1

Comments of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

on The United States Department of Commerce 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Request for Information 

Effectiveness of Federal Agency Participation in Standardization in Select Technology 

Sectors for National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) 

Sub-Committee on Standardization 

March 7, 2011 

The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) appreciates the opportunity to 

offer comments as invited by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its 

December 8, 2010 Federal Register Notice, Vol. 75, No. 235, Page 76397. 

AHRI is the trade association representing manufacturers of air-conditioning, heating, and 

refrigeration equipment and water heaters. An internationally recognized advocate for the 

industry, AHRI develops more than 80 globally applicable standards for and certifies the 

performance of many of these products. AHRI's 300 member companies account for more 

than 90 percent of the residential and commercial air-conditioning, space heating, water 

heating, and commercial refrigeration equipment manufactured and sold in North America. 

The current U.S. model of a private-public approach to domestic standards development has 

been successful in the past, and AHRI would like to see it evolve to become an even stronger 

and more exportable model in the future. AHRI’s comments will focus on improvements that 

must be made to the standards development process and its relationship to the public sector in 

both the international and domestic spheres. AHRI believes that improvements in both 

spheres, as well as the effectiveness of U.S. government participation in select technology 

sectors, must be addressed to improve U.S. competitiveness. The U.S. government’s ability to 

help increase the competitiveness of American products globally can be achieved through the 

promotion of U.S. standards abroad and will subsequently help to realize the administration’s 

National Export Initiative goal to double exports over the next five years. 

1. Global Issues - U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Standards Contest 
2

Declining U.S. Government Support for International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 

Work in the HVACR Sector

The prior level of participation of the public sector in promoting U.S. standards abroad has led 

to successes in numerous industries, of which there are multiple examples. Yet AHRI observes 

that the level of participation has been inconsistent over time, creating a scenario where 

industry’s global success has fallen short of expectations. One such example involves the 

participation and subsequent non-participation of DOE and NIST in some of the ISO Technical 

Committee (TC) 86, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning, subcommittee deliberations. NIST staff 

was able to partner with and assist industry to champion the utilization of AHRI and DOE’s 

testing procedure for central air conditioner standards during the initial undertaking 

by ISO. This effort was advantageous to U.S. competitiveness because it allowed the current 

testing standards to be the same on the international scale. Unfortunately, U.S. government 

has not been present during the recent ISO Working Group meetings and U.S. interests have 

suffered from a lack of U.S. expertise to backup industry preferences. Consequently, an ISO 

Working Group is currently moving toward a Japanese-backed testing procedure. In general in 

the HVACR (heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration) sector, U.S. global 

influence has waned as U.S. government participation declined. 

 The Need For A New Public/Private Standards Model For U.S. Foreign Economic Policy

The role of U.S. standards in promoting U.S. competitiveness can be and perhaps is being 

compromised by two things: the competitive nature of the global standards landscape and the 

nature of the current public/private sector relationship in the United States’ standards system. 

The global standards landscape is characterized by sharp competition among national or 

regional standards development. The drive to dominate or heavily influence the content of 

internationally used standards stems from the drive to increase global economic influence and 

exports. Although ISO has approximately 190 members, the global standards scene in the 

HVACR sector is dominated by three converging and often conflicting standards regions – 

Asia, Europe, and North America. Each seeks to optimize its access to global markets while at 

the same time lowering costs this results in a scenario where companies export to areas 

whose standards favor whatever unique technology that exporter has. This leads to a global 

market in which standards can be used to create technical barriers to trade. What must be 

realized is that success in promoting the use of standards globally is often more a function of 

the relative economic power of the promoter than of the standard’s technical superiority. 

The advantage that Asia and Europe have in this competition is that their respective standards 

development systems are top-down, state influenced, and partially financed. Standards 

development is part of a general economic policy with government bodies, such at the Ministry 

of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in Japan, heavily involved in determining both 
3

industrial and business priorities, and the requisite changes in international standards needed 

to accomplish that. 

In this competition, the U.S. is working from a disadvantage – its own standards system. There 

is no question that the U.S. standards system is a proper reflection of the federal nature of 

government and the traditional division of responsibilities between the public and private 

sectors. And, short of a revolutionary usurpation of the private sector’s role by government, the 

system will not and need not change significantly – domestically. What must change, however, 

is the relationship of the public/private sector relationship in standards regarding the 

competitiveness of U.S. products abroad. There needs to be a new model of cooperation 

regarding foreign economic policy developed. This means a public/private entity that 

systematically integrates governmental incentives to certain growth industries with a standards 

strategy to make needed changes in both domestic and international standards, or to write 

new standards. It means trade agreements that more regularly allow the importation of 

products to the U.S. that meet various U.S. private sector standards and it means developing a 

financial model with U.S. standards developers who sell their standards that allows the U.S. to 

give free copies of the standards to trade partners. These or other steps are needed to 

overcome the inherent weakness of the U.S. standards system – an arms-length relationship 

between standards developers and the U.S. government borne out of respect for a proper 

public/private relationship and a fear of “too much government” in our standards system. 

U.S standards developers can (and do) produce world class standards, but absent an 

increased and coordinated role with government, they won’t succeed in harmonizing their 

standards globally versus those of their competitors. 

2. The Domestic Arena: Increasing the Public/Private Partnership 

Government Involvement in Standards for Federally Regulated Products 

Domestically, particularly with federally regulated AHRI products, there is a need for DOE and 

NIST to work more closely with the AHRI standards-writing committees. 

Government agencies are involved in different levels in the standards development process on 

an industry-specific basis. An effort to have a stronger presence in the development process 

for standards of federally regulated products would save time, money and confusion for both 

the public and private sectors. When government representatives and experts are not involved 

in the development of the standards, they miss much of the reasoning behind decisions and 

the technical discussions that can later lead to a divergence in the standards and regulations. 

Greater involvement in the start of standards’ development would eliminate many of these 

challenges. 
4

In October 2010, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) created a document 

entitled “Forging an Even Stronger Public-Private Partnership” for the leadership of the 

National Science and Technology Council’s (NSTC) Subcommittee on Standards. This 

document provides many well made points and improvements that need to be made, which 

AHRI would like to reiterate below. 

 Public Sector’s Utilization of Voluntary Consensus Standards 

"As one of the biggest users of standards, the U.S. government’s participation in 

standards development activities is of the utmost importance. In keeping with the tenets 

of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), the 

standardization community highly values the expert input that government employees 

provide and the reliance that agencies demonstrate by adopting and relying on 

voluntary consensus standards and compliance programs." 

 The Clarification of Rules of Engagement for Government Employee Participation

"Although the NTTAA encourages government employees to participate fully in 

standards development activities, questions often arise due to staff turnover and some 

apparently conflicting or inconsistent agency policies on membership dues, travel costs, 

and other aspects of standards development. An underscoring of the NTTAA language 

by the NSTC Subcommittee would help stakeholders to better understand the rules of 

engagement. Some of the most frequent questions raised include whether government 

employees may: 

o Serve as a voting member of an SDO without such participation being interpreted 

as an endorsement of a particular standard or related product 

o Serve in a leadership capacity as an SDO committee officer 

o Expend appropriated funds to pay for membership fees in standardization 

organizations 

o Contribute knowledge and expertise to the development of information and 

documents where intellectual property rights are to be held by SDOs." 

 The Necessity for a Real-time Communication Mechanism for the Public and Private 

Sectors 

"The NTTAA is clear on the need for government agencies to rely on private-sector 

standards wherever possible. But the next step has not yet been taken, and that is the 

creation of a real-time mechanism for the government to let the impacted community 

know when a standards-based solution is needed, and for standards developing 

organizations (SDOs) to let the government know when key standards are being 

revised. Until such a mechanism is in place, the public sector will not be maximizing its 

ability to consistently and effectively capitalize upon the strengths of the robust private 

sector–led standardization system." 

 The Ongoing Sharing of Information
5

"Together, the public and private sectors can share information about key standardsrelated topics, strategies, and policies. The public-private partnership should focus on 

deepening and extending this ongoing dialogue, and should not be limited to one-off 

events that disband once the immediate objective is accomplished." 

 The Need for a Process to Incorporate Revised Standards in Regulations

"Standards are routinely revised to reflect changes in technology, industry practices, 

and new hazards, but all too frequently when standards are referenced in regulation, the 

revised versions of the standards are never considered, resulting in many standards 

currently in force of law that are out of date. By working closely with the private sector to 

get information about new revisions, the Subcommittee will promote a process that 

facilitates more regular updates to those regulations and mandates that make reference 

to current voluntary consensus standards." 

 The Government’s Alignment of Goals Within Agencies

"Wherever possible, [the government should] work to increase alignment of 

standardization goals within agencies, especially in cross-cutting areas. Conflicting 

agency objectives may lead to duplicative efforts, and can even create confusion on the 

international stage, where a multitude of voices from the United States can hamper 

effective uptake of U.S. positions in standardization and policy venues." 

AHRI appreciates the opportunity to comment on this aspect of the competitiveness issue. If 

the commission has any questions, please contact: James Walters, Vice President, 

International Affairs, (p) 703 600 0338, (e) jwalters@ahrinet.org.