Effectiveness of Federal Agency Participation in Standardization in Select Technology Sectors for National Science and Technology Council's Sub-Committee on Standardization, 76397-76399 [2010-30864]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices
Dated: December 2, 2010.
Susan H. Kuhbach,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2010–30859 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket No. 0909100442–0563–02]
Effectiveness of Federal Agency
Participation in Standardization in
Select Technology Sectors for National
Science and Technology Council’s
Sub-Committee on Standardization
National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Request for Information.
AGENCY:
The National Institute of
Standards and Technology, on behalf of
the National Science and Technology
Council’s Sub-Committee on Standards,
invites interested parties to provide
their perspectives on the effectiveness of
Federal agencies’ participation in the
development and implementation of
standards and conformity assessment
activities and programs. This
information will help the SubCommittee on Standards develop case
studies that Federal agencies can
consider in their future engagement in
standards development and conformity
assessment, particularly for multidisciplinary technologies, or for
technologies involving engagement from
multiple Federal agencies.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
11:59 p.m. on February 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted
by e-mail only. Comments should be
sent to SOS_RFI@nist.gov with the
subject line ‘‘Standardization feedback
for Sub-Committee on Standards.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ajit
Jillavenkatesa, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop
1060, Gaithersburg, MD 20899–1060,
301–975–8519, ajit.jilla@nist.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
24, 2010, the U.S. Chief Technology
Officer and Associate Director for
Technology in the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy,
Aneesh Chopra, announced the
establishment of a Sub-Committee on
Standards under the National Science
and Technology Council’s Committee of
Technology. (https://
www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/24/
providing-leadership-standards-
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Dec 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
address-national-challenges). The SubCommittee includes leaders of executive
branch agencies and commissions that
have an interest in, or are involved with,
technical standards. It is co-chaired by
Patrick Gallagher (Director, National
Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce).
Information about agencies participating
in this Sub-Committee, and its charter is
available at: https://www.standards.gov/
standards_gov/
nstcsubcommitteeonstandards.cfm. By
examining the various methods that
Federal agencies use to engage in
standards-development activities in
partnership with the private sector, the
Sub-Committee on Standards intends to
develop information on how Federal
agencies may engage more effectively in
the standardization system in a manner
that is consistent with the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 1 and the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A–
119.2 In support of this objective, the
Sub-Committee is interested in
perspectives on (1) the effectiveness of
the methods Federal agencies have used
to engage in standards-setting activities
by identifying which methods have
enhanced or limited the public-private
standards-setting processes; (2) the
effectiveness of Federal agencies
coordination with the private sector;
and (3) the adequacy and availability of
Federal resources; and (4) other issues
that arise and are considered during the
standards setting process which impact
the process, and the timeliness,
adoption and use of the resulting
standards.
Request for Information
The objective of this request is to
inform the development of case studies
that will examine the effectiveness of
Federal agencies’ participation in
standards-setting efforts led by the
private sector. The case studies would
provide agencies information on lessons
learned from Federal agency
engagement in standards development
for technologies that are complex, multidisciplinary, exhibit system-type
characteristics, and involve multiple
government agencies, and addressed
specific national priorities. Issues
impacting U.S. competitiveness such as
the interplay of standards with
1 National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–113, 110 Stat. 775—
784 (1996).
2 OMB Circular A–119 Revised, Federal
Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity
Assessment Activities (rev. Feb. 10, 1998) ¶ 3,
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
rewrite/circulars/a119/a119.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76397
intellectual property, competition, and
innovation are also significant
considerations in these technology
areas. These case studies may inform
decisions about Federal agencies’
engagement in standardization for
technologies with similar
characteristics. The questions below are
intended to help frame the issues and
should not be construed as a limitation
on comments that parties may submit.
Comments containing references,
studies, research, and other empirical
data that are not widely published
should include copies of the referenced
materials. All comments will be made
publicly available.
The Sub-Committee on Standards is
specifically interested in comments that
address the questions below as they
relate to the following technologies:
1. Smart Grid.
2. Health Information Technology.
3. Cyber Security.
4. Emergency Communications
Interoperability.
5. Radioactivity Detectors and
Radiation Monitors (ANSI N42.3x and
N42.4x).
6. Other technologies involving
significant Federal agency participation
in standards setting.
For the purposes of this notice, the
term ‘‘standards’’ and the phrase
‘‘standards setting’’ is used in a generic
manner to cover both standards and
conformity assessment development.
State and local governments, standardssetting organizations, industry,
consumers, manufacturers, solution
providers, and other stakeholders are
invited to respond. Responses should
identify the technologies involved as
appropriate.
Standards-Setting Processes, Reasons
for Participation and the Benefits of
Standardization
Emerging technologies offer great
potential for delivering new and
improved products and services in the
global economy. Standards can enable
further innovation and enhance the
value of these new technologies. Federal
law and associated policy guidance has
expressed a general preference for
Federal agencies to rely on voluntary
consensus standards, in lieu of
government unique standards, through
the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 and Office of
Management and Budget Circular A–
119, which encourage agency staff to
participate in standards-development
activities led by the private sector, as
appropriate.
Recognizing that stakeholders
participate in standards-setting
activities for varying reasons, and in
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
76398
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
order to evaluate the effectiveness of
Federal agencies’ participation in
standards-setting efforts led by the
private sector, the Sub-Committee
invites organizations to provide
information on their participation, and
their perceptions of Federal
participation in standards-setting
activities related to the case-study
technologies listed above, as well as the
current status of the standardization
process for these technologies. The SubCommittee is interested in better
understanding: Who participates in
standards-setting activities? What are
the most important reasons for
participation? What are the benefits of
developing standards for this sector?
How do the standards impact
organizations and their
competitiveness? How has
standardization spurred innovation in
the technology sector(s) that is the
subject of your comment? What is the
current phase of the standards
development process for this
technology? How has the process
worked so far? When developing
standards, how are the standards-setting
processes managed and coordinated? Is
there a strategic plan that identifies the
standards needs and defines the
standards development life cycle? Are
there barriers to developing high level
strategies for standard-setting activities?
Perspectives on Government’s
Approach to Standards Activities
The Sub-Committee would like to
identify and assess the methods by
which Federal agencies work with
standards-setting organizations,
industry, State and local governments,
and consumers to develop standards.
The Federal Government approaches
standard setting in various ways.
Sometimes staff members from Federal
agencies participate directly as subject
matter experts in standards-setting
activities that are led by the private
sector. At other times, agencies identify
their standards needs and requirements,
and then reach out to the private sector
to develop the standards. Sometimes,
agencies fund private standards-setting
activities to develop standards needed
by that agency. At other times, agencies
take an active role in both identifying
standards needs and leading the
standards development process in
collaboration with the private sector. In
many technology sectors, multiple
Federal agencies with differing roles
and mandates participate in standardsdevelopment activities.
Responses to the following questions
will help the Sub-Committee to better
understand which methods of
engagement by Federal agencies are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Dec 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
most effective and why. What methods
of engagement are used by Federal
agencies to participate in private sectorled standards development? How
transparent is each method? How
effective is each method? How could the
methods be improved? What other
methods should the Federal agencies
explore? What impact have Federal
agencies had on standards activities?
How well do Federal agencies
coordinate their roles in standards
activities in the sector of interest? When
Federal agencies have been involved in
standards setting efforts in a technology
sector, how has the progress of
standards setting efforts in this
technology sector changed after Federal
agencies became involved? Are Federal
agencies generally receptive to input
from other participants in standardssetting activities? Does receptiveness
tend to depend on whether the Federal
agency is a regulator or a customer? In
those sectors where Federal agencies
plays a significant role in standards
activities, how valuable and timely is
the work product associated with this
effort?
Issues Considered During the Standards
Setting Process
Various factors (e.g., technology,
competition, innovation, intellectual
property rights, foreign regulations, etc.)
arise and are considered and addressed
during standards development. These
aspects play a role in the adoption and
use of the standard. The Sub-Committee
is interested in understanding the types
of issues that have been considered, and
how these have been addressed/are
being addressed. Has Federal agency
participation in standards-setting
impacted the consideration and
resolution of these issues, and the
standards setting processes?
With respect to foreign regulations,
the Subcommittee is interested in
understanding how foreign technical
regulations are considered and
addressed during standards setting or
conformity assessment activities. Are
efforts made to determine whether there
is potential for overlap or duplication
with existing international standards?
How are other appropriate international
standards that may be of interest
identified? Are efforts made to identify
existing or planned regional or national
standards that may be considered for
use as the basis for foreign technical
regulations, rather than the international
standard being considered by the
committee?
With respect to intellectual property,
the Sub-Committee would like to
understand the approaches you have
experienced or found most appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
for handling patents and/or other types
of intellectual property rights that are
necessary to implement a standard. How
does the need for access to intellectual
property rights by Federal agencies
factor into the use or development of
standards? To what extent, if any, has
the development, adoption or use of a
standard, by Federal agencies in this
technology sector been affected by
holders of intellectual property? How
have such circumstances been
addressed? Are there particular
obstacles that either prevent intellectual
property owners from obtaining
reasonable returns or cause intellectual
property owners to make IP available on
terms resulting in unreasonable returns
when their IP is included in the
standard? What strategies have been
effective in mitigating risks, if any,
associated with hold-up or buyers’
cartels?
Adequacy of Resources
The availability and commitment of
financial resources, personnel, and
industry expertise may impact the
success of standards development. In
some instances, changing priorities or
changes in an organization’s budget may
impact the resources an agency commits
to an ongoing project. The SubCommittee would like to better
understand the resources that both
private sector organizations and Federal
agencies commit to standards-setting
activities, constraints on those
resources, and how the level of
resources affects the success of the
effort. What resources are needed to
successfully complete the efforts?
Taking into account budget constraints
and competing initiatives, have Federal
agencies committed adequate resources?
What resource constraints impact the
successful completion of the standards
efforts?
Process Review and Improvement
Metrics
The success and limitations of
standards-setting activities and the
associated outcomes may be studied,
understood and implemented for
continuous process improvement. Such
improvements can help ensure that
Federal agencies participation in
standards activities is cost-effective and
will lead to optimal results. Responses
to the questions that follow will help
the Sub-Committee better understand
what methods have facilitated or
hindered Federal agencies participation
in standardization, recognizing that
some standards-setting activities in the
case-study technologies may be not yet
be completed. What lessons about
standards development in complex
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Notices
technologies have been learned so far?
How have these lessons learned been
implemented? Have there been any
impediments to implementing these
lessons? How has this information been
documented or disseminated, and
implemented? What kinds of
performance metrics are appropriate to
measure the effectiveness of the
standards-setting process? If any such
performance metrics have been used,
what are the results?
Dated: December 2, 2010.
Patrick Gallagher,
Director, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Co-Chair, National Science and
Technology Council’s Sub-Committee on
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010–30864 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XZ66
Marine Mammals
National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for
permit amendment; extension of public
comment period.
AGENCY:
On November 9, 2010, NMFS
published a Notice of Receipt that the
Northwest Fisheries Science Center
(NWFSC, Dr. M. Bradley Hanson,
Principal Investigator), 2725 Montlake
Blvd. East, Seattle, Washington 98112–
2097, had applied for an amendment to
Scientific Research Permit No. 781–
1824–01. Public comments were due by
December 09, 2010. NMFS has extended
the comment period to allow additional
time for submission of public comments
on this action.
DATES: The public comment period for
this action has been extended for 14
days. Written comments must be
received or postmarked by December 23,
2010.
ADDRESSES: The application and related
documents are available for review by
selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public
Comment’’ from the Features box on the
Applications and Permits for Protected
Species home page, https://
apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting
File No. 781–1824 from the list of
available applications.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:23 Dec 07, 2010
Jkt 223001
On
November 9, 2010 (75 FR 68757), notice
of receipt of an application to amend
Permit No. 781–1824 was published
specifying the date on which comments
were due as December 09, 2010. This
notice only extends the comment
period. The revised comment deadline
is specified in the DATES section of this
notice. Please refer to the November 9,
2010 notice for a summary of the
application.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[File No. 781–1824]
SUMMARY:
These documents are also available
upon written request or by appointment
in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301)713–2289; fax (301)713–0376; and
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand
Point Way, NE., BIN C15700, Bldg. 1,
Seattle, WA 98115–0700; phone
(206)526–6150; fax (206)526–6426.
Written comments on this application
should be submitted to the Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, at the address listed above.
Comments may also be submitted by
facsimile to (301)713–0376, or by e-mail
to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov.
Please include File No. 781–1824 in the
subject line of the email comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Sloan or Laura Morse, (301)713–
2289.
Dated: December 3, 2010.
Tammy C. Adams,
Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and
Education Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–30909 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[File No. 13602]
RIN 0648–XK54
Marine Mammals
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; requested changes to
application for permit amendment.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that Dr.
Terrie Williams, Long Marine Lab,
Institute of Marine Sciences, University
of California at Santa Cruz, 100 Shaffer
Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, has
requested a change to the application for
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
76399
an amendment to Scientific Research
Permit No. 13602.
DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail
comments must be received on or before
January 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The application and related
documents are available for review by
selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public
Comment’’ from the Features box on the
Applications and Permits for Protected
Species home page, https://
apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting
File No. 13602 from the list of available
applications.
These documents are also available
upon written request or by appointment
in the following offices:
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room
13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone
(301) 713–2289; fax (301) 713–0376; and
Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West
Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,
CA 90802–4213; phone (562) 980–4001;
fax (562) 980–4018.
Written comments on this application
should be submitted to the Chief,
Permits, Conservation and Education
Division, at the address listed above.
Comments may also be submitted by
facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov.
Please include the File No. in the
subject line of the e-mail comment.
Those individuals requesting a public
hearing should submit a written request
to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and
Education Division at the address listed
above. The request should set forth the
specific reasons why a hearing on this
application would be appropriate.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Sloan or Jennifer Skidmore, (301)
713–2289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
subject amendment to Permit No. 13602
was requested under the authority of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the
regulations governing the taking and
importing of marine mammals (50 CFR
part 216), the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), and the regulations governing the
taking, importing, and exporting of
endangered and threatened species (50
CFR parts 222–226).
On May 20, 2010 (75 FR 28236),
notice was published that an
amendment to Permit No. 13602, issued
on September 4, 2009 (74 FR 46569),
had been requested by the permit holder
to include physiological research on up
to 18 captive Hawaiian monk seals
(Monachus schauinslandi) in facilities
in the United States, and opportunistic
energetic assessments on stranded ESA-
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76397-76399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30864]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
[Docket No. 0909100442-0563-02]
Effectiveness of Federal Agency Participation in Standardization
in Select Technology Sectors for National Science and Technology
Council's Sub-Committee on Standardization
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Request for Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Institute of Standards and Technology, on behalf
of the National Science and Technology Council's Sub-Committee on
Standards, invites interested parties to provide their perspectives on
the effectiveness of Federal agencies' participation in the development
and implementation of standards and conformity assessment activities
and programs. This information will help the Sub-Committee on Standards
develop case studies that Federal agencies can consider in their future
engagement in standards development and conformity assessment,
particularly for multi-disciplinary technologies, or for technologies
involving engagement from multiple Federal agencies.
DATES: Comments are due on or before 11:59 p.m. on February 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted by e-mail only. Comments should be
sent to SOS_RFI@nist.gov with the subject line ``Standardization
feedback for Sub-Committee on Standards.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ajit Jillavenkatesa, 100 Bureau Drive,
Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1060, 301-975-8519,
ajit.jilla@nist.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 24, 2010, the U.S. Chief Technology
Officer and Associate Director for Technology in the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy, Aneesh Chopra, announced the
establishment of a Sub-Committee on Standards under the National
Science and Technology Council's Committee of Technology. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/24/providing-leadership-standards-address-national-challenges). The Sub-Committee includes leaders of
executive branch agencies and commissions that have an interest in, or
are involved with, technical standards. It is co-chaired by Patrick
Gallagher (Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce). Information about agencies participating
in this Sub-Committee, and its charter is available at: https://www.standards.gov/standards_gov/nstcsubcommitteeonstandards.cfm. By
examining the various methods that Federal agencies use to engage in
standards-development activities in partnership with the private
sector, the Sub-Committee on Standards intends to develop information
on how Federal agencies may engage more effectively in the
standardization system in a manner that is consistent with the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 \1\ and the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-119.\2\ In support of this objective,
the Sub-Committee is interested in perspectives on (1) the
effectiveness of the methods Federal agencies have used to engage in
standards-setting activities by identifying which methods have enhanced
or limited the public-private standards-setting processes; (2) the
effectiveness of Federal agencies coordination with the private sector;
and (3) the adequacy and availability of Federal resources; and (4)
other issues that arise and are considered during the standards setting
process which impact the process, and the timeliness, adoption and use
of the resulting standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-113, 110 Stat. 775--784 (1996).
\2\ OMB Circular A-119 Revised, Federal Participation in the
Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities (rev. Feb. 10, 1998) ] 3, available
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/circulars/a119/a119.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information
The objective of this request is to inform the development of case
studies that will examine the effectiveness of Federal agencies'
participation in standards-setting efforts led by the private sector.
The case studies would provide agencies information on lessons learned
from Federal agency engagement in standards development for
technologies that are complex, multi-disciplinary, exhibit system-type
characteristics, and involve multiple government agencies, and
addressed specific national priorities. Issues impacting U.S.
competitiveness such as the interplay of standards with intellectual
property, competition, and innovation are also significant
considerations in these technology areas. These case studies may inform
decisions about Federal agencies' engagement in standardization for
technologies with similar characteristics. The questions below are
intended to help frame the issues and should not be construed as a
limitation on comments that parties may submit. Comments containing
references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not
widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. All
comments will be made publicly available.
The Sub-Committee on Standards is specifically interested in
comments that address the questions below as they relate to the
following technologies:
1. Smart Grid.
2. Health Information Technology.
3. Cyber Security.
4. Emergency Communications Interoperability.
5. Radioactivity Detectors and Radiation Monitors (ANSI N42.3x and
N42.4x).
6. Other technologies involving significant Federal agency
participation in standards setting.
For the purposes of this notice, the term ``standards'' and the
phrase ``standards setting'' is used in a generic manner to cover both
standards and conformity assessment development. State and local
governments, standards-setting organizations, industry, consumers,
manufacturers, solution providers, and other stakeholders are invited
to respond. Responses should identify the technologies involved as
appropriate.
Standards-Setting Processes, Reasons for Participation and the Benefits
of Standardization
Emerging technologies offer great potential for delivering new and
improved products and services in the global economy. Standards can
enable further innovation and enhance the value of these new
technologies. Federal law and associated policy guidance has expressed
a general preference for Federal agencies to rely on voluntary
consensus standards, in lieu of government unique standards, through
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and Office
of Management and Budget Circular A-119, which encourage agency staff
to participate in standards-development activities led by the private
sector, as appropriate.
Recognizing that stakeholders participate in standards-setting
activities for varying reasons, and in
[[Page 76398]]
order to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal agencies' participation
in standards-setting efforts led by the private sector, the Sub-
Committee invites organizations to provide information on their
participation, and their perceptions of Federal participation in
standards-setting activities related to the case-study technologies
listed above, as well as the current status of the standardization
process for these technologies. The Sub-Committee is interested in
better understanding: Who participates in standards-setting activities?
What are the most important reasons for participation? What are the
benefits of developing standards for this sector? How do the standards
impact organizations and their competitiveness? How has standardization
spurred innovation in the technology sector(s) that is the subject of
your comment? What is the current phase of the standards development
process for this technology? How has the process worked so far? When
developing standards, how are the standards-setting processes managed
and coordinated? Is there a strategic plan that identifies the
standards needs and defines the standards development life cycle? Are
there barriers to developing high level strategies for standard-setting
activities?
Perspectives on Government's Approach to Standards Activities
The Sub-Committee would like to identify and assess the methods by
which Federal agencies work with standards-setting organizations,
industry, State and local governments, and consumers to develop
standards. The Federal Government approaches standard setting in
various ways. Sometimes staff members from Federal agencies participate
directly as subject matter experts in standards-setting activities that
are led by the private sector. At other times, agencies identify their
standards needs and requirements, and then reach out to the private
sector to develop the standards. Sometimes, agencies fund private
standards-setting activities to develop standards needed by that
agency. At other times, agencies take an active role in both
identifying standards needs and leading the standards development
process in collaboration with the private sector. In many technology
sectors, multiple Federal agencies with differing roles and mandates
participate in standards-development activities.
Responses to the following questions will help the Sub-Committee to
better understand which methods of engagement by Federal agencies are
most effective and why. What methods of engagement are used by Federal
agencies to participate in private sector-led standards development?
How transparent is each method? How effective is each method? How could
the methods be improved? What other methods should the Federal agencies
explore? What impact have Federal agencies had on standards activities?
How well do Federal agencies coordinate their roles in standards
activities in the sector of interest? When Federal agencies have been
involved in standards setting efforts in a technology sector, how has
the progress of standards setting efforts in this technology sector
changed after Federal agencies became involved? Are Federal agencies
generally receptive to input from other participants in standards-
setting activities? Does receptiveness tend to depend on whether the
Federal agency is a regulator or a customer? In those sectors where
Federal agencies plays a significant role in standards activities, how
valuable and timely is the work product associated with this effort?
Issues Considered During the Standards Setting Process
Various factors (e.g., technology, competition, innovation,
intellectual property rights, foreign regulations, etc.) arise and are
considered and addressed during standards development. These aspects
play a role in the adoption and use of the standard. The Sub-Committee
is interested in understanding the types of issues that have been
considered, and how these have been addressed/are being addressed. Has
Federal agency participation in standards-setting impacted the
consideration and resolution of these issues, and the standards setting
processes?
With respect to foreign regulations, the Subcommittee is interested
in understanding how foreign technical regulations are considered and
addressed during standards setting or conformity assessment activities.
Are efforts made to determine whether there is potential for overlap or
duplication with existing international standards? How are other
appropriate international standards that may be of interest identified?
Are efforts made to identify existing or planned regional or national
standards that may be considered for use as the basis for foreign
technical regulations, rather than the international standard being
considered by the committee?
With respect to intellectual property, the Sub-Committee would like
to understand the approaches you have experienced or found most
appropriate for handling patents and/or other types of intellectual
property rights that are necessary to implement a standard. How does
the need for access to intellectual property rights by Federal agencies
factor into the use or development of standards? To what extent, if
any, has the development, adoption or use of a standard, by Federal
agencies in this technology sector been affected by holders of
intellectual property? How have such circumstances been addressed? Are
there particular obstacles that either prevent intellectual property
owners from obtaining reasonable returns or cause intellectual property
owners to make IP available on terms resulting in unreasonable returns
when their IP is included in the standard? What strategies have been
effective in mitigating risks, if any, associated with hold-up or
buyers' cartels?
Adequacy of Resources
The availability and commitment of financial resources, personnel,
and industry expertise may impact the success of standards development.
In some instances, changing priorities or changes in an organization's
budget may impact the resources an agency commits to an ongoing
project. The Sub-Committee would like to better understand the
resources that both private sector organizations and Federal agencies
commit to standards-setting activities, constraints on those resources,
and how the level of resources affects the success of the effort. What
resources are needed to successfully complete the efforts? Taking into
account budget constraints and competing initiatives, have Federal
agencies committed adequate resources? What resource constraints impact
the successful completion of the standards efforts?
Process Review and Improvement Metrics
The success and limitations of standards-setting activities and the
associated outcomes may be studied, understood and implemented for
continuous process improvement. Such improvements can help ensure that
Federal agencies participation in standards activities is cost-
effective and will lead to optimal results. Responses to the questions
that follow will help the Sub-Committee better understand what methods
have facilitated or hindered Federal agencies participation in
standardization, recognizing that some standards-setting activities in
the case-study technologies may be not yet be completed. What lessons
about standards development in complex
[[Page 76399]]
technologies have been learned so far? How have these lessons learned
been implemented? Have there been any impediments to implementing these
lessons? How has this information been documented or disseminated, and
implemented? What kinds of performance metrics are appropriate to
measure the effectiveness of the standards-setting process? If any such
performance metrics have been used, what are the results?
Dated: December 2, 2010.
Patrick Gallagher,
Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Co-Chair,
National Science and Technology Council's Sub-Committee on Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-30864 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P