Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

based standards that must be met. However, if it does participate fully in the development of ISO and IEC standards, it can achieve at least some compromises that are favorable to the U.S.

If it makes choice (2), it can unilaterally use its own national standards based upon any convenient measurement system. But this requires maintenance of superior technology, superior products for international trade, and some means to see that inferior products are not allowed to be exported to certification countries. Meeting the first condition would be difficult enough, for the U.S. is no longer unchallenged in the technological arena- the easy front runner that it was, for example, in the case of transistors and integrated circuits. Only in a fraction of cases can choice (2) be expected to function.

Thus, there emerges an answer to a stated requirement of the Metric Study Act to "study" the feasibility of retaining and promoting by international use dimensional and other engineering standards based upon the customary measurement units of the U.S. The feasibility of such action turns essentially upon negotiations to harmonize U.S. standards with those of other nations. The international use of standards based upon U.S. customary units will stand or fall upon (a) the success of negotiations, (b) clear product superiority, and (c) some basis for insuring that our exports can be accepted as conforming to clearly stated standards without the costly burden of additional testing.

Additional conclusions can now be stated:

Conclusion 6: SI usage in international standards as a language does not of itself pose any serious complications to the U.S.

Conclusion 7: Product certification emerges as a primary consideration in the utilization of standards.

Conclusion 8: Some product certification scheme for exports will probably be required to maintain a competitive position if European plans are successful. It can be either a plan compatible with those now developing in Europe or a distinctively U.S. approach, conceived to provide adequate assurance that U.S. export products meet a set of explicitly stated standards.

Conclusion 9: If the U.S. elects to certify products in terms of IEC-ISO standards, it must recognize that the critical decade of standards development is here and take the necessary steps for participation.

INDUSTRIAL STRATEGIES

If it should emerge that the international standards situation places classes of U.S. products at a disadvantage in foreign markets, U.S. firms can be expected to develop counter-strategies. In fact, some firms are already doing this.

The electronic components industry illustrates three points of view that depend upon the nature of the company.12 The point of view of the U.S.

12 Based upon an analysis by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Product Standards.

based manufacturer who exports his products to Western Europe is that the certification scheme (under the Tripartite Agreement) will adversely affect his business. The view of the U.S. manufacturer with a subsidiary in Western Europe (with partial manufacturing facilities) is that he is concerned, but his remedy is to move the balance of his manufacturing to Western Europe. The point of view of the U.S. subsidiary having an integrated manufacturing facility in Western Europe is that he is for the certification scheme and sees that it will cut his costs of doing business.

This divergence in viewpoint, if found to be characteristic of U.S. industry generally, may well emerge as a roadblock to full U.S. participation in international standards development and a threat to the long standing free trade policy of the U.S. Government.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The specific conclusions reached in the preceding analysis lead to one general conclusion: The environment in which the Metric Study is enmeshed has not been static; rather, it has been changing as a result of the events and trends that have been identified in this interim report. These have presented an international standards problem that is broader than the issue of metrication. It is a problem that needs attention now, at the opening of a critical decade for the development of international standards.

Possible courses of action with respect to this problem include:

(1) Increased participation by the United States in the development of international standards.

(2) U.S. adherence to an international agreement requiring product certification procedures.

(3) A unilateral plan of standards and product certification by the United States that is compatible with emerging international schemes and aimed at keeping a good competitive position for the United States in international trade.

Action is needed to develop a U.S. policy and strategies to implement it, and such action should not await the outcome of the Metric Study. Accordingly, the following recommendations are made:

1. The Department of Commerce should take appropriate steps to determine whether the economic impact of agreements such as the Tripartite Agreement can be expected to affect the U.S. balance of payments significantly or otherwise work against the best interests of the United States.

2. The Department of Commerce should devise, in concert with other interested Federal agencies and responsible standardizing institutions, a

firm U.S. policy about 'participation in international standards activities, including what role the Government should play and provisions for furthering the public interest as well as the competitive position of U.S. Industry in world trade.

3. If such a policy dictates increased participation, appropriate steps should be taken to see that such participation is sufficient to meet the rapidly increasing international standardization activities that have been predicted for this decade.

4. The Department of Commerce should, in concert with other interested Federal agencies, initiate action to determine whether or not the United States should participate in international product certification agreements. If adherence to such agreements is deemed desirable, an appropriate mechanism for certification within the U.S. should be developed. If adherence is not believed warranted, the U.S. should ensure that an appropriate alternative strategy is devised and followed.

5. Finally, the action indicated above should be taken without awaiting the outcome of the U.S. Metric Study, but drawing upon it for relevant information.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »