Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

These questions do not directly bear upon the subject matter of the legislation proposed. The bill would not give direct support to the domestic standards development process and therefore a requirement to clear new standards with the Justice Department would broaden the intent of the legislation. The best assurance against antitrust objections is for an adequate standards development process which will ensure balanced participation by interested groups. Of course, we would not support an international program by a standards body that had an inadequate process, as provided by Sec. 3(a) of the bill. On this point, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust in connection with the recent legislation on motor vehicle safety standards stated that the antitrust laws do not prohibit standardization activities properly carried out.

THE VOLUNTARY PRODUCT STANDARDS PROGRAM OF THE NBS

Mr. John Ritchie of the American Plywood Association expressed concern that the legislation could give authority to eliminate the voluntary product standards program of the National Bureau of Standards in favor of programs carried out by private standards organizations. We do not believe that the legislation would either add to or take away from the Secretary any authority with respect to the voluntary product standards program. It is not our intention in this legislation to impair the existing voluntary product standards program. We have strengthened that program considerably as a result of the recommendations of the Panel on Engineering and Commodity Standards.

As the former chairman of that Panel testified before your Committee, the Panel recommended that the program be continued and strengthened. As the bill is not intended to support domestic private standards development activities, we do not see the need for a statutory savings clause. However, if the Committee thinks it is necessary or desirable to insert a savings clause, we would not object to language indicating that nothing in the legislation shall be deemed to impair the voluntary products standards program.

MISCELLANEOUS TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

Suggestions were made for technical amendments to clarify the meaning of certain words in the bill, such as the use of the terms "commercial" and "product" as limitations to the types of standards to be supported. It was also suggested that the information coordination function and the price setting function for government sales of its standards should be clarified. We have no objection to clarifying the language to avoid ambiguities and would be happy to work with staff counsel in arriving at satisfactory technical language.

Another proposed revision pertains to line 18 of Sec. 2(a) of the bill. The suggestion was made that the bill should indicate a preference for participation in the recognized international standards bodies such as the Organization for International Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and the Pan American Standards Commission (COPANT). We do not think it is desirable to name specific organizations in the bill since there may be other international groups in which the United States should participate. We would have no objection to a statement in the Committee's report that participation in international standards work under the legislation most likely would be through these organizations.

It was also suggested that subsections 3(a) and 3(b) may be duplicative. The basic distinction between the two is that subsection (a) authorizes the issuance of grants or contracts to qualified private, nonprofit standards organizations or bodies while subsection (b) permits contracts to firms or organizations which may or may not meet the criteria for grants. We think that this difference justifies retaining the two subsections substantially in their present form. The intent might be clarified, however, by deleting the term "enter into contracts or other arrangements" from Sec. 3(a). That authority would be retained in Sec. 3(b).

The foregoing views cover the main points and questions brought out in the recent hearings. We hope you will call on us for any other assistance or information you may need.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of these views from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely yours,

69-452-66

7

ROBERT E. GILES.

Mr. VIVIAN. I would like to ask the same question of our previous witness.

Dr. LAQUE. I would be inclined to modify Mr. Marshall's answer to that question with respect to the clearinghouse. It is my impression that the scope of the commerce clearinghouse goes well beyond the particular activity dealt with here; that is, the acting as a clearinghouse of standards and such like things. I think there are many other functions of the clearinghouse originating within Government agencies that still need to be undertaken. I think he confined his answer to this aspect.

Mr. MARSHALL. That is exactly right.

Mr. VIVIAN. I think the question was: What split would there be between the two functions, the USASI clearinghouse and the Government clearinghouse, what would be the guidelines as to who does what. Dr. LAQUE. I would give as guidelines only the international standards.

Mr. VIVIAN. That sounds like a pretty comprehensive title.

Dr. LAQUE. It is.

Mr. VIVIAN. I have no objection to the Department of Commerce having a clearinghouse. What are those particular items you feel that the Department of Commerce should handle? I wonder if the Plywood Association people would care to make a further comment. Mr. RITCHIE. Mr. Chairman, I think we said that our concern was that such a clearinghouse could have an influence on standards both nationally and internationally beyond what we would like to see happen in an independent agency. We would prefer a Government operation and feel it would be more efficiently handled, more consistently removed from any influences which industry can bring to bear on a private organization. Whether or not you are concerned that there are big companies in control or not, you are always concerned that your interest perhaps may not be best served by a private organization made up of any number of competitors of one sort.

Mr. VIVIAN. I would appreciate having the question raised with the Department of Commerce as to what relative fraction of the work could be conducted by a nongovernmental clearinghouse and by a governmental clearinghouse. I would also like to hear from Congressman Dingell of the Small Business Committee.

(Information requested is as follows:)

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington D.C., September 30, 1966.

Hon. J. EDWARD ROUSH,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Standards, Committee on Science and Astro-
nautics, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The very able counsel for your Subcommittee was good enough to inform me of the request made by our colleague, Congressman Vivian, for my views concerning the standards clearinghouse function proposed in H.R. 17424. As I understand the precise question with which Congressman Vivian is concerned is the extent to which clearinghouse functions should be performed in the alternative by either the Department of Commerce or by some one or more organizations within the private sector.

It is my impression that there is a consensus between those on both sides of this question that at least some of the clearinghouse function must of necessity be performed by the Department of Commerce. This being the case, it seems

to me unnecessary to attempt the virtually impossible task of attempting to anticipate what the various functions of the clearinghouse would be and to attempt to assign them to public agencies or the private sector. Rather, orderly administration would dictate that if at least some of the functions must be performed by the Department of Commerce, then it would be far simpler to have the entire function performed by that agency. This would also serve the purpose of allaying any fears that might exist as to possible misuse for competitive advantage that could conceivably exist were the clearinghouse to be maintained by an organization financed primarily by the large producers of various commodities.

There are, additionally, a number of reasons which would make the operation far more economic if performed by the Department of Commerce. It is my understanding that the clearinghouse would be operated under a federal grant program if assigned to the private sector. Quite obviously the many offices presently maintained by the Department of Commerce throughout the country could be used for distribution of the many records necessary, thereby making the material more readily available to those located at some distance from the Capital.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL, Chairman, Subcommittee on Regulatory and Enforcement Agencies. Mr. MARSHALL. I think it would be undesirable to have two clearinghouses doing the same thing. There is too much to be done in this country. I think there is a safeguard in this bill, if it is not satisfactorily done privately, the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to change the manner in which he decides that it should be done. Mr. VIVIAN. I have no preconceived notions of what this should be. Mr. ROUSH. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

The committee stands adjourned subject to call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee stood adjourned.)

APPENDIX 1

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. GEORGE P. MILLER,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., September 23, 1966.

Chairman, Committee on Science and Astronautics,
House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This statement in behalf of the Department of State is submitted at the request of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics for inclusion in the record in connection with Committee hearings on H.R. 17424. The Department favors the bill, the purpose of which is "to promote and support representation of United States interests in voluntary international commercial standards activities, to establish a clearinghouse for commercial and procurement standards, and for other purposes".

The bill would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to issue grants to qualified private non-profit organizations to enable them to participate more actively and effectively than they can now in the promotion and development of voluntary international standards in association with foreign standards-making bodies. It would also authorize the Secretary of Commerce to enter into contracts or cooperative arrangements deemed necessary to establish and maintain a clearinghouse service for the collection and dissemination of engineering or product standards and Federal, State, and local procurement standards. Even though the Secretary now has general statutory authority to promote and develop the foreign commerce of the United States, specific legislation would establish clearly his responsibilities in an area which traditionally has not been supported by government in this way.

The bill is designed to meet a need recognized by responsible business and industrial leaders in advisory reports to the Government. The Report of the Committee on Business and Industry of the White House Conference on International Cooperation (November 20-December 1, 1965) and the Report of the Panel of Engineering and Commodity Standards of the Commerce Technical Advisory Board (February 2, 1965) both commented that United States participation in international standardization work, while active in some technical areas, is inadequate or altogether lacking in others of present and potential importance to our international trade. The Report of the Committee on Business and Industry noted that differences among national standards and between national and international standards may be, and have sometimes proved to be, barriers to international trade.

The United States should make a more vigorous effort than it has heretofore made with respect to influencing the development of common voluntary standards in directions favorable to the growth of American exports and to the general facilitation of international trade. One development pointing to this need is the rapid growth of common markets and free trade areas in Europe and elsewhere. Another is the increasing weight given to the recommendations of standards organizations, particularly the International Organization for Standardization to which the most representative national standardization bodies of 50 countries are parties, and the International Electrotechnical Commission in which 38 countries participate, each through a national committee. The United States interests are represented in both organizations and in the Pan American Standards Commission by the United States of America Standards Institute (USASI). Expression of the American point of view in these groups is limited by the resources of the USASI. An additional factor is the unique opportunity in Latin America, where the standards movement is at an initial stage of development, for the United States to lend its support to the formulation of standards. Last,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »