Canada, through CSA, has enforced standards for many years. It is crystal clear that our country cannot possibly afford to stand alone in the commercial world. We must take positive action.

However, we have an entirely different situation in this country, when compared, for example, Japan.

We already have a number of standards agencies in operation, headed by ANSI.

We have an established network which can accomplish our desired goals.

UL, for example, has a labeling and followup service which literally forces their customers to conform to the UL standards.

Their only real problem is that manufacturers can ignore them— although in many areas, the manufacturers must obtain UL listing of their products, or they can't be sold.

Also, their standards are voluntarily prepared and adopted by the manufacturers of a given product.

Similar systems are used by other standards organizations.

Other than forced compliance, the chief flaw to our present system is the fact that the selfish interests of the voluntary participants can, and often do cause delays, and final formulations of inadequate standards.

We know, from our own experience, that the manufacture of known hazardous products usually continues for months, and often years, before the manufacturers can come to an agreement on a revision of the controlling standard. In the meantime, the consumer suffers.

For example, a problem involving safety of gas water heaters was presented to the AGA (American Gas Association) laboratories over 2 years ago, and no corrective action has been taken. In fact, the latest target date was set at 3 years hence, making a total of 5 years before a decision will be made. Actual implementation will take another year, or more. In the meantime, the homeowners are subjected to unnecessarily hazardous water heaters.

We could, of course, illustrate numerous similar examples.
This is where the Federal Government should step in.

If we had a permanent commission, such as the recently expired National Commission on Product Safety, who could have the authority to requrie development of new standards, and force prompt changes in existing standards, our present system, as directed and administered by ANSI, could provide us with the coordination and protection we need.

This commission could delegate responsibility to ANSI who would actually administer the standardization program.

Organizations such as UL, with their followup system, could enforce compliance.

This commission could sit in judgment in case of disputes, and have the authority to direct a change or changes in existing standards, or direct the proper organization to develop a new standard.

This commission could also delineate the responsibilities of the various organizations to eliminate gaps, duplication, and overlapping. Under the present practices, the manufacturers carry the entire burden of developing standards. We don't believe that this is fair.

Since most standards are developed for the protection and welfare of the consumer, it seems logical that the consumer, through the Federal

Government, should be expected to pay a substantial portion of the costs of developing such standards.

It must be recognized that almost any product which is sold on the market can be criticized by someone.

It must also be recognized that almost any product, no matter how carefully it is designed and manufactured and inspected, can be misused or can malfunction. These misuses or malfunctions can, and have caused disastrous results such as fires, injuries, and deaths.

There is no way that an automobile can be made so safe that the driver cannot destroy himself, nor can we make a stove which will cook and not burn a child's fingers.

We must be careful when we prepare our legislation so that we do not place unfair responsibilities on the manufacturer.

It would seem that the proper approach to resolving this situation would be to set up a system where standards are provided and compliance with such standards are mandatory. Beyond this, we do not feel that the manufacturer should be held responsible except in such cases where intentional deviation from the standards, criminal fraud, and so forth, are involved.

In cases where experience has indicated that the standards were inadequate, it should be the responsibility of the National Commission to promptly implement the necessary changes in the standards. The fact that the standards were inadequate should not be reason for punishing the manufacturer.

It appears that the proposed legislation goes entirely too far in placing responsibility on the manufacturer for the damages that his products might cause when he may have had no way of anticipating such hazards. This is like punishing a man for violating a nonexistent law, or a law that was prepared after he committed the violation.

Nevertheless, the emphasis must remain on protection of the unsuspecting consumer. It is important that when it is found that an existing or proposed product is potentially hazardous to the consumer, we have a system established to take immediate action to correct the problem, regardless of who is at fault, the manufacturer or an inadequate standard.

Although we most certainly must take action to correct our present situation, we cannot do this at the expense of totally destroying our present economic system.

We must first create a commission who can direct the preparation of new standards and modifications of existing standards, and at the same time, set up a system which will force compliance and provide a followup service.

As stated above, this can be accomplished within our existing network of agencies in a minimum amount of time.

This cannot be accomplished with the proposed legislation, since the proposed legislation would be too unwieldly, too costly, and take too long to implement.

In the meantime, until some concrete system is established, we will continue to suffer both from a safety standpoint, and in the world markets because of our inability to effectively participate in the international standardization program.

We cannot afford to delay. Two years may be too late. Five years will be too late.

66-631-71-pt. 1- -15

As of this moment, we still undoubtedly have more influence in the world market than any other single country.

Now is the time for us to not only set our own house in order, but also to use our influence abroad to develop worldwide common standards.

It won't be a one-way street, either.

For example, if we wish to survive in the world market place, we must adopt the metric system. This will be very costly and will require Government assistance; without it, too many companies would be forced into bankruptcy.

As a manufacturer with exports exceeding domestic sales, we are experiencing difficulty in selling to some countries whose standards conflict with the ours. Common international standards would certainly reduce these problems.

I recommend that the proposed bills be rewritten to follow the basic format set out above.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. We hope that we have made a contribution and will be happy to answer any questions you may have, or supply you with additional information if

wish.

you

Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Merrill. I think you make a very good point. You argue for standardization on a much broader base than just for safety purposes, and our bill, of course, is oriented into the safety field, in providing safe products to our consumers. But I recognize what you say about the competition factor with other countries and with exports, and the need for standardization to be able to compete with them. And I do believe that your request is valid, and that there is urgency that we move on it.

I will see that we get the word on to the appropriate subcommittee of this full committee and see if we cannot get some action, soon. Thank you.

Mr. MERRILL. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Senator Moss. We will now recess until tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. (Whereupon, at 2:07 p.m., the hearing was recessed to resume at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, July 22, 1971.)

(The following information was subsequently received for the record):

Subjects: S. 983, S. 1797, and S. 1685.

Hon. FRANK E. Moss,

The Senate,

Washington, D.C.

MICRO DEVICES CORP., Dayton, Ohio, July 28, 1971.

DEAR SIR: Since testifying before your committee last week, and after reading an account of it in one of our local newspapers, I have become concerned that my presentation may have been mis-interpreted.

This concern becomes greater, since I seem to have been one of a few, and perhaps the only person called upon by your committee who did not represent a consumer protection or standardization organization of some type.

In order to dispel any misunderstanding, I wish to state emphatically that: I am in favor of legislation which will provide means for preparing and enforcing standards which will improve product safety and promote cooperation in developing international standards.

Such legislation is most urgent and long overdue.

The recently expired National Commission on Product Safety, which was so ably administered by Mr. Arnold Elkind, was a big step in the right direction. In

fact, about all that they needed was permanence and provisions for enforcing their decisions.

My concern about the proposed legislation is that it will take too long to implement, and will result in unnecessarily excessive costs and duplication of effort. Actually, the problem has been over-emphasized.

We have a sufficient number of agencies and testing laboratories fully capable of adequate standards, and enforcing compliance through listing and follow-up services.

What we need, and could provide very quickly, is a clearing house, a commission, who would have the authority to overrule the selfish interests of those who impede the formulation of adequate standards, and the muscle to enforce them. This capability could, and should be developed and in operation in a few months.

This permanent revolving commission could receive suggestions for standards and/or modifications from all sources, and after evaluation, simply direct the appropriate agency, through ANSI, to produce or modify the applicable standards, and set deadlines.

Thank you for the opportunity of offering these additional comments.

Very truly yours,

P. EDWARD MERRILL, President.