Standards Impact

Smooth Sailing: How Standards Support the Supply Chain

• ASTM International • Season 3 • Episode 7

Share episode

Ever wonder how stuff gets to your door? Learn about the complexities of the supply chain, from tariffs to sustainability practices, to logistics, and what the supply chain of the future might look like – all on the latest Standards Impact podcast. 

Join host Dave Walsh as he speaks with three well-known supply chain experts: Michael Coner, founder of Blockticity; Michael Darden, CEO and founder of DFM Data Corp., Inc.; and Jeff Weiss, partner at Steptoe, LLP. 

Follow Us

Presented by ASTM International


www.astm.org

Dave Walsh (00:12):

Supply chains may not be on the minds of most people as they go about daily life, but all you have to do is think back to the dark days of the COVID Pandemic and the empty shelves you encountered in seemingly every store to remember how absolutely critical they are to human society. I'm Dave Walsh, Editor-in-Chief of Standardization News, and I'm joined today by three well-known supply chain experts. Jeff Weiss, a partner at Steptoe, LLP, Michael Darden, CEO, and founder of DFM Data Corp. And Michael Coner, founder of Blockticity, all our members of ASTMs Committee on digital information in the supply chain F 49. The global supply chain ecosystem affects daily life in so many ways, and here we discuss events from the COVID Pandemic to the current administration's tariff push and the impact they have on each and every one of us.

(00:58):

So I think many people outside the world of standards development would see the COVID Pandemic as the event that brought supply chains to the public consciousness more than any other. I don't think people thought about them very much before. They couldn't get their stuff from Amazon that kind of brought it to the world's attention. The images of empty shells and cargo ships stuck in ports were just all over the news at that time. So I would throw it out to the group. What would you say about the pandemic and its impact on supply chains? Did it give society the motivation to remedy some of the issues that World Commerce faces? I'm sure it had a big impact on the work that you were doing then. And now

Michael Darden (01:31):

Let's kick us off, Jeff.

Jeff Weiss (01:33):

So I definitely think that it helped in part, and let's go back several years before the pandemic. So when I was in government, I remember when the Haj and shipping line went bankrupt and we were faced with a crisis where there were about a hundred container ships that couldn't come into port. And I was in the Department of Commerce at the time and we were trying to figure out how we were gonna get those ships in, get them unloaded and not have a supply chain congestion crisis. And there was no US government overarching supply chain task force for dealing with things like that. And so I remember that we had to sound the alarm with the National Economic Council on the White House to convene an interagency group with the Federal Maritime Commission and others to try to figure out what we could do as the government try, try to help facilitate the process of getting the ships in and unloading the, the goods and dealing with all of the knock on effects in terms of containers and equipment.

(02:32):

And we were trying to do this knowing that if we couldn't fix it, the ports of LA and Long Beach, our two biggest container ports were probably gonna be effectively closed. And once you do that, it sends ripple effects throughout the entire economy because everything is connected. And so eventually through a combination of the government and public sector action and the courts, that issue was ironed out. But then we went back to business as usual, right? The White House disbanded that interagency group and everyone, everything went on the way the way it had been. So in that case, the world didn't change. To your question, COVID, that was a big enough shock that everyone realized that, okay, we need to take a look at this now in a more serious way to have, uh, at least looking at it from first, from the government perspective, that we need to have White House led efforts to deal with supply chain crises, not just in terms of the movement of goods, but also with respect to manufacturing and the defense industrial base.

(03:33):

I also think that the private sector understood that they were gonna have to do things differently because as you remember, there were, I believe at one point more than a hundred ships backed up waiting to come into the ports of LA and Long Beach, massive congestion, just a massive amount of issues. And I, I do think that the ports and the communities around the ports did learn a heck of a lot from that. And we haven't seen congestion issues since that time because everyone was forced to understand what it takes to deal with crises like that and create some workarounds. So on the one hand, I do think that it changed, but there's so much more that can be done. And that's especially true on the digital side in terms of connecting people in the supply chain. And that's where I think committee F 49 can really play a role.

Dave Walsh (04:25):

Yeah, maybe we should go to Mike Coner next.

Mike Coner (04:28):

Thanks Dave. So I had focused on supply chain just within the intercontinental North America prior to COVID. So when COVID hit, I was working with some retired government agents trying to sell PPE gloves and masks to the United States government. And we looked at 53 different lots and they have the ability to call any organization in the world and validate and authenticate those origination documents. And they found fraud in every single deal. So had we done a transaction, we would've committed a felony against the United States government, and these are retired folks with pensions. So we didn't do one deal. So it really taught me the pain of that authentication of upstream documents if you are an intermediary. And so that really is one of the committees we built in F 49 is around the authentication of these attestations and these documents in the global supply chain.

Michael Darden (05:19):

So I, I would say that COVID certainly helped shine a light on how demand changes can really disrupt supply chain and, and from Peloton bikes to toilet paper, it's not that we weren't using toilet paper previously. The toilet paper that was being produced was just half being produced for consumption in the office environment and half being produced to be done at home. And when nobody was going to the office, everybody was using the restrooms at home and they were consuming twice as much toilet paper 'cause they weren't using corporate toilet paper. So there was just as much of a reduction in use of the office commercial grade toilet paper as there was an increase. And you just can't retool that fast. And I think that's what we realized was that the resilience of the supply chain was just non-existent. It it was not rugged and and durable. It was, was really fragile and that we were gonna need to be able to have more controls in place to be able to do this better and deal with the need to be more resilient in the future.

Dave Walsh (06:34):

Well, one issue that all three of you touched on, but uh, Mike Coner kind of talked about it at a little more length is that the risks involved in the supply chain and the kind of hazards and things people may not see from the outside. And today, I think an issue related to that is the issue of tariffs. We've seen them in the, the headlines almost every day. The administration is saying that they're working to level the playing field, but what it results in is different tariffs on different days of different months and deadlines here and there. And as Mike was saying, that that can get you in a lot of trouble if you don't have all your ducks in a row. So what does that mean for supply chains in general and does it add a level of complexity and difficulty to managing the process?

Mike Coner (07:10):

It really suits a two part answer. So the first part is politically what is a government or the authority having jurisdiction looking for in terms of validation of bringing certain products into the country? Because on a global scale, they are trying to stop companies or countries that are repackaging products in other regions to avoid tariffs or putting in fake documentation. So part of the tariffs actually helps with deforestation, slave labor and the supply chain at the sources. And uh, we as a committee have gotten really comfortable and working with Jeff Weiss, which he can explain some of the government, uh, requests and comments around a conformity assessment model, which is a four step, four separate pillars process that can get a product anywhere in the world into a tier one or a tier two country. And the four steps are track and trace, which is whatever track and trace platform you're using to capture all of the events in the movement of your goods or the components of your goods through supply chain.

(08:09):

Step two is authentication, which is validating the upstream documents that we just spoke about at its source. And then validation is operating under an internationally recognized standard and in this case an A STM standard. And then the fourth step is oversight. And that is getting buy-in from the authority having jurisdiction. So one example of authority having jurisdiction for tariffs could be United States Customs Border Protection, but for Food and Safety Modernization Act next year you could say it's not only the FDA, but also Walmart because Walmart is saying that they are going to require all of the products that are sourced in a farm to show the geo coordinates of its origination, not just the opening 18 that the FDA is requiring. So sometimes that authority can change. And so as a compliance thought leadership team, we need to be prepared for those variables and be able to provide solutions and right standards that can work in any market and any authority around the world.

Jeff Weiss (09:10):

Well I worked at the US Trade Representative's office for 10 years, so I have a lot, I have a lot to say about tariffs. I think the first thing I would just say is that everyone that's listening needs to understand that these tariffs are not gonna go away and not just with this administration. I think with subsequent administrations, I think that if you look at the types of tariffs the administration is putting in place now, it's gonna be very, very difficult for them to be reversed. We're in a new era, we're going to see higher tariffs. I think that the next phase of tariffs companies are gonna be going in and are already going in and saying, we understand what you're doing. The, the tariffs are actually counterproductive for, for example, national security reasons. There might be certain types of manufacturing operations where we need to import raw materials and this is counterproductive, or we need to make certain critical equipment here, um, or we need to import some before we can make enough of it here.

(10:08):

This is having a detrimental impact. So they are looking at some of the unintended consequences, but essentially what we see is likely going to be the approach going forward. Now the important part about that for our committee is that before the tariffs, especially across the board tariffs under IEPA and also section 2 32, it didn't really matter in many cases what the tariff levels were because there were, there was very little difference. So for example, under the US Mexico Canada agreement, there were a lot of companies that didn't even bother going out to show that their products were compliant with the US MCA rules of origin because it didn't make sense from a cost perspective because there was really very little difference in the tariffs. But now you might have to pay 25, 30 5% of the value of the good if you're not U-S-M-C-A compliant. So now all of a sudden it matters and it matters if you're locating one part of your supply chain in a country that has a 39% tariff versus a 10% tariff.

(11:12):

So now all of a sudden traceability matters so much more than it used to because you're gonna wanna be able to demonstrate to us customs that your goods are of the correct origin to receive the lowest tariff treatment possible. So that's where our committee can be really helpful in helping come up with strategies for companies to be able to help demonstrate that they meet the relevant rules of origin and also for customs authorities to be able to enforce that in a way that companies that are compliant with the rules can get their in as quickly as possible. And you could stop non-compliant trade in an efficient way and in a systematic way because ultimately if you're not able to stop non-compliant trade, that the compliant actors are going to pay the price. Uh, so we think we can come up with, um, neutral technical criteria, technology neutral vendor neutral to help the authorities do this based on the risk of non-compliance, whether it's transshipment or fraud.

(12:22):

I mean transshipment, like your classic example is you're trying to avoid tariffs. And so you ship a product from a high tariff country to a low tariff country, you take the labels off from the first country, you slap on the new labels and you send it and you, and you pretend it's from that second country, right? That's your, that's your classic example of transshipment. So one of the things that, that we can do in the committee and, and we have done in the traceability guide that we're working on, and some of the work that Conner has done previously that has, he's brought to our committee is being able to create a digital twin of all these transactions so that you can track the shipments with the commercial and transportation documentation, authenticate the documents, and then use a series of decision rules to be able to verify that that shipment actually meets the claims that are being made with respect to origin as well as other types of claims like forced labor like deforestation. So we think that we're right in the middle, uh, of these issues and we want to be as helpful as possible.

Michael Darden (13:26):

So I would add that what the tariffs have shown is a transition that's happening in the way supply chains operate from batch processes that are in arrears with paper trailing via mail, sending to certificates of origin that are digital twins traveling at the same time as the goods are. And those are two different business cases of how, how do I close the bank at two o'clock and settle every transaction that came in by two, you make a business rule. And at the moment we, we don't have that real business rule of how this transition is going to take place in the tariffs world of keeping score. And Jeff referred to the customs and border protection of the United States that's looking for and qualifying shipments to be able to come in. But, but there is a world customs organization and there's an objective to be able to identify some harmony a across the global perspective from what products are and how those product conformity labels are produced so that there is a level of certainty when people consume products that they know that label on there wasn't just stuck on there by the guy that was at this grocery store, but it was actually put there from the beginning.

(14:48):

And that that's been certified along the way at each one of the touch points. And the interesting topic that Jeff just mentioned, and Conner just mentioned, both was the word transshipment, which in, in the way that both of them described it is it got a very negative connotation to it of, of someone fraudulently trying to be able to demonstrate or or to be able to pass through customs. But in the normal flow of business, the word transshipment is also used to offload a container off of one vessel and onto another vessel. And there's nothing wrong with being able to do that, it's just this industry has so much complexity in the language side of it as far as how terms are understood in commerce that it drives business relationships as well as the commercial transaction relationship as well as the settlement relationship and the regulatory relationship. And I, I think that's one of the places that F 49 is also focused on, is in that alignment of the terminology across standards bodies and how as we are aligning to a real time environment of a certificate of authenticity and a digital twin that we have, have not injected barriers into the communication by formatting our data in a way that can be consumed by the parties that we're sharing it with.

Jeff Weiss (16:13):

That's a great segue. Just thinking about, you know, your example of the fact that the same word can mean two different things in two different contexts. I mean I think that was one of the inspirations behind the paper that you all just put together, uh, on behalf of the committee on resolving data language barriers across maritime standards vocabularies. That was a big part of it because if we're using the same word and mean two different things, that's gonna be a problem in the supply chain, especially in how complicated it is and where time is money. So if the container availability, right, is your classic example, something else that we're working on where if you have different definitions of what that means, and there are different places in the supply chain where you have to determine container availability that can lead to inefficiencies where a truck driver instead of arriving to pick up their load and loading up in 15 minutes is waiting for three hours and causing a backup and they're getting paid by the load. That's not exactly a great way to make a living. So that has a knock on effects as well.

Michael Darden (17:22):

We always look at this like where are the gaps? Where are the spots between here, where are the signals that this society is looking for? Standards that those standards don't yet exist. We're never looking to just go right standards and rewrite what someone else has done. So, you know, doing that pre-research and really sniffing out where does this standard need to come? This specific work item that you're referring to was the, the, the first two work items in A-S-D-M-F 49, that was the term container availability and the fact that it happened a 14 different times during the supply chain with different people having different definitions of that same word at those different stages. And at the same time, commissioner Benzel had identified in, in his MTDI report that there was a language inconsistency and that because there was such a language inconsistency, they were gonna propose an appendix 1.7 that listed 200 words that they were going to use while writing rulemakings.

(18:36):

And when I saw that their plan was to do this, to write for future rulemakings, I was like, well that's great, but if those 200 words are not understood by the people that are looking at other common libraries, then we could have an issue. So just in a sampling, the first thing that we did was go to a, a public glossary of the C-S-C-M-P and looked up those 200 terms and we were surprised to be able to see that there was not a lot of overlap of those terms in the, the, the very well respected and well used C-S-C-M-P glossary and dictionary. So we were like, well, let's go look somewhere else and see if we can find a place to be able to find the matches from existing standards development organizations. And before we knew it, we had gone through five of these glossaries and the match rate was either in the single digits or just barely over 10% iteratively.

(19:36):

We really came to the point that we needed to write a technical paper to share to the community that in the past it seems that parties needing a glossary would just sit down and write their own glossary as opposed to reference existing standards work. So our technical report identified 54 glossaries that had been previously developed for supply chain and a comparison of eight of those glossaries to be able to identify what the matches and the missing terms were so that we could identify how big of a problem it is. And I would encourage you to go get the report from the A SDM publication site to be able to download the template for doing additional analysis.

Jeff Weiss (20:23):

Terminology is really the critical first step in standardization, right? Being able to to say the same thing and mean the same thing so that you can have clear communication, especially when you're talking about supply chains where you have a lot of actors and you're crossing borders. And as an international standards body, one of the things that we wanna do at A STM is make sure that we have coherence with other international standardization work, which is why we are always looking to see what is ISO doing, what is GS one doing? What is GUN CAC doing and others to see if we can use it. And in this case, we don't wanna create another glossary from scratch. This was the first step just identifying, like you were saying, Michael, the fact that there's not a lot of identity between all these glossaries, so we wanna be the connective tissue, we wanna make sure that all these different folks can talk to each other and communicate clearly. So what do you think the next step is now that we've published the paper?

Michael Darden (21:24):

So it's a good question and, and just from the background of what I just described, of the fact that, you know, 50% of the words came from DCSA and the other 50 came from other places, there wasn't a consistency of how those terms were written in a definition form. So some of them have three or four sentences that are trying to describe what the issue is. Some of them are topical and describing a much bigger thing that comprises other things that are inside of it. But with A STM, we have a very specific Blue book format for foreman style of how to construct a definition that is as concise as possible and using a discussion area that can bring in all of the different ways that it can be construed or, or understood by different parties. A and that really lends itself to a consensus process.

Dave Walsh (22:24):

I think the great case is made here that the, one of the number one issues is clearly communication and terminology and the vocabularies used as discussed in the paper you both mentioned, which is currently available on astm.org. But Mike Kohner, what would you say would be the next biggest issue if, if vocabularies and terminologies are solved, what's the next one to solve?

Mike Coner (22:44):

So, uh, I came to this committee uh, about a year ago from another committee. I've been in a STM for about five years. So having, having strong terminology chair that understands and can actually decipher through 60 different dialects and help us with right language, like we're very, very lucky. And the authorities, I've been so pleasantly surprised with the, with the government agencies that Jeff Weiss has brought in. They said, look, we don't know what we don't know. So if you can show us, uh, an SOP, uh, under something similar to a conformity assessment and we can see what the operators are trying to do, we can give you feedback and see if this meets our minimum requirements. And then we can write a standard guide, a standard practice that has both sides buy-in, which means there's a much higher probability that an A STM standard will be published and will be used for that specific product in that specific use case. And that is where I think A STM has the advantage over the other international agencies because it's a safe environment for regulators and operators and big market makers to collaborate on writing a new standard that works for both parties.

Dave Walsh (23:50):

We've talked about some of these issues and I think you just identified another one, which is collaboration and different stakeholders working together. But looking forward, let's look ahead to the future. Now you, we've identified the present and the issues faced today. Where do you see each of you see the state of global supply chains 10, 20 years from now? Will the problems you're discussing today be solved and will there be new problems to, to solve? Do you see, is there something obvious on the horizon that's coming and more, or, or I should say most importantly, how will standards help to solve those problems? And, and maybe we could stay with you Mike Kohner.

Mike Coner (24:22):

So I think in the next 15 to 20 years, the entire global supply chain is gonna go from paper to digital. And that means that a farmer with limited internet access using simply a smartphone device and a WhatsApp app on their phone is going to be able to authenticate and certify their coffee beans in any mountain in the world and or a minor mining critical minerals anywhere in the world. And it'll start there and it will be traced genealogically through the supply chain. And that is something that I'm very excited about, but that is a very scary, um, prospect for folks that are not tech savvy. So as that evolves, I think that the model that we are working on right now is going to make it easier. And I think that trade associations are a big part of making this a reality, but I believe there isn't a global initiative to go paperless. And when that happens, then we will have traceability and it'll be not only consumer goods or medication, but you'll be able to get, um, mozzarella from Italy, if that's something that you want to serve your family, you'll be able to trace genealogically every product that we put on our tables in front of our families. And I think that's something that, uh, uh, I really look forward to.

Jeff Weiss (25:31):

I think consumers are gonna want to be able to essentially, you know, scan their products at the market and know the complete history of the product. And that's something that we can potentially help make available by standardizing how that information is gathered and authenticated, uh, and validated. I think this is gonna be something that is not a nice to have, but a a must have, not just because consumers want it, but because governments are gonna require it, uh, for a variety of different reasons. And it's really important that we get this right because if you have a system that is leaky, it could potentially raise health and safety issues, environmental issues, and it's gonna have a commercial impact because you're going to have non-compliant product, which is probably going to be cheaper. Getting into markets and displacing compliant product where the producers and the other supply chain actors have taken the steps necessary incurred the cost in birds necessary to make sure that there's compliance.

(26:30):

And just one example is coffee. So there's certain supply chains where it is possible to do a test and figure out where something comes from a physical test, but a lot of cases you have products that are blended or commingled as part of the process. And coffee is one of those things where chances are the beans are being blended from a variety of different locations. And so if there are tariff issues, if there are deforestation free claims, how do you actually figure that out so that when you're at the grocery store and you're trying to figure, figure those things out for yourself, or if you're a retailer and you you wanna sell it, how do you know what's going on? And I think the tools that we're developing are gonna be incredibly helpful for creating a low cost consistent way of making sure that those claims can be trusted in the supermarket of 10, 15, 20 years from now,

Mike Coner (27:29):

There's a formula for coffee. So there is Colombian coffee and Dunking Donuts coffee, which I did not know, and I grew up down the street in North Quincy next to the first Dunking Donuts in America. So one is the blend, but the second is the origination. And the methodology in the agriculture industry that we've seen is co-mingling is allowed as long as they come from clean referenceable sources. So you're going to get co-mingling from 540,000 coffee growers in Columbia because they are all growing on non deforestation land that co-mingling is allowed. But for the track and trace component, there are events of how that is co-mingled. So you have farmers that come into town on burrows with a couple of burlap sacks of coffee versus full plantations that come in with trucks, then they bring them to the coffee federation, they weigh them, they capture the metadata, which is uh, the dates, the harvest, the genetics and the geo coordinates of the farm. They're then co-mingled into 70 kilo bags and then they are packaged on pallets and containers and they go out to be white labeled into products like Starbucks and Dunking Donuts, or they have the Juan Valdez brand that is owned by the Coffee Federation. So there's different SOPs for different movements, but ultimately all of them can be genealogically traced back to the farm, even if it's one shipping container, which is a couple of tons is actually 200 farmers biomass. There is a way to trace it back to that origin.

Michael Darden (28:55):

So in, in 20 years from now, I see a little different future than we have today. First of all, I think there's a lot more autonomous vehicle movements of smaller packaged units from point to point. And each one of those movements is done with a schedule that says it's taking off from here and it's landing here and it has this cargo and, and that helps to put together the chain of custody of all movements when you have each one of those moves being done with a device that actually has to squeeze and pick it up here and drop it here. That level of accountability currently has gaps all through the movements of those goods that I think disappear when we the digital twin. We then create that chain of custody certificate of authenticity for each move that can be digitally strung together to give that accountability.

(29:53):

And I don't think that the levels that we're looking at today of dealing with things like hours of service of drivers are going to be the same issues of tomorrow. I, I think vehicles are gonna be able to operate for 22 and a half hours a day and get fuel and maintenance check and then be back on the road. And they're not gonna be big UPS trucks that are driving around to be able to go deliver things. There are gonna be much more precise deliveries. But all of that requires us to be able to align on standards on how do we call that thing? How do we decide what the size of that thing is and when it's ready to be picked up and where it's ready to be picked up and how it has to be handled to get to where it's supposed to be to maintain its value. And I believe in a future that's gonna put those data points together so that it is a digital history that is queryable and the foundation for that is standards like A STM and the work that we're doing in F 49.

Jeff Weiss (30:53):

And Dave, one of the things you probably noticed is you have people like Conner working on traceability in the committee and then folks like Darden working on goods movement in the committee. And those two things really come together. In particular when you're talking about the concept of the transportation unit ID and you're looking to track the movements of a particular shipment once you have the claims that attach to them. And this is something that Michael Darden has done a ton of work on, even when you have multiple stakeholders in the supply chain that all have different systems, um, internally for numbering and labeling their goods. If you have a unique transportation unit ID that follows that shipment and everyone's using that, then everyone in the supply chain that needs to know will be able to trace and track the shipment. So not only do you have the goods movement piece, but that's also gonna be critical for verifying the claims that are made because at the at at base you have to make sure that the claim is attaching to the thing that needs to attach to and not something else. So these two wings of the committee actually come together quite nicely when you talk about TUID.

Dave Walsh (32:03):

Well, I think this podcast more than any other, we could have gone on for several more hours, but we're getting to the end of our time and I'm going to just ignore the last couple of questions here and give each of you a last word on tariffs, on standards on this issue in general, if they don't remember anything else from this podcast, what's one thing they should take away?

Jeff Weiss (32:22):

I would just say that we are very open to technical feedback. One of the things that I've had to come to grips with is that there's no understanding every facet of supply chain. There are just too many pieces to it, too many different types of expertise. And we want to all those different types of expertise in the committee, whether it's smart data escrow or blockchain or geolocation data or TUID, we wanna make sure we have all those different vantage points factored in to make sure that we create standards that are not just gonna sit on the shelf, that are actually gonna be used in the marketplace, uh, and by national authorities. So as an international standards body, we take that very seriously. And so for folks that are interested, please take a look at the F 49 website and reach out to any of us if you're interested in, in joining. We'd love to have you.

Michael Darden (33:13):

I would just say that the very first thing that we were able to agree upon when we were looking at the terminology in supply chain was to realize that there's three naturally occurring phases of a transaction. That the part in the middle when it's moving is the execution phase. It's when stuff is actually in motion that there's a planning phase that happens before that and a reconciliation phase that happens afterwards. And if you can start your conversation with understanding or explaining where in the process it is that it's in the execution or in the planning or in the reconciliation, you can streamline the results of what you need to have service wide very quickly. And right now we don't have even that level of standard to being able to say, to classify where the the work is needed.

Dave Walsh (34:03):

Mike Ner, that leaves you with the last, last word.

Mike Coner (34:06):

So in, in our committee, we're actively working on, um, new standards around deforestation, uh, critical mineral traceability, medication, government equipment, consumer goods. We love to collaborate. We invite anybody to join our committee. If you are in an industry that you think of, uh, international standard would benefit, please come meet and talk with us. We'd love to help you construct one and get it published in a good way.

Dave Walsh (34:31):

Well, we really appreciate your time. I think this has been a very informative podcast. It just has a whole lot of information for laypeople who wanna get their head around the issues with supply chain. So thank you all for being with us.

Dave Walsh (34:48):

If you wanna learn more about any of the standards discussed in this episode, visit astm.org for all the latest. And if you enjoyed the show, remember to like and subscribe so you never miss an episode. I'm Dave Walsh and this has been Standards Impact presented by ASTM International.