SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY VIA EMAIL TO SP2000-01@NIST.GOV 

February 26, 2018 

Ms. Amy Phelps 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

100 Bureau Drive 

Stop 2100 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Dear Ms. Phelps, 

On behalf of UL LLC, I am pleased to submit comments with respect to the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology’s (NIST) request for comments on NIST Special Publication 2000-01: 

ABC’s of Conformity Assessment. 

UL is a global, independent, safety-science company that has championed progress and safety for 

more than 120 years. Guided by our mission, UL’s 14,000 professionals promote safe working and 

living environments for all people. UL uses research, standards, and conformity assessment to 

continually advance and meet ever-evolving safety challenges, and partners with businesses, 

manufacturers, retailers, trade associations, and international regulatory authorities to provide 

solutions and to address the risks of increasingly complex global supply chain. 

UL supports NIST’s efforts to modernize the ABCs of Conformity Assessment (hereafter ABCs) to 

ensure that this publication, originally published in 1997, accurately reflects the current landscape for 

conformity assessment. While UL understands that US federal agencies are the primary audience for 

this publication, as well as the accompanying Conformity Assessment Considerations for Federal 

Agencies (SP 2000-02), NIST also rightly acknowledges that other stakeholders – including 

manufacturers, conformity assessment bodies, service providers, trade associations, nongovernmental organizations, etc. – may use or rely on precepts in this document. For this reason, 

accuracy is paramount. 

From UL’s perspective, the ABCs could be improved and made more effective by providing an 

accurate description of what conformity assessment is/is not and why it is so prevalent. If the purpose 

of the document is to provide a basic introduction to conformity assessment, the ABCs should be 

made more basic and the level of detail contained in the current draft is unnecessary. If, however, 

NIST is trying to provide a more detailed and thorough introduction of conformity assessment 

concepts to agency personnel requiring a relatively complete comprehension of the basics, then 

corrections are needed. 

UL has identified five primary concerns with the ABCs as drafted: 

1. The document perpetuates the misconception that conformity assessment ensures that specific 

products, processes, services, systems, persons or bodies always fulfill requirements. It wrongly 

implies that conformity assessment guarantees compliance when, in actuality, it provides 

assurance by creating an incentive to fulfill requirements. 

2. The document incorrectly indicates that the “parties” related to conformity assessment are the 

same as the “parties” in the buy-sell transaction for the object of conformity assessment. Further, 

the document separates out government as if government entities fall outside first, second, or 

third parties. While UL agrees with NIST that government plays a “unique role in regulation” (Fig. 

1), it usually acts as a second party or, in some instances, a third party (rarely a first party). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 2 

3. The document confuses rather than clarifies the differences between attestations and other 

conformity assessment activities on which attestation is based. While this is explained in ISO/IEC 

17000 Annex A, the proposed ABCs are not aligned. 

4. The document incorrectly states that accreditation is applicable to programs/schemes. 

Accreditation by definition only applies to conformity assessment bodies; the fulfillment of 

specified requirements by schemes/programs is not part of accreditation. 

5. As drafted, the ABCs (and similarly, the Considerations) fails to take a neutral approach in 

describing methods of conformity. Nowhere is this more blatant than in the use of language in 

Section 3.1 to describe Suppliers Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) as “a “trade-friendly 

approach” without providing broader context of the intersection of conformity assessment and 

international trade. The ABCs is not the right place for debating the merits of SDoC versus 

second party or third party; the purpose of discussing the types of conformity assessment is not 

to promote one over another, but to reinforce the principle that different methods exist and are 

applied based on what is needed to manage risks and reach the level of confidence needed for 

the situation. In this respect, the Considerations document would be the more appropriate venue 

to identify the types of questions agencies should consider when selecting methods of conformity. 

UL appreciates the opportunity to provide recommendations to NIST for improving the ABCs of 

Conformity Assessment. UL supports NIST’s efforts to modernize this outdated document and 

provide a better understanding of conformity assessment concepts to federal agency personnel 

responsible for considering, developing, operating, and using conformity assessment programs. 

While well-intentioned, the current ABCs falls short of its goal and NIST should reconsider the 

approach it has taken. In proceeding to final publication of this document, UL strongly recommends 

that NIST give careful consideration to providing an accurate description of what conformity 

assessment is/is not and offering context for why it is so prevalent. Absent that, UL offers specific 

recommendations in the attached Appendix to help resolve inaccuracies in the aforementioned areas. 

In addition, UL recommends that NIST review resources developed by the private sector (such as 

UL’s series of courses on “Conformity Assessment Essentials”) for consideration as potential training 

tools for federal agencies. UL would be happy to discuss access to our materials with you. 

Again, thank you for giving the conformity assessment stakeholder community and the general public 

the opportunity to review and comment on the ABCs and the companion Considerations. UL looks 

forward to continuing to collaborate with NIST to help support federal agencies in their development, 

operation, and use of conformity assessment programs. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you 

have any questions regarding these comments. 

Sincerely, 

Ann M. Weeks 

Vice President, Global Government Affairs 

UL LLC 

1850 M Street NW, Suite 1000 

Washington, DC 20036 

Email: Ann.Weeks@ul.com 

Phone: +1 202.296.1435 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 3 

Appendix – Specific Recommendations: 

1. Introduction: 

Recommendation #1: On line 148 after “fulfilled”, add a footnote that would read as follows: “In this 

document, while ‘product’ is frequently used the statements apply equally to processes, services, 

systems, persons or bodies.” 

• Rationale: This will reinforce the user’s understanding that conformity assessment is not 

limited merely to product conformity, but could be used as a demonstration that requirements 

around processes, services, systems, persons, or bodies are fulfilled. 

Recommendation #2: On line 149, change “ensuring” to “assuring”. 

• Rationale: As stated in point 1 under the General Observations outlined previously, the 

document perpetuates the misconception that conformity assessment ensures that specific 

products, etc. always fulfill requirements. Modifying this language to “assuring” properly 

denotes the purpose of conformity assessment, which is to provide assurance by creating an 

incentive to fulfill requirements. 

Recommendation #3: On line 153, after “competence” insert “of the bodies/organizations performing” 

before “those activities...”. 

• Rationale: UL proposes this language to help correct the concern we outlined in point 4 in our 

“General Observations.” 

Recommendation #4: Instead of the footnote on page 17 of the document, on line 154, after “third 

party” add a footnote to read as follows: “The collection of all activities that are repeatedly applied to a 

specified group of products, processes, services, systems, persons or bodies is referred to as a 

‘conformity assessment program’ or ‘program’ in this document. Internationally, ‘programs’ are usually 

referred to as ‘schemes.’” 

• Rationale: This proposed footnote would help more clearly define what conformity 

assessment is and bridge the gap between how NIST is describing conformity assessment 

concepts and how such concepts are defined and considered globally. 

Recommendation #5: On line 155, modify the phrase “operate distinctly” to “are operated distinctly.” 

• Rationale: This proposed edit would reinforce that conformity assessment is a body operating 

a scheme. 

Recommendation #6: On line 156, strike “quality” and replace with “competence, consistency and 

impartiality.” 

• Rationale: Modifying the language as suggested will incorporate internationally-accepted 

terminology used to describe conformity assessment activities. 

Recommendation #7: On line 162, after “products” add “processes, services, systems, persons or 

bodies”. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 4 

• Rationale: This will reinforce the user’s understanding that conformity assessment is not 

limited merely to product conformity, but could be used as a demonstration that requirements 

around processes, services, systems, persons, or bodies are fulfilled. 

Recommendation #8: On line 170, strike “verify” and replace with “assure”. 

• Rationale: UL proposes this language to correct the concern we outlined in point 1 under our 

“General Observations.” Again, conformity assessment exists to provide assurance by 

creating an incentive to fulfill requirements. The use of the word “assure,” in lieu of “verify,” 

would better align with ISO/IEC terminology used to describe conformity assessment. 

Recommendation #9: On line 181, after “impartiality” add “consistency”. 

• Rationale: Modifying the language as suggested will incorporate internationally-accepted 

terminology used to describe conformity assessment activities. 

2. Role of Standards in Conformity Assessment: 

Recommendation #10: Edit lines 223-227 to read as follows (Text recommended to be deleted is 

indicated by strikethrough; text recommended to be added is indicated by underline): 

Standards are vital tools of industry and commerce promoting an market understanding, for 

example, between purchasers and sellers and, thus enabling mutually beneficial commercial 

transactions. Information on a product’s conformance (or nonconformance) to a particular 

standard or technical regulation can provide an efficient method of conveying information needed 

by a purchaser and other interested parties on the product’s safety and suitability.” 

• Rationale: The use and benefits of standards goes beyond buyers and sellers, just as the 

concepts of first, second, and third parties in conformity assessment go far beyond buyers 

and sellers. 

3. Conformity Assessment Concepts: 

Recommendation #11: Edit lines 257-265 to read as follows (Text recommended to be deleted is 

indicated by strikethrough; text recommended to be added is indicated by underline): 

In addition to information on the standards used, those who rely on conformity assessment 

results also need to know and understand which types of conformity assessment activities 

were included in the process conformity assessment program. Conformity assessment 

examines an object of assessment (such as a product, process, service, or person) and 

evaluates demonstrates whether the object meets specified requirements. A determination 

decision whether fulfillment of requirements has been demonstrated is made based on 

evidence of conformity (such as a test report, inspection report, or audit). An organization 

may attest to this conformity based on a determination. An attestation that fulfillment has 

been demonstrated is issued based on the decision. Support for on-going conformity of the 

object validity of the attestation is accomplished through surveillance. Accreditation provides 

confidence that conformity assessment programs and organizations bodies meet 

requirements. 

• Rationale: These proposed changes are an attempt to address what is at the heart of UL’s 

concerns about the ABCs document as drafted. To provide a true introduction to conformity 

assessment concepts, accuracy is critical and NIST should rely on internationally accepted 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 5 

and used terminology. This will help eliminate confusion about what conformity assessment is 

(a demonstration) and is not (a guarantee). 

Recommendation #12: Figure 1 should be amended as follows: 

1. In the “First Party” box, after “or” add “any individual” before the word “organization.” After the 

word “organization,” add the phrase “with the same interests in the object of conformity 

assessment”. 

2. In the “Second Party” box, after “user” add the phrase “or any individual or organization with a 

need for assurance that specified requirements are fulfilled”. 

3. In the “Third Party” box, strike the phrase “An independent entity that has no interest in” and 

replace with “Individual or organization whose interests are independent of”. 

4. Delete the box for “Government” altogether and add a sentence separate from the figure that 

denotes government’s unique role in regulation and potential roles (i.e., rarely a first party, 

usually a second party, sometimes a third party). 

• Rationale: Modifications to the boxes for “First Party,” “Second Party,” and “Third Party” in 

Figure 1 will provide greater alignment with internationally accepted and used conformity 

assessment terminology. In addition, these changes will help correct the concerns outlined in 

point 2 in UL’s “General Observations” as previously noted. 

Recommendation #13: Remove Figure 2 (“Conformity Assessment Standards”) altogether. 

• Rationale: Only the third row of the table provides useful information based on the text 

immediately preceding it. 

Recommendation #14: On lines 277-278, strike the phrase “determine whether” and replace with 

“demonstrate”. 

• Rationale: UL proposes this language to correct the concern we outlined in point 1 under the 

“General Observations” outlined previously. Again, conformity assessment exists to provide 

assurance by creating an incentive to fulfill requirements. The use of the phrase “determine 

whether” implies a guarantee, rather than a demonstration, of conformity. 

3.1. Suppliers Declaration of Conformity 

Recommendation #15: Edit lines 281-288 to read as follows (Text recommended to be deleted is 

indicated by strikethrough; text recommended to be added is indicated by underline): 

One way to show attest that a product, process, or service, system, person or body conforms 

to specific requirements is through supplier’s declaration of conformity (SDOC), which is a 

“declaration” as defined in ISO/IEC 17000:2004 (ISO 17000, 2004),;i.e. a first party 

attestation, where the supplier provides written confidence of conformity. The supplier makes 

a declaration that requirements have been met based on: 

• the manufacturers confidence in the quality control system, and/or 

• the results of testing, inspection, or audits undertaken by the manufacturer or other 

parties on its behalf. 

• Rationale: UL proposes these edits to improve accuracy of the description of SDoC as a 

method of conformity. As the text states, SDoC is, by definition, an attestation. ISO/IEC 

17000 indicates an attestation is always based on determination function activities and would 

never be based on an assumption, regardless of the efficacy of the quality management 

system. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 6 

Recommendation #16: On line 290, strike “This form of” to begin the sentence with “Declaration is 

generally used...”. Replace the word “risk” with “consequences (accounting for risk)”. 

• Rationale: SDoC is not a “form” of a “declaration” – SDoC and “declaration” are one in the 

same. Also, the consequences of noncompliance take into account the relative risk of 

noncompliance. 

Recommendation #17: On line 301, before the word “testing” insert “reports of”. 

• Rationale: Testing is an activity. Attestation is based on the results of activities. In addition, 

these changes will help correct the concerns outlined in point 3 in UL’s “General 

Observations” as previously noted. 

Recommendation #18: On line 302, strike the sentence “Reliance upon an SDOC is considered a 

trade-friendly approach.” 

• Rationale: The ABCs document should be used to introduce conformity assessment concepts 

in a neutral, unbiased way, and is not the appropriate place to debate the merits of SDoC 

versus second party or third party conformity assessment. In using this language in the 

description of SDoC, NIST implies judgment that this method of conformity assessment is 

preferential to others and could prejudice the reader/user of the document. In reality, the 

method of conformity is dependent upon what regulations have determined is needed and/or 

what markets demand in the way of confidence. Fundamentally, conformity assessment is 

designed to overcome confidence concerns and demonstrate fulfillment of requirements for 

products, processes, services, systems, persons, or bodies. 

Recommendation #19: On line 306, after the phrase “allows manufacturers to” add “perform activities 

themselves or” before “use conformity assessment bodies”. 

• Rationale: Addition of this phrase clarifies common options manufacturers have when using 

an SDoC approach to demonstrate conformity. 

Recommendation #20: On line 308, end the sentence after “produced”. Begin the next sentence with 

“Both reduce”. 

• Rationale: This proposed edit will emphasize that both factors contribute to reducing time and 

costs. 

3.2. Inspection: 

Recommendation #21: At line 320, insert information about ISO/IEC 17020 comparable to the 

information about ISO/IEC 17025 at line 347. 

• Rationale: Discussion of the related ISO/IEC 17xxx series standard should be included in all 

of these types of sections to provide optimal alignment. 

Recommendation #22: On line 322, after “drawn” insert the following sentence: “Per ISO/IEC 17000, 

inspection is an activity to develop information about the object’s fulfillment of requirements. It does 

not include an attestation. Rather, inspection is used as a basis for an attestation.” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 7 

• Rationale: This proposed modification helps address point 3 as outlined in UL’s “General 

Observations” and adds clarity to the definition of “inspection” in the ABCs. 

Recommendation #23: On line 330, strike the phrase “acceptability against” and replace with 

“fulfillment of”. 

• Rationale: Use of the proposed phraseology will provide greater alignment with internationally 

accepted and used conformity assessment terminology. 

Recommendation #24: Edit lines 337-340 to read as follows (Text recommended to be deleted is 

indicated by strikethrough; text recommended to be added is indicated by underline): 

Inspection may also utilize product marking to attest to the conformity of inspected products. 

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture ensures that inspects meat and poultry 

products are correctly labeled and packaged for fulfillment of labeling and packaging 

requirements. 

• Rationale: The purpose of the recommended edits is to remove confusion around the 

relationship between “inspection” and “attestation” (per point 3 in UL’s “General 

Observations”) and to more accurately align the text with internationally accepted and used 

language on conformity assessment as a demonstration of fulfillment of requirements. 

3.3. Testing: 

Recommendation #25: On line 342, strike the word “laboratories” and change “support” to “supports”. 

• Rationale: Testing in and of itself supports diverse industries; laboratories are merely the 

means of conducting such tests. 

Recommendation #26: On line 374, after “activity” insert the following sentence: “Per ISO/IEC 17000, 

testing is an activity to develop information about the object’s fulfillment of requirements. It does not 

include an attestation. Rather, testing is used as a basis for an attestation.” 

• Rationale: This proposed modification helps address point 3 as outlined in UL’s “General 

Observations” and adds clarity to the definition of “inspection” in the ABCs 

3.4. Certification: 

Recommendation #27: On lines 389-390, strike “that operate conformity assessment programs”. 

• Rationale: This qualifying phrase is unnecessary. ISO/IEC 17065:2005 at its core defines 

general requirements for certification bodies to ensure competence, consistency, and 

impartiality. By their very nature, certification bodies perform conformity assessment 

activities. 

Recommendation #28: Edit lines 394-402 to read as follows (Text recommended to be deleted is 

indicated by strikethrough; text recommended to be added is indicated by underline): 

Certification activities are conducted (the actual attestation) is issued only by a third-party and 

are generally used when the risks associated with the object of assessments non-conformity 

are moderate to high. This provides a higher level of confidence in compliance to purchasers 

and users due to third-party’s decision-making process being free from any influence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 8 

between from the first and second parties. Certification aActivities on which certification is 

based include the following: 

• Evaluation of evidence of conformity; 

• Determination whether product complies; 

• Attestation of conformity granted (i.e., certificate issued); and 

• Surveillance and/or ongoing renewal process, although this may be optional, 

depending on the certification program. 

• Rationale: These proposed edits are designed to ensure greater accuracy and alignment with 

internationally accepted terminology and norms for conformity assessment. 

Recommendation #29: On line 404, after “Certification” insert the phrase “programs are usually 

designed to” and change “provides” to “provide”. 

• Rationale: The entire program operated by a competent body is what provides 

confidence/assurance. This change will reinforce the contribution of both. 

Recommendation #30: Edit lines 409-411 to read as follows (Text recommended to be deleted is 

indicated by strikethrough; text recommended to be added is indicated by underline): 

The attestation or statement by a certification body is based on decisions made following 

review of evidence that fulfillment of requirements have has been demonstrated met. The 

attestation may be is based on other conformity assessment activities. 

• Rationale: These edits are intended to bring the ABCs into greater alignment with 

internationally accepted and used conformity assessment terminology. 

3.4.1. Management System Certification: 

Recommendation #31: On line 447, strike the phrase “in compliance with” and replace with “as a 

demonstration of fulfillment of”. 

• Rationale: These edits are intended to bring the ABCs into greater alignment with 

internationally accepted and used conformity assessment terminology. 

Recommendation #32: Edit lines 458-459 to read as follows (Text recommended to be deleted is 

indicated by strikethrough; text recommended to be added is indicated by underline): 

An audit is conducted of the implementation of the system requirements to that policies and 

procedures for the scope on a continuing basis. 

• Rationale: The purpose of this edit is to properly show the relationship of the policies/ 

procedures and their implementation. 

3.4.2. Personnel Certification: 

Recommendation #33: On line 468, strike the phrase “in a consistent and comparable way” and 

replace with “with competence, consistency, and impartiality”. 

• Rationale: This recommended edit is designed to bring consistency in use of conformity 

assessment terminology throughout the ABCs document. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 9 

Recommendation #34: Strike lines 469-472 in their entirety. 

• Rationale: This statement is not true – personnel certification can use evaluation techniques 

other than examinations. Incorrect statements should not be included in this document. 

3.5. Accreditation 

Recommendation #35: On line 482, strike the words “programs and”. 

• Rationale: This edit is intended to help address the concern we raised in point 4 in our 

“General Observations.” The document incorrectly states that accreditation is applicable to 

programs/schemes. Accreditation by definition only applies to conformity assessment bodies; 

the fulfillment of specified requirements by schemes/programs is not part of accreditation. 

Recommendation #36: Change line 488 from “activities include tasks” to “applies to bodies 

performing activities”. 

• Rationale: Accreditation does not “include” the tasks cited; it applies to the bodies performing 

those activities. Incorrect statements should not be included in this document. 

Recommendation #37: On line 492, strike the word “system” and replace with “body”. Similarly, on 

line 494 strike the word “systems” and replace with “bodies”. 

• Rationale: This edit is intended to further help address the concern we raised in point 4 in our 

“General Observations.” Accreditation by definition only applies to conformity assessment 

bodies, not systems. 

Recommendation #38: Strike lines 495-499 in their entirety and replace with the following sentence: 

“The requirements used in accreditation of conformity assessment bodies create a type of hierarchy 

(refer to Figure 3).” 

• Rationale: This edits are designed to simplify the description, as Figure 3 speaks for itself. 

Recommendation #39: On line 502, strike the phrase “within accreditation”. After “confidence,” strike 

the word “among” and insert the phrase “about the fulfillment of requirements by”. 

• Rationale: This recommended edit is intended to bring greater consistency and accuracy in 

the use of internationally accepted conformity assessment language. 

Recommendation #40: Edit lines 503-505 to read as follows (Text recommended to be deleted is 

indicated by strikethrough; text recommended to be added is indicated by underline): 

Peer assessment is an organized system used at regional and international levels to provide 

increased confidence that accreditation bodies or conformity assessment bodies are meet 

competent competence and operating under the defined requirements. 

• Rationale: Peer assessment is a conformity assessment activity and thus relates to fulfillment 

of requirements, not judgment about competence separate from requirements. 

Recommendation #41: Edit lines 511-512 to read as follows: “the need for additional testing, 

inspection, or certification, or accreditation in different countries to which the object of assessment is 

sold”. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

ABCs of Conformity Assessment (SP 2000-01) 

Page 10 

• Rationale: This change would reinforce that peer assessment applies to reducing demand for 

accreditation. 

4. Scheme Ownership: 

Recommendation #42: On line 532, replace “products, processes and services” with “certification of 

products”. 

• Rationale: ISO/IEC 17067 does not address schemes for certification of processes and 

services. 

If you have any questions regarding these recommendations, please contact Sarah Owen, Global 

Government Affairs Manager, at sarah.owen@ul.com or +1 202.530.6163.