A 1 1 1 D 2 4^2^27

proceedings of Conference on

International Standards

Eric A. Vadelund, Editor

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Office of Product Standards Policy

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

August 1985

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Reference

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

-QC

100

. 1)56

BUREAU OF STANDARDS

85-3228

1985

NBSIR 85-3228

PROCEEDINGS OF CONFERENCE ON

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Eric A. Vadelund, Editor

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Office of Product Standards Policy

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

August 1 985

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

CONTENTS

Overview 1

Conference Opening Remarks

Deputy Secretary of Commerce

Clarence J. Brown 3

Introductory Remarks

Chairman, Interagency Committee on Standards Policy

Stanley I. Warshaw 4

Keynote Address

Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission

David B. Rohr . 6

MORNING SESSION - TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1985

FEDERAL POLICIES COVERING STANDARDS PARTICIPATION AND USE

Moderator

Alan Andersen, Deputy Director, Office of Standards and

Regulations, Food and Drug Administration

Panelists

DoD Policies on Participation and Use of Standards

Peter Yurcisin, Director, Standardization and Aquisition Support

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

Department of Defense 14

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Donald Abelson, Director, Technical Trade Barriers

Office of U.S. Trade Representative 18

Competition and Consumer Protection Policies Affecting Standards Development

Dean Graybill, Senior Staff Attorney

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Federal Trade Commission 22

Guidelines for Participation in International Standards Activities

David Edgerly, Manager

Standards Management Program

National Bureau of Standards 27

Question and Answer Session 32

i
AFTERNOON SESSION - TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1985

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT/PRIVATE SECTOR INTERFACE

Moderator

William Higgins, Deputy Director

Directorate of Safety Standards Programs

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Panelists

Benefits of the Government/Private Sector Interface

Lawrence Eicher, Assistant Secretary General

International Organization for Standardization 37

ANSI's Role in International Standardization

Vincent D. Travaglini, Washington Representative

American National Standards Institute 41

Federal Government/Private Sector Interface

Melvin R. Green, Managing Director, Codes and Standards

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers 48

The Role of UL in International Standards and Certification

Henry E. Collins, Vice President, Governmental Affairs

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc 53

Question and Answer Session 60

MORNING SESSION - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1985

AGENCY REPRESENTATION OF U.S. GOVERNMENT IN TREATY AND NON-TREATY

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS BODIES

Moderator

Guy A. Arlotto, Director

Division of Engineering Technology

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Panelists

Department of Defense Representation in International Standards Bodies

Samuel Miller, Special Assistant

Defense Material Specifications and Standards Office

Department of Defense 66

International Food Standards and Non-Tariff Trade Barriers

Sanford A. Miller, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Food and Drug Administration 72
International Standards in Telecommunications

Earl S. Barbely, Director

Office of International Communications Policy

Department of State 77

International Standards Activities

Edwin Johnson, Director

Office of Water Regulation and Standards

Environmental Protection Agency 80

U.S. Participation in a Treaty Organization

Eddie F. Kimbrell, Deputy Administrator, Commodity Services

Agricultural Marketing Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture 88

Question and Answer Session 93

AFTERNOON SESSION - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1985

AGENCY EXPERIENCE IN USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Moderator

Robert W. Poe

Office of Quality Assurance and Standards

Department of Energy

Panelists

Experience in the Use of International Standards

Francis J. Turpin, Executive Director, Technical Harmonization Program

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Department of Transportation 98

DOD Experience in Use of International Standards

Michael C. Corridore, Director

Defense Materiel Specifications and Standards Office

Department of Defense 100

A Standard Experience

Mary C. McKiel, Chemist, Office of Procurement

Office of Federal Supply and Services

General Services Administration 104

HUD's Role in International Standards Development

G. Robert Fuller, Chief, Standards Branch

Department of Housing and Urban Development 107

Question and Answer Session Ill

ICSP Membership 119

ICSP Conference on

International Standardization

Overview

The Office of Management and Budget Circular A119, "Federal

Participation in the Development and use of Voluntary Standards”

contains the following:

It is the policy of the Federal Government in its procurement and

regulatory activities to:

a. Rely on voluntary standards, both domestic and

international, vtfienever feasible and consistent with law

and regulation pursuant to law;

b. Participate in voluntary standards bodies when such

participation is in the public interest and is compatible

with agencies missions, authorities, priorities, and

budget resources; and

c. Coordinate agency participation in voluntary standards

bodies so that (1) the most effective use is made of

agency resources and representatives; and (2) the views

expressed by such representatives are in the public

interest and, as a minimun, do not conflict with the

interests and established views of the agencies.

The key words in the policy are rely , participate and coordinate . The coordinating body is the Interagency Ccnrmittee on Standards Policy

(ICSP). The ICSP arranged for a two-day Conference on International

Standardization in part to determine the reliance and participation

levels of Federal agencies in international standards development and

use.

The Conference was structured as a series of panel sessions,

followed by question and answer periods, to elicit as much interaction

as possible. The format proved successful in that the panel

presentations initiated an abundance of ccrrments and questions, thereby

maximizing information exchange.

Perhaps the most notable feature of the discussions was the

variety. Conrments and responses were heard concerning process,

procedures, funding, representation, policy, law, regulation,

metrication, conrmunicat ion and cooperation.

The most notable conclusion that can be drawn is that Federal

agencies are relying on and participating in the development of

voluntary standards both domestically and internationally. It was

shown that (1) the need for international standardization efforts

1
exists and is growing, (2) the mechanisms, processes and procedures are largely in place, and (3) motivation appears to be a problem area. On

the last point, there was a clear call by the public sector for greater

involvement by the private sector and an equally clear call by the

private sector for greater public sector involvement.

A key point in all the discussions was that industry involvement

is absolutely necessary. This point was reiterated by many

participants whether discussing international standardization efforts

carried on solely in the private sector or as the result of obligations

imposed by government membership in various treaty organizations.

The questions of overlap and duplication of effort were rather

thoroughly aired. Suggestions were made to establish some procedure or mechanism to avoid such problems. The consensus was that the various

international organizations were making efforts to minimize duplication

by formal liaison efforts between the various groups involved. A major

mitigating factor is the fact that there is overlapping membership in

the committees of the various organizations dealing with similar

problems or parts of the same problem. There appears to be no question, however, that duplication of effort in the international

standards arena is a continuing cause for concern, if only because of

the way that various nations deal with the matter.

In any endeavor as pervasive and complex as international

standardization, the matter of timely and informative communication is

paramount. Each organization has its own procedures and channels for

vertical communication within the group. The Conference indicated a need for more inter-organization corrmunicat ion, both between the

various Federal agencies and between the private sector groups and the

Federal agencies. The discussions revealed that all of the groups

involved face similar problems and cross -communication could help

resolve them.

In summary, the Conference suggested three areas that can be

considered by the ICSP: (1) attention should be paid to the matter of

adequate funding and proper participation; (2) efforts should be made

to eliminate or minimize, vtfiere possible, overlap and duplication; and

(3) horizontal corrmunicat ion should be encouraged thus enabling

standards personnel in the public and private sectors to view each

other as resources.

Eric A. Vadelund

Editor

2
Opening Remarks

Clarence J. Brown

Deputy Secrtary

Department of Commerce

Welcome to the Department of Commerce, and to this meeting on "International Standardization." Today's conference will focus on Federal

agency participation in international standards activities.

In the past years, I have met with people from standards-developing

organizations and trade associations. I have been impressed with their

commitment to international standardization and to related product

certification issues.

Our current trade balance points to the need to do everything we can to

increase exports. Standards clearly provide an effective means for U.S.

products' acceptance worldwide. We need to strenghten the Governmentbusiness partnership in order to advance U.S. trade interests.

Government contributes to a favorable trade environment through General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations, other high level trade initiatives, and through numerous treaty organizations. Our efforts also need

to be aimed at a more practical level. We need to work with the private

sector in the standards arena to assure adequate U.S. representation.

In the Commerce Department we have about 550 scientists, engineers, and

others involved in standards work through organizations like the International Organization for Standardization, the International Electrotechnical

Commission, the American Society for Testing and Materials, the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers. Such participation represents a large investment of resources. I think that the United States benefits from such involvements.

The quality of U.S. standards is readily apparent since many of our standards are "de facto" international standards by virtue of their extensive

use. The United States faces increasing competition in trade and should

not expect that its domestic standards will continue to be accepted

worldwide

.

So we welcome the work of this conference. I hope that you will spot

actions that the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy can take to

improve U.S. effectiveness in international standards. President Reagan

is clearly committed to improving our trade position, and that is why

Secretary Baldrige and I particularly support this conference.

3
Introductory Remarks

Stanley I. Warshaw

Director, Office of Product Standards Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Today and tomorrow we will be talking about international standards

activities. I'd like to start off the conference by pointing out that

these two words, "international" and "standards," may convey different

meanings to some of the panelists today and to many of you in the

audience

.

First, let's take the word standards. Most of us would agree that

standards are documents that describe design or performance characteristics of a material or product. In some instances, the standards may

define maximum tolerances, or establish levels of acceptance. Conformance

to a standard in commerce may be optional or even desirable, but not

necessary for marketing a product. In many instances, safety or health

considerations may be involved, or compatibility with other products or systems may be required. Then the use of the standard may be necessary

to market successfully - and, sometimes, compliance with the standard may

be required by regulatory or procurement officials or insurors - thus

making it mandatory. The standards of some developers are often employed

in certification or accreditation programs that are required in certain

sectors of the marketplace.

We have complicated the issue of standards still further by introducing

the word international. What is international? If a standard is developed with open participation by anyone from any nation, does that make it

international? Is a standard international by virtue of its being used

in many nations? Are standards international only when developed by

international organizations composed of national bodies that have agreed

in advance to recognize such standards? Is there a moral obligation or

a legal obligation to employ specific national or international standards?

There are differences in the legal systems of nations. Newton Minow, a former FCC Chairman has pointed out, "In Germany, under the law everything

is prohibited except that which is permitted. In France, under the law

everything is permitted except that which is prohibited. In the Soviet

Union, everything is prohibited, including that which is permitted. And

in Italy, under the law everything is permitted, especially that which is

prohibited

.

Of course, in the United States we permit only the permissible and

prohibit what's not! But there are some U.S. laws that result from bior multi-national agreements or treaties, where we are encouraged to

employ or take note of relevant international standards to satisfy our nation's needs.

As we know, OMB Circular A-119 encourages Federal agencies to use and

participate in the development of so-called voluntary standards. This

4
is deemed to be an efficient use of U.S. resources for Government

procurement and regulatory purposes. The Circular is also explicit in

directing Federal agencies to be active in both national and international

standards activities.

The Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP) was established

by the Department of Commerce to serve as the interagency consultative

mechanism required by the OMB Circular A-119, entitled "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards." The charter

for the committee was approved by the Secretary of Commerce on July 6,

1982, and the committee was established in September 1982.

The committee has already developed four policy documents, published in

the Federal Register, and is pursuing their implementation by Federal

agencies. These policies are designed to better utilize the resources of

the voluntary standards community. Two of them deal with the criteria

for incorporating private sector certification activities into agency

needs. One deals with self-certification, and the other with third-party

certification. Recently, the ICSP published criteria for accepting

laboratory accreditation prpgrams^ that qualify lab testing competences

and capabilities. These policies are all in concert with those published

by the standards community; namely, the American National Standards

Institute in the case of certification and the American Society for

Testing and Materials in the case of laboratory accreditation.

Of special interest to those of you in attendance are the policy

statements which address participation in international standards activities of both the private sector, such as the International Organization

for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission,

and the treaty or agreement type international standards organizations,

such as the International Organization of Legal Metrology and some United Nations’ agencies. These Federal standards policies are designed

to encourage a greater partnership between the public and private sectors

in order to enhance the value and efficacy of our nation’s standards and

their employment.

I expect that we'll gain much insight these next two days regarding some

of the questions I have raised, and many more that I haven’t mentioned.

Your active participation in the panel discussions is not only invited,

but can contribute greatly to the success of our sessions. The members

of the ICSP and I hope you will find this conference to be of value to

you in the conduct of your agency's business.

Time Magazine, p.

Federal Register,

federal Register,

Federal Register,

73, March 18, 1985.

Vol. 47, No. 211 , pp. 49496-49499, Nov.

Vol. 49, No. 32, pp. 5792-5803, Feb. 15

Vol. 50, No. 43, p. 8760, Mar. 5, 1985.

1, 1982.

1984.

5
KEYNOTE REMARKS

DAVID B. ROHR

INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION

Good morning. I very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in

today's conference on "International Standardization." When I received

the invitation to speak today, at first I felt a bit reticent about what

I could offer in a keynote address to an audience that is composed

largely of bona fide experts in the standards field. Clearly, I am no standards expert.

However, I have spent my government career in the field of international

trade. As I thought about my remarks today, I considered that an important goal of this conference is to increase awareness that

standards, and in particular international standards, have a critical

effect on trade. Consequently, what I would like to offer to you this

morning are my thoughts on the relationship between standards and trade,

and the special role of international standards. While I am only a novice in your field, I have learned that standards can be a vitally

important force in mine.

Rarely in our national history has trade had such prominence in our popular consciousness. And trade deserves a high priority on the

national agenda. The growth and expansion of international trade that we have witnessed over the last several decades has provided a vital boost

to the quality of life throughout the world. During the 1960's and

1970 's the volume of world trade expanded at an average annual rate of

about 7 percent. That expansion of trade allowed countries with raw material resources and fertile agricultural lands to raise their incomes

significantly by marketing their minerals and crops outside their borders.

Apart from deriving benefits from their natural resources, the expansion

of trade also has allowed nations to improve their quality of life by

devoting their labor and physical capital to large scale production of

manufactured goods and providing services. The pressures of

international competition associated with the expansion of world trade

have encouraged the efficient use of resources, helped to restrain the

forces of inflation, and fostered a continuing stream of new products and

technologies that have pervasively affected the lives of us all.

Historically, because of the size and diversity of its economy, the

United States has been less dependent on foreign trade as a factor in

economic growth than most other countries. However, the interdependence

of the United States with the economies of other countries is increasing

by leaps and bounds. Particularly during the 1970 's the interrelationship of our economic growth and world trade grew markedly.
For example, between 1960 and 1970, the growth of U.S. exports as a share

of our gross national product (GNP) rose only from 4.1 to 4.4 percent.

By 1980, the export share had nearly doubled to 8.5 percent.

Concurrently during the decade of the seventies, U.S. imports as a share

of GNP more than doubled, rising from 4.1 to 9.5 percent. It is

estimated that in the early 1980's over 5 million workers were dependent

on foreign trade for their livelihood. Our manufacturing sector in 1980

exported 19 percent of the goods it produced. The value of our agricultural exports, after more than doubling in the 1970s, now account

for over a quarter of farm income.

With this critical and increasing economic interdependence among the

nations of the world firmly in mind, U.S. trade policy in the 1980's will

be played against a very different background than that of earlier

times. The challenge to the trade policy of the eighties is to reconcile

all of the benefits of international competition, with the formidable

array of trade-related tensions that confront us today.

There is perhaps no more visible sign of the vigorous competition in

world trade than the current state of the U.S. trade account. The U.S.

merchandise trade deficit has become front page news. Our 1984 trade

deficit was $123 billion, up $54 billion from the $69 billion total for

1983.

And the deficit is only the beginning. A severely overvalued dollar has

weakened U.S. competitiveness in world trade. Trade frictions with Japan

have become acute, intensified by a bilateral trade deficit that has

soared to record levels. Add to this the ever-quickening pace of

technological change and the emergence of a number of developing

countries as full-scale international competitors and you have a situation that clearly justifies the public concern on trade that has

reached alarming proportions.

To respond to this alarm, two powerful forces must be balanced. On one

hand, all nations, particularly the industrialized nations, are under

enormous pressure to intervene to protect domestic markets and workers

from the wrenching changes that are occurring in their economies. On the

other, over the long term the decision not to adjust will mean economic

deprivation for the very populations clamoring for insulation against

change. Those nations which choose to protect themselves from adjustment

surely face the threat of a decline in competitiveness in the future.

For the United States, the method of balancing these forces has

consistently included a fundamental interest in international trade

liberalization and fair market access. The present world trading system,

embodied in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the GATT) , is

founded on a premise that fair market access and international trade

liberalization are compatible.

Trade liberalization is intended to and should ensure the continued

fairness of the international trading system and equitable access to

7
world markets. The international trading system has come a long way from

the self-defeating economic isolationism of the 1930's. A great tribute

to the success of the international trading system is that since World

War II, tariff levels have declined steadily and significantly.

However, success in reducing tariffs has made the traders of the United

States aware of newer, more subtle forms of protection—the so-called

nontariff barriers. Nontariff barriers come in an almost endless

variety, and affect literally every sector of international trade. Among

those nontariff measures that concern trade policy makers as potential

threats to open and free commerce are subsidies, quotas, restrictive

government procurement practices, commercial counterfeiting and ... as you undoubtedly know, product standards. Any number of U.S. and foreign

product standards, testing procedures, certification practices, etc. have

been the subject of complaint as having a limiting effect on trade.

Trade policy people have also come to realize that standards can be a strong enhancement to trade.

The importance of standards, testing and certification in international

trade has not only not been fully appreciated, but frequently overlooked

completely. Their impact is enormous. The simplest illustration is

found in weights and measures. A generally accepted standard for weights

and measures is virtually a prerequisite for the existence of trade on any significant scale. The widespread use of a basic standard for

weights and measures strongly facilitates trade. However, the use of

differing standards in individual markets tends to limit the free flow of

goods.

As a rule, standards perform an extremely essential and constructive

purpose in commerce and trade. Most of international trade is based on

product standards which usually include terminology, definitions,

descriptions, tolerances, performance criteria, test methods and

acceptance procedures. If a standard has a wide degree of recognition,

it can promote the flow of goods by allowing traders in various areas of

the world to know precisely what a product is without seeing it.

Beyond this commercial importance, standards are also essential for the

protection of public health and safety, the preservation of the

environment, the control of plant and animal diseases, and other public

welfare purposes. As a result, many standards are created for purposes

that have no relationship to trade or commerce—and quite rightly so. Those in the trade business clearly agree with the objective of most

standards being the assurance that products meet certain levels of

performance, quality, purity, safety or sanitary conditions. They

understand that the primary reason behind the establishment of these

standards has little to do with trade. Likewise, they understand that

standards are probably intended by their writers to apply equally to all

products without regard to their origin.

However, the standards experts must understand that merely because there

are differences from market to market, these standards can have an

3
inhibiting effect on trade. Though this effect is most often

inadvertent, it is nonetheless very real. Anyone who has traveled to a country that uses 220 voltage and could not plug an electrical appliance

into an outlet understands how differing product standards can result in

disrupting trade.

And, to be quite honest, sometimes the intent behind the standard or testing procedure is to impinge more severely upon imports than upon

domestic output. Product standards can be constructed to exclude imports

in numerous ways.

Required testing and approval procedures, developed primarily for

domestic or regional use, can be carried out arbitrarily or in a way that

unnecessarily increases the expenses of importers. Certification systems

may, because of their internal orientation, either limit access for

imports or deny the right of the certification mark to imported products.

As was true for most U.S. trade analysts, my initiation into this type of non tar iff barrier effect caused by discriminatory standards and

certification systems was in the 1960's. At that time the European

regional electrical certification system, CENEL, was formed. The CENEL

system was basically closed to non-European electrical products. U.S.

firms forcefully pointed out to U.S. trade negotiators that this type of

certification scheme could act as a major trade barrier. And for the

first time, the U.S. government awoke to the important relationship

between standards and trade.

Now standards problems are no longer considered esoteric, non-trade

related issues. Last week most every major paper carried stories about

U.S. negotiators pressing the Japanese to ease technical standards to

eliminate voice-quality requirements and other measures they feel are too

subjective and can be used to block U.S. goods. They also want Japan to

ease requirements that all sophisticated computer-network equipment be

approved, item-by-item, in advance, before it can be installed. These

talks are considered so important, the Senate has voted to advise the

President to consider retaliating against the Japanese if the

discriminatory effect of these practices is not eliminated.

Through their experience with the CENEL system, it became clear to U.S.

trade negotiators that while standards had a significant trade effect,

the international trading system had no rules to deal with standards.

Consequently, a group of countries began in the early 1970's to develop

an agreement that would regulate the use of standards and certification

systems in international trade. In 1979, as part of the Tokyo Round of

Multilateral Trade Negotiations, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to

Trade — "The Standards Code" — was concluded. It is the first

international agreement to recognize the importance of standards-related

activities in international trade.

Most of you as standards experts are probably most familiar with the

provisions of the code. Its purpose is not to write any standards or to

9
take away a nation's discretion in using standards to serve the public

welfare. Rather, the Code aims to make standards and certification as "trade neutral" as possible. The Code seeks to eliminate the use of

standardization and certification as a means to interrupt or prohibit

trade.

The Code aims to achieve this goal through the establishment of

principles by which countries adhering to the Code should set standards

or regulations and test and certify products. The two basic principles

of the Code are "national treatment" or treating foreign products as domestic products are treated and "most-favored nation treatment," that

is, treating all Code adherents similarly.

Realizing the importance of international standardization, the Code

encourages signatories to base domestic standards on international

standards wherever they can appropriately do so and to participate in

international standards activities. The Code also establishes an information network by which signatories in supplier countries can comment on proposed standards in other signatories. Finally, the Code

provides for a dispute settlement mechanism for the resolution of

complaints that may arise as a result of a signatory's implementation of

the Code.

To illustrate how the Code works, I can use the example of metal baseball

bats. In August 1982, the U.S. Government initiated a Standards Code

dispute settlement case based on Japanese certification practices for

U.S. aluminum softball bats. The essence of the complaint was that the

Japanese Government did not provide foreign producers access to its

certification system on the same basis as provided to Japanese producers,

a violation of the Standards Code.

Metal bats are among several consumer products for which the Japanese

government has developed standards for safety reasons. These products

must be inspected and certified by the Government before they can be

sold. Imports were given certification marks after they were inspected

individually upon arrival in Japan (i.e., lot inspected) and destructive

testing of 12 out of every 1,000 bats was done. However, domestically

produced bats were certified at the factory after they were "type

approved" by the Government. In 1980, U.S. metal bat manufacturers began

to complain that Japanese Government standards and certification

procedures for bats discriminated against them because lot inspection was time-consuming and costly.

U.S. negotiators attempted to resolve the problem through bilateral

consultations. These consultations came to a standstill in mid-1982. At

that time, the United States warned Japan that it considered Japan's

discriminatory certification procedures for bats a clear violation of the

Standards Code.

The United States filed a formal complaint under the Code in August 1982,

arguing that metal bats were just one example of how Japan's standards

10
and certification system discriminated against foreign suppliers and

effectively blocked import competition. Both Governments conducted

intense discussions to resolve the disagreement, and on March 13, 1983,

the United States suspended its Standards Code case based on a solution

proposed by the Japanese Government. The solution would allow U.S.

suppliers to have access, on the same conditions, to all certification

systems for metal bats in Japan.

Overall, the Code can be assessed as a success in most of its goals. It

has a broad base of support. At present thirty-seven countries have

become signatories. While it is difficult to judge the benefits of the

Code in a quantitative sense, it seems that information about foreign

standards is much more available than it was prior to the Code. Inroads

have been made in adding greater transparency to foreign standards and

certification systems. The Code has also prompted a series of bilateral

discussions on standards issues with the United States' key trading

partners.

Of particular note in the context of today's conference is the Standards

Code's encouragement to the development and use of international

standards. As I understand it, the United States has been involved in

international standards work for over one hundred years. At first, most

international standardizing activities were the product of professional

societies made up of technical experts. They became interested in

standards to promote better understanding of new scientific discoveries

and to develop safe and practical applications for them. Standards were

convenient tools in this effort.

Beyond this scientific purpose, it seems clear that international trade

has always been a strong incentive for international standards. This is

truly the point at which the worldwide interdependent trading system and

standards converge. As industries have broadened in geographic scope, so have standards. In the beginning, national interests dominated the

formulation of standards. However, the vast expansion of international

trade, not to mention the growth of multinational concerns, have given

impetus to the development of international standards. As a result, work

on international standards is constantly escalating. For example, in

1970 there were almost 1400 ISO standards, in 1980 there were 4000 and at

present there are about 5400.

These factors underscore the importance of international cooperation and

coordination in standards-related activities. Not only would

international standards, if accepted by regulators and manufacturers

throughout the world facilitate trade, but seemingly they could act as

the eventual solution to all standards-related trade issues. As I mentioned before, most of the trade barrier effect of standards results

from no particular discriminatory intent, but rather merely from the fact

that there are differences among the standards.

However, international standards in today's world are not a total panacea

either. Some experts complain that international standards work takes

11
far too long and is incapable of keeping up with the innovative and

advanced technologies that have become so important to modern trade

flows. Another criticism is that international standards

characteristically end up as being the "lowest common denominator."

Certainly when many countries participate in any harmonization effort

there is a tendency to settle on whatever most parties can accept.

In international standards, that could lead to a situation where the cost

of participating in international efforts is not justified in terms of

results.

It is precisely because international standards are not always what they

could be that the Standards Code encourages signatories to participate in

international standardizing organizations with a view to harmonizing

countries' mandatory standards. Also, the Code recognizes that there may

be situations in which the use of international standards may not be

appropriate for a particular country.

Dealing with fundamental technological problems can be such a situation.

For example, international standards will often be written in metric

units and the United States does not use the metric system — an international standard in this case might be inappropriate for use in the

United States.

Other cases in which international standards may not be appropriate are national security requirements, prevention of deceptive practices,

protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment. When a nation feels that its needs in these areas are

not met by a particular international standard, certainly it has an acceptable reason to bypass international standards.

While no one can argue that there will be situations where countries will

want to take an exception, it is to be hoped that standards makers will

closely evaluate the relative merits of international standards before

they determine that an individual standard is inappropriate. As someone

whose background is in trade, the benefits of widespread acceptance of

international standards seems too great to be ignored. If the rules for

making goods were the same everywhere, we could certainly avoid the trade

distortions caused when standards reflect competing international

interests.

So you see, as someone coming from the trade side of the equation, I see standards as a potent force either to facilitate or to limit trade.

Clearly, they are far too important to the movement of goods for the

trade community not to pay careful attention to both how standards are

made and applied. Those of us from the trade side would hope that the

obverse is true for the standards writers. We would hope that they are sensitized enough to the critical importance that their endeavors hold

for commerce that they carefully consider the potential trade effects of

their actions.

12
As I noted earlier, trade has become a central national concern. In the

years to come, even with the best of efforts, the United States is likely

to face a series of painful dilemmas in the foreign trade area. There

will be no easy answers or paths out of this dilemma. My work at the

International Trade Commission proves that to me every day.

Much has been done since World War II towards accomplishing the goal of

building an open, competitive world market. We have achieved a great

deal of trade liberalization — and a great deal of economic benefit.

Now we must continue to work toward dealing with nontariff barriers. We

will have made great strides towards this goal if standards makers follow

the ideals of the Standards Code — and keep an eye to the potential use of international standards. Thank you, and I wish you all the best for a successful conference.

13
DoD Policies on Participation and Use of Standards

Peter Yurcisin

Director, Standardization and Acquisition Support

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

Department of Defense

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be asked to speak

to as diversified an audience as this about DoD policies and procedures

on use of standards and specifications. DoD has been a part of the ICSP

since its inception and we have been actively involved in nearly every

aspect of its deliberations. While I have only been the DoD representative

for a short time, I am familiar with the important work accomplished and

the many activities currently going on.

The Department of Defense Standardization and Specification Program

operates under the authority of a 1952 public law known as the Cataloging

and Standardization Act. This act was primarily concerned with reducing

the variety of items in the Defense supply system to meet similar needs.

The act states that it is our duty to "achieve the highest practicable

degree possible in the standardization of items used throughout the

Department of Defense through the development of single specifications,

in the elimination of overlapping and duplicating item specifications,

and in the reduction of the number of sizes, kinds, or types of generally

similar items."

The responsibility for managing the Defense Standardization and

Specification Program is assigned to the Under Secretary for Research

and Engineering. Within R&E, delegation has been made in turn to the

Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition Management, to the Assistant

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Production Support, who is the

chairman of the flag rank Defense Materiel Standardization and

Specifications Board, and then to my office, the Director for

Standardization and Acquisition Support. Under my office is the Defense

Materiel Specifications and Standards Office, DMSSO. Mr. Mike Corridore,

from whom you will be hearing later in the program, is the director of

that office. DMSSO is the real working arm of policy formation,

recommendations, and monitoring. DMSSO has a close working relationship

with the field offices who directly implement the policies and procedures.

They stay in touch with the problems and issues from the field and make

recommendations for policy revisions to deal with those issues.

The actual preparation of documents, participation with nongovernment

standards groups and with international standards groups, and adoption

of nongovernment domestic or international standards, takes place at

nearly 100 technical offices across the United States. Our program is

decentralized to the greatest extent possible with policy direction

coming from my office, but the real action is at these technical centers.

Organizations such as the Army Materials and Mechanics Research Center,

14
and the Defense Electronics Supply Center provide the scientific and

engineering expertise vital to the program.

The DoD developed a comprehensive program for the development of

specifications and standards for use in procurement of needed materiel.

The DoD has the largest collection of specifications and standards in

the free world with over 45,000 documents. Our library has been created

over time to meet the acquisition needs of the Services. To insure that

items purchased by the government are suitable for their intended purpose

and to obtain maximum value for the dollars expended, we express our requirements in specifications and standards. Because documents suitable

for use in procurement were not available elsewhere, the DoD wrote them

in-house. In many cases these documents became de facto standards because

they filled identified voids. Twelve-inch square floor tile was first

defined by a Federal specification, the now standard four-inch spacing

between lavatory faucets first appeared in a Federal specification.

MIL-STD-105 has become the widely accepted "standard" for defining

sampling plans for acceptance inspection.

DoD engineers responsible for writing specifications and standards

realized that there were organizations such as ASME, ASTM, SAE, and

others that were developing standards in many of the same areas in which

they were working. Many of these standards prepared by nongovernment

organizations began to be used by DoD either through direct reference in

contracts, or through reference in military documents. In 1960 the DoD

issued a formal policy directing adoption of what we then called industry

documents. There has been little substantive change to that policy over

the past 25 years.

We now refer to those documents as nongovernment standards. We feel

that this terminology is more accurately descriptive than the term chosen

by 0MB - voluntary standards. Military standards are in fact voluntary

until selected by a contracting officer and placed on a contract. Once

placed on contract, neither military nor nongovernment standards are voluntary. The terminology has however, created some degree of confusion

among contracting officers and contractors alike. Calling a standard

voluntary gives the wrong implication to the contractor for whtfm the

standard has been made a contractual requirement. The thing that really

separates the standards covered by 0MB circular A119 from government

standards is who the issuing organization is, not the degree of

volunteerism in either preparation or application of the standard. This

is not an imaginary issue. Lawyers in government contracting offices

have actually resisted use of nongovernment standards on contract because

of the voluntary implications supported by the 0MB circular.

Let me speak briefly about 0MB A119 and the DoD's implementation. Others

here who were personally involved probably know this history better than

I, but the history is important to DoD's implementation of the circular

so let me outline what I know of the history. When the issue first

developed in the ICSP, several of the member agencies which were having

good luck using nongovernment standards suggested that a set of policy

15
principles be developed by the ICSP to encourage other agencies to make

use of this tremendous national resource. As the policy principles

developed and neared approval by the full committee, some consideration

was given to how the principles should be promulgated. It was decided

that more impact could be achieved by having 0MB issue the policy than

if it were promulgated by the chairman of the ICSP. When 0MB issued

their first draft in 1976, the DoD was in the process of revising our instruction governing adoption and use of nongovernment documents. 0MB'

s

initial effort went beyond the guidelines developed by ICSP in mandating

things that we felt were best left to the good judgement of the agencies.

As a result, DoD went on record as supporting the principles but objecting

to several of the mandatory provisions. The important point though was that circulation of a draft, government-wide policy supporting adoption

and participation, lent high visibility and attention to these policies.

This high visibility helped "grease the skids" for approval, issuance,

and implementation of our revised policies. So although the circular

was not signed until 1980, in the late 1970's it was already having a significant impact on activities of the DoD. When the circular was

issued, the DoD's program was already well underway and implementing

regulations were in place. Issuance of the 0MB circular, its subsequent

revision and reissuance added impetus to our already successful program.

DoD policy covering participation, adoption, and use of nongovernment

standards is included in our overall policy directive, DoD Directive

4120.3. Implementing rules are provided in a separate DoD Instruction

4120.20 - this is the instruction that was issued in 1976. Detailed

procedures are included as a separate section of a policy and procedures

manual known as the Defense Standardization Manual, 4120. 3-M. This

section outlines the conditions under which DoD participates, the

criteria for adoption, and the procedures for preparing and coordinating

notices of adoption.

The way that we measure the success of which I speak is by watching how

many nongovernment standards are formally adopted for use in procurement.

We have more than 3,500 nongovernment standards listed in our DoD Index

of Specifications and Standards (DoDISS) adopted and approved for use. Nongovernment standards are increasing as a percentage of the total

number of documents in the DoDISS. We cancel almost as many old Military

Specifications and Standards as we write, but nongovernment standards

are approaching 8% of the DoDISS, up from 6% in 1982.

Briefly, and in summary, it is DoD policy to participate in the standards

development activities of nongovernment standards groups when feasible,

economical and to the benefit of the DoD. Further, nongovernment

standards are to be adopted and used in lieu of preparing or maintaining

duplicative military documents. This is DoD's policy today and has been

since 1960. We are constantly doing things to refine the policy and to

enhance implementation. Last year a pamphlet describing the preferred

procedures for adoption and participation was published and copies sent

to over 400 nongovernment standards preparers. This pamphlet, the SD-9, was designed to provide nongovernment standards bodies a road map for

16
how to interface with the DoD standardization program. Single copies

are available free of charge from the Naval Publications and Forms Center

in Philadelphia. The response from this publication has been good. A

number of organizations with which we have not previously done business

have written in to offer their standards for consideration, or to see if

DoD personnel wanted to participate. We are intent on continuing to

increase our participation, adoption, and use of nongovernment standards

wherever it makes sense to do so.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to tell you about DoD's

standardization and specification program.

17
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Donald Abelson

Director, Technical Trade Barriers

Office of U.S. Trade Representative

I intend to address some of the challenges that are before us with regard to

using international standards and participating to a greater extent in the

international community. These challenges were issued to the U.S. about five

years ago when we entered into an official agreement with 36 other countries

to facilitate international trade by eliminating barriers that are created by

standards related activities.

Two of the principle obligations that the U.S. Government took on at that

time, and still accepts, were to use international standards and to

participate, to the extent of our resources, in relevant international

standards activities. These challenges are significant ones for the U.S.

because our past performance is somewhat dismal.

We are a large country. We are a large market. We have our own technologies

and it has been a traditional view that international activities are for the

foreigners. While certainly we are interested in what goes on, because we want to protect our overseas markets, the adoption of international standards

in the U.S. was something that was rarely considered.

I start with the document that Commissioner Rohr mentioned to you. It's the

Standards Code. This is a document that now has 37 signatories and it is

under the GATT, which is an agreement on trade that has existed for some 36

years. This agreement, the GATT Standards Code, contains two provisions that

are particularly relevant within this area of international standardization.

The first provision is that the U.S. Government will participate in

international activities; that is, that it will make the commitment to be

involved and to participate at a substantive level. After making the

commitment to be involved there is another provision in the agreement that is even more significant and it is that the U.S. Government will use appropriate

international standards. Those are the two relevant provisions of this

document. If they had just remained on the shelf, there probably would be a minor effect in the U.S. But they don't. They are, in fact, incorporated in

U.S. law and they have been a part of U.S. law for almost six years now.

In 1979, the Congress, in reviewing this agreement as well as other

international agreements adopted as U.S. law the principle that Federal

agencies will use appropriate international standards. So, for six years it

has been a fact of law, of statute, that agencies of the U.S. Government must

use international standards. Now there is a caveat, and the caveat is the

word "appropriate". That word "appropriate" was put into the Standards Code

and into U.S. law to take care of some concerns.

18
Let ine read what the concerns are; there are five of them. The reasons why

an international standard would not be appropriate for use by an agency of

the U.S. Government are: (1) national security requirements; (2) the

prevention of deceptive practices; (3) the protection of human health or safety, animal and plant life or health, or the environment; (4) fundamental

climatic or other geographical factors; and (5) fundamental technological

problems. Those are the five concerns. Why are they necessary? They are necessary, at least they were necessary in the view of U.S. industry people,

because we cannot be forced to do something in the United States that would

not be appropriate for our particular usage.

What am I saying? Well let's think of something like our customary units of

measurement and other countries deciding to use something called the

International System. The metric system is clearly not the choice of the

U.S. and one of those five criteria would permit us to continue using our customary measurement system. That is the caveat about fundamental

technological differences. On the one hand we have a way to say yes we will

commit ourselves to using international standards, on the other hand we have

to take those standards into account, look at them carefully, and see whether

they are appropriate for our use. But what is important here is that we are under obligation to 36 other signatories of this agreement to make our best

effort to join the world in developing international standards and then to come home and use those standards.

Obviously a Conference like this has to recognize that the United States is

unique in allowing, permitting and fostering the private sector to be the

direct participant in the major international standards bodies; that is, the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). In both we are represented by private

organi zations--the American National Standards Institute and the U.S.

National Committee for the IEC. Now taking those two organizations and

putting them aside, because you will hear about them this afternoon, and

talking about Federal Government policies with regard to participation in

other than the ISO and IEC, I think that we have a very significant problem

to address and that is in what manner does the U.S. participate in these

other organizations. I wi 1 1 limit my comments to the treaty organizations,

those bodies in which or to which the U.S. Government has responsibility.

Sometimes in the discussion of international standardization, those treaty

organizations are left out, because the private sector is basically thinking

ISO and IEC. But from the Government side we think more about the OECD, the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and we think about

CCITT, which is the Consultative Committee for International Telephone and

Telegraphy, or we think about the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, which is a World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

sub-body. Dave Edgerly will tell you about the Organization for

International Legal Metrology (OIML). In all of these bodies, the U.S.

Government is the direct participant.

We have some problems in being the direct participant. The first problem is

that it is the State Department that is the official U.S. representati ve to

any of these organizations and the State Department must delegate this

responsibility to another Federal Government Agency. Why is that a problem?

It really isn't a problem in terms of policy, although it can be; it's really

a problem of money. The State Department is under a White House order to cut

back the delegations to these international organizations. The theory is

19
that these are just junkets for lazy bureaucrats who have a good time instead

of attending the particular conference. Therefore the delegations are cut

back. This is not a desire on the part of the White House; this is an edict.

It sometimes results in not being able to send representatives to these

meetings who can effectively represent U.S. Government interest and U.S.

private sector interest.

Every U.S. Government agency is involved in some way or another. I have a list of agencies with which I deal regularly and it includes practically

every Federal Government agency and independent Federal regulatory agency.

These are the places in which our experts reside and from which we must draw

our resources in participating in international standards organizations in

accord with our obligation under the Standards Code and under Federal Law.

When we go to these agencies we often find that traveling internationally is

viewed as a political perk and the person that attends the meeting is not

necessarily the person who has the greatest expertise. It may be the special

assistant to the assistant secretary who hasn't taken a trip recently; or we find that the views of a bureaucrat are considered to be politically

unacceptable and so that bureaucrat, who may be the expert for the U.S., is

barred from attending a meeting. It also may be that there is no Federal

Government agency with responsibilities in a particular area. I just got a call yesterday from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. They are concerned about the noise emission standards drafting activities of the

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. They would like to have someone represent the U.S. at this meeting. It could only be a U.S.

Government person as it is a treaty organization. They have approached

several different departments in the U.S. Government and no one will attend,

no one has the authorization to go to a noise standards meeting because there

is no Federal Government noise administration. The EPA no longer takes care

of that.

The fundamental problem is how do you represent the interest of U.S. people

in an international organization when there is no mechanism to do it. How do

you meet the obligation of this agreement to participate? In this case we may very well fail, which is not very encouraging. There are all sorts of

other Federal agencies with involvements overseas and you will hear about

that tomorrow at the morning session. That session has some of the most

qualified U.S. Government people to talk about their direct involvement in

these international organizations.

The use of international standards is not just a theoretical issue; it is not one that exists simply on paper in terms of documents or circulars; it is

actually a way to help the United States sell more and if we need anything at

this moment in history it is to sell more, to export more. If you take a look at the overall trade balance between the United States and all

continents of the world, you'll be amazed and shocked. One way that we can export more is to secure access for our products in foreign markets. Part of

that access is in adhering to the standards that are adopted internationally

because more and more countries are going to look towards the international

standards and say that's what we should be adopting.

With major industrially developed countries we increasingly find that

technical trade barriers become a very important issue. Over the weekend,

the President dispatched to Japan a special envoy. He went to talk about

standards. He went to personally appeal to the Prime Minister that Japan

20
adopt Federal Communications Commission type standards for telephone

equipment. The President sent such a high level official to meet with the

Prime Minister of our major trading partner to talk about standards because

it is the most significant issue at this point. Now this exists elsewhere,

but with Japan we find that constantly we run into a problem where we have

one set of standards, they have another set of standards, and we have to try

to find a way through that. Other than sending a White House official to the

Prime Minister, there are some mechanisms to resolve such problems. One

mechanism is to send our experts and their experts to Geneva to sit down in

joint meetings on telephone equipment, pesticide residues, food additives,

and the like.

This is a continual process, it is not just a single example at one point in

time. We find over and over and over that we need access to these

international organizations to resolve disputes. Unfortunately, it has also come to our attention, within the last three years, that for political reasons we are not allowed to go overseas. U.S. Government experts may not

have access for political reasons. These reasons may have to do with a domestic debate, a decision by one element of our constituency that the issue

should not be discussed. Its unfortunate that, in that kind of internal

political debate, the most affected party is the U.S. trading community.

Because if we refuse to discuss an issue internationally, it is not as if our views are represented by somebody else, it is usually that we are not

represented at all.

I put these points to you as a challenge that we have to take up and that we have to address very seriously. In fact, if things go well and we have our way at my office, we will be intiating a new round of trade talks. In this new round of trade talks, which may end in 1990, we hope to achieve even greater commitments on the part of our Government to international

standardization and in particular to acceptance of test data generated

overseas. Of course, the reverse of that is greater overseas acceptance of

test data generated in the United States. How do you gain greater acceptance

of test data? You can only do it on the basis of agreed international

standards.

So we have before us an agenda that takes up this challenge and that is this new round of talks. I hope that as you address these issues during the course of this Conference, you will also take up this challenge.

21
Competition and Consumer Protection Policies Affecting Standards Development

Dean C. Graybill

Assistant Director, Division of Service Industry Practices

Bureau of Consumer Protection

Federal Trade Commission

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to serve as a panelist on the

opening day of ICSP's Conference on International Standards. Our

panel's assignment this morning is to discuss federal policies

covering standards participation and use. In this connection, I will discuss those federal policies central to the mission of the

Federal Trade Commission, namely consumer protection and the

preservation of competitive markets. You should know that the

views expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the Conmission or any individual Commissioner.

The voluntary standards system is a particularly intriguing topic

from a competition and consumer protection standpoint. On the one

hand, private standards setting is a type of industry selfregulation that typically enhances competition and advances

consumer welfare. Thus one could argue that standards setters

make the Commission' s job that much easier. On the other hand,

standards development presents opportunities to industry

participants that wish to inhibit the entry of competitors into

the market or use standards to deceive consumers as to the safety

or efficacy of their products. This is not to say that successful

manipulation of the standards process is a common occurrence.

However, given the enormous influence of standards in the

marketplace, the potential for misuse of standards is something

that law enforcement agencies must be concerned about.

Applicable Laws

I should first describe the statutory framework for these

policies. At the federal level antitrust and consumer protection

policies are principally embodied in the Sherman Act and Federal

Trade Conmission Act. The Sherman Act prohibits, among other

things, concerted activity of individuals or groups that

unreasonably restrain trade. The Justice Department is authorized

to bring civil or criminal actions under the Act, and private

parties can bring lawsuits for damages. Under the Federal Trade

Commission Act, the Commission also has the authority to prohibit

unreasonable restraints of trade under the rubric "unfair methods

of competition." Under its statute the Commission may further

prohibit "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Commission

22
has a number of enforcement tools at its disposal, including the

issuance of administrative cease and desist orders and the

institution of civil penalty actions in the federal courts against

those who violate the Corranission' s orders or trade regulation

rules.

The Applicability Of These Laws To Standards Activities

In reviewing the propriety of private standards activities under

these statutes, law enforcement agencies cannot ignore the

competitive benefits that typically flow from these programs.

Perhaps the most significant benefit is the reduction of

transaction costs. Standards are a highly efficient means for

buyers and sellers to exchange information on complex product

attributes. For instance, building contractors can specify the

minimum quality of cement, steel, and other materials they want by

simply referencing relevant standards in procurement contracts.

If necessary, they can also be assured that particular brands of

these materials conform to the standards by specifying in the

contract that materials must be approved by third-party

certification laboratories. This saves the contractor from having

to buy equipment or hire experts to conduct independent tests, on

each item purchased. Standards also ease the introduction of new

technologies by enabling innovative manufacturers to demonstrate

the safety or efficacy of new products; enhance consumer

confidence by setting minimum quality or safety levels; and reduce

production and distribution costs by eliminating superfluous

product varieties.

However, standards development also presents opportunities for

illegal conduct to industry participants who have a commercial

interest in the outcome of the process. Because of their

technical expertise, industry participants may be in a position to

exercise a disproportionate and unreasonable influence in the

process to inhibit innovation, restrict entry into their markets,

or mislead consumers. The potential for harm is especially great

when the standards are referenced by local, state, or federal

government. This potential for harm was recognized by the Supreme

Court in the recent case of American Society of Mechanical

Engineers v. Hydrolevel . 1 The Court's description of ASME's

influence is equally applicable to many other standards

developers:

ASME wields great power in the economy. Its codes and

standards influence the policies of numerous States and

cities, and, as has been said about "so-called voluntary

1 456 U.S. 556 (1982).

23
standards" generally, its interpretation of its

guidelines "may result in economic prosperity or economic

failure, for a number of businesses of all sizes

throughout the country," as well as entire segments of an

industry.

2

There are no bright lines that automatically define unreasonable

standards or unreasonable standards actions. However, certain

types of activity clearly raise concern when the standards

developer has substantial market power: (1) promulgation of

standards that explicitly or implicitly restrict product designs

without a sound factual or theoretical basis for the restriction;

(2) promulgation of standards that include testing or labelling

procedures that misrepresent the safety or efficacy of conforming

products; (3) unreasonable failure by standards developers to

modify standards to accommodate new products, technological

change, or changes in knowledge, and (4) unreasonable delays in

making such modifications.

I should emphasize that, from an antitrust standpoint, it is only

standards that unreasonably restrain trade that are of concern.

It is not the mere fact of exclusion of a product that identifies

an unlawful standard. Rather it is the basis and extent of the

exclusion that is the focus of our concern. The exclusion should

not exceed that which is reasonably necessary to achieve the

legitimate goals of the standards and certification

organization.

Since the focus of this conference is on international standards,

I should mention that the Commission, under certain circumstances,

can take a action against standards activity that impacts on

international trade. The clearest case would be where a domestic

standard unreasonably restricts foreign competitors from selling

their products in this country. The Commission could act to

prohibit this restraint if we had jurisdiction over the standards

developer and could prove that this restraint of trade affects

domestic interstate commerce.

Federal Trade Commission Activities In The Standards And

Certifications Area

The Federal Trade Commission's efforts in this area have been

aimed at protecting consumers and competition without disrupting

the beneficial activity of standard developers. The Commission

activity is divided into three areas: an industry-wide rulemaking;

case-by-case litigation; and an intervention-advocacy program.

24

2 id. at 570.
1. Rulemaking

The Commission is now in the final stage of a rulemaking

proceeding aimed at identifying any industry-wide unfair methods

of competition that may exist among domestic standard developers

or certifiers. In April 1983, staff recommended that the

Commission address the problems found in the rulemaking record by

bringing individual cases where appropriate. At that time the

staff further recommended that the Commission promulgate a rule to

remedy a perceived failure of standards developers to handle

complaints that their standards unreasonably restrain trade.

However, the Commission reopened the rulemaking record to invite

public comment on whether the landmark Hydrolevel decision in the

Supreme Court and other recent developments may have prompted

standards developers to change their complaint handling

procedures. The Bureau of Consumer Protection is now reviewing a staff recommendation and will make public its recommendation to

the Commission.

2. Case-by-case

While the rulemaking proceeding is continuing, the staff of

Bureaus of Consumer Protection and Competition are reviewing

additional standards and certification matters that may raise

antitrust and consumer protection problems. Our basic approach is

to focus on cases in which the standards organization or certifier

has considerable market power. For example, when a standard is

incorporated into building codes, the standards organization that

develops the standard acquires market power.

On July 26, 1984, the Commission accepted, subject to final

approval, a consent agreement with the American Society of

Sanitary Engineering . The complaint, published with a consent

agreement, alleges that ASSE unreasonably restrained trade by

refusing to extend standards coverage to an innovative plumbing

valve produced by a small business. ASSE had already written

standards covering competitors' products. The complaint asserted

that as a result of ASSE's refusal, sales of the innovative

product were unduly restricted in numerous state and local

jurisdiction that rely on ASSE standards.

We are also investigating a number of additional matters in which

complainants have alleged that standards and certifications have

kept small businesses out of the market or deceived consumers. However, the nonpublic nature of our investigations prevents

disclosing specific details.

25
3. Advocacy and Intervention

The Commission also has an advocacy and intervention program that

seeks to encourage government agencies that rely on product

standards to do so in a way that enhances competition and consumer welfare. Government selection of a particular standard

as a basis for regulation, or of a particular certifier to

evaluate compliance with its regulation, , can have a significant

competitive impact. Unless government agencies are sensitive to

the competitive implications of their actions, and take steps to

minimize any resulting adverse competitive impact, their reliance

on standards and certification may unnecessarily harm competition

and consumers. Our role here is essentially to provide state and

federal agencies with information, analysis, and encouragement on

the procompetitive use of standards.

We have also co-sponsored two projects aimed at improving the

building regulatory process. One of these projects is aimed at

developing models of efficient and effective code administration

for use by states,' in an attempt to speed up the building permit

and approval process. Another project is examining the approval

process for building products in order to find ways to speed up

the evaluation and approval of innovative products and methods.

I hope this has given you at least of glimpse of how federal

policies favoring competition and consumer protection impact on standards development. In closing, let me again thank the ICSP

for this opportunity to discuss FTC's role in the standards area.

26
GUIDELINES FOR PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ACTIVITIES

David E. Edgerly

Manager, Standards Management Program

Office of Products Standards Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Introduction

Several years ago the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP),

established a task group to develop guidelines covering agency and employee

participation in international standards activities. I was pleased to have

the opportunity to chair this group because it gave me a chance to work with

other agencies in developing advice aimed at strengthening the effectiveness

of government participation in the international standards arena. Our work

was completed last February with the publication in the Federal Register of

the "Guidelines for Participation by U.S. Government Agencies, Employees, or Representatives in International Standards-Rel ated Activities". I hope that

you are familiar with the Guidelines and that most agencies have already

adopted them. In case you are not familiar with them, they will be appended

to my paper in the proceedings of this Seminar.

The decentralized nature of the U.S. standards system poses a unique challenge in terms of assuring effective United States representation in the international arena. According to the recently issued NBS Special Publication

681, entitled "Standards Activities of Organizations in the United States",

there are some 420 nongovernment organizations involved in developing

standards in this country. Of the total current population of 80,000

standards in the United States, about half come from these 420 nongovernment

standards groups and the other half from government agencies. The Department

of Defense alone is responsible for almost half of the total population. On

the international front, NBS Special Publication 649, entitled "Directory of

International and Regional Organizations Conducting Standards-Rel ated Activities", reports some 272 international or regional organizations involved in

standards activities. This includes both intergovernmental (treaty) and

nongovernmental bodies.

It was in recognition of the decentralized U.S. standards system, and the

need for some expression of what government's role should be in that system,

that 0MB Circular All 9 was developed and issued. As you know, it encourages

participation in and use of domestic and international standards within the

boundaries of agency mission and resources. As a policy document, A119

underlines the importance of participation in the standards arena, both

domestic and international. It was a long time coming and clearly encourages

increased interaction between government and the private sector standards

community. It also directed the establishment of the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy which is proving to be an effective means for coordinating

government wide standards issues.

27
The Task of Developing the Guidelines

Even though A119 endorses government participation in standards activities,

it is still a formidable task in trying to decide which standards activities

and organizations are important to government and deserving of support, given

the large number of standards developing organizations, both national and

international; the complexity of dealing with a decentralized standards

system; and, the limited resources available for standards activities.

Another important point is that the 272 international and regional standards

bodies mentioned above include a number of organizations in which the United

States Government is the member body. For these organizations, it is important that government reach out to the private sector in assuring that their

interests are adequately represented in those international organizations in

which government is the member body. Thus, the job facing the Task Force was

to develop guidance which, on the one hand, addressed how government should

be an effective participant in cases where the private sector was the member

of the international organization and, on the other hand, how government

should be an effective member body to an international standards organization

in terms of assuring adequate U.S. representation.

It was with the above considerations in mind that the Task Group set out to

do its work of developing guidance that would be useful to agencies and/or

employees, depending on the various roles that have been mentioned. In my

opinion, one of the more positive aspects of the Guidelines is that they do

recognize that government's responsibilities differ depending upon whether

participation is through a private sector member body or whether government

itself is the member body. It was also our goal to try and make the guidelines covering both roles as compatible as possible, particularly on such

important points as voting on draft standards.

Section I Government as the U.S. Member Body

Section I of the Guidelines is devoted to organizations in which government

is the U.S. member body. In such cases, particularly as regards treaty

organizations, a lead agency is designated by the Department of State and

generally looked to by State for developing U.S. positions taken within the

organization. The section further distinguishes between plenary meetings of

organizations where U.S. delegations and position papers are formally

accredited and approved by State, and technical level meetings where the lead

agency takes on the approval and accreditation functions. It is in the

latter case where most standards related activities occur and for which the

lead agency is responsible for assuring adequate United States representation.

Several points in Section I are worth noting. First, the Task Force felt it

important to draw attention to the need for agencies to seek balanced

representation of interests when developing U.S. positions on draft standards. This is particularly critical where the proposed international

standard may measurably affect trade, or may be adopted as law or regulation

in the United States. We felt it important in such cases to draw attention

to the need for the lead agency to seek representation from industry, other

28
agencies. State and local governments, labor, universities, and the consuming

public. Obviously, how far an agency can go in assuring balanced representation will be tempered by available time and resources. Nevertheless, every

effort should be made to assure that affected groups have the opportunity to

participate in the development of the U.S. position.

The Task Group also devoted a lot of emphasis to steps that agencies should

take in preparing delegations to participate in international standards

meetings. The emphasis is that a U.S. delegation has to be prepared not only

for the substance of the standards meeting, but also for possible side issues

and actions that can have a significant impact on the success of the delegation. Along these lines, we emphasized the importance of continuity of

representation as a means of assuring the success of U.S. delegations. Having

delegates who have followed the development of a standard through a number

of international meetings and who know the history and rationale of changes

that have taken place in the standard is. indispensable in terms of assuring

effective U.S. representation.

Perhaps the most important subject the Task Group had to deal with, and also

the one which provided the most difficulty, was developing guidance on voting

on draft international standards. We looked at those that were available

from private sector organizations like the American National Standards

Institute (ANSI), the U.S. member body to the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission

(IEC). It was the feeling of the Task Group that every attempt should be

made to have uniform voting criteria between government and the private

sector, regardless of whether a government agency or a private sector

organization had the role as U.S. member body. After all, to have the U.S.

vote "yes" for one reason in organization A, and "no" in organization B for

the same reason would be unacceptable and potentially damaging to our image

and credibility. We discovered that uniformity with ANSI was possible, but

with qualifications. These qualifications bear mentioning because they are important and will have an effect on those of you who participate in U.S.

Technical Advisory Groups for ISO and IEC committees.

First of all, the Task Group had to consider that we were developing guidelines intended to cover all international standards organizations, voluntary

and intergovernmental , in which agencies or employees participate. The ANSI

guidelines cover only ISO and IEC. Secondly, we recommended that in developing a proposed vote, consideration be given to the impact of existing Federal

regulations or policies on the standard under consideration. ANSI guidelines

are silent on this point. It is generally felt that it is the responsibility

of Federal agency participants in U.S. Technical Advisory Groups to evaluate

draft ISO and IEC standards in light of existing regulations and policies.

To draw attention to the fact that this is your responsibi lity as a government member of a USTAG, we have included such guidance in Section II, which

deals with organizations like ISO and IEC - those in which government is not

the member body. The assumption on the part of ANSI that agencies are ever

vigilant of ISO and IEC activities which could impact upon Federal regulation

or policy is, in my opinion, a little risky, and I would like to find some way to make government review of ISO and IEC activities more systematic.

Perhaps this is an area for consideration by ICSP.

29
There are two other important differences between the ANSI and ICSP voting

guidelines that bear mentioning. First, ANSI recommends that the U.S. should

vote "no" on an ISO or IEC standard when no U.S. consensus position can be

established on a vote, or when the U.S. feels there is no need for the

standard. The Task Group did not agree with this reasoning. In our opinion,

a "no" vote may result in the defeat of the standard and, therefore, should

always be accompanied by defensible arguments. Absence of a consensus among

U.S. interests does not seem to be reason enough to jeopardize the international standard. Accordingly, the Task Group recommended that in the absence

of a consensus, the U.S. should "abstain" from voting on the draft. As

regards the question of need for the standard, the Task Group recommended an "abstention" rather than a "no" when no national standard, regulation or Federal policy exists and there is no intent to develop one. The rationale

behind the abstention rather than negative is that the U.S. should not stand

in the way of a standard being initiated if there is agreement among other

nations as to its need and importance. We have made ANSI aware of the

differences of view regarding these two points and hope eventually to come together on them. However, for the present, the differences do exist and

those of you currently participating in U.S. TAGS to ISO and IEC committees

should be aware of them.

Section II Government as a Participant

Section II of the Guidelines deals with participation in standards activities

where government is not the member body. In developing this section we obviously had in mind participation by government agencies and employees in

ANSI activities relative to U.S. membership in ISO and IEC. However, the

section also pertains to activities of many other international technical and

scientific organizations involved in drafting standards where U.S. membership

is outside of government. Generally speaking, the Task Group divided

government participation in such organizations into three possibilities:

1. an agency may be designated by the U.S. member body to function as a secretariat of an international standards committee, subcommittee, working

group or task force;

2”. an agency may be requested by the U.S. member body to function as administrator of an advisory group for coordinating U.S. participation in an international standards activity; or

3. agency employees may be invited to serve on established U.S.

advisory groups or as members of U.S. delegations to international standards

meetings.

The guidance included in Section II relate to these three roles and stress

the importance of agency and employee support to U.S. member bodies in these

type of international standards activities. For example, the Task Group felt

it important to emphasize that before accepting responsibi lity as secretariat

or advisory group administrator of an international standards activity,

agencies should thoroughly explore the resource implications and match to

mission of such activity and make sure that the work can be completed in an effective and timely manner. The Task Group also felt it important to stress

that agencies and employees have a responsibility to represent the public

30
interest of the United States in the broadest sense, which means the interests of those parties who are substantially affected by the standards under

consideration including manufacturers and producers, industrial users,

distributors and retailers, government agencies, individual consumers and the

public at large.

Perhaps the most important piece of advice offered in Section II is that in

the three areas that agencies and employees might play a role, they are re- sponsible for adhering to the working procedures of both the parent international standards body and the respective U.S. member body through which their

participation is channeled. What happens when such procedures conflict with

the ICSP Guidelines? There is really only one area where such conflicts

might arise and this deals with the question of voting on draft standards. It

has already been pointed out that there are two areas of difference with the

ANSI guidelines for ISO and IEC. Additionally, the ICSP Guidelines recommend

that agencies and employees consider the impact of regulation and Federal

policy when developing their comments on draft international standards. If

in your standards work you run into a situation where you consider a proposed

U.S. position as being in conflict with the public interest or the interests

of the Federal Government, you should attempt to resolve the conflict within

the framework of the U.S. advisory group or delegation on which you are serving. If unsuccessful, you should make your position clear in writing to

the U.S. member body for the particular organization in question and inform

your agency of the perceived conflict.

Summary

In summary, the ICSP Guidelines were developed with the intention of providing practical advice to agencies and employees that will help to improve

government's effectiveness in the international standards arena. The Task

Force feels that we have accomplished this goal. However, we also feel that

there is always room for improvement and would welcome your comments and

suggestions. Finally, I hope that those responsible for issuance of standards policy within agencies will recognize the importance of early adoption

of the Guidelines and of assuring their distribution to all standards

participants. To this end, the NBS Office of Product Standards Policy is

ready to provide you with assistance in your plans for implementation.

31
What obstacles exist, if any, for domestic manufacturing or marketing

interests to select and finance the travel of qualified government staff to

international standards meetings?

Don Ableson:

It would depend on the agency with which you are dealing. I am not an expert in this area of Federal law, but it probably would be the case that a regulatory agency could not accept money from a private sector body as it

would be viewed as unduly influencing the decision of that regulatory agency.

So that would be the major barrier.

Peter Yurcisin:

In DOD, it would be specifically against the standards of conduct and

contrary to the regulations. The intent of the question obviously is to draw

out whether we can improve our representation overseas by getting some other

money into it, but it doesn't look very much like its a good way to go.

Please briefly discuss the meaning of the two terms, standards and

specifications, how do they differ, and might they in fact be similar?

Peter Yurcisin:

The simplest way to distinguish them is that the specification itself is the

requirements document. It is the document called out in a contract in an aquisition process. A standard is a document which is a compendium of the

engineering information and data or related supplemental information and

support of a specification. We generally refer to the specification as referencing standards, and when the specification is cited in a contract, in

that indirect process, its citing both the specification and the standard.

Will the FTC proposed trade rule require modification to 0MB Circular A119?

Dean Graybill:

I think two things need to be addressed here. One, at this point there has

been no decision that there will be a trade regulation rule. As I said,

there will be staff recommendations to the Bureau of Consumer Protection

which ultimately the five member corrmission will decide. I have not thought

about that particular question before, but I would guess that if there were

to be a standards rule, I can't really see that that would require

modification to the 0MB Circular. FTC staff participated on the ICSP

Committee and, if you read the Circular, you will see that as a result of our efforts and others, there is language in the 0MB Circular already which, in

effect, asked agencies to be sensitive to consumer protection and the

32
competition issues when they rely on standards. The 0MB Circular doesn't

really provide a law enforcement remedy and it doesn't purport to further the

consumer protection or antitrust laws. A standards regulation rule is just

another tool that the agency would use to enforce the laws and, in that

sense, I don't think it really changes the basic relationship of the two.

How do the efforts of OIML get transferred to the weights and measures

official in Peoria?

David Edgerly:

I often draw a parallel between the problem that we have in this country in

terms of seeing to it that international requirements are accepted at the

local level with what the Common Market must have in trying to harmonize

requirements among ten nations with five or six different languages. In this

case, when it comes to measurement law or regulation, we are dealing with the

fifty states. That means we must work through the National Conference on Weights and Measures for which the NBS, office of Weights and Measures,

provides a secretariat function.

OIML is in the business of adopting model regulations that deal with

performance of instrumentation of all types. It's my responsibility as a U.S. representative to try and bring these model regulations home and have

them adopted in Federal agencies and by States that have similar

requirements. We have been very effective in working with the fifty state

jurisdictions through the National Conference. I would say that we have been

successful in the very basic areas of mass, length, volume and temperature in

getting state requirements to be uniform, or at least not in conflict with

the international requ irements.

We are working in some new areas such as pollution measurement and medical

instrumentation. That will require me to spend more time interacting with

Federal agencies that have these basic responsibilities. The two basic

criteria and mechanisms that I use are the National Conference on Weights and

Measures, which are the fifty state authorities, and the Federal agencies

that have unique regulatory authority in each given area.

What is the point of the recognition of compliance tests to US standards and

regulations done by foreign laboratories?

Don Abe Ison:

Turn it around and talk about what is the benefit for foreign countries to

accept data generated in the United States according to the foreign

standards. Let's just take a pharmaceutical. This is a product in which

basically we are equal in terms of trade. We ship out as much in

pharmaceuticals as we take in, so its about an equal trade volume. If we

have to generate one set of test data for approvals in the U.S., that may

take anywhere from 2 to 6 years and may cost about two million dollars. If we have to regenerate that data for every country to which we send the

pharmaceutical, you can see immediately that the cost becomes prohibitive.

What the producer could end up doing is producing in the foreign country

because its much simpler. What we want to try to get towards is a case where

33
we generate the data once and it is accepted all around the world. This kind

of effort is being undertaken for test data in the chemical area by the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The good is that we

get a quid pro quo ; that is, if we accept it here, they accept it there.

Obviously, we would not agree to accept data generated elsewhere to U.S.

standards, unless the country from which the data was coming was accepting

data generated in the U.S.

From a standpoint of public health and new product approval, the FDA very

much wants to be in a position to be able to accept foriegn data as fulfilling the obligations to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. We would

want to be in a position to make use of that kind of data as long as there

are no particular differences in the population studied.

Has the FTC ever taken action where an International Standard was involved?

If so, what was it?

Dean Graybill:

We basically have jurisdiction over domestic standards developers. What

constitutes a domestic standards developer, however, may be a somewhat

slippery concept. The easy case is one where a domestic standards developer

produces a standard which is referenced throughout the country. Therefore, a foreign producer, in order to sell in this country, finds that he has to meet

the standard. In the rule making proceeding, we had gotten some allegations

of problems, where it was alleged that producers of various building

materials, who had been selling their products for years and years in the

European market, had been unable to enter this country because of standards.

However, in rule making, while these cases were studied a great deal, none

has resulted in a case. We also are starting a litigation project, but that

is fairly new. Frankly, the only public case we had so far is the one I discussed, which is the American Society of Sanitary Engineering, and that was a domestic organization.

If we must use international specifications or standards, how can we make

them available to be seen and used at the lowest levels? Most must be

purchased from non-government organizations (e.g. ISO, IEC) where no budget

item exists.

Peter Yurcisin:

Those international documents that we utilize and adopt are available through

our distribution center in Philadelphia. One of the trade-offs in using

private sector standards is that they must be purchased from independent

groups. Its a touchy issue and I think its one that everybody has to be

concerned about. How far do we go and are they generally avaialble? All I can say is, that for those that have been adopted, they are available through

the FTSC in Philadelphia.

34
From the NBS standpoint, and the Standards operation there, is there any help

that might exist for people as far as getting copies of things going on in

foreign countries?

David Edgerly

Yes. There are responsibilities under the GATT. Technical offices exist in

the DOC (NBS) and in USDA. These offices issue, on a very regular basis,

notices of draft foriegn regulations and standards that may have an impact

under GATT. Also, within our technical library, we have a comprehensive index

of international standards on microfilm, which are available. We get

thousands of inquiries from the private sector and Federal agencies regarding

these.

Is the U. S. at a disadvantage in ISO and IEC since we are not represented

by an organization affiliated with the Federal Government?

Don Abelson:

No, we are not at a disadvantage, because the Government could never be as efficient as the private sector working in its own interest. That is the

theory behind having ANSI and the U.S. National Committee to the IEC

represent U.S. interest. It is basically to remove the bureaucratic factor

or to keep it at a minimum. I believe this view is proven by the amount of

difficulty we have in representing ourselves in those bodies where, by

treaty, we must appear. We run into things like arbitrary thirty percent

cut of delegations I mentioned. There is no possibility of being flexible.

At least in the private sector, if there's money, there's a way.

Would not U.S. trade be enhanced by Federal support of metrication?

Current Federal policy has diminished such support.

David Edgerly:

Obviously the U.S. is an island in the world in that we have not accepted

metric as widely as many proponents of the metric system would like to have seen us accept. I don't see, at least in the activities in which I'm

involved in the international standards arena, that we are very much

disadvantaged by having the customary system. It is not a question of its

legality, its a question of its practical use. I think the feeling is that

it would be up to the private sector to decide whether or not that use should

be more active or less active. I would reiterate that, as far as I can see

in international trade, it has not been a sizeable disadvantage to us.

35
Don Abelson:

I would agree. In fact, the studies we have done over the past six years

have shown that non use in the United States of metric measurement has not

affected those companies that want to trade. If they want to trade with a country that has metric measurement, then they adapt it for those exported

products. In some instances, they adapt it for the internal market, but the mere fact of the measurement system is not a barrier. There are other

factors.

You say that preparation of documents, participation in voluntary

standardization groups, and adoption of standards is done in 100 groups in

DOD. Does this decentralization contribute to redundancy, conflict, and

overlap in DOD standards and specifications?

Peter Yurcisin:

We do have a problem, sometimes, with redundancy. I think the participation

of all these groups helps us through this process and makes for better

specifications. We have specifications that are geared for specific uses,

and the system allows us to get out there to all the people that have an interest in that particular commodity. Our system of coordinating these

particular kinds of documents allows for everyone to have their say. The

fact that there are 100 or more of these groups does not mean that there are 100 different approaches. The system is channeled to where someone has

overall responsi bi 1 ity for that commodity. They coordinate the entire

process; they manage it; they see to it that it is updated and processed and

coordinated and have the final decision in managing that process. Where we

run into a problem is that we have so many specifications and standards that

it is almost physically impossible to go back periodically and bring some of

these up-to-date. Where there is high usage, we attempt to make sure that it covers today's state-of-the-art and our particular attention these days is to

increase that effort.

36
BENEFITS OF THE GOVERNMENT/ PRIVATE SECTOR INTERFACE

Lawrence D. Eicher

Assistant Secretary-General

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

Geneva, Switzerland

It is a distinct honor and pleasure for rae to be invited to be with

you today, and to share some of my thoughts on the importance of

international standardization work. I am particularly pleased to see many of my old friends from my former position as a member of

the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy working for the

National Bureau of Standards.

Many of you are familiar with ISO, and may perhaps have been

involved in some of its technical work. However, I felt it would be

useful to distribute our brochure, which should answer any basic

questions about ISO, and also a copy of the annual report of the

International Electrotechnical Commission, our sister organization

dealing with electrotechnical standardization. I mainly speak about

ISO, but a great deal of what I have to say is of a general nature,

and applies to the whole field of international standards (and

therefore to IEC matters) since ISO and IEC by mutual agreement

constitute a system for international standardization as a whole.

You can see from the ISO brochure what national institutes are members of ISO and what the general procedure is for finding and

building international standards agreements - as well as something

about the work of the central secretariat in Geneva. In describing

the sheer common sense of standards, you will notice also that we promote an international point of view (this is our main objective)

but not in opposition to national standardization. In fact, we are keenly aware of the fact that standardization achievements are rooted in national soils.

In order to discuss the government/private sector interface in the

international dimension I would start by reviewing what I understand as being the interest of governments in standardization

in general. I will focus on four reasons why governments are interested in standardization.

1. Governments are generally interested in the economic well-being

of their country and see standardization as contributing to this

objective. Standardization is understood to be well-embedded in

production and an important component in output, quality,

interchangeability etc.

37
2. Another more specific use of standards from the government point

of view is where it feels the need to promote some improvement

regarding safety, health, environment or other public issue.

Governments need reference to practical standardization agreements

in doing so. Notice that I have not said that this leads to

regulation. Government interest in standardization often avoids

regulation with its attendant delays, expense, brain-teasers and loopholes.

3. Next there is government interest in standards which help to

translate research results into general practice.

Government-financed research activity is in fields such as fire

testing, performance of building components, metallurgy and road

safety measures - research which must have national application and

be available to all manufacturers. Organizations carrying out such

research exist all over the world - sometimes as independent

bodies, sometimes within government departments, or simply

subsidized by government.

4. Finally, an obvious use of standardization at the

government/private sector interface goes almost without saying - this is the convenience and efficiency of specifying in

procurement activities. From the government point of view you have

the avoidance of over-specification and the benefit of choice in sources of supply: from the industry point of view, an easier

participation in tendering for newcomers in the production field.

The latter aspect brings us back to the broad economic question

which I took as point one.

There may be other aspects that I have missed, but let us label

these fairly well defined ones for convenience - general economic

advantages, regulation or regulation-avoidance, implementation of

research results, and ease of government purchasing. I shall come back to them in a moment: before that I want to widen the focus to

the international arena as we see it in a world technical

organization .

It happens that over 60% of our members are governmental bodies,

and without further data you might assume that we are therefore

dominated by a governmental point of view. However, in terms of

input to ISO work, it is the non-governmental standards bodies

(less than 40% of the membership) which keep the ISO machinery

operating. The benefit to the international standards scene of

these bodies, with their strong private sector input is vital. The

USA is one of them.

International standards have become more flexible, practical and

wider in scope because the agreements they represent are influenced

by government policy viewpoints. In fact, the mode of operation of

the major non-government standards institutes provides the most

useful indicator of how the interface between government and

private sector can be "tuned" by judicious development and use of

standards.

38
Now I come back, to the international dimension and to the five

broad reasons why I have designated typical concerns at the

governraent/private sector interface.

The first point is fairly easily encompassed, though not easy to

quantify. The general economic advantages of standardization to a country appear to include rationalization with a minimum of

technical restraint. This is equally true on an international level

- only by practical agreement can the most basic raw materials and

intermediate products enter into production anywhere in the world - being dimensionally and performance-wise up to requirements.

Standards are therefore a world concern if overall economic

stability is considered desirable. The slow or retro-development of

less developed countries, for example, is seen as a disadvantage to

the world economic balance. Standardization being a known benefit

on the national level it follows that its promotion in developing

countries - or in fields under development internationally - must

be of value. Indeed, this is why so many governments actively

transfer standardization technology to the third world.

The second factor, where government interests itself in

standardization agreement in order to hone its actions with regard

to matters of public interest. This is actually a prime point in

favour of international standardization. Governments are deciding

whether or not to regulate, and as the disciplines of

standardization, certification and accreditation become more mature

we find that efforts to ensure public safety through technical

regulation can produce solutions which create trade problems. This

is what the General Agreement of Tarrifs and Trade Standards Code

is all about. According to this, signatories of the code will, when

considering regulation, refer wherever possible to existing

international standards.

There are many examples of international standardization now in

progress for the purpose of avoiding technical barriers. One such

project was completed in ISO last March when we published a complete dimensional and performance specification relating to

anti-locking devices on brakes for heavy vehicles - a subject on which a number of governments are considering regulation. Other

examples are in fields as far apart as bicycles, ceramic glazes and

a code of practice for working with asbestos - the latter being a particular concern of the European Economic Community (EEC)

.

My third point, about tanslating research into practice is very

well demonstrated at the international level. The international

collaborative study is now a highly valued method of agreeing on

the best way of conducting physical and chemical determinations, of

sorting out decades of accumlated data, and simply ensuring true

technical contact between professionals. The international

39
technical organisations that contribute to ISO standardization and

implement it include the International Union of Testing and

Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures (RILEM) , the

European Organization for Quality Control (EOQC) , the Food and

Agriculture Association (FAO) , the International Organization for

Legal Metrology (OIML) , etc. There are over 400 international

technical organizations in liaison with ISO, of which many are research bodies financed by governments, using standardization in some form or other as the medium for translating discovery into

practice

.

The fourth factor I mentioned; the facilitating of order and

efficiency in purchasing, is also at work on the international

level. The private sector trades abroad and governments purchase

from abroad. One of ISO's needs for input from the interface

relates to questions such as the kind of standards that are needed

when the interface includes a national border.

ISO needs the input of governments now more than ever, especially

we are moving so swiftly into areas of standardization previously

thought beyond our reach. Only a few years ago the idea that

international standards could only cover the generalities of

terminology, dimensional rationalization of intermediate products,

and test methods was so well entrenched that many people thought

this was a natural limitation of the international standards

process. Not true at all. We in ISO are now turning out product

performance standards every week under pressure that comes ultimately from world trade needs and through the application of

growing experience. That experience includes the

governtment/private sector input which is inherent in the

participation of this country.

The value of international standardization is now so well

recognized that special steps have had to be taken to ensure that

knowledge of how to draw on it is widely available. GATT is made

practical by including an agreement regarding the availability of

standards enquiry points in each country, and ISO's own information

network, which we call ISONET, largely coincides with the GATT

pattern. As to what _is_ available we no longer simply count our own

and the IEC catalogue of standards. To the 5000 of ISO and 2000 of

IEC must be added the standards-type agreements of 27 other

international organizations - some of them governmental. ISO has

issued an index of all of these documents - this is the KWIC Index

(I have included some information about it with your registration

folders) and it is now in use in information centres world-wide.

ISO is convinced that the nature of standardization in the

industrial nations, with its tough interplay between commercial,

legislative, scientific and social interests, has set a standard of

its own for efficiency and practicality.
ANSI's Role in International Standardization

By Vincent D. Travaglini

Washington Representative

American National Standards Institute

I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk to you about the responsibilities of the American National Standards Institute in international standardization.

As many of you know, ANSI is a privately funded, nonprofit organization. It was founded in 1918 by five professional/technical societies

and three federal government agencies to coordinate the development of

voluntary standards in the United States and to approve standards as national consensus standards. It has been performing these functions

for nearly seventy years. The Institute is a federation of the standards competence that exists in technical, trade, professional, labor,

and consumer organizations, government agencies, and commerce and industry.

Except in the electrotechnical field, there was little significant progress on international standardization until after World War II. In

1946 national standards associations from twenty-five countries formed

ISO—the International Organization for Standardization. ANSI was one

of them. It has been the U.S. member of ISO since that time.

The International Electrotechnical Commission was founded in 1906.

Membership is held by national committees—one from each country. The

United States National Committee of IEC became affiliated with ANSI

some fifty years ago, and is now a part of the Institute.

Despite early opportunities to participate in nongovernmental international standards organizations through ANSI, U.S. interests were slow

to become involved. There were a number of reasons. U.S. standards

were accepted worldwide after World War II. -If an American exporter

met them, he could be pretty sure of selling his products anywhere.

And U.S. industry was not particularly concerned about exports—or imports—because of the size of the domestic market and American technical competitiveness. There was little incentive to participate in

international harmonization of standards in order to facilitate world

trade.

The economic situation changed in the 1960s and early 1970s, and so did

the U.S. view of international standardization. Other countries began

to equal or exceed our technical accomplishments in some fields, and

products manufactured to U.S. standards were not as widely accepted.

They were frequently rejected because they did not meet ISO, IEC, or other international standards that had been adopted as national standards by other countries. The incentive for international involvement

41
materialized, and U.S. industry, business, and government, through

ANSI, began in the 1960s to increase participation in voluntary international standards activities of ISO and IEC

.

ANSI's role is to coordinate and provide management leadership and

financial and administrative support for this participation.

Overview

ISO develops, coordinates, and promulgates international standards that

facilitate world trade, contribute to the safety and health of the public, and help protect the environment. They cover all fields, except

electrotechnical, which is the responsibility of IEC. ISO's work is

carried out by 163 technical committees and approximately 2100 subcommittees and working groups. One of ISO's members—national standards organizations from 75 countries—serves as secretariat of each of

these technical bodies. ANSI is currently responsible for the secretariats of 14 ISO technical committees, 63 subcommittees, and more than

170 working groups. As a result of interest shown by U.S. industry,

business, government, and other groups, ANSI participates in almost all

of ISO's technical work and has observer status in the areas in which

it is not an active participant.

IEC develops and promulgates electrotechnical standards. Its members

are national committees from 44 countries. Standards are developed by

82 technical committees and more than 100 subcommittees, assisted by

several hundred working groups. The U.S. National Committee, which

ANSI administers, is involved in IEC ' s entire technical program. It

holds the secretariat of 11 technical committees and 20 subcommittees.

ANSI helps govern ISO through representation on its policymaking and

planning councils and committees. It has a permanent seat on the ISO

Council, the international organization's governing body. ANSI

President Donald L. Peyton is a member of the Executive/Finance

Committee. Daniel W. Smith, Institute director of operations, serves on ISO's Planning Committee, which advises the Council on the organization, coordination, and planning of the technical work. The U.S.

National Committee of IEC plays a similar role in the Commission's

policy forums.

Almost a quarter of ANSI's annual budget is spent on administration of

international standards activities and dues to ISO and IEC. In 1985

ANSI will spend some $1.6 million on international standardization.

The Institute has a staff of one hundred people, an annual budget of $7

million, and other responsibilities—most notably, coordination and

approval of voluntary national standards. How then does it coordinate,

manage, and support an international program of the magnitude just described?

The answer is cooperation. By the time ANSI became extensively involved in international standardization in the 1960s, it had been the

42
national standards coordinator for more than forty years. It had

we 11-established channels of cooperation and communication and it

greatly improved and expanded them in the last quarter century.

Let's look at participation in ISO.

Participation in ISO Technical Work

In electing Participating—"P" —membership in a technical committee or subcommittee, ANSI makes a commitment to ISO to take an active part in

the work. This includes voting, as required, on the group's program

and various levels of drafts of ISO standards. It involves sending

delegates to meetings whenever possible.

ANSI carries out these obligations with the help of U.S. technical

advisory groups —TAGs —which are administered by trade associations,

technical or professional societies, or government agencies. TAGs

develop ANSI positions for the technical work and are responsible for

selecting qualified people to represent U.S. interests at international

technical meetings. ANSI forms the TAG and appoints the administrator.

Normally it names as a technical advisory group, the committee or organization that is developing parallel American National Standards,

for the excellent reason that it represents directly and materially

affected U.S. interests and possesses the required technical

expertise. The secretariat or sponsor of the national standards

developing group is appointed TAG administrator.

For example: Committees of the Society of Automotive Engineers that

develop domestic standards for combustion engines, hydraulic braking

systems, and other equipment serve as U.S. technical advisory groups

for the ISO technical committee on road vehicles and its many subcommittees. SAE provides administration.

ANSI Accredited Committee X3 on Information Processing Systems is the

U.S. technical advisory group for ISO Technical Committee 97, which is

producing international standards for information processing. The

Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, secretariat

of the X3 Committee, is the TAG'S administrator.

Federal agencies administer some technical advisory groups. The U.S.

Geological Survey, as TAG administrator, supervises the development of

the U.S. viewpoint for ISO work on measurement of liquid flow in open

channels. The National Bureau of Standards administers the TAG for ISO

technical committees and subcommittees on graphical symbols and on documents and data elements in administration, commerce, and industry.

Recently NBS agreed to administer the TAG for a subcommittee of the new

ISO committee on industrial automation systems.

A TAG administrator must meet the following criteria and requirements:

*Be competent in the technical activity involved

*Be willing to make a three-year financial and technical commitment

43
to ANSI

*Agree to follow applicable ANSI and ISO procedures

*Be willing to permit ANSI to monitor its administration of the TAG

ANSI provides technical advisory groups with:

*Criteria and procedures to guide them in their operations and in

reaching consensus on positions for the international work for

transmittal to ANSI

*Advice from staff and constant communication on those ISO technical

committee and subcommittee matters on which the Institute needs the

TAG's recommendations

*Guidance from ANSI standards boards on coordination between

parallel national and ISO international standards

When ANSI —or any ISO member—accepts the secretariat of a technical

committee or subcommittee, it commits itself to international standardization in the field—to maintaining strict neutrality; not permitting itself to be influenced by national considerations. A

secretariat's duties include: directing and advancing the standards

development work; considering and using technical contributions of

committee members—national standards developing organizations from

other countries—and international organizations that have liaison;

arranging and conducting international meetings.

ANSI holds the secretariat of nearly 250 ISO technical committees and

subgroups. Some of the key committees are: Information Processing

Systems; Banking; Freight Containers; Earth-Moving Machinery; Plastics;

Fluid Power Systems; Boiler and Pressure Vessels; Photography; Cinematography; and Petroleum Products and Lubricants. Institute staff

administers many committee and subgroup secretariats in-house. Others

are handled on ANSI's behalf by organizational members. Responsibility

for their effective operation remains with the Institute.

Participation in IEC

U.S. participation in the technical work of the International Electrotechnical Commission is managed by ANSI's U.S. National Committee of

IEC. It takes part in the Commission's entire technical program and

holds secretariats of some thirty technical committees and subgroups.

Among them are committees that are developing international recommendations for solar photovoltaic energy systems; safety of data processing equipment and office machines; cables, wires, and waveguides for

telecommunication equipment; and safety of household and similar

electrical appliances.

The USNC appoints a technical advisor and a technical advisory group to

develop the U.S. viewpoint for the work of each IEC committee and subcommittee. These advisors are drawn from U.S. professional/technical

societies, trade associations, companies, government agencies, and

testing laboratories that are involved in the development of national

electrotechnical standards.

44
Included among the advisors are employees of the National Bureau of

Standards; Institute of Telecommunications Science, Department of Commerce; Department of the Navy; Federal Communications Commission;

Department of Defense.

ANSI supplies those involved in developing the U.S. viewpoint for IEC

work with criteria to guide them in their operations and in making

decisions. It also provides secretariat services to the USNC, its

Executive Committee, technical advisors, and technical advisory groups.

Regional Cooperation

Close ties are also maintained by ANSI with some regional organizations. It is a founder and active participant in the Pacific Area

Standards Congress. PASC does not develop standards. It concentrates

on strengthening ISO and IEC and the ability of PASC members—the

national standards organizations of countries on the Pacific Rim—to

participate in these organizations.

The Institute also maintains contact with some of the many regional

groups that do develop standards. The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) are among them. Their major objectives are to eliminate technical barriers to trade. As a step toward this goal both

organizations have arranged with ANSI to have their drafts listed for

public review in an Institute periodical

Standards Action . Through

similar ANSI listings, U.S. exporters and other interests are given an opportunity to comment on draft ISO and IEC standards and on government

regulations proposed by signatories to the GATT Standards Code.

The GATT Code

The acceptance of the GATT Standards Code in 1979 by the governments of

many countries provided a new challenge and opportunity for those involved in international standardization. The purpose of the code is to

eliminate technical barriers to trade caused by differences in national

laws, regulations, and standards. To solve this problem, it requires

governments to use international standards, where they exist, in

national technical rules and regulations. The challenge to international organizations is to produce the high quality standards

required.

In the United States Title IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979

implements the GATT Code. It recognizes the important role that organizations such as ISO and IEC play in reducing trade barriers and

affirms that representation of U.S. interests in these organizations

should be carried out by the U.S. member, which is ANSI.

One of the Institute’s responsibilities is therefore to continue

effective participation in nongovernmental standards activities. It

works with the U.S. Department of Commerce and Agriculture and the U.S.

Trade Representative's Office to strengthen participation where necessary. Through membership of ANSI’s President on the International

45
Functional Advisory Committee on Standards for Trade Policy Matters

(IFAC), the Institute provides advice to government on policy and on specific standards issues and problems. It also advises U.S. negotiators to multilateral and bilateral discussions and assists in prepara-*

tion of position papers.

Guidelines issued last year by the secretary of commerce support ANSI's

role in international standardization. They encourage federal agencies

and their employees to participate in organizations, such as ISO and

IEC, through the U.S. member—ANSI. They also recommend assisting the

U.S. member by administering technical advisory groups, participating

on them, or serving on delegations to international meetings. As I've

indicated, some government agencies are currently providing ANSI with

this type of support. The secretary's guidelines are very welcome, and

should have the effect of increasing federal participation.

Standards Source and Information Center

Additional information on ANSI's role in international standardization

is available from headquarters in New York. So is a wealth of national

and international standards.

ANSI is the prime source of foreign and international standards in the

United States. It stocks and sells all ISO and IEC standards and

drafts, proposals of CEN and CENELEC, and the national standards of

major U.S. trading partners—Japan, Canada, Germany, England,

France—and 85 other countries that belong to the International Organization for Standardization.

Also available from the Institute are all 8500 American National Standards and an annual catalog and periodic supplements.

The latest catalogs issued by ISO, IEC, and more than fifty ISO members

may be obtained from ANSI.

A biweekly Institute publication

Standards Action—solicits comments

on standards being considered for approval by ANSI, ISO, IEC, CEN, and

CENELEC. It also lists for public review foreign regulations proposed

by GATT Standards Code signatories and proposed recommendations of

OIML—the International Organization of Legal Metrology.

Conclusion

In closing, I'd like to emphasize that the United States is particularly qualified to contribute to international standardization because it

has the strongest and most productive standards system in the world.

The strength of this decentralized system comes primarily from its

voluntary nature and the competence of U.S. standards developers. In

preparing standards they draw on the knowledge and experience of

hundreds of thousands of volunteers, who represent all sectors of

society.

46
The achievements of the unique U.S. voluntary standards system were acknowledged last year when President Reagan presented a Private Sector

Initiative Commendation to ANSI, the system's coordinator. This award

recognizes outstanding contributions to society through voluntary

self-regulation programs.

47
Federal Government/ Private Sector Interface

Melvin R. Green

Managing Director, Codes and Standards

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

We appreciate this opportunity to address this Conference on International Standards and specifically the subject of this session:

Federal Government/Private Sector Interface.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is a scientific and

technical society with individual members. The 110,000 members elect the

Board of Governors, which is responsible for the policy direction of the

Society. Five Councils under the Board set policy and general procedures

for the specific areas for which they are responsible: Education,

Engineering, Member Affairs, Public Affairs, Codes and Standards.

The 20 member Council on Codes and Standards oversees all aspects of that

program. Reporting to this Council are five supervisory boards and five

advisory boards. The supervisory boards oversee activities in the

following areas:

Performance Test Codes

Nuclear

Safety

Pressure Technology

Standardization

The supervisory boards oversee 122 main technical committees responsible

for the technical development of 560 codes and standards. They, in turn,

establish technical subcommittees and working groups which do the actual

writing of proposed standards and proposed revisions to existing

standards

.

As previously noted, there are, in addition, five advisory boards

reporting directly to the Council on Codes and Standards. They are:

International Standards

Me tri ca t ion

Accreditation

Council Operations

Hearings and Appeals

.

48
Although ASME is a membership organization, there Is no membership

requirement or fee for serving on ASME Codes, Standards or Accreditation

Committees. Of the 4,500 volunteers currently serving on these

committees, approximately 50 percent are members of ASME. The American

Society of Mechanical Engineers has been developing codes since 1884 and

regards its codes and standards activities as a public service which

enhances public health, safety and welfare. ASME provides the forum for

the parties with an interest in a code or standard to participate in its

development or in the administration of a related accreditation activity.

ASME Codes and Standards Operating Policy provides for a subscription

service for any code or standard subject to revision or interpretation

during the life of the document. This Policy provides a means for "user

awareness" of all revisions or interpretations of codes and standards.

This service is also an inherent part of ASME's accreditation systems.

Federal employees, along with others from industry, academia,

architect/ engineering firms, state, provincial and municipal governments,

participate on ASME committees, boards and council. These engineers and

allied scientists plan, organize and control the activities that result

in the public service. With their various backgrounds, they are most

qualified to anticipate the technical or safety problems that may be in our future and to provide the input necessary for ultimate development or updating of the needed codes and standards.

In the United States, there is no direct interface between Federal

Government and Private Sector when development of codes and standards is

involved. Because of the various roles of government agencies, the

federal employees from different agencies represent different "categories

of interest" when serving on a voluntary codes or standards committee;

likewise, at times, there are adversary relations between standards

organizations and federal agencies. This adversary relationship has an ultimate goal to remove barriers and promote awareness.

As an example of the varying roles of federal participants on ASME Codes

and Standards Committees, the "categories of interest" on a particular

committee may be: users, general interest, manufacturers, regulators,

architect/ engineers and academia. Federal employees normally sq^rve on ASME Codes and Standards Committees in the category of "user" or "regulator." The agency for whom the individual is employed either uses

the methods, materials or equipment covered by the scope of the

committee’s work or performs a regulatory role in that area. Those in

the "user" category are employed by organizations such a Tennessee Valley

Authority, Defense Department, and General Services Administration; those

in the "regulator" category are employed by organizations such as Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, United States Coast Guard, and Minerals Management

Service. A "user" and a "regulator" employed by different federal

agencies may serve on the same committee; therefore, ASME has taken the

position that there should be no lead federal agency; federal employees

should serve as individual professionals and act as their respective

backgrounds in academia and professional experiences guide them.

49
After publication or adoption as a national or international code or standard, its implementation is sometimes monitored by accreditation.

ASME accreditation means that the manufacturer's or supplier's quality

control system and quality assurance program have been revised and

accepted by ASME as meeting the requirements of the relevant ASME

standard. Federal agencies may reference the accreditation system as a means of satisfying procurement or regulatory requirements. Being that

ASME Constitution and Bylaws provide, in part, that the Board on Accreditation shall "audit personnel and provide internal audits", ASME

has appointed to its audit team assessors who are employed by federal

agencies that have an interest in the quality of ASME accreditation

systems

.

In the United States, the government sometimes attempts to change an organization's activities through the legal or court system. For

instance, during the Kennedy Round of Tariff negotiations, it was alleged

that the United States had a non-tariff barrier because of ASME's Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Accreditation system. The United States Justice

Department sued ASME and the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Inspectors to have them expand their respective accreditation and

registration programs for boilers and pressure vessels from the United

States and Canada to include the rest of the world. On September 11,

1972, the parties to the suit signed a consent decree which permitted the

accreditation and registration systems to be expanded to other

geographical areas. The host government, the United States, is party to

the agreement

.

Since this agreement in 1972, ASME codes and standards services have

increased in international acceptance 400 fold. This increase in

acceptance has resulted in increased input from volunteers located

outside the United States and Canada. The result of the interaction

between the government and private sector in this case has resulted in

the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code becoming a defacto international

standard. Likewise, ASME accreditation has become a symbol to be relied

upon throughout the world.

As commerce among nations continues to increase, more ASME codes and

standards will become defacto international standards and others will be

preempted by other international standards or defacto international

standards developed by organizations in the United States and elsewhere.

To maintain these defacto international standards, there will be

increased participation of engineers and allied scientists from nations

in Europe, Asia and South America. These standards will include

specifications, design and manufacturing criteria developed outside North

America. Because ASME codes and standards activities are open for

participation, without membership or fee requirements, there is no

barrier to this technological transfer.

50
Where ASME codes or standards are preempted by international standards or defacto international standards as evidenced by little or no demand for

the ASME's services, ASME will continue the technical advisory group but

may disband the domestic committee. ASME administers technical advisory

groups when:

1) ASME administers the interfacing domestic standards

committee

2) the predominant discripline is Mechanical Engineering

3) the resulting international standard will enhance

ASME's codes, standards, or accreditation system

of activities.

The technical advisory groups that replace standards committees that are disbanded will need continued support of industry, government and the

public.

As international standards increase in importance, ASME will encourage

that the roles of administrator of the technical advisory group and the

international secretariat be played by different organizations. Rather

than one organization playing the roles of administrative secretariat of

the international secretariat, when the United States holds secretariat,

and administrator of the technical advisory group, ASME will encourage

the member body of the Organization for International Standards (ISO) to

administer the secretariat and the standards developing body to

administer the technical advisory group. The reason for this is that in

ASME's view the secretariat should be neutral in positions; whereas, the

technical advisory group should promote the United States position.

Because the guidelines for international standards provide that the

technical advisory group's representatives should strive for

compatibility between United States standards and proposed international

standards, the volunteers from the various sectors of United States

society who serve on codes and standards committees establish the

parameters for input to international standards. The federal employees,

along with all other volunteers involved, develop the United States

positions. The goal regarding compatibility is to have common standards

requirements across international boundaries. The domestic standard may

be more or less comprehensive but it should be compatible.

ASME's Codes and Standards Operating Policy in regard to voluntary

standards use by regulatory authorities is intended:

1) To encourage the referencing of voluntarily

developed consensus standards in regulations as a means of complying with the Intent of regulatory

requirements, and

51
2) To encourage the participation of federal, state,

and other government employees on voluntary codes,

standards, and related accreditation committees, and

3) To enhance public health, safety and welfare through

voluntary standards.

Although this policy addresses regulatory authorities, it is equally

applicable to agencies that procure for the government.

ASME is unique because it develops consensus standards and administers

related accreditation activities. ASME has the know-how to do both. The

recent restructuring of the Society established the codes and standards

boards which are necessary to provide a framework for this public service

activity which lessens the burdens to government. As stated in the

background of OMB A-119 , voluntary standards "eliminates the cost to the

government of developing its own standards." Because such burdens

otherwise are reflected in taxes, lessening such burdens of government is

attractive to ASME and to society in general.

52
THE ROLE OF UL IN INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION

Henry E. Collins

Vice President, Governmental Affairs

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I find myself appearing

at this conference to tell you a little about the role UL plays

in international standards making and international certification.

All of the members of this panel, and many of you in the audience

are old friends. I feel very much at home.

For those of you who are not familiar with Underwriters Laboratories,

Inc. (UL) , we are a private, not-for-profit corporation, operating

on a worldwide basis, in the interest of public safety since 1894.

We have no stockholders. Both the Corporate membership and the Board

of Trustees are composed of individuals associated with one of the

following categories: consumer interest, governmental body or agency,

insurance, education, public safety body or agency, safety expert,

standardization expert, public utility, or an officer of the corporation. Individuals associated with the manufacturing or vending of

products subject to UL coverage are not eligible. Two Federal government employees currently serve on the Board of Trustees and 5 as members

of the Corporation.

UL's activities include the development of product safety standards,

the investigation of products to determine conformity with those

standards, factory follow-up inspections to determine continued conformity of production, and the utilization of a system of marking to identify

complying products produced under the follow-up service. Participation

in all activities has been fully open to foreign manufacturers since

1955. We do not discriminate between domestic and foreign manufacturers.

In its role as a standards developer, UL currently publishes and maintains 493 Standards for Safety. Three hundred and thirty-five of them

enjoy approval as American National Standards. Federal government

interest in our standards is evidenced by the fact that (1) the names

of almost 500 individuals representing 20 different agencies are on our mailing list to receive copies of one or more standards and revisions

to those standards, (2) a number of those individuals actively participate

in and contribute to UL's standards development process, and (3) many

agencies adopt, reference, or otherwise make use of our standards in

the discharge of their responsibilities.

In its role as a product investigator, inspector, and certifier, UL

engineering and follow-up services presently cover more than 11,000

different product types. In 1984, almost 70,000 product investigations

were conducted by UL's Engineering Departments. More than 20,000 of those were for manufacturers in foreign countries. By the end of 1984, UL's

follow-up services were in operation in 35,481 factories, 12,482 of

which were located in 72 foreign countries.

53
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Consistent with our worldwide operations, UL has been actively

involved in international standards activities for the past 20 years.

In 1984, 38 staff members attended 151 international standards meetings

in Asia, Europe, Africa and the United States. In total, UL staff

participated in 74 International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)

and 27 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standardsmaking groups. We provide the Technical Advisor for 5 different U.S.

Advisory Groups responsible for developing a U.S. position on specific

international standards, and the Secretariat for 5 different IEC

Technical Committees and Subcommittees.

The cost of UL.' s involvement in international standards activities

is substantial in both time and moiiey. In general, involvement is

triggered by the initiation of an international activity related to

products of a type covered by UL’s engineering and follow-up services.

To the extent practicable, our long-range objective is to achieve

harmonization between UL standards and international standards. We

attempt to influence international standards so that harmonization

efforts will be more successful. When UL develops or revises a standard,

our staff working with the affected industry and the other interested

parties evaluates the applicable international standard when and where

one exists, and embraces as many of those provisions as practical

considerations will permit. We believe our approach is consistent with

the obligations imposed by the GATT Standards Code to discourage

discriminatory manipulation of product standards, product testing and

product certification systems. We know that our approach guarantees

that imported products are treated no less favorably than domestically

produced products.

Despite our efforts, and those of many others, international harmonization

will continue to be a difficult and slow process at best. Habits,

customs, and useage practices are not easily changed. Protectionism

is a fact of life. Fundamental problems exist. Let me cite just a few.

Basic Technical Differences - In the electrical field, there

are differences in standards which are the result of differences

in useage practices. Electrical energy is supplied at different

frequencies, different voltages, and by different distribution

systems throughout the world. Installation codes as a consequence

differ. To the extent that change is impractical, standards

for a particular country must be developed to be compatible

with existing practices in that country, even though the standards

deviate from those used in other countries. Similar technical

differences exist in other fields.

54
Legal Liability Concerns - Manufacturers in the United States,

and perhaps manufacturers in some other countries, face

major risks from products liability. One of the factors,

considered in products liability suits is whether the product

incorporates state of the art design which would have reduced

the risk of injury or damage. If harmonization requires

agreement to lesser requirements, manufacturers would be faced

with the dilemma of exposing themselves to greater risk of

liability or producing products in excess of the standard and

being noncompetitive. On the other hand, a country where such

legal exposure is less likely would be more willing to compromise

its standards.

Public Needs and Expectations - Needs and expectations vary

from country to country. An insecticide that is considered

unsafe for use in the United States may be considered essential

for use in another country because the hazards are outweighed

by the benefits. Guards on kerosene heaters, required in the

United States to prevent contact burns, are considered an unnecessary addition and expense in other countries where the

public is expected to exercise caution or suffer the consequences.

In some countries, electrical appliances are required to have

supply cords that are easily replaceable by the owner, and the

appliance construction requirements are such as to accommodate

the replacement. That is not normally the case in the United

States where owner servicing is generally not encouraged and

where many small appliances at least, are intended to be

disposable rather than repairable.

Investments in Existing Systems - Harmonization will be resisted

whenever it requires a country to make significant capital

investments. For example, a country having millions of dollars

invested in an evaluation testing system, will resist a harmonization effort that requires them to abandon that system and

spend large amounts of money and time on a new one, regardless

of the merits of the new one.

Economic Considerations - A country which does not export a product has little manufacturer support for the expenditure

of time and money to harmonize standards for that product.

And, the list goes on.

55
INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS

Increasingly, international standards are being used in certification

systems. This is to be expected. Certification is the "proof of the

pudding". All of us want good standards, and we want compliance with

those standards.

At the present time, the only international certification system in

operation is the IECQ System on Electronic Components. In this System,

which became operational January 1, 1982", components tested in the

country of one of the members of the System in, accordance with appropriate

IEC Standards, are accepted by all other countries within the System.

UL was involved in the development of the IECQ System and serves as the

U.S. National Supervising Inspectorate for U.S. participation.

Another system exists for the exchange of test results. This is the CB

scheme of the International Commission for Conformity Certification of

Electrical Equipment (CEE) . The CEE was originally a regional organization

of European testing stations, but it has been expanded to include other

countries, including Japan and the United States. This year, it will

become part of the IEC and will be known as the IECEE. The U.S. has

participated as an observer since 1962, and became a member of the system

in 1983.

Under this system, national certification bodies in the member countries

agree to recognize test data in specific product categories. In order

for the system to be effective the standards used by each Country must

be essentially the same. Although some existing CEE standards are still

being used, the objective is to use IEC standards, with some deviations

within each country, as the basic documents. Tests may be conducted

in a laboratory of one of the member countries, and if the product meets

the applicable requirements, a test certificate is issued. This test

certificate is then accepted by the other national certification bodies

participating in the system, with respect to that type of product, subject

in most cases, to some check testing. The test certificates are then

used by each national certification body as the basis for certification

within that country. Separate marks are used for each country. It must

be emphasized that this is not truly an international certification system.

There is no universal mark, and no follow-up inspection prorgram associated

with the scheme.

Although the United States is a member in the CEE, it is not a participant

in the CB scheme. The U.S. could become a participant if manufacturers

in one or more categories were to agree to the use of standards which

were reasonably compatible with standards used by other countries within

the system.

UL is willing to serve as a national certification body within the CB scheme

for United States manufacturers, and would issue CB certificates if there was any interest on the part of U.S. industry. One of our staff members

continues to serve as a representative at CEE meetings.

56
ALTERNATIVES TO INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS

An alternative to international certification programs, which tend to

be rather cumbersome and expensive, are bilateral arrangements among

testing stations in several countries. UL saw this as a more viable

alternative several years ago, and we began discussions with several

countries. Let me tell you what we have in the way of both formal

and informal arrangements concerning the acceptance of test data with

other countries.

Europe - In Europe we have very close relations with many of the major

testing organizations. In some cases we have trained some of their

engineers and we have sent our engineers to European laboratories for

training. Additionally, all of the major agencies act as agents for

UL in conducting follow-up inspections at factories within their respective

countries. The history of close cooperation over a period of more than

20 years was the basis for informal discussions for the mutual acceptance

of test data. At the present time, a number of organizations in Europe

have indicated that they are willing to accept test data generated by UL.

In conducting our tests we would use the applicable international standard

or the appropriate national standard.

Under these arrangements, a United States manufacturer can submit a product to UL for a complete evaluation to determine compliance with the

appropriate standard. Upon completion of the evaluation, we supply a test report with complete information about the way in which tests were

conducted, the instrumentation used, and the results. The report can then be sent to the appropriate testing station in Europe which may use

the data as a basis for its own investigation of the product. They may

conduct some check tests, and they may require an additional examination

of the product. However, they have assured us that out data will materially

shorten the time necessary to process the applications, and the result

would be the use of the appropriate marks in each country.

Japan - In Japan we have a formal agreement with the Japanese Electrical

Testing Laboratory (JET) whereby they will accept test data from UL

for several product categories. In preparation for this agreement,

UL and JET exchanged engineers for a three month period. The UL engineer

is fluent in Japanese and has a thorough understanding of their requirements.

Under this program, UL carries out all of the tests in it own

57
laboratory and JET will perform some check tests before final approval

is granted. We also have a similar, though informal agreement with

Japanese Metals and Machinery Institute (JMI) covering electronic

products and in particular, test results on medical equipment.

There have been recent changes in Japanese laws which require an assessment of a manufacturer’s facilities before products can use the

appropriate certification marks. UL has been named by the Japanese

Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) as a designated

foreign inspection agency. This means that we can carry out the factory

surveys for MITI.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO EXPORTERS

Overlapping to some extent, and very much akin to the international

certification efforts just discussed is UL's Technical Assistance to

Exporters Program (TATE) , started in response to continuing requests

for technical and administrative assistance related to foreign standards

and product certification. Under this program, the following services

are available:

Dual Listing, Classification or Recognition Service - A product

intended for use in the United States and for export may be

investigated concurrently in accordance with UL's Standards

and published international standards such as IEC, and ISO.

If found to comply, the product will be permitted to bear an appropriate UL Mark indicating such compliance. UL's regular

Follow-Up Services will apply in these cases.

Classification Service - A product intended only for export may

be investigated in accordance with the published international

standards without a corresponding investigation to UL Standards.

Again, UL's regular Follow-Up Services will apply.

Letter Report Service - A product intended only for export

may be investigated in accordance with a published foreign

national or international standard or a portion thereof without

corresponding investigation to a UL Standard. In such a case,

UL will issue a letter report that includes a description of

the tests performed, results obtained and, if applicable, an opinion concerning compliance with the standard or clauses of

interest. No Follow-Up Service will be established and no reference to UL will be permitted on such products.

Info rmation and Administrative Services - UL has gathered certain

information concerning foreign testing laboratories and certification

programs that may be of assistance to exporters. Consultation

and report services can be provided on subjects such as national

or international standards, regulations concerning foreign

certification programs, submittal procedures of foreign testing

laboratories and English translations of foreign specifications.

A computerized technical information center that stores information

on all these items has been established in an effort to provide

service to clients.

58
SUMMARIZING

Given the widespread concern in the U.S. over the imbalance between

imports and exports, and efforts to make the GATT Standards Code

work, there is no doubt that international standards and international

certification are taking on increased importance. UL expects to

continue to play an active role in the development of international

standards and the certification of compliance with those standards.

The extent of our role will obviously be determined to a large

extent by the needs of our clients. Absent a need, they are not

likely to support the effort.

UL expects to continue working closely with the International Trade

Administration in their efforts to promote world trade and to strengthen

the U.S. position in world trade. We expect to continue working

with the Office of the United States Trade Representative in their

efforts to make the GATT Standards Code a viable agreement. And,

we intend to continue working with other Federal agencies such as the CPSC, GSA, NBS , OSHA, USCG, etc. in their efforts to discharge

their responsibilities, which at times involve both international

standards and international certification.

59
This morning we heard of our GATT commitment' to use appropriate international

standards. What is the basis for the recent change in ISO and IEC policy to

no longer include the voting record with the standard? How are those, who

would invoke these standards to know whether the U.S. technical experts

considered the international standard appropriate in the U.S.?

Larry Eicher:

The decision to discontinue listing the countries who have voted yes or no had to do with the fact that it was not a very good indicator of where the

standard had been adopted. It happens, for example, that countries decided

to vote no but, nevertheless, implement the standard after it is approved.

It also happens that the ISO standards get amended and revised and sometimes

they have an addendum. It gets confusing as to whether a country voted yes

on the addendum, the amendment, and so forth. Such votes did not in any way

require the country to implement the standard.

I think it's an interesting point. In any international standardization work

there is no mandatory application and that's true for the U.N. organizations

as well as for the nongovernmental organizations such as ISO and IEC. The reason for doing away with the listing of voting positions had to do with

two things; (1) it wasn't a good indication of the use of the standard and,

(2) it was confusing because of the revisions and amendments.

The second part of the question is how can you find out how your country

voted on a particular standard. That's reasonably easy to do by going to

your national member. The ANSI in the U.S. keeps complete records of all the

positions taken on ISO standards by the U.S. If they don't have it, we have

it in ISO and its not difficult to obtain the information.

International standards represent a significant portion of the body of

standards in many countries. Why has the U.S. directly adopted only 4 or 5

international standards such as ANSI/ISO-1234? Does this reflect U.S.

dissatisfaction with the international standards that cost so much to

develop?

Vincent Travaglini

:

I think the way the question was phrased doesn't give enough credit to the

U.S. The fact is that the U.S. does have a slowly rising curve of acceptance

of international standards so the outlook is not all that bleak. As to why

there is not universal acceptance, I think you probably have to go to the

individual circumstances of the countries that make up the ISO. There are some cases where the national authorities have decided to either largely or entirely forgo domestic standards activity in favor of simply adopting

international standards as they come along to fit their needs. That's not

the case in the U.S. There has already been abundant testimony here that

there are literally hundreds of standards developing organizations, and some

of them, like ASME and UL, have been at work for many many years. So there

60
is a great body of domestic standards readily available and being utilized.

The process of going international is bound to be a little slower in that

si tuation.

If it is possible for a product to have an unlimited lifetime, as in your

example, why not have changeable components that would not jeopardize safety?

Do you really think customers want to throw products away rather than design

repair safety into such products?

Henry Collins:

What we do is directly related to what somebody wants tested. That decision

is essentially made by our clients. If they don't want to submit appliances

with interchangeable cord sets, we can't do much about it unless we could

prove that those with permanently connected cord sets were unsafe and they

had to go to interchangeable ones to be safe. Having come out of the wire

business, I can assure you we have manufacturers by the hundreds in this

country who can make interchangeable cords and do make them. They are available and we do have appliances with them on it. But when you get to

making interchangeable cord sets, you then have to determine when somebody

goes to replace this cord do they go inside the appliance to change it.

That's what is done with some of the foreign standards. They permit the unit

to be opened. When that happens, you become concerned with hazards to the

do-it-yourselfer. Are they likely to contact some other part? You then have

to provide inter-connected ground to all of the isolated current-carrying or potentially current-carrying parts. What you've gained by use of

interchangeable cords may be offset by having to go to extra expense for

other features necessary to make it reasonable and safe to change the cord.

UL will accept either one if it is safe. There is nothing that prohibits it.

Under some foreign standards, only units with interchangeable cords are

accepted.

A Federal employee represents his agency - a company employee represents his

company - both are loyal to their employer. It is written Federal policy,

0MB A119, State Department Guidelines, etc., that employees represent their

agency. They are not independent as long as their participation relates to

their skill or work. You are misleading government participants in ASME!

Melvin R. Green:

I don't believe we are misleading anyone because the individual serves a particular category of interest. If he comes from the user category, he serves on a ASME standards committee in the user category and if he comes from the regulator category, he serves in that category. That's not

misleading anyone. Insofar as our commenting on lead agencies, we have

commented several times to the Federal Government that we don't think its

appropriate to have lead agencies. We want to have the individual

professional, whose employed by the Federal Government, serve as any other

individual does. They do not represent companies on our committees. They

serve from a particular category of interest exactly the same as the Federal

employee does.

61
Are UL certification efforts accredited by ANSI?

Henry Collins:

I don't know of any ANSI accreditation of certification. The only one I knew

of was for doors and windows. If we get into that business we might see what's available, but I don't know of any areas that we have an accreditation

available from ANSI.

What do you believe is the greatest benefit the U.S. Government will

derive from the bilateral agreements it has with NATA (Australia), TELARC

(New Zealand) and NATLAS (UK) regarding laboratory accreditation insofar as benefiting the U.S. balance of trade? What do you believe is the most

serious weakness in those agreements and what do you suggest to correct that

weakness?

Vincent Travaglini

:

I think that there is a national standards process and there is an international standards process. While those two are not perfect organisms,

nevertheless, they work very well and have served world trade very well. The

problems that are arising now and will arise come from this area we have just

been talking about-certif ication and testing of goods and services that move

across national boundaries. I think that the more arrangements that we can

have with the other trading nations will smooth the flow of trade and will

interdict national efforts to curb trade by imposing unreasonable

certification requirements. You just can't lose in that kind of work.

Are there ISO members other than the U.S. where delegations are not sponsored

by the government of their country?

Lawrence Eicher:

There are many other members of ISO, both members of the organization and

members of the technical committees, who are not sponsored by governments. In

my earlier remarks I meant to say that most of the standards bodies that are members of ISO in Western Europe and North America may be regarded as predominantly private. In the U.S., I think for special reasons unique to

this country, ANSI is especially concerned with remaining entirely private.

In some of the Western European countries, there is either a policy which

connects government interest and the private side through statements of

reliance on standards or there may be some government subsidy for

international work, for example, in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Nevertheless these ISO members are mainly private and they are organized

through committees which have manufacturers and users and other people

involved very much like they are in the U.S.

62
I think its false to think that the U.S. is the one bastion of private sector

initiative left in the world, with respect to standardization, because in

many countries it is organized very much as a consensus process as it is here

in the U.S.

With respect to the question on U.S. adoption of International Standards,

many ISO standards are technically compatible with the prevailing standards

in the U.S.. The reason why this is true is because the standards are being

worked on together. There is a national standard being worked on at the same time there is an international standard being worked on and that's

particularly true for the high technology areas such as computers and

information processing. After the war, the U.S. standards were predominant

and they formed the basis for the standards which came into the international

arena and since then the modifications have more or less been complementary.

If there's a change at the international level, something happens at the

national level, and thats true in the oil and petroleum products field, for

example. What is also true is that the U.S. doesn't make very much of this

known. The people who are working on a particular standard know there is no technical difference between a U.S. standard and an international standard,

but you can't find that out easily. I would like to suggest that some way of

identifying that technical compatabi 1 ity in the U.S. documents would be very

helpful

.

When developing ISO standards, how do you assure that the members of an ISO

Technical Advisory Group (TAG) truly represent a concensus position from

their individual countries?

Larry Eicher:

What we do as an organization is promulgate the policy for participation in

ISO work. That is a set of rules which talks about getting the right people

involved and getting a consensus at the national level. We can't, and I would never want to try to police that, so we don't interfere with ANSI and

say your doing a bad job of that. Every once in a while we get a complaint

but we send it right back to ANSI and they deal with it. We certainly don't

try to police it in other countries.

Vince Travaglini:

Many of you are familiar with what is called the ANSI Green Book, which is a collection of the ANSI rules for qualifying a standard as an American

National Standard. ANSI has a sort of sister compilation of rules for TAGS

and international standards which, among other things, requires that there be consensus. The TAG process, as its run by the trade and professional

associations, has a built in assurance that the people that are on the TAG

and administering the program are bringing in outside voices and are paying

attention to the contributions. The positions that are adopted have to be

made public and people have to be given an opportunity to comment on them.

63
Does UL use the metric system for new standards and test procedures?

Henry Collins:

All dimensions are listed in both customary and metric units. We can obviously measure in metric as well as we can measure in other units. We

test products in metric for use in other countries, for example. In some cases, wire and cable standards for example, metric units are not useful

because we test for conformance with the National Electrical Code. That Code

does not specify metric sizes.

How do you answer those who say that active participation in ISO results in

transfer of technology?

Larry Eicher:

It very definitely does. ISO work and participation brings technical experts

from all over the world together. They have a lot of discussions; they have

meetings; they show their research results to each other to support a particular position that they would like to see adopted in an international

standard. There is a lot of transfer of technical information, and its good,

and it ends up in the international agreement which is based on a good

understanding of the differences in the technologies in different parts of

the world. Politically in the world from time to time, you get the negative

side of transfer of technology and somebody worries that you are going to

give away some technical information that you don't want to because you have

an enemy somewhere. That's anti -internati onali sm and I am an internationalist and I'm opposed to it. If it has to do with military

secrets, then it shouldn't be in the non-governmental side of work and that

is to be kept secret in it's own way. I think that technology is

international. The standards that serve the technology should be

international and I will resist anyone, to the extent of my capacity, who

would try to stop that.

How extensively are ASME Codes and Standards being used in the Asian

countries, such as Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Peoples Republic of

China, etc.?

Melvin Green:

We had a group of Japanese visit with us about two weeks ago and they have

been using our A17 Elevator Code as the basis of their codes or standards in

Japan for some time now. The Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and our Piping

Codes are being used with our accreditation activity. I believe that one

third of our foreign possessed Quality Systems Certificates are held by

Japanese manufacturers. That alone will tell you that they are using it

quite extensively.

64
Koreans have adopted Section 3 of the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code as part

of their regulations. As a result of a U.S. government agency referencing

our accreditation program, there will be more extensive use of our accreditation in Singapore because they are doing some construction there

that involves our accreditation activity.

What general guidelines should be considered if a standard is intended for

international application?

Larry Eicher:

This morning we discussed standards that are very much internationally used

but haven't gone through the ISO process and procedure. From a theoretical

point of view, I see benefit in standardization without attaching too much

emphasis on who does it. I say that if it is happening, and its having its

benefit, then we should be pleased. We are reducing trade barriers, we are getting the kind of standard support we need for international trade and commerce. However, its not certain that every country is going to be happy

with a standard that attains de facto status internationally when only one country is involved in its preparation. If you are developing a new standard

or coming up with a new area where you believe standardization is needed,

then I really think you ought to put it together internationally. That means

that you should get an ISO committee established if there isn't one. If

there is one and they are working, you should establish liaison with the

international work. That will prevent there being two or three or possibly

five solutions which are contradictory. The answer is, if it is not an ISO

work, go to ANSI and get them to propose that there be one, and then go

lock-step together.

65
Department of Defense Representation

In International Standards Bodies

Samuel P. Miller

Assistant Director for International Standardization

Defense Materiel Specifications & Standards Office

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense,

Research & Engineering

Department of Defense

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Samuel Miller, the

Assistant Director for International Standards in the

Department of Defense Specifications and Standards Office,

under the Under Secretary of Defense for Research & Eng ineer ing .

Dr. Warshaw asked me to talk to you for the next 15 minutes

about the Department of Defense participation in

international standards bodies. Let me first say that I could talk for an hour or longer on this subject and still

not adequately convey the scope and importance of the

international standardization activities in which DoD is

engaged. So, I will have to give you a broad-brush picture

of that activity.

The DoD international standardization efforts are involved

in both treaty and non-treaty international standards

organizations. I will mention the various standards bodies

in which DoD participates and the scope, and purpose of that

participation.

I will also briefly discuss the functions and

responsibilities of the DoD representatives serving on those

bod ies.

Most of the international standards work undertaken by DoD

is performed for the several international defense treaty

organizations, namely:

o The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

o The Amer ican-Br i t ish-Canad ian-Austral ian (ABCA)

Treaty Organization

o The Air Standardization Coordinating Committee

( ASCC) (Australia-Canada-New Zealand-England-Un i ted

States)

66
NATO is the most active international standardization body

in which DoD participates. In one of its roles, NATO

sponsors the development of international standards. The

importance of the NATO standards is obvious because most of

the western European industrial nations and Norway, Greece,

and Turkey participate with the U.S., the U.K., and Canada

in the standardization activities of NATO. Although those

NATO activities are directed primarily to developing

interchangeability and interoperability interface standards

for military equipments and components, there are commercial

and industrial benefits derived indirectly from many of the

materiel standards established in NATO. Recognition and

application of the NATO standards by defense manufacturers

in the U.S. and other NATO countries introduces those

standards into commercial product design and manufacturing

processes and often results in benefits to commercial and

industrial users.

To a considerable extent, the substance of the NATO

Standardization Agreements for defense materiel items are

also effective in the ABCA and ASCC treaty organizations

through adoption of similar standards.

To a lesser degree, DoD also participates in the non-treaty

organizations for international standards such as the

Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the

Electro-Technical Commission (IEC). DoD

in the development of international standards

organizations is conducted principally through

representatives on the U.S. Technical Advisory

, e.g., the TAG for ISO Technical Committee 20

U.S. industrial and professional organizations

International

International

participation

by the latter

DoD technical

Groups (TAGS) , sponsored by

such as the Aerospace Industries Association and the Society

of Automotive Engineers. DoD also maintains representation

on the ANSI International Standards Council, and will

participate in the new initiative by ASTM for greater

influence on international standards.

DoD also supports substantial technical representation in

nongovernment voluntary standards organizations in the

United States, e.g., the ASTM, SAE, IEEE, AIA-NASC, ASME,

EIA, ANSI, etc., that sponsor development of product

standards many of which are recognized as international

standards and are used throughout the free world trade.

Another DoD contribution to international standards is the

development and maintenance of our many military standards

and specifications which have become international standards

through their wide-spread use or adaptation throughout the

free world and some non-free nations.

67
The DoD representation in international standardization

activities in NATO and the other Defense Treaty organizations

is substantial. The U.S. DoD representation in NATO is

headed by the Defense Advisor who is the senior civilian

representative serving on the staff of the U.S. Ambassador

to NATO. The Ambassador reports to the Secretary of the

State Department. The Defense Advisor reports to the

Secretary of Defense usually through the Assistant Secretary

of Defense for International Security Affairs. The Under

Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Logistics

have principal responsibilities for providing the technical

representatives for assisting in the development of

standardization agreements applied in NATO defense

procurement and operations.

The Secretary of State has delegated to the Secretary of

Defense broad authority to negotiate international

standardization agreements. However, concurrence from the

Secretary of State is required for some agreements. Within

the DoD, authority for approval and signing of NATO and

other international standardization agreements is delegated

to the Under Secretary of Defense and Assistant Secretaries

of Defense. The Secretaries of the Military Departments,

Army, Navy, and Air Force, are also authorized to sign NATO

and other alliance standardization agreements relating to

operational procedures or materiel interoperability within

the scope of their departmental respons ibl i t ies

.

At present, there are approximately one-hundred-thirty (130)

various technical standardization working groups engaged i - materiel related standards development in the treaty

organizations

:

o NATO Military Agency for Standardization (MAS)

o Air Force Board - 15 working groups

o Army Board - 7 working groups

o Navy Board - 2 working groups

o NATO Military Committee - 15 working groups

o NATO Conference of National Armament Directors ( CNAD)

12 main groups - 54 working groups

o ABCA - 15 working groups

o ASCC - 14 working groups

o AGARD - 8 working groups

These 130 standardization working groups are staffed by

approximately 280 technical experts, both military and

civilian, representing most of the eighteen member nations

of the several treaty organizations. The U.S. military

departments and agencies provide and support approximately

180 of those technical experts.

68
Tnere are currently approximately sixty (60) technical

experts from DoD actively engaged in standards development

in non-treaty organizations contributing to international

standards for materiel items.

It must be noted, however, that assignment to the

international standardization working groups, both in the

treaty and non-treaty organizations, is a part-time

assignment. The average time contributed by the individual

experts ranges from 10% to 25% of total annual working

hours, depending on the complexity of the projects and

travel required.

As I previously mentioned, the primary purpose of DoD

representation in international standards bodies is to

facilitate intersuppor tabili ty and interoperability of

military equipments and supplies used by our armed forces

and those of our allied nations around the world. Because

of the increasing necessity for immediate availability of

world-wide transportation and communication facilities for

defense support, the cross-forces compatibility and

interoperability of the equipments and supplies used by the

allied armed forces is becoming more and more essential

every year.

Most of the materiel related standards developed jointly and

adopted by the alliance nations are for the purpose of

harmonizing the interface design and operational performance

characteristics and handling safety aspects of materiel

items. The items covered by such standards range from

screw-threaded fasteners, electronic parts and modules,

personnel clothing, rations, and equipment, ammunition,

aircraft engines, instruments, parts and support equipment,

land-sea-and air based communications equipments, vehicle

fuels and lubricants, cleaning and decontamination

chemicals, paints, medical supplies, electric power

generators, etc.

As you will notice, most of the items mentioned above, in

general, will have applications not only in the military

world, but also in the commercial and industrial world.

Thus, the DoD representation in the international standards

bodies serves a dual purpose, one directed for the support

of the national and allied defense forces, and the other, as

a by-product of the first, supports the commercial and

industrial world. A main purpose for DoD technical

representation is to try to ensure that the technical

content of international standards will be useful for

related defense acquisition applications. The standards

published by the treaty organizations are in the form of

standardization agreements and allied publications known as

STANAGs, AQAPs , ASTANPs, Air Standards, QSTAGS , and others.

69
More than 1200 standards for materiel have been issued and

the number of international and world-class national

standards adopted by NATO is increasing rapidly.

In my work with the Interagency Committee on Standards

Policy in 1981-83, I was leading the DoD panel that

developed the draft guidelines for government

representatives on international standards bodies.

Consequently, the DoD procedures for international standards

representation are consistent with the guidelines

established in Feb 1984, in most activities.

The technical experts representing the DoD in international

standards organizations and related U.S. standards bodies

are required to perform several major functions including:

o Identifying and maintaining liaison with key

professionals in the U.S. & Allied Nations

experienced in the related technology area.

o Gathering pertinent technical information and

sorting out the essential technical requirements

to be included in the standards.

o Developing and

with concerned

organizations,

and other fede

coordinating consensu

DoD agencies and U.S.

and appropriate offic

ral agencies.

s U.S

indu

ials

. positions

stry

in OSD,

o Preparation and circulation of reports on meeting

agendas and decisions.

o Preparation of draft international standards for

coordination with U.S. and international representatives.

o Promoting, negotiating, and arbitrating with U.S.

and foreign representatives to establish viable

final requirements to be included in the published

standard that is useful by DoD and other concerned

agencies.

o Preparing and presenting U.S. concensus position

to the authorized DoD official for approval and

acceptance.

o Tracking and monitoring U.S. implementation of the

approved international standards.

The technical experts assigned to serve as the DoD

representatives on international standards organizations are

selected from the most appropriate engineering activities in

70
the military departments and defense agencies. To the

extent possible, we try to identify more than one highly

qualified engineer or scientist to participate in the work of

each of the standard working groups. Participation by

experts from the Army, Navy, and Air Force on each group is

sought. Where direct participation from each concerned DoD

agency is not feasible, the selected single representative is

responsible for identifying and maintaining liaison with key

experts in the other agencies in order to obtain tri-Service

inputs to the technical requirements intended to be included

in international standards. When more than one DoD

representative participates, one of them is designated as the

principal representative.

The principal DoD representative assigned to any of the

international standards bodies is responsible for planning

and managing the work program required for developing the

U.S. coordinated position for the drafts of the proposed

standards and the final document offered for acceptance.

The latter responsiblity includes preparation and

presentation of the recommendations for acceptance or

rejection of the final standard by the appropriate

authorized official in the DoD or other U.S. agency.

I've tried to present a lot of information in a short time.

If there are any questions, I'll try to answer them or

obtain an answer from another source.

Thank you for your attention.

71
INTERNATIONAL FOOD STANDARDS AND NON-TARIFF TRADE BARRIERS

Sanford A. Miller, Ph.D.

Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Food and Drug Administration

Department of Health and Human Services

Interest in the subject of trade continues to grow as the U.S. share of

world trade continues to decline. The Washington Post , for example,

proclaimed recently that we have entered a "new era of trade." As we begin this era, however, many see us facing a troubling situation.

According to Commerce Secretary, Malcolm Balridge, more than seventy

percent of U.S. made goods must now endure the competition of imports.

A House Banking Committee report has stated, "The United States once dominated the world economy with virtually effortless superiority. Those

days are gone forever." And John A. Young, president of Hewlett-Packard

Co. is quoted as saying: "We have a problem." Of concern are both the

traditional manufacturing industries and the fruits of new technologies,

from computers to drugs to foods. For foods, there is a particular

problem. Food is basically an international commodity and no nation in

the world is independent of its free flow. In this context, the U.S. is

still basically an agricultural country since, without question, the

largest proportion of its export dollars come from agricultural commodities. (Indeed, even on the domestic front, food and food products play

and important role representing approximately 25% of the GNP)

.

Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that we are taking a hard look at

all of the elements influencing trade, particularly trade in food,

including those factors known as "non-tariff" trade barriers. In the

regulation of health and safety, such barriers can be erected in various

ways. For example, restrictions can be imposed requiring that safety

testing be conducted in the importing country or different testing

requirements from those of the exporting nations can be imposed. And even when testing requirements are met, the importing country may apply

a different safety standard in acting upon the results of the tests.

Thus, in today’s world, it is becoming increasingly clear that technical

issues of trade really involve two sub-issues:

1. First, the management of the scientific technical Issues,

and,

2. Second, the management of the regulatory interpretation of

the scientific facts within the context of national law.

One of the major problems is that too often the issues become confused

and scientific uncertainty or debate Is used to obfuscate the fundamental issues and support narrow national interests.

When it is possible to segregate issues in this way, then the first task

72
is to find a means for resolving the purely scientific matters — to

find a common ground for the interpretation of scientific facts.

Basically, this means bring the interested parties together. This is

the function of both formal and informal international bodies. Historically we have seen a number of different efforts, depending upon the

nations involved. For example, for food, USFDA has developed bilateral

agreements, formal and informal with more than 20 countries including

Japan, the Peoples Republic of China, India, Ireland, France, Finland,

Saudi Arabia, Israel and Nigeria. In a more organized fashion,

multilateral arrangements have been made such as the creation of the

Tripartite group of nations consisting of the U.S., the United Kingdom,

and Canada. This group meets in plenary session at least once a year

for the purpose of informing and discussion of technical issues con- cerned with food and drugs. It serves as a framework for resolving

matters of mutual concern, as was done with the proposal by the Japanese

government to ban the food additive, butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)

.

Meetings are rotated among the participating nations, and the agenda for

each meeting is set by the host country. In addition, subcommittees of

the Tripartite meet more frequently to discuss more specific problems

and to develop more technical joint papers. The result of this decade

long effort has been a reduction in conflicting regulatory decisions

and, more importantly, a sharp reduction in regulatory disputes based on technical issues.

Another such approach on a more global basis is the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) . These are joint committees of WHO and FAO in which representatives of various countries serve on a personal basis. The

committee has from twelve to fourteen members nominated equally by FAO

and WHO and meeting one to two times a year to consider questions of the

safety of individual substances that might be found in food. The U.S.,

through the International Program for Chemical Safety, prepares a substantial number of monographs that are used as a foundation for the

committee discussions. Of greater importance, these committees serve as the technical infrastructure for many developing countries which use their conclusions as a basis for their regulatory actions. These

committees also serve as an international baseline against which even developed countries can measure their regulatory activities. In a similar sense for the economically developed countries of the world, the

OECD serves a similar purpose.

A much more formal approach has been the operation of the Codex

Alimentarius Commission. Codex Alimentarius — translated freely as "code of food standards and regulations" — is a collection of internationally adopted food standards drafted and presented in a uniform

manner. The purpose of these international standards is to protect

consumer health and promote fair practices in the food trade. They

ensure that the consumer receives a wholesome product and is properly

informed about what he is buying. The publication of the Codex

Alimentarius standards is also intended to assist in harmonizing the

73
definitions and requirements for foods in the different countries of the

world, and in so doing, to facilitate international trade. They are not

intended to be used to create protective economic trade barriers for any

country or region of the world.

The Commission is empowered to establish various subsidiary bodies to

assist In accomplishing its program. The most important of those

established so far are a number of expert committees whose function is

to prepare draft standards and submit them to the Commission, which then

transmits them to governments for comments and eventually for acceptance

or rejection. In most instances each expert committee operates under

the sponsorship of a member nation which supplies a chairman and facilities for conducting periodic meetings.

The establishment of tolerances under the Codex or any international

system is not an easy one. Problems that we face on a national scale

are multiplied at the international level. For example, if we ask

ourselves whom we must protect domestically, the question becomes more difficult and complex on a world scale where consumption patterns and

cultural dynamics are even harder to predict.

These considerations bring me to the second sub-issue: the management

of the regulatory interpretation of scientific facts within the context

of national law. Once scientific issues are agreed upon, a country has

several regulatory options which it may follow. It may apply a set of

regulations which apply primarily to imported products but may not

affect domestic products. The use of pesticides on certain agricultural

commodities to assure quality following long shipping times is an example of this sort of situation.

A country, however, may also be clearly compelled by its national laws

(as an expression of national health and safety values) to follow a particular course of action. The prohibition of carcinogens under the

Delaney clause of the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is an example of

this situation. Here the action required by the national law equally

affects domestic and foreign products.

Consumer pressure may also play an important role in the interpretation

of the scientific facts and their use in deciding the appropriate

regulatory action. In some countries, the growing consumer movement has

forced governments to take action on certain substances where, in other

countries, no action has been taken. Similarly, on the other hand,

pressure from domestic industries for protection may compel a government

to restrict the use of certain substances on imported products since

that same material is not needed for domestic products.

This brings me to my final point, that a country may also establish

regulations which affects its own market to some extent but have even greater impact on imports. An excellent example of this is the use of

antioxidants which, in many cases, may not be required to the same

74
extent in domestic products because of tbeir relatively short storage

time. Imported products, on the other hand, almost always require some kind of protection against oxidation due to the relatively long times

they must remain in storage during transport.

As we know, barriers to trade, whether they be tariffs, quotas, or technical harriers, can have both planned and unanticipated effects upon

the countries involved. Import restrictions may spur foreign investment

in another nation; but they may also hinder the spread of scientific or technological knowledge. Indeed, the exchange of information itself is

sometimes used as a barrier to trade. Different standards of

conf ddentiality can deter the use of information to support the safety

of a product.

Domestic regulatory agencies are increasingly finding themselves in the

throes of trade issues of a technical nature. The proposed Japanese

restriction of the food additive, BHA, provides an excellent example of

this situation in the food area. When Japan announced to signatories of

the Standards Code that it was about to restrict the use of FRA , FDA

found itself arranging a four-nation working group of experts (from

Canada, the U.K., Japan, and the U.S.) to discuss the restriction.

Eventually the issue was forwarded to an international body — the Joint

Expert Group on Food Additives (JEGFA) — the group which sets tolerances used by the Codex Committee on Food Additives. Basically, the

JECFA agreed with the conclusions of the committee. At this moment in

time, the Japanese are still considering what action should ultimately

be taken, but if the Japanese government does act, it cannot use the

technical issue alone as a reason for its action since there was general

agreement among all scientists involved in the evaluation that BHA is

safe for its current uses.

Increasingly, FDA, too, has found itself working with the office of the

U.S. trade representative on matters which are presented to that office

as possible technical barriers to trade. In this capacity, it has found

itself serving as the technical resource for providing information and

explaining scientific issues. In addition, we are working more and more

closely with our colleagues in the Foreign Agricultural Service of the

USDA, who often are the individuals best suited to evaluate food problems in a particular country. Nevertheless, it is important to remember

that FDA is not a trade organization and that its action and policies

are not directed towards improving U.S. trade. Rather, under our law, we are compelled to provide the same regulatory approach and emphasis to

imported and domestic products. However, with the recognition that food

is an international commodity and that the free flow of food among

nations is in the best interest of the United States and of the recognition that FDA’s mandate can be most effectively met when world standards

and technical competence are uniform, the agency, particularly the

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, has become increasingly

involved in these international activities of the trade office.

75
The distinction between a technical trade barrier and regulations based

on national values concerning safety is often a fine one. At a tiire

when we are torn between forces for harmonization on the one hand and

forces for protectionism on the other, we face an enormous task to

smooth the way to permit making that distinction. In our opinion, the

ability to treat scientific issues independently of national trade

policy is essential for rational selection of regulatory options

designated to resolve these issues. The scientific regulatory agencies

must be constantly sensitive to the scientific base supporting

regulatory actions. In the international arena, it is becoming

increasingly apparent that this sensitivity must be multiplied and

sustained. More importantly, the need for international consultation on scientific issues prior to the selection of regulatory options in

individual countries is also becoming more apparent. If we can obtain

agreement on the scientific issues, more often that not, disagreements

on the regulatory solutions will become less and less.

76
International Standards in Telecommunications

Earl S. Barbely

Director

Office of International Communications Policy

Department of State

In the telecommunication field standards are set and constantly

revised under the impetus of rapidly changing technology. National and

international telecommunication groups meet almost constantly to discuss

whether standards are needed in particular instances, and if so, what

the standards should be. The setting of an individual nation's standards

often differs and makes this process mare difficult.

Sovereign nations are members of the ITU and its working organs, but we, as a Government, do not believe that we hold the answers to all

questions. Particularly in technical fields we consult with and rely on

the expertise of the private sector utilizing the experience and the

knowledge of those who hqve been most directly involved in the field

including users, manufacturers and providers of service.

We have developed a system of extensive reliance on the private sector in our relations with the CCITT and the CCIR, using their knowledge in the

planning, discussion and even negotiation of proposed standards (international recommendations) both here in the U.S. and in our international

dealings.

It is more difficult to speak of standards in the communications field

than in some others; our standards are more precise and exacting in some

areas, but less concrete in others. Measurements are more often

intangible rather than concrete. Yet we must have standards if only for

compatibility's sake.

Indeed, our communications concern is not with consumer protection as

is the case of setting measurement or weight standards, nor of possible

health hazards, but rather communality and compatibility, without

compatibility there is no communication. Thus the interest of Government is distinct in this area; it has a concern not of protection but

of facilitation; in some sense the Government is a practitioner of

laissez-faire in the broadest sense, letting the market work and

involving itself only when absolutely necessary. What we seek in this

field is the opportunity to use the expertise of those most concerned

in these activities because those are the entities which not only have

the experience, but will be most affected by the decisions.

Both providers and users of telephone data, radio services and allied

means of coranunication reed Government support rather than intervention

particularly in international radio. Our goal as Government is to

provide support when we can and intervene only when necessary.

77
Some in the audience will be moved to applaud this policy; those who

believe in Governmental intervention and adjustment may be horrified.

Nevertheless, as believers in the market system and the ability of

private enterprise and the efficiency of the American economic system

we have found the method to be optimal; and not just during the present

administration, with its emphasis on the private sector and on the

workings of the market. Since the inception of international

telecommunications and the ITU, since the beginnings of the International

Consultative Committee for Telephone and Telegraph the CCITT and its

sister the CCIR, the International Consultative Committee for Radio, and

the regional groupings, the U.S. has, except in those relatively rare

cases where direction from above was clearly indicated, relied on the

needs of carriers, users, and service providers, to direct the

international standards to the best interests of their own concerns.

How can this be done in the international arena without subjecting the

consumer to predatory pressure? And how does the Government avoid

cartels, monopolistic practices, and collusion that will end up placing

an economic tax on the people that Government represents? Let me begin

by quoting Thomas Jefferson, who I am sure you will agree is not

regarded as a friend of monopoly and monopolists but is considered an

advocate of the individual and his rights. Thomas Jefferson said: "That

government is best which governs least." Taking Jefferson then as our

polestar, we begin by assuming that Government should not become

involved except of necessity. And when Government must become involved,

it is again only "by consent of the governed." While theories of

Government vary, American political relationships are generally

conceded to rest on this social contract.

For most of the more-than-two-centuries that our republic has

existed, Government's function has been to watch and to insert

itself only when overwhelming need has been asserted.

Of course, monopolistic practices, robber barons, timber

cultivation ignoring the needs of the future, similar misuse of

water resources, unencumbered building with no regard for the

ability of the environment to support it, predatory pricing,

sales of useless products or those which may damage the buyer,

have all caused Government to enter the arena, and with reason

and justice. I postulate not the Government's absence, but the

policy of Government hesitation; a necessity to be certain of

required Government action, before allowing the sometimes

ponderous, weighty, difficult to stop, intervention of the

representatives of the republic in areas where there is no clear

necessity.

Certainly there are examples to be cited where there is a clear

necessity. In the field of radio communication Government, as

the representative of the people has had to act to regulate

frequencies so that the public interest is served by reserving

some frequency bands for public purposes, including those of

defense, and by licensing other frequencies to avoid chaos and

give the populace access to what is available.

73
U.S. National Committees for both the CCITT and the CCIR

now exist. Both these groups meet regularly here in Washington

and elsewhere in the U.S. to discuss proposed policy in the

larger international groups. American corporations, large and

small are members. Some of the members of the National

Committee are members of the CCITT as RPCAs, recognized private

operating agencies and as such may attend sessions of the CCITT

by themselves. Household names, MCI, ITT, AT&T and its various

divisions, CDC, Control Data, Citibank attend these meetings in

which there is broad discussion and not always unanimous

agreement on America’s position with respect to the international

coordinating committees. The National Committees also have

working groups to discuss seme of the details of the broader

policy-groups that contribute much time and effort to the

discussion and that often come up with the initial

recommendations for our negotiating stance.

What we do then is utilize American industry's talent for the

greater good of all. Without this process, a far larger

expenditure of time and effort by the Government would be

necessary; additional public expenditures would be needed to

hire people to discuss and evaluate the technical detail; and

there is no guarantee nor expectation that the decisions would

be any more imaginative correct, proper, sober, helpful, and yes

profitable.

In international meetings U.S. delegations have almost

always had advisors from the private sector. Our bureau in

the State Department, the Bureau of Economic and Business

Affairs among other matters, negotiates international

aviation treaties. In these negotiations industry

representatives are members of the negotiating panel.

(Constitutionally the President may, of course, select whom

he likes to represent the country.) Our representation on

working groups of the CCITT also leans heavily on private

sector personnel and their expertise. It seems to me,

that this has worked extremely well for us as a nation, as a government and for the industry.

We have adopted what might be called a watching brief,

relying for the most part on the day-to-day users of the

systems. Only when American policy and the competitive

balance demands it do we involve the parts of the government

with telecommunications interests

I see no reason to suggest any change in this system. It is

efficient, represents a basic form of democracy, helps to keep

the government and private sectors cooperating, gives those

concerned a chance to be heard nationally and internationally

and is economical of the public purse. To use what may be the

oldest cliche in the telecommunications field —or any other

field: It ain't broke. Dont'fix it.

79
International Standards Activities

Edwin L. Johnson

Director, Office of Water Regulation and Standards

United States Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is involved in several voluntary

standards activities ranging from toxic chemicals to automobiles. I can not cover all of these today but have included a partial list as an attachment to my paper. Instead let me focus on one or two international

standards activities with which I am personally involved to try to give

you some idea of what those organizations do, how we prepare as U.S.

representatives to participate in those sessions and who we involve in

that preparation. These two activities involve the Food and Agriculture Organization and Codex Alimentarius activities in the field of

pesticides. I am also approaching standards in a very broad sense.

Dr. Warshaw yesterday gave us a definition of standards but I think you

will find that my use of the term may go somewhat beyond the conventional

definition.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations is

comprised of about 140 member countries, including the United States, and

it is a treaty organization. It has broad interests, in the fields of agricultural policy, food and nutrition and agricultural production. Pesticides are one of the major factors of production of many crops and in the

1970's when there began to be great concern about the environmental and

health consequences of pesticides, the FAO shifted its emphasis from

viewing pesticides simply as a means of crop protection to looking at

other issues involving health and environmental aspects and regulatory

approaches to control potential adverse effects.

For those of you who don't know much about the pesticide industry, let

me digress for a few seconds to characterize it and to illustrate why

the international aspects of trade in this area are extremely important.

There are about 40 companies in the world that manufacture the basic

pesticides that are used in agricultural production worldwide. These

are located principally in the developed countries — e.g., the United

States, Europe and Japan. They export these pesticides around the world,

principally to the agricultural, developing countries that produce many

agricultural commodities. These agricultural commodities are often ex- ported from the developing countries back to the developed nations that

produced the pesticides in first place, often containing residues of

those pesticides when they are imported. This is the kind of problem

that Sandy Miller was talking about which is regulated through Food,

Drug and Cosmetic Act tolerances administered jointly by the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) and EPA for pesticide residues.

The industry is very tightly regulated in developed countries and must

obtain pre-marketing approval for every pesticide before it may be

marketed and used. This approval requires industry submission of an

extensive set of health and safety information that enables the country

30
to judge that the pesticide may be used safely. These similar kinds of

regulatory approaches are not available in the developing countries in

many cases, so there is often less control over the chemicals that are imported into a country and how they are used within that country. This

situation can lead to disruption in international trade in both food and

pesticides because of difficulties involving excessive residues, or concerns about poisonings of applicators.

The FAO saw this problem to the continued use of pesticides as a principal

production factor in agriculture and they began to move into this area. They do several things in the standards area. The first is a conventional

international standard — chemical specifications for pesticides which

are no longer under patent so purchasers of these pesticides have a set

of characteristic chemical standards for purchasing.

But they also go into another area that is much broader. FAO develops

guidelines and principals for regulating pesticides. They develop guidelines on such topics as labelling, packaging, storage and disposal of

pesticides. They develop procedures for dealing with pesticide residues

on food and analytical procedures which are intended principally to provide developing countries with standards as to how to regulate pesticides

within their countries on a uniform basis. Some of the issues they are dealing with, for example, are harmonizing data requirements so that the

expensive test-data supporting the safety of a pesticide in one country

can be transported freely to another country to avoid the situation that

Sandy Miller mentioned in which each country requires testing to be done

differently or to be done within its own boundaries. Those are the objectives the FAO seeks to meet in developing these kinds of broad international standards.

Procedurally standards start with an expert committee, a group of 8 to 10

individuals selected worldwide because of their knowledge of the issues.

These committees draw up working or background papers and when enough are accumulated, the FAO calls for an international Consultation of governments in which all member countries can participate in the modification

or approval of the documents developed by the expert committees. Technical

issues generally do not move above the Consultation; generally the

approval comes without major disputes and the standards are issued by

FAO. Let me talk a little bit now about the U.S. delegation and how it

goes about preparing for one of these Consultations. As Don 'Ableson

mentioned yesterday almost everyone in the U.S. government has some piece of the action when it comes to preparing for international meetings.

In this particular case, the Environmental Protection Agency, because it

has the basic regulatory authorities for pesticides leads the delegation.

It is supported by members drawn from the Food and Drug Administration,

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agency for International Development,

and sometimes the Department of Commerce or other parts of the State

Department. Preparation begins six months to a year before the consultation is to be held when we begin to receive background papers and working

papers for the meeting. It involves not only the individuals formally

compromising the delegation, but may require twenty-five to thirty other

technical experts to review and prepare positions on the various documents

81
before us. We wind up with a series of U.S. position papers, generally

at the technical level, which give the delegation some broad policy

guidance and equally broad discretion to make technical decisions as the issues evolve during the international meeting.

One of the important things in this preparation is the involvement of

non-government organizations. Many of the actions that will be taken by

the U.S. delegation have profound impacts upon both international trade

in pesticides and food, but also on potential global environmental consequences. As preparation progresses we are constantly in touch with

industry, public interest and environmental groups. And when draft

U.S. position papers are prepared, we sit down and discuss those papers

to make sure we adequately reflect the interests of the many diverse

parts of American society.

One of the more interesting exceptions that did not stop at the technical level and is still currently under debate is the Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides (a voluntary code of conduct). This

is, perhaps, the broadest form of voluntary standard with which we have

been involved in that it does not define technical specifications but

rather defines standards of ethical conduct or responsible behavior for

all those involved in international trade in pesticides. If you remember

the United Nations breastmilk substitute controversy a few years ago,

you will understand that this issue took extra care by the delegation

to develop a U.S. position. For example, we did not stop at senior

Agency technical level approval, but rather pursued a full State Department approval to go ahead with a positive U.S. position because of the

controversy about codes of conduct in general. Incidently that later

proved to be very beneficial because in the latest round of government

review there was great concern about having a code. Having that earlier

clearance and agreement from industry and other outside parties early

on, helped keep us on track in later efforts on the Code. Determining

the appropriate level of clearance is an important aspect of preparation.

The other area that I will mention briefly is the Codex Alimentarius and

in particular that part of Codex that deals with maximum residue limits

for pesticides on food. These are maximum levels of residue permitted

on commodities in international trade. Here the U.S. is not only a participant in developing the standards, MRL's (maximum residue levels),

but is also a user of those levels. We bring information before the

group to decide those levels, and here is where we have a major impact

on foreign trade because there are often two sets of nations involved — those who import food and see residues only at the port of entry

after they have had an opportunity to degrade for several weeks or months and who want to establish low levels reflecting monitoring data.

And then there are those countries such as the United States that

actually produce much of this food for export and who have a system

that measures and enforces the level of residue at the farm gate where

residues are often much higher. So we are constantly confronted at

these meetings with some importing countries relying on monitoring

data saying "we don’t see any reason what-so-ever why the level has to

be five parts per million on this particular crop and we think it ought

to only be one ppm!" The United States on the other hand perhaps cannot

82
live with the lower tolerance and export its food because good agricultural practices in the food's production requires a higher level. This

is an area where the debate on trade and health impacts, and the reasons

for higher residue levels and the need for those higher levels based on good agricultural practice within the country become very important and

have immediate consequences on the agricultural sector.

Another feature of this standards activity is the fact that the Codex

system on pesticide residues runs almost entirely on industry data. In

fact, its the only official delegation that I have been involved with

that has members of industry both pesticide manufacturers and growers,

as formal members. And the information used to develop the standard

comes basically from industry's confidential data base rather than from

governments or from other sources such as published literature.

I’ll wrap up by emphasizing one point. In order to represent the U.S.

position at these international standards meetings, advance preparation

is extremely important. And in order to prepare properly there must be

involvement not only of a wide range of government agencies but also of

non-government organizations, both industrial and evironmental.

33
Attachment

Partial List of International Standards Activities involving

the Environmental Protection Agency

Organization: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION ( FAO)

International Standards Activity :

Contact for further information:

Chemical Specifications for Commodity

Pesticides

Guidelines for Registering Pesticides

Guidelines for Labelling, Packaging,

Storing, Using, Testing Pesticides

Code of Conduct for Distribution and

Use of Pesticides

Assessment of Residues of Pesticide

Residues on Food Resulting from Good

Agricultural Practices Residues with

World Health Organization.

Cathleen Mclnerney

Office of International Activities

EPA

Organization: ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD)

International Standards Activity : Good Laboratory Practices for Testing

Testing Protocols

Ad hoc Group on Safety and Regulations

Contact for further information: Cathleen Mclnerney

Office of International Activities

EPA

Organization: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)

International Standards Activity :

Contact for further information:

Determination of Acceptable Intakes of

Pesticide Residues on Foods (Joint

Meeting on Pesticide Residues with

FAO)

Data Interpretation and Testing

Pete Christich

Office of International Activities

EPA

84
Organization: Codex Alimentarius Commissions

International Standards Activity: General food standards for foods in

international commerce, EPA

specifically involved in limits of

pesticides residues on food.

Contact for further information: Cathleen Mclnerney

Office of International Activities

EPA

General Agreement - Tariffs and Trade

International Standards Activity: Automobile, testing methodologies

Contact for further information: Cathleen Mclnerney

Office of International Activities

EPA

Radiation? No.

85
International Standards Activities

Organization: World Health Organization (WHO)/ United Nations

Environment Program (UNEP) Global Environmental

Monitoring System (GEMS)

Int. Standards Activities:

quality assurance/standardization for measurement methodology

in monitoring urban air pollutants

- quality assurance/standardization for measurement methodology

in monitoring fresh water

Organization: WHO/UNEP Human Exposure Assessment Locations

(HEALS)

Int. Standards Activities:

pilot project by U.S., Japan, Sweden and Yugoslavia; new

ongoing multi-year effort to standarize designs and field

studies of multi-media (air, water, food) monitoring of

human exposure to toxic pollutants. Effort will integrate

environmental monitoring and sampling of human population

data gathering.

Organization: WHO/International Program on Chemical Safety

Int. Standards Activities:

Environmental Health Criteria document development for

certain chemicals provide criteria for establishment of

national standards

Organization: International Organization for Legal Metrology

Int. Standards Activities:

instrument performance standards efforts on air, water,

toxics, pesticides, and hazardous waste measurements.

Organization: WHO

Int. Standards Activities:

Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: PETE CHRISTICH

EPA, 01

A

86
Organization: International Atomic Energy Agency

Int. Standards Activities: establishes regulations on the sea

disposal of radioactive wastes.

The regualtions consist of two parts:

1. a definition of those high level

wastes that may not be dumped,

2. recommendations governing the

dumping of low-level wastes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: ALAN SI ELAN,

EPA/OIA

Organization: United Nations

Int. Standards Activities: system of identification of hazardous

wastes by number, each with standards

for the packaging and labelling of the

waste. There are also several international conventions developed through

the U.N. transport committees for

specific kinds of transport —rail, road,

sea

.

Organization: International Maritime Organization

Int. Standards Activities: standards for the transport of hazardous

waste by sea

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: WENDY GREIDER , EPA/OIA

87
U.S. Participation in a Treaty Organization

Eddie F. Kimbrell

Deputy Administrator, Commodity Services

Agricultural Marketing Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

and

Chai rma-n Codex Alimentarius Commission

Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme

A major influence on the international standardization in the food area worldwide is the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, through the efforts of the

Codex Alimentarius Commission. When the Codex Commission elected me its

chairman in July of 1983, it was the culmination of my 15 years of involvement

with the Codex program. I feel very privileged to have been involved through

the years in this standardization effort and am gratified that a degree of success has been achieved.

You will note that this activity is a treaty organization and as such is

conducted officially on a government to government basis. However, to

consider this program as just government bureaucrats negotiating would be a total distortion of the facts. In fact, without the participation and

cooperation of private industry, academia, consumer groups, and many different

government agencies, I feel safe in stating the Codex program could not

possibly have accomplished what it has to date.

A Codex progress report would seem appropriate here, prefaced by a short

explanation of what the Codex program is for those not familiar with its

work

.

The Codex Alimentarius Program is a joint effort of the Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop food

standards which will both facilitate international trade and protect the

health of consumers. FAO and WHO created the Codex Alimentarius Commission in

1962 to implement their Joint Food Standards Programme, which is based in

Rome. Any nation that is a member or associate member of FAO or WHO may be a member of Codex. Currently, 129 nations participate.

To carry out its mission, the Codex Alimentarius Commission created 28

committees and two expert groups (Illustration No. 1) to develop international

food standards. At last count, the Program had developed:

(1) 158 product standards with at least 19 more under development;

(2) 19 Codes of Hygienic and/or Technological Practice;

(3) 54 Methods of Analysis and Sampling; and

88
(4) Maximum Limits for Pesticide Residues for 138 pesticides.

Of these, 133 product standards and six series of pesticide residue limits

have been submitted to member governments for acceptance. The U.S. has

finished action on 42 of the standards, (this number could conceivably double

by July 1985), and many more actions are in the rulemaking stage at FDA and

USDA. More than 60 countries have responded, accepting more than 820

pesticide residue standards to one degree or another. As Codex Chairman, I can say that with the winding down of the development phase of the program, we

will be concentrating on encouraging more and faster acceptances.

As you can see the Codex program has accomplished a prodigious amount of

work--the overwhelming majority of which is acceptable to the U.S. How did

that happen? Part of the answer lies in the original formulation of the Codex

Commission's procedural rules which force action to be taken. The rest of the answer lies in the preparation and participation of the 129 member countries,

and the recognition of a special need. No longer is food just traded

domestically. It has become increasingly important as a product crossing

international boundaries.

I as the USA Codex Coordinator am constantly impressed with the procedural

system which allows the USA to participate so effectively in the Work of the

Codex Commission.

The U.S. system includes the USA coordinator, who serves as administrator of

the entire Codex program and also U.S. representative to the Codex

Alimentarius Commi ssi on--the parent body. In each of the subsidiary bodies,

committees which do the technical development work, we are represented by an individual from an appropriate agency (USDA, FDA, DOC, EPA) and discipline.

In most cases, each committee representative has one or more alternates.

Oversight and policy coordination is provided by an ad hoc i ntergovernmental

group on Codex Alimentarius with representatives from the Department of State,

USDA, EPA, Department of Commerce, and Department of Health and Human

Services .

Now that sounds like adequate i nf ra-structure to handle the work of the Codex

Alimentarius Commission. However, if we stopped here, I'm sure the results of our participation would be less than satisfactory. That is why each of the

representatives to any Codex body, including the Commission itself, is

responsible for seeking out and maintaining contact with interested parties

from all sources. This list of interested parties forms the basis for

distributing Codex proposals and drafts and gathering the information

necessary to establish comprehensive, meaningful, and effective USA positions

on items coming from the various committees and the commission. The crucial

point of this whole exercise being that the views of all interested parties,

government and non-government, are known before the USA position is

establ i shed

.

89
In the Codex program we have always been extremely fortunate to have had the

complete cooperation of private industry and other interested parties to

assist us in effectively representing the U.S. I mention this only because I know of other programs where this critical element is missing and they suffer

because of it. Degree of voluntary participation is a reflection of the value

placed on the activity by the interested parties. It has been my experience

that private industry, in particular, is very reluctant to support programs or activities it views as of doubtful value.

After the USA positions have been established, by meetings and correspondence , the actual representation at the committee and commission sessions is crucial.

U.S. delegates to Codex committee sessions consist of the U.S. representati ve , a government person, who speaks for the U.S., and depending on the complexity

of the agenda one or more government advisors plus a number of industry

technical advisors, who pay their own expenses to attend the sessions. The

size of the U.S. delegation normally varies from 2 to 25-30 depending on the

subject matter of the session. Of the general subject committees, food

hygiene, labeling, food additives, and pesticide residues tend to draw the

most interest. In the commodity committees, fish and fish products, cereals,

pulses, and legumes and processed fruit and vegetables tend to have the

largest delegations.

At the last commission meeting in Rome in 1983, the U.S. delegation consisted

of 8 U.S. government employees and 20 industry advisors. This is not such a large group when you weigh it against an agenda consisting of over 90

significant specific items generated by the 28 subsidiary bodies plus the

administrative work of the commission. Attempts are made to minimize the size

of the U.S. delegation, mainly by having U.S. citizens attend as representatives of international observer organizations. As the head of that

U.S. delegation, I can assure you it is very confidence inducing to look

around and see all the technical help available on such a wide range of food

standards related matters. Many times we have been able to win technical

points supporting U.S. positions by producing immediate expert technical

information

.

So, to do the best job possible of representing the U.S. in international

standards bodies, my experience with the Codex food standards program

indicates one must maximize participation by all interested parties, prepare

strong U.S. positions and have expert technical backup available at meetings

whenever possible. To do any less is a waste of time and increasingly scarce resources. International standards are not just a wave of the future. They

are here. And, regulatory bodies are using them. Thus, it is in our interest

to see that they represent the latest technology, promote efficiency of

production, and safeguard the health and welfare of consumers.

There is no enforcement mechanism within the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

Each country that accepts a standard is responsible for its enforcement.

Thus, acceptance is a key to removing trade barriers. And, as I've already

indicated, that is beginning to happen. I think, as with all international

standards, use by industry will force governments to consider international

90
standards. So whether in a treaty or non-treaty organization, industry

participation ultimately will determine its success or failure.

91
ILLUSTRATION

92
How does DOD specify which standards are to be met in purchasing equipment

and how does DOD verify that equipment produced in, say Germany, meets DOD

requirements?

Sam Miller:

From the International Standards viewpoint, the main body that we are concerned with is NATO. We do agree as participating nations on which

standards should be followed. Some of those are ISO standards, some of them

are national standards, such as the DINs, some are military standards, such

as our own. When it is agreed that these standards will be used, equipment

offered by any NATO country industry is acceptable if it meets one or more of

the approved standards.

Is there overlap between ITU, ISO and IEC in the communications area and how

do you minimize any duplication?

Earl Barbely:

There is some overlap in border-line situations, as in the ISO and the CCITT,

for example. However, at the recent plenary assembly this past fall in

Spain, the CCITT, which has worked rather closely with the ISO and the EIA, we have established a mechanism by which that work can be done with better

liaison than in the past. I think it's worked fairly well and there doesn't

seem to be too much duplication, although there are always rivalries when you

get down to the edge of what is or what isn't telecommunications, what is a computer standard, and things like that. But I think that the activity

itself is working very well.

In the United States, the American National Standards institute, ANSI, works

through both organizations and when ANSI establishes a standard, they

normally bring it to the CCITT national committee and try to get it

established as a world wide standard. Yes, there is very good liaison and we hope there is not too much duplication and we're trying to make it even

better. All the organizations together will spend several years studying

the situation to identify gaps and overlaps.

Mr. Barberly implied that government should act only when it is certain of

the outcome it is trying to regulate. I wonder if Mr. Johnson and Dr. Miller

of FDA agree with this statement.

Sanford Miller and Edwin Johnson:

I'm not sure how you can be certain of the outcome of anything you start. You

may have a goal that you want to reach and maybe that is what the question

means. In the areas that EPA and FDA cover there's a considerably greater

intensity of interest in the sense that health, and ultimately life and death

issues, are involved in the decision making process. This is really where I think most of the conflict comes in international decisions concerning food

93
chemicals, pesticides and food standards. To a large extent we are asking

countries, who participate in CODEX, for example, to set aside national

values concerning safety. The Japanese, for example, have a very long

history, since World War II, of being opposed to everything called food

chemicals. It's important that we begin to look at these things from a health point of view and they are very concerned about this. The Japanese are concerned about radiation of food, they have a cultural history of being

concerned about radiation, one which we don't share.

I think we have to start off with a goal, and I agree with Mr. Barbely, that

government should get involved in issues that people can't take care of

themselves. I think in issues of safety of food and international standards

for food individuals simply cannot play a role.

I agree completely with what's been said. We need to start with a goal and I think the thing that is different perhaps about some of the areas that we regulate in EPA and FDA is that there is much less agreement on what that

goal ought to be. There is much more uncertainty about some of the effects

the regulatory programs may have. In many areas of standard setting, the

impact of the results can be measured in economic or monetary terms. With

most of ours, we have competing goals of economic gain versus health and

safety. The areas are often very murky and subject to a great deal of public

perception rather than tight analysis and that really complicates things

considerably.

To what extent does DOD involve private sector interest in developing U.S.

positions on NATO standards?

Sam Miller:

That information will appear in your printed proceedings. The private sector

representatives from industry are represented in many of the working groups,

if not all of them, that develop the proposed standards for acceptance by DOD

and by NATO. These industry people are usually selected because of their

technical expertise in the field of technology involved.

There is an interagency committee on standards policy (ICSP). What of the

possibility of also establishing an international committee on standards

policy to coordinate treaty and non-treaty international standards between

ISO, IEC, WHO, UN, OIML, CODEX, CCIR and acting as a high council of

international standardization?

Sanford Miller and Earl Barbely:

We have an open public forum for international standard making which everyone

is invited to. In fact, whether you have a committee here in this

organization may not be terribly important because the DOC plays a major role

in all of the international standards setting in the CCIR and the CCITT. They

participate fully. The government expertise lies in the Commerce Department

and it lies in FCC and some of it in State. We try to coordinate that

activity. About 85 or 90% of it is private industry, so I think that we

94
already have a well rounded system of operating. I don't know, and I would

not like to comment on whether you need an international committee in your

organization.

I think the question is directed toward the establishment of an international

coordinating committee on standards organization. We have a committee here

in the Federal Government that, in essence, is attempting to do that, to

indicate where there are areas of overlap and where there are areas where

coordination in different standard setting groups is necessary. I think the

first obvious answer is, of course, yes there are lots of areas of overlap.

There is certainly a big overlap between the materials and standard setting

organizations in the food area, particularly in such things as packaging

materials or materials to produce materials capable of being sanitized for

food production plants, and things of that kind. But there are some counter

arguments. Its hard enough, within the context of relatively limited product

or technical areas, to bring people together from widely varying cultural and

economic backgrounds and have them agree on some conclusion. Political

issues still play a role in CODEX activities, which is nearly forty years

old. To a large extent cultural issues play a role. To take those

individual organizations and have them come together to talk about the

general issues is extremely complicated. I think the current situation where

there is a lot of overlap in these committees, where individual members may

sit on more than one of these committees, is probably, for the moment, the

best way to do that.

Much of this is taken care of by overlapping membership on some of these

committees and I think some of the international organizations are becoming

much more aware of it than they have in the past. For example, the food and

agriculture area began in the late seventies to work on pesticides. There

was a great fear on the part of several of us that they would begin to

duplicate standards for testing pesticides, for example, that were already

underway within OECD, or efficacy testing which was being conducted by the

European Plant Protection Organization. In fact, it didn't work out that way

because people had enough sense to draw on the expertise of other

organizations. It didn't happen because people in the international

standards business are aware of it and are attempting to cope with it

already.

Please tell more about the ASTM's "New Initiative" to strengthen its

activities in international standards. Has ASTM published info on this?

Sam Miller:

The first meeting that ASTM called was held last week with about 11

representatives present. Several representatives were from government and

the remainder came from the ASTM and industy. The initiative was announced

about four or five months ago after lengthy deliberation in the ASTM

organization. The meeting was primarily an open discussion to try to set

objectives and procedures that might be effective in promoting ASTM and the

use of ASTM standards throughout the world in more dominant positions than

they are now. Methods by which ASTM standards might be utilized as ISO

standards and the pros and cons of each of those issues were discussed. The

95
next meeting of the organization will be held in July and it will be

announced in the ASTM publication. I believe that they are inviting a greater participation, so if someone is interested I suggest they get in

touch with us.

Your presentation appears to be radically at odds with Dr. Miller's of FDA.

Can you discuss more factually, and less philosophically, why the State

Department uses government funds to represent U.S. firms, and their

profitability, in the absence of national law or a clearly stated public

policy intended to achieve concrete benefits for the citizenry as a whole?

Earl Barbely:

The Department of State has the foreign policy activity in this government

and we have tried to carry out, under that foreign policy, the "I" of the

activities of the International Telecommunications Union. It happens to be

part of the United Nations and has been since 1947. It is an organization

made up of governments, 160 governments. I would suggest then that the

Department of State has some role to play in it's activities.

Telecommunications is probably one of the most important industries we have

and it's the magic industry at this time. The State Department has been

involved in this activity since it's inception in the early thirties. It's

role is to participate in the world administrative conferences for setting

radio standards and radio regulations under these treaties.

The CCITT and CCIR are organizations that allow major private sector input

under the authority of the U.S. Government, since the Government is the

signatory to the convention. I'm sure that if you took a very close look at

what the State Department spends on this activity, you would probably feel

that we have underresourced it, understaffed it, and we have industry and the

people that use the service coming from every area asking us to get more

involved. We have tried to hold the line because we sincerely believe that

the private sector should play the major role and does play the major role in

the activities where standards are set. The ITU is a Government body, it's a United Nations body, and the State Department, therefore, plays the primary

role in carrying out the foreign policy issues that are at stake within the

organization itself. If you had any experience with the radio area, you know

that we have a major conference taking place in August and September of this

year. It's going to look at the spectrum for satellites, i.e., the orbit

locations. If you don't think that's foreign policy, and you don't think the

State Department has a role, I don't know who else you would expect to do

that job.

To what extent have the results of CODEX been adopted within the U.S.?

Eddie Kimbrell:

The results are in the written presentation as is the complete organization

of the CODEX Alimentarius Commission. The U.S. has acted on 42 of the

commodity standards and we have many more that probably will be acted on within the next month.

96
The Commission meets in July, 1985, and at that time we hope to have about 80

commodity standards acted upon. In terms of pesticide residues, I have to

compliment Mr. Johnson and the EPA because they have been absolutely

tremendous in giving consideration to the pesticide residue standards that

have been recommended by CODEX. I believe that of 138, they have acted on about 58 of those. I think they have done a good job in indicating to the

international community that we are serious in terms of being willing to

accept the product of the Commission. I think the other countries, by the

way, are looking to us to provide leadership in terms of accepting those

standards and I think the Food and Drug Administration and EPA have done a commendable job. By acted upon, I mean that they have published them for

consideration of acceptance within the U.S..

In terms of the product standards for food, the FDA has, in some cases,

deemed the standards as not neccessary within the U.S. Yet the products that

are produced in accordance with the CODEX standards will be allowed to move

freely in the U.S. That is one of the key issues even though we have not

adopted the standard per se . We have indicated that, if the product complies

with the CODEX Standard, it can move freely in trade in the U.S. In terms of

pesticides, of course, we have to take specific action to either accept or reject the tolerance. If ours is higher than the international tolerance has

been recommended to be, we also indicate that. If it complies with the

international tolerance, it will not be interfered with in terms of moving

freely within the U.S. It simply means that we need that higher level to

recognize good agricultural practice in the U.S.

97
Experience in the Use of

International Standards

Francis J. Turpin

Executive Director, Technical Harmonization Program

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Department of Transportation

I ntroduct ion : The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

is a modal administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. It

administers three Acts - the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the Motor Vehicle

Information and Cost Savings Act, and the National Traffic and Motor

Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The latter Act provides NHTSA the authority to

develop and issue federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The

standards and regulations cover vehicles "driven or drawn by mechanical

power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and

highways." There are approximately 50 FMVSS and 15 regulations currently

on the books pertaining to passenger cars, buses, trucks, trailers,

campers, and motorcycles.

Background : The first FMVSS were established in 1968 and those standards

as well as many subsequent standards adopted portions of standards

developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI), the American Society for Testing

Material (ASTM) and the International Standards Organization (ISO). Many

FMVSS 's refer to these standards, in particular instances, for test

procedures, symbols, calibration of test devices, etc. To ensure that a FMVSS is not amended by simple amendment of referenced standards, the

agency refers to voluntary standards by the voluntary standard's number and

date Amendments of FMVSS are governed by the Administrative Procedure Act

which established specific procedures, (Notice, Comment Period,

Reconsideration), as well as the agency's procedural orders which have

become part of the regulatory process.

NHTSA also represents the United States at the Economic Commission for

Europe of the United Nations and participates in the deliberations and

negotiations of the Group of Experts on the Construction of Vehicles

(Working Party 29/WP29). WP29 brings together representatives of 28

countries, mainly from Eastern and Western Europe, and includes the

United States and Canada, in a forum aimed at establishing harmonized

standards for motor vehicles that are then adopted by the member countries.

Australia and Japan also participate in the work of WP29 as observers.

NHTSA has been participating in these deliberations for over a decade and

has recently (1981) made the harmonization of FMVSS with ECE regulations a priority program. This program has concentrated on three specific areas;

controls and displays, lighting, and brakes for passenger cars. The

guiding policy is the harmonization of test procedures, certification

requirements and performance standards in an effort to reduce the potential

for non-tariff barriers to trade without compromising the level of safety

currently achieved by the existing standards.

98
NHTSA experience in the use of Internal, ional Standards : At the outset it is important to remind ourselves that the regulatory

process which governs NHTSA' s efforts reguires that the establishment and

or amendment of motor vehicle safety standards be aimed at an identified

safety need, that alternative ways, including non- regulatory ones, for

dealing with the safety problem are considered, and that economic analyses

of the impact of the various alternatives are performed and published.

As these alternatives are developed within a policy framework that leans

heavily toward performance standards rather than design standards and

within a self certification system which is the U.S. system for FMVSS, test

procedures and test devices must be specified to provide objective means

for determining compliance with the standards. It is at this point that

the work of various standards organizations is brought to bear on the

regulatory process. The agency frequently uses test procedures, symbols,

calibration procedures, etc. developed by voluntary standards organizations

or international standards bodies in the elaboration of a FMVSS or amendment thereof. For example, we have adopted some but not all ISO

symbols for various controls and displays on passenger cars and

motorcycles; we have standards for brake fluids, brake hoses and couplings

that were developed by the SAE , amended by NHTSA for incorporation into its

standards, and eventually adopted by ISO as part of its standards. We have

adopted ANSI standards in the glazing area and the motorcycle helmet area;

SAE test procedures are referred to in many crash avoidance standards; SAE

safety belt standards are incorporated in our safety belt standards; and

NHTSA' s specifications for the anthropomorphic test device that is used in

crashworthiness tests are under consideration by ISO.

It is also important to note that the ECE/WP29 frequently requests that ISO

provide documents on test procedures for use in the development of ECE

regulations; and that NHTSA staff are involved in various subcommittees,

working groups etc. of SAE, ANSI and ISO.

Summary Points :

o NHTSA incorporates by reference; test procedures, symbols, calibration

procedures of voluntary standards organizations and international

standards organizations. However, these references are more often

specific parts of a standard as opposed to complete standards.

o NHTSA participates in the ECE which often requests that ISO develop test

procedures for its regulations.

o NHTSA has participated in various subcommittees, working groups of ISO,

SAE, ANSI.

o The various standards applicable to motor vehicles are becoming a composite of governmental regulations and standards developed by

voluntary standards organizations. This is due to the fact that NHTSA

as well as other governmental organizations are inclined to use those

standards that meet their needs rather than spend scarce resources

redoing what is already applicable to the problem.

99
DoD Experience In Use of International Standards

Michael C. Corridore

Director, Defense Materiel Specifications and Standards Office

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense,

Research and Engineering

Department of Defense

Let me first state that I am delighted to be participating in this

important and timely conference on international standards. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Warshaw for inviting me

to participate.

My office is responsible for all aspects of the Defense Materiel

Standardization Program including U.S. participation in NATO materiel

standardization. The NATO policy on standardization is to use existing

standards whenever feasible, very much like the policy expressed in 0MB

Circular A-119. Furthermore, the NATO policy gives preference to

international standards over national standards. Consequently, you can understand why I'm so keenly interested in this topic.

When I reflect on the process of establishing international standards,

I'm reminded of a story which illustrates the fact that there is usually

more than one point of view in establishing international standards. It seems that there were two students at a local university, an American

and a Japanese. They decided to go on a hike to the mountains. While

hiking, they ran into a large grizzly bear. For a moment, they froze

and stood there. Then, the Japanese student reached into his bag and

pulled out a pair of running shoes. He began to take off his hiking

boots to put on his running shoes, when the American student said,

"Don't be stupid, you'll never outrun that bear." To which the Japanese

student answered, "Well, you don't understand the problem. All I have

to do is outrun you.

Before I proceed to discuss how DoD uses international standards, let me take a few moments to describe the environment in which our procurement

system must operate and also note some conditions it must accommodate.

In Fiscal Year 1984, this procurement system handled over 15 million

purchase transactions for more than 150 billion dollars worth of goods.

By public law, we are required to advertise our requirements and award

to the lowest bidder. This necessitates that we describe our needs in

sufficient detail so as to provide any interested firm the opportunity

to bid. In doing so, we strive to state our requirements solely in

terms of performance but for a number of good reasons cannot always

manage to do so and frequently must include some design features.

Additionally, at any given time, this procurement system must be ready

to buy any of the 4.2 million items used by the military. To

100
do so requires an adequate documentation base, i.e., documents which

describe the items in sufficient detail to allow us to buy these items

competitively and which also contain sufficient test and quality

assurance requirements to ensure that we obtain the products that we

need.

Military and federal specifications and standards and some nongovernment

standards, generally, help us to meet our objectives while operating

under the constraints imposed on the procurement process that I mentioned earlier. This, then, would help to explain why DoD is by far

the largest producer of specifications and standards in the free world,

with more than 38,000 active documents. One final point about our standardization documents is that they must serve not only as procurement tools but also as design tools.

In addition to our military specifications and standards, we also have

adopted and use almost 3600 nongovernment standards developed by

technical societies and trade associations. At this point, the question

might be asked, why aren't we using more nongovernment standards? The answer to this question may not be so obvious. But the plain fact is, as pointed out by Bob Toth in his report on "An Assessment of the U.S.

Defense Standardization and Specification Program," that only 20% or about 6400 standards of the 32,000 nongovernment standards are "product

standards appropriate for competitive purchasing." This condition is even more acute in international standards.

Now, what has all of this to do with international standards? Well, in

a way everything since to understand how we use international standards,

one must understand the process of how we use specifications and

standards in general.

Since international standards generally describe test methods or a set

of parameters, such as head styles for bolts or bolt diameters, and not

complete products, it is difficult for us to use such documents directly

as stand-alone documents in either the procurement or design process.

From this, one can surmise that DoD uses international standards to the

extent that they are reflected or referenced in' U.S. national standards

and these, in turn, either used directly by DoD or reflected or referenced in military specifications and standards or the other way

around, i.e., to the extent that adopted U.S. national standards are reflected in international standards.

Additionally, international standards are used to the extent that they

are reflected in NATO Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) and such

agreements in turn are reflected in our military specifications and

standards. On some occasions, international standards are cited or referenced in the military documents and on rare occasions they are adopted and used as stand-alone documents.

101
We in DoD are active in a number of ISO and IEC standards committees and

subcommittees. This participation has led to development of

international standards acceptable to us and which subsequently were

incorporated into military specifications. For example, since the

Defense Industrial Supply Center is the DoD standardization manager and

central buyer of fasteners, they have for a number of years represented

DoD on the aerospace fasteners subcommittee, SC-4, of ISO's TC-20.

Consequently, a number of the military specifications for fasteners

incorporate parameters established in the ISO standards. In the case of

DISC, participation in development of international standards is not

only important but essential. Approximately seven percent of the

700,000 plus items they manage have at least one foreign supplier as a potential source and about 5,000 of these items refer to German DIN

standards.

Another example of our use of international standards is the ISO

standard for containers. We use this standard for both shipping and as

a basis for our tactical shelter program. The Navy's Fleet Hospital and

the Army successor to TV's MASH are both based on the ISO container

-standard.

Earlier, I noted that my office is also responsible for material

standardization and interoperabi lity with our NATO allies. This type of

standardization in a sense also involves a form of international

standards which we call NATO STANAGs for NATO Standardization

Agreements. An example of this is the NATO STANAG for the trailer

coupling hitch which is referred to in all of our specifications and

standards for wheeled vehicles. The result is that we and our allies

can mate up a loaded trailer of supplies and get it to the front lines a lot easier than a fire department from a small town could hook up to its

neighboring towns hydrants and help in an emergency. Standardization

agreements that covered these coupling hitches and pintle hooks are being revised to address the interface with newer vehicles as they enter

the system.

Another example of this type of standardization involves our seafaring

allies who have worked together with us to develop a standard shore-toship electrical connector. This standard connector now permits a ship

of any nation to shut down its plant and go on hotel or station power at

an allies naval base in 30 minutes rather than the eight hours that it

used to take.

One could conclude from my remarks that I favor development of more international product standards. The dreamer in me tells me that it

should be so; the realist in me, however, tells me that it can't be so. The reason for this is twofold:

1. The politics of nationalism and competition makes it difficult

if not impossible for nations to agree on complete product standards;

and,

102
2. The time-consuming process measured in years when developing

international standards. This would result in high-technology product

standards being obsolete before they were even printed.

Therefore, I feel that future international standards should

concentrate, as most of them do today, on parameters, interfaces, and

test methods. I should add that I'm encouraged by the product standards

being developed under the IECQ system and that we're reviewing these

documents to see if we can use them directly in our procurements.

Consequently, after we gain more experience with the IECQ documents, I may change my views on development of international product standards.

On the other hand, I feel that national standards organizations should

develop more product standards especially for consumer and industrial

products. Bob Toth in the report I cited earlier notes that

nongovernment standards could be developed for about twenty thousand of our military specifications. Those of you involved in national

standards work, I solicit your help in bringing this about.

I would like to mention that* together with SAE and ASTM, we plan to hold

a conference on nongovernment standards next fall. One of our objectives in holding this conference will be to get nongovernment

standards groups to produce more product standards which can be used

directly in the procurement process.

This concludes my remarks. Thank you very much for your kind attention.

103
" A Standard Experience "

Mary C. McKiel

Chemist, Office of Procurement

Office of Federal Supply and Services

General Services Administration

It is quite a privilege to be here today representing the Federal

Supply and Services of the General Services Administration, and also

as a member of several of the standards organizations participating

in this conference.

From the beginning, let me address the topic of the panel by stating

that GSA's experience in using non-Government standards spans many

years right up to the present. The aim of this particular presentation

is to give you an idea of why that experience has been so valuable and

will be even more so in our future.

For those of you who may not be familiar with the General Services

Administration, GSA procures many common use items for agencies of the

Federal Government —both military and civilian agencies. Included in

the category of common use items are office supplies, ADP and telecommunications equipment and supplies, textiles, tools, automotive

equipment, and much more. While there are some overlaps and similarities among GSA procurement activities and those of other agencies, it

is fair to say that one difference is that GSA is not its own biggest

customer, which means GSA is in the position of trying to keep everyone

supplied and happy.

GSA, through its Office of Federal Supply and Services, has three major

procurement programs: Federal Supply Schedules, Stock, and Special

Order Programs. Under the Stock Program, for example, FSS procures

and distributes thousands of items. Nearly all of these are procured

competitively. For a competitive procurement, GSA puts together

a solicitation package which, in addition to providing terms and

conditions, includes a technical description of the item desired.

After bids are opened and evaluated, the responsive and responsible

company offering the lowest price is awarded the contract for a given

period of time or for a specified quantity. When "all's well with

the world," the process is a very good one: the contract is solid,

the contractor performs timely, the product is exactly right, and the

taxpayer's pocketbook is safe.

An important element in the success of this process is the technical

document. The document has to be clear and has to adequately describe

the item in order to promote an equitable bidding environment. For

years the cornerstone document of FSS procurement has been the Federal

specification. Generally, these specifications tend to be lengthy,

very exact descriptions of items and the various quality levels of

those items. Saying that specifications tend to be lengthy is not at

all meant to sound pejorative. Certainly there are examples of

104
"overkill," like the 35-page spec on mousetraps. Exceptions like this,

though, are easy to pick out. In truth, just considering those

thousands of stock items. Federal specifications used for their procure

ment ran—and still do run—a pretty good track record. The point here

is that those specifications either contain parts of, or reference,

non-Government , nationally recognized standards.

With certain exceptions, the Government procurement p.rocess mandates

competitive procurement, and, where practical, encourages purchase of

commercial, off-the-shelf and commercial-type products which meet the

minimum needs of the Government and are procured at the lowest cost to

the taxpayer. In the 1970's, the Office of Procurement Policy

reemphasized the focus of procurement toward the commercial market.

By their very nature, many Federal specifications over the years

developed into descriptions of Government-unique items rather than

commercial items. So, FSS began developing commercial item descriptions, CIDs. As defined in the Federal Property Management Regulations

CIDs are simplified specifications which make use of functional or performance terms rather than design requirements. As you might

imagine, in the first throes of enthusiasm, hundreds of these CIDs were written in a relatively short period of time. Many—though

certainly not all —of the CIDs reflected serious effort to simplify,

to the point of going overboard, and this led to procurement of some products that did not meet even minimum requirements. Among CID

writers it became known as the naked CID syndrome. The CIDs were

naked, of course, because there were no salient characteristics or standards to provide framework, or "cover," if you will, for the

functional and performance statements. The situation left competitive

procurement in a vulnerable position.

As a result of the first-round experience using CIDs, FSS realized the

need for including more detail through the use of standards. Enter,

stage-right: ANSI, ASTM, TAPPI, IEEE, UL, and other such friends.

Given the constraints of CIDs vs specs, these standards were more

important than ever. As I said in the beginning, FSS is in a position

to keep everyone happy. By that I mean, FSS procurement must follow

Federal regulations governing procurement and must supply agencies with

the usable, economic items and services they want. The National Tools

Center within FSS, for example, is responsible for about 40,000

national-stock-number items, many of which are procured using CIDs.

The military agencies comprise 90 to 95 percent of the business in this

area. Believe me, it doesn't do FSS or the taxpayer any good to try

to supply these agencies with below-grade tools or tools from companies

that cannot meet delivery schedules and quantities. Good standards are essential

.

Most recently, the Competition in Contracting Act is putting increased

emphasis on open, competitive contracting. In turn, FSS is revising

its own standardization program so that Federal procurement documents,

and CIDs in particular, have the sophistication to adhere to the new

105
directives and to ensure the procurement of acceptable items and

services. In this effort, FSS expects to make even more extensive use

of non-Government , nationally and internationally recognized standards.^

Mr. Donald Gray, the Assistant Administrator of FSS, says it best:

Quality is back into the FSS vocabulary. Quality items

provided in a timely manner and at lowest cost to the

taxpayer is the bottom-line goal of FSS. FSS firmly

believes that participation in the use and development of

non-Government standards is a critical element in achieving

that goal.

106
HUD’S ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT

G . Robert Fuller

Chief, Standards Branch

Manufactured Housing and Construction Standards Division

Office of Housing - Federal Housing Commission

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

In general, the Department has had minor involvement with

International Standards. However, several technical and

policy level staff members have played an active role in

international organizations concerned with standards.

Major activities come under the auspices of the Offices of

Housing, Policy Development and Research, and Community

Planning and Development, with coordinations by the Assistant

to the Secretary for International Affairs. The following is

one major international standards activity which portrays

HUD ' s role:

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE),

Committee on H o using , B uilding and Planning; Working Party on

B uilding Industry

Between 1975 and 1980, HUD was actively involved in Working

Party Activities on ’’Harmonization of Technical Content of

Building Regulations” and, more specifically, on developing a "Unified European Code for Structural Design in Seismic

Regions.” An Ad Hoc Committee met in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in

April 1978 and several Working Party meetings, attended by

U. S. representatives, were held in Geneva from 1975 to 1979.

However, problems evolved with the overall coordination of

international activities. Several Federal agencies and

private industry were involved in the activities of UN-ECE,

but generally there was a lack of continuity of U. S.

representation. In addition, many meetings in Geneva were

attended by non-t echnic al personnel. Finally, because of

lack of overall coordination and budget restrictions, U. S.

participation declined.

Under the "International Harmonization of the Technical

Content of Building Regulations,” several topics of

importance to our technological community needed to be

coordinated:

1 . Building Climatology: The International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) agreed to coordinate the

development of standards on snow and wind loads,

temperature effects, and energy consumption. Since

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is the

107 .
U. S. representative to ISO, I assume that this work has

continued. However, better coordination and reporting

should be maintained so that all Federal agencies are

kept apprised of the status.

2 . Building in Seismic Regions : The European Association

for Earthquake Engineering originally had the lead role

in developig this standard. However, there have been

many developments in the past five years in the U. S.,

Japan, Europe and elsewhere. A U. S. organization should

take the lead in this area to coordinate and monitor all

international activities. Several groups could assume

this role; for example: ANSI, Building Seismic Safety

Council (BSSC), Interagency Committee on Seismic Safety

in Construction (ICSSC), or the Earthquake Engineering

Research Institute (EERI).

3 . Structural Safety and Loads and Use of Structural

Materials : There is an ISO standard (ISO 2394) which was

to have been revised in 1980. The Euro-International

Committee on Concrete (CEB) and the Joint Committee on

Structural Safety (JCSS) were active in developing

standards for the verification of safety of structures.

With the curremt emphasis on "Infrastructure" and safety

of existing facilities, this project should be

reactivated.

4 . Unified International Climate Requirements of Buildings : The U. S. delegation in 1979 pledged its support in this

area because of the emerging problem with indoor air

quality, particularly in regard to U r e a- f or ma 1 d ehy d e foam

insulation and other products. Research in Canada and

the U. S. is being monitored by EPA, CPSC and HUD. If

any other work on this subject is being conducted

internationally, it should be properly coordinated.

5 . Unified Fire Protection Requirements: ISO was very

active in developing fire testing methods, and ANSI has

effectively monitored progress in this area.

It is my opinion that there is a great deal of benefit for

the U. S. to maintain an active role in the UN-ECE

activities. The U. S. is considered by most nations as the

leader in many technological fields, and our research in

standards related areas cannot be matched by most other

countries. Our prestige could be raised by transferring our

technology to other nations. We could also benefit from the

experience of those countries that have dealt with these

problems for a much longer period of time than we have.

Their technical expertise and research can also assist us in

solving some of our problems.

108
These activities demonstrate how coordination and monitoring

of international standards development needs to be improved.

Even though HUD had the lead in providing representation at

the UN-ECE, other U. S. agencies had programs that would be

impacted by any standards developed. The Department of

Commerce, U. S. Trade Representative, and State Department

could have played a major role in coordinating the efforts.

LL S. - Can adian Memorandum of Under s tanding on Solid Fuel

Heaters

Another significant area of cooperative international

standards development has taken place between HUD and the

Canadian Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. A Memorandum of Understanding was established to provide

reciprocal testing, certification and acceptance of solid

fuel burning room heaters and space heaters. The two

countries reached an agreement on the use and application of

standards which would provide for common safety objectives.

The draft Memorandum of Understanding was developed to

satisfy the objectives of the "Agreement on Technical

Barriers to Trade" of the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade (GATT). It was coordinated by the Standards

Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC),

chaired by the Office of the U. S. Trade Representative.

When the MOU is finalized, it will recognize and accept

testing laboratories, a dm i n i s t r a t or / v a 1 i d a t or s , and

certification agencies in each country, to assure compliance

with relevant standards. The overall goal is to establish

uniform standards and procedures for acceptance of solid

fuel-type room heaters and space heaters.

U . S__. - Japan A greement on Na t ural Res ources ( U J N R )

The only other major international activity HUD participates

in (other than bilateral agreements with individual

countries) is under the UJNR umbrella, and a related 1970

"Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Areas of

Building Technology and Urban Affairs." These cooperative

activities are managed on the Japanese side by the Ministry

of Construction (MOC).

Under the UJNR, the U. S. - Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic

Effects, and the U. S. - Japan Cooperative Research Program

offer a means of coordinating research and studies which are

eventually reflected in improved standards and building codes

in each country. Technical information, design and analysis

methodologies, and research results are freely exchanged

between countries.

109
The HUD-MOC Memorandum of Understanding actively promotes the

exchange of experience and knowledge on urban planning,

building and housing technology, housing finance, public

housing, and systems for housing construction. A continuing

problem with international activities such as these is the

lack of a sufficient and well coordinated travel budget to

enable exchanges of technical personnel. Technical

representation by concerned Federal agencies is also not

uniformly maintained.

If we are to fully comply with the intent of OMB Circular

A — 1 1 9 , "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of

Voluntary Standards," including international standards, then

the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy, or an organization such as the National Academy of Sciences or National Institute of Building Sciences, must take an active

role in coordinating and monitoring standards activities.

However, any expanded program for implementation of

international standards would necessitate an examination of

the benefits versus the impact of increased expenditures on the Federal deficit. Many agencies, such as HUD, do not have

the resources to maintain an extensive program on international cooperation.

110
What possible performance standard justification is there for requiring

installation of door beams in large European cars which must be safer for

occupants than Japanese and other mini-cars?

Frank Turpin:

The current standard on the books is SMFMVSS #214 which requires that any car

that is manufactured for sale in the U.S. must meet side door strength

requ irements. Most manuf acturers have chosen to meet these regulations by

installing a side guard door beam. Its a side impact regulation standard

that requires that. It doesn't make any difference where the car is

manufactured. If it is being manufactured for sale in the U.S., it must meet

that standard. Therefore, both the Japanese cars, as well as European cars,

or any other car that is imported into the U.S. , must meet that standard.

Approximately Q% of the standards DoD uses are non-government. What kind of

increase, if any, is projected or desired?

Mike Corridore:

The desire is for us to have non-government standards for all the products

that are available commercially. Non-government standards are the fastest

growing body of documents in the Department of Defense Index of

Specifications and Standards. They are growing at the rate of approximately

300 a year. The military documents, on the other hand, are declining for the

first time since the inception of the program. Last year we had a net

decline in the number of military specifications and standards.

Why buy only on initial cost basis? Why not buy on life cycle costing using

performance standards!

Mary McKiel:

We do have a life cycle costing program. We have three different kinds of

procurement programs at FSS. Life-cycle-costing is something that comes into

consideration, particularly when we're procuring things like appliances.

The Federal aquisition regulations, which govern all procurement, stipulate

that the requirements describe the minimum essential requirements of the

government. Philosophically that sounds good until you start thinking about

life-cycle-costs. If you feel that they should be based on life-cycle-costs,

and we should be looking at best value, then we should describe the essential

characteristics that result in best value to the government. We're trying to

bring that change around in the DOD, and working with the other agencies to

get them in line with that kind of thinking.

Ill
The panel should recognize not only product standards, but also standards for

recommended practices and test methods such as, OPSP use of ANSI Z34, ASTM

E548 and ASTM E994 for Certification and Laboratory Accreditation. Please

explain such uses.

Robert Fuller:

We do utilize all or most of those standards. We use the ANSI standards in a laboratory accreditation program and certification and labeling programs that

we maintain. Documents are issued that we call Use of Materials Bulletins.

They set up certification labeling programs for such things as woodstoves,

carpet, aluminum windows and doors, and so forth. We do follow the

procedures in some of those standards.

Type approval and standards for autos make it difficult to move from country

to country. What progress in harmonization is being realized through the

UNECE requirements?

Frank Turpin:

There are two systems. The European system is commonly known as the type

approval system and is the same kind of system the FAA uses for airworthiness

certification of aircraft. The U.S. system for motor vehicle safety

standards is known as a self certification system. That means that the

manufacturer certifies that the product meets all the motor vehicle safety

standards. The way we deal with the problem is to attempt to harmonize both

test procedures and performance levels. Performance levels tend to be

different for different countries as a reflection of the evolution of their

particular legislation. Thus harmonization of performance levels is a more difficult task. Harmonization of test procedures provides a system that

manuf acturers can use regardless of where the vehicle is built and countries

can still set their own performance levels. If we can achieve harmonization,

at least on the test procedures, it will essentially reduce a great deal of

burden that is associated with exporting our products to the Europeans.

With the restrictions of low-bid and the use of voluntary non-government

standards in your procurement, how do you assure the quality of the products?

In the final analysis, did DOD actually spend more money in many of the

procurements?

Mike Corridore:

In regards to quality assurance, every specification that we prepare or adopt

must have a section on quality assurance and test requirements. The document

not only contains a description of what it is we want to buy, but also how

we're going to test it when we get it to make sure the product conforms to our requirements.

112
The process of buying commercial products is a complicated one because its

difficult to describe, for example, something like ketchup. Its very

difficult to describe what the salient characterise cs of ketchup should be.

If you do it in sufficient detail, Heinz and Hunts are going to tell you to

take a hike. They won't want to sell to us because we would be dictating to

them how to make ketchup. However, if we are not careful, and don't put in

any quality assurance requirements at all, then we are apt to get anything

the "mom and pop" shop makes in their garage. Its a difficult problem and we are trying to balance the equation.

Under the Acquisition and Distribution of Commercial Products Program (ADCOP) we were preparing Commercial Item Descriptions (CIDS) and that appeared to be

a workable solution. It was working quite well in that we were describing

only essential characteristics of products. We kept the documentation down

to a page or two. A CID was coordinated with the affected segment of

industry. ADCOP and CIDS were based on one assumption. We were looking to

the private sector to determine quality. We said that if this product lasts

in the commercial world then it must be of acceptable quality. If it was not

of adequate quality, then the consumers would drive it out of the market

place.

We tried to implement this philosophy and we thought we were doing it quite

well. We required that if you wanted to sell ketchup to DoD, for example,

you had to have a commercial market base established. We didn't want anyone

to sell to the government only. This philosophy was put into practice and

frankly was working quite well from the perspective of cost, quality and

delivery schedule. Then, in the 1983 Defense Appropriations Act, Congress

enacted legislation that prohibited DoD from using funds to discriminate

against any small business suppliers by requiring that they have a commercial

market established.

A basic problem in trying to identify whether it is cheaper to buy products

with a non-government standard or CID, which essentially reflects what is

available commercially, is how do you compare costs. Comparing costs in a year in which we have a cotton surplus, which drives the price of cotton

down, for example, may be unrealistic. There are so many factors and

conditions like this one, however, that it's very difficult to say yes or no. My gut feeling is yes; it does drive the cost down when we do business the

way the commercial market is doing business and, certainly, using a non-government standard or CID is doing business the way the commercial world

does business.

Your description of the Naked CID indicates the commercial ity clause was not

effective?

Mary McKiel

:

I think the commerciality certification clause is being down-played at this

point. There was a requirement, that in order to submit a bid on a product

we were requesting, you had to show commerciality. Another part of the

difficulty with the CIDS has been in describing adequate quality level in the

commercial item. Just because something is on the market doesn't mean that

that's the one that's going to meet the minimum needs of the agency.

113
Paper plates are a good example. I was involved with helping develop the CID on paper plates. The major user of paper plates is the military. You could

argue that a paper plate is just a paper plate; it doesn't make any

difference what kind you buy. Then the military comes to us and says but you

don't understand. This paper plate is used in the field where you've got

some 400 pound Seargent throwing the food from a mile away and if you catch

it, you eat it. So you better have a decent plate and that's a real need. We

had to refine what kind of quality level we needed in that instance. We

didn't have any trouble finding a commercial supply. However, had we not

found a commercial supplier, the need was really the overriding factor at

that point.

Isn't incorporation by reference of standards for regulatory purposes

preferable to keep law current with the right reserved to government to

reject specific standards where necessary? Doesn't this avoid unnecessary

rule-making proceedings?

Frank Turpin:

The law provides for what is called a petitioning process. We are constantly

being petitioned by manufacturers. We average about 50 petitions a year to

revise standards to bring them up to the current level of technology.

With respect to the question of whether it is a good idea to reference

standards or not, yes it is. It is a much better idea to reference standards

when they are applicable to the problem we are dealing with. We may not

always reference the whole standard, but we very often reference test

procedures simply because they have been developed, the industry is

accustomed to them and they are adequate. The referencing of established

practices is probably a better way to do it than to spend money to try and

develop a procedure only to find out later that it already exists.

Robert Fuller:

We agree that incorporation by reference is the proper way to go, but that

doesn't diminish the Federal rule-making-procedure. One of the problems we face is that any time we want to change the reference, we have to go through

rule-making-procedures. We have to publish in the Federal Register any

change in reference standards whether in a minimal property standard or in a manufactured housing construction safety standard. Any change has to go

through the whole gamut of publication, review by 0MB, and public comment. In our case it doesn't diminish any rule-making-procedure.

Please elaborate on your comment that NATO is adopting international

standards. Do these include European regional standards? What implication

does this present for the U.S. in comparison to our European allies where

their products and processes are more in tune with international standards?

114
Mike Corridore:

NATO policy is to adopt existing standards in this order. The policy is that

first preference is given to international standards. Second preference is

to adopt the national standards of a given country when there isn't an international standard, and the third order is for NATO to prepare the

standards.

We're in the process of trying to produce what we call interface standards

within NATO. Its extremely difficult to standardize within NATO on design

features. What we're doing is trying to standardize the interface and

parameters so that the international standards fit.

As your agencies increase their use of international standards, will this

lead to increased use of hard metric in your procurement? How will this

affect your agency and the country?

Mike Corridore:

We think that the NATO policy, of using existing international standards and

giving preference to international standards, will drive the DoD to produce

more systems which are in SI units. I think that we will see an increase in

the use of the SI system because of our commitments in NATO.

Mary McKiel

:

GSA really is in the position of supplying to other agencies what they tell us they need. Certainly in tools, we have no problem procuring metric tools;

they are in very common use in the U.S. right now. One problem area that I can see for GSA is if it ever got to the stock program. The way we're

functioning now is to ensure that our product descriptions do not bar

manufacturers who make their product in the SI system from bidding and

obtaining a contract.

You do get into some tricky areas, I think, when you are comparing

commodities supplied in the SI versus the English system, especially on volume. If your specification or your document calls for the SI system you

have to be aware of handling problems. Transportation costs are also a factor, particularly when you are dealing with carloads. These things are not impossible to determine; I just think that they are tricky areas.

I think in the U.S. certainly metric is going to come. If we do go to the

metric system, I think GSA, as a government agency, just has to make sure

that we are prepared to respond to industry. I don't see us as directing

industry but I see us as responding to what the U.S. and industry is going to

do in this matter.

Since the IEC system for Electrical components is an active and well accepted

international standard/certification system, why doesn't DOD use IEC instead

of mil specs? NATO is recognizing it.

11

5
Mike Corridore:

We do not adopt a system in its entirety because we have to look at specific

individual requirements. For example, we adopt documents that ASTM produces.

We're not going to adopt everything ASTM produces but we will adopt those,

documents that we need. The same philosophy holds for the IEC and the IECQ

documents. We've examined some of these documents and the ones we've

examined did not have sufficient detail to ensure that we got the item that

we want. As some other documents are developed we will review them and adopt

them if they meet our needs. However, they have to meet our needs and

that's an important consideration.

A number of panelists have mentioned the need for more product standards that

are directly usable by government. How do we communicate these needs to the

respective standards bodies?

Mike Corridore:

We are sponsoring a conference to help you understand the process. We want

help from the non-government standards people. You need to understand how

DoD is organized, understand who manages what in standardization, and

understand what our requirements are, and how you identify those

requirements. We do work with a number of non-government standards groups

and have DoD representatives on those groups. One of the jobs of our people

who attend non-government standards meetings is to let you know what DoD

requirements are. Also to assist non-government standards groups how to

interact with DoD, we have issued a publication titled "DoD Interaction With

Non-Government Standards Bodies SD-9." This was distributed to all

non-government standards bodies.

DoD is a very large organization and I don't know what all the requirements

are. We have over a hundred technical organizations involved in this process

of describing requirements. I think that its a process of working with us and asking the DoD people that work on your committees to identify DoD's

requirements.

There is an individual in the audience from the Air Force Logistics Center in

Sacramento. He mentioned that he's got about 30 military specifications that

have been overtaken by technology and asked me, if and how, to update these

documents. My first suggestion was to see if we can get a non-government

standards organization interested in updating these documents. I mentioned

that we have efforts in fiber optics with the Electronic Industries

Association whereby we have made a considered decision not to produce any

military standards. We're going to let EIA produce these. We're going to

work with them and we're going to tell them what our requirements are and

hope that they can incorporate those requirements in EIA standards. We have

another very large project with the ASTM in shipbuilding, where the Navy has

taken all their shipbuilding specifications and turned them over to ASTM to see if ASTM could produce non-government standards. That effort has gone

very well. We also have a number of similar efforts with SAE, with IEEE, and

others. I think the only way to communicate DoD's needs is to be present at

meetings and to talk expert to expert.
Congress established NIBS - What are they supposed to do in standards and how

do you relate? Does NIBS participate in UNECE?

Robert Fuller:

The National Institute of Building Sciences, as far as I know, does not

participate in UNECE. It was established as a coordinating body for all of

the Federal agencies to examine the need for standards or for research in

certain areas. Most of the Federal agencies participate on the various NIBS

committees. They involve the private sector with the Federal Government to

develop research agenda and evaluate problems.

Quality assurance system standards and implementation guides are available as voluntary standards of ANSI C-l and CSA Z 299. Please have speakers explain

how they take advantage of these voluntary standards for quality management

for products and services?

Frank Turpin:

From the standpoint of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we do not look upon our role as controlling or doing quality controlling for the

industry. We let the industry do that themselves. We try to put out

performance standards that permit a high degree of innovation within the

industry in meeting the requirements of these safety standards. We also feel

that getting involved in quality control would be something that is extremely

expensive for the Federal Government. We have a compliance testing program

that buys vehicles off the show-room floor and tests them to the requirements

in the standards. It's essentially a program that's driven by engineering

considerations. If we had to buy vehicles on a random basis to assure ourselves that there was no more than 10 percent noncompliance with the

standards, and have a ninety five percent assurance of that, I suspect we would be talking about a 10 to 12 billion dollar program. I'm sure that

we're not going to get involved in that.

The Europeans have a different outlook because of their type approval system.

They have conformity of production requirements within their standards which

assures the inspecting authority that there is a quality assurance program in

place within the industry. To that extent, there is government involvement

in quality control in Europe.

In the U.S., government involvement in quality control is much more indirect.

If we detect noncompliance with a standard, the industry is asked for

information as to what basis was used for certifying compliance with the

standard. This may quite often involve some quality control considerations

but we are not in the business of telling U.S. industry how to do this

quality control. We leave that up to them.

117
Are there any quality assurance standards incorporated in the CIDS?

Mike Corridore:

No, the CIDS are basically just very short purchase descriptions and we have

decided what really makes a specification lengthy is the quality and testing

requirements. We wanted to rely on the commercial sector so we didn't have

any quality assurance requirements in the CIDS. Because of a congressional

restriction, we have now had to revise our policy so that in the future CIDS

will incorporate a QA requirement.

What is the difference between DoD and Military specifications? Why not all

DoD?

Mike Corridore:

The question pertains to the designation in front of the number on a specification, such as Mi 1 T 4536. Some documents, a very minor portion,

have a DoD instead of a MIL designation. The reason for that policy which

came about 6 or 7 years ago, was to identify those documents that were prepared in the SI system, i.e., that it was a hard metric document as opposed to soft conversion. It was developed to see if we could track and

identify those metric documents. That policy is under scrutiny now and we might decide that we want to revise it so that everything is identified as MIL because we have other means to identify whether it is an SI or English

unit document.

118
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS POLICY

Agency Member Representative

Commerce, Department of (DOC) Dr. Stanley I. Warshaw

Director, Office of Product

Standards Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Agriculture, Department of (DOA) Mr. Eddie F. Kimbrell

Deputy Administrator

Commodity Services

Agricultural Marketing Service

Consumer Affairs, Office of (OCA) Mr. Robert F. Steeves

Deputy Director

U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs

Consumer Product Safety Comm. (CPSC) Mr. Leonard DeFiore

Executive Director

Consumer Product Safety

Commi ssion

Defense, Department of (DOD) Mr. Peter Yurcisin

Director, Standardization and

Acquisition Support

Education, Department of (DOEd.) Mr. Wayne Roberts

Deputy Under Secretary for

Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs

Department of Education

Energy, Department of (DOE) Mr. Dario R. Monti

Acting Director, Office of

Quality Assurance and

Standards

Department of Energy

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mr. C. Ronald Smith

Director, Office of Standards

and Regulations

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Dr. Robert Powers

Chief Scientist

Office of Science and Technology

Federal Communications

Commission

119
Aqenc.y Member Representative

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Mrs. Carol T. Crawford

Director, Bureau of Consumer

Protection

Federal Trade Commission

General Services Administration (GSA) Mr. James DeProspero

Director of Procurement

Office of Federal Supply and

Services

Health and Human Services, Department

of (HHS)

Mr. Phillip B. White

Director, Office of Standards

and Regulations

Food and Drug Administration

Housing and Urban Development,

Department of (HUD)

Mrs. Shirley McVay Wiseman

General Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Housing

Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Interior, Department of (DOI) Mr. James E. Biesecker

Assistant Director for

Information Systems

U.S. Geological Survey

Justice, Department of (DOJ) P. Terry Lubeck

Chief, Intellectual Property

Section

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

Labor, Department of (DOL) Mr. Barry White

Director, Safety Standards

Programs

Occupational Safety and Health

Admi ni strati on

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA)

Dr. Mi lton A. Si 1 veira

Chief Engineer

National Aeronautics and Space

Admi ni stration

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Mr. Robert B. Minogue

Director, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Postal Service, U.S. (USPS) Mr. Franklin J. Thurston

Director, Office of Postal

Technology Research

U.S. Postal Service

120
Agency Member

Small Business Administration (SBA)

State, Department of (STATE)

Trade Representative, U.S. (USTR)

Transportation, Department of (DOT)

Treasury, Department of (TREASURY)

Veterans Administration (VA)

Liaison

Management and Budget, Office of (0MB)

Executive Secretary

National Bureau of Standards (NBS)

Representative

Mr. Charles Cadwell

Director, Interagency Affairs

for the Office of Advocacy

Small Business Administration

Mr. Denis Lamb

Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Trade and Commercial Affairs

Department of State

Mr. W. Douglas Newkirk

Assistant U.S. Trade

Representative for GATT

Affairs

U.S. Trade Representative

Mr. Byron Nupp

Assistant Director

Office of Economics

Department of Transportation

Mr. Thomas P. O'Malley

Director, Office of Procurement

Department of Treasury

Mr. Clyde C. Cook

Director

Office of Procurement and Supply

Veterans Administration

Mr. David Baker

Associate Administrator

Office of Federal Procurement

Policy

Office of Management and Budget

Mr. Donald R. Mackay

Associate Manager

Standards Management Program

Office of Product Standards

Pol icy

National Bureau of Standards

121
'

.

fl
NBS-I14A 'REV. 2 -ac) U.S.5 DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publ ication Date

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 85-3228 AUGUST 1985

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

ICSP CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION

5. AUTHOR(S)

E. A. Vadelund, Editor

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than N BS. see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1 Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi bl iography or literature survey, mention it here)

The Overview of the Conference distills the main themes and points of discussion

during the meeting. It identifies the strictures set forth in the 0MB Circular

A- 11 9 which govern and give guidance to Federal agencies functioning in the

international standards arena either as participants or users.

Three areas of concern to Federal agencies are identified as suitable topics for

the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy to pursue.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries ; alphabetical order; capi la li ze only proper names; and separate key words by ser- . <

- •, Federal; imports; international; purchasing; regulation; standardization; trade

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

DQfl Uni imited

1 | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS 127

] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 15. Price

KXl Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $14.50