Federal Engagement in Standards Activities 

to Address National Priorities

Background and Proposed Policy 

Recommendations

Subcommittee on Standards

National Science and Technology Council

October 2011
Dear Colleagues: 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502 

October 10,2011 

I am pleased to share with you the report Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Address 

National Priorities. This report provides an overview of the current legal and policy frameworks for 

government engagement in private-sector standardization and conformity-assessment activities; describes 

how the government engages in those activities; summarizes stakeholder observations in response to a 

request for information about government engagement in standardization; and outlines policy 

recommendations to supplement existing guidance to agencies. 

Standardization and conformity-assessment challenges facing the government and private-sector 

in emerging technology areas-such as smaIt grid, health information technology, and other areas where 

interoperability is key to broad deployment of advanced technology solutions-point to the need to 

review the effectiveness of Federal government engagement in standardization and/or conformityassessment activities. In December 2010, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, on behalf of 

the Subcommittee on Standards (SoS) of the National Science and Technology Council, invited the public 

to provide perspectives on the effectiveness of Federal agencies' paIticipation in the development and 

implementation of standards and conformity-assessment activities, and related programs in select 

technology areas. This information was to assist the SoS develop case studies that Federal agencies can 

consider in their future engagement in standards development and conformity assessment, particularly for 

multi-disciplinary technologies or technologies involving engagement by multiple Federal agencies. 

Through this study, SoS confirmed the need for supplementary guidance to agencies in instances where 

the Federal government chooses to take a leadership or coordinating role in standardization and/or 

conformity-assessment activities to ensure a rapid and coherent response to a national priority, as defined 

. in statute or Administration policy, and to ensure efficient and effective investment of public resources. 

As noted in the President's Strategy for American Innovation "".the true choice in innovation 

policy is not starkly between government management and no government involvement, but rather 

choosing the right role for government in suppOlting private sector innovation." This notion applies to 

standardization and conformity-assessment activities which are, after all, tools of innovation. This repOlt 

provides context for future discussions within government and between the government and the 

private-sector regarding government engagement in standardization and conformity-assessment activities 

in SUppOlt of national priorities. 

Sincerely, 

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology 

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 
Page 1 of 11

Introduction

This report provides a high-level overview of the current legal and policy framework for 

government engagement in private-sector standards activities and describes how the 

government engages in these activities. It summarizes stakeholder observations in 

response to the December 2010 Request For Information (RFI) issued by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology on behalf of the Subcommittee on Standards of 

the National Science and Technology Council about government engagement in 

standardization generally and in specific technology areas. Finally, the report outlines 

policy recommendations for consideration as a component of proposed supplementary 

guidance to agencies engaging in private-sector standards activities to address national 

priorities specified by Congressional mandate or Administration policy.

Background

Standards can 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 may be developed. Standards 

are also essential for enabling seamless interoperability between and across products 

and systems. In the United States private-sector-led standards development that is 

informed by market needs has played a foundational role in facilitating competition,

innovation and global trade.

The introduction to the third edition of the U.S. Standards Strategy,

1

released by the 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), outlines key aspects of the standards 

environment to be considered by both the government and private sector in developing 

a strategic approach to standardization. In particular, the Strategy recognizes that,

“At home, 

Investment by public and private sectors in the development of global standards 

is directly related to the health of the economy. 

Economic downturns produce reductions in the resources available for global 

standards development.

Users of standards are increasingly aware of their importance and are 

demanding a U.S. system that can produce and deliver standards with maximum 

efficiency and minimum cost, eliminate duplication, and optimize the benefits of a 

decentralized system.

Government agencies at the Federal, state, and local levels are willing to invest 

in voluntary consensus standards that have been developed in accordance with 

globally accepted principles.

The national interest in some emerging areas of standardization such as 

homeland security, smart grid, healthcare, energy efficiency, nanotechnology, 

and cybersecurity, demands a new level of coordination and effort, and will 

require the development of new ways for the public and private sectors, as well 

 

1

http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/nss/usss.aspx (May 2011)
Page 2 of 11

as large numbers of standards development organizations and consortia, to work 

together in order to preserve national competitiveness.

The U.S. government has enhanced its efforts to coordinate agency standards 

activities and engagement and continues to recognize the integrity of the existing 

U.S. standards process both through active participation in standards 

development and as user of the standards for regulation and procurement.”

Recent public-private-sector efforts to engage participants from multiple disciplines that 

traditionally have not worked together to develop standards (e.g., health information 

technology (IT), smart grid, and other areas where a national priority has been 

identified) point to the need to provide both private- and public-sector participants 

greater clarity early in the process about the nature and purpose of Federal government 

engagement.

Current Legal and Policy Framework

Federal government agencies engage in standardization in a wide range of missionspecific roles, including contributing to the development of standards in the private 

sector; advocating for U.S. interests in the development and use of standards (e.g., 

ensuring that standards are not used as technical barriers to trade by trading partners);

using standards for procurement, regulatory or policy actions; and addressing 

competition-related aspects of standards-setting activities.

A series of statutes, regulations, and administrative orders comprise the legal 

framework that defines the Federal government’s use of standards, and its participation 

in the development of standards. Unlike a number of other countries, the United States

does not have an overarching “standardization law” that provides the basis for 

standards and standardization-related activities. 

Statutes and administrative requirements that contain provisions addressing standards 

development, use, and related government engagement include:

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 of 1998

Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended)

In addition, the following statutes provide more detailed mandates for Federal agencies’ 

responsibilities with regard to the use of specific standards and associated standards 

development initiatives:

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2004

National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993

Telecommunications Act of 1996

Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 and the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008
Page 3 of 11

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1995 and the Health 

Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 1996

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA)

Federal Information Systems Management Act of 2002

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (P.L. 104-113 or NTTAA) 

directs 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,

2

”

except where inconsistent with applicable law or impractical. The National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) is charged with coordinating Federal agency 

implementation of standards and conformity-assessment-related NTTAA provisions.

OMB Circular A-119

The policies outlined in the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119 on 

Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards 

and in Conformity-Assessment Activities apply to all executive branch departments and 

agencies, and to independent regulatory agencies. The Circular was last revised in 

1998, in part to provide guidance on how agencies could meet the intent and implement 

the standards and conformity-assessment-related provisions of the NTTAA. It directs 

agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards 

except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical. It also provides guidance to 

agencies on participation in the development of voluntary consensus standards, and 

articulates policies relating to the use of standards by Federal agencies.

Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended)

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) prohibits U.S. agencies from 

engaging in standards-related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to trade, and 

gives the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) the responsibility to coordinate the 

consideration of international trade policy issues resulting from standards and related 

measures, such as conformity-assessment procedures. 

How the Government Engages

Government engagement in the U.S. standards system varies widely depending upon 

individual agencies’ missions and functions. Roles include those of user, person setting 

specifications, participant, facilitator, advocate, technical advisor/leader, convener and 

source of funding. Agencies at every level of government use standards to support 

regulation, procurement and policy activities, as well as incorporate standards into 

voluntary programs. Government agencies also use standards extensively to provide 

citizen services, enable connectivity of commercial information technology systems to 

government systems, and support disbursements of grants, loans, and other similar 

financial tools and incentives. 

 

2

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/nttaa.cfm
Page 4 of 11

In instances where the government acts as a standards user, government agencies and 

their staff often participate in the development of standards to ensure that specific 

standards meet their legislative and mission requirements. In FY 2010, Federal 

agencies reported that 2,837 employees participated in 531 private-sector standards 

development organizations in roles including standards development, management of 

standards activities, workshops, seminars, etc.

3

It is important to note that this number 

does not capture the very large number of state and local government officials from the 

approximately 3000 counties and other local jurisdictions in the United States who 

participate in the development of model codes (primarily for building construction and 

related activities), which are widely adopted as local building construction codes, or 

other standards activities.

Competition agencies, primarily the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade 

Commission, have an interest in ensuring that private-sector standards setting 

organizations and associated standards development activities are not used in ways 

that harm competition, or violate antitrust, intellectual property and/or consumer 

protection laws. In these instances, the Federal government’s interest goes beyond 

specific technologies to private-sector competitive behavior. 

Government Use of Conformity-Assessment Systems

Federal conformity-assessment activities are a means of providing confidence that the 

products and services regulated or purchased by Federal agencies, or that are the 

subject of Federal assistance programs, have the required characteristics and/or 

perform in a specified manner. The NTTAA directs NIST to coordinate Federal, state, 

and local government standards and conformity-assessment activities with those of the 

private sector, with the goal of eliminating unnecessary duplication and complexity in 

the development and promulgation of conformity-assessment requirements and 

measures.4 Numerous Federal agencies are engaged in conformity-assessment 

activities. In addition, as part of its role mandated by the NTTAA, many Federal 

programs utilize NIST support to help design and implement appropriate and effective 

conformity-assessment programs. 

Responses to the Request for Information

Respondents5to the December 2010 Request for Information (RFI), issued on behalf of 

the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Standards (NSTC 

SoS) to seek broad input about the effectiveness of Federal agencies’ participation in 

private sector led standardization activities conveyed a wide range of views.

6

Responses indicated that Federal agency participation in standardization activities can 

 

3

14th Annual Report on Federal Agency Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and Conformity 

Assessment, June 2011, currently in the clearance process

4

http://gsi.nist.gov/global/docs/FR_FedGuidanceCA.pdf

5

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/mastercomments030711.cfm

6

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/sos_rfi_docs/RFI%20Summary%205-13-final2.pdf
Page 5 of 11

have one of two effects: (a) agency involvement can contribute positively to 

standardization activities, resulting in an overall improvement in product reliability and 

cost containment or, (b) agency involvement can limit or hinder the advancement of 

technology, resulting in mandates that detract from research and development efforts in 

response to market-driven forces. Most respondents noted that U.S. government 

contributions and participation could be improved to maximize benefits and minimize 

obstacles.

There was agreement among respondents that the U.S. government should continue to 

play the role of participant in private sector standards setting processes. Many

commended the U.S. government’s support of open, consensus-based, transparent 

standards processes. There was also general agreement that the effectiveness of 

government participation depends on the level and consistency of involvement and 

commitment of resources, both staff and budgetary, to the process. Lack of coordination 

among agencies, where more than one agency has an interest in a standards activity, 

was cited by many respondents as having a negative impact on government 

effectiveness. Specifically, respondents noted that where agency objectives are seen as 

overlapping or unclear, agencies may be providing redundant support or even 

competing with one another for work in different standards portfolios.

Many comments emphasized the existence of strong public-private relationships and 

the willingness of industry to provide subject matter experts to participate in standards 

activities identified as important to government regulatory, procurement or policy needs, 

where relevant. These factors have fostered a public-private partnership that allows 

industry to participate in the implementation of regulatory and procurement policy in a 

way that is, in most cases, efficient and cost effective. Most respondents supported a 

strong partnership whereby the government participates in standards development as 

one of many stakeholders, rather than in a lead role. Suggestions for enhancement of 

the public-private partnership included: (a) better communication – both between the 

public and private sectors and within the government; (b) more clearly identified end 

goals for government engagement in a particular standards activity; (c) enhanced and 

robust collaboration and engagement; and (d) better framing of the technical and policy 

issues.

Several questions specific to intellectual property rights (IPR) in standards were 

included in the RFI. A number of respondents noted that there is no one ideal, one-sizefits-all IPR policy and that standards organizations7

are in the best position to establish 

effective policies for addressing IPR issues related to the standards they develop. The 

respondents specifically recommended that IPR policies of standards organizations

need to take into account the interests of both IPR holders and those seeking to use or 

implement the IP included in the standard or standards. Also, standards organization IP 

 

7

A standards organization is defined as a private sector association, organization or technical society 

that develops, establishes or coordinates standards, specifications, handbooks or related documents. 

The term is inclusive of both formal consensus standards developers as well as consortia and for a. 

(OMB Circular A-119, Section 3)
Page 6 of 11

policies should be easily accessible and the rules governing the disclosure and 

licensing of IPR should be clear and unambiguous.

Government Leadership in Select Technology Areas 

In a limited number of specific cases, such as cybersecurity, health IT, smart grid and 

public safety communications, the Federal government has taken on a leadership role in 

private sector standards development. Detailed review of the government’s participation 

in these technology areas leads to some preliminary observations about the necessary 

preconditions to support success when the government takes on a leadership or 

coordination role in standards development. These observations are based on input 

from the December 2010 RFI and interviews with agency staff engaged in these areas.

For example, in the case of smart grid, EISA establishes clear roles for NIST, the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE), 

and cites NIST-identified standards both as those that FERC may consider for adoption 

and as a criterion in evaluating DOE investment grant applications. Simultaneously, 

industry-wide recognition and support of the need for a strong Federal role in 

coordinating standards for the smart grid8has made possible the rapid pace of work and 

the delivery of meaningful early results. The open and transparent process used to 

gather input for framework, identification of standards needs, and coordination in 

standards development has enabled broad buy-in and support for this work. 

Similarly in the case of electronic health records interoperability, the Office of the 

National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) used the Standards and 

Interoperability (S&I) framework to provide a strong federal role in coordinating 

standards and providing an innovative platform to accelerate standards development 

and adoption to support meaningful use. The S&I framework uses an open, community 

driven, and transparent process to rapidly prototype and pilot HIT standards, and 

provide the HIT Standards Committee (HITSC) with additional real-world information 

regarding HIT standards. For example, in less than twelve months, the Direct Project 

community was able to pilot multiple approaches for secure point-to-point messaging, 

reach consensus across the healthcare industry on a single standardized approach, and 

successfully demonstrate using this approach for a real information exchange9. This 

approach has been replicated in the S&I Framework to reach consensus on other HIT 

standards to support meaningful use and health information exchange10. The Direct 

 

8

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/sos_rfi_docs/73_AT&T.pdf

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/sos_rfi_docs/82_GE_Energy.pdf

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/sos_rfi_docs/85_IBM.pdf

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/sos_rfi_docs/86_Intel.pdf

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/sos_rfi_docs/93_NEMA.pdf

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/sos_rfi_docs/50_Open_Secure_Energy_Control_Systems.pdf

http://standards.gov/standards_gov/sos_rfi_docs/99_Schneider_Electric.pdf

9

http://directproject.org/: The Direct Project specifies a simple, secure, scalable, standards-based way 

for participants to send authenticated, encrypted health information directly to known, trusted recipients 

over the Internet.

10 http://geekdoctor.blogspot.com/2011/08/standards-summer-camp-deliverables.html
Page 7 of 11

Project was launched by ONC to bring together several companies and organizations in 

the health information technology community to contribute to the development of 

standards. 

Thus a policy framework and/or standardization mandate outlined in legislation and/or 

via Administration directives needs to be combined with visible high level government 

support for the specific projects undertaken, with a clear rationale for why expedited 

standards development efforts are necessary. Where the Federal government itself is a 

major user or customer, as in electronic health records or information system security, 

specific government needs should be clearly articulated within the standards process.

Coordination among interested and affected government agencies is also important. 

Various coordination modes have been used in the past, including National Science and 

Technology Council committees or subcommittees, interagency working groups, task 

forces, and/or fast-track action committees. Standards setting activities are also more 

likely to be successful if a robust, open process, in which private and public sector

stakeholders are invited to provide input, is established at the outset. In assuming a 

leadership or coordination role, the Federal government should clearly articulate its 

needs, expectations and the mechanisms by which it intends to engage with the 

stakeholders. The Federal government should also clearly explain how leadership will 

transition to the private-sector when appropriate, or will be terminated upon reaching 

certain well-defined objectives. Such policies can help establish a robust foundation for 

standards efforts that may take place over long periods of time and thus require 

sustained private-sector stakeholder participation, and ultimately private sector 

leadership.

Early development of a framework that identifies standards gaps and priority areas that 

need to be addressed and identification, where relevant, of a dedicated Federal effort to 

address those priorities is important. Well-articulated frameworks help assure the

private sector that its role in developing the needed standards is well understood and 

valued by the government.

Conformity assessment requirements and implementation should be addressed as an 

integral component of these frameworks. Conformity assessment mechanisms provide

confidence that products and systems meet the standards in question, and ensure

interoperability. Conformity assessment that leverages existing private-sector programs 

can help lower the cost of implementation, and also provide added impetus for 

innovation and competitiveness.

When participating in standards development efforts, particularly in a leadership or 

coordination role, the Federal government should proactively promote industry-led 

efforts and widely accepted standards and practices. Close collaboration with 

stakeholders can help address the challenges associated with the need to accelerate 

standards development to keep pace with rapid technological advances. A designated 

Federal lead official who serves as the go-to person for the standards effort can help 

bring clarity in communication about leadership and decision-making responsibilities. 
Page 8 of 11

This also provides both the government and the private-sector participants a point 

person to approach and hold responsible for progress.

Following the initiation of these efforts, continuing support of senior leadership can be 

instrumental in sustaining a rapid pace of activities. Continuous, sustained and 

systematic public outreach and engagement should be a critical element of a Federal 

government leadership role.

Policy Recommendations

1. Recognize that in most government-private-sector standards engagements, the 

primary role of the government will continue to be that of active contributor to the 

private-sector-led process.

Most standards that are developed and used in the U.S. market are created with little or 

no government involvement. The U.S. government has long recognized that the privatesector, driven by innovators and market need, is ordinarily in the best position to drive 

standardization in a technology area. In most instances when government engages in 

the private-sector-led standards process, the preferred government role is as an active

contributor. There are limited circumstances, however, where the Federal government

engages in a leadership or coordinating role in private sector standardization activities 

to address national priorities established in statute or Administration policy. Recent 

examples include multidisciplinary technology areas such as smart grid and health IT. In 

the case of smart grid, government leadership brought together stakeholders from the 

various domains constituting the smart grid in a short time frame. Ordinarily, it might 

have taken much longer for these different stakeholders to coalesce in a single forum to 

rapidly identify critical gaps and needs limiting the development and adoption of an 

interoperable smart grid.

2. Identify the context(s) where Federal government leadership/coordination may be 

appropriate.

In specific cases, Congressional mandates have directed a Federal agency (or 

agencies) to lead standards development efforts to address a specific legislative priority.

The Federal government may also determine that, based on public and/or executive 

branch input, there is a need to ensure that relevant standards are available on a timely 

basis to support a rapid, coherent response to a national priority identified in 

Administration policy. Government leadership may be necessary to assure that key 

public policy goals are met in a timely manner.

In this context, it should be noted that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 

a private sector, not for profit federation, , has a long history of convening cross-sector 

standards panels and coordination initiatives that address key national priorities, 

including homeland security, nanotechnology, biofuels, nuclear energy, chemical 

regulations, healthcare information technology, electric vehicles, and identity-theft 

protection and identity management. The mission of each of these activities has been to 

bring all relevant stakeholders together swiftly to identify, coordinate, and harmonize the 
Page 9 of 11

voluntary consensus standards that are critical to supporting each area. Many of these 

activities were initially formed at the request of a government agency or agencies, and 

all have robust participation from both public- and private-sector experts.

Federal government engagement in a leadership or coordination role in private-sector 

standardization should be considered carefully. Such engagement should be 

undertaken pursuant to existing legal and policy obligations, and be open, transparent 

and provide for broad participation.

3. Outline objectives for government engagement in standardization activities to 

support national priorities.

As the Federal government considers more active engagement in a standardization 

process, irrespective of the level of Federal government engagement, such engagement 

should be guided by the following fundamental objectives:

a) Ensuring timely availability of effective standards and efficient conformity 

assessment schemes critical to addressing national priorities established in 

statute or Administration policy.

b) Achieving cost-efficient, timely, and effective solutions to regulatory,

procurement, and policy objectives.

c) Promoting standards and standardization systems that enable innovation and 

foster competition.

d) Enhancing U.S. competitiveness while ensuring national treatment.

11

e) Facilitating international trade and avoiding the creation of unnecessary 

obstacles to trade.

In order to realize these objectives, the Federal government should partner with the 

private sector to address common standards needs. In this context, the government 

must strategically and judiciously exercise its various roles in the standardization 

system – user, person setting specifications, participant, facilitator, advocate, technical 

advisor/leader, convener and source of funding. There should also be an active effort to 

promote information sharing and coordination across Federal agencies. The Federal 

government should detour from its typical modes of engagement in standards 

development with the private sector and take on a leadership or coordination role only

when it is essential to do so to assure that key public policy goals are met in a timely 

and effective manner.

4. Effective coordination and participation by agencies.

Significant public and societal benefits can accrue from government support in the 

development of consensus standards and their subsequent use by the government. For 

example, staff at the Consumer Product Safety Commission worked with ASTM

 

11 National treatment is the principle of giving others the same treatment as one’s own nationals. 

(http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm)
Page 10 of 11

International and the baby walker industry to develop a standard to reduce the number 

of injuries from the use of baby walkers. In 1992, an estimated 25,700 children younger 

than 15 months of age were treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms for baby walker 

injuries, most related to falls down stairs. The standard, which included performance 

requirements to address stair falls, was published in 1997, and by 2005 the estimated 

number of baby walker injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms had dropped 

dramatically to 2,600 – a 90% reduction.

The entire standardization lifecycle – development, implementation, assessment and 

implementation of conformance requirements, and review – should be considered in 

developing and implementing government-led standards efforts. Agency leaders should 

ensure effective intra- and inter-agency coordination of engagement in standards 

development activities, prioritizing needs, and establishing clear timelines. When an 

agency (or agencies) commits to a cooperative standards development effort with 

industry, that commitment should be clearly articulated and maintained to the extent 

possible. Agencies should use existing processes and, where necessary, establish new 

processes for effective and open communication with the private sector with the aim of

understanding their interests and ensuring that private sector concerns are given 

objective consideration. To the extent practical, agencies should continue to provide 

technical and policy expertise, and where appropriate, leadership efforts in mission 

critical standards setting activities. Agencies should periodically review their standards 

activities to identify gaps in representation for mission-critical areas as part of their longrange planning and establish policies that value and reward participation in 

standardization activities.

5. Clarify agency responsibilities with respect to the full range of standards setting 

alternatives.

Agencies should continue to look to private-sector standards development processes to 

meet their needs, as directed in law and policy. Preference should be given to 

processes, whether formal consensus processes or other, that are well coordinated, are 

internationally accepted, and deliver the most generally favorable technical and 

economic outcomes, such as improved interoperability, product differentiation, and 

others. The current diversity of standards organizations affords a range of opportunities 

for identifying appropriate venues for successful standards development, taking into 

account the scope and recent track record of candidate standards organizations in a 

particular area of standards development. In national priority areas, coordination among 

standards organizations may be necessary in specific instances to promote 

interoperability, maximize the utility of standards projects, extend the field of application 

for existing protocols, and promote efficient use of resources.

Agencies should take into account the impact of their standards choices on innovation 

and the global competitiveness of U.S. enterprises, including the impact of intellectual 

property incorporated in standards, and should explicitly include consideration of 

conformity assessment approaches that enable the least burdensome compliance with 
Page 11 of 11

standards specified by agencies. Often such approaches can be built using elements 

from international systems that have significant private sector endorsement and 

minimize duplicative testing, rather than creating government unique conformity 

assessment schemes that are often expensive to develop and maintain and are not 

recognized beyond national boundaries. 

6. Lay out key principles underpinning voluntary standardization processes.

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

Circular A-119, focusing on voluntary, consensus standards activities. It is important to 

recognize as well the contributions of standardization activities that take place outside of 

the formal voluntary, consensus process, particularly in emerging technology areas. The 

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

those activities on enabling innovation and fostering competition, while also assuring 

fulfillment of agency regulatory, procurement, and policy missions:

Transparency: essential information regarding standardization activities is 

accessible to all interested parties.

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

participate in the development of a standard, with no undue financial barriers to 

participation.

Flexibility: different product and services sectors rely on different methodologies 

for standards development that meets their needs.

Effectiveness and Relevance: standards are 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.

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

maximize net benefits of the use of such standards.

In addition, agencies should give consideration to the following attributes of standards 

organization processes:

Access and Availability: the text of standards and associated documents 

should be available to all interested parties on a reasonable basis, which may

include monetary compensation where appropriate. 

Clear Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policies: standards organization IPR 

policies should take into account the interests of both IPR holders and those 

seeking to use or implement the IP included in the standard or standards. These 

policies should be easily accessible and the rules governing the disclosure and 

licensing of IPR should be clear and unambiguous.

Timeliness: standards should be available in a timely manner.