interests, each usually committed to a particular set of engineering practices. Thus, the strength with which an advocate argues is often affected by the relative technological strength of the industry in his country, trade balances and other economic factors, political matters, national pride and prestige, and questions of national security. And as we have seen in the electrical case, it must not be assumed that the adoption of a single system of units of measurement will automatically bring about agreement in all areas of standardization. The electrical example shows, in fact, how harmonization of standards can fail in the absence of timely international collaboration, even though a common measurement language may have existed throughout the span of technological development.

The whole purpose of harmonization is to arrive at compatible or identical standards and to describe them in whatever language is necessary. The above examples demonstrate that the existence of a common language of measurement is not enough to assure harmonization. Moreover, it should be noted that the continued existence of harmonizing bodies is evidence that harmonization can be and is achieved in spite of measurement language differences.

UTILIZATION OF STANDARDS

In the absence of some means to insure the application and use of a standard, its mere existence is of little value. Clearly, the U.S. voluntary system and the emerging worldwide voluntary system provide no legal sanctions or penalties, except in those designated cases involving health and safety.

The ultimate basis for adoption and use of standards is product survival in the market place, domestic or international. A superior product at comparable price or an equivalent product at a lower price gets wide acceptance. Wide sale of a product gives the components or materials of which it is made a wider share of the market and automatically brings their existing standards into wide use. In fact, through such circumstances, the standards for the components become de facto national or even international standards.

Many U.S. products enjoyed this kind of strong position in world markets for some time. As a consequence, there resulted in some circles an arrogant or at least unwise point of view, reflected in such statements as "Why should I worry about international standards? My product is clearly superior, and if they want it, they can accept my domestic standards." In such a situation the good product drives the poorer from a free market. Hardware for oil exploration and drilling and automobile wheel rim sizes are cases in point. The inch-based U.S. national standards in these two cases have become accepted worldwide, even though most countries use metric language to describe them.

However, where products built to different standards are truly competitive (i.e., one is not clearly superior to the other or market controls do not work against one to the advantage of the other), other mechanisms come into play. In the case of dimensional standards, mismating in the assembly process makes non-standardization obviously disadvantageous and market rejection automatic. And as has already been noted, government interven

tion can impose restrictions or assure compliance in cases relating to health and safety.

In the case of standards of quality or performance (i.e., non-dimensional standards) the lack of compliance is usually not so obvious. Some form of testing or standardized evaluation of quality control procedure is required, usually on a sampling basis. For the more sophisticated technological products of today, product evaluation or quality control is expensive. Any means whereby the testing procedures and costs can be reduced contributes to the competitive advantage of the product. One obvious means to reduce testing is to certify the products found to meet standards so they need not be tested again. In the United States, the Underwriter Laboratory seal of approval is such a certification for certain products. In the absence of such a seal of approval, imagine the costs if every store or distributor or consumer had to check appliances and other products to see if they met standards.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ISSUE DIFFERENT
FROM ISSUE OF METRICATION

The Metric Study, by virtue of the relation between metrication and standardization, must and does become involved with the larger problem (including non-metrication aspects) of standards development, harmonization and utilization in trade. 10 Important as this standards problem is, however, it fails to include other important issues that must be considered in making any decision with respect to metrication.11

The two problems intertwine because they have aspects in common and are thereby coupled. Figure 3 indicates the relationship, although not necessarily the actual extent of overlap.

Issues and problems of quality assurance and certification against a set of international standards and their relation to U.S. industry, consumers, and economic development are clearly outside the scope of the Metric Study.

Yet the development of a workable set of international standards that will cause minimal inconvenience to our technology and practices and provide a proper basis for world markets does depend to a degree upon our measurement usage and falls clearly within the scope of the Study. Fortunately, however, the coupling is loose enough so that the issues and problems associated with standards development and enforcement need not await resolution of the central issues of the Metric Study.

METRICATION ISSUE OPEN

The facts, events, and trends highlighted in this report are not sufficient to settle the issue of metrication in the United States. They do show, however, that metrication would tend to make standards harmonization less difficult and expensive, and they also show that it would be illusory to expect metrication alone to lead directly to harmonized standards. Our technological standards and practices, whether metric or English-based, can be

"See appendix 4. 10 See appendix 4. 11 See appendix 3.

fostered and promoted only by adequate representation and participation in the organizations which set them and enforce them. We thus reach the following conclusions:

Conclusion 1: The international standards issue lends some support to a metric conversion in the United States, but other important issues must also be considered and weighed before an overall judgment can be made.

Conclusion 2: The Metric Study cannot and should not be expected to provide answers for the non-metric issues raised by the events and trends described in this report.

CRITICAL DECADE AHEAD

From the U.S. point of view, the next decade will be the critical one in the international standards development process. Almost all (90%) of the international standards needed for a technological world economy remain to be established. The ISO and IEC, in spite of their past cumbersome and, to some degree, inefficient ways, have demonstrated a remarkable increase in output in the last 15 years-about a 2-1/2 to 3-fold increase every five years. Continuation of this pattern of accelerated output should give a reasonably sufficient repertoire of standards in another ten years. This leads to a third conclusion:

Conclusion 3: If the U.S. wishes to see the maximum amount of its engineering practices and standards included in the coming international standards, it must, without delay, take steps for adequate and effective participation in international standards negotiations.

Two points about this third conclusion require emphasis:

a. The question of the extent to which participation in interna-
tional standardization is in the best interest of the United
States must be decided on the basis of considerations that are
beyond the scope of the U.S. Metric Study.

b. This decision need not (and should not) await the outcome of
the Metric Study.

STANDARDS COMPATIBILITY WOULD FACILITATE METRICATION

As has been stressed throughout this report, the most difficult and costly aspect of metrication has to do with changes in the physical embodiment of things and other features determined by engineering standards. Consequently, if the need for such changes is reduced, the cost of metrication would be lessened, too. One way to reduce the need for such changes is to make U.S. engineering standards more compatible with international recommendations. It follows that since increased and more effective U.S. participation in international standards-making activities would tend to reduce the degree of incompatibility between our standards and those that are internationally recommended, the costs of metrication in the U.S. — should this course be followed here - would be reduced. A fourth conclusion may therefore be stated:

Conclusion 4: If the United States increases and makes more effective its participation in international standards-making activities, then the degree of incompatibility between U.S. domestic standards and international recommendations would be reduced, and a U.S. metrication program would be facilitated, should we take this

course.

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

The balance of payments includes importantly, but is not limited to, the export-import trade balance. An unfavorable export-import trade balance of $1 billion for a year or more is at the present time considered serious enough to invoke corrective actions (e.g., tourist restrictions).

Yet, as we have noted, U.S. exports estimated to be measurement-standards sensitive account annually for a $7 billion net balance against similar imports. A fifth conclusion therefore appears warranted.

Conclusion 5: Relatively modest changes in the import-export pattern of measurement sensitive goods can have a serious impact on the U.S. balance of payments. Hence, the relation between standards, standards utilization and trade should be the subject of careful study to develop the policy basis for U.S. participation in international standards development and utilization.

This must be done promptly to take advantage of the critical decade we are now entering. The International Trade Survey now being conducted

as a part of the Metric Study should give some important information on the subject.

PRODUCT CERTIFICATION

Perhaps the most important aspect of engineering standards is the way the participating nations make use of them. Ideally, complete harmonization of all national standards into a working set of international standards could pave the way for a free and competitive world market, provided the participating nations strive for such a market. International standards provide a means for fostering or hindering trade; in the latter case, as a non-tariff trade barrier. Product certification, coupled with international standards development, may be used to open or shut markets. The Tripartite Agreement and associated events indicate that the nations involved are well aware of the possible advantages of the standards-certification scheme and are moving to utilize it.

To be effective, the product certification provided by the authorized institution in each nation, must be based upon a common set of standards. The international standards produced by the ISO and the IEC form a most obvious beginning and are the basis of the present product certification agreement. But they are not essential. Any set agreed upon can be used. Whether U.S. practice and standards will be compatible with the international standards will depend upon the extent and success of U.S. participation in the negotiations, if it elects to expend the additional effort.

The required certification of compliance with the applicable standards is the crucial issue for the United States. The rules of the Tripartite Agreement require each nation to have an authorized institution for the certification procedures. Moreover, the institution must speak for its own government, and be acceptable to the other nations. The central benefit of membership in this scheme is that full faith and credit is given by member countries to the certification of any member. A certification in one is good for all. It is not yet certain that the U.S. will be accepted for membership even if it meets the requirements, which at present it is not undertaking to accomplish.

On the other hand, products of non-member countries are placed at competitive disadvantage because they must be tested and certified before entry into the market is permitted. As a beginning, the Tripartite Agreement is being tried on electronic components with IEC standards. If, however, there are indications of success in the electronic area, some twenty other product classes are under consideration for similar treatment using ISO standards. This certification scheme leaves the United States with two choices if it wishes to continue exporting subject products to certification countries:

(1) To enter into and fulfill the requirements of the certification agreement, or

(2) To make products clearly superior to the certification standards (as judged by the customers and the acceptance officials) and to insure that the export products do, in fact, meet the superior standards.

If the U.S. makes choice (1) but does not participate actively in the standards development process in IEC or ISO, it will be faced with metric