REPORT OF THE

i2d NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

r

Heights and measures mi

> v

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

SPECIAL PUBLICATION 297
I

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS I

The National Bureau of Standards^ provides measurement and technical information services essential to the efficiency and effectiveness of the wor^

of the Nation's scientists and engineers. The Bureau serves also as a focstl point in the Federal Government for assuring maximum application of ttie physical and engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. To accomplish this mission, the Bureau is organized

into three institutes covering broad program areas of research and services: THE INSTITUTE FOR BASld STANDARDS ... provides the central basis

within the United States for a complete and consistent system of physical^!

measurements, coordinates that system with the measurement systems ofi^j other nations, and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and 1 uniform physical measurements throughout the Nation's scientific community,

q

industry, and commerce. This Institute comprises a series of divisions, each|\

serving a classical subject matter area :

i —Applied Mathematics—Electricity—Metrology—Mechanics—Heat—Atomic Physics—Physical Chemistry—^Radiation Physics—Laboratory

Astrophysics -—Radio Standards Laboratory,^ which includes Radio Standards Physics and Radio Standards Engineering—Office of Standard Refer- ence Data. , THE INSTITUTE FOR MATERIALS RESEARCH . . . conducts materials research and provides associated materials services including mainly fefer ence materials and data on the properties of materials. Beyond its direct interest to the Nation's scientists and engineers, this Institute yields services which are essential to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. This Institute is organized primarily by technical fields: —Analytical Chemistry—Metallurgy—Reactor Radiations—Polymers

Inorganic Materials—Cryogenics -—Office of Standard Reference Materials. THE INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY . . . provides technical services to promote the use of available technology and to facilitate tech; nological innovation in industry and, government. The principal elements

this Institute are:

caL

—

Center

Building

for ResearchCqmputer—Electronic

Sciences and

Instrumentation—

Technology—Textile

Technical

and

Analysis

Apparel

i

Technology Center—Office of Weights and Measures—Office of Engineering Standards Services—Office of Invention and Innovation—Office of Vehicle Systems Research^—Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and

Technical Information'—Materials Evaluation Laboratory—I>jrBS/GSA

Testing Laboratory.

^ Headquarters and Laboratories at GaithersburK, Maryland, unless otherwise noted ; mailing address Washington, D.C., 20234.

- Located at Boulder, Colorado, 80302. , ,

' Located at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 2215L ;
Report of the

52d National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1967

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials From the Various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives From U.S, Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Washington, D.C, June 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 1967

Report Editor: R. L. Koeser

United States Department of Commerce

C. R. Smith, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

A. V. Astin, Director

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication No. 297

Issued May 1968

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402—Price, $1.25
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 26-27766
CONTENTS

(NOTE: Reports of the Standing, Annual, and Executive Committees, and the Treasurer's Report, have been arranged together,

beginning on page 151, for easier reference.)

Officers and Committees vii Committee Meetings ix MORNING SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1967

Address, by Hon. A. B. Trowbridge, Secretary of Commerce 1 Address, by R. D. Huntoon, Chief, Officer for Program Development

and Evaluation, National Bureau of Standards 7 Presentation of Honor Awards, by M. W. Jensen, Executive Secretary,

National Conference on Weights and Measures 28

Address, by J. E. Bowen, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Newton, Massachusetts, and Chairman, National Conference on Weights and Measures 29

Special Awards Ceremony for A. V. Astin and M. W. Jensen, by A.

Sanders, Executive Secretary, Scale Manufacturers Association,

and L. Barker, Commissioner, and W. H. Holt, Administrative Assis- tant to Commissioner, Department of Labor, State of West

Virginia 38 Conference Luncheon, Guest speaker: Miss Betty Furness, Special Assistant to the Presi- dent for Consumer Affairs 39 AFTERNOON SESSION—TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1967 A Role for Automatic Data Processing in Weights and Measures, by

W. J. Whitty, Center for Computer Sciences and Technology,

National Bureau of Standards 45 Open Forum: Cooperation—Communication—Compliance, Moderator: M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards 52 MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1967

Seminar on Fair Packaging and Labeling, Moderator: M. W. Jensen,

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards 53

(1) Implementation of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

Cooperation or Vexation?, by F. E. McLaughlin, Assistant to the Associate Commissioner for Compliance, Food and Drug

Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 54

iii
MORNING SESSION—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1967—Continued

(2) Remarks, by C. A. Sweeny, Director of Deceptive Practices,

Federal Trade Commission 5j: (3) The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, by A. J. Farrar, Legal

Advisor, Office of the Director, National Bureau of Standards _ (4) Us Procrusteans Make Strange Bedfellows, by C. F. Roberts,

Jr., Washington Representative, National Association of Manufacturers, Washington, D. C. (5) Truth-in-Packaging—A Coming Reality or a Mirage? by W.

Sandbach, Executive Director, Consumers Union, Mount Vernon,

New York

MORNING SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1967 Ladder Measurement and Labeling, by B. M. Getzoff, Attorney at Law, Echt and Getzoff, Chicago, Illinois What's New in Aerosol Packaging?, by E. D. Giggard, Product Coordinator for Aerosols, Continental Can Company, Technical Research Center, Chicago, Illinois 8' The Preval Cartridge, by R. A. Coever, Jr., Precision Valve Corporation, Yonkers, New York 9( Measurements on the Saturn Space Vehicle, by C. T. N. Paludan, Chief,

Measuring Instrumentation Branch, Marshall Space Flight Center,

Huntsville, Alabama 9^ Weights and Measures and Scale Manufacturers Problems and Opportunities, by G. D. Reynolds, Jr., Vice President, John Chatillon &

Sons, Kew Gardens, New York, and President, Scale Manufacturers

Association

Petroleum Industry Concern with Meter Accuracy

1. The American Petroleum Institute, by R. Southers, Operations

and Engineering Coordinator, American Petroleum Institute,

New York, New York

2. The Petroleum Industry and Its Weights and Measures Subcommittee, by J. W. Hale, Vice Chairman, API Weights and Measures Technical Committee, and Technical Representative,

Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville, Oklahoma

3. A Study to Determine Meter Accuracy Capability, by R. P. West,

Morris & West, Consulting Engineers, Atlantic Highlands, New

Jersey

AFTERNOON SESSION—THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1967

(Thursday's afternoon session was devoted to reports of the Conference committees, which can be found beginning on page 151.) MORNING SESSION—FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 1967

Activities of the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, by M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures,

and Staff Hawaii—Weights and Measures Program and Progress, by G. E. Mattimoe, Chief, Weights and Measures Branch, Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, Hawaii

iv
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Report of the Conference Executive Committee, presented by J. E.

I Bowen, Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Newton,

Massachusetts 151 Statement of the Incoming Conference Executive Committee, presented

by C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary,

Indiana 152 REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES:

Report of the Conference Committee on Education, presented by S. H.

Christie, Jr., Chairman, Duputy State Superintendent, Division

of Weights and Measures, New Jersey Department of Law and

Public Safety, State of New Jersey 153 Report of the Conference Committee on Liaison with the National

Government, presented by R. J. Fahey, Chairman, City Sealer,

Department of Consumer Sales, Weights and Measures, Chicago,

Illinois — 158

Report of the Conference Committee on Laws and Regulations, presented by M. Jennings, Chairman, Director, Division of Marketing,

Tennessee Department of Agriculture, State of Tennessee 159 Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances,

presented by G. L. Johnson, Chairman, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, Kentucky Department of Agriculture, State of Kentucky 168 REPORTS OF ANNUAL COMMITTEES:

Report of the Conference Committee on Nominations, presented by

H. E. Crawford, Chairman, Inspector of Weights and Measures,

! Jacksonville, Florida 186

I Report of the Conference Committee on Resolutions, presented by

R. H. Fernsten, Chairman, County Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Alameda County, California 188 Report of the Conference Auditing Committee, presented by I. R. Frazer, Chairman, County Inspector of Weights and Measures,

Howard County, Indiana 190 Report of the Conference Treasurer, presented by C. C. Morgan,

City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana 191 Conference Registration List 193 H-44 Promulgation Map 217

V

OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES

OFFICERS

(As elected by the Fifty-first National Conference to serve during

the Fifty-second)

President: A. V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards.") . Executive Secretary: M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and j Measures, National Bureau of Standards.

Chairman: J. E. Bovi^en, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Newton,

Massachusetts.

Vice Chairmen:

C. 0. COTTOM, Supervising Inspector, Food Inspection Division, Michigan

Department of Agriculture, Lansing, Michigan.

R. H. Fernsten, County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Alameda

County, California.

F. M. Gersz, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Consumer Protection,

Hartford, Connecticut.

J. G. GUSTAFSON, Chief Inspector, Department of Licenses, Weights and

Measures, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Treasurer: C. C. Morgan, City Sealer of Weights and Measures, Gary,

Indiana. Chaplain: R. W. Searles, County Inspector of Weights and Measures,

Medina County, Ohio. OFFICERS

(As elected by the Fifty-second National Conference to serve during

the Fifty-third)

Ex officio A. V. Astin, President

M. W. Jensen, Executive Secretary

C. C. Morgan, Chairman

N. Berryman of Florida, Vice Chairman

R. T. Williams of Texas, Vice Chairman

3. T. Daniell of Michigan, Vice Chairman

D. E. Konsoer of Wisconsin, Vice Chairman

J. F. True of Kansas, Treasurer

R. W. Searles of Ohio, Chaplain

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

%

' (As elected by the Fifty-second National Conference)

A. V. Astin

M. W. Jensen

C. C. Morgan

N. Berryman

J. T. Daniell

D. E. Konsoer

R. T. Williams

J. F. True

R. W. Searles

Ex officio

L. H. DeGrange

G. L. Delano

M. R. Dettler

K. G. Hayden

N. Kalechman

J. B. McGee

G. E. Mattimoe

J. C. Mays

D. I. Offner

A. W. Weidner, Jr.

vii
STANDING COMMITTEES

(As constituted at the conclusion of the Fifty-second National Conference,

the personnel of each of the standing committees are as listed. The remaining term of office for each committee member, in years, is shown in parentheses

following each entry.)

EDUCATION*

W. I. Thompson of New Jersey, Chairman (3).

L. A. Gredy of Indiana (1) A. D. Rose of California (2)

J. I. Moore of North Carolina (4) B. A. Pettit of District of Columbia (5) LAWS AND REGULATIONS*

W. A. Kerlin of California, Chairman (4)

L. Barker of West Virginia (1) H. L. GOFORTH of Illinois (2)

J. F. Lyles of Virginia (3) G. L. Delano of Montana (5) SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES*

H. D. Robinson of Maine, Chairman (2)

J. F. McCarthy of Massachusetts (1)

C. H. Stender of South Carolina (3) R. Rebuffo of Nevada (4) D. E. Konsoer of Wisconsin (5) COMMITTEE ON LIAISON WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT*

J. H. Lewis of Washington, Chairman (3) R. J. Fahey of Illinois (1) K. C. Allen of Ohio (2) R. C. Primley of Michigan (4) E. E. WoLSKi of New York (5)

ANNUAL COMMITTEES ACTING ONLY DURING THE

FIFTY-SECOND CONFERENCE

Nominations : H. E. Crawford of Florida, Chairman; V. D. Campbell of Ohio; J. E. Mahoney of Maryland; R. E. Meek of Indiana; C. H. Stender

of South Carolina; J. F. True of Kansas; D. M. Turnbull of Washington.

Resolutions: R. H. Fernsten of California, Chairman; J. C. Boyd of Iowa;

P. W. Gaither of Mississippi; H. P. Hutchinson of District of Columbia;

W. H. Naudain of Delaware; S. F. Valtri of Pennsylvania; C. J. Wills,

Jr. of Maine.

Auditing Committee : I. R. Frazer of Indiana, Chairman; L. H. DeGrange of Maryland; G. L. Delano of Montana.

*M. W. Jensen, Executive Secretary of the Conference, is ex officio nonvoting secretary

to each committee.

viii
COMMITTEE MEETINGS, MONDAY JUNE 26, 1967

All day Monday was set aside for meetings of the Conference

committees. Announcements of these meetings were carried in

the National Conference Announcement and in the Conference

Program.

The Conference committees that met on Monday morning were

the Executive Committee, the Committee on Education, and the

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. The Committee on

Liaison with the National Government and the Committee on Laws and Regulations met Monday afternoon.

All final reports of the Standing and Annual Committees can

be found beginning on page 151.

ix

i REPORT OF THE FIFTY-SECOND NATIONAL

i CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

MORNING SESSION-TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1967

(J. E. BOWEN, Chairman, Presiding)

I The invocation was delivered and the memorial service for

departed members was conducted by the Conference Chaplain,

Rev. R. W. Searles of Ohio.

Rev. Searles led the delegates in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADDRESS

by Hon. Alexander B. Trowbridge, Secretary of Commerce,

U.S. Department of Commerce

It is a pleasure to welcome you to Washington.

The National Conference on Weights and

Measures has a long and distinguished tra- dition of achievement and service in the

public interest, and I am confident that this

session not only will continue, but will

measurably enrich that tradition.

We all know the importance of common

reference standards. They are the basic

language of manufacture that makes mass

production possible, and the unifying factor that both shapes

and defines the limits of the mass market that is so essential to our progress and prosperity.

But if standards have been important in the past, they are

infinitely more so in the complex, interrelated national and world

societies of today. Indeed, there is every indication that today's

vast technological, economic, and social changes have ushered in a whole new era of standards. Suddenly, we seem to have taken a quantum leap into an age in which standards hold the key, more

than ever before, to our continued material progress, both domestically and in our commercial relations in the international

sphere.

Many forces have combined to bring about this new era, but

one word seems to characterize them all : the word is more, and

not just some more. I mean more on a scale of magnitude

unlike anything the world has ever experienced ; I mean more on

the scale of the increase of nuclear power over TNT.

1
I refer, of course, to such forces as: —the vast increase in technology—and not just more technology, but even more meaningful, more complex technology; —the enormous increase in the exchange of goods that is re- flected in the surging economic activity on the domestic scene; —the vaulting increase in international trade and the

heightened competition for a rightful share in the opportunities

offered by the one-world market; —the vast social changes that have carried the democratization

process into every thread of our national life; —and the unprecedented urbanization of our country, with

concentrations of population that have turned whole areas into a single megalopolis.

All of these things, of course, have brought untold benefits

to out people—in health, education, housing, new and improved

products of every description, and generally higher living standards at every level. We also know these forces impose mounting

responsibilities on every individual and every institution, both

public and private.

But I believe there are few individuals, few organizations,

that have the responsibility, the opportunity, for playing such a

constructive role in the maintenance and expansion of these benefits, as those involved in the field of standards.

I believe you are aware of this. For the fact is that you and

your predecessors in this organization have helped bring this

new era into being through the outstanding cooperative mechanism you have provided as a service to the marketplace for more than half a century. The man generally regarded as the

greatest Secretary of Commerce ever to occupy this office. Herbert Hoover, took a personal and continuing interest in your

work, and addressed this Annual Conference every year for six

years, 1921-26.

In the first of those addresses, he said that the subject of

standards is partly a matter of. . .

enforcing honesty and protecting the consumer with respect to a return for the money he gives. It is also a question of simplifying

the process of manufacture, and in simplifying the process of manufacture you are contributing to a lower production cost and

protecting both producer and consumer. We are saving something

out of national energies. Fractions of pennies saved to every household and in every industry accumulate to make the wealth and

strength of the American people.

Today President Johnson has responded to the demands of

this new era by launching bold new programs in almost all areas requiring expanded standards operation—in both the con2
sumer and industrial field, in both domestic and international commerce. And this Conference, both as an organization and through

its individual members, will play an even greater cooperative

role in this new era than it has in the past. I can assure you

that we here in the Department of Commerce intend to call on your technical resources, your sense of national responsibility,

and your paramount interest in human values, to help with the

forward progress of the new programs that are only now getting underway.

We need this help not only because of our Department's con- tinuing responsibility to promote both domestic and international

trade, and to help provide standards to meet the needs of our burgeoning new technology. We also need it because our Department has been given new and expanded responsibilities in

the consumer field, particularly in packaging and labeling.

I can assure you that we are approaching the tasks ahead

with certain well-defined principles in mind. One of these in- volves the voluntary standards procedures of the Department,

which seek to foster consensus by the parties involved. We feel that our role is to respond to a specific request from the private

segments of society, to assist in establishing a voluntary standard.

To further this principle, the Department, as you may know,

issued new procedures in 1965 for the development of voluntary

standards for products, processes, and materials. These procedures leave the responsibility for consenting to product standards

with the various interests affected—producers, distributors, and

consumers. We know that it is the balancing of these interests, which,

beyond the technical content, makes a good or bad standard. An

unbalanced standard reflecting only the producer's point of view,

or only the view of a small number of the producers in a given

field, will soon be recognized for what it is—an inadequate and

inappropriate standard.

We are especially committed to the principle of "open standards openly arrived at." The open process should be provided

with the broadest participation from public, as well as private,

interest groups—the participation of all those who will be affected by the standards. Experience teaches us that industry in- vites Government regulation when it neglects an open process for

writing its voluntary standards.

A good, voluntary standard, fairly and openly arrived at, can

protect all points of view and can serve all interests. It promotes

informed choice by giving the consumer information about

the performance or characteristics of products he buys; it facil3
itates domestic and international trade, and it stimulates innova- | tion and competition. We all benefit, both as individuals and as [ members of the national and international community.

[ By and large, producers, distributors, consumers, trade asso- I, ciations, and others, all have shown a strong sense of respon- | sibility in working out standards. We now have in effect about 1 500 voluntary product standards developed through Commerce | procedures, and at least 13,000 developed through private asso- i ciations. This great system of standardization operates in the ) best Americal traditions of individual freedom and national

cooperation—and we intend to expand and build on it to meet 1 the new challenges ahead.

One of our principal challenges lies in the field of international trade. The recent successful conclusion of the Kennedy

Round negotiations, which liberalized world trade on some $40 j billion worth of products, underscores the need for increased 1 attention to international standards. For standards are the in- I ternational language of trade, through which buyer and seller communicate—and we obviously are going to be doing a lot more

talking in this world in the years ahead. ! This means that the Tower of Babel in international stand- i ards must come tumbling down. For we know that when in- ! ternational standards are incompatible with national standards,

trade barriers are thereby created.

For example, when international standards exclude U.S.- | made products, the loss of sales by U.S. manufacturers is a problem for the entire economy. A case in point is the fact that

standards for television sets in Europe differ from those in the

United States. They call for a different number of scanning

lines on the screen. TV sets described by these standards are

not inherently better or worse than American-made sets, just

different. But the barrier to the sale of our sets is as real as if the sets themselves had been excluded.

We have requested legislation, which is now before the Con- \ gress, to support and stimulate U.S. participation in formulating i international standards so that ours can harmonize with those of i other nations selling in the international marketplace. The bill I would provide grants to qualified standardization organizations i for participating in the international standards process and for j information activities. | I also can announce—here for the first time today—that I will ' shortly propose to other agencies of our Federal Government the

establishment of an Interagency Committee to consist of two ' panels—one to work in the international standards area and , the other on the domestic side. The first would seek to coordinate the functions of all govern4
mental agencies that touch on international standards, in an ef- fort to come to grips with these very real, non-tariff barriers

to trade. The Kennedy Round did not address itself to problem

of standards as one of the non-tariff barriers, and we must

mount a concerted attack on them as the next order of business

if we are to fulfill the full promise that freer world trade offers. The second panel would concern itself with the Government's

attitude toward developing good voluntary standards and co- ordinating government's cooperation with industry and other

private interests. We know that there is not enough participation by unbiased experts or those affected by the standard. This

panel not only would seek to arrive at a common attitude among

Federal agencies, but also coordinate policy and seek to reduce

overlapping work.

But it is our Department's work in the field of consumer

standards that will undoubtedly attract the greatest public

notice in the immediate months and years ahead.

President Johnson laid the foundation for this work in his

proposals on consumer affairs to the Congress. He recently com- mented :

The American consumer enjoys the highest standard of living of any- time in our history. But there is unfinished business needed to strengthen the efficiency and the fairness of our marketplace. We

must act and I think we should act now to protect every American

against unsafe products, against misleading information, against the

deceitful practices of a few.

As the representative of the business agency of government,

I would like to emphasize that word "few." The number is few.

The vast majority of American businessmen conduct their affairs on an ethical plane equal to that of other men of affairs any

where in our society. But it is unfortunately true that in

business, as elsewhere, an unscrupulous few do take unfair advantage, both of consumers and other producers, in our free and

open marketplace. And we must deal with them in a forthright manner. Today the mood of the country demands protection for the consumer against abuses in the marketplace. This means that

the age-old philosophy of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware

must be modified.

It must be modified not only to protect the buyer's interest,

but the public interest. For the way a product performs can af- fect not only the health and safety of the buyer, but in our con- gested society also that of his fellow citizens. An unsafe automobile places in jeopardy both the life of the driver and all those

in the stream of traffic. This realization has resulted in new

5
legislation—in the field of highway safety, and in such environ- \ mental matters as air and water pollution.

The consumer also needs new and better standards to help j him choose in the marketplace—and he must participate in the I process by which those standards are drawn up. We at Commerce have special responsibilities in this area under

the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966. Our duties, however, are not regulatory in nature. We do not have the responsibility or the authority under the Act to issue any regulation

governing the packaging or labeling practices of private industry.

We do have a responsibility and authority to determine whether

there are problems in this area and to encourage the development, i on a voluntary basis, of standards which will be in the total public interest.

We will be making every effort to assist manufacturers, no i less than consumers, and to assist consumers, no less than manu- 1; facturers, in achieving the goals which the President and the 1

1

Congress have set for us. Our Department also has special interests in legislation now

in various stages of consideration by Congress that will protect

the American consumer against hazards in the home. The pro- i posals include the creation of a National Commission on Product ' Safety (recently approved by the Senate) that would study ; household products that might be hazardous and make recomj mendations to the President and the Congress within 18 months.

Another proposal would strengthen the Flammable Fabrics Act | to cover additional items of clothing and other fabrics used in !j interior furnishings. And a third proposal would support and j supplement private research on fire-fighting and fire prevention, i In 1965, some 12,000 lives and $1.75 billion worth of property j were lost to fire. Our per capita death rate through fire was ! about four times as great as that of the United Kingdom and

over six times as great as that of Japan. We must do better, ! and this legislation would be a beginning step. i In much of this work, we in the Department of Commerce

will be calling on this Conference and its individual members i for assistance that only you can provide : identifying problem j areas, gathering information, and disseminating the standards ! which are arrived at.

j I am confident that you will respond to this call to service in \ the same responsible, effective, selfless manner that has always ' characterized your professional performance. In the new era of

standards we have the opportunity to take a giant's stride forward in furthering the potential of human endeavor—and I know that you will be in the vanguard of this great forward i

movement. M
ADDRESS

j by R. D. HUNTOON, Chief, Office for Program Development

and Evalimtion, National Bureau of Standards

You have heard Secretary Trowbridge

emphasize the great importance of the development of international standards. I think, therefore, that you will understand

why Dr. Astin could not be with us today.

He is a member of the U.S. delegation to the International Standards Organization

which is now meeting in Russia to undertake some of the tasks that the Secretary has

been telling us about. This is the first National Conference on Weights and Measures

that Dr. Astin has missed since he became Conference President.

I am both pleased and honored to have the opportunity to appear

in his place.

It is very seldom that an institution as large as the National

Bureau of Standards has an opportunity to rebuild and to move

to a completely new physical plant. This is exactly what we

have done recently and, as a part of the planning for making

optimum use of these facilities, Dr. Astin authorized a re-ex- amination of the Bureau's role, to determine how it is meeting

its responsibilities and how we can further improve and extend

our services to meet the needs of the national economy.

Briefly stated, the role of the Bureau is to serve as the principal

focal point within the Federal Government for the maximum application of the physical and engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. We carry

out this mission primarily by providing the central basis, and

the leadership for our National Measurement System. As will soon become apparent, this is really a sobering responsibility and a

fantastic challenge. Dr. Astin though it appropriate and I share some of our self-examination with you today.

First of all, however, it is customary to inform the Conference

of those items of interest that have happened at NBS since our

last meeting. Of the various items I might discuss, I am sure

that you will be most interested in the program to supply the

States with new standards.

As most of you know, the Congress has authorized the Bureau

to provide a new set of modern standards for physical measure- ment to each of the States. Perhaps I should pause here to make

a point. The word "standards" in the English language has two

different meanings. Part of the time this morning we shall be

speaking of standards for physical measurement, those standards

7
that provide our national tie points for measurement compatibility. At other times in the discussion, as when we heard from

Secretary Trowbridge, we shall be discussing standards of

practice—those standards that specify the design and performance characteristics of materials and products.

Of course when we speak of the new State standards, we are speaking of measurement standards. The Congress has authorized ten complete sets of these each year. We have the funds to take care of two years now, and funds for a third year practically

in hand. Each set will include both metric and U.S. customary

standards. We will provide them to a State when it, in turn,

provides a laboratory and technical facilities worthy of the new

standards. Dr. Astin presented recently the first two sets to Ohio

and Illinois. By next year, we hope to have 10 more sets in the

State laboratories.

A second item of interest since the last meeting was the completion of the move into our new Gaithersburg facilities. We

formally dedicated these facilities last November. Some 2500

people were present at the dedication and about 500, including

66 foreign visitors form 25 countries, attended a two-day

Symposium on Technology and World Trade, which the Secretary

of Commerce sponsored at Gaithersburg in conjunction with the

dedication. This Symposium examined ways in which the barriers to world trade might be removed and the dissemination of

technology facilitated. At the end of that week we held an open

house and, to our surprise, 20,000 people attended it. This spring the Industrial Research Institute held a meeting

at NBS. Some 240 research directors and scientists from 136 of

the major corporations of the country came to see what we do,

how we do it, and how we can meet the needs of industry.

Coming now to our technical program, I am happy to state that the Bureau's new linear particle accelerator is operational.

This $3 million facility produces an electron beam whose energies can be varied from 10 to 150 million electron volts. The

beam can have an electron power output up to 100 kilowatts,

giving us 200,000 times the radiation intensity previously available at NBS. This high beam intensity is necessary in developing

measurement standards needed by the radiation processing in- dustry and by the users of such machines wherever they occur

in science and industry. We look upon the new accelerator as a major national facility, not only for NBS but for people in

industry and the universities.

We also have a high-flux research reactor of 10 million watts

capacity which is expected to be ready to operate in about three

months. This facility will be used to study the properties of

materials under radiation.

8
I Now let us return to an examination of the role of NBS in our

i society through a consideration of the developing concept of a National Measurement System (NMS). This System had its beginning back in the dim past when our forebears set up systems

of weights and measures to provide a basis for fair exchange in

the marketplace. Starting with the three quantities, length, mass,

and time, it has grown to be a very extensive and sophisticated

measurement system.

The NMS is built on the fundamental principle that "things

equal to the same thing are equal to each other." This sets the

essential role of a standard. To insure compatibility in all measurements of a quantity such as length or mass, we must have a pyramid of comparisons, or calibrations, at ever-increasing levels

of accuracy, until for each quantity all measurements are ulti- mately referred to the same thing—the national standard or "tie

point."

If we provide compatibility in this way, then measurements

made throughout the country will be consistent wherever they

occur and the System will operate to provide "constrained freedom." That is to say, each individual, manufacturer, or businessman within the System will have complete freedom to make his

own decisions and to develop products as he wishes ; but at the same time he will be constrained so that his actions and decisions

will be consistent and compatible with his environment and he

will thus be able to operate successfully.

Our National Measurement System is one of a number of

mutually interacting systems within our technologically based

society. Examples of other such systems are the transportation

system, communications system, or the fiscal system. Together

they make up the environment in which our citizens live and

carry on their activities.

The NMS is fully as large and important as the other social

systems. In fact, this simple axiom of mathematics, that things

equal to the same thing are equal to each other, really leads to big business. It is roughly estimated that something more than 20

billion measurements a day are being made in this country by

all our citizens—in factories, in laboratories, and in everyday

life : This number is nowhere as precise as some others we shall

mention later, but nonetheless it indicates the magnitude of the

system.

In this country, we have some $25 billion invested in measuring

instruments alone, and this investment is growing at the rate

of $4 or $5 billion a year. We have some $20 billion invested in

research to provide measurement data, and we are adding about

$3 billion a year to this amount. Altogether our investment in

9
FINAL COST MAN YRS

DEMAND OF SPENT ON

(GNP) MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENT

BILLIONS^ ^. BIJUyONS THaMSANDS

NATIONAL

/MEASUREMENT

SYSTEM

MANUFACTUf^ING

CONSTRUCTION

MINING & FARMING

TRANSPORTATION

COMMUNICATIONS

& UTILITIES

MEDICAL & EDUCATIONAL

SERVICES

Govt RNMENT

& OTHER

SERVICES

TOTALS

845

120

98

103

139

Figure 1

the System is in the order of $45 billion to $50 billion and is increasing by $7 or $8 billion a year. Figure 1 shows the impact of the National Measurement System on our national economy in figures taken from the 1963

census. Here we are looking at totals for those industries and

services which then accounted for two-thirds of the Gross National Product. We find them investing $13.9 billion a year in

measurement activities and expending 1.3 million man-years in

the process. In figure 2 we take a closer look at the various manufacturing industries. The ordinate shows, for a number of industries,

the percentages of the total value of all shipments that were

spent on measurement; the abscissa shows the growth of these

industries over the 1963-65 interval. Note that the fastest growing industries are those that devote the most effort to measurement. I do not say that measurement makes them grow faster, but

I do say that the fastest growing industries are those that are most closely coupled to the output of the Measurement System,

and that therefore our industrial growth is in fact tightly coupled

to our measurement sophistication and capability.

What is the function of the National Measurement System

that has grown up in this country? Any system, of course, consists of a set of functional elements working together under some

sort of central control to accomplish some function. We see the

function of the NMS as one of providing a quantitative basis in measurement for interchangeability and for decisions for action

10
I- 9' z

111 tn

^ =>

</) in 3

I. 2 o

AVERAGE 9 8% ®

®

®

AVERAGE 17%

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 %GROWTH OF FINAL DEMAND 1963-1965 FOR MANUFACTURERS OF Figure 2

68 FOODS BEVERAGES 10

21 CHEMICALS a DRUGS 5

19 MACHINERY 4

18 MOTOR VEHICLES 4

17 APPAREL 3

15 ELECTRICAL MACHINERY 3

14 MISC DURABLES 2

12 FABRICATED METALS i

AEROSPACE LEATHER ft PAPER OTHER TRANSPORTATION

PRINTING a PUBLISHING FERROUS INDUSTRIES RUBBER a PLASTICS INSTRUMENTS

TEXTILE PRODUCTS

II FURNITURE a WOOD PROD I NONFERROUS INDUSTRIES

in all facets of our daily life—public affairs, commerce, industry,

science, and engineering.

The interchangeability aspect is of fundamental importance

in modern society. Once we have a measurement system with a

set of agreed-upon units and standards, we have a firm basis for

the interchange of goods and services in the mass markets of

modern commerce, of machine parts and devices in industry, and

of scientific and technical information. Such a system makes it possible for any plant to mass-produce materials, parts, and sys- tems that are interchangeable with those made in plants in

other parts of the country. Without this basis for interchangeability, our industrial economy as we know it today could not

exist. Likewise, if results obtained in one laboratory are to be

useful in another, they must be expressed in a measurement

system common to both laboratories; otherwise, each laboratory

would have to operate on its own and confusion would result

when they attempted to exchange information.

Modern society requires each of us to make numerous decisions throughout the day, and many of these decisions are based on measurement. For example, we are continually making

measurements of temperature, time, and speed so that we can

decide what to wear, when to leave, and how fast to go. And an

aircraft pilot must read a number of measurement output dials

in order to make vital decisions during a flight (fig. 3).

11
Figure 3 To provide a basis for decisions throughout the Nation, all . measurements must be compatible with each other. For example, i the airplane pilot's decisions based on measurement must be i compatible with those made in the control tower and in other

j aircraft, as well as with measurements of the properties of the ' materials in the aircraft, the fuel it uses, and the atmosphere 1 around it. Otherwise, the pilot will be unable to stay on course, avoid collisions, and arrive on time. I Like other social systems, the National Measurement Systems ' consists of two basically different interacting structures which j we may designate as the "conceptual system" and the "opera- I tional system." The conceptual system is the logical structure I that provides the fundamental basis for the operational system— j a structure of functional elements each of which is an organiza- '

tion of people and resources to accomplish a function. The In-

'

ternational System of Units (abbreviated SI for Systeme In- ' ternational) exemplifies the basic structure of the conceptual

| system that governs the operation of the NMS. j The anchor points for the entire structure of the conceptual , system (fig. 4) are the standards for the four basic quantities:

j mass, length, time, and temperature. The units for all other

physical quantities are linked to the units for these four quantities (the kilogram, meter, second, and degree Kelvin) through

the definitions and equations of physics. This fact insures that

the units of the SI will be consistent with the equations of

physical science.

12
BASIC

4

DERIVED

QUANTITIES

SUBSTANCE

/ PROPERTIES \

\ MICRO BULK / \ MATTER MATTER /

ARTIFACTS Figure 4

/ CHARACTERISTICS A

\ DEVICES SYSTEMS /

I The basic and derived physical quantities form a set of some

I 47 general measurement quantities, in terms of which the other

measurement quantities of science, industry, and commerce are

developed. Those measurement quantities concerned with the

properties of substances, such as density or viscosity, form one

characteristic set which serves the need for a body of reliable

data on the properties of matter and materials. Those that

I relate to manmade artifacts—devices, subsystems, and systems

j rather than substances, form another characteristic set which

serve the need for technological measurements and standards,

i.e., design or performance standards.

Figure 4 shows upward feedback, which takes place in two

ways. First, there is the feedback of information regarding the

needs for refinement of the quantities at each level. Then

there is the feedback of capability and knowledge developed in

the various parts of the system. For instance, information on

properties is essential to the definition and development of the

four basic units and for standards for the derived units.

The Operational System.

We turn now to the operational system—national in scope and

consisting of people and organizations. Figure 5 illustrates, in a

j very general way, how the NMS operates in this country. It

I shows the National Measurement System's relation to the inter1 national measurement system, its pool of unmet needs, and its reservoir of capability that the users draw upon. The figure also

shows the three major networks which comprise the NMS. First

there is the instrument network which provides calibrated trace- able instrumentation, consistent and compatible with the na13

I
THE NATIONAL

Figure 5

tional standards, for making measurements. This network is tied

to the conceptual system through the basic core of national

standards.

Then there is the data network which provides the user of the

System with critically evaluated data on the intrinsic properties

of materials—data that previous investigators have obtained in

measurements based on the national standards. This network

thus gives the user in many cases a "ready-made answer" to his measurement problem so that he does not need to make the

measurement himself. The data network is related to the conceptual system through the basic core and the definitions of the

properties of substances.

We may also envision a corresponding data network for data on the characteristics of devices or systems to meet the need for

technological measurements and standards. This network, however, is not yet sufficiently well analyzed to permit adequate representation here.

Finally, there is the techniques network which tells the user

of the NMS how to use the instrument and data networks in

order to make meaningful measurements. This network disseminates knowledge to the user, through publications and other

means, so that he will know, first, how to make a given measurement, and secondly, what it is meaningful for him to measure. Now, having outlined the gross structure of the NMS, let us consider the role of NBS as a key functional element in this

System (fig. 6). This role the Bureau conceives to be one of

central Federal leadership—to guide the System as it continues

to operate through the voluntary cooperation of American

science and industry and the provision, on the part of the

14
LEADERSHIP

NATIONAL STANDARDS

CALIBRATION

STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIALS

DATA GENERATION

DATA EVALUATION

TECHNIQUES OF MEANINGFUL

MEASUREMENT

ENGINEERING RESEARCH

Figure 6

Federal Government of the central basis for the system. The

Bureau must maintain this leadership, through general accept- ance based on its capability—not by law or fiat. So it exerts its leadership through its outputs—by developing and maintaining

the national standards v^hich serve as a central core for the

I three networks, by providing calibration services and standard

i reference materials for the instrument network, by generating

! and evaluating data for the data network, and by developing

techniques of meaningful measurement for the techniques net- work.

The program response of NBS to meet these needs of the NMS

has followed quite naturally from the nature of the System. The

Bureau's physical measurement system program is aimed primarily at basic measurements and standards. This program proI vides the core of central tie points around which the system

functions, and from which the measurement chain extends out- ward to the calibrated instruments throughout the System.

A second NBS program, on matter-materials data and standards, seeks to meet the nationwide need for a systematic and

readily accessible body of accurate, reliable, precise, and conI sistent data on the properties of materials in different environ-

] ments, and for information, reference materials, and conceptual

knowledge that will make possible the effective use of such data.

Finally, the Bureau has a program relating to technological

measurements and standards. This program provides information on the performance characteristics and design standards of manTh<E NATIONAL

1EASUREMENT

SYSTEM

CONSISTENT

INSTRUMENTATION

15
made objects so that there can be meaningful exchange of

j products and devices in the marketplace.

Central Core.

In providing the national standards which serve as tie points

for the NMS, the Bureau must develop and maintain the standards for the four basic quantities and for the set of some 50

quantities whose units are derived in accordance with the con- ceptual system as indicated earlier. We are also concerned with

the values for about 18 physical constants. A brief look at one of the basic units—the second—will illus- trate the dynamic nature of measurement standards and the

challenge we face in continually improving our standards to meet the expanding requirements of science and industry. Before

1956 the second was defined as 1/86,400 of a mean solar day

(fig. 7) ; thus its definition was based on the rotating earth as a

clock. But by 1956 it had become sufficiently evident that the

rotating earth was not a good enough clock, and the second was

redefined as a fraction of the annual trip of the earth around

the sun. (This redefinition did not change the size of the second,

only the way in which it was defined.) The second thus defined

is now known as the ephemeris second, and it is possible to

realize this second to about 2 parts in a billion after about five years of astronomical measurements. But work with cesiumbeam-controlled clocks had already surpassed this precision, so a new definition was needed. In October 1964, the 12th General

Conference of Weights and Measures authorized an atomic defi- UNIT DEFINITIO

BEFORE 1956

1 SECOND = V86,400 of the rotation

of the earth on its axis

1956

1 SECOND(ephemeris):

V31,556,925.9747

of the time taken

by the earth to

orbit the sun

1964

1 SECOND = 9,192,631,770

vibrations

of the cesium

atom

Figure 7

16
j nition of the second, and the International Committee on

j Weights and Measures, acting for the Conference, temporarily

I based the definition on an invariant transition of the cesium

j 133 atom, in expectation of a more exact definition in the future,

^ assigning a value of 9,192,631,770 hertz to the cesium transition

j selected. It now appears that we can compare the second in

j terms of this definition to 1 or 2 parts in 10 (equivalent to

j about 1 sec in 30,000 years).

' Why do v^^e need to measure time to an accuracy of one second

' in 30,000 years? The ansv^^er is that clocks that keep in step

' within a few microseconds within a month are required when

1 radio waves, which travel 1000 feet in a millionth of a second,

j are used to determine positions of missiles or satellites or air-

! craft. This requires accuracies of about a second in 30,000 years.

The progression in the development of time standards illusf trates what might be called "the dynamics of a static situation."

We must keep the value of the second invariant, but at the same

j time must continually do research to realize this unit to greater

I precision. This makes the field of precise measurement both

complex and challenging. To obtain each advance in accuracy,

increasingly complex equipment and higher degrees of skill and

training are required, so that the cost of the required research

spirals upward, and the necessary skills are ever changing.

I I am sure that you are aware that similar progress has been

i made in the field of length measurement. Since 1960 the inter-

! national standard meter has been defined as 1,650,763.73 wavelengths, in vacuum, of the red radiation from krypton 86, cor- responding to the unperturbed transition between the energy

levels 2P lo and 5d 5. Spectral lines of this type caa be inter

compared with an overall limit of uncertainty of about 2 parts

levels 2P 10 and 5d 5. Spectral lines of this type can be interin one billion (equivalent to the diameter of a fountain pen,

compared to the distance across the United States), but the

translation of these measurements to material standards such as the meter cannot be accomplished so percisely, today's limit being

somewhat better than 1 part in 10 million.

Figure 8 shows the progression in the development of standands for the second. We began in ages past with the hour glass

which kept time to about a second in a minute and a half; it probably cost $3 and was accurate to about a part in 100. Next

we have a clock, which costs about $30 and keeps time to a sec- ond in three hours or a part in 10 Next we have a good tuning

fork, accurate to a part in 10 and costing perhaps $300 ; then

the quartz frequency generator, accurate to a second in three

years or a part in 10®; the ammonia molecular clock, good to a

17
DEVELOPING THE STANDARD

30

I COST

ACCURACY

300

I

3000

Isec Isec Isec each

' 2 mm

each each

3hrs day

io^ 10* 10^

each

3 yrs 10^

30,000

I

Ammonia

Resonator

I Isec each

30yrs

>9

300,000

I

10' 10

«

Cesium Hydrogen

Resonator Maser

I I Isec 1sec

each

30,000

30,000yrs centuries 12 ^rv14

each

10'

Figure 8 second in 30 years, or a part in 10 * or 10 ^ ; then the new cesium

resonator previously mentioned, accurate to a second in 30,000

years, or a part in 10 and costing about $300,000 ; and finally

the hydrogen maser, now under development, which may go to a

part in 10 If we get to an accuracy of a part in 10 which

appears likely, it will be equivalent to an accuracy of 1 cent in the I whole Federal budget.

As yet we have not found any way of tying our standard of mass to the atom which will lead to greater precision than with

our present international standard, the platinum-iridium kiloggram cylinder at Sevres, France. However, the various standard

kilograms in existence can be intercompared within about 2

parts in a billion. This is roughly equivalent to the weight of ink

in a comma as compared with the weight of a whole book.

As I said before, from the four basic units—of length, mass,

time, and temperature—we can derive the units for all other

physical quantities in accordance with the definitions and equations of physics. Take the quantity current, for example, as in

figure 9. We start with our old friends, length, mass, and time in

the physical equation L = ST; distance equals speed multiplied

by time. Since the units of length and time are already set, the

equation sets the unit of speed for us. Now we go on to the

equation S = AT, which defines acceleration, A. As the units of

both speed and time are now set, the unit of acceleration

is determined by this relationship.

Next we bring in mass, M, to set the unit of force, F, through

use of Newton's law F = MA. The convenient way of measuring

18
MASS

Figure 9

force is to weigh a mass, so for a particular weight falling

freely in the earth's gravitational field, Newton's law becomes

F = MG. Thus the measurement of the acceleration of a falling

body becomes a critical experiment in setting the size of the

unit of force. Once we have the unit of force, we take two parallel

wires, run an electric current through them, and measure the

resulting force between the parallel wires. If we set the value of

the magnetic constant at 2 x 10-' henry/meter we can now

use the equation at the bottom of figure 9 to set the unit of current, I. In similar fashion, the units for all other physical quantities can be related to the basic four in accordance with the equations

of physics.

Instrumentation Network.

Once the units have been selected for the various quantities

and national standards for these units have been realized, there

must be a chain of measurement that will provide for measuring

all the magnitudes we must deal with. In mass, for example, the

range extends from the mass of the earth, or even beyond, down

to the mass of the electron, neutron, or subparticle (fig. 10). So

we have vast spectrum of some 50 or 60 orders of magnitude

that must be connected through a measurement chain to the defined unit, the kilogram. Some of these magnitudes can be measured directly by taking multiples or submultiples of the standard.

19
Figure 10

but as we leave the central part of the range we find it necessary'

to use indirect methods, with a corresponding reduction in ac-'' curacy. ^ Of course it is impossible for a single institution such as NBSi

to make calibrations over the complete range for length or fori any other quantity. So the Bureau has to make basic decisionsi as to how far to go and how much to do. Its policy is to pickP

calibration points (or in some cases calibration regions) at in- tervals over the range so that the measurement activities off the country can be coupled to NBS at these points. The Bureauf

relies on the other measurement laboratories in industry and the! defense agencies to extend the calibration to intermediate points^

between the NBS points so as to cover the range as needed.

[

Thus the national standards in the central core are ultimately'

connected to the entire instrumentation network.

j To help in making the basic decisions that are required, NBS[,

is now using accuracy charts to assess its measurement capabil-|

ities in various areas. Figure 11 is an idealized version of such as

chart. The heavy line indicates present NBS capability; the nextjj

line down, what good industrial laboratories can do; the lower ij line, accuracies at the ultimate user's level—at the factory bench jj and in the finished product. The dots indicate the accuracies our^

customers say they need and the dashed lines show where NBS \ activities now underway are going or will carry us. Finally, the \ stars represent the ultimate needs for capability expressed by

important segments of the users.

, At NBS we can use this type of chart to show graphically!

20
GENERALIZED ACCURACY

ONE

PART

t IN

' 10=

* >

< 10^ 1

\

INDUSTRY

10 10" 1 MAGNITUDE

10^ 10'

Figure 11 where we are putting our major efforts, to indicate our goals, to display the needs of the NMS, and to decide where to concentrate our further efforts. We need to resolve such questions as whether

it is more important to raise the line representing NBS capability, and thereby bring up the line representing industrial

capability, or whether to try simply to bring the industry line up

closer to the NBS line by tightening up the System, perhaps by

reducing the number of echelons between the standard and the

ultimate user. Figure 12 is an actual accuracy chart for length showing the

different methods used in different ranges of magnitude and the

accuracies achieved. As the chart indicates, the laser is emerging

as a possible wavelength standard, since the krypton 86 wavelength is useful only in measuring lengths of a few inches.

In the lower left corner of figure 12 we see that frustrated

reflection is being studied as a means of measuring very small

lengths. You may recall that when light approaches a glass sur- face from within the glass, there is an angle of approach beyond

which all the light will be totally reflected. Careful studies have

shown that the light apparently penetrates a short distance

beyond the totally reflecting surface as it changes to its reflected

direction. If we frustrate that little stream of light, we frustrate

the total reflection, and this gives us a means of measuring fractions of a wavelength of light down into the region of 10 inch.

As I indicated earlier, the physical constants of nature are part

of the basic core of the National Measurement System. We feel that the measurement system should be coupled to nature in a

21
INTERFEROMETRIC COMPARISON LASER

Kr86 WAVELENGTH

GEODETIC

TAPES

GAGE BLOCKS

FRUSTRATED

REFLECTION

LINE STANDARDS

Existing capabilities

Object of existing projects

Figure 12

Figure 13 reproducible way. Although the system, as it has developed, is based on the four quantities length (L), mass (M), time (T),

and temperature (9), it might equally well have been based on

the following four physical constants: the velocity of light (c),

Planck's radiation constant {h), the mass of the electron (m),

and the Boltzmann constant (k). In figure 13 these relationships are presented in a symmetrical way. On the left the dimensions of

the four physical constants are given in terms of the four basic

22
quantities; on the right the dimensions of each of the four basic

quantities are given in terms of the four physical constants. So

we see that if we had wanted to, we could have set values for

these fundamental physical constants and these would then have

determined the values of our units of length, mass, time, and all other quantities. However, the length unit that we obtain as h/mc

is of the order of 2 x 10 meter, so that a meter would have

about 4 X 10 of these units in it. As this unit is so inconvenient

in size, we prefer to keep the meter as our unit of length. Nevertheless, once we have measured these four physical constants with

our measuring sticks, we could in theory reproduce the entire

measurement system by first arbitrarily setting the size of one

unit, remeasuring the constants in terms of the other units, and

adjusting their sizes accordingly. Thus these fundamental constants of nature tie the world of measurement into nature.

Data Network.

Now let us turn to the data network. An important point to consider here is that when sufficient data have been obtained to characterize a substance, then the substance can serve as a

reference material for the calibration qf instruments that measure the properties of substances. Thus the data network offers a means by which the user of the NMS can perform his own cali- brations. The use of the freezing and boiling points of various

substances—the "fixed points" of the thermometer scale—to calibrate a thermometer is an example (fig. 14). If the substance

BY REPRODUCIBLE

READY-MADE

MEASUREMENTS

OF MATERIAL

PROPERTIES

0.01

1063.

TEMPEEmrURE

FixEjaryoiNTs'

c. GOLD POINT

960.8 7^ SILVER POINT

444.6 tV^SULFUR POINT

100 7^ STEAM POINT

TRIPLE POINT

OF WATER

82.97 OXYGEN POINT

Figure 14

23
ENGINEERING DESIGN

w

LUMINOUS FLUX ^ \ POWER CONSUHPTION^^^

BULB TEMPERATURE ^^^^

WIRE DIAMETER BULB DIAMETER THREAD PITCH

Figure 15

is sufficiently well characterized, the reference sample can be ^ purchased from the usual sources of supply and certified standard

samples will not be necessary. I Today the great majority of the instruments that are used to : measure properties of substances are calibrated in-house by

manufacturers or users by reference to standard data on the

measured property. The calibrations are related to the national i standards through the key data on properties which NBS pro- i vides and which people outside NBS can build around. So the | existence of ready-made answers in the form of data takes a vast

j load off the instrument network of the Measurement System. i The data network is also of great value in providing a basis | for decisions that must be based on measurement. Suppose, for

| example, that an engineer were setting out today to design a new | competitive light bulb. Figure 15 shows some of the things he | would need to know. Obviously he would need instruments to ! make direct measurements of the diameter of the bulb, the pitch

of the thread, the weight of the materials, the diameter of the

wires, and so on. But once he had the capability of making these

measurements in production, he would still be a long way from

the design of a light bulb. He would need a vast store of such

ready reference information as the electrical resistivity and

spectral emissivity of tungsten and other competitive materials,

the melting point and thermal expansion of glass—^in fact, a whole library of data of this kind which would also be of value to designers of vacuum tubes and other products. If he has to stop

and measure all these properties, he will be investing several

24
Figure 16 million dollars in a research program before he can start his

' design. On the other hand, if ready-made answers are already

available for the data he needs, because someone else has already

measured them, then he can save this vast investment. Once the

has found the numbers, he can proceed with the design, provided

that he can trust the numbers to be correct.

I Figure 16 illustrates, perhaps even more graphically, the need

I for critically evaluated data in the decision process. When an

engineer goes to the literature in search of design data, he finds

in some cases a wide range of values for each property he looks

up. Suppose, for example, that he is designing an industrial

process that involves the heat of formation of hydrogen sulfide. If he turns to the literature he will find an array of values ranging from 2.0 to 4.9 kilocalories per mole. If he accepts the value

"2.0" for the heat of formation of hydrogen sulfide, he might conclude that his planned process will not work and there is no

point in going further. On the other hand, if he accepts the

value "4.9" he may find that his process will be highly productive

and should be pushed. Which value should he accept? In the

absence of critically evaluated data on the heat of formation of

hydrogen sulfide, he can only do what is usually done in industry

today—seek expert advice if he can find it, make an educated

I guess, or measure it again himself, adding another value to the

list. Unless he is an expert in the measurement of heats of formation, the value he obtains will probably be no better than those

already in the literature, and may be much worse. The solution to this type of problem is to get together a group

25
of experts who know the field and can evaluate the various meas- urements from the literature so as to obtain a "best value"—the ' most acceptable and trustworthy value—and can make this value

generally available. This, of course, is the process of critical data

evaluation and compilation. In the data network the primary

need is for a core of carefully measured key data that can serve i as reference data for the determination of other data throughout ; the NMS.

Within the NMS the process of critical evaluation and com- t pilation of data has lagged far behind the generation of data in

the literature. A large backlog or unevaluated data has been built up, and as this backlog continues to grow, it has become increasingly difficult for scientists and engineers to find the data they

need. Lack of critically evaluated data in conveniently available

form has thus become an important and wasteful deficiency of | the National Measurement System. To remedy this deficiency, the

[ Office of Science and Technology authorized the establishment of a National Standard Reference Data System (NSRDS) and has \ assigned to NBS the responsibility for its administration and \ coordination. The NSRDS seeks to pull the best values from the I literature and to get them into the hands of the users of the

System through publication and other means of dissemination.

This is an enormous task. A great reservoir of unevaluated

data has accumulated over the years. Data compilation and evaluation activities carried on by data centers all over the country can now take care of about 20 percent of the annual increment of

200,000 papers, but the backlog remains untouched and continues

to grow. So the backlog of unevaluated data is growing, the

situation is getting more confused, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for scientists and engineers to find the data they

need.

There is thus a strong economic need to get all these data

critically evaluated and disseminated to users. If the NSRDS can

get the resources to do this job, we estimate it will pay back into

the economy between $100 and $200 for every dollar invested.

Now, before closing, I would like to say a few words about the

NBS program in the area of technological measurements and

standards. These are the standards of practice that are so useful

in the exchange of goods and services in the marketplace.

Here the role of NBS, as we see it, is to provide the technical

basis upon which voluntary standards for sizes and designs can

be based, and to encourage the development and promulgation of

performance standards, as opposed to design standards, for products and devices wherever possible. In this way we hope to remove

those barriers to innovation and progress that are characteristic

26
of some design standards. We are now developing technical information to provide a basis for technological standards in the

building, computer, and automotive safety fields. The work in

automotive safety includes studies of tire, seat belt, and brake

systems and is supported by the Department of Transportation.

You have already heard of our activities in support of "truth

in packaging."

This then is a general picture of the National Measurement

System, in which the weights and measures activities of the

Nation, as well as the National Bureau of Standards, have key

roles to play. We look upon you as members of the System and

expect you to make us aware of your needs so that NBS can modify its outputs accordingly. On our part, we at NBS will

continue study of the NMS as a system and will try to develop

ways and means for making it more efllicient and effective. The

value of such an effort is well illustrated by the fact that if the

NMS, through ineffective functioning, should limit the national

productive capacity by only one part in a thousand then the

economic loss to the Nation would be in the neighborhood of

$500 million—10 times the annual budget of the National Bureau

of Standards.

Following Dr. Huntoon's address, Mr. M. W. Jensen announced

the appointments to the Standing Committees of the Conference

and presided during the presentation of Honor Awards.

27
APPOINTMENTS TO THE CONFERENCE

STANDING COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

B. A. Pettit of the District of Columbia to replace

S. H. Christie, Jr., of New Jersey (5 years)

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

G. L. Delano of Montana to replace

M. JENNINGS of Tennessee (5 years)

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

J. H. Lewis of Washington to replace

A. L. Little of Arkansas (3 years)

E. E. Wolski of New York to replace

C. E. Joyce of Minnesota (5 years)

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS

AND TOLERANCES

D. E. KoNSOER of Wisconsin to replace

G. L. Johnson of Kentucky (5 years)

Mr. M. W. Jensen presented Honor Awards to members of the

Conference who, by attending the 51st Conference in 1966,

reached one of the four attendance categories for which recognition is made—attendance at 10, 15, 20, and 25 meetings.

PRESENTATION OF HONOR AWARDS

AWARD RECIPIENTS

20 Years V. D. Campbell Arthur Sanders R. W. Searles

15 Years H. J. McDade D. M. Turnbull R. W. Foster

10 Years

J. T. Daniell

W. G. Dox

Clement McBride

R.H,

A.

H. Tolson

E. Siebold

W. Weidner, Jr.

28
ADDRESS

by J. Ellis Bowen, Sealer of Weights and Measures, Newton,

Massachusetts, and Chairman, National Conference on

Weights and Measures

It is a great privilege, and a profound

pleasure for me, as Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures,

to welcome you all here today, and to extend

to all of you a most cordial greeting.

I wish also to extend a sincere and warm

welcome, on behalf of the Conference, to our

visitors and colleagues from other nations

who are honoring this Conference by their

presence. We are happy to have them share

with us in our deliberations.

The first annual meeting of the Sealers of Weights and Measures of the United States was held at the National Bureau of

Standards on January 16 and 17, 1905. It is of interest to note

that this meeting was called by Dr. S. W. Stratton, at that time

Director of the National Bureau of Standards, and the invitation to the meeting stated its purpose to be, "To bring about

uniformity in the State laws referring to weights and measures,

and also to effect a close cooperation between the State inspection

services and the National Bureau of Standards." This first meeting was attended by eleven delegates.

It seems apropos, at this time, to review the current formalized

and approved statement of objectives of our National Conference:

1. To provide a national forum for the discussion of all questions related to weights and measures administration as carried on by regulatory officials of the States, Commonwealths, Territories, and possessions of the United States, their political subdivisions, and the District of Columbia.

2. To develop a concensus on model weights and measures

laws and regulations, specifications, and tolerances, for commercially used weighing and measuring devices, and testing,

enforcement, and administrative procedures.

3. To encourage and promote uniformity of requirements and

methods among weights and measures jurisdictions.

4. To foster cooperation among weights and measures officers

themselves, and between them and all of the many manufacturing, industrial, business, and consumer interests affected by their

official activities.

It would be gratifying to Dr. Stratton and his colleagues to view

this great assembly of men and women, dedicated to the cause of

honest weights and measures; we, whose purpose it is to assure

29
that equity may prevail in commercial transactions.. For several

j years, attendance at our annual conferences has ranged from five

\ hundred to a thousand, and certainly vindicates the foresight,

j judgment, and hopes of the eleven delegates who attended that 1 first meeting in 1905. f At this point I would inject three personal opinions, as a \ weights and measures official, basically important to me. These

| are personal opinions, but I think worth your attention and

consideration. '

1. In my opinion, no function of government is more funda- I mental than weights and measures administration, and probably f only the functions of the military, police, fire, and health protec- | tion are equally so.

2. In my opinion, our age appears to be an age of shifting

political, economic, and moral standards. It is reassuring to know

that the standards with which we deal in our professional lives,

the basic standards of weights and measures, are stable. They do

not, and cannot, vary.

3. In my opinion, the National Conference on Weights and

Measures is one of the Nation's most successful organizations of

'

its type in coordinating the activities of governmental enforce- ' ment agencies at all levels with relation to law and order regarding commercial transactions.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures, and the

National Bureau of Standards are not, in and of themselves, law | enforcement agencies, yet have demonstrated conclusively their

j value through coordinating the activities of enforcement agencies

| at all levels—Federal, State, County, and Municipal—through | the promotion of uniformity of laws and regulations and proce- j dures, and through pertinent education of weights and measures

officials, users of weighing and measuring devices, and

consumers.

In researching through the reports of previous conferences it has come to my attention that, at the 33rd National Conference

in September of 1947, 20 years ago, E. U. Condon, then Director i of the National Bureau of Standards and President of the Na- I tional Conference on Weights and Measures, suggested in his

j address,

The most important new service which we contemplate for the National Bureau of Standards is the establishment of a school

offering short courses of training for weights and measures officials of State and local governments. What we have in mind is a real training course with lessons to be studied, and supervised laboratory

work to be done on topics of real practical interest in weights and

measures work. We feel that if we can do a job that is proportionally

as valuable as has been the police training work offered by the

30
Federal Bureau of Investigation, then we shall have rendered a very

important service to weights and measures administration in the United States. Since that time, numerous schools have been conducted by the

National Bureau of Standards in various locations throughout

the country, I think I speak without fear of contradiction in saying that such schools have contributed to weights and measures

law enforcing officials a value comparable to that of the police

training offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

A little further researching disclosed that in 1963 your Conference Committee on Education proposed a home study self- education course for weights and measures officials. Response to questionnaires mailed widely throughout the country was unanimously favorable. Upon request of the National Conference, the

Office of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of

Standards assigned Richard N. Smith, Technical Coordinator, to prepare a schedule of recommended reading and examination

questions. In its report of 1964, one year later, your Committee

on Education disclosed that 36, or 72 percent of our fifty States,

plus two additional jurisdictions, had requested the course material, a 12-lesson outline of systematic study of standard text

material, and sets of pertinent questions. At that time 826

weights and measures officials, as students, were involved in

taking the course, about 20 to 25 percent of all the officials in the

country. Sixteen jurisdictions were granting certificates upon

completion of the course, and fourteen States favored development of additional course material, demonstrating not only a

willingness, but a thirst for more professional education.

You will be interested to know that the measurement science

technology course at Alfred Tech in New York, offering an

Associate in Science Degree, is progressing well. This school merits the support of all weights and measures

people, both officials and industry. Numerous individuals, weights

and measures associations, and those in the industry, have con- tributed financially toward the establishment of a scholarship

fund and more such interest would certainly be worthwhile and

welcome. Further, it is a school that may be well recommended to any youngster interested in a scale technology career.

I wrote to Alfred Tech for a few copies of its brochure and

forwarded two copies to our local Superintendent of Public

Schools. His acknowledgment says

:

"Dear Mr. Bowen:

This is to acknowledge your thoughtful action in sending me the brochures relating to the measurement science technology course at Alfred. This sort of information is most useful to our guidance

31
people and I shall be pleased to forward it to them. I am grateful for your thoughtfulness and your interest.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Brown, Superintendent of Schools."

I would suggest that others who may be interested in this

educational project write to Alfred Tech, Alfred, New York,

requesting such brochures.

The scope of device-user education and consumer education has

increased with the passage of time. Such projects are a continuing year 'round activity. Sealers and inspectors constantly,

during their rounds, advise device users on applicable laws and

regulations, and on the proper maintenance of their equipment.

Many officials lecture to home town consumer groups, issue news

releases through local publications, radio, and television. Each

year, National Weights and Measures Week, instituted in 1958

by this Conference, has increased in scope. This is a joint public

relations and educational program, directed to all consumers in

every State simultaneously, and it delivers a tremendous impact.

Everyone—officials, device users, and consumers—is indebted to the cooperation of our friends in industry for assistance in this

annual project. Industry members furnish thousands of window

stickers, posters, suggested news releases, editorial matter, etc., to assist in this educational promotion.

We who have promoted public relations programs have learned

the value of such public education. We constantly inform our

citizenry of the value of weights and measures protection to each

person individually, and to the community at large. We must let people know what we are doing and why. We advise that careful

shopping habits are in their interest, and we solicit their interest

in our official functions. The establishment and maintenance of

such liaison between citizen and official, though not mandated by

law, is certainly a necessary ingredient of professional weights

and measures administration. If you feel timid about embarking

upon such a venture for a first time, contact our Committee on

Education, who will spare no effort to assist you in this important

activity.

Your Chairman is a staunch advocate of the professional educational value of weights and measures conferences. These can

be thought of as schools that feature instructional presentations

by authorities in our field on such subjects as product shrinkage,

packaging problems, various aspects of marketing, and certainly

we always have much to learn from the weighing and measuring

device manufacturers who are there demonstrating and explaining the most recent technical advances embodied in their prod32
ucts. For a number of years this speaker has attended many

such conferences in addition to those of the National and his own

home State. These include weights and measures association con- ferences in New Hampshire, New York State, Indiana, and numerous States in the South during Southern Association Conferences. Every one, without exception, has been highly profitable

professionally, as well as pleasant socially. Mrs. Bowen and I now

enjoy very warm friendships with professional colleagues in

every segment of this Nation.

Subsequent to our 1966 National Conference, your Chairman

has not been idle. During my term as Chairman of this National

Conference on Weights and Measures I have been privileged to attend several great conferences in various locations.

En route home, by automobile, from the last National Conference in Denver, during July of last year, Mrs. Bowen and I took a week's vacation and attended the 59th Annual Conference of the

New York State Weights and Measures Association, held at Massena in New York State. We found the conference of excellent content. If I am not mistaken, I believe we have attended,

consecutively, New York's last seven conferences. Mrs. Bowen has

there delivered an address relating to the housewife consumer's

point of view, and I spoke on the promotion of weights and

measures education.

As you would likely presume, we attended the 71st Annual

Conference of the Massachusetts Weights and Measures Association held in Boston, early in October, which included a number

of outstanding presentations of professional interest.

During the latter part of October we motored to Charleston,

South Carolina, to attend our sixth consecutive Southern Association Conference, which is composed of seventeen Southern

States plus the District of Columbia. It was a great honor to me

to have been invited by the Association President, Carl Stender,

Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture for the State of South

Carolina, to address this group as I had once before. The title of

my address was "Building the Image," and related to public relations efforts directed to building the image of weights and measures administration. If you haven't been to a Southern Conference, I strongly recommend that you attend. In April of this year, upon invitation of Rollin E. Meek, Director for the State of Indiana and President of the Indiana Association of Inspectors of Weights and Measures, Mrs. Bowen and I motored to Terre Haute and attended the Indiana Conference.

The topic of my presentation was "Weights and Measures Administration—Now and in the Future." We were particularly

pleased, and honored, that this conference bestowed upon us honorary membership in the Indiana Association of Inspectors

33
of Weights and Measures. The conference was distinguished by

many top-notch professional presentations upon a variety of

pertinent subject matters.

During January of this year, as Chairman of the National

Conference, I was honored to attend an interim meeting of the

National Conference Standing Committee on Laws and Regulations held in Washington. This meeting was attended by Matt

Jennings, Director of the Division of Marketing of the State of

Tennessee and Chairman of the Committee. Other Committee

Members present were Lawrence Barker, Commissioner of Labor

of West Virginia; H. L. Goforth, Superintendent of Division of

Feeds, Fertilizers and Standards, State of Illinois; J. F. Lyles,

Supervisor of Weights and Measures, State of Virginia; and

W. A. Kerlin, Chief, Bureau of Weights and Measures, State of

California. Also present were M. W. Jensen, National Conference

Executive Secretary and Secretary of the Committee, ably as- sisted by Harold F. Wollin, Assistant Chief, and Richard N.

Smith, Technical Coordinator, both of the Office of Weights and

Measures of the National Bureau of Standards. In my opinion

this meeting was very productive, as you will see when the

Committee presents its report.

Perhaps the most dramatic phenomenon of the year 1966, described by one magazine as "Consumerism is Rampant," was the

so-called housewive's revolt. The furor of the revolt, picketing,

boycotting, and much resultant buck-passing, seemed to conclude

in a consensus that much of price increasing is undoubtedly due

to general inflation.

There are undoubtedly economies as yet not utilized in marketing. Public Law 89-755, which, prior to enactment, was popularly

known as the "Truth in Packaging Bill" is now the "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966," will become effective July 1st

of this year. The February 1967 issue of Fortune Magazine reports that

Senator Hart of Michigan, Mrs. Hart and their eight children, are breakfast devotees of Shredded Wheat, and in 1961 discovered

that the box had changed in dimensions, becoming higher and

narrower. It still contained twelve biscuits, but the net weight of

the package had declined from 12 ounces to 10 14 ounces without

any decline in price. This, says Fortune, started Senator Hart's

crusade, and a series of Congressional hearings from 1961 to 1966,

resulting in the "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966."

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has, over a period of time, been concerned with studies of such problems and

reacted to the proposed law as follows:

1. The 51st National Conference on Weights and Measures, held

in Denver, Colorado, in 1966, did adopt a strong resolution gen34
i erally favoring the then so-called "Truth in Packaging Bill," but

recommended some amending thereof before passage.

2. Our National Conference Secretary and Chief of the Office

of Weights and Measures of the National Bureau of Standards,

Malcolm Jensen, assisted in preparation of testimony to be presented to the Congressional Hearing Committee by the Secretary

of Commerce, and also personally testified in behalf of his Department in support of the pending legislation. Mr. Jensen also, at the request of a large majority of the House Committee,

! discussed with them the technical aspects of the Bill, the role to

j be played by State weights and measures officials, and thoughts

I on implementation of responsibilities of the Department of

Commerce.

3. West Virginia's Commissioner of Labor, Lawrence Barker,

at that time a Vice Chairman of the National Conference and

former Chairman of the Standing Committee on Laws and Regulations, at the request and authorization of our National Conference Executive Committee, twice journeyed to the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce Hearings, in

! Washington, where he most ably presented Conference views and

answered questions relative thereto.

I will digress for a moment to say that telegraphed invitations

from President Johnson to attend, on November 3, 1966, the

Presidential Signing Ceremony, were received by Lawrence

j Barker, by Andrew L. Little, Director of Weights and Measures

j of the State of Arkansas and Chairman of the National Conference

Committee on Liaison with the National Government; and your

speaker as Chairman of the National Conference. We, together

with Dr. A. V. Astin, Director of the National Bureau of Standards, and President of the National Conference; and M. W. Jensen, Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures of the Bureau,

and Executive Secretary of the National Conference, were welcomed by President Johnson, who individually shook hands

with us in the East Room of the White House and presented to us pens used in the signing ceremony. Also welcoming us to the

ceremony with a handshake and spoken greetings were Vice

President Hubert Humphrey, Secretary of Commerce John T. Connor, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs

Esther Peterson, and Senator Philip Hart of Michigan, sponsor

of the Law.

j Briefly, and in effect, the new Law is aimed at a profusion of

packages confusing to shoppers. Some big packages held less than smaller packages. Big gallons, giant pounds, king size,

queen size, jumbo size, economy size, and such designations have

proven vague, confusing, and meaningless. Too many packages

have provided excess air space or a slack fill condition. Quantity

35
declarations have, in many instances, been obscure. Declarations | of number of servings contained have been misleading. All this ; adds up to an assumption that modern merchandisers, aided by

Madison Avenue, have through the complexity of packaging,

really served up to consumers a big plate of scrambled eggs. It | is the purpose of the Act to accomplish an unscrambling.

Exclusive of contained contents the packaging industry con- I sumed some $16 billion dollars worth of materials last year, and i about 45 percent of that v^^ent into food packaging. Statistics ' demonstrate that approximately 92 percent of groceries and allied

products are sold in prepackaged form.

Last year the national cost of living index rose by nearly 4

percent, and I have read that twenty-five basic food items have

increased in price 16.3 percent since 1963.

Analysis of local figures, for my own city of about 92,000

population, Newton, Massachusetts, indicate that about $366.00

per person is the annual food bill, which amounts to over $32 j million dollars in this one medium-sized city. When viewed in

j this light, and projected nationwide, it is obvious that we are dealing with a colossus, even if only food is considered. The provisions of the Act go much further, including many other ad- | ditional commodities. ' States may still enact additional statutes and promulgate ad- I ditional regulations. However, it is specifically provided in Section I 12 of the Act, and I quote, "It is hereby declared that it is the

j express intent of Congress to supersede any and all laws of the

States or political subdivisions thereof insofar as they may or hereafter provide for the labeling of the net quantity of contents i of the package of any consumer commodity covered by this Act ' which are less stringent than or require information different j from the requirements of Section 4 of this Act or regulations

promulgated pursuant thereto."

One of the functions of the Office of Weights and Measures

of the National Bureau of Standards will be to aid the several

States in uniformity of regulations as they are issued from the

Food and Drug Administration, or the Federal Trade Commission.

My remarks are not intended to be a complete summary of

the new "Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966," but merely

an outline of some of the more important aspects which will

necessarily be our authority and guide, as weights and measures

officials, in the future. Much more additional, and more refined,

information will be presented during this Conference on Wednesday morning.

I wish to express the thanks and appreciation of this entire

Conference to the other officers and to all of the members of

36
I our Standing Committees who have labored long and well, and

accomplished much. I am sure you will concur in my evaluation

as you hear the presentations of their various reports later during this Conference.

; The Conference too, is greatly indebted to Dr. A. V. Astin,

j our President and Director of the National Bureau of Standards,

I and to our Conference Executive Secretary M. W. Jensen, also

! Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures of the Bureau, and

! his entire staff for guidance and advice in all technical matters,

j as well as supplying much of the mechanics involved in the ar1 rangements necessary for this meeting.

j We who know him well have been particularly pleased to note

that Mr. Jensen's distinguished career has been deemed to merit

the 1966 presentation to him of the Edward B. Rosa Award.

This plaque reads, "In recognition of distinguished leadership in

weights and measures administration and in the development of

improved techniques for product standardization." We concur with the published words of the Editor of Scale Journal, "Those

of us who have been privileged to know and work with Mac

I Jensen are truly gratified at this recognition of his work and

service and offer our sincere congratulations to Mr. Jensen."

It is now time to institute the formal proceedings of this 52d

National Conference. The program to follow has been planned with

meticulous care to allow presentation of the matters of most

] importance to you during our too-short stay together here.

j There is one eminently important point of procedure that must

be followed throughout the Conference. Anyone accorded the

floor for any presentation before this Conference, even though

it be a very brief question or remark, should go to the nearest

microphone in the aisle, and must preface his remarks with his

name and affiliation. All officers presiding at subsequent sessions

will insist upon this point so important in the recording of all procedures of this Conference.

The success of the Conference is in your hands. With your

full and conscientious participation success will be assured. To

maintain the scheduled program each session must begin at the

time assigned. I urge that you be prompt in your attendance.

Our speakers have, collectively, traveled many thousands of miles

in order to contribute helpful information to weights and measures administration throughout the United States. Their messages will be interesting, informative, and educational. Not only

do we owe them our sincere gratitude, but we owe them also our undivided attention and our constant presence at all formal

sessions of this Conference.

Your active participation in our sessions is sincerely solicited,

for that is the purpose of this Conference.

37
At the presentation ceremony, left to right, Arthur Sanders, Executive

Secretary of the Scale Manufacturers Association; Malcolm W. Jensen, Chief

of the Office of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards; Dr. Allen v. Astin, Director of the National Bureau of Standards and Acting

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology; Commissioner

Lawrence Barker of West Virginia's Department of Labor.

SPECIAL AWARDS CEREMONY

At the close of the Tuesday morning session, a special surprise

award was presented by the conference to both Dr. A. V. Astin

and Mr. M. W. Jensen.

Mr. Arthur Sanders, Scale Manufacturers Association, and

Mr. Lawrence Barker and Mr. Wendell H. Holt, West Virginia

Department of Labor, presented the awards signed by each of

the governors of the fifty States. (The plaques, stainless-steel

centered on a handsome walnut background, were formally

awarded again at a subsequent date so that Dr. Astin, absent

from the conference to attend an International Standards Conference in Moscow, could accept the award in person.)

38
The inscription on the plaque presented to Dr. Astin reads:

TO ALL WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME,

GREETINGS:

Know ye, that we, the undersigned, being the duly

elected Governors of these Fifty Commonwealths and

States of the Union, comprising the United States of

America, in the name of and by the authority invested

in us by the people of the said Commonwealths and

States, in recognition of the valuable services rendered

to the people thereof, do hereby issue this

Certificate of Commendation

To The Honorable

Dr. A. V. Astin, Director

of the

National Bureau of Standards

and in so doing, praise the said Dr. A. V. Astin for his service

in establishing a true spirit of co-operation between Federal,

State Governments and Industry Officials, in order that throughout these United States of America, in all transactions involving Weights and Measures,

EQUITY MAY PREVAIL

!

In testimony whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and seals on this the 27th day of June in the year of our Lord, One

Thousand Nine Houndred and Sixty Seven.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON-JUNE 27, 1967

CONFERENCE LUNCHEON

Guest Speaker: Miss Betty Furness, Special Assistant to the

President for Consumer Affairs

—"""^'^^

-^^^ T^y^o weeks ago the Washington Chapter

of the National Academy of Television Arts

and Sciences gave me a small memento. It was a model of a balance scale—a symbol

which has universal significance, as well as particular significance to the weights and

measures profession.

, ^ It is of special importance to me, as a ^^^\^ woman. As you know, many of us try very

^'l^k hard to keep our own personal weights and ^^^^^ ^ measures down to a strict standard. We do

like to keep our figures scaled down.

39
I've noticed that more and more men are concerned about the

very same thing! i And it's not always an easy job. 1 But then why should consumers find it easier to watch their

j weights than the practitioners of metrology? l Yours is an ancient and honorable profession, and you have ' kept adjusted to the needs of the times. i Once a balance scale was the official settler of complaints be-

' tween the Babylonian housewife and the merchant in the bazaar. I Today, nothing less than the measurement of light provides the { precise standards we need. ; But whether we are talking of ancient kingdoms, or medieval i England, or today, weights and measures officials traditionally

have worked for the consumer.

I recently read this statement:

"Experience shows that many frauds and deceits happen,

which usually fall heavy upon the meanest and most indigent , sort of people, who are least able to bear the same, and may be i accounted little better than oppression ; for remedy of which evil, I let it be enacted . . . ." 1 That was in the year 1703, when one of the American col- , onies felt an urgent need to establish an office of weights and i measures. I May I take this opportunity to thank you for that generation

as well as for our own. You have always been guardians of the

scales of justice for the consumer. 1 You have always believed in providing the consumer with ac- curate information. That was true in 1703. It is just as true

now—but much more difficult. For the number of consumer

j goods has been infinitely increased. So, it seems, have the ways | in which they are marketed and packaged.

j In modern times—in 1939 to be exact—the National Conferj ence of Weights and Measures foresaw the technical changes in I the marketplace. Your predecessors could see that our wonderful j economy, with its immense capacity to produce, was about to open a horn of plenty for the consumer. And you could also see i that with blessings come problems. I So 38 years ago you passed a resolution asking Congress to establish an orderly approach for the packaging and sale of

basic products.

Last year Congress passed a law—the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act. This law has been called "a modern day weights

and measures act."

Its purpose is to put some of our common measurements in

terms intelligible to consumers. For the consumer needs stand40
ards by which he can buy, just as the manufacturer needs

standards when he makes the goods.

Today I should like to talk briefly about making standards

useful for the consumer.

I have found that:

1. These standards often seem vague or lacking, at least as far as the consumer is concerned.

2. The Federal Government and many State governments

realize that an information gap exists.

3. Industry bears a responsibility to make buying data clear.

4. Consumers have a responsibility to themselves to read up on

products and to buy wisely.

The idea of standards permeates our entire life. It crops up in

many figures of speech.

We say that one cannot be a well-balanced person without

"standards of conduct."

We say that we bought an appliance which is "not up to usual

standards."

Philosophers talk about the "measure of man."

Frequently orators use one of the 57-odd biblical phrases about

weights and measures, such as: A deceptive scale disgusts the Lord,

But he delights in an honest weight.

Despite the fact that we sprinkle our daily talk with such

aphorisms, people do not know what kinds of standards exit, or what they mean.

There are performance standards—a product must meet cer- tain service tests. There are standards of identity, established by the Food and

Drug Administration. These standards say that certain common

food products, such as ice cream and applesauce, must meet

minimum standards.

Another kind is safety standards. These are being introduced

for our automobiles.

There are measurement and quality standards. An example in

common use is for air conditioners, now rated in terms of

BTU's—a method to easily compare the cooling power of different brands selling at different prices.

I wish it were as easy to rate automobiles, or fountain pens,

or shoes, or thousands of other consumer products. But it is not,

because the standards which could rate many products are not

translated into terms meaningful to the nontechnical man and

woman.

I have also discovered that many people believe that they are

protected by standards sanctified by law, oven when no law exists or when the law needs updating.

41
f The Administration has been deeply concerned about this lack , of standards for the consumer. n This is the case with fabrics that can burn too fast and too

easily. Some of the many who wrote me after my testimony before I a a Senate Subcommittee on May 4 on this problem had suffered

j personal tragedy. They thought there was a law against fire- trap fabrics. Well, there is a law, but we know now that the law | is inadequate. I sincerely hope that Congress enacts a strong bill i this session that will put an end to the horror tales I have heard.

I also hope that a bill establishing a National Commission on | Product Safety will pass. If it does, we will be able to investigate i accidental deaths and injuries in order to establish proper me- j chanical safeguards.

These laws, and others, were strongly recommended by

President Johnson to Congress in his Message on Consumer Pro- i tection of four months ago. ' The idea of standards goes beyond safety or physical measure-

' ment.

The proposed Truth-in-Lending Bill will provide the borrower

with a standard to compare loans. It will require that con- sumers be told the annual percentage rate plus the dollars and

cents cost of a loan.

At present some people have thought, to their regret, that i State small loan laws are standards protecting them against too- ' high interest charges.

j But that is not the case. Once the signature is on the dotted I line the borrower is committed. That nice man at the finance i company can get very nasty after the borrower goes home and \ figures out the real interest rate. In many states it is a very legal

j 36 percent—not 6 percent.

j There are other bills, asked by the Administration:

j Because of lack of operating standards for medical clinical

j laboratories, we know that perhaps one quarter of all lab tests i can lead to inaccurate diagnosis—and people getting treated for \ diseases they don't have, and not getting treated for diseases they I do have. Faulty lab tests could—and have—led to unneeded op- \ erations. There is a bill being written to set minimum clinical • laboratory standards. j Another bill will set manufacturing and performance standards

j for therapeutic devices used by surgeons such as surgical pins. In another area, certain standards of information are needed i so that lot developers will tell buyers basic facts before they buy.

The vacation or retirement home sold by mail now may be under

water—or far in the desert without any water at all.

42
The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act will provide that

needed buying information.

I certainly think that the consumer should be assured of standards in the goods and services he buys.

That was the point of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

of 1966. That certainly is the point of such legislation within the

50 States as the model law on weights and measures, now adopted

by a majority of the States.

It is behind such ideas as the Teltag, a handy informational

device originally developed in England. A Teltag is a hangtag,

attached to a consumer product, which gives pertinent facts ac- cording to a standard system.

Attached to, say, a sweater, it would rate such variable characteristics as color fade and durability on a scale applicable to the

products of all participating manufacturers. That way the con- sumer could easily compare one brand with another. He will see a

clearly understood standard.

Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for

Science and Technology, in speaking about the need of standards for the consumer said recently

:

Today the consumer is tired of being a serf to an imposed system.

He demands his freedom. He needs standards to help him choose in the marketplace. Even more, he insists that he should participate in the process by which these standards are issued, for in the marketplace he buys the products of our technology according to established standards. Sensible weights and measures regulations

always—and especially in today's complex marketplace—try to bring

producer and user together at a common meeting ground.

I second Dr. Hollomon's thoughts.

In our complicated world it is extremely important that in- dustry, consumers, and government keep open clear lines of communication.

In doing so, we all share a responsibility.

Industry should market its products through standards of

salesmanship which provide standards of information. Then the consumer can have the opportunity of full and free choice.

Governments—as rightfully interested third parties—should in- sure that laws and ordinances and their administration meet

public needs. Consumer legislation should be advanced for the consumer interest and public benefit. And weights and measures

laws are of benefit.

Consumers bear a major share of responsibility. By exercising

their abilities to buy wisely, they can help direct the way to better

products and better choices in the marketplace.

43
All three make a partnership. It should be a working partnership, providing all the members assume joint responsibility.

I had thought, at this point, to conclude these remarks with a

little humor. But I do not think humor is appropriate because,

frankly, responsibility is no joke. I hope that industry, governmen, and consumers will assume responsiblity.

You certainly are doing it—as you always have.

I pledge that I will, too.

I

!

44
AFTERNOON SESSION-TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1967

i (J. G. Gustafson, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

A ROLE FOR AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING IN

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

! by W. J. Whitty, Center for Computer Sciences and Technology,

National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland

Introduction.

As society becomes more complex, new

and more complex methods of operation are

introduced. Increasing complexity usually

brings an increasing volume of paperwork.

The time and money spent issuing licenses,

paying employees, preparing budget proposals, and preparing various standard

reports are staggering.

How often has it appeared that so much

more could be accomplished if so much routine paper work were not required, or if necessary information were more readily accessible? The occur- ence of that very thought is often the most important step toward

better management. The next is to determine what can be done

about it. This paper makes a cursory attempt to describe

j possible approaches using automatic data processing (ADP). It

I will make no one an expert in automatic data processing or even

provide a working knowledge of any particular application. However, it should indicate possible applications of ADP to weights

and measures control and begin the realization of future plans

that would not be possible without ADP.

Definitions.

Data processing usually refers to the flow of paperwork

thorough an organization. Most of the work involved is clerical. ADP can be classified according to the equipment used : electronic

accounting machines or electronic computer systems.

Electronic accounting machines (EAM), e.g., punched card ac- counting machines, have been used for years to perform various

clerical tasks. The operator of such a machine must intercede in the operation at the end of each procedure and move to the next

i step. Electronic data processing (EDP) employs a system centered

around the computer, and operator intervention in the processing

is minimal.

A computer may work by any one of several physical means. Most commercially available computers are electronic devices.

45

i
There are two basic types of electronic computers, analog and

digital. Analog computers simulate the problem to be solved with 1 analogous electrical operations; digital computers solve the problem basically by arithmetic computation. Analog computers are used mainly for special types of engineering problems, while | digital computers are used for most business and scientific appli- I cations. While some digital machines are designed for special I purposes, discussion of computers is confined here to the more

versatile, general-purpose digital machine. I Some Uses of ADP in Government and Industry.

The average citizen nowadays generally accepts the existence

of ADP in his life in the form of utility bills, bank statements,

credit card billings, transportation reservations, and his pay

check. One of the first users of ADP was the Bureau of the

Census, where data on population, housing, foreign and domestic

trade, agriculture, and much more are collected and processed.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics does much the same with prices, consumer spending, wages, and unemployment. The Social Security Administration uses ADP on a large scale to keep count of

and regulate the flow of money in its charge; and the Internal

Revenue Service now employs ADP to audit income tax returns. State and local governments are making extensive use of ADP j for trafl^ic regulation, processing traflic violations, fingerprint

| identification, providing stolen vehicle information, and issuing | driver's licenses and motor vehicle registrations. i The business community uses ADP for inventory management,

production planning and scheduling, distribution analysis, process control, facilities location, market analysis, and quality con- | trol.The use of ADP by research organizations to process scientific data is widespread.

Punched Card Data Processing.

The four basic procedures in data processing are classifying,

sorting, calculating, and reporting. Punched card processing is performed by unit-record equipment. Briefly, the functions of

such machines are : the key punch places the data onto cards ; the

verifier checks the cards for accuracy; the sorter puts the cards

into whatever logical order is required; the collator merges two

decks of cards or removes certain cards from a deck ; and finally,

the tabulator accumulates subtotals and totals and prints them

out with suitable headings.

The detailed operation of such equipment can be largely specified by the user through plug-in units which control the operations that are to be performed and in which order.

46
All of the procedures performed by these machines are common

and very time consuming clerical tasks when performed

manually. But once the data are punched onto cards and verified,

they can be sorted, extracted, merged, and otherwise manipulated

with unit-record equipment to produce reports with very little effort. The data can be used over and over to produce a variety of

reports and are readily available at any time.

Electronic Data Processing.

Much data processing may be effectively and efficiently accomplished with unit-record equipment. But the more complex and

versatile computer may be necessary for very large or involved

data processing tasks.

Computers have two major components; a storage unit and a processing unit. The instructions for performing required computations must be fed into the machine just as must the data that

the computer will process. The set of instructions is called a computer program. The storage unit contains the program and the

data to be transformed as well as all intermediate and final results

of the operation.

The processing unit must perform two functions: control and

arithmetic. Control means obtaining the instructions and data

from storage and initiating the arithmetic operations. Arithmetic means the actual computations of addition, subtraction,

multiplication, and division.

The machinery which serves to feed programs and data into

the computer and get the results out is called input-output equipment. Data are generally fed in from punched cards, punched

paper tape, or magnetic tape. For special purposes a keyboard

similar to a typewriter may be used. Results can be recorded by

the computer into punched cards, onto magnetic tapes, or in

printed form, the last two being the most common. Some Current ADP Applications in Weights and Measures.

Some jurisdictions are already using ADP. Hawaii has a promising computer application and several organizations are using

a punched card equipment in their programs. Some of these applications will be discussed briefly in this section. In addition, a proposed program will be reviewed.

City of New York.

As might be expected in a jurisdiction the size of New York,

the Department of Markets, Bureau of Consumer Law Enforcement of the City of New York has an automated system of data

processing. The Department is using some punched card equipment and applying it to its program of consumer protection.

47
Although the New York ADP operation does not use the very

latest in computer technology, it is effective. This now serves

their needs very well, but the Department emphasizes that it was built up through trial and error at considerable cost in time

and money.

Although the total number of inspections did not increase, the

cost of tabulating the information did ; this increase is now compensated for by the additional information available, as well as by

the increased speed of compiling statistical data.

The system for recording and reporting inspections is now as follows

Each time a merchant is visited, he receives a certificate showing the inspections made and the action taken. For regular in- spections, the certificates are preprinted with the name and

address of the establishment, its account number, class code

(e.g., wholesale) and type code (e.g., bakery), and also with the

location codes. On the reverse of the form are listed different

items and categories to be inspected to serve as a guide for in- spectors; for instance, under Weighing and Measuring Devices,

the word "Condition" appears. A copy of this certificate is forwarded to the data processing center where the information is transferred to punched cards. Monthly reports which used to re- quire three man-weeks to compile can now be produced in half an

hour after the data have been punched. This information is then

also available for the preparation of other reports.

Another application by the City of New York is summarizing

and analyzing the inspectors' daily reports, which comprise

information on the number and type of items inspected, number

of violations, warnings, and condemnations, and time spent during the day engaged in various activities.

Contra Costa County, California.

Contra Costa County uses punched card equipment to process some of its records. Each merchant receives a certificate of inspection, listing all the weights and measures and/or weighing and

measuring devices on the property, and any action taken. Daily

reports are submitted containing the same information and from

these, data cards are punched which are then used to assemble

reports on the inspections conducted. The information, broken

down according to type of inspection, administrative data, items

checked, and such information as the number of packages weighed

or the number of Off Sale Orders issued, is useful in projecting

manpower requirements, justifying new equipment, and producing field and administrative cost estimates.

48
1 state of California.

j In California, every retail gasoline pump must be licensed under the Weights and Measures Petroleum Program. The Data

Processing Unit of the California Department of Agriculture is using punched card equipment to produce a master file of the

27,000 service stations and 126,000 pumps. Using this, renewal

notices can be sent out and when an owner returns this notice

with his remittance, the prepunched license is forwarded to him.

The master file is also used for maintaining lists of paid-up

! licenses and to print delinquent notices.

I Commonwealth of Virginia.

I Although ADP is not being used by weights and measures

I officials in Virginia, they have given it considerable thought. The

Weights and Measures Regulatory Section is a part of the Department of Agriculture. The Data Processing Center is operated

by the Department of Agriculture as a service agency for Department components. Processing is accomplished by use of

punched card machines. Plans were formulated by Weights and

I Measures for automating the forms processing, but existing

equipment could not handle the demand.

Because of the high demand on the data processing facilities, a study was initiated by the Department to consider whether more

sophisticated equipment would be beneficial. This feasibility

! study stated that the greatest volume of data to be processed in

i the Department of Agriculture originated in Weights and Measures. Furthermore, the study recommended that the Department

of Agriculture install a computer system in the near future.

The proposed applications include not only preparing reports,

but also aiding scheduling by indication of overdue inspections

and selection of troublesome commodities and devices. Further

applications include the use of ADP to help analyze where ran- dom packed items are giving trouble and to determine whether

there are trouble areas in brands.

Economics.

Before an organization can rationally plan on electronic data

processing or the use of electronic accounting machines, it must

determine what results are required from the data processing.

I Once these are outlined, a formal feasibility study can make it

1 possible for the organization to decide whether ADP will provide

those results.

Cost reduction is one of the major reasons for transferring from

one type of data processing to another. Any transition has its own costs, and conversion to ADP need not decrease total costs.

49
But ADP, properly used, can cut the cost per unit of data processed. Particularly if the volume of processing is large, the

preparation of reports can be handled less expensively with the

aid of automatic processing than by purely hand processing.

An investment in ADP equipment and staff can be justified

only if it contributes to increased efficiency, decreased cost

preferably both—or if it provides a satisfactory incremental

output for the additional capital invested. The feasibility study,

which indicates appropriate equipment and its usage, should also

give a good estimate of the costs involved.

Use of ADP equipment is available without the costly acquisition of the machines. Many universities possess such equipment; \ many state and local governments have computers; private computer centers exist which lease time on their equipment and provide professional services for computer usage; unused time can

be rented from organizations having their own equipment. If ADP equipment is to be acquired it can be either purchased or | leased.

Training.

Among the problems of changing to ADP are the effect of the I equipment on the manpower level and the additional training ^ required for personnel.

[ A change in the manpower level probably will occur and it will i probably be an upward shift. Training for punched card data

processing does not present much difficulty and can be completed

in a few months. Average intelligence and clerical aptitude suffice. The training required to use computers is much more extensive.

Intelligent, highly skilled individuals are needed for such work,

although extensive formal education is not an absolute requirement. It may be necessary to hire some already trained personnel

from the outside, but such people can also be recruited from

within.

Training courses are conducted by computer manufacturers,

local data processing schools, and by colleges and universities.

Training for programmers and systems analysts should start nine to twelve months before computer operations are to begin.

Recommendations

The first application of ADP in weights and measures control

could well be to the processing of records and to the issuing of

licenses.

It might be helpful to use ADP to determine categories and

subdivisions of information such as the following:

50
1. The percentage of devices turned down by

a. Type

b. Inspector

c. Service organization

d. Area (region, etc.)

2. The number of scales over a certain classification

3. The number of scales in the different counties (regions, etc.)

4. The amount of time required to carry out various types of

', inspections.

! This type of information might help to schedule inspections on

ij a more rational basis; for instance, in the case of scales of the

' same type, some of vi^hich are involved in a much greater dollar

volume than others.

With the variety of information available through ADP, sampling techniques could be used for scheduling inspections in large

jurisdictions. In areas with many violations, court dates could

! be set by ADP to avoid crowding on some days and inactivity

j on others.

I Summary

An ofl^ce operating in the same way that it did twenty years

ago should review its procedures. Improved methods may be possible, but a critical study can make sure. ADP methods are not always the best ; many offices may be able

I to solve their problems less expensively by some other method.

Improperly utilized ADP equipment can make the same mistakes

as humans, only faster.

Although ADP equipment may not be justifiable in all offices,

everyone should be aware of the wideranging applications of ADP

and its special features of speed and accuracy.

The field is open for imaginative and economically rewarding

applications.

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Mr. Malcolm W. Jensen, Mr. Harold

F. Wollin, and Mr. Eric A. Vadelund of the National Bureau of

Standards for their direction and support. He extends his thanks

to Mr. William A. Kerlin, Mr. Robert H. Avena, Mr. C. H.

Beardsley, Mr. Richard B. Starn, and Mr. James W. Robey of the

I State of California, to Mr. Richard L. Thompson and Mr. Lacy

i H. DeGrange of the State of Maryland, to Mr. J. F. Lyles of the

Commonwealth of Virginia, and to Mr D. E. Konsoer of the

State off Wisconsin.

The author expresses his sincere gratitude to Mr. R. H.

, Fernsten and Mr. Gordon Granger of Alameda County, California

51
to Mr, Arnold B. Coon and Mr. K. E. Danielson of Contra Costa

County, California, and to Mr. Moe Greenspan of the City of'

New York. ; The author also thanks Miss Susan Reed of the National Bu-j reau of Standards for her many suggestions and help.

(Following Mr. Whitty's remarks an open forum was held entitled, "Cooperation—Communication—Compliance," moderated by Mr. M.

W. Jensen. The floor was open to all Conference attendees to discuss i any administrative or technical problem the busy Conference

Program may have precluded.)

52
I MORNING SESSION-WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1967

I (R. H. Fernsten, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

I SEMINAR ON FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING

j Moderator : M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures,

j National Bureau of Standards

Introductory Remarks

The purpose of the session this morning

is to explore in depth the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act of 1966. The objective of

this new legislation is clearly set forth in

Section 2:

SEC. 2. Informed consumers are essential

to the fair and efficient functioning of a

free market economy. Packages and their

labels should enable consumers to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents and should facilitate value comparisons. Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the

I Congress to assist consumers and manufacturers in reaching these

f goals in the marketing of consumer goods.

This legislation was conceived by Senator Philip Hart of Michigan who obtained authority by Resolution of the Senate to open

exploratory hearings in 1961. Senator Hart introduced the first

I Truth-In Packaging Bill near the close of the second session of

I the 87th Congress in 1962.

The sponsor explained that the bill was introduced at that time

specifically in order to permit him officially to receive responses

from industry, from consumers, and from regulatory officials as

to the appropriateness of the proposed legislation.

During the first session of the 88th Congress in 1963, S.387 was introduced. This differed from the first bill only in minor

details.

Hearings were held in the Senate by a subcommittee of the

committee on the Judiciary through 1965, but without actually

reporting a bill to the floor. In the 89th Congress, the bill was

withdrawn from the judiciary committee and introduced in the

Commerce committee, chaired by Senator Magnuson of Washington. Once again hearings were started and, after hearings

j were completed, a bill that differed somewhat but still had defi- nite relationship to the original bill was reported to the floor as

\ the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

I On June 9, 1966, this bill passed on floor vote of 72 to 9 and was

referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

of the House of Representatives under the chairmanship of Congressman Staggers of West Virginia. He introduced a very similar

53
bill as H.R.I 5440 and open hearings on that. Congressman

j Staggers reported near the end of the House hearings that since

that committee was established there had never been a bill that

had had as many witnesses, or testimony as long as this one.

| As you all know, industry generally opposed the bill. It was,

supported by the Administration and by relatively few consumer!

group. The Senate bill actually was completely rewritten in thel

House Committee and was reported to the floor where, on October

3, 1966, the bill passed by a vote of 300 to 8. I In Senate-House Conference, which took place very close to thel

end of the session, the Senate agreed to the House Bill practically I without change. The Conference report came out on October 7. It was approved by the Senate on October 19, by the House on

October 17. On November 9, before several hundred people, andf

with appropriate ceremony, the President signed into law the"^ Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966. ! This statute has caused concern among industry representatives ^ and others. Nevertheless, I believe it is the public interest, and

careful administration will bring industry support.

We have with us this morning three experts—^men who know

the legislative history, who know what the law is intended to do

and who have the job of seeing to it that the will of the Congress'

is implemented.

[ IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FAIR PACKAGING AND f LABELING ACT—COOPERATION OR VEXATION?

| by F. E. McLaughlin, Assistant to the Associate Commissioner].

for Compliance, Food and Drug Administration

| The subject of this seminar is a piece of

legislation which speaks of cooperation with i the States and preemption of State author1

ity. Section 9 of the Fair Packaging and i Labeling Act, entitled Cooperation with I State Authorities, reads : j Sec. 9(a). A copy of each regulation

promulgated under this Act shall be trans- [, mitted promptly to the Secretary of Commerce, who shall

(1) transmit copies thereof to all ap- 1 propriate State officers and agencies, and

(2) furnish to such State officers and agencies information and

assistance to promote to the greatest practicable extent uniformity

in State and Federal regulation of the labeling of consumer

commodities.

(b) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to impair

or otherwise interfere with any program carried into effect by the

54
j Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under other provisions

of law in cooperation with State governments or agencies, inI strumentalities, or political subdivisions thereof. Congress, in the same Act (Section 12), goes on to state:

! Sec. 12. It is hereby declared that it is the express intent of

j Congress to supersede any and all laws of the States or political

! subdivisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter provide

I for the labeling of the net quantity of contents of the package of any

consumer commodity covered by this Act which are less stringent

' than or require information different from the requirements of section 4 of this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

; On the one hand, Congress admonishes agencies of the Federal

Government to cooperate with their State counterparts towards

the objective of promoting harmony and uniformity between

Federal and State regulation of the labeling of consumer commodities, while on the other hand Congress, in clear and sweeping language, preempts the authority of the States to regulate

differently from the Federal Government.

Was Congress merely paying lip service to Federal-State co- operation? The Food and Drug Administration does not think

so for a number of reasons.

First, Congress recognizes, as does FDA, that without continuing, meaningful cooperation between State and Federal

Government, this legislation and all similar legislation simply

will not work. The basis for this conclusion is the hard fact that

State legislatures show no enthusiasm for appropriating funds

to enforce and State officials cannot resonably be expected to exhibit any zeal in enforcing regulations which the majority

feel are unreasonable, unrealistic, or the product of bureaucractic

and administrative insularity.

This phenomenon is no less apparent at the local level. We

recognize therefore, that without cooperation we can still have

uniformity in regulations, but it is an impotent uniformity. We

recognize, and freely admit, that Federal officials cannot begin

to supplant the traditional role of the State and local officials charged with the responsibility of enforcing labeling laws.

In short, we need your good will and your regulatory muscle,

and we had better pay attention to you.

There is something else we need from you, and the need is immediate and continuing.

We must have the benefit of your experience.

Over 25 years have elapsed since the issuance by FDA of

general labeling regulations governing the declaration of net

quantity of contents and other mandatory labeling information

under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. During those

years State and local governing bodies have enacted countless

55
revisions and additions to labeling laws and ordinances. Officials' like yourselves have briefed the legislators, testified on the billSj

being considered, frequently drafted the laws and ordinances

and eventually enforced the laws enacted.

A mechanism for tapping this resource is what is called fori) and Congress has pointed us in the right direction.

[ The procedure by which regulations must be promulgated]

under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is well adapted tO; the task of tapping the experience of other law enforcement]

agencies, be they Federal, State, or local. 1 The procedure found in Section 701 of the Federal Food, Drug,i[

and Cosmetic Act provides that the issuance of any regulation

shall be begun by a proposal (published in the Federal Register)

affording all interested persons an opportunity to present their

views and participate in the rule-making.

As you may know, the initial proposed regulations issued by

FDA on March 17, 1967, under the Fair Packaging and Label

ing Act, permitted 60 days within which to submit written comments. Ten States accepted the Commissioner's invitation to com-f]

ment on the proposals and they submitted detailed, thoughtful,

and constructive suggestions.

^ (I am forced to contrast these comments with many from^

industry evidencing a complete refusal to accept the fact that fairij

packaging and labeling is the law.) ( While responses from 10 States cannot be shaped into a con- sensus of the States, the quality of the responses was gratifyingj

and extremely helpful to FDA. [

t For example, one of the first comments received by the De-|

partment Hearing Clerk was from a State official, Fred Fallon

j of the State of New York. He pointed out an oversight in thej

proposals which was mentioned in only one other comment of

j the 315 comments received. I Several of the States submitting comments made strong presentations on the issue of the minimum weight concept

advanced in the proposed regulations.

Your Committee on Liaison with the National Government

made an oral presentation on this and on other issues raised ' in the proposed regulations.

^ Bill Kerlin of California, who represented the States at this , meeting, submitted supplementary data at the request of FDA.

The comments received by FDA from State officials were j varied, but running through the letters was a common theme

| which is deserving of comment here. ,

56
The fact that the initial proposals of March 17, 1967 do not

j adhere in several important respects to the Model Law and ReI gulations of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

I does not indicate a lack of consideration of the adoptions of the

Conference by FDA, nor does it reflect a lack of representation

by Mac Jensen, your Executive Secretary.

Mac, while recuperating from an illness, insisted that representatives of FTC, FDA, and the National Bureau of Standards

meet in his home to consider and discuss interpretation and

implementation of the Act prior to the publication of the first proposals.

I believe "intensive" is the proper term to use to describe

these discussions. To the contrary, the deviation is largely a

reflection of the vehement assurances on the part of representatives of industry that most of the industry was already complying with the provisions of the Model State Law and Regulation

in the face of a Congressional determination that the existing

labeling practices of most of the industry were in need of re- vision.

The problem of conveying to you in a brief paper some of

the thinking that went into FDA's proposed regulations under

the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is akin to the problem

facing the State or local official desiring to comment on the

Federal Register issuance of such proposed regulations.

It is a poor substitute for across-the-table dialogue. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs recognizes that the opportunity to submit written comments to the Hearing Clerk, Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, does not represent the ultimate

solution to the problem of involving the States in rule making

that acutely affects the States. Relied upon as the sole means of

contact between State and Federal opposite numbers, this process of action followed by reaction does not make for smooth

articulation between State and Federal regulatory bodies.

Being a physician. Dr. Goddard is well aware that poor articulation at a necessary juncture is inevitably followed by irritation, inflammation, and malfunction. For this reason, he is anxious to explore the possibility of providing the States with

another permanent vehicle for carrying to FDA their suggestions, exemption proposals, and perhaps, to other proposed re- gulations under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. We have admitted that the good will and the experience of

the States are necessary to the implementation of this legislation, but there are other benefits to be derived from the building

of bridges between State and Federal regulatory bodies.

57
We have in mind the development of the sort of grass roots participation in rule-making that the law envisions, and the j possibility that participating State officials might eventually work

desirable uniformity into State and local laws in areas where

the Federal law does not now impose uniformity.

While some elements of industry appear to prize the short- j term objective of derailing or emasculating newly proposed re- gulations more highly than the long-term benefits to be derived

from a uniformity of regulation across the country, I think that

the majority of industry exhibits a more enlightened attitude.

For example, despite the legal opinion offered by industry

counsel to the effect that no regulations could even be proposed

under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act until after July 1, 1967, individual manufacturers and associations of manufacturers began to bombard the Commissioner of Food and Drugs

shortly after the law's enactment with requests for issuance as soon as possible of the mandatory requirements under Section

4 of the Act. These requests were an important factor in the Commissioner's

decision to publish the first proposed regulations in mid-March.

As expected, the decision to publish the proposed regulations was hailed by some and assailed by others, illustrating the conflicting pressures present in the contemporary decisions of the \ government administrator.

At present, in his decision to act upon the proposals of March

17, the Commissioner faces a conflict between the need to expand i the dialogue between State and Federal enforcement bodies and|

the need to remove the uncertainty facing the affected industry | as to what will be required by the final orders. i (I note from the booklet distributed by the National Bureau

of Standards that important committee work of this Conference | is also waiting on the issuance of final regulations by FDA I and FTC.) 1 Part of my purpose in coming here today is to propose an

;

interim solution to this conflict in the form of an invitation. ' As indicated above, some discussion of the initial regulations

has taken place with representatives of your Committee on i Liaison with the National Government. If the remainder of

this week's Conference schedule will permit, the Commissioner

would like to pursue this topic further with the Governmental

Officers making up the membership of your Committee on Laws

and Regulations. I have discussed this matter briefly with Mac

Jensen, and he indicates that such a meeting may be possible.

If the schedule will not permit of such a meeting, the Commissioner would like to have each of the Committee members

contacted before FDA issues any orders acting upon the proposals.

58
Recognizing the differences in the governmental structure

among State governments, the Commissioner has also given instructions that each of the members of the Executive Committee

of the Association of Food and Drug Officials of the United

States is to be contacted before issuance of the final orders.

We believe that such an approach offers significant advantages

to both State and Federal Governments.

I very much appreciate having had the opportunity to speak

to you today.

REMARKS

by Charles A. Sweeney, Director of Deceptive Practices,

Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.

I am really very happy to be on the program today because it is so obvious that we

must not only reason together but labor to- gether to make the packaging act work.

I must compliment you on the timing of

your meeting. We have more to talk about

now than if you had met last week.

In a talk such as this, may I begin by

explaining that I am expressing only my

personal comments and opinions—not offi- cially those of the Commission. That point

must be emphasized in this case because there are so many

questions left unanswered by the proposed regulations issued

yesterday. These can ultimately be answered by the Commission

itself, and I am speaking only as a staff member.

I am sure you are all familiar with the proposed regulations

issued some time ago by the Food and Drug Administration.

The Commission, as you may know, was delayed by the need

for amending its rules of practice. The procedures specified for

promulgating the regulations are new to the Commission—so that the rules had to be amended to provide for them.

Because the agencies have been working together on this

project for some months, it should not be surprising that the

two drafts are substantially similar. There are, however, some

differences.

You will immediately notice that the Commission proposes

to issue new regulations, whereas the Food and Drug Administration proposes to modify existing regulations.

While there are some minor variations throughout, I think

the first which you will consider of any significance is with

respect to the requirements regarding the name and place of

business—section 505.5 The Commission would require, for ex59
ample, that "The statement of the place of business shall include j

1

1

an adequate and sufficient mailing address." You will recall that ; ( the Food and Drug Administration proposed that "The statement j I of the place of business shall include the street address, city | I and state; however, the street address may be omitted if it is

j shown in a current city directory or telephone directory." ! The placement of the declaration of net quantity has been a I matter of some discussion, to say the least. The Commission ' now proposes that "It shall be placed on the principal display 1 panel in close proximity to the most conspicuous statement of

j the trade or brand name, in lines generally parallel to the base

| on which the package rests as it is designed to be displayed,

| and no label information shall appear below or to either side of ' the declaration of net quantity on the principal dsplay panel."

[j The Commission considered it necessary, because of the nature | of the commodities involved, to include provisions for expressing | units of linear and area measure—sections 500.11 and 500.12.

^ I believe that the principles of these provisions follow the spirit

of those covering other forms of net content declarations.

You will certainly be interested to note that, for the purpose

of this proposal at least, the Commission has tentatively adopted

the attitude that net quantity of contents be expressed in terms , of average, rather than minimum, amounts. You should study i section 500.18 carefully for the details.

There is one question which I am sure many of you have i in mind which you will not find answered in the proposed re- gulations,

j We all know that the Food and Drug Administration administers the statute as it applies to a food, drug, device, or cosmetic as defined by section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act. The scope of the Act, in terms of application to FTC is des- ! cribed as extending to "any consumer commodity," or to "any

j packaged consumer commodity." Your question: "Just what pro- ! ducts are covered?"

By reference to the definition of "consumer commodity" in the

statute, we learn that the jurisdiction of the Commission ex-

] tends generally to any product or commodity, other than a ; food, drug, device, or cosmetic, of any kind or class which is customarily produced or distributed for sale through retail outlets for consumption by individuals, or use by individuals for ' purposes of personal care or in the performance of services , ordinarily rendered within the household, and which usually is \ consumed or expended in the course of such consumption or use. While the statute clearly excludes specific products, such as f tobacco, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and some seeds, j
which might otherwise fall within the general categories of products subject to control by FTC, I am being asked whether cer- tain other classes of products are within the contemplation of

the Act. There are some which would appear to present no problem.

Laundry detergents, and scouring powder, for example, are used

by individuals in the performance of services ordinarily rendered

within the household, and are expended in the course of such

use.However, I do not feel that I, as a staff member, am competent to express a view as to whether some other products are

covered.

I have used paint as an example—it is as good as any. Is the painting of a wall the performance of a service ordinarily

rendered within the household—any more or less than scrubbing

the wall with a detergent? Even though it becomes in effect a part of the wall after application, the can of paint, as such,

is consumed or expended in the course of such application. Floor

wax may be more readily accepted as within the definition.

We have had questions raised as to wether floor tile, and linoleum floor covering, are included. I have been unable to supply

authoritative answers. These determinations are of the sort which are to be made

only by the Commission—and some of its determinations may

be reviewed by the courts before the questions are finally

answered.

The legislative history does not, in my opinion, provide clear

and complete guidance to me as a staff member. The Senate

Commerce Committee and its Chairman, Senator Warren G.

Magnuson, made it quite clear that these legislators were con- cerned primarily with products customarily found in supermarkets; with those expendable commodities used for personal

care and household services. I have referred to paint expended

in caring for the wall of your home. Senator Magnuson informed

the Senate that the bill was not intended to cover paints and

kindred products.

He also expressed the view that the bill was not intended to cover

:

1. Durable articles or commodities,

2. Textiles or articles of apparel,

3. Any household appliance, equipment or furnishings,

4. Bottled gas for cooking or heating purposes,

5. Flowers, fertilizers and fertilizer materials, plants or shrubs, garden and lawn supplies,

6. Pet care supplies,

61
7. Stationery and writing supplies, gift wraps, fountain pens,

| mechanical pencils, and kindred products. i It may be significant that the definition of a consumer commodity in section 10 carefully excludes some classes of products

from coverage of the Act, as I mentioned earlier. Additionally

| the Act specifically excludes exports to foreign countries and

:

vests authority over imports in the Secretary of the Treasury.

| The question in my mind, the Act having provided so speci1

fically for exclusion of certain products, is to what extent the

Commission will be assisted in its interpretation of the general

coverage provisions by the legislative history as expressive of

the intent of Congress in the final enactment of this statute. Of course, once it has been determined that products are cov- ered by the regulations. Section 5(b) of the Act provides for

the promulgation of regulations exempting certain commodities

j from full compliance with the regulations. Such an exemption 1 may be granted by the promulgating authority upon a finding | that full compliance is impracticable or is not necessary for the

j adequate protection of consumers because of the nature, form, , or quantity of a particular consumer commodity, or for other

good and sufficient reasons. The regulations exempting such com- i modity shall spell out the extent and conditions thereof, con- ! sistent with the policy of the statute.

j We have been talking about something different. Anticipating

j the need for interpreting the statute and the regulations with j respect to commodity coverage, and possibly other matters, the

Commission included section 500.22 inviting submission of such

questions to the Commission. It is indicated that these will be I considered in the light of the particular situation. No specific

j procedure is outlined for handling these questions, and I assume j that it might vary according to the circumstances.

I would like to close with an urgent invitation for you to ex- press your views concerning these proposals. I stress the word

proposals. The Commission, I assure you, is open-minded. Your

comments and suggestions, pro and con, those of industry, will

provide the Commission with the sort of information and

public record which will aid in promulgation of realistic, workable final regulations. Mr. Jensen has been extremely helpful.

We are counting on his—and your—continued help.

Thank you.

62
THE FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING ACT

by A. J. Farrar, Legal Advisor, National Bureau of Standards

I am delighted and grateful for the opportunity of appearing before you at this 52nd

National Conference on Weights and Measures, I recall vividly the pleasant and most

profitable meeting in Denver last year. In

addition to renewing my acquaintanceship

with many of you whom I met at the 51st

National Conference, I look forward to meeting as many others as possible at this

Conference.

Our attention at this year's Conference is of course largely directed to the Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act. This Act was signed into law by the President on Novj ember 3, 1966, and was the culmination of proposals and hearj ings that had been before the Congress since 1961. This law

holds much promise for the American consumer. Its implementa-

' tion will create some major new functions within the Office of

Weights and Measures at the National Bureau of Standards.

The purpose of the Act is made quite clear in its Declaration

of Policy which states, "Informed consumers are essential to the

fair and efficient functioning of a free market economy. PackI ages and their labels should enable consumers to obtain accurate

' information as to the quantity of the contents and should facilitate value comparisons."

While this Act may enable the consumer to mount an assault

upon the glittering array of eyecatching, impulse-buying items

that lie tantalizingly in wait for his hard won dollar, I'm of

the view that the "sleeper" aspect of this law is that it holds even more promise to American manufacturers by providing

them the opportunity to increase their profits, reduce their costs of operation, and improve the purchasing power of their cus- tomers. This feeling stems, in large measure, from the President's

statement at the time he signed the Act into law last fall. Mr.

Johnson said in part, "A great majority of American manufacturers will welcome this new law. It protects the honest manufacturer against dishonest competitors. It encourages fair competition, competition based on quality, value, and price. It reflects

I our strong belief that the American producer can meet—and

wants to meet—the test of truth."

The subject of labels on packages is certainly not a novel

issue, for laws virtually abound on the subject, both on the

Federal and State level. A random selection of Federal laws

containing labeling and/or packaging requirements includes the

63
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; the Meat Inspection Act; the

Poultry Products Inspection Act; the Flammable Fabrics Act;

the Fur Products Labeling Act; and the Textile Fiber Products

Identification Act. Moreover, as you well know, on the State level there are weights and measures acts, food, drug and cosmetic acts, acts ; pertaining to meat and meat products, and other acts pertainj ing to particular foods. It is not an unfamiliar subject to this , Conference either; the National Conference on weights and ' measures has dealt with this subject at each meeting dating all the way back to the 7th Conference held in 1912.

The question thus arises, "Why was it necessary to have a Fair Packaging and Labeling Act?" As both the Senate and the

House Committees which handled this legislation stated in their

individual reports urging enactment of this law, "This legislation represents a significant step beyond the traditional policing

of intentionally deceptive or fraudulent acts. It is a reflection of | the changing relationship between manufacturer and consumer

j which has marked the technological upheaval in food processing, ' packaging, and distribution of recent decades." \ Tens of thousands of packages containing different consumer j commodities now compete for the consumer's dollar. The pack- I ages have replaced the salesman. Therefore, it is urgently re- quired that the information set forth on these packages be

sufficiently conspicuous and informative to apprise the consumer

of their contents and to enable the purchaser to make value

j comparisons among comparable products. I In short, the main characteristics of the new statute are that | it (1) illustrates a deep identification with the needs of the con-

| sumer for information and knowledge, (2) requires manufac- | turers to furnish services in the form of information to meet those

j needs, and (3) provides the mechanism to deal quickly and perhaps even imaginatively with the problems that may result from i its administration.

You may have noticed that I emphasized the words "value

comparisons." These same two words appear in the Act's De- [ claration of Policy and are perhaps the most important concept j to the consumer insofar as this law is concerned. I will refer 1 to these words again later. ; The Act divides certain responsibilities between the Secretary

{ of Health, Education and Welfare, the Federal Trade Commis- j sion and the Secretary of Commerce, though in no sense is this i to be interpreted as meaning in equal portions. Joining me this i morning in this panel discussion are representatives from the | Food and Drug Administration, HEW and the FTC both of | whom have advised you of the responsibilities of their respective

64
agencies under this statute. I shall therefore limit myself to discussing only the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce under this Act.

It may be well to point out at this juncture that the Department of Commerce does not have the responsibility or the

authority under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to issue

any regulations governing the packaging or labeling practices

of private industry. Very briefly, the primary areas in which

the Department has responsibility and authority are set out in

j Sections 5(d), 5(e), and 9(a) of the Act. These are:

j 1. Determining undue proliferation in any packaged consumer

! commodity or reasonably comparable consumer commodities.

2. Requesting industry to participate in establishing voluntary standards.

3. Reporting to the Congress with legislative recommendations, and

4. Assisting the States to promote uniformity among State

I and Federal requirements.

I should like to speak to each of these areas in turn.

1. Undue Proliferation.

The Act calls upon the Secretary of Commerce to determine

whether there is undue proliferation of the weights, measures,

I or quantities in a consumer commodity being distributed in packI ages for retail sale which impairs the reasonable ability of con- sumers to make value comparisons. That sentence contains several phrases of interest to us all. First, there is the term "undue proliferation;" secondly, there is the term "reasonable

ability;" and finally, the phrase I have mentioned before, "value

comparisons." These are terms to which not everyone will attach

the same significance or meaning. Nevertheless, one must ask

what is meant by "undue proliferation." Also, how does one gauge the reasonable ability of the consumer to make value comparisons with respect to packaged Consumer commodities, or known when such ability is impaired? As is so often the case, the

questions are more easily asked than answered. The statute does

not furnish us a neatly definitive explanation.

We are not, however, without guidelines or indications of what

the Act requires. The condition of undue proliferation must be one which "impairs the reasonable ability of consumers to make

value comparisons." Thus the numbers of the packaged product

available to the consumer must produce such an effect as to impair his ability to make a resonable judgment among comparable consumer commodities. Mere numbers however is not the

sole factor in determining whether the reasonable ability to make

65
value comparisons is impaired. Each commodity is different and | what might be considered as a reasonable basis for concluding | that consumers have suffered an impairment of ability because I of the number of weights, measures or quantities in one com- 1 modity might be completely inapplicable to another commodity f even though the number is greater. i A moment ago I posed the question "How does one determine

when a consumer's ability to make value comparisons is so impaired?" This question can perhaps be answered best by point- j ing out that such a determination will necessarily involve the

exercise of a considerable degree of administrative discretion.

It may be safely stated that, as a matter of legal interpretation, the statute permits a broad grant of discretionary authority

in this connection.

The Department of Commerce has published proposed administrative procedures setting forth the process by which undue

proliferation may be determined in a particular case. Under

those procedures, the National Bureau of Standards, in cooperation with State and local weights and measures officials, will f collect and evaluate information concerning whether there is

^ undue proliferation. When a problem has been identified regard- ( ing possible proliferation in a specific consumer commodity, the [ particular industry connected with that commodity will be noti- I fied and be given full opportunity to present its views. In those [ cases where progress is not being made, and a conclusion is I formed that there is undue proliferation under the Act, a ten-

[ tative determination to that effect will be published in the Federal Register which will invite public comment. All interested [ parties will be provided an opportunity to present their views on

the proposed determination. After such views have been evaluated, the Department will issue a final determination whether

undue proliferation exists and will publish that decision. Determinations of undue proliferation under this process will emerge

slowly and only after careful deliberation of all the evidence | available. Such determinations also will be based on a case-by- i case basis until some experience has been built up in this area,

j On the question of what constitutes "reasonable ability" on 1 the part of consumers, the resolution of that question will simply I have to depend on a particular factual situation. Obviously not

| everyone has the same talent or ability to make value compari- i sons. The central issue here is whether there is such prolifera- f tion of a packaged consumer commodity that an average per- > son would have difficulty in making a value comparison judgment. Thus while "reasonable" may not be a precise word, the

"reasonable man" concept is common in Anglo Saxon jurisprud66
i ence. Hence, I do not anticipate any great difficulty concerning

that particular aspect of the statute. With respect to the term "value comparison," the word "value"

in that term is, as most of you know, a replacement for the

word "price" that appeared in earlier proposed versions of the

Act. Many of the witnesses at both the Senate and House hearings testified that they feared an overemphasis of price as a market factor where price is only one of several considerations in a purchase,

i This viewpoint was adopted and the Conference report on the

I bill in explaining why the word "price" was dropped stated,

j "The conferees wish to make clear that the concept of "value

comparison" is broader than the concept of "price comparison"

and includes the latter within the former as a very important

factor in making a value comparison." As Senator Philip Hart,

the author of this legislation and a prime mover in its enact- ment said on this point, "This declaration (of facilitating value

comparisons) is significant because it enlarges Congressional

policy to include 'quality' comparison—a component of value.

I This 'quality' element has mostly greater implications than the more limited concept of price. For instance it opens the door

to consideration of legislation such as grade labeling and government testing of consumer products. Historians may consider this

declaration of policy to be as significant as the provisions of

I the legislation itself."

j What this in our judgment means, for the determination of

proliferation, is simply that not only must technical abilities and

problems of the industry be considered, but market practices

arising from consumer preference and affecting consumer choice

must be examined to see what effect, if any, they have on value

comparison. The ultimate decision on whether the reasonable

ability of consumers to make value comparisons is impaired will

therefore be based on a consideration of all factors identified

with that term although the element of price remains as one

of the more significant factors.

2. Development of Voluntary Product Standards.

Upon the making of a final determination that undue proliferation exists, the Department will request, as required under

the statute, manufacturers, packers, and distributors of con- sumer commodities to participate in the development of a voluntary Product Standard under the Department's published procedures for such voluntary standards. The whole purpose of this

part of the statute is to emphasize the voluntary aspect of cor- recting the problem caused by the determination that there is undue proliferation. Indeed, as the House Committee on Inter67
state and Foreign Commerce stated in its report urging the

enactment of this legislation, "The Committee wishes to make it clear its intent is to encourage the development of purely vol- untary standards. Indeed, it is the committee's hope that manufacturers will take advantage of the Commerce Department's | voluntary standard procedure without the necessity of a deter- I mination of undue proliferation and a request by the Secretary I under subsection 5(d) of the bill. A standard adopted in this

manner, without a determination of undue proliferation under I subsection 5(d), would not be subject to the provision of subsection 5(e)." Thus it may well come to pass that the most successful

application of this Act may be accomplished, not by enforcing

the Act's provisions, but by generating an acceptable level of

cooperation and understanding among business and industry to the end that voluntary standard will be voluntarily arrived at. ) will be voluntarily arrived at.

[ 3. Reporting to Congress. I If the voluntary aspects provided for under the statute do

j not accomplish the desired effect, the Secretary of Commerce

is required to report this to the Congress. Specifically, the Sec-

' retary must make this report if, one year after the date when I he first requests the manufacturers and others to participate : in the development of a voluntary Product Standard, he sees that a standard will not be published, or if he sees that a published standard is not being observed. Thus, after a lapse i of one year, if the Secretary is satisfied that progress is being

j made toward the publication of a standard even though not { yet published, he may defer reporting to the Congress. However,

j if voluntary efforts are proving to be of no avail, then he must

report to the Congress with a statement of the efforts that

have been made under the voluntary standards program and

give his recommendation as to whether Congress should enact

legislation providing regulatory authority to deal with the sit- uation. The Secretary is also required to transmit an annual

report to the Congress describing the activities of his Department during the preceding fiscal year.

4. Assistance to the States. Under Section 9(a) of the Act, the Secretary of Commerce

must transmit copies of each regulation promulgated by the

Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Federal

Trade Commission to all appropriate State officers and agencies

and to furnish to them information and assistance to promote i to the greatest practical extent, uniformity in State and Fed- ! eral regulations of the labeling of consumer commodities. This j latter responsibility is entirely consistent with Section 2 of the j'

68
National Bureau of Standards' Organic Act which specifically

authorizes "cooperation with the States in securing uniformity

in weights and measures laws and methods of inspection," and means to us simply an extension of the activities of the Office

of Weights and Measures to embrace the requirements of this

new statute. Although the Act will provide the consumer a chance to be more discriminating in his buying habits, I do not mean to imply however that it will necessarily be an easy statute to administer. On the contrary, the establishment of voluntary

standards has always involved a delicate balancing of various

interests by those affected. The interests of the producer and

distributor as well as the consumer must be carefully and impartially weighed. This involves the exercise of patience, understanding, compromise, and sound judgment. With your as- sistance and cooperation the National Bureau of Standards will

strive to carry out its assigned functions under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act in a manner which will reflect well

upon this Conference and the National Bureau of Standards,

and in a manner which will win plaudits from consumer groups

as well as manufacturers and packagers across this great Nation of ours. In so doing, let me assure you of our determination to be dissatisfied with anything less than excellence.

US PROCRUSTEANS MAKE STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

by C. F. Roberts, Jr., Washington Representative, National

Association of Manufacturers, Washington, D.C.

A business friend told me the other day

that the status of the new packaging law

reminds him of the grasshopper and the ant. Seems the ant spent the summer carefully

storing up food, while the grasshopper

danced the summer away. When winter

came, the ant was well off. But the grasshopper shivered in cold hunger. Desperately

he consulted the ant, and the ant said he

had a plan.

"What is it?" anxiously asked the grasshopper.

"Well, just cut those long legs off so you can pass as a cockroach,

then you can steal your way into some warm kitchen and you

will make it through winter quite comfortably."

The grasshopper thought a minute, and then he asked, "Yes,

that sounds good, but how do I cut off my legs?"

69
"Oh," answered the ant, "I've given you the policy; the opera- i tion is up to you." i Well, good morning, fellow grasshoppers. We face a cold winter j together—those of you in the Federal establishment, those on the ' State level, and we in industry. For a lot is expected from the j Fair Packaging and Labeling Act—indeed, it is a time, as they

say of "rising expectations"—and I believe our united desire is to j get the job done as well as we can.

j I hear it said that industry watered down this bill. Some say i this with a sneer. Some say this with a growl. I do not say it at I

all. And here is why :

, The packaging bill was considered by Congress, and by industry

as well, on the basis of what would best serve consumers. For

industry is acutely aware that what is good for the consumer is in i the end good for industry. The bill that emerged from this proc-

| ess contains some features not in the original version. It is, I am | deeply convinced, a better law, not a watered down law. i Originally, as all of us recall, the plan was to dictate manda- | tory package standardization by weight. This was over and ' beyond Food and Drug's deciding, as it is still trying to do, how | many peanuts are needed for peanut butter, and also atop the \ Federal Trade Commission's open-ended powers to oversee the

j promotion of hundreds of thousands of consumer items. It was an

j attempt, really, to legislate away confusion—not a small under- ^ taking, considering how many new products and new versions of

old products arrive on the market week by week and month

by month.

I agree that industry was somewhat aghast over what was be- i ing attempted. But, for that matter. Government, itself, was not | too taken with it. For if Government was to carry the whole

| burden, it also would have to suffer the consequences. Failure to | live up to the ambitious objectives of the original bill would have

| had, we presume, direct political results. That is to say, it would I have had if "consumeritis" truly has the grassroots clout claimed | for it these days.

j Under the bill as finally passed, the Federal enforcers are in a > position to claim credit for improvements, but they cannot be

' blamed by any fairminded voter if nothing happens to reduce, for ! example, the number of sizes of potato chips in the supermarket, j To the extent that the process works, confusion is supposed to be | reduced. | I am happy that some progress is being made in this direction

^ by business without waiting for the fomalities. In Bethesda there f is a dress shop which sells sizes seven to nine, exclusively. This |

70
clears up confusion for my wife instantly. She KNOWS nothing

they have in that store will fit.

I prefer the revised law over the bill originally proposed. Under this Act, business and Government may act if they can some- how decide what "undue proliferation" is. But they are not

compelled to find multiple cures for nonexistent diseases. In other words, our friends in the agencies have statutory discretion to correct obvious problems, but not a mandate to imagine any. The number of targets is not specified. I hope, as I am

sure many here do, that the agencies will move slowly. For there

are not only many kinds of consumers, but also every individual's

needs and preferences change constantly through a lifetime. It is the great miracle of modern American merchandising that we

can begin and end our lives eating baby foods, and in between

enjoy our steaks and dutifully eat our vegetables, all from the

shelves of the same store. We can pick quantities ranging from a few ounces for the debutante to the giant family size that can be

bought only when husbands are around to wrestle it out of the

car and into the kitchen.

This Act can be beneficial, I believe, if its administration is confined to real problems. The job will be reduced to a manageable size if nonproblems do not capture the attention of the

authorities and consume their time. It should be realized that even though we now have this law, the law of the marketplace

still will work for the consumers and should be allowed to function as far as it can. Some products can be standardized in relatively few packages

and sizes, and for that matter already are. I think of salt, flour,

and sugar. Standardization occurred without Government intervention. I think we should investigate and discover why standardization has occurred in such products as part of the job of learning what products are suitable for such limits on their sale. (It

should be noted that the principal makers of these products also are makers of products that never have been confined to narrow

ranges of weights and measures.)

If the elements of the products that have been standardized can be found, we may learn what products lack these elements

and, therefore, should not be standardized.

I suspect that a panel of scientists might learn, after some

study, that salt, flour, and sugar are used constantly in a household in a variety of sub-quantities, that they are relatively heavy

for their bulk, that they keep well on the shelf, that they are not

fragile, that they pour like liquids, and that they are inexpensive.

They might discover some other aspects as well. Who knows?

Such things, the scientists might note if given enough research

71
money, a well-equipped lab, and time, are not entirely true of

potato chips. I suggest the scientific trappings, because of the

present-day contempt for horse sense, which is now fairly labeled

"conventional wisdom."

Another thing, and let me say this to the interested agencies:

Let us walk the extra mile to stay out of court. Government has more important things to do, and so does business. This is the

newest law the FTC and the FDA have to administer, but it is not

by any means the most important.

The FDA, for example, has been active lately in protecting us

all from salmonella and I, as a consumer, hope that no preoccupation with the labels on salmon cans will interfere with

this matter.

The FTC has been active lately in cracking down on unscrupulous merchants who live by deceiving the poverty striken. I, for

one, would hate to see the FTC abate its zeal in this enterprise

while it counts the cherries in frozen pies.

I hope you will not mistake what I am saying as a plea to go

easy on business or to evade the intent of Congress. What I am

saying is, I hope Government will weigh the value of this law

against the value of the other laws it must enforce from the

consumer's standpoint, and thus place the new law in perspective.

The business of b7isiness is business—not litigation. Sometimes,

however, in Washington we get the impression that the business

of business is litigation, because that is what we so often see. We

at the NAM know, of course, that this is not true. Our officers and

directors have necessarily had to concern themselves with the

issues raised by Government, but their principal contribution to the welfare of their companies and, indeed, to the development of a healthy and expanding economy is the development which leads

to new products and market expansion, so we have a vested in- terest in getting our governmental problems out of the way.

The packaging bill is law now, and it is in everyone's interest

to arrive at regulations which will do what Congress had in mind,

and to accomplish this rapidly, with least delay to the valid in- terest of business, and in this category I emphatically include

the least possible litigation, because there is little likelihood of

gain from litigation.

Especially, we take the position that, where possible, the re- gulations under this new law should reflect the seasoned judgment and experience of the host of State officials who have

been active, and, indeed, pre-eminent, in this field for many

years. To this end we have recommended that the FDA regulation

(FTC) conform as closely as possible to the Model Law. We do

this because, in the first place, we believe the Model Law m.akes

72
sense. We feel it represents enough authority so that FDA regulations which depart from it might be successfully challenged

as contrary to accepted usage.

I feel I must emphasize the part that many of you in this room

have played in developing consumer-oriented practices and packaging. No group in the entire v^^orld is more conscious of the

difficulties and pitfalls of hasty and unwise action in the field than those of you who work at the State and local levels, and who

have contributed so immensely to the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

You are the pioneers and innovators in consumer protection.

Yours is the tradition. You have worked out in the hard school of

experience your enforcement procedures, based on the basic laws

of the States. What you have done in this regard reminds me of

what the European countries are now trying to hammer out in

arriving at the uniformity of regulations required by the Common Market. You have greatly helped us already, in this country,

to obtain a common market.

The National Conference on Weights and Measures has shown

the way to cooperation between local and State government and

business.

Now, of course, many businessmen do fear regulation by Federal agencies, and that means many honest businessmen. Let us be frank and say that they often have reason to do so. Just

for instance, take the fellow the Labor Board settled on the other

day.

The Supreme Court has said that if a company shuts down one

plant to "cool unionism" at its other plants, that is an unfair labor

practice. So the Board ruled that this man was unfair in not

negotiating before shutting down his business. But the Board's

own report of the case showed beyond question that the poor guy was gradually shutting down the business, because his health was

failing, he was superannuated, and nobody wanted to buy it. So long as there are regulatory agencies which render decisions

that are burdensome and nonsensical on evidence which shows

no wrongdoing, businessmen will continue to be apprehensive. I understand that FTC will have 26 additional people available to work in this area. One of the things these 26 people will be working on is what is small, what is medium, what is large. If they

ever find out, will the world be a better place? Will Spring come

earlier, or mother love be stronger?

I hope that we will gain something by not having a new agency

set up to enforce this bill. I shudder to think what would happen

to us all, and the consumer, if someone in the regulatory agencies,

with misguided enthusiasm, went beyond the intent of Congress

73
or the regulations. We could expect, for instance, that the color

photo on a package must be an individually made photo of the

particular pie in the package.

This would really tend to increase the cost of pie. Why, we

might even have a Federal case if Kellogg sold a package of Apple

Jacks to a bully—or spinach to Barnacle Bill. Now, the Packaging and Labeling bill, if it is going to work,

requires the cooperation of the agencies and the manufacturer.

I submit that Government will get this cooperation, if it is possible for business to give it. Gentlemen, business, of course, would

rather work with their own market research analysts, the Better

Business Bureaus, the churches, or other private groups to stay

atop consumer needs and desires. But they will do their best to cohabit with Government.

There is no reason for any of us, whether in Government or

business, to wish for anything except success for the packaging

law. While I know there is disappointment among some who

labored so faithfully for the Model Law, I suspect that in the end

you will find the Federal agencies following many, if, indeed, not

most, of the Model Law's footsteps. It has left a trail that is well

blazed and wherever they turn the new regulators will find others

have been there before.

Truth to tell, they will find in many instances that business was there before.

I think in all solemn reason it will be concluded that the Congress was, indeed, wise to provide for voluntarism.

If we can keep the mood right, and if we can move forward

with some measure of mutual trust and understanding, I think

the time may even come when we will work happily together

counting peanuts in peanut butter. For my own I would like to see this happen—happen before my own kids graduate to popcorn

and pizza.

I have uttered some 3,000 words, of which less than one percent were imported. Their net weight is not much. I hope they

will not suffer a rational comparison with those of Messrs.

Sweeny, Farrar, and Sandbach. That, I am sure, would only con- fuse you consumers, and me.

But, to end on a serious note, the effective date of the mandatory provisions of the packaging law, July 1, 1967, approaches.

The business community, as I know it, awaits orders. It is, I can

assure you, quite ready to march.

74
TRUTH-IN-PACKAGING—A COMING REALITY OR

A MIRAGE?

by W. Sandbach, Executive Director, Consumers Union,

Mount Vernon, New York

During the five years that the problem of

deceptive packaging was under consideration by the Congress, there was remarkably

little discussion of the basic issue. Consumers asking for the legislation lamented:

"We cannot compare prices." Industry

spokesmen opposing the legislation said all manner of things, but on this central issue

what they said came out to little more than,

"You can, too." When it became apparent

that Congress might actually pass a packag-

' ing law, industry spokesmen, in desperation, discovered that the

American female possessed an astonishing ability to calculate.

This heretofore unnoted phenomenon won great plaudits from

I industry and was the subject of some of Madison Avenue's most

untrammeled prose. In full page newspaper ads, the Scott Paper

Co., for example, hailed the American housewife as "The Original Computer." "... A strange change comes over a woman in

the store," read the ad. "The soft glow in the eye is replaced by a

steely financial glint; the graceful walk becomes a panther's

stride among the bargains. A woman in a store is a mechanism,

a prowling computer. . . . Jungle-trained, her bargain-hunter

senses razor-sharp for the sound of a dropping price. . . ." None of these lady panthers, however, appeared to testify before any of the Congressional hearings on packaging. The shoppers who did appear belonged to a lesser breed. They were fully

aware, their testimony indicated, of the jungle aspects of their

buying experiences, and they failed to undergo that metamorphosis so necessary to successful shopping in today's supermarket.

They remained, alas, all too human. "We simply could not make

price comparisons," they said. But opponents of packaging legislation, having provided the obvious answer to this repeated complaint—turn yourself into a panther and prowl with a computer —exhibited little further interest in the subject.

Little has changed since the packaging bill was approved al- most unanimously by Congress. Industry spokesmen are still making speeches in which they say, in effect, that the legislation was

unnecessary and that the various agencies involved should do no more than go through the motions when it comes to enforcement.

Only recently, Charles G. Mortimer, Chairman of the Executive

Committee of General Foods, urged business to unite against fur75
ther encroachments of government in the packaging field, either (1 f"' legislatively or administratively. } Many of us had hoped that with legislation on the books there : ^ would be very real efforts at self-regulation by the packaging I " industry. The bill as passed was meant to encourage i self-regulation. In most instances the new law merely tells the ^ Secretary of Commerce to keep an eye out for problems, and, if ji TM he finds one, to call together a committee of manufacturers, pack- j' ers, distributors, and consumers to write a voluntary standard.

The Secretary has had authority to do that for many years. But |l his department has not, historically, championed the consumer's i causes. As an administrator of Truth-in-Packaging, the Com- \ merce Department strikes the National Association of Manufacturers, for one, as a strange choice "because Commerce is supposed to represent business viewpoints, and they are well aware that businessmen certainly view the new legisla- I tion darkly." I For better or worse, the Secretary of Commerce is now Congress' consumer surrogate, with orders to follow. When the Sec- i retary makes a finding of packaging proliferation or inability to compare prices of a household commodity, he will now be re- ; quired to initiate standards-making. The drafters of the law,

j obviously familiar with the painfully slow process of getting | competing and often conflicting interests to agree on a standard,

| wrote into the law a one-year limit on the proceedings. After the i deadline, the Secretary must report to Congress, either recom- | mending legislation to create a mandatory packaging standard | or advising that no reasonable standard is possible.

j The Secretary is also required to report to Congress if, a year

after a voluntary standard has been established, it is not being

observed. And he must make an annual report to Congress on his

standards-making activities. 1 Despite its shortcomings, Truth-in-Packaging as enacted does,

all in all, arm three Government agencies with sorely needed ' new authority over both packages and labels. Strong, consumer- i oriented enforcement and administration of its provisions can

turn those 6,000 to 8,000 packaged salesmen along the supermarket aisles into information purveyors of a useful sort.

It was, therefore, heartening that President Johnson, having

put his name to the bill, immediately directed the Secretary of

Commerce to call in "those industries where the hearings show

j the protection is most needed." I There is plenty for the agencies administering the Truth-inPackaging law to do to start putting order into the chaos of

supermarket shopping. To start the ball rolling. Consumer ReI
ports has updated a 1965 listing of the different package sizes of

laundry detergent on sale in one particular supermarket. The

Secretary of Commerce might wish to note that on April 28,

1965, a CR shopper counted 29 different quantities of detergent on sale. On December 22, 1966, she counted 20 different quantities. We do not know how the Secretary would react, but as for

ourselves, we would say that undue "proliferation" still exists

in laundry detergents.

The FTC might wish to note, in judging whether cents-off

labels on detergents reflect reductions from the ordinary or re- gular price, as the law says they must, that eight detergent

packages in that one supermarket made the very same cents-off

claim that they had made twenty months earlier. And their purchase prices had changed only a penny or two, if at all. If the new bill is not strongly enforced or, which is more

likely, if it is subverted by Congress not providing sufficient

funds for enforcement, or if industry makes its enforcement

difficult or impossible by lack of sincere cooperation with the

agencies, what recourse does the consumer have left?

The only recourse is further political action. Last year, with

the passage of the Auto Safety Bill, a Fair Packaging Law, and

the Child Safety Act, we heard much about 1966 being "The Year

of the Consumer." Forbes magazine recently predicted that we

have seen nothing yet—that 1967 was likely to be "The Year of

the Consumer." That is doubtful, but it is certainly true that since

the end of World War II, and coming into full public view for the

first time with President Kennedy's issuance of his consumer's

"Bill of Rights" message in 1962, the U.S. has witnessed a rising

tide of interest in the consumer's welfare. This tide, in the field of safety, has engulfed the automobile industry. The textile

manufacturers, running scared, have announced the initiation of a voluntary program of care-labeling for finished garments. Drugs,

food, packaging, advertising—you name it—all have been affected by this upsurge of interest in the welfare of the consumer. More than mere prosperity lies behind the new wave of con- cern for the consumer. Consuijiers Union, when it embarked on

its testing and reporting thirty years ago, quickly found the in- terest for its publication Consumer Reports, not, as anticipated,

among the working class, but rather among the educated

middle class. America is now rapidly becoming a middle-class

society. More and more people are willing to read to get information. No less a watchtower of our economic scene than Business

Week asks itself, "What has caused all the excitement about consumer legislation and protection at this particular time?"

And it comes right back with the reply—correct, in our experience

77
—"The best answer seems to be that the American consumer is, P indeed, the best educated in the world, and he is beginning to ' demand more information on which to make purchasing

[ decisions." l! In this regard there is a kernel of wisdom in a scene from the | play, "Born Yesterday," as related by Clayton Fritchey in a news-

[ paper column. In this scene the wheeler-dealer's not-so-dumb | blonde companion is somewhat unimpressed with his bragging j about how he can buy and sell people in Government. "To Hell

j with the public," says the wheeler-dealer. "You better watch your j step, Harry," retorts the blonde, "they're getting more prominent

all the time."

Being "professional consumers" as our critics like to call us, we at Consumers Union hope that the wheeler-dealer's blonde was

right, and that the consumer will not only continue to rise in

prominence, but that he will speak out, as did the housewives in

their boycotts this past year, for a more consumer-oriented marketplace. In this regard, at a recent insurance industry conference,

Daniel P. Moynihan analyzes what happened to the automobile

industry. Mr. Moynihan says: "One year ago, the biggest busi- ness in the United States, and, indeed, the world, was utterly

free of Government control of any kind. Today it is a regulated

industry. . . . The decision to impose that regulation was as nearly unanimous as anything can be in a democracy. . . ." ^ Mr. Moynihan goes on to ask: "How could this possibly have

happened with an industry which has brought the art of management to fabled levels of efficiency?" In brief, Mr. Moynihan's conclusion was that the industry had

lost touch with public opinion. You will remember one auto executive testifying that, "The public does not want safety. Safety

does not sell !" Mr. Moynihan explains how this can happen by

quoting John Gardner about organizations which fail to renew

themselves. Dr. Gardner said

In the great majority, the trouble was not difficult to diagnose and

there was ample warning of the coming catastrophe. . . But if warning signals are plentiful why doesn't the ailing organization

[and I would add, industry] take heed? The answer is clear: most

ailing organizations have developed a functional blindness to their own defects. They are not suffering because they can't solve their problems but because they won't see their problems. They can look straight at their faults and rationalize them as virtues or necessities."

Mr. Moynihan's speech, incidentally, was entitled "Is The In1 Daniel P. Moynihan, "Is The Insurance Industry Next?" Insurance Advocate, January 28, 1967.

- John Gardner, "How to Prevent Organizational Dry-Rot." Harper's Magazine, October 1965.

78
surance Industry Next?" Within the context of this discussion,

I would ask you a question: Is the packaging industry due for

another round with Congress? My prediction is that unless the

industry takes seriously the need for self-regulation, there will

be a clamor from the housewives that will not be stilled. There

has been nothing in the 31-year history of Consumers Union

that has brought us more letters than the subject of packaging.

If they continue to come after the new law goes into effect,

Consumer Reports will be in the forefront of those demanding

that more stringent action be taken against the packaging in- dustry.

President Johnson asked for a law that would make it possible

for the housewife to compare prices without needing a slide

rule. Under the new law she may be able to throw away her

magnifying glass, but she is likely to need a slide rule for some

time to come.

I

79
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON, JUNE 28, 1967

No Business Session

Conference tour of the new National Bureau of Standardsl

facilities in Gaithersburg, Maryland. \

I

The above group is looking at the twelve-million-lbf capacity hydraulic

testing machine, believed to be the world's largest, is being installed in the new NBS Engineering Mechanics Building. A unique facility, the machine

^ will provide the force to calibrate multi-million-lbf capacity force-measuring

devices for space and industrial applications and to test full-scale structural components. The machine has a total height of 101 ft, including 21 ft in a pit.

80
MORNING SESSION-THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1967

(C. 0. COTTOM, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

LADDER MEASUREMENT AND LABELING

by B. M. Getzoff, Attorney at Law, Echt and Getzoff,

Chicago, Illinois

Out of the jungle of conflicting and con- fusing standards existing in the ladder in- dustry, the standards developed by the

National Bureau of Standards in April 1965

created order where there was chaos. Today,

when a ladder manufacturer represents his

ladder as having an overall length of 16 feet

long, it must be an actual 16 feet within

established tolerances or it is in violation.

Governmental standards are not new. They are not enacted just to add another

regulation for the government to enforce, but to serve the public

interest. They are intended to prevent confusion and to create

public benefits in safety and in health. Standards serve the

public interest by encouraging fair dealing and protecting the consumer in his purchase of goods and services. The creation of

standards leads to a growing public attitude that the process of

setting standards should not be under the sole control of the

particular groups whose interests are aifected. The history of

this development is shown by the various acts that have been

enacted by Congress.

In the 1906 enactment of the Food and Drug Act, Congress

placed the responsibility upon the Government rather than on

the individual food processor, to begin the regulation of unsafe

food and drug products. The Securities and Exchange Act of

1933 was enacted to prevent manipulation and abuses in control

of stock exchanges. The Meat Inspection and Poultry Product

Inspection Acts again showed the development of an interest in

protecting public health through safe consumer products. The

Cigarette Labeling Act indicated a concern over the hazards to health in smoking. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of

1966 reflects a new policy to eliminate confusion among con-

' sumers because of undue proliferation of quantities in which consumer commodities are sold.

I In the establishment of mandatory standards by the Government, the established public objectives cannot be reached without using the vast industrial competence. It is only through the

cooperation of industry that we can expect to establish standards

that will produce the public benefits in safety or health without

81
harmful consequences. Standards must be feasible from the i standpoint of cost and engineering. ' Our satisfaction with the establishment of standards as to lengths of ladders is tempered by the feeling that while this

new extension of standards was necessary and desirable, it has I not gone far enough. We submit that the public is no less defrauded and exploited when they contract for a 16-foot extension

| ladder and receive a ladder of lesser length, than they are when i they think they are buying a safe ladder and get something less.

The measurement problem that is of direct concern toj

this National Conference is, of course, how the quantity is being i represented. But I would like to devote a little time to exploration of another measurement problem. If a ladder is represnted

as having certain dimensions to its parts, such as its rails or

steps, that make it a safe ladder, is it a safe ladder when those!

dimensions are not accurately represented, when they are exag-l

gerated ? i The construction of safe ladders is a highly complex engineering subject. Industry, in cooperation with the American Standards Association, has set standards for this. The standards have

been set up and established. Only the adoption of these standards is required to make them effective.

These standards were not created solely by the ladder in- dustry as a self-serving operation to set up an umbrella of re- spectability for marginal ladder manufacturers. Instead, thci

standards were set up under the auspices of the American]

Standards Association, now known as the United States ofj

America Standards Institute. The participating committees rep-j

resented such organizations as: American Federation of Labor

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

American Society of Safety Engineers

American Society for Testing Materials

Associated General Contractors of America

Association of American Railroads

Association of Casualty and Surety Companies

Electric Light and Power Group

International Association of Fire Fighters

International Association of Governmental Labor Officials National Association of Mutual Casualty Companies

National Lumber Manufacturers Association

National Safety Council

Telephone Group

Underwriters Laboratory

U. S. Department of Agriculture U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards

The standards that were conceived and created by these participating organizations were dedicated and designed first and

82
I foremost for the public safety. They represent the combined

j thinking of the foremost engineers in the country. The standards

I cover metal as well as wood ladders. These standards are com-

! plete. They are now ready for the asking. Not only are they

; ideally suited for the protection of the public, but they fully

! qualify as being feasible in terms of cost and engineering. In

j the case of wood ladders, safety for wood ladders by mathematical formulas has been translated into measurements of rails

! and steps in the classification of step ladders and into measureI ments of rails and rungs for extension ladders,

j The average weight of a prospective ladder user is computed

I at 200 pounds. But we all know that the weight of some users may exceed 200 pounds. So, in designing a ladder, the dimensions

are so formulated that it will accommodate four times that

weight. It is this formula that provides the framework of

dimensions in rails, steps, and rungs, that provides the standI ard for safe ladders.

Step ladders are divided into three classifications, depending on the purposes for which they are intended to be used. Each

1 type of ladder has a specific table of measurements,

j Type I ladder is the strongest and heavies. It is designed for

heavy industrial use and has a total length of up to 20 feet,

of up to 20 feet. It is to be noted, for instance, that the thickness

of a side rail for a 12-foot length of a Type I ladder is 25/32

I inch compared with a thickness of 1 1/16 of an inch for a 20 foot

I length. The same difference is noted in the 3%-inch depth re- quired for a 12-foot length as compared with the 4i4-inch depth

in a step required for the longer length of step ladders.

A Type II ladder is designed for medium duty and covers light

industrial use, such as painting and office use. The authorized

length is from 4 to 12 feet. The variation in the side rail depth

of 2% inches for a Type II ladder from 3 to 8 feet, as compared

with a 12-foot length where the required depth of a side rail is 3 inches.

The design of a Type III ladder is intended for light household use. They are restricted to a length of from 3 to 6 feet. The thickness of the rails and steps is set at % of an inch instead

of 25/32 inch. The depth of side rails of 21/2 inches for a Type

III ladder is less than 314. inches for the rail in a 12-foot Type I

I ladder or the 2% inches required for a 10-foot length of a Type

i II ladder.

It is to be noted that, when Group 2 woods are used, the

thickness of the rails from lengths under 30 feet to 44 feet is constant at 1 5/16-inch, but the required depth in inches varies

from 21/2 to 3 inches. For Group 3 woods, there is a variation

in required thickness of rails as well as the depth.

83
Wood drastically differs from metal in that it lacks the uni1

formity of material that is found in metal products. There are j hard woods and there are soft woods. Some woods have stronger

qualities than others. In order to construct a comprehensive

formula, woods are divided into four categories. Each group is

[ classified as to allowable fiber stress and bending. Allowable fiber i stress is the distinguishing factor. In Group 1, the allowable fiber

j stress shall not exceed 2,150 pounds per square inch; in Group 2, , the allowable stress is 2,000 pounds per square inch ; in Group 3, I the allowable stress is 1,600 pounds; and in Group 4, the stress

shall not exceed 1,375 pounds per square inch.

The code for portable wood ladders prohibits serious defects

in wood, such as compression wood, cross grain, and knots, beyond certain minimum sizes, that weeken the capacity of the

ladders.

Some States, like Florida and Oregon, have borrowed from the

ASA Code for Portable Wood Ladders to set up their own in- | dustrial code. The adoption of an industrial code, however, would

j in no way conflict with establishment of standards of dimensions , and measurements. Instead of a conflict, each would go hand in | hand in supplementing each other and broadening the base of | safety. !, The expansion of ladder standards to dimensions and measure- ments of component parts of wood ladders would not only protect the purchaser but also the user as well. Some industrial em- , ployers are particularly flagrant in their indifference for the

safety of their employees. Each day, too many employers jeopardize the safety of their employees by compelling them to use

light household ladders for heavy industrial use. Some years ago, a ladder of one of our members was involved

in an accident. The quality of this manufacturer's product was

well known to me and I was puzzled as to why the ladder failed. In my investigation I found that the injured employee was working for a contractor who had developed a prosperous business

of installing aluminum storm windows. His products must have

j been superior to his equipment. He had supplied an inexpensive

Type III ladder, costing $1.98 and designed for light household

use, for this industrial job. The ladder failed, because it did not

have the capacity for this heavy duty work. As a result of this

failure, the employee sustained a fractured heel bone resulting

in a permanent and painful disability. This accident could have

been prevented if a State agency had required an industrial user

to provide heavy duty ladders for heavy duty work.

If the spirit that caused the enactment of standards for uniform length in ladders would likewise be carried one step further

to define measurements for Type I, II, and III wood step ladders,

84
as well as the various lengths of two-section extension ladders,

it would be an historical advancement. Not only would the public

receive full protection as to the commodity they are buying, but

also a greater measure of safety. It is a short step to proceed

from the requirement that measurements of a length of a ladder

conform to its label, to also require that the measurements of

the rail and the steps conform to the code for portable wood

ladders. Just as the ultimate goal of ladder measurements for

standardized weights and measures will go a long way in excluding ladders of less lengths as substandard, so would the extension

of this standardization to include the code requirements for

dimensions of steps and ladders for Types I, II, and III ladders

increase the protection of the public from being short changed as

to safety. The American Ladder Institute strongly supports any

governmental agency that seeks to eliminate substandard ladders,

and is strongly united in this new program of standardization.

Metal ladders are manufactured in compliance with a metal

code, also published by the United States of America Institute.

Unlike the wood code, the metal code is more in the nature of a performance code because of the nature of the materials used.

Metal parts to a ladder are manufactured in accordance with an alloy and thereby eliminate the variations of material uniformity that is found in wood. Consequently, a greater reliance

is made upon performance tests, which are comprised of weight

applications to various metal parts of a ladder.

The dimension specifications for metal ladders as to extension

ladders, requires that pulleys shall not be less than ll^ inches

in diameter and that the ropes used for such pulleys shall not be

less than 5/16 inch. In step ladders, it is specified that the width

of the steps shall not be less than 3 inches. I might add at this

point that, while performance tests can be applied to metal

ladders, the application of weight loads to wooden parts causes damage to the wood fibers that are not readily discernible. If weight tests were applied to ladders prior to their shipment to the consumer, it would not be known whether or not there had

been any dangerous injury sustained by the wood fibers. The

U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Forest Product

Laboratories that are maintained in various parts of the country,

stongly urges that under no circumstances should weight tests be applied to wood ladders prior to shipment to the consumer. Today there are few ladder manufacturers that deliberately

engage in the sale of unsafe substandard products, but I would

urge that, if there is on manufacturer that sell substandard

ladders and thereby places the public in jeopardy, then that is one too many.

85
If we are to objectively survey and analyze the basic causes

of ladder accidents, we w^ould find that more accidents are caused by improper use than by substandard ladders. Even the

best ladder, made of the finest materials, is dangerous if used

improperly or carelessly.

Speaking as an attorney, I would say that in this day and age

of the growth and development of product liability law, the

simple tools of bygone days have now assumed new stature and

proportions. Where accidents yesterday would have been charged

off to the carelessness of the user, today they become the basis

for liability against a manufacturer. Such simple tools as knives,

hammers, and ladders, in the eyes of some, have become deadly

lethal weapons. Ladders are one of the more common tools, with

hundreds of thousands in use daily.

Ladders are designed to serve a simple purpose. They enable

the human body to elevate itself to heights beyond the human

reach. At least, this was the intended purpose in the past. Today,

there are too many users who defy the laws of gravity and, to their sorrow, find they have not been repealed. When users stand on tops of step ladders and lose their balance, when there are no

overlaps in extension ladders, when they set up extension ladders

at improper angles, they ignore the simple rules of common sense. Safety is endangered by substandard ladders on one hand and consumer negligence on the other. Against manufacturers of

substandard ladders, reputable ladder makers are helpless without government intervention. One of the great phenomenon of

this day and age is the ability of consumers' carelessness to convert a simple tool like a ladder into a dangerous instrumentality. Against consumer negligence they have responded by a comprehensive system of labeling. After a comprehensive study

of the common acts of consumer negligence, a standardized label

has been created by the American Ladder Institute for its members. In this way, the American Ladder Institute has launched a

vigorous campaign of enlightenment against consumer carelessness. Today, the practice of affixing these decal labels of instruction has been adopted by all of the members of the American

Ladder Institute as part of its constant campaign to make the

public safety-conscious. After years of experimentation with

various kinds of labels, it has been found that these decals are

the most effective and lasting method of providing common sense

instructions for ladder safety, when placed in a conspicuous

place so that they can be read and understood by the user. When all is said and done, we want you to know that the members of the American Ladder Institute are solidly united behind

standardization efforts. In all of your future efforts we extend our

enthusiastic support in the achievement of a common goal . . . the protection of the American consumer.

86
WHAT'S NEW IN AEROSOL PACKAGING?

by E. D. GiGGARD, Product Coordinator for Aerosols, Continental

Can Company, Technical Research Center, Chicago, Illinois

The aerosol industry over the years has

been characterized by exciting new developments, one of them being compartmentalized packaging. Compartmented packaging

itself is going through quite a development

period. Today, I appreciate the opportunity

to present and discuss the newest, and, we

believe, the most versatile of the compartmentalized aerosol packages. It is a completely new system of aerosol packaging

or, actually more technically correct, a new

system of pressure packaging. We call it Sepro can. I think I can

I best lead into the Sepro can development through a brief history

j of the development of the aerosol industry.

I The aerosol industry got its start during World War II. The

1 necessity for controlling insect-propagated diseases caused the

War Department to commission the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop a method whereby individual foot soldiers

could combat tropical insects. It was through this grant that

Lyle Goodhue and William Sullivan of the USDA conceived the

idea of combining pyrethrum and sesame oil with liquefied propellant 12 in steel, pressure-resistant containers. These heavy containers were fitted with a valve to produce a fine spray of in- secticide. This system was used widely and successfully by our

foot soldiers during the war. Naturally, at the end of the war

when troops returned home and surplus army goods were sold,

the idea spread to the civilian population.

Once lightweight, single-trip containers were made available

to replace the heavy, refillable units used during the war, the

industry really started to grow. Aerosol dispensers first became

a significant part of the packaging industry in 1949 when hair

sprays and gas propellants were first combined in a practical

marketing-oriented manner. This made available a convenience

item in the cosmetics field that had never been available before.

It opened new aspects of packaging, untapped until then.

I Inspect sprays came along about the same time with a sub1 stantial market infiuence. The rate of growth of the industry was rather sensational. 1950 was up about 18 percent. Shave

creams were being packaged in aerosol cans at this time. By

1957, window sprays had come into the aerosol market. The

growth rate had been sustained through the years, almost

doubling the market in the previous five years.

87
The next step was de-icers back in 1960. By now aerosols were demonstrating their all-year-round usability and advantages. In 1961, it was starch spray that sparked the market. The

upswing was still running four times the annual growth rate of

the country as a whole. Then, four years ago, the personal

deodorants began swinging over to aerosol in significant volume.

In just 20 years, the aerosol industry has built sales from 0 to better than 2 billion units per year. Through these past 20 years, aerosol developers and marketers

have been taught to think thin. With few exceptions, such as aerosol powders, we were taught to consider product candidates

that will flow readily under their own weight.

Our marketing research people told us that if we were to ex- pand the aerosol market significantly, we must develop a means

that would permit us to think thick. That is, develop a means of

permitting dispensing of very viscous products such as pastes,

creams, gels, etc. We believe that the way to accomplish this feat

is to build a barrier between the product and the propellant or driving force. This, then, is where the new Sepro concept comes into the picture. In case you are wondering about the word,

"Sepro"—it is a coined word derived from the two words

"separate" and "propellant" or "product."

The heart of the Sepro can is a pleated plastic bag which

serves as the product chamber and is designed to collapse readily

upon itself as product is being squeezed from the bag through

the valve. In the construction of the Sepro can (fig. 1), the plastic bag

plus the valve cup provides the confines for the product chamber.

The Sepro bag is secured in the conventional 1-inch container

opening by crimping of the valve cup. The reservoir remaining

between the outside of the plastic bag and the inside of the metal

container walls serves as the propellant chamber. Propellant

is introduced into this chamber after the product has been filled and the container conventionally crimped with a 1-inch valve.

Propellant is introduced through a special port in the bottom

end unit.

The Sepro principle offers a number of advantages to aerosol

marketers

1. The percent product outage is phenomenally—literally 95-

98 percent can be removed by the consumer.

2. The viscosity of products which can now enjoy the con- venience of push-button dispensing is broadened, from the very

fluid materials upward to heavy pastes, creams, gels, etc. Those

of you having young children are undoubtedly familiar with PlaDough. We have demonstrated repeatedly that the Sepro Con88
SEPRO CAN

Cut -a -way View

Figure l

tainer will dispense product of this type, consistently and uniformly, with no slowing down of the dispensing rate at the end

of the product.

3. The Sepro principle isolates the product from metal contact

of the container walls, thereby eliminating corrosion problems

inherent in some product formulations.

4. The Sepro can can utilize any of the existing propellant

systems—nonliquefied compressed gas, or liquefied propellants,

hydrocarbons, and halogenated hydrocarbon alike. A very small

amount of liquefied propellant is required since none of these propellants is expelled with the product. In a 6-ounce can, 3 grams of

hydro carbon propellan can completely dispense the product.

5. Complete separation of product and propellant is assured.

This is important for products where no degree of foaming or bubbling is tolerated, or where product-propellant contact us undesirable.

6. The Sepro can, through proper selection of valves, dispense drops, streams, or a reasonably fine spray or mist. With

inclusion of a small amount of lower pressure propellant into the

product, a foam-type dispensing can also be achieved.

7. Operation of the Sepro container is foolproof with the container in any position since the propellant cannot bypass the

product.

89
We look to Sepro not as a replacement for existing aerosols,

| but as a new type of packaging that will expand the application)

and convenience of push-button dispensing to many new product

| areas. We believe that, with the aid of the Sepro principle, thej

total aerosol market by 1970 could reach 40 billion units.

j

i

( (f THE PREVAL CARTRIDGE | n by R. A. COEVER, Jr., Precision Valve Corporation, \ Yonkers, New York

The PREVAL cartridge is a uniquely constructed propellant container, complete with

valve and tube, to conduct the product from

the pickup point at the bottom through the

cartridge and to the botton from which it is then expelled. This unit has all the convenience of the conventional aerosol plus the

many advantages which are inherent in this

new system. These advantages result in

[ improvements in performance, range of

;

products, and appearance, all of which are

significant advantages to the consumers.

j Because the PREVAL cartridge sprayer does not require a

pressurized product container, these containers may be made in a variety of shapes and sizes, using a wide range of materials.

] The PREVAL cartridge has two basic ways that it can be

[ used

1. Inside and completely enclosed in the product container.

2. Externally to the product container, either attached or completely separate.

How it works.

In order to gain a thorough understanding of the basic principles of operation, we can examine the construction details of

the cartridge. i 1. The pressure cartridge or propellant container is an

j aluminum impact extrusion with a hole in the bottom and a

rolled bead at the top into which the valve is crimped. This

opening for the valve is the standard one-inch configuration ! which has been used on one piece aluminum aerosol cans for a | number of years.

2. The mounting cup is a tinplate stamping which joins the

parts of the valve and the aluminum catridge. This cup is also ' essentially the same as has been crimped to millions of aerosol

cans. The only difference is a variation in the flowed-in gasket t to maintain a good seal against the higher pressures of propellant 12. i

90 I
I 3. The valve housing is a nylon part v^hich is very similar

to existing aerosol valve housings. This housing is crimped into

the mounting cup and serves as a body for the other internal

valve parts.

|| 4. The valve gasket is a Buna N rubber gasket which preI vents the propellant from leaking through the stem orifice until

j the valve is actuated.

I 5. The valve stem is a nylon part v^hich moves up and down

j through thee hole in the gasket, to provide the path for propellant

I vapor to go from inside the container to the button. In addition,

i this stem also offers a direct passage from the internal dip tube

' to the button.

6. The internal dip tube is a nylon member v^hich is anchored

at the bottom of the cartridge and joined to the stem at the

top of the cartridge. This tube has an internal opening M'hich

allows the direct passage of product from outside the bottom

of the cartridge, up to the center portion of the stem, and

finally to the button. In addition, this tube acts as a spring,

I since it is normally in a slightly compressed condition. This

: spring action, along with the propellant pressure, returns the

valve stem to the closed position when the finger is removed

from the button.

7. The sealing plug is a special polyethylene tapered plug

I which seals and anchors the tube to the bottom of the cartridge.

I 8. The external tube is a polyethylene tube which picks up

the product and conducts it up to the bottom of the cartridge.

9. The button is a specially configured piece which provides

the vacuum, the mixing chamber, and the outlet for the product

and propellant vapor. This is accomplished by passing the propellant vapor first through a very small orifice and then through

an expansion and mixing chamber.

One of the principles involved in the operation of this button is the Bernoulli principle, in which the velocity is increased through

a venturi type restriction. This velocity increase causes a reduction in pressure. One of the other factors that is important to the performance of the button is the precise geometrical relationship between the length and diameter of the mixing chamber and

the location and size of the passages for the product. These relaI tionships are critical to achieving the optimum performance of

I the PREVAL cartridge sprayer.

Finally, it should be noted that the button can utilize only

propellant vapor and not liquid propellant, if it is to function

correctly. If the cartridge is inverted and liquid propellant flows

, to the button, a back pressure rather than a vacuum will be

created.

91
Inherent Advantages. \

r. The PREVAL cartridge sprayer has several advantages over

other dispensing methods. From the technical point of view, these can be classified as follows :

j.

.. 1. No cooling effect.—The use of only propellant vapor as the^

energy for expelling the product onto the desired surface creates a "warmer" spray. In conventional aerosols the vaporization of|^

the liquid propellant causes a sharp temperature drop which isj

detrimental to the application of good surface coatings. However,

^ with the PREVAL cartridge sprayer, these coatings can dry in a <^ warmer environment and without residual liquid propellant;

bubbling from the surface.

2. Separation of product and propellant.—The physical separation of the product and propellant enables one to spray formula- ^ tions that are not possible in aerosol cans due to the incompatibility factor. Also, because of this separation, it is possible to utilize [ existing nonaerosol product formulations without any change.

3. More product with less pi^opellant.—The more efficient util-!^ ization of the liquid propellant by the PREVAL cartridge permits

a greater amount of product to be dispensed with a given amount i] of propellant. A good example of this is the comparison between^

aerosol hair sprays and hair sprays utilizing the PREVAL

cartridge concept. These aerosol hair sprays generally run a 1 :1 mixture of hair spray concentrate and liquid propellant. With the

PREVAL cartridge, this ratio is generally between 3:1 and 5:1. The cost saving of liquid propellant such as F-12 is quite

significant.

4. Safety—potential advantage.—One of the characteristics

which is unique to the PREVAL cartridge as compared to other

pressurized containers is that the product tube is anchored to the

bottom of the container at the lower end and attached to the valve

stem at the top. When excessive heat causes the internal container

pressure to rise, the mounting cup bulges in the middle, carrying

the valve up. This flexing occurs at a pressure well below that

which is required to blow out the mounting cup or rupture the

container. This motion first straightens the dip tube, then

actuates the valve by holding the stem down. Finally, under ex- treme temperature conditions, the cup bulges sufficiently to pull

the dip tube completely off the bottom of the stem. This action

then provides a pressure escape path through the open end of the

dip tube and down through the bottom of the cartridge. At the same time the propellant pressure is escaping through the valve

stem at the top.

Precision Valve is presently compiling additional substantiating evidence concerning this pressure relief safety feature, and

should be able to insure a 100 percent effective operation very

shortly.

92
, Future.

The future of this delivery system also holds possibilities with

many products and types of propellants. A wide range of these

products have been tested and found to give results superior to

i applications by conventional methods. These include such products as hair sprays, antiperspirants, oils, window cleaners,

polishes, starches, paints, varnishes, and other coatings. Most of

the work done thus far has been with the fluorinated hydroi carbon propellant 12. However, there is evidence to indicate that

I other propellants could be used in the future,

j At the present state of development, the PREVAL cartridge can be used as a separate sprayer unit which is attached to the

top of a product container, or inserted into a bottle with an

appropriate neck opening by the consumer. With the open passage between the bottom and the top of the unit, only powder type

products can presently be shipped to the consumer with the

j cartridge inserted into the filled outer container because of the

I unrestricted flow of liquid when the unit is inverted. This free

I and relatively streamlined passage for the product to flow from

the outer container to the discharge point, together with the

simplicity of the overall valve design, has enabled Precision Valve

to off'er a relatively inexpensive and trouble-free package for

those markets which can utilize its advantages,

j For those markets requiring the push-button convenience of a

I package delivered to the consumer with cartridge inserted and

secured inside a bottle filled with product, a more elaborate valving system is required. This system, incorporating a means for

preventing the flow of liquid from the product container when it

is inverted and a vent to allow atmospheric equalization of pres- sure in this container, is presently under development.

In the meantime, Precision Valve has decided to feel out the

potential market by offering a general purpose Self Powered

SpraTjer. This unit is supplied with an empty bottle, a coupling

for screwing the bottle to the cartridge, and a dip tube with a

filter screen for picking up the product. The empty bottle that is supplied serves as the product container for whatever liquids the consumer wishes to dispense, and is particularly suitable for such

materials as paints because of the mixing and cleaning capaj bility. The unit in this configuration is intended only for houseI hold and industrial liquids and not for personal products.

If there is consumer acceptance of this Self Powered Sprayer,

then it will add one more facet to the PREVAL cartridge concept

of delivering materials. The other approaches to the package have

already been generally accepted by marketers, as a means of

creating new product identities, and there is hope that this

acceptance will spread.

93
MEASUREMENTS ON THE SATURN SPACE VEHICLE

by C. T. N. Paludan, Chief, Measuring Instrumentation Branch,

Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama

Abstract.

The history of man might be considered

as an ever increasing quantity and quality

of measurements. Measurements related to space have been made by early astronomers,

modern astronomers, and now by aerospace

technologists. The manned lunar landing, a major national goal, has given us the means

to measure in space. The space vehicle development itself has made heavy demands on

instrumentation; this is discussed in some

detail in this paper. The advantages of the | International System of Units are mentioned. Some examples are : used to illustrate the future of space measurement. \ Astronomy.

^ All of us in this room share a common interest : that of making i measurements. From our viewpoint we might consider the history i of man to be an ever increasing quantity and quality of measur- 1 ing technology. From earliest times man has turned his attention A to the heavens and pondered how he might know more about the

mysteries there. In other words, how he might measure the j heavenly phenomena. Even before the invention of the telescope, | rather precise measurements were made by men like Copernicus ' and Tycho Brahe. With Galileo's and Kepler's discoveries came | a new era of astronomy, and a new era of space measurement. 1 This era extends to the present day. I Large-scale research with large rockets began shortly after the

j Second World War. Progress has been rapid, with a major step

being taken about ten years ago when orbital spacecraft entered

the scene. These vehicles have given us new means to measure

the mysteries of the heavens. Their development required the

j evolution of a new technology which itself has required applica- ; tion of measurement science.

Early Egyptians used a device called a merkhet (fig 1). This , was a simple sighting rod with a slit sight. Two plumb lines were

suspended in the plane of the observer's meridian, that is, along

a north-south line. Sightings of star transits could be accurately

made. This could be used to establish the north-south line, to determine the length of the year, and to mark the seasons [1]. i In the second century B.C., Hipparchus used a thin metal ring

with its plane fixed parallel to the earth's axis to determine the j 94

time of equinoxes. At the equinoxes the sun lies in the plane of the i earth's equator, and the shadow cast by the front of the ring falls exactly on the back. With this, Hipparchus discovered the i precession of the equinoxes [1]. ' A similar, but much more sophisticated instrument was Tycho f Brahe's great equatorial armillary (fig 2). With it, and other > nonoptical instruments, in the latter part of the sixteenth cen- \ tury, Tycho collected very accurate data on the motions of the f planets. These data were the basis for Johann Kepler's formulation of the laws of planetary motion in the early seventeenth I century. Through Kepler's laws, Isaac Newton was able to arrive

at his great system of universal dynamics [1].

"Less than a century separated the work of Newton from that

of Kepler, but in that time the intellectual climate had changed

enormously. The man primarily responsible was Galileo Galilei."

(Quoted from reference 1.) Galileo gave us not only new instruments and new discoveries, but also the beginnings of experimental physics. He did not invent the telescope, but he quickly

put it to work. At last, with optical instruments, men could make

accurate measurements of the heavens.

The Saturn Program.

A milestone in man's attempt to measure phenomena related

to the earth was the International Geophysical Year (IGY).

From it came many measurements of our planet and nearby

space, and from it came the discovery of the Van Allen radiation

belts in 1958. We saw a major emphasis placed on space exploration culminating in establishment of the manned lunar landing

as a major national goal. This was initiated in President

Kennedy's second State of the Union message to the Congress on May 25, 1961:

With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we (the U. S.) are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not . . . Now is the time to take longer strides—time for a great new

American enterprise—time for this Nation to take a clearly leading

role in space achievement which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth . . . Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines . . . we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own . . . This is not merely a race. Space is open to us now;

and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the effort of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must

undertake, free men must fully share. . . First, I believe that this Nation should commit itself to achieving

the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and

returning him safely to earth. No single space project in this period

will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long96
I range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive

j to accomplish ... It will not be one man going to the moon—if we

Make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire Nation . . . [-1 The manned lunar program is being accomplished by the

i Saturn launch vehicles and Apollo spacecraft. The Saturn family

j of vehicles is shovi^n in figure 3. The Saturn I vehicles are used

for tests and operations in earth orbit, while the Saturn V is the

actual carrier for the manned lunar operations. Development of

the Saturn/Apollo has been carried out under direction of NASA's

' (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Office of

' Manned Space Flight (OMSF) by the Manned Spacecraft Center

i (MSG), the George C. Marshall Space Flight Genter (MSFG),

I and the John F. Kennedy Space Genter (KSG).

I Development of the Saturn launch vehicles is being accomplished by Marshall Space Flight Genter and its contractors.

I During the development, measurements, both on the ground

j and in flight played a key role.

I Measurements on the Saturn.

I During the early development phases of launch vehicle design,

it is important to know how well flight conditions have been predicted, and how well the test vehicles are withstanding these

conditions. To provide this information, each stage of each of the

earliest Saturn vehicles has had an extensive instrumentation

I system. Later, as the vehicles have proven themselves, they are

SATURN I

I SATURN V_

Figure 3

97
Figure 4

considered operational, and the quantity of instrumentation is ' reduced. The instrumentation is monitored during ground static ' firings of each stage, during factory checkout, during launch site checkout at Kennedy Space Center, and finally during flight by means of radio telemetry. Figures 4 and 5 show the number • of flight measurements on the uprated Saturn I and Saturn V

respectively. A development flight of the Saturn V transmitted

data on nearly 2,800 measurements back to ground stations by

21 telemetry links [3]. The first two stages (S-IC and S-II) do

not reach orbital velocity ; they fall into the Atlantic Ocean. Data

from them are recorded by a string of stations located along the

flight path. The S-IVB stage, the Instrument Unit (lU), and the

| Apollo modules all go into orbit in the usual mission. Data from } the orbiting S-IVB and lU are telemetered to ground stations of ' the Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) as long as the

j on-board batteries last—usually about six hours. I Some critical measurements have their data displayed in real \ time at the Mission Control Center (MCC) in Houston, Texas,

j Decisions on modifications in the flight mission could be made | based on these data. A majority of the measurements are re- I corded on magnetic tape at each ground station and are sub- ] jected to intensive study immediately after the flight. A ! "quick-look" report is issued very soon, interim reports on various i, systems follow, and a final evaluation report is issued 60 days I after the launching. | 98
SATURN V INSTRUMENTATION

R&D 1 OPERATIONAL

322 MfASUREMENTS 200 MEASUREMENTS

590 MEASUREMENTS s ivb 250 MEASUREMENTS

975 MEASUREMENTS s-i 510 MEASUREMENTS

904 MEASUREMENTS

TOTAL 2791 MEASUREMENTS

317 MEASUREMENTS

1277 MEASUREMENTS TOTAL

Figure 5

i

I The basic mission of Marshall Space Flight Center is the development of the launch vehicles. The large number of flight

measurements made during the early "research and development"

flights provide the confidence (or lack of it!) that the design is correct. The results of these measurements are used by the design

engineers to confirm previous ground testing or to indicate a need for further testing—or even redesign. The latter is a rare

event, but occasionally v^^e encounter it. As you may know, the

Saturn I has had thirteen flights, all vi^ithout a failure. On one

flight, one of the first stage's eight engines was cut off early

because of improper operation. Since the Saturn has "engine

out" capability, the mission was not afi'ected. Instrumentation,

however, was essential in pinpointing the sequence of events. In

many cases, instrumentation data may offer evidence that some

I flight environment is not as severe as had been predicted. Possible

1 direct results of this information are reduction of cost and inj crease in payload mass. A few of the measurements are quite simple off'-on switch positions. A few are measured with very complex instruments ; for

example, the liquid-vapor "quality" meter, which determines the

ratio of hydrogen vapor to hydrogen liquid by nucleonic means.

99
Many of the measurements are made with instruments whose

principles are familiar to most of us—thermocouples, resistance

thermometers, Bourdon-tube and diaphram pressure gages, piezoelectric vibration pickups, turbine flow meters, capacitive liquidlevel probes, hot-wire anemometers, etc. The differences are that

these instruments must survive in rather severe environments,

their electrical outputs must be compatible with the telemetry

systems, they may be measuring phenomena in unusual ranges,

and they must have high reliability.

Electrical adaptation of a transducer's output to the telemetry

system often requires the use of a "signal conditioner" [4]. The

nal conditioner may contain an amplifier, power supply. Wheatstone bridge, circuits, voltage limiters, and means for automatic

pre-flight checkout provisions which use commands to the signal

require signal conditioning. The telemetry systems mentioned are

the pulse coded modulation (PCM) system, which is digital in

nature, the single-sideband (SS) system for wide-band data such

as vibration and acoustic, and the frequency modulation (FM)

system for low frequency analog data. Also to be noted are the

pre flight checkout provisions which use commands to the signal

conditioners via the remote automatic checkout system

(RACS) and data from the PCM telemetry via coaxial cables.

The latter is a data collection system called the digital data acquisition system (DDAS). By means of the RACS and DDAS the

entire measuring system for the Saturn vehicle can be checked

out rapidly and automatically. A computer usually performs this

function.

Almost half the flight measurements made on Saturn are of

temperature or pressure. We have concentrated considerable at- tention toward the development of reliable, but inexpensively

mass-produced temperature and pressure transducers. Most

temperature measurements are accomplished with either thermocouples or resistance thermometers. A few thermistors are used

for measurements over very small spans—such as a total change

of 10° C, for example. Thermocouples used in the laboratory usually require ice baths for the reference junctions. In industrial

applications, the recording instrument usually employs an elec- trcal or mechanical compensation for the reference junctions'

temperature. In the case of rocket vehicles, we solved this problem

with a simple, inexpensive, and tiny electrical compensation

device. It has permitted the widespread use of inexpensive thermocouples. For pressure measurements, we chose the potentiometer-output transducer when accuracy and time response requirements permitted. This instrument uses a Bourdon tube, diaphram,

or bellows to activate a mechanical linkage to the moving contact

of an electrical potentiometer. The electrical output from a poten100
I tiometer does not require amplification, so the expense of a signal

t conditioner is avoided. Temperature and pressure measurements

are made throughout the Saturn vehicles. Typical areas monitored

include the engines and other parts of the propulsion system, the

structure, the propellant systems, and the guidance and control

systems.

Other measurements include vibration, strain flow rate, liquid

level, acceleration, and electrical parameters.

A majority of the flight measurements require an overall acI curacy of ±5 percent of full scale range. A few special cases require higher accuracy; for example, ±0.1 percent accuracy has

been needed (and obtained) for some engine combustion chamber

pressure measurements. These figures include transducer, signal

conditioner, telemetry, recording, and evaluation errors. The

RACS is scaled to assure these accuracies.

Environmental conditions during a vehicle's flight could lead to instrumentation failures if we had not designed equipment to survive. Electronic equipment can usually be protected from ex- tremes of temperature, and is, therefore, normally subjected to conditions between —20 and +70 degrees Celsius. Temperature

transducers must withstand the environments they monitor, of course. These range from the temperature of liquid hydrogen,

-253° C, to over 1600 °C. (in one case to 2800° C). Rocket vehicles are notorious for vibration and acoustic pressure because

of the operation of the engines and the aerodynamic behavior.

A typical environment would involve oscillating vibration levels of plus and minus fifteen times the acceleration due to earth's

gravity and sound pressure levels of 150 decibels above a refer- ence level of one dyne per square centimeter (reference is normal

threshold of hearing).

Some typical transducers are: a calorimeter (to measure heat

flux), a thermocouple, a thermocouple reference junction, two

pressure transducers, two liquid level detectors, and a flowmeter

with its internal turbine removed (fig. 6).

Calibration Data.

Of particular interest to this Conference might be the calibration facilities. Each stage contractor has a standards laboratory

with standards certified by the National Bureau of Standards,

and calibration facilities which are geared to mass production,

I but whose standards are maintained by the standards laboratory,

j A similar situation exists at MSEC for the calibration of flight

I pressure transducers, cryogenic flowmeters, and signal conditioners used for temperature measurements. Calibration data on each

measurement's transducer and signal conditioner are recorded on magnetic tape in digital form. The mathematical equation of each

calibration curve is derived from these data by a computer and

101
i

Figure 6

stored. During post-flight evaluation these stored equations, plus

the ground station recordings of flight data, are used by computers to print out the flight time history of each measurement

in both numerical tables and analog graphs. The tables and

graphs are in engineering units, such as degrees Celsius, versus

flight time in seconds.

Preferred Units.

Since July 1963, the officially preferred system of units at Marshall Space Flight Center has been the International System

(Systeme International d'Unites, or SI). It is also the preferred

system at several other NASA centers. However, its use is not

mandatory. Some NASA centers had become too involved with

the English system to permit an inexpensive changeover. Even

MSFC is not completely converted, and several of the Saturn

stage contractors give their flight measurement calibration data

in English units. Fortunately, the computer is nondiscriminatory

and is willing to print out data either or both systems. The

final Saturn flight evaluation reports are in International System

units.

As you might expect, there has been some confusion in the

rocket business due to the mixed systems of units. Probably the

worst mistake was in mixing absolute and gravitational units [5]

.

This led to the specification of rocket engine performance in improper units. Specific impulse (I sp ) is the engine thrust in force

units divided by the rate of propellant consumption in units of mass per interval of time.

M/T

102
Unfortunately, it has been customary to give thrust in pounds

i force, and propellant consumption in pounds mass per second.

The early workers erroneously cancelled the pounds in the numerator and denominator and ended up with I s,, in seconds. Simple

j dimensional analysis will reveal that the correct units are iden-

! tical with velocity units. This error is so deeply entrenched in the

I rocket field that even modern workers who know better use

I "seconds" to describe the performance of rocket engines. It was

j to avoid errors like this that NASA decided to standardize on

\ one preferred system of units.

j Future of Space Measurements.

The operational Saturn vehicles, that is, the ones that carry

astronauts or other payload, will continue to carry a number of

measuring instruments which will have their data telemetered to the ground. However, the quantities are greatly reduced. This is because the basic development of the vehicles will have been

completed. This is already the case for the uprated Saturn I. Any

new developments in the technology of launch vehicles, such as

I development of a nuclear stage, would require the inclusion of

new measurements.

To return to the theme of discovery of new information from

space, we can expect the technological and scientific experiments

to use measurements in great number. The manned lunar landing

program established as a national goal in 1961 has made available

the space vehicles necessary to the large-scale exploration (measurement) of the heavenly—and earthly—phenomena. Many

experiments will be conducted by the Apollo Applications

Program (AAP).

A few examples of AAP experiments may serve to indicate the

scope of this important program. The Apollo Telescope Mount

(ATM) is a modification of the Lunar Module (LM) or "Bug,"

which will provide a group of solar observation instruments [6].

These experiments will concentrate on observations in that part of

the spectrum not observable in the earth's atmosphere; for ex- ample, ultraviolet and X-rays. Figure 7 is an artists concept

of this experiment. Some data will be brought back on photographic film by the astronauts; other data will be telemetered,

j Other AAP experiments of interest because of their measuring

techniques, are those dealing with meteorology and surveys of the

I earth's resources. In these cases, the astronauts will turn their

I measuring eyes back toward the earth. The results of these

measurements could have far-reaching effects on the daily

I lives of the world's inhabitants. Through techniques commonly

called "remote sensing," valuable data on weather, agriculture,

forestry, geography, cartography, geology, oceanography, air and

103
Figure 7

water pollution, and even urban planning can be gathered eco- nomically [7, 8]. The prospects of using such techniques just for

the single objective of aiding in world food production are quite exciting [9]. During the growing season, ability to identify healthy

and unhealthy crops and soil conditions would greatly aid farmers

and agriculture planners.

Measurement technology, so important to man's rise in civil- ization, continues to play a major role as man enters space. Those

of us who work in the measuring field may well take pride in the

future applications of our technology to the benefit of mankind.

Perhaps we will do our part to fulfill the admonition of the i twenty-fifth chapter of Deuteronomy:

... A perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

References

t'] Hoyle, F., Astronomy, (Doubleday & Company, Inc., New York, 1962), pages 36, 37, 39, 120.

f'] NASA Historical Staff, "Historical Sketch of NASA," U. S. Government

Printing Office: 1965 0-789-008, Washington, D. C., 20402.

['] Perry, M. A., ed., Flight Test Instrumentation, Vol. 3, (Pergamon Press, New York, 1965), pages 153-203.

104
' Stiltz, H. A., ed., Aerospace Telemetry, (Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood

i Cliffs, New Jersey, 1961), pages 29-53.

["] Schuler, A. E., "Let's Quit Confusing Mass with Weight," Journal of the Instrument Society of America, Vol. 7, No. 10, October, 1960, pages 47-49.

' ["J Public Affairs Office, "Apollo Telescope Mount,' Fact Sheet, March 20, 1967, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama.

['] Badgley, P. C, "Current Status of NASA's Natural Resources Pro- gram," Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Remote Sensijig of Environment, (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1966), pages 547-573.

Udall, S. L., "Earth's Resources to be Studied from Space," News ReI lease of U. S. Department of the Interior, September 21, 1966.

! ["] Freeman, 0. L., "Secretary Freeman Urges Space Age Solutions to

j World Food Problems," News Release 918-66 of U. S. Department of

I Agriculture, March 25, 1966.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND SCALE MANUFACTURERS

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

by G. D. Reynolds, Jr., Vice President, John Chatillon & Sons,

Kew Gardens, New York, and President, Scale Manufacturers

Association

A prime objective of the National Conference is to promote uniformity of requirements and methods among weights and

measures jurisdictions. Speaking for the

members of the Scale Manufacturers Association, I can say that we solidly endorse

that purpose, and have since SMA was

founded in 1945.

Over these years we have cooperated with

the National Conference on Weights and

Measures to the extent of our ability. I believe we have been quite helpful in this direction, as the drafting

of model laws and regulations can be very complex. We have

talented technical people who can provide assistance and advice

as to the effect of proposed regulations on weighing devices.

We have always tried to be institutional in our advice—that is, objective in character and not trying to favor or harm any particular company's product or any principle of weighing. We hope,

and pridefully believe, that we have established a reputation of

fair dealing in the views we have submitted to the National

Conference and the National Bureau of Standards.

With this brief review of the relationship of your organization

and ours, I would like to touch on several very important developments of the past year which will have longtime significance for

you and for us. In many respects, these developments represent

progress through organized effort and cooperation—yours and

ours.

105
NBS Prototype Examination of Commercial Devices.

As all of you know, in past years, about a fourth of our States

have had what has been known as "State type approval" of commercial weighing and measuring devices, prior to sale within the

State. This was probably patterned after Great Britain, Canada,

and some of the European nations which have centralized weights

and measures so that one examination could suffice for the Nation.

In addition, the central office was better staffed for technical

examination than were the smaller local offices. Frankly, most scale manufacturers have felt that State examination, with the device to be physically exhibited to as many as 20 or more States, was not a practical solution to official examination for conformance. For a number of years now there has been

much talk, and even official endorsement by the Southern and

Western Associations, of some form of national type approval to replace State approval. Apparently, many States, even quite a few which have type approval, have felt it burdensome to have

staff technicians qualified to make thorough examinations of

devices for conformance with the Handbook 44 Codes.

Some scale manufacturers have long been in favor of some form

of centralized type approval to avoid examinations in the various

States. However, some others felt that centralized type approval

might add another layer to the existing approval pattern without

compensating benefits. So, the Scale Manufacturers Association,

until 1966, opposed either centralized examination or further

extension of State examinations. At the same time, we acknowledged that there was a growing position among the States favoring some form of centralized examination.

Under the circumstances, and with our eyes open to progress

and changing trends, we had extensive discussions with Malcolm

W. Jensen, Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures. Our

group was convinced that the time was ripe to establish a program of Prototype Examination of Commercial Devices for Conformance with Handbook 44 at the National Bureau of Standards.

We understand that the devices are to be voluntarily submitted

to the Bureau by the manufacturers, with the costs to be paid by

the manufacturers, and that the Bureau will issue a test report

to all the States if the device is found to conform. If the device

does not conform, the manufacturer alone will be so advised.

The program is operating, and the officials of all States were

so advised last February. We understand that some devices have

already been examined, and all States advised of approval of the

specifically identified models.

We believe this centralized examination program is sound,

quite reasonable, and can be expected to succeed, to the lasting

benefit of weights and measures and device manufacturing as

106
well as the purchasers of devices. We also believe the general pubi lie will benefit from this program.

Since all of this is voluntary, its success will depend on further

cooperation of all parties concerned, and acceptance by the States,

j especially by those States which presently have type approval

! requirements. If they continue to require physical examination of

j devices, the program loses much of its compensatory value and

j there would not be the same need for the manufacturers voluntarily to submit their devices for examination. We have in the

, Bureau an impartial agency in which we all have confidence,

j They are well qualified, with facilities and trained technicians

I which can do the examination job for us all.

I We strongly urge that all the States now do their part by aci cepting the approval examination reports. It can be one of the

most progressive steps ever taken by weights and measures in

the United States.

j Model Regulation for Voluntary Registration.

f Over the years, individual States have considered and some

I have adopted regulations controlling servicemen who repair

weighing and measuring devices. There is no need to go into the reasons for such controls; it should suffice to say that on some

occasions repaired devices have been found not to perform

properly as required.

With the remarkable progress in weights and measures since

World War II, there seems to be an increasing feeling on the

part of officials that servicemen should be responsible for their

work and that when a device is found not to conform, the serviceman should account for the nonconformance. He may or may not

be at fault, but in either event, the growing feeling has been

that he should be held accountable.

Until the late 40's or early 50's the two plans of service controls used by the few States exercising supervision were the "performance bond" plan and the "licensing" plan. These plans were

found to have some rather serious drawbacks. The bonds usually

issued were so restrictive in their clauses that rarely, if ever, could a scale owner collect on the bond when the serviceman had

done improper work. For example, the bond might require

prompt inspection of the device after repairs—say within a week

j or a month. It is very doubtful if your work can be arranged

: normally to follow-up on all service jobs within so short a time.

I In some States, the bonding plan requires that there be a court

suit and judgment before the bondsman is liable. So, the net

effect is that the scale serviceman is required to pay a premium

of $10 to $20 a year with little or no benefit to anyone. Certainly

a bonding company will make little or no investigation of the

capability of the mechanic for that small a premium.

107
A few States have tried the licensing- system and found it fraught with problems. An official State license carries at least an implication of responsibility on the part of the State and

usually there is an examination. Frequently, a very good scale

mechanic is very poor at written or oral examinations and is rejected. And, believe me, it can be very difficult for the State to

locate or develop qualified technical people to prepare and conduct

examinations, particularly since the scope of the examinations

must cover a very wide variety of both weighing and measuring

devices.

The third plan, which has developed since the late 1940's, is the "registration" plan. As a general proposition, this calls for

voluntary application by the mechanic citing his experience, qualifications, and references. The State will issue registration

certificates to approved applicants and will authorize the certifi- cate holder to place in service repaired or newly installed devices.

This authority to place in service is of real advantage to the

device owner and to the weights and measures department in

that it avoids the possibility of a long wait for official inspection.

It makes possible also the better scheduling of inspection trips by

sealers, without emergency interruptions to inspect repaired

devices to get them back into use. A key point of the registration plan is that if a serviceman's

work proves to be unsatisfactory, his certificate may be revoked

and his name removed from the registration list, with opportunity for a hearing, of course. Thus, the sealers who inspect

repaired and newly installed commercial devices constitute a continuing post-audit of the registered serviceman's performance—certainly an incentive for proper performance. This

follow-up inspection system is more valuable by far in determining the capability of the serviceman than is an examination.

For the registered serviceman, he gets recognition of his professional capability in his certificate of registration, in being

listed on the published list of registered mechanics (which should

be widely distributed to device owners) and he is granted authority to place in commercial service repaired or newly installed

devices. The nonregistered mechanic is not denied the right to service devices, but his customers must await official inspection

before using the device—reason enough for every qualified mechanic to apply for registration.

The registration plan, in somewhat the above form, has been

the accepted plan since around 1950—adopted by practically all States which have invoked serviceman controls. But the plans

have varied from State to State, creating nonuniformity, and

there has been no reciprocity among the States in allowing

registered mechanics of one State to perform work in another

State, even in emergencies.

108
Thus it was that your Laws and Regulations Committee, the

i National Bureau of Standards, and the Scale Manufacturers

Association worked together in 1966 to draft a Model Regulation.

The National Scale Mens Association was consulted also. The

proposed Model Regulation for State Voluntary Registration of

Servicemen and Service Agencies was recommended to the National Conference and approved in 1966. It provides the best

available pattern for a State plan for serviceman supervision,

I based on the experience which has been gained in this area since

I World War II.

j We do not urge the States to invoke serviceman controls, but

j if a State does decide to exercise such controls, we recommend

I the Model Regulation for Voluntary Registration as adopted by

I the National Conference. It is the best of all plans which have

been tried.

The Package Labeling Act as it Affects Prepackaging Scales.

! The development of the program for centralized prototype dei vice examination and voluntary registration, already mentioned,

I proceeded smoothly through the cooperation of all concerned with

the subject. However, we now come to new Federal legislation in the packaging and labeling area where the understanding of the

requirements and practices of weights and measures leave much

to be desired.

I Last June (1966) we learned that the U.S. Senate had passed a

bill which, among other things, would require that net quantities

be labeled in type of certain sizes, at specific places on the label,

and that packages of less than four pounds (other than even pounds) be labeled in ounces. The Senate bill went to the House

and was referred to the Committee on Foreign and Interstate Commerce.

Realizing that the Senate bill as written would declare illegal

every retail food store packaging practices for random weight

packages (except meat and poultry, which were excepted), the

Scale Manufacturers Association's members, who produced pre-

, package computing and labeling scales, formed a committee to

j try to have the bill changed to allow for labeling by hand and by

prepackage computing scales. Some 25,000 or more of these

modern label printing scales are in use. Most of you are familiar with the labeling practices in food

I stores and know that the labels produced by the modern prepack1 aging scales provide more and clearer information to the con- sumer than on almost any other package. In fact, the data is more informative and clearer than the Senate bill would have

required, and yet these excellent labels could not conform with

the bill. These labels give not only the net weight, but also the

price per pound and the total package cost. These machines

109
could not be modified to mark packages in ounces or to compute | total cost at price per ounce. In addition, the hand labeling of o small stores (and for special orders at larger stores) would be i prohibited. All of these practices and methods have been devel- [ oped to conform with the long established requirements of your \ Model Law to give the consumer the essential facts needed about

' purchases. In fact, weights and measures and the scale industry | were far ahead of the Congress and FDA in this regard. i So this SMA committee, after extensive study, prepared and

| presented to the House Committee written and oral recommenda- I tions for changes in the bill. In this we were only partly successful.

The final Act allowed random weights to be labeled in pounds j and decimals, as do practically all prepackage computing and

labeling scales. The final Act gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to issue

regulations and to grant exceptions. FDA published its proposed

regulations on March 17, 1967, with 60 days for comments.

The proposed FDA regulations are actually more restrictive

and prohibitive than the original Senate bill for they are issued

under both the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966 and the

earlier Food and Drug Act. Under the proposed FDA regulations,

almost all present net weight labeling practices in retail foods

would be illegal as of the effective date of the regulations, probably July 1, 1967. 1 Again, the SMA committee went into action and, last April, i filed 10 pages of arguments with the FDA supporting our conten- j tion that the labeling of random weight packages, or packages \ which show the weight and price-per-pound, should be exempted i from the regulations. Possibly, by the time this paper is delivered j at the National Conference, we will know the results of our efforts. In all these efforts before the Congress and the Food and Drug | Administration, we have had the support of the National Conference and the National Bureau of Standards. Mr. Lawrence i Barker, Chairman of your Laws and Regulations Committee,

appeared before the House Committee last summer, as did your i Secretary, Malcolm Jensen. Your Federal Liaison Committee I conferred with officials at the Food and Drug Administration i about the proposed FDA regulations. In all these appearances,

the SMA position on food package labeling by local food stores I has been supported. !

I Conclusion. \ We have here discussed three of the most important matters

to affect weights and measures progress for many, many years. ( In all of them there has been the very finest cooperation of

weights and measures and the scale industry, represented by the

j 110
' Scale Manufacturers Association. It is through this kind of

I cooperation that we can improve conditions and create the

greatest progress in weights and measures. After all, to a great

extent, we are all in the same business—encouraging good

weights and measures practices for the public and for industry.

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY CONCERN WITH METER

j ACCURACY—1. THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

1 by R. SoUTHERS, Operations and Engineering Coordinator,

f American Petroleum Institute, New York, New York

From your programs you will see that the

three of us on the platform have been as- signed the broad scope subject of Petroleum

Industry Concern with Meter Accuracy. My

part is described as simply, The American

Petroleum Institute.

At the time that I was first invited to participate on the program of your Conference it was suggested that I speak briefly

about the relationship of the petroleum

industry with the National Conference on

I Weights and Measures. I accepted quite readily, feeling that the

i assignment would be an easy one. After I had some time to

! think about it, I was not so sure. What is the petroleum industry? To some people these words

bring into mind a picture of the often cartooned Texas Oil

Millionaire with his ten-gallon hat. To another, visions of oil field derricks and pumps would come into mind. Others would

see refineries with the towering cracking units and mazes of

twisting and turning pipes. To the teenager perhaps it's the

service station on the corner where he can get a dollar's worth

of gas for his set of wheels. The farmer most likely would see the familiar tank truck bringing fuel for his tractor. And still others would see the tank farms.

Except for the Texas Millionaire, who is usually only associated with the oil industry because he owns the land where the

j oil is found, all of the rest of the things mentioned are a part of

the petroleum industry. So when I thought about speaking of the

1 relationship of all of these components of our great industry to your Conference, the task seemed almost impossible.

Then another thought occurred to me. Perhaps it is this complex picture which has at times created some confusion or misunderstanding in your minds about our industry. Therefore,

there is a real need to talk about this subject.

Ill
Just as you have seen the need to coordinate and further the

interests of weights and measures officials through your National Conference, so does the petroleum industry find a similar

need. It was for this reason the Americal Petroleum Institute was

founded.

The American Petroleum Institute, more commonly known as API, is an association representing all of the various interests

of the petroleum industry. This includes producers, refiners, pipeliners, terminal operators, jobbers, service station operators, and

related industries and individuals. Although there are other as- sociations within the petroleum industry, they represent more

specific areas of interest, such as the National Oil Jobbers Association. By reason of its more inclusive nature, API has be- come the responsible organization for representing the petroleum

industry in your Conference activities.

Within API there are several divisions. Liaison with the National Conference on Weights and Measures is an activity of the

Marketing Division because it is the marketers with whom you

most generally have relations. I am a member of the staff of

the Marketing Division. The other gentlemen here from our in- dustry all are employees of petroleum companies. Some of them

also are here representing API.

In 1955 it was recognized that there was a need for providing

for the participation of technical and operating people con- cerned with the marketing of petroleum products. As a result

the Operations and Engineering Committee was formed. As

this O&E Committee looked to its structure, it was immediately

recognized that one of the most important areas of interest was

weights and measures. Hence, the formation of the Weights and

Measures Subcommittee. The subcommittees, incidentally, are

the working groups.

So that you might better understand the importance attached

to weights and measures, let me tell you about the other three subcommittees. The Marketing Facilities Subcommittee is concerned

with terminals, bulk plants, service stations, and related equipment. The various code-making bodies and other regulatory and

legislative activities (other than Weights and Measures) are the concern of the Major Codes Subcommittee. The remaining subcommittee is known as Aviation Technical Service and is con- cerned with the rapidly expanding aviation industry.

Bob Primley, who has become familiar to many of you in the

past couple of years, is the very able Chairman of the Weights

and Measures Subcommittee.

I am very pleased to be able to say to you that our present

industry representatives on the Weights and Measures Subcommittee have done a most commendable job in carrying back to

112
marketing management the need to create better communications with your National Conference, as well as with State and

area conferences. It was the recognition of this need which

prompted the creation of our Weights and Measures Technical

Committee. The members of this committee were chosen be- cause their training and background was such as to allow them

to speak your language and understand your problems.

Mr. John Hale of Phillips Petroleum Company, who has for

several years been attending both this Conference as well as the

local conferences, is the current Chairman of our Technical Committee and will be speaking to you about its activities. Those of

you who know John will, I'm sure, agree with me that his ac- ceptance of this responsibility has been most fortunate for both

I you and us. In closing, I have one final word. Any of you who have worked

with organizations, whether they be church, fraternal, benovI olent, or business, have occasionally found that at a particular

I time everyone seemed to be so busy with other things that someI thing which needed prompt attention was not being handled,

p This was not because the organization did not hold the project

in proper esteem but rather because the necessary emphasis had

not been achieved. This kind of situation may have existed in some instances in the past between our industry and you. I can

assure you that the proper emphasis now exists and I will do all that is within my power to see that it continues.

113
PETROLEUM INDUSTRY CONCERN WITH METER

ACCURACY—2. THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY AND

ITS WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SUBCOMMITTEE

j by J. W. Hale, Vice Chairman, API Weights and Measures \ Technical Committee, and Technical Representative, < Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville, Oklahoma

|

I must take just a moment at the begin- ( ning to say that I am delighted to be back | among my many weights and measures | friends. In addition, I appreciate very much

the opportunity to be a part of this threepart program on the subject of Petroleum

Industry Concern with Meter Accuracy. My

part of the program is to speak briefly on

the subject of "The Petroleum Industry and j its Weights and Measures Subcommittee."

As most of you are aware, the American

Petroleum Institute and the petroleum industry are synonymous.

As Dick Southers pointed out, the API is the principal petroleum

industry trade association which, because of its inclusive nature,

has become the responsible organization for representing,

through its Weights and Measures Subcommittee, the petroleum

industry at your Conference activities.

At the 50th National Conference on Weights and Measures,

considerable excitement was generated when the Specifications

and Tolerances Committee tentatively recommended reducing

tolerances on wholesale and vehicle tank liquid meters. The ex- citement was highlighted by many hurried informal conferences

and/or conversations among and between various weights and

measures officials and the various petroleum industry representatives attending the 50th National Conference on Weights and

Measures. As a result of these various conversations and informal

conferences, there appeared to be general agreement that because

of a lack of technical information, reduced tolerances on wholesale and vehicle tank liquid meters could neither be adequately

substantiated nor refuted.

Thus, the Specifications and Tolerances Committee's recom- mendation to reduce tolerances on wholesale and vehicle tank

liquid meters was essentially tabled to allow time for a comprehensive study to be made to determine in more specific terms,

meter system performance capability. The responsibility for developing this information was, for all practical purposes, placed

with the petroleum industry. Thus, the API, in its continuing

role of cooperation with weights and measures officials and this

114
Conference, accepted the responsibility and appointed a Weights

and Measures Technical Committee with the primary function to develop this information.

I am presently the Chairman of the Weights and Measures

Technical Committee. The original Chairman of the Committee was Mr. Harry F. Utzerath, American Oil Company, an old

friend of many of you attending this Conference. Unfortunately,

shortly after his appointment to the chairmanship of the Comj mittee, Harry become ill and subsequently and very regrettably

I he passed away. Since I was the original Vice Chairman of the

i Committee, I assumed the chairmanship.

I The membership of the Weights and Measures Technical Committee is made up of representatives chosen because their training and background was such as to enable them to speak your

language and to understand your problems.

The scope of the Weights and Measures Technical Committee

I is to develop, in a cooperative effort with this Conference, the

j National Bureau of Standards, and meter manufacturers, a comI prehensive technical review of wholesale and vehicle tank

liquid metering systems, in the marketing segment of the

American petroleum industry, and to establish liquid metering

system performance capability. In order to expedite the study program, the very well-qualified

engineering consulting firm of Morris and West, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey, was retained by the API. Mr. Richard P. West, Professional Engineer, ably assisted by Mr. Richard

Dunning, has been actively conducting the study program. Mr

West first prepared a program outline entitled, "Survey and

Study to Determine the Practical Limitations of Tolerances

for Error in Wholesale Petroleum Metering Systems," which has

been reviewed and approved by the Specifications and Tolerances

Committee of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

and by the API.

The object of this survey is to evaluate the factors which affect

the accuracy of wholesale petroleum metering systems in normal

usage and to determine their accuracy capability under prescribed test conditions. Field tests under actual operating conditions are conducted by petroleum industry personnel. Cooperating weights and measures officials also conduct tests on the same

I metering systems, following their standard procedures and,

j where possible, using their own proving equipment. These field tests are outlined and coordinated by Mr. West, who observes the

tests and records the data.

To date, several tests have been conducted ; however, I will not

elaborate on these since Mr West will do so during his portion

of this program.

115
It has become apparent from my limited conversation with | those involved in conducting the tests, as well as those who have

attended some of the tests as observers, that much is to be gained

j through an increase in the mutual understanding of petroleum 1 industry and weights and measures officials problems. In each i case, the cooperation and assistance of local weights and measures officials has been outstanding.

j In my opinion, it appears that we are finding that if there is

j any problem existing between the petroleum industry and

weights and measures officials, it is one of communication. It really is amazing how much can be learned about each other

when you spend a couple of days working and talking together.

I guess this is why we have been finding that the relationship

which exists between you and the petroleum industry people with

whom you work on a day-to-day basis is so fine. In summary, we as an industry, with your cooperation, have

undertaken the responsibility to gain factual information related

to wholesale and truck tank liquid meter tolerances. We are doing | this with an open mind. All of the information which is being ; gathered is being made available to your representatives. Together I am sure that we will be able to come to a decision as

to what will be both satisfactory as well as proper tolerances

which will assure continued accuracy of measurement of petroleuni products.

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY CONCERN WITH METER

ACCURACY—3. A STUDY TO DETERMINE METER

ACCURACY CAPABILITY \ by R. P. West, Morris & West, Consulting Engineers, I Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey

j Following the October meeting of the i American Petroleum Institute's Weights and ; Measures Subcommittee in San Francisco, j Morris & West were authorized to proceed j with a series of ten field tests designed to ' determine the accuracy capability of whole- j sale petroleum meters. The tests were to i include loading rack meters, power flow I truck meters, and gravity truck meters. ! This report covers five of the tests conducted '

to date. The sixth test at Louisville, Ken- <• tucky, was completed to late to be included in this interim re- ; port.

j

116

I
Tests have been conducted at the following locations in chronological order:

East Boston, Massachusetts

Bucksport, Maine

St. Paul, Minnesota

Charleston, South Carolina

Fairfax, Virgina.

Two of these locations, Bucksport and St. Paul, were chosen so that we could observe the possible effects of seasonal climate ex- tremes. Tests were run under genuine Minnesota blizzard conditions and at temperatures of —10°. We plan to return to both

locations and repeat the tests during the summer months.

The terminals visited for the loading rack tests are owned by

Mobile Oil Corp., American Oil Co, Phillips Petroleum Co.,

Cities Service Oil Co., and Webber Tanks, Inc., a large distributor in Maine. Trucks, provers, personnel, and general as- sistance have also been contributed by Shell Oil Co., Humble

Oil & Refining Co., Williams Brothers Pipe Line Co., Texaco,

Inc., Hess Oil & Chemical Co., and R. E. Nason & Son, a heating

oil reseller in Bucksport, Maine. The cooperation of all of the

personnel of these companies has been outstanding and has made

our job comparatively easy. In all cases the local weights and measures officials have participated in the tests with their personnel and equipment. Their

cooperation has been excellent and they appear to have a genuine

interest in the program and its objectives. In the conduct of the tests we have had contact with representatives from the following weights and measures jurisdictions or organizations:

The City of Boston

The State of Massachusetts

The State of Maine

The State of Minnesota

The City of Minneapolis

The State of South Carolina

The State of Virginia

The State of Maryland

Prince George's County, Maryland

The National Bureau of Standards

The Canadian Bureau of Standards

We have also had representatives from four meter manufacturers and one manufacturer of steel prover tanks. At our

test in Fairfax, Virginia, we had 28 participants or observers.

The following is a summary of the things which we consider

significant from the observations made during the program up

117
to this point. It is emphasized that we are only halfway through I the program and it would therefore be improper to draw any i conclusions from these observations.

[ In our tests we have attempted to compare the relative ac- I curacy of several provers at each test location using a given \ meter as the basis of comparison. Obviously, the repeatability * of the meter also enters the picture and at this point, we are not | certain just how much influence this may have. Despite this 1 uncertainty, we feel that the results obtained are worthy of ex-

[ amination. I

Spread

Location No. U/ \jrri}lA,J} Percent Percent East Boston 1 — U.Uo

9 n 1 1

R

q — f\ OA U.iJU Bucksport 3 -0.32

4 -0.30

5 -0.32 0.01

St. Paul 6 + 0.01 7 -0.01

8 0.00

9 -0.01 0.02 Charleston 12 -0.05

13 -0.10

14 + 0.04 0.14 Fairfax 16 + 0.01 17 + 0.10 18 + 0.06 19 0.00 0.10

We believe that the good correlation found at Bucksport and | St. Paul came about as a direct result of action taken by the

| local weights and measures officials. At Bucksport the three i provers had been calibrated using a Federal standard shortly

before the test. This practice represents the proper way to do

this job and should be done regularly to all provers. In St. Paul,

the State officials also practice a program which emphasizes the

regular calibration of privately owned provers. The variations I between provers in these two areas agree favorably with the

j probable errors that one might expect as a result of a statistical

\ analysis applied to the methods and equipment used to calibrate

the provers. A typical case would involve a 50-gallon primary

standard, calibrated by the National Bureau of Standards with

a maximum error of ±0.020 percent and a probable error of

0.004 percent. If twenty draughts from this standard were used j 118
to calibrate a 1,000-gallon prover, the probable error of the

i prover would be about 0.0009 percent. Half of all the provers

thus calibrated would have errors equal to or smaller than this

figure. The other half would have greater errors,

j Another matter which arises is the possible change in prover

! volume which occurs due o expansion or contraction of the

j metal tank in extremes of temperature. This is recognized in

I API Standard 1101, but is not generally taken into consideration

j in everyday practice. The provers are generally calibrated "to

I deliver" at 60° F and it is usually assumed that the metal in the

I shell is at the same temperature as the liquid contained. It is

' also generally assumed that the temperature of the product passI ing through the meter and the temperature of this same product

! at the time the prover gage is read will coincide. This may

usually be correct but under certain conditions there is a distinct

possibility for significant differences to develop. In various areas

the range of product temperatures may vary from 90° F to 30° F

due to the change of seasons. The net effect on the prover volume

based on a 60° F calibration temperature would be about

±0.05 percent at these extremes.

Thus a good prover with a standard error of 0.02 percent for

calibration error and an uncorrected temperature effect at 30° F

could have a built-in variation from true volume of ±0.07 percent.

If the prover were one of the statistically poorer groups which

represents half of the total, the total error could be 0.09 percent

or greater. In order to determine the possible effects of the described temperature extremes on the performance of the meter

itself, it would first be necessary to correct the prover volume

for the variation from 60° F and also to correct for any possible

difference between the temperature of the meter strain and the

temperature of the liquid in the prover.

In the five tests under consideration we have worked with 16

large portable provers ranging from 500 to 2,000 gallons capacity. Five of these are publicly owned, that is by weights and

measures authorities, and the remainder are owned by the petroleum companies. Since API Standard 1101 seems to be the only

comprehensive standard for the construction of such equipment,

we have examined each prover to determine whether it complies

with this specification.

There are three principal areas where the provers did not

comply with the standard. Article 2010 requires that the smallest

readable graduation should represent not more than 0.02 percent

of the prover volume. Two of the five public provers and four

of the eleven private provers did not comply. Article 2011 re- quires that the volume of the prover neck within the length of

the gage shall be at least 2.0 percent of the total prover volume.

119
Adequate neck size is particularly important in proving heating | t oil meters at higher flow rates where a great deal of foam is [ i produced. Four of the five public provers and four of the eleven j

! private provers did not comply with this standard. i API 1101 deals at length with temperature effects in proving

meters. It recommends but does not specifically require that each

prover should be equipped with three thermometer wells. Only j two of the private provers had three wells, two had a single

j well. None of the public provers had thermometer wells. The importance of this will be discussed later. One private prover was considered as noncomplying because

of poor bottom design and two were found to require repairs to | bottom valves before they could be used. One was found to have

j a cup-case thermometer lying in the bottom. I In summary, of the 16 provers only two complied with API

1101 without qualification and two more complied if we disre- I gard the thermometer requirement. 1 At each of the five terminals visited we examined the tanks,

j piping, pumps, valves, air eliminators, control systems, etc., . looking for anything good or bad that might influence the ac- curacy of the meters. In four of the five terminals the elevation ' of the storage tanks was favorable to good meter operation. In

'

the fifth case the tank bottoms were substantially below the j meter elevation. They had had some history of check valve trouble

but this was not evident during our test. One plant was equipped i with remote-operated tank valves which were felt to have had i an undesirable influence on the meter accuracy, but this effect

j was not evident during our test. In each plant we tested two systems, ten in all. Three of the i ten systems had single pumps. Seven had multiple pumps ! in parallel controlled by various manual and automatic systems.

| All of the systems had adequate air elimination systems. l One practice that seems to be quite commonly followed in

| the design of piping systems introduces the possibility for ' creating unusual meter errors in proving and also makes the

proving operation very inefficient and time consuming. In three

j of the five terminals the product in the provers is pumped back I to storage through the same piping that normally delivers the

' product to the rack. In one case the pump-off connection is lo- i cated between the air separators and the meters. Only the use of

{ a centrifugal pump and careful manipulation kept this form

being a major problem. In one case it was considered advisable to purge the system of air between each successive prover run. In another case it was necessary to send a man some distance into j' the tank field to line up valves for each pump-off and then to re- peat the process before the next run could be made. In all cases

j 120

I
the pumps used were very small and this added greatly to the

time required for proving. The ideal arrangement is an independent system with a generous sized pump and a connection at each loading island. It would appear that a review of the standards for such installation would be beneficial for all who operate

these systems.

One other item which is known to exist on many loading racks

is leakage, downstream of the meter, from the glands in sliding

tube loading arms. Unless these are made tight some of the

metered product does not reach the receiving vessel. This condition was observed on some loading arms in use but did not exist

in the equipment used for testing.

One important and necessary equipment item in the meter

system was found to contribute materially to potential inaccuracy. This is the ticket printer which seems to be prone to printing an extra gallon under certain conditions. A total of

89 prover runs were made through meter systems including a

register with ticket printer without a temperature compensating

device. In 18 of the 89 runs, or 20 percent, there were disagreements between the visible register and the ticket printer

in the range of 0.25 to 1.0 gallons. This variable is caused by

the change from an analog type mechanism, the visible register,

to a digital mechanism, the ticket printer and is independent of

the size of the prover run. In a 500-gallon draught a 1.0 gallon

variation is 0.20 percent. We believe that this condition is relatively unpredictable and may occur in any series of runs on a random basis depending upon the construction of the register

and the exact stop point of the mechanism. Ticket printers,

which are otherwise very useful and necessary accessories, appear to make a very sizeable contribution to meter system error

in everyday use. We had the opportunity to compare the performance of two

remote data acquisition systems with the visible registers and

ticket printers at the rack. Here we have the same basic problem

as described for ticket printers. Using the visible register as a

base, the ticket printers in one installation made 4 errors in 19 runs and the remote system made 3. The magnitude of the errors ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 gallons. The performance in the second

terminal was about the same as the first. Three of the five terminals have thermometer wells in the

risers to the loading arms. One is equipped with small dial

thermometers with 2 degree graduations, one has larger dial

thermometers with 1 degree graduations and the third, which also

has temperature compensated meters, is equipped with first quality mercury thermometers with 1 degree graduations. The

other two terminals have no means for taking meter system

121
temperatures except to assume that they would be the same as

j the tank or prover can temperatures. A very doubtful assumption j either way.

The principal operating problem in the actual proving of

loading rack meters was experienced with heating oil meters be- | cause of the foaming tendency. It was often necessary to stop

| the flow several times during a single run to prevent overflows, j The small necks of some of the provers made operation at normal

j flow rates very difficult. It was also necessary to wait an

j appreciable amount of time, perhaps several minutes, for the

foam and bubbles to subside before readings could be taken. ! This problem was not experienced with gasoline meters.

Test runs were made at maximum flow rates, 50 percent of

maximum rate and 20 percent of maximum rate. Comparing

the visible register with the prover gage, three of the ten meters

j tested were found to be out of tolerance, that is, more than

'

dzO.223 percent variation and were subsequently adjusted to an ; acceptable condition. Our experience following one of these ad- | justments was most interesting and pertinent. This occurred at ; Bucksport, Maine. On the first day of testing the weather was

mild and the product temperature for heating oil tank was 32° F.

j The meter was found to have a variation of —0.30 percent,

j After adjustment it was —0.006 percent. Two nights later, the

temperature dropped to —15° F and was about — 2° F in the

morning. The provers were outdoors all night. Three runs on the j same heating oil meter now showed the average variation to be — 0.11 percent, a change of over 0.10 percent in about 36 hours.

To account for this sudden change, we have attempted to re- j construct the change in test conditions. In the cold test the prover | can was very cold having been outdoors in sub-zero weather all I night. The very cold tank would tend to chill the product put

| into the can. The product temperature in the storage tank was I 29° F. The product temperature in the prover was 26° F. If the j product going through the meter was at 28° F, the 2 degree ' drop in the cold prover can would account for an apparent variation of —0.10 percent. In St. Paul where it was also very cold,

j temperature diff"erences between meter and prover up to 3 degrees j were observed. At other locations under less severe conditions, '

1 degree variations were fairly common. A 1 degree temperature i diff^erence between meter and prover in a 1000-gallon draught

will cause an apparent but false meter error of 0.05 percent.

As previously mentioned, it is not the usual practice to account : for temperature diff"erences in the proving procedure. The importance of this temperature effect came most strongly to our

'• attention in the testing of power-operated truck meters. This oc- j- curred at Charleston, S. C. The prover was a 50-gallon can

122
owned by the State of South Carolina. It was mounted on the

back of a pickup truck. The weather was pleasant and sunny

with temperatures about 70° F. The truck being tested has a capacity of 1,530 gallons in five compartments. It has a positive displacement pump driven by

the truck engine. The normal operating flow rate is 40 gallons

per minute. The product passes through the meter which has a

pre-set control and then through a long li/^-inch hose on a reel with a nozzle at the end. Flow can be controlled by the pre-set

control or by the nozzle.

The test was made in a conventional manner by a State in- spector. We took the added precaution of taking temperatures in

the truck compartment being used and in the prover. The same

good quality cup-case thermometer was used for all readings.

In five runs the average difference between truck compartment

and the prover was 5 degrees warmer in the prover. The average

variation for the five runs without compensating for the apparent

temperature difl'erence was —0.21 percent. The average after

I compensating for temperature was —0.50 percent. The product

! was pumped back to the same compartment after each run. The starting temperature in the truck was 64° F, the final temperature in the prover at the last run was 76° F. In the above we

have assumed that the truck compartment temperature and the

I meter temperature were the same. It seems doubtful that this

j is accurate because we believe that the truck pump, between the

! tank and meter, adds to the product temperature. We also believe that the long hose, between the meter and prover, makes a

sizeable contribution. The prover itself adds something and the

prover pump may add some more.

This observation was further substantiated by a later test made under similar conditions but with much cooler weather at Fairfax, Va. Here the temperature diff'erence between truck and

! prover was 3 degrees. The adjustment to the volume in the prover

for this diff"erence would be —0.15 percent.

Another important consideration in the testing of power flowmeter systems outfitted as described is the condition of the system

and the manner of control used. This can be done in three ways

;

by using the nozzle to control flow with pressure on the hose at the start and stop, by using the pre-set device to control flow

I with pressure on the hose at the start and stop, and by using

I the pre-set to control flow with no pressure on the hose at the

start and stop. At Charleston, the meter showed an uncorrected variation of —0.22 percent under nozzle control, — 0.07 percent with pre-set control and pressure on the hose, and

I —0.32 percent with pre-set control and no pressure on the hose.

The difl'erence attributable to this factor was —0.25 percent.

123
Summarizing our experience with power flow vehicle meters, \ six were tested in all. Three were brand new and had not been

| officially tested before. These gave very good results and were

well within the tolerances. Of the other three, one showed a 1 variation of —2.8 percent against a tolerance of zt:0.27 percent j for a 200-gallon draught. One showed a variation of —0.22 per- 1 cent against a tolerance of ±0.44 percent for a 50 gallon draught. [ The third showed an average variation of -f 0.65 percent against f a tolerance of ±0.32 percent for a 100-gallon draught. All

but one of the systems were subjected to a split compartment

test and in general performed quite well under this condition. 1 The program has included tests of four large gasoline trans- ports with gravity meter systems. A total of six meters were

tested. These performed remarkably well under both normal and

split compartment tests. Only one of the six was found to be out

[ of tolerance. Twelve normal test runs on the five meters

' found with tolerance showed the average variation to be 0.08 \ percent against a tolerance of ±0.223 percent. Split j campartment tests on this group showed an average variation | of 0.07 percent against a tolerance of 0.43 percent. This re- markably good performance may have been influenced by the

j sibe of the provers used. Large provers such as 1200 gallons at

j Boston and 1500 gallons at Augusta would seem to favor good j results in a split-compartment test. The principal limitation in establishing the accuracy of gravity

truck meters appears to be the limited availability of proper

prover installations for testing them. In order to simulate the

delivery conditions, the prover must be located at an elevation

simulating an underground tank. Generally, this requires a fixed

installation and one that is fairly expensive to build. Only one

of the weights and measures jurisdictions visited had an in- stallation of this type. The others either depended on the petroleum company installations for testing or because of the lack of

proper equipment, have no regular program for testing this

type of meter.

One of the jurisdictions did some testing using a 100-gallon

portable prover sitting on the ground. We evaluated this by

using the same truck to make tests with this arrangement and

also with a good 500-gallon underground prover. The difference

between the results obtained with the two provers was 0.10

percent.

Taking the loading rack meters as a group at normal flow rates and without attempting to adjust or compensate any of the data

obtained, we find the group to have a standard deviation of

0.122 percent as compared to the provers for 80 runs. Again,

applying the techniques of statistical analysis, this indicates that

124
the probable error of the group is about 0.08 percent and that

50 percent of the group would have errors no greater than this

magnitude. Forty-five percent could be expected to have errors between 0.08 percent and 0.244 percent and about 5 percent

would have errors greater than 0.244 percent. In further tests we

shall see whether this pattern continues to hold true. This will

give a good indication of whether the meter systems tested are

truly representative of all such installations.

A similar analysis of 153 prover runs made on eight meters

in the Phillips terminal at Charleston, S.C., shows the probable

error for this group to be 0.065 percent. This means that 46

percent of this group could be expected to show errors of 0.065

percent to 0.194 percent.

Most terminals seem to have a calibration interval of six

months to a year unless there is some indication of trouble with

the meter in the interim period. On this basis it takes a very long

time to accumulate a significant amount of performance data on any given meter. Ordinarily when such data are examined it is assumed that they are representative of the day to day or week

to week performance of the meter and that if a graph of the

performance were drawn against time, it would be a smooth

line between calibration intervals. We have seen some data from

the Phillips terminal at Charleston which causes us to question

whether this assumption is correct.

Phillips, unlike most companies, proves their meters about

every 30 days. A review of their records for the past year in- dicates that on a monthly basis there were very significant

changes in the apparent meter performance. We say apparent

meter performance, because these changes may have been due to some of the influences previously discussed and may not reflect any significant change in the meter itself.

As mentioned earlier, we have completed field test No. 6 at

Louisville, Kentucky, but considerations of time did not permit

us to include the data in this report. Our future plans include the

following additional tests to be made

:

St. Paul, Minnesota July 18, 1967

Bucksport, Maine August 15, 1967

Lake Charles, Louisiana September 19, 1967

Los Angeles, California October 10, 1967

We would like to express our appreciation to all of those present who have participated in this program for their friendly

reception and excellent cooperation. We would also like to invite

other oflScials who have not been able to participate to join us,

if possible, when we come near your home base.

125
AFTERNOON SESSION-THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1967

(F. M. Gersz, Vice Chairman, Presiding)

(Thursday's afternoon session was devoted to reports of the

Conference committees, which can be found beginning on

page 151.)

126
MORNING SESSION-FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 1967

(J. E. BOWEN, Chairman, Presiding)

ACTIVITIES OF THE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS AND

MEASURES, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

by M. W. Jensen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

It has become traditional for the Office of Weights and Measures to report to the National Conference on certain of its activities during the previous year. This always is a pleasure for

us, and v^^e hope it is informative for you.

This year, presentations will be made by certain of the staff who will be reporting on work in their own areas of responsibility.

They will not attempt to provide all of the details of a particular project, but rather will select highlights that should be

of interest to you.

First to report will be Harold Wollin, Assistant Chief of the

Office. He will be followed, without further introduction, by Tom

Stabler, Laboratory Metrologist; Steve Hasko, Engineer;

Charles Schreyer, Engineer; Dick Smith, Technical Coordinator;

and Larry Chrisholm, Special Coordinator.

H. F. Wollin

Assistant Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

The staff of the Office of Weights and

Measures has had a good year, although an

extremely busy one that has offered many

interesting developments and challenging

opportunities.

We feel fortunate to have been able to expand our program activities through in- creases of staff and in our operating budget

during the past year, and even greater

growth is expected in the year ahead. We

are especially optimistic about the future,

and we look forward to an expansion in our work with the

States, industry, and others who seek our assistance and technical services in the field of weights and measures technology

and administration.

The next few minutes will be devoted to reviewing briefly some of the highlights of the OWM program, and other staff members will follow and speak on additional activities in more

specific detail. We are in the process of enlarging our weights and measures

laboratory and engineering facilities. When completed, these

fully equipped facilities will help substantially to handle in127
creasing requests for (a) the test and calibration of standards i of mass, length, and volume; (b) the conduct of engineering re- 5 search, experimentation, and special measurement studies; (c) r the examination of commercial weighing and measuring devices 1 and equipment; and (d) the training of personnel from the

| States, foreign countries, and others who seek guidance on

laboratory operations.

I During the past year, over 2,000 mass, length, and volume

| standards were calibrated by OWM personnel. Included were ; weights from 10,000 pounds to one-thousandth pound, volumetric ; provers from 750-gallon capacity to very small precision glass- 1 ware, and a variety of length standards.

We have been working on the development of new specifications for secondary standards that are used in the field by in- spectors and also by some segments of industry. Modernization

in this area is needed, and manufacturers are cooperating in this I effort to achieve more suitable and uniform field standards. | Plans are also under way to develop and publish new laboratory

and field test procedures for various standards that will contain , many refinements in measurement techniques.

We have completed our study of new materials for an improved I test tape for fabric-measuring devices. The material found most i suitable is Teflon-impregnated Fiberglass, and in the near future

full particulars on a new tape made of this material will be sent out to officials. I As reported earlier during this Conference, a study is being

made by OWM of cordage-measuring devices with respect to their

design and to present requirements in Handbook 44. This work is nearly completed, and we will report the results of our findings to i the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. This matter will, no doubt, be thoroughly covered by the Committee during the

ensuing months and be included in their report next year. We are also conducting a study on LP Gas vapor meters, which

should be completed in time for inclusion in the report of the i Specifications and Tolerances Committee in 1968. . We have continued an investigation on the accuracy of odomj eters in passenger automobiles. Tests were made with a calibrated 1 fifth-wheel device on a number of diff'erent makes of 1967 autos.

' A two-mile road test course was carefully selected and very i accurately measured and marked for our use in the calibration of

j our fifth-wheel device and others submitted to us for test. The : fifth-wheel device and associated instrumentation provide a most

j suitable means for testing odometers, and we believe, on the

basis of our work to date, that this type of device could also be

used to advantage in many jurisdictions for testing taximeters as

well. We plan to continue our cooperation with the States and ,

128
with the automotive industry on matters in this area. Special

attention will be devoted to the accuracy of odometers installed

in trucks and to the development of a simulated road test machine

that hopefully will overcome the problems encountered with 2-ply

tires in present designs.

An important part of our technical program over the year

involves both office and field work on a variety of tasks that come

about through requests from many sources or that we uncover and feel need action. Considerable staff time is spent in handling

these jobs, some of which require travel, and we do our best to complete them expeditiously and with the desired results. As most of you know, last fall we sent out an announcement to the effect that the Office of Weights and Measures would accept

for examination prototype models of commercial weighing and

measuring devices and equipment from manufacturers under a voluntary arrangement. It was assumed that the purpose of our examination would be to determine the conformance of such

equipment with NBS Handbook 44 requirements. It was made

I clear that equipment found to be in compliance would not receive

"official" approval by the National Bureau of Standards. Such

approval is, of course, granted only by the States. So far, the

response from manufacturers has been very good, and we have

completed the examination of quite a large variety of weighing

j and measuring devices. We expect this activity to increase in the

I future.

Technical training remains a vital phase of our overall program.

We have offered training in many form—for example: (1) In

the conduct of weights and measures schools and seminars, (2)

in field work on test equipment and procedures, and (3) in providing assistance on standards calibration to those who work in

standards laboratories. Our training effort continues to expand.

Once again, Mr. Tom Stabler traveled to Bogota, Colombia, South

America, and participated in a training seminar that was held for

officials from Latin American countries. Then, in February, we

were pleased to have two engineers from Colombia come to the

National Bureau of Standards for some specialized laboratory

training in their field of interest. Another item that deserves

special mention has been our work with the staff of the Packers

and Stock Yards Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, in preparing a new audiovisual training aid on the testing

of livestock scales. Copies of the slide-tape presentation will be

available soon. You have already heard much about the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act of 1966 during this Conference. I should merely like

to note here that many, many official hours and after-work hours

have been spent by OWM personnel during the past 12 months

129
on matters pertaining to this legislation and its impact in the

field of weights and measures. A busy line of communications has

been maintained with Federal and State agencies, many business

and industry representatives, and others on developments in the area of packaging. Over 30 States were paid special visits by

OWM personnel to consult with officials on matters pertaining to their law and regulations.

There has been the usual heavy volume of correspondence and

communications, which we try to handle efficiently and expeditiously for those who call on us for counsel and assistance. We are

also privileged to have a steady stream of visitors come to our

office. From foreign countries alone, we had visitors from Korea,

Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Iran, Venezuela, Trinidad, West Germany,

New Zealand, Canada, England, Thailand, and Australia. Members of the staff were kept busy during the year traveling

throughout the country to attend and participate in many State

and Regional Conferences and meetings held by various industries and associations. Of course, considerable staff time was

also spent in planning and arranging for the conduct of this

National Conference.

This concludes my review of our general activities during the

past year. We look forward to the months ahead and to our working relationships with you on matters and problems in the

field of weights and measures. Our real desire is to expand and

improve our services where needed and to develop even better

lines of communication throughout the field of weights and

measures. Tom Stabler,

Laboratory Metrologist, Office of Weights and Measures

New State Standards are presently being

manufactured and deliveries are underway

to the second ten States. The second ten

include Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

Maine, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

As you have been informed, for the first ten States, installation of standards is in the

final stages. Standards have been officially

presented in dedication ceremonies at Reynoldsburg, Ohio, and Springfield, Illi- nois. In addition, instruction in the use of the instruments and

in calibration and testing techniques is underway at the Dela- ware laboratory.

Figures 1 and 2 are pictures of the dedications that took

place earlier this month.

130
Figure 1. Pictured above from left to right. Director of Agriculture, Robert

M. Schneider, Dr. A. V. Astin, Director of the National Bureau of Standards, Governor Kerner, and Hubert L. Goforth, Head of Weights and Measures in Illinois.
Dr. Astin plans to present the new standards and instruments I to the States of New Mexico and Utah in early August. Training i sessions will be conducted at these States this summer. i An important behind-the-scenes activity is taking place, in I earnest in some States and less than enthusiastically in others,— j and I refer to the preparation for the new standards. This includes

the hiring of a qualified technologist and designing a laboratory j to accommodate precision balances and standards of weight and

j measure.

1 In a period covering the past 20 months we have, by nvitation, i visited 36 States to consult with officials in an effort to obtain ! appropriations from State legislatures for laboratories, to plan | modifications to existing laboratory facilities, and to design new

| buildings to house the new State standards. I A few States have construction underway, or at least have

| approved plans to proceed with necessary preparations, while too I many States still have made little progress toward this end. From I here, it appears as though considerable effort will be required to

j complete ten laboratories for third-year distribution. The twenty

remaining States will have to initiate vigorous programs now in

order to meet all requirements and qualify. Failure to do so will I cause delays in obtaining the new State standards, as they will i not be distributed until adequate facilities are provided and a

qualified technologist is hired.

We at the Office of Weights and Measures are prepared to offer our assistance in any way possible in the development and plan- j ning of the State weights and measures laboratories.

We urge your immediate, active promotion of the weights and

measures laboratories in order to establish each State measure- ment center prior to the end of this five-year New State Standards

Program.

Stephen Hasko i Engineer, Office of Weights and Measures J In his book "The American Economy,"

Jesse Markham states that "Business has a

tangible measure of output—the dollars the

customer will pay for a product or a service are the same kind of dollars with which any

costs are paid. Thus, a comparison of input | with output is relatively simple. What the | public gets from government expenditures

(whether Federal, State, or local) varies | from indispensable elements of existence ! itself to services of insignificant value. What

132
are these varied outputs worth? Some might be worth a great

i deal more than they cost, but since they are not 'purchased'

there is little basis for judgment." The businessman, scientist, or administrator has his own measure of value of any particular

program. However, where public funds are involved the criterion

increasingly being used by Congress, State Legislatures, and

City Councils is cost-benefit analysis.

Cost benefit analysis is a way of assessing the desirability of

alternative public projects using given resources. It is not a new

concept but was developed by the Department of Agriculture in

1910 when they studied how best to invest their money in seed,

education, etc. In 1930 the principle was used in decisions dealing

with dam and watershed construction and their optimum distribution. In 1950 the concept was taken over by the Department of

Definse and since then has been sold by them throughout the

Federal Government.

I The National Bureau of Standards is becoming increasingly

concerned with the value of the many services it is performing.

I An economically sound method of cost-benefit analysis would enable the Bureau to stress areas of activity yielding the greatest

return on investment.

As a pioneering step in the cost-benefit analysis, six NBS programs were selected for evaluation. A prerequisite was that the

program be sufficiently matured to lend itself to an approach

that would permit an evaluation of the benefits that were gained

because of the program. One of the six selected was the Office of

Weights and Measures program in cooperation with the States

and industry leading to the development of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Liquid) Meter Code, test procedures, and test equipment.

The LPG testing program was inaugurated approximately ten

years ago and lent itself to a retro-look. It is felt that tangible

benefits that have accrued and are accruing from this testing

program may be evaluated. Other programs selected were con- cerned with semiconductor resistivity, metals in oil, iron and

steel standard reference materials, frequency, and force. In conducting this analysis, we were very much dependent on

data supplied by the States active in the LPG testing program

and by industry. The following information, or information on which extrapolations could be based, were secured for the first,

I second, and last year of testing.

1. Number of LP-gas liquid metering devices.

2. Number of meters tested.

3. Time interval between tests.

4. Nominal LP-gas sale price.

5. State LP-gas sales on a liquid metered basis.

133
6. Number of meters out-of-tolerance and average error of | meters out-of-tolerance. i 6.1. By over-registration.

j 6.2. By under-registration. '

7. Cost of Testing Program. j This information principally supplied by the States was ex- i tremely helpful in this study. Many supplied all the information I that was requested. Others, because of short-term record storage | policies, were able to supply us with a limited amount of statis- i tics. Extrapolations were made where necessary to fill any holes I in the complete network of data.

This data was used to determine the amount of liquid metered

LPG that was out-of-tolerance for the individual States where

possible. In first year testing this was close to one percent. In the

second and last years of test this was % to Vi percent. It was i then a simple matter to determine the value of the metered LPG

which was out-of-tolerance. ! Although the study is not yet completed, I would like to discuss ! some of the data and results obtained thus far. \ During the first year of testing of the LPG meters an average

^ of 40 percent of the meters were found to be out-of-tolerance—23 | percent by over-registration, and 17 percent by under-registra- [ tion. In the second year of testing the average of out-of-tolerance

meters dropped to 19 percent, 7 percent by over-registration, and I 12 percent by under-registration. Note the shift from a majority

] by over-registration during the first year to a majority in

under registration during the second year. In the last year of ! testing the average was 17 percent out-of-tolerance, 7 percent by i over-registration, and 10 percent by under-registration. I

i We had complete or fairly complete data from twelve States for

their first year of testing. We had to eliminate other States be- cause of insufficient data or because prior test programs may

have caused some interaction in the data. Evaluation of the data

supplied by these twelve States showed total savings or cash | benefits to the customer or vendor in excess of $400,000 during i the first year of their test program at a total cost of $63,000,

which included a 10 percent amortization of a $4,000 prover for | each State. The benefits averaged $34,000 per State. At an aver- age cost per State of $5,300, the average benefit-cost ratio was 6.5.

j Other items of interest determined in the overall analysis were i an average test cost per meter of $25, and average benefit for i every meter tested of $156. During 1966, alone, the 26 States

| active in the LP-Gas Testing Program saved the customer and [ vendor $1,400,000. Although 28 of the 50 States have active LPG

testing programs these States use only 40 percent of the LPG

that is sold for residential, commercial, and internal combustion

134 1
Figure 1

1945 1950 1955 1960 Year

Domestic Consumption of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Products

(exclusive of Industrial, Chemical, and Utility consumption).

use. The remaining 22 States that do not have testing programs

use 60 percent of the product.

Figure 1 shows the increase in sales of LP-gas since the 1940's. In 1957 when the LPG Liquid Meter Code Procedure was developed, there were five States testing liquid LPG meters. Today

there are 28 and they are shown by cross hatching in figure 2. Figure 3 shows the State sales levels in 1965 of LP-gas and does

not include sales for chemical, refinery fuel, synthetic rubber,

and the like. The trend to justifying our existence is becoming increasingly

apparent. The taxpayer wants to know in terms he can understand what he is getting for his money. We believe that, consequently, when budget hearings are held, those who can show that

the "talents" entrusted to them were put to good use and not

buried will be the ones who will have their budgetary requests

acted on most favorably.

We believe there is a place for cost-benefit analysis in weights

and measures. It is a useful tool for evaluating and determining

the priority of the many and varied weights and measures activities. We will try to be of assistance to any State that desires

to conduct an evaluation of its activities.

135
states Active in Testing Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Liquid Meters

(June 1967) |

I Figure 2 i STATE SALES LEVELS -1965

Figure 3 136
Charles Schreyer, Engineer, Office of Weights and Measures

The use of fertilizers in liquid form can

be traced back about 40 years to 1928. The

first mention of the commercial measure- ment of liquid fertilizer at the National

Conference on Weights and Measures was made during the 38th Conference in 1953.

This was in the form of a report by the

Committee on Methods of Sales of Commodities.

At that time, the Committee recom- mended that, "Anhydrous ammonia and

other liquid chemical fertilizers with pressure characteristics be

sold by net weight and also, if in liquid form and temperature

corrected to 60° F, they may be sold by liquid volume."

In his report to the Conference, which was adopted, the Committee Chairman emphasized the necessity for safety provisions

and the need for regulatory action. In 1956, the Conference adopted a recommendation by the Committee on Laws and Regulations regarding the sale of "Inert

Liquid Fertilizer" by volume, as well as by weight, provided

temperature corrections were made.

At the 44th National Conference in 1959, the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances reported that it believed a specific

code on liquid measuring devices used to determine quantities of

liquid fertilizers would be premature at that time, and recom- mended the application of requirements in the liquified-petroleum,

gas code, where appropriate. It is interesting to note here that

although the National Conference has on several occasions

adopted recommendations concerning the sale of liquid fertilizers on a volumetric basis, no wide-scale trend in this direction has

developed.

As some of you may remember, about nine months ago the

Ofl^ce of Weights and Measures requested information from State

officials regarding the legal methods of sale and the means of

handling liquid fertilizers. The majority response from the States was that legally all fertilizers must be sold on a net weight basis.

Dry fertilizers were known and used before the liquid type were

produced; therefore, traditional methods of handling are deeply

ingrained. It is the logical outgrowth that the field of liquid fertilizers would be dominated by the laws and regulations applying

to dry fertilizers. Then too, recommendations by agronomists for

fertilizer coverage or chemical requirements are usually ex- pressed in so many "pounds" of this or that per acre. These

habits of doing and thinking are hard to break and thus have an obvious influence on present commercial practices.

137
The term "liquid fertilizer" has different meanings for differ- I ent people. The most probable reason for this is that different i " products are more popular or seen more frequently in various

j areas than are others. I There are three important classes of liquid fertilizers: (1) the | "complete analysis," which is a custom-formulated product, (2)

| anhydrous ammonia or solutions with pressure characteristics, | and (3) the nonpressure nitrogen solutions.

| The "complete analysis" solutions are formulated to the par-

^ ticular requirements of the customer. In addition to the usual and j familiar nitrogen, phosphates, and potash materials used to com- ! pound mixed fertilizers, special consideration is given to heating j the water mix and the addition of supplemental enrichment materials. The reactor tank for the formulation may be set on scales

having a multiple beam or the individual materials may be

metered into the tank using automatic pre-set meters for each I component. Because of the corrosive nature of the mixture, its I tendency to salt out, and the composition or ratio of the materials

making up the mixture, this class of liquid fertilizers is normally > sold on a weight basis. The purchaser buys a complete batch at one time and without return provisions for any excess. I The liquid fertilizers that are capable of being measured by ' volume are generally classified into groups according to whether j or not they contain what is called "free" ammonia. On the one

extreme, we find pure or anhydrous ammonia, and on the other i end of the scale we have the nitrates, commonly called the nitrogen solutions. The farmer who buys these products commercially

is interested, among other things, in the amount of total nitrogen

available for application on a per acre basis. i The nonpressure liquids are usually composed of a mixture of

ammonium nitrate and water, with the addition of urea to give nitrogen enrichment from about 25 percent up to 28, 30, or 32 percent total nitrogen. This variety of percentages directly

affects the capability of any meter because of the significant i changes in specific gravity. Such changes in specific gravity can ! cause the meter to indicate different values for products of dif- ferent compositions.

There seems to be no conclusive data available on this subject [ and we plan to consult with the engineers of various meter

j manufacturers about this.

j "Nonpressure" fertilizers would seem to be best sold on a volj ume basis. There are three types of tanks used in handling | non-pressure products: (1) the large storage tanks, (2) the I' smaller and portable applicator tanks, and (3) the so-called

' "nurse" tanks. Although relatively few meters are presently

used in commercial sales involving deliveries from such tanks, the

138 i
installation and use of meters would seem practical and provide

i a more accurate means of measuring these products.

It is now a common practice to sell products from a nurse tank

on a weight basis—requiring at least three time-consuming

j weighing operations. How much simpler it would be to use a

! meter calibrated for the particular product. Conversions from

volume to weight could be made easily by following appropriate

correction factor tables.

I The method of selling liquid "pressure" fertilizers can be

j equally advantageous using a meter on a delivery truck. Higher

j chemical concentrations of nitrogen allow economical use of

! smaller tanks and delivery equipment and meters are especially

I well suited for split deliveries. Anhydrous ammonia has very

I definite chemical properties and the specific gravities and pres- sures are well known at all temperatures.

Any given seller of liquid fertilizers very seldom sells beyond a

twenty-five mile radius of his plant and he could well afford to have one or two meters used exclusively for the most popular

products.

j The type of prover recommended for use in testing of meters

handling "pressure" solutions is a modified form of the prover

now widely used for liquified petroleum gas. The type of prover

for testing meters used for "non-pressure" solutions is a modified form of the prover used for fuel oil or gasoline. I say

I "modified" because, and this is extremely important, no brass or

I copper materials can be used with ammonia or nitrogen solutions.

It is quite satisfactory to use aluminum with the nonpressure

nitrogen solutions, but with the anhydrous and the diluted ammonia solutions the only really satisfactory material to use is stainless steel. As far as the weights and measures officials are concerned, the

laws of many jurisdictions covering the sale of fertilizers might

have to be changed to allow the use of meters and to permit sale

by liquid measure. Indeed, about one-half of the States have no

legal provisions covering fertilizer in liquid form. Conversion

factors are considered as "quality" rather than "quantity"

values, and they normally are certified, analyzed, and enforced

by the Department of Agriculture—not the Weights and Measures Department.

But, most important from the viewpoint of weights and measures officials would be the adoption of certain Regulations, dealing with the sale of liquid fertilizers, safety requirements, and

the like. Such regulations should be uniform among the jurisdictions and would provide tolerances, hose sizes, material requirements, storage tank connections, and identification of equipment.

Anhydrous ammonia is a dangerous, high-pressure product.

139
which, under certain conditions, can explode or cause suffocation, | and requires the use of basic safety equipment. Liquid nitrogen, j while not dangerous, requires certain washup and electrical fa-

| cilities for handling. [ I would like to leave this thought with you regarding liquid | fertilizers. The use of all types of fertilizers in the United States t

is increasing from 5 to 8 percent each year. The total amount of

| fertilizers used last year, ending June 30, 1966, was over 34.3 ? million tons. Of this amount, 4.3 million tons or one-eighth of the ' quantity was in the form of liquids. This amounted to well over

j one billion gallons and all information indicates that an even i greater amount will be used in the future. I would like to say that | the use of fertilizers is limited to several weeks, perhaps once or

| twice a year. If liquid fertilizers are required to be weighed, it | would appear to be physically impossible to weigh in excess of

' 4 million tons in this short span of time. The very conservative I estimate of the dollar value of fertilizers would be about one-half I million dollars per year retail. Of this amount, who can say how 1 much the buyer or seller is losing because of improper measuring i procedures?

I

i R. N. Smith

j Technical Coordinator, Office of Weights and Measures

| I would like to report to you this morning j on two of our continuing projects, both of

which I have been closely associated with

during the past year: our Technical Training Project and our Railway Track Scale

| Program.

First, I would like to briefly give you the

highlights of the Technical Training Program. It is not my intention this morning to go into great detail about our Training

Program because most of you are quite

familiar with it. I would like to touch only on the highlights that

have occurred during the past year. Our training program is operated under authority given in the

NBS Enabling Act, and to quote from the Act, we are charged

"to cooperate with the States in the promotion of uniformity in laws and methods of inspection."

Certainly, there is no better way to promote uniformity than

through a program such as our Technical Training Program.

We see not only an opportunity here for the dissemination of

information, but a good opportunity to—if you will—take the

pulse of weights and measures over the United States.

140
il In the conduct of our training program we are afforded the

i opportunity of hearing about your problems and bringing these

problems back to the proper people in the office, hopefully to

find solutions to them.

I think this exchange of information is one of the greatest

things that we derive from the Technical Training Program.

Last year, as was reported earlier by the Committee on Edu

cation, we had 29 schools. This represented the greatest number

of schools during a 12-month period since the inception of the

training program.

I think the most significant thing last year was the fact that

we were invited to conduct schools in seven new jurisdictions,

not new in weights and measures, but new as far as our Technical Training Program is concerned.

Our schools actually take two forms. The new schools are

general type schools in which we try to cover in a period of three

or four days the broad field of weights and measures. Our other

schools were repeat type schools, and I use Indiana and Virginia as good examples of our repeat type of schools. Both of these jurisdictions have picked dates during the year and each year a training school is held on these dates.

In the repeat schools we encourage participation by the officials in the various jurisdictions. We try to have at least a half-day

session to bring the jurisdiction up-to-date on any new developments or new activities in our office. We encourage that the rest of the school be handled by the State, county, or city personnel.

During the past year we have placed greater emphasis on the use of audio-visual training materials. We have increasingly come

to agree with the old adage that a picture is worth 20,000 words.

We have found that with the use of slides, charts, and similar

material we can do a better job in the schools.

Along this line, Harold Wollin reported briefly that we did

cooperate with the Packers and Stockyards Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture, in the development of our third

audiovisual training aid. This training material consists of 101

colored slides and a thirty-five minute tape on "The Examination

of a Livestock Scale."

We are happy to announce that this material will be available

for sale and short-term loan shortly after the first of July. This

year we have had an increased number of requests for field training. Steve Hasko has conducted four schools on LP Gas

meter testing. We also have conducted four schools on aerosol

testing procedures, including field training in both areas. A new area of training that has been started during the year

is the laboratory training made necessary by the New State

Standards Program. This is, of course, Tom Stabler's project and

141
will be one of the big parts of our training program over the ' next few years. ; The success of our Technical Training Program depends on j you, the weights and measures officials. We have first to know

your needs and your desires in this area. As in the past we will

do everything within our power to serve your needs. , Now I would like to switch projects and tell you a little bit I about our Railway Track Scale Testing Program. This is not a j new program at the Bureau. It has been in existence many years

and has been in the Office of Weights and Measures before. It was

returned to us two years ago and at that time we had the Master

Scale Depot in Chicago, the two NBS test cars, and two people

transferred to us. During the past year, we operated the Depot

on a full time basis and several large mass calibrations were

performed. These calibrations were made on weights for industry,

large mass standards for the States, and our own test weights

that are on the NBS test cars. After the NBS test cars have been on a testing itinerary, the

test weights must be recalibrated. In addition, we calibrated

twenty-four scale test cars for the individual railroads. These

are test cars that the railroads use to test the scales that are on

their respective lines. Many times, the railroads do not have

master scales of their own. Therefore, it is important that they

get their test cars into Chicago to be calibrated on the NBS

Master Scale.

We have made continued improvements on the physical facilities at the Depot during the past year. We also calibrated the

seventeen master scales that are located throughout the United

States. Actually, through the calibration of these master scales

we are able to establish accuracy for railroad weighing in this

country. We calibrate the master scales. In turn, these master

scales are used by the individual railroads to calibrate their own

test cars which are used to calibrate scales that are located on

their lines. During the year, a few commercial tests were made. These were referee type tests made in the event that some argument

occurred about weights received over a particular scale. A significant thing about the Railway Track Project is that

we are negotiating with the Association of American Railroads

to plan a new program. We are now in a position to offer to the

association several things with regard to this new program. We

will increase our test load on the NBS cars from the present

80,000 to 100,000 pounds. We will agree to test all master scales

at no charge to the railroads. We hope to test between 300 and

400 commercial scales each year on request and for a fee to cover

the cost of the test. We are seeking more cooperation from the

Association so that we can better serve their needs.

142
We have a new staff member in this program, Ben Banks,

I whom Mac Jensen introduced to you earlier this morning. It is

I our hope to add at least two more inspectors so that we can

] operate this program on a full time basis.

L. J. Chisholm,

Technical Coordivator, Office of Weights and Measures

In the area of publications one of the most

pleasing occurrences during the year, pleasing to me and I hope eventually to others, was the publication of NBS M286, Units of

Weight and Measure. This is a complete

revision, a complete revamping of the format, of the book I am sure you are familiar

with, NBS M233.

The immediate reason that made the re- writing of M233 necessary was a change in the definition of the liter that rendered

many of the conversion factors in M233. inaccurate. So we took

advantage of the opportunity to issue a book that has, for one

thing, more of an emphasis on the International System, the

modernized version of the Metric System. The new publication

contains, for example, a brief history of the Metric System in

France, the country of origin of the Metric System, and its history in the United States. It contains a listing of important

dates in U.S. metric history, a selected bibliography, definitions

of units, an expanded abbreviations table, and many other

features.

Our idea is to follow this book, with its Metric emphasis, with

a revision of NBC LC1035, Units and Systems of Weights and

Measures—Their Origin, Developmeyit, ayid Present Status, that

will emphasize the U.S. Customary System, sometimes called the

English System. The two books together should then provide good

base reference sources on the two major systems of units now in use in the World.

M286 is a much larger book than its predecessor. The reason

for this is that, although the new book contains much less text than M233, the Tables of Equivalents have been expanded considerably. One thing that we always felt was a shortcoming of

M233 was that its Tables of Equivalents were mostly concerned

with the length units, to the detriment of the mass units. This

had always seemed to be somewhat of an anomaly to us since mass measurement is much more prevalent in everyday com- merce than is length measurement. So we increased the number

of Tables of Equivalents for mass units.

143
Over the past several Conferences we have mentioned the Na- ' tional Weights and Measures Archival Library and how it grows.

This growth has continued. Important publications on weights j and measures appear each week and the library has developed to

' such an extent that, at this point, it has become obvious to us

that what we are dealing with now is not merely a library, but

a complete information system. We are considering it as such, i and have undertaken a rather ambitious project. The library, or t information system, will now contain not just publications, but

will have integrated within it a completely cross-catalogued col- lection of more than 3,000 photographs concerned with weights

and measures. Also included in the information system will be a

slide file containing more than 1,000 slides. This will also be

cross-referenced.

At this point I would like to issue a general invitation to any

and all weights and measures officials to make use of this Library.

It can be inconvenient for you to come out to it, but if you need

to find information, either technical or historical, feel free to drop us a line and we will find the information if it is at all possible.

Part of our job in the information and publications area is to keep abreast of developments in the Metric System.

One of the most significant recent occurrences was the an- nouncement by the Ford Motor Company that they had completed a pilot study within their company aimed at determining

what effect a changeover to the Metric System might have on

their operation, and what they might do to prepare for it. The significance of this is that, over the years, the major objection to Metric adoption has come from the so-called heavy

industries, those industries that would bear the greatest cost of a

conversion, such as the auto industry, machine tool and metal

fastener industries. In the legislative area, each session of Congress since 1961 has

seen a proposal entered to make a study of the Metric System.

This year is no different. A bill has been entered to authorize the

Secretary of Commerce to make a study to determine the

advantages and disadvantages of increased use of the Metric

System in the United States. In the last session of Congress, the 89th, a similar bill came very

close to being enacted. The Senate Commerce Committee reported

it out unanimously, and it received a nearly unanimously favorable floor vote. The proposal then received hearings before the

House Committee on Science and Astronautics, and this Committee also reported it out unanimously. The bill then bogged

down in the House Rules Committee. Near the end of the session,

the Chairman of the Science and Astronautics Committee tried

144
to place a 21-day rule on the bill so that it might receive a floor vote even without action by the House Rules Committee, but

time ran out.

Mr. Jensen

I should like now to present to you other members of the

professional staff who have joined us in the Office of Weights

and Measures since the Conference last met.

Eric Vadelund, who formerly served the Bureau of Standard

Weights and Measures, State of Pennsylvania, in an administrative capacity, joined us as a Weights and Measures Coordinator

with specific responsibilities in the implementation of The Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act. Otto Warnlof came to us from the Minnesota State Weights

and Measures Department. Otto will also carry the official title. Weights and Measures Coordinator. He will be working in the

packaging field with Eric, and, additionally, will participate in our technical training program.

Blayne Keysar should be known to many of you—at least his

work here at the Bureau has facilitated the accuracy of the

measurements in each of your jurisdictions. Blayne transferred

from the Metrology Division where he was in charge of volumetric calibrations. He undoubtedly is the nation's expert in this

field. He will be working in standards, laboratories, calibrations,

and also in our prototype examination project.

During this past year, because of the seemingly never-ending

exchange of the engineering standards work in which I am in- volved, I have asked Larry Chisholm to serve as my Special Assistant. To succeed Larry in managing our weights and measures

library, in preparing publications covering weights and measures

units, equivalents, and history, and in answering the many letters from the general public in this area, we have been fortunate to obtain Ross Koeser. Ross already has given evidence of outstanding competence, enthusiasm, and initiative.

We soon will be placing greater emphasis on our program of

calibrating master railway track scales and testing commercially

used track scales. To participate in this effort, we feel fortunate

to have recruited Ben Banks, who has an excellent background

and a wide capability in this field. Ben will undergo some training

at the Bureau and then will be assigned, for permanent station,

to our Clearing Illinois Master Scale Depot. He will be in charge

of one of our railway track scale units.

Jon De Buchanannne is an example of good fortune in personnel

matters. In order to assist the President in finding summer

employment for deserving students, and in order to bolster our

capability in engineering technology, we agree to hire a male

145
summer student to serve in this field—sight unseen. Jon was i assigned to us and has proven to be a real asset. He has engineer- : ing drav^ing capabilities, he is excellent in taking and recording

test results, and he even has demonstrated innovative capabilities. ' This fall Jon v^^ill be entering his sophomore year at East

Tennessee State. We hope sincerely that he will return to us each

summer until he graduates, and that he will join our staff on a

full time basis when he receives his degree.

For some time we have known that our weights and measures

activities would be strengthened through the acquisition of sound

legal talent. With the expanding responsibilities in engineering

standards, I have been able to justify a full-time lawyer and am

delighted to announce that Rudy Vignone will be reporting to us

shortly. Rudy comes to us from the Federal Trade Commission

where he has had broad and excellent experience. His talents are

obvious. We are confident that each of you will benefit by his

counsel in our assistance to you on laws, regulations, legal inter- I pretations, and other similar matters.

Because they are busy elsewhere, it is not possible for me to present to you the girls on our staff". I know I need not tell you

that without them we would be of little value to you and the

Conference would be unable to function. Permit me at least to publicly express my appreciation to them for able, energetic, and

devoted service.

Since the Conference last met, two of our staff" members have

moved to other positions. Leonard Lambrecht, who operated a railway track scale testing unit, has joined Tommy Thompson's

staff in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. John Griffith, who

served us for a number of years as an Engineering Aid, is now

working on auto safety standards—a field in which he has

considerable personal interest.

146
HAWAII—WEIGHTS AND MEASURES PROGRAM

AND PROGRESS

by G. E. Mattimoe, Chief, Weights and Measures Branch, Hawaii

Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, Hawaii

In the following report I will try to highlight some of the major points discussed in our recently published book, A Brief History

of Weights and Measures in Hawaii.

We were fortunate in Hawaii in having

people who were exceedingly interested in

helping me compile the history of weights

and measures back through the monarchial

days and up to the present time. To this end,

we spent a great deal of, I am afraid, the

taxpayers' money, a great deal of time in

the archives at the University of Hawaii, and in all of the repositories where any information on Hawaii was available. It was

difficult at times to separate the truth from the fiction. I am sure

that it was not accomplished one hundred percent; however, we

have come up with some valuable and interesting information.

In going through our records we could not determine initially

whether Hawaii in the monarchial days adopted the English

system or the American system of weights and measures. It be- came quite a challenge to figure this out and we had to go back to the original Hawaiian laws.

The original manuscripts, as they refer to them in the archives,

had been misplaced and are presumed lost. However, there were

copies that were adequate and, with the help of a State translator,

we determined that the original laws of Hawaii were English.

They were adopted in 1840 and this is quite interesting in itself. Missionaries from Massachusetts came to Hawaii in 1820 and by

1823 had reduced the melodic sounds of the Hawaiian people to a written language. They had not had a written language before

1823 and in a period of nine short years they taught over twofifths of the people to read and write. There is no question that

the missionaries had a great impact upon the people of Hawaii.

The impact was so great that Hawaii adopted the laws of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts which included a weights and

measures law for the Kingdom of Hawaii. These laws served

until 1845.

The missionaries started to lose some of their influence in

Hawaii and the British had started to gain in influence. They

gained to the extent that Hawaii for five months was actually a

British possession. King Kamehameha, ruler of Hawaii, gave the

island to Lord George Paulette under duress. Lord Paulette hap147
pened to have a ship with many guns pointed at Oahu Island, and ( he asked the Hawaiians to surrender or he would forceably take \ the kingdom if certain demands were not agreed to. The King did

not have weapons to fight back and so he surrendered. The Queen

of England did not particularly care for this way of procuring i property, so she sent Admiral Thomas to Hawaii and he gave

the kingdom back to King Kamehameha.

j The laws of 1845 and 1846 were adopted, but they did not

[ worry about abolishing the laws of 1840. So we actually had I three sets of laws. We had the monarchial laws or the old Ha- I waiian laws. We had the laws that were adopted out of Massa- i chusetts which were, in part, British, and we had the British

laws. This situation was not cleared up until 1859 when they

passed a law to do away with all the laws and start over again.

We can skip almost to the present, because we had such a mess

in our whole history of weights and measures that little was

done. We had no one who had the actual responsibility to enforce | weights and measures. We had laws but did not have any stand- j ards. The standards we did have became lost. \ The person whom we assumed to be responsible was the ' Kuhina Nui. The first three were females and they had like | powers to the king with veto rights one upon the other. This was ! a very peculiar situation and to my knowledge the only place ' where it has ever existed.

We struggled on up to the 1900's. The kingdom was financially

| unstable and appealed to the United States for assistance, but

j were turned down. In 1893, the Queen was deposed and a provisional government was founded. In 1894, the Republic of Hawaii was founded and negotiations were underway for annexation.

The annexation took place in 1900, and we were ultimately on 1 the weights and measures standards of the United States. i In 1903, a County's Act was passed which made the clerks of

} the markets responsible for weights and measures. This was i later declared illegal. In 1905, the same bill was introduced, but

the Minister of Interior became responsible.

The Minister of Interior turned the duties over the the Superintendent of Public Works, who turned them over to the Marshall

who in turn turned them over to the Sheriff. This created a con- fusing situation which I am not sure is resolved yet. The Sheriff

did not have funds with which to work, and no one to help him,

so he impressed convict labor. Try and visualize the guy in the

striped suit, representing the symbol of justice. They turned out

to be better pickpockets than they were weights and measures

oflScials, and they were put back in jail. Convict labor was

discontinued in this capacity.

Our present problems are not any less than that of our fore148
I runners. The neighbor counties or neighbor islands are a nuii sance. We do not have a plane big enough to fly a seventy

thousand-pound test truck back and forth over the islands, so we

have to barge it. Our problems in connection with this are many

i and the cost is almost prohibitive. We have to request from the

! Legislature in excess of $6,000 a year just to barge this truck

I back and forth from one island to another. We are trying in

many ways to solve this problem. We could buy other trucks and

leave them on the islands, but at the present time, this is difficult

I to justify, because v^^e have over 95 percent of the population

I concentrated on the third smallest island, Oahu.

j Upon the island of Kav^^ai, we have just recently installed our

first State sealer of weights and measures, and the reports that were coming back were frightening. In his first report he con- demned fifty-seven percent of everything he checked. I received

a questioning phone call from Senator Fernandez of Hawaii

I concerning this matter. Three men were sent to investigate this

j situation, and fifty percent of the equipment checked should have

been condemned. Most of the adjustments on the gas pumps were

' frozen, and the scales were in unbelievably bad condition. I am

sure you can visualize what happens to a scale in Hawaii, when

automobiles rust out in three years.

We have completed staffing all of the islands and this in itself was a very interesting chore. When I first went to Hawaii—once again I have to thank Malcolm Jensen because most of the work

was done for me—it was really just a matter of my finding the

people to fit the slots. We had many documents and many guidelines established, and the only problem was to come up with the

qualification tests. Our personnel services organization believes

that if you are not perfect, you should not be able to pass the

test, and I do not even think a perfectionist could pass the tests they wrote. These were the most unbelievably difficult tests that

I had ever seen. Surprisingly enough we had 188 applicants apply for the position of weights and measures sealer. Out of the

188, we were lucky—four of them passed. Since that was all we

needed, we hired them.

There are fourteen inspectors on the staff in Hawaii now. The

women in the office are all commissioned by the director of the

Department of Agriculture, to seal or condemn scales. We obI viously limit their activities to those items which are brought into

i the office. It is frequently necessary for our women to check out a

fish scale. We do a lot of fishing in Hawaii and this reminds me

of a funny incident that actually happened; how Hawaii lost the

international game fish record.

On the big island of Hawaii, starting in late June, the Broadbill

Tournament begins, and the other islands are deserted. A 2000-

i 149
pound spring dial scale was recently purchased for the tourna- j ment. This is, of course, without any consultation with weights ; and measures officials, because it is a different bureau. The scale i was hanging in all its beautiful gold splendor when some gentle- ' men hooked onto a broadbill and landed it after four hours and , fifteen minutes. The fish was pulled aboard the boat. They docked , immediately and kept the fish wetted down so that it would not | start to dehydrate. The skipper also knew he had close to a

| record if not a record fish. The existing record was eleven hundred

pounds, caught off Martinique, in the West Indies, about six

months ago. When they hung this marlin on the spring dial

scale, it read 1160 pounds, which was over the record by 60

pounds. The international game fish representative stated the device was not legal, and that it had to be weighed on a beam scale. They dropped the marlin, thereby losing quite a bit of fluid blood,

and they then hung the fish on the old beam scale. This scale had

two-pound graduations and the game fish weighmaster read the

scale to 1100 i/o pounds. Now I am not quite sure how he did

that, but the law requires you to break the record by one full pound, so he merely tied the record in Hawaii.

150
REPORTS OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

I

I

' Presented by J. E. Bowen, Chairman, City Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Newton, Massachusetts

(Tuesday, June 27, 1967)

The Executive Committee of the National Conference on Weights and Measures met in open session on Monday, June 26,

1967, at 8:30 a.m. Conference dates and location were reviewed

and discussed. It was suggested that consideration be given to a mid-July date for upcoming Conferences. Many advantages were

given, including reduced hotel rates and the added convenience

for whole family participation.

It was recognized that the State of New York has for many

years held its annual meeting at this time, and it was the hope of

the Committee that New York would consider an alternate time

so as not to conflict with the National Conference.

There was a recommendation that at some future time the

Conference may once again be held in the western part of the

United States in consideration of those western States. The Committee approved reimbursing Mr. Lawrence Barker,

Vice Chairman of the National Conference, for the expenses he

incurred while testifying on two occasions before the House In- terstate and Foreign Commerce Committee Hearings on the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act.

It is the express wish of the Committee that appropriate recognition be afi'orded past Chairmen of the Conference. Awards will

be presented them on Friday, June 30, 1967.

J. E. Bowen, Chairman

R. H. Fernsten

F. M. Gersz

J. G. GUSTAFSON

C. C. Morgan

R. W. Searles

J. R. Bird

S. J. Darsey

R. J. Fahey

I. R. Frazer

M. Greenspan

W. H. Holt

D. E. KONSOER

J. H. Lewis

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Executive Committee

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Executive Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

151
STATEMENT OF THE INCOMING CONFERENCE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

presented by C. C. MORGAN, City Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Gary, Indiana

(Friday, June 30, 1967)

The Executive Committee for the 53d National Conference met for breakfast at 7 :30 a.m. on Friday, June 30, 1967, to consider

matters falling appropriately within its authority. Decisions were reached as follows: _ 1. The dates of June 17-21, 1968, were

voted as the most favorable for the 53d Con-

^BLr ference. The motion included a recommenda-

^H^^ ^^Lj tion that the Conference establish this ^^^^^^ ^^^H period in June as official time for the ^^^^"^^^^

Conference.

2. The City of Washington, D. C, was chosen for the next

year's Conference. It was left to the discretion of the Executive

Secretary to choose those hotel accommodations most favorable

to the delegates.

3. The registration fee will remain $15.00.

4. An allocation of $300.00 was voted for the Committee on

Education for expenses associated with National Weights and

Measures Week and other committee expenses.

5. The responsibility for planning the program of the 53d Conference was delegated to the Executive Secretary. The midweek

luncheon, with an appropriate speaker, was to be continued.

6. The Committee voted to authorize the Executive Secretary

to call meetings of the standing committees when needed. Authorization for necessary expenses was voted.

There were many good suggestions made for items to be in- cluded in the Conference program. Possibility of the inclusion of

these items in the program will be explored by the Executive

Secretary.

The Executive Committee suggests that the Laws and Regulations Committee develop necessary changes in the Model Law

and Model Regulations (made necessary by the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act and regulations adopted thereunder) as soon

as possible, so that they may be submitted to the Executive Committee for action and distribution to the delegates of the Conference.

The Executive Committee earnestly requests that delegates

and their wives send suggestions for the ladies' program to the

Executive Secretary.

152
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

EDUCATION

! presented by S. H. Christie, Jr., Chairman, Deputy State

Superintendent, Division of Weights and Measures, New Jersey

Department of Law and Public Safety

' (Thursday, June 29, 1967)

1. Introduction.

The Committee on Education is committed to a program of the technical training of weights and measures officials, the

education of the general public on weights

and measures matters, aiding the users of

weighing and measuring devices, and as- sisting with public relations programs for

weights and measures officials and organization.

2. Formal Education.

A program of college education in Measurement Science, leading to an Associate Degree in Applied Science, is offered by

Alfred Tech, the Agricultural and Technical Institute of the State

University of New York. This offering is the result of the activity on the part of executives of the scale industry who have recognized the need of better trained men to install, maintain, and

demonstrate their products, which have become the basic components of instrumentation and automation in the industrial

field. Since this is a two-year course and the college has graduated

its second class with a real demand for its students, the program

can be considered as an established fact. The establishment of a curriculum is one thing; to keep it going as a successful enterprise is another. Therefore, it is neces- sary to have, in connection with it, a successful means for rendering financial assistance to desirable students. Failing this, the

Measurement Science Courses cannot be competitive in recruitment of students. In order to prevent this, a Measurement Science

Course Scholarship Fund has been instituted by members of in- dustry and is chaired by Mr. Mack Rapp. A certificate has been

obtained from the Internal Revenue Service allowing contributions to be tax deductible. Your Committee urges that all in- terested parties, indivduals as well as firms and corporations,

and, in particular, weights and measures associations, continue an active participation by means of annual contributions to the

fund.

153
It is the Committee's understanding that approximately $20,- I 000 has been contributed to the Scholarship Fund so far. The g hoped for goal is $100,000. The major portion of this $20,000 i has been contributed by industry, of course, but we understand i that more than $2,000 has been contributed by both individual \ weights and measures officials and by weights and measures as- s sociations. We hope that this support will continue. [ Grossmont College of El Cajon, California has submitted to

| the Committee materials that describe in detail their present p offerings in Measurement Science. Although their present \ course structure centers mainly on instruction in electronic in- ) strumentation, they have expressed interest in the possibility of i establishing a curriculum more along the lines of the type offered i at Alfred Tech. The geographic advantages of having such

courses offered in both the East and West of the United States \ are obvious. Your Committee will hold discussions with the key ' figures who were instrumental in making the Alfred Tech Meas- ji urement Science course a success to see if similar results may be | brought about at Grossmont. j

3. Technical Training Schools.

j Since the last Conference, twenty-nine technical training [ schools, including seven new jurisdictions, have been held with

technical contributions by the Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards. This is the most technical train- j ing schools ever held over any twelve-month period.

Emphasis in the schools was placed on package control and, in

addition, four field-training sessions were held on aerosols and I four on liquid petroleum gas.

j The Committee is pleased to learn that plans are being con- sidered to expand the Home Study Course offered by the Office

of Weights and Measures, National Bureau of Standards, to in- clude other subjects pertinent to weights and measures activities

today.

4. National Weights and Measures Week.

| Mr. L. A. Gredy of the State of Indiana, who has so successj fully directed National Weights and Measures Week activities in | the past, again graciously accepted the part of chairman of this

j very important subcommittee. I Mr. Gredy encountered an unfortunate last-minute difficulty i that has prevented him from reaching the Conference, but the | report on National Weights and Measures Week will be included

in the printed Report of the 52d National Conference.

During March 1-7, 1967, the observance of National Weights

and Measures Week was conducted again throughout the cities,
counties, and States. Interest in the "Week," judging from the re- ports and from articles in the various newsletters, indicates that

it was once more a success. Splendid accomplishments in promoting the "Week" were reported, not just for this year, but for

i previous years as well. We can say with assurance that weights

: and measures officials all over the United States have demonI strated considerable promotional ability.

I Weights and Measures Week not only had the endorsement

i and complete backing of the National Conference on Weights

I and Measures, but received immeasurable support from various

j organizations, particularly those representing manufacturers of

commercial weighing and measuring devices. They, like weights

and measures officials, are well aware of the importance of eliminating seemingly small errors on individual sales that, in the aggregate, represent huge sums.

Highlighting the "Week's" promotion were articles by in- dustry, newspaper articles with pictures, newspaper grocery and

drug ads displaying the "Week" Emblem, mayors and governors

I issuing proclamations, radio and T.V. spot announcements, films

; on weights and measures shown in several schools, and talks

given to homemaker and civic organizations. Weights and measures circulars were distributed, the "Week's" Emblem was used on mail, and many reported weights and measures displays were

placed in public buildings.

Again, it would have been impossible to have presented the

Weights and Measures story during the "Week" if it were not

for the cooperation of the scale and other industries who furnished pamphlets, posters, and display material.

5. Public Education Activites.

The Committee has been exceedingly pleased to see the growth

of interest in, and forming of, programs of public education in weights and measures. (You will remember the report given by

Mr. Kriney of Somerset County, New Jersey in Denver, Colorado,

last year.)

The Committee would like to call attention to the efi'orts of

the New York State Weights and Measures Association's Committee on Education that resulted in a helpful booklet entitled

"A Guide to Public Education in Weights and Measures." Also,

j the State of Connecticut conducts a very comprehensive public

relations program throughout the year giving special emphasis

to the "Week." This year a local sealer, Peter Grassi, had printed

a tabloid newspaper containing weights and measures articles

for distribution in shopping areas. The Committee is aware that

there may be other accomplishments of this kind by other jurisdictions and we would be pleased to be informed of them so they

might also receive attention.

155
Mr. M. Greenspan, of New York City, reports that his city has | just embarked upon a concerted effort in the schools and in one i of the colleges. The Commissioner of Markets, Mr. R. Brevoort

j has been made a member of the Advisory Committee on Consumer I Protection to the Superintendent of Schools and the review of

this entire program on Consumer Protection will be his responsibility. Classes on Consumer Protection will be set up this fall

| (Sept. '67) in all junior high schools. Approximately 25 percent

j of the course will be devoted specifically to the subject of Weights

^ and Measures. Classes have already been programmed. Also durj ing the past several months, the Division of Markets has been i conducting classes in the Bronx Community College for leaders

in the community and civic organizations, and a special speakers

staff on Consumer Protection and Weights and Measures has

been functioning. Lectures have been given to various civic or- ganizations, P.T.A.'s, Elder Citizens' groups, and in both Elementary and Junior High School assemblies. I Another program that has recently been set up, by the District

j of Columbia, has been greeted with immediate acceptance and , appreciation by the District schools. B. A. Pettit, Chief of Weight,

Measures and Markets, assigned Mr. David Forbes to the project | and the Committee would like to include portions of Mr. Forbes'

report since we feel it gives a good indication of how a public

education program can be begun.

This office began a series of talks in the District of Columbia pub

lie schools, fourth grade level, on February 4, 1967. Included in our

talks were the duties of the weights and measures inspectors, control of accuracy, and the responsibility of the consumer in securing the correct quantity. We have covered twenty-two schools with ap- proximately seventy classes, totaling about 2,450 students. These

sessions were also attended by the principals, teachers, and supervisors of the school system, and, frequently, students from other grade levels sat in to hear the talks. We used posters showing the various types of scales and gave a demonstration of the procedure of checking a scale in a store. Another demonstration which proved to be most helpful was the use

of unmarked bags of candy. Three children were elected to choose bags of candy to be weighed to determine who received the best buy,

and this led us into talking about how we checked commodities

offered for sale in the stores.

I feel that the teachers as well as the students enjoyed and benefited by the talks. Also, we have enjoyed a great deal of satisfaction from the apparent success of this program due to the assistance given to us by the District of Columbia School Board and Mr. L. J. Chisholm of the National Bureau of Standards. We are scheduled

to direct talks to the fifth grade as well as the fourth grade upon

reopening of the schools in September.

There are many other weights and measures officials conducting public education programs, of course, but what the Com156
mittee hopes to point up by citing these few examples is that,

i with the proper enthusiasm and interest, a public education proj gram can be set up in many jurisdictions, many more than now

' exist. The Committee feels that there may be weights and measures officials who would like to set up a public education program

but are unsure of what is involved.

In last year's final report, the Committee on Education presented for consideration a series of outlines to be used by weights

j and measures officials in presentations to schools, local consumer

I groups, or, in fact, to any organization interested in weights and

measures regulation and its history of service to the public.

Discussion engendered by these outlines has led the Committee

to consideration of putting together a general education handbook that would include not only the aforementioned outlines,

but discussion of public relations techniques, a bibliography for

self-education, background for giving presentations, and sample

talks. Comments on the handbook idea and on the general interest

that may exist in beginning public education programs throughI out the United States will be solicited from all weights and measures officials through distribution of a questionnaire before the

next Conference meeting. We urgently hope that, when the questionnaire arrives at your office, you will give it your most careful

and thoughtful consideration since your reply will, to a great

extent, shape our actions.

The Committee is very pleased that Monday's open meeting was so well-attended. The wonderful participation on the part

of the delegates resulted in the Committee obtaining a great

many valuable ideas and information. These will be of exceptional

value in the development of new ideas and proposals, and in the

continuation or expansion of present programs.

The Committee is also pleased and encouraged by the increased

offers to participate in the Committee affairs by various industry

organizations and associations.

Once again, the Committee takes this opportunity to acknowledge its appreciation publicly and to offer our sincere thanks to

all who have so splendidly cooperated and assisted throughout the

year.

S. H. Christie, Jr., Chairman

J. I. Moore

W. I. Thompson

M, W. Jensen, Secretary

L. J. Chisholm, Staff Assistant

Committee on Education.

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Committee on Education was adopted by voice vote.)

157
Mr. Grassi: I believe that consumer education is one of the | basic requirements we should perform in our services to our

respective communities. The tabloid mentioned in the Committee

Report has, as its masthead, a shield, a drawing, that I think is , very appropriate to our work. It depicts a consumer and a store j owner shaking hands, with the weights and measures inspector

in the center. Anyone who wishes a copy of the drawing, or of the

| tabloid, should drop me a card or letter at Box 223, Middletown, i Connecticut, and I will see that you get one. The idea is this: we all go to Conference after Conference,

meeting after meeting, and we trade wonderful ideas back and

forth. Then we all go home and forget them. I have found that

this tabloid, after only a few issues, has really awakened the

public to our work, to what we do. Public response has been

truly gratifying, and enlightening. We have found, through publishing this tabloid, that a consumer education publication can

result in a response that is both heartening and surprising.

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

WITH THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT

Presented by R. J. Fahey, City Sealer, Department of Consumer

Sales, Weights and Measures, Chicago, Illinois

(Tuesday, June 27, 1967)

The Committee on Liaison with the National Government has been primarily con- cerned with the effect of the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act on weights and measures

activities. Accordingly, the Committee met

with officials of the Food and Drug Administration on April 28 and made representations on behalf of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Committee

urged the Food and Drug Administration

and other Federal agencies concerned to follow the provisions of the Model State Law on Weights and

Measures and the Model Package Regulation as closely as possible

in developing and promulgating any regulations under the Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act.

I would like to bring to the attention of the Conference that

the Committee has had very little communication from weights

and measures officials or from industry. We urge you to bring- to the attention of the Committee your thoughts, complaints, suggestions, recommendations, or activities in any area where Federal and State responsibilities overlap, or where an activity of

158
an agency of the Federal Government is such as to affect a weights

and measures program or a weights and measures oriented in- dustry.

The existence of regional Federal Executive Boards was brought

to the attention of the Committee at the open meeting on Monday.

The Committee was informed that these regional Boards have

established task forces on consumer protection. The Committee was unaware of the existence of these organizations and will

investigate their operation to determine whether or not it would

be appropriate for weights and measures officials to seek representation.

R. J. Fahey, Chairman

K. C. Allen

C. E. Joyce

R. C. Primley

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Committee on Liaison with the National Government.

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the report of the Committee on Liaison with the National Government was

unanimously accepted by voice vote.)

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON LAWS

AND REGULATIONS

Presented by M. Jennings, Chairman, Director, Division of

Marketing, Department of Agriculture, State of Tennessee

(Thursday, June 29, 1967, Afternoon Session)

The Committee on Laws and Regulations

submits its report to the 52d National Conference on Weights and Measures. The

report consists of the Revised Tentative Report distributed at the Registration Desk of

this Conference as amended by the Final

Report.

I. THE MODEL REGULATION

PERTAINING TO PACKAGES

Section 12 of the recently enacted Fair

Packaging and Labeling Act reads:

SEC. 12. It is hereby declared that it is the express intent of

Congress to supersede any and all laws of the States or political

subdivisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter

provide for the labeling of the net quantity of contents of the

package of any consumer commodity covered by this Act which

are less stringent than or require information different

from the requirements of section 4 of this Act or regulations

promulgated pursuant thereto.

159
With this clear statement, the States are mandated to bring , their legal requirements pertaining to consumer-type packages ; into conformance with Federal requirements. The Fair Packaging

j and Labeling Act becomes effective July 1, 1967. As soon as the

regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (for consumer I packages of foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices) and | the Federal Trade Commission (for all other types of consumer I packages covered by the Statute) are issued. The Committee will j present to the Conference a model package regulation that is i harmonious with the Federal regulations. Prior to the issuance I of the Federal regulations, no purpose would be served by recom- . mendations as to amendments of the Model State Regulation.

The Committee has been, and will continue to be, fully in

formed as to developments in the Federal agencies, and the mem- } bers of the Committee accept responsibility for the development i of documents that will make possible uniformity in this area

' between State and Federal requirements and among the require- | ments of the several States. j (Item 1 was adopted by voice vote)

2. MODEL REGULATION FOR ROOFING AND ROOFING MATERIALS

| Considerable study has been undertaken since the 51st Na- ; tional Conference on the method of sale of roofing and roofing ! materials (other than those in liquid form). Consultations and I communications with the Asphalt Roofing Industry Bureau and ' deliberations by the Committee have led to a proposed complete

revision of the Model Regulation for Roofing and Roofing Ma- j terials, as follows:

Model Regulation for Roofing and Roofing Materials \ (Except Roofing and Roofing Materials in Liquid Form)

j Pursuant to the authority vested in me as set forth in section | (Sections 9 and 25 of the Model Law) of Chapter of

the statutes of the State of

(cite sections authorizing promulgation of general regulation and | special commodity sections), I, ,

| State Director of Weights and Measures, hereby adopt and ; promulgate the following regulation:

1. Roofing and roofing materials shall be sold either by the

| "square" or by the "square foot."

1. 1. The term "square" shall mean the quantity of roofing or roofing material that, when applied according to directions i or instructions of the manufacturer, will cover an area of 100

square feet exclusive of side laps or side joints: Provided, \ That, in the case of roofing or roofing material of corrugated ; design, the side lap or side joint shall be one full corrugation,

j 160
1. 2. The term "square foot" shall mean the quantity of

roofing or roofing material that, when applied according to the

directions or instructions of the manufacturer, will cover 1 square foot (144 square inches) exclusive of side laps or side

joints.

2. The declaration of quantity on a package of roofing or

roofing material sold by the "square" shall include, plainly and

conspicuously, a numerical definition of the term "square," as,

j for example, "One square covers 100 square feet of roof area."

2. 1. The use of the common fraction one-third (1/3) is specifically authorized in the quantity statement of a package

of roofing or roofing material when, and only when, used as the

common fraction of the "square."

2. 2. No statement relating to the quantity of contents of a package of roofing or roofing material (such as, for example, a declaration in terms of weight) that is in addition to or supplemental to the declaration required by law or this regulation

shall be declared unless the same is in juxtaposition with and

subordinated to the required declaration and is accurate.

3. This regulation is additive to other valid laws and regulations pertaining to packages and shall not be construed as superseding any such law or regulation.

(Item 2 was adopted by voice vote.)

3. MODEL REGULATION FOR PAPER PRODUCTS

Technical investigation in the Office of Weights and Measures,

National Bureau of Standards, disclosed that the Model Regulation for Paper Products also required further consideration.

Since the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is assumed to cover such paper and similar products as are normally sold to consumers, the Committee will withhold recommendations in this area until after publication or regulations by the Federal agencies.

(Item 3 was adopted by voice vote.)

4. HYGROSCOPIC PRODUCTS

Officials from the State of New Jersey recommended during the

51st National Conference that the Committee consider the in- clusion in the Model Law or in the Model Package Regulation

of the requirement that packages of hygroscopic products (those

that tend to gain or lose weight as a result of gain or loss of

j moisture) be so marked as to show the net weight and the perj cent of moisture of the product at the time of packaging.

The Committee has given careful consideration to this matter

and feels that, although such package marking might seem to simplify control over packages of such commodities, actually an

additional complication would be introduced. Very few weights

and measures agencies are equipped to make moisture determinations, and even those that are would find such determinations

161
to be highly technical and time-consuming. Effective enforcement t

under labeling as suggested would seem to require the embargo 1

of a lot, shipment, or delivery of a product until after an average i moisture determination could be completed by laboratory proce- . dures—to the rather great inconvenience of the marketer. ! The National Conference has recommended that, in the case of

| packages of commodities that tend to lose moisture through ex-

'

posure, inspection be made at the w^holesale level (since this I normally is the point at which intrastate commerce is entered i into), and that inspection at the retail level be screening checks

j only. This procedure seems to have been working quite satisfactorily in those jurisdictions that are following it carefully.

The Committee recommends its continuance.

(Item 4 was adopted by voice vote.)

5. PEAT MOSS, OTHER HUMUS PRODUCTS, POTTING SOILS, AND | OTHER SIMILAR PRODUCTS

j The Committee has received several communications from

j State and local officials requesting specific guidance as to the ' method of sale and labeling of such products as peat, peat moss,

sphagnum peat moss, humus peat, reed-sedge peat, and planting

j and potting media, natural and synthetic.

During its interim meeting, the Committee held conversations I with representatives of this area of commerce and is of the

opinion that definite recommendations at this time would be pre- ' mature. The industries have described to the Committee their

vigorous activities now under way to solve classfication, label- ing, and testing problems, and have committed themselves to the

Committee to have firm recommendations in time for inclusion

in the report of the Committee to the 53d National Conference

in 1968. In the interim, the Committee recommends that weights

and measures officials insist only that packages of these products

be clearly and conspicuously labeled and that officials check the

j accuracy of such labeling without attempting to stipulate method i of sale. (Item 5 was adopted by voice vote.) '

6. CALKING COMPOUND, GLAZING COMPOUND, AND PUTTY | The 50th National Conference recommended that the Office of i Weights and Measures consult with manufacturers and distri- ; butors of calking compounds, glazing compounds, and putty re- garding the appropriate method of sale of these commodities.

As a result of a report from the Office of Weights and Measures and of additional Committee deliberation, the Committee

is of the view that both Section 25 of the Model State Law

on Weights and Measures and Section 3.2 of the Model Regulation Pertaining to Packages must be interpreted as requiring

that calking compounds, glazing compounds, and putty be sold

162
by weight, and that packages of these commodities be labeled

in terms of weight.

The Committee received a carefully prepared brief submitted

by the National Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer Association and

heard oral presentations during its open meeting. The point was made that weight is not a true indication of value with respect

to these commodities. An industry representative suggested that,

rather than a single quantity declaration in terms of weight, a dual quantity declaration in terms of weight and liquid

measure, would be acceptable to the industry and informative

to consumers. The Committee agrees.

Paragraph 3. 7. 1. of the Model State Regulation Pertaining

to Packages states very clearly that required quantity declaration (in this case in terms of weight) may be supplemented by

one or more declarations. (There are certain provisions with re- spect to accuracy, type size, and prominence of supplementary

declarations.)

The Committee recommends that a reasonable transition period be afforded the industry and that such method of sale and

labeling be enforced by weights and measures officials throughout the United States as of July 1, 1967.

The Committee recommends the adoption of the statement in

its Tentative Report as amended by this language.

(Item 6 was adopted by voice vote.)

7. QUANTITY LABELING OF RETAIL PACKAGES SHIPPED INTERSTATE

Mr. George L. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and

Measures, State of Kentucky, has expressed his concern to the

Committee regarding the recent amendment to the USDA Regulations Covering the Inspection of Poultry and Poultry Products, Section 81.130, Wording on Labels. This section has been

amended to permit the exclusion of the statement of quantity

of quantity on individual consumer packages of poultry and

poultry products, and the inclusion on the wholesale container

of the total net weight of the packages contained there in and

of the weight of the tare material of an individual package.

Mr. Johnson believes that this labeling practice is contrary to the provisions of the Model Law and of the statute of his State. He also feels that this practice may be extended to other commodities if it is permitted for poultry.

The Committee feels it would be inappropriate to take a position on this matter until the U.S. Department of Agriculture

determines whether or not it will alter its labeling requirements

as a result of regulations to be promulgated pursuant to the

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. (Poultry and poultry products

are explicitly excluded from the Act; however, it seems reason163
able to assume that the Act will influence labeling requirements

of such commodities.)

(Item 7 was adopted by voice vote)

8. MODEL STATE LAW ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Referring again to Section 12 of the Fair Packaging and

Labeling Act of 1966, the Committee acknowledges the necessity

| of amending the Model State Law on Weights and Measures ! and of urging immediate action by the States where legislatures I currently are in session along these lines. To make the Model

Law fully compatible with the Federal Statute and still to re- tain adequate flexibility for administrative action (regulations)

authorized by the law, the Committee recommends amendments

to the Model Law as follows:

Amend Section 1 by adding new subsections (9) and (10) as [ follows :

j (9) A "consumer package," or "package of consumer comj modity," shall be construed to mean a commodity in package • form that is customarily produced or distributed for sale I through retail sales agencies or instrumentalities for consump- i tion by individuals, or use by individuals for the purposes of

j personal care or in the performance of services ordinarily I rendered in or about the household or in connection with per- I sonal possessions, and which usually is consumed or expended I in the course of such consumption or use. (10) A "nonconsumer package," or "package of noncon- sumer commodity," shall be construed to mean any commodity

in package form other than a consumer package, and particularly a package designed solely for industrial or institutional use or for wholesale distribution only. j Amend Section 26 to read as follows:

j SEC. 26. SAME: PACKAGES: DECLARATIONS OF QUANTITY AND ORIGIN: VARIATIONS; EXEMPTIONS—Except

as otherwise provided in this Act, any commodity in package

form introduced or delivered for introduction into or received in i intrastate commerce, kept for the purpose of sale, or offered

[ or exposed for sale in intrastate commerce, shall bear on the | outside of the package such definite, plain, and conspicuous j declarations of (1) the identity of the commodity in the packj age unless the same can easily be identified through the wrapper j or container, (2) the net quantity of the contents in terms of ! weight, measure, or count, and (3) in the case of any package ! kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold in any place other than ! on the premises where packed, the name and place of business

of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, as may be prescribed I by regulation issued by the Director: Provided, That, in conj nection with the declaration required under clause (2), neither |

164

I
the qualifying term "when packed" or any words of similar

import, nor any term qualifying a unit of weight, measure, or count (for example "jumbo," "giant," "full," and the like) that

tends to exaggerate the amount of commodity in a package,

shall be used: And provided further. That under clause (2)

the Director shall, by regulation, establish (a) reasonable

variations to be allowed, which may include variations below

the declared weight or measure caused by ordinary and

customary exposure, only after the commodity is introduced in- to intrastate commerce, to conditions that normally occur in

good distribution practice and that unavoidably result in decreased weight or measure, (b) exemptions as to small packages, and (c) exemptions as to commodities put up in variable

weights or sizes for sale intact and either customarily not sold as individual units or customarily weighed or measured at time

of sale to the consumer.

Inclusion of the two new definitions (Section 1, subsections

(9) and (10) is admittedly a departure from normal practice

in that these terms are not used in the Model Law. Nonetheless,

it is the view of the Committee that such definitions may, at the time of regulation promulgation, be points of considerable

controversy. Once enacted into law, the definitions will prevail

at any time the terms are used in regulations issued under the

law, and a clear situation with respect to the meaning of the

terms will prevail.

(To clarify, a comma should be placed after the word "distributor," the eleventh word before the first proviso, in amended

section 26 of the Model Law, presented in the Tentative Report.)

(Item 8 was adopted by voice vote.)

9. MODEL LAW—SECTION 27—INTERPRETATION

The Committee is aware of certain "automatic" prepackaging

scales in commercial use that are equipped so as to print on a

label multiple units at a single price, as, for example, "2 pounds

for 25 cents," "3 pounds for 29 cents," and "5 each for 39 cents." Nothing in the General Code or the Code for Scales of NBS

Handbook 44 would prohibit such a design characteristic.

However, the Committee feels it appropriate to point out that

Section 27 of the Model State Law on Weights and Measures

must be applied in the case of random packages with labels

printed by such scales. Section 27 reads:

SEC. 27 (METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES): DECLARATIONS OF UNIT PRICE ON RANDOM PACKAGES—

In addition to the declarations required by section 26 of this

Act, any commodity in package form, the package being one of

a lot containing random weights, measures, or counts of the same commodity and bearing the total selling price of the pack165
age, shall bear on the outside of a package a plain and con- spicuous declaration of the price per single unit of weight,

measure, or count. This section appears to be quite clear in requiring on the

label the price of a single unit of weight or measure.

10. REPORT OF LAW AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE OF SOUTHERN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ASSOCIATION

A number of items were received from the Southern Weights

and Measures Association for consideration by the Committee.

Each of these items has been attended to with the exception of

the recommendation made by Mr. J. B. McGee of Georgia re- garding bulk deliveries of commodities.

It is the opinion of the Committee that this matter deserves

further consideration. Accordingly, it will be placed on the Committee's agenda for study during the coming year.

II. LAWN CARE PRODUCTS

Both in writing and orally, a representative of a manufacturer of products for lawn care urged the Committee to amend

section 29 of the Model Law to permit the advertising of such

products in terms of square foot coverage only. Section 29 re- quires that, whenever a commodity in package form is advertised and the retail price of the package is included in the advertising, there be closely and conspicuously associated with the

price statement a declaration of the basic quantity of contents

of the package—in this case, the declaration in terms of weight.

The Committee is aware that consumers are interested in

square foot coverage of lawn care products, and, as in the case

of item 6 of this Report, points out that it is entirely proper

to include both on the package and in the advertisement appropriate, helpfid, and accurate supplementary quantity information.

12. EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE FAIR PACKAGING AND LABELING

ACT

A representative of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Association

referred to Senate legislative history in urging the Committee

to consider carefully any language in either the Model Law or

the Model Package Regulation that would seem to include those

commodities that such history would exclude. The Committe, rec- ognizing the absolute need for compatibility between State re- quirements and Federal requirements for package consumer commodities, will be guided by the final regulations issued by the

Federal regulatory agencies.

Matters relating to laws and regulations, the purview of this

Committee, are becoming increasingly complicated and relate di- rectly to the economy of this nation. This Committee is anxious

166
to receive recommendations or problems that properly lie within its area of authority. The members do believe that such

recommendations and problems should be well thought out and

that documentation to support recommendations should be in- cluded.

The Committee is grateful for the attendance and participation at its open meeting and for the communications received

during the year.

M. Jennings, Chairman

L. Barker

H. L. GOFORTH

W. A. Kerlin

J. F. Lyles

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

R. N. Smith, Stajf Assistant

Committee on Laws and Regulations.

(On motion by Mr. Jennings, seconded from the floor, the Conference by

voice vote adopted the Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations.)

167
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON

SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

presented by G. L. Johnson, Chairman, Director, Division of

Weights and Measures, State of Kentucky

(Thursday, June 29, 1967)

The Committee on Specifications and Tol- erances submits its report to the 52d National Conference on Weights and Measures.

The report consists of the Tentative Report,

transmitted during April as part of the

Conference Announcement, as amended by

this Final Report.

The report represents recommendations

of the Committee that have been formed on

the basis of written and oral comments re- ceived during the year and oral representations made during the open meeting of the Committee. All recom- mended "amendments" are to appropriate provisions of the codes

of National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44—3d Edition,

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for

Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices.

1. GENERAL CODE

General Specifications Paragraph G-S.5.1. General [and Tolerances}.—It has been pointed out to the Committee that, in the

case of any weighing or measuring device of the computing type

with both a digital and an analog system of indicating

and/or recording, it is technically impractical to require exact

agreement between the digital and analog systems at all points.

Whereas the analog system can indicate or record between whole

values, the digital system can indicate or record whole values

only. In the instance where the analog system indicates or records

a value precisely half way between two values that can be in- dicated or recorded digitally, the digital system must choose between the higher and lower value.

It is the opinion of the Committee that no amendment to the

code is required. However, weights and measures officials are to be aware of this circumstance. During the official examination,

precise agreement between an analog system and a digital sys- tem is not necessarily to be expected. The requirement to be observed is simply that both be within the appropriate tolerance.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) General User Requiremeyits Paragraph G-UR.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.—A number of States have expressed concern about the possibility of a single indicating or recording

168
element of a weighing or measuring device being located re- motely from the weighing or measuring elements of the device

and thus making difficult, if at all possible, both the testing of

the device and reasonable protection of the individual buying or

selling merchandise over the device.

The Committee recommends that a new user requirement re- lating to installation he included in the General Code as follows:

G-UR.2.2. INSTALLATION OF INDICATING OR RECORDING ELEMENT.—A device shall be so installed that an

indicating or recording element is reasonably adjacent to the

weighing or measuring element; otherwise, there shall be

means for direct and convenient communication (oral or

visual) between the primary indicating or recording element

and the weighing or measuring element. [See also G-UR.3.2.]

(The present G-UR.2.2. ACCESSIBILITY FOR TESTING

PURPOSES will be renumbered as G-UR.2.3.)

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

2. SCALE CODE

Specifications Paragraph S.2.1.2. BALANCE BALL.—This

specification, which provides that a balance ball or similar device

be not rotatable unless automatic in operation or enclosed in a

cabinet, has, in any one of several versions, been in the code with

nonretroactive status for many years. The Committee is in- formed that there remain in service many scales with rotatable

balance balls and that unreasonable hardship would be created

if the requirement were to be made retroactive at this time.

Greater progress in the modification or replacement of these

old devices should be evidenced.

The Committee recommends that specifications paragraph

S.2.1.2. he amended by adding at the end the following parenthetical sentence:

(This specification will become retroactive as of July 1, 1975)

DISCUSSION OF FOREGOING ITEM

MR. D. B. KENDALL : At a meeting in Duluth, Minnesota, on June 11, the Scale Subcommittee of the American Railway Engineering Association Committee 14, of which I am an associate

member, reviewed the Tentative Report of the Specifications and

Tolerances Committee. Some members were quite concerned

about the proposal to make the requirement for nonrotatable

balance ball retroactive as of 1975. I pointed out that this re- quirement had been adopted as a nonretroactive requirement in

H-29 in 1947. One member commented that all scales owned by

his railroad were at least 20 years old. The subcommittee felt that,

although this may be an important detail in livestock weighing,

it was not an important factor in scales used by railroads. They

had no accurate figure on the cost of conversion, but a general

169
estimate was about $100 per scale. AREA Committee 14 endorsed I the recommendation of the Scale Subcommittee that a recommendation be made to the National Conference that the present re- quirement remain nonretroactive. If the National Conference en- dorses the recommendation of the Specifications and Tolerances

Committee, I assume that AREA Committee 14 will come up i with more accurate estimates of the cost of conversion and will

present a recommendation to a future National Conference that

the requirement remain nonretroactive. I (The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) Sensitivity Reqidremeyits Paragraph SR.5. FOR CLASS A

' PRESCRIPTION SCALES AND JEWELERS SCALES.—With

the issuance of the Third Edition of Handbook 44 in 1965, the

maintenance SR requirement for Class A prescription scales

and jewelers scales was reduced from 0.2 grain to 0.1 grain. One

State has expressed the view that this reduction might have been ' too drastic and that numbers of useful prescription scales might j be forced into discard.

At the time the new code was proposed, all States were con- ; tacted, as were manufacturers of prescription scales. No opposition to the reduction in SR was expressed.

The Committee would like to hear from State and local juris- • dictions that have active programs of prescription-scale testing as

to their recommendations in this regard and has recommended

that its secretary study this matter in order that more general

[ information may be developed.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

j Tolerances Paragraph T.1.1 {TOLERANCE APPLICATION^ j TO UNDERREGISTRATION AND TO OVERREGISTRA- j TION.—A State ofl^cial has pointed out that, under present

j code requirements, it is possible to have two or more elements

j (indicating or recording) of a scale in disagreement at a specific

j lest load in an amount equal to the tolerance limit at that test load j and in opposite directions; thus, a discrepancy between the ele- ' ments of as much as twice the appropriate tolerance. i To correct this, the Committee recommends that there he I added at the end of paragr-aph T.1.1. a sentence reading as ! follows:

When a single test load can be indicated or recorded by two

or more elements of a scale, these shall not differ by an

' amount greater than the value of the minimum graduated in- ! terval on the device '

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) Tolerances Paragraph T.2.1. {MINIMUM TOLERANCE VALUES] GENERAL.—One State recommended to the Committee

I 170 i
that consideration be given to increasing the present minimum

tolerance values applied to scales with capacities of 500 pounds

and larger to the value of the minimum graduated interval. The

Committee had no other request for an increase and no other

communication on this particular point. Viev^s of v^^eights and

measures officials and of scale manufacturers and users were soli- cited in the Tentative Report. None was received. Only one view was heard during the open committee meeting.

The Committee recommends no amendment.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

S User Requirements Paragraph UR.1.1.6. [SELECTION REQUIREMENTS. VALUE OF MINIMUM GRADUATED INTERVALS ON PRIMARY INDICATING AND RECORDING

ELEMENTS] FOR VEHICLE SCALES, AXLE-LOAD

SCALES, AND WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS ONLY.—Subsequent to the issuance of its Tentative Report, the Committee

received a communication from the Scale Manufacturers Association urging that axle-load scales be deleted from this paragraph,

and another communication from General Electrodynamics Corporation recommending that the value of the minimum graduated

interval on wheel-load weighers be changed from 20 pounds to 100 pounds. All views expressed during the open meeting by

weights and measures officials led the Committee to believe that

the present requirements are demanded by the States. The Committee recommends no amendment.

DISCUSSION ON FOREGOING ITEM

(Considerable discussion on this item followed, and an amendment by Mr. V. D. Campbell, State of Ohio, to permit 50-pound

minimum graduated intervals on axle-load scales used in law en- forcement work was defeated by voice vote.)

(The foregoing item as recommended by the Committee was adopted by

voice vote.) User Requirements Paragraph UR.2.3. [INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS] PROTECTION AGAINST WIND AND

WEATHER EFFECTS.—A recommendation was received by

the Committee that this user requirement, which stipulates that

the understructure and the indicating elements of a permantly

installed scale be adequately protected against wind and weather

effects, be deleted. The Committee cannot agree with this recommendation. Wind and weather effects on either the understructure or on an indicating or recording element can be disastrous,

not only with respect to a particular weighing operation, but

also in connection with the maintenance of a device in proper

operating condition. Protection for these elements is traditional,

and no hardship can be foreseen. The Committee desires to make

171
it clear that this user requirement does not require that overhead

protection for the load-receiving element of a scale (particularly : a large scale) be afforded.

j The Committee recommends no amendment. \

I (The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) Concrete-Batching Scales.—Certain manufacturers of concrete- ^ batching scales submitted to the Committee a recommendation i that such scales be considered to be commercial weighing devices | and that they be appropriately identified and attended to in the i Scale Code of Handbook 44. \ As far as the Committee has been able to determine, mixed

} concrete is universally sold by the cubic yard. The batching scale

thus is a device that fixes the ingredients and quality of the mix. i Many weighing and measuring devices are used by industry as

| mixing, batching, quality-fixing, and quality-checking devices.

| Under the Model State Weights and Measures Law and under ; general application paragraph G-A.l. of Handbook 44, the codes 1 address themselves only to commercial weighing and measuring

equipment that is used to determine the quantity of goods or

^ services when the payment for such goods or services is based on i that quantity (and to certain equipment in oflficial use for enforce- i ment of law).

The Committee is aware that in some jurisdictions the weights I and measures officer is requested to check concrete-batching

scales for accuracy. It is recommended that, in such cases, the

official issue a report that details the results of his examination,

or obtains from the agency of government that requests a test, | such specifications, tolerances, and testing instructions for the

devices as that agency deems appropriate.

The Committee received, after the issuance of its Tentative

Report, a number of communications from manufacturers of

batching scales, and several weights and measures officials spoke

during the open meeting—all indicating a desire for the inclusion ! under Handbook 44 of concrete-batching scales. The Committee i

still is of the opinion that, under the terms of the Model Law and

of general application paragraph G-A.l., such scales cannot be | considered as commercial weighing devices.

The Committee recommends no amendment. j (The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

| Axle-Load Scales.—At least one State has taken the position j that axle-load scales, either coin-operated or operated by a weigher, are commercial devices and thus must meet the requirements | of the General Code and the Code for Scales. Application para- | graph A.2. of the Code for Scales specifically exampts axle-load

172

I
l| unless such scales are used officially for the enforcement of traffic and highway laws. The Conference acted, a number of years ago,

to the effect that devices that might be deemed commercial only

because a charge is made for their services are not "commercial"

j devices under the terms of the Model Law or Handbook 44. The

Committee urges that this interpretation be accepted by all jurisdictions in order that nationwide uniformity may prevail.

j (The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Tentative Code for Belt-Conveyor Scales.—Following the 51st

National Conference Seminar on Discrete and Continuous Weighing Systems, during which it was made clear to the industry that

technical requirements for such systems were needed by weights

and measures officials, the manufacturers of belt-conveyor scales

established an informal committee to develop, first, a proposed

code for inclusion in Handbook 44 and, second, recommended

[ testing equipment and testing procedures.

' A proposed code was received by the Committee and was dis-

' cussed with the manufacturers during the interim meeting. After

careful study, the Committee decided that this proposal could not

be recommended to the Conference, as a number of critical points

seemed unattended to. The proposed testing methods were either

incomplete or inadequate, and the proposed tolerance had not

been justified with data derived from experiment or experience.

The Committee suggested in its Tentative Report that, until

such time as appropriate code material could be achieved, officials in whose jurisdictions such devices are in use or are being installed, apply such General and Scale Code requirements as seemed appropriate, test according to manufacturer's recommendations, and authorize the commercial use of the device if this

seemed proper, and suggested further that belt-conveyor scales

not be "sealed" until code requirements were available.

Since the issuance of its Tentative Report, the Committee con- tinued to receive increasingly urgent requests from the States

and manufacturers of such devices to develop and submit to the

Conference for consideration a tentative code for belt-conveyor

scales. Such a code was prepared and copies were mailed to each

of the States and to each of the device manufacturers. This topic was the subject of much discussion during the open meeting. The

Committee is of the opinion that the adoption of a tentative code

is indicated. Weights and measures officials and manufacturers

and users of the devices are to be aware that a "tentative" code is just that—a code that is adopted by the Conference on a tentative

basis to be used experimentally and for the express purpose of

gathering information necessary for the formulation of code re- quirements.

173
The Committee recommends the adoption of a Tentative Code

for Belt-Conveyor Scales as follows:

TENTATIVE CODE FOR BELT—CONVEYOR SCALES

(See also General Code Requirements)

(This Tentative Code has only a trial or experimental

status and is not intended to be rigidly enforced. The

requirements are designed for observation and study

prior to the development and final adoption of a Code

for Belt-Conveyor Scales.)

A. APPLICATION. (Pertaining to the application of code requirements.)

A.l. This code applies to devices installed on belt conveyors for

the purpose of v^^eighing bulk materials carried by conveyors. This

code does not apply to equipment for the discrete weighing of

objects moving on conveyors, to v^^eigh feeders that measure quantity on a time basis, to checkv^^eighers, to rate indicators or controllers, or to other auxiliary devices except as they may affect the vi^eighing performance of the device.

S. SPECIFICATIONS. (Applicable with respect to the design of

belt-conveyor scales.)

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS.

5.1.1. GENERAL.—A belt-conveyor scale shall be equipped

with a primary indicating element in the form of a master

weight totalizer and may also be equipped with a primary re- cording element. An auxiliary vernier counter used for scale

calibration shall not be considered part of the master weight

totalizer.

5.1. 2. UNITS.—A belt-conveyor scale shall indicate or record

weight units in terms of pounds or tons or decimal multiples

or subdivisions thereof.

5.1.3. PRINTER.— A recording element, if provided, shall be

of the digital type.

5.1.4. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT.—The value of the

smallest unit of the primary indicating or recording element

shall be not greater than 1/1200 of that value representing the

weight that is delivered by the device in one hour operating at rated capacity.

5.1.5. ADVANCEMENT OF PRIMARY INDICATING OR

RECORDING ELEMENTS.—The primary indicating and

recording elements shall advance only when the belt conveyor

is in operation and running. The most sensitive indicating ele- ment of the master weight totalizer may advance continuously

or intermittently; all other elements shall advance intermittently.

174
5.2. DESIGN OF WEIGHING ELEMENTS.—A belt conveyor

scale shall be so designed as to combine automatically belt travel

with belt load in order to provide a determination of the weight

of the material that has passed over the scale.

S.2.1. ADJUSTABLE WEIGHING ELEMENTS.—An adjustable element that can affect the balance or the calibration of the

device shall be held securely in adjustment and shall not be

adjustable from outside the device unless a tool is required to make the adjustment.

5.3. MARKING REQUIREMENTS.—A belt-conveyor scale shall

be marked with the following (Item (d) to be marked after

calibration)

:

(a) The rated capacity in terms of units of weight per hour.

(b) The belt speed in terms of feet per minute at which the

belt will deliver the rated capacity.

(c) The value of the smallest unit on the master weight totalizer. (d) Number of weight units totalized for a specific chain

(pounds per foot) for a specific number of feet of belt

travel, or for a specific load of test weights for a specific

number of feet of belt travel, or for a specific calibrating

plate (pounds per foot) for a specific number of feet of

belt travel.

N. NOTES. (Applicable with respect to the testing of belt- conveyor scales.)

N.l. GENERAL.—Belt-conveyor scales are capable of very accurately weighing a statically applied test load, yet their ability to accurately weigh bulk material carried on a moving loaded belt

may be detrimentally affected by the conditions of the installation.

Calibration to theoretical weight figures derived from designed

capacity and actual belt speed may have to be adjusted to compensate for effects of belt stiffness and tension. Whenever such

a calibration adjustment is made, a simulated test, as described in

N.3.3., will confirm that the device is performing satisfactorily.

Whenever feasible, the first test of the device should be a Material

Test in accordance with N.3.2. and the correlation with the Simulated Test (N.3.3.) suitable for the device should be verified. Subsequent tests may then be made following one of the simulated

test procedures described under N.3.3.

N.2. CONDITIONS OF TESTS.—A belt-conveyor scale shall be

tested after it is installed on the conveyor with which it is to be

used and under such environmental conditions as may normally

be expected. The scale shall be tested at between 50 and 100 per- cent of rated capacity. Each test shall be not less than: (a) 10

minutes duration, and (b) 3 circuits (revolutions) of the belt,

and (c) 500 significant figures on the master weight totalizer.

175
N.3. TESTING PROCEDURES.

N.3.1. ZERO LOAD TEST.—If a belt conveyor has been idle

for a period of two hours or more before the start of the test, the conveyor shall be run empty for not less than 15 minutes.

The counter shall be read when a marked spot on the belt passes

a marked spot on the conveyor before and after the test. The

initial test shall be conducted with the belt conveyor empty

for an interval of not less than 10 minutes and not less than 3

circuits of the belt. If the zero-load test error is more than 0.1 percent of rated capacity, the device shall be adjusted and the

zero-load test rerun before continuing.

N.3.2. MATERIAL TEST.—Use bulk material, preferably that

material for which the device is normally used. Either pass a pre-weighed quantity of material over the belt-conveyor scale

in a manner as similar as feasible to actual loading conditions, or statically weigh (on a suitable scale) all material that has

passed over the belt-conveyor scale during a Material Test. Means for weighing the material test load will depend on the

capacity of the belt-conveyor scale and availability of a suitable

scale for the test. Where practicable, the substitution method

of weighing should be followed. To assure that the the test load is accurately weighed and determined, the following precautions shall be observed

(a) The containers, whether they be railroad cars, trucks, or

boxes, must not leak, and they shall not be overloaded

to the point that material will be lost. (b) Actual empty or tare weight of containers shall be determined at the time of the test. Stencilled tare weight

of railway cars or trucks shall not be used.

(c) When a pre-weighed test load is passed over the scale,

the belt-loading hopper shall be examined before and

after the test to assure that the hopper was empty and

that only the material of the test load is passed over the

scale. (d) Any scale used to calibrate a test load of product should,

as a prerequisite, be tested first with test weights with

a sufficient number of known test loads to permit the

compensation for any apparent ratio errors during the

Material Test.

(e) When a railway track scale is used to weigh the test

load, not more than 24 hours should elapse between the

test on the belt-conveyor scale and the determination of

the weight of the test load. When other scales are used,

the elapsed time should be not more than eight hours.

(f) The test shall not be conducted when it is raining or

176
snowing unless adequate precautions are taken to as- sure that the weight of the test load is not affected.

N.3.3. SIMULATED TESTS.—One of the following tests, in

accordance with the recommendation of the belt-conveyor scale

manufacturer, should be used:

(a) Chain Test.—A suitable test chain of the free-roller of

wheel, type stamped with a certified weight per foot,

may be connected to a stationary part of the structure

and allowed to ride on the belt over the scale. The test chain should extend across all scale rollers and, in addition, not less than two idler rollers before and beyond

the scale. The length of belt that has passed over the

scale during the test must be accurately measured in

terms of feet. The test load is the actual belt travel, in

terms of feet, divided by the marked belt travel, in terms

of feet, times the marked number of weight units totalized.

(b) Known Weight Test.—Test weights equal to the marked

test load may be placed upon or suspended from that

portion of the scale which supports the belt. The length

of belt which has passed over the scale during the test must be accurately measured, in terms of feet. The test load is the actual belt travel, in terms of feet, divided

by the marked belt travel, in terms of feet, times the

marked number of weight units totalized.

(c) Calibrated Plate Test.—For a noncontact scale where mass is determined by absorption of energy, a suitable

plate calibrated by the scale manufacturer and marked

in equivalent pounds per foot of belt may be used. The

length of belt which has passed over the scale during the

test must be accurately measured in terms of feet. The

test load is the actual belt travel, in terms of feet, di- vided by the marked belt travel, in terms of feet, times

the marked number of weight units totalized. T. TOLERANCES. (Applicable with respect to the performance

of belt conveyor scales.)

T.l. APPLICATION.—The tolerances hereinafter prescribed

shall be applied to errors of underregistration and to errors of

overregistration.

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES.—Maintenance and acceptance

tolerances shall be 0.5 percent of test load.

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS. (Applicable with respect to the

selection, installation, and use of belt-conveyor scales.)

UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS.—A belt-conveyor scale

shall be operated between 50 and 100 percent of its rated capacity.

177
UR.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.

UR.2.L PROTECTION FROM WIND AND WEATHER

EFFECTS.—The scale and the conveyor at the scale shall be

protected from wind and weather effects. j' UR.2.2, CONVEYOR INSTALLATION.—The conveyor may ' be horizontal or inclined, but, if inclined, the angle shall be

| such that slippage of material along the belt does not occur, i Installation shall be in accordance with the scale manufac- ' turer's instructions. Unless the scale is the "noncontact" or nu- i clear type, or is installed in a short conveyor designed

| and furnished by the scale manufacturer or built to the scale

manufacturer's specifications, the conveyor shall comply with

the following minimum requirements to assure satisfactory

performance :

| (a) If the belt length is such that a take-up device is re- i quired, this device shall be of the counter-weighted type \ for either vertical or horizontal travel.

j (b) The scale shall be installed at least 20 feet or 5 idler , spaces, ivhichever is greater, from loading point, skirting, training idlers, head or tail pulley, or convex curve I in conveyor. i (c) There shall be no concave curve in the conveyor between

the scale and the loading point. A concave curve beyond

the scale shall start no closer than 70 feet from the | scale. (d) There shall be no trippers in the conveyor.

(e) The conveyor shall be no longer than 2,000 feet from

head to tail pulley. \ (f) The angle of the troughing idlers shall not exceed 35 j degrees.

j (g) The idlers on the scale and at least two before and two

| after the scale shall be concentric, at 90 degrees to the

| belt centerline and properly spaced. [ (h) Conveyor stringers at the scale and for no less than 20

feet before and beyond the scale shall be continuous or

j securely joined and of sufficient size and so supported as

j to eliminate relative deflection between the scale and i adjacent idlers when under load. j (i) Conveyor belting shall be no heavier than is required j for the installation. When loaded to 50 percent or more ! of scale capacity, the belt shall contact the center or hori- | zontal portion of the idlers. !

UR.3. USE REQUIREMENTS. |- UR.3.1. LOADING.—Feed of material to the scale shall be

[ controlled, if necessary, to assure that at normal operation

| 178 i

I
I the material flow is between 50 percent and 100 percent of the

! rated capacity.

' UR.3.2. MAINTENANCE.—Belt-conveyor idlers and scale

shall be maintained in accordance with scale manufacturer's in- structions.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

, BELT-COVER SCALES

' The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning

I when used in the Belt Conveyor Scale Code. Whenever a defined

j term is used in the Belt-Conveyor Scale Code, it has the particular meaning given here.

belt conveyor. An endless moving belt for transporting material

from place to place.

belt-convey07' scale. A device installed on a belt conveyor to measure the weight of bulk material being conveyed.

calibrated plate. A suitable metal plate, provided by the scale

manufacturer, determined to have the same efi'ect on a nuclear

j scale as a specified load of bulk material on the belt conveyor.

A calibrated plate is the equivalent of a test chain or test weights used with other types of belt-conveyor scales. concave curve. A change in the angle of inclination of a belt con- veyor where the center of the curve is above the conveyor.

I convex curve. A change in the angle of inclination of a belt con- veyor where the center of the curve is below the conveyor.

conveyor stringers. Support members for the conveyor on which

the idlers are mounted.

head pulley. The pulley at the discharge end of the belt conveyor.

The power to drive the belt is generally applied to the head

pulley.

idler space. The center-to-center distance between idler rollers

measured parallel to the belt. idlers or idler rollers. Freely turning cylinders mounted on a frame to support the conveyor belt. For a flat belt the idlers

may consist of one or more horizontal cylinders transverse to the direction of belt travel. For a troughed belt, the idler will

consist of one or more horizontal cylinders and one or more

cylinders at an angle to the horizontal to lift the sides of the

belt to form a trough.

loading point. The location at which material to be conveyed is applied to the conveyor.

nuclear type (noncontact) scale. A device consisting of a source

of nuclear radiation and a detector for that radiation. Absorption of radiation determines the mass of the material passing

between the source and the detector.

simtdated test. A test using artificial means of loading the scale to determine the performance of a belt-conveyor scale.

179
skirting. Stationary side boards or sections of belt conveyor at- tached to the conveyor support frame or other stationary sup- \ port to prevent the bulk material from falling off the side of

[ the belt.

tail pulley. The pulley at the opposite end of the conveyor from ' the head pulley. i take-up. A device to assure sufficient tension in a conveyor belt ' that the belt vi'ill be positively driven by the drive pulley. A i counter-weighted take-up consists of a horizontal pulley free | to move in either the vertical or horizontal direction with dead ; weights applied to the pulley shaft to provide the tension re- quired.

test chain. A device consisting of a series of rollers or wheels

linked together in such a manner as to assure uniformity of i weight and freedom of motion to reduce wear, with consequent

loss of weight, to a minimum.

totalizer. A device used with a belt-conveyor scale to indicate

the weight of material which has been conveyed over the scale. The master weight totalizer is the primary indicating element

of the belt-conveyor scale. An auxiliary vernier counter used

for scale calibration is not part of the master weight totalizer.

Auxiliary remote totalizers may be provided. The totalizer

shows the accumulated weight and may be nonresettable or may

be reset to zero to measure a definite amount of material con- veyed.

training idlers. Idlers of special design or mounting intended to

shift the belt sideways on the conveyor to assure the belt is centered on the conveying idlers. tripper. A device for unloading a belt conveyor at a point between the loading point and the head pulley.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

3. CODE FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

Specifications Paragraph S.l.J,.^. PRINTED TICKETS.—This

specifications paragraph stipulates that a printed ticket issued by

a liquid-measuring device of the computing type on which there

is printed a total computed price must also have printed thereon

the total volume of the delivery and the price per gallon.

Representations were received by the Committee from the

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association and were explained

during the interim meeting, that current technology does not

make practicable the printed presentation of all three values,

whereas the printing of one of the values can be accomplished

without substantially increasing the cost of the device and can

afford the purchaser certain advantages.

180
To attend to this matter, the Committee recommends that

specifications paragraph S.lA-i. be deleted and that there be

added a user requirement covering the use of a device, as follows:

UR.3.3. PRINTED TICKET.—Any printed ticket issued by

a device of the computing type on which there is printed the

total computed price, the total volume of the delivery, or the

price per gallon, shall have shown thereon also the other two

values (either printed or in clear hand script).

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) New User Requirements Paragraph UR.S.U. POSITION OF

DISCHARGE NOZZLE.—Because of the problem that has arisen

in connection with the apparent proper hanging of the discharge

nozzle on the housing and bracket of a retail motorfuel dispenser

without actually turning the motor switch to the "off" position,

the Committee recommends that a UR paragraph be added to this code as follows:

UR.3.4. POSITION OF DISCHARGE NOZZLE.—The discharge nozzle on a retail motor-fuel device shall be returned

to its proper upright position on the dispenser housing and

bracket following each delivery to a customer. The position

of the nozzle at rest, shall be such that the zero-set -back interlock (see S.2.5.1) is activated.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.) The Use of the "Totalizer" on a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser as a Commercial Measuring Device.—The weights and measures offi- cer of a large city has informed the Committee that in his jurisdiction, and possibly in others, the "totalizer" on a retail motorfuel dispenser is being used as a commercial measuring device in

the sale of liquid fuel to the filling station. Any indicating or recording element of a liquid measuring device that is to be the

determining factor in a commercial transaction involving meas- urement should, without question, conform to all appropriate re- quirements for liquid-measuring devices.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

4. CODE FOR LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICE

AND

CODE FOR VEHICLE-TANK METERS

Meter Accuracy Study.—As a result of recommendations of

previous National Conferences and of negotiations by the committee secretary, the Weights and Measures Subcommittee of the

Committee on Operations and Engineering, American Petroleum

Institute, contracted with a consulting engineering firm to con- duct a comprehensive study for the purpose of determining ex181
perimentally, and with precision, accuracy capabilities of petroleum meters installed at loading racks and on vehicle tanks. The

Committee was consulted prior to the development of the final plans for the study and will watch the progress closely. The

results will be given full consideration and will be reported to the Conference at an appropriate time.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

5. CODE FOR LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

Specifications Paragraph S.144. PRINTED TICKET.—For

the reasons set forth under the Code for Liquid-Measuring Devices, the Committee recomviends the deletion of specifications

paragraph S.l.U.U. PRINTED TICKET, and the addition of a

user requirement as follows:

UR.2.5. PRINTED TICKET.—Any printed ticket issued

by a device of the computing type on which there is printed

the total computed price, the total volume of the delivery, or the price per gallon, shall have shown thereon also the other

two values (either printed or in clear hand script).

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

6. PROPOSED CODE FOR CRYOGENIC-FLUID

LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

Possible Need for Code Requirements.—In its report to the 51st

National Conference, the Committee noted that work was being

done by the Compressed Gas Association in connection with the

development of a code for liquid-measuring devices for the

measurement of cryogenic fluids. The Committee solicited from

the States advice as to the desirability of developing such a code,

but received no communication from the States on this subject

and had no further word from this association prior to the is- suance of its Tentative Report.

The Committee received, since the distribution of its Tentative

Report, a copy of a proposed tentative code for cryogenic-fluid

liquid-measuring devices. This code, carefully developed by the

Compressed Gas Association, has been considered by the Committee in light of any apparent nationwide use. The Committee

has information of only two States that have interest in this

matter and feels it would be inappropriate, at this time, to devote

the necessary time and eff"ort to the development of a proposed

code. The Committee will watch the progress in this area and,

when the need appears to be sufficiently broad, will again consider the matter.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

182
7. CODE FOR MILK BOTTLES

Application Paragra'ph A.l. APPLICATION

. —A question re- garding the broad application of paragraph A.l. of the Code for

Milk Bottles, in light of the increasing use of plastic containers

for milk, has arisen. This paragraph reads

:

A.l.—This code applies to any container that is used for

the measurement and delivery of milk and other fluid dairy

products at retail. A weights and measures official of the State of Connecticut has

pointed out that plastic containers for milk frequently are used

i for both the "measurement" and "delivery" of milk, and thus a

! severe interpretation of this paragraph could prohibit the use of

I such plastic containers unless or until they meet all requirements

! of the code.

The NBS Office of Weights and Measures has conducted a con- tinuing study of the measurement capabilities of plastic contain-

] ers for milk and has determined, beyond doubt, that they do not

j now, and probably will not in the foreseeable future, meet code

requirements. Accordingly, it has been recommended that plastic

containers be treated in the same manner as paper cartons for

milk and be considered packages under the terms of the regulation pertaining to packages. The Society of Plastic Industries

(a trade organization representing manufacturers of plastic bottles) is in full agreement with this view.

I Accordingly, the Committee recommends that paragraph A.l.

I of the Milk Bottle Code he amended to read:

A.l.—This code applies to a container that is designed as a measure container for the measurement and delivery of milk

and other fluid dairy products at retail. This code does not

apply to containers for milk or other fluid dairy products that are designed to be used as packages and are so labeled as to conform to all requirements for packages.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

8. CODE FOR GRADUATES

Nonretroactive Requirements.—The Committee is aware of the

inclusion in the introductory section of Handbook 44 of the state- ment "It is planned that each existing nonretroactive requirement

will be rechecked after it has been effective for ten years, and

I thus reasonable accuracy can be assured." In the Code for Grad-

] uates there are five specifications paragraphs with nonretroactive provisions dated 1956. It seems inappropriate to give these

specifications retroactive status without counsel from all of the

States. Such counsel will be sought prior to the 53d National

Conference.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

183
9. CODE FOR FABRIC-MEASURING DEVICES i Application Paragraph A.l. APPLICATION.—Since devices

similar in design and use are utilized for the commercial measure- : ment of articles other than fabrics, the Committee deems it advisable to make provision for the application of appropriate I requirements of the Code for Fabric-Measuring Devices to such , other devices. ! The Committee accordingly recommends that application para- \ graph A.l. of this code be amended by adding at the end a paren- , thetical sentence, as follotvs: \ (Insofar as they are clearly appropriate, the requirements

| and provisions of this code apply also to devices designed for I the commercial measurement of other materials similar to | fabrics, in sheet, roll, or bolt form.) | (The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

|

10. CODE FOR CORDAGE-MEASURING DEVICES ! Recommended Amendments.—A manufacturer of cordage ' measuring devices has submitted representations to the Committee to the effect that this code is in need of amendment on three | particular points. (1) The code should require that a cordage- I measuring device have marked clearly thereon limitations as to '

its use, particularly respect to the types of cordage, rope, i wire, or cable that can accurately be measured with it. (2) The

code should stipulate that a device be tested with the materials it sets itself forth as being capable of measuring accurately, and not

with a steel tape. (3) The tolerances set forth in the code are unreasonably small.

The Committee asked its secretary and his staff to study these

matters and to provide experimental data on which proper committee recommendations could be developed, and has been in- formed that a broad study covering measurement capabilities of

these devices is nearing completion. A report to the 53d National

Conference will be made.

The Committee recommends no amendment.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

11. CODE FOR TAXIMETERS

Specifications Paragraph S.1.2. ADVANCEMENT OF INDICATING ELEMENTS.—The State of California has pointed out

that this specification, which permits the advancement of the in- dicating elements of a taximeter only when it is being cleared

and by the rotation of the vehicle wheels, is delinquent in that it does not acknowledge that an indicating element properly can be

advanced by the time mechanism.

184
I To correct this, the Committee recommends that the 'paragraph

i he amended to read:

S.1.2. ADVANCEMENT OF INDICATING ELEMENTS. —Except when a taximeter is being cleared, the primary in- dicating elements shall be susceptible of advancement only by

the rotation of the vehicle wheels or by the time mechanism.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

12. CODE FOR ODOMETERS

I Specifications Paragraph S.1.3. VALUE OF MINIMUM INDICATION.—This specification requires that an odometer indi- cate in intervals of one-tenth mile.

During this past year, the Office of Weights and Measures of

the National Bureau of Standards was informed that a number

of rental automobiles of foreign manufacture are in service and

with odometers with minimum indication of one mile. Weights

and measures administrators of the several States, on letter rec- ommendation from the Office of Weights and Measures, agreed to permit the use of such automobiles for a reasonable period and

authorized the Office to notify importers of such automobiles that,

effective with the 1968 car year, all new vehicles in rent-car service must be equipped with odometers that indicate in terms of

one-tenth mile.

The Co7nmittee concurs in this action.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

13. CODES FOR TAXIMETERS AND ODOMETERS

Vehicle Lading.—It has been recommended that notes paragraph N. 1.3.1. of both the Taximeter Code and the Odometer

Code be amended to permit a vehicle under test to carry either

two persons or one person and approximately 150 pounds of

weight.

The Committee cannot agree with this recommendation. The

weights and measures inspector should not be operating a vehicle

under test. In certain cases there probably would be definite re- strictions in insurance coverage as to the operator of such vehicles. The inspector should not be exposed to safety hazards as would be inherent in vehicle operation and, simultaneously, instrument observation. A vehicle under test should be under the control of an operator supplied by the vehicle owner. The Committee recommends no amendment.

(The foregoing item was adopted by voice vote.)

Certain other items were suggested for committee consideration, but too late for study this year. These, together with other

matters brought to the Committee's attention or originating with185
in the Committee, will be attended to during the forthcoming I Conference year. \ The Committee is gratified by the obvious uniformity of technical requirements and of interpretations. The aim of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures long has been uniformity j among the States. The interest of weights and measures officials , and of industries and businesses affected by weights and meas- | ures supervision is well demonstrated throughout the year and

| particularly so during the open meeting of the Committee.

| It is most unfortunate that Mr. Rebuffo of Nevada, a member | of this Committee, was not permitted to attend and participate

in this 52d National Conference on Weights and Measures. His

contributions were sorely missed. A committee such as the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances functions best only when

all of its members are a part of every discussion.

G. L. Johnson, Chairman

J. F. McCarthy

H. D. Robinson

C. H. Stender

M. W. Jensen, Secretary

Committee on Specifications and Tolerance.

(Mr. Johnson moved for adoption and, after a second from the floor, the Report of the Conference Committee on Specifications and Tolerances was

adopted by the Conference by voice vote.)

REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

ON NOMINATIONS

presented by H. E. CRAWFORD, Chairman, Inspector of Weights

and Measures, Jacksonville, Florida

(Thursday, June 29, 1967)

In line with the requirements of the Organization and Procedure of the Conference,

Dr. A. V. Astin, the Director of the National

Bureau of Standards, is the President of the

Conference and is authorized to designate

the Executive Secretary. All other officers are to be elected by the vote of the Conference.

We are indebted to the Executive Secretary for furnishing a list of those who have

attended past Conferences and the number

of years each has served on various committees.

Due consideration was given by this Committee to attendance

records, geographical distribution, and the Conference participa186
tion and interest shown in promoting weights and measures administration of the various officials. Your Committee nominates for office for the 53d National Conference on Weights and Measures, the following:

Chairman: C. C. Morgan, Gary, Indiana.

Vice Chairmen: N. Berryman, Florida; R. T. Williams, Texas;

J T. Daniell, Detroit, Michigan; D. E. Konsoer, Wisconsin.

Treasurer: J. F. True, Kansas.

Chaplain: R. W. Searles, Medina County, Ohio.

Executive Committee: G. E. Mattimoe, Hawaii; K. G. Hayden,

District of Columbia; J. B. McGee, Georgia; J. C. Mays,

Miami, Florida; D. I. Offner, St. Louis, Missouri; A. W.

Weidner, Jr., Nassau County, New York; G. L. Delano,

Montana; N. Kalechman, Hartford, Connecticut; L. H.

DeGrange, Maryland; M. R. Dettler, Seattle, Washington.

H. E. Crawford, Chairman C. H. Stender

V. D. Campbell J. F. True

J. E. Mahoney D. M. Turnbull

R. E. Meek Committee on Nominations.

(There being no further nominations from the floor, nominations were

declared closed and the officers nominated by the Committee were elected unanimously by voice vote.)

187
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE

ON RESOLUTIONS

presented by R. H. Fernsten, Chairman,

County Sealer of Weights and Measures, Alameda County,

California

(Friday, June 30, 1967)

The Committee on Resolutions, having met

and considered resolutions submitted to it by members of this 52d National Conference

on Weights and Measures and other resolutions that originated with members of the

Committee, now submits to this Conference

for its consideration and action the followj ing resolutions that have received the | unanimous endorsement of the Committee.

There are included a number of individual \ resolutions which express appreciation for

the arrangements for, conduct of, and participation in the Na- i tional Conference. In order to expedite the handling of this phase ' of the Conference program, I request permission of the Chair ' simply to indicate those to whom appreciation is to be officially i expressed

1. To the Honorable Alexander B. Trowbridge, Secretary of Commerce, for his constructive contribution to the program of the 52d National Conference on Weights and Measures.

2. To the Director and staff of the National Bureau of Standards

for their tireless efforts to insure a successful Conference in planning and administering the program and other details so essential

to an interesting educational meeting.

3. To the Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, for making available the services of Mr.

C. T. Paludan, and to Mr. Paludan for the preparation and presentation of his fine address.

4. To Miss Betty Furness, Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs, for her excellent and enlightening address to the 52d National Conference Luncheon.

5. To all program speakers and standing committees for their excellent presentations and contributions to the success of the Conference.

6. To all State and local governing agencies that have arranged

for or made possible the attendance at this meeting of one or more

representatives of their organizations to participate in the deliberations directed toward the betterment of weights and measures controls throughout the Nation.

188
7. To business and industry for cooperating with the Conference,

for attending and participating in the Conference, and for con- tributing to the success of the Conference through their participation and their gracious hospitality.

8. To the management of the Sheraton-Park Hotel, who through

the facilities and courtesies of its staff, has materially assisted in the conduct of the Conference. The following resolutions are being read in whole in order that

they might receive the consideration of the members of this

Conference

:

By unanimous resolution of the 52nd National Conference on Weights and Measures we wish to especially commend the Commissioner of Labor Lawrence W. Barker, his staff, and the State of West Virginia for the outstanding service rendered to the Conference in arranging for the signatory Certificates of Commendation

by the fifty Governors of the Nation, to National Bureau of Standards Director Dr. A. V. Astin and the Bureau's Chief of Weights

and Measures Malcolm W. Jensen. In arranging this Mr. Barker,

serving as a representative of weights and measures officials throughout the nation, has done a significant service to weights and

measures everywhere and has focused attention on weights and

measures throughout the nation, therefore; We do at this 52nd National Conference on Weights and Measures commend Lawrence W. Barker, his staff and the State of West Virginia for their having arranged for the most appropriate Commendation Certificates to Messrs. Astin and Jensen by the fifty governors of the United States of America.

R. H. Fernsten, Chairman

J. C. Boyd

P. W. Gaither

H. P. Hutchinson

W. H. Naudain

S. F. Valtri

C. J. Wills, Jr. Committee on Resolutions.

(On motion of the Committee Chairman, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Committee on Resolutions was adopted by voice vote.)

I

189
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE AUDITING COMMITTEE

presented by I. R. Frazer, Chairman, County Inspector of

Weights and Measures, Howard Countij, Indiana

(Friday, June 30, 1967)

The Auditing Committee met on the

morning of June 28 and inspected the financial statements of the Conference Treasurer,

Mr. C. C. Morgan. We found them to be

complete and accurate.

I. R. Frazer, Chairman

L. H. DeGrange

G. L. Delano

Committee on Auditing.

(The report of the Auditing Committee was adopted by voice vote.)

190
REPORT OF THE TREASURER

presented by C. C. Morgan, Treasurer, City Sealer of

Weights and Measures, Gary, Indiana

(Friday, June 30, 1967)

Balance on hand June 10, 1966 $ 9,726.89

Receipts : 330 Registrations $15.00 $ 4,950.00

Received from Trade Party 1,275.00

Extra Tickets for Park Trip 30.00

Extra Ladies Tickets 52.50

Bank Interest Accrued 365.26

Sub Total 6,672.76

Total $16,399.65

Disbursements : Dean Burshell, Music 250.00

University Hill Travel Center,

Bus Tours to Summit Trail Ridge,

National Park Entrance Fee and

Chuck Wagon Dinners.

Ladies Tour to Air Academy, Escorts

and Luncheon at Broadmore Hotel _ 5,330.25

Franklin Press 37.25

Burns Detective Agency, Inc., Service _ 39.60

The Brown Palace Hotel, Flovv^ers Projection Equipment, Dance Beverages

Food and Service, Ladies Hospitality Suite,

Executive Breakfast and Headquarters

Suite 1,391.25

Mountain State Telephone Co. 33.50

Lavi^rence Barker, Conference Expense 59.27

International Business Machine Corp. 30.00

Expense, Laws & Regulations

Committee 919.79

Expense, Specifications &

Tolerance Committee 721.36

G. G. Tauber, Badge Holders 95.00

Expense, Registration Desk (Cash) __ 189.58

Bank Charges 8.00

Sub Total 9,104.85

Balance on hand June 1, 1967 7,294.80

191
Depository :

I Bank of Indiana ; First Federal Savings and Loan Company i (Signed) C. C. Morgan, Treasurer^

(On motion of the Treasurei-, seconded from the floor, the Report of the Treasurer was adopted by the Conference.)

j

I

1

I

I

I

I

j

I

I

I 192
PERSONS ATTENDING THE CONFERENCE

! Delegates—State, City, and County Officials

i ALABAMA

City Sealer of Weights and Measures:

|j Birmingham 35203 L. T. Wills, 406 City Hall.

I ARKANSAS

i State G. E. Miller, Director, Division of Weights

I and Measures, State Plant Board, 42IV2

j W. Capitol Avenue, Box 1069, Little

' Rock 72203. CALIFORNIA

State W. A. Kerlin, Chief, Bureau of Weights

; and Measures, Department of AgriculI ture, 1220 N Street, Sacramento 95814. County Sealers of Weights and Measures: Alameda R. H. Fernsten, 333 5th Street, Oakland

I 94607. Los Angeles M. H. Becker, 3200 N. Main Street, Los

Angeles 90031. San Diego M. L. McGlin, 1480 F Street, San Diego

92101. San Mateo H. E. Smith, 702 Chestnut Street, Redwfood City 94063. Santa Cruz G. S. Anderson, 1010 Pair Avenue, Santa Cruz 95060. Ventura E. H. Black, P. 0. Box W, Ventura 93001. COLORADO

State E. Prideaux, State Inspector, Weights and Measures Section, Department of Agriculture, State Services Building, 1525 Sherman Street, Denver 80203. H. H. Houston, State Inspector, Oil Inspection Department, 1024 Speer Boulevard, Denver 80204. CONNECTICUT

State , F. M. Gersz, Deputy Commissioner, De- partment of Consumer Protection, Room

105 State Office Building, Hartford 06115.

J. T. Bennett, Chief, Weights and Measures Division. W. B. Kelley, Senior Inspector.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Hartford 06103 N. Kalechman, 550 Main Street. Middletown 06457 _ _ P. Grassi, City Hall. New Britain 06151 A. ,J. Albanese, City Hall, 27 W. Main

Street.

193
DELAWARE

State W. A. Naudain, Director, Department of Weights and Measures, State Board of Agriculture, Dover 19901. Inspectors:

W. C. Baumgardt

F. D. Donovan.

W. D. Hudson.

E. Keeley.

R. R. Smith.

F. C. Colamiao, 2405 Jessup Street, Wilmington 19802.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Weights, Measures, and Markets Branch, Department of Licenses and Inspections, Room 227 Esso Building, 261 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D. C. 20001.

District B. A. Pettit, Chief. K. G. Hayden, Assistant Chief. D. K. Forbes, Supervisor.

I. L. Wagner, Supervisor.

Inspectors:

J. T. Bennick.

R. E. Bradley.

J. M. Burke.

H. J. Douglas.

F. C. Harbour.

H. P. Hutchinson.

G. P. KosMos.

M. L. Matthews.

W. A. Matthews.

E. E. Maxwell.

F. J. Murray.

W. W. Wells.

FLORIDA

State N. Berryman, Director, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture, Room

107, Nathan Mayo Building, Tallahassee

32304.

C. WOOTEN, Chief, Weights and Measures

Section.

S. Darsey, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, 1118 S. 17th Avenuve, Hollywood 33020.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Jacksonville 32202 H. E. Crawford, Room 203, City Hall. Miami 33133 J. C. Mays, Division of Trade Standards,

Building Dept., 3319 Pan American

Drive.

194
I GEORGIA

State J. B. McGee, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Ag-

; riculture Building, Room 330, Capitol

Square, Atlanta 30384. HAWAII

State G. E. Mattimore, Chief, Weights and Measures Branch, Department of Agri-

! culture, 428 S. King Street, P. 0. Box

5425, Honolulu 96814.

i IDAHO

State L. D. Holloway, Inspector, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 790, Boise 83701.

ILLINOIS

State H. L. Goforth, Superintendent, Division of Feeds, Fertilizers, and Standards, De- partment of Agriculture, State Fairgrounds, 531 E. Sangamon Avenue,

Springfield .62706.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Chicago 60610 R. J. Fahey, Central Office Building, Room

302, 320 N. Clark Street. 60605 L. Prendergast, Vehicle Inspector, Public

Vehicle License Commission, 1111 S. State Street, Room 105. INDIANA

State R. E. Meek, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures, State Board of Health,

1330 W. Michigan Street, Indianapolis

46207. County Inspectors of Weights and Measures:

Clark R. W. Walker, Court House Annex, Jeff'er- sonville 47130. Floyd E. G. Silver, City-County Building, Room

325, P. 0. Box 362, New Albany 47150. Gibson W. R. Sevier, Court House Annex, Princeton 47570. Grant H. Cline, P. 0. Box 421, Marion 46953. Howard - . I. R. Frazer, 113 N. Washington Street, Kokomo 46901. Knox W. D. LiDDiL, Court House, Vincennes

47591. Lake N. Bucur, 15 W. 4th Avenue, Gary 46402. LaPorte E. Hanish, 2702 Franklin Street, Michigan

City 46360.

195
Madison C. W. Moore, Box 84, Lapel 46051. Marion E. H. Maxwell, Room G-4 City-County

Building, Indianapolis 46204. Marshall G. W. Schultz, Route 1, Bremen 46506. Porter R. H. Claussen, Room 6, Court House,

Valparaiso 46383.

St. Joseph C. S. Zmudzinski, Room 14A Court House,

South Bend 46601. Vanderburgh L. L. Lehr, 1557 S. Lodge Avenue, Evansville 47714. Vigo R. J. SiLCOCK, Room 5 Court House, Terre Haute 47801.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures: Gary 46402 C. C. Morgan, City Hall. Hammond 46320 D. Brahos, City Hall, Room 315. Indianapolis W. R. Copeland, Room G-6 City-County

Building.

South Bend 46601 B. S. CiCHOWicz, City Hall. Terre Haute 47801 J. T. Harper, Room 205 City Hall. IOWA

State J. C. Boyd, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Division, Consumer Protection

Services, Department of Agriculture,

State Capitol, Des Moines 50319. KANSAS

State J. F. True, State Sealer, Division of Weights and Measures, State Board of Agriculture, State Office Building, Topeka

66612. KENTUCKY

State G. L. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, 106 W. Second Street, Frankfort 40601.

C. T. Greenwell, Supervisor.

City Inspectors of Weights and Measures:

Covington 41011 J. R. Crockett, License Department, Room

203 City Building.

Louisville 40202 C. W. Ryans, Director, City Hall.

C. B. Thixton, City Hall. LOUISIANA

State J. H. Johnson, Director, Division of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture and Immigration, P. 0. Box

44292 State Capitol, Baton Rouge 70804.

F. F. Thompson, Chief Chemist, Department of Revenue, P. 0. Box 18374 University Station, Baton Rouge 70821.

196
MAINE

State H. D. Robinson, Deputy State Sealer, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Capitol Building,

Augusta 04330.

City Sealer of Weights and Measures

:

Portland 04111 C. J. Wills, Jr., 389 Congress Street. MARYLAND

State J. E. Mahoney, State Superintendent of Weights and Measures, Department of Markets, State Board of Agriculture,

University of Maryland, College Park

20742.

R. L. Thompson, Assistant. Inspectors

:

L. H. DeGrange.

W. E. Garver.

R. L. Halley.

C. R. Stockman.

County Inspectors of Weights and Measures: Montgomery E. W. Bucklin, Director, Department of Inspections and Licenses, County Office Building, Rockville 20850. M. S. SOWARD, Chief, Div. Permits and

Licenses.

C. Cooley.

G. Fuller.

L. Morton.

Prince George's R. J. Cord, County Service Building,

Hyattsville 20781.

L. S. Grasso.

D. D. Kasten.

J. W. McHerhany.

D. F. Savage.

D. M. Green, Trainee.

City Inspector of Weights and Measures:

Baltimore 21212 J. F. Whiteley, 1106 Municipal Building.

MASSACHUSETTS

State W. C. Hughes, Head Administrative Assistant, Division of Standards, Room 194

State House, Boston 02133.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Boston 02108 J. F. McCarthy, City Hall Annex, Room

105. Cambridge 02139 A. T. Anderson, City Hall. Everett 02149 L. L. Elliott, City Hall. Fall River 02720 P. P. Sullivan, City Hall. Fitchburg 01420 W. T. Deloge, City Hall, 42 Elm Street.

197
Newton Centre 02159 J. E. Bowen, City Hall, 1000 Commonwealth Avenue. Quincy 02169 H. F. Kyllonen, City Hall Annex.

Somerville 02145 E. L. Mallard, Public Works Building.

Southbridge 01550 R. A. Varin, Town Hall, Elm Street. Springfield 01103 T. B. Walsh, City Hall. Swampscott 01907 G. A. Holt, Sr., Thomson Administration

Building.

West Springfield 02102 - - - W. P. Morello, Morgan Road.

MICHIGAN

State J. L. Littlefield, Chief, Food Inspection

Division, Department of Agriculture,

Lewis Cass Building, Lansing 48913.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures: Dearborn 48126 J. A. Hughes, 13030 Hemlock Avenue.

Detroit 48207 J. T. Daniell, 1445 Adelaide Street. M. Zinberg. Ecorse 48229 N. Stroia, 4373 High Street. Highland Park 48203 H. Sarkela, 25 Gerald. Livonia 48154 R. C. Baumgartner, 15050 Farmington

Road.

MINNESOTA

State W. E. Czaia, Supervisor, Department of Weights and Measures, Railroad and

Warehouse Commission, One Flour Exchange, 325 South 3rd Street, Minneapolis 55415.

City Inspectors of Weights and Measures:

Minneapolis 55415 J. G. Gustafson, Room lOlA, City Hall. E. J. Grabowskl

MISSISSIPPI

State . L. Edwards, Inspector of Weights and

Measures, Coffeeville 38922. MISSOURI

State J. H. Wilson, Director, Weights and

Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, Jefferson Building, Jefferson City 65101. H. C. Adamson, Chief Inspector. R. DooLEY, Supervisor, Small Scale and

Prepackaging.

T. J. Downey, Assistant Attorney General,

Supreme Court Building, Jefferson City

65101. County Sealer of Weights and Measures:

St Louis L. A. Rick, 8008 Carondelet, Suite 206, Clayton 63105.

198
City Sealer of Weights and Measures:

, St. Louis 63103 D. I. Offner, 414 City Hall. MONTANA

State G. L. Delano, Chief Sealer, Weights and

Measures Division, Room 21, Mitchell Building, Helena 59601.

^ NEW HAMPSHIRE

State W. J. TUSEN, Chief Inspector, Bureau of Weights and Measures, Division of Markets and Standards, Department of Agriculture, State Office Building, Concord

03301. NEW JERSEY

State M. Gold, Deputy Attorney General, State House Annex, Trenton 08625. W. J. Wolfe, Supt., Div. Weights &

Measures, Department of Law and Public Safety, 187 W. Hanover Street, Trenton 08625.

S. H. Christie, Jr., Deputy State Superintendent.

J. R. Bird, Supervisor. A. Del Tufo, Supervisor of Enforcement.

J. P. Morris, Senior Regional Supervisor.

C. J. Krol, Regional Supervisor.

C. P. Conrad, Jr., Weights and Measures

Assistant.

R. M. Heater, Weights and Measures Assistant, Box 494, Branchville 07826. County Superintendents of Weights and Measures: Bergen J. A. Pollock, 66 Zabriski Street, Hackensack 07601. Burlington D. F. Hummel, County Office Bldg., Mount

Holly 08060. Camden A. J. Francesconi, 403 City Hall, Camden

08101. Cumberland G. S. Franks, 1142 Landis Avenue, Vineland 08360. N. DiMarco, Assistant, 305 N. 11th Street,

Millville 08332. Essex W. H. Schneidewind, 278 New Street, Newark 07103. Hudson _ . . R. J. Bahun, Administration Building, 595 Newark Avenue, Jersey City 07306. Mercer R. M. Bodenweiser, Court House, Trenton

08607. Middlesex J. M. Chohamin, County Administration

Building, Kennedy Square, New Brunswick 08901.

199
Monmouth W. I. Thompson, P. 0. Box 74, Allenhurst

07711.

J. A. J. BoviE, Assistant, 82 W. Wall

Street, Neptune City 07753.

E. H. Camoosa, Assistant, 1106 Jeffrey St., Asbury Park 07712. Passaic W. Miller, 317 Pennsylvania Avenue,

Paterson 07503. Somerset J. A. Kriney, County Administration

Building, Somerville 08876. Sussex J. M. Heater, 18 Church Street, Newton

07860. Warren G. E. Connolly, Court House, Belvidere

07823.

J. P. Burns, Assistant.

Municipal Superintendents of Weights and Measures:

Garfield 07026 C. Benanti, Police Building, 411 Midland

Avenue.

Jersey City 07307 P. A. Wermert, City Hall. Kearny 07032 J. Pollock, 402 Kearny Avenue. Nutley 07110 W. L. Callanan, Town Hall. Passaic 07055 P. DeVries, City Hall.

J. Vatasin, Assistant. Trenton 08608 R. J. Boney, City Hall Annex, 324 E. State

Street.

NEW YORK

State F. J. Fallon, Director, Bureau of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Laboratory Building, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany 12226.

J. F. Tucker, Senior Inspector.

County Sealers of Weights and Measures: Monroe R. J. Veness, 1400 South Avenue, Rochester

14620. Nassau J. A. Occhiogrosso, 1035 Stewart Avenue,

Garden City 11530. A. W. Weidner, Jr., Assistant. Wayne H. H. Wright, 30 Catherine Street, Box

369, Lyons 14489.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Glen Cove 11542 E. T. Hunter, City Hall. Ithaca 14850 E. P. Nedrow, City Hall. Lackawanna 14218 J. J. Seres, 84 Rosary Avenue. New York 10013 R. W. Brevoort, Deputy Commissioner, De- partment of Markets, 137 Centre Street. H. Landweber, Dir., Bur. Consumer Law

Enforcement. M. Greenspan, Asst. Director. Syracuse 13210 J. M. Byrne, 101 N. Beach Street.

200
White Plains 10601

Yonkers 10701

T. E. Latimore, Department of Public

Safety, 279 Hamilton Avenue.

S. J. DiMase, City Hall. NORTH CAROLINA

State J. I. Moore, Superintendent, Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture, P. O. Box 2281, Raleigh 27602. M. L. KiLAW, Jr., Supervisor.

L. B. Hardin, Weights and Measures In- spector, 2003 Riverwood Avenue, Lumberton 28358.

E. H. Privette, Weights and Measures In- spector, Box 1810, Raleigh 27602.

C. M. Ashley, Gasoline and Oil Chemist, 914 McPherson Street, Elizabeth City

27909. OHIO

State V. D. Campbell, Chief, Division of Weights

and Measures, Department of Agriculture, Reynoldsburg 43068. County Inspectors of Weights and Measures: Ashland G. R. McCormic, Ashland County Court

House, Ashland 44805. Medina R. W. Searles, Board of Education Building, 137 W. Friendship Street, Medina

44256. City Sealers of Weights and Measures: Akron 44304 R. K. Slough, 69 N. Union Street. Cincinnati 45214 _ . . _ L. B. Frank, 2147 Central Avenue. Columbus 43223 C. R. Mercurio, 220 Greenlawn Avenue.

Springfield 45501 ^ C. A. Turner, City Building.

OKLAHOMA

State V. C. Kennedy, Jr., Director, Bureau of Standards, University of Oklahoma, Research Institute, 1808 Newton Drive,

Norman 73069. H. K. Sharp, Assistant Director, Marketing

Division, State Board of Agriculture, 122

Capitol Building, Oklahoma City 73105. PENNSYLVANIA

State R. W. Richards, Director, Bureau of Standard Weights and Measures, State Capitol,

Harrisburg 17120.

J. W. HousER, Assistant Director. County Inspectors of Weights and Measures:

Allegheny . . W. D. Scott, Room 4, Court House, Grant

Street, Pittsburgh 15236.

201
Philadelphia S. F. Valtri, Chief, Room 306 City Hall,

Philadelphia 19107.

J. A. Sabo, Jr. Washington P. J. Pavlak, Box 147, Daisytown 15427.

City Sealer of Weights and Measures:

Chester 19013 A. V. OsowsKi, Municipal Building, 5th &

Welsh Street. PUERTO RICO

State H. L. Schmidt, Chief, Weights and Measures Division, Economic Stabilization Administration, P. 0. Box 13934, Santurce

00908. RHODE ISLAND

State E. R. Fisher, State Sealer of Weights and

Measures, Capitol Industrial Center

Building, 235 Promenade Street, Provi- dence 02908. SOUTH CAROLINA

State C. H. Stender, Deputy Commissioner, De- partment of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 12080,

Columbia 29211.

E. W. Ballentine, Assistant to the Commissioner.

J. V. PUGH, Director, Bureau of Inspection.

Inspectors

H. E. BowEN, 1011 Sumter Street. G. S. Hall.

F. HOPKINSON.

T. M. YONGUE.

R. B. Cato, Monetta 29105. SOUTH DAKOTA

State D. Spiegel, Director of Inspections, De- partment of Agriculture, State Office Building, Pierre 57501. TENNESSEE

State M. Jennings, Director, Division of Marketing, Department of Agriculture, Melrose

Station, Box 9039, Nashville 37204.

City Sealer of Weights and Measures: Chattanooga 37402 A. J. Rogers, City Hall, E 11th Street. TEXAS

State R. T. Williams, Chief, Consumer Service [ Division, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Drawer BB, Austin 78711.

202
1 City Sealer of Weights and Measures:

Fort Worth 76107 R. L. Sharp, Department of Public Health

and Welfare, Public Health Center, 1800

University Drive. UTAH

State F. D. Morgan, Supervisor of Weights and

Measures, Department of Agriculture,

Capitol Building, Salt Lake City 84114. VERMONT

State T. F. Brink, Director, Division of Standards, Department of Agriculture, Montpelier 05602.

VIRGINIA

State J. F. Lyles, Supervisor, Weights and Measures Regulatory Section, Division

of Regulatory Services, Department of Agriculture and Immigration, 1436 E. Main Street, Room 302, Richmond 23219.

J. C. Stewart, Assistant Supervisor.

0. T. Almarode, Field Supervisor.

Inspectoi-s

:

G. E. Ferrell.

T. H. Wood.

R. M. Cox, 2310 Banbury Street, Room

B-524, Charlottesville 22901;

County Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Arlington G. D. Taylor, 1400 N .Court House Road,

Arlington 22201.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Alexandria 22313 L. W. Vezina, City Hall, P. 0. Box 178. Newport News 23601 J. L. Davis, 118 Main Street. Petersburg 23803 C. R. Branch, City Hall. Roanoke 24001 CD. Absher, 32 E. Campbell Avenue.

Virginia Beach 23456 E. L. Whitehurst, P. 0. Box 6175, P. A.

Station.

J. F. Zegan.

WASHINGTON

State J. H. Lewis, Chief, Weights and Measures

Section, Department of Agriculture, P. 0. Box 128, Olympia 98501.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures:

Seattle 98104 _ D. N. Turnbull, 600 4th Avenue, Seattle Municipal Building. M. R. Dettler.

203
WEST VIRGINIA

State L. Barker, Commissioner, Department of Labor, State Office Building, Room 643, 1800 E. Washington Street, Charleston

25305. W. H. Holt, Administrative Assistant to Commissioner.

B. R. Haught, Director, Division of Weights

and Measures.

Inspectors

J. S. FiNLEY, Chief Inspector.

F. A. Thomas, Chief Inspector. R. COUGHENOUR, Chief Inspector. E. L. HOSKINSON.

H. ScHiLANSKY, 409 First Street, Parsons

26287. E. B. Woodford, P.O. Box 474, Morgantown 26505.

WISCONSIN

State D. E. Konsoer, Supervisor, Weights and

Measures, Division of Dairy, Food and

Trade, Department of Agriculture, Hill Farms State Office Building, Madison

53702

W. Cary, Laboratory and Technical Supervisor.

City Sealers of Weights and Measures: Green Bay 54301 N. P. Tilleman, City Hall. West Allis 53214 A. E. LaBoDA, City Hall.

Advisory Members

U. S. Department of Commerce:

A. B. Trowbridge, Secretary of Commerce.

Business and Defense Services Administration:

Building Materials and Construction Industries Division:

C. B. Pitcher, Commodity Industry Analyst.

Containers and Packaging Division

R. Weinstein, Chief, Consumer Packaging Branch.

Marketing Division: W. G. Kaye, Deputy Director, Office of Marketing and Services.

J. H. Bennison, Industry Economist, Office of Marketing and Services. Printing and Publishing Industry Division: H. F. Drury, Director.

C. R. Cook, Industry Specialist.

Anne M. Jacks, Industry Specialist.

National Bureau of Standards:

Office of the Director (Div. 100) : I. C. Schoonover, Deputy Director. A. J. Farrar, Legal Advisor.

R. D. HuNTOON, Chief, Office for Program.

204 I
Office of Public Information (Div. 102) : Development and Evaluation

A. V, Gentilini, Chief.

J. F. Reilly, Writer-Editor.

Office of Associate Director for Technical Support (Div. 140) : Office of Technical Information and Publications (Div. 141) : W. R. TiLLEY, Chief. Special Activities (Div. 141.01): R. T. Cook, Chief. Mrs. Cathrine C. Atw^ood, Information Specialist.

M. A. Bond, Jr., Information Specialist. G. T. Leighty, Information Specialist.

Miss Sara E. Redmon, Editor, NBS Standard.

Photographic Services (Div./141.04) : L. W. FuRLOW, Photographer.

H. M. Helfer, Photographer.

Institute for Basic Standards (Div. 200) : Metrology Division (Div. 212) : Mass and Volume Section (Div. 212.31) : H. E. Almer, Physical Science Technician.

Institute for Materials Research (Div. 300) : Inorganic Materials Division (Div. 313) : H. S. Peiser, Chief, Crystal Chemistry Section (Div. 313.04).

Cryogenics Division, Boulder, Colorado (Div. 315) : B. W. Birmingham, Chief.

U.S. Department of Commerce (Cont'd) : National Bureau of Standards (Cont'd) :

Institute for Applied Technology (Div. 400) : J. P. Eberhard, Director.

L. M. KusHNER, Deputy Director. Manager, Engineering Standards (Div. 402) : M. W. Jensen, Chief. Mrs. D. J. Snyder, Secretary. Mrs. J. C. Cochran, Secretary.

Office of Engineering Standards Services (Div. 403) : D. R. Mackay, Acting Chief. Product Standards Div. (403.01):

D. D. Halpin, Jr., Technical Standards Coordinator. Mrs. Margery King, Technical Standards Coordinator

F. M. McManus, Technical Standards Coordinator. H. A. Philo, Technical Standards Coordinator.

Engineering Standards Information (Div 403.02) : W. L. Slattery, Chief.

I Miss Linda Johnson, Secretary.

Office of Weights and Measures (Div. 404) : M. W. Jensen, Chief. H. F. Wollin, Assistant Chief. R. N. Smith, Technical Coordinator.

E. A. Vadelund, Weights and Measures Coordinator.

0. K. Warnlof, Weights and Measures Coordinator.

L. J. Chisholm, Weights and Measures Coordinator.

S. Hasko, Engineer.

C. H. Schreyer, Engineer.

T. M. Stabler, Laboratory Metrologist.

205
H. K. Johnson, Engineering Technician.

B. C. Keysar, Physical Science Technician.

R. L. KOESER, Technical Researcher.

B. F. Banks, Mechanical Equipment Inspector.

J. C. DeBuchananne, Summer Working Aid. Mrs. Frances C. Bell, Administrative Assistant. Mrs. Muriel M. Brodmerkel, Secretary. Mrs. Evelyn M. Burnette, Secretary.

Miss Sharon L. Beall, Secretary.

Office of Vehicle Systems Research (Div. 408)

Occupant Restraining Systems (Div. 408.02):

J. H. Griffith, Engineering Technician.

Technical Analysis Division (Div. 431) : H. E. Morgan, Economist.

Systems Research and Development Division (Div. 455)

W. J. Whitty, Operations Research Analyst.

U.S. Department of Agriculture:

Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service: E. L. Mangum, Jr., Chief, Container and Packaging Materials Staff, Procurement and Sales Division. Consumer and Marketing Service: R. F. Anderson, Assistant Chief, Standardization Branch, Dairy Div. R. P. Bartlett, Jr., Director, Statistical Staff.

J. M. Braddock, Mathematical Statistician, Statistical Staff. Packers and Stockyards Administration:

Scales and Weighing Branch:

R. D. Thompson, Chief.

T. C. Harris, Jr., Scales and Weighing Specialist. M. W. Stephens, Scales and weighing Specialist. C. J. Peters, Scales and Weighing Specialist (St. Paul, Minn.)

U.S. Department of the Army:

D. E. Edgerly, Captain, Fort Meade, Md.

Federal Trade Commission:

P. R. Dixon, Chairman.

Bureau of Deceptive Practices:

C. A. Sweeny, Director. R. A. Vignone, Attorney.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare:

Food and Drug Administration:

Bureau of Science: A. Weissler, Assistant Director for Physical Sciences Research.

J. S. WiNBUSH, Chief Statistician, Statistical Services Staff, Office of the Director.

T. E. Berry, Statistician, Statistical Services Staff, Office of the

Director. Division of Food Standards and Additives:

F. H. Blomquist, Chief, Food Technology Branch.

Office of Associate Counsel for Compliance:

F. McLaughlin, Food and Drug Officer. Office of Legislative Governmental Services:

G. W. Kilpatrick, Food and Drug Officer. 0. H. McKagen, Food and Drug Officer. National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

C. T. Paludan, Chief, Measuring Instrumentation Branch, Marshall Space

Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama.
Special Assistant to the President for Consumer Affairs: Miss Betty Furness. Acme Markets, Inc.: M. R. Blodgett, Director, Quality Control, 124 N. 15th Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19102. Aero-Chatillon Corporation

:

G. C. Reiley, Executive Vice President, 83-30 Kew Gardens Road, New- York City, New York 11415.

G. D. Reynolds, Jr., Vice President. N. Lavenda, Office Sales Manager.

W. B. Wagner, Manager, Field Sales. American Bakers Association:

J. M. Creed, General Counsel, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.

20006. American Can Company:

R. TORGERSON, Legal Counsel, Marathon Avenue, Neenah, Wisconsin 54956.

C. G. McBride, Manager, Market Information and Analysis, 100 Park

Avenue, New York, New York 10017. E. H. Ruyle, Research and Development Representative, 433 N. North- west Highway, Barrington, Illinois 60010. American Corn Millers Federation:

B. M. Tollefson, Jr., Executive Director, 1030 15th Street, N.W., 912 Executive Building, Washington, D.C. 20005. American Ladder Institute: B. M. Getzoff, Counsel, 29 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. American Meter Controls, Inc.: T. J. Smith, Product Manager, 13500 Philmont Avenue, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19116. American Oil Company:

D. P. Darling, Assistant Coordinator, Packaging, 910 S. Michigan Avenue,

Chicago, Illinois 60680.

P. A. Felix, Chief Engineer.

American Paper Institute, Inc.: C. J. Carey, Executive Secretary, Tissue Division, 260 Madison Avenue,

New York, New York 10016. American Petroleum Institute: R. Southers, Coordinator, Operations and Engineering, 1271 Avenue

of the Americas, New York, New York 10020. American Sugar Company:

R. P. Fremgen, Quality Control Supervisor, 120 Wall Street, New York,

New York 10005. E. P. LORFANFANT, Attorney, Law Department.

T. M. Pomeroy, Jr., Supervisor of Weights and Scales. Armour & Company:

C. V. Thompson, Production Control Manager, P.O. Box 9222, Chicago,

Illinois 60690. Asphalt Roofing Industry Bureau:

H. H. Whittemore, Managing Director, 757 Third Avenue, New York,

New York 10017. Associated Merchandising Corporation

:

P. M. Hendrick, Assistant Washington Representative, 636 Washington

Building, Washington, D.C. 20005.

207
Atlantic Richfield Company:

W. A. Lindsay, Manager, Automotive Section, 260 S. Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19010.

j S. W. Warburton, Manager, Terminals Section, Marketing Operations

j and Engineering. I, Badger Meter Manufacturing Company: i C. E. Kohl, Industrial Sales Manager, 4545 W. Brown Deer Road, Mil- waukee, Wisconsin 53223. I Bennett Pump Division, John Wood Company: I M. S. GODSMAN, Service Manager, Broadway and Wood Street, Muskegon,

] Michigan 49444.

^ Borden Company:

j D. M. Dent, Law Department, 350 Madison Avenue, New York, New i York 10017. Bowser, Inc.: H. E. RiTTENHOUSE, Chief Engineer, Greeneville Division, P.O. Box 250

Greeneville, Tennessee 37743. Campbell Soup Company:

H. Vannoy, Jr., Staff Chemist, 375 Memorial Avenue, Camden, New Jersey

08101. I Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company:

j H. A. Harwood, Regional Manager, P.O. Box 382, Roslyn Heights, New I York 11577. ! Carnation Company:

R. F. Daily, Attorney, Corporate Department, 5045 Wilshire Boulevard,

j Los Angeles, California 90036.

j Chemical Specialities Manufacturers Association, Inc.: A. A. MULLIKEN, Secretary and General Manager, 50 E. 41st Street, New York, New York 10017.

Cities Service Oil Company:

G. L. Pitney, Terminal Operations Coordinator, 1437 South Boulder, P.O. Box 300, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102. Coca-Cola Company: ! C. R. Gillespie, Public Relations Staff Representative, P.O. Drawer 1734, } Atlanta, Georgia 30301. Colgate-Palmolive Company:

j E. E. WOLSKi, Manager, Quality Control, 300 Park Avenue, New York,

| New York 10022.

| R. R. Phillips, Associate Counsel.

j Compressed Gas Association: i W. E. ScHAEFFER, Chairman-Subcommittee on Weights and Measures of

| Cryogenic Fluids, Air Reduction, 150 East 42nd Street, New York,

New York 10017. ! G. N. Strople, Secretary, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10036. Consumers Union :

j W. Sandbach, Executive Director, 256 Washington Street, Mount Vernon, | New York 10550. Continental Can Company: i E. D. GiGGARD, Product Coordinator for Aerosols, Chicago Metals Re- 1 search Laboratory, Technical Research Center, 1350 W. 76th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60620.

j C. W. Mac Arthur, Manager, Washington Office, 1625 Eye Street, N.W., i Washington, D.C. 20006. j 208 I
Corn Products Company:

W. F. Cody, Attorney, 717 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10022. Dahlgren, Darragh & Close:

J. D. Mann, Attorney, Suite 1208, 1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Dairy & Food Industries Supply Association:

D. H. Williams, Technical Director, 1145 19th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036. W. A. Dean, Associate Technical Director. Mrs. Sybella W. G'Schwend, Marketing Librarian,

j; Dairy Industry Newsletter:

I J. S. Wilson, Assistant Editor, 910 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

! 20006. Dee, J. B. & Company, Inc.:

1 E. H. Fishman, General Manager, 1722 W. 16th Street, Indianapolis,

Indiana 46207.

I Detecto Scales Inc.: M. Rapp, Vice President, 540 Park Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11205. DuPont, E. I., de Nemours & Company:

M. B. Lore, Legal Department, 6054 DuPont Building, Wilmington, Dela- ware 19898. Exact Weight Scale Company:

W. A. SCHEURER, Director, 2146 Elgin Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221.

B. Taylor, General Manager, 944 W. Fifth Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43212.

R. W. Grant, Vice President—Sales, 538 E. Town, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Ex-Cell-0 Corporation:

D. J. Crawford, Director of Pure-Pak Laboratories, Packaging Division, 850 Ladd Road, Walled Lake, Michigan 48088. Faultless Starch Company:

H. A. Hopmann, Technical Director, 1025 W. 8th Street, Kansas City,

Missouri 64101.

Flintkote Company:

T. S. Clark, Director, Government Department, Woodward Building, 15th & H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Folding Paper Box Association of America:

G. L. Nordstrom, Executive Director, 222 W. Adams Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60606. Food Chemical News:

L. Rothschild, Jr., Editor, 601 Warner Building, Washington, D.C. 20004.

R. Galant, Assistant to the Editor. Food Processing & Marketing:

H. V. Semling, Jr., Washington Correspondent, P.O. Box 674, Ben

Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.

Fuller, H. J., & Sons, Inc.: W. S. Fuller, Vice President, 1212 Chesapeake Avenue, Columbus, Ohio

43212. General Foods Corporation:

J. A. RiEGEL, General Solicitor, 250 North Street, White Plains, New York

10602. General Mills, Inc.: D. B. CoLPiTTS, Technical Manager, Weights and Measures, 1081 21st Avenue, S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414. Gerber Products Company:

T. N. Moss, Attorney, 445 State Street, Fremont, Michigan 49412.

209
Gilbarco, Inc.: R. E. Nix, Manager, Sales Engineering, Friendly Road, Greensboro, North

Carolina 27420. Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, Inc.:

J. H. Crawford, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer and Counsel, 330 Madison

Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

C. E. Wagner, Director of Technical Services. Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc.: F. T. DiERSON, General Counsel, 205 E. 42nd Street, New York, New

York 10017.

J. W. Sloat, Washington Counsel, 1632, K Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20005. Gulf Oil Corporation:

E. C. Dickey, Area Service Superintendent, 1184 W. Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30309.

C. R. Stripling, Advisor, Motor Equipment, P.O. Box 1519, Houston, Texas 77001. Hardy Scales Company:

E. J. Hale, Director of Engineering, 155 31st Street, Ogden, Utah 84401.

L. B. Suttlemyre, National Sales Director. Haskon, Inc.: R. FiFER, Director, Market Development and Industry Relations, Crystal

Packaging Division, 566 Miller Road, Barrington, Illinois 60010. Heinz, H. J. Company:

D. L. Dance, Coordinator, Food Regulation Compliance, 1062 Progress

Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212.

D. W. Leeper, Manager, Food Regulation Administration, P.O. Box 57, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230. Hertz Corporation:

L. B. Mewhinney, Associate Counsel, 660 Madison Avenue, New York,

New York 10021. Hobart Manufacturing Company:

K. C. Allen, Vice President, Scale Operations, 448 Huffman Avenue,

Dayton, Ohio 45403. M. E. Bone, Weights and Measures Representative.

C. G. Gehringer, Manager, Industrial Scales, 711 Pennsylvania Avenue,

Troy, Ohio 45373. Howe Richardson Scale Company:

A. J. Burke, Vice President, 680 Van Houten Avenue, Clifton, New Jersey

07015.

G. D. Wilkinson, National Service Manager.

R. G. Harris, Assistant National Service Manager.

R. P. Closson, Assistant National Service Manager, P.O. Box 307,

Broadview, Illinois 60153. Humble Oil and Refining Company:

C. H. Phipps, Terminal Superintendent, 8200 Terminal Road, Newington,

Virginia. (Box 428, Springfield, Va. 22150.)

J. A. Thrift, Operations Specialist, 7720 York Road, Baltimore, Maryland

21203. Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc.: R. E. McKennan, Manager, Food Quality Control, 1645 W. Valencia

Drive, Fullerton, California 92634.

Institute of Shortening & Edible Oils, Inc.: M. R. Stephens, President, 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20006. 210
International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers:

i J. F. Speer, Jr., Executive Assistant, 910 17th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20006. Kendall Refining Company (Division of Witco Chemical Company) : R. W. Grove, (Chairman of PPC Subcommittee on Labeling and PackagI ing), 77 N. Kendall Avenue, Bradford, Pennsylvania 16701. Kimberly Clark Corporation:

W. Whitlinger, Director of Quality Assurance, Nort Lake Street, Neenah,

Wisconsin 54956. King, J. A. & Company:

J. A. King, President, P.O. Box 21225, Greensboro, North Carolina 27420. Koehring Company:

J. K. Hunt, Chief Engineer, C. C. Johnson Division, P.O. Box 3067,

Champaign, Illinois 61820. Kraft Foods:

G. M. Burditt, Attorney, 135 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603. M. S. Thompson, Attorney.

J. B. Stine, National Product Manager, 500 Peshtigo Court, Chicago,

Illinois 60690.

C. E. White, Production Department.

Kroger Company:

R. N. Johnson, Supervisor, Regulatory Compliance, 1212 State Avenue,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45204. Label Manufacturers National Association, Inc.

:

F. R. Cawley, Executive Director, Room 1015 Shoreham Building, 15th & H Streets, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20005.

Lee, Toomey & Kent: M. D. Mac Arthur, Attorney, 1200 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20036. Lever Brothers Company:

L. H. Bloom, Attorney, 390 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. W. L. Button, Jr., Plant Operations Manager.

Liberty Glass Company:

E. K. Mills, Technical Director, P. 0. Box 520, Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066.

Lily-Tulip Cup Corporation:

D. F. McMahon, Assistant to Vice President, 122 E. 42nd Street, New

York, New York 10017. Liquid Controls Corporation: H. E. SlEBOLD, Chief Engineer, P. 0. Box 101, North Chicago, Illinois 60064. Lowe, Joe Company:

S. Arden, Director Research and Development, 110 Route 4, Englewood,

New Jersey 07631. Markel & Hill

:

M. F. Markel, Senior Partner, 1212 Munsey Building, Washington, D. C. 20004. Martin-Decker:

C. L. Howard, Sales Manager, 3431 Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, Cali- fornia 90807.

J. E. I. Shelley, Assistant Sales Manager Industrial. Maryland Cup Corporation:

B. R. Fellerman, Assistant Customer Service Manager, Owings Mills,

Maryland 21117.

211
Mathipson, OHn, Chemical Company: |( R. F. Philpitt, Jr., Manag:er, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, 745 5th Avenue, New York, New York, 11101.

j Mayer, Oscar, & Company: j D. L. Paul, General Product Controller, 910 Mayer Avenue, Madison,

Wisconsin 53704. 1 McCormick & Company, Inc.:

^ R. E. Bradshaw, Manager, Specifications Department, 414 Light Street,

^ Baltimore, Maryland 21202. . Mclntyre, John J., Sons, Inc.: ' F. L. McIntyre, Sr., President, 514 - 16 Knorr Street, Philadelphia, }! Pennsylvania 19111. 1 Measuregraph Company:

F. L. Wall, Regional Manager, 7106 Hickory Hill Road, Falls Church, | Virginia 22040. Meat Trade Institute, Inc.: W. J. Condon, Counsel, 420 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York [ 10017.

I Merrick Scale Manufacturing Company, Inc.: D. R. GiLMORE, Manager-Applications, 180 Autumn Street, Passaic, New | Jersey 07055.

[ L. J. Walker, Project Engineer.

Metric Association: '

J. R. Dere, Consultant, P. 0. Box 2845, Washington, D. C. 20013.

| Mettler Instrument Corporation: I N. L. Cooper, Representative, 7714 Maryknoll Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20034.

Miller, Byron, & Associates:

B. D. Miller, Owner, 7712 Georgia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. ( 20012.

Millers' National Federation

F. H. Mewhinney, Washington Representative, 752 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20004. Mobil Oil Corporation:

F. C. Swerz, Manager, Wholesale Plants, 150 E. 42nd Street, New I* York, New York 10017. Montgomery Ward : , B. Giardini, Copy Chief, Package Design Department, 619 W. Chicago I Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Morris and West:

R. P. West, Professional Engineer, 500 Rt. 36, Atlantic Highlands, New ? Jersey 07716.

| National Association of Dairy Equipment Manufacturers: j J. Marshall, Executive Vice President, 1012 14th Street, N.W., Wash- I ington, D.C. 20005. ; National Association of Frozen Food Packers: ! S. J. Palmer, Director of Research, 919 18th Street, N.W., Washington,

[ D.C. 20006.

I National Association of Manufacturers: ' C. F. Roberts, Washington Representative, 918 16th Street, N.W., \ Washington, D.C. 20006. National Association of Margarine Manufacturers: fj R. J. Leighton, Assistant to the President, 545 Munsey Building, Wash- j ington, D.C. 20004.

212
National Biscuit Company:

D. M. Scott, Director, Government Relations, 425 Park Avenue, New

York, New York 10022. National Canners Association: H. P. SCHMITT, Administrative Assistant to Executive Vice President, 1133

20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

R. B. Heiney, Director, Government Industry Relations Division. National Fisheries Institute:

T. D. Sanford, Director, Technology, 1614 20th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20009. National Ice Association:

J. M. Payne, Director Public Relations, 7979 Old Georgetown Road,

Bethesda, Maryland 20014. National LP-Gas Association: K. L. GiLLis, Director of Legal Services, 79 W. Monroe Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60603. National Paint, Varnish, and Lacquer Association:

D. P. Lynott, Associate General Counsel, 1500 Rhode Island Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20005.

D. S. Ring, General Counsel. National Soft Drink Association:

R. L. Callahan, Jr., Legal Counsel, 1128 16th Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20036. Neptune Meter Company:

W. A. Medford, Engineer, Liquid Meter Division, 47-25 34th Street, Long

Island City, New York 11101.

E. F. Wehmann, Consulting Engineer.

J. C. Hart, Assistant General Sales Manager.

H. A. Lentz, Sales Enginner, 7 Bala Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, Pa. 19004. New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce:

P. DoRN, Secretary, 54 Park Place, Newark, New Jersey 07102. Ohmart Corporation:

S. Rowe, General Sales Manager, 4241 Allendorf Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio

45209.

Owens-Illinois, Inc.

:

D. M. Mahoney, Manager, Design Development and Quality Control Department, 14th and Adams Streets, Duraglas Center, Toledo, Ohio 43624. Package Engineering:

L. J. White, Associate Editor, 230 Park Avenue, New York, New York

10016. Paper Shipping Sack Manufacturers Association, Inc.: C. G. Peterman, Executive Secretary and Treasurer, 60 E. 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017. Paper Stationery and Tablet Manufacturers Association, Inc.: F. Cowan, Jr., Executive Secretary, 444 Madison Avenue, Room 2301,

New York, New York 10022. Penn Scale Manufacturing Company, Inc.:

S. Black, President, 150 West Berks Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19122. Pennsylvania Scale Company:

J. D. Fisher, Manager, Sales, 21 Graybill Road, Leola, Pennsylvania 17540. Pepsi-Cola Company:

S. P. PORRAZzo, Packaging Coordinator, 500 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10022.

213
Phillips Petroleum Company:

J. W. Hale, Technical Representative and Vice Chairman, 8 Al Phillips

Building, Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74003. Pillsbury Company:

C. E. Joyce, Manager, Customer and Product Protection, 608 2nd Avenue,

South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402.

Plate, Cup, Container and Doily Institute: D. H. Carleton, Administrative Manager, 250 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10017.

R. W. Foster, Executive Director.

L. J. Moremen, Manager, General Services. Potato Chip Institute International: H. F. Noss, Executive Vice President, 940 Hanna Building, Cleveland, ! Ohio 44115. Precision Valve Corporation:

R. Coever, 700 Nepperhan Avenue, Yonkers, New York 10703. Proctor & Gamble Company: 1 J. S. Brod, Associate Director, Product Development Division, Ivorydale I Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45217.

J. H. Chaloud, Associate Director. ' L. Theoharous, Associate Director.

j D. W. Rosenfeldt, T. G. Division. | G. Hopper, Attorney, Legal Division, 301 E. 6th Street, Cincinnati, Ohio ' 45202.

j C. R. Test, Attorney, Legal Division, P. 0. Box 599, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201.

' Proprietary Association: j' G. E. Gilbert, Secretary, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, i D.C. 20006. Ramsey Engineering Company:

^ R. J. BiERMAN, Manager, International Division, 1853 West County Road

C, St. Paul, Minnesota 55113.

G. C. Kachel, Sales Manager.

Republic Steel Corporation: | D. R. Smith, Corporation Weighing Supervisor, 410 Oberlin Road, S.W.,

Massillon, Ohio 44646. Revere Corporation of America:

C. W. Silver, Chief Engineer, Research and Engineering 845 North

Colony Road, Wallingford, Connecticut 06493. H. L. ZuPP, Regional Sales Manager. | Rex Chainbelt Inc.: | R. W. Strehlow, Manager, Concrete Plants, 4701 W. Greenfield Avenue, i Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214. f Rockwell Manufacturing Company: I B. A. Broome, Sales Engineer, 555 City Line Avenue, Bala Cynwyd, i Pennsylvania 19004. A. J. KoMiCH, Product Manager, Box 450, Statesboro, Georgia 30458. Rotron Controls Division:

J. T. Pennock, Sales, P. 0. Box 188, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania 19317. Safeway Stores Inc.

M. F. Pond, Meat Operations Manager, Washington, D.C. Division, 6700 !| Columbia Park Road, Landover, Maryland 20785. ;, Safier, S., Inc.: t R. Olsen, Plant Manager, 314 Mercer Street, Jersey City, New Jersey

07302.

214

I
i Sanitary Scale Company:

E. C. Karp, Vice President, East Lincoln Avenue, Belvidere, Illinois 61008. Scale Journal Publishing Company:

Mrs. Sylvia T. Pickell, Business Manager, 176 W. Adams Street, Chicago,

Illinois 60603.

Scale Manufacturers Association, Inc.: A. Sanders, Executive Secretary, No. 1 Thomas Circle, N.W., Room 304,

Washington, D.C. 20005.

Scott, 0. M., & Sons:

j R. T. Bangs, Agronomist, Marysville, Ohio 43040. Sealright Company, Inc.; P. R. Thomas, Quality Control—Weights and Measures, Penn Jeff Building, 605 West 47th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64112.

R. S. Weeks, Manager, Marketing Services. Sears, Roebuck and Company:

J. E. Lehrer, Attorney, Department 766, 925 S. Homan Avenue, Chicago,

Illinois 60607. Seraphin Test Measure Company:

L. C. ScHLODER, General Manager, 1314 N. 7th Street, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19122.

Shell Oil Company:

E. R. Bergun, Engineer, 50 W. 50th Street, Nev/ York, New York 10020.

Sinclair Refining Company:

W. F. Fisher, Automotive Manager, 600 5th Avenue, New York City, New

York 10020. Smith, A. 0., Corporation:

K. W. Steen, Product Manager, 1602 Wagner Avenue, Erie, Pennsylvania

16512. Soap and Detergent Association:

E. S. Pattison, President, 485 Madison Avenue, New York, New York

10022. A. M. Fallon (Miss), Editor, Digest and Legislative Reporting Services.

J. T. Welch, Counsel, 1000 Vermont Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20005.

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

:

T. M. Carty, Secretary, Plastic Bottle Division, 250 Park Avenue, New

York, New York, 10017. Speedometer Service and Instrument Company:

0. S. Hurlbut, Senior Member and Stockholder, 131 Fell Street, San

Francisco, California 94102. Spinks Scale Company:

D. F. Laird, President, 836 Stewart Avenue, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia

30310. Stanco Manufacturing and Sales Inc.:

L. Allee, 800 Spruce Lake Drive, Harbor City, California 90710. Streeter-Amet Company:

V. C. Kennedy, Sr., President, Slusser and Wicks Streets, Grayslake,

Illinois 60030. Suburban Propane Gas Corporation:

W. S. BIGELOW, Secretary, P. 0. Box 206, Whippany, New Jersey 07981. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc.: A. W. DeBirny, Counsel, 29-10 Thomson Avenue, Long Island City,

New York 11101.

215
Swab Wagon Company, Inc.: W. P. Lehman, Secretary, 21 S. Callowhill Street, Elizabethville, Pennsylvania 17023. Sweetheart Cup:

L. S. Rome, Division of Md. Cup Corporation, Owings Mills, Maryland

21117. Texaco, Inc.: R. H. TOLSON, Assistant Superintendent, Construction and Equipment

Division, 135 E. 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017. Theisen-Clemens Company:

R. C. Primley, Operation Manager, 1207 Broad Street, St. Joseph,

Michigan 49085. Thread Institute, Inc.: W. F. Operer, Executive Director, 15th E. 40th Street, New York, New

York 10016. 3M Company:

H. A. BiRNBAUM, Product Toxicologist, 2301 Hudson Road, St. Paul,

Minnesota 55119. Thurman Scale Company:

J. R. ScHAEFFER, Vice President, 1939 Refugee Road, Columbus, Ohio

43207. Tidewater Oil Company:

J. C. Gassert, Chief Engineer, 660 Madison Avenue, New York, New

York 10021. Tobacco Institute, Inc.: F. J. Welch, Executive Vice President, 1735 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. Tokheim Corporation:

W. E. LOUTHAN, Manager-Product Performance, 1602 Wabash Avenue,

Ft. Wayne, Indiana 46801. Toledo Scale Corporation:

J. T. HOYLE, District Manager, 3329 8th Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20017. W. Jenkins, Vice President, Sales, 5225 Telegraph Road, P. O. Box 6757,

Toledo, Ohio 43612.

R. B. Kendall, Manager, Custom Engineering.

R. V. Miller, Manager, Weights and Measures.

E. H. Turner, 79 Kenneth Place, New Hyde Park, New York 11040. Union Carbide Corporation:

W. M. Sawers, Manager, Special Services, 800 Wyatt Building, 777 14th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. D. L. Close, Section Engineer, Linde Division, Tonawanda, New York

14152.

T. E. Willoughby, Engineer, Linde Division, 270 Park Avenue, New York,

New York 10017. Veeder-Root Company:

H. W. Barnes, Sales Manager, Petroleum Products Division, 70 Sargeant

Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06102.

T. J. McLaughlin, Product Sales Manager.

0. H. Watson, Consultant Scales and Weighing, 232 Millbridge Road, Riverside, Illinois 60546.

216
Wayne Pump Company, Symington Wayne Corporation

:

W. J. DUBSKY, Chief Engineer-Product Engineering, 124 W. College Avenue, Salisbury, Maryland 21801.

F. W. Love, Administrative Assistant. Westab, Inc.

:

R. L. BULLINGTON, Eastern Regional Sales Manager, 800 Gordon Avenue,

Richmond, Virginia 23224.

Winslovsr Government Standard Scale Works, Inc.

:

C. E. Ehrenhardt, p. 0. Box 1523, Terre Haute, Indiana 47808.

Other Guests

J. T. Kennedy, 4519 19th Road, N., Arlington, Virginia 22207.

217
218
SELECTED WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PUBLICATIONS OF THE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBS Handbook 44 1965 (Replacement Sheets issued annually)

NBS Handbook 67 NBS Handbook 82 NBS Handbook 94 NBS Handbook 98 NBS Handbook 99

NBS Circular 540 NBS Circular 593 NBS Miscellaneous

Publication 247 NBS Miscellaneous

Publication 286

NBS Technical

Note 196

Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices. Looseleaf

(binder not included)

Checking Prepackaged Commodities

Weights and Measures Administration

Examination of Weighing Equipment

Examination of Farm Milk Tanks

Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Liquid-Measuring Devices

Weights and Measures Case Reference Book

Federal Basis for Weights and Measures

Weights and Measures Standards of the United States—a brief history

Units of Weight and Measure

Definitions and Tables of Equivalents

Report of the Investigation of Slow-Flow

Meters for Fuel Oil Distribution Systems

$2.00

0.35 1.75 3.00

.35

.35 1.25

.30

.35

1.50

.20

REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1963 1964

1966

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 254

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 263 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 290

Index to the Reports of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures from the First to the Forty-fifth, 1905 to 1960 MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION 243

.75 1.00

1.00

.40

ORDER ALL PUBLICATIONS, WITH REMITTANCE, FROM THE

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, U.S. GOVERNMENT

PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20402.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRfNTING OFFICE: 1968 O-292-640