COMMENT 

AMERICAN COUNCILOF INDEPENDENT LABORATORIES (ACIL) 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST) 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) 

Subject: Effectiveness of Federal Agency Participation in Select Technology
 

Sectors for National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on
 

Standardization
 

March 7, 2011
 

ACIL hereby submits comments to the NIST RFI on the effectiveness of federal agency 

participation in select technology sectors for National Science and Technology Council's 

(NSTC's) Subcommittee on Standardization. 

ACIL was founded in 1937 as the national trade association representing the leaders in 

the independent testing laboratory industry. An independent laboratory is one that is 

not affiliated with any institution, company or trade group that might affect its ability to 

conduct investigations, render reports, or give professional counsel objectively and 

without bias. ACIL is comprised of more than 150 member companies that operate 

approximately 400 laboratory facilities across the U.S. and abroad. They range from 

one-person specialty laboratories to multi-disciplined, international corporations 

employing thousands of engineers, scientists, technicians, analysts, consultants and 

support staff. 

The RFI offers a number of models for Federal agency participation in standards 

development and conformity assessment activities. ACIL has long supported the 

principle of reliance of private sector standards and conformity assessment 

organizations consistent with the requirements under OMS Circular-119. 

There is no question that there is more maturity in Federal participation in private sector 

standards setting and coordination then in conformity assessment. This is due, in large 

part, to the fact that the role of conformity assessment in the protection of the public 

health, safety and the environment, as well as a key market access worldwide, only 

became apparent in the mid-1980's. As such, Federal participation in conformity 

assessment at this point is evolving. 

Leveraging Established Conformity Assessment Structures 

The testing and conformity assessment systems in the US have a strong history of 

success in providing compliance tools. Utilizing accreditation criteria for technical 

qualifications and recognition of qualified laboratories with in the eXisting conformity 
assessment systems can be easily leveraged to meet the needs of regulators. As 

government entities seek to establish programs for compliance, it is both cost effective 

and technically superior for the government to leverage existing structures in the private 

sector to meet the outlined needs of their programs. The NSTC can serve as a platform 

to elevate awareness of existing conformity assessment processes and encourage best 

practices be leveraged in regulatory initiatives. 

Coordination and Participation 

It is clear that coordination of conformity assessment activities in the United States rests 

with NIST under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA). 

However, it is less clear on how organizations such as ACIL can engage and "partner" 

with NIST under the Act. In the coming months, ACIL will be submitting to NIST its 

experience in trying to participate in the Smart Grid efforts. Our initial attempts to 

provide input into this process were rebuffed. While the process has improved, it is 

clear to ACIL there is something wrong with a process that does not allow the only U.S. 

trade association representing independent laboratories a seat at the table on the Smart 

Grid Testing and Certification Committee. 

Market Access 

When the Federal government is involved in conformity assessment matters, especially 

in evolving technologies and where trade agreements have been or are being 

negotiated, maintaining competition at all levels of conformity assessment in foreign 

markets is paramount. In addition, ensuring that U.S. conformity assessment bodies 

are treated as equally as foreign-based conformity assessment bodies in those markets 

is critical. The NSTC is well positioned within the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy (OSTP) to ensure market leverage is exercised to protect US manufacturers and 

service providers, as without such protections there are detrimental impacts to U.S. 

exports and ultimately the U.S. balance of payments. 

NSTC should consider the strategic importance of standards and conformity 

assessment schemes to economic development, trade and the competitiveness of US 

industry. When the frameworks for standards and conformity assessment are managed 

in a way to ensure fair global competition, they can actually serve to optimize trade 

channels. Bringing attention to the role of standards and conformity assessment in 

trade matters should be a priority of the NSTC. Attention to providing national 

treatment for U.S. standards developers and conformity assessment providers will help 

ensure that U.S. manufacturers and service providers do not lose market advantage to 

global competitors. There is a need to ensure that testing and certification 

organizations, with facilities located in the US, are protected from unfair competition. 

Reciprocity provisions should be required when considering acceptance of non­
domestic testing/certification organizations. Such provisions would insure a level 

playing field for all global service providers and the manufacturers wrlich they serve. 

Composition of NSTC 

Finally, ACIL is concerned about the lack of private sector representation on the NSTC. 

ACIL would welcome the concept of a "private sector advisory council" to assist the 

committee in the coordination of conformity assessment in the United States. 

Next Steps 

In the coming months, ACIL will develop a survey for its membership to answer some of 

the questions outlined in the RFI, focused on our concerns outlined above regarding: 

coordination, participation and market access. 

ACIL appreciates the opportunity to comment and looks forward to an on-going 

relationship with the NSTC. 

Milton M. Bush, JD, CAE 

Chief Executive Officer