Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 169
--> Appendix A New Developments in International Standards and Global Trade: A Conference Summary John S. Wilson, John M. Godfrey, Holly Grell-Lawe On March 30, 1994, the International Standards, Conformity Assessment, and U.S. Trade Policy Project and the Academy Industry Program of the National Research Council convened a conference to explore new developments in international standards and global trade. Conference participants included leaders from industry, government, academia, and private-sector organizations. Participants discussed standards as technical barriers to trade and the economic benefits of international trade in the post-Uruguay Round trade environment; national standards and conformity assessment systems in overseas markets; the U.S. government role in standards and conformity assessment; and standardization in the information technology and telecommunication industries. This appendix summarizes the conference presentations and discussions, highlighting key points and issues raised by the participants. It does not represent a consensus opinion of the panels or participants, nor does it contain policy recommendations. The Post-Uruguay Round Trade Outlook: Economic Benefits Of International Trade From a government perspective, trade is a tool of domestic policy. Since John S. Wilson is Project Director/Senior Staff Officer, National Academy of Sciences. John M. Godfrey is Research Associate, National Academy of Sciences. Holly Grell-Lawe is Senior Research Associate, Center for International Standards and Quality, Georgia Institute of Technology. Special thanks to Patrick Sevcik, Project Assistant, National Academy of Sciences, for assistance in the coordination of the conference and preparation of this report.
OCR for page 170
--> conclusion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), policies to reduce barriers to trade and expand the total volume of trade are among the principal tools available to enhance the long-term U.S. economic growth rate. A senior U.S. government trade official noted the desire of Congress and the public for empirical evidence that trade liberalization agreements enhance long-term growth prospects and prosperity, and reported some empirical findings, which are outlined below: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) examined the wage levels of U.S. export workers in 1990, building on work done by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC), which had calculated that 7.2 million jobs are supported by U.S. merchandise exports. Matching the DoC data with average wages per industry, USTR found that U.S. workers in export-related sectors earn 17 percent more than the U.S. national average wage. The USTR also reviewed economic research on the wage levels of workers in import-competing sectors. One study found that U.S. workers in import-competing sectors earned 16 percent less than the U.S. national average wage. The general conclusion reached by many studies is that policies lowering barriers and expanding market-driven trade will gradually shift the growth of job opportunities from lower-paying jobs toward higher-paying jobs. In connection with the Uruguay Round, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis explored both dynamic (growth) effects and static efficiency effects from a one-third cut in global barriers to trade, a primary goal of the Uruguay Round negotiations. It was found that for the United States at the end of 10 years there would be a growth enhancement of about 3 percentage points of Gross Domestic Product. The U.S. trade official noted that few policy levers can add an annual three-tenths of a percentage point to the country's long-term growth rate. Developing nations around the world are moving toward more market-oriented policies, both internally and in their trade policies. In doing so, they have the potential for real economic growth rates far exceeding anything achievable in the United States, the European Union (EU), or Japan. Most of these countries have very broad needs—from telecommunications systems to road-building equipment to hospital equipment. This presents a tremendous opportunity for U.S. exporters. Standardization is one of many areas that must be addressed to enhance the U.S. ability to take advantage of these opportunities. Standards can facilitate U.S. exports. Standards, however, may also pose barriers to trade. The United States needs to decide how to deal with standards issues more fully with developed country trading partners. The United States also has an interest in ensuring that as developing countries are more integrated into the global trading system, they adopt open standards models in which government's ability to interfere and
OCR for page 171
--> distort trade flows and reduce growth is limited and can be addressed through negotiation where it does exist. The Post-Uruguay Round Trade Outlook: Standards And Technical Barriers To Trade Significant changes in the global trading system have occurred over the past decade. The Uruguay Round of the GATT has been concluded, lowering tariff barriers to international trade in many industry sectors. Non-tariff barriers to trade, such as standards, however, have become a growing source of international friction. Standards have been identified by U.S. industry as a problem area in trade relations, which means standards have become increasingly important to the USTR. Standards can serve as technical, non-tariff barriers to trade in several ways. In the setting of standards, it is possible that the standards adopted, their method of application, and the procedure to assess conformity will discriminate against foreign suppliers. Lack of access to information about what standards are and how they should be met also impedes global trade. Every country has the right to maintain its own standards, when necessary to protect health, safety, and the environment. Without harmonization of international standards wherever possible, however, differences in standards can result in barriers to trade. Trade is also restricted, and potential growth and economic welfare are reduced when there are (1) differences in standards, (2) needlessly burdensome conformity assessment processes, and (3) failure to reduce the costs of those processes by establishing methods and procedures to facilitate conformity assessment. Standards And Technical Barriers To Trade: The European And Gatt Approaches Both the Single Internal Market program of the EU and the Uruguay Round have wrestled with the issue of standards as technical barriers to trade. As a result, the EU has adopted a comprehensive approach to standards harmonization among its member states. The Uruguay Round addresses this issue by establishing a code of rules for governments and standards-setting bodies. Prior to 1985, standards were a major stumbling block to European integration into a single market. Standards in Europe were created by governments. Harmonization required governments to agree on details of a common approach, but this proved impossible. In 1985, however, a new approach emerged. The solution gave industry responsibility for the development of standards that would meet ''essential safety and health requirements" mandated by EU legislation. This solution limited the role of the EU Commission to the definition, through legislation, of broad safety and health objectives to be met. Industry and private
OCR for page 172
--> standards-setting bodies provide the details of how those objectives are to be achieved. The Uruguay Round addresses standards at a global level by establishing a system of rules, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), by which government and private standards-setting bodies are to act in the future. In the view of one European panelist, this is a significant achievement of the Uruguay Round. Standards can serve as barriers to trade, and further problems can be anticipated over time, for example, as environmental concerns generate new standards and regulations. Universality is another important achievement of the Uruguay Round TBT agreement. There are more than 115 signatories to the GATT, as amended, agreeing to abide by one comprehensive set of rules. A previous attempt in the Tokyo Round of the GATT to adopt a separate, optional technical barriers to trade code, the Standards Code, resulted in only 38 countries agreeing to exchange information on standards. It is also important that the new TBT agreement, an integral part of the GATT, invokes a higher level of obligation. The signatories (sovereign governments) agree to take full responsibility in their respective countries for the application of the terms of the code to whatever level of government or private sector is involved. In addition, both public and private standards-setting bodies are enjoined not to act in a discriminatory fashion or to use standards as hidden barriers to trade. It was noted that the EU was anxious to have the United States agree to this provision. In exchange, the EU agreed to submit itself to national treatment and be considered the responsible level of government. This will require all lower levels of government to adhere to the TBT. As one conference participant noted, the United States agreed to a certain degree of coverage of its private-sector standards bodies in return for more direct coverage through Brussels of European standards bodies, including the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC). In the view of a European panelist, this mitigates the danger of discriminatory application of the European standards system in the future. With respect to government obligations concerning private standards bodies under the Uruguay Round agreement, there is a Code of Good Conduct under which private-sector bodies can submit to the Most Favored National Clause. If a private-sector body signs the code, it must treat others in a nondiscriminatory fashion. This means, for example, that if a standards organization admits some foreign participation in its procedures, it may not block other foreign participants. Another achievement of the Uruguay Round has been to put in place not only agreements on technical standards, but also a multilateral trade body, the World Trade Organization. The dispute settlement system of this multilateral trade organization applies directly to technical standards as barriers to trade. Since the GATT is an intergovernmental organization, private organizations or firms can
OCR for page 173
--> access the dispute settlement system only through their government. On the other hand, the development of private diplomacy among standards-setting bodies at a global level is possible and encouraged in the text of new international trade agreements. U.S. industry participants expressed concern about the dispute settlement system under the GATT. Improving the dispute settlement mechanism and integrating it into the Uruguay Round represented a very high priority for the United States. It was pointed out, however, that how often the dispute settlement mechanism will be invoked with respect to specific unfair trade practices is an open question. The USTR was encouraged to draw on the advice and resources of private companies in bringing cases to the GATT. With respect to dispute settlement, the TBT agreement will have no practical effect unless companies bring cases to the GATT. The USTR requires this kind of assistance. It was also pointed out, however, that the GATT dispute settlement procedure is the end of a long process. Most disputes should not end up in the formal dispute settlement procedure, but should be settled privately. The topic of access to the European standards system by non-European private-sector standards bodies elicited considerable discussion. The EU and Uruguay Round texts enjoin the private standards-setting bodies to participate actively in horizontal communication between groups, as well as in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and its subgroups. A European panelist noted that the easiest way to gain access to the European standards-setting system is via the ISO and strongly urged that U.S. firms (1) work to ensure full representation in the work of the ISO and (2) work to establish international standards. Where international standards exist, there is a general obligation, in the EU and GATT texts, for standards bodies to incorporate them in their own standards to the greatest possible extent. The importance of the private sector in the standards process was highlighted during conference discussions. In the view of a European participant, if there is a full commitment in the United States and in Europe to develop international standards, the new processes outlined in the Uruguay Round will function properly. If there is no private-sector commitment, they will not work. The private sector needs to be an active participant where its interests lie. The hope was expressed that the idea that domestic markets can be protected with standards will be left behind as we enter the twenty-first century. The emphasis on participation in international standards for access to European standards setting is not new. For example, as one U.S. industry participant commented, over a period of four years, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has had a highly productive dialogue with CEN, CENELEC, and the European Telecommunications Standards Institute. ANSI receives these organizations' standards for comment and has an opportunity to comment on their
OCR for page 174
--> processes. The challenge has been to motivate U.S. industry to use these opportunities for access more effectively. Only U.S. multinational firms with operations in Europe have direct access to CEN and CENELEC committees. The answer to the problem of access, according to a European participant, is for private standards-setting bodies to develop international standards. It was noted that the United States does participate in many areas of international standards activities. For example, the United States holds 35 technical committee secretariats in the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and is the largest single holder of secretariats in ISO. National Standards And Conformity Assessment Systems In Overseas Markets: A U.S. Perspective In the early part of the twentieth century, the world marketplace comprised strong, individual, independent trading markets. It now comprises a number of economically strong nations and trading regions. The integration of international markets has impacted product certification and standardization activities in a number of ways. Important changes are taking place in standards and conformity assessment systems in Europe, Asia, and emerging markets, affecting both regulated and unregulated product sectors. Worldwide, standards harmonization activities have increased. For example, the countries of the EU and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) are involved in harmonization efforts, while Japan is examining international standards harmonization, particularly as it relates to quality. Under NAFTA, Mexico is harmonizing its standards with the United States and Canada. Product certifiers involved in standards have increased their participation in international activities and standards harmonization. One U.S. organization participates in more than 150 international standards committees and 60 harmonization initiatives around the world. A conference panelist from a U.S. testing laboratory reported that in response to changes in international trade, product testers and certifiers in the United States and other developed markets are internationalizing their activities and introducing new services to meet changing international service demands of their customers. The evolution of global manufacturing gives certifiers incentives to develop a global presence. The need for multiple market access has led to increased cooperation between certifiers through the establishment of memoranda of understanding, bilateral agreements, and other arrangements. These have built confidence in a capacity to certify, test, quality register, and provide other elements of conformity assessment services worldwide. U.S. certifiers have built agreements with certifiers in countries that are primary markets for U.S. products.
OCR for page 175
--> The experience of one U.S. product certifier suggests that the keys to cooperation in assessing and certifying products locally or supplying data locally in foreign markets, are confidence building, cross-training, audits, and the right to reject. Certifiers can also provide global assistance to customers that want to export to new markets by identifying the requirements, codes, standards, and laws that a product must meet, including the processes by which a product must be evaluated. In the view of one participant, the certifiers of the future will need not only experience and flexibility, but also foreign market intelligence, transparency in foreign standards and certification processes, and the backing of national treatment before they can help producers reach U.S. export markets. National Standards And Conformity Assessment Systems In Overseas Markets: A European Perspective A European perspective on conformity assessment was provided by a panelist from the European testing and certification community. Conference participants were advised that a new industry is developing around conformity assessment. There is the danger that it could develop in such a way that customers will reject it as an obstruction and try to find a way around it, at either the national, the European, or the international level. Via the European Organization for Testing and Certification (EOTC), Europe is attempting to harmonize accreditation in nonregulated industry sectors through the calibration, certification, and laboratory accreditation communities in 18 countries. A private-sector, not-for-profit association, the EOTC seeks to establish confidence, through mutual recognition agreements, among parties concerned with conformity assessment issues. To accomplish this, the EOTC uses sectoral committees and agreement groups that represent the interests of manufacturers, users, and third parties in a specific economic sector, and of the laboratory, certification, and accreditation communities. Comprising national delegations from at least five EU or EFTA countries, sectoral committees discuss mutual recognition arrangements where they perceive a market need for harmonized conformity assessment. Agreement groups are formed among organizations from at least three EU or EFTA countries that have agreed to operate in conformance with similar European or international standards. This requires that the national conformity assessment accreditation system be available to both domestic and foreign laboratories. One panelist noted that such systems are not presently in place in some European countries. EOTC is working to promote conformity assessment arrangements whereby a product is tested once, certified, and accepted everywhere within the market, whether in Europe or in another country through a mutual recognition arrangement. It was noted that harmonized or compatible conformity assessment arrangements
OCR for page 176
--> within the EU or other countries would remove the requirement that U.S. products be sent to European laboratories or certification bodies for tests. In the discussion of conformity assessment in overseas markets, several U.S. industry participants stressed the need to maintain reliance wherever possible on self-certification, by using the supplier's declaration of conformity rather than services provided by an independent third party. The Administration's Defense Acquisition Reform Policies An overview of the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Process Action Team (PAT) for Specifications and Standards was provided by a conference participant from DoD. The PAT was chartered to, among other tasks, develop a comprehensive strategy for permitting reliance in defense procurement on commercial products, specifications, and standards, as well as practices and processes. The team works to ensure that (1) system and data requirements do not unnecessarily preclude the use of commercial products and practices in form, fit, and function; (2) unnecessary specifications and standards are eliminated; (3) nongovernmental standards and commercial item descriptions are used to the maximum extent practical; (4) industry is encouraged to propose alternative technical solutions; and (5) standards and specifications are applied correctly to contracts. Several of the team's primary recommendations include the following: Performance specifications: For all Acquisition Category programs for new systems, major modifications, technology generation changes, nondevelopmental items, and commercial items, DoD's need shall be outlined in terms of performance specifications. The contractor, rather than DoD, will be responsible for designing and developing solutions to meet these performance requirements. Manufacturing and management standards: Management and manufacturing standards shall be canceled or converted to performance or nongovernment standards. Contractors will be given the option, in complying with military specifications (milspecs), of proposing relevant nongovernmental standards or industry practices as substitutes that meet the intent of the specific milspecs or military standards. Innovative contracting processes: All new high-value solicitations and ongoing contracts will include a statement encouraging contractors to submit alternative solutions to milspecs and standards. Incentives will be provided to allow current contractors to switch to a new specification or standard. Partnerships with industry associations: DoD will encourage partnerships with industry to help replace milspecs and standards with nongovernmental standards, where practical. Reduction of oversight: DoD's recent directive authorizing the use of the
OCR for page 177
--> ISO 9000 series of quality management system standards allows, but does not mandate, the use of the series. DoD will no longer dictate how contractors establish quality systems. Contractors will be responsible for establishing systems, processes, and standards. Establish goals to reduce the cost of contractor development and production test and inspection: The team recommended that DoD set a specific goal of reducing the cost of contractor development, production, testing, and inspection, as well as the use of innovative techniques utilized in industry. These include simulation, environmental testing, dual-use test facilities, process controls, metrics, and continuous process improvement. It was also noted that in the acquisition of commercial products, DoD will rely on third-party certification of compliance with standards in place of DoD certification where possible. Where such programs do not exist, DoD will cooperate with industry to establish them. DoD is working to make maximum use of third-party organizations. It was acknowledged by a DoD participant that it will be difficult to change the culture in DoD and reengineer the acquisition process. The key to this effort is leadership in management. Metrics of success developed by teams will help determine both the progress and the impact of changes. The U.S. Government Role In Standards And Conformity Assessment The U.S. government plays an active role in many aspects of standards and conformity assessment. Participants discussed existing and potential missions for the U.S. government in these areas. Also considered were the desirable mix of government and private-sector activity in standards and conformity assessment and ways to arrive at those desired relationships. A Government Agency Perspective In the changing international trade environment, according to a U.S. government panelist, many of our previous assumptions that others will generally adopt U.S. standards and buy U.S. products are no longer valid. In addition, international standards are often developed without active U.S. input or representation. Exporters also face aggressive trade practices by other countries, including the use of standards as barriers to trade. On the positive side, international cooperation is increasing as evidenced by both GATT- and NAFTA-related activities. From the perspective of one U.S. government agency, the private voluntary standards system represents the best approach for the U.S. economy. There is a need, however, for much better cooperation and communication among standards organizations, industry, and government to make this system work effectively.
OCR for page 178
--> The U.S. government's general role in standards is, first, as a user of standards. Agencies use standards in the purchase of products (e.g., DoD) and through their incorporation into federal regulations (e.g., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration). The government also provides the technical foundation for many standardization activities and advocates for U.S. interests around the world. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) plays many roles in standardization. NIST provides the technical basis for standards through fundamental physical standards measurement, test methods, reference data, and production of standard reference material. NIST participates in voluntary standards committees, presently holding 1,143 memberships on 816 standards committees of 79 organizations. NIST chairs 118 of these standards committees. NIST also runs the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program. In addition, about 170,000 standards-related inquiries are handled annually by NIST's National Center for Standards and Certification Information. The center serves as the U.S. GATT Inquiry Point. NIST has begun to explore mutual recognition of accreditation bodies through its National Voluntary Conformity Assessment Systems Evaluation program. Finally, NIST is working to improve communication and cooperation among government agencies, standards organizations, and industry. The U.S. standards system faces several challenges. The current process may not always be adequate to deal with the changing international environment. For example, ANSI is often the U.S. representative in the international standards arena. In one panelist's view, ANSI's lack of formal government backing can place it at a disadvantage relative to other parties. The United States often acts in a reactive mode in some areas of standards, rather than setting the agenda for the rest of the world. There is some movement by the private sector, however, to recognize the importance of participation in the international standards arena. This is evidenced by the growing number of U.S.-held ISO committee chairs. A government participant proposed developing a systems approach to the standards process to achieve national goals more effectively. This would require (1) focusing on a clearly defined national goal; (2) delineating responsibilities and relations among standards organizations, industry, and government; and (3) improving communication among all parties in the voluntary standards process. A Private-Sector Perspective A private-sector panelist's perspective on the U.S. government's role in standards and conformity assessment emphasized the need for a more definitive relationship between the government and the private voluntary standards system. The panelist stressed that government must recognize and use the private voluntary standards system. In addition, U.S. industry should support ANSI as a credible mechanism for promoting integration of the voluntary standards system.
OCR for page 179
--> The U.S. government must also organize to speak coherently as a sovereign nation on the issues of standards and conformity assessment, both internally and externally. This is particularly important in view of the new responsibilities and accountability of the sovereign government signatories to the Uruguay Round. Finally, the cost of standardization should be borne by those who gain value from the activity. Many conference participants agreed that the United States must support an infrastructure that is competent, equitable, and credible. Some expressed the view that ANSI and the voluntary standards system should not be governed and funded by the present mixture of government, associations, standards developers, and a small percentage of industrial firms in the United States. This represents an uneven and inequitable distribution of governance and of financial support. A private-sector panelist maintained that revenue must be derived from value received and that ANSI should concentrate on activities that are of value, identifying who values them, and assessing revenue sources from that value structure. The future will be substantially different from the past. Both private and public leaders need to seek improvements to the U.S. standards system in a way that involves the government. One participant pointed out that undesired levels of government control, which may accompany government involvement in private activities, can be mitigated through negotiation. Industry–Government Cooperation in Regulation and International Standards The medical device industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have developed and implemented a program to provide industry access to effective mechanisms to influence international standards, regulations, and trade. This program has been built on cooperation between industry and government. In 1989, the U.S. medical device industry instituted a program to influence international and European Community standards to promote harmonization of medical device standards and regulations. The industry administers most national standards and almost all horizontal medical device international standards. The program's success could not have been achieved without the support of the FDA, according to an industry panelist. The program was enhanced by the fact that the U.S. industry's standards were used by many foreign governments. With FDA's support, the industry adopted as national standards all of the international standards that it administers in the United States. FDA support was critical to the medical device association's involvement with an ISO technical committee that will write, interpret, and coordinate medical device quality system standards for the international community. It is also working to harmonize medical device standards and regulatory requirements for all countries worldwide. FDA provided leadership, resources, and credibility to this exercise. FDA also provided scientific and political leadership to industry's efforts to influence
OCR for page 186
--> Moderator: Richard Schulte, Senior Vice President, Laboratories, American Gas Association Belinda Collins, Program Analyst, National Institute of Standards and Technology Robert Hermann, Senior Vice President, Science and Technology, United Technologies Corporation Michael Miller, President, Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation 2:50 p.m. Open Discussion 3:20 p.m. Break 3:30-4:20 p.m. Sectoral Case Study: Information Technology (IT) and Telecommunication. The panel will discuss the link among standards, technology, and development of new products and services in the context of rapid technological change and the ongoing convergence of these industry sectors. Moderator: Stanley Besen, Vice President, Charles River Associates Richard Liebhaber, Chief Strategy and Technology Officer, MCI Communications Corporation Stephen Oksala, Director, Corporate Standards, Unisys Corporation 4:20-4:50 p.m. Open discussion: emerging trends in standards and technology development in the IT and telecommunication industries; role of international standardization in strengthening U.S. export performance 4:50 p.m. Concluding Remarks GARY HUFBAUER 5:00 p.m. Reception
OCR for page 187
--> Participants List Melvyn R. Altman Associate Director Office of Standards and Regulations Center for Devices and Radiological Health U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guy A. Arlotto Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Diana Artemis Associate Director Chemical Manufacturers Association Daryl Back Counselor, Industry, Science and Technology Embassy of Australia Earl S. Barbely Director, Telecommunication and Information Standards CIP Bureau U.S. Department of State James Baskin Director, Standards NYNEX Corporation Cora Beebe Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President Laszlo Belady Chairman Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc. Diego Betancourt Manager Office of Strategic Standardization Polaroid Corporation S. Joseph Bhatia Vice President, External Affairs Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Eric Biel Trade Counsel Senate Finance Committee Ezra L. Bixby President Lovell Associates Judy P. Boehlert Vice President, Quality Control Roche Pharmaceuticals Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Barbara Boykin Standards Coordinator American Petroleum Institute Richard Bradshaw Vice President North Atlantic Research, Inc. Maureen Breitenberg Economist National Institutes of Standards and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce Dennis Brining Director, International Program Development Lockheed Corporation
OCR for page 188
--> George Brubaker Deputy Director Office of Standards and Regulations U.S. Food and Drug Administration Milton M. Bush Director of Public Affairs American Council of Independent Laboratories Amy Cheng Industrial Engineer Facilities Management Division U.S. General Services Administration Colin B. Church Voluntary Standards and International Activities Coordinator U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Belinda Collins Program Analyst National Institute of Standards and Technology James D. Converse Director of Corporate Standards Eastman Kodak Company Hugh Conway Director Office of Regulatory Analysis Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. Department of Labor Stephen Cooney Senior Policy Director, International Investment and Finance National Association of Manufacturers Lori L. Cooper Director, Internal Market Staff Office of European Community Affairs U.S. Department of Commerce Francis L. Criqui Manager, Technical Document Management General Motors Corporation Helen Davis Washington Representative American Society for Testing and Materials Lester Davis Chief Economist Department of Commerce Myles Denny-Brown International Economist U.S. Department of Commerce Helen A. Domenici Associate, Federal Relations Corporate Affairs Division Pfizer Inc. John Donaldson Chief, Standards Code and Information Program National Institute of Standards and Technology Helen Donoghue First Secretary Washington Delegation of the European Commission Anita Drummond American Council of Independent Laboratories
OCR for page 189
--> Lester F. Eastwood Director, Standards Strategy Motorola, Inc. Williams Edmunds Manager, Codes and Standards Owens Corning Fiberglas George L. Edwards President Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Thomas Ehrgood International Trade Counsel Digital Equipment Corporation Fara Faramarzpour Director Office of Strategic Standardization Polaroid Corporation Wendell Fletcher Senior Associate Office of Technology Assessment Thomas B. Fowler Principal Engineer The MITRE Corporation Kim Frankena Chief, Major Trading Nations Branch U.S. International Trade Commission James French Director of Standards American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Louis Geoffrion Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance Raytheon Company Richard B. Gibson Technical Standards Director AT&T Bell Laboratories Neal Goldenberg U.S. Department of Energy Melvin R. Green Associate Executive Director, Codes and Standards American Society of Mechanical Engineers Alf S. Gunnersen Associate Technical Director The MITRE Corporation Joseph K. Haeglin General Manager, Central Engineering and Purchasing Texaco Inc. William F. Hanrahan Senior Director Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association William Hendrickson Senior Editor Issues in Science and Technology Robert J. Hermann Senior Vice President, Science and Technology United Technologies Corporation Peter L.M. Heydemann Director, Technology Services National Institute of Standards and Technology
OCR for page 190
--> Derek Holden Vice President, Industry and Government Relations Market Development Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation Virginia A. Huth Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President Charles W. Hyer Editor/Publisher The Marley Organization, Inc. Brian Kahin Director, Information and Infrastructure Project Science, Technology and Public Policy Program John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Sheldon Kimmel U.S. Department of Justice Louisa Kock Program Examiner Office of Management and Budget Roy E. Lancraft Division Manager United Parcel Service Holly Lawe Senior Research Associate Georgia Institute of Technology Center for International Standards and Quality Mary Anne Lawler Director of Standards Relations IBM Corporation William Lehr Assistant Professor Graduate School of Business Columbia University Walter G. Leight Deputy Director, Office of Standards Services National Institute of Standards and Technology Richard Liebhaber Chief Strategy and Technology Officer MCI Communications Corporation Henry Line Director, Global Products Standards AMP Incorporated John W. Locke President American Association for Laboratory Accreditation Charles Ludolph Director Office of European Communities Affairs U.S. Department of Commerce Mark Mahaney Council on Competitiveness William A. Maxwell Director, Government Relations Convex Computer Corporation Leroy M. May Senior Staff Member and Standards Consultant AT&T
OCR for page 191
--> Sergio Mazza President American National Standards Institute Nina I. McClelland Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer NSF International Mary McKiel National Coordinator, EPA Standards Networks Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Barbara McLennan Staff Vice President, Government and Legal Affairs Electronic Industries Association Kenneth McLennan President Manufacturers' Alliance for Productivity and Innovation Richard Meier Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for GATT Affairs Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Michael J. Miller President Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation Thomas P. Monkus Compliance Officer, Director QA/RA Medical High Technology International, Inc. Keith A. Mowry Manager, Governmental Affairs Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Robert W. Noth Manager, Engineering Standards Deere & Company Stephen Oksala Director, Corporate Standards Unisys Corporation Anthony R. O'Neill Chairman of the Board American National Standards Institute J. Paul Oxer Executive Assistant to the President Ecology and Environment, Inc. John P. Palafoutas Director of Federal Relations AMP Incorporated Bernard J. Phillips Head of the Competition and Consumer Policy Division Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Herbert Phillips Vice President, Engineering Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute Kyle Pitsor Manager, Energy and Trade National Electrical Manufacturers Association
OCR for page 192
--> George Porter Quality Systems Manager ISO 9000 Roche Pharmaceuticals Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. Joseph Potts Director Technical Support Group GTE Laboratories Ernest H. Preeg William M. School Chair in International Business Center for Strategic and International Studies Colleen Preston Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition Reform U.S. Department of Defense Victoria Curzon-Price Professor of Economics University of Geneva Anne Rafferty Economist U.S. Department of State Kim Ritchie AVX Corporation Sadi Ubaldo Rife Counselor, Science & Technology Attache Embassy of Argentina Lloyd Rodenbaugh Promega Richard Rounsevelle Chief, Recreational Boating Product Assurance U.S. Coast Guard Deborah Rudolph Manager, Technology Policy Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - USA William A. Ruh Associate Technical Director The MITRE Corporation Francine Salamone Associate Director, Medical Operations International Pharmaceuticals Group Pfizer Inc. Andrew Salem Staff Director Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Gregory E. Saunders Acting Director for Manufacturing Modernization Office of the Secretary of Defense U.S. Department of Defense Mary H. Saunders Assistant to the Director Office of Standards Services National Institute of Standards and Technology Jane W. Schweiker Director of Government and Organization Relations American National Standards Institute
OCR for page 193
--> C. Ronald Simpkins Manager, Corporate Engineering Standards E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company Anna Slomovic Senior Policy Analyst Rand Critical Technologies Institute Oliver Smoot Executive Vice President Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association Carlos Souto Industrial Scientific Counselor Embassy of Portugal Michael B. Spring Assistant Professor Department of Information Science University of Pittsburg David Stanger Secretary General European Organization for Testing and Certification Steve Stewart Program Administrator, Public Affairs Telecommunications IBM Corporation Gene Strull Consultant Westinghouse Marty Sullivan Director, Standards Bellcore Audrey Talley Office of Food Safety and Technical Services, Foreign Agriculture Service, ITP U.S. Department of Agriculture John C. Tao Director, EH&S Audits Department Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. Keith B. Termaat Executive Engineer, Engineering Materials and Standards Ford Motor Company James Thomas President American Society for Testing and Materials Marie Thursby Professor and Director Center for International Business Education and Research Purdue University Maria Tilves-Aguilera Manager, Government Relations Northern Telecom, Inc. Robert Toth President R.B. Toth Associates Suzanne Troje Director, Technical Trade Barriers Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Executive Office of the President
OCR for page 194
--> Francis J. Turpin Director Office of International Harmonization National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Debra H. van Opstal Fellow in Science and Technology Political-Military Studies Program Center for Strategic and International Studies Jerrold L. Wagener Senior Technical Consultant Amoco Production Company Caroline Wagner Senior Analyst Rand Corporation William G. Wagner Technical Standards Division Manager Society of Automotive Engineers David Walters Acting Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Economic Affairs and Chief Economist Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Executive Office of the President Les Weinstein Attorney U.S. Food and Drug Administration Martin Weiss Assistant Professor University of Pittsburgh Fritz Whittington Texas Instruments Fred H. Williamson Director, Imaging Technology Policy Eastman Kodak Company George T. Willingmyre Vice President Washington Operations American National Standards Institute Mel Woinsky Senior Manager, Technical Industry Standards Northern Telecom Inc. Dorothy Zolandz National Institute of Standards and Technology Joseph F. Zimmer Deputy Associate Administrator Office of Management and Budget Joseph S. Zajaczkowski Staff Consultant Standards Coordination Storage Technology Corp. International Standards, Conformity Assessment, and U.S. Trade Policy Project Committee (attending) Gary Hufbauer, Chairman Senior Fellow Institute for International Economics Stanley Besen Vice President Charles River Associates
OCR for page 195
--> Dennis Chamot Associate Executive Director Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council Leonard Frier President MET Laboratories Steven R. Hix Chairman In Focus Systems Ivor N. Knight Vice President, Business Technology and Standards COMSAT World Systems Gerald H. Ritterbusch Manager of Product Safety and Environmental Control Caterpillar, Inc. Richard J. Schulte Senior Vice President, Laboratories American Gas Association Lawrence Wills IBM Director of Standards IBM Corporation Academy Complex Stephen A. Merrill Executive Director Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy and Director, Academy Industry Program Lois Perrolle Associate Director Academy Industry Program Daniel LaRue Gross Staff Associate Academy Industry Program Shirley Cole Administrative Assistant Academy Industry Program John S. Wilson Project Director International Standards, Conformity Assessment, and U.S. Trade Policy Project Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy National Research Council John M. Godfrey Research Associate International Standards, Conformity Assessment, and U.S. Trade Policy Project Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy National Research Council Patrick P. Sevcik Project Assistant International Standards, Conformity Assessment, and U.S. Trade Policy Project Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy National Research Council
OCR for page 196
This page in the original is blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter: