector standardization community, 

working together as a public-private partnership, should continue efforts to aggressively 

address individual trade barriers as they arise in international markets - both through 

advocacy and enforcement. These efforts not only help companies affected by specific 

barriers, but also send a message about the importance of fair and open trade and the U.S. 

commitment to ensuring that our trading partners fully implement any relevant trade 

agreements. 

To advance the diverse interests of U.S. stakeholders, the U.S. government should 

continue to seek full implementation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical 

Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement and annexes, as well as decisions taken by the WTO 

TBT Committee. Committing even more government resources to such activities can 

only be beneficial. 

Domestic Standardization Activities and SMEs 

The Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation has also expressed a desire for 

comment on the importance of small and medium-sized industries (SMEs) in global trade 

and would like to elicit further comment on how SMEs can become more competitive in 

the global marketplace. 

SMEs are major drivers of ecouomic growth, in both domestic and international venues. 

In the U.S. they provide a majority of private sector jobs and training opportunities for 

workers, account for half or more of gross domestic product, and playa key role in 

innovation and R&D. Input from SMEs into the development of voluntary consensus 

standards is essential to ensuring that these standards include the latest technology and 

best practices. 

ANSI takes pride in our efforts to ensure that all interested parties - including SMEs -

are welcomed and involved in standardization efforts. This formal commitment to reach 

out and include SME participation in the standardization process goes back to at least 

1929, when ANSI's predecessor organization, the American Standards Association, 

signed an agreement with NIST's predecessor agency, the National Bureau of Standards, 

to provide assistance to small businesses and industries that lacked the means to engage 

in standardization themselves. 

For a current example of this commitment in actions, in May 2011 ANSI's Homeland 

Security Standards Panel (ANSI-HSSP) hosted a workshop that focused on the unique 

needs of small businesses in prepruing for the challenges of unforeseen catastrophes. The 

goal of the workshop was to identify actions needed to better reflect small business needs 

in standards and conformity assessment for preparedness. For small businesses in 

particular, resuming operations after a disaster depends on how prepru·ed a business is to 

meet unexpected circumstances. And effective preparedness standards and conformance 

programs are a key tool. 

Page 4 of 16 
30 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

Standards developers (SDOs) in the At"lSI Federation are also very active in outreach to 

SMEs to foster their involvement in standards developing activities. For example, SAE 

International, an ANSI-accredited standards developer, publishes nearly 7,000 aerospace 

standards (in addition to others for ground vehicles). Over 950 of the committee members 

that develop these standards come from SMEs, and 70 of the committee officers on those 

committees come from SMEs. All-in-all, roughly 10% of all participants and leaders of 

SAE standards-creation efforts are SMEs. 

In addition, more than half of the members participating in the ASTM International (also 

an ANSI accredited SDO) standards development committees are employed in 

enterprises with 250 or fewer employees. The challenges to SME participation include 

travel expenses to committee meetings, time and resources required to develop standards, 

and membership fees. 

ASTM International and many other SDOs, provide-their members with web-based 

resources that enable partiCipation in the standards development process without the 

obstacles of travel, time or budgetary restrictions. While technical committees meet in 

person to develop standards, committees can also use a suite of online standards 

development tools, including online forums, virtual meetings, electronic balloting, and 

more. These tools not only enhance the capability of most SMEs to participate in 

standards development, but allow tl)e more timely development of needed standards. 

ANSI is committed to supporting our 260 accredited SDOs' efforts in their inclusiveness, 

and believes that we and the U.S. government should do even more to foster this 

engagement. 

International Standardization Activities and U.S._C_o_m ........ p_e_ti_ti_v_en_e_s_s ______ _ 

As the U.S. member body to ISO, and the IEe via the U.S. National Committee, ANSI 

works to ensure that all U.S. interests are considered in the formulation of U.S. positions 

in these international standards bodies. ANSI provides a strategic link between U.s. 

industry, those organizations developing standards that support U.s. innovation and 

competitiveness, and the global arena. 

It is crucial that we approach ISO and IEC with a clear and strong national position, and 

that we effectively leverage relationships with our partners internationally to gain support 

for U.S. positions. ANSI is committed to working to improve access to information on 

U.S. activities in ISO and IEe, and will coordinate efforts with agencies to ensure that all 

interested government stakeholders are aware of opportunities for engagement. Decisions 

made about our national standardization system and our priorities for action reach far 

beyond our borders, especially when it comes to the continued success of our products, 

services, and workforce on the global stage: 

In the U.S., input into the ISO and IEe processes are coordinated by U.S. Technical 

Advisory Groups (TAGs). The U.S. government should also give greater support to the 

Page 5 of 16 
31 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

U.S. TAGs. The government can accomplish this by encouraging qualified government 

technical personnel to participate in SDO and TAG efforts whenever possible, as a matter 

of policy. By becoming more involved and doing so in a more coordinated fashion, the 

government can alert the impacted communities when a cross-sector, standards-based 

solution is needed, and SDOs in turn can alert the government when key standards are 

being developed or revised. 

The key to our nation's continued success on the global stage is to make sure that: 

1. all U.S. stakeholder needs and voices are taken into account; 

2. that we approach ISO and IEC with clear and strong national positions both from 

the technical and policy perspectives; and 

3. that we effectively leverage relationships with our partners internationally to gain 

support for these positions. 

To that end, ANSI works will1 U.S. TAG Administrators to attract greater and diverse 

government and industry participation in ISO and IEC activities. To facilitate this greater 

level of engagement, ANSI will continue to work to improve access to publicly available 

information on TAG activities, and will coordinate efforts with federal agencies to ensure 

that all interested government stakeholders are aware of opportunities for participation 

and encourage them to do so. 

SMEs in International Standardization 

Both ISO and IEC have well-developed programs of ensuring inclusion in their 

standardization programs. In fact, of the U.S. companies that participate in TAGs for the 

U.S. National Committee of the IEC, well over half are small or medium-sized 

businesses. 

The ISO document "Engaging Stakeholders and Building Consensus" discusses ISO's 

efforts to reach out for broad-based stakeholder engagement for participation in ISO 

activities, including: 

a reaching out to previously uninvolved groups whether by direct "inquires, internet 

searches, networks, personal approaches, advertisements, etc."; 

requiring that there are "no undue financial barriers to participation"; and 

where useful, "provide specialized training programs and orientation sessions to 

prepare delegates and experts." 

Organizations that administer U.S. TAGs utilize a variety of methods to engage SMEs in 

the standards development work, including web-based resources that not only minimize 

budget, time, and travel issues, but allow the more timely development of needed 

standards. 

Page 6 0116 
32 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

ANSI has over 200 accredited U.S. TAGs that participate in 565 ISO Committees that 

develop international standards for a broad spectrum of industry sectors. While the level 

of SME participation varies depending on the industry sector, in many cases over 50% of 

the companies that participate in ISO activities through ANSI and its member 

organizations are SMEs. 

For example, there are a number of SMEs participating in the ANSI-Accredited U.S. 

TAG to ISO TC 229, Nanotechnologies. Out of the 20 organizations that identify 

themselves under the "Corporate" interest category, approximately 25% are SMEs; SMEs 

also account for 10% of the overall TAG Membership. These SMEs range from smaller, 

nanotechnology-focused start-ups, to established companies in business for over 60 years. 

As they sit side by side with corporate giants from the chemical and electronics industry 

sectors, they are able to network with their larger counterparts and identify similar 

strategic goals, developing into potential business partnerships and further innovation. 

Overcoming Technical Barriers to Trade and Expanding Markets 

A big problem we face in the global market is that all too often, standards are used as 

barriers by other nations. Emerging markets such as China and India are creating 

hundreds - even thousands - of new standards and product requirements each year, and 

most are created by government with limited industry input. You can imagine what kind 

of difficulty this creates for U.S. businesses looking to get into those markets. One of 

ANSI's key priorities is to help U.S. companies -large and small- negotiate this 

complex landscape and gain the market-growth advantages of standards and 

conformance, and overcome any barriers placed in the way of unobstructed trade 

relations. 

To give one recent example, in the midst of fulfilling an $8.5 million contract, a U.S. 

SME ran into problems with Chinese customs, who improperly impounded a key 

component, claiming it failed to meet Chinese certification requirements. After a series of 

unproductive meetings with Chinese freight forwarders and customs officers, ANSI 

worked with the China Certification and Accreditation Administration (CNCA), which 

agreed to intervene on behalf of the U.S. company. At the same time, the U.S. 

government raised the issue with Chinese officials, emphasizing China's WTO 

obligations. In a short time after the initial contact, the SME obtained the necessary 

certification and was able to enter the market. China's acknowledgement in this case of 

its obligation under the WTO should also benefit other U.S. exporters to China who may 

face similar certification-related obstacles to trade. 

In India, even Indian companies have a hard time accessing the standards and regulatory 

systems - in fact ANSI was instrumental in bringing together Indian government and the 

Indian private sector standards organizations in a first ever trilateral MOU with ANSI. 

Such efforts at transparency and inclusiveness are critical to the competitiveness of US. 

industry - and SME's in particular - in the global market. Standards and technical barriers 

Page 7 of 16 
33 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

to trade (along with IPR issues), are eonsistently listed by U.S. eompanies of all sizes as the 

chief impediments to furthering U.S. trade expOlts. But when used effectively, consensusbased international standards are not an obstacle - they are part of the solution. Together 

with effeetive conformity assessment solutions, they have the capacity to remove barriers 

to trade and fuel business growth for large and small companies. 

While large corporations may have the resources to develop global strategies and to 

overcome barriers to trade, SMEs often lack such in-house abilities. ANSI has worked 

closely with NIST in developing an online StandardsPortal (www.standardsportal.org) 

that provides the key information needed to help U.S. SMEs - and all companies -

compete effectively in emerging markets such as China, India, and Korea. 

The StandardsPortal is an incredible free resource for U.S. exporters, as well as for those 

nations looking for guidance in best practices in standards development. It helps 

companies answer such questions as: 

What technical requirements must my product meet to enter and compete in this 

particular market? . 

How can I get early warning about changes to these requirements? 

How can I ensure that my company's perspectives are heard and considered in the 

development of national requirements and policies that could affect my business? 

ANSI also offers our members the guidance of an ongoing Manufacturers' Roundtable for 

companies doing business in and with China. And we work extensively with Indian officials 

as part of our U.S.-India Standards and Conformance Cooperation Program, among other 

initiatives, to facilitate trade and increase transparency between the U.S. and India. 

Conclusion 

We hear a lot about problems that our exporters have in breaking into emerging markets 

- and we can't afford to let them miss out on these opportunities. One of ANSI's key jobs 

is to provide the information, access, and guidance U.S. industry needs to succeed in the 

global market. We need to make more efficient use of the standards and conformance 

resources that are already in place ... and we need to identify every gap that exists. 

We also need to bring to bear new human and financial resources to strengthen our ability 

to capitalize on the opportunities the global market offers. Government and industry need 

to work together to maximize our impact and bolster U.S. competitiveness. 

With the transparency and inclusiveness of the U.S. standardization system, in a 

partnership that spans the public and private sectors, standards and confOlmance can be a 

strategic tool to help fuel U.S. innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth. And 

ANSI is always ready to coordinate the public-private partnership and take the next steps 

needed to further strengthen om national economy. 

Page 8 of 16 
34 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

AnnexA 

Background on the U.S. Standardization and Conformity Assessment System 

and the Role of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

The U.S. private sector-led, voluntary standardization and conformity assessment system 

has been in existence for more than 100 years. Highly decentralized, the system is 

naturally partitioned into industrial sectors that are supported by numerous independent, 

private sector standards developing organizations (SDOs). Marketplace demand drives 

the system's activities, with standards and conformity assessment programs typically 

developed in response to specific concerns and needs expressed by industry, government, 

and consumers. 

Since 1918, this system has been administered and coordinated by ANSI with the 

cooperation of the private sector and the federal, state and local governments. ANSI does 

not develop standards or conformity assessment programs. Rather, it functions as a 

central clearinghouse and coordinating body for its member organizations. The Institute 

is a unique partnership of industry, professional, technical, trade, labor, academic, and 

consumer organizations, as well as government agencies. These members of the ANSI 

federation actually develop standards and conformity assessment programs, contributing 

their time and expertise in order to make the system work. 

ANSI ensures the integrity of the U.S. standards and conformity assessment system by: 

1. establishing a set of due process-based "essential requirements" that SDOs 

may follow in order to manage the development of consensus standards 

and conformity assessment programs in a fair and open manner; 

2. accrediting SDOs and Certification Bodies (CBs) who adhere to these 

requirements; 

3. approving candidate standards from ANSI-accredited SDOs as American 

National Standards CANS); and 

4. conducting regular audits of the ANS activities of ANSI-accredited SDOs 

to ensure ongoing compliance with ANSI's essential requirements. 

ANSI has accredited hundreds of SDOs across a range of industry sectors. These 

industries include (but certainly are not limited to) telecommunications, medical devices, 

heavy equipment, fire protection, information technology, petroleum, banking, and 

household appliances. There are now more than 10,000 ANSI-approved ANS that 

address topics as diverse as dimensions, ratings, terminology and symbols, test methods, 

interoperability criteria, product specifications, and performance and safety requirements. 

These standards development efforts serve the public interest and are being applied to 

new critical areas such as the environment, healthcare, homeland security, and 

nanotechnology. 

The Institute's approval of a candidate standard or conformity assessment program as an 

ANS verifies that the principles of openness and due process have been followed and that 

Page 9 of 16 
35 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

a consensus of all interested parties has been reached. Due process requires that all 

proposed ANS be circulated to the public at large for comment, that an attempt be made 

to resolve all comments, and that there is a right of appeal. In addition, ANSI considers 

any evidence that a proposed ANS is contrary to the public interest, contains unfair 

provisions or is unsuitable for national use. This basic formula has been the hallmark of 

the ANS process for decades, and it has garnered worldwide respect and acceptance. 

One of the best indicators of confidence in the U.S. voluntary consensus standardization 

and conformity assessment system (as exemplified by the ANS process) is Congress's 

1996 passage of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTT AA). This 

law (P.L. 104-113) requires federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards and 

conformity assessment programs for regulatory purposes wherever feasible and to 

procure equipment and services in accordance with such standards. It also requires 

agencies to increase their participation in the development process and directs the 

Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to 

coordinate federal, state and local voluntary standards and related conformity assessment 

activities. 

ANSI also promotes the international use of U.S. standards and conformity assessment 

programs. The Institute serves as the U.S. national body representative in two major, nontreaty international standards organizations: the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) and, through the United States National Committee (USNC), the 

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). ANSI and the USNC playa leadership 

role in ISO and IEC, respectively, on both policy and technical matters. 

Part of ANSI's role as the U.S. member of ISO includes accrediting U.S. Technical 

Advisory Groups (U.S. TAGs) which develop and transmit, via ANSI, U.S. consensus 

positions on the activities and ballots of technical committees and subcommittees. 

Similarly, the USNC approves TAGs for IEC aetivities. In many instances, voluntary 

standards and conformity assessment programs developed by U.S. SDOs are taken 

forward, through ANSI or the USNC, where they are approved in whole or in part by the 

ISO and/or IEe as International Standards. ANSI also encourages the adoption of 

international standards as national standards where they meet the needs of the user 

community. 

In addition, ANSI advocates U.S. positions in various regional standards organizations 

and regularly meets with representatives from standards bodies in other nations. Thus, 

ANSI plays an important role in facilitating the development of global standards and 

related conformity assessment programs that support global commerce and which prevent 

regions from using local standards that favor local industries as trade barriers. 

Conformity assessment is the term used to describe steps taken by both manufacturers 

and independent third-parties to determine fulfillment of standards requirements. ANSI's 

role in the conformity assessment arena includes accreditation programs for product 

certification bodies, personnel certification bodies, greenhouse gas validation and 

verification bodies, and standards developers. The ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation 

Page 10 of 16 
36 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

Board accredits management systems certification bodies under the ANAB brand and 

accredits testing and calibration laboratories, reference material producers, and inspection 

bodies under the ACLASS brand. 

ANSI also is involved in several international and regional organizations to promote 

multilateral recognition of conformity assessments across borders to preclude redundant 

and costly barriers to trade. 

In summary, through its various roles and responsibilities, ANSI advances its mission to 

"enhance both the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. quality of life by 

promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment 

systems and safeguarding their integrity." 

Pape 11 of 16 
37 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

AnnexB 

Excerpt from the United States Standards Strategy 

PRINCIPLES 

It is well established in the community of nations that standards should meet societal and 

market needs and should not be developed to act as barriers to trade. In approving the 

World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, WTO members 

recognized that goal and established globally accepted principles as a framework to 

promote cooperation and discourage the use of standards as trade barriers. The U.S. 

standards and conformity assessment system is based on the following set of globally 

accepted principles for standards development. 

• Transparency 

Essential information regarding standardization and conformity 

assessment activities is accessible to all interested parties. 

• Openness 

Participation is open to all affected interests. 

• Impartiality 

No one interest dominates the process or is favored over another. 

• Effectiveness and relevance 

Standards and related conformity assessment programs are relevant and 

effectively respond to regulatory and market needs, as well as scientific 

and technological developments. 

• Consensus 

Decisions are reached through consensus among those affected. 

• Performance-based 

Standards are performance-based, specifying essential characteristics 

rather than detailed designs where possible. 

• Coherence 

The process encourages coherence to avoid overlapping and conflicting 

standards and conformity assessment programs. 

• Due Process 

Standards development accords with due process so that all views are 

considered and appeals are possible. 

• Technical Assistance 

Assistance is offered to developing countries in the formulation and 

application of standards and related conformity assessment programs. 

Page 12 of 16 
38 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

Tn addition, U.S. interests strongly agree that the process should be: 

• Flexible, allowing the use of different methodologies to meet the needs of 

different technology and product sectors; ( 

• Timely, so that purely administrative matters do not slow down the work, 

but meet market expectations; and 

• Balanced among competing interests. 

Page 130f16 
39 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

AnnexC 

Excerpt from the National Conformity Assessment Principles oflhe United States 

The National Confom1.ity Assessment Principles for the United States document 

articulates the principles for U.S. conformity assessment activities that will allow 

consumers, buyers, sellers, regulators and other interested parties to have confidence in 

the processes of providing conformity assessment, while avoiding the creation of 

unnecessary barriers to trade. 

Conformity assessment includes sampling and testing, inspection, supplier's declaration 

of conformity, certification, and management system assessment and registration. It also 

includes accreditation of the competence of those activities by a third party and 

recognition (usually by a government agency) of an accreditation program's capability. 

While each of these activities is a distinct operation, they arc closely interrelated. The 

choice of the most appropriate assessment proeesses, as well as the quality with which 

anyone of them is petformed, can have a significant effect on the confidence in and 

reliance that can be placed on the results of the entire conformity assessment. 

The definitions included in the National Conformity Assessment Principles document are 

based on ISO/lEC 17000:2004, Conformity assessment - Vocabulmy and general 

principles. Some variances, noted in italics, occur where the term is not in ISO/lEC 

17000 or has another specific meaning in the United States. Definitions are included in 

this document to preclude confusion and to make it more understandable. In different 

contexts, the same term can signify different typcs of activities. 

Accreditation 

Third party attestation related to a conformity assessment body conveying 

a formal demonstration of its competence to carry out specific conformity 

assessment tasks. (These tasks include sampling and testing, inspection, 

certification and registration.) 

Certification 

Third party attestation related to products, processes, or persons that 

conveys assurance that specified requirements have been demonstrated. 

Conformity Assessment 

Demonstration that specified requirements relating to a product, process, 

system, person or body are fulfilled. (This may include any activity 

concerned with determining directly or indirectly that relevant 

requirements are fulfilled.) 

First, Second, and Third Party 

The first party is generally the person or organization that provides the 

object, such as the supplier. The second party is usually a person or 

Page 14 of 16 
40 

American National Standards Institute Written Testimony 

organization that has a user interest in the product, such as the customer. 

The third party is a person or body that is recognized as being 

independent of the person or organization that provides the object, as well 

as the user or customer of the object. 

Inspection 

Examination of a product design, product, process, or installation and 

determination of its conformity with specific requirements or, on the basis 

of professional judgment, with general requirements. 

Recognition 

Procedure used to provide formal notice that an accreditation body is 

competent to carry out specific tasks. These tasks include accreditation of 

testing laboratories and inspection, certification, and registration bodies. 

A governmental recognition system is a set of one or more procedures 

used by a Federal agency to provide recognition. 

Registration 

Third party attestation related to systems that convey assurance that 

specified requirements have been demonstrated. Such systems include 

those established for the management of product. process, or service 

quality and environmental peiformance. 

Sampling 

Provision of a sample of the object of conformity assessment according to 

a procedure. 

Supplier's Declaration 

Procedure by which aftrst party or supplier conveys assurance that the 

object of conformity fulfills specified requirements. 

Test 

Technical operation that consists of the determination of one or more 

characteristics of a given product, material, equipment, organism, 

person's qualification, physical phenomenon, process, or service 

according to a specified technical procedure (test method). 

Testing 

Determination of one or more characteristics of an object of conformity 

according to a specified technical procedure (test method). Action of 

carrying out one or more tests. 

Test Method 

Specified technical procedure for peiforming a test. 

Page 15 of 16 
41 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Bhatia. 

We now recognize Mr. Wennblom for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP WENNBLOM, 

DIRECTOR OF STANDARDS, INTEL CORPORATION 

Mr. WENNBLOM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Edwards and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on the important topic of standards. My 

name is Philip Wennblom. I am Director of Standards at Intel Corporation. Intel is a semiconductor company headquartered in the 

United States doing business in 120 countries around the world. 

We had about $50 billion in revenue last year and about 100,000 

employees. As Director of Standards, I look at the standards across 

all lines of business worldwide with a special focus on standards 

policy issues. 

Standards are very important to Intel’s business and they are 

vital to the ICT industry. Intel makes complex semiconductor products and intricate pieces of software, and standards help our customers build useful systems out of those, and once those systems 

are created, standards help them be more useful to consumers who 

buy and use those systems. 

Standards are needed when a consistent approach is required 

across multiple vendors. That might be, for example, in data networking, where the IEEE 802.3 standard called Ethernet enables 

multiple computers to plug into any network and just work, or they 

are also useful when setting performance, efficiency or quality criteria across multiple products, allowing them to be compared or 

evaluated. Enabling global supply chains is another example where 

a modern laptop computer has over 250 standards just for interoperability, and a lot of those allow companies to specialize in making different types of products and then have them all come together and just work. 

I would like to share some views on how standards are best developed, speaking from the perspective of the ICT sector, information and communication technology. First, we have a very diverse 

system of standards making in the United States. There is a variety of types of organizations. Some have been around for over 100 

years with well-established programs, and others have just been 

created in the last few years. There is a variety of working methods, and companies have a choice often about where to take their 

work in standards making. That diversity is a key strength of the 

U.S. system. 

Second, most ICT standards are global. That means they are developed with the worldwide marketplace in mind and they tend to 

be adopted globally, and that is important to suppliers, recalling 

the point about global supply chains, and also very beneficial to 

consumers because products work no matter where you go around 

the world. 

Third, standards should be voluntary, not mandated or regulated. Voluntary is really a friend of innovation. Technology 

changes very quickly. Moore’s law says that the number of transistors on a piece of silicone will double every 24 months, and that 

means that is the force that means that the smartphone in your 
42 

pocket probably has more computing power than the fastest desktop computer of 15 years ago. Regulations and mandates can’t keep 

pace with that rate of change. 

And finally, the process that we use to develop standards is 

transparent, consensus based and industry led. One example to illustrate this is the universal serial bus. It is an example of diversity because it was a unique organization to develop that specific 

standard. It was defined for the global market and developed by 

companies and experts from all over the world, and it has now 

been very widely adopted. There have been billions shipped. It is 

innovative, well beyond what was imagined when it was created. 

Almost all of us interact with USB in our laptops or smartphones 

or cameras, or printers. It is implemented on a huge variety of 

projects, and it has created opportunities for both large and small 

companies. Even recently there are some new startup companies 

building USB products and competing very effectively because that 

standard tends to level the playing field. 

Finally, a few comments on trade barriers. The WTO Technical 

Barriers to Trade Agreement is very useful, has very useful provisions, but there are some ambiguities. For example, not every country views international standard in the same way, which can make 

it harder for U.S. industry. Monitoring and enforcement are key. 

We appreciate the NIST programs that keep us informed about 

regulations, and when our industry identifies concerns, we bring 

those to the attention of USTR, who is a great partner. 

It is also important for the United States to set a good example 

using the practices we would like other countries to adopt, meaning 

minimizing technical regulation and basing requirements on international standards. 

Thank you again for the opportunity and I would be happy to 

take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wennblom follows:] 
43 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP WENNBLOM

Testimony of Philip Wennblom 

Director of Standards, Intel Corporation 

Before the 

House Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

February 29, 2012 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Edwards, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Philip 

Wennblom and I am Director of Standards for Intel Corporation. In this capacity, I set Intel's 

standardization policy positions, coordinate Intel's representation in strategic standards development 

organizations around the world and work with Intel technical experts who participate in standards 

setting activities. I am a member of the Board of Governors of the IEEE Standards Association, a 

member of the Executive Board of INCITS and chair of the Information Technology Industry Council 

Standardization Policy Committee. I am honored to appear before this Subcommittee today on behalf 

of Intel Corporation. 

Intel is a world leader in computing innovation. The company designs and builds the essential 

technologies that serve as the foundation for the world's computing devices. In 2011, Intel had $54 

billion in revenue from sales to customers in over 120 countries. Intel has approximately 100,000 

employees. 

In the information and communication technology (lCT) sector, standards are an important way to solve 

problems that require a consistent, global approach. Standards can enable interoperability across 

products and services from different vendors. For example, in the case of data networking, the IEEE 

802.3 (Ethernet) standard ensures that computers and other devices can be connected for data 

communication regardless of which vendor manufactured the equipment. Standards that define 

performance, efficiency, and quality metrics allow evaluation and comparison of products from different 

vendors. Standards enable global supply chains and enhance consumer welfare by increasing 

competition, as in the manufacturing of laptop computers where standardized interfaces allow different 

manufacturers to build specialized components and subassemblies that are then integrated into 

systems. 
44 

Standards are pervasive in our industry. Virtually every ICT product implements a large number of 

standards. A research paper "How Many Standards In A Laptop'" analyzed standards that are embodied 

in a modern laptop computer for enabling interoperability and found that the number exceeds 250 and 

is probably closer to 500. Not every ICT product is as complex as a laptop, but nearly all of them rely on 

standards. 

While standards are critically important to ICT products, most products incorporate both proprietary 

innovation and a selection of standards to deliver interopcrability, quality and other benefits. Some of 

the most popular products in our industry have proprietary innovation at the core of their value 

proposition, even though these products also implement standards. 

I would now like to turn to how standards are developed. In the United States we enjoy a well 

established, diverse, and vibrant community of standards setting organizations. Especially in the ICT 

sector, diversity is fundamentally important to the strength of the overall system. Indeed this diversity 

is also noted in the United States Standards Strategy developed by ANSI'. Some standards setting 

organizations have been in existence for over a hundred years and have a broad portfolio of standards 

that span multiple industries. Other organizations are new and highly specialized, sometimes focused 

on a single specification. When considering a new standardization challenge, industry often has the 

option to initiate projects in an existing organization or to create a new organization if needed. This 

diversity and choice has resulted in a very effective and dynamic standards setting system that serves US 

industry and technology users very well. 

Looking across many of these organizations, there are some attributes worth mentioning. First, the 

most successfullCT standards respond to the demands of global markets. National, local or regional 

standards are of little interest to most ICT product developers. As noted above, the ICT industry is 

characterized by global supply chains that have delivered impressive efficiencies, leading to low 

consumer prices for very advanced technologies. To work effiCiently, those supply chains rely on global 

standards. Consumers also benefit from global standards, as products manufactured or purchased in 

one country can connect to networks and services in other countries or regions - WiFi hotspots based 

on IEEE 802.11 are a good example. As computing resources increasingly move into the cloud, the 

concept of a global approach is even more important. 

Second, the most successfullCT standards are widely used on a voluntary basis, not through mandates 

or regulation. The ICT industry is characterized by rapid technological change, ever shorter product 

cycles, and continuous waves of innovation. To support these characteristics, standards should be 

voluntary, allowing for evolutionary and revolutionary changes to be adopted by industry and markets. 

Technical regulations, even when well intentioned and carefully crafted, risk locking in suboptimal 

technologies. This is why regional bodies such as APEC and the OECD have recommended to 

governments that they consider the use of standards first before resorting to technical regulations in 

solving a particular technology related problem. 

1 "How Many Standards In A Laptop? http://ssrn.com/abstract=1619440 

2 United States Standards Strategy http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/nss/usss.aspx 
45 

Third, the process used to develop effective ICT standards is consensus-based, transparent and industryled. In most organizations, participation is open to any relevant interested party, and government 

experts may be important participants. The United States has recognized the importance of industry-led 

standards development in the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and in OMB Circular 

A-119, and indeed this important aspect of standards setting was recently reinforced in the White House 

memorandum "Principles for Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Address National 

Priorities,,3 Many federal agencies participate in standards development; NIST in particular provides 

substantial expertise to standards development through the involvement of hundreds of experts who 

participate together with industry experts. 

Intel works in a variety of standards setting organizations - over 200 in all. Most of these organizations 

have a global focus; a small number are national or regional in nature. The list includes formal standards 

development organizations such as ISO, IEC, the ITU and the IEEE, and also focused consortia such as the 

Universal Serial Bus (USB) Implementers Forum and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Intel 

participates in standards activities for a variety of reasons, but the number one reason is to make better 

products. Intel products implement support for a large number of standards because doing so makes 

those products more attractive. When Intel supports a standard, we help make the standard a better 

one by contributing time and expertise alongside experts from other companies and organizations. 

The USB Implementers Forum is a good example. USB connects computers, storage devices, phones, 

cameras, printers and many other devices to each other allowing fast and easy exchange of data. Intel 

helped to create the forum in 1995 and contributed technology to the original USB specification. Intel 

has continued involvement since that time, helping to shape USB 2.0, USB 3.0 and other USB 

specifications working with many other companies. Intel has implemented support for USB in our 

products, which helped make USB ubiquitous in desktop and laptop computers and other devices, As 

USB became more popular, it created opportunities for many companies both large and small. Over 650 

companies are members of the forum, and the forum lists nearly 10,000 different products that utilize 

USB, 

Intel benefits from the USB standard since Intel products are more attractive and more useful for having 

supporting USB, but many other companies benefit as well. USB has also led to the creation of new 

categories of products that connect to computers and other devices, providing business opportunities 

for hundreds of companies, And consumers have benefited from access to low cost, easy to use 

technology for connecting and customizing their computing experience, 

Intel promotes a number of best practices in our involvement with standards setting organizations and 

governments worldwide: 

There are great benefits from diversity in standards setting organizations, This approach is 

accepted in the US and works well for industry, consumers, and government. But diversity is 

still not well accepted globally, Many countries take a more narrow and rigid view of standards 

3 Principles for Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Address National Priorities, January 17, 2012. 

http://www,whitehouse.gov/sites/defaultjfiles/ombjmemoranda/2012/m-12-0B.pdf 
46 

setting and recognize only a few organizations as developers of international standards. It is 

important that US industry and government work together to improve worldwide acceptance of 

a diverse system of standards development. 

Voluntary standards should be emphasized over technical regulations. There are areas where 

technical regulations are needed, for example to protect health, safety and the environment. 

But there are many more areas where a voluntary approach works best. Voluntary standards 

are a friend of innovation as they allow for improvements to be made more quickly through 

market-based mechanisms that are more responsive to consumer needs. 

Global standards are essential to the leT industry. Technology innovators should seek to 

contribute their ideas to global standards, participating in their development, and ICT standards 

users should maintain a preference for global standards. When adopting global standards, 

governments and standards setting organizations should avoid modifying them at the national 

level unless absolutely necessary and clearly justified. National standards that vary from 

country to country can easily fragment the global digital infrastructure and raise costs 

significantly for manufacturers of technology products. 

Trade agreements and their effective enforcement are key to preventing standards from being 

used as barriers to trade. As tariffs have been reduced through wider participation in trade 

agreements, the temptation to erect non-tariff barriers to trade has increased. The WTO 

Agreement on Technical Barriers contains some important provisions that, if followed, help 

reduce the risk of standards being used as trade barriers. Effective monitoring and enforcement 

is required to get the full benefits of this agreement. 

It is important for the US Government to set a good example, demonstrating the approaches we 

would like to see other countries adopt. An important practice is to avoid technical regulations 

where voluntary standards will suffice. When technical regulations are needed, they should be 

defined narrowly with sunset provisions where possible. When voluntary ICT standards are 

selected, global standards should be preferred. 

In conclusion, technology standards are of essential importance to Intel's business, to the ICT industry 

and to global markets. Standards play an important role in facilitating innovation in the ICT industry, 

creating opportunities for companies large and small. The diverse set of organizations that develop ICT 

standards is an important asset for our industry, where global standards create value for business and 

consumers. And cooperation between industry and government is essential to ensure that trade 

agreements are followed and promote best practices. 
47 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Wennblom. 

I now recognize Mr. Grimaldi for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK GRIMALDI, 

OWNER, EQUINOX CHEMICALS 

Mr. GRIMALDI. My name is Mark Grimaldi and I am the President and CEO of Equinox Chemicals and Adco Products located in 

Albany, Georgia. Thank you for having me here today. It is an 

honor to be here to represent my company and our part of the industry. 

We are an industry leader in chemical innovation, R&D, specialty manufacturing, and product commercialization around the 

world. The industries we serve include aerospace, specialized industrial products, pharmaceuticals, lubricants, flavors, cleaning, 

and cutting-edge research products for a diverse group of markets 

globally. 

When I started Equinox Chemicals eight years ago as a singleperson operation, I had a vision of building a high-tech product development company and a manufacturing company that could 

vertically integrate all the way from innovation through R&D, 

manufacturing and commercialization and be able to compete in a 

global marketplace. I knew this would be the key if we were really, 

really going to be able to compete in a really diverse market, and 

because of this approach, we have grown more than 300 percent in 

sales and over 389 percent in employee growth in the last three 

years. We have invested millions of dollars in infrastructure and 

manufacturing here in the United States and facilities during a period of time when the rest of the industry was pulling back and not 

investing capital, and it is our ability to compete both domestically 

and globally in this very short amount of time that has allowed us 

to excel in both innovation and manufacturing. So establishing 

solid standards and being involved in the development of new 

standards, or updating existing standards both domestically and 

globally, is one of the most crucial factors in our success. 

The United States leads the way globally by setting the bar for 

existing standards as well as in the development of new standards 

as world markets, products and technologies evolve. The key to the 

United States remaining in this pinnacle position and continuing 

to improve the process is to ensure that the following four basic 

principles which have been essential to our success are maintained 

and further developed. 

One is that the standards process is private-sector led with representation from government, industry, both small and large industry representatives, and consumers, and we need to ensure that 

there is flexibility and applicability with minimal impact on innovation, competition, and economic growth. It has got to be consensus based. It has got to be a transparent decision-making process where participation is available to all the stakeholders and you 

get input from a diverse group of folks regardless of the size or the 

location of the representative giving input. And I would also like 

to emphasize that guaranteeing a balance in the process inputs 

from all the stakeholders is key to favoring one group or industry 

over another when you are setting standards, which would create 
48 

unfair competitive advantages and creating an environment where 

the end user, the consumer, may not be getting the best possible 

product. It has to be voluntary. Mandating standards hampers 

competition and the innovation process by limiting the company’s 

ability to work outside the box and on the cutting edge of new technologies. There is a time and place in the development cycle for 

standards, and you can’t—there is no set time for a standard to be 

developed. You really have to rely on the folks that are the experts 

and the consumers and the part of the advisory board to decide 

when it is appropriate to start a standard process, because if you 

do it too soon you can stunt growth and stunt innovation. 

And then promoting the U.S. standard-setting system and standards set under that system domestically and abroad would lead the 

way around the globe, and having to comply unnecessarily with 

multiple standards both domestically and globally adds a huge 

amount of unneeded redundancy and complication to many of the 

companies, especially the small and medium business companies. It 

would be great and ideal if we could just choose what standard we 

wanted to comply with, but it doesn’t work that way. We are in 

dozens of countries, we have thousands of products, and our customers choose what standards they expect our products to comply 

with, and so when we have all those redundant standards that we 

have to comply with around the world, it makes it very, very complicated for us to do that. 

So the United States has consistently led the way in developing 

these globally accepted standards, but as the E.U. and other developing countries start to develop those standards, we need to ensure 

that we continue to lead the way, work closely with these trade 

partners, and we have to ensure that other countries do not create 

unnecessary trade barriers and otherwise use standards to create 

unfair competition in places, especially in Europe where one of our 

biggest markets is, and REACH would be a great example there. 

So in closing, I would like to ask that you continue to weigh this 

topic with your colleagues, staffs, and advisors, and that you remember the critical standards—that it is critical that standards 

are set to create equal opportunity among domestic and international businesses of all sizes, involve no excessive fees that limit 

SME participation and competitiveness, and minimize delays in development and approval of new products, and include some intellectual property protections to encourage investment in these endeavors worldwide. 

Thanks for the opportunity, and I am available to help in any 

way possible going forward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grimaldi follows:] 
49 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. MARK GRIMALDI

Testimony for Mark Grimaldi, Equinox Chemicals 

February 29,2012 

House Committee on Science, Space and Technology 

Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth: Principles for Effective Domestic and 

International Standards Development 

My name is Mark Grimaldi, and I am the President and CEO of Equinox Chemicals and Adco Products 

located in Albany, Georgia. Thank you for having me here today. It is an honor to be here to represent 

my company. We are an industry leader in the chemical innovation, R&D, specialty manufacturing, and 

product commercialization. The industries we serve include aerospace products, specialized industrial, 

pharmaceutical, 'ubricants, flavors, cleaning, and cutting edge research products for a very diverse 

group of markets globally. When I started Equinox 8 years ago, I had a vision of building a high tech 

product development and manufacturing company that could vertically integrate from innovation and 

R&D through manufacturing and commercialization. I knew this would be the key to be able to compete 

both domestically and glObally. We have grown more than 300% in sales and 389% in employees in the 

last three years, investing millions in infrastructure and facilities during a period of time when the rest of 

the industry was pulling back. It is our ability to compete both domestically and globally that in a very 

short time has allowed us to excel both in innovation and in manufacturing. 

Establishing solid standards and being involved in the development of new standards or updating the 

existing standards, both domestically and globally, is one of the most crucial factors in our success. The 

US leads the way globally by setting the bar for existing standards, as well as in the development of new 

ones, as world markets, products, and technologies evolve. The key to the US remaining in this pinnacle 

position and continuing to improve the process is to ensure that the following four basic principles in the 

standards process are maintained and further developed: 

1. Private-sector led: A private sector led process, with government, industry (small, medium and 

large), and consumer involvement is necessary to ensure maximum flexibility and applicability 

with minimal impact on innovation, competition, and economic growth. 

Z. Consensus based: A transparent decision making process, where partiCipation is available to all 

stakeholders, regardless of size or location is essential. I would like to emphasize that 

guaranteeing a balance in the process inputs from all stakeholders is key to avoid favoring one 

group over another, creating unfair competitive advantages, and/or creating an environment 

where the end user or consumer is not getting the best possible products. 

3. Voluntarv: Mandating standards hampers competition and the innovative process by limiting a 

company's ability to work outside the box and on the cutting edge of new technologies. There is 

a time and a place in the development cycle for standards. Incorporating standards too early can 

stunt company growth and product development. 

4, Promoting the U.S. standard setting system and standards set under that system domestically 

and abroad: Having to comply unnecessarily with multiple standards both domestically and 

globally adds a significant amount of unneeded redundancy and complication to many 

companies. It also impacts the end user's ability to navigate the process efficiently and 

effectively. It would be nice to be able to just choose the best standard program for our 

company, but when you're diverse and are competing in the global market place with over 1000 

products in dozens of countries, the reality is that each customer wants a different standard. 

Complying with multiple overlapping standards globally, adds a significant burden to our 

business and our competitiveness. Therefore, whenever possible the U.S. government should 
50 

encourage our trading partners to utilize standards set in accordance with the above principles, 

where U.S. companies are allowed to participate in a transparent process. Further, it would be 

even more helpful for the U.S. government to promote these standards to third party countries 

or promote a system of mutual recognition where the third party country recognizes a standard 

set in the U.S. and allows our company to comply with fewer redundant standards. 

The US has consistently led the way in developing globally accepted standards, but as the EU and 

developing countries start to develop standards of their own, we need to ensure that we continue to 

lead the way and work closely with these trade partners. We have to ensure that other countries do not 

create unnecessary trade barriers or otherwise use standards to cause unfair competition for our 

company. 

Equinox has greatly increased its business through leveraging standards employing the above principles. 

A great example occurred in 2005, when SOCMA developed its ChemStewards program, a 

comprehensive management system and performance improvement program. It was founded on three 

key principles which are the foundation of an effective standards development process: 

1. It is a standard created by the industry 

2. It is adaptable 

3. Its participants are audited by an independent third party 

We realize it is imperative to produce innovative products in an environment that guarantees safety and 

environmental compliance to all stakeholders including: employees, communities and consumers. 

Performance Improvement (PI) programs are proactive responses to these obligations. 

The ChemStewards program is designed to promote continual improvement in chemical production 

over all facets of EHS&S. The chemical trade associations create environmental, health, safety, and 

security programs designed as management systems. Other standards which are partially compliant 

with ChemStewards include: OHSAS 18001, ANSI Z-10, OSHAVPP, OSHA SHARP Aspects, ISO 14001, RC 

14001 and RCMS. 

The key advantage to ChemStewards Performance Improvement Program is its adaptability and 

recognition of the diversity of the batch and specialty chemical industry. It is imperative that chemical 

companies have systems, practices and procedures in place to safely and effectively operate in a manner 

that protects and gains the confidence of stake-holders resulting in a conceptual "license to operate". 

To what extent has Equinox been able to contribute to both domestic and international standards 

development processes that affect your company? 

Equinox and its affiliates have been heavily involved in more domestiC than international standards 

setting processes. However, with our global expansion and growth we are adding resources to get more 

involved in the international standards process. Domestically, our biggest contributions have been 

through trade associations like SOCMA, and getting more directly involved in technical committees such 

as our seat on the NFPA for garment care that sets the standards in the dry cleaning industry. This 

committee is made up of 12 people including users, consultants, manufacturers (chemical companies, 

equipment companies), regulatory agencies such as OSHA, fire department officials, and international 

members. Being a key member of this standards setting committee significantly impacts our business 

and our customers. It directly relates to the requirements put on our customers and our ability to 

produce and develop better products that raise the bar to not only meets the standards, but to exceed 
51 

them wherever possible. If we are a part of the process, we can be sure that the best products make it 

to the market and that our customers and the end users are protected, and use the products correctly. 

What has been the experience of your company with the use of technical standards in countries 

where you export? 

An example of creating non-tanff barriers (NTBs) that quickly impacted innovation and our ability to 

compete in the EU market is REACH. Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of 

Chemicals-REACH-became law on June 1, 2007, designed to streamline and improve the former 

legislative framework on chemicals of the European Union (EU). REACH places greater responsibility on 

the industry to manage the risks that chemicals may pose to health and the environment. 

In principle, REACH applies to all chemicals, not only chemicals used in industrial processes, but also in 

products such as cleansers, paints and appliances that touch our day-to-day Jives. 

Objectives 

The aims of REACH are to: 

-Improve the protection of health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals 

-Enhance the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry, a key sector for the economy of the EU 

- Promote alternative methods for the assessment of hazards of substances 

-Ensure the free circulation of substances on the internal market of the European Union 

There are obvious consequences that include a drain on financial resources, coupled with the 

requirement by EU to share proprietary information with competitors in the industry. They not only 

create barriers to entry, but also slow down the process significantly to a point where you sometimes 

miss the technology window for your product. As new technologies develop faster and faster, the 

standards and regulations have to be flexible enough to keep up. There were many US companies that 

had little or minimal awareness of REACH when the standards were put in place. Companies based 

outside the EU cannot register directly. The law requires EU importers to register the substances they 

import. This requires that the non-EU supplier fully disclose formulations of products to its EU 

customers in order for them to register or to alternately register, for its EU customers utilizing an "Only 

Representative". We have no such barriers to trade or requirements to hire in-country 

representatives with European companies that seek to do business here in the U.S. REACH compliance 

is complex, expensive, and a serious factor in determining whether or not U.s. companies can 

participate in the European marketplace. We are currently in the process of launching several industry 

changing products in the EU, and our launch will take many months longer than it would have 

otherwise. 

What actions can the Federal Government, standards development organizations and other 

companies take to minimize your vulnerability to the use of standards as technical barriers to trade? 

Technical barriers to trade often appear in the form of standards and regulations. These non-tariff 

barriers (NTBs) are the hardest to change, even when they have questionable merit. We see NTBs in 

both developed and developing economies, for example through mandatory in country eco-tox testing 

in China, REACH in the EU, or additional regulations at Federal or Provincial levels in other countries. For 

many countries these are difficult to navigate and combat. The Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), the 

Department of Commerce, and USTR are examples of ways we address NTBs currently. For more 

mature markets, many of the NTBs have been around for a while, are well established, and difficult to 
52 

reverse. There are real costs to businesses that face market access barriers and to consumers that lose 

out on innovative products. For emerging technologies, it is important to work within industries and 

across countries to develop industry standards that allow for maximum market access. For example, it 

would be highly beneficial if the US and EU work to establish standards that they can then push into 

third world country markets. 

There has been an increased focus on regulatory coherence in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 

(APEC) and in the US-EU High level Regulatory Cooperation Forum. These are all avenues worth 

pursuing to address technical barriers to trade, both established and emerging. 

Within the chemical industry, there are examples where standardizing testing requirements have 

worked well and brought down testing costs. The OECD Test Guidelines and OECD Principles of Good 

Laboratory Practice ensure quality and reliable test data related to chemical safety in the framework of 

the Mutual Acceptance of Data. As countries develop chemical control laws, we urge them to use OECD 

definitions and guidelines, so that we all start from a common point. 

The MAD system - a multilateral agreement allows participating countries to share the results of 

various non-clinical safety tests done on chemicals and chemical products, such as industrial chemicals 

and pesticides. This saves the governments and chemical producers around €150 million annually and 

removes potential non-tariff barriers. This is done due to the fact that OECD and other adhering 

countries must accept the data. 

Please explain from your personal experience when it is helpful to develop a standard. 

This is a very complex and difficult question to answer. I don't believe there is a universal answer for 

every situation. I think you have to evaluate every potential new standard and the need for each 

independently of others. If domestic or foreign governments attempt to establish a one·sized-fits-all or 

blanket statement regarding specifically when and how it would be appropriate to develop a standard, , 

you will head down the path I believe you're all trying to avoid by having this hearing. You need to rely 

on your standards committees to make the determination based on the need in each individual case. 

We need to maintain our position in the global market when it comes to setting standards, but we also 

need to balance that with setting these standards at the appropriate times. If we rush out to set 

standards just because we are worried about not keeping the lead or to just develop a "me too" 

standard in response to another country's attempt, we will only lose our credibility and position as the 

global leader. It's better to work closely with our partners and fight bad and unfair standards than to 

retaliate with another one that we are not ready for here or globally. It is harder to undo a standard 

once it's implemented than to just do it right the first time. The world listens to us and we need to be 

sure we keep that position and push back when needed. 

In closing, I would ask that as you continue to weigh this topiC with your colleagues, staff and advisors, 

that you remember it is critical that standards are set to: 

1. Create equal opportunity among domestic and international businesses 

2. Involve no excessive fees 

3. Minimize delays in development and approval 

4. Include intellectual property protections to encourage investment in these endeavors worldwide. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 
53 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Grimaldi. 

I now recognize our final witness, Mr. Seay, for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES SEAY, 

PRESIDENT, PREMIER RIDES 

Mr. SEAY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. My name is Jim Seay and I 

am the President and Owner of Premier Rides, a small company 

in Maryland recognized globally as an industry leader in the supply of innovative amusement rides and attractions. I would like to 

personally thank Ranking Member Edwards for the kind invitation 

to discuss the position of small business with respect to the standards development process. 

Premier Rides focuses on the construction of high-tech rides that 

incorporate elements such as non-contact magnetic drive systems 

that both dramatically accelerate multi-ton vehicles to high velocities in seconds and stop them just as quickly. As an exporter, we 

ship millions of pounds of millimeter-accurate fabricated steel all 

over the world, including sophisticated electronic control systems to 

areas like Singapore, Indonesia and China. On a voluntary basis, 

I serve as the chairman of the ASTM International Committee F24 

on Amusement Rides and Devices. Along with 500 members from 

24 countries, we provide thousands of voluntary hours annually towards the development of amusement-ride safety standards. Safety 

is the paramount principle of my industry, and I believe strong 

safety standards are an appropriate method for establishing a very 

high bar for participation. 

Premier Rides is a growing company of approximately 20 technical and marketing employees plus a fabrication base of over 200 

craftsmen. The expansion of global business is allowing us to add 

more staff, and last month, Premier has added five new engineers, 

both entry level and also senior level. We are hiring more engineers now. The more engineers we hire, the more work for our 

manufacturing facilities. I can honestly say that without fair global 

standards that ensure a high level of quality and safety, Premier 

would not be delivering as much equipment internationally. Simply 

put, the standards level the playing field for us. 

ASTM International is a 100-year-old nonprofit organization devoted to the development of voluntary consensus standards. It is 

accredited by ANSI and meets WTO principles for the development 

of international standards. ASTM also has a long and vibrant relationship with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

For a small company like Premier, the key principle to effective 

standards participation is fair treatment for all. At ASTM, Premier 

does get, as a small business, fair treatment. The ASTM committee 

structure ensures balanced participation from stakeholders. While 

I am from a small company, my technical input and votes regarding safety issues are equal to that of companies such as Walt Disney and Universal. That is very powerful for a small company. 

Another principle for the success of small company engagement 

is the use of technology to lower barriers to participation. ASTM 

has committed significant resources to provide integrated electronic 

processes from the inception of an idea for a standard until that 
54 

standard is published. This is an especially important tool for small 

companies like Premier that do not have unlimited manpower and 

unlimited financial resources. 

So does Premier have a positive experience with standards? Yes. 

In locations like Singapore and Indonesia, the experience due to 

standards adoption has established a level playing field, eliminated 

subpar, substandard suppliers and put Premier in a position where 

there was a fair basis to compete with other quality-focused suppliers. 

Are all experiences positive? No, they are not. In one example. 

despite the fact that our industry relies upon ASTM standards 

worldwide, the ISO has recently formed a new technology committee for attraction safety under the chairmanship of the Federation of Russia. That makes no sense. As another example, in a rush 

to provide new entertainment experiences to the public, developers 

in China incorporated subpar equipment with virtually no safety 

standards oversight. Serious accidents occurred and China reacted 

not by adopting the ASTM standards but by writing their own. To 

our technical experts of the industry again, this makes no sense. 

I see a major opportunity for organizations like NIST to assist in 

promoting existing standards, and without such an effort, the independent efforts might result in trade barriers, less safety, and affect the growth of companies like Premier. 

In summary, small- and medium-sized companies like Premier 

have, and need to continue to have, an effective voice in the standards process in order to advance the global competitiveness of U.S. 

companies of all sizes. The U.S. Government should promote global 

harmonization and the adoption of the best standards, and avoid 

the unnecessary and costly obstacles that are created when our 

trade partners create policies and preferences for less-robust standards. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Seay follows:] 
55 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES SEAY

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

2318 Rayburn I-louse Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

February 29, 2012 

Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth: Principles for Effcctivc 

Domestic and International Standards Development 

Testimony of James L. Seay 

President. Premier Rides 

Baltimore, MD 

Chairman, ASTM International Committee F24 on Amusement Rides and Devices 

Introduction 

Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the Technology and Innovation Subcommittee 

- my name is Jim Seay and I am the president and owner of Premier Rides, a small 

company in Maryland that is recognized globally as an industry leader in the design and 

manufacture of innovative amusement rides and attractions. Premicr Rides focuses on the 

development of high tech rides that incorporate advanced elements such as non-contact 

magnetic drive systems that can both dramatically accelerate multi-ton trains to high 

velocities in seconds and stop them just as quickly. As an exporter, we ship millions of 

pounds of millimeter accurate, U.S. fabricated steel to locations like Singapore, 

Indonesia, and China. I am also the Chairman of the ASTM International's Committee 

F24 on Amusement Rides and Devices. Along with five hundred other members of 

ASTM Committee F24 from 24 eountries worldwide, we provide thousands of voluntary 

hours annually towards the development and enhancement of amusement standards that 

improve safety in our industry by addressing design, operations, maintenance, quality 

control, measurements, testing and terminology. I am before you today to discuss how 

strong standards are vital to the success of a small company like Premier. 
56 

About ASTM International 

ASTM International (ASTM) is a leading non-profit organization devoted to the 

development of voluntary consensus standards that are utilized by ninety industrial 

sectors in the US and in most geographic regions of the world. For more than 100 years, 

ASTM has served society as a leading venue for consumers, industry and regulators to 

work together in the development of voluntary consensus standards that promote health, 

safety, the environment, and that improve the overall quality of life. ASTM is accredited 

by the American National Standards Institute and meets World Trade Organization 

principles for the development of international standards. ASTM has a long and vibrant 

relationship with the National Institllte of Standards and Technology (NIST) and over 

150 researchers currently are engaged in ASTM's standards development activities. 

In all, there are 35,000 individual members of ASTM coming from 135 nations. 

Public/Private Collaboration in Standards Development 

Standards development organizations (SDOs) - such as ASTM International - help to 

drive innovation and advance our nation's competitiveness through the development of 

voluntary consensus standards used in research and development, commercialization, 

product testing, and quality systems. Current policies for the development and lise of 

private sector technical standards continue to be extremely effective benefIting the 

Federal government and the regulated community alike. Such polices include reliance on 

the Office of Management and Budget (OM B) Circular A-119 (which implements 

Section 12(d) of P.L. 104-113, the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

of 1995) to utilize voluntary consensus standards for regulatory purposes; and the U.S. 

government's commitment to base technical regulations on international standards that 

meet World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement! 

principles. The government's commitment to these policies has led to an increased use of 

voluntary standards in the U.S. and elsewhere, and made government regulation and 

procurement more effIcient and globally relevant. 

Small and Medium Sized Companies 

Premier Rides is a growing company of approximately twenty technical and marketing 

employees, plus a fabrication base of over 200 craftsmen. The expansion of global 

business is allowing us to add more staff. In the last month, Premier has added fIve new 

engineers, both entry level and senior level. We are currently interviewing to hire more 

engineers. Additional engineers mean more projects can be handled, which in (urn means 

more work for our manufacturing facilities. I can honestly say without fair global 

standards that ensure a high level of quality and safety, Premier would not be delivering 

equipment overseas on the scale we are presently accomplishing. Simply put, the 

standards level the playing field. 

I See the USTR TBT Agreement web page for a review of the Agreement, Decisions and Annexes at: 

http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreementslwto-multilateral-affairs/v.1o-issues/technical-barriers-trade 

2 
57 

The key principal to et1ective standards participation is fair treatment to all that take part 

in the process. Just over one-half (51 percent) of the ASTM membership comes from 

companies or organizations that have 250 employees or less. At a time when 

policymakers worldwide are examining ways to boost the engagement of small 

companies in international standards development activities, thcse individuals are well 

represented in the important work of ASTM by actively contributing their technical 

expertise to inform and shape standards, and - in many cases - leading committees, task 

groups, and even serving on the ASTM Board of Directors. The ASTM committee 

structure ensures balanced participations from stakeholders. While I am from a small 

company, my technical input and vote is equal to that of my colleagues on the committee 

from large multinational companies such as Walt Disney and Six Flags. Members from 

small companies playa critical role in today's global economic infrastructure and their 

voice and technical expertise is crucial as ASTM works to mectthe standards related 

demands and expectations of our stakeholdcrs. In my committee, where our members are 

passionate about safety, anyone of us can bring up safety issues to raise the bar. That is 

powerful. 

Another reason for the success of small company engagement is the ever-evolving use of 

technology to lower barriers to participation and speed the process. ASTM has committed 

significant resources to provide an integrated electronic process from the inception of an 

idea for a new standard or revision to an existing standard through to its approval, 

publication and delivery. For example, virtual meetings, which combine 

teleconferencing with Internet document viewing and editing, have been a valuable tool 

in engaging additional experts and accelerating the development process. This is an 

especially important tool for small and midsize companies like Premier that do not have 

unlimited manpower and financial resources. Other resources such as electronic balloting 

with accompanying project management functionalities, the electronic distribution of 

meeting minutes, website tools for committee members and online collaboration areas for 

task group work add efficiencies to the process and further facilitate timely response to 

industry needs. While speed is important, the steadfast commitment to the principles of 

quality, transparency and consensus amongst all interested parties is never compromised 

in the standards development process. 

[nnovation and Competitiveness 

To ensure that our nation's vital Public/Private collaboration in standards development is 

positioned to respond to new challenges and opportunities created by advanced 

technologies of tomorrow, it is crucial that we remain committed to allowing industry and 

regulators the ability to choose from a broad portfolio of relevant international standards 

based on important considerations such as technical quality, market relevance, and global 

coherence. Government policies - whether in the U.S. or elsewhere - that limit 

government engagement to specific standards organizations, or that create preferences for 

standards from specific standards development organizations, threatens innovation and 

undermines the effectiveness of legislative or regulatory initiatives. In today's 

complicated business environments, industries and regulators need standards from 

3 
58 

multiple sources because no single standards developer is able to satisfy the standards 

needs of every industry or cross cutting regulatory challenge. 

Standards. Regulations. and Barriers to Trade 

The U.S. government is a signatory to the WTO TBT Agreement and is pledged to use 

international standards as the basis for technical regulations whenever possible, with a 

view towards eliminating the use of standards as barriers to trade. Our standards system 

is rooted in the principles of consensus, openness and assistance to others. Unfortunately, 

the standards policies of other countries and regions are more restrictive and often result 

in U.S. companies (including small companies like mine) having to comply with 

unfamiliar technical standards that were developed with limited U.S. input In some 

instances, foreign governments dictate that international standards can only emanate from 

organizations such as ISO and IEC where countries are represented by a single "national 

body" organization. 

The flexibility of our national standards process empowers the U.S. government and 

private sector to participate in international standards activities in a variety of ways: 

through organizations such as ISO and IEC where the United States is represented by a 

single "national body" organization; through treaty organizations where governments are 

members; through consortia, whose membership is typically technology based; and 

through professional and technical organizations and U.S.-domiciled SDOs whose 

membership is on an individual or organizational basis. Our national standards process 

offers enormous benefits to businesses, consumers, and society. facilitating innovation 

and strengthening economic competitiveness. But this proccss is not well understood by 

many outside the United States. 

Accordingly, the U.S. government should do more to help foreign stakeholders 

understand the benefits of the approach embodied in the U.S. Standards System. To 

advance the diverse international standards objectives and interests of U.S. stakeholders, 

the U.S. government should continue to seek full implementation of the WTO TBT 

Agreement and annexes as well as decisions taken in the WTO TBT Committee. To that 

end, the U.S. government should continue to foster and support the unique character and 

strengths of the Public/Private partnership in standards development as it pursues trade 

and other international agreements, regulatory harmonization, and legislative and 

regulatory approaches. U.S. companies of all sizes invest their technical resources in the 

development of standards that match their interest and business objectives. In the case of 

F24, Premier participates because of a passion for safety that translates into setting a high 

bar for entry into the marketplace which benefits those that invest in quality. When 

barriers to the acceptance of such standards impair their ability to utilize them, it is these 

U.S. companies who are most affected through tile need for additional product testing or 

possibly the need for product redesign to achieve the desired market access. 

While it is possible for European standards to make reference to existing standards fi'om 

ASTM and other standards bodies allowing some limited level of acceptance, there is 

currently no legal mechanism that exists in the European regulatory infrastructure to 

allow standards from U.S. domiciled organizations to achieve the same acceptability as 

4 
59 

European standards or ISO standards. To this point, the U.S. government should engage 

their European Commission counterparts and recommend that they incorporate the 

international standards principles outlined in the Decision of the WTO TBT Committee 

into its legal framework and, in the context of Europe's New Approach to Technical 

Harmonization and Standardization. extend the presumption of conformity to any 

standard that fulfills the essential requirements of a Directive and is developed in 

accordance with these principles. Implementing this internationally agreed-upon 

approach would have far-reaching and significant effects, including: increases in 

harmony, efficiency, choice, flexibility, and much needed relief from expensive, 

duplicative procedures for companies that trade internationally. Fast moving areas 

involving advanced technologies stand to benefit the most from the ability to utilize a 

broader array of international standards through lower costs and time spent in developing 

standards. 

Challenge to Small Businesses: Lack of Standards Coherence Internationallv 

A WTO TBT principle addresses coherence as follows, "In order to avoid the 

development of conflicting international standards, it is important that international 

standardizing bodies avoid duplication ot: or overlap with, the work of other international 

standardizing bodies. In this respect, cooperation and coordination with other relevant 

international bodies is essential"". 

For over 30 years, ASTM Committee F24 on Amusement Rides and Devices has brought 

together experts from around the world in an open forum to share best practices and 

develop safety standards for our industry. Out of this process has come a set of truly 

international standards that support the global amusement industry and promote 

amusement ride safety for people everywhere. 

Despite the fact that our industry relics upon ASTM standards worldwide, the ISO has 

recently formed a new technical committee ISOITC 254 Safety of Attractions, under the 

Chairmanship of the Federation of Russia. Working through ANSI, the U.S. objected to 

the creation of this ISO activity as it could lead to duplication of effort, divergence of 

performance requirements and impact patron safety. 

There are a limited number of international experts in the field of amusement safety and 

they are currently over committed. Another initiative to develop yet another standard on 

amusement ride safety may fall short of expectations without the involvement of these 

key individuals. Members on the current ASTM f24 committee include regulators 

(including 20 state regulators), inspectors, engineers, technicians, designers, 

owner/operators and other interested parties. These professionals come from Australia. 

Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, Switzerland. the United 

Kingdom, and the United States. While several of the countries involved in ASTM F24 

voted no to the ISO proposal, the proposal received approval through the support of 

, See the USTR TBT Agreement web page for a review of the Agreement, Decisions and Annexes at: 

http://www.ustr.gov!trade-agrcements!wto-multilateral-affairs/wto-issues/technical-barriers-trade 

5 
60 

countries that do not currently have amusement ride standards nor do they have experts in 

the area of amusement ride safety. 

Development of additional amusement ride safety standards under a different process will 

be expensive and time consuming, which can be avoided by recognizing ASTM F24 

standards as the global standard practice for amusement ride safety. These standards 

meet the WTO criteria, have multinational involvement, and have global reach. For the 

amusement industry and othcrs, ASTM International is a proven international SDO and 

F24 standards are recognized as relevant international standards as they meet the needs of 

the global amusement industry. 

Even though Premier is experiencing success in China, a similar situation to the ISO 

issue is occurring. The field of entertainment is rapidly expanding in China. 

Opportunities for U.S. companies in the entertainment field are significant. However, in 

the rush to provide new entertainment experiences to the public, developers in China 

incorporatcd subpar equipment made in China with virtually no safety standards 

oversight. Serious accidents occurred and China reacted not by adopting the ASTM 

Standards, but by writing their own, which to the technical experts of the industry have 

significant challenges. A past NIST's Standards and Trade workshops with delegates 

from Chinese industry identified amusement park rides as one potential sector of interest, 

educating and creating linkages for industry and standards experts worldwide. I see a 

major opportunity to assist in promoting existing standards and without such an effort, 

the independent efforts might result in trade barriers and affect the growth of companies 

like Premier. 

Global Recognition for Small Businesses 

[n a global environment, it is extremely difficult for a company like Premier Rides to 

stand out. As noted, participation in a standards process where a small company's 

contributions carry weight (ASTM's one company lone vote policy) help level the 

competitive field. Recognition programs are another important element. Premier is a 

member of the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (I.A.APA). 

Annually, IAAPA holds multiple expositions throughout the world with the largest here 

in the United States; up to 30,000 in attendance. IAAPA has encouraged industry 

participation in NISTs Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program. Awards 

such as this, which require significant dedication, can provide instant global credibility, 

open doors, and such programs should be both supported and encouraged. 

Conclusion 

In summary, existing U.S. standards policies promote Public/Private sector standards 

development efforts that reduce the cost and improve the management and effectiveness 

of government, while reducing global technical barriers to trade. Small and medium sized 

companies have an effective voice in the process. In order to advance the global 

competitiveness of U.S. companies of all sizes, the U.S government should promote 

global implementation ofWTO TBT Agreement principles for international standards 

6 
61 

and avoid the unnecessary and costly obstacles that are created when our trade partners 

create polices that create preferences for European or ISO standards. I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you and look forward to working with you. 

7 
62 

3/7/2012 

Premier Rides, Inc. Inspire. Crellte, En/nisin. 
63 

3/7/2012 

2 
64 

3/7/2012 

3 
65 

3/7/2012 

4 
66 

3/7/2012 

Premier Rides, Inc. InspJre. CreIIte. Eo/em/n. 

5 
67 

Company History 

Premier Rides, Inc. 

PREMIER RIDES, INC. 

1007 East Pratt Street 

Baltimore, MD 2l~02 

Premier Rides, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is located in Baltimore. The company is one of the 

most innovative companies in the design and manufacture of rides and attractions. We team up 

with the industry's best structural analysis group, the office of Werner Stengel. We also work in 

close cooperation with the leading ride safety organization, TOV. 

Premier Rides is best known for our award winning high-tech roller coasters and roller coaster 

type rides. Premier Rides is also a global supplier of family attractions such as water rides 

including the industry recognized Water Coaster, traditional roller coasters (steel and wood), 

observation towers, Observation wheels and Ferris wheels such as the Coaster Wheel and 

other custom designed attractions. 

Over the past sixteen years, Premier Rides has delivered more than thirty attractions. 

Premier Rides has a library of existing rides to choose from, as well as an incredibly talented 

group of engineers capable of designing an attraction to meet a client's specific needs and 

works to ensure goals are met. 

Jim Seay - Biography 

At the helm of this innovative corporation is president and owner Jim Seay. With Premier Rides 

since 1995, Seay first explored the outer limits of flight technology as a project engineer for 

Hughes Aircraft working primarily on stealth missile technology. 

Seay shifted from the aerospace industry to the amusement ride arena in 1988 when he joined 

Six Flags Theme Parks as an engineering and maintenance executive. He brought seven years 

of park experience to Premier Rides when he signed on as Executive Vice President of 

Engineering. In 1996, Seay became president of Premier Rides, with a philosophy centering on 

innovation, quality and superior customer service. 

Since heading up this highly qualified team of professionals, Seay's team has helped create and 

introduce Linear Induction Motor and Linear Synchronous Motor powered roller coasters, the 

Liquid Coaster, and immersive dark ride coasters. 

He serves as Chairman of the ASTM F24 Global Committee on Ride Safety Standards as well 

as volunteers as an industry representative to the Recreation Access Board which focuses on 

providing ride access to people with disabilities. Jim also serves on the Board of Directors of 

both the National Aquarium in the United States and the AIMS Ride Safety Seminar 

organization and is involved in several committees within the International Association of 

Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA). Jim also serves as a senior advisor to R&B singer 

Mario and his Do Right Foundation that focuses on disadvantaged children. 

Seay earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from 

Cornell University in Ithaca, New York and did his graduate studies at California State 

University, Long Beach. 

. fAX: 410.!I,23.31S7 
68 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Seay, and I would like to 

thank all of the witnesses for their testimony, reminding Members 

that the Committee rules limit questioning to five minutes. The 

Chair will at this point open the round of questions, and I will recognize myself for five minutes. 

Ms. Saunders, I wanted to ask you, one of the concerns that I 

have, you said that there are about 10,000 consensus standards 

that were in federal regulations, and one of my big concerns is how 

some federal regulations are just allowed to go on in perpetuity 

without any reevaluation. I actually introduced a bill that actually 

has all major rules after 10 years go through another reevaluation 

so they can do a cost-benefit analysis. What are federal agencies 

doing with the standards that are within the federal regulations to 

make sure that they are still the type of standards that we need 

so that we are not going to stifle innovation going forward? 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Well, to your point, you are right. We do track 

in the Code of Federal Regulations close to 10,000 references to 

standards in various agencies’ regulations, and there is a provision, 

a general provision that agencies should review major rules every 

five years with a view to revising them or eliminate them, etc., and 

many agencies do an excellent job of undertaking that revision. To 

be practical, it is easier for the smaller agencies that have a smaller number of regulations for which they are responsible to undertake that review on a frequent basis but I know that all the agency 

standards executives do encourage the folks who write the regulations to undertake those reviews to determine whether the regulations themselves should be revised or updated or eliminated, and 

also that the standards referenced in those regulations might need 

to be updated in the sense that a more recent edition might need 

to be referenced. 

There are clearly health and safety issues that have to be carefully considered by the agencies when they undertake those determinations, and I will also say, recently, over the past two years, 

the Office of Management and Budget Information and Regulatory 

Affairs has explicitly reached out to agencies seeking them to submit plans for review of the regulations, and that has had some 

positive impact as well. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Grimaldi, in your testimony you were talking about when 

the right time to have the consensus standards be made with new 

companies, especially startups in the startup sectors that if you put 

standards in place too early, that might stifle growth and innovation, but is there no magic point of when you should put standards 

down? What is your take on when we should be looking to provide 

consensus standards from the various sectors because it has to 

come from the private sector so that we can all work together. But 

when do you see that as the time to do it? 

Mr. GRIMALDI. That is a very difficult and complex question to 

answer because it is such a broad area. For instance, in the chemical industry, we are so diverse. I mean, chemicals go into so 

many—just about everything in the world and affect so many different markets and can affect Intel and the furniture business and 

the paint business and the carpet business. It goes into everything. 

And so when you do you start setting the standards? It has to be 
69 

looked at on an individual basis. You can’t just have a magic line 

in the sand that says when you cross this line, you have got to 

start developing a standard. 

And so it makes it a very, very difficult process because the other 

thing you want to be careful of is that in some cases when we are 

developing new technologies that revolutionize a particular market 

or an industry such as dry cleaning or something like that, when 

you can develop a new product that replaces a product that has got 

safety issues or environmental issues, you want to be able to bring 

that product to market very, very quickly. Well, the standards are 

so old and so established that sometimes you want to be able to 

start that process much, much sooner than you would for something that has to be out on the market for a while. It is so new, 

it is such a new technology or a new market that you want to have 

time to understand what the impacts that the standards are going 

to have before you go into that process. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Wennblom, you mentioned that monitoring and enforcing the 

WTO Agreement on the Technical Barriers to Trade is the best way 

that we can actually get the full benefits of that agreement. How 

do you think the monitoring—has it been effective so far? Do you 

have any suggestions on how to improve that? 

Mr. WENNBLOM. That is an important question. I think the monitoring we have is largely effective but it does require the engagement of industry, which is often the first to see an issue and in 

partnership with NIST and USTR and other parts of the government. So I think everyone has to be diligent, but the tools we have 

in place are good ones. Of course, I also mentioned there are ambiguities in some of the trade agreements, and as we see an opportunity to improve those agreements or develop new ones that would 

be more clear and support U.S. interests, that is always helpful to 

pursue. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards, for five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you all for your testimony. 

I am really curious here, it feels like the elephant in the room 

is China, and so I want to have a little bit of a discussion and particularly in the area of, say, intellectual property rights. I am a little curious about the relationship between intellectual property 

rights and standards with respect to China, and my understanding 

is that in recent years there has been a push by Chinese regulators 

to invoke compulsory licensing of intellectual property rights for 

mandatory standards, and so I wonder if any of you can discuss 

these efforts and what they mean for U.S. companies attempting 

to do business in a really huge market. Mr. Bhatia? 

Mr. BHATIA. I will take a shot at it. ANSI has an intellectual 

property rights committee, which basically looks at these issues 

from a broader perspective, and just recently we had the privilege 

of having ITC, FTC, and—what was the third agency? So we have 

all the key agencies of Federal Government are also participating— 

PTO also joined. In addition to that, we have about 90 different organizations that are participating and not always the opinions are 
70 

common, but we worked very hard to develop what we think are 

rightful measures to not only handle the application of IPR issues 

and standardization, for example, the issue of embedded technology 

that is preferred by a company as a critical issue but also working 

to take action at the international level such as with countries like 

China or others where there may be violations of intellectual rights 

off others, and we are working not only with China but we are also 

working with international organizations like ISO and IEC to develop global policies that will support the needs of industry, not 

just in the United States but also in other developed markets, 

which are usually creating the intellectual capital. 

So I think there is a lot to be done. We do need the assistance 

and engagement of industry on an active basis. We have a forum 

in which to debate these issues and advance. We also have bilateral agreements with SAC, for example, the standards organization 

of China. We work very closely with them, and we can go to them 

directly about these issues and these problems, and quite often 

they try to work with us. China is maturing slowly. I think they 

are becoming more aware of their responsibilities. As they become 

more advanced in technology development, they are going to be creators of intellectual capital, not just the user of it. So I think they 

are becoming more and more responsive to requests, from the 

Western countries usually, to address these issues in a fair manner. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I am also just curious, from a business perspective, and our three witnesses who actually deal with this probably 

on a more regular basis can help me understand what happens 

when your company encounters an international standards-related 

issue and you might need the U.S. government to offer some kind 

of assistance in resolving that. Given the number of agencies that 

might have responsibility, you as business owners, who do you call 

and how do you know who to call? 

Mr. SEAY. I will speak from the standpoint of our company. First 

of all, China is a very important trading partner to someone like 

Premier but the IP issues in my industry are significant. It was not 

uncommon that you go to trade shows recently and you see photographs of your equipment, our own equipment, Premier’s equipment, in other people’s booths, which are startup organizations in 

China. The way that that has been remediated is, number one, we 

have a trade association, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions. They have adopted an IP approach to 

preventing that from happening. 

The biggest challenge is, if China does not adopt the global accepted standards, what happens in our industry is—and there have 

been significant issues where they will essentially use the IP on a 

visual basis of an attraction—they will build an attraction, but because it doesn’t have the embedded safety of what the standards 

like the ASTM F24 give, you end up with a very devastating result, 

and there have been some serious accidents because of that, as I 

mentioned. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Are there times when that equipment then somehow or another makes its way into the U.S. market? 

Mr. SEAY. It has been marketed into the U.S. market and there 

are instances where some of it has come in. The results have not 
71 

been good. There hasn’t been a safety issue here in the United 

States, but the results on a quality level has now put—there has 

been pushback on that. But it is important to have someone like 

NIST that we can turn to because as an example, NIST had a 

workshop with Chinese people, businesses who came here and they 

identified our industry as being one where we have got to work together closer. So we do need someone like a NIST that we can turn 

to for that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And Mr. Chairman, we can explore this, but the 

question that I have is, is it NIST, is it PTO, is it, you know—I 

mean, I am just completely confused as to if I am a businessperson 

who owns a small business, trying to figure out and navigate who 

has the responsibility to be my advocate in an international arena 

I think is very complex, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, we are going 

to be able to get to some of those questions. Thank you. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 

Fleischmann, for five minutes. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know we have touched on this in some of the testimony and 

some of the questions, but I would like to hear from all of you all 

about this issue, please. What in your experience has been effective 

responses for either industry or government when a company encounters the use of standards as technical barriers to trade in 

countries to which they export? I would like to hear from all of you 

on that. 

Ms. SAUNDERS. Okay. We have several examples of effective responses. I think the most effective responses were—building on my 

fellow panelists’ comments—the affected industry and the relevant 

government agencies come together, and in the trade space when 

you have a technical barrier to trade, the lead on that issue is the 

U.S. Trade Representative’s Office. We work with the Department 

of Commerce in particular because we have a trade agency component as well as a scientific component. We work very closely with 

the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office to provide technical expertise that underpins their negotiating arguments or their arguments 

against countries that are applying technical barriers to trade. It 

is very important to have the support of the industry as well. I can 

speak from a practical perspective in terms of how that barrier is 

actually affecting business. But I do think we have several cases. 

Joe mentioned one particular in China where he worked with the 

private sector and also with the government. We have several cases 

where we have been successful in rolling back technical barriers to 

trade. There are many cases where it hasn’t worked quite as well. 

But I think when the trade agency, particularly the U.S. Trade 

Representative’s Office, Department of Commerce including NIST 

for technical expertise, and the industry work together, we have a 

pretty good chance of being successful. 

Mr. BHATIA. If I may add to that, we have quite a few structures 

through which we can execute our concerns. We have technical advisory committees, which are jointly sponsored by USTR and Department of Commerce, which are all populated by private sector 

people. I chair one of those, which deals with technical barriers to 

trade. I am a Vice Chair now. I chaired it for 10 years. And 
72 

through that forum, we can address all technical issues that are 

faced by either industry association as a collective activity or by individual company that channels it through the trade association 

like Mr. Seay gave the example of. 

We also have opportunities to work directly with countries because we have bilateral agreements with them. We also have opportunities to engage the responsible federal agency for that particular product type. For example, the example of playground 

equipment, we would go to CPSC, Consumer Product Safety Commission, because they have the oversight of managing the safety of 

consumer products in this country and they have relationships with 

their counterparts in other countries as well. Similarly, we can go 

to OSHA for workplace safety issues. So we have opportunities and 

mechanisms that we work with, and ANSI has structured a lot of 

our liaisons with both federal agencies and also in other countries 

to address some of these issues both at the governmental level and 

also at the private-sector level because we also work with industry 

groups in many other countries. 

Of course, we have better success with mature partners that we 

have been working with over the years like Canada or Germany or 

U.K., and we are beginning to learn how to work more effectively 

with countries like China or India. But I think it is not a lost 

cause. We can do a lot of good. 

Mr. WENNBLOM. Thank you for the question. I think one of the 

most important things we do is try to identify concerns at an early 

stage by monitoring the standards activity in the countries of key 

trading partners using tools like the standards portal that ANSI 

provides and others, just having people on the ground. We also 

then, if we identify a concern, work in trade associations to determine if there is an industry view on that concern, and using the 

comment opportunities that the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement provides, we can identify those concerns to key trading partners. If the concerns aren’t addressed, then USTR is a great partner in further addressing those issues. So that is kind of our general recipe. 

Mr. GRIMALDI. I would also agree with that in that a key way 

that as a small business we navigate that and help ensure that we 

get an effective response from government is using our trade associations and using them as a resource to help us navigate through 

the systems to get that response that we need, and the Transatlantic Economic Council, Department of Commerce, and USTR 

are examples in the ways we address these NGBs currently. But 

it is very difficult in more mature markets where we have a lot of 

these trade barriers that have been around for a while that are 

well established. It is very difficult to reverse some of that, and especially when you have got new technologies and innovation that 

you want to launch globally. And a lot of times with the speed of 

technology development and change, it is difficult to get that new 

technology out there quick enough and respond quick enough when 

you have these standards that are in the way. 

Mr. SEAY. I will be quick. I mentioned before the ISO issue that 

our industry is dealing with. We have not found an appropriate 

mechanism to deal with that one where you have almost like a 

rogue standards effort being established that doesn’t have the ex-
73 

perts that should be there that exists in other efforts. I will give 

an example of a trade barrier situation, which is even closer than 

China, where up until recently Europe and the United States in my 

industry, you would have to build equipment for the United States 

and you would have to build different equipment for Europe. There 

has been a concerted effort set up by the trade association I mentioned before, IAAPA, working with ASTM where the CEN people 

and the ASTM people got together to harmonize their standards so 

that there would be some ability to cross-promote products between 

the two areas, and that is not only good for the manufacturers, it 

is good for the end user because it ends up making the cost of the 

product lower. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 

five minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this hearing, and I also want to thank the Ranking Member 

for bringing Jim Seay to the panel today. His business is located 

in my district and we are very proud to have it there. Premier is 

a good name for his business because it really is the premier deliverer of ride products across the world from my understanding, so 

we are glad to have all of you here today. 

I wanted to pick back up with you, Jim, about this ISO issue and 

help me understand a little bit more what it means that the Federation of Russia now has the chairmanship and why you are describing this activity as kind of a rogue activity. I am sort of 

drowning in the alphabet soup of acronyms that are involved here 

in this thing, but maybe you can on that issue give us a little more 

detail. 

Mr. SEAY. Yeah, the alphabet soup is kind of like the Ambien of 

the technical world, you know. 

But the ISO situation is a perfect example of the challenge, and 

with ASTM, you have got a voluntary consensus organization, and 

as I mentioned before, anybody can participate in ASTM. We have, 

you know, operators, manufacturers, consumer advocates, the 

CPSC. I mean, you have this wide array. Anybody can participate. 

With the ISO situation, an individual who is smart enough to recognize that they can take what is called the tag for ISO by writing 

a check, and they now control this new committee and it is a committee that is not open. It doesn’t have the consensus approach. If 

you want to write checks, you can participate. 

One of the biggest challenges is that the United States only gets 

one vote in ISO, and so you now have a scenario where—and with 

the Europeans, we actually have this good relationship I talked 

about before, but the Europeans have a vote for every country in 

Europe so the United States becomes—has a minor role, and here 

we are in an industry where you look at the global business for my 

industry, the majority of that global business is controlled through 

U.S.-based entities and the expertise lies in large part in the 

United States and also in Europe. So you have this situation where 

suddenly, you know, the entire body of experts becomes a very 

small factor in the development of these regulations, and, you 

know, nothing against the Federation of Russia, because I never 
74 

want them upset at me, but you know, they have not been a large 

participant in the entertainment business, we are, and the attractions we build are incredibly sophisticated. We have attractions 

that run 13 trains at the same time with seconds of separation so 

that requires extreme safety. 

Mr. SARBANES. So when the ISO, the jurisdiction of the—I mean, 

because the way you described it, one response might be to say 

well, there are all these other ways of exchanging standards and 

bringing consensus and so forth. So, you know, ignore ISO if it is 

off on some rogue expedition. So describe the kind of jurisdiction 

it has in terms of the reach of these regulations that it issues and 

how that creates a problem for you and other companies. 

Mr. SEAY. Well, I think the comment before, the elephant in the 

room comment, is a good one because the challenge with ASTM, 

and I will be honest, it has got an A there; it is American. The 

issue is with ISO, it has got an I. It is international. It is simple 

as that. When the vote went out globally, should this ISO standards development group be established, you know, the Germans 

were great. The Germans have some fantastic standards. They 

wrote a very blatantly negative vote for it. However, there were 

votes all over the world from people who don’t even have attractions in their country who said sure, ISO, that has got to be better 

than anything else, and that is the situation that you honestly end 

up in. 

Mr. SARBANES. And when did this happen? How long has the ISO 

sort have been a force to be reckoned with? 

Mr. SEAY. Well, the ISO has always been a force to be reckoned 

with, and there is a lot of good product out of the ISO, but for our 

particular situation, this is about 12 to 18 months. 

Mr. SARBANES. And can you quickly give a specific example of a 

barrier? You talked about, you had to build equipment to meet U.S. 

standards and then you were building a different form of the equipment in terms of Europe at one point, and you saw that as a problem. Without giving away any trade secret, is it like a specific product where you could describe where this problem occurs in terms 

of a technical barrier, just again, to give me more understanding 

of it? 

Mr. SEAY. Just one example. When China did react and write 

their own standards, and we talked about that before, people writing their own standards to kind of protect their own world, they 

wrote standards that have to do with g-forces, and our world is all 

about the g-forces applied to people, and they wrote standards that 

don’t correlate to all the studies that have been done between Europe and the United States, and there is extensive information that 

went into establishing g-force standards that are in ASTM and the 

CEN that are good standards. The Chinese changed those and they 

don’t make sense to the experts in our industry. So now you can’t 

supply a product that has been incredibly reliable at a Disney park 

that millions and millions and millions of people have ridden and 

ridden safely, as that product potentially might not be able to be 

put into China now because of that new standard. 

Mr. SARBANES. Great. Thank you. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. 
75 

And then I recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. 

Luja ́n, for five minutes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And to pick up a little bit where this conversation has been 

going, Mr. Grimaldi, you say that with respect to emerging technologies, it is important to work with industries and across countries to develop industry standards that allow for maximum market 

access and that it would be highly beneficial to the United States 

and the E.U. to work to establish standards that they can then 

push into developing markets. Can you talk a little bit more about 

the United States-E.U. cooperation and why it is important and 

how this sort of cooperation can benefit U.S. companies? 

Mr. GRIMALDI. Yes, I can. And I guess I can give an example that 

really hits home where that didn’t work well and why I think it 

is important. So in 2007, the Europeans put together the REACH 

standards and regulations, and a lot of folks here know a lot about 

that. It is very messy, and the objectives were: to improve the protection and health and the environment from the risks that can be 

posed by chemicals; enhance the competitiveness of the E.U. chemical industry, a key sector for the E.U. economy, so right there, it 

becomes a trade barrier; promote alternative methods for assessment of hazards of substances; and ensure the free circulation of 

substances on the internal market within the European Union. 

And I think that when they started to develop this standard, which 

happened very, very quickly and blindsided a lot of U.S. companies, 

the intent was good, but by the time it actually made it to implementation, the restrictions were tremendous. You know, companies 

based outside the E.U. can’t register directly. The law requires importers to register the substances they import. A non-E.U. supplier 

has to fully disclose all of his formulations and IP and share that 

with his competitors in Europe. And you actually have to have European representation there to comply with the standards. 

And so the burden for a small company like ours or a mediumsized company to comply with these standards is hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get product into Europe and/or pull products out that we did have there, and what it does is, it starts to 

stymie the best products that could go to market or to be able to 

even effectively launch a product there and front those costs. And 

so one of the ways that we really need to cooperate in that situation is to be sure that we don’t come up with a ‘‘me, too’’ standard, 

just not in retaliation but to make sure that—you know, because 

what we saw was a bunch of European companies now doing business here. Some of our biggest competitors came to the United 

States because it was easier to do business here. They were having 

trouble with their own standards. 

And so there was a lot of discussion about well, we can do the 

same thing here and level the playing field, and I think that is the 

wrong answer. We don’t want to go and do a ‘‘me, too’’ standard 

just because we want to level the playing field. I think we need to 

take the high road and lead that effort and push back and say 

this—you are creating a standard that makes unfair competition 

and doesn’t work logically for the markets that the industries are 

trying to standardize. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I appreciate that. 
76 

Mr. Wennblom, jumping to a technology I think that most of us 

depend on daily, and I appreciate in your testimony talking about 

in 1995 the contributed technology associated with USB, and so my 

question to you and to Mr. Bhatia is, as we talk about this notion 

that mobile phones are going to begin to adopt additional standards 

associated with these charging technologies, I appreciate that I can 

use a USB charger and I can move from computer to computer 

whoever it is manufactured by, but the frustration that I have is, 

when you are buying new mobile phones, the USB still works in 

the computer but the aspect that goes into the mobile device to 

charge it, I don’t know how many car chargers I have gone through 

and how many plugs I have gone through. The one thing I appreciate about these two devices that I carry daily, one that belongs 

to me, one that I use for Congressional responsibilities, is the same 

charger on my iPod that I bought many years ago I can use to 

charge this phone but the chargers that I have for BlackBerries 

from previous years don’t necessarily charge this. 

So when we talk about USB, micro USB and whatnot—and I 

know I ate up a lot of time there, Mr. Chairman, but this is something that I certainly hope that we can get direction to solving, and 

the rationale being, Mr. Chairman, as we talk about the notion 

again pointed out in the testimony that it is important for the 

United States to set a good example, demonstrating the approaches 

we would like to see for the countries to adopt but that we need 

to be careful when we are looking for voluntary as opposed to mandates. It seems to me that when you come out with a new technology, we are talking about electricity flowing into a device to be 

able to charge a battery or another form of power to be able to 

charge these devices, that the same connectivity that Intel and others led the charge with the USB on the reverse side should reflect 

what is happening. And I am not suggesting that Apple adopt what 

is happening with BlackBerry. I am just suggesting that one company, when it finds a device or a way to plug into their phone that 

they like, that they keep it, so that way I don’t have to keep buying 

plugs and devices. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can explore that a little 

bit more, and maybe there is a way for the mobile-phone industry 

to truly when we say that they are going to do it, that we see them 

do it or that we find another way to encourage them to do it, Mr. 

Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. We are going to have 

a second round of questioning just for that. Actually, for those who 

want to have a second round, we are going to go through, because 

I have some additional questions, and Mr. Luja ́n actually brought 

up a very important point that was going off of what Mr. Grimaldi 

was talking about with the REACH agreement in Europe, and how 

do we really push for the consensus-driven standards that are developed in the United States to make that to be the process globally? Because I think that that would be the best route to take. Mr. 

Seay talked about various things that were happening in China 

and Russia but how do you—how do we take that—and I guess I 

will ask Mr. Bhatia and Ms. Saunders to answer this one—how do 

we take that and be able to promote that consensus-driven where 

all the stakeholders are getting involved and get those standards 
77 

that way rather than the top down because like Mr. Grimaldi said, 

when you have the consensus-driven standards, you have people 

coming from Europe to the United States because it is better. So 

how do we promote that? 

Mr. BHATIA. It is a complex issue, and as you can appreciate, 

every country—now, let us be honest, every country has the right 

to select for itself the levels of safety, health, or welfare that it 

chooses to work up to, a set of criteria, and this is recognized by 

WTO principles. We are a signatory to that. So every country has 

a right to decide how they are going to address critical safety 

issues or health issues or environmental issues. And in fact, our 

agreement under WTO allows countries to have deviations in criteria based on cultural differences, based on economic development, 

industrial development, based on climate conditions, and it is all 

legit. 

Also, let us not forget that the infrastructure of the globe is built. 

Electrical systems are built. It is going to cost trillions of dollars 

to change the electrical system from United States to other countries to go from 110 volts to 220 volts, from 50 hertz to 60 hertz. 

It is not going to happen. So what is the solution? The solution is 

to find a way to harmonize our standards as best as we can, and 

for that, we need international forums to facilitate engaging of the 

countries in a logical fashion using the best solution that exists so 

far and bring that to the international table. 

One of the biggest challenges I have as the President of ANSI is 

to find a way for our U.S. SDOs, large ones—ASTM, SAE, IEEE, 

ASME—use their intellectual capital that has been developed with 

participation from many people and many industries, and we heard 

about the participation levels. It is a valid document but it is not 

often received and accepted as an international document. How do 

we cross that bridge? We can cross that by creating agreements, 

and we are trying to work on dialog with ISO and IAC and ITU 

to develop, we call them PSDO agreements or joint development 

agreements or taking a base standard from United States and 

building on that as an international standard. Oftentimes we succeed. I would say 90 percent of times we succeed. The example on 

the playground equipment that was ASTM standard, we didn’t succeed. We objected to that initiative by ISO going forward. We voted 

no to that. So did the Germans. But guess what? There are more 

countries than just two. The majority went out. So the development 

of that standard now requires us to watch what goes on and get 

as much of that intellectual capital that exists in the ASTM standard with their permission hopefully into the new criteria. So that 

is what needs to happen and we are working on that. 

I think we also have to learn as a country to play in this global 

environment a little bit differently. The days of us dominating totally the infrastructure of electrical development or innovation are 

gone, I think because of the Internet, because of the diversity of 

manufacturing and creativity. I think we are going to have to deal 

with new powers that are emerging, you know, the BRIC countries, 

you know, the Brazilians, the Indians, the Chinese. We are going 

to have to find a way to work with them along with the previous 

players along with the previous players like the Germans and the 

French and the Brits and the Japanese. 
78 

So I think we are doing that, but we are going to have occasional 

problems, and that is why the collaboration with the industry is so 

important, and that is why the support from agencies like USTR, 

like NIST, like Commerce is so important so we can take the U.S. 

position and make that into a success for us, and I think we have 

tons of examples of where it works. Unfortunately, sometimes you 

only hear about the problems. Good stuff also goes on a lot, and 

if you look at these two guys, they are working in the ITC—I am 

sorry, one guy at least. He is working in the ITC sector. We dominate that area. We control that industry. We develop innovation. 

We get acceptance more than anywhere else. I think we have the 

technology that we are able to commercialize very effectively because we have a private sector-led process which allows innovations to be commercialized successfully, not just in the United 

States but all over the world, and that is a success story and so 

are many, many others, and I think the chemical industry is the 

same thing. We are looking at biotechnology, we are looking at 

nanotechnology. We will do the right things but we will have occasional problems. We have to find a way to work together and get 

these done, and we are not going to work by butting heads with 

the Chinese or the Russians or the ISO central secretariat. We 

need their help in achieving the overall success. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Right, and I think that Mr. Grimaldi made 

the good point of, let us not try to go the same route that they are 

taking in terms of trying to shut off and put up trade barriers because then you are just going to get the back and forth that we 

can’t have. So thank you very much. 

I now recognize Ms. Edwards for five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for allowing us to continue to explore here. 

Mr. Wennblom, I want to turn to you because you mention in 

your testimony that more needs to be done to improve acceptance 

and understanding of diverse systems of standards development 

that is embodied in the United States to foreign stakeholders. But 

I wonder how you propose that that be done, and no one chose to 

answer my question of who do you call, so I suppose, Mr. Grimaldi, 

you are going to be content with making those five phone calls that 

you described earlier in your testimony, so I won’t go beyond there. 

But Mr. Wennblom, if you could address that question, I would 

appreciate it. 

Mr. WENNBLOM. Sure, and I think the ambiguity I would point 

out is around the definition of what is an international standard. 

The World Trade Organization in its Technical Barriers to Trade 

Agreement creates some preferences for international standards, 

encouraging governments to base regulation on international 

standards as opposed to domestic standards. It is a very helpful 

section of the document. But the definition of international standards is open to some interpretation. So for example, to Mr. Seay’s 

situation, in the United States, we would agree that ASTM develops international standards. But in other countries, Russia, for example, they would take a much more narrow view and say that 

international standards are only developed by ISO and IEC and 

ITU, and ASTM, just an interesting foreign standard to them. So 

that disagreement over what is an international standard creates 
79 

an ambiguity that leads to problems like the one we have heard 

about today, in my view, so that the situation I was referring to. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Are there sectors—and this was raised to me at 

least in all of your testimony but are there sectors that are more 

appropriate to the development of international standards versus 

domestic standards that then are, you know, by practice and by 

technology and manufacturing incorporated by those in the international arena? 

Mr. WENNBLOM. Well, I can speak from the perspective of the information technology, information and communication technology 

sector where nearly all the standards we are interested in are global standards, international standards. Country-specific standards 

just don’t make sense in our business, and it is naive to think that 

we can develop a U.S. standard and just expect the rest of the 

world to pick that up and adopt it, as Mr. Bhatia said. So we have 

to, from the start, plan on developing global standards, and that is 

really what we are interested in in our sector. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And then what happens in terms of our competitiveness when, say, the alliance is the Europeans and China on the 

development of a set of standards that may not quite be where our 

domestic market is? It feels like there are some instances where we 

then—you know, if we want to compete, we become followers, if you 

will, because it is really tough to lead when you are in an international arena in which that alliance, which is, you know, so much 

more substantial than—I mean, I guess it is one—you know, there 

is one point of which I suppose the United States and Europeans 

could be allied in terms of development of standards and then we 

begin to, you know, set the pace. But if that alliance is something 

different, it makes for a different competitive environment for U.S. 

companies. 

Mr. WENNBLOM. Well, standards should be about the best technology and innovation and growth for everybody, so if we can bring 

to the table as industry good technology and good ideas, I hope 

we—and my experience, we can build alliances for people to see it 

that way. It is not perfect, and we need to be diligent at that, but 

I think at the end of the day, alliances based on what is the best 

technical approach are pretty powerful. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And Mr. Bhatia, could you also describe where 

there are instances where principles that we undertake in our 

standards development, and Ms. Saunders, you may have a comment about this too, that have become commonly accepted principles in the international arena? 

Mr. BHATIA. Thank you. Yes. Let me just clarify one thing for the 

benefit of those who may not know the facts. The United States is 

the most dominant player in the ISO and IEC arena because of our 

size of our economy and because of who we are. We occupy permanent seats in both of those organizations’ boards, five of them, six 

now. China has been included. We have that ability to direct, if you 

will, most of the strategies and implementation. We don’t control 

everything but we have a lot to say, and oftentimes we are heard. 

In terms of—I am sorry, you were asking about? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I was asking about—— 

Mr. BHATIA. Oh, the principles? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. 
80 

Mr. BHATIA. Yeah, we have what we call essential requirements 

in the United States which are carried out by ANSI. Over 260 

standards developing organizations in this country are accredited 

by ANSI and they are judged against these essential requirements. 

These are criteria which focus on things like proper balance, participation, right to object, right to question, due process, consensus, 

resolving disputes. All of these are also mentioned in the OMB A– 

119, the circular, which makes it a national process, if you will, officially. WTO principles also follow similar lines, and most of the 

major developing countries have adopted these processes and their 

national bodies follow those principles as well. I think for the benefit of those who may not know the details, there are only about 

15 to 20 major countries, developed economies, that are producing 

the documents. The rest of the world are users. So most of the development today in the technical arena internationally comes from 

these handful of countries, and the rest of the world becomes the 

user of that final solution. So I think we have an opportunity to 

work very closely with our partners, and quite frankly, the industry concerns in the United States often are aligned with the industry concerns in Germany, and the industry concerns in Japan, and 

the industry concerns in China—perhaps once they get mature. 

Right now they are not there. So I think that is going to become 

a big harmonizer of the future, so to speak. 

And to reflect on your question, are the strategies different for 

different sectors, the answer is absolutely yes. In the areas where 

we have significant international trade, I think it is almost essential that we have an internationally recognized standard, which is 

something that is domestically focused, it is a unique sector, it is 

a limited application. A country-specific document or a regional 

document like a NAFTA-type document or document for the Americas may suffice for a while, but the key is to create standardization and then move towards the harmonization process towards a 

global standard eventually. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize 

Mr. Sarbanes for five minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Anybody can answer this question. It is sort of a freestyle question. But, you know, a lot of talking, more and more, the President 

is talking more and more about how we restore American manufacturing, how we bring back some of these jobs from overseas and the 

manufacturing processes that we have lost overseas over the last 

few decades, and I am just wondering, I don’t—help me make the 

connection if there is one, but can you relate what we have been 

talking about here today in terms of the standards and how that 

affects businesses of all sizes to this other conversation that we are 

having about trying to restart the American manufacturing sector 

in a vibrant way and bringing some of these jobs back and so forth. 

Maybe they don’t relate, but I would love your perspective on that, 

anybody who wants to—— 

Mr. SEAY. I will just put some comments in. From the standpoint 

of having standards, I mentioned before that I personally believe 

standards are a good thing because they set a bar and they set a 

bar for participation, and we talked about before, is the timing of 

standards an issue. From our standpoint, it is only an issue that 
81 

you have got to get above this bar so that the product you produce 

is a safe product. 

The issue we get where there is the potential of manufacturing 

loss is because countries that are not respecting appropriate standards, they do have the ability to produce equipment that is far 

more economical, economical in appearance, seeming to be the 

same level of equipment but not performing either as reliably as 

it should or not performing as safely as it should. And I think that 

the challenge gets to be that there is a temptation that is out there 

when you can go to a country that doesn’t have these regulations 

but their price points will be 50, 60 percent less, and a lot of that 

is because the standards, at least in our industry, are not being adhered to. The ASTM standards are not being adhered to. We are 

a good example of that because of the level of quality that is required for a safe industry, and the performance in the United 

States as an example which lives up to ASTM, we are keeping the 

manufacturing jobs here. There is a reason that we are shipping 

millions of pounds to Indonesia of steel, fabricated steel. It is because the company in this case that we work with in Indonesia, 

Trans Studio, a very high-level conglomerate media company, they 

have a respect for standards. They have respect for electrical 

standards as well as standards in our industry, so they establish 

those as a minimum guideline so, if you want to participate in their 

projects, you have to meet those guidelines. So that helped us keep 

those jobs here and we will continue to do that. 

Mr. SARBANES. So, I mean, put simply, if you are a country that 

believes you deliver a high-quality, high-standard product, you are 

going to want to develop these standards internationally that are 

at that level because that is going to obviously help you compete. 

Any other thoughts on that before my time runs out? 

Mr. GRIMALDI. Yeah, I have got some thoughts on that, and that 

is really the basis for our company. In a down economy, we built 

a manufacturing company from the ground up and have grown it 

consistently year after year, and we have actually been able to 

bring business back, manufacturing business, from India and 

China and places like that, and it is looking at where we can be 

competitive. The global marketplace is going to change for U.S. 

companies and we can’t—you have to look at where that niche is, 

what we can focus on and what we do well and what your customers are after. If it is price and it is a commodity item, it is difficult to compete here, but if you are looking at somebody that is 

looking for something that meets standards consistently that they 

can have control over, that they want IP protection and a timing 

issue and they want to have—they want to be able to see their 

products being manufactured, so it ends up being more of a hightech, high-end process, and you create a specialty niche there, and 

I think that is where companies in the United States, when they 

want to grow and increase manufacturing, they have to look for 

those opportunities. They have to be agile. They have to be willing 

to change. You have to look at when your product becomes more 

of a commodity item and you can’t be competitive anymore, you 

have to be willing to shift and look for new opportunities and new 

products to manufacture here, so I think it is alive and well here 

and growing if you look at the right opportunities. 
82 

Mr. BHATIA. I think there is a lot more that goes into retaining 

manufacturing than just standards. I think there is a strategy that 

needs to be looked at. There is going to be an $8,000 car and a 

$100,000 car. There is going to be a $10 product and a $100 product. Customers and consumers are willing to come in at different 

levels. So we have two responsibilities, one, to create a commercial 

advantage, a manufacturing advantage, second, to guard against 

going below the bare acceptable minimum levels of safety performance. So I think good companies will work at that, and standards 

can help in that area. 

I think we also have some obligations that we need to think 

about that need to come from the public side also. One of the reasons Germany is very successful in exporting its technology and is 

perhaps now—well, not perhaps, they are the second largest exporter in the world because they work hand in hand with their government, their government programs, their facilitations, their efforts to outreach, their effort to get involved with the buying community in the future and the country of reception, if you will, 

where the market is going to be of them, and they nurture and develop these markets with a lot of support and help from their Federal Government and from their funding resources, which come beyond just within the company’s ways and means. 

We also have to think about the financial aspects of sponsoring, 

if you will, initiatives and knowledge dissemination in the SMEs. 

We talked about that a little bit but I hope one day we talk about 

that a little bit more because SMEs are a big source of developing 

new businesses and new opportunities both in manufacturing and 

also in exports of other types of products and services. 

So I think there is a lot we can do. I see opportunities all over 

the place, but we need to find ways of funding that, resourcing 

that, and you guys are empowered to create incentives for this to 

be done more effectively, and I think we should talk about how we 

can achieve that. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thanks. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes. 

I now recognize Mr. Luja ́n. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to talk a little bit about that empowerment, and we have 

five minutes to find consensus and get direction on how to solve 

this problem, and, you know, as we talk about the seriousness associated with this, in the 111th Congress, we actually had a piece of 

legislation that moved out of this Committee talking about electronic waste, the components of the—right now the impact on the 

consumer, I would hope a revenue stream that is not built for the 

mobile industry, mobile-phone industry built on chargers as we 

talk about the reality associated with the industry. But what can 

be done as we talk about voluntary standards where, again, appreciating what happened with USB but also the frustration associated with the other end of that cord. When we talk about electricity 

that is flowing through that copper, the interchangeability associated with what goes into the socket, whatever country you are, it 

seems to me that we should at least find some common ground 

there and eliminate what is happening on the waste side as well 

as with consumers, with some seriousness associated with direction 
83 

on what could be done there to either encourage that voluntary 

component or see what could be done on our end. 

Mr. WENNBLOM. Thanks for your question. Two main points. The 

first is that one of the reasons why you have seen change in the 

connector that is based on USB in various phones is because technology has changed and requirements have changed. The connector 

in phones today is much thinner than the connector that was originally created for USB, and that has been driven by the needs of 

phone manufacturers who know that consumers prefer thinner and 

thinner phones. The thinnest connectors today would have been too 

expensive when USB was created. So in terms of cost and form factor tradeoffs, it has been necessary to make changes over time. And 

the other thing that is changing in phones that is very important 

is battery technology. The chemistry is changing and the form factors are changing, and that has driven some changes in interfaces. 

So if we tried to standardize on a connector too soon and required phone manufacturers to use that, that would have interfered with lots of the innovation that consumers appreciate today. 

So sometimes there are some changes necessary. However, there is 

also—— 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. If I may, then why is it that my iPod charger from 

four years ago can still power my iPhone and I can get the charge 

out of it? I mean, I couldn’t find one of my chargers, I don’t know 

where I left it, and so I went into my box of chargers, and lo and 

behold, I had an old iPod charger, plugged it in, plugged in my 

phone. The old one is kind of neat because it has two little clips 

on it which they made a little bit smaller, so with the exception of 

having to pinch those clips now and pull it out, it still charges the 

phone. This is second-generation iPod to iPhone 4. 

Mr. WENNBLOM. The basic voltage for USBs remained the same 

since it was created. What has changed is the form factor of the 

connector. I think the connector on your iPhone is actually a proprietary interface based on USB, and because the manufacturer, 

Apple, has chosen to keep that the same over time for reasons that 

you would appreciate, your iPod connector still works. So continuity is useful, but there are times for breaks. I was going to say 

that the USB group has now contributed its technology to IEC for 

incorporation in an international standard for cell phone charging, 

and some of the changes we talked about are slowing down a little 

bit, so I am hopeful in the future you are going to need to change 

your cell phone charger much less frequently no matter which company you purchase it from. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. That is encouraging, but nonetheless, as we talk 

about how technology has evolved and appreciating very much the 

fact as we talk about the connectivity on the charging component, 

I think therein lies one of the frustrations associated with standards across the country as we talk about devices that we depend 

on daily to the complexities associated with rail and roller coasters 

and everything in between, if you will, when we talk about the 

magnitude of size as we take into consideration the safety component. But I would also suggest the convenience and commonsense 

component. 

Again, I would hope that a revenue stream has not been developed associated with the charger, if you will, on the device and that 
84 

we truly look to see what can be done there which I would suggest 

would offer ease to the consumer as well as more consumer preference when it comes to me making decisions on what devices that 

I want to go shopping for. If I know that I have a device that I 

have all the chargers that I need in the world, hopefully I will stick 

with that same device unless there is a compelling reason not to 

go with it. But when I have to make a decision to completely retrofit all of the components for my vehicle, for my home, for whatever mobile components we carry with us, I think it impacts us a 

bit. 

So I appreciate the humor associated with the conversation but 

also would ask that we take into consideration the seriousness 

when we talk about something as small as a mobile device. 

Thank you for the indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Luja ́n. You never know 

where a hearing is going to go, but I appreciate your comments, 

and we actually, with Mr. Wennblom, got a lot of information on 

how the chargers are developing and the innovation behind it. So 

I want to thank—— 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield? 

Chairman QUAYLE. Yes. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. One of the reasons I am so passionate about this 

is—— 

Chairman QUAYLE. Because of your box of chargers. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. It is my box of chargers, but actually this is a conversation I had with my mother years ago about the frustration 

that she had as well, so it is sensitivity to our moms, but recognizing that this is something that she said can’t you do something 

about that. And so with the empowerment that was talked about, 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I yield back. 

Chairman QUAYLE. Well, to all moms out there, we will come to 

a conclusion. But I want to thank Mr. Luja ́n, and I want to thank 

all of the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members 

for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee may have 

additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain open for two 

weeks for additional comments and statements from Members. The 

witnesses are excused. Thank you all for coming. This hearing is 

now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
85 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
86 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Ms. Mary H. Saunders 

THE HONORABLE BEN QUAYLE (R-AZ) 

U.S. House Committee ou Scieuce, Space, aud Techuology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth: Principles jhr Eflective DomesTic and 

International Standards Developmel1l 

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 

1. Clearly standards are important to manage quality control in global supply chains. 

How do NIST and ANSI encourage our trading partners to recognize conformance 

assessments conducted by accredited U.S. providers so that they will be accepted 

abroad? 

Answer: The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act directs the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) to coordinate conformity assessment activities with federal. 

state and local government and with the private sector to reduce redundancy. NIST encourages 

our trading partners to recognize conformance assessments conducted hy accredited U.S. 

providers in several ways. For example, NIST designates U.S. Conformity Assessment Bodies 

(CAB) under the U.S.lEuropean Union Mutual Recognition Agreement and Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation (APEC) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) for 

telecommunications equipment. Under this program U.S. CABs are authorized by our trading 

partners in the EU and individual APEC economies that have implemented the APEC MRA to 

test and certify telecommunications equipment to their regulatory requirements. This facilitates 

the regulatory acceptance of equipment without the need to have testing and certification 

conducted overseas. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is recognized as an 

accreditor of product certification bodies under this program. 

Through the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). NlST is a 

signatory to the Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) of the International Laboratory 

Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). The ILAC MRA's goal is to provide contidence in 

laboratory test results by accredited laboratories in other countries. This confidence is supported 

by an international peer assessment process in which NVLAP participates actively. 

2. What steps can the U.S. government and industry stakeholders take to improve 

established international standards that are outdated and may be harming industry and 

consumers? 

~: Both industry stakeholders and U.S. government participants have an important role to play 

in ensuring that international standards of interest to them arc current and incorporate the state of 

knowledge and stakeholder consensus. This is essential to ensuring that standards deliver on their 
87 

intended purposes, including assuring safety, protection of health andlor the environment, or enabling 

interoperability, Ensuring that standards are up-to-date also requires the active involvement of 

standards setting organizations that coordinate standards development work, and provide the needed 

infrastructure to develop and maintain standards, To ensure that international standards of interest 

are current, U ,S, government and industry can: 

• Inform standards setting organizations responsible for specific standards when the standards 

of interest to them need to he updated due to developments in technology, or knowledge 

about limitations of the extant standard, 

To the extent possible and resources permitting, participate in the standards setting 

organization's process for reviewing and updating current standards during their regular 

review cycle, or during out-of-cycle reviews, where necessary. If interested stakeholders are 

unable to participate in the standards review process, they should inform the standards setting 

organizations, or leadership of the standards groups where the standards in question are being 

considered such that their perspectives and opinions can be considered by the group in an 

appropriate manner. 

Federal agencies that lise standards by referencing them in regulations and procurement can 

undeltake reviews to determine whether the standards they reference are still appropriate and 

serve their intended purpose. Improved communication and infonnation sharing among 

agencies with interests in similar issues may also help improve agency awareness about 

changes in technology that may require updating ofstandards, or about efforts underway to 

update standards, 
88 

THE HONORABLE RANDY NEUGEBAUER (R-TX) 

lJ .S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

Promoting Innovatirm, Competition, and Eco1'1mn;c Grol.VriJ: Princjples fhr Ejji:!cfil'c Domestic and 

Il1fcrnationai S'tandards Development 

Wednesday, February 29.2012 

l. What can Congress, NIST, and other federal agencies do to respond to countries 

that intentionally or unintentionally use standards as non-tariff trade barriers? 

From an economic perspective, is there any way to quantify the harm these technical 

trade barriers cause to American exporters? What conntries are the worst offenders 

of these barriers to trade? 

Answer: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) leads the Executive Branch's 

efforts to respond to countries that use standards as non-tariff trade barriers. The overall 

strategy is to engage with trading partners to address standards-related measures that act as 

barriers to trade and to prevent the creation of barriers through multilateral. regional and 

bilateral channels. Last month. the President established an Interagency Trade Enforcement 

Center, housed at USTR. that takes a whole of government approach to monitoring and 

enforcing U.S. rights under international trade agreements. and enforcement of domestic 

trade laws, to ensure that American exporters are able to compete on a level playing field 

with foreign competitors. USTR publishes an annual report on technical barriers to trade 

(TBT); last year's report identified TBT measures to be addressed in 17 countries as well as 

the European Union and its 27 member states. Both the U.S. International Trade Commission 

and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have studied the economic 

impact ofTBT's on trade. It is difficult to isolate the impact ofTBTs from that of other 

barriers, which include discriminatory customs procedures. and other complex and sometimes 

nontransparent foreign regulations that are not otherwise TBTs. 

2. Do you have auy coucerns about outdated standards in the Uuited States? Do auy 

of these standards inhibit iunovation? Is there anything the federal government can 

and should do better to ensure that all existing standards are relevant and workable 

for industries and consumers today? 

Answer: Standards development in the United States is largely private sector led. with active 

participation by U.S. government agency staff in areas relevant to agency missions. Update 

cycles for standards vary widely and arc largely tied to the rate of change of the technology 

underlying specific standards. In some fields, technology cycles arc very short 6 to 9 months. 

for example, while in others technology may change much more slowly. As noted in the recently 

issued White House memorandum on Principles for Federal Engagement in Standards Activities 
89 

to Address National Priorities I, the vibrancy and effectiveness of the U.S. standards system in 

enabling innovation depend on continued private sector leadership and engagement. One of the 

strategic objectives for government engagement called out in the memo highlights the 

importance of the U.S. government promoting standards and standardization systems that 

promote and sustain innovation and foster competition. Finally, the memorandum directs 

agencies to coordinate their standards related involvement and to take into account the impact of 

their standards-related choices on innovation and the global competitiveness of U.S. enterprises. 

1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-08_l.pdf 
90 

Responses by Mr. S. Joe Bhatia 

American National Standards Institute Responses to Questions 

Responses to Questions for the Record from the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Hearing: Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth: 

Principles for Effective Domestic and International Standards Development 

Responses submitted on March 29, 2012 

Statement of 

S Joe Bhatia, President and CEO 

American National Standards Institute 

1899 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 

jbhatia@ansLorg; 202.331.3605 

from the Honorable Ben 

1. HOM' do trade associations and technical commillees ensure balanced input and 

participation/rom all stakeholders? 

One of the core principles of ANSI and the standards community at large - is that of 

inclusion; that those who have an interest in an issue should have the opportunity to be at 

the table when standards are developed. That includes businesses. consumers. 

government. academia, industry associations. and companies of all sizes. 

As described in the principles of the United States Standards Strategy (www.usstandards-slra(e!!:v.oru.), standards must be based on: 

Openness: "Participation is open to all affected parties." 

Impartiality: "No one interest dominates the process or is favored over another." 

Consensus: "Decisions are reached through consensus among those affected." 

ANSI procedures assure the opportunity for balanced input and participation within: 

ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers 

ANSI-Accredited U.S. Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) to the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

U.S. National Committee (USNC)-approved U.S. TAGs to the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (lEC). 

ANSI accreditation of a standards developing organization (SDO) demonstrates that the 

SDO's procedures in connection with the development of American National Standards 

meet the Institute's essential requirements for openness, balance, consensus, and due 

process. Currently there are 226 ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers and 

approximately 10.000 approved American National Standards (ANS). 

Page 1 of 8 
91 

American National Standards Institute Responses to Questions 

All U.S. TAGs to ISO technical committees are accredited by ANSI, and all U.S. TAGs 

to lEe technical committees are approved by the USNC. This accreditation / approval 

assures that U.S. TAGs operate according to procedures that assure openness. balance, 

and impartiality in the development of U.S. positions on and contributions to ISO and 

lEe technical work. 

The following excerpts from ANSI's procedural documents describe the requirements 

that are in place for the development of American National Standards, and for U.S. 

participation in ISO and TEe activities in order to assure openness, balance, and 

impartiality: 

ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American 

National Standards (www.ansi.org/csscntialrequirements) 

1.3 Balance 

The standards development process should have a balance of interests. 

Participants from diverse interest categories shall be sought with the objective of 

achieving balance. If a consensus body lacks balance in accordance with the 

historical criteria for balance, and no specific alternative formulation of balance 

was approved by the ANSI Executive Standards Council, outreach to achieve 

balance shall be undertaken. 

2.3 Balance 

Historically the criteria for balance are that a) no single interest category 

constitutes more than one-third of the membership of a consensus body dealing 

with safety-related standards or b) no single interest category constitutes a 

majority ofthe membership of a consensus body dealing with other than safetyrelated standards. 

The interest categories appropriate to the development of consensus in any given 

standards activity are a function of the nature of the standards being developed. 

Interest categories shall be discretely defined, cover all materially affected parties 

and difterentiate each category from the other categories. Such definitions shall he 

available upon request. In defining the interest categories appropriate to a 

standards activity, consideration shall be given to at least the following: 

a) producer; 

b) user; 

c) general interest. 

Where appropriate, additional interest categories should be considered. 

Appropriate, representative user views shall be actively sought and fully 

considered in standards activities. Whenever possible, user participants shall be 

those with the requisite technical knowledge, but other users may also participate. 

User participation should come from both individuals and representatives of 

Page 2 of 8 
92 

American National Standards Institute Responses to Questions 

organized groups. There arc several user categories: 

1. User-consumer: Where the standards activity in question deals with a 

consumer product. such as lawn mowers or aerosol sprays, an appropriate 

consumer participant's view is considered to be synonymous with that of 

the individual user - a person using goods and services rather than 

producing or selling them. 

2. User-industrial: Where the standards activity in question deals with an 

industrial product, such as steel or insulation used in transforn1ers, an 

appropriate user participant is the industrial user of the product. 

3. User-government: Where the standards activity in question is likely to 

result in a standard that may become the basis for government agency 

procurement, an appropriate user participant is the representative of that 

government agency. 

4. User-labor: Where the standards activity in question deals with subjects of 

special interest to the American worker, such as products used in the 

workplace, an appropriate user participant is a rcprescntative of labor. 

ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities 

ofISO. Annex B, "Criteria for Development and Coordination of U.S. Positions 

in the International Standardization Activities of the ISO and lEe' 

(www .ansi .org/international proceduL~) 

B4.1 Openness 

Participation shall be open to all U.S. national interested parties who are directly 

and materially affected by the activity in question. There shall be no undue 

financial barriers to participation. Participation shall not be conditional upon 

membership in any organization, or unreasonably restricted on the basis of 

technical qualifications or other such requirements. Timely and adequate notice of 

the fonnation of new activities related to international standards shall be provided 

to all known directly and materially affected interests. Notice should include a 

clear and meaningful description of the purpose of the proposed activity and shall 

identify a readily available source for further information. 

B4.2 Balance 

The process of developing U.S. positions shall provide an opportunity for fair and 

equitable participation without dominance by any single interest. Dominance 

means a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or ini1uence by 

reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation. The requirement implicit 

in the phrase "without dominancc by any single interest" normally will be 

satisfied if a reasonablc balance among interests can be achieved. Unless it is 

claimed by a directly and matcrially affected person (organization. company, 

government agcncy, individual, etc.) that a single interest category dominated the 

Page 3 of 8 
93 

American National Standards Institute Responses to Questions 

development of the U.S. position, no test for dominance is required. 

In defining the interest categories appropriate to U.S. TAG membership. 

consideration shall be given to at least the following: 

Producer 

User 

General interest 

Where appropriate. more detailed subdivisions should be considered. 

2. Clearly standards are impor/ant to manage quality con/rol in global supp(v 

chains. How do NIST and ANSI encourage our trading partners to recognize 

conformance assessments conducled hy accredited US providers so that they will 

be accepted abroad? 

International recognition of accredited conformity assessment is based on the Multilateral 

Recognition Arrangement (MRA) process among the world's accreditation bodies 

coordinated through the International Accreditation Forum (IAF), where nearly all the 

U.S. trading partner states are represented. This recognition is based on regular peer 

evaluations among the accreditors. Accreditations performed by the accepted participants 

of the MRA are then deemed by IAF to be equally reliable. 

3. What steps can the US government and industry stakeholders take to improve 

es/ablished international standards that are outdated and may he harming 

indus/ry and consumers? 

It is vital for the U.S. to maintain its key role in developing and maintaining globally 

relevant, responsive standards that not only assure U.S. competitiveness and innovation. 

but also protect health. safety, and the environment. 

The U.S. standards system acknowledges that there arc multiple paths to an "international 

standard:' Whether we are talking about work done through ISO and lEe technical 

committees, or the many SDOs and consortia that operate on the international stage, what 

matters is that the standards meet marketplace needs and were developed according to the 

principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade erBT) 

Agreement, which are also consistent with ANSI's Essential Requiremen/s for standards 

development. The process must be consensus-based, open, with balanced participation -

and include all other elements that arc the hallmarks of our standards system in this 

country. 

Because voluntary consensus standards arc driven by marketplace needs, any 

organization working to develop international standards is motivated to keep their 

Page 4 of 8 
94 

American National Standards Institute Responses to Questions 

standards up to date. Stakeholders with concerns about a standard's content are always 

encouraged to reach out to the SDO responsiblc for that standard and get involved in its 

development and/or maintenance. 

For example, where there are concerns about an established international standard that 

was developed by ISO or IEC, U.S. government, industry, and other stakeholders are 

encouraged to approach ANSI to discuss thc issue. As the sole U.S. representative to ISO, 

and, via the U.S. National Committee (USNC), the lEe, ANSl enables U.S.-based 

technologies and experts to have a prominent role in those standards organizations. With 

the support and backing of U.S. trade associations, SDOs, industry, and government 

agencies, our experts play leadership roles on nearly all ISO and lEC technical and policy 

committees to advance U.S. interests. 

If a U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) has already been formed to liaise with the 

international technical committee responsible for the standard in question, then concerned 

stakeholders can work with the TAG in order to raise their issues. If a U.S. TAG is not in 

place for the standard in question, then concerned stakeholders can work through ANSI 

to establish a TAG in order to discuss the issue at the ISO or lEC table. 

The key to the nation's continued success on the global stage is to make sure that all U.S. 

stakeholder needs are taken into account, that we approach ISO and IEC with a clear and 

strong national position, and that we effectively leverage relationships with our partners 

internationally to gain support for these positions. To that end, ANSI is always focused 

on attracting greater and more diverse participation by government, industry, and other 

stakeholders in ISO and IEC activities. Doing so will assure that the broad spectrum of 

views from the public and private sectors are taken into account as U.S. positions are 

formed. To facilitate this greater level of engagement, ANSI has been working to 

improve access to publicly available infornlation on TAG activities, and is coordinating 

efforts with federal agencies to ensure that all interested government stakeholders are 

aware of opportunities for participation. 

When it comes to the development of American National Standards (ANS), the Essential 

Requirements make provisions for the revision and maintenance of all ANS, and ANSI 

accredited standards developers are required to undergo an audit at least once every five 

years. ANSI's auditing process is intended to contirm adherence to ANSI's procedures, 

and to increase the level of credibility and the effecti veness of due process for all persons 

who are directly and materially affected by the development of an American National 

Standard. 

Page 5 of 8 
95 

American National Standards Institute Responses to Questions 

Questions from theHonorable Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) 

1. Whal can Congress, NIST, and other federal agencies do to respond to counlries 

thai intentional~v or uninlentionally use siandards as l7on-tarifflrade barriers? 

From an economic perspective, is there any way to quanti!)! the harm Ihese 

technical trade harriers cause to American exporters? What cOllntries are Ihe 

worst offenders o.flhese harriers 10 trade? 

The development and application of standards, technical regulations, and conformity 

assessment (e.g., testing, inspection, certification, etc.) has a significant impact on global 

trade. When developed and applied in an effective manner, standards and conforn1ance 

open global markets for U.S. products and services. However. intentional or unintentional 

misapplication of standards and conformance can create trade barriers for U.S. exporters. 

Thc U.S. government should continue its efTorts to aggressively address individual trade 

barriers as they arise in international markets both through advocacy and enforcement. 

These efforts not only help the companies af1'ected by specific barriers, but also send a 

message about the importance of fair and open trade and the U.S. commitment to 

ensuring that our trading partners fully implement any relevant trade agreements. To 

advance the diverse interests of U.S. stakeholders, the U.S. government should continue 

to seek full implementation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers 

to Trade (TBT) Agreement and annexes, as well as decisions taken by the WTO TBT 

Committee. Committing even more government resources to such activities can only be 

beneficial. 

Overcoming Technical Barriers to Trade 

A big problem we face in the global market is that all too often, standards are used as 

barriers by other nations. In emerging markets such as China and India, government 

agencies are creating hundreds - even thousands of new standards and product 

requirements each year, with limited industry input in many cases. This can make it 

difficult for U.S. businesses looking to get into those markets. One of ANSI's key 

priorities is to help U.S. companies large and small - negotiate this complex landseape 

and gain the market-growth advantages of standards and conforn1ance, and overcome any 

barriers placed in the way of unobstructed trade relations. 

To give one recent example, in the midst of fulfilling an $8.5 million contract, a U.S. 

SME ran into problems with Chinese customs, who improperly impounded a key 

component, claiming it failed to meet Chinese certification requirements. After a series of 

unproductive meetings with Chinese freight forwarders and customs officers, ANSI 

worked with the China Ccrtification and Accreditation Administration (CNCA), which 

agreed to intervene on behalf of the U.S. company. At the same time, the U.S. 

government raised the issue with Chinese officials, emphasizing China's WTO 

obligations. In a short time after the initial contact, the SME obtained the necessary 

certification and was able to enter the market China's acknowledgement in this case of 

Page 6 of 8 
96 

American National Standards Institute Responses to Questions 

its obligation under the WTO should also benefit other U.S. exporters to China who may 

face similar ccrtification-related obstacles to trade. 

In India, sometimes even Indian companies have a hard time accessing the standards and 

regulatory systems - in fact ANSI was instrumental in bringing together Indian 

government and the Indian private sector standards organizations in a first ever trilateral 

MOU with ANSI. 

Such efforts at transparency and inclusiveness are critical to the competitiveness of U.S. 

industry and SME's in particular - in the global market. Standards and technical barriers 

to trade (along with IPR issues), are consistently listed by U.S. companies of all sizes as the 

chief impediments to furthering U.S. trade exports. But when used effectively, consensusbased international standards are not an obstacle - they are part of the solution. Together 

with effective conformity assessment solutions. they have the capacity to remove barriers 

to trade and fuel business growth for large and small companies. 

While large corporations may have the resources to develop global strategies and to 

overcome barriers to trade, SMEs often lack such in-house abilities. ANSI has worked 

closely with NIST in developing an online StandardsPortal (www.standardsporta1.org) 

that provides the key information needed to help U.S. SMEs - and all companiescompete effectively in emerging markets such as China, India. and Korea. 

The StandardsPortal is an incredible free resource for U.S. exporters, as well as for those 

nations looking for guidance in best practices in standards development. It helps 

companies answer such questions as: 

What technical requirements must my product meet to enter and compete in this 

particular market? 

How can I get early warning about changes to these requirements? 

How can I ensure that my company's pcrspectives are heard and considered in the 

development of national requirements and policies that eould affect my business? 

ANSI also otTers our members the guidance of an ongoing Manufacturers' Roundtable for 

companies doing business in and with China. And we work extensively with Indian officials 

as part of our U.S.-India Standards and Conformance Cooperation Program, among other 

initiatives, to facilitate trade and increase transparency between the U.S. and India. 

Page 7 of 8 
97 

American National Standards Institute Responses to Questions 

2. Do you have any concerns uboul oliidaled siandard5 in Ihe United Stales? Do any 

of these standards inhibit innovation? /5 there anylhing the/edem! government 

can and should do hetler to ensure thai all exisling standards are relevant and 

workable/or industries and consumers today? 

Market-driven and sector-specific, our national standards system is fueled by privatesector standards developers that have the technical expertise, speed, and responsiveness 

needed to find robust, consensus-based solutions to national priorities. 

Because the system is driven by marketplace needs, ANSI does not have major concerns 

about outdated standards in the United States. If a standard is outdated or no longer 

relevant, it tends to organieally fall out of use as stakeholders turn to an updated or 

different solution. 

However, federal agencies that reference such standards in rules and regulations may not 

be able, for procedural or other reasons, to make timely updates to rules that 

accommodate changes in the referenced standards. This may even be the case when the 

agency's own analysis supports the use of the updated standard for the purpose of the 

rule. In other cases, regulated industries, especially small and medium-sized enterprises 

(SMEs), prefer the older methods because they are unable to update their own equipment 

to meet the newer standard. Currently there does not seem to be enough flexibility to 

enable agencies to meet the regulatory needs and make use of updated standards without 

imposing an extraordinary burden on the agency. At times this situation can create 

diffieulties where an agency continues to reference a particular standard that has been 

superseded. Such a situation may create confusion and frustration for manufacturers and 

purchasers. This may also impede an agency's ability to enforce its health and safety 

mandates and ensure that only the safest and most-improved products are available (i.e., 

those that reflect the most recent revision of a standard). 

ANSI would encourage the U.S. government to work closely with the private sector to 

get infonnation about new revisionsl

, promoting a process that facilitates more regular 

updates to those regulations and mandates that make reference to current voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Often an agency must follow a laborious rule-making process to recognize a revision of 

an accepted standard. ANSI recommends an alternative approach, namely, the adoption 

of a rule of construction that would give an agency 90 days after the promulgation of a 

revision ofa referenced standard to update the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If the 

agency does not do so within the 90-day period, it will be presumed that the revision of 

the standard would be accepted as the new standard. An agency could create a due 

diligenee requirement that such a revision has to be noticed in the Federal Register for 30. 

60, or 90 days. If no significant opposition has been heard, the revision becomes the new 

standard. A number of agencies have successfully used this approach. 

I Standards Action is ANSI's key public fe-view vchick. which is published weekly and is freely availahle hy 

subscription. or at www.ansLorg/standardsaction. Also included is information on draH American National 

Standards, governmental and foreign standards. and conformit) assessment activities, 

Page 8 of 8 
98 

Responses by Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation 

March 30, 2012 

The Honorable Ben Quayle 

2321 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Attention: Melia Jones 

Dear Chairman Quayle, 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify at the February 29, 2012 hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. In response to the questions for the 

record, I would like to submit these additional comments. 

Even well intentioned technical regulations can act as non-tariff barriers and can be a 

significant market access issue in countries around the world. When voluntary 

standards are referenced in regulation or made mandatory via other means, the 

possibility for unwarranted interference with market access exists. Intel works with 

other companies in our industry and with the United States Trade Representative and 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology to monitor new regulations and to 

address barriers to trade. 

Efforts to address non-tariff barriers often rely on trade agreements for effective 

resolution, so it is also important that those agreements be strengthened and 

improved over time. For example, the provisions in the WTO Agreement on Technical 

Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement dealing with the submission of sensitive business 

information to conformity assessment bodies are weak. Those provisions need to be 

strengthened in light of increasing demands by regulators in the large emerging 

markets such as India, China and other countries for extensive product content and 

design information for certification purposes. Those demands have been made in the 

telecom and environmental areas, among others. The governments of those 

countries often require more information than they need because they do not have 

experience with the technologies they are trying to regulate. The problem is that 

Intel Corporation 2200 MlSSlon College Blvd 

P.O. Box 58119 

Santa Clara, CA 95052-8119 

408-765-8080 direct 

www.intel.com 
99 

they also do not have robust trade secret protections in place that safeguard sensitive 

information given to them, which means it can unintentionally leak out to competitors. 

The way to minimize the potential for the loss of valuable U.S. trade secrets is to 

establish a more detailed process as part of the TBT Agreement, and/or in bilaterals 

the U.S. government negotiates, which, among other requirements, places the burden 

on the government to justify any information requests and imposes penalties on 

officials for failure to safeguard such information. 

It's very difficult to quantify the overall economic impact of non-tariff trade barriers. 

Each situation requires unique analysis; much of the necessary data is proprietary and 

often involves forecasts and estimates. Sometimes it is only necessary to determine 

that the potential impact is large enough to warrant taking action, so a complete 

assessment may not be completed before the issue is addressed. 

While individual states may have specific technical regulations, for example in the 

area of energy and the environment, most standards that Intel relies on are globally 

adopted. Because the information and communications technology (IeT) market is 

global and relies on global supply chains, we strongly prefer standards that are global. 

It is a significant complication to comply with different technical regulations in 

countries around the world. Therefore, for technical regulations, Intel encourages 

harmonization or alignment across and within countries, but in many areas this is 

difficult to achieve. 

The United States has a strong standards setting system that has been very 

successful, particularly in the leT sector. Some reT standards setting organizations 

that are based in the U.s. have become global organizations. For those organizations 

to be recognized globally, they must either partner with a recognized international 

standards setting organization or demonstrate that they meet the same principles. 

The relevant principles are outlined in Annex 4 of the Second Triennial Review of the 

Operation and Implementation of the TBT Agreement: transparency, openness, 

impartiality and consensus, effectiveness and relevance, coherence, and development 

dimension. In particular, standards setting organizations should make proactive 

efforts to encourage partiCipation from all interested parties worldwide. Even when a 

standards setting organization embraces the TBT prinCiples, many countries are 

reluctant to recognize that it is an international standards setting organization, which 

could be an area where additional advocacy from industry and government would be 

helpful. 

To avoid harm to industry and consumers from outdated international standards, both 

industry and the U.S. government have a responsibility to participate actively in 

development and maintenance activities. This is a substantial activity requiring 

commitment of many experts but it is essential. 

Regarding outdated standards, many standards setting organizations have procedures 

to ensure regular review and revision of standards to ensure they remain relevant or 

are withdrawn - this is one of the principles described in the Second Triennial Review. 

Intel Corporation Blvd. 

WWW.lntcl.com 
100 

A key benefit of the voluntary standards system is that when a standard is not useful, 

it is not used. What's most important is that industry and government work together 

to create the standards that are needed, and ensure that standards are mandated in 

regulations only where it is essential to protect the public interest. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide these additional comments. 

Respectfully, 

Philip Wennblom 

Director of Standards, Global Public Policy 

Intel Corporation 

Intel Corporation 2200 Mission College Blvd. 

P.O, Box 58119 

Santa CA 95052 8119 

40E: 765-8.080 direct 

www.!ntei.("om 
101 

Responses by Mr. Mark Grimaldi, Owner, Equinox Chemicals 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE BEN QUALYE (R-AZ) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

1. How do trade associations and technical committees ensure balanced input 

and participation from all stakeholders? 

Trade associations, in my experience, do a great job of soliciting input from a 

representative cross section of members. A great example is SaCMA. I have also 

found that good trade associations that do not have their own internal agenda, 

but sincerelv work for their members, work hard to ensure that they represent 

everyone as much as possible. There is no easy way to ensure a balanced input 

process, as it is difficult for trade associations to always understand the needs 

or input from every member, so there is always a level of subjective or selective 

collection of input and then representation from trade associations. This is why 

we remain active in our trade associations, and work to ensure that we have 

the best trade association leadership in place to represent our own and our 

industry wide interests. 

Technical committees are very important and when they openly seek and value 

all the participants' input, they can be very productive. Another key part of 

having a productive technical committee is ensuring that all of the contributing 

members are qualified to participate, and have the right intentions. We work 

hard to participate in technical committees, but we also look very carefully at 

the other participating members and try to ensure that we can add value to the 

committee before participating. The committee has to be formed with the 

proper charter to ensure that it does not get bogged down ill distracting issues, 

and at the same time captures everyone's input. This is almost always 

accomplished with good leadership and a clear objective. 

2. How have non-tariff barriers to trade impacted your company's ability to 

innovate and compete in foreign markets? What have been the consequences 

for your company in terms of barriers to entry, or delays to specific timelines 

and product launches? 

NTH's are one of the most significant impacts to our business and to our ability 

to innovate. We are particularly struggling in the EU right now with barriers 

like REACH that drastically curtail innovation and our ability to quickly enter 

that market with new innovation, which not only impacts our long term 
102 

competitiveness, but also creates unfair competitive advantages for local 

companies. The follow-on to this is that now other countries around the world 

are adopting similar regulations as a "me too" fix and this only magnifies the 

issues instead of addressing them at the source. We have had several recent 

product launches over the last three years that have been delayed by as much 

as 12-24 months due to these regulations. So this not only impacts our ability to 

compete, but it hurts the consumer and the global market by not letting the 

best products enter the market in a timely fashion. In our case, we had safer 

and more environmentally friendly products that could have significant 

positive impacts on both individual's and entire communities. 

3. Complying with multiple standards among the 50 states as well as Federal 

and international standards adds a significant amount of redundancy and 

complication to your business. How do your companies deal with the 

challenge of differing standards, while remaining competitive in the 

international market? What should U.S. standards development 

organizations do to ensure that we continue to lead the way in developing 

globally accepted standards? 

This continues to be an ongoing issue and ever increasing expense for us. It is 

particularly difficult for small and medium businesses to afford the ever 

increasing burden of multiple standards across the globe. We work very hard to 

comply with as many standards as possible, but at the end of the day we have to 

pick and choose the standards that impact our business the most in particular 

markets, and focus our resources. 

This creates an unfair advantage to larger companies that can afford to have 

entire departments that handle standards across every market. We currently 

do a good job of focusing our efforts~ but it is becoming increasingly hard to 

complete and will eventually force us to focus our efforts on fewer key markets. 

It is critically important that the US continue to lead standards development. If 

not, we will lose our ability to compete in a global market place. The US needs 

to continue to work closely with trade associations and to seek balanced input 

from stakeholders. 

4. What steps can the U.s. government and industry stakeholders take to 

improve established international standards that are outdated and may be 

harming industry and consumers? 

The US government needs to continue to work closely with trade associations 

and to seek balanced input from stakeholders. 
103 

QUESTIONS fOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE RANDY NEUGEBAUER (R-TX) 

u.s. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

1. What can Congress, NIST, and other federal agencies do to respond to 

countries that intentionally or unintentionally use standards as non-tariff 

trade barriers? From an economic perspective, is there any way to 

quantify the harm these technical trade barriers cause to American 

exporters? What countries are the worst offenders of these barriers to 

trade? 

The US government needs to stand up for us based businesses and put 

pressure on countries that blatantly create these NTB's. This is a very 

complex issue and there are as many solutions as there are ramifications to 

implementing those solutions. I don't think there is a single answer for all of 

the NTBs. We can very easily quantify the impact to our business, and do on 

a regular basis in our business plans. From my perspective, the worst 

offender and the one that has the largest impact on our business is REACll 

in the EU, along with all of the copy cat REACH regs that are now showing 

up in other regions and countries outside of the EU. 

2. Do you have any concerns about outdated standards in the United States? 

Do any of these standards inhibit innovation? Is there anything the 

federal government can and should do better to ensure that all existing 

standards are relevant to workable for industries and consumers today? 

Our current business is not significantly impacted by any outdated 

standards in the US. The US needs to continue to lead the rest of the world 

in the standards setting process. I also think the US needs to become more 

aggressive in responding to standards in other countries that create NTBs. 
104 

Responses by Mr. James Seay, President, Premier Rides 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE BEN QUAL YE (R-AZ) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth: Principles for Effective 

Domestic and International Standards Development 

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 

1. How do trade associations and technical committees ensure balanced input 

and participation from all stakeholders? 

Response (Mr. Jim Seay): 

As a not-for-profit organization whose standards development procedures are fully 

accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM ensures balance 

of interest through regulations concerning the establishment and operations of our 

technical committees - including criteria for ensuring a balance of interest within the 

voting membership. The regulations stipulate voting procedures, provide detailed 

requirements for the consideration of all negative votes, and define balance of interest 

as a requirement to ensure due process in the development of consensus documents. 

It is of note that at an ASTM F24 meeting, it is not uncommon that the majority of time is 

often spent on input representing a minority of stakeholders. And this process often 

results in a more educated final product. This balance of interest is required to produce 

meaningful standards that have broad global application. 

2. How have non-tariff barriers to trade impacted your company's ability to 

innovate and compete in foreign markets? What have been the consequences for 

your company in terms of barriers to entry, or delays to specific timelines and 

product launches? 

Response (Mr. Jim Seay): 

The standards poliCies of other countries and regions are more restrictive and can result 

in U.S. companies (including small companies like mine) having to comply with 

unfamiliar technical standards that were developed with limited U.S. input. Rather than 

utilizing the most advanced standards preferred by some U.S. industries, certain foreign 

governments dictate that international standards can only emanate from organizations 

such as ISO and lEe where countries are represented by a single "national body" 

organization. 

While it is possible for European standards to make reference to existing standards 

from ASTM and other standards bodies aI/owing some limited level of acceptance, there 

is currently no legal mechanism that exists in the European regulatory infrastructure to 
105 

allow standards from U.S. domiciled organizations to achieve the same acceptability as 

European standards or ISO standards. To this point, the U.S. government should 

engage their European Commission counterparts and recommend that they incorporate 

the international standards principles outlined in the Decision of the wro TBT 

Committee into its legal framework and, in the context of Europe's New Approach to 

Technical Harmonization and Standardization, extend the presumption of conformity to 

any standard that fulfills the essential requirements of a Directive and is developed in 

accordance with these principles. Implementing this internationally agreed-upon 

approach would have far-reaching and significant effects to enhance the 

competitiveness of U.S. companies that trade internationally. Fast moving areas 

involving advanced technologies stand to benefit the most from the ability to utilize a 

broader array of international standards through lower costs and less time spent in 

developing standards. 

3. Complying with multiple standards among the 50 states as well as Federal and 

international standards adds a significant amount of redundancy and 

complication to your bUSiness. How do your companies deal with the challenge 

of differing standards, while remaining competitive in the international market? 

What should U.S. standards development organizations do to ensure that we 

continue to lead the way in developing globally accepted standards? 

Response (Mr. Jim Seay): 

ASTM International Committee F24 includes regulators (including 20 U.S. state 

regulators), inspectors, engineers, technicians, designers, owner/operators and other 

interested parties. These professionals come from Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, 

Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United 

States. Many of the regulators from around the world serve on the ASTM committee 

because the ASTM standards are the most utilized technical documents that ensure 

safety and efficiency in the amusement industry. Working with companies, trade 

associations and governments, ASTM International helps to promote their technical 

standards globally based on wro TBT Agreement principles. 

One way in which ASTM conducts promotion is through their Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) program which facilitates communication between ASTM and 

national standards bodies worldwide, fostering awareness of the standardization 

systems of all parties involved. The exchange facilitates the development of standards 

that will aid each country's health, safety, environmental, and economic conditions. 

These agreements help avoid duplication of effort where possible and mutually promote 

the standards development activities of ASTM and the national standards bodies 

partiCipating in the program. As a benefit of the MOU program, technical experts from 

any of the countries where MOUs have been signed can participate freely as full voting 

members in the ASTM standards development process. 
106 

4. What steps can the U.S. government and industry stakeholders take to 

improve established international standards that are outdated and may be 

harming industry and consumers? 

Response (Mr. Jim Seay): 

Presently 42 of the 50 U.S. states have permanent amusement rides and many of these 

states incorporate all or part of the F24 standards in their regulations. Regulators 

should employ a process to review standards as they are revised to ensure that 

references to standards incorporated into regulations do not become outdated. 

At the Federal level, references to voluntary consensus standards in regulations often 

are out of date as Federal agencies fail to update their references on a timely basis. 

While standards are often revised to reflect changes in technology or new industry 

practices, the older versions of the standard remain embedded in regulation unless or 

until an agency has the ability to work through the administrative process to adopt the 

more recent version of the standard. The Administrative Conference of the United 

States recently examined this issue and as action number 11 of Administrative 

Recommendation 2011-5 recommended that "Congress should consider authorizing 

agencies to use streamlined procedures to update incorporations by reference". 
107 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE RANDY NEUGEBAUER (R-TX) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation 

Promoting Innovation, Competition, and Economic Growth: Principles for Effective 

Domestic and International Standards Development 

Wednesday, February 29,2012 

1. What can Congress, N/ST, and other federal agencies do to respond to 

countries that intentionally or unintentionally use standards as non-tariff trade 

barriers? From an economic perspective, is there any way to quantify the harm 

these technical trade barriers cause to American exporters? What countries are 

the worst offenders of these barriers to trade? 

Response (Mr. Jim Seay): 

From the standpoint of NIST, they have procedures and processes in place that assist 

in educating international business partners on the availability of and access to high 

level standards. Standards are often deemed critical when the environment is such that 

standards solve a perceived short coming in the regulatory environment. A Federal 

approach to encourage the adoption of high level standards like ASTM F24 when 

appropriate could be very beneficial to U.S. manufacturers who execute their work at a 

high level of quality. As an example, in Bolivia, recent accidents that included fatalities 

highlighted the poor quality of equipment due to low or non safety standards. ASTM is 

working to encourage adoption, but Federal assistance combined with NIST support 

would be very helpful. 

2. Do you have any concerns about outdated standards in the United States? Do 

any of these standards inhibit innovation? Is there anything the federal 

government can and should do better to ensure that all existing standards are 

relevant and workable for industries and consumers today? 

Response (Mr. Jim Seay): 

The standards policies of other countries and regions are more restrictive and can result 

in U.S. companies (including small companies like mine) having to comply with 

unfamiliar technical standards that were developed with limited U.S. input. Rather than 

utilizing the most advanced standards preferred by some U.S. industries, certain foreign 

governments dictate that international standards can only emanate from organizations 

such as ISO and IEC where countries are represented by a Single "national body" 

organization. 
108 

Æ 

While it is possible for European standards to make reference to existing standards 

from ASTM and other standards bodies allowing some limited level of acceptance, there 

is currently no legal mechanism that exists in the European regulatory infrastructure to 

allow standards from U.S. domiciled organizations to achieve the same acceptability as 

European standards or ISO standards. To this point, the U.S. government should 

engage their European Commission counterparts and recommend that they incorporate 

the international standards principles outlined in the Decision of the WTO TBT 

Committee into its legal framework and, in the context of Europe's New Approach to 

Technical Harmonization and Standardization, extend the presumption of conformity to 

any standard that fulfills the essential requirements of a Directive and is developed in 

accordance with these principles. Implementing this internationally agreed-upon 

approach would have far-reaching and significant effects to enhance the 

competitiveness of U.S. companies that trade internationally. Fast moving areas 

involving advanced technologies stand to benefit the most from the ability to utilize a 

broader array of international standards through lower costs and less time spent in 

developing standards.