[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

PROMOTING INNOVATION, COMPETITION
AND ECONOMIC GROWTH:
PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-63

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-920 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas PAUL D. TONKO, New York
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia JERRY McNERNEY, California
SANDY ADAMS, Florida JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
Tennessee HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi VACANCY
MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan
VACANCY
------

Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation

HON. BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona, Chair
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico
Tennessee VACANCY
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia VACANCY
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota
RALPH M. HALL, Texas

C O N T E N T S

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Page
Witness List..................................................... 2

Hearing Charter.................................................. 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Benjamin Quayle, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 7
Written Statement............................................ 8

Statement by Representative Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives..
Written Statement............................................ 9

Witnesses:

Ms. Mary H. Saunders, Director, Standards Coordination Office,
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 13

Mr. S. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO, American National Standards
Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26

Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43

Mr. Mark Grimaldi, Owner, Equinox Chemicals
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49

Mr. James Seay, President, Premier Rides
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55

Discussion 68

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mary H. Saunders, Director, Standards Coordination Office,
National Institute of Standards and Technology................. 86

S. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO, American National Standards
Institute...................................................... 90

Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel Corporation........ 98

Mark Grimaldi, Owner, Equinox Chemicals.......................... 101

James Seay, President, Premier Rides............................. 104

PROMOTING INNOVATION, COMPETITION
AND ECONOMIC GROWTH:
PRINCIPLES FOR EFFECTIVE DOMESTIC AND
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT

----------

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2012

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin
Quayle [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.005

Chairman Quayle. The Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation will come to order.
Good morning. We have been informed that the Ranking
Member, Ms. Edwards, is on her way and wanted us to be started
so we can be prompt.
I want to welcome everybody to today's hearing, entitled
``Promoting Innovation, Competitive and Economic Growth:
Principles for Effective Domestic and International Standards
Development.'' In front of you are packets containing the
written testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony
disclosures for today's witnesses. I am now going to recognize
myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Today, we have the Federal Government--sorry. I would like
to welcome everybody to today's hearing, which is being held to
examine the principles of effective standards development, the
process by which the Federal Government, industry, and other
stakeholders promote those principles internationally, and the
ways some of our trading partners use standards as technical
barriers to trade.
Standards play a critical role in both the domestic and
international economies. Standards provide certainty for both
producers and consumers, enabling technologies to emerge and
markets to develop. While standards are pervasive throughout
the economy, their role in the marketplace is not widely
appreciated. Standards enable cell phones from different
carriers to communicate with each other. They allow
microprocessors to operate in computers made by different
manufacturers, and standards ensure that electrical appliances
can be used throughout the United States.
Along with providing market certainty to producers and
consumers, the process by which standards are developed is also
crucial to competitiveness and innovation. In the United
States, standards development has historically followed a
market-driven, voluntary consensus approach. This system has
proven to be effective because it allows relevant stakeholders,
including small and medium-sized enterprises, to contribute in
the development process, ensuring the final standards have
broad market relevance. As a result, our standards development
process has promoted innovation and competition.
However, different industries have unique needs for
standards. Whereas mature industries require standards to
provide product specifications to producers, emerging
technology industries may want to avoid standardizing at an
early stage, as this could stifle innovation and the
development of potentially superior technology. Timing,
therefore, is a critical issue. It is also important that
standards remain dynamic, allowing opportunities for
incorporation of new technologies.
These principles have proven to be effective in promoting
innovation in standards development processes. However, they
have not been universally adopted. Many countries have taken a
top-down approach to standards development. In some instances,
trading partners have mandated standards as a means of
protecting their domestic industries. In other cases, countries
have implemented standards without adequate notification
periods. This can be especially burdensome for small- and
medium-sized enterprises, which do not have the abundant
resources available to comply with changing rules. Other
countries require a local presence or partner to participate in
their standards development processes. In each case, these
approaches to standards development can inhibit competition and
innovation and can hurt U.S. producers seeking to export their
products.
Today, we will be looking at the principles of effective
standards development processes, and will seek to understand
the ways in which the Federal Government and stakeholders
promote these principles abroad. We will also analyze some of
the ways that standards and conformance assessment can be used
by trading partners as technical barriers to trade. Finally, we
will seek to understand the ways in which the Federal
Government, industry, and other stakeholders can act to address
instances where standards are used as technical barriers to
trade.
We have an excellent panel of government, industry, and
stakeholder witnesses who will share their insights on these
topics, and I would like to extend my appreciation to each of
our witnesses for taking the time and effort to appear before
us today, and we look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quayle follows:]

Prepared Statement of Benjamin Quayle, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,

Good morning. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing,
which is being held to examine the principles of effective standards
development; the process by which the Federal Government, industry and
other stakeholders promote those principles internationally; and the
ways some of our trading partners use standards as technical barriers
to trade.
Standards play a critical role in both the domestic and
international economies. Standards provide certainty for both producers
and consumers, enabling technologies to emerge and markets to develop.
While standards are pervasive throughout the economy, their role in the
marketplace is not widely appreciated. Standards enable cell phones
from different carriers to communicate with each other. They allow
microprocessors to operate in computers made by different
manufacturers. And, standards ensure that electrical appliances can be
used throughout the United States.
Along with providing market certainty to producers and consumers,
the process by which standards are developed is also crucial to
competitiveness and innovation.
In the United States, standards development has historically
followed a market-driven, voluntary consensus approach. This system has
proven to be effective because it allows relevant stakeholders,
including small and medium-sized enterprises, to contribute in the
development process, ensuring the final standards have broad market
relevance. As a result, our standards development process has promoted
innovation and competition.
However, different industries have unique needs for standards.
Whereas mature industries require standards to provide product
specifications to producers, emerging technology industries may want to
avoid standardizing at an early stage, as this could stifle innovation
and the development of potentially superior technology. Timing,
therefore, is a critical issue. It is also important that standards
remain dynamic, allowing opportunities for incorporation of new
technologies.
These principles have proven to be effective in promoting
innovation in standards development processes. However, they have not
been universally adopted.
Many countries have taken a top-down approach to standards
development. In some instances, trading partners have mandated
standards as a means of protecting their domestic industries. In other
cases, countries have implemented standards without adequate
notification periods. This can be especially burdensome for small- and
medium-sized enterprises, which do not have abundant resources
available to comply with changing rules. Other countries require a
local presence or partner to participate in their standards development
processes. In each case, these approaches to standards development can
inhibit competition and innovation, and can hurt U.S. producers seeking
to export their products.
Today, we will be looking at the principles of effective standards
development processes and will seek to understand the ways in which the
Federal Government and stakeholders promote these principles abroad. We
will also analyze some of the ways that standards and conformance
assessment can be used by trading partners as technical barriers to
trade. Finally, we will seek to understand the ways in which the
Federal Government, industry, and other stakeholders can act to address
instances where standards are used as technical barriers to trade.
We have an excellent panel of government, industry, and stakeholder
witnesses who will share their insights on these topics with us. I'd
like to extend my appreciation to each of our witnesses for taking the
time and effort to appear before us today. We look forward to your
testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]

Prepared Statement of Ms. Donna F. Edwards, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation

Thank you, Chairman Quayle. And thank you for calling this
important hearing on standards development and the role of standards in
global competition.
Although issues surrounding standards do not often get attention in
Congress, they have an incredibly significant impact on the ability of
U.S. companies to innovate and compete in the global market and have a
much greater bearing on future economic growth than most would imagine.
I'm pleased that we're taking the time to focus on these issues and
thank the witnesses for their willingness to join us today.
As the global marketplace has grown over the last 30 years, we have
learned how important it is that the playing field is level and that
all of the players on that field are playing by the same rules.
Standards can open up new or expanding markets to a U.S. company.
However, standards can also serve as a barrier to trade, keeping U.S.
companies out and sending profits elsewhere. When things go awry in the
international standards realm--when someone tries to manipulate the
standards system or rig it to their own ends--it really matters for
U.S. companies and the U.S. economy.
As we continue to look for opportunities to spur economic growth in
this country and keep the U.S. competitive in the global marketplace,
it is critical that we preserve the ability of our companies--big and
small alike--to export their products to markets throughout the world.
To make that happen, we need to do what we can to ensure that the
standards that are being put in place worldwide do not unfairly
disadvantage our home-grown businesses.
We have a very successful standards development system in this
country. It has been, and continues to be, the envy of the world. Our
system is characterized by unparalleled transparency, openness, and
engagement. As a result, we produce incredibly high quality standards.
Unfortunately, not everyone does it our way. And the task of
promoting our standards internationally or harmonizing our standards
with those developed elsewhere, while also weeding out those that leave
something to be desired or disadvantage our companies, is certainly not
an easy one.
Last Congress, this Committee recognized the importance of
international standardization to our economy and sought to determine if
there were ways that the Federal Government could more effectively help
the private sector in its standards harmonization efforts. We explored
ways for the Federal Government to get its own house in order, so that
our agencies are coordinating and not unintentionally getting in each
others' way. We wondered if there was value to the Federal Government
stepping up and helping industry and the standards community by serving
as a watchdog, looking out for situations where the international
standards development process might be taking a turn for the worse. And
we wanted to ensure that the Federal Government was prepared to offer
assistance to our private sector standards community, if such
assistance was needed and would prove helpful.
As you may know, these efforts culminated in a provision in the
House version of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.
Although this language did not make it into the final version, these
are issues that I remain interested in. I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses today about what, if anything, can be done to make the
Federal Government a better partner to industry and the standards
development community.
I am also interested in hearing from the witnesses about the
importance of the U.S. remaining on the leading edge of standardization
in new or emerging areas of technology. I am pleased that the Federal
Government is working closely with the private sector and the standards
development community to ensure that the U.S. is leading the world on
standards development for smart grid, nanotechnology, health
information technology, cloud computing, and public safety
communications. We should continue to join efforts to identify new
areas of technology with significant transformative potential and come
together as quickly as possible to develop the needed standards and
promote those standards internationally.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing on this
important topic. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Quayle. We will wait for the gentlelady, but
before we do it, we are going to introduce our witnesses and
then we will proceed to hear from each of them in order.
Our first witness is Ms. Mary Saunders, Director of the
Standards Coordination Office at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. Ms. Saunders serves as the
representative of NIST within the standards community and leads
the agency's interactions with foreign governments.
Next, we will hear from Mr. Joe Bhatia, President and CEO
of the American National Standards Institute. Mr. Bhatia
represents American interests in international standards
through his involvement with a variety of international
standard organizations.
Our third witness is Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of
Standards at Intel Corporation. Mr. Wennblom leads Intel's
worldwide strategic standards policy.
Our fourth witness is Mr. Mark Grimaldi, owner of Equinox
Chemicals. As the owner of a business with significant export
growth, Mr. Grimaldi is experienced in how international
standards affect American companies in the global marketplace.
Our final witness is Mr. James Seay, President of Premier
Rides. In addition to his standards experience with Premier
Rides, Mr. Seay chairs the ASTM F24 Global Committee on Ride
Safety Standards.
Thanks again to our witnesses for being here this morning.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to
five minutes each. After all witnesses have spoken, Members of
the Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions.
I now recognize our first witness, Ms. Mary Saunders, for
her five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MS. MARY H. SAUNDERS, DIRECTOR,

STANDARDS COORDINATION OFFICE,

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

Ms. Saunders. Chairman Quayle and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss how
standards can promote innovation, competition, and economic
growth. I will highlight recent standards policy developments
in the federal space as well as outlining how NIST promotes
voluntary consensus standards internationally. More detailed
information is available in my written testimony submitted as
part of the hearing record.
NIST has a unique role with respect to standards in the
federal enterprise. This role is defined by statute, and its
effectiveness is borne out by a track record of technical
excellence. Our strong ties to industry and the standards
community have enabled us to tackle various standards-related
challenges and deliver timely solutions. Companies both large
and small engage with NIST directly through workshops and
outreach activities as well as indirectly in technical
committees in more than 100 standards organizations in which we
participate.
Last year, NIST Director Patrick Gallagher testified before
this committee about the need for more effective federal
engagement in standards development, use, and promotion. This
is now being facilitated by a Subcommittee on Standards chaired
by Dr. Gallagher established within the National Science and
Technology Council's Committee on Technology. Last October,
following extensive public consultations, the Subcommittee
issued a report with recommendations on how the effectiveness
of Federal Government engagement in standards to address
national priorities can be enhanced. These recommendations have
been incorporated into a recent White House memorandum for
agencies.
There are many types of standards organizations. One size
certainly does not fit all, and identifying underlying
principles that characterize effective standardization
processes is important for agency decision making. A limited
set of foundational attributes for standardization activities
is called out in OMB Circular A-119 focusing on voluntary
consensus standards activities. The Subcommittee on Standards
also identified the following as being important to maximize
the impact of the full range of standardization activities on
enabling innovation and fostering competition, and these are
transparency, open participation, flexibility, effectiveness
and relevance, coherence international acceptance, and net
benefit.
NIST has embraced these principles in our work coordinating
standards development for the realization of interoperable
smart grid, for cloud computing, and other areas. In each of
these cases, it was determined either by legislative or policy
directive that there was a need to ensure that relevant
standards are available on a timely basis to support a rapid,
coherent response to a national priority. NIST leadership in
facilitating private-sector-led standards development efforts
engaging a broad range of stakeholders is contributing to
ensuring that key public policy goals are met in a timely
manner with solutions that are accepted globally.
The U.S. Government and NIST in its international
interactions has long advocated that companies should adopt and
use international standards where available and that the
opportunity to participate in standardization activities should
be made available to all interested stakeholders. NIST has also
demonstrated by example through our own participation in a
range of international standardization activities. We have
worked effectively to move technical content from NIST special
publications in the cybersecurity and cloud arenas into
international standards venues to facilitate global acceptance.
With a reduction in tariffs globally, the use of standards
and conformity assessment procedures as technical barriers of
trade has become an issue of increasing concern. NIST supports
U.S. industry and government agencies in addressing technical
barriers to trade by providing various reference tools to
inform U.S. stakeholders of potential TBT-related issues and to
assist them in addressing them. We engage in regular
information exchanges related to technical standards and
conformity assessment issues with important trading partners
such as the European Union, Japan, China and Brazil. These
exchanges enable us to gather firsthand information about
standards and related developments that can impact U.S.
companies exporting to those countries. In instances where we
have better approaches, we have been able to share our
experiences about those approaches, why these have worked and
lessons learned.
In closing, Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member Edwards and
members of the Subcommittee, NIST is actively working with both
private sector partners and other agencies to leverage new
opportunities to help our industry maintain their leadership
role in the standards arena. We look forward to working with
you closely, and I will be glad to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders follows:]

Prepared Statement of Ms. Mary H. Saunders

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.018

Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Ms. Saunders.
I now recognize Mr. Bhatia for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. S. JOE BHATIA,

PRESIDENT AND CEO,

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE

Mr. Bhatia. Thank you, Chairman Quayle, Ranking Member
Edwards. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mr.
Bhatia. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I want to start out by saying that standards and conformity
assessment activities are inseparably linked really to all
aspects and all facets of our national economy. They influence
it, and 80 percent of all global merchandise traded is impacted
by them. That amounts to about $13 trillion every year. Of
course, it will go up later.
The United States has the most flexible and democratic
standardization system in the world. Our system thrives on
active engagement of all stakeholders, giving us a competitive
advantage over those countries that follow a top-down approach.
It is the market itself, that through open, transparent, and
consensus-based processes determines when a standard should be
first developed.
The public-private partnership that we have talked about is
a key part of what makes our system successful, and ANSI is
committed to our role as a neutral convener and as a forum
where we get all the constituencies together--industry,
government agencies, consumers, academia, and all the other
people that are affected by the documents. We work to leverage
the power of standardization and by making targeted activities
successful in first developing the standards and then deploying
them in the future.
I have heard from many industry leaders over many years
that they have come together in the standardization process to
achieve three key goals: one, to shape the specifications that
drive their products' acceptance; two, they capitalize on the
efficiency and cost-saving measures that collaborative
ingenuity provides; and they finally are able to influence
international requirements and standards that allow our
products to be accepted across borders and take advantage of
the growing global economy.
As the U.S. member body to ISO and IEC, ANSI works very
hard to ensure that the U.S. interests are considered from all
facets of life. It is crucial that we approach ISO and IEC with
a clear and strong national position both from the technical
point of view and also from a policy point of view, and we then
leverage our international relationships, be it from the
Germans or with the French as the traditional partners, or with
the new ones like Brazilians or the Indians. We leverage that
to achieve support for our positions. We have several examples
of success. The most critical ones that come to mind are
biotechnology and the standardization efforts in the financial
services area.
Now, a big problem we face in the global market is that too
often standards, and compliance to standards, are used as
barriers by other nations. Emerging markets such as China and
India are countries that are developing thousands of standards
and specifications every year. A lot of them are developed with
the personal preferences of those markets and those
technologies in mind. You can imagine that these are favoring
those solutions that perhaps are foreign to us, and you can
imagine the difficulty that creates for the U.S. businesses
looking to get into these markets; one of our key priorities is
to help U.S. companies, large and small, negotiate this complex
landscape and remove any barriers in the way of unobstructed
trade.
One key example I want to mention is a U.S. SME, undergoing
an $8.5 million contract, was stopped at the border because of
a certification requirement, a technical requirement, and we
worked then with the China certification and accreditation
administration, which eventually agreed to speak on behalf of
the company; then we worked with the U.S. Government to raise
the issue with the Chinese officials as a matter of WTO
obligations of the Chinese, and after a short time, the SME was
successful in gaining acceptance to that market.
Mostly, though, when it comes to global trade, transparent
and consensus-based international standards are really not an
obstacle. They are actually a part of the solution. If they are
used effectively, if they are developed properly, they have the
capacity to remove all barriers to trade and fuel business
growth for large and small companies.
Now, large companies have the capacity and resources to
develop global strategies to overcome barriers to trade. The
SMEs often lack such in-house capabilities. ANSI has worked
very closely with NIST and with others to develop things like
standards portals, which provide valuable free information to
small and large companies, both to be able to access markets
like China, like Japan, like Korea, like India, and work on
others at the same time. The standards portals are a
beneficial, free resource to all comers, especially to the
SMEs.
And finally, in conclusion, I want to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for calling this hearing. We hear a lot about
problems that our exports have in breaking into emerging
markets, and we simply cannot afford to let them miss out on
these good opportunities, and I think in a partnership that
spans the public sector and the private sector, standards and
conformance can really be the strategic tools to help fuel the
U.S. innovation, our competitiveness, and our economic growth,
and we stand ready to help anyone. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bhatia follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mr. S. Joe Bhatia

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.034

Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Bhatia.
We now recognize Mr. Wennblom for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP WENNBLOM,

DIRECTOR OF STANDARDS, INTEL CORPORATION

Mr. Wennblom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Edwards and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak today on the important topic of standards.
My name is Philip Wennblom. I am Director of Standards at Intel
Corporation. Intel is a semiconductor company headquartered in
the United States doing business in 120 countries around the
world. We had about $50 billion in revenue last year and about
100,000 employees. As Director of Standards, I look at the
standards across all lines of business worldwide with a special
focus on standards policy issues.
Standards are very important to Intel's business and they
are vital to the ICT industry. Intel makes complex
semiconductor products and intricate pieces of software, and
standards help our customers build useful systems out of those,
and once those systems are created, standards help them be more
useful to consumers who buy and use those systems.
Standards are needed when a consistent approach is required
across multiple vendors. That might be, for example, in data
networking, where the IEEE 802.3 standard called Ethernet
enables multiple computers to plug into any network and just
work, or they are also useful when setting performance,
efficiency or quality criteria across multiple products,
allowing them to be compared or evaluated. Enabling global
supply chains is another example where a modern laptop computer
has over 250 standards just for interoperability, and a lot of
those allow companies to specialize in making different types
of products and then have them all come together and just work.
I would like to share some views on how standards are best
developed, speaking from the perspective of the ICT sector,
information and communication technology. First, we have a very
diverse system of standards making in the United States. There
is a variety of types of organizations. Some have been around
for over 100 years with well-established programs, and others
have just been created in the last few years. There is a
variety of working methods, and companies have a choice often
about where to take their work in standards making. That
diversity is a key strength of the U.S. system.
Second, most ICT standards are global. That means they are
developed with the worldwide marketplace in mind and they tend
to be adopted globally, and that is important to suppliers,
recalling the point about global supply chains, and also very
beneficial to consumers because products work no matter where
you go around the world.
Third, standards should be voluntary, not mandated or
regulated. Voluntary is really a friend of innovation.
Technology changes very quickly. Moore's law says that the
number of transistors on a piece of silicone will double every
24 months, and that means that is the force that means that the
smartphone in your pocket probably has more computing power
than the fastest desktop computer of 15 years ago. Regulations
and mandates can't keep pace with that rate of change.
And finally, the process that we use to develop standards
is transparent, consensus based and industry led. One example
to illustrate this is the universal serial bus. It is an
example of diversity because it was a unique organization to
develop that specific standard. It was defined for the global
market and developed by companies and experts from all over the
world, and it has now been very widely adopted. There have been
billions shipped. It is innovative, well beyond what was
imagined when it was created. Almost all of us interact with
USB in our laptops or smartphones or cameras, or printers. It
is implemented on a huge variety of projects, and it has
created opportunities for both large and small companies. Even
recently there are some new startup companies building USB
products and competing very effectively because that standard
tends to level the playing field.
Finally, a few comments on trade barriers. The WTO
Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement is very useful, has very
useful provisions, but there are some ambiguities. For example,
not every country views international standard in the same way,
which can make it harder for U.S. industry. Monitoring and
enforcement are key. We appreciate the NIST programs that keep
us informed about regulations, and when our industry identifies
concerns, we bring those to the attention of USTR, who is a
great partner.
It is also important for the United States to set a good
example using the practices we would like other countries to
adopt, meaning minimizing technical regulation and basing
requirements on international standards.
Thank you again for the opportunity and I would be happy to
take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wennblom follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mr. Philip Wennblom

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.039

Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Wennblom.
I now recognize Mr. Grimaldi for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK GRIMALDI,

OWNER, EQUINOX CHEMICALS

Mr. Grimaldi. My name is Mark Grimaldi and I am the
President and CEO of Equinox Chemicals and Adco Products
located in Albany, Georgia. Thank you for having me here today.
It is an honor to be here to represent my company and our part
of the industry.
We are an industry leader in chemical innovation, R&D,
specialty manufacturing, and product commercialization around
the world. The industries we serve include aerospace,
specialized industrial products, pharmaceuticals, lubricants,
flavors, cleaning, and cutting-edge research products for a
diverse group of markets globally.
When I started Equinox Chemicals eight years ago as a
single-person operation, I had a vision of building a high-tech
product development company and a manufacturing company that
could vertically integrate all the way from innovation through
R&D, manufacturing and commercialization and be able to compete
in a global marketplace. I knew this would be the key if we
were really, really going to be able to compete in a really
diverse market, and because of this approach, we have grown
more than 300 percent in sales and over 389 percent in employee
growth in the last three years. We have invested millions of
dollars in infrastructure and manufacturing here in the United
States and facilities during a period of time when the rest of
the industry was pulling back and not investing capital, and it
is our ability to compete both domestically and globally in
this very short amount of time that has allowed us to excel in
both innovation and manufacturing. So establishing solid
standards and being involved in the development of new
standards, or updating existing standards both domestically and
globally, is one of the most crucial factors in our success.
The United States leads the way globally by setting the bar
for existing standards as well as in the development of new
standards as world markets, products and technologies evolve.
The key to the United States remaining in this pinnacle
position and continuing to improve the process is to ensure
that the following four basic principles which have been
essential to our success are maintained and further developed.
One is that the standards process is private-sector led
with representation from government, industry, both small and
large industry representatives, and consumers, and we need to
ensure that there is flexibility and applicability with minimal
impact on innovation, competition, and economic growth. It has
got to be consensus based. It has got to be a transparent
decision-making process where participation is available to all
the stakeholders and you get input from a diverse group of
folks regardless of the size or the location of the
representative giving input. And I would also like to emphasize
that guaranteeing a balance in the process inputs from all the
stakeholders is key to favoring one group or industry over
another when you are setting standards, which would create
unfair competitive advantages and creating an environment where
the end user, the consumer, may not be getting the best
possible product. It has to be voluntary. Mandating standards
hampers competition and the innovation process by limiting the
company's ability to work outside the box and on the cutting
edge of new technologies. There is a time and place in the
development cycle for standards, and you can't--there is no set
time for a standard to be developed. You really have to rely on
the folks that are the experts and the consumers and the part
of the advisory board to decide when it is appropriate to start
a standard process, because if you do it too soon you can stunt
growth and stunt innovation.
And then promoting the U.S. standard-setting system and
standards set under that system domestically and abroad would
lead the way around the globe, and having to comply
unnecessarily with multiple standards both domestically and
globally adds a huge amount of unneeded redundancy and
complication to many of the companies, especially the small and
medium business companies. It would be great and ideal if we
could just choose what standard we wanted to comply with, but
it doesn't work that way. We are in dozens of countries, we
have thousands of products, and our customers choose what
standards they expect our products to comply with, and so when
we have all those redundant standards that we have to comply
with around the world, it makes it very, very complicated for
us to do that.
So the United States has consistently led the way in
developing these globally accepted standards, but as the E.U.
and other developing countries start to develop those
standards, we need to ensure that we continue to lead the way,
work closely with these trade partners, and we have to ensure
that other countries do not create unnecessary trade barriers
and otherwise use standards to create unfair competition in
places, especially in Europe where one of our biggest markets
is, and REACH would be a great example there.
So in closing, I would like to ask that you continue to
weigh this topic with your colleagues, staffs, and advisors,
and that you remember the critical standards--that it is
critical that standards are set to create equal opportunity
among domestic and international businesses of all sizes,
involve no excessive fees that limit SME participation and
competitiveness, and minimize delays in development and
approval of new products, and include some intellectual
property protections to encourage investment in these endeavors
worldwide.
Thanks for the opportunity, and I am available to help in
any way possible going forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grimaldi follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mr. Mark Grimaldi

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.044

Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Grimaldi.
I now recognize our final witness, Mr. Seay, for five
minutes.

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES SEAY,

PRESIDENT, PREMIER RIDES

Mr. Seay. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Technology and Innovation Subcommittee. My name is Jim Seay and
I am the President and Owner of Premier Rides, a small company
in Maryland recognized globally as an industry leader in the
supply of innovative amusement rides and attractions. I would
like to personally thank Ranking Member Edwards for the kind
invitation to discuss the position of small business with
respect to the standards development process.
Premier Rides focuses on the construction of high-tech
rides that incorporate elements such as non-contact magnetic
drive systems that both dramatically accelerate multi-ton
vehicles to high velocities in seconds and stop them just as
quickly. As an exporter, we ship millions of pounds of
millimeter-accurate fabricated steel all over the world,
including sophisticated electronic control systems to areas
like Singapore, Indonesia and China. On a voluntary basis, I
serve as the chairman of the ASTM International Committee F24
on Amusement Rides and Devices. Along with 500 members from 24
countries, we provide thousands of voluntary hours annually
towards the development of amusement-ride safety standards.
Safety is the paramount principle of my industry, and I believe
strong safety standards are an appropriate method for
establishing a very high bar for participation.
Premier Rides is a growing company of approximately 20
technical and marketing employees plus a fabrication base of
over 200 craftsmen. The expansion of global business is
allowing us to add more staff, and last month, Premier has
added five new engineers, both entry level and also senior
level. We are hiring more engineers now. The more engineers we
hire, the more work for our manufacturing facilities. I can
honestly say that without fair global standards that ensure a
high level of quality and safety, Premier would not be
delivering as much equipment internationally. Simply put, the
standards level the playing field for us.
ASTM International is a 100-year-old nonprofit organization
devoted to the development of voluntary consensus standards. It
is accredited by ANSI and meets WTO principles for the
development of international standards. ASTM also has a long
and vibrant relationship with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
For a small company like Premier, the key principle to
effective standards participation is fair treatment for all. At
ASTM, Premier does get, as a small business, fair treatment.
The ASTM committee structure ensures balanced participation
from stakeholders. While I am from a small company, my
technical input and votes regarding safety issues are equal to
that of companies such as Walt Disney and Universal. That is
very powerful for a small company.
Another principle for the success of small company
engagement is the use of technology to lower barriers to
participation. ASTM has committed significant resources to
provide integrated electronic processes from the inception of
an idea for a standard until that standard is published. This
is an especially important tool for small companies like
Premier that do not have unlimited manpower and unlimited
financial resources.
So does Premier have a positive experience with standards?
Yes. In locations like Singapore and Indonesia, the experience
due to standards adoption has established a level playing
field, eliminated subpar, substandard suppliers and put Premier
in a position where there was a fair basis to compete with
other quality-focused suppliers.
Are all experiences positive? No, they are not. In one
example. despite the fact that our industry relies upon ASTM
standards worldwide, the ISO has recently formed a new
technology committee for attraction safety under the
chairmanship of the Federation of Russia. That makes no sense.
As another example, in a rush to provide new entertainment
experiences to the public, developers in China incorporated
subpar equipment with virtually no safety standards oversight.
Serious accidents occurred and China reacted not by adopting
the ASTM standards but by writing their own. To our technical
experts of the industry again, this makes no sense. I see a
major opportunity for organizations like NIST to assist in
promoting existing standards, and without such an effort, the
independent efforts might result in trade barriers, less
safety, and affect the growth of companies like Premier.
In summary, small- and medium-sized companies like Premier
have, and need to continue to have, an effective voice in the
standards process in order to advance the global
competitiveness of U.S. companies of all sizes. The U.S.
Government should promote global harmonization and the adoption
of the best standards, and avoid the unnecessary and costly
obstacles that are created when our trade partners create
policies and preferences for less-robust standards.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and look
forward to working with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Seay follows:]

Prepared Statement of Mr. James Seay

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.058

Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Seay, and I would like to
thank all of the witnesses for their testimony, reminding
Members that the Committee rules limit questioning to five
minutes. The Chair will at this point open the round of
questions, and I will recognize myself for five minutes.
Ms. Saunders, I wanted to ask you, one of the concerns that
I have, you said that there are about 10,000 consensus
standards that were in federal regulations, and one of my big
concerns is how some federal regulations are just allowed to go
on in perpetuity without any reevaluation. I actually
introduced a bill that actually has all major rules after 10
years go through another reevaluation so they can do a cost-
benefit analysis. What are federal agencies doing with the
standards that are within the federal regulations to make sure
that they are still the type of standards that we need so that
we are not going to stifle innovation going forward?
Ms. Saunders. Well, to your point, you are right. We do
track in the Code of Federal Regulations close to 10,000
references to standards in various agencies' regulations, and
there is a provision, a general provision that agencies should
review major rules every five years with a view to revising
them or eliminate them, etc., and many agencies do an excellent
job of undertaking that revision. To be practical, it is easier
for the smaller agencies that have a smaller number of
regulations for which they are responsible to undertake that
review on a frequent basis but I know that all the agency
standards executives do encourage the folks who write the
regulations to undertake those reviews to determine whether the
regulations themselves should be revised or updated or
eliminated, and also that the standards referenced in those
regulations might need to be updated in the sense that a more
recent edition might need to be referenced.
There are clearly health and safety issues that have to be
carefully considered by the agencies when they undertake those
determinations, and I will also say, recently, over the past
two years, the Office of Management and Budget Information and
Regulatory Affairs has explicitly reached out to agencies
seeking them to submit plans for review of the regulations, and
that has had some positive impact as well.
Chairman Quayle. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Grimaldi, in your testimony you were talking about when
the right time to have the consensus standards be made with new
companies, especially startups in the startup sectors that if
you put standards in place too early, that might stifle growth
and innovation, but is there no magic point of when you should
put standards down? What is your take on when we should be
looking to provide consensus standards from the various sectors
because it has to come from the private sector so that we can
all work together. But when do you see that as the time to do
it?
Mr. Grimaldi. That is a very difficult and complex question
to answer because it is such a broad area. For instance, in the
chemical industry, we are so diverse. I mean, chemicals go into
so many--just about everything in the world and affect so many
different markets and can affect Intel and the furniture
business and the paint business and the carpet business. It
goes into everything. And so when you do you start setting the
standards? It has to be looked at on an individual basis. You
can't just have a magic line in the sand that says when you
cross this line, you have got to start developing a standard.
And so it makes it a very, very difficult process because
the other thing you want to be careful of is that in some cases
when we are developing new technologies that revolutionize a
particular market or an industry such as dry cleaning or
something like that, when you can develop a new product that
replaces a product that has got safety issues or environmental
issues, you want to be able to bring that product to market
very, very quickly. Well, the standards are so old and so
established that sometimes you want to be able to start that
process much, much sooner than you would for something that has
to be out on the market for a while. It is so new, it is such a
new technology or a new market that you want to have time to
understand what the impacts that the standards are going to
have before you go into that process.
Chairman Quayle. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wennblom, you mentioned that monitoring and enforcing
the WTO Agreement on the Technical Barriers to Trade is the
best way that we can actually get the full benefits of that
agreement. How do you think the monitoring--has it been
effective so far? Do you have any suggestions on how to improve
that?
Mr. Wennblom. That is an important question. I think the
monitoring we have is largely effective but it does require the
engagement of industry, which is often the first to see an
issue and in partnership with NIST and USTR and other parts of
the government. So I think everyone has to be diligent, but the
tools we have in place are good ones. Of course, I also
mentioned there are ambiguities in some of the trade
agreements, and as we see an opportunity to improve those
agreements or develop new ones that would be more clear and
support U.S. interests, that is always helpful to pursue.
Chairman Quayle. Okay. Thank you very much.
I now recognize the Ranking Member, Ms. Edwards, for five
minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you all for your testimony.
I am really curious here, it feels like the elephant in the
room is China, and so I want to have a little bit of a
discussion and particularly in the area of, say, intellectual
property rights. I am a little curious about the relationship
between intellectual property rights and standards with respect
to China, and my understanding is that in recent years there
has been a push by Chinese regulators to invoke compulsory
licensing of intellectual property rights for mandatory
standards, and so I wonder if any of you can discuss these
efforts and what they mean for U.S. companies attempting to do
business in a really huge market. Mr. Bhatia?
Mr. Bhatia. I will take a shot at it. ANSI has an
intellectual property rights committee, which basically looks
at these issues from a broader perspective, and just recently
we had the privilege of having ITC, FTC, and--what was the
third agency? So we have all the key agencies of Federal
Government are also participating--PTO also joined. In addition
to that, we have about 90 different organizations that are
participating and not always the opinions are common, but we
worked very hard to develop what we think are rightful measures
to not only handle the application of IPR issues and
standardization, for example, the issue of embedded technology
that is preferred by a company as a critical issue but also
working to take action at the international level such as with
countries like China or others where there may be violations of
intellectual rights off others, and we are working not only
with China but we are also working with international
organizations like ISO and IEC to develop global policies that
will support the needs of industry, not just in the United
States but also in other developed markets, which are usually
creating the intellectual capital.
So I think there is a lot to be done. We do need the
assistance and engagement of industry on an active basis. We
have a forum in which to debate these issues and advance. We
also have bilateral agreements with SAC, for example, the
standards organization of China. We work very closely with
them, and we can go to them directly about these issues and
these problems, and quite often they try to work with us. China
is maturing slowly. I think they are becoming more aware of
their responsibilities. As they become more advanced in
technology development, they are going to be creators of
intellectual capital, not just the user of it. So I think they
are becoming more and more responsive to requests, from the
Western countries usually, to address these issues in a fair
manner.
Ms. Edwards. I am also just curious, from a business
perspective, and our three witnesses who actually deal with
this probably on a more regular basis can help me understand
what happens when your company encounters an international
standards-related issue and you might need the U.S. government
to offer some kind of assistance in resolving that. Given the
number of agencies that might have responsibility, you as
business owners, who do you call and how do you know who to
call?
Mr. Seay. I will speak from the standpoint of our company.
First of all, China is a very important trading partner to
someone like Premier but the IP issues in my industry are
significant. It was not uncommon that you go to trade shows
recently and you see photographs of your equipment, our own
equipment, Premier's equipment, in other people's booths, which
are startup organizations in China. The way that that has been
remediated is, number one, we have a trade association, the
International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions.
They have adopted an IP approach to preventing that from
happening.
The biggest challenge is, if China does not adopt the
global accepted standards, what happens in our industry is--and
there have been significant issues where they will essentially
use the IP on a visual basis of an attraction--they will build
an attraction, but because it doesn't have the embedded safety
of what the standards like the ASTM F24 give, you end up with a
very devastating result, and there have been some serious
accidents because of that, as I mentioned.
Ms. Edwards. Are there times when that equipment then
somehow or another makes its way into the U.S. market?
Mr. Seay. It has been marketed into the U.S. market and
there are instances where some of it has come in. The results
have not been good. There hasn't been a safety issue here in
the United States, but the results on a quality level has now
put--there has been pushback on that. But it is important to
have someone like NIST that we can turn to because as an
example, NIST had a workshop with Chinese people, businesses
who came here and they identified our industry as being one
where we have got to work together closer. So we do need
someone like a NIST that we can turn to for that.
Ms. Edwards. And Mr. Chairman, we can explore this, but the
question that I have is, is it NIST, is it PTO, is it, you
know--I mean, I am just completely confused as to if I am a
businessperson who owns a small business, trying to figure out
and navigate who has the responsibility to be my advocate in an
international arena I think is very complex, and I hope, Mr.
Chairman, we are going to be able to get to some of those
questions. Thank you.
Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
And I now recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Fleischmann, for five minutes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know we have touched on this in some of the testimony and
some of the questions, but I would like to hear from all of you
all about this issue, please. What in your experience has been
effective responses for either industry or government when a
company encounters the use of standards as technical barriers
to trade in countries to which they export? I would like to
hear from all of you on that.
Ms. Saunders. Okay. We have several examples of effective
responses. I think the most effective responses were--building
on my fellow panelists' comments--the affected industry and the
relevant government agencies come together, and in the trade
space when you have a technical barrier to trade, the lead on
that issue is the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. We work
with the Department of Commerce in particular because we have a
trade agency component as well as a scientific component. We
work very closely with the U.S. Trade Representative's Office
to provide technical expertise that underpins their negotiating
arguments or their arguments against countries that are
applying technical barriers to trade. It is very important to
have the support of the industry as well. I can speak from a
practical perspective in terms of how that barrier is actually
affecting business. But I do think we have several cases. Joe
mentioned one particular in China where he worked with the
private sector and also with the government. We have several
cases where we have been successful in rolling back technical
barriers to trade. There are many cases where it hasn't worked
quite as well. But I think when the trade agency, particularly
the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, Department of Commerce
including NIST for technical expertise, and the industry work
together, we have a pretty good chance of being successful.
Mr. Bhatia. If I may add to that, we have quite a few
structures through which we can execute our concerns. We have
technical advisory committees, which are jointly sponsored by
USTR and Department of Commerce, which are all populated by
private sector people. I chair one of those, which deals with
technical barriers to trade. I am a Vice Chair now. I chaired
it for 10 years. And through that forum, we can address all
technical issues that are faced by either industry association
as a collective activity or by individual company that channels
it through the trade association like Mr. Seay gave the example
of.
We also have opportunities to work directly with countries
because we have bilateral agreements with them. We also have
opportunities to engage the responsible federal agency for that
particular product type. For example, the example of playground
equipment, we would go to CPSC, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, because they have the oversight of managing the
safety of consumer products in this country and they have
relationships with their counterparts in other countries as
well. Similarly, we can go to OSHA for workplace safety issues.
So we have opportunities and mechanisms that we work with, and
ANSI has structured a lot of our liaisons with both federal
agencies and also in other countries to address some of these
issues both at the governmental level and also at the private-
sector level because we also work with industry groups in many
other countries.
Of course, we have better success with mature partners that
we have been working with over the years like Canada or Germany
or U.K., and we are beginning to learn how to work more
effectively with countries like China or India. But I think it
is not a lost cause. We can do a lot of good.
Mr. Wennblom. Thank you for the question. I think one of
the most important things we do is try to identify concerns at
an early stage by monitoring the standards activity in the
countries of key trading partners using tools like the
standards portal that ANSI provides and others, just having
people on the ground. We also then, if we identify a concern,
work in trade associations to determine if there is an industry
view on that concern, and using the comment opportunities that
the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement provides, we can
identify those concerns to key trading partners. If the
concerns aren't addressed, then USTR is a great partner in
further addressing those issues. So that is kind of our general
recipe.
Mr. Grimaldi. I would also agree with that in that a key
way that as a small business we navigate that and help ensure
that we get an effective response from government is using our
trade associations and using them as a resource to help us
navigate through the systems to get that response that we need,
and the Transatlantic Economic Council, Department of Commerce,
and USTR are examples in the ways we address these NGBs
currently. But it is very difficult in more mature markets
where we have a lot of these trade barriers that have been
around for a while that are well established. It is very
difficult to reverse some of that, and especially when you have
got new technologies and innovation that you want to launch
globally. And a lot of times with the speed of technology
development and change, it is difficult to get that new
technology out there quick enough and respond quick enough when
you have these standards that are in the way.
Mr. Seay. I will be quick. I mentioned before the ISO issue
that our industry is dealing with. We have not found an
appropriate mechanism to deal with that one where you have
almost like a rogue standards effort being established that
doesn't have the experts that should be there that exists in
other efforts. I will give an example of a trade barrier
situation, which is even closer than China, where up until
recently Europe and the United States in my industry, you would
have to build equipment for the United States and you would
have to build different equipment for Europe. There has been a
concerted effort set up by the trade association I mentioned
before, IAAPA, working with ASTM where the CEN people and the
ASTM people got together to harmonize their standards so that
there would be some ability to cross-promote products between
the two areas, and that is not only good for the manufacturers,
it is good for the end user because it ends up making the cost
of the product lower.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Fleischmann.
I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes,
for five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having this hearing, and I also want to thank the Ranking
Member for bringing Jim Seay to the panel today. His business
is located in my district and we are very proud to have it
there. Premier is a good name for his business because it
really is the premier deliverer of ride products across the
world from my understanding, so we are glad to have all of you
here today.
I wanted to pick back up with you, Jim, about this ISO
issue and help me understand a little bit more what it means
that the Federation of Russia now has the chairmanship and why
you are describing this activity as kind of a rogue activity. I
am sort of drowning in the alphabet soup of acronyms that are
involved here in this thing, but maybe you can on that issue
give us a little more detail.
Mr. Seay. Yeah, the alphabet soup is kind of like the
Ambien of the technical world, you know.
But the ISO situation is a perfect example of the
challenge, and with ASTM, you have got a voluntary consensus
organization, and as I mentioned before, anybody can
participate in ASTM. We have, you know, operators,
manufacturers, consumer advocates, the CPSC. I mean, you have
this wide array. Anybody can participate. With the ISO
situation, an individual who is smart enough to recognize that
they can take what is called the tag for ISO by writing a
check, and they now control this new committee and it is a
committee that is not open. It doesn't have the consensus
approach. If you want to write checks, you can participate.
One of the biggest challenges is that the United States
only gets one vote in ISO, and so you now have a scenario
where--and with the Europeans, we actually have this good
relationship I talked about before, but the Europeans have a
vote for every country in Europe so the United States becomes--
has a minor role, and here we are in an industry where you look
at the global business for my industry, the majority of that
global business is controlled through U.S.-based entities and
the expertise lies in large part in the United States and also
in Europe. So you have this situation where suddenly, you know,
the entire body of experts becomes a very small factor in the
development of these regulations, and, you know, nothing
against the Federation of Russia, because I never want them
upset at me, but you know, they have not been a large
participant in the entertainment business, we are, and the
attractions we build are incredibly sophisticated. We have
attractions that run 13 trains at the same time with seconds of
separation so that requires extreme safety.
Mr. Sarbanes. So when the ISO, the jurisdiction of the--I
mean, because the way you described it, one response might be
to say well, there are all these other ways of exchanging
standards and bringing consensus and so forth. So, you know,
ignore ISO if it is off on some rogue expedition. So describe
the kind of jurisdiction it has in terms of the reach of these
regulations that it issues and how that creates a problem for
you and other companies.
Mr. Seay. Well, I think the comment before, the elephant in
the room comment, is a good one because the challenge with
ASTM, and I will be honest, it has got an A there; it is
American. The issue is with ISO, it has got an I. It is
international. It is simple as that. When the vote went out
globally, should this ISO standards development group be
established, you know, the Germans were great. The Germans have
some fantastic standards. They wrote a very blatantly negative
vote for it. However, there were votes all over the world from
people who don't even have attractions in their country who
said sure, ISO, that has got to be better than anything else,
and that is the situation that you honestly end up in.
Mr. Sarbanes. And when did this happen? How long has the
ISO sort have been a force to be reckoned with?
Mr. Seay. Well, the ISO has always been a force to be
reckoned with, and there is a lot of good product out of the
ISO, but for our particular situation, this is about 12 to 18
months.
Mr. Sarbanes. And can you quickly give a specific example
of a barrier? You talked about, you had to build equipment to
meet U.S. standards and then you were building a different form
of the equipment in terms of Europe at one point, and you saw
that as a problem. Without giving away any trade secret, is it
like a specific product where you could describe where this
problem occurs in terms of a technical barrier, just again, to
give me more understanding of it?
Mr. Seay. Just one example. When China did react and write
their own standards, and we talked about that before, people
writing their own standards to kind of protect their own world,
they wrote standards that have to do with g-forces, and our
world is all about the g-forces applied to people, and they
wrote standards that don't correlate to all the studies that
have been done between Europe and the United States, and there
is extensive information that went into establishing g-force
standards that are in ASTM and the CEN that are good standards.
The Chinese changed those and they don't make sense to the
experts in our industry. So now you can't supply a product that
has been incredibly reliable at a Disney park that millions and
millions and millions of people have ridden and ridden safely,
as that product potentially might not be able to be put into
China now because of that new standard.
Mr. Sarbanes. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
And then I recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr.
Lujan, for five minutes.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And to pick up a little bit where this conversation has
been going, Mr. Grimaldi, you say that with respect to emerging
technologies, it is important to work with industries and
across countries to develop industry standards that allow for
maximum market access and that it would be highly beneficial to
the United States and the E.U. to work to establish standards
that they can then push into developing markets. Can you talk a
little bit more about the United States-E.U. cooperation and
why it is important and how this sort of cooperation can
benefit U.S. companies?
Mr. Grimaldi. Yes, I can. And I guess I can give an example
that really hits home where that didn't work well and why I
think it is important. So in 2007, the Europeans put together
the REACH standards and regulations, and a lot of folks here
know a lot about that. It is very messy, and the objectives
were: to improve the protection and health and the environment
from the risks that can be posed by chemicals; enhance the
competitiveness of the E.U. chemical industry, a key sector for
the E.U. economy, so right there, it becomes a trade barrier;
promote alternative methods for assessment of hazards of
substances; and ensure the free circulation of substances on
the internal market within the European Union. And I think that
when they started to develop this standard, which happened
very, very quickly and blindsided a lot of U.S. companies, the
intent was good, but by the time it actually made it to
implementation, the restrictions were tremendous. You know,
companies based outside the E.U. can't register directly. The
law requires importers to register the substances they import.
A non-E.U. supplier has to fully disclose all of his
formulations and IP and share that with his competitors in
Europe. And you actually have to have European representation
there to comply with the standards.
And so the burden for a small company like ours or a
medium-sized company to comply with these standards is hundreds
of thousands of dollars just to get product into Europe and/or
pull products out that we did have there, and what it does is,
it starts to stymie the best products that could go to market
or to be able to even effectively launch a product there and
front those costs. And so one of the ways that we really need
to cooperate in that situation is to be sure that we don't come
up with a ``me, too'' standard, just not in retaliation but to
make sure that--you know, because what we saw was a bunch of
European companies now doing business here. Some of our biggest
competitors came to the United States because it was easier to
do business here. They were having trouble with their own
standards.
And so there was a lot of discussion about well, we can do
the same thing here and level the playing field, and I think
that is the wrong answer. We don't want to go and do a ``me,
too'' standard just because we want to level the playing field.
I think we need to take the high road and lead that effort and
push back and say this--you are creating a standard that makes
unfair competition and doesn't work logically for the markets
that the industries are trying to standardize.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that.
Mr. Wennblom, jumping to a technology I think that most of
us depend on daily, and I appreciate in your testimony talking
about in 1995 the contributed technology associated with USB,
and so my question to you and to Mr. Bhatia is, as we talk
about this notion that mobile phones are going to begin to
adopt additional standards associated with these charging
technologies, I appreciate that I can use a USB charger and I
can move from computer to computer whoever it is manufactured
by, but the frustration that I have is, when you are buying new
mobile phones, the USB still works in the computer but the
aspect that goes into the mobile device to charge it, I don't
know how many car chargers I have gone through and how many
plugs I have gone through. The one thing I appreciate about
these two devices that I carry daily, one that belongs to me,
one that I use for Congressional responsibilities, is the same
charger on my iPod that I bought many years ago I can use to
charge this phone but the chargers that I have for BlackBerries
from previous years don't necessarily charge this.
So when we talk about USB, micro USB and whatnot--and I
know I ate up a lot of time there, Mr. Chairman, but this is
something that I certainly hope that we can get direction to
solving, and the rationale being, Mr. Chairman, as we talk
about the notion again pointed out in the testimony that it is
important for the United States to set a good example,
demonstrating the approaches we would like to see for the
countries to adopt but that we need to be careful when we are
looking for voluntary as opposed to mandates. It seems to me
that when you come out with a new technology, we are talking
about electricity flowing into a device to be able to charge a
battery or another form of power to be able to charge these
devices, that the same connectivity that Intel and others led
the charge with the USB on the reverse side should reflect what
is happening. And I am not suggesting that Apple adopt what is
happening with BlackBerry. I am just suggesting that one
company, when it finds a device or a way to plug into their
phone that they like, that they keep it, so that way I don't
have to keep buying plugs and devices.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can explore that a
little bit more, and maybe there is a way for the mobile-phone
industry to truly when we say that they are going to do it,
that we see them do it or that we find another way to encourage
them to do it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. We are going to have
a second round of questioning just for that. Actually, for
those who want to have a second round, we are going to go
through, because I have some additional questions, and Mr.
Lujan actually brought up a very important point that was going
off of what Mr. Grimaldi was talking about with the REACH
agreement in Europe, and how do we really push for the
consensus-driven standards that are developed in the United
States to make that to be the process globally? Because I think
that that would be the best route to take. Mr. Seay talked
about various things that were happening in China and Russia
but how do you--how do we take that--and I guess I will ask Mr.
Bhatia and Ms. Saunders to answer this one--how do we take that
and be able to promote that consensus-driven where all the
stakeholders are getting involved and get those standards that
way rather than the top down because like Mr. Grimaldi said,
when you have the consensus-driven standards, you have people
coming from Europe to the United States because it is better.
So how do we promote that?
Mr. Bhatia. It is a complex issue, and as you can
appreciate, every country--now, let us be honest, every country
has the right to select for itself the levels of safety,
health, or welfare that it chooses to work up to, a set of
criteria, and this is recognized by WTO principles. We are a
signatory to that. So every country has a right to decide how
they are going to address critical safety issues or health
issues or environmental issues. And in fact, our agreement
under WTO allows countries to have deviations in criteria based
on cultural differences, based on economic development,
industrial development, based on climate conditions, and it is
all legit.
Also, let us not forget that the infrastructure of the
globe is built. Electrical systems are built. It is going to
cost trillions of dollars to change the electrical system from
United States to other countries to go from 110 volts to 220
volts, from 50 hertz to 60 hertz. It is not going to happen. So
what is the solution? The solution is to find a way to
harmonize our standards as best as we can, and for that, we
need international forums to facilitate engaging of the
countries in a logical fashion using the best solution that
exists so far and bring that to the international table.
One of the biggest challenges I have as the President of
ANSI is to find a way for our U.S. SDOs, large ones--ASTM, SAE,
IEEE, ASME--use their intellectual capital that has been
developed with participation from many people and many
industries, and we heard about the participation levels. It is
a valid document but it is not often received and accepted as
an international document. How do we cross that bridge? We can
cross that by creating agreements, and we are trying to work on
dialog with ISO and IAC and ITU to develop, we call them PSDO
agreements or joint development agreements or taking a base
standard from United States and building on that as an
international standard. Oftentimes we succeed. I would say 90
percent of times we succeed. The example on the playground
equipment that was ASTM standard, we didn't succeed. We
objected to that initiative by ISO going forward. We voted no
to that. So did the Germans. But guess what? There are more
countries than just two. The majority went out. So the
development of that standard now requires us to watch what goes
on and get as much of that intellectual capital that exists in
the ASTM standard with their permission hopefully into the new
criteria. So that is what needs to happen and we are working on
that.
I think we also have to learn as a country to play in this
global environment a little bit differently. The days of us
dominating totally the infrastructure of electrical development
or innovation are gone, I think because of the Internet,
because of the diversity of manufacturing and creativity. I
think we are going to have to deal with new powers that are
emerging, you know, the BRIC countries, you know, the
Brazilians, the Indians, the Chinese. We are going to have to
find a way to work with them along with the previous players
along with the previous players like the Germans and the French
and the Brits and the Japanese.
So I think we are doing that, but we are going to have
occasional problems, and that is why the collaboration with the
industry is so important, and that is why the support from
agencies like USTR, like NIST, like Commerce is so important so
we can take the U.S. position and make that into a success for
us, and I think we have tons of examples of where it works.
Unfortunately, sometimes you only hear about the problems. Good
stuff also goes on a lot, and if you look at these two guys,
they are working in the ITC--I am sorry, one guy at least. He
is working in the ITC sector. We dominate that area. We control
that industry. We develop innovation. We get acceptance more
than anywhere else. I think we have the technology that we are
able to commercialize very effectively because we have a
private sector-led process which allows innovations to be
commercialized successfully, not just in the United States but
all over the world, and that is a success story and so are
many, many others, and I think the chemical industry is the
same thing. We are looking at biotechnology, we are looking at
nanotechnology. We will do the right things but we will have
occasional problems. We have to find a way to work together and
get these done, and we are not going to work by butting heads
with the Chinese or the Russians or the ISO central
secretariat. We need their help in achieving the overall
success.
Chairman Quayle. Right, and I think that Mr. Grimaldi made
the good point of, let us not try to go the same route that
they are taking in terms of trying to shut off and put up trade
barriers because then you are just going to get the back and
forth that we can't have. So thank you very much.
I now recognize Ms. Edwards for five minutes.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
allowing us to continue to explore here.
Mr. Wennblom, I want to turn to you because you mention in
your testimony that more needs to be done to improve acceptance
and understanding of diverse systems of standards development
that is embodied in the United States to foreign stakeholders.
But I wonder how you propose that that be done, and no one
chose to answer my question of who do you call, so I suppose,
Mr. Grimaldi, you are going to be content with making those
five phone calls that you described earlier in your testimony,
so I won't go beyond there.
But Mr. Wennblom, if you could address that question, I
would appreciate it.
Mr. Wennblom. Sure, and I think the ambiguity I would point
out is around the definition of what is an international
standard. The World Trade Organization in its Technical
Barriers to Trade Agreement creates some preferences for
international standards, encouraging governments to base
regulation on international standards as opposed to domestic
standards. It is a very helpful section of the document. But
the definition of international standards is open to some
interpretation. So for example, to Mr. Seay's situation, in the
United States, we would agree that ASTM develops international
standards. But in other countries, Russia, for example, they
would take a much more narrow view and say that international
standards are only developed by ISO and IEC and ITU, and ASTM,
just an interesting foreign standard to them. So that
disagreement over what is an international standard creates an
ambiguity that leads to problems like the one we have heard
about today, in my view, so that the situation I was referring
to.
Ms. Edwards. Are there sectors--and this was raised to me
at least in all of your testimony but are there sectors that
are more appropriate to the development of international
standards versus domestic standards that then are, you know, by
practice and by technology and manufacturing incorporated by
those in the international arena?
Mr. Wennblom. Well, I can speak from the perspective of the
information technology, information and communication
technology sector where nearly all the standards we are
interested in are global standards, international standards.
Country-specific standards just don't make sense in our
business, and it is naive to think that we can develop a U.S.
standard and just expect the rest of the world to pick that up
and adopt it, as Mr. Bhatia said. So we have to, from the
start, plan on developing global standards, and that is really
what we are interested in in our sector.
Ms. Edwards. And then what happens in terms of our
competitiveness when, say, the alliance is the Europeans and
China on the development of a set of standards that may not
quite be where our domestic market is? It feels like there are
some instances where we then--you know, if we want to compete,
we become followers, if you will, because it is really tough to
lead when you are in an international arena in which that
alliance, which is, you know, so much more substantial than--I
mean, I guess it is one--you know, there is one point of which
I suppose the United States and Europeans could be allied in
terms of development of standards and then we begin to, you
know, set the pace. But if that alliance is something
different, it makes for a different competitive environment for
U.S. companies.
Mr. Wennblom. Well, standards should be about the best
technology and innovation and growth for everybody, so if we
can bring to the table as industry good technology and good
ideas, I hope we--and my experience, we can build alliances for
people to see it that way. It is not perfect, and we need to be
diligent at that, but I think at the end of the day, alliances
based on what is the best technical approach are pretty
powerful.
Ms. Edwards. And Mr. Bhatia, could you also describe where
there are instances where principles that we undertake in our
standards development, and Ms. Saunders, you may have a comment
about this too, that have become commonly accepted principles
in the international arena?
Mr. Bhatia. Thank you. Yes. Let me just clarify one thing
for the benefit of those who may not know the facts. The United
States is the most dominant player in the ISO and IEC arena
because of our size of our economy and because of who we are.
We occupy permanent seats in both of those organizations'
boards, five of them, six now. China has been included. We have
that ability to direct, if you will, most of the strategies and
implementation. We don't control everything but we have a lot
to say, and oftentimes we are heard.
In terms of--I am sorry, you were asking about?
Ms. Edwards. I was asking about----
Mr. Bhatia. Oh, the principles?
Ms. Edwards. Yes.
Mr. Bhatia. Yeah, we have what we call essential
requirements in the United States which are carried out by
ANSI. Over 260 standards developing organizations in this
country are accredited by ANSI and they are judged against
these essential requirements. These are criteria which focus on
things like proper balance, participation, right to object,
right to question, due process, consensus, resolving disputes.
All of these are also mentioned in the OMB A-119, the circular,
which makes it a national process, if you will, officially. WTO
principles also follow similar lines, and most of the major
developing countries have adopted these processes and their
national bodies follow those principles as well. I think for
the benefit of those who may not know the details, there are
only about 15 to 20 major countries, developed economies, that
are producing the documents. The rest of the world are users.
So most of the development today in the technical arena
internationally comes from these handful of countries, and the
rest of the world becomes the user of that final solution. So I
think we have an opportunity to work very closely with our
partners, and quite frankly, the industry concerns in the
United States often are aligned with the industry concerns in
Germany, and the industry concerns in Japan, and the industry
concerns in China--perhaps once they get mature. Right now they
are not there. So I think that is going to become a big
harmonizer of the future, so to speak.
And to reflect on your question, are the strategies
different for different sectors, the answer is absolutely yes.
In the areas where we have significant international trade, I
think it is almost essential that we have an internationally
recognized standard, which is something that is domestically
focused, it is a unique sector, it is a limited application. A
country-specific document or a regional document like a NAFTA-
type document or document for the Americas may suffice for a
while, but the key is to create standardization and then move
towards the harmonization process towards a global standard
eventually.
Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. I now recognize
Mr. Sarbanes for five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Anybody can answer this question. It is sort of a freestyle
question. But, you know, a lot of talking, more and more, the
President is talking more and more about how we restore
American manufacturing, how we bring back some of these jobs
from overseas and the manufacturing processes that we have lost
overseas over the last few decades, and I am just wondering, I
don't--help me make the connection if there is one, but can you
relate what we have been talking about here today in terms of
the standards and how that affects businesses of all sizes to
this other conversation that we are having about trying to
restart the American manufacturing sector in a vibrant way and
bringing some of these jobs back and so forth. Maybe they don't
relate, but I would love your perspective on that, anybody who
wants to----
Mr. Seay. I will just put some comments in. From the
standpoint of having standards, I mentioned before that I
personally believe standards are a good thing because they set
a bar and they set a bar for participation, and we talked about
before, is the timing of standards an issue. From our
standpoint, it is only an issue that you have got to get above
this bar so that the product you produce is a safe product.
The issue we get where there is the potential of
manufacturing loss is because countries that are not respecting
appropriate standards, they do have the ability to produce
equipment that is far more economical, economical in
appearance, seeming to be the same level of equipment but not
performing either as reliably as it should or not performing as
safely as it should. And I think that the challenge gets to be
that there is a temptation that is out there when you can go to
a country that doesn't have these regulations but their price
points will be 50, 60 percent less, and a lot of that is
because the standards, at least in our industry, are not being
adhered to. The ASTM standards are not being adhered to. We are
a good example of that because of the level of quality that is
required for a safe industry, and the performance in the United
States as an example which lives up to ASTM, we are keeping the
manufacturing jobs here. There is a reason that we are shipping
millions of pounds to Indonesia of steel, fabricated steel. It
is because the company in this case that we work with in
Indonesia, Trans Studio, a very high-level conglomerate media
company, they have a respect for standards. They have respect
for electrical standards as well as standards in our industry,
so they establish those as a minimum guideline so, if you want
to participate in their projects, you have to meet those
guidelines. So that helped us keep those jobs here and we will
continue to do that.
Mr. Sarbanes. So, I mean, put simply, if you are a country
that believes you deliver a high-quality, high-standard
product, you are going to want to develop these standards
internationally that are at that level because that is going to
obviously help you compete. Any other thoughts on that before
my time runs out?
Mr. Grimaldi. Yeah, I have got some thoughts on that, and
that is really the basis for our company. In a down economy, we
built a manufacturing company from the ground up and have grown
it consistently year after year, and we have actually been able
to bring business back, manufacturing business, from India and
China and places like that, and it is looking at where we can
be competitive. The global marketplace is going to change for
U.S. companies and we can't--you have to look at where that
niche is, what we can focus on and what we do well and what
your customers are after. If it is price and it is a commodity
item, it is difficult to compete here, but if you are looking
at somebody that is looking for something that meets standards
consistently that they can have control over, that they want IP
protection and a timing issue and they want to have--they want
to be able to see their products being manufactured, so it ends
up being more of a high-tech, high-end process, and you create
a specialty niche there, and I think that is where companies in
the United States, when they want to grow and increase
manufacturing, they have to look for those opportunities. They
have to be agile. They have to be willing to change. You have
to look at when your product becomes more of a commodity item
and you can't be competitive anymore, you have to be willing to
shift and look for new opportunities and new products to
manufacture here, so I think it is alive and well here and
growing if you look at the right opportunities.
Mr. Bhatia. I think there is a lot more that goes into
retaining manufacturing than just standards. I think there is a
strategy that needs to be looked at. There is going to be an
$8,000 car and a $100,000 car. There is going to be a $10
product and a $100 product. Customers and consumers are willing
to come in at different levels. So we have two
responsibilities, one, to create a commercial advantage, a
manufacturing advantage, second, to guard against going below
the bare acceptable minimum levels of safety performance. So I
think good companies will work at that, and standards can help
in that area.
I think we also have some obligations that we need to think
about that need to come from the public side also. One of the
reasons Germany is very successful in exporting its technology
and is perhaps now--well, not perhaps, they are the second
largest exporter in the world because they work hand in hand
with their government, their government programs, their
facilitations, their efforts to outreach, their effort to get
involved with the buying community in the future and the
country of reception, if you will, where the market is going to
be of them, and they nurture and develop these markets with a
lot of support and help from their Federal Government and from
their funding resources, which come beyond just within the
company's ways and means.
We also have to think about the financial aspects of
sponsoring, if you will, initiatives and knowledge
dissemination in the SMEs. We talked about that a little bit
but I hope one day we talk about that a little bit more because
SMEs are a big source of developing new businesses and new
opportunities both in manufacturing and also in exports of
other types of products and services.
So I think there is a lot we can do. I see opportunities
all over the place, but we need to find ways of funding that,
resourcing that, and you guys are empowered to create
incentives for this to be done more effectively, and I think we
should talk about how we can achieve that.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks.
Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
I now recognize Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to talk a little bit about that empowerment, and we
have five minutes to find consensus and get direction on how to
solve this problem, and, you know, as we talk about the
seriousness associated with this, in the 111th Congress, we
actually had a piece of legislation that moved out of this
Committee talking about electronic waste, the components of
the--right now the impact on the consumer, I would hope a
revenue stream that is not built for the mobile industry,
mobile-phone industry built on chargers as we talk about the
reality associated with the industry. But what can be done as
we talk about voluntary standards where, again, appreciating
what happened with USB but also the frustration associated with
the other end of that cord. When we talk about electricity that
is flowing through that copper, the interchangeability
associated with what goes into the socket, whatever country you
are, it seems to me that we should at least find some common
ground there and eliminate what is happening on the waste side
as well as with consumers, with some seriousness associated
with direction on what could be done there to either encourage
that voluntary component or see what could be done on our end.
Mr. Wennblom. Thanks for your question. Two main points.
The first is that one of the reasons why you have seen change
in the connector that is based on USB in various phones is
because technology has changed and requirements have changed.
The connector in phones today is much thinner than the
connector that was originally created for USB, and that has
been driven by the needs of phone manufacturers who know that
consumers prefer thinner and thinner phones. The thinnest
connectors today would have been too expensive when USB was
created. So in terms of cost and form factor tradeoffs, it has
been necessary to make changes over time. And the other thing
that is changing in phones that is very important is battery
technology. The chemistry is changing and the form factors are
changing, and that has driven some changes in interfaces.
So if we tried to standardize on a connector too soon and
required phone manufacturers to use that, that would have
interfered with lots of the innovation that consumers
appreciate today. So sometimes there are some changes
necessary. However, there is also----
Mr. Lujan. If I may, then why is it that my iPod charger
from four years ago can still power my iPhone and I can get the
charge out of it? I mean, I couldn't find one of my chargers, I
don't know where I left it, and so I went into my box of
chargers, and lo and behold, I had an old iPod charger, plugged
it in, plugged in my phone. The old one is kind of neat because
it has two little clips on it which they made a little bit
smaller, so with the exception of having to pinch those clips
now and pull it out, it still charges the phone. This is
second-generation iPod to iPhone 4.
Mr. Wennblom. The basic voltage for USBs remained the same
since it was created. What has changed is the form factor of
the connector. I think the connector on your iPhone is actually
a proprietary interface based on USB, and because the
manufacturer, Apple, has chosen to keep that the same over time
for reasons that you would appreciate, your iPod connector
still works. So continuity is useful, but there are times for
breaks. I was going to say that the USB group has now
contributed its technology to IEC for incorporation in an
international standard for cell phone charging, and some of the
changes we talked about are slowing down a little bit, so I am
hopeful in the future you are going to need to change your cell
phone charger much less frequently no matter which company you
purchase it from.
Mr. Lujan. That is encouraging, but nonetheless, as we talk
about how technology has evolved and appreciating very much the
fact as we talk about the connectivity on the charging
component, I think therein lies one of the frustrations
associated with standards across the country as we talk about
devices that we depend on daily to the complexities associated
with rail and roller coasters and everything in between, if you
will, when we talk about the magnitude of size as we take into
consideration the safety component. But I would also suggest
the convenience and commonsense component.
Again, I would hope that a revenue stream has not been
developed associated with the charger, if you will, on the
device and that we truly look to see what can be done there
which I would suggest would offer ease to the consumer as well
as more consumer preference when it comes to me making
decisions on what devices that I want to go shopping for. If I
know that I have a device that I have all the chargers that I
need in the world, hopefully I will stick with that same device
unless there is a compelling reason not to go with it. But when
I have to make a decision to completely retrofit all of the
components for my vehicle, for my home, for whatever mobile
components we carry with us, I think it impacts us a bit.
So I appreciate the humor associated with the conversation
but also would ask that we take into consideration the
seriousness when we talk about something as small as a mobile
device.
Thank you for the indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Quayle. Thank you, Mr. Lujan. You never know where
a hearing is going to go, but I appreciate your comments, and
we actually, with Mr. Wennblom, got a lot of information on how
the chargers are developing and the innovation behind it. So I
want to thank----
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield?
Chairman Quayle. Yes.
Mr. Lujan. One of the reasons I am so passionate about this
is----
Chairman Quayle. Because of your box of chargers.
Mr. Lujan. It is my box of chargers, but actually this is a
conversation I had with my mother years ago about the
frustration that she had as well, so it is sensitivity to our
moms, but recognizing that this is something that she said
can't you do something about that. And so with the empowerment
that was talked about, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I yield
back.
Chairman Quayle. Well, to all moms out there, we will come
to a conclusion. But I want to thank Mr. Lujan, and I want to
thank all of the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the
Members for their questions. The Members of the Subcommittee
may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will
ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain
open for two weeks for additional comments and statements from
Members. The witnesses are excused. Thank you all for coming.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Responses by Ms. Mary H. Saunders

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.062

Responses by Mr. S. Joe Bhatia

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.066

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.068

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.069

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.070

Responses by Mr. Philip Wennblom, Director of Standards, Intel
Corporation

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.072

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.073

Responses by Mr. Mark Grimaldi, Owner, Equinox Chemicals

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.074

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.076

Responses by Mr. James Seay, President, Premier Rides

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.077

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.078

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.080

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2920.081