NBSIR 73-159

U.S. Membership in the International

Organization of Legal Metrology

Thomas M. Stabler

Office of Engineering and

Information Processing Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

April 1973

Southwestern Gas Measurement Short Course

University of Oklahoma Center

for Continuing Education

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
I
NBSIR 73-159

U.S. MEMBERSHIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY

Thomas M. Stabler

Office of Engineering and

Information Processing Standards

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

April 1973

Southwestern Gas Measurement Short Course

University of Oklahoma Center

for Continuing Education

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Frederick 6. Dent, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Richard W. Roberts. Director

U.S. MIMBERSKIP IN THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY

Thcmas M. Stabler

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20231+

EACKGROU'o:

The InternaticneJ. Organization of Legal Metrology

(CIML) vas founded in 1955 to promote intergovernmental cooperation in the field of legal metrology,

which, broadly, relates to the compatibility of

standards of measurement and the legislation and

I Government regulations which may affect such stan-

! dards of measurement. Aside from its activities

as a center of documentation and information ex-

] change in legal metrology, the OIML mo3t imporI temtly recommends uniform international requirej ments for measuring instruments and works out

1| model laws and regulations for consideration by

t member states

.

! The subject of membership in this Organization had

j been under discussion and consideration since OIML

i vas formed in 1955 • We did not Join at that time

since it was the position of the United States

' that international technical organizations such as this should be established within the framework of

j the United Nations. Today, however, in view of the

I increasing importance of international trade and

) the effect of OIML programs on such trade, U.S.

]! membership was deemed a vital necessity.

i| On April 11, 1972, President Nixon requested the

i Senate to give its advice and consent to accession

I to the Convention establishing the OIML (Tab l).

I

I In his letter to the Senate recommending accession

I he said:

"The U.S. has in the past been an interested

1 observer in the Organization's work, and I

' believe that accession to the Convention

I would now be of clear advantage to the United

'I States. As the world's largest trading

I nation and as a world leader in the standards field, we would be better able to assume a positive role in the setting of international standards for measurement and

in so doing, to expsjad our international

j trade .

This request provided for U.S. membership in OIML,

land it was the intention of the Executive Branch

that the Department of Commerce would te assigned

(general responnibility for program implementation

land direction. Within Commerce, the National

JjEtureaii of Etanda-rds would be responsible for the

pevelopmont of 'J.S. positions for technical matJlterE ariaing in the OIML. The Depfirtnent of State

ijwould retair. coord inatinp; and budgetary responsil^ilities and, in collaboration with Commerce,

would designate U.S. representatives to meetings

of the OIML.

WHAT IS T?IE INTERKATIOHAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL

METROLOGY ?

OIML is actually the "legal" counterpart of the In- ternational Conference of Weights and Measures

(CIPM), in which the U.S. has been an active member since its inception in ).875. Legal questions were almost always on the agenda of the CIPM, and

at one point, consideration was given to establishing within the scope of the CIPM a "Consultative Committee of Practical Metrology." If this

had happened the U.S. would have been a participant

in the normal course of decision-making on the

legal aspects of metrology. That was not the course of events, however, and the OIML was formed

and the U.S. still had no influence in this major

sector of international standards activity. In fact, it was difficult as a non-member, even to keep informed of OIML's activities.

Following is a brief description of the functions

and organization of OIML. Metrology, of course,

is the science of measurement — development of

standards, instruments, and measurement procedures.

It becomes legil metrology when the measurements

are related to the official enforcement of laws,

as in the enforcement of weights and measures laws

in the marketplaces of our own country. The main

interest of OIML is in standards for instruments

and measurement techniques involved in the legal

determination of quantity and quality.

Public authorities have the obligation to ensure

that legal measurements within a country be put on a xiniform basis. The national regulations which

are developed for this purpose have for many years

been developed within a country independent of

similar work in other countries. Consequently,

national laws and specifications often differ

widely. Today, with rapidly developing and

changing technology, and with the rapid expansion

of international trade, these differences pose a potential impediment to international trade.

OIML now has 38 member nations (Tab 2). Its headquarters staff is small — only seven people at present. Its estimated 197? budget is approximately $109,000, an increase from .'588,000 Ir. 1571.

OIML's primary functions are:

to form a center of dccumontat Ion and ir''or-

mation in the field of legal r.etrology,

to establish close relations with national

weights and r.easures officials,

to furnish advisory assistance to interested

states

,

to deternine the general principles of legal

metrology

,

to issue uniform international recoramendations

respecting legal requirements for use and control

of measuring instruments,

to establish a code of specifications and

tolerances with which measuring instruments must

comply in order to acquire international approval,

to establish and promulgate m.odel laws and

regulations in the field of legal metrology.

The decisions of the Organization are promulgated

as recommendations; they do not have the force of

law. However, members of the Organization are "morally obliged to implement these decisions as

far as possible."

Organizationally, OIML consists of: (Tab 3)

(l) the International Conference of Legal

Metrology, which is composed of delegates from

member states and which meets at least every 6 years. Decisions of the conference are submitted

to member states "for information, consideration,

and recommendation"

;

'(2) the International Committee of Legal

Metrology (CIML), which consists of one delegate

from each state, and which meets every 2 years.

The technical work of OII-IL is conducted by

working groups within the framework of the committee .

(3) the International Bureau of Legal

Metrology (BIML), which constitutes the Secretariat for the Organization.

Forty-two specific standards have already been

recommended to the international community by OIML

(Tab U). A careful review of these recommendations

is sufficient to demonstrate that many products

currently manufactured in the United States may be

denied access, either conditionally or absolutely,

to the markets of foreign nations which ultimately

adopt the OIML standards as a basis for their

domestic law.

The potential adverse nature of the existing

recommendations takes many forms. Illustrative

of these are:

(a) a requirement that product or pattern approval be obtained before the item can be marketed

in the country in question.

(b) specific design requirements that eliminate

U.S. forms in construction.

(c) a provision that a product may be tested

for up to 2 years to assure it maintains its performance .

Turning to the broader question of products which

might conceivably be affected by ongoing activities

within working groups of the OIML, an analysis sug- gests that exports valued in excess of $^^00 million,

or about one-half of our 1971 exports of instruments

and controls, may xiltimately be embraced by decisions of the Organization.

OIML'S RELATIONSHIP TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The OIML is currently moving into the area of

metrology standards for the developing countries. A questionnaire has been submitted to these countries in order to determine their particular needs

in metrology and to find out what technical and

administrative advice the OIML might offer in setting up "Departments of Legal Metrology."

The implications of this OIML program in the field

of international trade should not be overlooked.

It is a long-term program and, as an OIML member,

the United States can provide technical assistance

in the adoption of laws, regulations, and metrological practices by the developing nations.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE POLICIES

Government agencies responsible for U.S. international trade policies are currently very concerned with non-tariff trade barriers , which impede the flow of trade between countries. The U.S. and other governments in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have mounted a major effort to eliminate these barriers to free trade.

Additionally, the Western European countries, as a part of their economic integration efforts,

have begun a program of harmonization of their

standards and the implementation of certification

schemes, on a regional rather than on a global

basis. This regional system has the effect of reducing or eliminating certain U.S. products from

the European Market. The U.S. efforts in GATT,

hopefully, will result in a "Code of Conduct" in

standards that will eliminate adverse effects of

harmonization and certification in U.S. exports.

The GATT discussions have clearly revealed that

non-tariff barriers have been generated by the

decisions made in the OIML. Therefore, U.S. membership in OIML should go hand in hand with the

GATT initiatives.

2

The prinary purpose of U.S. membership in 0I!1L is econor.io . We r.ast iriprove our activity in ir.any fields cf interr.aticnal standariizaticn to ensure

that cur techi.icai expertise is reflected ir. ir.- ternaticr.al standards, and that our products cm

r.ove freely in vorld trade. T'cientific con- siderations alone vculd justify rr.er.bership in

OE-IL, but the deteriorating 'J.c. balance-ofpayments situation is of overriding importance.

For ciany years, following World War II, the U.S. ran substantial surpluses to help offset some

of the deficits in other parts of our balance-ofpayments schedule. During the past five years,

however, our trade surplus has declined from $7

billion in I96U to a total trade deficit of $2

billion in 1971. Rather than restricting imports,

the U.S. has taken the positive approach of

trying to increase exports. One such positive

step has been to strengthen U.S. participation in

international standards activities and is the subject of legislation presently before Congress, the

International Voluntary Standards Cooperation Act

of 1973. By Joining the OIML we have added

another positive step in the field of international

standardization.

Because it has not been a member until recently,

the U.S. has had no influence on OIML actions.

An analysis of some of the OIKL decisions, (on

clinical thermometers, gas meters, meters for

fluids, taximeters, and weighing machines) by the

National Bureau of Standards, by U.S. firms con- cerned with the manufact\iring of these products,

and by the Bureau of Domestic Commerce of the De-. partment cf Commerce , shows clearly that there

are adverse effects on U.S. business from the

setting of standards by an organization without

U.S. participation. The effects usually are not intended, but do in fact result from the lack of

U.S. input during the time when the standard is being developed.

The potential impact of the OIML has generally gone unrecognized within the domestic private sector

of member nations simply because they do not en- courage industry participation. OIML membership

is officially constituted solely by government

representatives of the 38 member nations. It has pas.sed h2 model regulations of which an ap- preciable number are the basi.<; for recent and

future European Common N'.arket Directives. These

directives will carry the full force of national

law following ratification by the ten member

nations

.

Unfortunately, the provisions of certain OIML

l^odel Lavs are basea on rather narrow experience.

This is not necessarily the fault of the contributing officials, it reflects the experience

of tr.e participants in handling tr?de matters cf

significance to themselves. Therefore from one

point of view, they may constrain trade, a trend

which has become apparent to the oil industry, for

example

.

In view of possible revisions to the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, tnere is even greater

incentive for shared fe'sral and industrial understanding with regard to the OIML. Frankly, the

private sector must solicit federal action if

domestic industry is to be both a sound competitor

and remain in compliance with proposed GATT provisions, including the possible Code of Conduct

which defines the doctimentation issued by OIML as mandatory standards.

IMPACT ON THE OIL INDUSTRY'

'"'

"American Petroleum Institute (API) voluntary standards do not specify tolerances or error limits

for a measurement process, or demand pattern

approval or regulate any mechanical specification

which in any way could hinder competition among manufacturers of such equipment. Such decisions

have traditionally been the prerogative of local,

state or federal authorities both here and abroad.

This charge certainly belongs to the legal metrology or weights and measures specialists whenever

the consuming public is involved.

"On the other hand, API has had an overriding concern that OIML mandatory standards or model regulations if m.ade applicable to international petroleum commerce, might adversely affect the type of

equipment best suited to measure large volumes of

crude oil and products. For example, very large

and sophisticated measuring stations, often

packed with electronic equipment , are used to

measxire oil from a ship or pipeline to a refinery.

In the United States only the contracting parties

are normally concerned with the selection of equipment used. So long as the equipment operates

within acceptable limits of error, there is no restriction as to its specifications or m.akeup.

"In Europe especially, added value taxes are as- sessed at many intermediate measurement points;

the total tajc on gasoline exceeds 50 cents per gallon as compared to a domestic majcimum of 1^4-15 cents. However, current OIML model regulations

are often indiscriminate. They are applicable to virtually every device used in large and small

applications because of tax application.

"One OIML Model Regulation, entitled "Meters for Liquids Other Than Water," written by Working Group

FI.7 has recently been made a Common Market Directive. This mandatory standard precludes the use

of meters in some commercial applications end prevents the use of some American instr'-iments indirectly. It does this for two reasons. First,

through various provisions it very drastically

limits the size of the instrument, and second, it effectively outlaws the use of associated electronic equipm.ent

.

3

"It should be r,ell"-ev ident that petrole^am operations are there :'cre restrained from applying elready proven technology, and similar U.S. sup- pliers cannot corxete with their full line of

products. This burdens the balance of paj-men^s, even today,

"The next ten years should see the OIML model

regulations implenented by mer.ber countries. In that sane period, U.S. oil imports will have

grown somewhere between 50 and 58 percent of demand,

according to competent authorities. Shortly after

1980, the drain to the U.S. balance of payments

is projected to be 17 billion dollars per year, from oil imports alone.

"Some estimate that by potential exclusion of the most advanced oil measurement apparatus from producing countries, the U.S. will be spending 85 million dollars per year for oil purchased but never received due to equipment degradation. Additionally, foreign affiliates in other countries,

notably those imposing an added-value tax, will

contribute a similar dollar loss because of the

payment of excessive tajces on imprecisely

measured bulk quantities of oil.

"The oil industry believes the most effective way

to minimize this loss of approximately 200 million

dollars annually, including equipment excluded, is to have knowledgeable U.S. officials paxticipate

in Glf-IL deliberations.

Many U.S. industries face these and similar problems relating to measurements in international

trade .

COORDINATION VTTH OTHER STANDAKDS DRGAUIZATIONS

The OIML is primarily concerned with the setting up

of standards (performance criteria, design, and use

of weights and m.easures devices) used in commerce

and industry. The International Bureau of Weights

and Measures (EIPM) on the other hand provides for

international cooperation in matters relating to primary standards and units of measurement; for

example, meter, kilogram., second, ampere, kelvin,

mole, and cajndela. There is also a difference

between the work done by the OIML and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

The ISO is a nongovernmental organization which

prepares and promulgates voluntary standards

agreed to by industry. The OIML in comparison

attempts to harmonize model draft laws for weights

and measures which will be adopted by states as lay of the land.

^'Statement by V/allace N. Seward, Assistant to the

Senior Vice President, Industry Affairs, API,

before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations,

Aug. 2, 1972.

OIML coordinates its standards recommendations and

activities with the following organizations: International Bureau of Weights and Measures, International Organization for Standardization, International Electrotechnical Commission, International

Union of the Gas Industry, International Commission for Uniform Method of Sugar Analysis, In- ternational Association of Cereal Chemiistry, In- ternational Bottling Center, International Office

of Wine, Custom.s Cooperation Council, International

Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, International

Union of Pure and Applied Physics, European Com- mittee of Weighing Instrument Builders, European

Committee of Builders of Oil Meters.

OIML maintains administrative and technical liaison

with the U.N. Economic and Social Council, the U.K. Economic Commission for Europe, the U.N. Economic

Commission for Asia, UNESCO, the U.N. Organization

for Industrial Development, OECD, EED, COMECON,

and the International Measurement Conference

(United Kingdom).

OIML also maintains liaison with about 25 commercial

and/or standards organizations in European countries .

UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION

The U.S. became an official member of OIML October

22, 1972, with the National Bureau of Standards

being assigned general responsibility for the development of U.S. positions for technical matters

arising in the OIML.

The Fourth International Conference of OIML was

held October 23-28, 1972. Delegates from 3^^ nations convened in London for discussions that were designed to result in uniform laws and regulations, practices and procedures in international

legal metrology. The Conference dealt principally

with the following agenda topics, for which U.S. position papers were prepared:

(1) Relations with International Standards

Organizations

.

(2) Long Term Work Policy of the Organization.

(3) Proposed International Recommendations.

{h) Assistance to Developing Countries.

(5) Standard Reference Materials.

(6) Performance vs. Design Specifications.

Nar.ed to the U.S. Delegation were:

Delegation Head, Dr. Lawrence M. Kushner , Acting

Director, National Bureau of Standards

(Tab 5);

4

I

William E. Andrus , Jr., PrcKrar. Manager, Engineering and Inforaation Processing Standards, I.'aticnel Sureau of Standards;

Wallace II. Seward, Assistant to the Senior

Vice President, Ar.erican Petroleid Institute;

Walter M. Young, President, Howe Richardson

Scale Company; and

Dr. Alan G. Mencher, Scientific Attache, U.S. Embassy in London.

! Thomas M. Stabler, Special Assistant for InterI national i*rograms. National Bureau of Standards,

accompanied the delegation as an ISO/OIML representative. t'!r . Andrus was designated by the

,j Department of State to serve as the U.S. member

I' of the International Conmittee (CI^X), and was

invited by the CH-i President to serve on the

' ft-esidential Council.

Twenty-th-ree Project Recommendations were adopted as OIML International Recommendations (Tab 3).

' SUMMARY

In summary, the benefits to the United States of

! participation in OIML are:

to improve opportunities for exporting measurement instruments and help our balance-of-payments

position;

to obtain better information regarding measurey ment techniques in the field;

j to influence international 1 y adopted measureI ment techniques so U.S. procedures will not be put

at a disadvantage;

ji, to insure that the United States can influence

|l the adoption by developing countries of model

lavs and uniform procedures in order to avoid

having the United States put at a disadvantage visa-vis European and other countries; and

to facilitate the development of an international standards program for the United States

I in this area.

"The main purpose of OIML ' is to establish the

!| necessary minimuir. technical requirements which

' measuring instruments have to possess in order for

I them to be approved by member states and for them

to be recommended for international use.

( "The international dccunents have been prepared by

a method which is customary in the Ci;iL and which

1 does not differ essentially from the methods used

' by other organizations, such as the ISO and lEC.

"The method provides a guarantee that the final

documents represent the best possible compromise

which one" can expect, bearing in mind the original

strongly divergent opinions . It does not guarantee

that all the countries concerned, not even those

which belong to the working groups , will be in

complete agreement with the final text. However,

generally speaking, members of the working groups

are ready to accept com.prcmise solutions. Two major factors are constantly borne in mind, vis.,

(l) the measuring instrunents which are manufactured on the basis of the specifications to be

drawn up must guarantee a reasonable certainty of accurate measurements in normal use, and (2) the

interests of the industry producing the measuring

instruments

.

"The first factor requires no explanation. As regards the second, it is obviously in the interests

of the manufacturers to find a market, as large as possible, for a unified product. The ideal situation from OIML's point of view, therefore, would

be that a manufacturer who constructs a type of

measuring instrument in one country should be able to export it to any other country with the

certainty that it will satisfy the legal regulations of that country.

"To this end it is necessary that the member co\mtrles should implement the decisions of OIML by

incorporating them in their national legislationAs you know, the treaty which set up the OIML imposes a moral obligation on the member countries

to do this, and then only "as much as possible."

The treaty cannot go further than this, but of course it is hoped that as many member countries

as possible will honor this moral obligation.

"It is thus not of great importance whether the

recommendations are adopted in their entirety or only partially. In the present circumstances, it

would be a considerable advance if their basic

premises were accepted.

"The ideal was to make possible the mutual accep- tance of type approval and perhaps even cf the

verification of single instruments by ail weights

and measiires administrations in the world.

"Naturally, this ideal will have to be regiilarly

adapted to new ideas

.

"Yet whatever adjustments social progress will

demand of us , the ideal will continue to point

the way to the future

.

"We shall still have many obstacles to face on this

road. The language problem springs immediately to mind, and many believe that OIML will seriously

"Address by A. J. van Male (Netherlands), President, CI>!L, to the 1970 "iational Conference on Weights and Measures.

5

have to consider in the near future the possibility of using English as an idiitional operational languace. It is not difficult to think of

a nuFber of other obstacles vhich may affect the

issue. All of u^, and I r.ean every country in the world, have, after all, had separate end

different hintcries in ^.etrclo^r/. Sut we have a

comiEon purpose. Let us, therefore, strive for a common future in legal netrolofry .

TAB 1

LETTER OF TRAJ;SMITTAL

The White House,

April 11, 1972.

To the Senate of the United States:

Today I ask the Senate to give its advice and consent to accession by the United States to the

Convention Establishing an International Organization of Legal Metrology, as amended.

Legal metrology, as broadly defined, relates to the

compatibility of standards of measurement and the

legislation or regulations which may affect them.

The International Organization of Legal Metrology, established in 1955, is concerned primarily

with standards for instruments and measurement

techniques involved in the legal determination of

quantity and quality. Presently, many of its 36

member nations and eight corresponding members are

European.

The Organization's tasks fnl 1 generally into two

groups

to serve as a center for documentation and information; to foster close working relations with

national weights and measures services and other

concerned organizations; and to furnish advisory

assistance to interested countries.

to determine the general principles of legal

metrology; to recommend uniform international

requirements for measuring instruments; and to

work out model laws and regulations for consideration by member countries.

The Organization's recommendations are not

binding but they are accepted by most member

nations — many of which are also our major

trading partners.

setting of international standards for measurements and, in so doing, to expand our international trade

.

I recommend that the Senate give favorable consideration to United States accession to this

Convention, as amended.

Richard Nixon.

TAB 2

MEMBER STATES OF THE IHTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

OF LEGAL METROLOGY

(September 1972)

Republic of West Germany Iran United Arab Republic Israel

Australia Italy

Austria Japan

Belgium Lebanon

Bulgaria Morocco

Cameroun Monaco

Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Norway

Cuba Low Countries

Denmark Poland

Dominican Republic Rvimania

Spain Sweden

Finland Switzerland

France Czechoslovakia

United Kingdom of Great Britain Tunisia

and of Northern Ireland U.S.S.R.

Guinea Venezuela

Bungary Yugoslavia

India United States of

Indonesia America

MEMBER CORRESPONDENTS

Greece — Jamaica — Jordan — Luxembourg — Nepal — New Zealand — Pakistan — Turkey — Arab

Organization for Standardization and Metrology

The United States has in the past been an interested observer in the Organization's work and I believe that accession to the Convention would

now be cf clear advante.c^e to the United States.

As the world's largest trading nation and as a vorld leader in the standards field, we would be

better able to assume a ncsitive role in the

6

TAB 3 International Organization of Legal Metrology

(OI>tL)

International

Committee (CIKL)

Presidential

Council

International

Conference

International 1 Bureau of Legal

Metrology (BI>rL)

|

Pilot

Secretariats

(proposed)

Working

Group

Working

Group

Works

Coroirission

Finance

Commission

Developing Countries

Coimnission

External Relations

Cotnmission

Working Groups

and Reporting

Secretariats

Notes ;

1. D.S. Membership in OIML, October 22, 1972.

2. A. J. Van Male (Netherlands), President, CIML.

3. W. E. Andrus, Jr. (NBS), U.S. representative to CIML.

4. M. Costaipagna (France), Director, BIML.

5. B. Athane (France), Director Elect, BIML (2/1/74).

7

TAE

Dociiments

1972

PR. lU

PR. 20

PR. 21

PR. 22

PR. 23

PR. 2h

PR. 25

PR. 26

PR. 27

PR. 28

PR. 29

PR. 30

PR. 31

PR. 32

PR. 33

PR. 3h

PR. 35

PR. 36

PR. 37

PR. 38

FR. 39

PR. 1*0

PR. U2

FOURTH i:r:EF,::ATiojiAL corrFSRoicE OF LEGAL .'^ZTROLOGY LO!Z;OK, CCTOEZP. 1972

f?.oji:t RZCO"-;E:nDATio:;s

Project

Pclarimetric Saccharixeters

Service Measures

Auxiliary Devices for Meters - For Liquids Other

Than Water

Taximeters

Tire Pressure Gauges

Classes of Precision Measuring Instruments

Verification Agent's Standard Metre Measure

Precision Weights of Classes E^, E^, F^,

Verification Agent's Standard Weights

Gas Meters, Defonnable Wall

Alcoholometry

Technical Regulations for ion-Automat ic Weighing

Machines

Conventional Value of Resiilts of Weight in Air

Gas Meters, Rotating Piston and Turbine

Vocabulary for Legal Metrology

Verification of Indenters of Hardness Testing

Machines

Verification of Hardness Testing Machines: Brinell

System

Vickers System

Rockwell B and C

Recommendation No. 1, Cylindrical Weights Ig-lQkg

Recommendation No. 2, Rectangular Bar Weights

5 kg- 50 kg

Length Measurements with a Flat-Edged Instrument

Medical Seringes

Federal Republic of

Germany

Switzerland

Germany & France

Germany

USSR

USSR

India

Belgium

India

Hetberlands

France

Germany & France

BBIL

Germany

Poland

Austria

Austria

Austria

Austria

Belgium

Belgium

USSR

Austria

8

0]XL INTERKATIOKAL P.ECOJBOnroATIONS equipment category).

1. Cylindrical weights from 1 gram to 10 kilograms (of medium class of accuracy).

2. Rectangular weights frcr. 5 tc 50 kilogramr.es

(of medi\m class of accuracy).

3. Metrological regulation of weighing instru- ments with nonautonatic operation and com- mentaries concerning the determination of the errors on weighing instruments with discontinuous indication or impression.

1* . One mark glass measuring flasks

.

5. Meters for liquids (other than water) with

measuring chambers.

6. General prescriptions for volumetric gas meters

.

7- Clinical thermometers (mercury, in glass,

with majcimum device )

.

8. Working standea-d method for the verification

of instruments for measuring the degree of

humidity of cereai grains.

9. Verification and calibration of hardness

reference blocks Brinell.

10. Verification and calibration of hardness

reference blocks Vickers.

11. Verification and calibration of hardness

reference blocks Rockwell B.

12. Verification and calibration of hardness

reference blocks Rockwell C.

13. Correspondence symbol.

lU. Polarimetric saccharimeters.

15. Instruments for measuring the mass per hectolitre of cereals.

16. Pressure gauges for instruments measuring

arterial blood pressure.

17- Indicating pressure gauges, combined pressure and vacuum gauges and vacuum gauges, with

pressure-responsive elements giving direct

Indications by means of a pointer and graduated

scale (working equipment category).

18. Optical pyrometers with disappearing

filaments.

19. Recording pressure gauges, combined pressure

and vacuum gauges, and vacuum gauges, with

pressure-ref.ponsive elerr.ents and recording directly by means of stylus and diagram (working

9

TAB ^

REMARKS BY DR. LAWRENCE M. KUSKNER,

ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE KATIOKAL BUREAU OF ST/J:3ARDS A:rD HEAD OF THE

U.S. DELEGATION TO THE FOirRTH INTERNATIOriAL CCIIFEREHCE OF THE

INTERUATIOL'AL ORGAJIIZATIOH OF LEGAL

METROLOGY, OK THE SUBJECT OF LOKG-RAKGE

WORK POLICY IN OIML

Mr. Chairman,

I should like to take this opportunity to offer

several conmients on the long-range policy for OBIL.

First, however, I would like to point out that

U.S. accession to the 1955 Convention establishing OIML reflects the recognition in the

U.S. of the importance of OIML and the signifi- cance of its accomplishments. Thus, ny remarks

should not be interpreted as wishing to de- crease either of these. Rather, my remarks are made necessary by the very importance of the

work of OIML and the great impact of its work on the affairs of nations and trade among them.

It is the U.S. view that the main purpose of OIML,

expressed in simple terms, is to assure that

those regulations of its member governments which

involve metrological natters should be in harmony. I would urge the Conference to recognize

that countries vary widely in the extent to which metrological matters are the concern of

government, particularly, as one considers

fields of metrology far removed from traditional

weights and measures. Thus, since governments

which belong to OI^^L are ''morally obliged" to use its recommendations, it is essential that

OIML consider only those areas of metrology

for which its member governments can, in fact,

accept the moral obligation. If OIML adopts

recommendations which its member governments

cannot accept as morally obligatory because they

deal with subjects that are not governmental matters in those countries, then I am afraid

that the concept of "moral obligation" will become seriously eroded and compromised over a period of time.

On the matter of metrological standards being

based on performance as opposed to those based

on design, the U.S. recognizes the wide variance in the technological development of metrology among the OIML member states. In those

countries in which metrological technology is

less well developed, design specifications are most ufieful — and perhaps the only practical

approach. But such cpecificatdons , applied in

those courtries whor.e metrological technology is more highly developed, can be undesirably

restrictive and inhibiting. One posriible avenue

of approach, whicf; is apparently already being

taken by some OIML working groups and if so is to be encouraged, is to draft recommendations,

the first sections of v;!iich deal with the subject matter in terms of the desired perform.ance

and subsequent sections of which provide

examples of design specifications which will

m.eet the prescribed performance.

This leads to my final point. Writing the best

possible performance recommendations or design

recommendations is, as we all know, a difficult

and tim.e-consuning matter. Thus, it is incum.- bent on OIML working groups to draw as heavily

as possible on all available services of technical expertise and to draw as heavily as possible

on what has already been done or is being done,

in other standardization bodies. Here I refer

particularly to the efforts of the major international standardization bodies such as ISO and

lEC. But this should not be a one-way street.

I would similarly encourage those bodies when

undertaking work in a field which may be of concern to legal metrology to do so only in close

consultation with OIML experts. There must not

be a competition but a true cooperation and coordination.

10

u.-y. JLPT. OF COMM. 1. I'l IM !( Al ldN OK KI-PORT NO. 2. Gov't Accc-.'^icn BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA ' -1 7 > 1 r, o SHEET ' -

'

3. I<c ( I pi c nt' V At ccssKXi No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTl ILL

U.S. Membership in the International Organization of Legal

Metrology

5. Publicntion Date April 1973

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Thomas M. Stabler

8. Performing Organization

NBSIR 73-159

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Taslc/Work Unit No. 1003209

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

QoTTip Qo T f" PTn Q

13. Type of Report & Period

Covered

Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) The International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) was formed in 1955 to

promote intergovernmental cooperation in the field of weights and measures. In ad-

^ J- >-'-'-> LI- i-yj XL.O i. cs>puiit)Xuxj.xLxes as tne center oi uocumentauxon ana xniormacion excnange

in legal metrology, the OIML recommends uniform international requirements for

measuring instruments and drafts model laws and regulations for consideration by the

member states.

In October 1972 the United States became the 38th member nation of OIML, with

NBS being assigned general responsibility for the development of U.S. positions for

technical matters arising in the organization.

The benefits to the U.S. of participation in OIML are: (1) To improve opportunities for exporting measuring instruments, (2) To obtain better information regarding measurement techniques in the field, (3) To influence internationally adopted

measurement technique so U.S. procedures will not be at a disadvantage, (4) To insure

that the U.S. can influence the adoption by developing countries of model laws and

uniform procedures, (5) To facilitate the development of an international standards

program for the U.S. in legal metrology.

The U.S. Delegation participated in the International Conference of OIML held in

London, October 23-28, 1972.

17. KEYWORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons) Developing countries; International Bureau

(BIML) ; International Committee (CIML) ; International Conference; International Organization of Legal Metrology; International Recommendations; leeal metroloev: OIML

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

[jfl UNLIMITED.

1 1 FOR OFFIQAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

USCOMM-DC 66244. P7I