The standards consortia page of CEN ALPHABETICAL LIST OF STANDARDS-RELATED FORA AND CONSORTIA  

Open Group  Relations with Consortia and Other Organizations  

Diffuse Standards Fora List 

CONSORTIUM AND STANDARDS LIST of "Consortiuminfo" 

Many of the organizations in the lists above  might have obtained the NCPA coverage had they  met the requirement to file notice  within 90 days of their creation. They   have no present avenue available to obtain  the shelter. Nor will many be eligible for the coverage HR1086 will provide for the consensus  standards developers meeting the consensus standards criteria in the HR 1086 legislation.   

Why should anyone be concerned  whether standards from consortia are afforded the protection of the NCPA? A  principal topic of a June 28, 2001 subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards Hearing on   Standards-Setting and United States Competitiveness    was the role of standards from other than consensus organizations to contribute to the global competitiveness of US industry.  Standards from  organizations outside of the formal consensus process are playing  a role in the US and global market economy  that rivals  with if it does  not exceed the role of  those standards from the consensus process.  

There is long standing debate and controversy  whether standards developed by consortia or through consensus should receive the same favourable  preference  under the Circular OMB A-119 Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities.  Following the June 21, 2001 hearing, Chairmen Ehlers reported he would request an  OMB  opinion: 

Your assistance in resolving the extent to which the use of consortia-developed standards is currently permitted under the OMB revision of Circular A-119 would be very helpful in determining of any further congressional action may be necessary in resolving this issue. 

While the question about consortia standards was never fully addressed in 2001, it has not gone away. Recently the OMB A-119 Circular was cited as a reason for a government sponsored activity not to use the standards from a consortia. The Geospatial Applications and Interoperability (GAI) Working Group  of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is developing a reference model to aid federal geospatial procurements in the  applicability of geospatial standards: The Geospatial  Interoperability Reference Model (GIRM).   In response to the call for comments on the model the  FGDC  received the following:
 

"An 'important audience' for this document is identified as 'federal program managers engaged in procurement development and program execution.'  However, the GIRM conflicts with federal guidance found in OMB Circular A-119 that directs federal managers to use "voluntary consensus standards" in the execution of their programs, particularly procurements.  Throughout the GIRM there are recommendations to use other specifications when there are voluntary consensus standards available for the stated purpose.  Given the guidance in Circular A-119, the GIRM has not applicability whatsoever for federal managers in the execution of their programs.  It can serve only as a suggestion for what federal agencies might want to work toward as part of their continued participation in the voluntary consensus standards efforts and the applicability statement needs to state that clearly" 

Only after much discussion was the FGDC able to conclude that the A119 circular did allow for them to refer to standards from other than "full consensus" organizations. Over the long term, it will be helpful for the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace  to find means for organizations such as consortia who otherwise would have been eligible to secure NCPA coverage  had they only filed at the proper time  to “catch up” with both those consortia who filed their NCPA notices in a timely manner and presently enjoy the shelter and with those consensus standards organizations who will file under the HR 1086 revisions.  

There is a  need in the marketplace for an accurate reliable source of information about the standards activities of both the voluntary consensus community and the consortia community. Incremental costs to implement the transparency elements of Section 7 Disclosure should be evaluated in the context of advancing steps toward such accurate and reliable information. Administrative investments  to implement the new initial and continuing reporting requirements for new consensus standards developers should strive to leverage the strengths of the current information infrastructure and the practical experience of current beneficiaries of the NCPA shelter as well as users of the federal register notices.   One of the strengths of the US consensus standards community is its  openness and transparency. There exists a substantial and effective and operating  information infrastructure in place within the consensus standards  community on voluntary organizations and  activities.  It might  be a wiser investment of any additional administrative costs to somehow add value  to the current system than to merely duplicate portions of the current system. For example there might be created a  government maintained linkage to information “required” to be publicly maintained locally by an entity seeking NCPA shelter, with changes only to be routinely notified. At the minimum it would be wise for budget forecasting  at DOJ  to predict the increased level of initial and continuing NCPA reporting following passage of HR 1086.   The volume will  far far exceed the  levels and substance of the  reports shown in Annex One and Annex Two ranging currently  from 150 to 200 per year.  

Another  of the appeals during the June 28, 2001 subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards Hearing on   Standards-Setting and United States Competitiveness    was for a government database on standards activities particularly  addressing the work of consortia.  GTW Associates is a user of the current NCPA reports in the federal register.  But as a real user of the information I believe the value is not so much in the specific notices, but in the roll up tally such as in Annex one and Annex two  of all of the submissions in order to gain an overall perspective of what activiity is going on. This consolidated information, while having the real value, is nowhere to be found without considerable effort at present.  The  Section (6) reporting requirements in the  NCPA of 1993 and carried forward in HR 1086 did not and do not take full advantage of the information technology infrastructure available today. It could well be that the original objectives could be better met at less cost to the private sector beneficiaries and the government. 

A final  observation about Section 6 disclosure is  the  inconsistency that joint ventures under the current law are expected to report membership changes, while consensus standards developers need not in HR 1086.  In my  opinion both consortia standards activity and consensus standards activity should be treated similarly.  Both the case of the joint venture and the standards developer could be handled though some central government maintained database with links to  current accurate and reliable information that the legislation could require to be maintained and to be  made public by the consortia and standards developers themselves in order to receive the NCRP shelter. Only notice of changes might need to be reported in the federal register. 

In the definitions section  Sec 3 of HR 1086 there is a sentence:     

"The term 'standards development organization' means a domestic or international organization that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates voluntary consensus standards using procedures..."    

The use of the  term “international” above will open the opportunity for foreign-located or controlled  organizations to seek coverage      without the limitation of  the  eligibility for coverage to entities meeting the criteria in current Sec 7 (1) and (2) that current applies to joint ventures and to consortia presently covered under the NCPA. This is another  difference in treatment between the NCPA current and proposed  treatment for consortia activities and the proposed treatment of consensus standards developing activities. 

The term "international" when used to refer to standards or standards developing organizations is the subject of contentious international debate.  The roots of the debate are found in the favourable treatment under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade for "International standards."  When governments use "international standards" as the basis for technical regulations, the regulations are presumed not to  establish barriers to trade.   One definiton for "private International standards organization"  is found at  USC 19 Chapter 13 Sec. 2543. - Representation of United States interests before international standards organizations (b) (B)  

The term ''private international standards organization'' means any international standards organization before which the interests of the United States are represented by a private person who is officially recognized by that organization for such purpose.  

Such organizations as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) based in Geneva fall in to the ''private international standards organization''  above and would seem to qualify for coverage under HR1086.  Perhaps that is the intention.  

Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution. 

Best regards 

George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President
GTW Associates
1012 Parrs Ridge Drive
Spencerville, MD 20868  USA
301.421.4138  fax 301.421.0977
http://www.gtwassociates.com

[search] | [home] | [News and Alerts]

We welcome your comments and suggestions.
All material © Copyright 1995-2003  GTW Associates.
Please contact GTW Associates for licensing information.