Memorandum 

February 14, 2011 

To: The National Institute of Standards and Technology on behalf of the National Science and 

Technology Council's Sub-Committee on Standards 

From: Donald E. Purcell, Adjunct Faculty1

 Schools of Engineering and Law 

 Catholic University of America 

Re: Comments on NIST Federal Register Notice dated December 8, 2010 

On December 8, 2010, the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published a 

federal register notice regarding “Effectiveness of Federal Agency Participation in Standardization 

in Select Technology Sectors for [the White House] National Science and Technology Council's 

Sub-Committee on Standardization (NSTC).” The comments set forth below are in response to the 

NIST federal register notice. 

NIST and NSTC are invited to consider three significant issues concerning federal participation in 

private sector standardization programs: (1) Openness and Transparency; (2) Standards Education 

Initiatives for federal participants in private sector voluntary standards projects; (3) Formation of 

Academic Advisory Committee(s) on Global Standards Education Initiatives at one or more 

universities in the United States. 

Strategic Value of Standards 

Standards have enormous value for all technologies in every industry.2

 Standards function at the 

DNA level of technology and economic development. Standards control access to every market in 

commerce. In strategic terms, “If you control an industry’s standards, you control that industry lock, 

stock, and ledger.”3

 

Nature of United States Standardization System 

It is important to note the United States has the largest, most diversified and complex private sector 

standards development system in the world today. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Commerce 

published a report on Standards and Competitiveness that indicated at least 600 private sector 

standards development groups exist in the United States.4

 The report estimated approximately 450 

were accredited private sector standards development organizations and approximately 150 were 

 

1

 I have been teaching in the field of technology standardization at the Catholic University of America since 

1999. Attached is a copy of the 2010 curriculum for the course Strategic Standardization. For further 

information on Strategic Standardization, see www.strategicstandards.com (Standards Education page). 

2

 See attached slide, Strategic Value of Standards 3

 Out of the Crisis, W. Edwards Deming, published by the Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 

MIT at 302 (1986)

4

 See http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/standards/Final%20Site/trade_barriers.pdf . 

1
more informal private sector standards groups (consortia) organized by various industries to address 

standards issues in rapidly developing technologies such as communications, the internet, cyber 

security, biotech and nanotech. It is estimated there are no more than 250 private sector standards 

development organizations or groups in the rest of the world. 

In short, when considering the issues above, it is important to consider the nature of the standards 

development organizations and groups that manage development of private sector voluntary 

standards for the technologies identified in the federal register notice. 

Federal Participation in Development of Private Sector Voluntary Standards 

The federal management plan for participation in development of private sector voluntary standards 

is set forth in OMB Circular A-119.5

 This plan was amended and reaffirmed by Congress in 2004 

with the passage of the Standards Development Organization Advancement Act.6

 OMB Circular 

A-119 states that federal employees are encouraged to participate in the development of private 

sector standards where the following due process procedures are used to develop consensus 

voluntary standards: 

 

(i) Openness. 

(ii) Balance of interest. 

(iii) Due process. 

(vi) An appeals process. 

(v) Consensus, which is defined as general agreement, but not necessarily unanimity, and 

includes a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties, as long as all 

comments have been fairly considered, each objector is advised of the disposition of his or 

her objection(s) and the reasons why, and the consensus body members are given an 

opportunity to change their votes after reviewing the comments. 

Openness and Transparency 

For many years, openness and transparency have been considered critical due process requirements 

for the development of private sector voluntary standards. In effect, openness and transparency are 

the foundation for the fairness and credibility of a private sector standards project. In 2003, the 

Center for Global Standards Analysis published a survey report of standardization experts that 

identified fairness as one of the most critical aspects of private sector standards development 

projects. As stated by the report:7

 

5

 See OMB Circular A-119 (Federal Register, February 19, 1998) 

6

 See Public Law 108-2 enacted June 22, 2004. 

7

 See www.strategicstandards.com (Standards Education page) for a copy of the complete report. 

2
Fairness is critical to the standardization process 

When considering which standards issue is the most significant, Members of the Center 

were surprised to see the survey indicate that "fairness" is an issue that has the same relevant 

significance as "technology" issues, and was considered to be more significant that 

"economic" issues. It was not surprising to see "technology" issues identified as the most 

important factor in a standardization program, and for the most part, Members of the Center 

expected that "economic" issues would be a strong second to "technology' issues. One 

interpretation of this survey result is that "if participants do not believe in the integrity of a 

private sector standards program or process, nothing else matters." Clearly, individuals and 

organizations responsible for development of voluntary standards need to pay careful 

attention to the "process" associated with development of a private sector standard. 

The emphasis on "fairness" may reflect an understanding by participants in the survey that 

serves to confirm the economic significance outlined by Dr. Edwards Deming at the 

beginning of the Executive Summary: 

"If you control an industry's standards, you control that industry 

lock, stock and ledger." 

Standards frequently have great economic significance in the marketplace, therefore, the 

development of standards should be given significant attention by participants. It is 

essential that all participants have a common understanding of "fairness" in the standards 

development process. Failure to address the issue of "fairness" may lead to delays, a 

misallocation of resources, or in the worst case, a collapse of the standards program. In 

short, fairness and confidence in the standards process are essential. 

The need for openness and transparency in private sector voluntary standards projects has been 

significantly reinforced by Congress, the Supreme Court, other Federal Courts and the U.S. Federal 

Trade Commission.8

 In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the 

Court decided that a patent was unenforceable because a participant in a private sector international 

standards project failed to disclose a patent that related to the draft technology standard being 

considered, in short, there was a failure by the participant to comply with the patent disclosure 

transparency policy of the standards development organization managing the project.9

 Question: 

should federal participation in private sector voluntary standards projects be limited to those 

projects where there is an effective written disclosure policy in effect for patents essential to comply 

with the technology being developed? 

 

8

 See, for example, Standards Development Organization Advancement Act (2004); Allied Tube & 

Conduit Corporation v. Indian Head, Inc. 486 U.S. 492 (1988); American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corporation, 456 U.S. 556 (1982); In the Matter of Dell Corporation, 121 

F.T.C. 616 (1996), see http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/06/dell2.shtm. 9

 See Qualcomm v. Broadcomm, 548 F.3d 1004 (2008); an article discussing the case is attached. 

3
Note the need to ensure openness and transparency of federal government participation in private 

sector voluntary standards projects is consistent with the principles of the Sunshine in Government 

Initiative published in 2009.10 

The significance of due process requirements for openness and transparency for private sector 

voluntary standards projects becomes more apparent when the diversity of the United States Private 

Sector Standards system is considered. For example, virtually all private sector standards 

organizations that are accredited by a third party have due process requirements for openness and 

transparency, however, standards consortia or other more informal private sector standards groups 

may not have such due process requirements or rely upon limited openness and transparency 

requirements at best. 

The NIST federal register notice identifies a number of cutting-edge technologies that include the 

Smart Grid, Health Information Technology, Cyber Security, Emergency Communications 

Interoperability, Radioactivity Detectors and Radiation Monitors (ANSI N42.3x and N42.4x), and 

other technologies involving significant Federal agency participation in standards setting. It is very 

probable the private sector standards organizations that manage the development of voluntary 

standards for these technologies include a combination of accredited standards development 

organizations and standards consortia. It is also possible that several of these organizations or 

groups do not have written due process policies concerning openness and transparency, or provide 

an opportunity for all interested parties and the public to attend standards development meetings. 

The diversity of the United States Private Sector Standards system raises two important questions 

concerning federal participation in development of private sector standards projects: 

1. Should federal participation in private sector voluntary standards projects be limited to 

projects that have effective written policies for openness and transparency? 

2. Should federal participation in private sector voluntary standards projects be limited to 

projects where attendance at development meetings is available to all interested parties and 

the public? 

Virtually all United States private sector standards development organizations have an internet 

website. Should the federal government promote the use of internet technology among 

standardization organizations and groups by recommending establishment of a specific internet 

website for standards development activities to enhance openness and transparency for all interested 

parties? 

Standards Education Initiatives for Federal Participants 

Development of private sector voluntary standards is a complex process that requires participants to 

have a multidisciplinary set of skills to be effective. In 2003, the Center for Global Standards 

Analysis published a report on the need for multidisciplinary skills that stated:11

The survey indicated a very strong consensus for development of a multi-disciplinary 

approach to standards education. Survey questions 7 and 8 were intended to solicit views 

 

10 See http://sunshineingovernment.org 11 The complete report can be reviewed at www.strategicstandards.com (Standards Education page). 

4
and perspectives of participants on the multidisciplinary nature of standards development. 

There was an overwhelming number of survey participants who believe that a 

multidisciplinary standards course would be valuable. In survey question 7, 95% of the 

respondents saw the need for such a course at the university level, and in survey question 8, 

81% saw the need for such a course for employees. To create a multidisciplinary course, 

those involved in the development of such course should carefully consider the appropriate 

balance of standards education issues best suited to meet the specific needs of university 

students or professionals that will participate in the program. The philosophy, "one size fits 

all," will not work. For example, technology and engineering issues may be particularly 

important in a given program while regulatory issues may deserve special attention in 

another program. 

If federal participants have a solid background in engineering, science and/or technology, those 

skills are important in a private sector voluntary standards development project, however, they are 

not sufficient to address all circumstances that may occur during such project. As stated in the 2008 

article, Education is the Key to the 21st Century:

12 

The world of global standardization is a complex environment that typically involves 

engineering, science and other significant technology issues. There are however other 

important issues involved in global standardization, for example, economic and business 

considerations, global trade, health, safety, the environment, sustainability, public policy and 

legal considerations such as intellectual property. Being a good engineer, therefore, is not 

good enough to succeed as an active participant in the complex world of global 

standardization. Multidisciplinary skills are necessary in order to be effective. 

Even current participants with decades of experience in global standardization are struggling 

to maintain and further enhance their standards development skills. In short, the world of 

global standardization is under considerable stress to effectively deal with increasingly 

complex issues based upon a standardization process that requires openness, transparency, 

fairness, excellent administration and communications, and that gives due consideration to 

the needs of developing nations. Moreover, global standardization is increasingly expensive. 

Demands for a more effective global standardization system have become a world wide 

chorus. 

The need for continuing education in the field of private sector standardization is critical for all 

participants in such projects. The Center for Global Standards has published five reports since 2003 

that identify specific issues related to the strategic value of standards education for participants in 

voluntary standards development projects. These reports include:13

1. United States Standards Education Content and Priorities (2010) 

2. United States Standardization Policies (2009) 

3. The Strategic Value of Standards Education (2008) 

4. A Survey of United States Schools of Engineering (2004) 

5. A Survey of United States Standardization Experts (2003) 

 

12 A copy of the SES Engineering Journal article is attached. 

13 All Center reports can be reviewed at www.strategicstandards.com (Standards Education page).

5
The need for a multidisciplinary set of skills in order to participate effectively in private sector 

voluntary standards projects raises the following questions concerning federal participants: 

1. What is the status of current skills, education level and standardization experience for 

federal participants in private sector voluntary standards projects? 

2. Do current federal participants in private sector standards development projects have 

multidisciplinary skills that will allow them to be effective in this complex environment? 

3. What is the current demographic profile of federal participants in private sector voluntary 

standards projects, for example, (a) are there a sufficient number of federal participants with 

the necessary multidisciplinary skills to be effective participants; (b) will retirements by 

federal participants have a negative impact on the ability of the federal government to 

participate effectively in private sector voluntary standards projects for the technologies 

identified in the NIST federal register notice? 

4. To what extent has the federal government created and maintained continuing education 

programs for federal participants in private sector voluntary standards projects? If such 

programs exist, do they need to be expanded and/or upgraded? 

Formation of Academic Advisory Committee(s) for Global Standards Education Initiatives 

Since 2000 several countries have initiated significant global standards education programs to 

educate the next generation of standardization experts. For example, China’s program for standards 

education now involves more than 30 universities with Jiliang University serving as the Center for 

China’s national standards education program.14 South Korea’s program involves more than 40 

universities and includes several thousand engineering students who study standardization issues on 

an annual basis.15 Significant standards education programs have also been initiated by the Asia 

Pacific Economic Cooperation, Japan, other Asian countries, Germany and Holland. 

Among approximately 380 Schools of Engineering in the United States, there are currently four 

universities that have a course on standards: Catholic University of America, University of 

Colorado (Boulder), Purdue University and the University of Pittsburgh. There are also 3 law 

schools that offer a course on standards: Arizona State University, Seattle University and Yale 

University. 

In order for the United States to remain competitive in the field of global technology standardization, 

it is recommended that an Academic Advisory Committee for Global Standards Education 

Initiatives be created at one or more universities in the United States to (1) effectively address the 

significant increase in global standards education programs in Asia and Europe intended to train the 

next generation of global standardization experts, and (2) provide a national academic forum to 

discuss strategic relationships between global technology standards, global standardization and 

globalization of technology markets and services. 

In the White House Strategy for American Innovation, the policy makes several references to the 

use of universities as incubators for research and development critical to America’s economic 

 

14 See attached article on China’s standards education program. 

15

See http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/MAY_2005/letters_may05.html; http://www.astm.org/SNEWS/MARCH

_2005/kang_mar05.html 

6
growth and development. Why not use universities as incubators for research and developm

effective strategies that can be used to significantly enhance United States efforts to remain 

ent of 

competitive in a global economy dominated by economic and technological globalization?16 

dardization 

al, 

and awareness, information and knowledge 

ansfer, resources and funding. 

orums to present 

nd discuss research findings concerning the global standardization issues above. 

nterested in global standardization, the Committee(s) should 

ublish their research on the internet. 

the 

trategy addresses national standards education priorities and initiatives as set forth below: 

ation as a high priority within the United States private, 

public and academic sectors 

ity 

takeholders, 

cluding standards developers, ANSI, government, and academia include: 

at 

nce and value of standards to the well-being of the United States and 

ess the 

en 

nefits, and strategic 

considerations; and how to balance the interests of stakeholders. 

 

The purposes of the Advisory Committee(s) would be to (1) promote the creation of global 

standardization courses within the United States Academic Sector, and (2) conduct study and 

research of global standards and standardization issues that include the following: health, safety, 

environment, sustainability, performance v. design concepts, interoperability, trade, competition, 

language, symbols, testing, certification, conformity assessment, public policy, legal, schedules for 

review and modification of standards, as necessary; the need for standard(s), potential effectiveness 

and benefits of standard(s), scope of standard(s) (national, regional or international), stan

forum(s) (national, regional or international), fairness, stakeholder balance, impartiality, 

transparency, openness, consensus process, reconciliation of conflicting standards, right of appe

social responsibility, technical assistance, relationship between private sector and government 

standards, technological change, internet, education 

tr

A Committee’s activities should include conducting and/or participating in public f

a

To communicate globally with parties i

p

In 2005, a revised United States National Standards Strategy was approved.17 Section 10 of 

S

10 — Establish standards educ

Education programs covering the development and implementation of standards need to 

become a high priority within the United States. These programs must focus on the needs of 

leaders and top executives, those who participate in the development of standards, univers

and college students, and other interested parties. Tactical initiatives for all s

in

1. Develop new or significantly enhance existing standards education programs th

address the significa

global economies. 

2. Develop or significantly enhance standards education programs that addr

needs of specific groups within the United States. These programs must reflect the 

multidisciplinary environment in which standards development takes place and address 

national and international standards development procedures; the relationship betwe

private and public sector standards; the environment, health, safety, sustainability, 

international trade, public policy, competition, legal, economic be

16 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/InnovationStrategy.pdf 17 See http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/nss/usss.aspx 

7
8

3. Develop a national database of standardization case histories. The database 

should be jointly managed by the American National Standards Institute and the U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

4. Encourage universities and colleges within the United States to create 

standardization education programs in fields of study such as engineering, science, 

technology, government and public policy, business, economics and law. 

5. Facilitate and enhance the creation of a communications network for 

standardization education programs among all interested parties in the private, public and 

academic sectors. Utilize Internet technology to the fullest extent possible to facilitate the 

development of e-learning and standardization education programs. STANDARDS ATEGY 

The formation of one or more Academic Advisory Committees within the United States Academic 

Sector would (1) facilitate continuing education opportunities for federal participants in private 

sector voluntary standards projects, and (2) provide a valuable research tool for the United States to 

remain competitive in the field of global technology standardization. 

I hope these comments are helpful. If you require further clarification or comments, please send an 

email to donpurcell@strategicstandards.com .