1 / 19

Evaluating Requirements for Standards in Legislation

Evaluating Requirements for Standards in Legislation. Pamela Androff Washington Internship for Students in Engineering Sponsored by ASHRAE August 6 th , 2008. Outline. Background Information Explanation of Issue Key Conflicts and Concerns Discussion Recommendations Conclusion.

caesar
Download Presentation

Evaluating Requirements for Standards in Legislation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating Requirements for Standards in Legislation Pamela Androff Washington Internship for Students in Engineering Sponsored by ASHRAE August 6th, 2008

  2. Outline • Background Information • Explanation of Issue • Key Conflicts and Concerns • Discussion • Recommendations • Conclusion

  3. What are standards? • Used as the minimum requirement • Easily communicate specifications • Common understanding

  4. Why do we have standards? Commodification Compatibility Interoperability Safety Repeatability Quality

  5. Standards are not required! • Standard = voluntary • Code = requirement • A standard can become code if it is mentioned in legislation • Accreditation = an acceptable practice • An accredited body can employ a certain technique

  6. The Problem Common Practice New Issue

  7. Commercial Energy Usage Energy Information Administration, 2003

  8. H.R. 3221, Section 9031 “The Secretary shall support updating the national model building energy codes and standards at least every three years to achieve overall energy savings, compared to the 2006 IECC for residential buildings and ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2004 for commercial buildings, of at least— (A) 30 percent by 2010; (B) 50 percent by 2020; and (C) targets to be set by the Secretary in intermediate and subsequent years, at the maximum level of energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and life-cycle cost effective. …If the Secretary makes a determination…that a code or standard does not meet the targets…then the Secretary shall within 12 months propose a modified code or standard that meets such targets.” The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007

  9. Key Conflicts and Concerns • Interference in current process • Pressure on SDOs • Details of a government standard replacing current standard • Current government documentation

  10. Standard Developing Process • Standards developed since the late 1800s • American National Standards • Balance • Openness • Consensus

  11. Standard Developing Organizations • Difficulty in meeting the given timeline • Voting members must come to a consensus • Resources (staffing, funding for meetings, etc.) unavailable to expedite the process • Difficulty in meeting the target percentages • New technology available to meet the requirements? • Voting members must come to a consensus • In an extreme situation, current due process may be forgone to meet requirements

  12. Government Standard • No details are given in legislation • Who will maintain or ‘own’ the standard? Toth, StandardView Vol. 4, No. 4, December/1996

  13. Current Government Documents • National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (1996) “ …all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments."  • OMB A-119 “All federal agencies must use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards in their procurement and regulatory activities, except where inconsistent with law or otherwise impractical.”

  14. Discussion

  15. Discussion • European Union • New Approach (Council Resolution, May 1985) • 3 SDOs • The EC provides “essential requirements” • China • Standardization Administration of China (Est. 2001) • Manage all standard activities • 260 technical committees, 300 subcommittees

  16. Discussion • America is unique! • Over 700 SDOs • Dynamic standard developing process • Important to preserve our current process • Standards are widely accepted due to the current process

  17. Recommendations • Eliminate requirements in legislation • Responsible party: policy makers • Action needed: lobbyists, constituents • Redefine standardization and re-educate stakeholders • Responsible party: SDOs • Action needed: SDOs, standard developers • Increase funding in Research and Development • Responsible party: policy makers • Action needed: lobbyists, constituents

  18. Conclusion • Standards in legislation is an important issue to the standards-writing community • A open, balanced process is used to develop standards that should be preserved • Goals and targets should be left as that; not set as requirements • Action needs to be taken to resolve the issue

  19. Questions and Comments? Pamela Androff pamela.androff@gmail.com Acknowledgements • Doug Read and Ryan Colker, ASHRAE • Dr. Jeff King, Faculty Member in Residence • Melissa Carl, ASME and Erica Wissolik, IEEE • John Budyos, Library of Congress • Fellow interns

More Related